A great many people seems to be very upset that a large portion of the non-integrated squads had experienced Marines, as if this negates the test. Two things:
First, the integrated squads had experienced Marines as well. They selected randomly (within criteria) to have the MOS (Military Occupational Speciality) and experience distribution a typical combat unit would have. That means both junior and senior Marines. That also means that, as combat MOS's have not yet been integrated, women will by definition be inexperienced in combat roles. This does not mean the women were inexperienced Marines.
Second: This is not an experiment about what's fair, it's to test what's real right now. And when women are integrated into combat roles en masse, this is what that will look like. Women will be less experienced and will be both integrated with, and adversary to, experienced male combatants.
This is a test of the current situation--everyone is green once. But that changes. And women will gain significant combat experience. You'll see an evolution in training to shore up potential weaknesses and exploit inherent strengths (and they are manifold) that women bring to the table.
That said. As it currently stands with women having had less experience, there is the very real potential that those units they are integrated into will experience a s degraded combat capability until training learns to compensate for certain inherent physical and psychological differences between the sexes (not to mention internal cultural hurdles that they inevitably be faced with). Degraded capability means an increased likelihood of casualties in combat. As I said, I believe this will change. I believe in five years this type of test will yield far, far closer results.
The question is this: Is that painful (and very likely lethal) initial period worth the ultimate goal of total integration? Is the risk to our servicemen and servicewomen worth that ultimate reward? I believe it is. I was pro-gender integration before I joined the US Army, I was pro-integration during my six years in the Service, and I remain fervently pro-integration years later as a significantly balder and fatter man.
It's worth it. But don't hide yourself away from the fact that there will be pain.
It seems the military in general does not believe the initial painful period would be worth the ultimate goal of total integration. The article quotes a government study from 1992:
A military unit at maximum combat effectiveness is a military unit least likely to suffer casualties. Winning in war is often only a matter of inches, and unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy. Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong.
This was 1992, when there didn't exist the taboo we have today of not speaking against gender integration and government and military leaders could speak their minds.
Should we really be comparing the two genders at all? Is it possible to just set minimum standards - "must be able to run x km in y minutes", "must be able to get x% of rounds on target at y m" - and then accept anyone who meets or exceeds those?
The study is not primarily comparing genders, it's comparing gender-integrated squads with all-male squads.
Accepting or denying people based on individual performance does not necessarily account for whatever psychological differences might be at play in those types of squads. For example, the article mentions that male marines tended to be the ones who fireman's-carried an "evacuee" in gender-integrated squads. Maybe the women are capable of doing it, but the men feel some psychological pressure to do it instead of them (e.g., chivalry), or the women expect the men to do it (e.g., chivalry), affecting the way the squad operates. The squad also mentions higher rates of injury among women marines.
That said, maybe there are some individual performance standards that cause these squad differences disappear. For example, perhaps both male and female marines who can run an 8 minute mile get injured less in training, but fewer women than men can run the 8 minute mile. Setting that as the time standard might eliminate the discrepancy at the squad level. The study appears to call out considerable performance differences however (1):
> The well documented comparative disadvantage in
upper and lower-body strength resulted in higher fatigue levels of most women, which contributed
to greater incidents of overuse injuries such as stress fractures.
> Anaerobic Power: Females possessed 15% less power than males; the female top 25th percentile
overlaps with the bottom 25th percentile for males. Anaerobic Capacity: Females possessed 15% less capacity; the female top 10th percentile overlaps with the bottom 50th percentile of males. Aerobic Capacity (VO2Max): Females had 10% lower capacity; the female top 10th percentile overlaps with bottom 50th percentile of males
> Within the research at the Infantry Training Battalion, females undergoing that entry-level training were injured at more than six-times the rate of their male counterparts. 27% of female injuries were attributed to the task of movement under load, compared to 13% for their male counterparts, carrying a similar load.
The military is right to study these things and try to do so objectively. And I don't see why it's wrong to compare genders or races - it sometimes leads to useful advances like studies of disease that affect certain parts of the population and not others (breast cancer, sarcoidosis, etc.) The point is that we're speculating and more data will lead to better decisions.
They didn't compare the two genders. The mixed group they tested was exactly what you described- accepting anyone who meets exceeds the minimum standards. The result of which, as it turns out, is a unit that is weaker, slower, less effective, and more likely to be injured than one comprised of only men.
Playing devil's advocate a little: it might still be important to test how the gender mix affects group dynamics. You might have a case where a mixed-gender squad is more cohesive, say; or you might have male soldiers being overprotective of female soldiers.
Sigh. Why didn't they use inexperienced soldiers of both sexes in the experiment? I smell some junior officer figuring out a way to deliver the result that his senior officer really wanted to hear.
Now, to a certain extent, doubly inexperienced is also skewed because it would be quite removed from actual battlefield performance.
> Why didn't they use inexperienced soldiers of both sexes in the experiment?
That likely would be flawed in its own right --- these days there are probably few infantry squads composed solely of combat virgins. The Corps summary suggests that the study might have tried to control for lack of combat experience: "Male provisional infantry (those with no formal 03xx [i.e., infantry] school training) had higher hit percentages than the 0311 (school trained) females: M4: 44% vs 28%, M27: 38% vs 25%, M16A4w/M203: 26% vs 15%." [1]
So the caveat about 50% in is huge enough as to render the exercise almost entirely pointless, and they could have easily controlled against it had there been any will to.
Here it is for those who can't be arsed to look for it (emphasis mine):
> many of of the male study participants had previously served in combat units, whereas female participants, by necessity, came directly from infantry schools or from noncombat jobs.
FTA: “Of all the consistent patterns we can discern in war, there are two concepts of universal significance in generating combat power: speed and focus. ... speed is a weapon.” [1] (quoting the Corps publication Warfighting [2]).
FTA: "Research from various U.S. and allied military studies reveal that the two primary factors associated with success in the task of movement under load are 1) lean body mass and 2) absolute VO2 Max." [1]
All-male squads, teams and crews and gender-integrated squads, teams, and crews had a noticeable difference in their performance of the basic combat tasks of negotiating obstacles and evacuating casualties. For example, when negotiating the wall obstacle, male Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular assistance in getting their packs to the top. During casualty evacuation assessments, there were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated groups, except in the case where teams conducted a casualty evacuation as a one-Marine fireman’s carry of another (in which case it was most often a male Marine who “evacuated” the casualty)
That's definitely a flaw in the study. On the other hand, I doubt using equally experienced males would change the conclusions significantly: majority of the tasks seem to have involved major physical effort, and you don't need a study to know that on average, males will perform better in physically demanding excercies.
Thought the same, but the reason given ( requiring assistance for climbing a wall, or aiming abilities) seem to point more at pure physical abilities rather than tactical experience.
Which is not really surprising. You wouldn't expect a female pro athlete to win against a male pro one, and the warfield is very physicaly demanding.
Even in Israel, I don't think ground fighting forces are composed of women. I've heard they were assigned to radar and monitoring tasks (not 100% sure, though).
to say the least. they could have easily controlled for that, and gotten results which could serve as strong guidelines. their conclusion, stressing that "an inch" is enough to lose a war, makes it even sound suspicious. i mean, it is quite unsurprising that women will be worse in certain tasks, but a more correct study could have told us exactly where to draw the line. and in any case, IMO, gender should not be the criteria, but rather simply, e.g., can you throw the fucking pack over the wall? no? then desk job for you. what you have in your pants means nothing if you have the needed muscle and brains to do the job right. i mean, i'm a man, but i'm sure there are many women that could throw a backpack higher than me :D
There have been other tests of women against the male standard where women either did the same or outperformed the men, even though the women had more limited experience.
2017 - This just in...so it turns out it may have been the men slowing down the integrated squads in that US Marine "evaluation" a few years back . Yesterday an all-female squad dominated their traditional all-male counterparts in everything except for the wall climb. With the on-going shortage of tactically relevant walls to climb in Iraq, we may start to see more female only units leading the way.
When I joined the Army I weighed ~ 120lbs. Less than a year later I had completed basic training, advanced infantry training, jump school and the Ranger Indoctrination Program (programs completed in the order listed). After graduating RIP I served in special operations as an Airborne Ranger.
I'll never forget something that happened during my first training mission with the 75th Ranger Regt. After several hours of rafting and patrolling I was walking up a hill carrying a full load plus an M4. I was sucking hard, covered in sweat and my whole body was on fire. A tabbed E4 walks by me, not a drop of sweat on him, and up the hill like it's nothing. He looks over at me, as he's walking by, and says "you're carrying that and I'm carrying this." He was carrying a 240G (probably 5x the weight of my M4). I leave it up to you to form your own interpretation of his words.
~5 years in Regiment I weighed 170lbs and could run through everything I did my first deployment carrying twice the weight.
What about testing for soft-skills? Would an integrated-gender unit be better at pacifying an area because it was more able to communicate with the locals? A regular criticism of the US military by it's allies in Iraq was that it's soldiers so rarely got out of their fortresses and armed vehicles and actually pressed the flesh, an action that significantly helps with pacification.
Frankly, the US military isn't exactly known for its de-escalation or cultural sensitivity. My uncle served in a peacekeeping mission where they had the misfortune of coming in after the Americans, who had made it a habit to drive their tanks along the curbs so they'd be welcomed by rather disgruntled locals.
The actual headline was "The US Marines tested all-male squads against mixed-gender ones, and the results were pretty bleak".
> bleak
Bleak means roughly "not hopeful or encouraging". That highlights the author's bias pretty clearly. Nevermind that this research has the ability to save lives. The findings are bleak to the author because they contradict ideas of equality of outcome.
I think you’re projecting. They were ordered to open all combat roles to women. If that results in problems, that could well be considered “bleak” irrespective of other concerns about equality.
Beyond the headline, the piece sticks narrowly to the facts. I don‘t think the author let any obvious bias through.
You're projecting, and the author has presented the information neutrally. The results are also bleak to gender-segregationists, since integration is mandated in less than half a year.
Mark my words, some of the over the top diversity training is foreign intelligence, this is not a conspiracy theory. I grew up in an immigrant community but never ever met people who were as enthuasiatic as "diversity" or ultra integrationalist past the point of function as I hear about. One day I think we will find out that people were manipulating us at the points we were the most sensitive, that is our relationships to each other as human beings.
Are you saying that promotion of gender equality is a CIA plot? Can you elaborate a bit more about this “manipulation” you’re talking about, and what it is supposed to accomplish?
The thing is, there's a predominant strain of American thought that believes perfect social harmony is attainable. You don't need a Communist plot to provoke it into its current form; you just need a sufficient number of more cynical people willing to levy penalties from the first group via grievances.
[+] [-] FrightHorse|10 years ago|reply
First, the integrated squads had experienced Marines as well. They selected randomly (within criteria) to have the MOS (Military Occupational Speciality) and experience distribution a typical combat unit would have. That means both junior and senior Marines. That also means that, as combat MOS's have not yet been integrated, women will by definition be inexperienced in combat roles. This does not mean the women were inexperienced Marines.
Second: This is not an experiment about what's fair, it's to test what's real right now. And when women are integrated into combat roles en masse, this is what that will look like. Women will be less experienced and will be both integrated with, and adversary to, experienced male combatants.
This is a test of the current situation--everyone is green once. But that changes. And women will gain significant combat experience. You'll see an evolution in training to shore up potential weaknesses and exploit inherent strengths (and they are manifold) that women bring to the table.
That said. As it currently stands with women having had less experience, there is the very real potential that those units they are integrated into will experience a s degraded combat capability until training learns to compensate for certain inherent physical and psychological differences between the sexes (not to mention internal cultural hurdles that they inevitably be faced with). Degraded capability means an increased likelihood of casualties in combat. As I said, I believe this will change. I believe in five years this type of test will yield far, far closer results.
The question is this: Is that painful (and very likely lethal) initial period worth the ultimate goal of total integration? Is the risk to our servicemen and servicewomen worth that ultimate reward? I believe it is. I was pro-gender integration before I joined the US Army, I was pro-integration during my six years in the Service, and I remain fervently pro-integration years later as a significantly balder and fatter man.
It's worth it. But don't hide yourself away from the fact that there will be pain.
[+] [-] xlm1717|10 years ago|reply
A military unit at maximum combat effectiveness is a military unit least likely to suffer casualties. Winning in war is often only a matter of inches, and unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy. Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong.
This was 1992, when there didn't exist the taboo we have today of not speaking against gender integration and government and military leaders could speak their minds.
[+] [-] zelos|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Pyxl101|10 years ago|reply
Accepting or denying people based on individual performance does not necessarily account for whatever psychological differences might be at play in those types of squads. For example, the article mentions that male marines tended to be the ones who fireman's-carried an "evacuee" in gender-integrated squads. Maybe the women are capable of doing it, but the men feel some psychological pressure to do it instead of them (e.g., chivalry), or the women expect the men to do it (e.g., chivalry), affecting the way the squad operates. The squad also mentions higher rates of injury among women marines.
That said, maybe there are some individual performance standards that cause these squad differences disappear. For example, perhaps both male and female marines who can run an 8 minute mile get injured less in training, but fewer women than men can run the 8 minute mile. Setting that as the time standard might eliminate the discrepancy at the squad level. The study appears to call out considerable performance differences however (1):
> The well documented comparative disadvantage in upper and lower-body strength resulted in higher fatigue levels of most women, which contributed to greater incidents of overuse injuries such as stress fractures.
> Anaerobic Power: Females possessed 15% less power than males; the female top 25th percentile overlaps with the bottom 25th percentile for males. Anaerobic Capacity: Females possessed 15% less capacity; the female top 10th percentile overlaps with the bottom 50th percentile of males. Aerobic Capacity (VO2Max): Females had 10% lower capacity; the female top 10th percentile overlaps with bottom 50th percentile of males
> Within the research at the Infantry Training Battalion, females undergoing that entry-level training were injured at more than six-times the rate of their male counterparts. 27% of female injuries were attributed to the task of movement under load, compared to 13% for their male counterparts, carrying a similar load.
The military is right to study these things and try to do so objectively. And I don't see why it's wrong to compare genders or races - it sometimes leads to useful advances like studies of disease that affect certain parts of the population and not others (breast cancer, sarcoidosis, etc.) The point is that we're speculating and more data will lead to better decisions.
(1) https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531/marine-co...
[+] [-] ebfe|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] irremediable|10 years ago|reply
Playing devil's advocate a little: it might still be important to test how the gender mix affects group dynamics. You might have a case where a mixed-gender squad is more cohesive, say; or you might have male soldiers being overprotective of female soldiers.
[+] [-] bsder|10 years ago|reply
Now, to a certain extent, doubly inexperienced is also skewed because it would be quite removed from actual battlefield performance.
[+] [-] dctoedt|10 years ago|reply
That likely would be flawed in its own right --- these days there are probably few infantry squads composed solely of combat virgins. The Corps summary suggests that the study might have tried to control for lack of combat experience: "Male provisional infantry (those with no formal 03xx [i.e., infantry] school training) had higher hit percentages than the 0311 (school trained) females: M4: 44% vs 28%, M27: 38% vs 25%, M16A4w/M203: 26% vs 15%." [1]
[1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531/marine-co..., linked FTA
[+] [-] peteretep|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] masklinn|10 years ago|reply
> many of of the male study participants had previously served in combat units, whereas female participants, by necessity, came directly from infantry schools or from noncombat jobs.
[+] [-] dctoedt|10 years ago|reply
FTA: "Research from various U.S. and allied military studies reveal that the two primary factors associated with success in the task of movement under load are 1) lean body mass and 2) absolute VO2 Max." [1]
[1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531/marine-co...
[2] http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/MCDP%201%20Wa... (1997; couldn't find a more-recent one).
[+] [-] mattmanser|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] omonra|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andosa|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bsaul|10 years ago|reply
Which is not really surprising. You wouldn't expect a female pro athlete to win against a male pro one, and the warfield is very physicaly demanding.
Even in Israel, I don't think ground fighting forces are composed of women. I've heard they were assigned to radar and monitoring tasks (not 100% sure, though).
[+] [-] bakhy|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanBC|10 years ago|reply
http://history.nasa.gov/printFriendly/flats.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_13
[+] [-] rtets|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ZeroGravitas|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pas|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mekal|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sarvinc|10 years ago|reply
I'll never forget something that happened during my first training mission with the 75th Ranger Regt. After several hours of rafting and patrolling I was walking up a hill carrying a full load plus an M4. I was sucking hard, covered in sweat and my whole body was on fire. A tabbed E4 walks by me, not a drop of sweat on him, and up the hill like it's nothing. He looks over at me, as he's walking by, and says "you're carrying that and I'm carrying this." He was carrying a 240G (probably 5x the weight of my M4). I leave it up to you to form your own interpretation of his words.
~5 years in Regiment I weighed 170lbs and could run through everything I did my first deployment carrying twice the weight.
The importance of training is immeasurable.
[+] [-] vacri|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pluma|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] escherize|10 years ago|reply
> bleak
Bleak means roughly "not hopeful or encouraging". That highlights the author's bias pretty clearly. Nevermind that this research has the ability to save lives. The findings are bleak to the author because they contradict ideas of equality of outcome.
[+] [-] jacobolus|10 years ago|reply
Beyond the headline, the piece sticks narrowly to the facts. I don‘t think the author let any obvious bias through.
[+] [-] vacri|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eruditely|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacobolus|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Uhhrrr|10 years ago|reply