Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/10/439190586/marine-corps-study-finds-all-male-combat-units-faster-than-mixed-units

A more comprehensive summary of the study is linked in the article.

I'm a proponent of giving women more presence in our military, but I have to admit that some of these numbers are a bit worrying. How are women managing to pass the requirements to become a Marine, but performing so dismally compared to their male counter-parts?

Duh.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
I'm a proponent of giving women more presence in our military, but I have to admit that some of these numbers are a bit worrying. How are women managing to pass the requirements to become a Marine, but performing so dismally compared to their male counter-parts?

Men are weak, thats why you idiot.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/10/439190586/marine-corps-study-finds-all-male-combat-units-faster-than-mixed-units

A more comprehensive summary of the study is linked in the article.



Is this really a surprise to anyone with a functioning brain in their head?

How did the girls in the unit do so well from the kitchen?

It should be fairly obvious to anyone who isn't in denial that generally speaking a man will on average be better at the physical aspects of "war" then a woman.

The question is to what extent. At what point is the disparity in performance between male and female considered too wide to justify even bothering letting women in? The most popular argument for proponents of integrating women into front-line units is that if even just one out of 100 women has the genetics/potential to match a man in physical performance, that one woman should be allowed to have the same opportunities and responsibilities as men. But if you consider that every trainee who washes out or underperforms is essentially a net-loss in training time and money for the military, does there come a point where the opportunity/resource cost is simply too high to allow women into these roles?

Of course Men preform better at War with out women. When women aint there it give the Men a good reason to get the job done and get back home.....if they take women to war with them then its just like being married.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
It should be fairly obvious to anyone who isn't in denial that generally speaking a man will on average be better at the physical aspects of "war" then a woman.

The question is to what extent. At what point is the disparity in performance between male and female considered too wide to justify even bothering letting women in? The most popular argument for proponents of integrating women into front-line units is that if even just one out of 100 women has the genetics/potential to match a man in physical performance, that one woman should be allowed to have the same opportunities and responsibilities as men. But if you consider that every trainee who washes out or underperforms is essentially a net-loss in training time and money for the military, does there come a point where the opportunity/resource cost is simply too high to allow women into these roles?

Don't offend the politically correct left please

And I just watched G.I. Jane last night. Good timing.

Men are more physically robust. Units in active combat are going to be engaging in lots of physical activity. It doesn't require much study to realize that all male units will perform better in most tasks.

But I don't know, the SJWs might get triggered if you say that, and we wouldn't want that to happen.

Originally posted by Lucius
Men are more physically robust. Units in active combat are going to be engaging in lots of physical activity. It doesn't require much study to realize that all male units will perform better in most tasks.

But I don't know, the SJWs might get triggered if you say that, and we wouldn't want that to happen.

This

i think i have a compromise that is fair for everybody and will make all sides happy in this debate

i ask you to think for a minute about our standards in sports... the various pro leagues where there is a male version and then a female version... nba and then wnba... this is particularly well demonstrated in olympic sports.. this is because clearly god/evolution made adam and eve different, giving each unique talents and specialties.. and men just so happen to specialize in combat and other physical-fitness oriented activities

that being said, just as there are rules in war and nations agree not to purposely target civilians or use nukes or chemical weapons and shit like that, we should be able to come to an international agreement that men and women are not evenly matched... so i think each country should have a male version of the military and then a female version... so say the usa goes to war with russia.. it would be usa military(m) vs russia military(m)... and then usa military(f) vs russia military(f)...

i figure it's only fair

wLpCkuftmJM

Originally posted by Tzeentch
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/10/439190586/marine-corps-study-finds-all-male-combat-units-faster-than-mixed-units

A more comprehensive summary of the study is linked in the article.

Lol, you trans you.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/10/marine-study-finds-all-male-infantry-units-outperformed-teams-women/71971416/

Women do have a place in the military and combat and the military should play on their strengths instead on trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

eg They're generally better at multi-tasking, so have them coordinating units/attacks in the FOB.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
I'm a proponent of giving women more presence in our military, but I have to admit that some of these numbers are a bit worrying. How are women managing to pass the requirements to become a Marine, but performing so dismally compared to their male counter-parts?

This is a question I would like answered as well.

I think people need to realize that when it comes to men and women mentally they are equal, but physically? They are not.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Lol, you trans you.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/10/marine-study-finds-all-male-infantry-units-outperformed-teams-women/71971416/

Guess no one read this.

Figures

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Guess no one read this.

Figures

I actually did read it and to me that female Lt. Colonel is just ignoring the obvious. She thinks it is just a matter of training.

If women go to war, who'll make the sandwiches?

Tze and Tobtatd, they are already women objectors to war.

LoL, wut?

In other news, water is wet.

Originally posted by long pig
If women go to war, who'll make the sandwiches?

We should create sandwich making robots so the women can focus on combat training.

Originally posted by long pig
If women go to war, who'll make the sandwiches?

The Mexicans. Duh.

Originally posted by Robtard


eg They're generally better at multi-tasking, so have them coordinating units/attacks in the FOB.


I would have also accepted...,packing rucksacks

Originally posted by long pig
In other news, water is wet. lol right?

and coming up at the top of the hour.... a special wnba exclusive on helping women learn to dunk.

Originally posted by long pig
In other news, water is wet.