
The US Marines tested all-male squads against mixed-gender ones - velodrome
http://qz.com/499618/the-us-marines-tested-all-male-squads-against-mixed-gender-ones-and-the-men-came-out-ahead/
======
dctoedt
FTA: “ _Of all the consistent patterns we can discern in war, there are two
concepts of universal significance in generating combat power: speed and
focus. ... speed is a weapon._ ” [1] (quoting the Corps publication
_Warfighting_ [2]).

FTA: " _Research from various U.S. and allied military studies reveal that the
two primary factors associated with success in the task of movement under load
are 1) lean body mass and 2) absolute VO2 Max._ " [1]

[1] [https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531/marine-
co...](https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531/marine-corps-force-
integration-plan-summary.pdf)

[2]
[http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/MCDP%201%20Wa...](http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/MCDP%201%20Warfighting.pdf)
(1997; couldn't find a more-recent one).

------
sarvinc
When I joined the Army I weighed ~ 120lbs. Less than a year later I had
completed basic training, advanced infantry training, jump school and the
Ranger Indoctrination Program (programs completed in the order listed). After
graduating RIP I served in special operations as an Airborne Ranger.

I'll never forget something that happened during my first training mission
with the 75th Ranger Regt. After several hours of rafting and patrolling I was
walking up a hill carrying a full load plus an M4. I was sucking hard, covered
in sweat and my whole body was on fire. A tabbed E4 walks by me, not a drop of
sweat on him, and up the hill like it's nothing. He looks over at me, as he's
walking by, and says "you're carrying that and I'm carrying this." He was
carrying a 240G (probably 5x the weight of my M4). I leave it up to you to
form your own interpretation of his words.

~5 years in Regiment I weighed 170lbs and could run through everything I did
my first deployment carrying twice the weight.

The importance of training is immeasurable.

------
mekal
2017 - This just in...so it turns out it may have been the men slowing down
the integrated squads in that US Marine "evaluation" a few years back .
Yesterday an _all-female_ squad dominated their traditional all-male
counterparts in everything except for the wall climb. With the on-going
shortage of tactically relevant walls to climb in Iraq, we may start to see
more female only units leading the way.

------
ZeroGravitas
I wonder if this would reduce the incidence of rape and child abuse that
occurs in warzones and peacekeeping missions.

~~~
pas
Maybe. But probably the whole context and power dynamics is a lot more
important (see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynndie_England](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynndie_England)).

------
peteretep
So the caveat about 50% in is huge enough as to render the exercise almost
entirely pointless, and they could have easily controlled against it had there
been any will to.

~~~
masklinn
Here it is for those who can't be arsed to look for it (emphasis mine):

> 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_.

------
vacri
What about testing for soft-skills? Would an integrated-gender unit be better
at pacifying an area because it was more able to communicate with the locals?
A regular criticism of the US military by it's allies in Iraq was that it's
soldiers so rarely got out of their fortresses and armed vehicles and actually
pressed the flesh, an action that significantly helps with pacification.

~~~
pluma
Frankly, the US military isn't exactly known for its de-escalation or cultural
sensitivity. My uncle served in a peacekeeping mission where they had the
misfortune of coming in after the Americans, who had made it a habit to drive
their tanks along the curbs so they'd be welcomed by rather disgruntled
locals.

------
bsder
Sigh. Why didn't they use inexperienced soldiers of _both_ sexes in the
experiment? I smell some junior officer figuring out a way to deliver the
result that his senior officer really wanted to hear.

Now, to a certain extent, doubly inexperienced is also skewed because it would
be quite removed from actual battlefield performance.

~~~
dctoedt
> _Why didn 't they use inexperienced soldiers of_ both _sexes in the
> experiment?_

That likely would be flawed in its own right --- these days there are probably
few infantry squads composed solely of combat virgins. The Corps summary
suggests that the study might have tried to control for lack of combat
experience: " _Male provisional infantry (those with no formal 03xx_ [i.e.,
infantry] _school training) had higher hit percentages than the 0311 (school
trained) females: M4: 44% vs 28%, M27: 38% vs 25%, M16A4w /M203: 26% vs 15%._"
[1]

[1] [https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531/marine-
co...](https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531/marine-corps-force-
integration-plan-summary.pdf), linked FTA

~~~
dragonwriter
> That likely would be flawed in its own right --- these days there are
> probably few infantry squads composed solely of combat virgins.

But since they weren't testing all-female squads, but integrated squads and
all-male squads, this is easy to address: determine an appropriate and typical
distribution of experience levels. For the all-male squads, use men of this
distribution. For the integrated squads, do the same, only replace some-to-all
of the combat-inexperienced _men_ from the typical experience distribution
with combat inexperienced _women_.

Then you are getting a fair representation, without either skewing the
_overall_ experience distribution so you have atypical squads on both sides,
or skewing the experience distribution low on only the integrade side so you
aren't comparing like against like.

------
FrightHorse
A great many people seems to be very upset that a large portion of the non-
integrated squads had experienced Marines, as if this negates the test. Two
things:

First, the integrated squads had experienced Marines as well. They selected
randomly (within criteria) to have the MOS (Military Occupational Speciality)
and experience distribution a typical combat unit would have. That means both
junior and senior Marines. That also means that, as combat MOS's have not yet
been integrated, women will by definition be inexperienced in combat roles.
This does _not_ mean the women were inexperienced Marines.

Second: This is not an experiment about what's fair, it's to test what's real
right now. And when women are integrated into combat roles en masse, this is
what that will look like. Women will be less experienced and will be both
integrated with, and adversary to, experienced male combatants.

This is a test of the _current_ situation--everyone is green once. But that
changes. And women _will_ gain significant combat experience. You'll see an
evolution in training to shore up potential weaknesses and exploit inherent
strengths (and they are manifold) that women bring to the table.

That said. As it currently stands with women having had less experience, there
is the very real potential that those units they are integrated into will
experience a s degraded combat capability until training learns to compensate
for certain inherent physical and psychological differences between the sexes
(not to mention internal cultural hurdles that they inevitably be faced with).
Degraded capability means an increased likelihood of casualties in combat. As
I said, I believe this will change. I believe in five years this type of test
will yield far, far closer results.

The question is this: Is that painful (and very likely lethal) initial period
worth the ultimate goal of total integration? Is the risk to our servicemen
and servicewomen worth that ultimate reward? I believe it is. I was pro-gender
integration before I joined the US Army, I was pro-integration during my six
years in the Service, and I remain fervently pro-integration years later as a
significantly balder and fatter man.

It's worth it. But don't hide yourself away from the fact that there will be
pain.

~~~
xlm1717
It seems the military in general does not believe the initial painful period
would be worth the ultimate goal of total integration. The article quotes a
government study from 1992:

A military unit at maximum combat effectiveness is a military unit least
likely to suffer casualties. Winning in war is often only a matter of inches,
and unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts
the mission and lives in jeopardy. Risking the lives of a military unit in
combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or
interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military
judgment. It is morally wrong.

This was 1992, when there didn't exist the taboo we have today of not speaking
against gender integration and government and military leaders could speak
their minds.

~~~
masklinn
The military in general did not believe in open LGBT or racially integrated
service either. I wouldn't put any stock in any opinion proffered by the
military itself, their job is to toe their line and present a cohesive front
supporting whatever is the current policy, and there's few the military in
general likes less than changes in policy.

------
zelos
Should we really be comparing the two genders at all? Is it possible to just
set minimum standards - "must be able to run x km in y minutes", "must be able
to get x% of rounds on target at y m" \- and then accept anyone who meets or
exceeds those?

~~~
Pyxl101
The study is not primarily comparing genders, it's comparing gender-integrated
squads with all-male squads.

Accepting or denying people based on individual performance does not
necessarily account for whatever psychological differences might be at play in
those types of squads. For example, the article mentions that male marines
tended to be the ones who fireman's-carried an "evacuee" in gender-integrated
squads. Maybe the women are capable of doing it, but the men feel some
psychological pressure to do it instead of them (e.g., chivalry), or the women
expect the men to do it (e.g., chivalry), affecting the way the squad
operates. The squad also mentions higher rates of injury among women marines.

That said, maybe there are some individual performance standards that cause
these squad differences disappear. For example, perhaps both male and female
marines who can run an 8 minute mile get injured less in training, but fewer
women than men can run the 8 minute mile. Setting that as the time standard
might eliminate the discrepancy at the squad level. The study appears to call
out considerable performance differences however (1):

> The well documented comparative disadvantage in upper and lower-body
> strength resulted in higher fatigue levels of most women, which contributed
> to greater incidents of overuse injuries such as stress fractures.

> Anaerobic Power: Females possessed 15% less power than males; the female top
> 25th percentile overlaps with the bottom 25th percentile for males.
> Anaerobic Capacity: Females possessed 15% less capacity; the female top 10th
> percentile overlaps with the bottom 50th percentile of males. Aerobic
> Capacity (VO2Max): Females had 10% lower capacity; the female top 10th
> percentile overlaps with bottom 50th percentile of males

> Within the research at the Infantry Training Battalion, females undergoing
> that entry-level training were injured at more than six-times the rate of
> their male counterparts. 27% of female injuries were attributed to the task
> of movement under load, compared to 13% for their male counterparts,
> carrying a similar load.

The military is right to study these things and try to do so objectively. And
I don't see why it's wrong to compare genders or races - it sometimes leads to
useful advances like studies of disease that affect certain parts of the
population and not others (breast cancer, sarcoidosis, etc.) The point is that
we're speculating and more data will lead to better decisions.

(1) [https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531/marine-
co...](https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531/marine-corps-force-
integration-plan-summary.pdf)

------
escherize
The actual headline was "The US Marines tested all-male squads against mixed-
gender ones, and the results were pretty bleak".

> bleak

Bleak means roughly "not hopeful or encouraging". That highlights the author's
bias pretty clearly. Nevermind that this research has the ability to save
lives. The findings are bleak to the author because they contradict ideas of
equality of outcome.

~~~
jacobolus
I think you’re projecting. They were ordered to open all combat roles to
women. If that results in problems, that could well be considered “bleak”
irrespective of other concerns about equality.

Beyond the headline, the piece sticks narrowly to the facts. I don‘t think the
author let any obvious bias through.

~~~
lawlessone
Is it not better to have the roles open but simply make sure that everyone
that gets through meets a minimum standard?

------
mattmanser
Sounds deeply flawed given that the men had previous experience and the women
didn't.

~~~
andosa
That's definitely a flaw in the study. On the other hand, I doubt using
equally experienced males would change the conclusions significantly: majority
of the tasks seem to have involved major physical effort, and you don't need a
study to know that on average, males will perform better in physically
demanding excercies.

~~~
mhd
Weapon use seems to have been a big part, and is that really a "major physical
effort"? Unless you fire the rifle at the end of an obstacle course...

~~~
brohee
Ever ran with a machine gun?

The fact the women seem to have done as well as men wrt hit probability using
the M4 but not the heavier weapons, really point to physical limitations and
not lack of skills.

The casualty evacuation issue is also a major issue, men can carry both sexes,
women will have trouble with many men, and will be completely unable to move
the bigger men...

------
eruditely
Mark my words, some of the over the top diversity training is foreign
intelligence, this is not a conspiracy theory. I grew up in an immigrant
community but never ever met people who were as enthuasiatic as "diversity" or
ultra integrationalist past the point of function as I hear about. One day I
think we will find out that people were manipulating us at the points we were
the most sensitive, that is our relationships to each other as human beings.

~~~
jacobolus
Are you saying that promotion of gender equality is a CIA plot? Can you
elaborate a bit more about this “manipulation” you’re talking about, and what
it is supposed to accomplish?

~~~
WorldWideWayne
Do you think "manipulation" and social engineering by our three-letter
agencies is just a completely outlandish idea? These agencies have no problem
overthrowing democratically elected governments in other countries (See Iran,
1953). They have no problem kidnapping people and feeding them LSD (See MK-
Ultra).

Henry Makow explains one theory here -
[http://www.henrymakow.com/001904.html](http://www.henrymakow.com/001904.html)
\- (Basically, "The hidden goal of feminism is to destroy the family, which
interferes with state brainwashing of the young. Side benefits include
depopulation and widening the tax base. Displacing men in the role of
providers also destabilizes the family.") Say what you want about Henry; the
guy is no dummy. And if you still think that the CIA and "the powers that be"
don't want to influence society at large, then go look up Operation
Mockingbird.

~~~
jacobolus
I didn’t offer any judgement at all. I just asked poster 'eruditely' to
elaborate, as I don’t really understand what he’s trying to say.

I happen to find the notion that the CIA is responsible for the feminist
movement rather implausible compared to alternative explanations, such as
ordinary women being fed up at their lack of equal treatment or social status
and genuinely wishing for social improvement. But again, that’s not what my
prior comment was about.

I’ve never heard of Henry Makow but based on this essay he seems like a crank.

> _The banking cartel needs a philosophy to justify enchaining mankind. That
> philosophy is Satanism. The cartel controls the world through a network of
> occult societies linked to Freemasonry, Communism, the Vatican and organized
> Jewry (Bnai Brith, ADL, AJC, Zionism.) The highest occult rank is known as
> the Illuminati._

Is this some kind of parody?

~~~
DanBC
Crank is generous.

[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Henry_Makow](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Henry_Makow)

~~~
WorldWideWayne
Yeah and RationalWiki is about as rational as the Catholic church -
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/f5b/the_problem_with_rational_wiki/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/f5b/the_problem_with_rational_wiki/)

~~~
DanBC
Your inability to point out any errors in the rational wiki page about Makow
is noted.

~~~
WorldWideWayne
And your inability to make an argument of any kind has also been duly noted.

Did you actually read the RatWiki page? It lists a bunch of cherry picked
facts about his views along with some snarky commentary. Wow! Really powerful
stuff there.

~~~
DanBC
I did read the rational Wiki page. It shows Makow has a bunch of beliefs - 911
was a conspiracy; THE JEWS DID IT; etc - that are a strong signal that he
isn't worth any more of my time.

Again, feel free to point out any particular errors.

~~~
WorldWideWayne
And again - you haven't proven one thing wrong with Henry Makow by simply
stating his views and saying that you don't like them. Sorry, but you don't
win arguments by saying your opinion over and over. You can think so, but
you'd be wrong...again.

So the answer is basically: Mu. I don't need to point out errors in RatWiki. I
already pointed out your own error - that you're not bringing anything to the
table here other than your poorly formulated opinion.

