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

[Skylar]

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.

You're still not getting it. Re-read my posts again.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

the fallout rate is much much higher

however it is important to have women to be able to talk to the wives of these islamist men

tend to get hostile when men question their slave wives

 

[Deleted member 53821]

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.

Do you mean that Obama isn't dumb because he is dumb but because we are bias? I think we should lower the standard for him because expecting unemployment to be as low as the white president's is racist.

 

[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.

Do you mean that Obama isn't dumb because he is dumb but because we are bias? I think we should lower the standard for him because expecting unemployment to be as low as the white president's is racist.

I don't recall any mention of Obama anywhere in my post. So you're essentially revealing yourself. As you had to pull your argument and examples out of your own imagination.

 

[candycorn]

No surprise at all. I think that women have a place in any job that they can qualify for without lowering standards. There is a time when you should question the standards but it should be a pre-selected intervals; not because a female is trying out for this team or that team. In other words, if the review of a Ranger candidate school is done every 12 years and the curriculum and physical requirements are changed every 12 years, any amendment should happen on that schedule, not because Jane Doe is one of the candidates in the 10th year. Even then, if the course is fine the way it is; do not change it.

I don't understand why every enlistee isn't put through the school myself; man, woman or other. If you don't complete it and get your tab, you are not any worse for having tried and failed. But you are also not on a fast-track to be a senior NCO or officer.

Sorry, the military should be a meritocracy.

As for the "study", I'm not surprised. Different missions require different skill sets though. Rarely is a one-size-fits-all team is the best choice.

 

[2aguy]

No surprise at all. I think that women have a place in any job that they can qualify for without lowering standards. There is a time when you should question the standards but it should be a pre-selected intervals; not because a female is trying out for this team or that team. In other words, if the review of a Ranger candidate school is done every 12 years and the curriculum and physical requirements are changed every 12 years, any amendment should happen on that schedule, not because Jane Doe is one of the candidates in the 10th year. Even then, if the course is fine the way it is; do not change it.

I don't understand why every enlistee isn't put through the school myself; man, woman or other. If you don't complete it and get your tab, you are not any worse for having tried and failed. But you are also not on a fast-track to be a senior NCO or officer.

Sorry, the military should be a meritocracy.

As for the "study", I'm not surprised. Different missions require different skill sets though. Rarely is a one-size-fits-all team is the best choice.

Ramger school is expensive...too costly to put everyone through it for such a massive failure rate.

 

[hazlnut]

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

Even in the marine drill of blowing other men?