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

I see people stating that they'd like to see an all female unit.... What about the part that NO, NADA, ZIP, ZERO females passed the infantry officer's training course did you not understand?

What were the men keeping them down???

I'd love to see that study cause I'm almost positive (from having served with women in the armed forces) that an all female unit would under perform compared to both the all male AND the mixed unit.

Here is what I posted in another forum regarding women in combat roles and the minimum qualifications for women being different or the same....

The minimums for qualification are also really not a standard to be looked up to.

When I took the buds qualifier I did 107 pushups in two minutes (42 is the minimum) 126 crunches in two minutes (I believe 47 is the minimum), did the swim in 9:30 (13:30 is the minimum) 27 pullups at 205 lbs(7 is the minimum) and the run in 9:30 (12:30 is the minimum in boots).

So, even if a woman could qualify and pass buds (which is more mental fortitude than physical anyways although physcality is necessary also) with the minimums(which are higher than the minimums to qualify to get into buds), would she really be the best for the job???

That's not even taking into consideration the natural protective over women mental state that men have biologically that would affect the team dynamics.

Again, I have no problem with women being in combat roles, so long as they have to meet the same mental and physical demands, but IME in the military working with women, they just don't meet them. There will be exceptions and that's why I think they should be allowed to, but not just for PC bull# reasons.

Jaden

a reply to: PublicOpinion

The article and research you cite identifies traits tgat are applicable in most leadership models. However the combat arms of the military have unique requirements that are rarely needed in the civillian environment.

The need to lead from the front is paramount in a combat leader. An officer cannot do this if they are not physically robust enough to keep up. The personality and enthusiasm traits very quickly wain once the leader in question struggles to breathe. This is why infantry officer training is much tougher than the equivalent enlisted soldiers.

In non-combat arms units there are many women officers as the traits identified in the article become more important and the physical aspect is reduced.

If a soldier cannot keep up they become a liability. This is acceptable if they are a casualty. It is not acceptable if it is a fitness matter.

When I write reports on soldiers their physical abilities are a massive part of the appraisal process, particularly in junior soldiers. It is a very basic requirement. If a soldier is not scoring substantially higher than the minimum in my company, I want to know why. If they fail a fitness test then stand by for some remedial training and possible discharge if the standards don't quickly improve.

Nobody should be fighting anybody else, we should have evolved beyond this by now. Why should women have to fight when war and aggression are products of the male centric patriarchy? It is not a women's place, and should not be a man's either. War is wrong people, look at the source of the problem first. All war does is profit the elite. Nobody should be sending out their sons or their daughters to die for the oil fields and opium.
Do women cause wars? Helen of Troy doesn't count.

a reply to: Antidisestablishment

We all agree, but WE ALL also ,don't have money or power to alter our realities so profoundly.
As it currently stands it would take a war to stop war.
Since bankers have been running world fuctions with money we have been locked in this dance.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Time to stop dancing then.
War is destructive and profitable. The corporations which profit from this is the drugs trade, oil and the building industry. We need to address the real purpose for war before we even think or sacrificing ourselves or sending our sons and daughters out to die in the name of "Queen and Country".

well, pert female bods in uniform are going to distract the guys. fact. ergo, units without such distraction are likely to be more focussed and ultimately more successful at their training. guys scope girls. the end.

a reply to: RoScoLaz4

Are combat fatigues sexy?
I thought they were meant to be practical?
You live and learn

a reply to: Antidisestablishment

Words aren't guiding me here,perhaps a plan?

a reply to: trollz

I found this in response:

Navy skeptical of marine corps study declaring all-male squads perform better

The results of the study, a summary of which was released by the marine corps this week, could factor into Pentagon deliberations about which roles, if any, should remain off-limits to women. The US military services will soon submit their recommendations to Defense Secretary Ash Carter on the matter.

But navy secretary Ray Mabus has already publicly criticized the study. Mabus told National Public Radio he thought it was flawed, in part because of the mindset of the volunteers who participated.

“It started out with a fairly large component of the men thinking this is not a good idea and women will never be able to do this. When you start out with that mindset you’re almost presupposing the outcome,” Mabus said in the NPR interview that aired on Friday.

The marine corps conducted the study using roughly 400 marines, about 100 of them women, who volunteered to join the experimental Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force, which was established for the study in July 2014 and wrapped up its work in July 2015.

This sounds about right to me. When I talk to many male soldiers, they always insist that women can't do the same things in combat that men can. So there may be some credibility to what Mabus is saying here.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

I don't know. Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore was a good start educating people the true agenda behind war.
There needs, I don't know, a global consciousness shift.
Killing is never a good idea, there will always be civilian casualties, women and children who did not sign their lives away to the military. If people choose to die, they make that choice by themselves. The way the Army recruits sells them a life of adventure and thrills, like a LARP version of Call of Duty. It's all brainwashing. If women want to do that, more fool them. They have been sold a lie. There are no winners in war, there are no heroes, only victims. The most psychotic people as ever, rise to the top of the game. They will sacrifice their own troops on suicide missions, Ill equipped and untrained.
The promise of glory motivates these folks above common sense.

a reply to: Antidisestablishment

Suicide missions PRETTY much are exclusive to Jihadis unless the individual chooses it to save those around them.
We do geyt some that woulsd SEEM like a suicide mission but most of the time the odds can be beaten bythose talented enough to pull it off.