Tests show Marine units with female soldiers perform more poorly than all-male units

[davidn3600]

WASHINGTON — A Marine Corps study that found all-male ground combat units more effective than teams that included women has raised new concerns about the Pentagon's push to open all jobs to women next year.

A summary of results released Thursday from the unprecedented study showed that all-male ground combat squads were faster, stronger and more lethal in most cases than units that included women.The women also suffered higher injury rates during physically demanding training.

The Marine Corps and other services face a deadline the Pentagon has set for requiring military branches to open all specialties to women, including infantry and special operations forces, beginning next year.

The services have until the end of this month to request an exception to the order for some occupations.

The Marine Corps has not yet said whether it will request a waiver, but the study's results are likely to fuel a growing debate over including women in ground combat jobs.

"If you were to turn down a request for a waiver like that I guess the political machine in the White House would be saying we don’t care about the effectiveness of the ground combat units," said Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., a member of the Armed Services Committee who served in the Marine Corps and ha expressed concerns about opening up all positions to women.

http://phxux.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/10/marine-study-finds-all-male-infantry-units-outperformed-teams-women/71971416/

[Logical]

1. This post might not go well. nt

[GummyBearz]

2. I think its time for

and

[Historic NY]

3. I have a feeling it anatomy....

because nothing else make sense for these poor little boys. Those West Point Grads kicked fu-king butt and dragged their counterparts (enlisted) through.

[DashOneBravo]

21. That's incorrect

They were recycled just like many male soldiers.

[Historic NY]

26. So whats your theory on the washouts....

[DashOneBravo]

31. First I'll say

Being recycled is prob the worst existence anyone could dream of and Ranger School is prob one of the worst. There is a reason it's called the Gulag.

Lots of soliders wash out from many schools. Most just don't want it enough. Obviously these two female West Pointers did.

[SusanCalvin]

27. I have no idea what either of you is talking about,

But obviously the first post is not the gibberish I first took it for. Explanation would be deeply appreciated.

[DashOneBravo]

30. I was addressing the comment

That "the West Point grads kicked butt and dragged their counterparts through". They were recycled. Just like a lot of males.

That's not kicking butt.

[SusanCalvin]

32. The main thing I didn't understand

Was the reference to officers dragging enlisted through.

[DashOneBravo]

34. I didn't either

That's why I just ignored it.

[SusanCalvin]

4. What that appears to show

Is that they're accepting women who don't meet standards, or the standards are too low.

I certainly don't think every woman is qualified to perform every job, any more than a man is.

But I do want everyone to be eligible to hold jobs for which they qualify, and I'm sure there are at least some women who would qualify for any given job.

[davidn3600]

8. That's an important point

Personally, I think more studies are needed. The results of this is a concern. But who knows, maybe the study was badly done or had biases. If I was in charge of the Pentagon, I'd give an extension to the Marines and order more tests and studies with different situations. This needs more comprehensive review.

I'm all for equality... but I'm not in favor of lowering requirements. And I am not in favor of putting in force policies that will increase the danger faced by soldiers in a combat situation. Did these women meet the same requirements as men, or were the requirements relaxed? That's been the biggest concern since the beginning that the defense department will lower the requirements so that more women can meet them. If that's what they did here, the study's results make sense. And it shows why you can't do that. If you can't meet the set standard (male or female) you will need to find a different job.

[U4ikLefty]

60. "I'm all for equality... but"

FAIL

[davidn3600]

61. How is it a fail to want to keep standards the same for men and women?

I don't want standards to be lowered for women so the military can meet some type of quota set by politicians. I don't see that as supporting equality. That will create a situation that puts lives in more danger.

[U4ikLefty]

63. "I don't want standards to be lowered for"

second FAIL

[davidn3600]

64. Just keep not answering the question....

[U4ikLefty]

65. There are no questions, only assertions in disguise.

You post this bullshit "study" as proof that women are less than men.

BTW, I bet Ronda Rousey could kick YOUR ass.

[davidn3600]

68. Bullshit study?

First off, this was a study done by the US Marines. It's reported by USA Today (and many other news organizations). These are legit entities. This study was submitted to the Pentagon and will be considered as part of the overall assessment of what jobs women should be permitted to have in the combat roles of the armed forces.

And you don't think it should be discussed? You don't think it should be debated on? If you have a problem with the study, by all means, voice your problem with it.... That's what a discussion forum is all about. Unfortunately, you are more interested in lobbing disguised insults because you don't like the topic.

And I never said anything about Ronda Rousey. So why bring her up? Is she in the Marines? Do you think she can take down a Marine? That would be the only relevant question.

[Snow Leopard]

13. exactly

whomever these particular gals were, they are out, next...

[840high]

35. ...+1

[HassleCat]

5. I don't see the big deal

Not all positions are open to all men. I couldn't be Marine Recon, for example. Men are bigger and stronger, so they run and jump and shoot better, on average, but not people like me. There are women who could kick my ass, ad I'm sure they would do just fine in combat. So let them do whatever jobs they can do, and don't let anyone who can't perform into certain jobs.

[prayin4rain]

22. That's what I think. Physically superior women

can beat many average guys, but they can very very rarely keep up with physically superior men. There are missions they'd be good at just like smaller men, but a mission that requires top physical human speed, strength, and endurance would be best staffed with physically superior men, obviously.

[SusanCalvin]

28. Or women, if superior or equal.

a) There are exceptions to every rule and b) Sometimes (uh, always) you don't get the best in the whole wide world, you get the best of the willing/available.

[prayin4rain]

50. Agreed. n/t

[DashOneBravo]

46. That's another point

Just "meeting the standard for an average male" is going to fall below what you'll find in elite units.

[SusanCalvin]

49. But if there's an exception,

It should be given a chance. Establish criteria, apply equally.

[SusanCalvin]

67. And I never asserted that meeting the standards for the average male was sufficient.

Meeting the standards for the job in question.

[DashOneBravo]

70. I understood what you meant.

And agreed.

[digonswine]

6. Biology is a thing-

adult males, on average, have more upper body strength. Adult males have a higher amount of muscle to body-mass ratio. It is just a thing that is a result of our sexual dimorphism.


I think it was cool that 2 women became Army Rangers--I'm not even sure what that even means.

On average- and in total--females are not as strong as men. This is a fact, and is the part of the same reason that I, as a male, am less likely to be raped, taken advantage of-, abused, etc.

I kinda think I understand why some women want to feel equal to men in the physical realm.

Pound-for-pound they are great, but the differences will remain.

I feel that it is unfortunate that some people feel obliged to measure themselves against soldiers, men, that get so damaged in war.

Instead of females that fight, I would prefer that no one needs to do so.

[digonswine]

7. I find the whole thing to be unfortunate--

adult males, on average, have more upper body strength. Adult males have a higher amount of muscle to body-mass ratio. It is just a thing that is a result of our sexual dimorphism.


I think it was cool that 2 women became Army Rangers--I'm not even sure what that even means.

On average- and in total--females are not as strong as men. This is a fact, and is the part of the same reason that I, as a male, am less likely to be raped, taken advantage of-, abused, etc.

I kinda think I understand why some women want to feel equal to men in the physical realm.

Pound-for-pound they are great, but the differences will remain.

I feel that it is unfortunate that some people feel obliged to measure themselves against soldiers, men, that get so damaged in war.

Instead of females that fight, I would prefer that no one needs to do so.

[arely staircase]

9. Marine units do not have soldiers of any gender.

They have Marines.

[SusanCalvin]

10. Excellent point, thank you. nt

[smirkymonkey]

11. Nice job

[SusanCalvin]

12. If you mean nice job of attracting thoughtful replies, yes. nt

[linuxman]

15. This just in, human physiology varies significantly due to sex!

Who knew?

[SusanCalvin]

23. And there are exceptions to every rule.

Who knew? (For further thoughts, please see my first post in this thread.)

[Matariki]

16. It would have been interesting if they'd also added all-female units to the study

[Snow Leopard]

19. if you were to make a prediction?

[SusanCalvin]

24. Um, all-female combat units?

We live in the real world here.

All I'm arguing for is for every individual to be given a fair chance according to the rules, and that the rules be reasonable according to the circumstances.

[Matariki]

57. For the accuracy of the study

Otherwise inaccurate conclusions are made - mainly that it's the fault of the women for lowering the bar. It fails to examine whether the problem is specifically with the mixed gender group and if so why - it could have as much to do with the attitude of the men in the group as the abilities of the women. An all-women control group, for the purpose of this study would have given more to work with for drawing conclusions.

[SusanCalvin]

59. Ah, I see.

If one with the same qualifications could be arranged, that would indeed be excellent.

[trumad]

17. Before I opened this..

I knew it would be you. Wow you got a weird thing for the women's.

[Katashi_itto]

18. You have issues about this issue don't you?

[bettyellen]

33. Yep, it's interesting, ain't it?

[SusanCalvin]

36. In this particular thread, it is turning out to be. nt

[linuxman]

20. If they can hack the current standard as is, Fuck it, why not?

If the standards are lowered across the board to meet a number quota, the Marine Corps will suffer for it. If the standards are changed only for the women, they will never be respected by their infantry peers.

There are women out there who can do it, but compared to men as a whole, they are fewer and farther between. That's just sexual dimorphism at play. We had some smaller guys make it, and without mental toughness they never would have. It's largely a physical game, but I think truly wanting it is the deciding factor.

If you show up, do what's required, and pass the standards, then welcome aboard I say. Word of warning though (to either sex): The infantry is seldom a fun place to be.

[SusanCalvin]

25. Exactly, thank you.

And I have personally seen standards go up and down, depending on how recruiting is going. Well, we live in the real world here, most of the time.

[SusanCalvin]

29. Are you by any chance a Heinlein fan?

I seem to always ask that whenever I agree with someone re the military.

[linuxman]

38. Not really.

Read starship troopers. Hated it. Tried to read a stranger in a strange land, but it didn't hold my interest.

I tried to like him, but I just cant.

I just don't see the harm in putting women through the training,provided the standards aren't changed a bit for anyone. That said, there areseveral resons why I don't think infantry units are a good place to combine the sexes. There are problems that could be potentially worked out, but I'm not sure that the effort expended doing so would be woth the 2-3 women I predict you'd see for every 100 or so men in a unit. I'm elaglitarian in that I think anyone should be allowed to try, but practical in that Im not sure it would be worth it, or a good idea in the end. Again though, they should get a chance.

[SusanCalvin]

39. I think you are about right on the ratio,

and your conclusions.

Edited to say, "Well sort of." Cost-benefit analysis has its limitations.

Are those all you've tried?

My favorite is Double Star. Not just Heinlein, but maybe ever. When I was young I cringed at the last sentence and now I hug it and take it as my own.

[HERVEPA]

37. And you're a member of the men's group.

I'm shocked. Shocked. I say.

[SusanCalvin]

40. He (I'm assuming) is?

Not sure why that's needed, given the current default. Hoping the default will disappear, change, be randomized, or become irrelevant.

[HERVEPA]

41. Say what?

[SusanCalvin]

42. Huh?

I mean not sure why a men's group is necessary, given that they are the current default.

[eridani]

43. How more female police officers would help stop police brutality

Although I don't think it is feasible to make the military more like a police force, we damned well do need to make police forces less like the military.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/07/02/how-more-female-police-officers-would-help-stop-police-brutality/

In fact, over the last 40 years, studies have shown that female officers are less authoritarian in their approach to policing, less reliant on physical force and are more effective communicators. Most importantly, female officers are better at defusing potentially violent confrontations before those encounters turn deadly.

This research was prompted by widespread speculation that women, who began joining police departments in larger numbers in the early 1970s, would fail as patrol officers. One of the earliest studies, sponsored by the Police Foundation in 1974, found that women encountered many of the same kinds of situations (involving angry, drunk or violent individuals) and were as capable as men. The study’s most important finding, though, was that “women act less aggressively and they believe in less aggression.” The researchers predicted “the presence of women may stimulate increased attention to the ways of avoiding violence and cooling violent situations without resorting to the use of force.”

[SusanCalvin]

45. Yep.

The police and the military are two totally different things, or should be.

[SusanCalvin]

44. I'm reccing this.

Think it's a very good discussion.

[ibegurpard]

47. OK look

If there are certain standards that must be met based upon what one might expect to have to do on the battlefield and women can meet those standards there's absolutely no reason they shouldn't be in combat if they choose.

[SusanCalvin]

48. Yep.

Oh and. Heinlein dropped the ball in Starship Troopers. Invented powered suits, the great equaliser, and then relegated women to pilots.

Ah well, he was ahead of his time, for his time.

[oneshooter]

51. "then relegated women to pilots."

Pilots that commanded crews of a thousand or more. Pilots that flew giant space vehicles.

[SusanCalvin]

53. Oh, absolutely.

I said he was ahead of his time for his time.

But pilot was presented as the only possibility, when physical strength was not a factor for infantry due to the powered suits.

[Decoy of Fenris]

62. Sorry to butt in here, folks... A quick word on Starship Troopers canon.

From my memory and a halfway-recent reread, there was never a mandatory or enforced division between the sexes in the books. The given reason for women staying largely concentrated in the Pilot role was that they were superior; smaller, more dexterous, able to handle the G-forces far better than men. By contrast, no division like that is seen in the book; there's just not as many women in the MI, for either preferential or practical purposes.

IIRC, there were several female MIs in the book, but I'd have to re-read yet again to be sure.

[SusanCalvin]

66. I'm pretty sure there were no female MIs.

I'd have to reread to see if a possibility that there could be was presented.

As far as butting in, according to this half of the conversation, not at all! I'm happy to discuss Heinlein with any interested party!

[Decoy of Fenris]

69. I'll race you to it, then. :)

I know Major Rojas was a woman (Recruiter), but I can't remember if there were any others. From a brief glance at the Wiki for ST though, apparently both men and women can become Sky Marshals, but since any rank General or above must achieve that rank in both the MI and the Fleet, that must mean that women can be MI if they so choose.

My guess is that Fleet command is just a more suitable place for women due to their advantages; Why settle for MI when you can get the same benefits within Fleet and eventually command your own starship?

Still, going to start re-reading now; I trust most Wikis, but it can't hurt to have a reason to read ST again.

[Hugin]

52. It's impossible to make an informed opinion on this topic with the information provided.

To truly tell if it's a valid study one simply must have all of the parameters.

First of all, there was a study done some years ago by the Israelis indicating the opposite of this claim was the truth.

Was there a difference in the experience level of the study participants? Were the "male units" biased by having more training? Were the females fresh off the bus?

Were the tasks chosen for comparison biased? Did the tasks fairly reflect what a "Combat Unit" does in routine duty or were things like "standing to pee" chosen?

Then there's the issue of Duncan Hunter...

I call BS until shown otherwise with empirical evidence.

[SusanCalvin]

54. I think you hit the nail on the head.

Enjoyed the discussion is prompted, though.

[Hugin]

56. No doubt, there are differences...

Off the top of my head there are a couple of well documented differences...

1) Women (in general) have more endurance than men. Based on that fact, I would expect to see that while not as "fast" as the male units. The mixed units could operate longer.
2) Some studies have shown that women, (again, in general) have a higher threshold of pain. What does this mean in relation to the injury rates reported in the article? Were the women pushing themselves farther and experiencing worse injuries because they didn't know it? Again, more training would help fix this.

I have some experience with studies and this one looks like a study where the metrics were chosen to support a certain outcome.

Yes, discussion is always good.

[Matariki]

58. Thank you. Yet another low information article for folks to project their biases onto.

[alarimer]

55. Not an independent study, so it's conclusions are suspicious.

I think they had a forgone conclusion in mind (because the Marines don't want women in certain roles- macho jackass culture), so designed a "study" to show just that.

I think it's bullshit trumped by the more conservative elements.

[JanMichael]

71. since none of the female participants had real combat experiences it is hard to say

how telling this test really is.

when one group has a much higher number of people with real time killing in their past they will almost always win killing games against those wirh lots of newbies.