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

Exclusively male ground combat unites outperform their mixed-gender counterparts in every capacity, according to the results of a Marine Corps study

The experiment also allowed women to take part in training programs that had previously been closed to them... ...While 71 percent of men successfully graduated from the Infantry Officer Course, not one woman managed to pass in 29 attempts.

female Marines averaged 15 percent lower levels in anaerobic power and capacity than their male counterparts... ...the top 25 percent of female performers and the bottom 25 percent of male performers overlapped, meaning that the strongest women had the same power as the weakest men

women suffered from musculoskeletal injury at more than double the rate of men, coming in at 40.5 percent

Source

Well, there you have it. An "integration experiment" in which female soldiers were held to the same standards as male soldiers. Every single woman failed to complete the above-mentioned course, and over 40% of the women ended up with musculoskeletal injuries.
The fact that men and women are physically different is common sense for most of us, but for the naysayers, there you go. Women were held to the same physical standards as the male soldiers and couldn't perform. What's the argument going to be now?

Graduation rates
marinecorpstimes .com story

a reply to: trollz
I'm shocked!!! Shocked I say!

a reply to: trollz

Try saying that to Joan of Arc. 😱

a reply to: trollz

Just the one. And FYI "Marine Corps Times" is NOT a US government publication, based upon their own disclaimer. So, you have that and Russia Today.

a reply to: trollz

WOW - what a waste of money undertaking a "study" to verify what most folks accept as a given.

"Study verifies that females are anatomically designed to give birth to human offspring"

a reply to: trollz

Everyone is created equal, but most men have the instinct to protect women and children above all else.

Instinct will always trump training.

As a both a woman and a wife to a servicemember, I sure hope women continue to be excluded from certain jobs in the military.

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.

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

Standing by for a feminist to come crash the thread .

Sarcasm

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

Smaller body weight?... Because you can't find men that fit this criteria (how is this your leading argument?)...

Pain tolerance?... link me a study.

I wouldn't say this has all to do with anatomy as I've rock climbed and hiked with some very capable women. In fact alot of males misunderstand what makes one an effective and efficient soldier. It's not about size, it's about endurance and being able to use your body without fatigue. That being said the most important part is state of mind. Either sex can fault in that category, but I'd say women more than men. Not to fault them, it's just different, I would argue mentality is where we differ more than physiological.

I've worked in all male groups, mixed groups, and groups where I was the only male.

I'd say the mixed groups didn't do quite as good as the all male group, but almost so. The all male group seemed to find a hierarchy quicker -- men seemed to fall into their respective roles easier and accept direction and leadership faster than a mixed group. It seems having men around the women keeps everyone (men included) more civil and polite -- maybe not ideal for combat, but great in an office.

Now when I've been the only male in a group of women were interesting. I honestly dont know how I would be able to make it in the group if I was a woman. I thought men were cut throat, ruthless and competative. After working in those places, I have a whole new level of respect for women. Women may not have the same physical strength as men -- but they make up their toughness in other ways for sure.

I like having a mix of men and women overall, it seems to benefit everyone involved. Combat though? I have a theory...

For tens of thousands of years men, and only men would go out and hunt together in small groups not unlike special forces units. Men learned to communicate without talking (so as to not scare the animals). Men learned to not bring emotions into the hunt. There simply wasnt time for emotions when stalking the mighty Ibex upon the grasslands of Africa -- if you didn't kill an animal, you'd starve. Men learned over thousands of years how to get what needed to be done to survive.

Perhaps that may make them more effective at combat in small groups to this day? Who knows.

I'd be interested to see a study done between a mixed group of soldiers and a group of all female soldiers. I have a feeling the group of all female soldiers would outpreform the mixed group.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Curious, why do you think the all female group would out perform, and what metrics are you using?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Agreed, emotion is one of the major differences. Not to say it's a flaw but a difference, and in context worth identifying. Strength is not a talking point in my opinion, physical is there but in relation to size women can be strong small men. And if one humors that a women cannot endure the pain, than that person is ignorant in the fact she will endure and survive more than one could imagine. Also society has a role, WWII please tell me who worked in the factories for America? Tell me of one of the most successful sniper units in Russia, women. This was a study and anyone could create a different one with different results. The bigotry is astounding.

Interesting

Typical SOP result. Ever heard of RUTH ?

Some of the best 'birdies' are women

a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

Just based on personal experience. Women tend to really be competative in groups. I didn't see as many "beta females" as I did "beta males". When I've hired a new woman, the other women in the department all step up their game more so than in a mixed group of males and females.

It makes me wonder if historically women had to fight for dominance moreso than males. I wonder if this has to do with a male dominated culture. If your gender is at a disadvantge in terms of sheer physical strength, I think you are going to find alternative and creative adaptations to make up the difference.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

So no metrics, only opinion and personal experience that cannot be scientifically reproduced. Color me not sold.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Very true. On average a woman's body (due to genetic differences in skeletal muscles) may not be as strong -- but mentally I think women may have an edge on men. Think about it, for thousands and thousands of years men have gone off to hunt and to war -- sometimes to never return. Women have had to pick up the pieces and carry on.

Take weight lifting for example. I lift, hit the gym pretty heavy. Ive had female friends tell me they are afraid of lifting weights because they don't want to be bulky and manly. That'll never happen. Women just aren't genetically predisposed to pack on the skeletal muscle that a man does. Hormones play a big role in this as well, going as far as nutrient partitioning. Sure, you will see female bodybuilders with large muscles, but even those women only look as big as the smallest male bodybuilders. You won't see any women that look like Ronnie Coleman or Arnold. It just doesnt work like that.

Males have shorter lifespans, and it's been theorized because of stress. Women seem to handle stress differently than men. I don't doubt for a second they endure less stress, but I think they are able to processes it differently.

When you combine men and women in equal numbers I think you bring out the best qualities of each, whille minimizing the negative aspects of each gender.

a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

It is a well known fact that women incite vulnerabilities within men. It is a psychological advantage and is another strategic method in active combat