ANALYSIS OF THE INTEGRATION OF FEMALE MARINES INTO GROUND COMBAT ARMS AND UNITS. The actual study, for your reading pleasure. Your thoughts?

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:55:20 -0400

http://www.scribd.com/doc/285174854/Marine-Corps-analysis-of-female-integration

The actual study (thus far).

And so no one thinks I'm biased, the rebuttal of the study by someone who disagrees with it:

http://meganhmackenzie.com/2015/10/14/exclusive-access-to-marine-corps-study-shows-it-misses-the-mark/?preview_id=456

Marine Corps analysis of female integration

This document shows the Marine Corps' analysis of how integrating women into a task force focused on combat skills worked.

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2015 1:02 PM

1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:02:27 -0400

Well, here we go. I have been waiting for this to come out. THanks, Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Oct 15 at 2015 1:28 PM

Capt Jeff S. — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:28:55 -0400

If you read that study, you find that the women in the integrated units were placed in positions where they were doing less of the physical effort.

For example: During the destruction of captured munitions, integrated combat engineer squads showed no significant differences in times for loading, digging, unloading, or rigging for detonation. In the most demanding portion of the task, loading the ammunition onto the bed of the 7-ton truck, the female Marines would position themselves on the bed of the vehicle to aid in the loading and stowing of the ammunition rather than at the base of the vehicle, where they would have to lift the artillery shells up from the ground at least 62 inches or higher to the bed of the 7-ton truck.

Another example:
• When comparing integrated 0311 squads to all-male 0311 squads navigating obstacles, there were no significant differences in times. There was, however, an issue with getting assault packs over the wall. Prior to negotiating the wall, 0311 Marines removed their assault packs and individually threw them on top of the 8-foot wall prior to climbing. Females in integrated squads were often noted as requiring assistance from male squad members in order to get their packs onto the wall.
• The 035X assault squads were formed by combining two, two-Marine teams. When both teams in a squad were all-female, the 035X squad used their belts as a ladder to aid in getting the last Marine over the obstacle, a technique that was not required when there was at least one male in the high-density squads as the male would pull the last Marine over the wall.

Regarding Deployment: Female Marines enter the non-deployable state at a rate substantially higher than that of male Marines. In 2012, OAD conducted a study on the impact of medically non-deployable Marines. Considering a four-year period (FY08-12), and counting the incidence of non-deployable periods that exceeded 90 days, the study found that female Marines become medically non-deployable (MND) at a higher rate than males did (overall, female: 20.2% and male: 5.4%).

It should be noted that the majority of Marines who enter a non-deployable state do so as a result of medical issues. The study, summarized in Table 3-2, also found:

* Overall, female Marines have a higher rate of medical separations than males (female: 2.4% and male: 1.6%)

Bottom line: If you're a guy in an integrated unit, you might get some tasks accomplished in the same amount of time, but will find yourself doing most of the heavy lifting and having to work around the women's weakness. Other tasks you are going to be slower because the women simply aren't as strong and require special provisions be made to get them over obstacles. For the few tasks they did equal or better in (those requiring a high degree of problem solving), I don't see the benefit. Every member of the team should be interchangeable and the women simply aren't physically up to the task.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Oct 15 at 2015 2:22 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:22:44 -0400

Alright, just finished reading it.

"Executive level summary" - If I am reading it correctly.

1) Recommend 03xx (Infantry) stay closed. Recommend 08xx (Arty), 1371 (Combat Engineers), 18xx (Tanks/Tracks) be opened. Basic difference is Hiking v. Riding, and mainly because of Injury rates combined with movement speed.

2) Recommend UNITS be opened up down to Battalion Level, for CSS personnel level regardless of gender (Much of this is already in play). This means Combat Arms Units will be Gender Integrated, even if Combat Arms Specialties aren't (specifically 03xx), namely the 25~ Infantry BNs the USMC has.

3) No moral issues found, at this time. USMC essentially as called it "not statistically relevant" and said we are NOT an "All Boys Club." Any article saying otherwise didn't read any the study.

4) Highlights on Non-Deployability & Medical disparities. Ranges from 50% to 400% greater for females vs. males depending on the specific topic. This is Physiological based. It is most prominent at the LCpl rank (which makes up the VAST majority of our 03xx structure). It is noted that screening, and physical conditioning can mitigate some of this. Repeat mitigate, not eliminate. Comparison to integrated forces highlight that they predominantly use females in "non-hiking" roles.

5) Comparative tasking was used as the metric, as opposed to Objective tasking. What this means is there wasn't a "baseline standard" of complete X in Y or perform minimum standard, but instead Group XY did better than Group XX, on average. This is important, because combat doesn't have a minimum standard or a maximum standard, but a COMPETITIVE standard. You are competing against your threat.

Stopping there because, honestly I can go on and on.

Response by GySgt Joe Strong made Oct 21 at 2015 10:05 AM

GySgt Joe Strong — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:05:06 -0400

OMG, they talk of statistically significant differences, "These differences occasionally rose to more than a 30% performance difference, which was a percent used in the experimental design to detect statistical significant group differences." A 30% performance variation is huge given the topic. I originally thought 3-5%, maybe even 8-10%, would be the floor for statistical significance, not 30%. This study shows it to be even worse than I thought.

Response by GySgt Moses Lozano made Jan 23 at 2016 5:50 PM

GySgt Moses Lozano — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 17:50:36 -0500

Until the next major war happens, all these studies don't really amount to any real data! The only way to obtain such data is through conducting some empirical studies. This cannot be achieved by any kind of make believe training scenario or study.

Such a study may reveal some ugly results and bold truths that will either support or dismiss this debate once and for all. Until then, I would suggest our government find a more suitable way to spend $36, 000,000 of tax payer money!