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

Marine study finds all-male infantry units outperformed teams with women

ThePoliticalHat

September 11, 2015
91 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://phxux.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/10/marine-study-finds-all-male-infantry-units-outperformed-teams-women/71971416/
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 Marine study finds all-male infantry units outperformed teams with women
Author

ThePoliticalHat

Upvotes 91
Comments 98
Date September 11, 2015 7:56 PM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3kkzxi/marine_study_finds_allmale_infantry_units/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/marine-study-finds-all-male-infantry-units.971548
https://theredarchive.com/post/971548
Top posts by ThePoliticalHat

Rolling Stone's False Rape Story Will End The Magazine

1807 upvotes
November 8, 2016
/r/MensRights

Stanford University Accused of Discriminating Against Men in Multiple Programs

974 upvotes
March 10, 2021
/r/MensRights

Judge refuses to cave to SJW, reinstates male student at Brown

704 upvotes
October 5, 2016
/r/MensRights

University of Montana student gets $245K settlement over false rape allegation

643 upvotes
February 18, 2016
/r/MensRights

Lawsuit Claims Military Draft ‘Discriminates Against Men’

540 upvotes
September 14, 2018
/r/MensRights

University ditches ‘Women’s Night’ at gym after male student threatens Title IX complaint

536 upvotes
December 16, 2019
/r/MensRights

A university ‘welcomed’ everyone but men in STEM events. A professor filed a Title IX complaint.

484 upvotes
January 6, 2020
/r/MensRights

New Hampshire Teacher: Stop Penalizing Boys Who Can't Sit Still

453 upvotes
July 1, 2013
/r/MensRights

Comments

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

[permanently deleted]

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

I'd also like to see the primary source if anyone has that. It's kind of ridiculous how the news will report a study and not link to it. It seems like a no-brainer to include a link to the study. I guess they either don't want to spook their readers with "oh no some serious reading!" or they are just trying to keep traffic on their own site. Still, it's lame.

[–]Ovendice 19 points20 points21 points 10 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

"Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who oversees the Marine Corps, said the study would not change his mind about opening all career fields to women."

Just like everyone that Obama has put in charge of the military. Political correctness trumps all, so I say fine! Let then in on the front line, we'll just buy more body bags. These are most stupid times I have ever seen.

[–]pnw_diver 16 points17 points18 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'd like to understand the reasoning behind disregarding a study that shows that it is profoundly bad military judgement to do what Secretary Mabus has decided to do anyway.

Basically he is asking people to take on added risk of getting killed or injured in order to make room for women, simply because of their gender.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Basically he is asking people to take on added risk of getting killed or injured in order to make room for women, simply because of their gender.

Plus all the guys killed white-knighting the platoon bike.

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

No shit dude. Military women apparently already have an unplanned pregnancy rate in the stratosphere relative to the national mean, and then throw in combat and the age-average 19 year old Marine Corps rifle platoon and oh-shit look how many more men will get killed, young, so that feminists can perceive themselves as having won the gender wars.

[–]davidcolvert -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because undoubtedly there are or could be women who can perform better (up to standards) than the ones that presumably dropped the performance rates of the mixed units?

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

The problem is that when you're in a squad, you're not only getting yourself killed, you're getting the whole team killed. There is no room for a weak link in the chain

[–]chocoboat 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

If all-white infantry units outperformed units with people from different racial backgrounds, then should we ban non-whites from the military?

Yes, women are in general less effective soldiers than average. But so are short men, for example. And you don't ban short men from doing things in the military.

In the military, you choose the most effective people for the job. If that means that only 1 woman out of 1000 qualifies to take on dangerous assignments while the other 999 become cooks and nurses, then so be it.

Women should be treated no differently than a shorter than average, skinnier than average man should be treated.

[–]EngineerinLA 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This makes sense as long as the requirements remain the same. The tough part is most short & skinny men will get washed out. If the women can cut the mustard at the same rate, then I agree.

Perhaps if we have women in the infantry, we'll be less inclined to use them on bullshit Intel (thanks Bush II).

To put the shoe on the other foot, women do perform better as fighter pilots for exactly the same reasons why they under-perform as infantry. Being on average shorter and having less body mass makes them less susceptible to blacking out under g-forces (heart is closer to the brain, less distance from heart to legs).

[–]Kinbaku_enthusiast 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Should be, yes, but despite training that is not what happens. Although protection and rescue of squad members is good practice, this tends to be overvalued compared to mission objectives in the case of female wounded members.

Ligaments injuries too are far more common in women than men: something I knew frim anecdotal experience training with both men and women and the statement that this is a result of women not being trained such as one dolt did in the OP article claimed is just stupidity. Better trained amd better skilled women still have different physiology that is more prone to many types of injuries.

[–]Karissa36 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Women are genetically designed to have looser ligaments. The pelvis needs to stretch to safely deliver babies. Pregnancy hormones facilitate this and it is systemic. For example, many women gain a shoe size with pregnancy. Put women in the military where they are not supposed to get pregnant and most will be on birth control pills. Birth control pills mimic pregnancy hormones. More ligament injuries is practically a no brainer and no training can change this.

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

Edit: wrong reply

[–]Karissa36 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

???

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

Reply to the wrong message, my bas

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

Ah, I never knew this but this is quite valuable to know as a fighting coach. Never realised that the increased injuries of women could at least in part, be the result of the pill.

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

It's actually a fact that women's training isn't as good as the men's. The Marine Corps just fired a female officer from Parris Island for actually raising female performance, because when it comes to women, being P.C. according to feminist standards is still more important than being an effective combat troop.

They'll never fully close the gap with men, but they could certainly narrow it. The question is by how much versus where they are at now and whether or not it will be good enough. Right now the best women can keep up with the lowest performing men, which is good enough in that respect, but certainly not good enough to haul twice as much gender-segregated gear into the mountains for the benefit of 10-15 women in a 300 person unit.

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

Really? What kind of gear?

I can't imagine that kinda thing is good for morale.

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

Women require female-only berthing areas and female-only bathrooms once you set up a semi-permanent camp. This also means filling more sandbags and posting more guards to harden a position with a bigger overall footprint.

There are economies of scale involved. From my experience, 60 women is the minimum needed for them to fill enough sandbags to protect their own living area if there is a risk of incoming fire. Fewer women will never be able to do it in a reasonable amount of time and will require help from men. This basically goes against the idea of self-sufficient groups being self-sufficient and will force some men to work not only on their own area but also on the women's. Not what you want to do with incoming mortars.

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

Say "incoming mortar" to a feminist and look at the expression on her face.

[–]pnw_diver 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Actually men who can't qualify get tossed from combat arms. And being short really doesn't help.

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

Everyone should be subject to the same tests, and those who fail deal with the consequences.

But let everyone take the test, there's no reason to deny someone the opportunity because of their color or gender.

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

Rqce and gender are not equivalent differences in this context, so dont group them.

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

Why not? There should be no discrimination, period. Neither race nor gender are relevant to your ability to perform a job. Either you can do it, or you can't.

I'm pointing out that we don't discriminate on race (for good reasons), and those same reasons should be why we shouldnt' discriminate on gender.

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

Except for the fact that being able to pass a physical fitness test and complete basic training doesn't at all guarantee that a person is going to be functional on a battlefield, and a serious professional study conducted by the Marine Corps shows that women in particular are a liability in battlefield combat roles.

This isn't a "gender discrimination" issue. This is an issue of life and death.

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

a serious professional study conducted by the Marine Corps shows that women in particular are a liability in battlefield combat roles.

What was the reason that makes them a liability? Their vaginas and breasts?

I'd venture a guess that the reason was that women are physically weaker in general. If that's the case, the solution is "don't put physically weak people on the battlefield, regardless of gender".

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

When you have 50 000 battlefield soldiers you kind of have to be systematic. You cant really evaluate everyone on a case by case basis constantly. And the way you discover someone cant make it in the combat tour involves enduring a higher risk of injuries or fatalities. How did you determine that so-and-so wasnt right? Well someone got killed

Unfortunately you cant take some risks so that everyone can be accomodated in their personal aspirations. Men and women are equal not identical.

[–]chocoboat -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You don't have to evaluate everyone on a case by case basis constantly. Certain jobs require passing physical tests... if people pass that test, then they're qualified. If not, then they don't get those positions.

Very few of those tasks actually require having a penis (for instance working with Middle Eastern villagers, who won't talk with and won't respect someone unless they're male). For the tasks where being male isn't necessary, there's no benefit to discriminating.

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

And you don't ban short men from doing things in the military.

Actually, we do. Perhaps people should look into the facts before they make bad assumptions in an attempt to make a point.

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

I don't mean the men who are 4'10", I mean everyone who's shorter than average.

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

Mouseover to view the metric conversion for this comment

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

Well, what a coincidence, 99.99% of the time women don't pass standard military tests for entry. You can play all the gay little shell games you want, at the end of the day, women are not qualified to be in the military.

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

Then I guess we should ban people from certain racial backgrounds too, since their performance is below average. Hell I suppose we'd have to ban white people since their physical performance isn't up to the standard of black people.

Makes just as much sense as what you're suggesting.

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

Race isn't the same as gender. Come back when you get an education.

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

Discrimination is the same as discrimination. Why is it so hard for some people to get the idea that you just shouldn't do it?

What is the actual purpose of supporting discrimination? What goal does it accomplish? Nothing.

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

What is the goal of Diversity? Nothing. It's fucking stupid. And completely idiotic. Why every field has to have exactly 50/50 of everything is just bizarre and completely retarded.

And it's the reason why ALL standards are being lowered and the U.S. is turning into a 3rd world shithole. Want to know what diversity looks like? Detroit. A ghetto shithole, completely devastated, gutted, dangerous and a complete horror show.

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

If you think I'm arguing in favor of enforced quotas of certain numbers of people by skin color or gender, you've got it backwards. I'm AGAINST discrimination based on physical characteristics.

Everyone should be judged on their ABILITIES, not what physical characteristics their body happens to have. That means no banning people from things (like banning women from the military) and no special treatment for other people (like affirmative action). Judge people based on what they can do.

And the goal of doing this is fairness and justice. That's what equality is.

[–]McGauth925 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The goal of diversity is equal rights. That's very different from nothing. For men, it means it's not just men expected to sacrifice their well being, their careers, their social lives - everything, actually. For women, it means they aren't excluded from higher military ranks. That's not stupid.

Just so long as they promote people who are actually able to do the job, despite gender, race, etc., I'm for it.

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

Gtfoh. You know and I know and everyone knows EXACTLY what is going to happen: Women forced on everyone in high ranks who are not qualified to run a hot dog stand and going to screw everything completely up and destroy it all, just like they have every other faction of society. Diversity is SHIT. Diversity is fine chefs from all over the world making a soup and then some creep comes along and SHITS in it. THAT'S DIVERSITY. Period. And it is destroying our country.

[–]McGauth925 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This would be a case of you confusing 'knowing' with 'believing'.

I don't think most women are going to be willing to make the kind of sacrifices we commonly expect from men, particularly in war. What I've seen of casualties for men and women in the Gulf War bear that out, but I don't think women were allowed into combat. Still, I think most women will be very happy to leave that to men, and then go back to talking about unfair expectations for women.

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

I feel like you can open the job to women, but just have equal physical standards and don't be politically correct about it.

[–]pnw_diver 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

There are times and places in the world where maybe men don't belong. I accept this absolutely and without further need to debate it. And maybe there are times and places in the world where maybe women don't belong. Why is this controversial?

And do the "gender theorists" not understand that combat selects for very specific traits, all of which are primarily biologically associated with men, and that in fact, not all men are even well suited?

You know, maybe the feminists should note that not all men who try qualify for combat arms in the Marine Corps or Army, and what's more, most people period in the military are not in combat arms.

And combat arms does not select for all the best traits - it is not place where, for example, the military chooses to send its best educated or highest-IQ recruits, or its recruits who have specialized or advanced skill sets.

In fact, typically, the combat arms is where the military sends its recruits whose high school academic success was mediocre at best, and who showed an affinity for team athletics. In short, young men who made it through high school, didn't do so well, maybe played on the ball team or the track team, and who don't have a lot of prospects in front of them otherwise. These young men are going to be capable of combat, and are, furthermore, plentiful and easily replaced.

Why is it that feminists want women to be part of that? Is Hollywood making combat look too sexy? Is that it that the lesbian sub-component of feminism at times fetishizes traditionally masculine power and aggression, and likes the idea of rough young women putting the boys in their place? How do I rectify a movement that claims it stands for all that is right and good and noble in the world, and equality and humanitarianism, demanding that women be allowed into one of the ugliest places in the human experience, where they too, can kill people, destroy lives and property, be treated violently, dehumanize foreigners to make them easier to attack, etc?

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

Watch the norwegian documentary "brainwash" first of seven episodes, the one that deals with gender.

Gender theorists as you call them... I think biology denialists can be a better term, but yes, these ideas are very common in university humanist to sociology to gender studies: gender is a cultural construct. There are no big differences between men and women, besides the way we treat them and the learned behaviour that results in.

I think that idea is lunacy, but there you have it.

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

Loved "Brainwash", agree it was an important watch. Thanks.

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

In my experience dating two gender studies graduates, not all of them have the level of biology denial portrayed in that documentary, but somewhere up to 90% are 'indoctrinated' (their own words). The typical way how they deal with wrongthink is social shunning.

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

Yep! Shame and ostracizing, that is the feminist way. Ignorant and sanctimonious shaming.

[–]StankGurl 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

so, this isn't terribly surprising. it sounds a lot like "all-male basketball team defeats team with a couple women on it."

my concern is that something like this would be used to justify a discriminatory policy of banning women outright (of course:).

what is wrong with opening up all specialties to everyone? those that make the cut are in, those that don't are out.

edit: "specialties to everyone"

[–]pnw_diver 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Which cut are you referring to making? Are you merely talking about the exit physical at boot camp, and then completing of basic infantry training? Or are you talking about the ability to function 100% on par with men through a full combat tour, categorically?

The Marine Corps study was, without a doubt, quite serious and rigorous. The Marines may not be known for their kind and respectful ways, and they may not be known for being rocket scientists, but they have over two centuries of experience in battlefield warfare, and they know it is a very grim and serious business. If they find that units containing women, in comparison to men-only units:

  • Cannot move as quickly through contested terrain
  • Cannot as accurately hit targets with any weapon larger than a carbine
  • Cannot as effectively evacuate injured comrades
  • Cannot as effectively move and use crew-served weapons
  • Take injuries at a higher rate just being in a battlefield environment

Then there is a very big deal. Lives get lost and missions deemed worthy of even large loss of life, and great violence, are lost, when a sizable chunk of your team is a liability.

And this isn't just about women! A whole lot of men can never qualify for combat arms as well, for all the same reasons. Being physically less than robust, being naturally untalented with weapons, these traits are ultimately gender-neutral liabilities. Men tend to do better, but those liabilities disqualify anyone regardless of gender.

What feminists are demanding is that, in the special case of women, that the gender-neutral liabilities which disqualify aspirants from the combat arms be overlooked, in order to make room for women just because of their gender.

That is a bad, bad idea.

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

"What feminists are demanding is that, in the special case of women, that the gender-neutral liabilities which disqualify aspirants from the combat arms be overlooked, in order to make room for women just because of their gender."

Agreed. That is a shitty idea. However, only a very aggressive type of feminist is demanding this. And they are very loud. But they don't represent the, as a whole, the mainstream argument.

[–]pnw_diver 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Well they certainly seem to have the ears of:

  • The presidential administration
  • High level military management
  • An entire national political party
  • Substantial numbers of Senators and Representatives
  • Numerous TV talking heads, major newspaper pundits, and celebrities.

I'll go with the more likely hypothesis, which is that mainstream feminism is demanding that studies like this, done by career military professionals, be overlooked, in order to give feminists the symbolic or emotional victory of watching less socioeconomically fortunate, less educated women, lower born women, participate on the battlefield directly, even if that is a bad idea according to organizations that actually do the fighting, killing, and dying.

[–]StankGurl -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Ok. We certainly have different experiences. That you would use a phrase like "lower born" suggests to me that you have likely only considered this issue from one very narrow point of view.

Edit: ^ That was pretty fucking condescending. My bad.

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

what is wrong with opening up all specialties to everyone?

Nothing, so long as it's done on the basis that as a group things work functionally the same or better than a homogeneous group of all men.

The danger of letting political correctness gain sway in the military is that people will die or face increased danger due to a less cohesive group.

[+]StankGurl -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Your point is well taken, certainly.

But you know what I'm gonna say, right?

What's wrong with opening it up to everyone?

Nothing, so long as it's done on the basis that as a group things work functionally the or better than a homogeneous group of white men.

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

This hasn't so far been about race. It's about gender.

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

what is wrong with opening up all specialties to everyone?

The cost/benefit ratio. Not only do women perform less well, they wear out quicker than men.

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

So, in general, that's true. But what about the woman that outperforms her lesser male counterparts? We should let her in, right?

[–]Demonspawn -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

At what cost to find her? At what cost to support her when she wears out 6 times quicker than a man?

What is the benefit to the military?

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

The benefit would be having the best people in the positions.

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

The problem is that even if they performed equally well, women's presence in the same unit can be a distraction to men which creates life threatening situations

[–]StankGurl -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Just like the presence of black men created a life threatening situation...

Which it certainly did. Here is an indisputable fact: more than one person died because the powers that be forced black men into the ranks of the military.

Why did they die? Ignorance. Why aren't they still dying? Because this is the fucking United States fucking armed forces, and they know how to adapt and overcome.

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

Black men aren't really a valid comparison. They don't pose a distraction. Humans are hard wired to always be thinking about sex and danger. You can't reprogram a man's brain to stop having sexual thoughts about women. Even on a subconscious level, that distraction can make the difference between life and death on the battle field.

[–]StankGurl -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Ahh. I think you underestimate men.

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

I am a man. Also, my brother is the army serving in the middle east now and is one of the men that pointed this out. the distractions may not be a big deal in boit camp but they absolutely are under enemy fire. Even seemingly minor issues are unacceptable risks in combat

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

No worries, man. We disagree on some stuff. That's fine. I hope your brother makes it back in one piece.

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

For sure. I am sorry if I sounded hostile. Wasn't my intention. Just trying to give some background. He'll be back in the states in six days which is a big relief

[–]StankGurl -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No need to apologize for sounding or being hostile. We have legitimate disagreements. Doesn't mean we can't drink a beer and celebrate the boys coming home ;)

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

You don't take into account the women are wonderful effect which obviously black men don't benefit from, not to mention that while experiences will be different on some levels overall a black man and white man have more in common than a man and a woman.

Tale fights on the street/out at bars, the second a woman gets hit men ruch in to save her, imagine than on the battlefield.

[–]runner557 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Sounds like they admitted some women who didn't meet the requirements.

I was afraid this was going to happen because I've seen police departments do it. They see that women can't meet the physical standards so the lower the standards for women so more can make it in.

[–]Kiwi150 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Which would be the real problem.

It isn't about having women being a potentially liability on the battlefield. It's about finding the right women who can meet the same requirements the men have to meet.

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

Danger! This seems like it could be used as an excuse to justify male-only conscription.

[–]runner557 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It doesn't matter. This country is never going to force women into combat.

[–]DatGrass14 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

maybe if no one was forced into combat?

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

Just a tip, the phrase "it makes no difference" has less of a chance of being misinterpreted her than "it doesn't matter". "not mattering" evokes all sorts of judgmental emotions and in this case one reading could be "oh he thinks conscription isn't an issue because it won't ever affect women". But if you say "it makes no difference" that's more technically precise and shows that you're talking about some factor not being powerful enough to alter the direction of a thing.

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

Does anyone have a different source? I've seen this posted several times, but it's just the crappy USA Today article with no biblio or cited sources. If USA Today is the only source for this, I question it.

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

File this one under "Also, water is wet".

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

Is anybody actually surprised by this ?

[–]Karissa36 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Not me. On a related note, I'm kind of surprised that with all our technology the soldiers are still carrying packs in excess of 100 pounds. I wonder if there is any big push in the military to find better products that would weigh less.

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

The military-industrial complex can be seen as having a huge and costly economic component that corresponds to exactly what you are describing, a constant push to get more usage out of lighter and smaller objects. The plain truth is that, however, body armor, food, water, batteries, weapons (many of which require more than one person to move and use), lots of ammunition (my guess is that running out of ammunition is the worst nightmare), explosive munitions, and medical and communications gear simply has unavoidable mass and must be carried through contested and difficult terrain, without a vehicle or other device to move the mass for you.

[–]heimdahl81 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It doesn't matter if male infantry units outperform female infantry units, it matters if female units outperform whoever we are fighting.

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

Tell that to some kid 5 years from now who dies of a survivable injury because his female comrade couldn't move him effectively to safety, and in the delay involved, got injured or killed herself.

[–]heimdahl81 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What it comes down to for me is whether it is worse for a smaller number of soldiers to die but 100% of the casualties are men or a slightly larger number of soldiers die and casualties are split between men and women. I prefer the former to the latter but I understand that not everyone will agree.

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

Thanks for clarifying, I think I understand your point better now.

[+]tiqr -16 points-15 points-14 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Ok, it's time to stop posting this. My rights are not impacted by the performance of women in the military under performing men. It's a military issue, not a gender politics issue.

[–]jimbolauski 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

It is if you're in the military and your life is put into more peril in the name of diversity.

[+]tiqr -10 points-9 points-8 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

And that's a military issue, not a men's issue. Are the women in the military, and the women at home not also put in danger by bad military policy? It's a gender neutral outcome, localized to the military. It's not a men's rights issue.

[–]jimbolauski 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Currently there are only men in combat roles, the study was about women joining men in combat roles. Those men will directly be harmed because of this policy.

[+]tiqr -10 points-9 points-8 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

But not because they are men. But because they are soldiers. Their gender is a secondary characteristic.

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

It's ONLY men that are having their lives directly put in danger for this policy.

[–]belil569 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Id disagree with this. Other women are being put in danger due to it as well. Any one in a unit with under preforming members is put a a direct disadvantage.

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

That would be true if they were held to the same standard men.

[–]belil569 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That only makes it worse. If they cannot keep up with men and they are lacking on their gender standards they should not be there at all.

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

Sorry but you must be slightly mad if you call a military issue that wants women in every single part of the military, even if research shows that it'll lead to worse performance, not a gender politics issue.

First, the military is itself an extension of politics. Second this focuses completely on how gender is dealt with.

I think that although people are allowed to protest / request to be exempt from the rule, people will have a fear of this impacting their career if they do. If there is one place where these things can be discussed and analysed it's this place, because it doesn't kowtow to the current mainstream feminist way of thinking and also because people are familiar with the risks of criticizing parts of feminist dogma.

[–]belil569 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Absolutely is a mens rights issue. My life is on the line, those that are under preforming put be directly at risk. If some one is selected based on plumbing or what ever reason other then pure ability then thats effecting me directly.

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

i hear what you're saying, but i don't think the fact that something is military issue precludes it from being a gender politics issue. you disagree?

[–]tiqr -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A military issue doesn't necessarily preclude it being a gender issue. the draft is a military issue that is absolutely a gender issue.

But this one isn't. Apparently female soldiers aren't as good as male soldiers is raw combat effectiveness, and that may put their predominately male compatriots at risk. But the men aren't being put at risk because they are men. They are put at risk because they are soldiers, and this command decision is putting them at risk.

During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, many soldiers didn't have body armour, which put them at risk. Was that a men's issue? The soldiers are predominately men, so why was there no post? Where's the outcry over the Iraq war being launched on a faulty premise? Men were the victims there. How about the hawkish behaviour about Iran? War would mean male victims. Where's the men's rights issue there?

We don't complain about those other things because it isn't men who are going to fight. It's soldiers. And we don't micro manage every combat effectiveness metric claiming that men are being discriminated against when they do fight. So why is this one special? Because there's women involved?

[–]dungone -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

My rights are not impacted by the performance of women in the military

You are special pleading. As if the concept of human rights for military members didn't exist and wasn't worth discussing. Policies that put combat troops at greater risk primarily affect men and are a men's human rights issue in the most profound way possible.

I suppose you also have never heard of the male-only draft and therefore haven't put two and two together about how you "as a man" may in fact find yourself in an extremely dangerous situation that has been made all the more dangerous by political correctness.

[–]NWOslave -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well huzzah for democracy. Which ideology kills and causes more suffering? Democracy, Communism or Socialism?

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

well, we are still trying to catch u to communism, but maybe one day.

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