Mixed-gender teams come up short in Marines' infantry experiment. What do you think?

PO1 John Miller — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 07:25:38 -0400

All-male ground combat teams outperformed their mixed-gender counterparts in nearly every capacity during a recent infantry integration test, Marine Corps officials revealed Thursday.

Data collected during a monthslong experiment showed Marine teams with female members performed at lower overall levels, completed tasks more slowly and fired weapons with less accuracy than their all-male counterparts. In addition, female Marines sustained significantly higher injury rates and demonstrated lower levels of physical performance capacity overall, officials said.

The troubling findings come as Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford prepares to make a crucial decision regarding the integration of female troops into closed combat roles. Faced with a Defense Department-wide mandate that will open all jobs to women by Jan. 1, he must decide whether to ask for specific exceptions to the mandate in order to preserve combat readiness. Officials said Dunford had met with Navy Secretary Ray Mabus about the decision but had yet to issue his recommendations.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/10/mixed-gender-teams-come-up-short-marines-infantry-experiment/71979146/

Long story but an interesting read. My take is two-fold. One, women simply don't have the experience that men do. That will (most likely) improve over time as women gain experience.
Two, women for the most part simply do not have the muscular strength and endurance that men do. That's basic physiology.

Mixed-gender teams come up short in Marines' infantry experiment

Editor's note: This story was originally published at 12:01 p.m.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Sep 10 at 2015 8:50 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:50:06 -0400

Has the actual Integration testing report come out yet? Not just the summary.

I'd love to see the "meat and potatoes" of this.

Response by SSG Kevin McCulley made Sep 10 at 2015 8:51 PM

SSG Kevin McCulley — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:51:15 -0400

Of course it won't.. facts don't matter in the face of ideology.

Articles: The Quiet Revolution: How the New Left Took Over the Democratic Party

Frustration with division and gridlock in Washington leads many Americans to impugn both political parties for the current broken and ineffective state of government. There is plenty of blame to go around, but below the surface there has been a quiet revolution going on in only one of the two parties -- the Democratic Party -- which is the main source of today’s irreconcilable division and moral confusion.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Sep 10 at 2015 8:53 PM

Capt Jeff S. — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:53:01 -0400

They will keep wasting taxpayer dollars commissioning studies until they find one that tells them what they want to hear.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2015 8:56 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:56:29 -0400

COL (R) Keith Nightingale wrote an epic piece titled, "Women in Ranger School Is Fine, but Women in Infantry Isn’t. Here’s Why." In the piece COL (R) Nightingale opines that allowing women into combat units, specifically Infantry squads, we will shake the very foundation upon which the military is built: the Infantry squad. Specifically that we can't overcome our primordial instinct. Though it's not about the Marine Corps, I recommend reading it as the article lends to your discussion.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/08/women-in-ranger-school-is-fine-but-women-in-infantry-isnt-heres-why/

Women in Ranger School Is Fine, but Women in Infantry Isn’t. Here’s Why.

We were treated last month to a historic event — two females passed Ranger School and were Tabbed.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Sep 10 at 2015 9:09 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:09:28 -0400

This is interesting.... do you think the USMC set this up so it would fail?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2015 9:18 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:18:38 -0400

It is very surprising that female Marines who lacked prior combat arms training would fail to perform as well as male Marines who received such training. (Sarcasm, hooah.) Obviously, there were two major variables-gender and prior combat arms experience. It would be imprudent to draw broad conclusions from this experiment, especially since some of the tasks (such as weapons marksmanship) do not advantage males in any clear way.

Response by Cpl Dennis F. made Sep 10 at 2015 9:31 PM

Cpl Dennis F. — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:31:31 -0400

I'll wait for the release of the full official report to comment.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2015 9:37 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:37:12 -0400

Hmm I will await the release of more detailed information.

Response by MSgt Steve Miller made Sep 10 at 2015 11:47 PM

MSgt Steve Miller — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:47:25 -0400

If a woman walks up to the idea that she can hold her own with men she should be allowed to give it her best. I did 21 years as a Marine and served three different MOS's. The last two were in logistics. It was there that I met my match and not in a combat MOS (1833). She could out run me, and out shoot me. I'm not bragging but I ran half marathons, and had no problem on the range. I loved serving under her! Whats wrong with a woman in combat if she can hold her own? In this case (current study) it demonstrated otherwise, but I doubt it was un-bias. There is an unspoken morality even amongst those that are godless. Don't get me wrong....I don't want my lady out there and she is retired Army. But she can kick some ass when and if she needs!!!!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2015 11:57 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:57:03 -0400

I'm sorry, but I have to step in as someone who does quantitative research. First off, the sample size is incredibly small and unreliable. Whichever side you support, you CANNOT make a generalization off this type of data. Second, the Marine Corps is a very interesting situation in the first place because almost everything is segregated to begin with (what we in the sciences would call selection bias). Female marines are completely separated from their male counterparts, so even training exposure would be different. Even those non-infantry males would still have done boot camp with infantry folk. That cannot be said for the females.

At the end of the day, though, I honestly don't think anyone is going to be convinced from whatever preconceived notion you've developed thus far about mixed gender roles in the military, etc.

Response by SSgt Donnie West made Sep 11 at 2015 12:45 AM

SSgt Donnie West — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:45:14 -0400

As this study wraps up; and on my early post , I have seen this movie before and the end results are the same. they simply don't stack up when it comes to combat roles. God made us different for a reason. this is nothing new, they tried this same study before the Gulf War. I don't see my marines changing the rules anytime soon. all this study proves to everyone is that people need to stay in their lanes. semper fi

Response by Cpl James Waycasie made Sep 11 at 2015 1:31 AM

Cpl James Waycasie — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 01:31:29 -0400

Maybe they will reach a compromise and have a all women's Infantry division. That way they can be a band of sisters and there won't be any males to compete with. lol

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Sep 11 at 2015 7:33 AM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 07:33:57 -0400

These results make the decision to allow women to serve in Force Recon all the more difficult IMHO. Plus trying to do a Force Reduction Analysis again which has to have an effect on morale ???

Response by Cpl Chris Rice made Sep 11 at 2015 8:00 AM

Cpl Chris Rice — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:00:49 -0400

The article states that 100 females were used over the course of the experiment, yet only three female Marines have completed the school of infantry. It seems like the experiment was more a question of whether making half of a unit undertrained, and unqualified would make that unit underperform. There is not a large enough pool of appropriate candidates to provide an adequate experimental group.

CORRECTION: 144 females have passed ITB course, not 3 as I had originally suggested.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Sep 11 at 2015 8:49 AM

MSG Brad Sand — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:49:09 -0400

I think they were missing a third group...at least...for a fair and impartial experiment. They should have had at least one group of all females. Women are going to cut less slack for other women, in my opinion and experience, and I believe this would show another layer to the study...if they were actually interested in find out about women in combat. Of course, no one is interested in a fair and impartial experiment, and this is going to happen and all the services were given their marching orders a long time ago. Of course this is going to cause more death and destruction across the Armed Forces in the next major conflict, but particularly in the Marines and Army, so of course the Marines want to be able to point fingers at other when the American people are horrified by their baby girls being blown apart. So kudos to the Marines for having the fore thought to have this report ready to say, 'We told you so'.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Sep 11 at 2015 10:11 AM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:11:09 -0400

Not too surprising.
If we want female combat troops we need female only combat units.

Response by MGySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 11 at 2015 10:59 AM

MGySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:59:08 -0400

Well, no shit......

Response by MGySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 11 at 2015 11:00 AM

MGySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:00:01 -0400

Get your coloring books out, it is time to color.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Sep 11 at 2015 12:09 PM

SN Greg Wright — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:09:14 -0400

PO1 John Miller My answer to this issue is the same as always:

There are unassailable, in-arguable, scientific facts standing in the way of this doomed social experiment: typically speaking, women have less dense bones and muscles (blame God or evolution, take your pick, this is FACT, not misogyny), and less respiratory capacity. There are exceptions, so some rare, exceptional women are going to make it into these units (because the PC crowd will never stop until they do, no matter how many damaged female hips or joints it takes to get them there). But they will be few.

Response by 1SG Patrick Sims made Sep 11 at 2015 6:03 PM

1SG Patrick Sims — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:03:28 -0400

I'm not picking on the Marines, but their really into this macho thing. Marines are tough, and expect a lot from their members. I don't think they'll give the women Marines a fair chance---I suspect the deck was stacked against them from the start. If they want it to be fair---have an all female unit compete against an all male unit. That would be an interesting.

Response by SPC S Meeder made Sep 11 at 2015 6:14 PM

SPC S Meeder — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:14:43 -0400

How are they troubling findings?

No need to answer, the truth is always troubling when it doesn't fit the politicians agenda.

Response by GySgt Moses Lozano made Sep 11 at 2015 8:14 PM

GySgt Moses Lozano — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 20:14:42 -0400

Can't be first to fight if your team is not tight!

Response by PFC Janelle Fletcher made Sep 12 at 2015 2:09 AM

PFC Janelle Fletcher — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 02:09:28 -0400

If they can hack it go for it but equal standards all the way around. No female standards vs male. Lets face it not all men are even cut out for the job. And as far as being a distraction? Pull your head out of your 4th point of contact and do your job. The "instincts" that are being talked about are not something that everyone has. You won't find me blubbering come crunch time that's just not me. I was in basic with those blubbering idiots who cried about not being able to have makeup or a curling iron. And I mean literal crying in formation. Wtf did they think they signed up for?

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Sep 12 at 2015 4:28 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 16:28:11 -0400

It was inevitable.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 12 at 2015 9:24 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 21:24:52 -0400

Everyone is posting something very similar to what I want to say. No matter how you try to spend it the average male will out perform the average female in physical activities. I did say average! They should've had an all female group included in these activities as well. However, regardless of the outcome, change is coming. Hopefully not to the detriment of lethality/readiness/combat effectiveness.

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Sep 13 at 2015 3:40 AM

Cpl Mark McMiller — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 03:40:53 -0400

Not surprising when you understand the physiological differences between men and women. Stop the madness now!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2015 3:43 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 03:43:36 -0400

It's a physical profession and as long as women are meeting the same standards, there shouldn't be a problem. If they are being held to a different physical standard then of course there is going to be a problem.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Sep 13 at 2015 1:12 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 13:12:09 -0400

She's back with more wisdom...

http://time.com/4032419/colonel-germano-low-expectations-limit-female-marines/

Response by COL Charles Williams made Sep 14 at 2015 12:14 AM

COL Charles Williams — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 00:14:29 -0400

OK... and so what?

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Sep 14 at 2015 12:26 AM

Sgt Kelli Mays — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 00:26:08 -0400

The last two paragraphs in this article say it all. Woman simply don't have the experience that men do....though they can gain the experience over time...and woman do not have the muscular strength and endurance that a man does.

This is probably always going to be true....so why keep spending a whole bunch of money...or wasting money on these types of studies.

Response by LTC Donell Kelly made Sep 14 at 2015 1:31 PM

LTC Donell Kelly — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 13:31:24 -0400

They need to release the entire 900+ page report, so that it can be peer-reviewed for methodology and conclusions.

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Sep 14 at 2015 5:09 PM

SPC Sheila Lewis — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 17:09:42 -0400

Mixed-gender only works in Hollywood, not out bum-fuzz anyplace.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2015 6:49 AM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 06:49:54 -0400

So this is the type of study that needed to be done. It is low cost (as in we reap training value as well as study females in infantry), low risk, produces results and leaves politics out of the picture. If necessary, repeat every five years to check if we are still on target.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2015 11:46 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 11:46:00 -0400

can we just ask what other country do with this topic? instead of wasting money? Just ask our allies, we can learn a lot of from them than this study!

Response by CWO2 Shelby DuBois made Sep 15 at 2015 11:58 AM

CWO2 Shelby DuBois — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 11:58:53 -0400

Mabus is a social engineer.. until he gets the results he wants we'll keep wasting money and time. Nice of him to denigrate the females who took part in the exercise as well as those who volunteered. Bottom line is that standards will have to be lowered to accommodate the pencil pushing, slogan writing, fair is fair crowd.

Response by LCpl James Robertson made Sep 15 at 2015 1:18 PM

LCpl James Robertson — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 13:18:01 -0400

As I said before women are not build to be men, that's biblical Eve were made from Adam's rib, for the sake of a help me mate. There will be exception's to the rule where a few women will qualify. But, General don't force the whole population of Women Marine's to try and endure Men standards. This whole climate of being political correct for equal opportunity is wrong. If this were not so God would have created all women for combat roles, and created man for a helper's role. Think for a minute, women have the most important role on this earth to procreate new Marines. Men cannot get pregnant and have new Marines. We are the only species on this earth, that do not accept who we are, and what purpose God made us for. Women are nurturers, men can never be equal to women, just by there make up of DNA.

Response by LCpl Steve Smith made Sep 15 at 2015 1:45 PM

LCpl Steve Smith — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 13:45:56 -0400

As I see the entire testing process is Flawed. If you want a true testing results it needs to be equal across the board. The change and Testing needs to happen at the Boot Camp level or even recruitment's minimum physical requirements. Men and Women need to have the exact same training and Physical Fitness standards beginning from their indoctrination. That way you will have a Better testing pool because there is no difference in Training and Conditioning. I do believe Then and only then you will be comparing Apples to Apples. I think if that happens, we will find that woman can "Pull Their Weight" and preform and or exceed expectations.

Response by SPC Luis Mendez made Sep 15 at 2015 1:52 PM

SPC Luis Mendez — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 13:52:55 -0400

Jeez and why would that be? Could it be just Physical traits, could it be really Physiological? Could it be that's the way it is according to Created Creation? For me at least the Photo says it all, 3 marines occupied [wasting time] helping one female climb the obstacle, 'cause due to her shorter height/legs and lack of Muscle/bone mass and Strength she could not make it over first or on her own. The Military being a Rubber Stamp of the Politically Motivated Executive branch of Government, overseen by the other equally Politically Oriented branch aka Congress, have to do what they are told to do. And that is; give them a Pass or lower the Standards.

I think that only females that are Olympic/professional athletes like Rhonda Roussey, Lolo Jones, the Williams sisters, Jamaican sprinters, et al and others, could meet those Physical Standards. But then why would women like them choose/join the Military? Having said that however, I do admire them trying and their commitment. Anyways, at my age and being so out of shape even they can beat me to it thru and thru, but that would be a NON-accomplishment for them.

Response by Cpl Keith Gideon made Sep 15 at 2015 2:34 PM

Cpl Keith Gideon — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:34:01 -0400

Wasted Money. Our Country has over 239 Years of Experience and Results, that say Men in Infantry get results, and Win Wars. Jessica Lynch is the Perfect Reason NOT To have Women in Infantry, or Any Combat MOS.

Response by Cpl Keith Gideon made Sep 15 at 2015 2:38 PM

Cpl Keith Gideon — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:38:57 -0400

Wasted Time, and Money. America has over 239 Years of Experience, and results that say Men in the Infantry, or Any Combat MOS, is the way it should be. Men get results, Finish the Objective, and Win Wars. Jessica Lynch is a perfect example of why NOT to have women in the infantry. Imagine if a woman, left her post in combat, like Bergdahl, even more men would be put in more harms way with a huge rescue party. This Shit needs to STOP!!

Response by Cpl Robert Clark made Sep 15 at 2015 3:03 PM

Cpl Robert Clark — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:03:14 -0400

and this is a surprise to who...

Response by Sgt Frank Murray made Sep 15 at 2015 3:07 PM

Sgt Frank Murray — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:07:36 -0400

Follow the example of the Rangers - do not modify requirements and see what happens.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Sep 15 at 2015 3:20 PM

SSG Warren Swan — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:20:10 -0400

My hat's off to the Army and the Jarheads. Rather than flat out say that women can't, they gave them a chance to make it. For the Army two did. For the Jarheads it's a mixed bag, and the results are inconclusive. I'd much rather hear someone tried and honestly failed than to hear some sexist BS that a female is inferior than her male counterpart for whatever reason the male can come up with. Thanks for trying Ladies. And honestly for the Jarheads, you didn't fail; you showed the tenacity that the Devil Dogs are known for. You ran to...not away.

Response by MAJ Bill Maynard made Sep 15 at 2015 3:52 PM

MAJ Bill Maynard — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:52:57 -0400

The Political Correctness Machine keeps on churning out BS... wonder what will be next :/

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2015 3:55 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:55:45 -0400

First thought that has really come to my mind is "stop using bar soap".

Response by Capt Michael Brown made Sep 15 at 2015 4:00 PM

Capt Michael Brown — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 16:00:36 -0400

Everybody knows but most are too politcally correct to say it. This seems to increase with rank. If women can make the existing standard, I want to be first in line to congratulate her. But lowering standards will only decrease the efficiency of the Corps or the Army. Political sycophants are the ones pushing this agenda. Sad but true.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2015 4:17 PM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 16:17:26 -0400

I think that this "study" spent $36,000,000 to show what every 0369 that I know said in a survey that was sent out in 2012.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Sep 15 at 2015 9:16 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 21:16:46 -0400

It's like 140 lbs. MMA fighters thrown into 180 lbs. weight class. No bueno!

Response by CPT Quentin von Éfáns-Taráfdar made Sep 16 at 2015 3:24 AM

CPT Quentin von Éfáns-Taráfdar — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 03:24:01 -0400

I wish all these PC liberals would remember that the issue here is combat efficiency not gender equality.

Response by PO1 Kenneth Cardwell made Sep 16 at 2015 7:32 AM

PO1 Kenneth Cardwell — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 07:32:12 -0400

Sounds like a wasted experiment! come on all men vs. Mixed company! what did they really expect. Like putting a NFL regular team vs. a team with women! really are a wasted experience.

Response by GySgt Ascencion Gomez, D.S.L. made Sep 16 at 2015 9:53 AM

GySgt Ascencion Gomez, D.S.L. — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 09:53:27 -0400

To me it isn't a matter of who can or who can't. It is ... “Will the addition of female troops make the USMC a more effective combat fighting unit?” Understand USMC training I know WM's are tested and proven tough, hard chargers. Moreover, I also feel confident that Marine Corps trainers pick the best of those hard chargers and took this assignment like ALL Marines take assignments, seriously with the focus of combat readiness constantly in the background as the reason for the training. Since these Marines came up short. It's time to stop trying to put a round peg in square hole! The argument for this mentality is the qualification of two females as Rangers. Why not Woman Marine Corps? Right now the Marine Corps has a different mission than the other services. In fact, qualification to train as a Marine is different than that of the other services. If service standards are to be consistent across the board, we don't need different services. We can change to a US defense force. Until then the other services can continue to qualify women for their idea of what it takes to be a combat troop. The Marine Corps will continue to have the same standard that forces the average male to the other services while attracting some of the best hard charging females our country makes.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2015 10:07 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:07:31 -0400

Mixed gender combat military forces in Marines, Army, Navy? A heavily debated topic and one that has most soldiers saying the safe answer: If they (women) can perform to standards why shouldn’t they be recognized and awarded the qualification/position? Besides answering a question with a question: I see how appealing the answer (or is it question) is.

This answer, gives safe harbor for people who respond to the question in addition to being easy and faulty. It’s easy because it gives the person the sense that they are standing up for the underdog, we like that in the United States. It’s faulty because it stretches the concept of fairness to the point that it breaks.

How can we make institutionalized accommodations for such a minority of people who can perform to standard? The answer is we can’t… so the politicians and people who “want to include” everyone look for excuses for the failure: lack of training, not given enough time to acclimate, etc. They keep beating it until they come to the realization that holding a different gender to the same physical standard “isn’t fair” (as a matter of fact some will say its discrimination, isn’t that against the law?); so they change the standard. It will happen. It’s just a matter of time. People will suffer… or be worse off because of it.

I could go on about human nature and what happens when we deny it, or the thousands (if not thousands, many more than just a few) of examples showing that these differences between the sexes exist and are real, but it would be useless. When you see the writing on the wall you have 3 choices: accept it if you can, be bitter and hang around, or start looking for a new job.

Response by Cpl Sarah Mast made Sep 16 at 2015 12:14 PM

Cpl Sarah Mast — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 12:14:55 -0400

Shot less accurately? Are we sure this isn't a fluke of the numbers (i.e. lack of stellar male marksman in the group as well)? I consistently shot high 330s, and *gasp* I don't have a dick (although it may look like I do).

Response by Cpl Mert Pratt II made Sep 16 at 2015 1:07 PM

Cpl Mert Pratt II — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:07:43 -0400

The U.S. has not met a determined enemy in the field. I'm pretty sure Ivan's Paratroopers would enjoy WMs in the grunts too!

Response by Cpl Stacy Barker made Sep 16 at 2015 1:41 PM

Cpl Stacy Barker — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:41:27 -0400

This is a joke. Like it or not women will NEVER measure up. They are women. Try placing women on an NFL or NBA team and see what happens. No one would ever even consider that, but it makes sense to put them in Marine line companies?

Response by Cpl Don "GUNNY" Miller made Sep 16 at 2015 2:54 PM

Cpl Don "GUNNY" Miller — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:54:05 -0400

I am NOT SURPRIZED at this out come! JUST leave the Marines alone, and push your agenda some where else! There is NO PC in war!

Response by SPC Luis Mendez made Sep 16 at 2015 3:07 PM

SPC Luis Mendez — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:07:27 -0400

There's one reason and ONLY ONE reason for all of these socio-political experiments in and with the Military, the absence of a DRAFT and the AVM. The AVM NEVER ever provided enough men to support the mission and defend the country, any country. Napoleon Bonaparte understood that better than anybody else. Conscription is, has ALWAYS been, and will ALWAYS be the ONLY way to have enough soldiers. Nothing else will do. Anything else is so costly that can bankrupt even the richest of Nations. As is already doing to ours.
Absolutely nothing of these shenanigans would be necessary, we would not be having these discussions if there was a DRAFT. Back in the days nothing of these Absurdities were even though of, much less heard of.
One day years ago, an Army recruiter dare call my home asking to talk to my daughter. I told him off and said to him these very same things. I also told him that as long as my daughter is under my roof she was not joining the AVM.
The Highest Moral Standards EVER are set in the Scriptures, and as per the Scriptures is Men who are to defend a nation. And Conscription was and is what the Scriptures mentioned.

Response by Cpl Daniel Meredith made Sep 16 at 2015 3:11 PM

Cpl Daniel Meredith — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:11:36 -0400

This is hands down the best statement I have read on this issue, and it comes from Justin D. LeHew, the Sergeant Major of the Training and Education Command and highly decorated combat veteran.

"Ok, been silent long enough on this. I have been a part of this process from the beginning and I am just going to put it out there. The Secretary of the Navy is way off base on this and to say the things he is saying is is flat out counter to the interests of national security and is unfair to the women who participated in this study. We selected our best women for this test unit, selected our most mature female leaders as well. The men (me included) were the most progressive and open minded that you could get. The commander of this unit was a seasoned and successful infantryman. The XO of this unit was as good as they get, so good the USMC made her the CO of the Officer candidate school. I just selected the SgtMaj of the unit to head up our senior enlisted academy at Camp Lejeune, NC. No one went in to this with the mentality that we did not want this to succeed. No Marine, regardless of gender would do that. With our limited manpower we cannot afford to not train eveyone to the best of their abilities. This was as stacked as a unit could get with the best Marines to give it a 100 percent success rate as we possibly could. End result? The best women in The GCEITF as a group in regard to infantry operations were equal or below in most all cases to the lowest 5 percent of men as a group in this test study. They are slower on all accounts in almost every technical and tactical aspect and physically weaker in every aspect across the range of military operations. SECNAV has stated that he has made his mind up even before the release of these results and that the USMC test unit will not change his mind on anything. Listen up folks. Your senior leadership of this country does not want to see America overwhelmingly succeed on the battlefield, it wants to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to persue whatever they want regardless of the outcome on national security. The infantry is not Ranger School. That is just a school like any other school and is not a feeder specifically to the infantry. Anyone can go to that school that meets the prereqs, just like airborne school. Kudos to the two women who graduated. They are badasses in their own right. In regards to the infantry….there is no trophy for second place. You perform or die. Make no mistake. In this realm, you want your fastest, most fit, most physical and most lethal person you can possibly put on the battlefield to overwhelm the enemy’s ability to counter what you are throwing at them and in every test case, that person has turned out to be a man. There is nothing gender biased about this, it is what it is. You will never see a female Quarterback in the NFL, there will never be a female center on any NHL team and you will never see a female batting in the number 4 spot for the New York Yankees. It is what it is. As a country we preach equality. But to place these mandates on the military before this country has even considered making females register, just like males, for the selective service is in all aspects out of touch with reality. Equality and equal opportunity start before you raise your right hand and swear and oath to this country. Yes, we are an all volunteer force at the moment. Should this country however need to mobilize rapidly again to face the threats of the world like our grandfathers did, it will once again look to the military age males of this country to fill the ranks because last I checked, we did not require women to register for the selective service. Until that happens, we should not even be wasting our time even thinking about opening up the infantry to women."

Splash out. Semper Fi.

Response by Cpl Glen Grable made Sep 16 at 2015 4:15 PM

Cpl Glen Grable — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:15:25 -0400

Make them all female units with female officers let them be stand alone units to avoid fraternization and then we'll see what happens

Response by Sgt Cody Hill made Sep 16 at 2015 5:30 PM

Sgt Cody Hill — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:30:15 -0400

Do women have to register with the selective service system when they turn 18? NO. Because they don't want to be in combat nor do they perform well in it. Mixing men and women in combat roles is just a bad idea all together. Send mixed gender units into combat for extended periods of time, and somebody is coming home pregnant guaranteed. You just can't have men and women serving together and not "mingle" at some point.

Response by SFC Lee McClendon made Sep 16 at 2015 7:40 PM

SFC Lee McClendon — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:40:24 -0400

Couple of Different ways to look at this female soldiers who wish to be a combat arms soldier should be allowed if she can meet the same physical strength and endurance requirements that her male counterparts need to achieve the mission. I can't speak for the other services but in the Army when I was on active duty the APFT standards were not the same for male and female soldiers I doubt that has changed even now. Equalize the physical performance standards then it may be more acceptable to male combat troops to have females in their midst no combat troop wants to go into combat with a weak link male or female. Yes there are female members of the military that are stronger and more physically fit then their male counterparts, I remember seeing the Post Records for the APFT in the main post field house and in one event a Female held the post record, and there were several female names in the top 10 in that event and the other 2 as well. Heard a COO of a company who spoke at a Business Rally who had a great motto "Performance Is The Equalizer"

Response by Cpl Jeffrey Walker made Sep 16 at 2015 10:58 PM

Cpl Jeffrey Walker — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:58:57 -0400

The results are as predicted. There is another factor, Female Marines physical fitness standards are also lesser than those for men. Until there is one standard, there will always be a gap in performance. If you make female PFT scores match those of males, you might see more parity in performance, but you will see far fewer females pass. I'd rather have a few, very capable, women in our Corps than a lot of women we have to carry.

I'd like to emphasize, this is not the fault of WMs. People in general will live up, and live down, to the standards you set for them, and the US military has been setting them up for failure for nearly a century.

Response by SSG Robert Spina made Sep 17 at 2015 3:39 AM

SSG Robert Spina — Thu, 17 Sep 2015 03:39:42 -0400

IF THE PC CROWD HAS THEIR WZy woman will be intergrated into male combat units decreasing the units effectiveness and probably get some people killed but the PC crowd don't give a rats ass about that

Response by SSG Robert Spina made Sep 17 at 2015 3:43 AM

SSG Robert Spina — Thu, 17 Sep 2015 03:43:47 -0400

IF THE PC CROWD HAS ITS WAY WOMAN WILL BE INTERGRATED INTO MALE COMBAT UNITS DECREASING THE UNITS. STRENGH AND CAPABILITY AND SURLY LIFES WILL BE LOST BUT THE PC CROWD DONT GIVE A RATS ASS ABOUT THAT

Response by Cpl Robert Crockett made Sep 17 at 2015 7:11 AM

Cpl Robert Crockett — Thu, 17 Sep 2015 07:11:22 -0400

I think every last man in any of these mixed units needs to be a volunteer -- and not the kind volunteered by higher-ups. If the women can truly cut it, as is the claim, there should be all-female infantry units...to prove the point.

Response by Sgt Michael Furphy made Sep 17 at 2015 9:32 AM

Sgt Michael Furphy — Thu, 17 Sep 2015 09:32:29 -0400

Believe it or not, this argument has been going back since the early 80's. While I was attending NCO school, we had a debate about women in infantry units. I took the hard stance that they had no business in an infantry unit. A female Marine heartily disagreed with me stating that she could do anything a man could do specifically because "She carried a tuba around a marching field all day long." The argument got so heated, our instructor had to shut us up. A couple days later it was my turn to run the school. I purposely made it a tough run, a quick pace and up some hills. The only ones to fall out were the women...all of them including our tuba player. I proved my point. Now given, there are probably some very physical women that can perform the job of a grunt. But those numbers, I would suggest are very low. Don't get me wrong, I love women, and I respect the job they do for our country! But an infantry unit is not the place for them. Even in non combat training, how many complaints would we get from men just talking like men? Would there then be rules put in place to stop men even talking about what young men talk about? There are other things to think about besides the physicality of a woman filling a grunts role. One more point to make before I end this chapter. Have you all seen any of the real "COPS" shows where the woman was not able to perform her duty as an officer? I have, and after seeing it I wonder if I'm the only one noticing that the women underperformed the men. JMO

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2015 10:31 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:31:03 -0400

Cant argue with the facts here. However I am curious since these new teams to include women haven't been working together as long as the all male teams. I wonder if through the turmoil if they will increase their performance. There are stages the teams go through before they are a well oiled machine. I am curious as they train together more if those short comings will shrink? At the end of the day there are only 2 things that will have they will either succeed or fail. I hope they succeed because there is no room for failure.

Response by LCpl Derrick Rieb made Sep 19 at 2015 8:24 PM

LCpl Derrick Rieb — Sat, 19 Sep 2015 20:24:20 -0400

when minutes count, between life and death, your only as strong as the weakest link

Response by Cpl Robert Crockett made Sep 24 at 2015 6:39 PM

Cpl Robert Crockett — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 18:39:14 -0400

With all the tough talk going towards the Ruskies, it would probably do best to go with what works -- all men.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 25 at 2015 9:02 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 09:02:19 -0400

As a leader I think we went about this in the wrong way. The first test should have been to do away with the female standards. Train them on the male standard to build their strength and their confidence to start with. They have been told you cant do it for so long that its become the truth for them. You have to crawl before you can walk in life. It is no different in the military. If you change a standard do you not train your personnel to the new standard ?

Response by PO2 Lester Sullivan made Sep 30 at 2015 12:57 PM

PO2 Lester Sullivan — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 12:57:34 -0400

2 finally past Ranger course, but not too many GI Janes out there. They'd likely kick my old butt, yet none have jumped to the challenge, yet! Pulled 1 thru during training while the others blocked her partner a minute. Sorta train: A minute to kill, or die trying! , but she'd likely been snapped if reality:(

Response by Sgt Franklin B. made Oct 12 at 2015 10:30 AM

Sgt Franklin B. — Mon, 12 Oct 2015 10:30:00 -0400

Hate to agree on this one. It hard on some men as well working in the 0311 mos field. Working long period of time in the field in combat is very raining to the body and mine. I have seen it. I do believe women Marines bring so much to the Corps that we as Marine's won't be as honored without them.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 16 at 2015 4:56 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 16 Oct 2015 16:56:30 -0400

Surprise, surprise, surprise!!! IF WOMEN ARE EQUAL, put together a platoon of them and put that platoon up against a platoon of men. Isn't that kosher??? Any doubts about those results? Someone with a big pair of Brass Ones best be asking that question about this whole asinine experiment. This specific staged "scenario" was a joke from the start.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 16 at 2015 8:42 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:42:55 -0400

Like watching a 130 lbs. person move up to a 190 lbs. MMA weight category.

Response by PO1 Cliff Heath made Oct 22 at 2015 5:45 PM

PO1 Cliff Heath — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:45:38 -0400

NO DISRESPECT TO OUR LADIES IN UNIFORM BUT HELL NO THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT SHOULD BE MALE ONLY BEING PC IS A LOAD OF C##P I ALSO DO NOT THINK WOMEN SHOULD BE ON COMBAT SHIPS JUST TO PROVE HOW UPWARD WE ARE WHEN I SERVED THERE WERE NO WOMEN ON BOARD COMBATANTS JUST TENDERS I THINK IT SHOULD STILL BE THAT WAY AND NOW INTERGRATING ON SUBS COME ON FOR CHRIST'S SAKES.

Response by CPT Quentin von Éfáns-Taráfdar made Oct 26 at 2015 4:40 AM

CPT Quentin von Éfáns-Taráfdar — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 04:40:17 -0400

I remember a comment made by my French literature proffesor made when I was in Switzerland. He was an ex-member of the French paratroopers and a veteran of the Algerian war. He said "A woman can never be a man's equal. She can be his inferior or his superior but never equal."

Response by MSgt J D McKee made Apr 12 at 2016 6:48 PM

MSgt J D McKee — Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:48:19 -0400

The military should offer women who want to be grunts testosterone and other steroids until they can meet the male standard, and surgery for the useless-in-combat fat deposits...If they can do it, give them the job, by all means. But everyone who hasn't watched too much TV where a 100 pound female whips a room full of big guys knows the damn answer, men are prepared by millennia of evolution (or created by God, if you go that way) to fight. Women are prepared to raise the next generation of people. I'm over 60 now, but up until my '50's, I met many men I didn't think I could beat hand-to hand, and not one woman. None. Not ever. Maybe some weightlifting karate woman might have surprised me the hard way, but that's just how I felt.

Why are we even discussing this for our military until we have female linebackers in the NFL and no separate sports whatever? Sports are not nearly as important as the military, are they?

Sports are money driven, best athletes and all that, while in the military anyone with sufficient rank can make us do stupid crap that would get a coach fired in a minute. For LOSING.

Response by SFC Charles Temm made Apr 17 at 2016 10:56 AM

SFC Charles Temm — Sun, 17 Apr 2016 10:56:12 -0400

No surprise there. One thing good to say about the Jarheads as they conduct such tests w/far higher integrity than the Army.

If the Army actually conducted the tests as per normal light infantry work and not short term/short distance COIN ops, the ruck mvmts alone would wash out the greater number of women. I had to chapter men who couldn't carry 60% or more of their body weight, I'd be interested to see women having to carry what would be 70% or more of theirs as an equivalency