Hey Patriots: Have You Seen The Data About Mixed-Gender Squads?

Feminists are NOT going to be happy about THIS study, but it’s important.

While everyone is wrapped around the axle about what role dudes in lipstick should or should NOT have in the military, we’re back to a question that was supposedly put to rest.

We’ve got data about how mixed-gender and all-male forces perform, relative to one another.

Before we go further, let’s go back to what Chaos (also known as Mad Dog) has to say about what the role of the Military is:

“Do you believe that allowing LGBT Americans to serve in the military or women in combat is undermining our lethality?” Gillibrand asked.
“Frankly, senator, I’ve never cared much about two consenting adults and who they go to bed with,” he replied.
Gillibrand pressed, “So the answer is no?”
“Senator, my concern is on the readiness of the force to fight and to make certain it’s at the top of its game,” Mattis said. -Read source article Here

So the primary objective of the military is to maintain peak readiness to execute military objectives. Pretty simple, right? Non-controversial?

Moving on from there:

In 2013, the US military lifted its ban on women serving in combat. Shortly after, the Marine Corps began what it calls an “unprecedented research effort” to understand the impact of gender integration on its combat forces. That took the form of a year-long experiment called the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force, in which 400 Marines—100 of them female—trained for combat together and then undertook a simulated deployment, with every facet of their experience measured and scrutinized.
All branches of the military are facing a January 1, 2016, deadline to open all combat roles to women. The Marine Corps is using this experiment to decide whether to request exceptions to that mandate. The Corps’ summary of the experiment, posted online today by NPR, concludes that combat teams were less effective when they included women. –Source: QZ

Breaking that down further:

…Overall, the report says, all-male teams and crews outperformed mixed-gender ones on 93 out of 134 tasks evaluated. All-male teams were universally faster “in each tactical movement.” On “lethality,” the report says:
All-male 0311 (rifleman) infantry squads had better accuracy compared to gender-integrated squads. There was a notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system (i.e. M4, M27, and M203) within the 0311 squads, except for the probability of hit & near miss with the M4. –Source: QZ

And then there’s this:

The report also says that female Marines had higher rates of injury throughout the experiment. –Source: QZ

More recent studies than this one were not available.

Here is the question:

If adding the complication of women in fighting units potentially compromises their effectiveness, why are we supporting it?

And that’s with the reasonably straightforward issue of binary genders.

Does the recent flap about Trump’s tweets about transsexuals in the military even further complicate this issue?

Does it, also, potentially compromise the effectiveness of our fighting forces?

The question is not whether women — in some instances — can make effective fighters. We have seen that they can.

We’ve reported stories about courageous women raining hell on ISIS, for instance.

BOOM: This Beauty Has Been KILLING Terrorists, What She Says About ISIS Is HILARIOUS

WARRIOR CHICK: ISIS Puts $1M Bounty On This Danish Student’s Head – Here’s WHY (Photos)

The question isn’t “can women fight?”

The question is which do we prioritize? Making our military the most fearsome killing machine we can produce?

Or ticking off all the right social Justice boxes?

Because — if this study is correct — we will have to choose between those two options.

Which do YOU think is more important?

Send this question to your rabidly feminist relatives and coworkers.

Like Clash? Like Clash.

Leave a Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.