The Military is NOT a Social Experiment .....

[GURPS]

Navy secretary threw us ‘under the bus,’ say Marines in gender-integrated infantry unit

Marines involved in a controversial experiment evaluating a gender-integrated infantry unit say they feel betrayed by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus after he criticized the results of a nine-month study that found women are injured more frequently and shoot less accurately in simulated combat conditions.

“Our secretary of the Navy completely rolled the Marine Corps and the entire staff that was involved in putting this [experiment] in place under the bus,” said Sgt. Danielle Beck, a female anti-armor gunner with the task force.

Mabus questioned the findings of the research after a four-page summary of the results was released Thursday, saying he still thinks all jobs in the Marine Corps should be opened to women. He said results that found women were more than twice as likely to be injured and ultimately compromise a unit’s combat effectiveness were an “extrapolation based on injury rates, and I’m not sure that’s right,” he told NPR.


back ground;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_combat

Tactical concerns

In On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman briefly mentions that female soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces have been officially prohibited from serving in close combat military operations since 1948. The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines was due less to the performance of female soldiers, and more due to the behavior of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression, severely degrading the unit's combat effectiveness.

[clip]

Melody Kemp mentions that the Australian soldiers have voiced similar concern saying these soldiers "are reluctant to take women on reconnaissance or special operations, as they fear that in the case of combat or discovery, their priority will be to save the women and not to complete the mission. Thus while men might be able to be programmed to kill, it is not as easy to program men to neglect women."[54]

Israeli women’s combat roles exaggerated, military traditionalists say

Women in Combat? What is the price for equality.


https://books.google.com/books?id=K...omen in combat - soviets and israelis&f=false

 

[glhs837]

I love it. This guy has been probably the worst SECNAV in memory, mine at least. The worst kind of political lickspittle imaginable. "Never mind the science, lets do the PC way". "Whats that you say, your analysis was based on data? Preeposterous!!!! Preposterous, I say!!!! I'll base my decision on the feels!!!"

 

[Hodr]

I know there must be some complicated reason why the obvious answer isn't the correct answer. Because the obvious answer is determine the minimum requirement of the position (lift so much weight, run so fast/long, shoot so accurately) and then make it open to everyone.

This lets you do away with gender, age, body type discrimination. If you can do the job, you get the job. If not, maybe you could try for something else, come back later, or manage your expectations.

 

[b23hqb]

I love it. This guy has been probably the worst SECNAV in memory, mine at least. The worst kind of political lickspittle imaginable. "Never mind the science, lets do the PC way". "Whats that you say, your analysis was based on data? Preeposterous!!!! Preposterous, I say!!!! I'll base my decision on the feels!!!"

As long as liberals control the media, and "PC" is a hallowed principle of theirs, and the obama's of the world exist, our military will be a social experiment, regardless of the outcome

 

[tommyjo]

Hey GRUPS....the military has been a social experiment since its foundations...maybe you should stop hating the country you live in and learn a little bit about it?

 

[This_person]

I know there must be some complicated reason why the obvious answer isn't the correct answer. Because the obvious answer is determine the minimum requirement of the position (lift so much weight, run so fast/long, shoot so accurately) and then make it open to everyone.

This lets you do away with gender, age, body type discrimination. If you can do the job, you get the job. If not, maybe you could try for something else, come back later, or manage your expectations.

If I read the OP correctly, the problem is not specifically whether or not the women could do as well (lift so much weight, run so fast, shoot so accurate). The problem the Isreali's and Australian's face is that the men in the unit, having likely been raised with the "women and children first" chivalry that says women are to be protected protect the women when they're injured. And, for whatever reason, the injuries to women are significantly higher.

Basically, the men need to be taught to not be the gentlemen that all of life and society and standards have taught them to be, and say, "she's hit, #### her we have to take the hill, we'll come back for her corpse later" like they would for a fellow male combatant.

Until we're ready to charge women with domestic abuse the same as men, charge them with sexual assault the same as men, have the same percentage stay-at-home dads as we do moms, and completely release the "women and children first" mentality that is fully embedded in our DNA, it's likely to not work regardless of the standards that are physically measureable, like lift so much, run so fast, shoot so accurate.

 

[This_person]

Hey GRUPS....the military has been a social experiment since its foundations...maybe you should stop hating the country you live in and learn a little bit about it?

Yes, the Marine SGT. Danielle Beck, a female anti-armor gunner with the task force who felt, "Our secretary of the Navy completely rolled the Marine Corps and the entire staff that was involved in putting this [experiment] in place under the bus" clearly doesn't understand it as well as you do.

 

[glhs837]

TP

No for the Marines the issue wasn't really the chivalry factor, since we haven't gone to combat yet this way. GURPs posted that as additional reasoning. The conclusions the Marine study reached had nothing to do with that aspect. The issue is that simply operating as a warfighter in a Marine ground unit places stress on a persons body. The amount of weight carried, the activities performed like digging and lifting heavy things, these activities will cause harm a percentage of all people, male and female. What the study found was that the percentage of women injured during the normal course of simply performing infantry duties was higher than that of males. So, if I take 100 men to war, my number folks tell me I can expect to lose a certain number as effective warfighters, not due to enemy action, but due to broken bones, torn muscles, that sort of thing. If I take 100 women to war, that number will be higher.

And they also found that in simulated combat conditions, the amount of women who can effectively put rounds on target (again, it's a percentage, and with men it's never %100 either) is lower than that of men. So, again, I need more units (individual people) to accomplish the same mission. That's what they found. You are going to spend more blood and treasure to do less killing.

 

[Larry Gude]

...The Military is NOT a Social Experiment .....

Of course it is.

 

[Restitution]

Of course it is.

Based on what experience?

 

[Larry Gude]

TP

No for the Marines the issue wasn't really the chivalry factor, since we haven't gone to combat yet this way. GURPs posted that as additional reasoning. The conclusions the Marine study reached had nothing to do with that aspect. The issue is that simply operating as a warfighter in a Marine ground unit places stress on a persons body. The amount of weight carried, the activities performed like digging and lifting heavy things, these activities will cause harm a percentage of all people, male and female. What the study found was that the percentage of women injured during the normal course of simply performing infantry duties was higher than that of males. So, if I take 100 men to war, my number folks tell me I can expect to lose a certain number as effective warfighters, not due to enemy action, but due to broken bones, torn muscles, that sort of thing. If I take 100 women to war, that number will be higher.

And they also found that in simulated combat conditions, the amount of women who can effectively put rounds on target (again, it's a percentage, and with men it's never %100 either) is lower than that of men. So, again, I need more units (individual people) to accomplish the same mission. That's what they found. You are going to spend more blood and treasure to do less killing.

And that is how the issue should be approached; a debate about practical matters. The value of a womans life to a male is a moral issue as well, it seems, as a natural one which makes perfect sense. properly understood, men pretty much go to war FOR women in the first place. So, setting all that aside, we have the physical; regardless of the duty, be it combat or not, women suffer greater than men do physically. Knee injuries in basketball and soccer for girls isn't about whether they've had one or not but how many. It's awful but it is nature.

Now, can we accommodate that by changing standards in order to get girls in the fields? Sure. Should we? If so, why? That's the questions.

As this being about military as social experiment, of course it is. We used to ban blacks for social reasons. We are still struggling with gays for social reasons. We CAN find roles for women in combat but it's gonna make a lot more sense to lighten their load in a lot of ways. I mean, there is ZERO doubt women can operate under pressure and multi task. Maybe they'd excel at comms in the field, under fire? Or, the holy grail, leadership, under fire? I know several women, including Vrai, who you'd damn sure want in charge when the SHTF.

So, as usual, the right assumes the defensive because we are, inherently, morons that way. Here is a great chance to seize the initiative; Sure there are roles for women in combat. As part of that we need to stop with the silliness of equality and be objective; lighten women's loads in some areas they are weaker in, increase it where they excel and are stronger.

 

[Larry Gude]

Based on what experience?

Well, we can start with 239 years of US military history if you like. :shrug:

 

[aps45819]

Hey GRUPS....the military has been a social experiment since its foundations...maybe you should stop hating the country you live in and learn a little bit about it?

I can't believe I'm agreeing with this liberal ass, but he's somewhat correct. The military was the first area of American society to become integrated

 

[Larry Gude]

I can't believe I'm agreeing with this liberal ass, but he's somewhat correct. The military was the first area of American society to become integrated

It goes a lot further and deeper than that. Look at the very social fabric of Washington's troops, the back ground of the troops, class, how they were screwed out of what they were promised until most had died of old age.

Look at the integration of units in terms of community during the civil war, the devastating effects of entire towns essentially dying as most of their men were lost. How leaders used to be decided upon.

The social aspects of our foreign policy, Jackson even having slaves helping to fight the Brits.

The very Southern leanings of the professional military in our Mexican adventures and how that played out in the Civil war.

The screwing we gave to the troops post WWI.

The incessant use of the US military to serve private interests.

The success of how well troops were treated post WWII forming the backbone of a rather broad societal transformation in terms of education, opportunity.

The disaster of Vietnam, the draft aspects, the civil rupture caused by it.

I mean, it's an absolute non starter to even begin to suggest the military isn't a social experiment and never mind even suggesting it should NOT be. The very purpose of war, of a military is societal. To think of it as some sort of private corporation or something that should be separate from society, from societal evolution, experimenting, how can that even remotely be a thought?

Heck, the US military is perhaps THE social lab we have.

 

[Misfit]

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-34229556

They can make their own MRE's :shrug:

 

[PeoplesElbow]

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-34229556

They can make their own MRE's :shrug:

But they take 9 months to make them.

 

[b23hqb]

Based on what experience?

Well, if you can read, and care to take notice of history, you should be able to see that experience.

 

[GURPS]

Hey GRUPS....the military has been a social experiment since its foundations
...maybe you should stop hating the country you live in and learn a little bit about it?

please explain what yrs and what branch you served in

[I know plenty about my country]

 

[GURPS]

Of course it is.

no it is not ....

It needs to be a cohesive fighting force to close with and kill the enemy

get caught boking another mans wife and see what happens
http://theweek.com/articles/470371/david-petraeusaffair-why-military-outlaws-adultery

The military was the first area of American society to become integrated

indeed an All Green Army ....

Desert Storm proved women in deploy-able units are a mistake, the nightly news [for those that can remember] were filled with stories, 40% or more of the females were suddenly pregnant, and their unit had to be removed from the deployment roster - and these were rear echelon JOBS


women should NEVER be deploy-able to a combat environment, unless they

1) serve in all gender units - no worries about men going off mission to save some wounded female
2) get sterilized ... no babies, no getting out of deployment #becausepregnancy, no getting pregnant after getting gang raped by 20 Jihadist's


harsh yep damn straight .... combat is a serious business, not a petri dish for the latest whims of progressives


and QUIT reducing the requirements ... one standard for everyone

 

[This_person]

TP

No for the Marines the issue wasn't really the chivalry factor, since we haven't gone to combat yet this way. GURPs posted that as additional reasoning. The conclusions the Marine study reached had nothing to do with that aspect. The issue is that simply operating as a warfighter in a Marine ground unit places stress on a persons body. The amount of weight carried, the activities performed like digging and lifting heavy things, these activities will cause harm a percentage of all people, male and female. What the study found was that the percentage of women injured during the normal course of simply performing infantry duties was higher than that of males. So, if I take 100 men to war, my number folks tell me I can expect to lose a certain number as effective warfighters, not due to enemy action, but due to broken bones, torn muscles, that sort of thing. If I take 100 women to war, that number will be higher.

And they also found that in simulated combat conditions, the amount of women who can effectively put rounds on target (again, it's a percentage, and with men it's never %100 either) is lower than that of men. So, again, I need more units (individual people) to accomplish the same mission. That's what they found. You are going to spend more blood and treasure to do less killing.

I get that....and those standards should be consistent as you say.

But, you also make the other point (inadvertently) that I bolded. Based on the experience of others, I would anticipate that should be a problem for us, too.