Friday, September 11, 2015

Marine experiment finds women get injured more frequently, shoot less accurately than men

The research also found that male Marines who have not received infantry training were still more accurate using firearms than women who have. And in removing wounded troops from the battlefield, there “were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated groups,” with the exception being when a single person—”most often a male Marine” — carried someone away, the study found.


Anonymous said...

Color me just shocked to the bone. Guess all the equal stuff is fluff, like most everything else in this country any more.

Anonymous said...

Spitting on the Constitution to pass the Iran deal
It’s rare for people to celebrate getting 41 percent of anything. If you score 41 percent on a test, you get an F. If you win 41 percent of the vote in a two-person race, you lose. If your tax rate is 41 percent, you’re likely to feel ripped off.

In the matter of his Iran deal, President Obama and his team have spent two months working relentlessly to secure 41 percent — and now they’re claiming an enormous victory even though by any other standards what they’ve achieved is nothing but a feat of unconstitutional trickery.

They worked throughout the summer to browbeat Senate Democrats so they could get 41 of them to say they would support the Iran nuclear deal. They’re up to 42 now — that’s a mere 42 percent of the Senate.

Why is the number 41 so magical? Why is a failure of this magnitude being greeted as a triumph?

Welcome to the Bizarro World that is Barack Obama’s Washington.

Anonymous said...

Sir: Having a chunk of ground here in colorado with a 40 ft backdrop in a gravel pit, we allow those interested in learning to shoot do so if they are a reasonable sort.
We have found that women [even those who are initially quite apprensive [shook up]to be at the end of the day, overall better shots than their male counterparts, time and time again. We have hosted perhaps near fifty women here over time.
We also have some heavy machinery, and some visitors have asked to learn to operate some piece of equipment. Once again, with a little patience and nuturing, the women in the end, demonstrate more finesse and coordinated operation than their similiar male counterpart, who tries to bull their way for a load of dirt for instance. For my money, I'd hire women to operate as the maint./repair costs would be far less.
Your mileage may vary.
Mike:Enjoyed meeting you down in the Springs, one nite, and was pleased you recalled the soap dish story for my sweetie and the others present...... thanks
Best regards, Soapweed

Longbow said...

NO, no, no, Mike! All of human history is wrong! Just NOW we are going to correct it!

Anonymous said...

And one wonders how the SJWs will either spin this, or screech, in order to continue implementing from the bottom up to the BOPreezy, and back down through the chickenshit Chiefs of Staff, to the branches of the military, to the grunts on the line, at the tip of the spear.
I hope the SJWs have ordered extra body bags, troops WILL be killed if this continues to be implemented.

B Woodman
SSG (Ret), U S Army
31E (commo in support of those grunts, and proud of it)

Mark Tyree said...

This is to the colorado shooting range guy...

Are the women at your range under the same stress, both physical and mental, that an infantry grunt at LeJeune is? If you put a woman on a civilian range and baby her, patiently, she will do better. If you have to march her with a 50 lb ruck in 80-90 degree Carolina heat to the range, yell at her along the way, and have an instructor student ratio of 1:60 vs your shooting range of 1:20, she might not do as well.

Anonymous said...

Mr Tyree: My, you are quick to pounce.....It's pretty evident that MY comment was not entering into the arena of the physical endurance realm, of which I thoroughly agree with you. I feel[ymmv]that female motor skills are superior in a relaxed comfortable setting[here]. Debate it all you want, they will run circles around the typical male newbee with with guns or heavy eguipment. Besides, I am surely no intellectual match for your fork in the discussion......I'm just barely whippy enough to run a few head of cattle and keep oil/fuel in the machinery.

Anonymous said...

Mr Tyree sir: Your keen eye and ability to juggle abstract thoughts are evident here in your comment/rebuttal to my tansgential comment on my acquired realizations regarding newbee women vs newbee males in a relaxed setting at a cattle ranch vs a military training installation as you quickly countered with. Might not be the same up on Mars either, I dunno.
I'd have to rely on folks like you'uns for the straight skinny as I'm barely
able intellectually to run a few cows and to keep the machinery here greased and fueled up. Apples to oranges, my friend...... unless you might have an ego counterweight.

Neil E. Wright said...

Navy Secretary criticizes Marines' infantry study in interview

"Mabus, however, has been vocal about his plans to work toward full gender integration.

"That's ... my call," he told Military Times this month about the upcoming decision."

Chiu ChunLing said...

Women generally have better fine motor control and are more inclined to negotiation than brute force approaches than men. This is not a surprise. Men generally have better overall physical strength and dramatically better upper body strength, and are more tenacious in the face of physical pain and danger. This may actually be surprising to those who have attended college in recent years, given what they might have been taught (and, to a degree, personally observed).

Women also consistently outscore men on certain tasks involving verbal memory and attention to repetitive tasks. This is as complete an irrelevancy to general combat capability as their superior fine motor and negotiation skills. If you're going to bring up women's superior hair-management experience or whatever in a discussion of general combat skills, then either you mention that it is a compete irrelevancy to the topic at hand or don't get butt-hurt when someone else mentions it.

You know what else women are better at than men? Bearing and nursing babies. This is not entirely irrelevant to combat abilities, it just serves as a fundamental reason women shouldn't be in combat even if they were all absolutely better at it than any men. Because no society can afford to regard women as disposable in the defense of itself. Women, in most important senses, are society. Men go to war to defend (or rape and pillage) them. There can be no point in principle in sending women to war, once you resort to that, you're declaring that your society itself no longer has any basis for continued existence.

That doesn't mean women shouldn't be trained to sell their lives dearly in the final forlorn hope of their culture. There is more honor in valiant death than slavery, after all, and that shouldn't be denied to any who so choose. But let's not pretend this should be the first strategy we employ to defend our nation.