Friday, September 11, 2015

The War on Women, Military Style

Evidence strongly suggests that putting women in combat is a losing proposition. Obviously, it adds nothing to readiness. It significantly diminishes a unit’s ability to fight effectively. Forgetting injuries, the work of combat causes far more harm to women than it does to men.

For the Obama Defense Department, this does not seem to matter. Perhaps because the administration does not really believe in combat anyway, it is preparing to try to integrate women into Marine combat units. At the least, it does not care what happens to the women warriors.

Apparently, the Marines are fighting back. The Wall Street Journal reports:

Marine Corps commanders signaled Thursday that they likely would fight a Defense Department order to allow women to join infantry, artillery and other ground-combat units.

The evidence supports the Marines:

… the Marine Corps released research data showing that all-male teams outperformed units comprising men and women in 69% of ground-combat tasks, especially those that involve carrying heavy ammunition or weapons.

The findings, Marine officers said, show mixed-gender units are less effective in combat and more likely to suffer casualties than traditional all-male units.

Obviously, this is not the first time the question has arisen and it is not the first study that has been performed:

In a summary of the findings, the Marines cited a 1992 presidential report that concluded: “Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desire or interest of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong.”

The minds of those who want to see women in combat have been addled by feminism. They do not care about reality and do not care about science. They certainly do not care about women’s health.

And also:

… the Marines last year set up an all-volunteer unit with 295 men and 105 women who were randomly sorted into teams and run through months of electronically monitored tasks, from loading rounds into cannons to assaulting mock enemy positions.

The study found that in 93 of 134 tasks, all-male teams outperformed mixed-gender teams. In 39 tasks, there was no difference. In two tasks, the mixed-gender teams performed better.

“The brutal and extremely physical nature of direct ground combat, often marked by close, interpersonal violence, remains largely unchanged through centuries of warfare, despite technological advancements,” the Marines said in a summary of the research findings.

As you already know, the female body is constitutionally ill-equipped for the rigors of combat and is more likely to suffer non-combated related injuries:

The researchers generally found women performed worse and were more susceptible to injury when maneuvering while loaded down with heavy gear. To serve in the infantry, Marines must march 24.8 miles in eight hours while carrying 114 pounds of equipment. A loader on a howitzer crew must repeatedly hoist 100-pound shells into a cannon at a rapid clip.

The Daily Caller offers more detailed information about the injuries suffered by women in combat positions:

Women also were more likely to suffer injuries, a conclusion backed by research from the British Ministry of Defence, which found that because of physiological differences, women are burdened with musculoskeletal injuries at a rate 10 times higher than men. If a woman has to carry a pack more than 25 percent of her bodyweight, her risk of injury skyrockets by five.

In the GCEITF, the actual injury rate for women, focusing on muscles, tendons and ligaments, was 40.5 percent. Men came in with an injury rate of only 18.8 percent. Despite the results of the GCEITF and the fact that no female volunteers passed the infantry officer course opened earlier this year, it’s unknown whether the findings will be convincing enough to persuade Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who has previously gone on record stating that he does not see a reason for requesting an exemption and that ultimately, it’s his call.

Naturally, this information has had no real effect on those who want to see women in combat. This reform will compromise military effectiveness and will hurt women… so, can we say that those who support it are happy to hurt women while also harming America’s military effectiveness... in order to make an ideological point.

It sounds like another skirmish in the feminist war on women.


KCFleming said...

The key then is to make violent combat safer for women.

KCFleming said...

Plus, what about women who identify as male?

Bizzy Brain said...

Obama hates the country and hates the military and what better way to weaken the military than to pussify, feminize, fagify, and de-Christianize it like he has successfully done.

n.n said...

Out of the abortion clinic and onto the battlefield. Planned parenthood has prepared pro-choice women to face the most sadistic exhibitions of torture, dismemberment, and killing.

Ares Olympus said...

Statistics on physical differences are good, but it also makes me consider there's surely a bell curve in both genders, and probably even racial differences.

Perhaps a detailed study on physical strength might find many black males are best able to handle the greatest physical rigors of combat training? Maybe we'd find males from East Asian descendant have the the highest injury rate, even higher than black women?

Whatever story we'd find, it probably wouldn't be simple or politically correct.

I think some of these same arguments of physical limits arise for firefighters, and its an open question whether or how test standards should be lowered to accommodate more people.

priss rules said...

Since mostly men got wounded and killed in wars, maybe it's time women did all the dying and getting maimed.

How about a new law around that bans men from combat for the next 100 yrs and makes only women fight and die in war.

It would only be fair.