Support NeoGAF

[Fnord]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-accurately-than-men/?utm_term=.727ef0c3ad97

Women in a new Marine Corps unit created to assess how female service members perform in combat were injured twice as often as men, less accurate with infantry weapons and not as good at removing wounded troops from the battlefield, according to the results of a long-awaited study produced by the service.

The research was carried out by the service in a nine-month long experiment at both Camp Lejeune, N.C., and Twentynine Palms, Calif. About 400 Marines, including 100 women, volunteered to join the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force, the unit the Marine Corps created to compare how men and women do in a combat environment.

Say what you will about the study or the notion of women in combat roles (personally, I think there are some women that could "hack it," but in general - those pesky averages - they're not as suited as men for things like infantry roles), but this is absolutely NOT the way things should be handled:

A Marine Corps veteran who has advocated for full integration, Katelyn van Dam, also took issue with the study, saying it is time to stop asking if women can “hack it” in combat units and instead focus on developing gender-neutral standards that apply to all. She is a spokesman for the Truman Project and Center’s No Exceptions initiative, which calls for opening all military jobs to women immediately.

 

[TrainedRage]

#notall


no but seriously check this...

 

[Jon Neu]

When we are talking about jobs that are potentially to save lives, all this gender egoism should not be relevant at all. Those jobs should have only the best, and if the best are 100 men, then so be it.

But the glorification of the women ego has become so big that they prefer to have worse firefighters, marines or police than accept that they are simply physically weaker.

 

[Gander]

Their backflips aren't as good either

 

[Zog]

Personally I want to see women do the things they have been saying that they can do for decades. I want to see a majority female military force. I don’t think men should continue to be cannon fodder alone.

 

[infinitys_7th]

I thought it was pretty well known that women tend to have worse spatial reasoning capabilities than men?

The only oddity with regard to that rule is that transwomen tend to be very proficient at games and programming (e.g. Games Done Quick) compared to ciswomen. I wonder if the area of the brain that governs spatial reasoning tends to remain masculine in structure in transwomen?

 

[Rudelord]

There are actual roles women can fill in the military just fine.
Frontline grunt work for the average woman simply isn't that.

 

[Papa]

Being in the military should not be treated as a standard 9-5 job. It exists to defend the nation from an existential threat and its integrity cannot be compromised for the sake of avoiding hurt feelings. This nonsense can only happen during prolonged periods of peace when there is no existential threat and complacency sets in. Consider a hypothetical scenario where say Russia and China decide to ally and combine their military might against the US. Will those women still want to be on the frontlines when all of a sudden the risk profile of the military "workplace" increases dramatically and things like strength, shooting ability, and proneness to injury decide whether you (and the nation) live or die?

The demand for traditional male responsibilities (i.e. defense of the tribe) is cyclical with the peaks occurring during wartime and the troughs during peacetime. There is a reason that the peak of each wave of feminism has coincided with the peacetime trough. Some individual women are more than capable of serving in the military and should not be blocked from entry if they can meet the physical requirements. However, they will need to be aware that they will be in the minority due to that pesky little evolutionary mechanism called sexual dimorphism and will need to accept that it is their personal choice to serve. Lowering physical standards for entry is entirely the wrong way to go about it and will do far more harm than good.

 

[Zog]

Being in the military should not be treated as a standard 9-5 job. It exists to defend the nation from an existential threat and its integrity cannot be compromised for the sake of avoiding hurt feelings. This nonsense can only happen during prolonged periods of peace when there is no existential threat and complacency sets in. Consider a hypothetical scenario where say Russia and China decide to ally and combine their military might against the US. Will those women still want to be on the frontlines when all of a sudden the risk profile of the military "workplace" increases dramatically and things like strength, shooting ability, and proneness to injury decide whether you (and the nation) live or die?

The demand for traditional male responsibilities (i.e. defense of the tribe) is cyclical with the peaks occurring during wartime and the troughs during peacetime. There is a reason that the peak of each wave of feminism has coincided with the peacetime trough. Some individual women are more than capable of serving in the military and should not be blocked from entry if they can meet the physical requirements. However, they will need to be aware that they will be in the minority due to that pesky little evolutionary mechanism called sexual dimorphism and will need to accept that it is their personal choice to serve. Lowering physical standards for entry is entirely the wrong way to go about it and will do far more harm than good.

Well we have a 100% voluntary military so if she is there, she made that choice.

Will those women still want to be on the frontlines when all of a sudden the risk profile of the military "workplace" increases dramatically

You don't get to change your mind and get out when the shit hits the fan. You sign up to fight if the need arises, you don't sign up to sit in the barracks and gossip and then quit when shit gets real.

 

[Papa]

Well we have a 100% voluntary military so if she is there, she made that choice.



You don't get to change your mind and get out when the shit hits the fan. You sign up to fight if the need arises, you don't sign up to sit in the barracks and gossip and then quit when shit gets real.

Of course. I meant she needs to accept that she has made a personal choice to join and not try to manipulate standards to suit her own wants like Ms. van Dam apparently is.

 

[HarryKS]

Unless you're really into it, signing up to get shot at doesn't seem like a particularly appealing job description for either sex.

Otherwise, there's a whiff of modern feminism to that Katelyn Van Dam thing. Persisting with this silly idea that men and women are the same.

In the end though, it doesn't really change anything. The weaker elements won't make it to conflict scenarios which is good for them in a sense.

 

[ipukespiders]

I hope Marines don't have to subsist on food from jars.

 

[Arkage]

Say what you will about the study or the notion of women in combat roles (personally, I think there are some women that could "hack it," but in general - those pesky averages - they're not as suited as men for things like infantry roles), but this is absolutely NOT the way things should be handled:

I'm not sure what she means by "gender neutral standards." It seems like that is what you would want: if you want to be an infantry soldier you must be able to do A B and C by measure X Y and Z and if you can't you fail, whether you're a man or woman. I don't think she's calling for the standards to be "lowered" to essentially meet women halfway. She's mostly complaining that the women selected to join this group weren't as physically fit for combat as the males were to begin with, so we shouldn't make assumption about what high-achieving women could accomplish when integrated with men based on how the fairly average women did for this study. The society she's with seems to just be fighting against exclusion based purely on gender, as in "You can't join X because you are a woman, period."

 

[off duty ninja]

I'm not sure what she means by "gender neutral standards." It seems like that is what you would want: if you want to be an infantry soldier you must be able to do A B and C by measure X Y and Z and if you can't you fail, whether you're a man or woman. I don't think she's calling for the standards to be "lowered" to essentially meet women halfway. She's mostly complaining that the women selected to join this group weren't as physically fit for combat as the males were to begin with, so we shouldn't make assumption about what high-achieving women could accomplish when integrated with men based on how the fairly average women did for this study. The society she's with seems to just be fighting against exclusion based purely on gender, as in "You can't join X because you are a woman, period."

If this was her intent I totally agree. Equality of opportunity to serve on the frontlines IF you meet the designated bare minimum physical standards. It shouldn’t be lowered for diversity’s sake certainly.

 

[DiscoJer]

I'm a bit surprised at the accuracy. Shooting is one of the few sports where top women compete equally with top men.

 

[Greedings]

Sport shooting is leagues away from combat.

 

[Alx]

I'm all for the "gender neutral" standards. Statistics can tell you that such kind of person is more often good at this and bad at that, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating : There are expectations for a job, if you can do it you're in, else you're out. Simple.

 

[nemiroff]

Traits become more apparent at the extreme ends, so this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. So obviously individual qualifications trumps group identity. I for one am more than fine with being excluded from the club for not being good enough to partake even though I am a man (and yes there are countless women out there better qualified than me).

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

I'm a bit surprised at the accuracy. Shooting is one of the few sports where top women compete equally with top men.

Actually shooting at somebody and being shot at is far different than the sport.

 

[Fatboy is White]

In the UK didn't some drill instructor get fired for being too 'mean' to a female recruit?

If you aren't allowed to treat these women like men how can you expect the same results?

 

[Dontero]

Actually shooting at somebody and being shot at is far different than the sport.

Not only that. Take a 1 mile run and then try to shoot. Remember that women need to move with same weight as men. It doesn't take enstain to figure out why they have worse accuracy.

 

[Mochilador]

When we are talking about jobs that are potentially to save lives, all this gender egoism should not be relevant at all. Those jobs should have only the best, and if the best are 100 men, then so be it.

But the glorification of the women ego has become so big that they prefer to have worse firefighters, marines or police than accept that they are simply physically weaker.

Yep. It doesn't matter the gender, the important thing is to be good at it.

 

[44Forever]

The military is not the place for social experimentation.

 

[DiscoJer]

Actually shooting at somebody and being shot at is far different than the sport.

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure these marine recruits in the test weren't actually getting shot at, either, since this experiment took place in California

 

[VAL0R]

If G.I. Jane can't throw an average sized wounded male soldier over her shoulder and run away from a firefight while she's losing blood herself, I don't want her fighting next to me.

 

[Super Mario]

There are definitely places for the women in the armed forces. There are some women who will outperform some men. At the end of the day, it helps no one to dumb down any of our standards to have "more women". It is not only wrong morally, but presents a huge safety risk.

Thank god the Trump admin has taken its first step towards eliminating affirmative action. When we have laws that say we don't discriminate on race, sex, religion, etc that should be the end of it. There is no such thing as "good discrimination" aka affirmative action.

 

[royox]

Some times this "gender equality" thing is out of control. In my country some of those associations wanted to change the physhcal exam to become a Fireman because "it's so hard for women". My gosh it's not like fire will be slower and colder if you are a woman.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

I doubt that men are inherently better at aiming than woman. I can see how lower average physical strength could effect removing wounded soldiers and increased injury statistically though, that seems fair and realistic. I guess physical strength can effect aiming also with heavy weighted weapons or after exertion, again on averages, being that strong women can and do exist.

I agree with some others that the best people should be chosen for the job and it should not be based on gender at all. However we also need to make sure everyone has a chance at being the best for the job, regardless of their gender. That means ensuring that woman have the same opportunities to participate and advance as their male counterparts based on skill and competence, and not some weird rules that say a woman can't do this or that regardless of their ability.

 

[Robot Carnival]

my friend's ex used to be in the army in some sorta support role (food nutritionist I think). she's not that good with hand to hand combat but she was super good with a rifle. something like 90% accuracy in a shooting test. I used to joke with my friend that he better not cheeat on her or he'll get his nuts shot off by her.

I think it's still a little early to say for sure if women is less suitable for the Marines. when did women started being accepted in the Marines? can't be that long yet right? and there were only 100 women in that test group of 400. so... maybe a better study is in order?

 

[Dee Dah Dave]

I was a Corporal in the Royal Engineers. There are some great women in the army who give it their all. But when it comes to physical ability, the very best woman is about as good as the weakest man.

I’m torn on the subject because I have worked with great female soldiers and it’s great that they want to do their part for the country. But unfortunately it’s a simple fact that your army will be weaker overall if it contains women. This isn’t such a big deal in peace time, or when you are fighting a much weaker enemy, but if it really comes to the crunch you are going to suffer from it. That isn’t good enough and entirely avoidable.

 

[MayauMiao]

Thousand years of human conflict and I have yet to hear a single army of women. I understand women can particpate in war effort but let's not pretend they can be on equal ground with men when things get down and dirty.

 

[Zog]

We just need to give women exactly what they want so they learn the hard way that it isn't really what they want. Stop trying to protect women from their choices. We'll all be happier when women stop complaining that men won't let them do things that they can do as well or better than men.

 

[HarryKS]

It still isn't an issue at the end of the day if you don't have a quota on the amount of soldiers. In absolute terms, you'd still be better than the opposition.

 

[Sakura Doritos]

I'm a bit surprised at the accuracy. Shooting is one of the few sports where top women compete equally with top men.

It really depends on the context of the test. Women can and do out perform men in marksmanship. if the test was just shooting I'd find the accuracy of the test flawed for sure. If it was a run stop shoot scenario then it makes sense as muscle mass and endurance of the human animal put women at a disadvantage on average.