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
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Brad MarkW
COL Germano would heartily agree with you. However, I have to point out, if that theory was true, why do Marines bother getting a 300 when their is a "passing" minimum 3rd class score? If, as you say, people only rise to the level set for them, why do Marines bother getting higher than that? Very few if any male Marines I knew stopped at the minimum PFT score. A 300 was simply the standard you worked for. Granted, some never got it for various reasons, like the bigger boys had issues with the run but in the end, anyone with less than a 260 was basically considered a sh1tbird, at least in the 0311 world I lived in. Nothing stops any WM from working out to achieve the male standard. They get nothing extra for it but if it was me, trying to advocate for equality of the sexes, I think it would go a long way to push myself to say as a woman you got a 270 or even a 300 PFT at the male standard. It would have certainly garnered my respect. But they don't, because they can't. The average female Marine (I understand we're not supposed to use WM anymore because it's somehow demeaning?) can't achieve that not because we expect less of them, but because a woman's body is simply different from a man's. Everything from upper body muscle mass to ligament and joint strength is different. If you change the the standard to be "One Standard", the male standard, a lot of women would fail, or score low and not be competitive for promotion. The USMC has around 7% women now as it is. What if that falls to 3%? What if women don't ever get promoted because on the one standard scale they score consistently lower than male marines? The outcry from the PC crowd and their congressmen would be deafening. In order to keep the one standard, you'd have to lower the over all standard to maintain that 7%. At the senior officer and Enlisted level, politics become a part of your career. You want to get promoted? You gotta tow the party line and achieve the expected results, or, get passed over.
So in theory - yes, I agree that the military sets them up for failure with a lower standard but until we throw the PC crap out the window, that's the way it will be. I offer this: the only people limiting themselves are women - COL Germano proves this with her article - that women, when pushed, do better and can achieve better. But is that enough to perform at the male standard? The subject article of this posts says no. The USMC cherrypicked the best and absolute highest performing women to participate in this experiment. The picked the most progressive and motivated officers and NCOs to lead them. They wanted it to succeed so much they stacked the deck, arguably with women who could get high scores on the male PFT chart. And they didn't perform as well as their all male counterparts. Experiment over.
http://time.com/4032419/colonel-germano-low-expectations-limit-female-marines/
So in theory - yes, I agree that the military sets them up for failure with a lower standard but until we throw the PC crap out the window, that's the way it will be. I offer this: the only people limiting themselves are women - COL Germano proves this with her article - that women, when pushed, do better and can achieve better. But is that enough to perform at the male standard? The subject article of this posts says no. The USMC cherrypicked the best and absolute highest performing women to participate in this experiment. The picked the most progressive and motivated officers and NCOs to lead them. They wanted it to succeed so much they stacked the deck, arguably with women who could get high scores on the male PFT chart. And they didn't perform as well as their all male counterparts. Experiment over.
http://time.com/4032419/colonel-germano-low-expectations-limit-female-marines/
Colonel Germano: Low Expectations Limit Female Marines
Women need to face the same high performance standards as men to achieve the same results
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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"
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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?
(0)
(0)
Cpl Brad MarkW
And there you have it - reality. The reality is, you'll never see woman QB in the NFL, nor a Point Guard in the NBA because it's all about winning in those activities. Millions, if not billions are on the line. Why on earth would you risk it all on some PC BS? You wouldn't and the coach or manager would be out the minute they tried to do it.
The difference is private sector where results count and the public sector where perception and political correctness rule, costs and consequences be damned. I've been in federal government service for over 20 years. Believe you me, they will doctor, adjust or manipulate the data anyway they can to show "success" despite evidence to the contrary, right up to the point where it matters and the failure is spectacular (Benghazi). Then watch the finger pointing, CYA memos and even victim blaming as the leadership who thought this up go running for cover.
The difference is private sector where results count and the public sector where perception and political correctness rule, costs and consequences be damned. I've been in federal government service for over 20 years. Believe you me, they will doctor, adjust or manipulate the data anyway they can to show "success" despite evidence to the contrary, right up to the point where it matters and the failure is spectacular (Benghazi). Then watch the finger pointing, CYA memos and even victim blaming as the leadership who thought this up go running for cover.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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).
(0)
(0)
Cpl Brad MarkW
You're a good shot, no doubt. But I think the results were as you alluded to - taken as a whole. Taken as a whole, the integrated units did not perform as well. So unless you break down the scores M vs F, then we'll never know for sure. I am also sure however, the all male unit had some low scorers too. There are always more Pizza Box's than crosses or rifles. I would hope though, in the interest of fairness, that they assigned the male Marines randomly. Instead, it appears that they did the opposite and if Retired SGTMAJ LeHew is to be believed, then this was not the case. He states bluntly, "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." That doesn't sound to me like a fluke of the numbers was the result of the low scoring.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/14/marine-war-hero-secnav-off-base-women-combat/72251362/
I think the real answer lies somewhere in between - that the women who are good shots and the women who were physically capable aren't always the same. So they did the best they could and the implication here is they chose the best men and women they could for the experiment and when it was all said and done, the integrated did not do as well. Everything else is speculation from people who weren't there.
success rate as we possibly could." That doesn't sound to me like a fluke of the numbers was the result of the low scoring.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/14/marine-war-hero-secnav-off-base-women-combat/72251362/
I think the real answer lies somewhere in between - that the women who are good shots and the women who were physically capable aren't always the same. So they did the best they could and the implication here is they chose the best men and women they could for the experiment and when it was all said and done, the integrated did not do as well. Everything else is speculation from people who weren't there.
Marine war hero: SecNav 'off base' on women in combat
Sgt Maj. Justin LeHew said the SecNav was "off base" to suggest higher caliber female Marines should have been chosen for the integrated task force.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I wish all these PC liberals would remember that the issue here is combat efficiency not gender equality.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google