Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Navy Chief Rejects Marine Study Showing Units With Women Underperform

Navy Chief Rejects Marine Study Showing Units With Women Underperform

“I do not see a reason for an exemption”

The military is gearing up to meet the 2012 directive of then-Defense Secretary Panetta that women be integrated into infantry forces by January, 2016 unless exemptions are obtained by the end of this month.

Women, however, are not doing particularly well in the training programs: of the 29 who attempted the Marine Corps’ Infantry Officer Course, none were successful; only 34% of women who signed up for infantry training in the Marine Corp finished successfully; and only 12 women have passed the Army’s prerequisite Ranger Training and Assessment Course, two of whom went on to become Army Rangers in August of this year.

The Navy SEALS announced that it, too, will be open to women, though none so far are reported to have applied.  Watch:


With the January deadline looming, the Marines issued a study that found all-male Marine units outperform those that contain women.  The Hill reports:

All-male ground combat units in the Marines were faster, more lethal and less injured than units with mixed genders, according to a Marine Corps study that looked at integrating women into all service jobs.

“All male squads, teams and crews demonstrated higher performance levels on 69 percent of tasks evaluated (93 of 134) as compared to gender-integrated squads, teams and crews,” according a summary of the report released Thursday.

. . . .  The study found all-male squads were faster in each tactical movement than those with both genders, according to the summary. The differences were greater when they were carrying heavy weapons and ammunition.

Also, all-male rifle groups had better accuracy than integrated squads, according to the summary. And women had more injuries such as stress fractures.

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, however, has taken issue with the report and has essentially rejected the findings.

In an interview with NPR, Mabus states that the report is, if not flawed, then not in keeping with his broader view that a “more diverse force is a stronger force. A more diverse mindset makes you a stronger force. If you have the same outlook, if you have the same mindset, you don’t get much innovation.”

MABUS: It started out with a fairly large component of the men thinking this is not a good idea and women will never be able to do this. When you start out with that mindset you’re almost presupposing the outcome.

DAVID GREENE, HOST:  Are you saying this was a flawed study?

MABUS: I’m saying that I think that when you call it empirical standards, that it depends on what you put in. And if you look at some of the analysis – some of the outside analysis of this – from Center for Naval Analyses, they’ve looked at these and they said there are ways to mitigate this so you can have the same combat effectiveness, the same lethality, which is crucial.

GREENE: Well, what’s a specific? I mean, what is a specific idea you might have that would ensure that a mixed-gender unit would have the same level of combat effectiveness?

MABUS: Well, for example, part of the study said women tend to not be able to carry as heavy a load for as long. But there were women that went through the study that could. And part of the study said we’re afraid because women get injured more frequently, that over time, women will break down more, that you’ll begin to lose your combat effectiveness over time. That was not shown in this study. That was an extrapolation based on injury rates. I’m not sure that’s right. But it is something that you can set a standard for. But to make that sort of generalization – there were individual women who could meet this standard.

Mabus had earlier stated that he’s the one who would have to sign off on exemptions from the 2012 Panetta directive and that this report gives him no reason to do so (note that he stated this before the report was issued).  The Navy Times reports:

Marine officials will soon offer their recommendations, but Mabus, the civilian secretary who leads the Navy Department — including the Marine Corps — made clear that he must sign off on the decision to seek any exemptions to opening all jobs to women, and he hasn’t had a change of heart.

“That’s still my call, and I’ve been very public,” Mabus said in an exclusive Sept. 1 interview. “I do not see a reason for an exemption.”

Mabus said both sea services should keep physical standards unchanged.

His call for opening all military occupational specialties to women follows Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert’s assertion in late August that the Navy would not seek an exemption for its legendary SEAL teams.

In a 2013 speech, Mabus lays out the four priorities he deems most important to the future of the Navy and Marine Corps: people, platforms, power (he means energy), and partnerships.  Watch:

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Cognitive Dissonance

    Olinser in reply to Exiliado. | September 13, 2015 at 10:33 pm

    No. It is not. That is being FAR too lenient with them.

    This is nothing less than intentional dishonesty to push an agenda.

    This study is nothing new. We have had irrefutable, quantifiable data for DECADES now about how women consistently underperform in all fields related to combat – EVEN AFTER they gave women lower standards to begin with.

    This political hack has, like all of his predecessors, chosen to LIE about the results to push his PC bullshit.

    When I was in the Marine Corps from 07-12, it was already bad, I can’t even imagine how it is today.

    Just to give you guys some hard data (because I actually looked it up):

    When I went through TBS (that’s The Basic School for the non-Marines), women were allowed to remain after performance and incidents that would have seen any male recycled at a minimum and most likely kicked out completely.

    One particularly bad incompetent piece of trash had a negligent discharge on the rifle range, failed the obstacle course 4 times before she magically ‘passed’ in front of the SPC when nobody else was present, couldn’t complete the 15 mile hike but was allowed to toss her pack in the med humvee and ‘finish’ without it, and had a field billet so bad that the rest of us literally laughed at the out brief when the SPC said it was a ‘decent job’ (long story short, she got lost, failed to actually hit a single point on the patrol route, and opened fire on a friendly patrol squad operating in the same area. Oh and the SPC yelled at us for about 5 minutes for laughing at her.) Any male responsible for a SINGLE ONE of any those incidents would have been recycled at a minimum with no question. It literally made me scared that she was graduated as an officer – at least they made her an 0180 so she couldn’t cause too much damage.

    Interestingly, the women in our class that actually passed all of the evolutions on their own merits hated her guts because they knew she gave them all a bad name.

    On the double standard front, still at TBS, there was an incident where 2 particularly dumb individuals (man and woman) decided to have sex in a car in the parking lot and got caught. The man was kicked out instantly. The woman was allowed to graduate.

    To go further, in my last unit I was actually overseeing the PT program. Despite having a SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER STANDARD for the PFT (Physical Fitness Test)- for a data point, max for the run for males was 18:00 for a 3 mile run, for women it was 21:00, the average of women in the unit was nearly 50 points lower out of 300 – women averaged 213, men averaged 256. While it is never stated anywhere outright, a man with a 213 PFT score will almost certainly never be promoted because it is sub-par (in fact any man with less than a 225 was put on remedial PT every day with me and my gunny until they scored a 240).

    This has been going on for a long time. The data is there. It is irrefutable. Women CANNOT PHSYCIALL PERFORM at the level men can. They lower standards and push through people that can’t even meet those standards.

    It is outright dangerous to men to be saddled with these women.

    You want to be assigned to a combat unit? Fine, equal opportunity. You pass THE SAME physical tests that men are required to do. No different standards. You pass, great, go to the infantry.

    Political hacks like this idiot are the reason morale is so low among the military these days.

Or maybe … I just remembered a post from some time ago, here at Legal Insurrection …

If you wanted to weaken and/or destroy the US military, but did not want to do it openly, what would you do ?

    Precisely. These people care nothing for women in general. They just want to prove their PC bona fides, or they genuinely wish to see the US military machine destroyed.

    Adding women to combat does nothing to enhance military capability unless there is a shortage of men.

    We have no such shortage.

      Rick in reply to Barry. | September 13, 2015 at 5:15 pm

      obama and his toadies, like this jerk, are getting close to warp speed in their drive to destroy all traditional American institutions while obama is still in office.

VetHusbandFather | September 13, 2015 at 3:27 pm

Personally, as someone who has served in combat arms, I don’t mind the idea of females in combat arms units. I’ve met women that were just as capable our more capable than some of my Soldiers. However It does, in my opinion, turn into a logistics nightmare for some of the living conditions I’ve faced. That being said, this man is a fool if he disregards this report. Acknowledge what it says, acknowledge the potential impacts of your options, then make your decision an own it. If you still think it’s the right thing to do, then do it, but don’t ignore the facts or make up some false reality to support your beliefs. Personally I think the Marine study draws attention to some major concerns that need to be understood and addressed if we move forward with thus change (injury rate is a big one). I don’t think it eliminates the possibility of females in line units, but it should make us cautious moving forward, and should easily put a hold on integrating females into the most elite units.

    Sage advice. Which is why it will be completely ignored by this administration.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to VetHusbandFather. | September 14, 2015 at 3:07 am

    What is also generally ignored is that not all “combat units” are created equal. There is a hell of a lot of difference between your average 11B Army Infantry Platoon and a Marine Force Recon unit. The operational tempo is completely different. While I can see females fitting into the ranks of your average grunt platoons, heck even one of the Ranger Bat.’s,

    But what about special warfare were you go in and when you have to defecate your buddy holds a trash bag under your ass while you squat because you don’t even leave your own crap behind?

Conservative Beaner | September 13, 2015 at 3:59 pm

“I do not see a reason for an exemption”

Well it’s pretty hard to see when you’ve got your head up Obama’s ass.

The feminists will now be rewriting the Marines’ Hymn:

From the Halls of Male Dominance, to the Shores of Patriarchy

Any woman who completes the Planned Parenthood course is psychologically suited to confront terrorists. There is defense and there is choice. Both can be an effective motives to defeat the enemy.

Eastwood Ravine | September 13, 2015 at 4:09 pm

Basically, “Move along, move along… Nothing to see here!”

Facts are wonderful things, except to Leftists and their agenda.

Obama should draft #CecileTheAbortionist to lead and the Yale “justice” professor to train the next generation of Feminist “soldiers”. They can recruit Gosnell from the prison ranks to perform cleanup operations for failed abortions. Pelosi can offer official testimony to discern the difference between a human life and a clump of cells.

The bio-empirical evidence that men are different physically, mentally and emotionally from women via genetics and observation (training) appears to be validated and then AND ignored by the military’s acceptance and enforced hormonal programming of transgendered individuals. Enter the policy disconnect. D’ oh!

    David R. Graham in reply to jennifer a johnson. | September 13, 2015 at 6:24 pm

    Military is not doing this. Civilian bosses are.

    To be fair, the biological differences between the two human sexes, male and female, creates a predisposition or bias characterized by a multivariate probability distribution. So, some traits will favor performance by males, while others will favor females. However, outside of Planned Parenthood, the odds favor a male in a confrontation, which is presumably a reason why conventional communities favor male service in their defense.

    That said, with a congruence policy (e.g. pro-choice), anything is possible, despite the constraints of reality, morality, etc.

Want to find out how equal females are in physical situations?

End segregation in athletics. No more female swim team, or male teams. Have one team. The fastest make the team.

Same for all sports- tennis, track, basketball, shooting sports, fencing, weightlifting and wrestling, etc.

I am sure a female could do just as good a job as Secretary of the Navy as good ‘ol Ray. How about we start our diversity with his job.

While we are at all this equality stuff…. when are females going to be required to register for the draft?

Speaking as a former member of the USN, Mabus is an idiot.

The military is a machine designed to break things, not a vehicle for social experimentation. Anything that causes that machine to perform less efficiently, should be viewed as a threat. Combat effectiveness should be their first and greatest priority, not placating a few women who think they’re G.I. Jane.

    Milwaukee in reply to Sanddog. | September 13, 2015 at 6:27 pm

    “The military is a machine designed to break things, not a vehicle for social experimentation.”

    More specifically, “Kill bad people and break things.”

    There was a recent study, if knowing today what we know about Hitler, if you could go back to a 1920’s hotel in Vienna with unlocked room doors, and kill Hitler in his sleep, would you do it? Most women would not. While women are certainly capable of killing, men do it much better and with fewer regrets.

David R. Graham | September 13, 2015 at 6:26 pm

The two women, both West Pointers, I think (?), who graduated Ranger School are NOT Rangers. They are Ranger Qualified/Ranger Tabbed. Not at all the same as being a Ranger. To be a Ranger, one has to serve in 75th Ranger Regiment.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to David R. Graham. | September 13, 2015 at 8:09 pm

    Exactly, being Ranger Qualified mean that you have the right to request to be transferred to one of the battalions when a slot becomes available. Those slots are not a frequent as one might think. I requested transfer to all 3 battalions, I wanted one of the 2 combat battalions, but when the slot came open in the 1st I took it. (1st is actually the Ranger “support” Battalion.)

    Also, being west point graduates they started out tougher than the average bear.

    I applaud their accomplishment, I am not sure how I would feel if one of them was behind me about to fast rope down into the suck.

#science

“A more diverse mindset makes you a stronger force.”

Mindset isn’t gonna do anything to help a 110 lb. female be able to carry a machine gun that with ammo load weighs twice what she does. Not to mention allow her to keep up with her squad while trying to.

“Well, for example, part of the study said women tend to not be able to carry as heavy a load for as long. But there were women that went through the study that could. And part of the study said we’re afraid because women get injured more frequently, that over time, women will break down more, that you’ll begin to lose your combat effectiveness over time.”

Wow, that seems pretty reasonable to me.

“That’s still my call, and I’ve been very public,” Mabus said in an exclusive Sept. 1 interview. “I do not see a reason for an exemption.”

Translation, I’ve already made up my mind so these studies were a waste in the first place.

Mabus states that the report is, if not flawed, then not in keeping with his broader view that a “more diverse force is a stronger force. A more diverse mindset makes you a stronger force. If you have the same outlook, if you have the same mindset, you don’t get much innovation.”

In other words, he has already determined the conclusion, now he wants the Marines to rewrite the report to support that conclusion. Typical REMF.

This but reason number 4,579 on the list of the flying obvious why we can’t tolerate corrupt eunuchs like Boehner and McConnell heading the GOP.

Imagine the Congressional hearings on this otherwise?

What is so obvious is that this weenie has never served n a field combat unit in rough conditions. In the Marines and the Army, I presume, work with the buddy system of always being in pairs for safety and survival. That would mean that the women would always have to be paired with a small male so that she could help him if he needed it. Even then it would be doubtful if she could fireman carry him to safety along with her equipment. What we are saying is that the average male in good physical condition can make the cut but it takes a superior female just to make it to the bottom. This makes no sense and the elephant in the room, as the Navy found out, is the sexual encounters that can be expected. They named on of our carriers the “Love Boat” when it returned to San Diego there were so many pregnancies on board.

His wiki bio says he has three daughters, no sons.
That had to screw up his perspective on the differences between the sexes.

Mabus: “[P]art of the study said we’re afraid because women get injured more frequently, that over time, women will break down more, that you’ll begin to lose your combat effectiveness over time. That was not shown in this study. That was an extrapolation based on injury rates.”

And as women rarely if ever get accepted into these “elite” units, we have little-to-no hard data to work with. So we have to extrapolate off something. The study authors choose to extrapolate based on known facts.

Perhaps Mabus would rather they extrapolate based on, what … wishful thinking?

The Israeli military Iwas also fixed to allow more participation via legal decree.
Here’s how they are responding:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/25/womens-combat-roles-in-israel-defense-forces-exagg/?page=all

So instead of listening to the very fair assessment from the study, this guy just watched G.I. Jane and decided that is what the study should have said.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend