Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
War Is Heck
Remember the study that concluded that female Marines were slower, less accurate with weapons and more injury-prone than men? The one that concluded that all-male units were faster and more lethal than mixed-gender units on most combat tasks? The one that came as a surprise to exactly no one who’s actually looked at a man’s upper body and a woman’s and thought, “Vive la différence?“
Well, not to worry. Turns out that morale in these mixed-gender units is perfectly satisfactory. Just as good as in the all-male groups, reports The New York Times with evident delight:
… a Marine Corps study made public by a women’s advocacy group this week found that after months of testing mixed-gender combat units, troops reported morale equal to that of all-male groups and higher than noncombat integrated groups.
So morale is just as good, albeit no better, but they still can’t shoot as straight, throw a pack over as high a wall, or evacuate a casualty as quickly. Oh well. The important thing is that they feel just as good while shooting the wrong targets, letting the guys pick up their packs for them, failing to drag their buddies to safety, then nursing their overuse injuries, right? It’s not as if those skills are of direct, practical, daily relevance to a Marine or anything:
“There has been this band of brothers idea that there is something special about having only men, and adding women will ruin it,” said Ellen Haring, a senior fellow at the advocacy group and a reserve Army colonel. “The study doesn’t bear that out.”
The other nice thing to know is that the study found sexual assault levels no higher than in the Marines as a whole. (But why would anyone expect them to be? Is the assumption here that only lack of proximity to women separates rape-prone Marines from normal ones?) Apart from that, we’ve still got a few problems with these mixed-gender units. To wit:
- All-male squads and teams outperformed those that included women on 69 percent of the 134 ground combat tasks evaluated.
- All-male squads in every infantry job were faster than mixed-gender squads in each tactical movement evaluated. The differences between the teams were most pronounced in crew-served weapons teams. Those teams had to carry weapons and ammunition in addition to their individual combat loads.
- Male-only rifleman squads were more accurate than gender-integrated counterparts on each individual weapons system, including the M4 carbine, the M27 infantry automatic rifle and the M203 grenade launcher.
- Male Marines with no formal infantry training outperformed infantry-trained women on each weapons system, at levels ranging from 11 to 16 percentage points.
You know what I think is special about having “a bunch of men” do these things? They do it better. If you tell me my neurosurgeon has Parkinson’s disease but not to worry, 41 percent of the time his hands don’t shake at all and besides, his morale is terrific, I’m still not going to want him anywhere near my brain. That’s not prejudice against the disabled, it’s just common sense.
One would think.
Published in Military
Common sense is kryptonite to The New York Times. And to feminism.
Thank you so much for this post; this is a fight that we cannot give up on.
With God as my witness, if my son gets killed because of this insanity someone WILL feel my pain.
That is fine in training, but once members of your unit start get killed at significantly higher rates than others, I bet you will see a drop in morale.
Well you can complain all you like, with your reason and logic. But, this isn’t about our troops combat efficiency. It is about opening up more spots for women in the higher ranks of the military. Do you know how hard it is to become a major or colonel without combat duty? Do you know what that means for the gender pay gap in the Army? Why should women’s frail bodies and diminished hand eye coordination prevent them from climbing the pay ladder of a Government job?
Equal pay for equal work, and if the work isn’t equal you can just shut up about it and still pay them the same, because otherwise you hate women you misogynistic Auntie Tom.
I expect though that when we get our first female combat deaths, and POWs the feminists won’t hail that as some great triumph of equality. Rather as further proof of the contempt of the entrenched patriarchy against the female species.
Yeah, this isn’t like social engineering in an office environment. Lives are at stake here.
Vance beat me to it. These troops are in training and not in an actual combat situation.
Reminds me of …
Perhaps sometime in the future…at the end of battle, someone will say of the American military force: (Translation) They couldn’t fight very well, but they sure were diverse.
(via Chuck Asay)
And…
And…
And what about levels of consensual sex? That’s also an issue when you throw a bunch of 18-22 year olds together with limited supervision. Then you bring in jealousies, competition for affection, etc…so much for unit cohesion.
And you know, I don’t care. I don’t care if morale is low, high, average, mid-average, stratospheric — I just want them back alive, having killed or otherwise neutralized those who meant us harm. Then we can worry about their morale.
What, fraternization with the enemy getting in the way of the war of the sexes? Like my failing English, that is unpossible!
Morale has a rather symbiotic relationship with the goal of coming back alive.
Claire,
……oh..huh…my mind was wandering there for minute.
Yes, I think certain ideas can be dragged far beyond where they can reasonably apply. This is a case of beyond absurdity and on into idiocy.
Israel has one of the most integrated Armies in the world. They did it originally because they were down to absolute survival and they didn’t have enough people. Still women do not perform every role that men do.
Regards,
Jim
A lot of those with experience in war, would no doubt be criticized by the NYT editorial board for thinking that incompetent leadership is the catalyst for poor morale. In between the fighting, coed is the solution for morale on the beaches, at the slopes and in the bars.
I have written a fair bit on war and battles. The idea that a group of women could fight the Battle of Keren in 41, or Monte Cassino in 1944 is ridiculous.
Are you an equality denier? You think women should have to stay at home? Are you saying women can’t be scientists?
The Left will sacrifice EJHill’s son, all of the rest of our warriors, and America’s fate before they will allow a hair on the head of Leftism or feminism to be harmed.
I feel for the parents (EJ) who can only watch this without any input or control.
Its going from bad to worse. Couple of years ago I read a new Army manual instructed soldiers to avoid criticism of Islam and… wait for it…. PEDOPHILIA.
From Judicial Watch:
“There has been this band of brothers idea that there is something special about having only men, and adding women will ruin it, ” said Ellen Haring, a senior fellow at the advocacy group and a reserve Army colonel. “The study doesn’t bear that out.”
Note how Haring sets up a straw argument initially about an “idea” that she mischaracterizes (replete with disparaging reference to a “band of brothers”). The key words here would seem to be “advocacy group,” although one could also quibble with the value of a “reserve Army colonel” commenting on the Marines.
I suspect that what’s really at work here are comments by Marines who are prepared to play the hands that they are dealt out of esprit de corps without whining about it.
When my son joined up I was very aware that that decision could cost him his life. It’s never in the fore but you always know.
But, my government has an obligation to both him and his family that if he is asked to put himself on the line that they will do everything in their power to give him the best chance at survival. That means the best training, the best equipment AND the best judgment unhindered by politics.
Col. Haring (who’s a West Point Grad) is no patriot. She is deliberately risking lives and the state of her country for her own political aggrandizement.
The ultimate goal is a woman on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, followed by the inevitable promotion by an enlightened Democrat President to Chairwoman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This will be for no other reasons than progress, it’s about time, and demonstrates equality (i.e. the only differences between men and woman are cultural constructions by patriarchal societies, and thus invalid). Military strategy, tactics, and combat readiness/capability realities are always subservient to political goals. Progressivism = the ends justify the means.
DJ EJ,
The imaginary ends. They make the deal with the devil. You won’t get the ends you want and you will suffer the worst of the means.
Regards,
Jim
Agreed. The goal posts are always moving and the originally conceived ends are never actually reached, as heaven on earth is ultimately unattainable. Along the way, many women and men in the military will, as you say, “suffer the worst of the means”.
Perhaps “milestone” would be a better word to describe it: We need to reach the milestone of integrated combat units to eventually reach the milestone of Chairwoman, so as to reach the milestone of…?
Some seem to interpret any cautionary hand up as a barrier to achievement, even with the evidence in their face, and feminists only see it one way as well, and that’s all or nothing – no distinctions between the genders (I know – I used to be one). Can’t they be complimentary, admitting men are better and stronger at some things and women are better and smarter at other things? I watched my friend’s sister, a NASA astronaut during a live space walk recently, instruct her male colleague, from Houston control center, as he did repairs outside the space station – she directed his every move – he did everything almost perfectly, but during a few hiccups she gently said back up and start again, injected humor saying “remember glass half-full” – it was fun to watch – she flew for the Navy, combat missions during the Gulf war, but to my knowledge was not in front line combat – not sure it was allowed then. She got to the rank of Commander by doing something right – she never felt held back by anyone.
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/williams-s.pdf
Her attitude and spirit is completely complementary to her male colleagues, not antagonistic. So much more can be accomplished that way. I don’t consider her a feminist, but a strong, accomplished person who happens to be female.
Much like it was to have the first female Cadet First Captain (highest ranking Cadet) at the United States Military Academy in the late 80’s/early 90’s.
The problem with females in a combat role is not the general morale or chance of fraternization but rather the resulting morale from the undeniable fact that a 200 pound artillery projectile ways 200 pounds whether a man or a woman attempts to pick it up. If you are the person that really needs that artillery round fired onto someone who is trying to kill you but the round never makes it into the tube because it couldn’t be lifted onto the loader, I think it is safe to say your morale will suffer and that would be the least of your problems.
“There has been this band of brothers idea that there is something special about having only men, and adding women will ruin it,” said Ellen Haring, a senior fellow at the advocacy group and a reserve Army colonel. “The study doesn’t bear that out.”
The Army, of which Ellen Haring is a member, has been part of the social experiment that integrates men and women in boot camp. It slows down the men so that women don’t feel left out or inferior to their male peers.
Maybe the federal government can mandate that some portion of the NFL’s linemen be linewomen. Wouldn’t that be something?
Mixed olympics please.
This is what you get when you study Marines. I mean, really… ;-)
If memory serves, back in the day when she was first lady, St. Hill had tremendous influence (if not the deciding vote) on who was promoted to General. These I suspect were culled from those who toed the PC line. The intervening years have proven valuable for like-minded candidates for promotion, thus populating the upper ranks with those making PC (read: poor) decisions.
Then there was Pat Schroeder who also had major influence in this regard. To hell with an outstanding fighting force, women were needed in the field: feminism uber alles.
BTW, can anyone remember the woman who wrote about this copiously years ago? On several occasions I have wanted to reference her, but can’t find her name. She also, I believe, lifted the lid on Tailhook, showing that many of the USN women involved were nearly as culpable as the men – or that they had lied about what the men actually did or even if they had been present.
I’m just taking a wild guess (this is not sarcasm), but could it be Phyllis Schlafly?
I didn’t turn up any results with tailhook and her name together though.