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

a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

That's fine, that's why I said I would be interested in a study. I have some opinions that may be validated or overturned.

If we never speculated about anything, we would never bother doing any tests or studies. Before anyone decides to test a theory, they speculate and wonder about what the outcomes may be. A hypothesis may have scientific facts that lead to its formation, but before a hypothesis, opinions are formed based on observations.

I never presented my own personal experiences as some kind of universal law or truth, nor did I expect you or anyone else to take them as cannon. There was a reason why I prefeced my post with the fact that I was basing my observations on personal experience.

I'm not going to engage in any kind of logic-chopping here about the validity of my personal experiences and opinions based on my observations. Thats all they are, observations and experiences. Until someone decides to test male only, female only, and mixed groups, my opinions and observations will remain just that.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: CriticalStinker

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.

This I can agree with. "Equality" cannot be achieved without diminishing one or [probably] both genders, but by recognizing the [differences] we can ALL become greater than our separate entities.

My teenager niece is a black belt in Tae Kwon Do and can shoot a hair off a gnats ass.
It's all a matter of training and practice.

originally posted by: NJE777
a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

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

Some men*

Gay men?

Celibate men?

a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

Well, it seems pretty obvious to me that men and women evolved together and learned how to use the strengnths and weaknesses to maximum advantage for evolutionary survival. Humans are incredibly adaptable. We're organic machines made to adapt for survival. Hell, I have to constatly change my diet and workouts to continue seeing gains because my body adapts to what I do.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Not sure how this is really a reply to me? Already said I agree to one of your posts.

It'll be interesting to see what the future holds. A lot of the evolutionary adaptations weve made as a species to ensure our survival aren't needed as much these days.

There's this magical place called a grocery store when I can buy a hunk of meat. I don't have to drag my friends out on a risky hunt anymore.

We have computers, machinery, automation -- all tools we have created to circumvent evolution. The old gender roles aren't needed nearly as much as they were 10,000 years ago for survival. We're cheating nature these days due to our intellect.

I wish I could travel 5,000 years into the future and see what gender roles in society are like. I have a feeling they will be very, very blurred if even perceptiable at all.

a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

I got the impression you were throwing the baby out with the bathwater due to not having any metrics or quantifiable data to support my own observations and opinions.

*shrug* My point was that you gotta start somewhere in order to even formulate the ideas of something to test.

Who knows though. Wiser and much smarter people than myself have been trying to understand the two genders since the begining of recorded history. It always seems the more we study, the more we realizze we really don't seem to have a clue. Maybe its supposed to be that way? Maybe the other gender is nessesarily unknowable? LOL

Sure makes for an interesting ride through life though!

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I can see how you thought that, but my earliest comment was not directed at you or your opinions. You provided some context... and in so doing make some sense to me. (Thus why I agreed.)

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby

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.

Let us just end the pain tolerance thing now once and for all.

Getting kicked in the nutz, is more painful than childbirth..... I assure you I have thought this out very thoroughly.

Here let me explain

Woman has a kid, within a year or 2 she starts talking about having another.

Man gets kicked in the nutz, it doesn't matter how much time passes, you are not going to hear him say " Its been a while, think I will get kicked in the nutz again soon"

Lol, end of debate

Granted, I am in Texas. I know a few females that are dead-eye dicks with a gun.
I have a female friend that I have seen pop a chicken in the head with a .22 at about a 100 yards.
You would do well to stay on her good side.

originally posted by: skunkape23
Granted, I am in Texas. I know a few females that are dead-eye dicks with a gun.
I have a female friend that I have seen pop a chicken in the head with a .22 at about a 100 yards.
You would do well to stay on her good side.

Damn!!!!

You aren't kidding, that is no bs right there!!

It was always a dumb idea driven by those that think we are all equal....we are not

originally posted by: skunkape23
Granted, I am in Texas. I know a few females that are dead-eye dicks with a gun.
I have a female friend that I have seen pop a chicken in the head with a .22 at about a 100 yards.
You would do well to stay on her good side.

My aunt used to drive nails into trees with a. 22 at about 50 yards with peep sight. Though I qualified expert every single time while I was 11B I sure had a hard time seeing those nails.

But ask her to haul a small load... hell even a loaf of bread up a hill and there would have been much wheezing... hence her nick name Wheezer.

Just an anecdote... no science needed in this case.

a reply to: johnwick

Oh thanks for the lol!

Truth is it only takes 3 kicks in the testicals within a given time to kill a man. Pain and blood dispersment of region cause death. The heart responds after subsequent injury, another further impact reduces blood flow in the aorta.

Physical tests are one thing but in the real world I'd surrender to these girls in a second

originally posted by: rockintitz
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.

No it won't. That's the entire reason for training: overcoming instinct.

If your statement was remotely true, combat would consist of two armies taking turns running away from each other at the first sign of gunfire.

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.

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

All I know is that a firefight when things get their darkest, I'd rather have an all male group of trained and physically able killing machines then a mixed group. Women just don't have the same killer instinct and overall strength that is necessary when all the SHTF at once. It just is what it is, always has been since the beginning of time.

Women in the military need to be in specific roles where the physical differences wouldn't matter, not in typical infranty front line roles. It's just sound military strategy and tactics.