Here’s What Happens When Male Marines Go Up Against Mixed-Gender

Men fight and die to ensure the future of the tribe.
When woman fight and die, the future dies with them.
It has always been this way and it’ll never change, no matter how much progressive diversion you throw at it.

I have been on several deployments in an infantry role where we have women attached, usually as medics and the occasional dog handler. I have also worked in an operational mentorship/liaison team with female members. Here's my experience.

The whole worry about the lads fighting over the girls is a non entity. It just didn't happen. Sometimes the female will be seeing one of the lads, but usually it just didn't go on.

On patrol it was a mixed bag. One or two would be fairly fit, but I have to say I spent more time pulling female medics out of drainage ditches than men. The women would just not have enough strength to drag themselves and 30kg of kit out of a hole. There were also some dramas with distribution of platoon kit. Some stuff gets spread around on patrol (radio batteries, MG ammo, mortar bombs etc) to even out the weight, however the girls generally didn't get any of it because we knew from experience they would be collapsing half way around the patrol. This had to be factored in planning meaning less kit was carried overall or the guys carried more each.

There was a flip side of course. Having a female allowed for searching of both sexes without the cultural dramas. They were also better placed to engage with Afghan females.

My personal opinion is that women are not suited for an infantry role. While there are some who meet basic standards, they are less likely to be able to sustain or improve on this over an extended time, at least not without significant injury. Entry standards are a poor indicator of ability over time.

The infantry role is physically demanding. Basic pass rates are a minimum, not a target. If I have a soldier who is only meeting the pass rates on their fitness tests they will quickly have their feet in my in tray to explain themselves. Some remedial training is on the cards and it will have an effect on their career.

An above average female combat soldier makes huge headlines because she is very much an exception to the norm. An above average male combat soldier is just a shade under 50% of the armed servicemen by definition. There's no logic present in claiming men and women are physical equals... it's all emotional, idealistic bull crap. In the same vein, women are naturally and on average, better caregivers, nurturers, multitaskers, and have higher pain thresholds than men.

The sexes/genders are distinctly different, all 2 of them.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

What point are you trying to make? That males and females are different?

originally posted by: PaddyInf
My personal opinion is that women are not suited for an infantry role. While there are some who meet basic standards, they are less likely to be able to sustain or improve on this over an extended time, at least not without significant injury. Entry standards are a poor indicator of ability over time.

The infantry role is physically demanding. Basic pass rates are a minimum, not a target. If I have a soldier who is only meeting the pass rates on their fitness tests they will quickly have their feet in my in tray to explain themselves. Some remedial training is on the cards and it will have an effect on their career.

What a pile of steaming BS.

You set a pass rate and every male who meets it gets in fine, suddenly a female recruit meets it and your all "Whoa whoa there must be something else at play here...no-way a woman can do the same job as me"

Small dick syndrome. Inferiority complex being exposed by some on here.

As stated before, these types of tests are always misleading or interpreted wrong.

It is true that, on AVERAGE, women may be poorer soldiers than men. However, there are definitely some women soldiers that are better than men soldiers.

What happens in these types of studies is that they don't account for "variance" -- there may be some women who drag down the average for all women, but there may be some women who are vastly superior to men.

The way to do a valid test is to take the best shooters, and see what percentage of them are women, and classify the sample set that way. For example, there may be some large percentage of women who are SUBSTANTIALLY better than men. Perhaps the very best shooters are women.

Perhaps the ten best shooters in the world are all woman. That may be true. You can't tell from the study.

For example, if you drop the lowest 80% of the two sample groups, and then re-do the calculations, the results may be surprisingly different.

As I said, you need a bit better set of statistics and tests before you can make conclusions like the ones made herein.

There are SO MANY ways of distorting facts with over-simplified statistics. A perfect example of utter distortion of facts through valid (but badly misinterpreted) statistics is found here:

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: PassiveInductor

Very well said.




I have tried explaining this when statistics are used for many other arguments.

There are SO MANY ways of distorting facts with over-simplified statistics.

Yet so many when using stats to defend their point of view cannot grasp or even entertain this as a possibility.

Thank you for wording it so eloquently

originally posted by: toysforadults

Basically what it comes down to people is that women's minds and body are not designed for this...
Call me sexist for pointing out the obvious and having more traditional values.

The thing is, however, the method of warfare is changing. We are becoming a "push button" combat soldier, where advanced weaponry that requires little physical strength to operate is beginning to dominate the military paradigm. Both men and women are equally capable of sitting behind a desk, watching a computer screen, and using the mouse and keyboard, to launch the missiles from the flying drones that are actually in the battlefield.

So, there's no excuse to leave women out of the joy of war today.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: toysforadults

There are other positions to be filled other than infantry though. Not everyone is a foot soldier. The military has lots of things you can be.

Isn't every Marine a Rifleman? Oops RiflePERSON?

If the SHTF, a Male Combat Squad on Average, will outperform a Mixed Sex Squad in almost any military capacity.

Just the way things are, have been forever.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Exactly once they make cheap and effective robots , there will be no more humans on the actual battlefield so it makes no difference if we have trans people or not because they will be replaced by automatons of war

a reply to: SudoNim

If you say so.

Feel free to look up the studies on long term musculoskeletal injuries among female military personnel compared to males. Female personnel are proportionally much higher than males to be discharged for lower limb (particularly pelvic) injuries. That is with current troops which already have lower standards for females.

This is one of the primary reasons that females have lower requirements than males doing exactly the same role throughout the military (lower repetitions in push ups, slower run times etc). If you equalise the standards you get significantly greater incidence of overuse injuries among females compared to males. This is primarily due to anatomical differences between men and women which creates failures when exposed to physical overload extremes. Studies have shown that females are 7 times more likely to be discharged as a result of injury. Again this is with already lowered physical requirements. What would it be if you made it the same as the male standards?

To address this you have the choice. You can change the training methods (which are designed to reflect operational requirements) in order to avoid over stress in a musculoskeletal structure less suitable for load carrying at speed and consequently reducing loads and subsequent combat effectiveness. Or you can accept a greater attrition rate of female combat troops over time due to injury.

But hey, diversity and stuff.

Civilians EVIDENTLY need reminding advancements of equipment HAVE YET to negate close combat without unnecessary collateral civilian deaths .
Repelling with an MG , radio or medic bag ,heavy loads seen in emergencies guarantee structural failure on a female's legs and ankles.
Even with superior upper bodybuilder strength ,muscle heads OF ANY type can't perform a 15 mile road march under a 50 lb load ,No water retention.
Since operationally we primarily are in attack mode ,attempting to slow down to alter tactics to accommodate lesser combatant s, as they are applied to the current deployments and TRADOC ,don't fit any logical mission profile .
We are at "NO FAIL" or die at that point we don't need a social experiment to get our asses KILLED.
Barring that we can always throw them into rear detachment ONLY if command doesn't listen and attempts it.

originally posted by: mightmight
Men fight and die to ensure the future of the tribe.
When woman fight and die, the future dies with them.
It has always been this way and it’ll never change, no matter how much progressive diversion you throw at it.

Yes, it's true, of the past, and still for the present. But, the time is fast approaching when we'll produce people in the lab and the factories, and no longer will need any women to guarantee the continuation of the future race of humans.

Then, we'll have a really big decision to make: Do we really need "any" women? The gay men will all vote "no." So, it'll depend on the ratio of gay men to straight men, when the time comes to put it to a vote in the house and senate.

I could care less what these studies show. As far as I'm concerned women need to start getting drafted so We can have true equality. Maybe if millions of women died for their country then things might change for the better.

a reply to: jkm1864

OR one could decimate the populace to supplant with another race(as intended) NO friggin WAY, they aren't and WILL NEVER BE equal in some ways to males at all,the world will JUST have to get over it,or fight about it on ANYTHING the US decides internally.

a reply to: AMPTAH

No we really are not!

The teevee may tell you that but frankly.... It's completely untrue.

If anything, several factors are making soldiering HARDER THAN IT'S EVER BEEN BEFORE EVER!

requiring a physicality that a very high percentage of fighting age, acceptable intelligence, acceptable height weight etc, and well fed / medically very healthy western males CANNOT DO THE WORK REQUIRED!

This has a whole rash of reasons behind it (our gear vehicles fuel tanks power needs average approach march load and pretty much everything else, which there's also just plain an order of magnitude MORE STUFF a unit must bring to a theater on patrol etc than ever before, have gotten bigger heavier thirstier need bigger tools have bigger heavier replacement parts etc etc etc!)

Oh and there's FAR FEWER PEOPLE TO DO ALL THIS, no horses, donkeys, or even push carts many times!


This is the aggravating thing about this discussion, the average American is so far divorced from war warriors and what it actually takes to go to war these days.... They couldn't possibly have any real substantive understanding of what is actually required/needed at this point even IF the media and other vested interests didn't LIE THEIR ASSES OFF and tell you guys stuff that's just completely untrue!

But THAT HAPPENS TOO!

Yet somehow, the military is forced into accomodating stuff you guys want because YOU'VE BEEN TOLD TO WANT IT AND IT'S OK ETC...

and you wonder why morale's in the crapper, soldiers keep telling you you're asking for stuff that will get them hurt or killed, and people who do know what's really going on AND HAVE NO FINANCIAL OR ETC STAKE IN THE OUTCOME are universally telling you this is a horrible idea and going to destroy our already teetering on collapse military!

Hint: because it is!

All you "special folks" insisting anyone who doesn't agree with this push for women are misogynistic blah blah blahs..... You don't even have the decency to obtain a passing familiarity with the actual reality and are disrespecting people that fight and die on your behalf!

You literally disgust me

a reply to: roguetechie

I'm not for lowering standards for women. But I will say there are women that can do the job. One comes to mind for me 1st Lt. Shaye Haver having been to ranger school and myself it was hard many of my class failed. She passed and dare I say even excelled. Granted maybe a only a small percentage of women could do it but why would you lower your pool when you have the possibility of gaining excellent soldiers. As far as the stories I had to work with women officers in the past and yes they can change the dynamics. But that's not necessarily a bad thing since battle bros can get old quickly. I think if the female can do the job they have a lot to contribute in Afghanistan they helped alot. We found out quickly they could get information out of females that they wouldn't tell us guys. They were better at handling the heat had thus captain I worked with I'd be sweating a river and she didn't even seem to be hot. Amazed me actually heat didn't bother this woman at all. She dam sure had to hear me bitch though lol. I'd also like to add something about coming back to the fob and having her be there made it sort of feel like being back home.

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: PaddyInf
My personal opinion is that women are not suited for an infantry role. While there are some who meet basic standards, they are less likely to be able to sustain or improve on this over an extended time, at least not without significant injury. Entry standards are a poor indicator of ability over time.

The infantry role is physically demanding. Basic pass rates are a minimum, not a target. If I have a soldier who is only meeting the pass rates on their fitness tests they will quickly have their feet in my in tray to explain themselves. Some remedial training is on the cards and it will have an effect on their career.

What a pile of steaming BS.

You set a pass rate and every male who meets it gets in fine, suddenly a female recruit meets it and your all "Whoa whoa there must be something else at play here...no-way a woman can do the same job as me"

Small dick syndrome. Inferiority complex being exposed by some on here.

Why would you waste the resources testing 100 women to find the 25 who still would still perform worse than the 10 worst men out of 100?

Instead of wasting resources on 100 women of whom 75 will fail, why not use those training and testing resources on finding 100 more men, of whom 90-99% will still be better than the 25 women who passed?

Seems like a no-brainer.

Then once women actually make it.. you gotta deal with stuff like if a real war, not play wars like Iraq, ever breaks out then women are going to be getting pregnant left and right to avoid deployment. If they think they will die, that seems obvious. If the men think they will die, they're obviously going to be fighting to get laid, fighting each other in the field, sabotaging each other, etc. Women in the units will be getting mass raped by the men who can't get laid. Etc.

You may not see those problems in something like Iraq where everyone expects to live. But WW III breaks out and everyone thinks they're probably going to die tomorrow, it's all going to go to #. I think everyone knows that.

Just seems like trouble and a waste of resources all around.

a reply to: dragonridr

Absolutely there are roles for females in the military, and they are already occupying them. However the Infantry is not one of them.

As I have previously stated taking women on patrol has certain advantages, however they do not carry the same weights as the guys and still often need extra help with the physical aspects.

People say that if they can pass the tests they can do the job. I can tell you now that passing the tests is in no way an indicator for life in an infantry company. The weights and distances we carry on exercise and in PT are way in excess of those carried in training. Plus we do this for a living, not just as part of an x week long course. It really punishes the joints and back over time, particularly the pelvis, knees and ankles. Male soldiers are generally broken after a few years of this, and our musculoskeletal structure is more robust.

I did 18 years as a full time Infantry soldier before commissioning into a corps a couple of years ago, and my body is in bits. I can still pass all of the mandatory tests at combat arms level comfortably, but would probably be a liability deploying in the roles I was doing a decade ago as an Infantry NCO on the ground in Helmand.

The system we have used over the years seems to work. If an infantry unit is going to deploy and needs a female specialist (medic, terp, dog walker etc) then you warn them off for ops and run a pre deployment build up course for a few months before. This allows for a fairly robust soldier for the deployment but does not expect them to maintain this level for extended periods post tour, cutting the chances of long term damage.

In the British Army most units have a 6 month plus warning for deployments so this is practical. Short notice brigades (16 AA/3 Cdo Bd) tend to have far fewer females in their support arms, and have a much higher attrition rate among female soldiers as they often become broken or cannot maintain the required levels. Some do OK of course, but these are the exception not the rule. When I was in 16 we would get a lot of the attached arms males extending their postings but females tend to go within 2 years.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: toysforadults

There are other positions to be filled other than infantry though. Not everyone is a foot soldier. The military has lots of things you can be.

Isn't every Marine a Rifleman? Oops RiflePERSON?

If the SHTF, a Male Combat Squad on Average, will outperform a Mixed Sex Squad in almost any military capacity.

Just the way things are, have been forever.

Where are you getting this average from?

Or do you want to rephrase that to "in my opinion".