3 ms·

Should we really be comparing the two genders at all? Is it possible to just set minimum standards - "must be able to run x km in y minutes", "must be able to g

by zelos 11y ago

Should we really be comparing the two genders at all? Is it possible to just set minimum standards - "must be able to run x km in y minutes", "must be able to get x% of rounds on target at y m" - and then accept anyone who meets or exceeds those?

irremediable 11y ago
I tend to agree with this. Playing devil's advocate a little: it might still be important to test how the gender mix affects group dynamics. You might have a case where a mixed-gender squad is more cohesive, say; or you might have male soldiers being overprotective of female soldiers.
Pyxl101 11y ago
The study is not primarily comparing genders, it's comparing gender-integrated squads with all-male squads. Accepting or denying people based on individual performance does not necessarily account for whatever psychological differences might be at play in those types of squads. For example, the article mentions that male marines tended to be the ones who fireman's-carried an "evacuee" in gender-integrated squads. Maybe the women are capable of doing it, but the men feel some psychological pressure to do it instead of them (e.g., chivalry), or the women expect the men to do it (e.g., chivalry), affecting the way the squad operates. The squad also mentions higher rates of injury among women marines. That said, maybe there are some individual performance standards that cause these squad differences disappear. For example, perhaps both male and female marines who can run an 8 minute mile get injured less in training, but fewer women than men can run the 8 minute mile. Setting that as the time standard might eliminate the discrepancy at the squad level. The study appears to call out considerable performance differences however (1): > The well documented comparative disadvantage in upper and lower-body strength resulted in higher fatigue levels of most women, which contributed to greater incidents of overuse injuries such as stress fractures. > Anaerobic Power: Females possessed 15% less power than males; the female top 25th percentile overlaps with the bottom 25th percentile for males. Anaerobic Capacity: Females possessed 15% less capacity; the female top 10th percentile overlaps with the bottom 50th percentile of males. Aerobic Capacity (VO2Max): Females had 10% lower capacity; the female top 10th percentile overlaps with bottom 50th percentile of males > Within the research at the Infantry Training Battalion, females undergoing that entry-level training were injured at more than six-times the rate of their male counterparts. 27% of female injuries were attributed to the task of movement under load, compared to 13% for their male counterparts, carrying a similar load. The military is right to study these things and try to do so objectively. And I don't see why it's wrong to compare genders or races - it sometimes leads to useful advances like studies of disease that affect certain parts of the population and not others (breast cancer, sarcoidosis, etc.) The point is that we're speculating and more data will lead to better decisions. (1) https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531/marine-corps-force-integration-plan-summary.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531/marine-co...
ebfe 11y ago
They didn't compare the two genders. The mixed group they tested was exactly what you described- accepting anyone who meets exceeds the minimum standards. The result of which, as it turns out, is a unit that is weaker, slower, less effective, and more likely to be injured than one comprised of only men.

by zelos 11y ago

irremediable 11y ago

I tend to agree with this. Playing devil's advocate a little: it might still be important to test how the gender mix affects group dynamics. You might have a case where a mixed-gender squad is more cohesive, say; or you might have male soldiers being overprotective of female soldiers.

Pyxl101 11y ago

The study is not primarily comparing genders, it's comparing gender-integrated squads with all-male squads. Accepting or denying people based on individual performance does not necessarily account for whatever psychological differences might be at play in those types of squads. For example, the article mentions that male marines tended to be the ones who fireman's-carried an "evacuee" in gender-integrated squads. Maybe the women are capable of doing it, but the men feel some psychological pressure to do it instead of them (e.g., chivalry), or the women expect the men to do it (e.g., chivalry), affecting the way the squad operates. The squad also mentions higher rates of injury among women marines. That said, maybe there are some individual performance standards that cause these squad differences disappear. For example, perhaps both male and female marines who can run an 8 minute mile get injured less in training, but fewer women than men can run the 8 minute mile. Setting that as the time standard might eliminate the discrepancy at the squad level. The study appears to call out considerable performance differences however (1): > The well documented comparative disadvantage in upper and lower-body strength resulted in higher fatigue levels of most women, which contributed to greater incidents of overuse injuries such as stress fractures. > Anaerobic Power: Females possessed 15% less power than males; the female top 25th percentile overlaps with the bottom 25th percentile for males. Anaerobic Capacity: Females possessed 15% less capacity; the female top 10th percentile overlaps with the bottom 50th percentile of males. Aerobic Capacity (VO2Max): Females had 10% lower capacity; the female top 10th percentile overlaps with bottom 50th percentile of males > Within the research at the Infantry Training Battalion, females undergoing that entry-level training were injured at more than six-times the rate of their male counterparts. 27% of female injuries were attributed to the task of movement under load, compared to 13% for their male counterparts, carrying a similar load. The military is right to study these things and try to do so objectively. And I don't see why it's wrong to compare genders or races - it sometimes leads to useful advances like studies of disease that affect certain parts of the population and not others (breast cancer, sarcoidosis, etc.) The point is that we're speculating and more data will lead to better decisions. (1) https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531/marine-corps-force-integration-plan-summary.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531/marine-co...

ebfe 11y ago

They didn't compare the two genders. The mixed group they tested was exactly what you described- accepting anyone who meets exceeds the minimum standards. The result of which, as it turns out, is a unit that is weaker, slower, less effective, and more likely to be injured than one comprised of only men.