Marine study finds all-male infantry units outperformed teams with women

[tyroneweaver]

Marine study finds all-male infantry units outperformed teams with women

surprised this made it to the press
if obama finds out expect executive action

 

[Tank]

They need a study for that?

 

[Syriusly]

While I am a huge advocate of equal treatment- I really am a huge advocate of equal treatment.

If all male units really do outperform in measurable tests- and I would be up for additional testing- then really there shouldn't be any question of integrating.

 

[Tank]

Just because you treat them equal, does not make them equal

 

[Skylar]

While I am a huge advocate of equal treatment- I really am a huge advocate of equal treatment.

If all male units really do outperform in measurable tests- and I would be up for additional testing- then really there shouldn't be any question of integrating.

If we were to use the same standards that we do elsewhere in our society, the disparity would largely be the product of the testing method.

We would approach combat from the same perspective that the SFFD approached firefighting when seeking to increase pass rates for female candidates: don't put the same priority on time that we do on task completion. For example if a woman can pass the physical standards testing if given more time than their male counter part, then perhaps the time period is gender bias by being unnecessarily short. With 'necessary' being the time period that women can complete the task in more readily.

Or perhaps combat focuses on the wrong muscle groups. Its possible that it puts too much emphasis on upper body strength as SFFD found when assessing fire fighting. Why not make combat and combat training more about muscle groups that women might not be at a disadvantage. Or as the San Francisco Chronicle outlined in its review of firefighting testing standards in 1912, return to the combat requirements of the 1st world war.

And is marching really a sign of job performance in combat? Don't we have humvees and helicopters? Also, do they really need to carry packs that are 100lb? Aren't there lighter materials? The pack size itself might be a form of gender bias. As if it were lighter, women would be less likely to be injured.

I mean, if we were applying the standards that we use elsewhere.

 

[Blackrook]

OK, women can do almost anything they want, and all the doors to them have been opened.

However, I do not want my daughters in a combat unit.

 

[Zander]

What a waste of money. Women should not be in combat units.

They should be home, making their man a sandwich!

 

[Syriusly]

While I am a huge advocate of equal treatment- I really am a huge advocate of equal treatment.

If all male units really do outperform in measurable tests- and I would be up for additional testing- then really there shouldn't be any question of integrating.

If we were to use the same standards that we do elsewhere in our society, the disparity would largely be the product of the testing method.

We would approach combat from the same perspective that the SFFD approached firefighting when seeking to increase pass rates for female candidates: don't put the same priority on time that we do on task completion. For example if a woman can pass the physical standards testing if given more time than their male counter part, then perhaps the time period is gender bias by being unnecessarily short. With 'necessary' being the time period that women can complete the task in more readily.

Or perhaps combat focuses on the wrong muscle groups. Its possible that it puts too much emphasis on upper body strength as SFFD found when assessing fire fighting. Why not make combat and combat training more about muscle groups that women might not be at a disadvantage. Or as the San Francisco Chronicle outlined in its review of firefighting testing standards in 1912, return to the combat requirements of the 1st world war.

And is marching really a sign of job performance in combat? Don't we have humvees and helicopters? Also, do they really need to carry packs that are 100lb? Aren't there lighter materials? The pack size itself might be a form of gender bias. As if it were lighter, women would be less likely to be injured.

I mean, if we were applying the standards that we use elsewhere.

I haven't read the details of the evaluations yet, but from what I have heard it was head to head unit competition- and based upon the unit completing certain specific missions- missions similar to field missions.

This is different from individual evaluations- which often can be essentially not related to field performance.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

While I am a huge advocate of equal treatment- I really am a huge advocate of equal treatment.

If all male units really do outperform in measurable tests- and I would be up for additional testing- then really there shouldn't be any question of integrating.

If we were to use the same standards that we do elsewhere in our society, the disparity would largely be the product of the testing method.

We would approach combat from the same perspective that the SFFD approached firefighting when seeking to increase pass rates for female candidates: don't put the same priority on time that we do on task completion. For example if a woman can pass the physical standards testing if given more time than their male counter part, then perhaps the time period is gender bias by being unnecessarily short. With 'necessary' being the time period that women can complete the task in more readily.

Or perhaps combat focuses on the wrong muscle groups. Its possible that it puts too much emphasis on upper body strength as SFFD found when assessing fire fighting. Why not make combat and combat training more about muscle groups that women might not be at a disadvantage. Or as the San Francisco Chronicle outlined in its review of firefighting testing standards in 1912, return to the combat requirements of the 1st world war.

And is marching really a sign of job performance in combat? Don't we have humvees and helicopters? Also, do they really need to carry packs that are 100lb? Aren't there lighter materials? The pack size itself might be a form of gender bias. As if it were lighter, women would be less likely to be injured.

I mean, if we were applying the standards that we use elsewhere.

Given more time?
Seriously? You're in a burning building and you want to give her more time?
You're in combat infantry and you catch a round...how much longer does Suzy need to stay in the fire zone dragging your ass to safety?

 

[Zander]

While I am a huge advocate of equal treatment- I really am a huge advocate of equal treatment.

If all male units really do outperform in measurable tests- and I would be up for additional testing- then really there shouldn't be any question of integrating.

If we were to use the same standards that we do elsewhere in our society, the disparity would largely be the product of the testing method.

We would approach combat from the same perspective that the SFFD approached firefighting when seeking to increase pass rates for female candidates: don't put the same priority on time that we do on task completion. For example if a woman can pass the physical standards testing if given more time than their male counter part, then perhaps the time period is gender bias by being unnecessarily short. With 'necessary' being the time period that women can complete the task in more readily.

Or perhaps combat focuses on the wrong muscle groups. Its possible that it puts too much emphasis on upper body strength as SFFD found when assessing fire fighting. Why not make combat and combat training more about muscle groups that women might not be at a disadvantage. Or as the San Francisco Chronicle outlined in its review of firefighting testing standards in 1912, return to the combat requirements of the 1st world war.

And is marching really a sign of job performance in combat? Don't we have humvees and helicopters? Also, do they really need to carry packs that are 100lb? Aren't there lighter materials? The pack size itself might be a form of gender bias. As if it were lighter, women would be less likely to be injured.

I mean, if we were applying the standards that we use elsewhere.

Given more time?
Seriously? You're in a burning building and you want to give her more time?
You're in combat infantry and you catch a round...how much longer does Suzy need to stay in the fire zone dragging your ass to safety?

If she can't get you to safety, maybe "Suzy" can give you one last thrill before you die?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

While I am a huge advocate of equal treatment- I really am a huge advocate of equal treatment.

If all male units really do outperform in measurable tests- and I would be up for additional testing- then really there shouldn't be any question of integrating.

If we were to use the same standards that we do elsewhere in our society, the disparity would largely be the product of the testing method.

We would approach combat from the same perspective that the SFFD approached firefighting when seeking to increase pass rates for female candidates: don't put the same priority on time that we do on task completion. For example if a woman can pass the physical standards testing if given more time than their male counter part, then perhaps the time period is gender bias by being unnecessarily short. With 'necessary' being the time period that women can complete the task in more readily.

Or perhaps combat focuses on the wrong muscle groups. Its possible that it puts too much emphasis on upper body strength as SFFD found when assessing fire fighting. Why not make combat and combat training more about muscle groups that women might not be at a disadvantage. Or as the San Francisco Chronicle outlined in its review of firefighting testing standards in 1912, return to the combat requirements of the 1st world war.

And is marching really a sign of job performance in combat? Don't we have humvees and helicopters? Also, do they really need to carry packs that are 100lb? Aren't there lighter materials? The pack size itself might be a form of gender bias. As if it were lighter, women would be less likely to be injured.

I mean, if we were applying the standards that we use elsewhere.

Given more time?
Seriously? You're in a burning building and you want to give her more time?
You're in combat infantry and you catch a round...how much longer does Suzy need to stay in the fire zone dragging your ass to safety?

If she can't get you to safety, maybe "Suzy" can give you one last thrill before you die?

I can see it now......Hey Suzy,stick your finger in the severed femoral artery and attach your lips to my johnson!!!
How romantic!!!

 

[Skylar]

While I am a huge advocate of equal treatment- I really am a huge advocate of equal treatment.

If all male units really do outperform in measurable tests- and I would be up for additional testing- then really there shouldn't be any question of integrating.

If we were to use the same standards that we do elsewhere in our society, the disparity would largely be the product of the testing method.

We would approach combat from the same perspective that the SFFD approached firefighting when seeking to increase pass rates for female candidates: don't put the same priority on time that we do on task completion. For example if a woman can pass the physical standards testing if given more time than their male counter part, then perhaps the time period is gender bias by being unnecessarily short. With 'necessary' being the time period that women can complete the task in more readily.

Or perhaps combat focuses on the wrong muscle groups. Its possible that it puts too much emphasis on upper body strength as SFFD found when assessing fire fighting. Why not make combat and combat training more about muscle groups that women might not be at a disadvantage. Or as the San Francisco Chronicle outlined in its review of firefighting testing standards in 1912, return to the combat requirements of the 1st world war.

And is marching really a sign of job performance in combat? Don't we have humvees and helicopters? Also, do they really need to carry packs that are 100lb? Aren't there lighter materials? The pack size itself might be a form of gender bias. As if it were lighter, women would be less likely to be injured.

I mean, if we were applying the standards that we use elsewhere.

Given more time?
Seriously? You're in a burning building and you want to give her more time?
You're in combat infantry and you catch a round...how much longer does Suzy need to stay in the fire zone dragging your ass to safety?

You're missing the point of my post. I'll give you a hint: its not that Suzy should have more time.

 

[Skylar]

While I am a huge advocate of equal treatment- I really am a huge advocate of equal treatment.

If all male units really do outperform in measurable tests- and I would be up for additional testing- then really there shouldn't be any question of integrating.

If we were to use the same standards that we do elsewhere in our society, the disparity would largely be the product of the testing method.

We would approach combat from the same perspective that the SFFD approached firefighting when seeking to increase pass rates for female candidates: don't put the same priority on time that we do on task completion. For example if a woman can pass the physical standards testing if given more time than their male counter part, then perhaps the time period is gender bias by being unnecessarily short. With 'necessary' being the time period that women can complete the task in more readily.

Or perhaps combat focuses on the wrong muscle groups. Its possible that it puts too much emphasis on upper body strength as SFFD found when assessing fire fighting. Why not make combat and combat training more about muscle groups that women might not be at a disadvantage. Or as the San Francisco Chronicle outlined in its review of firefighting testing standards in 1912, return to the combat requirements of the 1st world war.

And is marching really a sign of job performance in combat? Don't we have humvees and helicopters? Also, do they really need to carry packs that are 100lb? Aren't there lighter materials? The pack size itself might be a form of gender bias. As if it were lighter, women would be less likely to be injured.

I mean, if we were applying the standards that we use elsewhere.

I haven't read the details of the evaluations yet, but from what I have heard it was head to head unit competition- and based upon the unit completing certain specific missions- missions similar to field missions.

I get that. But if we apply the standards used elsewhere in our society when facing a numerical disparity, its the measuring stick that must be faulty. We're using standards that are inherently discriminatory or not giving the women in question enough time, or using standards that are too new, or applying the wrong muscle groups.

I've never seen a disparity that wasn't explained away in such a fashion. It would be inconsistent with the standards we apply in every other industry or field to recognize anything but cultural disadvantage or testing bias to produce disparate results.

 

[2aguy]

While I am a huge advocate of equal treatment- I really am a huge advocate of equal treatment.

If all male units really do outperform in measurable tests- and I would be up for additional testing- then really there shouldn't be any question of integrating.

If we were to use the same standards that we do elsewhere in our society, the disparity would largely be the product of the testing method.

We would approach combat from the same perspective that the SFFD approached firefighting when seeking to increase pass rates for female candidates: don't put the same priority on time that we do on task completion. For example if a woman can pass the physical standards testing if given more time than their male counter part, then perhaps the time period is gender bias by being unnecessarily short. With 'necessary' being the time period that women can complete the task in more readily.

Or perhaps combat focuses on the wrong muscle groups. Its possible that it puts too much emphasis on upper body strength as SFFD found when assessing fire fighting. Why not make combat and combat training more about muscle groups that women might not be at a disadvantage. Or as the San Francisco Chronicle outlined in its review of firefighting testing standards in 1912, return to the combat requirements of the 1st world war.

And is marching really a sign of job performance in combat? Don't we have humvees and helicopters? Also, do they really need to carry packs that are 100lb? Aren't there lighter materials? The pack size itself might be a form of gender bias. As if it were lighter, women would be less likely to be injured.

I mean, if we were applying the standards that we use elsewhere.

You don't get it....have you ever been in the infantry? upper body strength is incredibly important.....and can't be compensated for......

do you know what you do in the infantry after the helicopter drops you off.....you March.......with all,of your gear...up and down hills, mountains and everything else that gets in the way...humvees? How effective were humvees in the mountains of Afghanistan....and how much heavier does that equipment you wear and carry become after your 3rd week of carrying it day after day? with no sleep, little food and in the cold and rain?

 

[Skylar]

While I am a huge advocate of equal treatment- I really am a huge advocate of equal treatment.

If all male units really do outperform in measurable tests- and I would be up for additional testing- then really there shouldn't be any question of integrating.

If we were to use the same standards that we do elsewhere in our society, the disparity would largely be the product of the testing method.

We would approach combat from the same perspective that the SFFD approached firefighting when seeking to increase pass rates for female candidates: don't put the same priority on time that we do on task completion. For example if a woman can pass the physical standards testing if given more time than their male counter part, then perhaps the time period is gender bias by being unnecessarily short. With 'necessary' being the time period that women can complete the task in more readily.

Or perhaps combat focuses on the wrong muscle groups. Its possible that it puts too much emphasis on upper body strength as SFFD found when assessing fire fighting. Why not make combat and combat training more about muscle groups that women might not be at a disadvantage. Or as the San Francisco Chronicle outlined in its review of firefighting testing standards in 1912, return to the combat requirements of the 1st world war.

And is marching really a sign of job performance in combat? Don't we have humvees and helicopters? Also, do they really need to carry packs that are 100lb? Aren't there lighter materials? The pack size itself might be a form of gender bias. As if it were lighter, women would be less likely to be injured.

I mean, if we were applying the standards that we use elsewhere.

You don't get it....have you ever been in the infantry? upper body strength is incredibly important.....and can't be compensated for......

do you know what you do in the infantry after the helicopter drops you off.....you March.......with all,of your gear...up and down hills, mountains and everything else that gets in the way...humvees? How effective were humvees in the mountains of Afghanistan....and how much heavier does that equipment you wear and carry become after your 3rd week of carrying it day after day? with no sleep, little food and in the cold and rain?

You're not getting the point of my post either. I'll give you another hint: It isn't that women shouldn't have to do pushups.

 

[2aguy]

While I am a huge advocate of equal treatment- I really am a huge advocate of equal treatment.

If all male units really do outperform in measurable tests- and I would be up for additional testing- then really there shouldn't be any question of integrating.

If we were to use the same standards that we do elsewhere in our society, the disparity would largely be the product of the testing method.

We would approach combat from the same perspective that the SFFD approached firefighting when seeking to increase pass rates for female candidates: don't put the same priority on time that we do on task completion. For example if a woman can pass the physical standards testing if given more time than their male counter part, then perhaps the time period is gender bias by being unnecessarily short. With 'necessary' being the time period that women can complete the task in more readily.

Or perhaps combat focuses on the wrong muscle groups. Its possible that it puts too much emphasis on upper body strength as SFFD found when assessing fire fighting. Why not make combat and combat training more about muscle groups that women might not be at a disadvantage. Or as the San Francisco Chronicle outlined in its review of firefighting testing standards in 1912, return to the combat requirements of the 1st world war.

And is marching really a sign of job performance in combat? Don't we have humvees and helicopters? Also, do they really need to carry packs that are 100lb? Aren't there lighter materials? The pack size itself might be a form of gender bias. As if it were lighter, women would be less likely to be injured.

I mean, if we were applying the standards that we use elsewhere.

I haven't read the details of the evaluations yet, but from what I have heard it was head to head unit competition- and based upon the unit completing certain specific missions- missions similar to field missions.

I get that. But if we apply the standards used elsewhere in our society when facing a numerical disparity, its the measuring stick that must be faulty. We're using standards that are inherently discriminatory or not giving the women in question enough time, or using standards that are too new, or applying the wrong muscle groups.

I've never seen a disparity that wasn't explained away in such a fashion. It would be inconsistent with the standards we apply in every other industry or field to recognize anything but cultural disadvantage or testing bias to produce disparate results.

fires,are dangerous.....but they don't shoot back.....and when you put the fire out..you go back to your house and sleep, eat and watch t.v......in combat..you fight.....March...dig in.....sleep very little, pack up move and fight again........no breaks, and bad food.....nothing in the civilian world compares to the activities and situations of combat....

 

[2aguy]

While I am a huge advocate of equal treatment- I really am a huge advocate of equal treatment.

If all male units really do outperform in measurable tests- and I would be up for additional testing- then really there shouldn't be any question of integrating.

If we were to use the same standards that we do elsewhere in our society, the disparity would largely be the product of the testing method.

We would approach combat from the same perspective that the SFFD approached firefighting when seeking to increase pass rates for female candidates: don't put the same priority on time that we do on task completion. For example if a woman can pass the physical standards testing if given more time than their male counter part, then perhaps the time period is gender bias by being unnecessarily short. With 'necessary' being the time period that women can complete the task in more readily.

Or perhaps combat focuses on the wrong muscle groups. Its possible that it puts too much emphasis on upper body strength as SFFD found when assessing fire fighting. Why not make combat and combat training more about muscle groups that women might not be at a disadvantage. Or as the San Francisco Chronicle outlined in its review of firefighting testing standards in 1912, return to the combat requirements of the 1st world war.

And is marching really a sign of job performance in combat? Don't we have humvees and helicopters? Also, do they really need to carry packs that are 100lb? Aren't there lighter materials? The pack size itself might be a form of gender bias. As if it were lighter, women would be less likely to be injured.

I mean, if we were applying the standards that we use elsewhere.

You don't get it....have you ever been in the infantry? upper body strength is incredibly important.....and can't be compensated for......

do you know what you do in the infantry after the helicopter drops you off.....you March.......with all,of your gear...up and down hills, mountains and everything else that gets in the way...humvees? How effective were humvees in the mountains of Afghanistan....and how much heavier does that equipment you wear and carry become after your 3rd week of carrying it day after day? with no sleep, little food and in the cold and rain?

You're not getting the point of my post either. I'll give you another hint: It isn't that women shouldn't have to do pushups.

You really don't get it....did you ever serve?

 

[2aguy]

While I am a huge advocate of equal treatment- I really am a huge advocate of equal treatment.

If all male units really do outperform in measurable tests- and I would be up for additional testing- then really there shouldn't be any question of integrating.

If we were to use the same standards that we do elsewhere in our society, the disparity would largely be the product of the testing method.

We would approach combat from the same perspective that the SFFD approached firefighting when seeking to increase pass rates for female candidates: don't put the same priority on time that we do on task completion. For example if a woman can pass the physical standards testing if given more time than their male counter part, then perhaps the time period is gender bias by being unnecessarily short. With 'necessary' being the time period that women can complete the task in more readily.

Or perhaps combat focuses on the wrong muscle groups. Its possible that it puts too much emphasis on upper body strength as SFFD found when assessing fire fighting. Why not make combat and combat training more about muscle groups that women might not be at a disadvantage. Or as the San Francisco Chronicle outlined in its review of firefighting testing standards in 1912, return to the combat requirements of the 1st world war.

And is marching really a sign of job performance in combat? Don't we have humvees and helicopters? Also, do they really need to carry packs that are 100lb? Aren't there lighter materials? The pack size itself might be a form of gender bias. As if it were lighter, women would be less likely to be injured.

I mean, if we were applying the standards that we use elsewhere.

Given more time?
Seriously? You're in a burning building and you want to give her more time?
You're in combat infantry and you catch a round...how much longer does Suzy need to stay in the fire zone dragging your ass to safety?

You're missing the point of my post. I'll give you a hint: its not that Suzy should have more time.

Yes....let's force "combat" to change to meet the needs of women.........now...how do we do that?

 

[2aguy]

You guys see rifles and think...gee...pulling the trigger isn't a big deal..women can do that.....not taking the point that it isn't pulling the trigger that is the issue...it is getting the rifle where the trigger needs to be pulled that is the issue.

 

[Skylar]

While I am a huge advocate of equal treatment- I really am a huge advocate of equal treatment.

If all male units really do outperform in measurable tests- and I would be up for additional testing- then really there shouldn't be any question of integrating.

If we were to use the same standards that we do elsewhere in our society, the disparity would largely be the product of the testing method.

We would approach combat from the same perspective that the SFFD approached firefighting when seeking to increase pass rates for female candidates: don't put the same priority on time that we do on task completion. For example if a woman can pass the physical standards testing if given more time than their male counter part, then perhaps the time period is gender bias by being unnecessarily short. With 'necessary' being the time period that women can complete the task in more readily.

Or perhaps combat focuses on the wrong muscle groups. Its possible that it puts too much emphasis on upper body strength as SFFD found when assessing fire fighting. Why not make combat and combat training more about muscle groups that women might not be at a disadvantage. Or as the San Francisco Chronicle outlined in its review of firefighting testing standards in 1912, return to the combat requirements of the 1st world war.

And is marching really a sign of job performance in combat? Don't we have humvees and helicopters? Also, do they really need to carry packs that are 100lb? Aren't there lighter materials? The pack size itself might be a form of gender bias. As if it were lighter, women would be less likely to be injured.

I mean, if we were applying the standards that we use elsewhere.

I haven't read the details of the evaluations yet, but from what I have heard it was head to head unit competition- and based upon the unit completing certain specific missions- missions similar to field missions.

I get that. But if we apply the standards used elsewhere in our society when facing a numerical disparity, its the measuring stick that must be faulty. We're using standards that are inherently discriminatory or not giving the women in question enough time, or using standards that are too new, or applying the wrong muscle groups.

I've never seen a disparity that wasn't explained away in such a fashion. It would be inconsistent with the standards we apply in every other industry or field to recognize anything but cultural disadvantage or testing bias to produce disparate results.

fires,are dangerous.....but they don't shoot back.....and when you put the fire out..you go back to your house and sleep, eat and watch t.v......in combat..you fight.....March...dig in.....sleep very little, pack up move and fight again........no breaks, and bad food.....nothing in the civilian world compares to the activities and situations of combat....

Nope. You're still not getting it. It has nothing to do with forcing the military to abide the standards of the civilian world.