Women in the mil (study)

[WillBrink]

I don't think the findings of this study should surprise anyone. Women are smaller, have less muscle mass, smaller joints, etc. That will make them more prone to injury. My Q is, is not Basic and the physical training that follows not different for men and women in the Corp? If you expect less in training, why would you expect anything to be different in combat? Obviously women fill various roles in the mil very well, but front line combat may not be one of them:

Marine experiment finds women get injured more frequently, shoot less accurately than men

"Women in a new Marine Corps unit created to assess how female service members perform in combat were injured twice as often as men, less accurate with infantry weapons and not as good at removing wounded troops from the battlefield, according to the results of a long-awaited study produced by the service.

The research was carried out by the service in a nine-month long experiment at both Camp Lejeune, N.C., and Twentynine Palms, Calif. About 400 Marines, including 100 women, volunteered to join the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force, the unit the Marine Corps created to compare how men and women do in a combat environment.

“This is unprecedented research across the services,” said Marine Col. Anne Weinberg, the deputy director of the Marine Corps Force Innovation Office. “What we tried to get to is what is that individual’s contribution to the collective unit. We all fight as units… We’re more interested in how the Marine Corps fights as units and how that combat effectiveness is either advanced or degraded.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/09/10/marine-experiment-finds-women-get-injured-more-frequently-shoot-less-accurately-than-men/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1efd26a48a48

[26 Inf]

I think in general the Marine Corps knows that women in general physically break down first under the same stresses as men, and that it generally takes women longer to do heavy physical tasks, and that generally women Marines don't shoot as well as male Marines.

I think the main question is does the average female shoot, retrieve wounded, and carry loads, GOOD ENOUGH to not detract from the mission in general.

My belief is that the average female doesn't - less muscle mass, less aerobic capacity. But,when I was in the service, there were guys in the ranks that didn't either.

We would be beyond this conversation if there were base standards for every MOS and a realistic way to measure them. You wouldn't have wheeled vehicle mechanics that need help to change a tire in the field and you wouldn't have women AND men troops that slow down infantry and artillery units.

I was roster 335 in jump school, roster 334 was a tiny gal. She made every run with blisters as big as pancakes on her heels. It hurt me to look at them. She wasn't fast, but she got there. I felt bad when she was dropped, there were a lot of guys that made it without having to dig nearly as deep as she did. I hope she had a chance to recycle. Bottom line is her injuries kept her from meeting the standard.

JMO

[AndyLate]

I think the simple and obvious answer is that if the average woman was as physically capable as the average man there would not be two different physical fitness standards in the U. S. Army.

I do know the British army had the same physical standards for men and women in 2000, and that has always seemed more reasonable to me.

[LMT Shooter]

Article from 2015 shows Israel disclosed their similar findings. In our politically correct world, that which is obvious & common sense is often ignored.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/198853

[Grand58742]

I think they need true test of strength skills for the lady Marines.

Phase 1: Pickle Jar Opening Candidate will have one minute to open as many pickle jars (without breaking the glass) as possible. Minimum criteria to move to Phase 2: 1

Phase 2: Moving various pieces of furniture Candidate will have one hour to move a minimum of 2 of the following: Couch, love seat, recliner, refrigerator, deep freezer, dining room table, chest of drawers, dresser or entertainment stand

Phase 3: Spider Killing Candidate will have half an hour to kill at least two spiders.

Phase 4: Test Unknown since nobody has passed Phase 3 yet.

[Averageman]

I think the simple and obvious answer is that if the average woman was as physically capable as the average man there would not be two different physical fitness standards in the U. S. Army.

I do know the British army had the same physical standards for men and women in 2000, and that has always seemed more reasonable to me.

So were the standards raised for Women, or lowered for Men?
Everybody wants to be the exception, nobody wants to be a part of the rules, there are reasons for rules.
There are some key physical differences that cause these injuries to occur more often in women, if we play the politically correct game, who's going to pick up the pieces when these bodies fall apart?

[BrigandTwoFour]

The solution has always been found in a combination of service-wide fitness minimums, and role specific requirements.

The former, IMO, were always more about healthcare costs and looking good in uniform than any real connection to the job.

The second, I fear, would reduce the overall pool of men as well and we might not be able to field enough fighters at all. There is also the problem of bureaucratic overhead. Who is going to devise all of those requirements? Who is going to enforce them?

[SomeOtherGuy]

Two thoughts:

1) The idea that women are, on average, smaller, less strong and less robust than men, is something completely obvious to anyone with the slightest knowledge of humankind. Therefore, absolutely zero surprise that they would fail more often at tasks based on fixed amounts of weight or strength, etc. I understand the value of systematic documentation of this issue, but only for disposing of the politically correct/stupid idiots who claim that up is down. (Of course, some individual women can greatly exceed the average man in various measures of strength and fitness, but the average is what counts here.)

2) Without diminishing #1, I also wonder to what extent men who are physically limited recognize that fact and avoid the Marines or Army due to the obvious physical challenges, while women of the modern age, having been indoctrinated with the false idea that any and all physical differences are a fiction in some evil old white man's mind, are not self-selecting out in the same way. If this were true, it would result in a comparison of a male population that's above the overall national average (because the weaker men don't enlist in the Marines or Army) alongside a female recruit population that is much closer to the national average (lack of self-selection, plus outstanding scholarship opportunities for 18yo women with skill in any NCAA sport). Just a guess.

[Voodoo_Man]

While I'm sure their studies were are very valid I think they are missing out on a few key points which the Soviet's figured out in WWII when Nazi Germany invaded the western front. Also something the US figured out during that time but limited their exposure to.

Women work best with other women while commanded by experienced men in that particular field. - Vasily Zaytsev, who led an integrated sniper school / unit made sure to keep experienced male soldiers in the lead.

Women make excellent snipers when paired with another woman or a higher ranking, more experienced man. - Lyudmila Pavlichenko's story is just one example of many.

Women make excellent pilots when in a squadron of other women - Night Witches of the USSR / WASP's of the USAF. While the Night Witches flew combat bombing missions, they did mostly at night and the WASP's did mostly cargo / transport runs, both counterparts were documented to have taken spots in active combat air units on the front lines temporarily.

Women did not do well within integrated infantry units, because of various obvious issues (which study in the OP found), among other issues of fraternization, eventual pregnancy (rubbers weren't exactly a thing that could be found) and injury due to extensive field operations / missions.

The above can be readily found if researched enough, especially WWII niche history.

Personally, I am all for it as long each person is capable of doing whatever the minimum requirements are for that particular profession. Are there female soldiers like Private Vasquez (Aliens) out there? Yeah totally, they will fit right into and integrate seamlessly with any infantry unit. But they are very much the minority. Has the MIL experimented with all female sniper units yet, which aren't female led? I'd wager if they do the studies will show what was pretty obvious during WWII, it works well.

[Todd.K]

Personally, I am all for it as long each person is capable of doing whatever the minimum requirements are for that particular profession.

At what cost? I believe the number would be very small, and fewer still would be ok with the utter lack of privacy in the infantry.

Oh, also waiting for the pink hats to protest not being registered for selective service.

[Averageman]

So, looking at the expense to train, the greater probability of injury and the lesser efficiency, just what is the added expense for female grunts?
You know at some point, you're going to have to Dollar value on political correctness.
Bang for the buck?

[SteyrAUG]

I'm actually a bit surprised by the "less accurate" finding. It's one of the few areas where physical strength isn't the primary factor and females in general terms are more receptive to correct instruction than many of their male counterparts who believe they were born knowing how to fire a weapon. I would have thought this would be one area where everyone is "about equal."

I'm still in favor of volunteer females being able to qualify for any area of military service where they can satisfy identical performance standards. If somebody wants to serve, if they are willing to put their own life on the line, anyone who qualifies should be permitted.

But if you cannot carry the fire hose, you aren't much good at a fire and you need to stay out of the way of those persons who can carry the fire hose. That includes quite a few males who cannot satisfy performance standards so that is what genuine "equality" looks like.

That is just one of many reasons why I'm not a Delta operator. Because if just anyone was allowed to do it, and if they came up with special standards for guys who can't carry a lot of stuff for a long time, it sounds like it would be a lot of fun to shoot Bin Laden in the face and stuff like that. So if arduous qualifications such as basic Q, keep me from being a Delta dude, then the ladies who can't meet basic 0311 qualifications need to accept it as well.

I admire all that try, but nobody who satisfies the minimum requirements should have to suffer the liability of somebody who could not. If a bunch of women Marines got killed because they were in a platoon full of Paul Reuben's there would be no end to the outcry that followed.

[OH58D]

I'll add my 2 cents to this business of women in the military, but from an Army perspective. Most of the tough women I encountered were Bull Dyke Lesbians; tough as nails some of them. I remember one Black gal who was with an artillery unit out of Fort Bliss and she was a "Fister". Tough little bitch about 5 foot 5 and could have been an asset in a firefight.

In fact a lot of the females going into the Army these days are taking advantage of the new rules and are open about their sexual orientation. Some I've seen are squared away and depending on the MOS could be an excellent part of a combat unit. These "persons" like to flaunt exceeding the males during the APFT, including qualifying with male standards. My son at West Point told me he suspects about 40% of the females during his Plebe year were Lesbians.

During my Aviation Career, we had some excellent female pilots; some straight, some lesbian. Nobody cared.

[26 Inf]

The second, I fear, would reduce the overall pool of men as well and we might not be able to field enough fighters at all. There is also the problem of bureaucratic overhead. Who is going to devise all of those requirements? Who is going to enforce them?

You should read this book: https://www.amazon.com/Women-Military-Flirting-Brian-Mitchell/dp/0895263769

If you read it you will find the DOD knew the all volunteer Army was going to need more females in more roles to make it work. In preparation for that. they (DOD) were working with DOL to develop work related physical standards for various jobs in the services. The idea was, that with the exception of Combat Arms, these jobs would be open to both male and female soldiers who met the standard.

The book explains how things were moving along until the Women's Congressional Caucus interfered.

[Moose-Knuckle]

Kind of off topic but...

Will, I know you get to meet and converse with a lot of Team guys due to your volunteer work. If you ever get the chance, ask the Task Force Blue guys who hunted war criminals in Bosnia where they acquired the female personnel they utilized in ops. I always assumed they came from the IC.

[Voodoo_Man]

At what cost? I believe the number would be very small, and fewer still would be ok with the utter lack of privacy in the infantry.

Oh, also waiting for the pink hats to protest not being registered for selective service.

So what if it's small?

This is America. We are free to follow whatever path we may choose. If a woman wants to be infantry and can pass all the requirements, not injury or preg out and have the same appetite for it than her male counterparts there should be no obstacles other than the standard requirements. Equality of opportunity. That's all.

[flenna]

If you would like an interesting read get "American Knight: The life of Colonel John Ripley", available on Kindle Unlimited. The book itself is a biography of a real hero, but in the back is the Colonel's address to Congress on the topic of women in frontline combat units. The Colonel makes very convincing arguments on the moral and physical aspects of why women should not be in combat units.

[Averageman]

So what if it's small?

This is America. We are free to follow whatever path we may choose. If a woman wants to be infantry and can pass all the requirements, not injury or preg out and have the same appetite for it than her male counterparts there should be no obstacles other than the standard requirements. Equality of opportunity. That's all.

You are free to follow whatever path you choose, but...
Are we changing the standards to fit you?
How committed are you to achieving this goal?
Are you doing this on your dime?
My point is, if you hold something, such as being an Infantryman, in such high regard, then you not only respect the title, but you respect everything to include the standards it takes to achieve it.

I'm guessing if we need to change that PT standards, have different body fat standards and then we allow different performance expectations, we will get them and not in a good way for anyone involved.

Overall, we are seeing physical conditioning in the average applicant fall and at the same time we are opening new traditionally male jobs for women. So, before you can prove that you are physically able to perform the job, you sit down with a Career Counselor at MEPPS and choose an MOS, as is the case in the Army.
Perhaps the better way to go about this would be to have your MOS awarded based upon the same original factors plus a physical fitness score you achieve in Basic Training? A generic standard Basic Training that is tough and physically and mentally equal for all and that way we are not using a bigger hammer to fit square pegs in to round holes.
If you want to have a specific MOS such as Infantry, then you begin earning it from day 1 based upon a number of factors to include your physical ability to perform the standard regardless of your sex.
It seems fair for everyone involved, or at least as fair as possible.

[Voodoo_Man]

You are free to follow whatever path you choose, but...
Are we changing the standards to fit you?
How committed are you to achieving this goal?
Are you doing this on your dime?
My point is, if you hold something, such as being an Infantryman, in such high regard, then you not only respect the title, but you respect everything to include the standards it takes to achieve it.

I'm guessing if we need to change that PT standards, have different body fat standards and then we allow different performance expectations, we will get them and not in a good way for anyone involved.

Overall, we are seeing physical conditioning in the average applicant fall and at the same time we are opening new traditionally male jobs for women. So, before you can prove that you are physically able to perform the job, you sit down with a Career Counselor at MEPPS and choose an MOS, as is the case in the Army.
Perhaps the better way to go about this would be to have your MOS awarded based upon the same original factors plus a physical fitness score you achieve in Basic Training? A generic standard Basic Training that is tough and physically and mentally equal for all and that way we are not using a bigger hammer to fit square pegs in to round holes.
If you want to have a specific MOS such as Infantry, then you begin earning it from day 1 based upon a number of factors to include your physical ability to perform the standard regardless of your sex.
It seems fair for everyone involved, or at least as fair as possible.

I'm not advocating changing anything unless it absolutely requires it due to a data proven need to produce the best possible soldiers, in this case, for infantry.

It's simple really, there is a standard now that's been acceptable in producing a decent infantry soldier. If females can pass it, awesome, welcome aboard. If they can maintain it and not dq or fail out on a medical or whatever, great congrats for staying on.

Equality of opportunity. That's all. It's America.

As I stated above, this will yeild smaller numbers but those females who get there will have earned it, just everyone else with the same standards.

[Averageman]

I'm not advocating changing anything unless it absolutely requires it due to a data proven need to produce the best possible soldiers, in this case, for infantry.

It's simple really, there is a standard now that's been acceptable in producing a decent infantry soldier. If females can pass it, awesome, welcome aboard. If they can maintain it and not dq or fail out on a medical or whatever, great congrats for staying on.

Equality of opportunity. That's all. It's America.

As I stated above, this will yeild smaller numbers but those females who get there will have earned it, just everyone else with the same standards.

I think I am going to default back to physical conditioning being part of the MOS determination after the completion of basic training.
Qualify to enter, physical condition pre basic training being the baseline, a second physical after basic and before Advanced Individual Training being the predictor. This way everyone gets the job they can physically do rather than a bar that is too high to be achieved.
Throwing money away to promote a failed Social Justice experiment that 99% aren't going to achieve doesn't make sense.

Nothing you don't earn is valued.