Posted on Sep 11, 2015
Mixed-gender teams come up short in Marines' infantry experiment. What do you think?
47.8K
440
213
20
20
0
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.
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.
Women in the Military
Marine Corps
Infantry
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 78
49
49
0
They will keep wasting taxpayer dollars commissioning studies until they find one that tells them what they want to hear.
(49)
(0)
Cpl Christopher Bishop
I got nothing against the ladies (in fact I chase them around LOL) but Feminization has always been the last phase of the demise of any historically great civilization. That said, I got no issue with them wanting to become Infantrymen so long as they can do so without the Women's Lib movement trying to lower the standards. Now we already have used the Marine Corps which conducted their tests which resulted in the closing it down. Then almost as soon as the Corps says No, Army Ranger school opens it up, and also cant get many to pass related training.
After a while eventually somebody/some few will make it. Ok fine...but will they ever actually perform their duties as Rangers, or is it merely about the waste of government resources just so they can "earn their Tab" for promotion points without ever doing a day in the field? Now we got people "challenging" what decisions the Corps had made. They will keep pushing and pushing until one day they start dying or being captured and tortured (which men do from time to time), and likely raped/molested too, and then for them it will be Welcome to a Lifetime of VA PTSD meetings and such. Oh, but we'll all give them Front Of The Line "cutsies" because they got their POW medal/ribbon.
I've never wanted THAT one. I was honestly rather surprised when Trump made a comment about preferring those who don't get caught....at how there was such hostile reaction to it. If you're a POW, somewhere along the line there was a mission failure. I can barely believe how people wearing the uniform got butthurt about the comment. People that emotionally frail don't belong in the field in the first place. I do get the "keeping the utmost respect---for those who gave most if not all"... but being captured is never part of the goal of a mission. And of course if Trump is not military then its wrong for military to expect him to "walk-talk-think" like us all of the time...I'm sure he was just looking at a W-L record and preferring the Ws.
Not that I meant to turn this into a political debate here.
In the interest of being thorough, I'm going to add this. If we "men" don't like the idea of women filling what were once traditionally roles filled by men, then perhaps MORE GOOD MEN are needed, keeping those positions full to the point that entertaining Women In Combat MOS(s) isn't even considered needed or useful. Its starts with fathers not abandoning their youngsters...and women not kicking them out, either. Too many single parents, usually ladies, are producing weak men.
The question is no longer about Why Do Other Nations HATE Us....but rather Why Do They No Longer FEAR Us?" I'll submit the short answer with this paragraph above.
Semper Fi.
After a while eventually somebody/some few will make it. Ok fine...but will they ever actually perform their duties as Rangers, or is it merely about the waste of government resources just so they can "earn their Tab" for promotion points without ever doing a day in the field? Now we got people "challenging" what decisions the Corps had made. They will keep pushing and pushing until one day they start dying or being captured and tortured (which men do from time to time), and likely raped/molested too, and then for them it will be Welcome to a Lifetime of VA PTSD meetings and such. Oh, but we'll all give them Front Of The Line "cutsies" because they got their POW medal/ribbon.
I've never wanted THAT one. I was honestly rather surprised when Trump made a comment about preferring those who don't get caught....at how there was such hostile reaction to it. If you're a POW, somewhere along the line there was a mission failure. I can barely believe how people wearing the uniform got butthurt about the comment. People that emotionally frail don't belong in the field in the first place. I do get the "keeping the utmost respect---for those who gave most if not all"... but being captured is never part of the goal of a mission. And of course if Trump is not military then its wrong for military to expect him to "walk-talk-think" like us all of the time...I'm sure he was just looking at a W-L record and preferring the Ws.
Not that I meant to turn this into a political debate here.
In the interest of being thorough, I'm going to add this. If we "men" don't like the idea of women filling what were once traditionally roles filled by men, then perhaps MORE GOOD MEN are needed, keeping those positions full to the point that entertaining Women In Combat MOS(s) isn't even considered needed or useful. Its starts with fathers not abandoning their youngsters...and women not kicking them out, either. Too many single parents, usually ladies, are producing weak men.
The question is no longer about Why Do Other Nations HATE Us....but rather Why Do They No Longer FEAR Us?" I'll submit the short answer with this paragraph above.
Semper Fi.
(8)
(0)
Cpl Daniel Meredith
"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."
-Justin D. LeHew, the Sergeant Major of the Training and Education Command
-Justin D. LeHew, the Sergeant Major of the Training and Education Command
(7)
(0)
Sgt Jamie Grippin
I totally agree. The secretary didn't like the results therefore the study must be bad. It wasn't mentioned that the Marines had previously put together a platoon of women together to see if there was a way to train them up to the same standards as their male counterparts. The average woman is not going to compete on the same field as the average man anymore than the professional female athlete is going to compete equally with male professional athletes. Biology is biology.
(2)
(0)
25
25
0
PO1 John Miller
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'.
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'.
(25)
(0)
Cpl Jeffery Reiber
The thought of the third group, while interesting, is unrealistic in my opinion since during operations it would be a mixed group. Unless, Of course you put them into a femal only Platoon/company, and wouldn't mind them screaming about bias and segregation because we all know from the mantra thats been quoted for the last 20 years "women are just as good as men in every aspect." Thats why we dont have separate events in the olympics right?
(0)
(0)
MSG Brad Sand
Cpl Jeffery Reiber
I do not believe anyone in the study was not aware it was a study. IF you were part of the study and you were a woman, and you looked around and saw your team, squad, platoon, or company was all women, I think you would be able to figure out what group you were and not be concerned about bias or segregation...and if they were, that would be one of the highlighted bullet points in the study.
I do not believe anyone in the study was not aware it was a study. IF you were part of the study and you were a woman, and you looked around and saw your team, squad, platoon, or company was all women, I think you would be able to figure out what group you were and not be concerned about bias or segregation...and if they were, that would be one of the highlighted bullet points in the study.
(0)
(0)
SSG Walter Corretjer
I have been saying this for a long time already, about the women downperformace, in rolls that require: stregth,desterity,resistance,
accuracy and good judgement,under the stress of direct combat,and specially on those situations, were close hand to hand encounters,could be met.
The aforemention scenario apply to any kind mission,independently of branch or specialty,were direct combat areas are known to exist.
accuracy and good judgement,under the stress of direct combat,and specially on those situations, were close hand to hand encounters,could be met.
The aforemention scenario apply to any kind mission,independently of branch or specialty,were direct combat areas are known to exist.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Elizabeth Koeneman
I have said before, if they want females in infantry, make an all-female unit. Not being sexist, but men are somewhat hard-wired to protect the females. A mixed unit like that will never succeed because too many men will get hurt/killed trying to protect the women.
(0)
(0)
15
15
0
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.
(15)
(0)
Cpl Brad MarkW
Maj (Join to see) - The article below has been posted and re-posted several times. I'll summarize - The best women were hand selected to stack the deck as much as possible. The entire exercise was setup up for success - the results? Integrated units did not perform as well as non. What is left to argue?
"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."
-Justin D. LeHew, the Sergeant Major of the Training and Education Command
"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."
-Justin D. LeHew, the Sergeant Major of the Training and Education Command
(0)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
1LT Scott D. - ... But they haven't to have some formal infantry training to make it through boot camp... Right? Not saying you are wrong, Sir but don't all Marines have to go through the School of the Infantry?
(0)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) - Sir, correct me if I am wrong but don't all male Marines have to go through the School of Infantry? That whole every Marine a rifleman?
(0)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
1LT Scott D. - True, Sir. Though honestly I would like to see an Army version of this test. I personally don't see why females would be a good idea in what is essentially America's assault troops
(0)
(0)
14
14
0
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/
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.
(14)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
If you start with the premise that all women are inferior to all men, then you are likely to reach a consistent conclusion. The Colonel's piece is dubious, doubtfully epic.
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see) I do not believe for a minute that women are inferior to men and I am not going to get into a wordsmithing dispute over my colloquial use of the word epic. The fact remains; COL (R) Nightingale is one of the premiere warriors of his generation. His opinion has substance, grounded in experience; it is not an archaic attempt to hold women back.
The folks who regularly comment on this topic have zero understanding of, or experience in, the formation that it affects. I am not saying it is never possible. What I am saying is it will require a massive cultural shift. This is not because our Soldiers are unprofessional. No, our Infantry is full of some of the most disciplined, fiercest warriors to grace our military. None of that can change biological dispositions and the simple competitiveness that exists within us.
Much like Nightingale, I was never opposed to women in Ranger School. I have personally helped to prepare female Soldiers attend the course. I think it is a phenomenal achievement, long overdue.
Ranger School is significantly different from an Infantry squad.
The folks who regularly comment on this topic have zero understanding of, or experience in, the formation that it affects. I am not saying it is never possible. What I am saying is it will require a massive cultural shift. This is not because our Soldiers are unprofessional. No, our Infantry is full of some of the most disciplined, fiercest warriors to grace our military. None of that can change biological dispositions and the simple competitiveness that exists within us.
Much like Nightingale, I was never opposed to women in Ranger School. I have personally helped to prepare female Soldiers attend the course. I think it is a phenomenal achievement, long overdue.
Ranger School is significantly different from an Infantry squad.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
1SG (Join to see), please don't assume that I "have zero understanding of, or experience in, the" affected formation. My active duty time was in a combat arms branch with the Infantry (1-505 PIR, deployed), Artillery (1-319th AFAR), and Cavalry (1-14 CAV, deployed). I am a graduate of the Field Artillery Officer Basic Course, the Maneuver Captains Career Course, and Ranger and Airborne Schools. My bona fides hopefully qualify me, in your opinion, to comment on the subject.
I respect COL (R) Nightingale's credentials, but I don't understand why they make him exceptionally qualified to pronounce a judgment to which I should defer on the subject. I don't know if he ever led a military organization containing women, but I can safely assume he never commanded a woman in combat arms. He is therefore making an assumption, and the premises of his argument (and some of his conclusions) deserve critical analysis.
I detect in his article an unspoken foundation of misogyny. That notwithstanding, he is quite explicit that he expects gender-mixed combat arms units to be at least inhibited if not rendered completely ineffective because men and women cannot keep their hands off of each other. That simply is not true. I do not doubt that mixed-gender units would bring an increase in sexual assaults and harassment, but the fact that some lowlifes would perpetrate crimes is not a sufficient reason to categorically exclude a class of citizens from participating in an institution for which they are (proven) qualified.
If combat arms Soldiers are "some of the most disciplined, fiercest warriors to grace our military," then surely they can accomplish the same respectful gender integration that non-combat arms Soldiers have already done.
I respect COL (R) Nightingale's credentials, but I don't understand why they make him exceptionally qualified to pronounce a judgment to which I should defer on the subject. I don't know if he ever led a military organization containing women, but I can safely assume he never commanded a woman in combat arms. He is therefore making an assumption, and the premises of his argument (and some of his conclusions) deserve critical analysis.
I detect in his article an unspoken foundation of misogyny. That notwithstanding, he is quite explicit that he expects gender-mixed combat arms units to be at least inhibited if not rendered completely ineffective because men and women cannot keep their hands off of each other. That simply is not true. I do not doubt that mixed-gender units would bring an increase in sexual assaults and harassment, but the fact that some lowlifes would perpetrate crimes is not a sufficient reason to categorically exclude a class of citizens from participating in an institution for which they are (proven) qualified.
If combat arms Soldiers are "some of the most disciplined, fiercest warriors to grace our military," then surely they can accomplish the same respectful gender integration that non-combat arms Soldiers have already done.
(3)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see), you have a fair point. The ‘zero understanding’ comment was general, not specific. I did not mean it as a slight to your particular background, though you probably perceived it that way. Actually, I appreciated your comments. I enjoy sparring minds with someone holding the opposing view. It keeps me honest.
What bothers me are the supposed subject matter experts levying opinions based on conceptual understanding, not experiential knowledge. That is not to say you fall into either category or that people do not have the right to express their opinion, they certainly do. I fear that political correctness deters those with the most experience in rifle squads from voicing their true opinions. It is my estimation that most comments are based on popular attitude and do not account for facts or human dynamics. Again, not necessarily you, just a general observation.
COL (R) Nightingale, I believe, is willing to take a tough, unpopular stance even at risk of being labeled a misogynist. Furthermore, while he probably has not commanded a unit with women (our shared assumption), he does possess a lot of experience understanding what will make a small unit successful in combat. Above all, that is the goal – winning in combat. This is not me endorsing a ‘boys will be boys’ or ‘the Infantry is incapable of change’ environment. I am trying to look at this rationally. I do not believe the issue is with men and women keeping their hands off each other or an increase in sexual harassment and/or assaults. I think it starts well before that: When two guys think the same girl likes him, how that affects the team dynamic, and the natural competiveness of our species. There are basic human societal norms that cannot be ignored. Acknowledging your service in 1P (I am going to assume it was as a FSO), tackling gender integration is substantially different from QM to FA to IN – and you know this Sir. The personality and function of non-combat arms squads are significantly different from Infantry squads; it is an apple to oranges comparison.
Put yourself in the shoes of that 20-year old Specialist and honestly tell me that would not alter the team dynamic. I sit here trying to see it from the other point of view – and it is tough. Would I want it to be different? Yes, of course I would. I absolutely would want my daughter to be able to follow in my Infantry footsteps. Nevertheless, I cannot sit here and honestly tell you that it, at our present moment, would not destabilize a squad’s cohesiveness.
I sincerely hope the Army conducts robust testing of its own, especially before making any decision. Maybe I’ll be proved wrong. Nevertheless, we should only alter the foundation of our military on research and facts, not because of popular opinion.
What bothers me are the supposed subject matter experts levying opinions based on conceptual understanding, not experiential knowledge. That is not to say you fall into either category or that people do not have the right to express their opinion, they certainly do. I fear that political correctness deters those with the most experience in rifle squads from voicing their true opinions. It is my estimation that most comments are based on popular attitude and do not account for facts or human dynamics. Again, not necessarily you, just a general observation.
COL (R) Nightingale, I believe, is willing to take a tough, unpopular stance even at risk of being labeled a misogynist. Furthermore, while he probably has not commanded a unit with women (our shared assumption), he does possess a lot of experience understanding what will make a small unit successful in combat. Above all, that is the goal – winning in combat. This is not me endorsing a ‘boys will be boys’ or ‘the Infantry is incapable of change’ environment. I am trying to look at this rationally. I do not believe the issue is with men and women keeping their hands off each other or an increase in sexual harassment and/or assaults. I think it starts well before that: When two guys think the same girl likes him, how that affects the team dynamic, and the natural competiveness of our species. There are basic human societal norms that cannot be ignored. Acknowledging your service in 1P (I am going to assume it was as a FSO), tackling gender integration is substantially different from QM to FA to IN – and you know this Sir. The personality and function of non-combat arms squads are significantly different from Infantry squads; it is an apple to oranges comparison.
Put yourself in the shoes of that 20-year old Specialist and honestly tell me that would not alter the team dynamic. I sit here trying to see it from the other point of view – and it is tough. Would I want it to be different? Yes, of course I would. I absolutely would want my daughter to be able to follow in my Infantry footsteps. Nevertheless, I cannot sit here and honestly tell you that it, at our present moment, would not destabilize a squad’s cohesiveness.
I sincerely hope the Army conducts robust testing of its own, especially before making any decision. Maybe I’ll be proved wrong. Nevertheless, we should only alter the foundation of our military on research and facts, not because of popular opinion.
(2)
(0)
11
11
0
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!!!!
(11)
(0)
SSG Delanda Hunt
Maybe you got old and broke down. If everything is equal now, lets put men and woman in the same prisons, do away with male and female sport teams, and just have unisex showers in High School. Woman in the Infantry will be a disaster and the Country will suffer from it.
(2)
(0)
Cpl Brad MarkW
SSG (Join to see) - Wow -I counted 42 in the entire history of football. By all means that proves women should be in the infantry :-/
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Cpl Brad MarkW - The point isn't that the vast majority of women are going to think Infantry is an excellent career choice, it's that a woman who is especially talented in that area isn't restrained from "being all she can be" by gender.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Brad MarkW
SSG (Join to see) - I think that sums up the argument for women's inclusion neatly. That's the basis of the argument; because a few exceptional women might want to do it, we should allow it. Nevermind the potential and proven negative effects which, according to this article, will not result in an infantry corps that is as good as what we have now. In fact, the article indicates we'll actually have a worse performing force. I personally don't believe it's worth the cost. We can debate that cost if you want but providing examples of exceptional women who can "hack it" is not proof that it's worth the cost, only proof that a few women can do it.
(2)
(0)
6
6
0
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.
CORRECTION: 144 females have passed ITB course, not 3 as I had originally suggested.
(6)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Cpl Chris Rice I was merely providing clarifying information regarding the numbers of females who had graduated ITB (and citing source). Nothing more.
There is no doubt that the females will be under-trained in comparison to the male counterparts. I am reserving judgement on the actual test until the full report is made available, and the USMC makes their recommendation to Congress.
Of all the Services, I believe we have a proven track record of "evolving" with the times. 20 years ago we added the MCT requirement for females, because we realized that everyone can be the victim of combat, regardless of gender. We've constantly modified or enhanced our standards to make a better force, whether it be PT or the Combat Fitness Test, etc.
For us, this isn't a "social experiment" it's a feasibility test, like everything else we do. "Do we have to do things the old way? Does it make sense to change things? Why can't we do it this way? etc." Yah, it may be prompted by Congress and the People, but they are our bosses.
There is no doubt that the females will be under-trained in comparison to the male counterparts. I am reserving judgement on the actual test until the full report is made available, and the USMC makes their recommendation to Congress.
Of all the Services, I believe we have a proven track record of "evolving" with the times. 20 years ago we added the MCT requirement for females, because we realized that everyone can be the victim of combat, regardless of gender. We've constantly modified or enhanced our standards to make a better force, whether it be PT or the Combat Fitness Test, etc.
For us, this isn't a "social experiment" it's a feasibility test, like everything else we do. "Do we have to do things the old way? Does it make sense to change things? Why can't we do it this way? etc." Yah, it may be prompted by Congress and the People, but they are our bosses.
(3)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Cpl Chris Rice No worries. Hot bed topic. Lots of chances for ruffled feathers on this one.
(1)
(0)
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
I'll wait for the release of the full official report to comment.
(5)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
This is a little bit on a tangent, but when I read your statement Cpl Dennis F., in the back of my mind I keep thinking about the Intel analysts that complained that their reports were being altered by senior officials. For what noble purpose was that done?
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/09/10/report-us-intelligence-analysts-say-their-isis-reports-were-altered-by-senior-officials/
The big Q as it pertains to the original topic of discussion is, "Will the full official report on the mixed gender infantry cater to the PC crowd, or actually report the truth?"
Am not holding my breath waiting for the truth to come out...
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/09/10/report-us-intelligence-analysts-say-their-isis-reports-were-altered-by-senior-officials/
The big Q as it pertains to the original topic of discussion is, "Will the full official report on the mixed gender infantry cater to the PC crowd, or actually report the truth?"
Am not holding my breath waiting for the truth to come out...
Report: US Intelligence Analysts Say Their ISIS Reports Were Altered By Senior Officials
Over 50 U.S. Central Command intelligence agents say they believe their reports on the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria have been altered to portray the war against terrorism is more successful than it is, according to the Daily Beast and CBS News.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Dennis F.
Capt Jeff S. You've got a good point. After hearing Sec Nav speak I think the fix is in, despite the initially bad showing coming over the grapevine. Some of the stupid shit coming out of those DC puppets mouths makes my head spin.
(3)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
Now they're saying the upbeat reports didn't change views. Perhaps because their views were cemented before ANY factual evidence was presented.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/17/intel-officials-say-upbeat-reports-didnt-change-views/32545183/
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/17/intel-officials-say-upbeat-reports-didnt-change-views/32545183/
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Why not force them to train to the male standard, They get compete against males for promotion why should they not have to be at the same standard?
(1)
(0)
Capt Michael Brown
I agree SSgt. No doubt about it. Getting passed over for a meritorious board promotion when I was a LCPL because of a few bonus points given to a WM has never sat well with me.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
The Political Correctness Machine keeps on churning out BS... wonder what will be next :/
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
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.
(4)
(0)
Sgt Tom Cunnally
My guess is the Pentagon does not want to make a decision on this issue unless they have tons of research to support their final decisions....Robert McNamara began this trend at the Pentagon and was famous for having studies & research projects before he would make a recommendation to President Johnson And this has been a way of life now in the Pentagon.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google