Did you know There Are Women Who Can Outperform Many Men In The Infantry. Get Over It?

2015-10-07T13:43:58-04:00

Did you know There Are Women Who Can Outperform Many Men In The Infantry. Get Over It?

RP Members what is your take on this article? Be professional! It's a debate question for opinions, not bashing!

http://taskandpurpose.com/women-can-outperform-many-men-infantry-get/

A combat arms officer counters the arguments for why women should be kept out of infantry units.

If you thought the Marine Corps gender integration study would end the debate on women in the infantry, then you’d be wrong. The debate is more contentious than ever. Those who have tried to question the study’s methodology have encountered anchoring bias: It doesn’t matter what’s true; it only matters what gets passed off as truth first. The headlines said that all-male combat units outperformed mixed-gender units; therefore, women should be kept out of the infantry. However, viewed from another perspective, the study’s data reveals that some women performed better than some men and it’s time the military community seriously consider those implications.

There Are Women Who Can Outperform Many Men In The Infantry. Get Over It

A combat arms officer counters the arguments for why women should be kept out of infantry units.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Oct 7 at 2015 1:47 PM

2015-10-07T13:47:46-04:00

There are exceptional women to be sure, but is this a reasonable expectation upon which to base policy? What are the reasonable expectations of the force as a whole?

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Oct 7 at 2015 1:51 PM

2015-10-07T13:51:25-04:00

This does not surprise me at all. I have had women who worked for me and if I had 10 of those women working for me I could have got rid 15 men. They are hard chargers and aren't afraid to make decision, follow orders and will do what it takes to get the job done.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Oct 7 at 2015 2:09 PM

2015-10-07T14:09:02-04:00

Unfortunately we aren't studying individuals. We're studying classes of people. AND we're still waiting on the final report.

We knew there was going to be overlap. That was never really a question. Capability was never really a question either. Whether integration would be detrimental to mission, and detrimental to classes of people... that was.

It's a good article, but it misses the point, and it's lacking the final analysis to be able to really talk to the Injury issue, which is something that MUST be addressed.

There's never been a doubt whether we could take 100 women, get a 40% pass rate (historical) through the MOS producing school. Then we see X% injury rate "pre-deployment," then head to a combat situation. Whereas we take 100 men, get a 95%+ pass rate (historical), with a significantly lower injury rate pre-deployment then head to a combat situation.

From an "economic" standpoint it costs 2-4 times as much to train one class of people as it does for another. "The juice isn't worth the squeeze" and that's "if" combat effectiveness is not adversely effected at all.

And I'm 100% on with opening all billets, IF IT MAKES SENSE. But I can't in good faith injure Marines at this level.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Oct 7 at 2015 2:41 PM

2015-10-07T14:41:30-04:00

COL Mikel J. Burroughs - Mikel; in my opinion, the five key points are:

[1] "... the study’s data reveals that some women performed better than some men and it’s time the military community seriously consider those implications."

[2] "... there absolutely were at least some female Marines who outperformed the weakest male Marine, but under current rules, that weakest male Marine still gets the job, only by virtue of his gender, despite more qualified (female) Marines for that job."

[3] " ... risking the lives of a military unit by selecting weaker men over stronger women runs counter to this point."

[4] "... I know that there are outstanding female soldiers, noncommissioned officers, and officers (including some cadets) who could be better than some of the men we currently have serving in those branches and I want to put the best team out on the field. "

and

[5] "... The most important finding to come from the study is the realization that each specialty needs to have certain standards, both physical and intellectual, that have nothing to do with gender. If the infantry standard is set so high that not a single woman can achieve it, that is perfectly acceptable. That is, so long as we’re prepared to disqualify more than half of the men who want that job as well."

Those who support the inclusion of women in the combat arms PROVIDED that those women ACTUALLY meet the same standards as everyone else are the people to pay attention to. Those who oppose the inclusion of women in the combat arms because they are "Ghhuurtrrrlllls" are the people who need to be re-educated.

A TEAM is composed of members who all have different attributes and functions as a TEAM when the members of the TEAM take each other's attributes into consideration at all times. This doesn't mean that no one ever swears using "gender biased" terms and it also means that no one get "offended" when it happens. This doesn't mean that male group members sneak around trying to get a look a female group member's genitals any more than it means that male group members don't sneak around trying to get a look at male group member's genitals (and the reverse is also true) - it simply means that TEAM members respect each other's privacy whenever possible and accept that there are times when it simply isn't possible.

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Oct 7 at 2015 2:46 PM

2015-10-07T14:46:45-04:00

There is no doubt that some women could out perform me in just about anything you'd like to choose. The key word here is "SOME". Most women could not. And I think of myself as pretty much average. Far from the bottom but not the cream of the crop....So some of the women in a mixed unit could out perform some of the men... Some of the 18 year olds can out perform some of the 21 year olds...So what?

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Oct 7 at 2015 3:26 PM

2015-10-07T15:26:41-04:00

WOW! I did not know this. Way to go to the out performing females!

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 7 at 2015 4:14 PM

2015-10-07T16:14:19-04:00

I would relish wrestling with some women........ Oops wrong forum.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Oct 8 at 2015 3:07 AM

2015-10-08T03:07:18-04:00

My opinion still hasn't changed. Keep the standards the same but allow women to try out. If they can pass everything let them do it. If not say "Good luck in your non-combat arms role" the same they would say to any man who can't hack it.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 8 at 2015 10:34 AM

2015-10-08T10:34:29-04:00

I can also kill some woman with one hand ... what did that said about man is stronger than woman?? absolutely NOTHING. because there will be woman can kill me with one hand too....

Response by SFC Harry H. made Nov 1 at 2018 10:11 AM

2018-11-01T10:11:10-04:00

Awesome! lets do away with the double standard PT tests now and have all women perform at a male standard. BTW, in all fairness lets have all females start entering into selective services at age 18.

We can't want in one hand and shit in another. It's equality right? Let's be equal and gay!!!

Response by SFC William Stephens A. Jr., 3 MSM, JSCM made Nov 1 at 2018 10:28 AM

2018-11-01T10:28:53-04:00

my question WHY INF if a woman only does 4 years she not going to get a job at the Dress Barn when she puts INF on her resume. I think combat arms is not the best to put on your resume unless you word in a different way meaning if you did 10 years then maybe you have Leadership or Management under your belt. But me the question why are women wanting to do INF and Artillery, I can see them being a combat medic or something be you say women out do men but I have not heard of any female INF or ARTY going in to accrual combat.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2019 1:31 AM

2019-01-02T01:31:33-05:00

As a life long avid athlete, a veteran Afghanistan, Iraq and OIR, a martial artist of several decades and a physician assistant -army medical officer I can offer my observations. Obviously gender and sexual hormones have a direct effect on physiologic development. The direct effect of male sexual hormones -male development conveys many advantages in activities requiring strength, muscular endurance, aggression and combat. Statistics are not politically correct and we should be able to analyze them and clearly see that on average men are stronger and more physically developed for traditional combat. That is not to say that female genetic difference are inferior. That is like asking if a flathead or philips head screwdriver is better. It’s a stupid question. The question is always: what tool do I need? What characteristics does that imply? We need to encourage and groom those few females who can compete evenly with their male counterparts without pandering to them or discriminating against the men aka denying qualified men a earned position out of political correctness based sexism. Equality is not the guarantee of success but the same opportunity to fail or succeed. Let’s come back to a day when standard are the primary gate to enter into a position. Let’s surrender our racist, sexist etc quotas and finally embrace our differences and celebrate what makes out military so powerful: merit and strict qualifications.

Response by SPC Arthur Lowder made Nov 15 at 2021 11:48 PM

2021-11-15T23:48:41-05:00

heal to the INFANTRY WOMEN.!!!

Response by SPC David C. made Jun 30 at 2023 1:03 AM

2023-06-30T01:03:16-04:00

My opinion might not be popular but I've done my time with both Marine and Army Infantry on multiple combat tours and in peacetime, plus I'm out now so if you don't like it you can kiss my ass. Yes, there are a small percentage of women that can out-perform men in select categories. I'm my experience, women are pretty damn good shots. But the infantry isn't about being good at one skill set here and there. You have to bring EVERYTHING together as an individual, and then as a team. Field craft skills, the ability to move heavy loads over long distances...not just once or twice, but on a regular basis. And not for a week here and there, but for years. You have to be able to go toe to toe with another man, after having just humped 60-80 lbs of gear, 10-20 miles. Or dig a fighting position, or go on patrol, or pick up and move another 5-10 miles and start all over with that other stuff I just mentioned. And the fact is 99.9% of women don't meet that standard. Hell, a lot of men don't meet that standard. How many of you have had women in your unit that can't lift an item and get a guy to do it? How many of you have had women get pregnant just before, or during deployment? How many of you have had women cause unnecessary drama in your unit? That shit doesn't fly in the grunts, and especially into the more specialized fields. If women want to be infantry so bad, meet the standard, shave your head like the rest of us, and then form an all female infantry unit and prove me wrong. A lot of us have seen that video of the army officer who humped a basic combat load 12 miles for some kind of medical badge, youtube it if you haven't. Yeah, she made the distance in the allotted time. She was literally crawling over the finish line. My hat is off to her grit and tenacity for taking on the challenge, however it was only 12 miles and she was 100% combat ineffective when she finished. That absolutely will not work in the infantry.