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

a reply to: Xtrozero

Admin is not a combat role.

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.

Ok, this is slightly related:
www.dailymail.co.uk - Why curvy women can be more prone to pain: Sensitivity is sign of vulnerability that should make them more attractive to men, says scientists

NOTE: This needs to be backed up by another site because dailymail IS a UK tabloid.

EDIT: Hmm this says University of New Mexico:
krqe.com - ‘The Curse of Curves:’ UNM study says curvy women more prone to pain...

The University of New Mexico study published in June in the journal, Human Nature, found that curvy women are more sensitive to pain than other women.

In men, it found those with broader shoulders could tolerate more pain.

“We organized about a 100 young adults, both males and females, and we basically put them through an experimental pain task,” said Jacob Vigil, an associate professor in the UNM Department of Psychology.

What about those Kurdish women fighters?

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
What about those Kurdish women fighters?

The sunshine girls???? Don't think they've seen actual battle yet so time will tell.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
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.

You know it's crazy. I had this exact (exact...) thought last night. Today I read this link on ATS. And I read your post. Another synchronicity. So why did I have the thought? Well I routinely flex my muscles in the mirror since I was a kid and ... I always had this childish interest in saluting a commander which doesn't exist. And my mind concerned itself with Lord of the Rings and other combat-natured stories and games. As I was standing there, I wondered if men are hardwired to be soliders or to do similar things? I thought maybe, why not? It's possible, maybe.

Generally, I've read it requires 10,000 years for DNA to change like this in response to selection pressures. But haven't men been hunting in the place of woman for at least 10,000 years at some point in our evolutionary history?

It takes many thousands of years for genetics to matter:
news.sciencemag.org - How Europeans evolved white skin ...

But unless men HAVEN'T been hunting and fight wars in the place of woman... it's hard to imagine them not responding to genetic selection... Especially if fighting/hunting/war were at anytime common and lethal at young ages, since--as far as I know--a person has to die BEFORE reproductive age for it to matter--aka. survival of the fittest.

a reply to: Xtrozero

In the Military there are minimum standards and if ANYONE can pass them for whatever job then they earn the right to be called a Soldier, Ranger, Combat Controller, Seal, Pilot, etc...

But in the test discussed in the OP, none of the women did meet the minimum requirements.

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.

Also, where did you get this scenario from?

If the passing score is 70 and mixed groups get 75 to 85 on an average and all male groups average 80 to 90 on the scores who really cares in the end

Your imagination? You can't use made up scenarios just to prove a point.

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

There are books and studies that refute that all is equal regarding male and female IDF forces. §the whole argument that women in combat roles perform better than their male counterparts is nothing more than a politicized movement to somehow change the fact that men and women are different. That being said, I am sure there are some here that believe that G.I. Jane is real so....

Women in Combat

From a Female Perspective

a reply to: Stormdancer777

They wouldn't make it through US infantry basic training.
You have to understand WE ARE so much better because we adhere to certain principals ALONE!
TO go there and DO those things takes a cost a women cannot easily bear,hell ONLY a few can..www.facebook.com...

a reply to: Stormdancer777

From what I read most of them are snipers which could be something they could do just as well as a man. We're talking a regular grunt, women are at a disadvantage plain and simple.

I would love to hear what the Israelis would have to say on this.

Since their military has been integrated since pretty much forever.

This thread is awesome.

First i would like to congratulate the feminism movement on successfully convincing the generic public that biology and neurology doesn't exist as evident by the way some people are looking at this issue.

Here's the reality from people i know in the military.

"My hats off to those two women that wen through passed the ranger's entrance course. They are stronger than I will ever be, but aside from a couple of abnormalities, the average woman's physique isn't designed for infantry combat. If I'm disabled and need to be carried out of combat, the average female soldier isn't going to be able to drag my 250lb frame, and 100lbs of gear off the battlefield without getting both of us killed."

That's the rub that infantry soldiers have with females in combat positions. Their ability to kill isn't questioned, it's their physical ability to safe a fellow service member's life when it's necessary. Gender pride and the huzzah for equality aside, this is a legitimate concern for people that put themselves into harm's way and the OP study shows that there's a lot of value in that concern.

a reply to: trollz

Newsflash, welcome to genders and their primary purpose in life.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Xtrozero

Admin is not a combat role.

If you are in a tent and you have your admin M4 next to you and the enemy breaches the HESCOs it is...

a reply to: XTexan

Comparing childbirth to other types of pain is ridiculous. The female body is designed to make babies, and push them out. It's not designed to take repeated blows to the face though, based on the facial bone structure compared to a males. The whole "women can handle pain better than men because go through childbirth" is beyond idiotic. Yes it's painful, but their bodies are designed to counter this pain. The clit is not just the size of a pea, and actually about 8-9 inches long extend back into the pelvic region, which during a natural birth (think woman on her hands and knees) is designed to provide intense pleasure (orgasmic) when the pressure of the baby pushes across it.

So using a biological function, that has built in pain management systems (yeah western medicine totally ignores this and goes for epidural pain management) isn't the same pain as blunt trauma. It's a comparison of apples to a coffee maker.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Of course I realize that women have been participating in those skills now for a while. But for me the crux of this issue is the idea of ground troops and the future of that need.

Yes we still need ground troops, but why? From my view we are swiftly moving from that need. It seems to me that that need continues at this point to keep the public firmly mired in that old 20th century concept of war being won in the trenches by hearty soldiers. Though this need may still exist, in my opinion it will not last much longer. The fierce weaponry that is coming down the pike will make the issue of how a man can do 50 pull ups to a womans 30, absolutely moot. Moot.

To reiterate here, the public debate of male superiority in those limited forms of combat serves only to obfuscate a larger issue which is future wars and conflicts will not be fought as we have fought them in the past.

Sure, for those messy scuffles that need it, send in the very best and if women are not the very best then leave em behind. Simple. But to make a public issue of it to my mind only serves to reinforce the old hackneyed meme of male superiority for those who continue to want to believe it. 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.

a reply to: trollz

Typical.

Women have always blamed their shortcomings on their clothes or other things, this is likely no different. For example, the questions like, "Does this dress make me look fat?" when it's the fat that makes them look fat....or "Do I look too slutty wearing these red stiletto heels"? when you know, that's why she put them on in the first place.

They think they are so much smarter than men, and that they can do everything better or just as good. It's only natural that they will blame their performance on something other than just the performance...just wait for it. It will not be based on merit, how fast they can run, how well they can fire a weapon, how well they can handle the stress of looking death in the face. Feminists have made it sooo0 easy for women to be handed everything on a silver platter (almost to the point of coddling them), and then make it look like they really worked for it, not having a clue how much men really sacrifice daily, with no pat on the back for us, or media campaigns convincing the world how strong and powerful we are....we just do what we do, because it doesn't need to be said how powerful we are...we can prove it. Feminists got them on the front lines, I want to see what rabbit they pull out of their hat to blame this one on men. It's all "I am woman, hear me roar!" or "girl power" etc. ....until things get a little tough, then who do they come crying to?

I remember when I was in Boot Camp as well as in actual service, there were some women who could hold their own, but if a woman knew that she was considered "pretty", she would try to get away with everything,...get men to do her work, cover for her, always at medical while everyone else was working etc. I knew it would be a bad idea putting women on the front lines...they are not men...stop trying to BE men. It's a real man's LACK OF female traits, that allows him to do what he does. I know I won't make any friends here, but I am not trying to. This is a site for those who would lay out the truth no matter how hard to swallow. This is yet another one of those cases.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Xtrozero

Admin is not a combat role.

If you are in a tent and you have your admin M4 next to you and the enemy breaches the HESCOs it is...

And if the North Koreans start dropping paratroopers into your neighborhood, "civilian" is now a combat role.

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.

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.

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 dinner?

originally posted by: RogueWave

Your imagination? You can't use made up scenarios just to prove a point.

My point is if they pass they pass, if they can not pass then so be it. My scenario is just to say if the minimum score was 70 and a person received a 71 they passed, so who cares.

In the end many women will not be able to meet the minimum standards for many physical jobs, and I'm not suggesting to lower the standards either.