Posted on Oct 11, 2015
Congressman calls for release of Marines' gender integration study. More Comprehensive Study included. Your Thoughts?
14.7K
27
34
8
8
0
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/10/10/congressman-calls-release-marines-gender-integration-study/73618840/
We had the original 4 page summary, but below is the 33 page doc. Basically MORE info. It's not the full data, but we're getting there.
http://cdn.sandiegouniontrib.com/news/documents/2015/09/24/USMC_WISR_Documents_Not_releasable.pdf
We had the original 4 page summary, but below is the 33 page doc. Basically MORE info. It's not the full data, but we're getting there.
http://cdn.sandiegouniontrib.com/news/documents/2015/09/24/USMC_WISR_Documents_Not_releasable.pdf
Women in the Military
Marine Corps
Infantryman
Combat Arms
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
2
2
0
The problem with this study is that it does not address the real claims of those who advocate opening all military jobs to women. It is completely unsurprising that most females are much less suited to combat arms jobs than most males. However, there are outliers-females who possess outstanding athletic ability and the mental and psychological qualities necessary to thrive in combat arms jobs. Regardless of their rarity, there is no truly principled reason (consonant with American ideals) that would preclude fully-qualified females from pursuing combat arms jobs. The military spends money on the most fatuous things, and yet it is ostensibly too much trouble to allow fully-qualified, hard-charging females to be fully integrated into combat arms jobs. Regardless of what hysterical males claim, integrating truly elite females into combat arms jobs will not in any way diminish national security.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS, it goes back to one of my earlier questions-do females who meet the exact same raw scores as males get injured more frequently? I believe that the reason these females are getting injured is because they are simply unqualified to compete with males. You can not reasonably expect an individual who is only capable of 8 pullups and a 21:00 3 mile run to be as durable as an individual who can perform 20 pullups and a 18:00 3 mile run. When these two hypothetical individuals are given the exact same task, the first individual is going to have to expend a lot more energy to achieve the same level of performance.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
CPT (Join to see)Ah, I see the confusion.
The PFT is a Subjective Task (own body weight) whereas run 3 miles in 18 mins is an Objective task.
It's because we are reversing the equation.
So we are comparing SUBjective scores (health), but Combat is Objective oriented.
This has always been my stance. Bad test for actual need.
Problem is that you can't have different score requirements across genders. It creates the perception of unfairness even if there is an objective standard.
As an example, using your 19:30 and 15 pull up comment from earlier. That would be a 300 PFT for a female but a 260 for a male.
This would place a de facto ban on women in combat arms as both those standards are above the "max" AND it would make it appear significantly easier for men to succeed in the field because of the lower score req.
The PFT is a Subjective Task (own body weight) whereas run 3 miles in 18 mins is an Objective task.
It's because we are reversing the equation.
So we are comparing SUBjective scores (health), but Combat is Objective oriented.
This has always been my stance. Bad test for actual need.
Problem is that you can't have different score requirements across genders. It creates the perception of unfairness even if there is an objective standard.
As an example, using your 19:30 and 15 pull up comment from earlier. That would be a 300 PFT for a female but a 260 for a male.
This would place a de facto ban on women in combat arms as both those standards are above the "max" AND it would make it appear significantly easier for men to succeed in the field because of the lower score req.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS, if I was not clear previously , I apologize. Like the females who went through Ranger School, females who want to be in combat arms need to meet the same physical fitness standards as their male counterparts. Not in terms of PFT scoring scales, which are gender normed. Objective standards, like run 5 miles in under 40 minutes (the Ranger School standard). If few females can hack it, that is to be expected. That is how it should be to maintain a lethal fighting force.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
CPT (Join to see) The USMC just announced a list of Objective standards for the Combat Arms MOSs. They're outside the PFT standards though. Different metrics.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS . Thanks for posting this. The Marine Corps actually does the work. conducts in depth analysis and reaches conclusions based upon data and what most people already knew through experience in the real world. The response from some will be like one CPT Servicemember (who hides his real name). They will post unrelated pictures and comments not germane to the discussion.
No one is saying women have not/do not serve honorably it is about leading combat arms MOS's against the enemy. The mission of the Marine Corps rifle is "The mission of the Marine Corps rifle squad is to locate, close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver and to repel enemy's assault by fire and close combat." It is pretty simple. What gives us the best chance for success against the enemy.
No one is saying women have not/do not serve honorably it is about leading combat arms MOS's against the enemy. The mission of the Marine Corps rifle is "The mission of the Marine Corps rifle squad is to locate, close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver and to repel enemy's assault by fire and close combat." It is pretty simple. What gives us the best chance for success against the enemy.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS Sargent, how DARE you post information on an objective study that does not support the leanings of our government!?!? Shame on you for believing in facts, rather than unicorns and butterflies and cows that fart strawberries.
I am ashamed to call you a brother in arms. Or at least, I WOULD be...if I wasn't a rational being capable of separating politics from reality. Since I am....:
Well done, brother. Keep fighting the good fight. Count yourself in the same class as the Commandant who, despite going against the grain, against his immediate boss, stood up and said, "This is what it is. Do what you will."
I do.
I am ashamed to call you a brother in arms. Or at least, I WOULD be...if I wasn't a rational being capable of separating politics from reality. Since I am....:
Well done, brother. Keep fighting the good fight. Count yourself in the same class as the Commandant who, despite going against the grain, against his immediate boss, stood up and said, "This is what it is. Do what you will."
I do.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
I "try" to make "informed" opinions regarding things. I read the "initial report" last night. It's a good document. I didn't see any glaring flaws. They addressed major concerns, and the thing is actually peer reviewed...
This isn't an "internal report" anymore. It's a Study. And it's a good study. With more time, it could be better, absolutely. But from the 4p to the 33p, I wasn't able to "tear it apart" and you have seen me do that with articles, etc.
The science of Fitness is good in it. The demographic data is good in it. The injury report data is "new" (to me), and I have no reason to believe it is not good. Combine that with loss of efficiency when operating "near max capacity" and the findings look solid.
I would have come to the same conclusions, and I was a proponent of opening all fields. It's hard to argue the data & conclusions.
This isn't an "internal report" anymore. It's a Study. And it's a good study. With more time, it could be better, absolutely. But from the 4p to the 33p, I wasn't able to "tear it apart" and you have seen me do that with articles, etc.
The science of Fitness is good in it. The demographic data is good in it. The injury report data is "new" (to me), and I have no reason to believe it is not good. Combine that with loss of efficiency when operating "near max capacity" and the findings look solid.
I would have come to the same conclusions, and I was a proponent of opening all fields. It's hard to argue the data & conclusions.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google