Women in combat situations

[mmckee1952]

In 2013, the US military lifted its ban on women serving in combat. Shortly after, the Marine Corps began what it calls an “unprecedented research effort” to understand the impact of gender integration on its combat forces. That took the form of a year-long experiment called the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force, in which 400 Marines—100 of them female—trained for combat together and then undertook a simulated deployment, with every facet of their experience measured and scrutinized.

All branches of the military are facing a January 1, 2016, deadline to open all combat roles to women. The Marine Corps is using this experiment to decide whether to request exceptions to that mandate. The Corps’ summary of the experiment, posted online today by NPR, concludes that combat teams were less effective when they included women.

Overall, the report says, all-male teams and crews outperformed mixed-gender ones on 93 out of 134 tasks evaluated. All-male teams were universally faster “in each tactical movement.” On “lethality,” the report says:

All-male 0311 (rifleman) infantry squads had better accuracy compared to gender-integrated squads. There was a notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system (i.e. M4, M27, and M203) within the 0311 squads, except for the probability of hit & near miss with the M4.

And:

All-male infantry crew-served weapons teams engaged targets quicker and registered more hits on target as compared to gender-integrated infantry crew-served weapons teams, with the exception of M2 accuracy.
Sent from a friend

My Thoughts:
Like I’ve said over and over again, the whole concept of a military unit, no matter where they are at, changes with the influx of females into the unit; it’s just a fact of life and in a combat situation, it’s even worse, yea they can shoot and all of that, but the overall physical abilities of a woman is detrimental to the fighting unit.

I retired from the Navy in 91 and during my time I can attest to what I said. Whenever we had females in the mix the unit’s overall effectiveness was altered. When I was the security officer in Gitmo we had female’s attached to my unit’s and a week didn’t go by when I had to put out various fires all the time, -IE- It’s my time of the month, it’s too hot out there. You get the picture, there are just some areas in the military they are unsuited for, it’s not being racist, it’s just a fact of life.

[MarcSpaz]

I am seriously against women in combat for several reason. And before anyone says "Women have been fight in the Israel, Germany" etc... I don't give a damn. Those countries are not the USA and do not have our culture. You can't compare us to any other country.

That said. I have a hard time seeing a 150 lb women with 60 lbs of gear dragging a 180-200 lb man with another 60-80 lbs of gear out of the S#!+. I have a hard time seeing women surviving the emotional stress and burden. I have never ever met a single women, ever, that always thought rationally rather than emotionally. Never mind always. I don't know any women that "mostly" think rationally.

Lets just say you actually find a significant number of women that can overcome all the physical and emotional crap... look at the natural order of thing. We are going to seen men bond with the women in a much different way then other men. They will be more prone to try to protect them instead of do their job. That will cost life. That will cost operational success. That will cost the security of the nation.

Then, lets look at the dark side of it. We all know that not every man in the military is an outstanding citizen. Its a know fact that there are gang members in the military, and men have been convicted of rap, drug and weapons distribution, etc. Again... very, very small percentage of military members, but do we want to put even the most physically and emotionally strong female into a situation where she could be harassed, rapped or assaulted? I should hope not.

I'm not a bigot or a sexist; just a realest.

[skeeterss0]

Women were given different PFT standards because their body makeup is different. They don't have the upper body strength that men do and their blood doesn't not transfer oxygen to the muscles as efficiently as males. If these facts were not so women could perform like men. Face it women are different and they are a detriment to the efficiency of the unit, therefore they shouldn't be put there.

[dorminWS]

OK, I'll take a chance on getting banned from the forum because I can't quit thinking about what a hard-bitten, weather-beaten, tough old geezer observed after listening to an extended alcohol-fueled discussion about the presumed physical inferiority of women one night as we sat around a campfire and passed a jug of 'shine. He shut down the conversation and changed the subject with the following remark:

"If you think you're tougher than a woman, try to outf### one."

[MarcSpaz]

I assume the meaning was not a sexual reference? LoL

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[MarcSpaz]

I'm thinking about filing a law suit against my OB/GYN. He told me today that even though I've not recently had my monthly cycle in some time, that there is no way I could be pregnant. Then he said that he could not see me as a client anymore because I'm a man and shouldn't be seen by an OB/GYN.

I think this guys is a sexist jerk. Anyone think I have a strong case to sue my way back into his office?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[grumpyMSG]

I served long enough in all male units (Infantry) and later in a mixed unit (Military Police). Recognizing that there are physical differences between the sexes. I hold a completely different view from most folks already commenting. I have seen plenty of hard working and dedicated Soldiers in both units, but I have also seen idiots in full blossom in both. In the Infantry, twice I saw unit members having affairs with other unit member's spouses. In the MPs I saw at least one extramarital affair happen, resulting in virtually the same level of tumult within the unit. Young male hormones and young female hormones affect them in a similar fashion, the principal difference is a male can't get pregnant. Overall, the women didn't cause any more problems than the men considering it was like an 85%/15% male-female ratio. As far as the availability for duty goes, I didn't notice any radical differences between the sexes. I don't like the idea of romances within squads or platoons and have a firm belief that if something starts, you have to treat the Soldiers as adults and move Soldiers around so they are not as close to each other on missions. Soldiers don't get into the "protect the women first" mentality when they work together. The purpose of spreading couples out is to ensure a Soldier's head was in his own truck not 2 trucks up in a convoy. When the bullets start flying you will pay attention to what you are doing, I want Soldiers paying attention before then.

I also hold a completely different view when people throw the PT standards being different as a major factor. I can assure you on the modern battlefield the ability to run 2 miles in shorts and T shirt is not a very accurate measure, nor is doing push-ups or sit-ups. Then again, I think there should be no difference in the standards for a 20 year old versus a 40 year old, a bullet or artillery round doesn't slow down because the target is older. What so many people don't realize is the APFT standards that are in place now are not that old as a matter of fact up through most of the '80s, to pass an 18 year old had to do 40 push-ups, 40 sit-ups and run 2 miles in 17:55. In 1988 the scores were raised to 42, 53 and 15:54 for male Soldiers. the question is, why were the standards raised in the first place? The explanation lies in what was happening at the time, the start of draw down of the military, raise the standards and people who were on the fence are clearly off of it, in the "do not retain" category. On the subject if you want a brief, but interesting read check out:http://strongswiftdurable.com/military- ... -the-apft/

As for the mental aspect of war, you would have to go to the Veteran's Administration and do some serious statistical analysis to figure out whether female Soldiers were more or less mentally affected by combat. Heaven knows there are plenty of male Soldiers who have been negatively impacted by their time on the battlefield.

[MarcSpaz]

As for the mental aspect of war, you would have to go to the Veteran's Administration and do some serious statistical analysis to figure out whether female Soldiers were more or less mentally affected by combat. Heaven knows there are plenty of male Soldiers who have been negatively impacted by their time on the battlefield.

Though I never served, I have enough family members who came home with bits missing and some serious psychological issues. I am sure that man or women, the end results of seeing and doing normally unthinkable things has a toll on all.

My concern on the mental part is, I think a male is capable of being much more cold, methodical. Because of that, I think a man is more prone to shoot a kid or women with a rifle or grenade than a women would be. Men are not nurturing by nature, vs. women are. Granted, a women who wants to go to battle my not be in general terms, but if you need to find out in battle if an 11B has your back when a 11 year old girl is about to kill you both, wouldn't you prefer to stack the odds in your favor by selecting someone who historical only sees a hostile?

[skeeterss0]

one thing I would like to add is that during my time in the Marines I did meet a couple of females that did the work of 2 males. I would rather serve with them or take them into combat rather than plenty of males that I met. Those females are few and far between however.

[Jeff82]

Putting women in combat roles is wrong on so many accounts. Mainly because it is a waste of precious tax-payer dollars.

Sent from my Galaxy S5 Sport using Tapatalk.

[trailrunner]

I have a hard time seeing women surviving the emotional stress and burden. I have never ever met a single women, ever, that always thought rationally rather than emotionally. Never mind always. I don't know any women that "mostly" think rationally.

You're implying that women are dominated by emotion -- by hysterics, as they used to say.

You also think that men are stone-cold robotic thinkers who *never* make decisions based on emotion.

I'm far from being a poster child for political correctness, but I'm calling BS on this.

I'm not a bigot or a sexist; just a realest.

[MarcSpaz]

You can't call my person life experience BS just because yours if different. That's just plain stupid man. Plus... don't put words in my mouth. I am talking natural tendencies. And if you think I'm wrong... I have centuries of documented human behavior to prove my point as well as real statistics from the last 10-12 decades. Like for the last 100 years we have averaged 9 times more men being convicted for murder than women. 90% of the women in prison are in prison for killing a man and 44% of those men were their spouse. Also, in a recent FBI report I read, the report detailed that in violent crime cases documented in America, men used violent/deadly force to defend themselves 19 times more often than women. I can base ten pretty well and that sounds like pretty sound math to me.

And no, its not every man or every woman. But, as I said, since the beginning of the documenting of existence of mankind, historians and scholars of the day have documented that men have been the physically and emotionally dominant protectors and hunters while women have been the softer, nurturing caregiver and gatherer. That's the end effect of genetic breeding of the female in the human species. How bad would it be if the roles were reversed. Not nearly as many children would survive to adulthood.

You can have a different opinion than I about why women do or don't belong in military combat... that opinion and you are welcome to it. However, if you disagree that men are harder, crueler creatures than women, you are a fool denying fact. Labeling me a sexist for espousing these facts doesn't support your opinion, only your ignorance.

[trailrunner]

And no, its not every man or every woman.

Plus... don't put words in my mouth.

Uh, that's what you said, not me. You said:

I have never ever met a single women, ever, that always thought rationally rather than emotionally.

Again: your words, not mine.

That kind of thinking went away with the 19th amendment.

I am talking natural tendencies....(snip)...However, if you disagree that men are harder, crueler creatures than women, you are a fool denying fact.

Ah, this is different argument, and on this, I may be in agreement with you, although I'd change it slightly to say that men are generally better warriors than women. And that may or may not be a reason to include or exclude women from the military or combat roles. But this is a different argument than I called you on.

you are a fool denying fact.

Labeling me a sexist for espousing these facts doesn't support your opinion, only your ignorance.

I love you too. I'd even share a foxhole with you.

[MarcSpaz]

I said I never met a women who ALWAYS thinks rationally. Take the whole sentence, not just parts.

I'm glad you agree that men make better warriors. And its okay if you don't agree with my opinion, regardless of how accurate that assessment is. I'm not going to fault you for a different opinion. The only reason I contested you statement is because I was discussing my life experience. You can't call BS on my interactions and my take on the world I see it. That is a conclusion only I can make for myself.

As far as to fool statements... they are expressions, its ment figuratively. I happen to believe you are an incredibly smart man based on many other conversions we've had. I was trying to imply that your behaviour was foolish. Guess that came across wrong.

As far as the foxhole comment; if you and I end up in a foxhole together, something went horribly wrong in the world. BUT, I would still be honoured to fight by you side and would prefer it over my wife, daughter, mother, and just about any other women I have ever met.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[trailrunner]

[Mindflayer]

I've known plenty of women that would physically dominate, both mentally and physically, most of the men of this forum. I've also known plenty of men prone to hysterics and were physically weak specimens.

You rate each person as an individual and allow the to excel or fail based on their merits. Maybe I believe this since my dad was a crusty E-9 that taught me that's what leaders do.

That said, it's not OUR military I have a problem with, but the enemies'. The stories of what religious groups in the Near East do to women...

[grumpyMSG]

Well it turns out, the odds were stacked in the USMC study:
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015 ... _151006.nl

About 100 women and about three hundred men participated in the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force, or GCEITF.

Congressional notification requirements "precluded simply introducing female Marines into previously closed ground combat units," according to the executive summary.

"It was necessary to build a unit designed specifically to conduct such research," the summary states.

That's not exactly accurate, as the Marine Corps sent female Marines to many other ground-combat units such as tank and amphibious assault vehicle units and they performed well, the Marine source said.

No women were sent to infantry units. Instead, all-male and female/male units were formed for each physical task or mission. The women had been trained in the Marine Corps Infantry Training Battalion course. Most of the males were seasoned infantrymen.

The teams were never made up of the same members from one task to the next, the Marine sources said.

Critics argue that it's almost impossible to build unit cohesion in such a short period of time.

"Unit cohesion breeds performance. If one person sees another person performing, they want to perform to that level, and if one person isn't performing to a level, they all help that person improve," according to a U.S. Army source who is familiar with the study and spent a career in direct-action special operations units.

If the article is correct, it shows that the USMC was conducting "A Canine and Equine Extravaganza" instead of an actual test. If they wanted to do it correctly, given the use of 100 fresh out of training female Marines they should have created two 200 person units, each with 100 experienced Marines who volunteered to participate in the study and those who would be working with the female Marines knowing beforehand they would be working with women and motivated to succeed, not motivated to tank. One of the units would have 100 females fresh out of training and the other 100 males also fresh out of training. Then they would need to be given an equal period of time to train together and prepare for the evaluated tasks.

Each task being performed would be evaluated by the same NCOs or Officers, under the same conditions. None of the Sergeant A evaluates 1st squad on react to contact, and Captain B evaluates 2nd squad on react to contact. Sergeant A might evaluate all react to contact drills for all groups, while Captain B might evaluate react to indirect fire by all groups.

[MarcSpaz]

I have to say, though I don't agree with the idea of women in combat from several reasons mentioned already, I do believe in fairness. If you are going to give someone a shot, they need a legit chance of success. Setting someone up to fail is worse than not giving them a chance at all.

[Jeff82]

You really want to see the difference? Pit all male and all female units against each other. That should shut up the libs/progressives. (But we know it won't but the difference will be clear!)

Women perform physical tasks adequately when there are men around to carry their water for them. Isn't that a universal truth!