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/...=.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?

[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.

[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?