Started By
Message

re: Marines tested Male squads versus Mixed Gender squads. Shocking results!

Posted on 9/10/15 at 7:01 pm to
Posted by ColeCoushCoush
Member since Aug 2014
497 posts
Posted on 9/10/15 at 7:01 pm to
quote:

There are hundreds of reasons why


Name one.
Posted by USMCTiger03
Member since Sep 2007
71176 posts
Posted on 9/10/15 at 7:02 pm to
quote:

Eh, it depends on what the training is but but I've seen other sorts of training with mixed units and they've found that women with women perform better and men and men togeather perform better than men and women.

What other sorts of training?
Posted by blueboy
Member since Apr 2006
66919 posts
Posted on 9/10/15 at 7:02 pm to
quote:

On average, black dudes are stronger than white dudes.
No they aren't. Power lifters, strongman competitors and every throwing event in the Olympics say hello.
Posted by SamuelClemens
Earth
Member since Feb 2015
11727 posts
Posted on 9/10/15 at 7:05 pm to
The oldest males maxed equally to the best of the overall females.

Posted by GeauxxxTigers23
TeamBunt General Manager
Member since Apr 2013
62514 posts
Posted on 9/10/15 at 7:10 pm to
quote:

Name one.

Women are more susceptible to injury.

Women are more susceptible to PTSD.

Women are more likely to get infections in their lady parts after long stints in the field.

Women get pregnant and miss deployments or leave during the middle of deployments. As a matter of fact, women mysteriously get pregnant at much higher rates right before a deployment or during a deployment.


All of these are facts. I've researched them all. I won't provide links because I've provided links on this topic many times on this forum in regards to this topic.

1 out of 1000 women are physically strong enough to do infantry work. Probably less than that actually. And only 1 out 1000 of those women who are capable actually want to do that work in the first place. It makes no financial sense to attempt to recruit and train them.

When men and women live in close quarters they will eventually begin to have sex. That ruins unit morale and discipline. That's also a fact.
Posted by biglego
San Francisco
Member since Nov 2007
85580 posts
Posted on 9/10/15 at 7:10 pm to
quote:


There's no reason for women to be in the military at all. They do nothing but spread disease and lower discipline. They are an inefficient source of labor.

I agree. The only women who should be around the soldiers are the camp prostitutes.
Posted by USMCTiger03
Member since Sep 2007
71176 posts
Posted on 9/10/15 at 7:10 pm to
quote:

This is all ridiculous, why can't they just figure out the necessary minimum qualifications and then apply those to everyone? On average men are stronger than women, sure, but that has no bearing when it comes to evaluating individuals. The article lists various tasks that the men were better at, like throwing their packs over the 8 foot wall or carrying a 200 lbs dummy in a fireman's carry, but a few of the women in the study were able to do those things even if a majority of them weren't. Why should they be punished because "on average" women are weaker?

YES, an individually tailored military. That would be awesome. You're a fricking idiot.

quote:

On average, black dudes are stronger than white dudes. Does that mean we should exclude all white people from certain military units?

You're really a stupid motherfricker.
Posted by ColeCoushCoush
Member since Aug 2014
497 posts
Posted on 9/10/15 at 7:14 pm to
quote:

No they aren't. Power lifters, strongman competitors and every throwing event in the Olympics say hello.


The fact that black people don't participate in those sports at the same rate as white people doesn't prove anything about averages across the entire population. That really should be obvious to you.
Posted by blueboy
Member since Apr 2006
66919 posts
Posted on 9/10/15 at 7:20 pm to
quote:

The fact that black people don't participate in those sports at the same rate
Yes they do, especially in throwing sports, which I've been around since I was 4.
quote:

doesn't prove anything about averages across the entire population.
Except that if the "average" is higher, you'd think there would be more than a handful of competitive blacks. Sorry for raining on your liberal douchebag parade.
Posted by GeauxxxTigers23
TeamBunt General Manager
Member since Apr 2013
62514 posts
Posted on 9/10/15 at 7:20 pm to
quote:

The fact that black people don't participate in those sports at the same rate as white people doesn't prove anything about averages across the entire population. That really should be obvious to you.



Black people don't participate in the military, and the combat arms specifically, at the same rate as white people.
Posted by pilsnerpusher
Member since Sep 2009
1432 posts
Posted on 9/10/15 at 7:35 pm to
To be fair, the women were placed at a severe psychological disadvantage in some drills. The mortar drill in particular caused problems. The female marines were under the understandable assumption that they were supposed to stroke the mortar to get it to shoot off.
Posted by ColeCoushCoush
Member since Aug 2014
497 posts
Posted on 9/10/15 at 7:43 pm to
White men are more susceptible to injury than black men. I provided the link proving this based on average bone density and fracture rates.

Women's higher rates of ptsd are likely a result of the different traumas that women are more likely exposed to than men. It's not clear that more women would experience ptsd from the battlefield, and even so, PTSD symptoms typically don't present until months after a deployed soldier has returned home, so there's no reason to believe this would impair a woman's ability to serve.

Again, this is no different than the fact that, on average, whites are more injury prone than blacks. And yet you don't seem to be campaigning to make certain jobs off limits to whites.

Yeah, sometimes male and female soldiers have to leave deployments. No reason to ban all women.

All your 1 in 1000 talk is just you making up numbers, but fine, even if it's true, it just means the rate at which women qualify for these positions will be low. No one is saying the military should spend money specifically recruiting women for combat roles. The cost of allowing women to apply is not prohibitive.

And that last bit about ruining morale is just more made up nonsense.

Posted by ColeCoushCoush
Member since Aug 2014
497 posts
Posted on 9/10/15 at 7:45 pm to
Blueboy, it's cute that you think your personal experience in throwing sports is proof of averages on a national level, but that's not the case.

And I already provided a link showing that whites have lower bone density and are more injury prone.
This post was edited on 9/10/15 at 7:47 pm
Posted by LSUwag
Florida man
Member since Jan 2007
18145 posts
Posted on 9/10/15 at 7:46 pm to
Color me shocked.
Posted by ColeCoushCoush
Member since Aug 2014
497 posts
Posted on 9/10/15 at 7:48 pm to
quote:

Black people don't participate in the military, and the combat arms specifically, at the same rate as white people.


I never said that they did. I said they had greater bone density and were less prone to injury, and provided proof.
This post was edited on 9/10/15 at 7:51 pm
Posted by GeauxxxTigers23
TeamBunt General Manager
Member since Apr 2013
62514 posts
Posted on 9/10/15 at 7:49 pm to
quote:

The cost of allowing women to apply is not prohibitive.



Actually it is. Look at how much money the Navy has spent rebuilding their entire fleet to provide female berthing. The same will happen with the infantry. Female barracks. Female bathroom facilities, more gynecologists will need to be hired.

quote:

And that last bit about ruining morale is just more made up nonsense.



No. It's not. It's 100% true. Look at the combat support units in which women already serve. They are complete shitshows where discipline is nearly non existent and commanders spend more time dealing with problems caused by the presence of females than they do on the actual mission.
Posted by blueboy
Member since Apr 2006
66919 posts
Posted on 9/10/15 at 7:51 pm to
You keep moving the white/black goal posts, buddy.

But it will be fun watching actual veterans chew you up and spit you out.
Posted by USMCTiger03
Member since Sep 2007
71176 posts
Posted on 9/10/15 at 8:07 pm to
quote:

I never said that they did. I said they had greater bone density and were less prone to injury, and provided proof.
You're extrapolating conclusions on bone density and hip fractures to include all injuries? Or did I miss a link? There are many other types of injuries than hip fractures or even fractures.
Posted by ColeCoushCoush
Member since Aug 2014
497 posts
Posted on 9/10/15 at 8:11 pm to
quote:

Actually it is. Look at how much money the Navy has spent rebuilding their entire fleet to provide female berthing. The same will happen with the infantry. Female barracks. Female bathroom facilities, more gynecologists will need to be hired.


Women don't require special toilets.
Posted by blueboy
Member since Apr 2006
66919 posts
Posted on 9/10/15 at 8:13 pm to
quote:

Blueboy, it's cute that you think your personal experience in throwing sports is proof of averages on a national level, but that's not the case.
You said they were stronger and I provided examples that disprove that. You tried to pull some bullshite about participation rates out of your arse and I slapped you around.

How about baseball pitchers and quarterbacks? I guess blacks don't participate in those sports either, huh?
first pageprev pagePage 4 of 5Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram