Community Chat

[jubilant]

v

ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:

The Marine Corps just released a year-long study testing whether women can survive the rough, grueling world of ground combat. The details are stark. All male units outperformed mixed-gender units across the board. Here's the decision Marine leaders have to make now - ask the Pentagon to still bar women from ground combat or push for tougher physical standards to let them in. Here's NPR's Tom Bowman.

TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: The Marine Corps created a battalion of 100 women and 300 men last fall to test whether opening up jobs in the infantry, artillery and armor to women is a good idea. NPR went along. They carried heavy packs and mounted patrols, shot at targets and dug fighting holes, practiced pulling the wounded to safety.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #1: Get up. Get up. Let's go. You got it.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #2: I can't get up.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #1: You got it. Get yourself up, Girl.

BOWMAN: Others changed massive tires on armored vehicles, while still others loaded artillery shells.

PAUL JOHNSON: Those are measurements of things that we believe impact combat effectiveness.

BOWMAN: That's Paul Johnson. He directed the study for the Marine Corps. Women will be allowed in those ground combat jobs beginning in January unless some Marines can successfully argue for an exception in the coming weeks. Now the results of the Marine study are in.

JOHNSON: In 93 out of 134 tasks that we tested across the MOS's, the all-male groups outperformed the integrated groups.

BOWMAN: And those task basically tell how good a unit is in fighting the enemy. Johnson's study found that male-only squads, teams and crews outperform those mixed with males and females.      

I know this is long but thought it might be an interesting read for some.

[sidsmom]

The info, proper, is not long....it's just repeated 3 times.  

I would suggest editing to delete the extra.  Thoughts? 

[RainyDayGal]

It looks like it repeated a few times when  you posted.

[chrystaltree]

I hate it  when people post stuff like that and then fail to make any comment at all.  So, what's your opinion on this, OP?  What do you think, OP?

[Say Nay]

IF women are going to be on elite teams in combat they had better qualify under the same standards and conditons as their male counterparts. 

[jubilant]

My own thoughts on this are....If there was a battle and my son and/or grandson was wounded, I would want the person who is watching his back to be able to sling him over their shoulders and "quickly" carry him to safety. 

My DH and I have had discussions on this over the years and I feel he has insight into what goes on.  He has been in situations of having to ward off another man trying to kill him in hand to hand combat.     Could most women overtake a man and do that?  Also when seriously wounded themselves, could a woman toss a 6ft. 180 lb. man over her shoulders and run? 

[Marp]

As far as I got (it would have helped if there was paragraph spacing) left me with one major question in regard to the findings of the Marine Corp study--did they factor in the psychological impact on the mixed teams of anti-female in combat roles resentment. 

Were the males subconsciously (or consciously) underperforming to skew the results to reduce the chance that females would be allowed in all combat positions?

[jubilant]

Sorry ladies...I have been trying to learn to cut and paste.  I used the ctrl c  ctrl v method.  I will see what I can do but keep in mind I don't know what I am doing!

[SahmIam]

As long as the person is able to meet the requirements for the job, they should be allowed to serve.

Do NOT dumb down the tests. Do NOT make the physical requirements less. Do NOT make the mental attitude needed less. Why? Because then the person who is supposed to have your back will NOT.