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

originally posted by: RogueWave
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I for one am sure that even the weakest female Marine could 'take me out' and most of the men I know in the drop of a hat. Buttons or no buttons.

Really? In a fistfight you mean? Or for diner?

She would probably beat him....because he has already surrendered in his own mind. Much like "male feminists"...whatever the **** that is. A boy joining the girl scouts or something.

originally posted by: Shamrock6


Play semantics all you want, admin is not a combatant arm. The difference in training between an admin soldier and an infantry soldier is a massive one. No offense, I'm sure you pushed paper like a boss. But when Achmed comes through the wire, I'd rather have other grunts at my side than admin folks, thanks.

Well first... did you not see JKing when I posted that, so I'm not sure why your feathers are ruffled...? Also, are we talking Admin Air Force, Army, or Marine? A Marine in any position must perform as a fighter first, no matter what. They might push papers "like a boss" but their promotion is on how well they can fight, so you have a lot of generalities in your post...

BTW I wasn't an Admin, and my paper pushing skills suck.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Can you point to any conflict that has been won without the use of ground troops? And I mean a legitimate conflict, not launching a few missiles at somebody and going back home. An actual conflict.

The cold war...


Define conflict...

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I know I'm probably not up to speed on all the latest tech, but I haven't heard anything about any new missiles that can stand on ground and impose their will on anybody.

Nothing like an A-10 going down a highway wiping out 30 tanks, now that is some will imposing power...

a reply to: Sublimecraft

but caitlyn jenner cant,

a reply to: trollz

This is sooo 80ies!



You need a study for that? Well, you won't like this one then:

The brains of women have neural circuitry heavily connected between the left and right hemispheres. The neural circuitry of the male brain, in contrast, is strongest between the front and back regions within each hemisphere.

Theoretically (and I stress “theoretically”), connections across the brain’s hemispheres suggest greater ability in facilitating social interaction, heightened memory, and switching between multiple tasks. Connections between the front and back regions of the brain indicate enhanced coordination and perceptual abilities.

www.forbes.com...

Compare the mental skills and women would be able to put men in their place. Some of us just see their hopes dashed and thus cling to the physical.

Now sing with me! Heee, we want some p...

originally posted by: DrakeINFERNO
a reply to: Sublimecraft

but caitlyn jenner cant,

True, it's a waste of money Sublimecraft, however sometimes these stupid studies "need" to happen, to counter all of the stupid media that the feminists put out, lying about how powerful women are. There needs to be "counter stupid studies"...for "stupid studies" that lie in the illusory advancement of women. Why? to control men. (another topic altogether)
As for Caitlyn Jenner Drake? This is not a real woman, it's a man in drag with a few cosmetic adjustments. That is not a woman..it's a freak of a man made creature. The media may have the world all up in arm and some women crying....but at the end of the day...still a man...albeit, a confused one.

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician

originally posted by: DrakeINFERNO
a reply to: Sublimecraft

but caitlyn jenner cant,

True, it's a waste of money Sublimecraft, however sometimes these stupid studies need to happen to counter all of the stupid media that the feminists put out, lying about how powerful women are. There needs to be counter stupid studies...for stupid studies that lie. As for Caitlyn Jenner Drake? This is not a real woman, it's a man in drag with a few cosmetic adjustments. That is not a woman..it's a freak of a man made creature. The media may have the world all up in arm and some women crying....but at the end of the day...still a man...just a confused one.

Sadly you're blaming them for their condition and while i'll be the first to admit that there is a upward trend in the younger generations to identify their gender and sexuality outside of the traditional binary, there is also physiological evidence that transgender brains don't match the sexual organs they were assigned. I'm not saying this is the case with Caitlyn, as we don't have MRI scans pre-treatment, but there is medical proof that some transexuals brain's don't match their physical gender thus causing their identity confusion.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Xtrozero

Again, not true at all. Nowhere on the proficiency and conduct score worksheet is there anything about "can this Marine fight?" Nowhere. Marksmanship is the closest thing you'll find to "combat proficiency." Point of fact, there IS a grade for "primary duty" which for an admin Marine would be...admin!

Shocking, I know.

If promotions are passed out for "how well you can fight" then why do they even bother with cutting scores that vary wildly across MOSs? The September cutting score to make corporal in admin is 1581. The cutting score to make corporal in the infantry is 1683. By your logic that suggests that admin lance corporals must obviously be "better at fighting" than infantry lance corporals?

Please.

a reply to: Xtrozero

My point is if they pass they pass, if they can not pass then so be it

But they did not pass, so you are arguing a moot point.

For some reason.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Can you point to any conflict that has been won without the use of ground troops? And I mean a legitimate conflict, not launching a few missiles at somebody and going back home. An actual conflict.

The cold war...

Define conflict...

The U.S. and USSR both made use of ground troops during the Cold War in both proxy wars and clandestine operations so...no.

originally posted by: pheonix358

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: pheonix358

You might be interested in actually reading about the testing before poo-pooing them.

A ruck march with a 45 lbs pack isn't really a gender specific test.

Of course it is gender specific!

It also gives a huge advantage to big men over small.

Now if that ruck march was done with a pack that weighed a proportion of the carriers weight you may find a different outcome!

It should be obvious to blind mad Freddy that the bigger the person, the more sheer weight they can carry.

Now you can go on about the fact that that is the weight a soldier has to carry but it seems to me that over time, weapons and armor have become lighter, yet, the pack weight stays the same.

So tell me, how do those armies operating with both genders manage to function and to function well. There are certain elements that just don't want to see women in front line fighting units.

So how do the Israelis do it. Because I will tell you now, they made it work!

P

Ok, couple of points. The whole "percentage of the persons weight" thing is utter crap and has already been discussed. There are minimum amounts of kit that need to be carried regardless of the persons size.

Yes individual pieces of kit have become lighter. However more kit is now carried. In the days of Marius (look him up) soldiers carried about the same weight of kit we do as standard. However they had limited combat effectiveness as their kit was basically a spear, sword, armour, helmet and some food. I carry dozens of pieces of kit such as weapons, ammo, comms kit, food, water, med kit, dry/warm kit, shelter, pyro, IED stuff, support weapon ammo, night vision etc. This increases my effectiveness as an individual.

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.

Try pushing through a village wearing body armour and basic scales of ammo and water. Try pulling your body weight on top of a building while wearing this kit. You then fight through the building, smashing in doors, sprinting from room to room, throwing furniture around, etc. All this time your adrenaline is pumping and you are in fear for your life. You are dragging yourself through crawl spaces and pulling casualties through enclosed spaces. Once you have done this you move to the next house and do it all again.

Ground is prepared with artillery and air power. It is taken and held by the infantry. I train my lads to be as physically robust as any man can be because my life may depend on their ability to perform under severe physical and mental pressures. A fit soldier can think and fight for longer because their mind is working on their job instead of their personal discomfort.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: trollz


Ok, your evidence comes from Forbes.com...the Billionaire Elitists list...basically all the people who we hate, and who have shaped the world into the horrifying quagmire of death and poverty that we call Earth. My evidence is from "Psychology Today"...people who do this for a living. Just wanted to clear it up that, what you have given as evidence is no more than opinion, at the very best, it's Elitist Agenda to further humiliate and embarrass men. Not fact however.

Here is the other side, and more likely the real truth:

Psycholoy Today - An actual intelligence test between the sexes

"Sex differences that do emerge from studies are not real. They occur for three reasons. Females are taught humility and males hubris: and that this social message lead them to approach tests differently. So females under-perform not revealing their real ability. Next it is less of a social requirement (particularly in mate selection) for girls to be intelligence so they invest less in education and skill development, though this pattern may be changing. Third, it is all about personality facrors. Females are (overall) less emotionally stable than males and have greater test anxiety which is reflected in test performance. So any differences that emerge do not reflect underlying reality: they are about socialisation, attitudes and personality rather than actual ability."

"There are real differences between the sexes with males having a 4-8 point advantage which become noticeable after the age of 15. Before adolescence females in fact have an advantage. The difference between the sexes is greatest for spatial intelligence. The difference is reflected in the brain size difference (corrected for body size) between men and women. Further this “real” difference “explains” male superiority in arts, business, education and science. It is this position that attracts most social commentary and criticism."

So, as far as women using both hemispheres of the brain....this is getting more credence than it should. Men do not "turn off" one half of their brains because they can't use the other at the same time. My point is, that men use both hemispheres as well, maybe just differently than women. The REAL tests out there have proven that men are better physically, spatially as well as mathematically. The only reason why women get more press and bragging rights...is because of feminist agenda, and THEY are getting protected by the government, who has their own agenda as well.

We are never heard from men, because it's not popular, and it's not apart of the agenda. Therefore, men cannot brag to the world about how smart they are, we have to rely on REAL psychologists and those who can see through the agenda, to speak for us.

Women ARE NOT smarter than men, nor men smarter than women. If so, there would be no reason for women to go out and try to convince the world of it...it would be self evident, if it were a fact. BTW, Forbes...is hardly a trusted source for anyone, save the elites and the ones who ride their coat tails. After all, you did read this part of your own post right??

Theoretically (and I stress “theoretically”), connections across the brain’s hemispheres suggest greater ability in facilitating social interaction, heightened memory, and switching between multiple tasks.

(Emphasis = mine):

"Theoretically (and I stress “theoretically”)" ??

edit on 12-9-2015 by IlluminatiTechnician because: because

a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

She would probably beat him....because he has already surrendered in his own mind.

It appears so.

I was kinda amazed that a guy would say that. I'm pretty sure I can take out the weakest GUY from any outfit whereever in a fistfight.

equality. i totally believe in equality. i believe that women are equally good at breastfeeding and cooking as men are at fighting. that is to say. they are equally proficient in the roles their bodies were designed for. this cross-roles creativity is just a well padded lie and most men know it. there's tv action. there's dojo action. but when u get down to the street level. right there in the field. that's when a man's real instinct for a fight come up. generally a man wont hit a woman the way he would hit a man he wants to drop. the 2 punches are always different no matter what. but in any event where the man were to have physical attack intention without mercy. the man would win. what it's going to do is, the more women u have on your team, the lower the team's average power drops.

sorry to sound like a chauvinist. but ive decided some years now that i must be firm in making it clear that women really dont perform as well as us men in male oriented physical power jobs. and the truth is, we've all just been going along with it and just not saying anything, but the fact is.. women just dont compare. they contribute. but whenever they start thinking they can actually compete with men, against men, in a man's arena. theyve lost sight of their purpose.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
If promotions are passed out for "how well you can fight" then why do they even bother with cutting scores that vary wildly across MOSs? The September cutting score to make corporal in admin is 1581. The cutting score to make corporal in the infantry is 1683. By your logic that suggests that admin lance corporals must obviously be "better at fighting" than infantry lance corporals?

Please.

A large chunk of their scores and what typically pushes them over the points for promotion are their rifle score, physical and combat fitness test scores.

BTW what was your point again? I lost interest some time ago since I wasn't really making a point at all, an oh promotion scores are typically cut not from saying well hell lets give the admin 1581 and the infantry 1683. They are cut from the the highest score of the last person to get promoted based on their quota, per MOS.

originally posted by: RogueWave

But they did not pass, so you are arguing a moot point.

For some reason.

I'm not debating anything... If one does pass then congrats...

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Can you point to any conflict that has been won without the use of ground troops? And I mean a legitimate conflict, not launching a few missiles at somebody and going back home. An actual conflict.

I know I'm probably not up to speed on all the latest tech, but I haven't heard anything about any new missiles that can stand on ground and impose their will on anybody. Nor have I heard about any missiles that can breach a door and clear a room and detain the one guy who's wanted while leaving the eight women and children alone. The missiles I'm familiar with are pretty much an all or nothing scenario.

Grunts have existed as long as warfare has. No amount of technology can replace a pair of boots on the ground, holding terrain, capable of instantaneous critical thinking and reasoning. Not until somebody comes up with an AI capable of doing so.

Exactly Shamrock. "Not until somebody comes up with an AI". And this is my point. Though as far as we know at this point in time that AI does not exist, THAT is what we are on our way to. Generally. And though that AI may not be in the offing any time soon, other advanced tech is.

You are right, I cannot point to any conflict of the past where those boots on the ground were not paramount. But my contention is is that that is the past. With microwave weapons, sonic weapons lazer weapons etc a man who can do 50 chinups to a woman who can only do 30 there is no difference when it comes to which sex is controlling the weapons.

As I mentioned above some where this argument of men over women in combat is moot. Sure men can still and forever perform at levels 'unaugmented women cannot. But with the coming revolution in genetics and physical augmentation again that difference seem to me, moot.

For now, yes, for those special instances, let the men perform and those who cannot, male AND female, come behind. But for me, this argument of dividing the sexes over these what appear to me to be diminishing needs and abilities serves only to continue to mire our thinking in the past rather than begin adjusting our thoughts on the future.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Some of us just see their hopes dashed and thus cling to the physical.

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

first is this

Theoretically (and I stress “theoretically”),

Full Definition of THEORETICAL

adjective the·o·ret·i·cal ˌthē-ə-ˈre-ti-kəl, ˌthir-ˈe-

: relating to what is possible or imagined rather than to what is known to be true or real
: relating to the general principles or ideas of a subject rather than the practical uses of those ideas

1 a : relating to or having the character of theory : abstract
b : confined to theory or speculation often in contrast to practical applications : speculative
2 : given to or skilled in theorizing 3 : existing only in theory : hypothetical See theoretical defined for English-language learners
merriam-webster.com

and then further down.

It’s crucial to note, however, that simply because brain wiring appears to be different between female and male brains, that does not mean that any individual is predetermined to follow a particular “neurally wired” path in life. There are far too many confounding variables to draw anything close to such a conclusion. Quite clearly, men can excel at interpersonal and memory-focused tasks just as women can excel at tasks requiring high levels of motor coordination and spatial processing abilities. To say that this study has provided evidence to support sexual stereotypes is an overstatement at best.

It’s also important to note that research about the function-specific attributes of the left and right hemispheres of the brain is an ongoing source of debate. Some have gone so far as to argue that the left-right hemisphere dichotomy is a trumped up theory that borders on being little more than a popular myth.
An additional caveat — this study has also come under fire by statisticians who looked at the numbers and agree that while the results do show a difference between the number of cross-hemisphere connections between male and female brains, the outcomes are not as substantial as originally interpreted. Indeed, when reanalyzed, one of the striking outcomes of this study seems to be how much overlap exists between neural connections in female and male brains.

so maybe you can find a better study to use.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

You're right, there has never been a war won without boots on the ground. They are pretty close at finishing robots that can actually replace men, be it from AI or just remotely viewed...like they do the drones. Here is a video of these robots, and some are really impressive at their stage of growth. Oh yeah, these "could" replace men in the future, however they will only "aid" human soldiers (as we have already seen in the movies for years now). That would defeat the purpose of the Elite's de-population plans, now wouldn't it?