TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

The US Marines tested all-male squads against mixed-gender ones, and the results were pretty bleak

Bl_rp

April 16, 2016
121 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://qz.com/499618/the-us-marines-tested-all-male-squads-against-mixed-gender-ones-and-the-men-came-out-ahead/
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title The US Marines tested all-male squads against mixed-gender ones, and the results were pretty bleak
Author

Bl_rp

Upvotes 121
Comments 91
Date April 16, 2016 3:54 AM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4f0d7m/the_us_marines_tested_allmale_squads_against/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-us-marines-tested-all-male-squads-against.951682
https://theredarchive.com/post/951682
Top posts by Bl_rp

On the imgur frontpage: The "That’s right people, masculinism is a thing." dump

162 upvotes
September 6, 2016
/r/MensRights

What's that one quote about luxuriously dressed women with dirty working husbands from ~1500?

31 upvotes
February 23, 2018
/r/MensRights

Where can I find these studies mentioned by Karen Straughan on women in STEM?

23 upvotes
February 17, 2017
/r/MensRights

What do the statistics say about male vs female rape?

17 upvotes
March 13, 2016
/r/MensRights

A list of Karen Straughan videos

15 upvotes
October 5, 2016
/r/MensRights

Do men or women do more work?

10 upvotes
May 23, 2018
/r/MensRights

Thoughts on women-only / men-only gyms and other businesses?

8 upvotes
December 9, 2015
/r/MensRights

Are there more than two genders?

6 upvotes
June 7, 2016
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]redditorriot 20 points21 points22 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

And this was without testing against hand-to-hand combat.

[–]never_said_that 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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.

Don't treat green troops vs veterans as men vs women.

[+]brnrmbo -11 points-10 points-9 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

And it also tested previously deployed men against women straight out of camp. Which seems like a pretty big oversight for a study of magnitude.

[–]Mitthrawnuruodo1337 19 points20 points21 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Where is that stated? The summary report seems to indicate (but does not specifically say) that both groups were selected at the same time as recruits. It even went to far as to compare untrained men with trained women in firing accuracy.

[–]Bl_rp[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I haven't read the report, but the article says so:

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.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]--Visionary-- 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And the predictable response to your answer is:

crickets

No doubt they'll be spewing the same nonsense somewhere else and go radio silent when they're disproved. It's the feminist way!

[–]SixInTheStix 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Combat units and combat experience aren't the same thing. I served in a combat unit in the marine corps, however I never saw combat.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

While i served in communications and saw lots :D luck of the draw.

[–]SixInTheStix 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I was actually an 0621!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Army here. 25Q

[–]currygunner 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I just had a general question, does the same standard of fitness and endurance apply to the women as it does to men? If it does then isn't it better to create brigades with all women squads? And if the standards are laxed, then why are they? Isn't this sexism? And dosent the army have any responsibility towards the well-being of its soldiers? If one person is in lacking, dosent it out the rest of the unit in danger?

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points28 points 10 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

I just had a general question, does the same standard of fitness and endurance apply to the women as it does to men?

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck no. Women get like, 20 minutes for a two mile in the Army, which you can walk.

If it does then isn't it better to create brigades with all women squads?

That's how I feel, but they would likely face more casualties

And if the standards are laxed, then why are they? Isn't this sexism?

Yes and no. Different standards in SUPPORT roles, are understandable. Neither male or females are as likely to see combat. However, the degree of difference is what is retarded, I know women who never work out and get perfect pt scores. Men on the other hand? You have to bust your ass to get there (it took me over a year of working out to get there, push ups for days)

Not to mention, people are way to pussy to grade women honestly. In my unit, men are expected to go so low on the pushup that their biceps are parallel to the ground (breaking the plane), women? HA! 4 inches down is enough and will get no complaints.

This is not to mention that I'm definitely against different standards in combat roles.

And dosent the army have any responsibility towards the well-being of its soldiers?

Oh god, please let trump change something in this regard....anyway, yes, but pressure from the outside and capitulation to said pressure apparently makes higher ups look good, so guess who suffers?

If one person is in lacking, dosent it out the rest of the unit in danger?

You're only as good as your worst Soldier, so yes

[–]currygunner 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Thank you for the prompt and insightful reply sir. This is fucked up.

[–]--Visionary-- 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is fucked up.

Actually it's another F-word. Feminism.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Hey! I'm going to the ocs board next week, lay on me some questions that I may hear. Please!

My commander bust my balls the other day and hated my interview with him, which everyone else loved... so I want to go in with a good idea of what to expect, so I've been asking many people

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Hey, I'm going to sere this summer, and yes, I know about r/military. They can be really touchy over there though

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Umm, don't answer this if you can't, but you wouldn't happen to be an instructor at ft. Bragg's sere school.

Either way, I appreciate the advice, I'm pretty pumped to go

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ah, right, you mentioned that. Doh!

[–]TheWheatOne 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Doesn't this just make the experiment unscientific then? You have veteran male soldiers against fresh from school females with far lower standards....

[–]Il128 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Israel already did the studies. The Israelis don't put women on the front lines.

[–]lasciate 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

People are always harping on the misogyny of America's enemies. Wouldn't knowing that they're fighting against women/mixed gender forces make such groups fight harder and surrender less easily?

I can't see standard infantry surviving this experiment as a viable, large-scale fighting force. Seems like more evidence that we're headed into an eternal drone strike feedback loop.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

despite what you've been told by the media, middle easterners don't hate women. They just view them as children that need to be controlled. They would view it as if they were fighting a platoon of 12 year olds.

[–]lasciate 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Then how can they expect to win hearts and minds in the Middle East if they're deploying women to fight, kill, and die? We can barely stomach the idea in the West. Seems like a bridge too far for even progressive Muslims.

[–]warsie 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

In the various Arab-Israeli wars and before, there were women who were part of the struggle in various ways (PLO fighters, Fedayeen, etc)

[–]lasciate 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Does that translate to Iraq, Afghanistan/Pakistan, and North Africa?

[–]warsie 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

From what I remember, there were women partisans in the Algerian War of Independence. Certainly they had influence as couriers and other logistics organization. Also, there were female communist partisans who supported the Soviet-propped Afghan government.

[–]warsie 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So, they'd be scared shitless then?

There's female Islamist units fighting in the Syrian Civil War.

[–]Whisper 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

We may be getting into redpill material here, but remember that men are evolved to scout, hunt, and fight, while women are evolved to bear and raise children.

This would make a certain kind of childishness a feature, not a bug.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We may be getting into redpill material here, but remember that men are evolved to scout, hunt, and fight, while women are evolved to bear and raise children.

Common sense is misogynistic tho /s

[–]warsie 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just to point out, in preliterate times women also accompanies men on the hunt, if for nothing else but to provide maintenance/support for the hunters i.e. fixing their overcoats or weapons.

Saying the only thing women were evolved for was bearing and raising children is inaccurate. (esp given preliterate tribes did have abortificent knowledge so they werent stuck with that)

[–]Revoran 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

People are always harping on the misogyny of America's enemies. Wouldn't knowing that they're fighting against women/mixed gender forces make such groups fight harder and surrender less easily?

It's not quite that simple...

I can't see standard infantry surviving this experiment as a viable, large-scale fighting force. Seems like more evidence that we're headed into an eternal drone strike feedback loop.

Agreed. I don't see how this can work unless women are subjected to the same standards as men. Sure, only a tiny minority of women will pass, but so be it. If you're not good enough for the job that's too bad.

Also agreed about the drones strikes in civilian areas provoking more terrorism and anti-US sentiment.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]-Fender- 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Right. This works fantastically if you actually win the battles, but if the standards are so lax that these units lose pathetically to any enemy forces they face, then this just makes your army look bad and further convince the enemy that their perspective is Right and Just.

[–]warsie 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually, the black units in WWII Europe didn't cause that mentality. Note the white americans often made sure to keep black units from combat, only a few engaged in the front line.

In the Pacific, I don't think the Japanese soldiers gave that much of a shit either. Well not to any extra difference than fighting whites did.

[–]McFeely_Smackup 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Note that they tested all male squads against mixed gender squads, and not a single suggestion to test an all male squad against an all female one.

I don't even have to speculate where an all female squad would rank in this testing, it would be dead last. Adding female soldiers to the combat role CAN be effective...but it has to be in a role where their physical differences are not a liability. When we know for a fact that female inclusion is dragging down performance, and trying to justify why that's probably ok, we're playing sociology games, not military ones.

[–]synn89 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah. When a drone pilot can wipe out entire enemy squads, I'm not all that worried about women not being as good as a ground pounder.

It's not like tomorrow's military is going to lack for highly technical and mental job roles.

[–]chocoboat 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

This doesn't mean that women shouldn't be allowed in combat. It means that unqualified women shouldn't be allowed.

If you're significantly slower, weaker, and less competent than everyone else, you shouldn't be in combat role. Gender is irrelevant, ability is all that matters.

[–]Bl_rp[S] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The problem is that men's instincts to protect women will compromise their ability to make good decisions and prioritize the mission. Though I guess all-female squads would be fine, as long as they have the same physical requirements as men.

[–]Revoran 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What if this instinct is kicking in because they women they're admitting currently actually ARE worse than the men.

Would the guys still act like retards if their female squad buddy was every bit as capable as they were?

[–]Bl_rp[S] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm pretty sure they would, yeah. Women are the bottlenecks of reproduction, and this was a really big deal in the time of hunter-gatherers, so men have evolved to be protective of women. It ties in with male disposability; here's a classic video on the subject.

[–]garglemesh42 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

What is this?

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (23 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]chocoboat -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Individual women are not automatically weaker and slower than the individual men who are also looking for a combat role. It might be a woman comparable to Ronda Rousey, up against men with previous injuries, or a weight problem, or an inability to focus when under pressure.

Suppose you tested people of all kinds of different backgrounds, and found that brown-haired people do very slightly worse than blond haired people do. Should brown haired people be banned from combat roles then? Of course not. Or suppose you found that whites fall just short of the scores posted by blacks. Should whites be banned from combat roles? No one would suggest that.

There's literally no reason to discriminate based on skin color, gender, or anything else. Why would you judge something based on completely irrelevant factors?

Just judge people based on how capable they are, and nothing else.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The average male senior in high school is more physically capable than the average woman.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Track records for high school males are also better than Olympic women...

[–]chocoboat 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The problem here that the exceptional woman will be pursuing these jobs alongside....the average man.

How is that a problem?

That doesn't make sense.

Why not?

There's a reason MMA has men's and women's divisions, and it's purely based on physical make up and capability.

Of course. It wouldn't be fair otherwise. Same reason the heavyweights don't fight the welterweights.

Then suppose your superiors decided to add people who are statistically worse in every category

Then let's not do this part! Everyone should have to pass a high quality standard to make sure they're qualified and capable.

Gender isn't a completely irrelevant factor

It is on an individual basis. If you're going into battle and you have to take with you either Ronda Rousey, Michael Moore, or Bob Barker... are you going to rule out Rousey because she's a woman?

There's simply no reason to consider gender. You take the most qualified people. It does not matter what color their skin is, what color their hair is, what they pee out of, who they date, what their favorite ice cream flavor is, or anything else that has nothing to do with job performance.

Pick the best person for the job. That's all there is to it.

Pretend they were, instead, trying to murder each other. Based on the stats, the mixed-gender squad loses that fight, and people die.

But why did the first squad win? Was it because of their penises? Or was it because they were better at their job?

This demonstrates my point. You pick the best people for the job. The strongest, smartest, fastest people win... whoever those people happen to be. You literally gain nothing by discriminating on irrelevant factors, and you potentially lose out on a superior talent (which means your team's ability is lower than it would have been otherwise).

It's like if you were drafting a fantasy football team, and decided you weren't going to pick anyone with the letter E in their name. What's the point of this? Why would you discriminate based on anything other than their individual ability to do well at football? All you're doing is taking options like Aaron Rodgers and Richard Sherman off of the table for yourself. And you gain nothing. So why do it? Why not just pick the best people available?

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]chocoboat 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Why would exceptional women be pursuing these jobs, but only average men?

I didn't claim this is always the case.

And, if we're looking at graduation rates, 99% of men who attend SOI pass. Women have a 34% passing rate right now. Clearly, there's a discrepancy in physical capability here.

Of course. In general, men are more suited to this kind of task. But that in no way justifies banning women from it. It makes as much sense as banning men from being teachers or single parents, because taking care of children tends to come a little more naturally to women. There's just no reason to discriminate against an entire gender instead of judging individuals by their own ability. Nothing is gained by it.

So fighting is off limits, but killing each other in highly kinetic environments requiring discipline and in a high degree of physical fitness isn't? Wow.

What are you talking about? War isn't a sport. War doesn't have rules to make things fair. There is no heavyweight or welterweight divisions in war. We create divisions in sports to make things a fair contest.

Hey, you should tell the police departments and fire fighters your secret, too.

Apparently they do need to be reminded.

I'm going to rule out Barker and Moore because they're way past the age cut off.

You're going to nitpick my hypotheticals? Fine, then. Your choices are Rousey, a 25 year old 600 lb man who can't walk, and a frail 25 year old 100 lb drug addict.

Are you still going to rule out choosing a woman, even when she's the best available option?

Physiology, injury rate, infantry trained womens' inability to shoot as well as non-infantry trained men, and inability to carry their own weight and require help on obstacles that men didn't are all quite relevant. This isn't an individual based thing. It's gender. Their physiology works against them. Not having testosterone fueling their every action works against them.

It IS an individual based thing. Some women can meet the standards. Some men can't. You insist on seeing all men and all women as being the same two perfectly average people, with the same differences between them. That's not how the real world works.

On IQ tests, Asians tend to score the highest, followed by whites, followed by blacks. Should we only allow Asians to hold the jobs requiring the highest intelligence? Should we ban black people from all higher-intelligence-required jobs?

No, because Asians and whites and blacks are not all the same three people. You ignore their race and you choose the best individual for the job.

I don't know why you keep conflating gender with everything else. Black? Don't care. Gray hair? Don't care. Ugly teeth? Don't care. Gay? Don't care.

I'm demonstrating my point to you. It makes no sense to judge people on those completely irrelevant factors they may or may not have. You pick the best person for the job, regardless of all of those things. Right?

Why? Because they're still men, and they're capable of doing the job by virtue of being men.

This is completely inconsistent with what you just said. For all of those other things that are completely irrelevant to an individual's ability to do the job, you don't care. But when it comes to Penis or No Penis (another thing that has nothing to do with the job), suddenly it's super important.

You seem to be assuming that all women are inferior to all men. How is this different from someone who assumes that all blacks are inferior to all whites? It doesn't make sense to assume things about all individuals like that.

Why were they better at the job? Because of their penises.

Bullshit. They did not outperform the other team through any use of their penises whatsoever. They outperformed them due to being faster, stronger, and more adept at their jobs.

Every slot given to a woman is a slot not given to a man, and if that woman's chances of success are a lot lower than the man's you're doing a disservice to yourself.

So you're fine with stores not hiring any black people? After all, the rate of crime is higher among black people, so that means they're all less trustworthy than whites. Every slot given to a black person means one less trustworthy white person, right? They'd just be doing a disservice to themselves if they didn't hire whites only.

No, it'd be like drafting a fantasy football team, and consciously choosing people who are worse at the game because they need equal representation.

THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT. It's stupid and wrong and counterproductive to discriminate based on anything other than which individual is best suited for the job! There is nothing to be gained by favoring people with one irrelevant factor over people with another irrelevant factor. You make your choice based on individual ability and talent.

Tell me, if you had to pick your defensive line, and there 20 men and 5 women, would your team be all-male?

I don't know. I'd choose based on whoever is best at the job. I would test them to find out who is the most capable. I judge people individually and don't make assumptions about them ahead of time.

If I said "go ahead and send the women home, I'll pick from the men" I would be gaining nothing. And if they were 5 Olympic athletes, and the 20 men are all senior citizens, I would have made a big mistake.

In my view if something provides no benefit, and potentially carries a negative outcome, it's not a good idea to do it.

[–]MasterPalu 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You see though, your points make a lot of sense, but only in the context in which you set. Realistically, there is never going to be a case where the only options for a combat position consist of Rousey, A 100lb drug addict, and a 600lb obese man.

It is true that some women can meet the standards, but as /u/ZXD319 brought up many times, women are just weaker than men. Even if you have an exceptional woman who can meet the standards, there is most likely an able-bodied man that can beat her available. I'm not arguing that women cannot meet the standards, I'm saying there is no need for women to meet the standards because men will virtually always be the better option.

Additionally, sorting through and choosing the correct people for a squad takes manpower and time, aka money. An Olympic level woman appearing during a period where there are no equal or better male candidates is a 1/10000 chance. The wasted money testing and considering these female candidates could be used more productively on intel, personnel training, or even other non-military related programs.

Your position that a woman is the better option isn't impossible, it is just too unlikely.

Also, this isn't consdering other things like the mindset of members within the squad and other special considerations women need that men don't, like menstruation products or even the event of a woman getting pregnant and needing to get evac-ed.

[–]--Visionary-- 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If I said "go ahead and send the women home, I'll pick from the men" I would be gaining nothing.

Sure you would. You gain the funds required to test an additional swath of people that likely wouldn't make it. Funds paid for by the taxpayer.

You could use those funds to, say, buy better gear for your existing soldiers.

[–]Bl_rp[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

By virtue of being a woman, you're already weaker and slower than your male counterparts.

Uh. What. So if we compare a man and a woman of equal ability, the woman is less able? Seems rather contradictory. It makes no sense to compare the average man and woman in response to "men and women should have the same requirements".

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Bl_rp[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

So... you're agreeing with me?

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Bl_rp[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I coulda swore you were just saying women should be held to the male standard.

If they're less capable, they need to have different physical fitness standards.

Why?

All I'm saying is, if the experts have convened and analyzed the situation, and they have come to the conclusion that the overall effectiveness of the military is served best by having the requirements of X strength, Y endurance and Z gun accuracy for a certain role A, and someone applies to A who has at least X strength, Y endurance and Z gun accuracy, then they should be allowed to serve in role A, regardless of whether they are male or female.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Bl_rp[S] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

So hold women to the male standard. Make them take the male PFT.

So... you're agreeing with me? You can't have it both ways. Either you think men and women should have the same standards, or you think they should have different standards. Either you agree with me, or you disagree and argue against my actual, stated position, rather than arguing against something I did not say or think.

Read this paragraph again, and read it carefully.

All I'm saying is, if the experts have convened and analyzed the situation, and they have come to the conclusion that the overall effectiveness of the military is served best by having the requirements of X strength, Y endurance and Z gun accuracy for a certain role A, and someone applies to A who has at least X strength, Y endurance and Z gun accuracy, then they should be allowed to serve in role A, regardless of whether they are male or female.

I did not say that if you want to do A, you should meet the requirements for B. I said if you want to do A, you should meet the requirements for A. Do you object to this, or fucking don't you? Make up your goddamn mind.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]MenandBoysareGood 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The solution is simple. First put in a policy that all the groups must consist of both men and women. Next, get the UN to pass a resolution to make it a war crime if they discriminate and do not have an equal number of female combatants during any fight. Problem solved!

[–]warsie 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

funny that you say that, part of the reason the USSR in 1930s didnt sign to the Hague Conventions was because then racial segregation was taken as an requirement of various countries to treat POWs. Soviet law forbade that, and the USSR's outlook wouldn't allow it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Help me out here, are we angry that women are being shoehorned into military roles, or are we angry that men are the majority of combat deaths?

[–]Bl_rp[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you wanna know people's opinions, try reading some of the 48 comments in this thread.

[–]derpylord143 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

the problem that i can see is, that it would endanger mens lives to put women in combat roles as they more often than not cannot meet mens standards (which causes them to either have lower standards or to have standards all round dropped), and that men will prioritize women lives over the mission (due to biological hunter gatherer instincts of making sure the human species survives which means keeping women alive.)

[–]--Visionary-- 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Both. It's the idea that women are totes equal to men in every way, but combat deaths we're cool with being mostly men because reasons.

[–]ralphswanson 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The military should be a defense force; not a political hobby-horse. If the hiring is based on ideology, and not performance, the effectiveness of the unit, military or civilian, will suffer.

[–]abstractbull 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So, if female inclusion is dragging down performance, why do many people on here want women to be included in selective service? There was even the suggestion a few days ago that in return for being granted the right to vote, women should have had to register for the draft. But now I hear that women are a liability. So which is it? What is the compromise? Is it possible to even have one?

[–]Bl_rp[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A couple simple principles:

1) No one should have more or less legal rights or responsibilities based solely on their gender. If men should have to register, then so should women.

2) No one should face higher or lower requirements to get hired to a job based on their gender. This means a person should be allowed to serve in direct combat roles if and only if they meet the requirements, which should not depend on gender. Currently, women do have lower standards for getting into direct combat roles than men.

3) The military should prioritize efficacy over ideology, so as to not waste soldiers' lives and tax payers' dollars. This means have gender-segregated combat squads, because men are evolutionarily programmed to protect women and will prioritize that to the detriment of the mission and of the squad as a whole. Also, in addition to having the same standards for women and men, don't lower these unisex standards from the old male standards just because you want more women to be able to get in (which is something I've heard someone say that the police and firefighters did; haven't checked though). Set the standard for each job exactly where it should be to maximize efficacy. This principle also applies to the draft; who should be selected for what job depends on how well they are able to perform that job. Women should still have to register, but more men than women will be selected for jobs that are physically demanding. (By the way, I don't think this rule conflicts with 1 or 2, but if it does, this one should have priority because pragmatism fuck yeah.)

4) The draft should only be used for home defense because duh.

5) The draft means that, assuming all other things are equal (which they're clearly not but you get the point), men on average have less rights and more responsibilities than women, and more precisely, physically fit people have more less rights and more responsibilities than people who are less fit. This is just an unfortunate necessity (as long as the draft is only used for home defense), but to cancel this out to some degree, those who are drafted should be amply rewarded for their service. (If this means that they should be more rewarded than the military is in general when there's no draft, then obviously those who sign up willingly when there's a draft should also benefit from the increased reward so that willingness to serve is not punished.)

[–]GYN-k4H-Q3z-75B 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This shouldn't be a surprise. I have nothing against women who serve, but ground combat roles are a whole different beast. Women represent a huge target for the enemy. Capture the women and you've got huge leverage. In addition, can we please stop pretending that male and female bodies are the same? The average female body needs a lot of regular exercise to match the average male's strength. Not saying it can't be done but that's just the way it is. If they are to serve in the same roles, the exact same standards need to apply and prevent gender based differences. Filter out everybody who doesn't fulfill the requirements.

[–]derpylord143 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

not to mention "the average male" isn't serving on the front line, the damn army front lines are filled with the fittest, most capable soldiers they can lay their hands on (within their country). so when a train woman is only comparable to the average male, and the average male is outstripped by miles by a soldier... that has to be taken into account.

[–]cmumford 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Anybody know why women aren't as accurate with a rifle? Are boys just more likely to maybe go hunting as a youth, or is there some biological difference?

[–]synn89 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men test better in spatial abilities. There have been studies that've shown that it's down to culture, but any 1 or 2 studies isn't going to be definitive.

As far as rifle shooting itself, in sport shooting I'm not sure if there's separate men/women categories, but I know as a sport the sexes are considered pretty equal as shooters. More men are into it, so more men shoot better number-wise.

But stand alone shooting at a target might not translate into military shooting. You need to be able to endurance run, follow orders, get shot back at, have aggression, etc.

I'm sure the military knows how to test for their specific needs.

[–]TheDude41 -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

d

[–]Bl_rp[S] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Huh? Are you saying MRAs are concerned with upholding male privileges? Because that is the very opposite of true.

I don't see why more women on the battlefield is a good thing. I am not concerned with equality of outcome like the feminists who whine about the glass ceiling. I am concerned with equality of opportunity and optimal outcomes, meaning women should have the same physical requirements as men, and also that women should serve in all-female squads rather than mixing the genders because men's instincts tell them to protect the women at the cost of the mission.

As for the draft, well, it's just the unfortunate reality of the situation that more men than women meet the physical requirements. I think the solution should be to only use the draft for defensive purposes and to provide generous compensation for those who are drafted.

[–]TheDude41 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

d

[–]derpylord143 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

The issue we have is that it will result in more deaths of men as the standards are lower or will be lowered for women and that compromises the entire situation. not to mention the fact that they will value female lives more (the male soldies) and that may potentially endanger missions and their lives (trying to keep her safe, not being kidnapped and/or raped if captured).

[–]TheDude41 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

d

[–]derpylord143 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

it wont happen like that, firstly look at the police and fire services, both got lowered yet both involved risk to life, the reason being not enough women could get it, feminists will cry sexism etc. and itll get glowered. not to mention its a biological imperative to keep women safe, it would impact on the decisions by the soldiers themselves as they would try to keep the women from being captured/hurt (more so than men) and that may endanger their lives.

[–]TheDude41 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

d

[–]derpylord143 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

There is, humans are, were and will be animals. We have a built in instinct to protect the onea who carry thr next generation in them, men in that respect are replaceable. ( onw guy can get 30 women pregnant at the same time, one woman can carry onw child however (or there about excluding twins etc). This WILL impact on decisions made on the field and it is illogical to pretend it wouldn't. It might not always change the out come but it might and these outcomes may place male soldiers at heightened risk... Strict orders mean nothing to your subconscious and that's were your instinct works, strict orders mean nothing if the soldiers are subconsciously impacted by the fact that women are present and their decisions change because of such.

[–]TheDude41 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

d

[–]derpylord143 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Yes you do, its fundamentally illogical to say we don't its built into human nature, hard wired infact to protect women as without them the human race dies of, yet the loss of one or 2 men doesn't matter. you might not even realize you are doing it, like i said the majority of this stuff is subconscious, but people don't risk the lives of women, its why women werent uptil this point allowed onto the front line, because we didnt want them dying.

right then, okay you say "meh orders" okay: http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/09/marines-forced-to-retire/ maybe not women but it still holds up, we are designed to protect women and kids...

oh and page 192 - 3: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BfODTo1debUC&pg=PA192&lpg=PA192&dq=is+it+ingrained+in+men+to+protect+women+soldiers&source=bl&ots=Tg0V1gcfSM&sig=Ip3tyXaf2HMsfqwGkImT2UtFfd0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjxvPH5xJXMAhUJbxQKHT50C2oQ6AEIMTAD#v=onepage&q=is%20it%20ingrained%20in%20men%20to%20protect%20women%20soldiers&f=false ... fact is men will and always will put themselves at more risk, and risk the mission to protect women, THAT IS NOT GOOD for the army.

oh and: http://www.westernjournalism.com/the-problems-of-women-in-combat-part-2/

[–]TheDude41 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

d

[–]derpylord143 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

oh they wont use that reasoning, itll just be "too dangerous with too little gain so we arent doing this", soldiers on the ground make decisions too, and itll be them who dont do things, or do things, that put the mission at risk... you get real, i just gave several sources one which indicated armies that are already doing it suffer from that issue, not to mention the air force in drills experienced soldiers being too willing to try and protect the female ones... you get real, refute my argument with evidence or deal with the fact you have none... either way.

[+]TheDude41 -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

d

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter