To some extent, this is not surprising. However, the conclusions that are going to be drawn from the evidence are pretty unsubstantiated.
Women and men have different physiologies, particularly in terms of how the typical "average" build works out and in terms of the configuration of hips. The finding that women are going to have more hip injuries than men should not consequently be surprising, and other injuries relating to, for example, carrying more than they should be carrying, being relatively higher in women is also to be expected.
However, the problem is that the methodology ends up being poor. People advocating for integration of women into the infantry or other physically intensive jobs are not expecting to use different physical fitness criterion for women and men for these jobs, so comparing average women to average men is not the appropriate metric to be evaluating them.
If you ask "what did men evolve to do that women didn't?", math, politics, philosophy and engineering would be wrong answers, because for most of human history (and all preindustrial history) only a tiny fraction of people did those things, and in some societies they were women. By contrast, war is fundamentally human -- it has been with us for as long as records are available, and societies often conscripted large fractions of the population -- and historically it was almost entirely performed by men. The only more masculine activity than war is peeing while standing up.
I see it more as natural selection. Training is usually what a soldier might have to go through in real combat. I don't think accommodating different body types will be useful when the war time environment selects for a particular fit, and those not adapted to it will not survive, or worse - be a burden to the lives of others.
Sure, we can do things to reduce injury for people of different body types, but it would make more sense to me to select for those who already have a particular fitness.
when I say fit, I mean fit to the environment, not necessarily physical fitness.
It’s a shame they didn’t have an arm of the study looking at female-only units. As it is, they are comparing men-only with mixed units, so there is no way to determine how much of the effect is due to being in a mixed vs single gender unit. I recall in England that women did better academically in single-sex schools than they did in mixed schools. It’s conceivable the same might (or might not) be true here.
Of course, they also need to ensure equivalent levels of fitness and experience, which doesn’t seem to have been the case here.
There wouldn’t be a critical number of women required to create a standard Marine rifle platoon.
You’re essentially talking of 3 squads of 12+ people/squad. Never mind a supporting platoon of weapons(machine guns/mortars/assault) which is 40+ members.
So on a good day you’re talking of maybe 50 seriously jacked women (just to compare to an average male) that has to choose to become part of the infantry.
Do you know how you hear “there are no devs anywhere! Lol zomg “ well, this actually applies to the military in general. Never mind finding super jacked women who are choosing to go to the military, then pick the infantry, then pick the Marines.
So out of all that, as a young woman going to the military,why would I go do infantry and be miserable in water/desert, no showers for weeks on end, carrying heavy equipment for miles.... or I could get the same pay and be promoted faster as a clerk/accounting/cook/driver.
Israel is able to have some women sniper platoons (who are pretty hot) because they require mandatory service.
didn't bother to read the article, but is it perhaps partly due to the fact that women are more likely to report their injuries compared to men? There can be a lot of pressure on men to just "suck it up" and not report injuries.
The breakdown of incidence reports strongly suggests that the cause is entirely predictable: loading up individuals to carry more than they can carry in good health, which is going to affect women (which are disproportionately smaller and less massive) more than men. The study made no attempt to control for that, which is quite frankly irresponsible.
The Israel army is famous for both the high rate of permanent injury of women during training, and for refusing to admit it, a la James Damore: https://youtu.be/iUSFF4NI_Us
[+] [-] jcranmer|7 years ago|reply
Women and men have different physiologies, particularly in terms of how the typical "average" build works out and in terms of the configuration of hips. The finding that women are going to have more hip injuries than men should not consequently be surprising, and other injuries relating to, for example, carrying more than they should be carrying, being relatively higher in women is also to be expected.
However, the problem is that the methodology ends up being poor. People advocating for integration of women into the infantry or other physically intensive jobs are not expecting to use different physical fitness criterion for women and men for these jobs, so comparing average women to average men is not the appropriate metric to be evaluating them.
[+] [-] sa46|7 years ago|reply
I don't really see a better way than measuring task performance.
[+] [-] MrBuddyCasino|7 years ago|reply
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235215461...
[+] [-] lainga|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scythe|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hamitron|7 years ago|reply
I think the takeaway should be how do we reduce injury with respect to different body types
[+] [-] eykanspelgud|7 years ago|reply
I see it more as natural selection. Training is usually what a soldier might have to go through in real combat. I don't think accommodating different body types will be useful when the war time environment selects for a particular fit, and those not adapted to it will not survive, or worse - be a burden to the lives of others.
Sure, we can do things to reduce injury for people of different body types, but it would make more sense to me to select for those who already have a particular fitness.
when I say fit, I mean fit to the environment, not necessarily physical fitness.
[+] [-] sa46|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 5555624|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghufran_syed|7 years ago|reply
Of course, they also need to ensure equivalent levels of fitness and experience, which doesn’t seem to have been the case here.
[+] [-] whb07|7 years ago|reply
You’re essentially talking of 3 squads of 12+ people/squad. Never mind a supporting platoon of weapons(machine guns/mortars/assault) which is 40+ members.
So on a good day you’re talking of maybe 50 seriously jacked women (just to compare to an average male) that has to choose to become part of the infantry.
Do you know how you hear “there are no devs anywhere! Lol zomg “ well, this actually applies to the military in general. Never mind finding super jacked women who are choosing to go to the military, then pick the infantry, then pick the Marines.
So out of all that, as a young woman going to the military,why would I go do infantry and be miserable in water/desert, no showers for weeks on end, carrying heavy equipment for miles.... or I could get the same pay and be promoted faster as a clerk/accounting/cook/driver.
Israel is able to have some women sniper platoons (who are pretty hot) because they require mandatory service.
Source: Marine and yes I’ve seen the female IDF
Edit: English
[+] [-] rootw0rm|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jcranmer|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vivafrance|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dang|7 years ago|reply
All: please don't feed trolls by replying. You also make HN worse if you do this.
[+] [-] vsviridov|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dahdum|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] olivermarks|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomcam|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rublev|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SketchySeaBeast|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tajen|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wowlookatme|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]