All Male Squads performed better

[Beaker]

The Marines conducted a study in which 400 Marines were trained together...100 of them women. They were divided into mixed gender teams, and all male teams. Every aspect of their deployment was studied and quantified. They found the all male teams performed significantly better in combat situations. With a mandate for all branches of the military to allow women in combat coming up, should we be forced by law to have mixed gender squads in the military?

Link:
http://qz.com/499618/the-us-marines-tested-all-male-squads-against-mixed-gender-ones-and-the-men-came-out-ahead/?utm_source=YPL&ref=yfp

[*bfine32*]

Who cares about lives when rights are at stake?

[Belsnickel]

This is definitely an interesting study, and the results are not surprising. The Marines do point out that there were a higher proportion of men with combat infantry experience because those proportions were not available among the women. I think that while the numbers would never even out, they would show less of variance if you compared two equally trained and experienced Marines of opposite genders. Statistically speaking, this is also not a good study as the proportions of women to men in the sample are not similar to the proportion in the population. The higher proportion of women skews the results.

I am definitely not going to say that there is no value to these findings or that these things would significantly change the outcomes, I just think the results may be a bit skewed.

[BmorePat87]

Some seniors in my sociology class did a gender based survey on sports teams at the school. Male teams were found to have much less cliques, less "drama", the male players were more likely to like everyone on their team and to feel like they had a strong bond with everyone.

Male group dynamic is far different than female group dynamic. Equality of opportunity for everyone, but equality of condition does not exist.

[Rotobeast]

Separate teams by gender.
If for nothing else, do it for the non-verbal communication skills.
Women can convey more to women and men to men.
I know of ONE woman I'd trust to cover my ass, as she was a Marine when Fallujah went nasty.
I'm not saying women can't get the job done, but I think things get complicated when you mix up the fire team.

[Benton]

And?

It answers an obvious question (who is currently better in combat situations divided into gender categories). What it doesn't answer is if females would be as good or equal in combat situations with more comparable training and conditioning. You've got, mostly, a couple hundred years of protocol, tactics, conditioning and training developed around a male's strengths and weaknesses. Comparing that to two years of seeing if active duty females are combat ready isn't showing much.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-10-2015, 06:17 PM)Beaker Wrote: The Marines conducted a study in which 400 Marines were trained together...100 of them women. They were divided into mixed gender teams, and all male teams. Every aspect of their deployment was studied and quantified. They found the all male teams performed significantly better in combat situations. With a mandate for all branches of the military to allow women in combat coming up, should we be forced by law to have mixed gender squads in the military?

Link:
http://qz.com/499618/the-us-marines-tested-all-male-squads-against-mixed-gender-ones-and-the-men-came-out-ahead/?utm_source=YPL&ref=yfp

There shouldn't be any integration of women into historically combat jobs unless they can perform the same job to the same standard without any accommodations.

This study has a fatal flaw . . .

Quote:The tests come with at least one important caveat: As the Marine Corps Times notes, 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.

You have a bunch of females with no experience being tested against experienced infantrymen.  I can tell you the experienced infantrymen will out perform the females.  If you conducted the same experiment with inexperienced, non-infantry males you would get the same results.  The need to set up a control group with inexperienced, non-infantry males mixed with the experienced infantrymen and compare the results of each of those groups.  Then the results need to be reproducible to be valid.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-10-2015, 07:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who cares about lives when rights are at stake?

And if they can do the job they should be able to because lives are at stake.  They should not be told they can't because of your prejudice.  

[*bfine32*]

If I'm reading the link correctly. All members started from scratch:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/07/grunt-life-marines-dish-corps-women-combat-experiment/71632666/

No sure where the men had more experience slant comes from.

[*bfine32*]

(09-11-2015, 12:55 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: And if they can do the job they should be able to because lives are at stake.  They should not be told they can't because of your prejudice.  

I suppose we've gotten to the point when someone thinks a male is better at combat warfighting skills than a female, they become prejudice. I'll not tell them they cannot; however, I will be "prejudice" and tell them they may be at a physical disadvantage.

Why are females that turn 18 required to register with selective service? 

[Benton]

(09-11-2015, 01:03 AM)bfine32 Wrote: If I'm reading the link correctly. All members started from scratch:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/07/grunt-life-marines-dish-corps-women-combat-experiment/71632666/

No sure where the men had more experience slant comes from.

Don't think you were.

Quote:While the experiment was closely controlled, there was a key experience gap: Many male task force volunteers came from combat units where they had previously served, while female volunteers came directly from infantry schools or from noncombat jobs. One task force unit, a provisional rifle platoon, attempted to mitigate this problem by comparing the performance of male and female troops who received no formal infantry training.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/10/mixed-gender-teams-come-up-short-marines-infantry-experiment/71979146/

That's the link from the from the OP link.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-11-2015, 01:03 AM)bfine32 Wrote: If I'm reading the link correctly. All members started from scratch:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/07/grunt-life-marines-dish-corps-women-combat-experiment/71632666/

No sure where the men had more experience slant comes from.

Well, probably from this . . .

Quote:While many male volunteers had years of experience in their given MOS, the female volunteers either came from non-combat units or were straight out of boot camp and follow-on training, making them significantly less experienced in their new roles compared to their male counterparts.

Now you're 0-3 in less than 24 hours.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-11-2015, 01:07 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose we've gotten to the point when someone thinks a male is better at combat warfighting skills than a female, they become prejudice. I'll not tell them they cannot; however, I will be "prejudice" and tell them they may be at a physical disadvantage.

Why are females that turn 18 required to register with selective service? 

It is clear from your initial comment that your not even interested in giving them a chance to prove themselves capable or fail in the process which indicates you're prejudiced against them.  In the case of the female Ranger graduates you claimed they will never use their training which is complete bullshit.  You also wrote there are less expensive leadership courses they could attend and get the same level of leadership training.  Well, I'm still waiting for you to give me that list because I think that is bullshit, too.

If they can do the job, I see no reason why they shouldn't have the freedom to do so.  Especially, seeing how we're in the freedom business.

[Blutarsky]

(09-11-2015, 02:05 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If they can do the job, I see no reason why they shouldn't have the freedom to do so.  Especially, seeing how we're in the freedom business.

Just so that if ever the draft were to be reinstituted, women would also be subject to it...no "choice" bullshit here.

It cant be said that all women are unable to physically meet the rigors. Some can. Two female Army officers recently made history by completing Army Ranger school.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/21/433482186/first-female-soldiers-graduate-from-army-ranger-school

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-11-2015, 11:30 AM)Blutarsky Wrote: Just so that if ever the draft were to be reinstituted, women would also be subject to it...no "choice" bullshit here.

I don't see a problem with everyone registering with Selective Service.

I'm torn on military conscription.  On the one hand, I'm an asshole and would love for people like you to suffer.  On the other hand, I feel sorry for the NCO that would have to deal with people like you who are leadership challenges.

[Blutarsky]

(09-11-2015, 11:57 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I don't see a problem with everyone registering with Selective Service.

I'm torn on military conscription.  On the one hand, I'm an asshole and would love for people like you to suffer.  On the other hand, I feel sorry for the NCO that would have to deal with people like you who are leadership challenges.

lol..musta pushed this guys button somewhere along the line.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-11-2015, 12:03 PM)Blutarsky Wrote: lol..musta pushed this guys button somewhere along the line.

Not really.  Like I wrote, I'm an asshole who likes to see people like you suffer.

[Rotobeast]

(09-11-2015, 11:57 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I don't see a problem with everyone registering with Selective Service.

I'm torn on military conscription.  On the one hand, I'm an asshole and would love for people like you to suffer.  On the other hand, I feel sorry for the NCO that would have to deal with people like you who are leadership challenges.

Screw it !
Let's have mandatory 2 years of service for everyone.

[Belsnickel]

(09-11-2015, 12:14 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Screw it !
Let's have mandatory 2 years of service for everyone.

I'm a fan of the Swiss model.

[SteelCitySouth]

(09-11-2015, 12:14 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Screw it !
Let's have mandatory 2 years of service for everyone.

Honestly...I don't see much bad with that idea.  In fact I bet there would be a lot of great things that came out of it.