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.
2015/09/15 20:58:24
Subject: Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
Relapse wrote: I'm sitting on the sidelines leaning heavily towards believing the Marines on this page who have been in combat and know first hand the stress, both physical and mental involved. I grew up in farm country where I spent my youth, from 9 to 15, working from 5 to 7 daily in the summer vacation months, doing light work at first, but building into, as I got older and stronger, clearing fields of rocks, haying, herding cattle and pigs as well as doing all the other associated work. Women would sometimes be out there with the men, but 99 % of the time would be doing the lighter work, tractor and truck driving, combining,etc, but leaving the heavier stuff alone because men are better suited to it and won't hurt themselves as much as women would.
That's what I base some of my opinion on with women doing extended heavy labor like has been depicted by Ghaz and others.
Sorry, I didn't really mean to pick on you so directly, I was just trying to point out that being an expert soldier, does not make someone an expert on women. So when we ask those who have served for expert testimony, they can tell us that it is extremely hard, and we aught to believe them because they know first hand it is hard, but when they tell us it is too hard for any woman, we aught not to believe them because they do not know all women.
I would say that your experiences (despite being anecdotal) are probably dead on. Women aren't generally as strong and physical as men. We all knew that, and the test the OP linked showed it in no uncertain terms. But it is still a generalization, which is why it is wrong, because there will be individual women who are incredibly strong and fast and robust, like the women we see competing at the Olympics. I was on my school athletics team, but there are still girls at the Olympics who can shave a second off my best 100m time. A system that would allow an exceptional woman to be passed up for a man, just because he's a man, is sexist. If a woman is able to do the job, and she wants to do the job, then she should not be denied the opportunity based on stereotypes and generalizations.
2015/09/15 20:59:52
Subject: Re:Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
Set one physical fitness standard for ALL recruits to combat units. Make it 100% gender-blind, all women recruits should be expected to meet the same standard as men. That should help maintain unit effectiveness because all members meet the same minimum standard of physical fitness. If that means that fewer women are able to successfully pass selection, tough. A Military is not a mechanism for social engineering. I was hoping to apply to the RAF, but theres a blanket ban on applicants with Aspergers (which I may have). Thats tough too.
But of course that will outrage proponents of affirmative action.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/09/15 21:01:56
2015/09/15 21:01:53
Subject: Re:Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
No, I am claiming that female Marines are more likely to admit to being injured because male Marines, and male soldiers in general, don't like to do as much.
Do you have any information to substantiate that claim? Because the alternative seems just as plausible.
Yeah, I know it is anecdotal, but when my wife broke her back and got 4 weeks bed rest, she 'sucked it up' and was back on the job 2 days after they fitted her with a brace so she could walk (5 days after the accident that broke 2 vertebrae, and no, she is not trying to be an infantryman). And I've had female soldiers in both the companies I commanded, and the ability to 'suck it up' and drive on through pain/injuries was something they displayed at the same proportion as my male troopers, if not more. I had some sick call profile riding turds of both sexes and some females that you had to force to get an injury looked at.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/15 21:04:35
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2015/09/15 21:07:00
Subject: Re:Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
Do you have any information to substantiate that claim? Because the alternative seems just as plausible.
My anecdotal evidence as a male athlete, and male personal trainer who has worked with male and female athletes, male and female PTs, and male and female soldiers; suggests otherwise.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2015/09/15 21:08:36
Subject: Re:Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
Set one physical fitness standard for ALL recruits to combat units. Make it 100% gender-blind, all women recruits should be expected to meet the same standard as men. That should help maintain unit effectiveness because all members meet the same minimum standard of physical fitness. If that means that fewer women are able to successfully pass selection, tough. A Military is not a mechanism for social engineering. I was hoping to apply to the RAF, but theres a blanket ban on applicants with Aspergers (which I may have). Thats tough too.
But of course that will outrage proponents of affirmative action.
What if the tests don't really predict performance all that well, as the summary suggests?
Would an alternative be a tougher test for women who want to serve in combat roles if a tougher entry test would be shown to correlate to an identical performance in the field?
When all our military members start wearing exoskeleton suits, will any of this matter?
2015/09/15 21:15:23
Subject: Re:Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
Do you have any information to substantiate that claim? Because the alternative seems just as plausible.
My anecdotal evidence as a male athlete, and male personal trainer who has worked with male and female athletes, male and female PTs, and male and female soldiers; suggests otherwise.
A study on malingering in male and female soldiers serving in combat arms would be a lot more convincing.
That said, such a study wont be necessary if we know the ground truth. It's kind of hard to fake or ignore the types of injuries these articles suggest.
I found this video ages ago which I think gives possibly the best explanation I've heard for why women shouldn't fight (or at least why it feels wrong). Warning: if you press play you may get hooked on the Lindybeige channel for some days:
2015/09/15 21:25:39
Subject: Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
It appears great need means there's less time over for sexism in the army.
Seriously, take a look at the article. It is very interesting to see what happens when the threat actually becomes serious and there no longer is time for dogma.
This isn't about sexism. How big a ruck did a Russian female infantry woman carry in ww2? She wasn't wearing armor, carrying as much equipment, etc. As I understand it Russian females were largely serving in sniper roles. It's silly to cite cases from 70 years ago when today's requirements are completely different.
That said, such a study wont be necessary if we know the ground truth. It's kind of hard to fake or ignore the types of injuries these articles suggest.
Which articles?
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2015/09/15 23:00:44
Subject: Re:Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
That said, such a study wont be necessary if we know the ground truth. It's kind of hard to fake or ignore the types of injuries these articles suggest.
Which articles?
I'm on my phone but a cursory GooglIng reveals: "musculoskeletal injuries in military women"
It appears great need means there's less time over for sexism in the army.
Seriously, take a look at the article. It is very interesting to see what happens when the threat actually becomes serious and there no longer is time for dogma.
This isn't about sexism. How big a ruck did a Russian female infantry woman carry in ww2? She wasn't wearing armor, carrying as much equipment, etc. As I understand it Russian females were largely serving in sniper roles. It's silly to cite cases from 70 years ago when today's requirements are completely different.
Mind you, they also were machine gunners.
Sure, in static defensive positions. Did any of those women carry machine guns on patrol along with 100+ lbs of body armor and ammunition? Those are the requirements for infantry these days.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/15 23:02:10
Ashiraya wrote: I do not know, it does not say. Why not? We all know that the eastern front was not all that static. This was WW2, not WW1.
I don't think anybody is arguing that women make poor killers, or even poor soldiers. The discussion is specifically about their ability to perform in the infantry role. If they aren't rucking that machine gun up a mountain side then it isn't really relevant. I'm sure Russian ladies put many a Nazi to the Mosin in ww2. I doubt that female machine gunners and ammo bearers participated in any offensive that required long treks on foot but I would love to read about it if you have that information.
Ps: have you ever held a GPMG like a MAG or 240 bravo? I served at 5'11 ~215 and had a background in bodybuilding and powerlifting and it was still fething heavy lol
Then you may want to find references that help make your point. So far, you're not doing to well at that.
The fact is, most females in the Russian Army in WW2 were in support roles (many medics/signal types for example). Yes, there were some notable exceptions (the ladies flying those bi-planes, a few snipers and tank crews) but they were exceptions.
You want to find examples like SGT Hester (a silver star winner that Hollywood should have made a movie about, her story makes GI Jane look as silly as, well, GI Jane). But even her action, as recent and modern as it is, is an exceptional example of a female soldier kicking ass, but NOT that female's soldier typical role (nor her sustained role).
There are several great stories about female Apache pilots as well, ladies with a REAL warrior spirit who blew the gak out of lots of bad guys and saved a lot of troops in contact. The point there is females can definitely be killers without being infantry. They can be aggressive in situations like the one SGT Hester was put into, and do well.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2015/09/15 23:43:37
Subject: Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
Ashiraya wrote: I do not know, it does not say. Why not? We all know that the eastern front was not all that static. This was WW2, not WW1.
You mean highly mobile like the Battle of Stalingrad...about a 6 month long battle for a single city. I think that is the definition of static when you compare it to the western fronts
The Eastern front was only really mobile in 2 phases, the initial german invasion which swept all the way to Stalingrad/moscow and then the eventual Russian counter attack which pushed the Germans all the way back to Berlin. In between that was a fairly long phase of immobile static warfare. Also you don't see much historic mention of Russian females in combat outside of those two battle grounds.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Artillery would also be a really bad combat MOS for females as well. Having to carry 100+lb Shells into the breach as fast as physically possible to lay down barrages...I don't see that ending well.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/15 23:48:36
I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you mess with me, I'll kill you all
Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders
2015/09/16 00:15:41
Subject: Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
Ashiraya wrote: I do not know, it does not say. Why not? We all know that the eastern front was not all that static. This was WW2, not WW1.
You mean highly mobile like the Battle of Stalingrad...about a 6 month long battle for a single city. I think that is the definition of static when you compare it to the western fronts
The Eastern front was only really mobile in 2 phases, the initial german invasion which swept all the way to Stalingrad/moscow and then the eventual Russian counter attack which pushed the Germans all the way back to Berlin. In between that was a fairly long phase of immobile static warfare. Also you don't see much historic mention of Russian females in combat outside of those two battle grounds.
That's not true at all. There were a few very large set piece battles like the sieges of Stalingrad, Leningrad and Budapest in the scale of the entire war in the east, which lasted almost 4 years. A large part of the German early successes was their knack for maneuver warfare and combined arms and, the Soviet Deep Battle doctrine, used extensively until '43, emphasized fast moving armor formations in the enemy rear. German experience and the fact that the Soviets had poor methods of command and control, which was only exacerbated by Stalin's purges of the officer corps in the 30's, made the war drag on longer than it should.
TL;DR - totally not static
2015/09/16 00:21:01
Subject: Re:Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
Of note, the terrain in Iraq is a lot more forgiving than that in Afghanistan for the most part. Dismounted patrol distances tended to be shorter too.
ABSTRACT A longitudinal cohort analysis of disease nonbattle injuries (DNBI) sustained by a large combat-deployed maneuver unit has not been performed.
A descriptive analysis was undertaken to evaluate for DNBI casualty care statistics incurred by a U.S. Army Brigade Combat Team (BCT) during a counterinsurgency campaign of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Of the 4,122 soldiers deployed, there were 1,324 DNBI with 5 (0.38%) deaths, 208 (15.7%) medical evacuations (MEDEVAC), and 1,111 (83.9%) returned to duty. The DNBI casualty rate for the BCT was 257.0/1,000 soldier combat-years. Females, compared with males, had a significantly increased incidence rate ratio for becoming a DNBI casualty 1.67 (95% CI 1.37, 2.04). Of 47 female soldiers receiving MEDEVAC 35 (74%) were for pregnancy-related issues. Musculoskeletal injuries (50.4%) and psychiatric disorders (23.3%) were the most common body systems involved with DNBI casualties. Among the BCT cohort the psychiatric DNBI casualty rate and suicide rate were 59.8 and 0.58 per 1,000 soldier combat-years. The BCT cohort incidence rates for common musculoskeletal injuries per 1,000 combat-years were as follows: ankle sprain 15.3, anterior cruciate ligament rupture 3.3 and shoulder dislocation 1.2.
Musculoskeletal injuries and psychiatric disorders accounted for 74% of the total DNBI casualties, and 43% of the DNBI casualties requiring subsequent MEDEVAC. The BCT cohort had a suicide rate nearly four times greater than previously reported, and selected musculoskeletal injury incidence rates were fivefold greater than the general population.
A part I found interesting, especially as some folks want to rule out sexuality as an issue, was this section:
Female average daily DNBI hospital admission rates during the initial stages OIF and OEF were reported to be 16% and 74%,respectively,greater than males. Of note in this study is that all 35 females with reproductive issues to include pregnancy, miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy were MEDEVAC (Table III). Thus, alarmingly 10.8% of females were lost to the theatre of operations due to female reproductive DNBI and 74% of all female DNBI MEDEV AC were pregnancy related.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2015/09/16 03:15:36
Subject: Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
Relapse wrote: I'm sitting on the sidelines leaning heavily towards believing the Marines on this page who have been in combat and know first hand the stress, both physical and mental involved. I grew up in farm country where I spent my youth, from 9 to 15, working from 5 to 7 daily in the summer vacation months, doing light work at first, but building into, as I got older and stronger, clearing fields of rocks, haying, herding cattle and pigs as well as doing all the other associated work. Women would sometimes be out there with the men, but 99 % of the time would be doing the lighter work, tractor and truck driving, combining,etc, but leaving the heavier stuff alone because men are better suited to it and won't hurt themselves as much as women would.
That's what I base some of my opinion on with women doing extended heavy labor like has been depicted by Ghaz and others.
Sorry, I didn't really mean to pick on you so directly, I was just trying to point out that being an expert soldier, does not make someone an expert on women. So when we ask those who have served for expert testimony, they can tell us that it is extremely hard, and we aught to believe them because they know first hand it is hard, but when they tell us it is too hard for any woman, we aught not to believe them because they do not know all women.
I would say that your experiences (despite being anecdotal) are probably dead on. Women aren't generally as strong and physical as men. We all knew that, and the test the OP linked showed it in no uncertain terms. But it is still a generalization, which is why it is wrong, because there will be individual women who are incredibly strong and fast and robust, like the women we see competing at the Olympics. I was on my school athletics team, but there are still girls at the Olympics who can shave a second off my best 100m time. A system that would allow an exceptional woman to be passed up for a man, just because he's a man, is sexist. If a woman is able to do the job, and she wants to do the job, then she should not be denied the opportunity based on stereotypes and generalizations.
No offense was ever taken. You asked a valid question, and I thought the experiences I had and things I witnessed growing up in the middle of farm country might apply as far as the physical ability of females to endure heavy labor over a period of time. There are definitely combat roles women can fill, but I don't believe anything involving sustained extreme load carrying is one of the things they can do with numbers big enough to make it worthwhile.
One nice thing about all that farm work was the fact that myself and a few of my class mates, in the 140-150 lb range, were able to bench 300 plus lbs and do pull-ups for pretty much as long as we felt like doing them. Working on a farm can buff you out like no other!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/09/16 03:23:46
2015/09/16 03:54:46
Subject: Re:Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
Regarding the original post, no surprise here. It is a well-documented fact that your average woman is physically weaker than your average man. It is only to be expected that this difference would manifest itself in any activity that has to do with physical exertion.
(and now that I'm reading through the other replies, I realize I am just restating what is obvious to everyone).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/16 04:09:12
2015/09/16 07:59:28
Subject: Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
Ashiraya wrote: I do not know, it does not say. Why not? We all know that the eastern front was not all that static. This was WW2, not WW1.
The Eastern front was only really mobile in 2 phases, the initial german invasion which swept all the way to Stalingrad/moscow and then the eventual Russian counter attack which pushed the Germans all the way back to Berlin. In between that was a fairly long phase of immobile static warfare.
This is completely false, suspiciously sounds like an American reading of the Eastern Front where the Russians weren't the ones who broke Germany's back.
The 'initial phase' as you call it (most people call it Operation Barbarossa), drove to Moscow - Stalingrad wasn't reached until the German summer offensive of 1942, another huge mobile advance across ~1000 miles of frontline. The Russians had already committed a massive counterattack over the winter of '41-'42 with fresh troops from Siberia, they didn't wait around for a single push to Berlin as your post suggests. Operation Bagration (July - August 1944) involved well over a million Russian soldiers and thousands of armoured vehicles in a huge mechanised push to destroy Army Group Centre, and is a single example of a Russian offensive, of which there were many. Bagration alone dwarfs the entire Normandy invasion.
You are however correct in your assertion that women weren't often utilised in front line roles, even though their presence in the Red Army is often championed as "women are just as good at being soldiers" by social justice types.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/16 07:59:44
5000
2015/09/16 08:51:42
Subject: Re:Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer
MarsNZ wrote: You are however correct in your assertion that women weren't often utilised in front line roles, even though their presence in the Red Army is often championed as "women are just as good at being soldiers" by social justice types.
Obviously they were not. Russia has never really been a leading star in feminism, even if some times were different than others.
That said, there is data that shows that women are often superior in discipline, motivation and marksmanship, which is actually not irrelevant (see the IDF page linked and discussed earlier), and while you will inevitably now tell me that it does not compensate for their reduced ability to lug the oversized US soldier package all over the place, it is still a thing.
Ultimately, how this will end is up to neither you nor me. I am neither the big boss of the US military, nor the one who plans their budget. If it will fit in the allegedly grotesque prices of keeping female marines, then it will. All I can do is to assert that I hope it does, anyway.
Ashiraya wrote: Anyway, I trust the armed forces to make a well-reasoned decision based on the data and situations rather than external political pressure from equality groups or the gleeful men's rights activists.
I shall find it most interesting to see the result.
Spoiler:
Also, can we stop with the SJW accusations? It's the equivalent of me labeling you guys 'war pigs' at every opportunity, or similar. It's not very nice.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2015/09/16 08:58:25
On the one hand, I think we need to be very wary about listening to soldiers and accepting what they say as automatically valid. They have knowledge, but that knowledge will be filtered through their own personal bias and while we must respect their experience, we can't just accept their statements blindly, but view them in the context of what other information we have. If we just followed what soldiers said about how the armed forces must be run then the army would still be segregated, homosexuality wouldn't have even reached DADT let alone equality, and the M-14 would be the preferred weapon because you gotta have a bigger bullet, dammit.
But on the other hand, the higher levels of stress fractures suffered by women through the testing seems quite telling. It shows there are women who have the will and the determination to make the grade, but it puts their bodies at a level of performance that too many just sustain even over a reasonably short period of time. It isn't viable to have an army where a whole group of soldiers is regularly out of action because they have to put their bodies through excessive strain just to meet the standard requirements.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2015/09/16 10:05:04
Subject: Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
Ashiraya wrote: Do we have some conclusive studies showing the long-term effects of women doing more physical jobs in the military?
I'd be very interested in seeing some numbers for the effects in the long run, rather than one-off tests or anecdotal observations.
Did you bother to read the BCT study I linked to? In that BCT females had about the same percentage of muscular skeletal injuries as men. And none of the females were infantry, they were all support MOS troops and did not do the patrolling the infantry did. That was over a 15 month deployment. The study also mentions females in general suffer those injuries at a higher rate than their male counterparts (when you take a larger sampling of males which includes a lot more support units than are organic to a BCT).
And again, in previous threads about this topic, I linked to other studies, not all done by the US, that show the same thing. This is why this study is not a surprise. Heck, these types of injuries affected the ladies who tried out for Ranger school and the handful that made it in. It has also been noted at USMC and Army basic training. This is not a new thing.
EDIT:
the authors emphasize that, anatomically and physiologically, women are not the same as men; lower extremity biomechanical dif- ferences between men and women may account for gender differences in training injury rates. Women have increased pelvic width, forefoot pronation, heel valgus angulation, pes planus, external tibial torsion, and femoral anteversion. Additionally, because of the estrogen influence, women have less lean body mass and greater ligamentous laxity. the combination of anatomy and physiology appears to predispose women to a higher risk of pelvic stress fracture and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears. the diagnosis of pelvic stress fracture has been reported as 1 in 367 female recruits, compared with 1 in 40,000 male recruits, and rates of ACL ruptures for female athletes range from 2.4 to 9.7 times higher than in male athletes.
Ninety-nine female recruits, 36 male recruits, and 55 controls participated. Although 31% of the controls reported regular preinduction sports participation, less than 25% of both male and female recruits did. Stress fractures incidence was 0% among males and controls but 12% among female recruits (P = 0.03). The mean body mass index of female recruits with stress fractures was 19.2 +/- 2.6 versus 22.5 +/- 3.3 kg x m of female recruits without stress fractures (P = 0.02, odds ratio = 1.397, 95% confidence interval = 1.065-1.833). No statistically significant difference was found between female and male military trainees in the incidence of other overuse injuries, but there was a statistical trend (P = 0.07) for more back pain among females
The cross-gender (F/M) odds ratio for discharges because of overuse injury rose from 4.0 (95% CI 2.8 to 5.7) under the gender-fair system to 7.5 (5.8 to 9.7) under the gender-free system (P=0.001). Despite reducing the number of women selected, the gender-free policy led to higher losses from overuse injuries.
This study confirms and quantifies the excess risk for women when they undertake the same arduous training as male recruits, and highlights the conflict between health and safety legislation and equal opportunities legislation.
Results: Women had 2.5 times the rate of injuries as men and 3.9 times the rate of injuries resulting in hospitalization. Women had significantly more stress fractures and stress reactions than men. The median number of days excused from physical activities for women's injuries was significantly higher than that from men's injuries. Pretraining conditioning, measured by performance on a 2-mile (3.2-km) run, accounted for approximately half the difference in rates of injuries between men and women; differences in height among men and women did not account for differences in injury rates.
Design: Ten mixed gender batteries, including 375 male recruits and 138 female recruits, carried out basic training in the Israeli anti-aircraft corps between November 1999 and January 2003. Each battery was monitored prospectively for 10 weeks of a basic training course. During that time, recruits who were suspected of having an overuse injury went through a protocol that included an orthopedic specialist physical examination followed by a radionuclide technetium bone scan, which was assessed by consultant nuclear medicine experts. The assessment included the anatomic site and the severity of the fractures, labeled as either high severity or low severity. Results: Stress fractures were significantly more common among female recruits than among male recruits. A total of 42 male (11.2%) and 33 female (23.91%) recruits had positive bone scans for stress fractures (female:male relative ratio, 2.13;p
ABSTRACT The incidence of recruit injuries during basic training in the Irish Army is, to date undocumented. In this retrospective cohort study, the medical records of 415 recruits are examined. The lower limb predominated as the anatomical site of the majority of injuries. The overall incidence of male 'first time' injuries was 56.96 per 1000 man-week training. The corresponding female figure was 99.26. Female recruits lost an average of 8.2 days per injury, while the male figure was 5.69 days. The injured female recruit was also more likely to sustain a further injury than her male colleague. Risk factors and possible prevention strategies are discussed.
After BT, gender differences narrowed by approximately 4% in all tests except upper body strength. Although fitness improvement after BT was marginally higher in females than males, resulting in a slight narrowing of the gender differences, a significant gender gap in physical fitness still exists after BT.
Many civilian fitness activities (e.g., walking and jogging) have corollaries in military physical training (e.g., marching and running). The incidence of injury and related intrinsic risk factors for these activities have been more thoroughly studied in military populations than in civilians. Because physical fitness is required for military readiness, recruits undergo a vigorous basic training (BT) course, and substantial research has been devoted to methods of enhancing fitness and understanding the causes of training-related injuries. Studies from the U.S. Army 8-week BT have documented cumulative injury rates from 42% to 67% among women during the course of training (19,20,30). Of women in the U.S. Air Force, 33% incurred an injury during the 6-week BT (20). Similarly, 22% of women in the U.S. Navy sustained an injury during the 9-week BT, and 49% of women in the U.S. Marine Corps were injured during the 11-week BT (20). The range of injury incidence (22%-67%) among women in the different services and over time might be explained by differences in the duration and intensity of BT.
Again, no one is making this stuff up. It is an issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Guess it is a moot point.
SECNAV Mabus wrote:"Nobody's asking for an exemption in the Navy," Mabus said Monday in a speech to the City Club of Cleveland in Ohio. "...The SEALs aren't asking for an exemption ... I've been pretty clear, and I've been pretty clear about this for a while: I'm not going to ask for an exemption for the Marines."
SECNAV Mabus wrote:
"Nobody's asking for an exemption in the Navy," Mabus said Monday in a speech to the City Club of Cleveland in Ohio. "...The SEALs aren't asking for an exemption ... I've been pretty clear, and I've been pretty clear about this for a while: I'm not going to ask for an exemption for the Marines."
Because party politics are more important then combat efficiency or defense spending. Mabus for PRESIDENT!..of SJWs
I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you mess with me, I'll kill you all
Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders
2015/09/16 13:26:32
Subject: Re:Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
SECNAV Mabus wrote:
"Nobody's asking for an exemption in the Navy," Mabus said Monday in a speech to the City Club of Cleveland in Ohio. "...The SEALs aren't asking for an exemption ... I've been pretty clear, and I've been pretty clear about this for a while: I'm not going to ask for an exemption for the Marines."
Because party politics are more important then combat efficiency or defense spending. Mabus for PRESIDENT!..of SJWs
You get that rich old white guys in positions of power almost by definition are in opposition to anyone that would self-identify as a "Social Justice Warrior". He's a living collection of everything they think is unfair and unjust, he's literally an embodiment of the patriarchy. I mean the validity his choices, his motivations for making them and everything else aside can you just stop abusing that term. It's not catch all for "People that do things I don't like because of beliefs more liberal than mine", it's a pretty specific way of approaching things and set of attitudes which are all waaaaaaaaaaay past "Women get to be in combat infantry too".
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2015/09/16 13:29:47
2015/09/16 13:40:33
Subject: Re:Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
SECNAV Mabus wrote:
"Nobody's asking for an exemption in the Navy," Mabus said Monday in a speech to the City Club of Cleveland in Ohio. "...The SEALs aren't asking for an exemption ... I've been pretty clear, and I've been pretty clear about this for a while: I'm not going to ask for an exemption for the Marines."
Because party politics are more important then combat efficiency or defense spending. Mabus for PRESIDENT!..of SJWs
You get that rich old white guys in positions of power almost by definition are in opposition to anyone that would self-identify as a "Social Justice Warrior". He's a living collection of everything they think is unfair and unjust, he's literally an embodiment of the patriarchy. I mean the validity his choices, his motivations for making them and everything else aside can you just stop abusing that term. It's not catch all for "People that do things I don't like because of beliefs more liberal than mine", it's a pretty specific way of approaching things and set of attitudes which are all waaaaaaaaaaay past "Women get to be in combat infantry too".
go spend 5 minutes looking into his decisions since he was made SECNAV and then come back to me and tell me he isn't more concerned with party politics and social justice then with LEADING THE NAVY.
and btw your comment "You get that rich old white guys in positions of power almost by definition are in opposition" your identifying someones position and stance based on their age, race and gender, so in one go your a racist and a sexist and whatever the term for age discrimination is
I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you mess with me, I'll kill you all
Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders
2015/09/16 13:52:39
Subject: Re:Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
SECNAV Mabus wrote:
"Nobody's asking for an exemption in the Navy," Mabus said Monday in a speech to the City Club of Cleveland in Ohio. "...The SEALs aren't asking for an exemption ... I've been pretty clear, and I've been pretty clear about this for a while: I'm not going to ask for an exemption for the Marines."
Because party politics are more important then combat efficiency or defense spending. Mabus for PRESIDENT!..of SJWs
You get that rich old white guys in positions of power almost by definition are in opposition to anyone that would self-identify as a "Social Justice Warrior". He's a living collection of everything they think is unfair and unjust, he's literally an embodiment of the patriarchy. I mean the validity his choices, his motivations for making them and everything else aside can you just stop abusing that term. It's not catch all for "People that do things I don't like because of beliefs more liberal than mine", it's a pretty specific way of approaching things and set of attitudes which are all waaaaaaaaaaay past "Women get to be in combat infantry too".
go spend 5 minutes looking into his decisions since he was made SECNAV and then come back to me and tell me he isn't more concerned with party politics and social justice then with LEADING THE NAVY.
I'm talking about your incessant use of the term "SJW". Making choices based on party politics with an eye towards equality does not make one a "Social Justice Warrior" at least not without politics and policies far more radical than these ones.
and btw your comment "You get that rich old white guys in positions of power almost by definition are in opposition" your identifying someones position and stance based on their age, race and gender, so in one go your a racist and a sexist and whatever the term for age discrimination is
It doesn't matter what his position is. His mere existence is what's in opposition. "Rich white guys in positions of power" are a thing we should have less of from a SJW perspective.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/16 13:53:14
2015/09/16 14:28:57
Subject: Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
SECNAV Mabus wrote:"Nobody's asking for an exemption in the Navy," Mabus said Monday in a speech to the City Club of Cleveland in Ohio. "...The SEALs aren't asking for an exemption ... I've been pretty clear, and I've been pretty clear about this for a while: I'm not going to ask for an exemption for the Marines."
The creation of job entry standards would keep the Marine Corps from losing any of its strength or lethality on the battlefield, Mabus said. He also asserted that a force including women would be a stronger force, because it was more diverse.
It would certainly be interesting to see the data that proves the Secretary of the Navy's claim that being gender "diverse" makes combat units more effective. I've yet to see a single study that conclusively proves that "diversity" has a tangible impact on personal performance in any field. They certainly don't exist in regards to public education.
5000 
