Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:
Anectodes =\= data.

First hand experience > Fuzzy Warm feelings about equality.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Anectodes =\= data.

First hand experience > Fuzzy Warm feelings about equality.

Are we back to this strange argument that only people who've been shot at in a warzone can have any input in this discussion?

For the record, I too would like to see this survey, because I couldn't see anything in the link you posted earlier.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Anectodes =\= data.

First hand experience > Fuzzy Warm feelings about equality.

Still not data, despite your warm fuzzy feelings that it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Anectodes =\= data.

First hand experience > Fuzzy Warm feelings about equality.

Are we back to this strange argument that only people who've been shot at in a warzone can have any input in this discussion?

For the record, I too would like to see this survey, because I couldn't see anything in the link you posted earlier.

We don't have a survey.

We honestly don't even have the results of this major study either. What we do have is a four page report telling is their interpretation of the results, we never got the actual results themselves.

And honestly, while "here is what I think the results say" does rank higher than "here is what females I talked to think", it is about as useful when it come to making policy decisions.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/09/female-marine-women-do-not-belong-in-marine-corps-infantry/

how about the opinion of a Female Marine officer?

Or this one

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/12/12684555-women-in-the-infantry-forget-about-it-says-female-marine-officer?lite

and this one

http://www.westernjournalism.com/the-problems-of-women-in-combat-from-a-female-combat-vet/

Or these 15 Female Marines that were interviewed by SecDef Hagel

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/358781/military-betrays-women-elaine-donnelly

 Ketara wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Who is pushing?

That's a tad disingenuous, isn't it?

This is happening due to political pressure. The Marines, Army, Navy, and Air Force aren't calling for this themselves; they're being told to do it. It's certainly pushing.

The word 'pushing' was used in response to one of my posts, and as such, I assumed it was being used specifically in relation to myself. I wouldn't care to comment on the politicking over in the US administration, by pure virtue of the fact that I'm not privy to the reasoning of senior US military command.

But that's where the difference is, I think. Readiness/efficiency will be compromised by this push, if this study is any guide. We could theoretically throw a bunch of time and money at redesigning everything to try and get women up to the same level, but we don't know for sure that would even work, so I have to circle back around to, "Is this juice worth the squeeze?" Despite the 'hypothetical future conventional all-out war' scenario where we're recruiting the entire population of the US into the armed services, I really don't think it is.

Possibly not. I'm open to the argument that the gains are not worth the hassle to an extent. But I do think (as I keep saying) that I see potential positive material spinoff for women across the services in terms of equipment and suchlike, even if the final results come back as a negative.

Engineering, producing and supplying an entirely different set of gear for women in the infantry would be a logistical nightmare. You know have twice as much gear to keep track of and you need to simultaneously keep track of which units have women and how many and coordinate it all for resupply. How much does a woman's comabt effectiveness decreases if she's stuck in a unit that doesn't have replacement gear for her because she's the only woman? How much does a male marine's combat effectiveness decrease because he's stuck with female size gear because of a clerical error in logistics? How much time, money and effort is saved and better applied elsewhere by keeping the TO&E unisex instead of gender specific?

Then you have the additional issue of morale and unit cohesion. The top priority for the USMC is creating an effective fighting unit. If only the top few women can pass the same standards that men are held to then are you accepting enough women in infantry slots to have them comprise a high enough percentage of the unit to have effective peer support? All of the male marines are united by shared experience and understanding, the female marines have a different set of problems to overcome and if there's only 1 female in a platoon or company then she has no peer support and it's harder for her to overcome the negatives of being the odd duck in the unit even without any sexist ostracization. There's a tipping point where you will have enough female marines in a unit to make it easier for them to be at their best and for the unit to function more cohesively, I don't know where that tipping point is but it's likely higher than the rate at which female marines can pass male standards for infantry slots.

On top of that you have the fact that deployment decreases physical fitness. Being stuck on an outpost on a ridgeline in the Hindu Kush for weeks/months living off MREs degrades physical conditioning. Not by a tremendous amount but by enough that both the Army and Marines extensively study the effects and how to mitigate them. Even if both genders see an equal amount of decreased conditioning the male marines can start from a higher level of fitness than the female marines. If a female marine barely passes the standard fitness level and then sees her fitness level drop during deployment will that drop be enough to make her less effective and a liability?

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA489599

Abstract : To examine change in physical fitness and body composition after a military deployment to Afghanistan. Methods: one hundred and ten infantry soldiers were measured before and after a 9-month deployment to Afghanistan for Operation Enduring Freedom. Measurements included treadmill peak oxygen uptake (peak VO2), lifting strength, medicine ball put, vertical jump, and body composition estimated via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (percent body fat), absolute body fat, fat-free mass, bone mineral content, and bone mineral density. Results: There were significant decreases (P<0.01) in peak VO2 (-4.5%), medicine ball put(-4.9% body mass {-1.9%}, and fat-free mass{-3.5 %}, wheras percent body fat increased from 17.7% to 19.6%.

http://publications.amsus.org/doi/abs/10.7205/MILMED-D-09-00192

ABSTRACT
This investigation evaluated the effects of a 13-month deployment to Iraq on body composition and selected fitness measures. Seventy-three combat arms soldiers were measured pre- and postdeployment. Body composition was assessed by dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Strength was measured by single repetition maximum (1-RM) lifts on bench press and squat. Power was assessed by a bench throw and squat jump. Aerobic endurance was evaluated with a timed 2-mile run. Exercise and injury history were assessed by questionnaire. Upper and lower body strength improved by 7% and 8%, respectively (p < 0.001). Upper body power increased 9% (p < 0.001) and lean mass increased 3% (p < 0.05). In contrast, aerobic performance declined 13% (p < 0.001) and fat mass increased 9% (p < 0.05). Fewer soldiers participated in aerobic exercise or sports during deployment (p < 0.001). Unit commanders should be aware of potential fitness and body composition changes during deployment and develop physical training programs to enhance fitness following deployment.

The question isn't simply can a woman pass the male standards for becoming a Marine rifleman (rifleperson?). The question is can enough women pass the standard to create supportive peer groups to help ensure their success and can they maintain the required level of fitness on deployment where it is most important? If the best case scenario for opening up combat infantry slots to women in the marines is adding at most a few female marines per company is that enough to warrant making the change? It's not like we're talking about doubling the number of rifleman slots due to the inclusion of women. Given the reality of recruitment and biology you're not going to get that many women choosing the Marines, choosing to be infantry and then making the grade.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Anectodes =\= data.

First hand experience > Fuzzy Warm feelings about equality.

Historically speaking, first hand experience can often cloud matters. If you look back to major innovations in policy and technology, most military institutions are quite formulaic, and reluctant to adopt anything new. I regularly paw through pre-war reports of British and American Admirals derisively snorting at the idea of submarines being any sort of use. The motorised ambulances. Then planes. 'Telephones? Bah, who needs them! Now deploy those tanks like they were cavalry!' I mean, God, our Armuy ran into WW1 thinking it would be a Boer War re-enactment, strategically speaking, and look how that one turned out! But you know, they had first-hand experience. Right?

Things aren't as bad today (in fact, often you have too much of a reliance on untrialled technology), but it's nowhere near as uncommon as you would hope. First-hand experience of combat gives you nothing more than that: firsthand experience of combat, in a specific setting, in a specific time. It doesn't give you automatic knowledge of the worlds of biology, psychology, technology, or even strategy. Sometimes it does give you valuable insights into those things, but it does the opposite for people just as often.

Are you linking surveys or anecdotes?

Because this would be the third time explaining that anecdotes don't equal data.

If you want to argue that there are women who think this is a bad idea, then you are right. And your personal experience and links you keep on posting are good examples.

But if you keep on presenting female Marines as a unified front against integration, then you will need some actual data to back that up. And anecdotes and "people I talked to" don't cut it.

 Ketara wrote:

Relapse wrote:
This thread seems to be boiling down to two sides.

You forgot the third one. People oversimplifying and miscategorising a discussion to try and appear smart.

Nobody else is taking this personally. Criticize the point, not the individual.

If your point is that we should make lighter weapons so women can serve in combat units then my rebuttal is that the weapon (m4) is light enough as is. Scrawny Israeli chicks carried them every day when I was in and never had any trouble.

The problem lies with the armor and other gear. A fighting load is around 80 lbs. A marching load is 120 lbs +. The backpack weight alone has very little to do with that. If we could use lighter equipment we would. It is a biological fact that women, on average, can't ruck as hard as men. End of story. Arguing against this point is arguing against biological fact. No amount of ergonomics improvement will make 120 lbs doable for someone with 20+% bodyfat on a 120-150 lb frame.


To clarify- women have a place in the military. Women have a place in combat, and can make fantastic pilots, tankers, etc. Women won't make good infantry because of biological limitations. Even if they roided their asses off, the female skeletal frame is not made to support the same activities as the male frame.

 d-usa wrote:
Are you linking surveys or anecdotes?

Because this would be the third time explaining that anecdotes don't equal data.

If you want to argue that there are women who think this is a bad idea, then you are right. And your personal experience and links you keep on posting are good examples.

But if you keep on presenting female Marines as a unified front against integration, then you will need some actual data to back that up. And anecdotes and "people I talked to" don't cut it.

what is a survey D-USA? its a study that asks questions to individuals, well I am giving you individuals that were asked a question and they answered it. They just didnt have 100-200 others answering with them.

So far all the stories i posted involved female Combat veterans and they all agree that it is a terrible idea.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Engineering, producing and supplying an entirely different set of gear for women in the infantry would be a logistical nightmare.You know have twice as much gear to keep track of and you need to simultaneously keep track of which units have women and how many and coordinate it all for resupply. How much does a woman's comabt effectiveness decreases if she's stuck in a unit that doesn't have replacement gear for her because she's the only woman? How much does a male marine's combat effectiveness decrease because he's stuck with female size gear because of a clerical error in logistics? How much time, money and effort is saved and better applied elsewhere by keeping the TO&E unisex instead of gender specific?

This is all highly contingent on what that gear is. If it's a standard unisex infantry weapon in ten years time, everyone has it. So no addititional difficulties caused. If it's a rucksack with slightly different straps, well, those are easily contracted, manufactured, and lightweight. What's more, I'd be surprised if a variation on a standard rucksack with just a different set of supportive straps couldn't be devised (since we manage to build rocket engines and other far more complex things!). These are minor enough changes, it's not like I'm suggesting kitting them out with special 'Fem' grenades, a three course meal every night, and different sized bullets to everyone else. If the US procurement service can't manage two sets of straps in a supply depot, you really HAVE got bigger problems than this!

Then you have the additional issue of morale and unit cohesion. The top priority for the USMC is creating an effective fighting unit. If only the top few women can pass the same standards that men are held to then are you accepting enough women in infantry slots to have them comprise a high enough percentage of the unit to have effective peer support? All of the male marines are united by shared experience and understanding, the female marines have a different set of problems to overcome and if there's only 1 female in a platoon or company then she has no peer support and it's harder for her to overcome the negatives of being the odd duck in the unit even without any sexist ostracization. There's a tipping point where you will have enough female marines in a unit to make it easier for them to be at their best and for the unit to function more cohesively, I don't know where that tipping point is but it's likely higher than the rate at which female marines can pass male standards for infantry slots.

Hence the mooting of all female marine infantry combat units. But frankly, practically everything you've just said up there could be levelled as reason to keep women out of the military altogether, so I won't repeat that debate here.

On top of that you have the fact that deployment decreases physical fitness. Being stuck on an outpost on a ridgeline in the Hindu Kush for weeks/months living off MREs degrades physical conditioning. Not by a tremendous amount but by enough that both the Army and Marines extensively study the effects and how to mitigate them. Even if both genders see an equal amount of decreased conditioning the male marines can start from a higher level of fitness than the female marines. If a female marine barely passes the standard fitness level and then sees her fitness level drop during deployment will that drop be enough to make her less effective and a liability?

I don't know. So like I said, do more tests and find out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


If your point is that we should make lighter weapons so women can serve in combat units then my rebuttal is that the weapon (m4) is light enough as is. Scrawny Israeli chicks carried them every day when I was in and never had any trouble.

The problem lies with the armor and other gear. A fighting load is around 80 lbs. A marching load is 120 lbs +. The backpack weight alone has very little to do with that. If we could use lighter equipment we would. It is a biological fact that women, on average, can't ruck as hard as men. End of story. Arguing against this point is arguing against biological fact. No amount of ergonomics improvement will make 120 lbs doable for someone with 20+% bodyfat on a 120-150 lb frame.

That's quite possibly the case. The question is to what extent this affects their ability in combat and the field, and if it is unfeasible, what mitigating factors can be introduced that would bring it within acceptable parameters. Simply declaring, 'No, it can't be done, buying a pair of shoes in the army is impossible, women are physically weak, they're too prone to injury' etc is focusing on entirely the wrong thing. We don't know what can be done, and we don't know if having attempted to mitigate the extraneous factors, it will still turn out to be inadvisable (due to the cost factors, or due to biological impossibility). The answer is to sit down, do the trials, apply human ingenuity, and find out.

There's nobody here proudly asserting, 'Women CAN be marines!' Instead, you have people saying, 'We need a spot more data before it's clear one way or the other'. Unfortunately, too many people believe that they already know the answer to the above. Which leads me to conclude that the number of wargamers that are psychics is astonishingly high.

With that, I think I'm done here.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
You can have the best LBE in the world, its still not going to help a 130lb female carry 130lbs of gear with her on a 22 mile patrol.

What about 130 pound males? I've known quite a few male, US soldiers who fit that description.

Regardless the idea that US soldiers carry too much weight, in general, is not a new one.

 Ketara wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Engineering, producing and supplying an entirely different set of gear for women in the infantry would be a logistical nightmare.You know have twice as much gear to keep track of and you need to simultaneously keep track of which units have women and how many and coordinate it all for resupply. How much does a woman's comabt effectiveness decreases if she's stuck in a unit that doesn't have replacement gear for her because she's the only woman? How much does a male marine's combat effectiveness decrease because he's stuck with female size gear because of a clerical error in logistics? How much time, money and effort is saved and better applied elsewhere by keeping the TO&E unisex instead of gender specific?

This is all highly contingent on what that gear is. If it's a standard unisex infantry weapon in ten years time, everyone has it. So no addititional difficulties caused. If it's a rucksack with slightly different straps, well, those are easily contracted, manufactured, and lightweight. What's more, I'd be surprised if a variation on a standard rucksack with just a different set of supportive straps couldn't be devised (since we manage to build rocket engines and other far more complex things!). These are minor enough changes, it's not like I'm suggesting kitting them out with special 'Fem' grenades, a three course meal every night, and different sized bullets to everyone else. If the US procurement service can't manage two sets of straps in a supply depot, you really HAVE got bigger problems than this!

Then you have the additional issue of morale and unit cohesion. The top priority for the USMC is creating an effective fighting unit. If only the top few women can pass the same standards that men are held to then are you accepting enough women in infantry slots to have them comprise a high enough percentage of the unit to have effective peer support? All of the male marines are united by shared experience and understanding, the female marines have a different set of problems to overcome and if there's only 1 female in a platoon or company then she has no peer support and it's harder for her to overcome the negatives of being the odd duck in the unit even without any sexist ostracization. There's a tipping point where you will have enough female marines in a unit to make it easier for them to be at their best and for the unit to function more cohesively, I don't know where that tipping point is but it's likely higher than the rate at which female marines can pass male standards for infantry slots.

Hence the mooting of all female marine infantry combat units. But frankly, practically everything you've just said up there could be levelled as reason to keep women out of the military altogether, so I won't repeat that debate here.

On top of that you have the fact that deployment decreases physical fitness. Being stuck on an outpost on a ridgeline in the Hindu Kush for weeks/months living off MREs degrades physical conditioning. Not by a tremendous amount but by enough that both the Army and Marines extensively study the effects and how to mitigate them. Even if both genders see an equal amount of decreased conditioning the male marines can start from a higher level of fitness than the female marines. If a female marine barely passes the standard fitness level and then sees her fitness level drop during deployment will that drop be enough to make her less effective and a liability?

I don't know. So like I said, do more tests and find out.

I don't think it's possible to come up with a strap design that suddenly allows a woman to carry her own bodyweight in a rucksack for several miles with ease. You could issue a separate ruck designed to help a smaller person carry a lighter load rather than have women carry a standard ruck that's half empty but there's no ergonomic answer to change the weight of a standard combat load of equipment. You can change the loadout for women and therefore issue them a different set of equipment for them or make them carry just as much as men and issue them the same equipment, Military logistics is never a particularly smooth running machine. That's how you get marines wearing woodland camo driving unarmored humvees in Iraq.

The issue of creating supportive peer groups for women in the infantry can't be construed as an argument for keeping women out of the military. There are a plethora of noncombat roles that women can do just as well as men. Hence the fact that there are already lots of women doing them in the armed forces. Those jobs by their nature, have plenty of women in them and thus can create peer groups to help each other succeed. Infantry requires a specific level of physical fitness that is very difficult for women to meet and therefore will always struggle to have the same percentage of females as say intelligence or logistics or communications.

There have been numerous studies done on the effect of active duty deployment on physical fitness. Here are the two I already posted, again. Women should be susceptible to the same negative physical affects of deployment as men, especially if they're doing the same jobs in the same environment. And again, in the infantry women would be dealing with the added burden that they have to be in peak physical condition to pass the required standards because it's a more physically demanding job than others.

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA489599

Abstract : To examine change in physical fitness and body composition after a military deployment to Afghanistan. Methods: one hundred and ten infantry soldiers were measured before and after a 9-month deployment to Afghanistan for Operation Enduring Freedom. Measurements included treadmill peak oxygen uptake (peak VO2), lifting strength, medicine ball put, vertical jump, and body composition estimated via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (percent body fat), absolute body fat, fat-free mass, bone mineral content, and bone mineral density. Results: There were significant decreases (P<0.01) in peak VO2 (-4.5%), medicine ball put(-4.9% body mass {-1.9%}, and fat-free mass{-3.5 %}, wheras percent body fat increased from 17.7% to 19.6%.

http://publications.amsus.org/doi/abs/10.7205/MILMED-D-09-00192

ABSTRACT
This investigation evaluated the effects of a 13-month deployment to Iraq on body composition and selected fitness measures. Seventy-three combat arms soldiers were measured pre- and postdeployment. Body composition was assessed by dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Strength was measured by single repetition maximum (1-RM) lifts on bench press and squat. Power was assessed by a bench throw and squat jump. Aerobic endurance was evaluated with a timed 2-mile run. Exercise and injury history were assessed by questionnaire. Upper and lower body strength improved by 7% and 8%, respectively (p < 0.001). Upper body power increased 9% (p < 0.001) and lean mass increased 3% (p < 0.05). In contrast, aerobic performance declined 13% (p < 0.001) and fat mass increased 9% (p < 0.05). Fewer soldiers participated in aerobic exercise or sports during deployment (p < 0.001). Unit commanders should be aware of potential fitness and body composition changes during deployment and develop physical training programs to enhance fitness following deployment.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
You can have the best LBE in the world, its still not going to help a 130lb female carry 130lbs of gear with her on a 22 mile patrol.

What about 130 pound males? I've known quite a few male, US soldiers who fit that description.

Regardless the idea that US soldiers carry too much weight, in general, is not a new one.

A 130lb man and a 130lb woman, regardless of their respective physical conditions are not biologically the same. At peak physical condition the 130lb man will outperform the 130lb pound woman. Even when they're the same weight, a man will have an easier time carrying a 130lb ruck on a march than a woman.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are you linking surveys or anecdotes?

Because this would be the third time explaining that anecdotes don't equal data.

If you want to argue that there are women who think this is a bad idea, then you are right. And your personal experience and links you keep on posting are good examples.

But if you keep on presenting female Marines as a unified front against integration, then you will need some actual data to back that up. And anecdotes and "people I talked to" don't cut it.

what is a survey D-USA?

You answered it:

Its a study that asks questions to individuals,

And there is the important part.

well I am giving you individuals that were asked a question and they answered it.

I know, those are called anecdotes.

They just didnt have 100-200 others answering with them.

They also didn't include a formal recording process, an explanation of the methodology, a list of the actual questions asked, how they were asked, how the people asked were selected, an analysis of the findings, how confident the surveyors are of the findings.

In short, they were not surveys.

So far all the stories i posted involved female Combat veterans and they all agree that it is a terrible idea.

Which is nice and dandy as long as you don't try to pass it off as the opinion of all female marines as a whole.

Well at the end of the day, only 1 service has done a study on females joining combat arms and the study showed females failing HARD. The full study hasn't been released but the 4 page executive summary has pretty much spelled out the results. You can argue about more data more data and more data but anyone who can put 2 and 2 together can see it is a bad idea and the Marines wont sacrifice combat efficiency for Social Justice.

And to that last comment, yeah I mean it. Even if the SecNav orders this to happen the Marines will foot drag and delay until they finally have nothing left to do. and then they will accept the handful of female grunts into their units....and promptly make them the unit clerk.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Social justice isn't worth my brothers dying because the female marine next to them couldn't cut it

Prestor Jon wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
You can have the best LBE in the world, its still not going to help a 130lb female carry 130lbs of gear with her on a 22 mile patrol.

What about 130 pound males? I've known quite a few male, US soldiers who fit that description.

Regardless the idea that US soldiers carry too much weight, in general, is not a new one.

A 130lb man and a 130lb woman, regardless of their respective physical conditions are not biologically the same. At peak physical condition the 130lb man will outperform the 130lb pound woman. Even when they're the same weight, a man will have an easier time carrying a 130lb ruck on a march than a woman.

Not true. Shoulder width (dependent on bone structure) will make a difference. I have quite narrow shoulders, so a broad-shouldered woman could easily outperform me at peak physical condition.

 Ketara wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


If your point is that we should make lighter weapons so women can serve in combat units then my rebuttal is that the weapon (m4) is light enough as is. Scrawny Israeli chicks carried them every day when I was in and never had any trouble.

The problem lies with the armor and other gear. A fighting load is around 80 lbs. A marching load is 120 lbs +. The backpack weight alone has very little to do with that. If we could use lighter equipment we would. It is a biological fact that women, on average, can't ruck as hard as men. End of story. Arguing against this point is arguing against biological fact. No amount of ergonomics improvement will make 120 lbs doable for someone with 20+% bodyfat on a 120-150 lb frame.

That's quite possibly the case. The question is to what extent this affects their ability in combat and the field, and if it is unfeasible, what mitigating factors can be introduced that would bring it within acceptable parameters. Simply declaring, 'No, it can't be done, buying a pair of shoes in the army is impossible, women are physically weak, they're too prone to injury' etc is focusing on entirely the wrong thing. We don't know what can be done, and we don't know if having attempted to mitigate the extraneous factors, it will still turn out to be inadvisable (due to the cost factors, or due to biological impossibility). The answer is to sit down, do the trials, apply human ingenuity, and find out.

There's nobody here proudly asserting, 'Women CAN be marines!' Instead, you have people saying, 'We need a spot more data before it's clear one way or the other'. Unfortunately, too many people believe that they already know the answer to the above. Which leads me to conclude that the number of wargamers that are psychics is astonishingly high.

With that, I think I'm done here.

Given an unlimited amount of time and money, it would be a great idea to conduct the studies that would give us a more clear picture about integrating women into combat arms. But at this particular moment in time, with the wars winding down, the services downsizing, and the military budget overall shrinking, it seems like an unnecessary expense for no foreseeable benefit. It's hard to say definitively if integrating females into combat arms would be a net positive or not, and with the data we have pointing to them being weaker, less effective and more injury prone, it just doesn't seem worth the cost for the small number of females that the current data suggests would be able to hack it.

It's all well and good to say that we could come up with two different kits, or modify the kits somehow, but dealing with the supply chain in the military is like dealing with any other government bureaucracy. These are mammoth institutions, and even now there's generally something jacked up in the system. When I went a good portion of my gear was stuff I'd purchased by myself, because the supply chain was inadequate or the stuff I purchased was more efficient. And I was Army! Every Marine I've talked to agreed that their supply chain was worse than ours. I can't see how adding in the complication and expense is going to be of any net benefit to the military.

Prestor Jon wrote:

At peak physical condition the 130lb man will outperform the 130lb pound woman. Even when they're the same weight, a man will have an easier time carrying a 130lb ruck on a march than a woman.

I'm not certain of that. Women tend to actively develop core and lower body strength more frequently than men, both of these things are critical to carrying a heavy load for long periods of time.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Well at the end of the day, only 1 service has done a study on females joining combat arms and the study showed females failing HARD.

It's hard to know what the study shows because as you point out:

The full study hasn't been released but the 4 page executive summary has pretty much spelled out the results.

There is a reason why people actually look at studies and not at 4 page "this is what I think the study found" summaries.

You can argue about more data more data and more data

Because that is how studies work. If you don't have a big enough sample size it is compromised. If you can't, or won't, repeat it then it is useless. Releasing a summary without the actual data? Useless.

What is your background in research?

but anyone who can put 2 and 2 together can see it is a bad idea and the Marines wont sacrifice combat efficiency for Social Justice.

Well, the leadership will institute whatever policy they want even if the Marine Corps is a sexist patriarchy and people opposed to the idea think that men are the superior sex and that women should be sitting behind a desk looking pretty for the male grunts dropping by to drop off paperwork before they go back out to the front lines where the superior sex belongs because penises.

Or, my suggestion and simple request, we can stop pretending that people who have questions about the data and the methodology or who think women have a role in combat or who think that disadvantages can be solved with technology or other changes in other areas are simply doing this for "social justice" reasons and then we won't have to pretend that people opposed to the idea are simply opposed because of "herpderp penises are better" reasons.

Just my $0.02 cents.

 dogma wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

At peak physical condition the 130lb man will outperform the 130lb pound woman. Even when they're the same weight, a man will have an easier time carrying a 130lb ruck on a march than a woman.

I'm not certain of that. Women tend to actively develop core and lower body strength more frequently than men, both of these things are critical to carrying a heavy load for long periods of time.

Then why the increased injuries caused by carrying heavy loads over time? Could it be the very real differences in how the female frame is put together? Differences that this alleged more frequent development of core and lower body strength do not adequately compensate for?

 CptJake wrote:

 dogma wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

At peak physical condition the 130lb man will outperform the 130lb pound woman. Even when they're the same weight, a man will have an easier time carrying a 130lb ruck on a march than a woman.

I'm not certain of that. Women tend to actively develop core and lower body strength more frequently than men, both of these things are critical to carrying a heavy load for long periods of time.

Then why the increased injuries caused by carrying heavy loads over time? Could it be the very real differences in how the female frame is put together? Differences that this alleged more frequent development of core and lower body strength do not adequately compensate for?

Or is it that the men (on average) are simply bigger and heavier? I'm sure the increased injuries statistic didn't take into account the size and weight of the people used.

D-USA you don't even argue against the point that everyone here has made. Woman are weaker then men. Instead you keep saying Study this and study that.

This isn's a topic about how studies are done. It is about whether woman should be allowed into Marine infantry units. Since the deadline is fast approaching (2016) and there isn't enough time for any other service to complete another 9 month study, the USMC study is the only one your going to get.

The damning thing about this is that it didn't matter what the USMC said, or what the study said or whether or not woman have a chance at infantry in the USMC. SecNav decided this long before which means that he is in essence a SJW with the political agenda of his party more at heart then the needs of the military. His career so far has proven that and the fact that you sit there trying to debate people on a simple point that anyone who has ever been to a gym can see is beyond reasoning.

I am just curious. Should we take it as common knowledge that if you speed past a Police officer he is going to give you a ticket? Or should we spend a couple years and millions of dollars researching and studying it.

Some things are obvious and don't need a hundred studies done on them and this is one of them. Go ahead and enter into the "Misogynist" spiel you were on a second ago because "penises" but the fact remains men are better at some things then woman and vice versa.

This whole thread is off. Female marines go against all fluff!

 Frazzled wrote:
This whole thread is off. Female marines go against all fluff!

exalted lol.

 Frazzled wrote:
This whole thread is off. Female marines go against all fluff!

This thread is heresy.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
D-USA you don't even argue against the point that everyone here has made. Woman are weaker then men. Instead you keep saying Study this and study that.

This isn's a topic about how studies are done. It is about whether woman should be allowed into Marine infantry units. Since the deadline is fast approaching (2016) and there isn't enough time for any other service to complete another 9 month study, the USMC study is the only one your going to get.

The damning thing about this is that it didn't matter what the USMC said, or what the study said or whether or not woman have a chance at infantry in the USMC. SecNav decided this long before which means that he is in essence a SJW with the political agenda of his party more at heart then the needs of the military. His career so far has proven that and the fact that you sit there trying to debate people on a simple point that anyone who has ever been to a gym can see is beyond reasoning.

I am just curious. Should we take it as common knowledge that if you speed past a Police officer he is going to give you a ticket? Or should we spend a couple years and millions of dollars researching and studying it.

Some things are obvious and don't need a hundred studies done on them and this is one of them. Go ahead and enter into the "Misogynist" spiel you were on a second ago because "penises" but the fact remains men are better at some things then woman and vice versa.

Men are better at some things than women on average.

 -Shrike- wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 dogma wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

At peak physical condition the 130lb man will outperform the 130lb pound woman. Even when they're the same weight, a man will have an easier time carrying a 130lb ruck on a march than a woman.

I'm not certain of that. Women tend to actively develop core and lower body strength more frequently than men, both of these things are critical to carrying a heavy load for long periods of time.

Then why the increased injuries caused by carrying heavy loads over time? Could it be the very real differences in how the female frame is put together? Differences that this alleged more frequent development of core and lower body strength do not adequately compensate for?

Or is it that the men (on average) are simply bigger and heavier? I'm sure the increased injuries statistic didn't take into account the size and weight of the people used.

Check out the olympics, women in the 58kg weight class in weightlifting lift less weight than men in the 56kg weight class. Same event, slightly larger women, best athletes in the world in their sport and men outperform them by a significant margin. The same results are found in other olympic events but they don't all have weight classes to make the comparison more equitable.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
D-USA you don't even argue against the point that everyone here has made. Woman are weaker then men. Instead you keep saying Study this and study that.

This isn's a topic about how studies are done. It is about whether woman should be allowed into Marine infantry units.

Considering that this thread started off with a study, and that the study is being used as a justification for what the policy should be, the topic of "how a study should be done if you want it to be useful" is very much the topic.

If you are going to claim that the study makes a certain point, then I (and others) will point out that we don't know what the study actually found since we don't have the actual study, that the sample size was to small, and that it needs to be repeated to test for validity.

Since the deadline is fast approaching (2016) and there isn't enough time for any other service to complete another 9 month study, the USMC study is the only one your going to get.

Only if one were to pretend that you couldn't initiate another study now and run it past the deadline. The data and findings will still be useful even if an arbitrary policy deadline has passed. And the civilian leadership of the military changes whenever the administration changes, sometimes even during the same administration, so future administrations can still use studies that were performed after the deadline.

That's how data works. That's how studies work. That's how leadership works.

The damning thing about this is that it didn't matter what the USMC said, or what the study said or whether or not woman have a chance at infantry in the USMC. SecNav decided this long before which means that he is in essence a SJW with the political agenda of his party more at heart then the needs of the military. His career so far has proven that and the fact that you sit there trying to debate people on a simple point that anyone who has ever been to a gym can see is beyond reasoning.

When you stop painting the opposition as SJWs, then your points would look more credible.

I am just curious. Should we take it as common knowledge that if you speed past a Police officer he is going to give you a ticket? Or should we spend a couple years and millions of dollars researching and studying it.

Funny you say that, because studies have shown that whether or not speeding past a police officer is going to result in a ticket depends on many factors and you don't get one automatically.

Some things are obvious and don't need a hundred studies done on them and this is one of them. Go ahead and enter into the "Misogynist" spiel you were on a second ago because "penises" but the fact remains men are better at some things then woman and vice versa.

There is one person in this thread that keeps on making it about social justice, and if you look at the reflection in your monitor you will find out who it is.

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
D-USA you don't even argue against the point that everyone here has made. Woman are weaker then men. Instead you keep saying Study this and study that.

This isn's a topic about how studies are done. It is about whether woman should be allowed into Marine infantry units. Since the deadline is fast approaching (2016) and there isn't enough time for any other service to complete another 9 month study, the USMC study is the only one your going to get.

The damning thing about this is that it didn't matter what the USMC said, or what the study said or whether or not woman have a chance at infantry in the USMC. SecNav decided this long before which means that he is in essence a SJW with the political agenda of his party more at heart then the needs of the military. His career so far has proven that and the fact that you sit there trying to debate people on a simple point that anyone who has ever been to a gym can see is beyond reasoning.

I am just curious. Should we take it as common knowledge that if you speed past a Police officer he is going to give you a ticket? Or should we spend a couple years and millions of dollars researching and studying it.

Some things are obvious and don't need a hundred studies done on them and this is one of them. Go ahead and enter into the "Misogynist" spiel you were on a second ago because "penises" but the fact remains men are better at some things then woman and vice versa.

Men are better at some things than women on average.

How many of the above average women who can pass the physical standards to be marine infantry have chosen to enlist and want to be infantry? If it's only a very small number it's not worth shaking up the system just let a few women in. The few women that make it don't increase combat effectiveness and their inherent disadvantages will likely decrease combat effectiveness in various ways.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
This whole thread is off. Female marines go against all fluff!

This thread is heresy.

Purge it with Holy Prometheum!

 CptJake wrote:

Then why the increased injuries caused by carrying heavy loads over time?

The unwillingness of male Marines to report injuries, or undue stress on their bodies? The "suck it up" mentality is something US Marines focus on and is not exclusive to that organization.

 CptJake wrote:

Could it be the very real differences in how the female frame is put together? Differences that this alleged more frequent development of core and lower body strength do not adequately compensate for?

You could be correct, but that only supports the notion that physical tests should be emphasized.