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

originally posted by: pheonix358

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

Most if not all that have female infantry soldiers have reduced the required standards for the role to make it more "gender fair" and/or only employ the women in low risk jobs. Our soldiers have a minimum standard that most women cannot achieve or sustain without excessive risk of injury.

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.

Actually yes they have. In Afghanistan on the early years we often patrolled into an area and set up defensive positions before the Engineers came in to start building. Mortars/machine guns etc were carried to allow for immediate fire power on tap. Plus long range patrolling is a mainstay of the infantryman. This involves carrying enough bullets and beans to remain independent for several days at a time.

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.

It isn't about the gender. It is about capability. Most roles in the military can be performed by both sexes to a similar standard. Dismounted close combat cannot.

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

Se above.

I am all for equality, but if they draft them too, then equality went too far.
Any women in the military must only be volunteers.
I disagree with the IDF drafting women.

Women like Ronda Rousey could do it, but don't try to put into front line combat a 5' 100 pound woman.

originally posted by: johndeere2020
They should make a test with all-female combat units to be fair....

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of proving that all women and men are created equal?

originally posted by: pheonix358
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

Hey guess what? Women already do all the stuuf you just said anyway. That's why women who are not grunts get the same training that men who are not grunts get. This is where your lack of understanding of the military starts to show. Shooting a gun does not make you an Infantry Marine or Soldier. No, what makes an Infantry an Infantry is the stuff they do as an occupation (going on long patrols, setting up Patrol Bases, capturing objectives (while on foot), holding those field objectives and repelling attacks, etc.) and conversely the training they recieve). That is what is at issue here, and by the looks of your post, you didn't see that I do support a tightly controlled and watched integration of women. Once again, it's the standards that are the biggest issue. You don't need to show that you can hump miles on end with 120 pounds of gear in the midday heat and then still pull watch at night time to defend a base, or gun a truck or post repel an attack on a FOB or on a big supply convoy. However that is what grunts have to do, and even that is outside of what some men can do. However a much much larger percent of men can do it than women. As I said, there are extraordinary cases of women who could do it just like me or hell, even better, and if they choose to be infantry, the door should be open for them to try. However again, in this politically correct world with Liberals in our government, as good as they are at inching # in they will not be happy with this, because they are not interested in equal opportunity, but equal outcome. That is why even I am hesitant, because if we were to do what I personally think we should (that is, open the door to females, but maintain the standards), within five years, there are going to be calls to even out the infantry ranks with females to reflect their percentage as a whole in that specific branch, and that will the nail in SOMEONES COFFIN because people will die, be it the woman who gets into the infantry without being able to cut it, or a patrol that falls behind because a woman couldn't keep up with 120 pounds on her back this ensuring they are late to their objective, ambushed etc. Who will answer for that? You? Are you willing to suffer the co sequences of your actions and beliefs when someone gets killed in the name of political correctness?


As for your comment on women in the air force, firefighters and cops.......I'm just not gonna do the work for you because you are to scared to look at counter arguments to your own bias belief. You probably buried your head in the sand when it came to that female firefighter that was literally allowed to pass despite being orders less than the standards every male firefighter in her class had to pass. I suppose if I was incapacitated in a fire I wouldn't care who came into to try to save me, though I have to say it would be extremely unfortunate if she were to die in a fire rescuing me because she couldn't lift the support beam, or worse yet if other firefighters had to be diverted from their tasks to save her and me because she couldn't save me herself, that's a huge debacle. Maybe I shouldn't mention the pile of cases of female guards who have been sexually assaulted in male prisons, again, I suppose male guards could be too, but I don't k ow, something tells me women are probably targetted several factors more often...... Because they are women. Let's not get started on patrol officers, if you are on the whole "police shouldn't be shooting people" train, I don't know how you could support just any female becoming an average patrol officer. Fun fact, when it comes down to a 150 pound female vs a 150 pound male, 9 times out of 10 most people would put the money on the male winning the struggle, but that's none of my business........ As for women in the air force..... I have already stated my arguments, and they are universal across the branches, but again it shows (and I don't mean this condenscendingly) your ignorance about the military. There are already female fighter pilots, have been for decades, they have female mps, just like every other branch has female mps, I don't see the argument you are trying to make here, because the air force does t have infantry air men. They have security forces, that patrol on air bases more often than not in armored vehicles, but they don't hump out tens of miles with 3/4 again their body weight like soldiers and Marines.


Edit: Also, I find it quite ironic you are sitting here telling me "you can't say that, you don't know me" right after you literally accused dozens if not more High Ranking military officers of conspiring to create standards with the goal of excluding woman from certain roles because of misogyny. You don't know them. I think it's hilarious you think officers would donate decades or more of their lives just to exclude women. So get off your high horse.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

i guess you missed a couple of things is that article.

I guess you guessed wrong then.
Again: compare mental skillsets and we will see how theoretical their abilities are.

The findings lend support to the view that males may excel at motor skills, while women may be better at integrating analysis and intuitive thinking.

www.scientificamerican.com...

I know it's a theory, but I think it's a rather good one.

well hey i was gonna say it but id sure be accused of being a male chauvinist. but basically. men are better fighters and women are better paper pushers. just be careful. as it turns out, the paper pushers are the bosses and the fighters are.. well.. as someone said.. cannon fodder. so i guess we all have to make our choices in life

originally posted by: Kapusta
Standing by for a feminist to come crash the thread .

Sarcasm

I'm not a feminist but I do like Martial Arts. Females can be pretty feisty. Did you know that Wing Chun was devised by a female?

Enjoy www.youtube.com...

On the other hand, I do agree that women were designed to bear children and their frames are usually but not always smaller than many men. Women have speed to rely on. Sifu used to say he liked Crane style for women. Sill, I would not like to see women forced into physical combat on the front lines.
WACS have been around just not on the front lines of battle www.youtube.com...

I wonder how bad these gals are www.youtube.com... dontcha love the pink...

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Also I play alot of video games (shooters specifically) and in many instances female players are just as good as the "best" male players in my eperience so they do have the head for fighting but its about having the stamina and ability in the end.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

not to derail. but two things. wing chun being devised by a woman was a fairy tail told to hide the arts origin. southern mantis has similar stories to hide its origen. here's a hint hakka/ Ming connections in the ching dynasty were a no no.

that video shows zero wing chun. and other than being pretty shows zero understanding or proper usage of either the Jian or Dao swords featured or that of any sword period. but if it was supposed to be a wing chun exhibition i would have expected to see sonething more authentic like butterfly swords. either way wing chuns forte has not been nor ever will be edged weaponry so using it to demonstrate the art is sort of off base.

get it right now. here's some REAL feisty women.

girls doing escrima kali in manila.

m.youtube.com...

girl in the rough areas of tondo handling her business.

m.youtube.com...

guru Rita sawnda chomping some dudes using silat pamchan /harimau (tiger) of the mande muda family system.

m.youtube.com...

m.youtube.com...

Suzanne spetzzano teaching inosanto madjapahit silat from java.

m.youtube.com...

addy hernandez
m.youtube.com...

m.youtube.com...

an hour long video of addy instructing basic fighting skills for women.

m.youtube.com...

women can be very dangerous, just ask my broken heart.

other than that, carry on.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Your guess is you guess we can guess.... I guess...

a reply to: BASSPLYR

I really didn't say that vid contained wing chun. It's Shaolin which I have had some training. Sorry for the unintended misdirect. I'm also aware that they used ropes in the movie set, but it's still real Shaolin technique.

Anyway, I don't know what you were looking at but I saw real Shaolin spear technique but look here's the real deal you don't see it?

www.youtube.com...

hmm I like the vid of Suzanne....good stuff

It's just more stupid liberal bull#. Unless they take male hormones, women are just not strong enough to hump 80 pounds of gear all day. I know women can fight if they have to (in fact I know one who did), but get real, only a small percentage of military personal are combat troops, so why make them do it? Plus if they're captured, they will be raped. Some people have taken all those fantasy 'women warriors" movies and shows too seriously.
a reply to: trollz

a reply to: Parthin96

With advanced bodies through nanotechnological enhancements women can match men in general but these concepts are better rarely used unless a species wide crisis dictates we need extra bodies thrown at a problem robots are not online enough to fix.

a reply to: stabstab


real life ain't no video game son, and being good at first person shooter is no where near the same.
any joe or suzie blow can look at a screen and put cross hairs on target, but in real life with bullets flying at you, grenades, ied's and rpg's blowing up,lying in the mud, sand, dirt, trying to get small behind a rock or tree, or anything you can find, while trying to find the enemy so you can shoot back, having a head for fighting in a video game just don't cut it.

but your right about stamina and ability.

a reply to: trollz

Sorry 142 I like your style but you are focusing too much (I think).
If you think it’s about physical strength you’re right of course. But almost every higher animal is stronger than a human being.
Humans are only humans because they have a soul. And btw if it would go about an abstract issue like justice I think women are as brave as men in combat. Fact is: it mostly goes about egocentric power (not at all an abstract issue).
Read www.evawaseerst.be...

a reply to: chuck258

Sorry to burst your bubble

Sorry to burst yours, but you saying something is so doesn't make it so. Even if the entire armed forces of your country stand behind you with their tanks and their bombs and their guns and their drones and say it's so, too.

a reply to: trollz

It just occurs to me to note that this was a very limited study. The results may only apply to USMC combat units.

During the Great Patriotic War (WW2, how Russians call it), women served very effectively in defending their nation against Germany.

a reply to: chuck258

Don't forget PJs and CCT guys,THEY do those things.
We had CCTs with US in the Cav.

a reply to: Bicbic

They wouldn't have passed our basic training at the time either,they were ALL Russia had .

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

That's exactly why I cited it. Just to make sure you guys had nothing. I didn't mean to argue about the findings as this topic is rather physical, which I find highly amusing. There are some other indicators for you guys 'n gals out there.

Personality for Leadership: Women better suited for leadership than men, research demonstrates

www.sciencedaily.com...

Best example: Merkel. She did set a pace in her reign, "merkeln" is the new term for "actually doing nothing at all". A quite remarkable achievement, don't you think? Most of the other damnd Krauts love her, you know... they must put '___' in our groundwater or something.
Yes I do sense some hope there, as patriarchy continuously screwed up a lot of things. Why not? But I do make awesome sandwiches as well, which kinda works against me right now I guess.

a reply to: skunkape23

Yeah and I'd bet dollars to donuts that I could pick a man who's had little to no training that would tear her apart in open combat (weaponless).

Jaden