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

a reply to: ParasuvO

I will tell any lady to her face that she will usually be inferior in every way physically in military terms...BECAUSE IT IS TRUE.

The universe has accepted your challenge.


Before you pass

A women in which you get in a disagreement with will go sour

she will be half your weight

and she will knock you the #### out.

originally posted by: abeverage
How well do the women score when being wounded, drugged or interrogated?

You do see where I am going with this?

Yes,

Women have a much higher tolerance for pain than men do.

Is that what you were getting at?

originally posted by: toysforadults
This is probably going to make some of your screech and go into convulsions on the ground as it may shatter your weakened mind.

Ring wing nutters

As part of the research experiment, 400 Marines — 300 male, 100 female — trained for combat together and then went through a simulated deployment, with every aspect of their training measured for in-depth analysis.

“All-male 0311 (rifleman) infantry squads had better accuracy compared to gender-integrated squads. There was a notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system (i.e. M4, M27, and M203) within the 0311 squads, except for the probability of hit & near miss with the M4.

Basically what it comes down to people is that women's minds and body are not designed for this. As much as I love women, and trust me I do I have to face the facts at some point and realize that men and women are built very different both mentally and physically. It's not a bad thing. It's a good thing because I don't want to date/ marry a woman who acts like a dude. I want a woman who is a woman damnit.

Call me sexist for pointing out the obvious and having more traditional values.

Very good point - men and women ARE different. We are born that way.

The current fad that we are all so identical across any and all metric should in reality make it harder for us to tell each other apart. It's not. Time to stop this complete and utter B.S. that everything under the sun is a CHOICE - a 5 foot woman can't choose to become a 7 foot wrestler any more than he can do the opposite.

By all means, people wanting to change gender back and forth more times than others buy new socks may do so until the cows come home. But let's at least agree that we are different, and it's sensible to be either man or woman, not a flourish of shades inbetween. Pick one or the other.

Regarding soldiers - I have heard it claimed that a drawback having women in active combat duty, is that the male soldiers spend too much time and energy caring for wounded female soldiers. This is of course not the fault of the women, but just adds to the pile of potential evidence that maybe most of the fighting should be left to the dudes.

To round off with a slight tongue-in-cheek claim: Women shouldn't try to be men. We have men for that job. Men shouldn't try to be women. We have women for that job.

originally posted by: FHomerK
a reply to: toysforadults
Welcome to the snowflake era.

Whaaa?

I though this was the MisInformation Age.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

originally posted by: abeverage
How well do the women score when being wounded, drugged or interrogated?

You do see where I am going with this?

Yes,

Women have a much higher tolerance for pain than men do.

Is that what you were getting at?

That's actually an old wives tale. Men have a higher pain tolerance .. which was obvious to me since I was about 5.

abcnews.go.com...
www.sciencealert.com...

a reply to: InhaleExhale

This is just so plainly and self evidently untrue that i have to laugh at you...

Virtue signaling is not the newest technique in encrypted communication but holy s*** you'd think it was by how much of it i see in this thread...

a reply to: Abysha

Then all of you can stop whining about letting people you don't like into the military.

It has nothing to do with like or hate, grow up and check your feelings at the door.

The study in the OP is fairly predictable, since on average men have greater bone density and muscular mass than women. But I don't think there's enough granularity in the data to jump to conclusions about "men > women".

What we have is group averages, which could be quite misleading.

For example, there could be numerous female marines who performed at levels that were equivalent to a mid-performance male - or above of course. And conversely, there could well be male marines who performed at levels that were equivalent to lower-performing females.

It's hard to tell when everything is aggregated and divided into 'A' versus 'B'. But I'm pretty sure that the battlefield doesn't respect the law of averages! Which is where all this really falls apart, because everything depends on how individuals perform in unique real-life circumstances. As long as the US keeps winning I don't think this represents any great 'Eureka' moment for integrated troops.

a reply to: Uberdoubter

It is not just CLAIMED we have actual evidence from real world incidents to prove this is actually the case.

Again i will exhort anyone actually SERIOUS about this topic to dig into all the stuff NOT IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS about the USS COLE incident!

The brutal truth behind that incident and how close large numbers of crewmen both commissioned and enlisted who were saved from court martials on charges ranging from insubordination to mutiny by the decision to whitewash the whole incident is enough to make anyone's blood run cold!

Truth be told, i was very much in favor of equal opportunity units right up until i found out just how close we came to losing hundreds more lives and a very expensive warship to a social engineering experiment gone off the rails!

I'll come right out and say this too

If as a female you come at me and say why should i be punished because men...

I will look you dead in the eye and say

1. Who said this all one genders fault? It's not by the way..

2. You aren't being punished but thanks for showing me just how selfish and utterly divorced from reality you are in a single sentence. BTW both of those traits disqualified you for military service anyway without gender ever coming into it.

I could go on and on but the bottom line is simply this....

The incredible selfishness self deception shocking lack of self awarenes and generally the complete and total disregard for what's actually good for the country that some women show by pushing this is a very damning indictment of a movement which once actually stood for very positive things.

This saddens me in ways i cannot even articulate

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Abysha

Then all of you can stop whining about letting people you don't like into the military.

It has nothing to do with like or hate, grow up and check your feelings at the door.

If they pass standardized milestones, then it absolutely is about "like or hate". Check your feelings at the door and let qualified soldiers be soldiers.

originally posted by: InTheLight

I don't call you sexist, but I think there is not yet a word created for this - maybe right now 'confused'. If a woman takes massive doses of testosterone then she will become a male-like being. Is that not true?

No, she will be very confused more so having all the organs of a female. Although taking testosterone will probably affect her reproductive system and she might never be able to have kids of her own.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Abysha

Then all of you can stop whining about letting people you don't like into the military.

It has nothing to do with like or hate, grow up and check your feelings at the door.

If they pass standardized milestones, then it absolutely is about "like or hate". Check your feelings at the door and let qualified soldiers be soldiers.

Depends. If they need everyone they can get then I agree. Otherwise the most qualified should get it, regardless of gender.

a reply to: toysforadults

After boot camp, in my Navy division, even though we also had Marines training with us, there were two female who wanted to graduate from Aircrew AW. Neither one was able to pass the earlier tests because women don't have much muscle in the upper part of their bodies and neither one of them was able to scale a wall, without rope, which if i remember correctly the wall was about 6 feet tall. Can't remember exactly how tall it was.

But, we also had several Marines and sailors who were not able to pass all the tests. More notably the water tests which were tough as hell. One particular test a friend of mine and myself had to repeat it. You are allowed to repeat a test if you fail it once. That test was the "helo dunk". The helo dunk is a test in which you sit in a helicopter contraption that is dropped into a pool and is flipped upside down.

There are 4 parts of that test. The first part you have to unbuckle the safety belt after the helo has stopped flipping, you are upside down about 5-6 feet underwater. Then on the first part you can get out from the closest exit which includes the windows. On the second try everyone has to get out using one of the two doors. On the third and fourth try everyone is blindfolded and you cannot take it off. There is a sailor with diving gear at the bottom of the pool which seemed to be 12 feet down.

Like the first two tests on the first try you have to use whatever exit is closest to you, remember that we are blindfolded and upside down. On the last test you have to get out using either one of the two doors while blindfolded. It is easy to lose your bearings and since you can't see anything at all my friend and I got lost the first try. But we were able to do it on the second try. The Aircrew AW rating is one of the toughest ratings in the Navy, of course Navy Seals trianing is worse. Although both Navy Seals, and Aircrew AW recruits have to pass S.E.R.E. (Search Evade Rescue Escape) school. Every sailor/Marine/soldier that would be using aircraft frequently during missions has to pass S.E.R.E. school.

Most women do not have the necessary upper body strength to do some of the things that military personnel do. There are always exceptions to that of course.

originally posted by: audubon
The study in the OP is fairly predictable, since on average men have greater bone density and muscular mass than women. But I don't think there's enough granularity in the data to jump to conclusions about "men > women".

What we have is group averages, which could be quite misleading.

For example, there could be numerous female marines who performed at levels that were equivalent to a mid-performance male - or above of course. And conversely, there could well be male marines who performed at levels that were equivalent to lower-performing females.

It's hard to tell when everything is aggregated and divided into 'A' versus 'B'. But I'm pretty sure that the battlefield doesn't respect the law of averages! Which is where all this really falls apart, because everything depends on how individuals perform in unique real-life circumstances. As long as the US keeps winning I don't think this represents any great 'Eureka' moment for integrated troops.

Everyone knows that exceptions aren't going to be made for the 1 in 1000 without allowing in the next 500..

Also, like I said earlier -- would you want to be the woman in a mixed unit in Vietnam?

Goodbye unit cohesion for one while everyone fights to get laid.

Furthermore, there are going to be more than a few men there that don't want to be there, have psychological problems or PTSD, are intoxicated on drugs or alcohol, think they might die tomorrow, haven't seen a woman outside of the battlefield in months, and have nothing to live for anymore or lose.. The enemy on the battlefield might be your least concern if you're a woman in that scenario.

In a real combat scenario, women are going to get people killed due to their lack of physical ability. They're going to tear apart units to the core until everyone is fighting with each other and wants to kill each other. And they're going to be in danger from their own squad mates.

Why can't the truth just be told out loud?

Women are the weaker sex.

There are examples of women being stronger than men,
but for the most part those examples are anomalies.

Research shows women, when stressed, can endure more pain,
and may be better suited physically to survive certain harsh conditions.

But the saying goes "...Women and children first".
And that's for a good reason.

Sorry girls, you're just as smart as us, you're prettier than
us, you smell better, and you are probably kinder and more
compassionate than us...but we can kick your ass

I'm not saying I'm gonna do it. I would never do that. and We
should never do that.....because women are the weaker sex.

Gotta protect them.

Makes interesting reading this thread....my daughter is about to go through her selection process to become a combat medic in the Brtish Army. So far she is doing great in all the physical tests to get in, and fair play she has put the work in.

Oh and she just got an award for marksmanship skills, coming top out of her whole cadet class...beating men and women...using the SA80.

Having served myself, i served with a few women that were more competant physically, mentally and militarily than the guys.

If you pass the test, and prove yourself in your job i couldn't give a damn about opinions and research tests done.

CX.

originally posted by: rival

Sorry girls, you're just as smart as us, you're prettier than
us, you smell better, and you are probably kinder and more
compassionate than us...but we can kick your ass

I'm not saying I'm gonna do it. I would never do that. and We
should never do that.....because women are the weaker sex.

Gotta protect them.

Don't judge every women....or man....by the average size or abiity. Now and again someone will come along and give you a hiding you never saw coming.

Spent many years as an MP, and i've had more bruises from the ones i thought most unlikely to be able to.

Male and female.

CX.

a reply to: CreationBro

By that logic, there are also males who could NOT do it.

See the flaw there?

Sure, there are women who could out shoot a male. But military service is not simply about good marksmanship. It's a fighting force of many, and only as strong as the weakest link. that's why there are physical standards to get in.

I'm all about equality in opportunity. If a female can meet those physical standards consistently then welcome aboard. I draw the line at them weakening us for the benefit of feelings. Because some woman wanted to do it, but physically couldn't so they then relax the standards because, "equality"

Nope. Too bad. Sorry, but if they're out there to fight, they're out there to win. Not send a message of inclusion. I can guarantee you that the enemy will be doing their best to outperform us, and gives zero cares about your or anyone's feelings of inclusiveness.

a reply to: InTheLight

So, you're proposing that women take steroids to join the military?

Is that what I'm reading here?

Because that, in and of itself acknowledges that Men and Women are inherently different.

We are. Always have been, always will be. Otherwise there would be no need for Trans people to transition, would there? Obviously, a Trans Woman FELT like a female his whole life, that's by definition, DIFFERENT.