The US Marines tested all-male squads against mixed-gender ones

[Longboysfan]

I don't understand where you are going here but that's OK. What I was getting at with the Israeli thing is that the answers to the question of women in combat may surprise you.

I think we will find they are about same level as shooters.
May not be same level as moving pack mules.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think we will find they are about same level as shooters.
May not be same level as moving pack mules.

I suspect we will find a lot more then that.

 

[DallasCowpoke]

I don't understand where you are going here but that's OK. What I was getting at with the Israeli thing is that the answers to the question of women in combat may surprise you.

I think a lot of people would be surprised. One obvious factor I'm sure you know, is that all Israelis are required to serve in their military, and not just for "love of county" but reasons that parallel Islamic tenants and mindset.

I've had a fair amount of Jewish friends/acquaintances over the years, and the LAST thing I'd want to get in a knife fight with is a po'd Bubbe!

 

[cajuncocoa]

Exactly. Maintain high standards and then allow people the chance to meet those standards. If they can then they have earned the right if not then they should not be given the opportunity man or woman. When lives are at stake social standards can take a back seat.

This.

I'm a woman, and I agree with this 100%. I don't want anything I haven't earned. I know I'm not physically capable of competing with men in just about any category you could name. But if there's a woman out there who is, I support her if that's what she wants to do and think she has earned her right to have the job (or whatever.)

I agree with what you said about lives being at stake, but I wouldn't draw the line only there. I would prefer if social standards always took a back seat because it just makes women look bad when they put one of us in a situation and she (predictably) fails.

 

[Stryker44]

Not even close.

In fact, Serena is the one who claimed she could beat anyone outside the top 200. So this guy stepped up.
He was a chain smoker who smoked between sets...lol.
He claims he had a beer before the match--but nobody can prove it.

"
1998: Karsten Braasch vs. the Williams sisters[edit]
Another event dubbed a "Battle of the Sexes" took place during the 1998 Australian Open[33] between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena Williams, aged 17 and 16 respectively, had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked below 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple bottles of ice cold lager."[34] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[35] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two beers. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[36] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance." He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun."[37] Braasch said the big difference was that men can chase down shots much easier, and that men put spin on the ball that the women can't handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.
"

Anyway, even though she was already winning grand Slams, Serena was not at her peak way back then.

But Serena is likely on HGH or juicing her self. She is far from a typical woman. Hard to believe she'd lose to an out of shape German guy with glasses.

 

[DallasCowboysRule!]

I just have concerns about some of these women in a combat role. Some of the exceptional ones can probably cut it like those ones that just passed through SF but will a regular infantry woman be able to lift a wounded male soldier whose body weight alone will likely be 200+ pounds and carry him who knows how far to safety. I worry that we're going to get soldiers killed in the name of equality.

 

[HeavyBarrel]

I just have concerns about some of these women in a combat role. Some of the exceptional ones can probably cut it like those ones that just passed through SF but will a regular infantry woman be able to lift a wounded male soldier whose body weight alone will likely be 200+ pounds and carry him who knows how far to safety. I worry that we're going to get soldiers killed in the name of equality.

Where did women just past through "SF", maybe I'm reading your post wrong

 

[zrinkill]

Its not sexist to say that males make better combatants than women ..... in our species males are much bigger and stronger ....... blame evolution and the laws of nature.
Women have many things that they are better at that are a big plus as part of the armed forces ....... organization, multi-tasking, better memories, stronger immune systems, better at many types of managerial positions.

 

[DallasCowboysRule!]

Where did women just past through "SF", maybe I'm reading your post wrong

I meant the ones that passed the Army Ranger School

 

[Fletch]

That's hard to believe - you'd think Serena would be able to beat everyone outside the top 20 or so on the mens side.

I watch a lot of tennis. Not happening. Serena may win a game or two, but that would be it against a male tennis player in the top twenty, even top 50.

 

[JDSmith]

That's hard to believe - you'd think Serena would be able to beat everyone outside the top 20 or so on the mens side.

The disparity between men and women is huge. I remember Chris Everett said, when she was at her best, she couldn't even beat her brother who was a college tennis player. People don't realize because these women are so good at what they do, and compared to a regular man they are outstanding. But when the men are working just as hard and spend a lot of time developing the same skills, their is simply too much difference in strength and explosiveness for women to overcome.

 

[JDSmith]

I am hesitant to say one way or the other Jammer. I don't want to start a holy war over this issue but the data is interesting. Check it out an see what conclusion you reach. I will simply say that the way women in the Israeli armed forces, as reported by U.S. media is somewhat overstated.

Women aren't as strong, and I can see how they'd struggle with some aspects described in the study as a result. But that study is a pile of crap. If they wanted real results they'd use both men and women directly from training, not combat vets vs new recruits. That is going to skew the data ridiculously.

 

[JoeKing]

Also - Ask Israel about what they see.

Good idea but difficult to do under the current political situation.

 

[JoeKing]

And what of the transgender folks that are now in the Marines? Do those units see the same shortfalls as did units with females in combat roles?

 

[burmafrd]

there is such a different culture and situation in Israel that trying to compare anything there to here is worthless.

Bottom line is that when you are talking the grunts on the ground 99% of women and about 80% of men have no business being there.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Women aren't as strong, and I can see how they'd struggle with some aspects described in the study as a result. But that study is a pile of crap. If they wanted real results they'd use both men and women directly from training, not combat vets vs new recruits. That is going to skew the data ridiculously.

I agree with this. However, I don't think the purpose of the study is to determine what each gender might do as a boot. The purpose of the study is probably to see how they integrate into a combat unit as it would exist today. If that's the purpose, then this sort of study would make sense.

 

[JDSmith]

I agree with this. However, I don't think the purpose of the study is to determine what each gender might do as a boot. The purpose of the study is probably to see how they integrate into a combat unit as it would exist today. If that's the purpose, then this sort of study would make sense.

But only if they include an equal number of fresh recruits who are men. If you put a group together made up of vets, and then a group with some vets and some new recruits, the new recruits will likely hurt the performance of their group. What they'd need to do is match the number of women in a test group, who are all new recruits, with an equal number of new recruits who are men in another group. Then the results would be less skewed.

 

[visionary]

People confuse being "equal" with being "the same"

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

But only if they include an equal number of fresh recruits who are men. If you put a group together made up of vets, and then a group with some vets and some new recruits, the new recruits will likely hurt the performance of their group. What they'd need to do is match the number of women in a test group, who are all new recruits, with an equal number of new recruits who are men in another group. Then the results would be less skewed.

Not necessarily. The way a unit typically works (as I'm sure you know) is, boots join a unit and operate with different levels of experience or knowledge. If they are testing to see how a women will perform in that situation, then I can see why you might measure in this way. Now, if you wanted to say, compare the scores with new boots (men) who are working against more experienced soldiers (also men) and then measuring performance from there, then I would agree. That would be a fair measurement.

 

[JoeKing]

Considering the percentage of the female population that would actually be an asset in a combat situation is somewhere less tan 1%, I'd rather the policy just go back to no females in combat roles. This experiment is just a distraction to our warriors and puts our national security at risk. Clearly the powers that be care nothing for those things. Banning gays in the military would be a welcome policy too but I'd include "don't ask, don't tell".