No it's not. It's a bad idea for the Army and the Corps. The Soviets and the Israelis did it out of desperation. Combat is nowhere to play with progressive fantasies.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
SECNAV to Implement Sweeping Changes
- Thread starter usnavymle
- Start date
SECNAV's comments regarding the study have been embarrassing. If he had issues with the methodology of the report, he should have fixed it before the study concluded. Now he just looks foolish trying to explain his position contrary to the evidence. Evidence that the USMC, an organization in his department, has spent significant time and energy gathering.
Actually the Israelis still have a mixed-gender unit called the Caracal Battalion that patrols the Israel-Egypt border. Norway, Denmark and a few other countries also allow women in all combat arms units though a few notable ones like the Dutch and the Brits don't.
My concern about opening things up will be the questions raised by some after every female who tried to do Marine Infantry officer training didn't complete it, basically saying that the standards need to be looked at for being too tough. If years go by and no women pass BUD/S, PJ training or any of a number of special forces training schools will our leadership accept that or pressure them to pass females?
Yeah uh, that battalion isn't what I would exactly call a "model for success" for gender integration.
Not saying it is but it is trumpeted as such by some folks advocating for opening all combat positions to women. Have you heard anything in particular about the unit? All I have found is generally supportive of the unit but that is largely PR, not in-depth articles/studies.
Well, he's right. "..[the study says that] because women get injured more frequently, that over time women will break down more. That you will begin to lose your combat effectiveness over time. That was not shown in this study." Sure. I'd say you lose your combat effectiveness immediately when any member, male or female, meds down.
My only issue with this study is that I wish they'd been more strict with personnel coming and going from the units. Not sure how they'd fix that, but it's a variable that muddies the water a little. Otherwise, BZ to the Marines, who seem to have gone all in for this study. After reading the summary of results, I'm pretty surprised at how categorically and significantly integration detracts.
Last edited:
It just goes to show that you can make the best, most scientific study imaginable, but if there is a preconceived notion based on what is considered PC for the day, your study doesn't mean jack shit.
I wonder if anyone asked at the beginning "What happens when we find result X and the brass doesn't like it?".
I wonder if anyone asked at the beginning "What happens when we find result X and the brass doesn't like it?".
Wait, I thought we were talking about female Marines, not JSF.....
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
As a bonus, this is also pretty much how we do procurement.
The IDF has a draft, and over 90% of their jobs are open to women, yet there is not a swarm of volunteers going into those jobs and most do not go into combat arms because it's a mandatory 3 year commitment. That particular unit is currently stationed in the Sinai as essentially border and patrol guards. I think the issue is the lack of statistics of the Caracal Battalion's performance during the 2006 Lebanon War. Being as the battalion was committed to the operation as the first mixed gender combat unit to enter a conflict you think it would be trumpeted as a success? Amongst most Infantry Marines that are familiar with the war, it is a well-known but covered up fact that it did not do so well (As well as the entirety of the IDF compared to previous successes for that matter.) I know that I have no data to support this, but apparently this is a some what commonly know fact. Take it for what it's worth.
Having a mixed battalion or regiment of integrated female/males is one thing, but having the entirety of the ground combat element of the US Military integrated is probably not a good idea. It in no way shape or form increases combat effectiveness/readiness and in some cases can probably lower it. I also do not think that lowering standards is a way to do it either. Hell no. Serving in the military is not a right.
Lowering standards to force integration has and will continue to kill people in combat. Absolutely agree.
That's a micro aggression..........I feel threatened.............I need a puppy, or a sociology professor.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/sep/15/mabus-cleveland-speech-women-in-combat/
SECNAV says that "specific standards" came out of Marine expriement, with regards to MOS success. So, following that down the rabbit hole, will every MOS have a "standard test" in the future? An ASTB of sorts for every MOS. Oh the joys.
SECNAV says that "specific standards" came out of Marine expriement, with regards to MOS success. So, following that down the rabbit hole, will every MOS have a "standard test" in the future? An ASTB of sorts for every MOS. Oh the joys.
