All-male combat units outperform units that include women – study

There's 2 points I'd like to make..

Most women have no interest in joining the military.

The second point is, this has now moved on from just women in the military to also Transgenders in the military.

I think the women in the military issue is a bit passe and has been debated to death already the last 10 years.

How about now moving onto to debating the issue of Transgender including those who haven't had the op yet who are still technically male?

How are they going to be treated and handled in combat?

Don't mean to hijack the thread but these people also now are classified as legally female so I think it could be included in this topic.

originally posted by: Ludivocus
So true, just like the Jessica Lynch situation. (She sat in the middle of four men in the HMMWV. In the middle "gunners seat" area.)
From personal experience, any woman becomes a "desert princess" while deployed.
Some play it up and became "morale packages".
Sexual harrassment aside, even a local civilian woman in the theater of operation was enough to get men killed.
I am all for keeping women out of combat!

a reply to: rockintitz

I am all for keeping women out of combat!

Its to keep them out of the way...am I right??

a reply to: pheonix358

THEY haven'twww.israelnationalnews.com...
It's mostly media hype that they do so.

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: PaddyInf

If you think you don't need to be as physically fit to be a modern combat infantry soldier then you need to give your head a wobble.

Ok, I wobbled my head!

You make good points and yes, I am aware of them.

So answer the question I posed please.

How do other countries, such as Israel, make it work and make it all come together effectively?

Why can't the US learn how to do it.

P

In the IDF female infantry soldiers are almost exclusively posted in one of the two boarder patrol battalions on the boarders of Egypt and Jordan (who both have peace treaties with Isreal). They are not allowed to serve in heavy infantry units or tank units. This is primarily due to the increased injury rates noted in the light battalions. Also female soldiers are allowed to carry less weight in training. The battalions they deploy in rarely comes into contact with any sort of enemy. They do not engage in any sort of direct or offensive combat. A recent move to integrate females into tank units was canned due to the number of injuries noted.

So the much praised all inclusive IDF actually restricts their womens combat roles too. They can serve with front line units, but only in support roles, just like the US/UK militaries.

originally posted by: pheonix358
Equally, a test could be devised, for combat, where women would equal or exceed the men.

Smaller body weight generally increases quickness and agility. Other areas such as pain tolerance are also areas where women can excel.

As long as it is men designing the tests with the the objective of keeping the women out, you will always see results such as this.

The Israeli armed forces seem to do very well with women in front line combat units simply because they acknowledge the differences between the sexes and plan around them. They do not expect women to carry the squad machine gun and they use women in certain specialized roles.

After all, we are not running around with swords and maces.

P

Realize I'm coming to this thread late, but here is my two cents:


Israel integrating female soldiers into it's ranks is magnitudes different than our situation in the states:

Sheer necessity. Their country is under constant existential threat, existential threat does trump individual needs.

The mission of the IDF is magnitudes different than the mission of US service members. The IDF are more akin to an extremely well-armed FBI or DEA here in America. They do do missions abroad in pursuit of their mission, but they still aren't a military (this is not to say IDF is not military). Israel doesn't project their forces in the same way the US military is designed to do. The most recent example is the Lebanon war in 2006. That war was probably the furthest Israel has projected it's forces in several decades. They aren't designed for extended field deployments.

It's not enough that women are supposedly "more agile". The person who says that has lived a very sheltered politically correct life. As a former Marine who did 2 humps with less than a year back in the states between them, I tell you: You are ignorant and I'm glad you are not in any decision making position w/ regards to this issue. When you load 30-40 pounds of Flak w/ SAPI plates, Kevlar and at a bare minimum 210 rounds, then throw a Patrol pack w/ food, an assload of water and hopefully more ammuntion, women who can do a full jumping jack maybe a little bit faster than a male Marine means nothing. Even men get fatigued under that stress. Contrary to your belief, the standards weren't made up to purposefully exclude women, the standards were made because through trial and error, they were determined to be the best suited for our equipment, modern technology and for our mission. Again, they didn't make the standards to exclude women, or to only be achievable by men, they were designed for what works. And this is just a basic rifleman. I'm not even going to get into the several hundred rounds machine gunners carry plus the god damn 30 pound machine gun itself, the extra drums their fellow Marines have to carry or even Mortarmen carrying a mortar tube and Assaultmen that have to carry missile launchers and #. This is all encompassing a 'run of the mill' rifleman. Changing up the standards for the rare woman or misguided teenage girl who claim they want to be infantry is foolish, immoral and just stupid, because people will die. If you have a problem with men simply being 'designed' to be stronger, generally faster and mostly more aggressive, take it up with your chosen deity, or become a genetic engineer that can program all of that into women. It's simply nature, try as you might, political correctness can't fix nature.


With all that being said, I personally believe that maybe we should allow women into combat roles, however, only if they meet existing standards. The standards must not be lowered. This is an extremely critical component of allowing women into combat roles. We are treading into unknown ground here as it is, and when it comes to war, their are no second chances. It's easy for Liberals like yourselves and politicians to simply lay it on the military that women should be allowed to serve in combat roles, but you have zero idea what you are talking about when it comes to military standards. So just like you don't think men should have any say in abortion simply because they are not women, how about you follow your own advice with regards to the military? Others are out there, but virtually every female service member (including several female Marines and even a female Marine Gunny who is going to my school), all of them have said it is completely ridiculous to allow women in combat roles simply because that's the politically correct thing to do. There are very active and fit women out there, some of them can even outperform me and other men. I personally think if they can do everything a grunt can, then they should be eased into it. There are so many components to this implementation. We cannot just focus on the standards, but we must also focus on how a female's presence on the battlefield would influence it. Would a male Marine choose to try and protect the female Marine out of sheer instinct? What would happen to a female were she to be captured by our current enemies? I don't know if you have heard about the American Female Red Cross doctor that was forcibly married to the leader of ISIS, tortured and raped before she was mercifully killed in an airstrike, but that simple component is a very important question. Are we willing to not only risk female lives, but also the high probability that if they are captured they are going to be subject to likely even worse treatment than a man would?


I think I've made my point so I'll keep tabs and see if anyone has anything else to say and respond accordingly. This is not political correction, this is almost a fundamental question, one that should not be taken lightly because some politicians want to make a campaign commercial claiming they fought for womens rights when the next election season comes around.

a reply to: rockintitz

Everyone is created equal

Nobody is created equal.

How fair do you expect a test conducted on women by a lot of military men with vested interests is going to be anyway?

Obviously they failed.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: rockintitz

Everyone is created equal

Nobody is created equal.

How fair do you expect a test conducted on women by a lot of military men with vested interests is going to be anyway?

Obviously they failed.

I responded to this in my previous post.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but military standards were not created with the goal of excluding women, they were created because they are what works for the type of co flict we are in. Sorry to burst another one of your bubbles, but keeping a winning edge and people alive completely chews political correctness and wild conspiracies like yours up and spits them out with zero hesitation. Keeping our service members out of harms way trumps your skewed political agenda.

originally posted by: skunkape23
Granted, I am in Texas. I know a few females that are dead-eye dicks with a gun.
I have a female friend that I have seen pop a chicken in the head with a .22 at about a 100 yards.
You would do well to stay on her good side.

So what? There are a lot of kids that are great shots too.

a reply to: chuck258

Firstly, stop with the assumptions and the damn insults. You are destroying the rest of your good arguments.

but you have zero idea what you are talking about when it comes to military standards.

It's easy for Liberals like yourselves

So just like you don't think men should have any say in abortion simply because they are not women

You know nothing about me and yet you let loose with this crap. I could retaliate but I will refrain.

Many of the responses here, from former serving military, mirror the thinking at the top military level.

How about you all step back and look at it from the point of the military's continued development of specialists.

I would not agree with sending females out from a forward fire base on a long patrol, unless they have proven themselves capable of carrying around the necessary kit.

But by the same token, that very same forward fire base needs a defense team to repel hostiles if they are stupid enough to attack. 100 women could do that job as well as 100 men. They can man (women or womanize?) the machine guns, the mortars and fill the prepared rifleman (riflewoman?) positions.

For every 100 women involved in securing the base, you have released 100 men to go out on patrol.

The real issue here is that the military have always been male dominated and only recently have women been moving in. In the navy, women eventually started to occupy positions and a women can push a 'fire' button just as well as a man.

If you sat back and thought about it, you can design a military based on both sexes.

These same arguments that litter this thread have been used by the Police, Navy, Airforce and Firemen. All have eventually allowed women in and they all function as well as they did without them.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

These same arguments that litter this thread have been used by the Police, Navy, Airforce and Firemen. All have eventually allowed women in and they all function as well as they did without them.

But this thread is about ground combat soldiers. Not one woman passed the test. End of story.

a reply to: pheonix358

You are working on the assumption that people occupy a position and fulfil one role, e.g. guard, patrolling etc. If I have a platoon occupying a position they need to be able to rotate through tasks to allow for a 24hr operational tempo. If you stick a bunch of people in there who fulfil one static role then you will need more to carry out other more kenitic jobs. You are also working on the assumption that the soldiers will be dropped off in position with this kit. In entry level ops this stuff is often initially man packed into the areas on foot. In manoeuvrist warfare (which is the main current operational model for conventional warfare) you cannot assume a static position and have to be able to cross ground carrying weight and be fit to fight at the end.

In larger main operating bases women already stag on the gate and in sentry positions. As you rightly state this is not a particularly arduous job and people carry it out in conjunction with their primary role. We have women in the artillary, engineers, logistics, administration, intelligence, mil police etc. Most roles are open to women. The only ones that are not open to them are the more physically arduous ones that require a soldier to close with and kill the enemy as their primary role. Compromising physical standards here for the sake of equal opportunities puts soldiers lives at risk and that is unacceptable.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: trollz

What's the argument going to be now?

How about this one. This is the twenty first century, not the twentieth or the nineteenth.
Sure, men a physically more capable than women in a whole number of personal combat abilities but to what degree are even the men going to have to preform at that level of combat. My guess, only a small minority. My question is how well do the women rate to the men in modern warfare tactics like pushing buttons or drone control or hell, I don't know, any number of skills that are required of soldiers in this century. My guess? I guess you can figure it.

In terms of inventiveness men are far superior having 6.5 times the amount of gray matter also known as thinking matter Responsible for things such as the imagination. Women on the other hand have 9x the amount of white matter which is responsible for connecting our vast array of neural networks. Men'd be better capable of formulating actual battle stratagem where women might be better on-field-commanders. Tanks and jets and stuff, MEN ROOL. BETTER SPATIAL AND HAND-EYE COORDINATION SUCKAS!!!

Anyway, hope that answered a few questions. :')

They should make a test with all-female combat units to be fair....

a reply to: johndeere2020

if they cant pass the training please tell me what this would prove? how much faster then can die?

a reply to: johndeere2020

how would that be fair,and just how would you do that? the standards are set for a bare minimum as to what is thought abilities need in order to do the job. that doesn't change just because your a woman.

back to how would you do that, the tests and all training has been done for over 200 years of this countries experience and history of fighting in wars and conflicts, and before that people brought over from europe to train our men who have fought in wars and trained people over there.

the only way i could see to learn is to place women out there and let them fight and learn from that, but we can't that, because people would say that is unfair.

a reply to: PaddyInf

Compromising physical standards here for the sake of equal opportunities puts soldiers lives at risk and that is unacceptable.

I largely agree with the thrust of your argument and doing anything for the sake of being PC is just crap.

But, other countries do have women in primary fighting roles and in assigning people to roles, they take gender into account.

In the past decade, has any forward fire base been set up by walking in. Come in. You either fly in or you convey in with an amoured column.

In WW2 and Vietnam women soldiers would not have made it. Same with women in the Navy. But times have changed and most forces have adapted.

The real question in my mind, and it comes perhaps from both my age and my being a gentleman is, why do it. Why risk women at all. There is no real need.

But then, it can also be said, 'Why not!' The days of needing women safe so that they could propagate the species are well and truly gone.

There are many hold outs. The Marines, the SAS etc. The SAS go to pieces just at the thought of women in their ranks.

I am not in disagreement with many posters here although I have taken an alternative position. I think though, that we will eventually find the happy position somewhere in the middle. The US now allows women in support roles but please remember, the initial opposition to them in those roles was ferocious and the arguments used at the time were proven groundless.

Some of the current opposition is also groundless and that should be obvious because other countries do have women in front line units.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

In the past decade, has any forward fire base been set up by walking in. Come in. You either fly in or you convey in with an amoured column.

that maybe true to a point, but as the war on terror has shown they still have to go out on foot patrols. there are places that a humvee, truck, helicopter can't go and you have to go on foot. if a fire fight breaks out and the people involved in it can't do the bare minimum to over come the enemy or get the hell out what then.

Politics and social convention aside, this is completely understandable to me. Men and women have different spiritual, emotional and sexual energies that interact with (and often in opposition to) each other at a quantum level, even beyond our comprehension at times

To better grasp what I mean, I recommend The Way of the Superior Man, Dear Lover and other books by David Deida.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Read my other replies please. I am not suggesting that we send anyone out of foot patrol that can't perform well with the required job.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

The problem seems to me to be that you think training should be reduced to the lowest common denominator.

"Well nobody has rucked twenty miles in a while so why worry about it?" The military worries about it because what happens when your helo doesn't come pick you up? Can't take off? The trucks break down?

Charlie Mike - Continue Mission. Which means just because your ride broke down isn't an excuse to stay home. I can tell you stories about guys in heavy weapons platoons in Afghanistan having to hump all their gear from one base to another. Or humping it back after a successful mission. Mortar baseplates, mortar tubes, heavy machine guns, etc.

No offense, but you seem to have a very rose-colored view of what combat is like. Nobody carries much weight, you don't walk anywhere, you just push buttons now, etc. I'm not sure where that comes from, but it's wildly inaccurate.

And FYI - the Marines aren't against women in combat roles. They're against lowering the standards to make women feel better about themselves. Which isn't okay with the current administration or pentagon talking heads.