The US Marines tested all-male squads against mixed-gender ones

It seems the military in general does not believe the initial painful period would be worth the ultimate goal of total integration. The article quotes a government study from 1992:

A military unit at maximum combat effectiveness is a military unit least likely to suffer casualties. Winning in war is often only a matter of inches, and unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy. Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong.

This was 1992, when there didn't exist the taboo we have today of not speaking against gender integration and government and military leaders could speak their minds.

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.

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-co...

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.

> Why didn't they use inexperienced soldiers of both sexes in the experiment?

That likely would be flawed in its own right --- these days there are probably few infantry squads composed solely of combat virgins. The Corps summary suggests that the study might have tried to control for lack of combat experience: "Male provisional infantry (those with no formal 03xx [i.e., infantry] school training) had higher hit percentages than the 0311 (school trained) females: M4: 44% vs 28%, M27: 38% vs 25%, M16A4w/M203: 26% vs 15%." [1]

[1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531/marine-co..., linked FTA

Here it is for those who can't be arsed to look for it (emphasis mine):

> many of of the male study participants had previously served in combat units, whereas female participants, by necessity, came directly from infantry schools or from noncombat jobs.

All-male squads, teams and crews and gender-integrated squads, teams, and crews had a noticeable difference in their performance of the basic combat tasks of negotiating obstacles and evacuating casualties. For example, when negotiating the wall obstacle, male Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular assistance in getting their packs to the top. During casualty evacuation assessments, there were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated groups, except in the case where teams conducted a casualty evacuation as a one-Marine fireman’s carry of another (in which case it was most often a male Marine who “evacuated” the casualty)

That's definitely a flaw in the study. On the other hand, I doubt using equally experienced males would change the conclusions significantly: majority of the tasks seem to have involved major physical effort, and you don't need a study to know that on average, males will perform better in physically demanding excercies.

Thought the same, but the reason given ( requiring assistance for climbing a wall, or aiming abilities) seem to point more at pure physical abilities rather than tactical experience.

Which is not really surprising. You wouldn't expect a female pro athlete to win against a male pro one, and the warfield is very physicaly demanding.

Even in Israel, I don't think ground fighting forces are composed of women. I've heard they were assigned to radar and monitoring tasks (not 100% sure, though).

this study is definitely deeply flawed - and disappointing as this would have been a really interesting set of results if it wasn't uncontrolled.

to say the least. they could have easily controlled for that, and gotten results which could serve as strong guidelines. their conclusion, stressing that "an inch" is enough to lose a war, makes it even sound suspicious. i mean, it is quite unsurprising that women will be worse in certain tasks, but a more correct study could have told us exactly where to draw the line. and in any case, IMO, gender should not be the criteria, but rather simply, e.g., can you throw the fucking pack over the wall? no? then desk job for you. what you have in your pants means nothing if you have the needed muscle and brains to do the job right. i mean, i'm a man, but i'm sure there are many women that could throw a backpack higher than me :D

There have been other tests of women against the male standard where women either did the same or outperformed the men, even though the women had more limited experience.

http://history.nasa.gov/printFriendly/flats.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_13

Maybe. But probably the whole context and power dynamics is a lot more important (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynndie_England).

Frankly, the US military isn't exactly known for its de-escalation or cultural sensitivity. My uncle served in a peacekeeping mission where they had the misfortune of coming in after the Americans, who had made it a habit to drive their tanks along the curbs so they'd be welcomed by rather disgruntled locals.

I think you’re projecting. They were ordered to open all combat roles to women. If that results in problems, that could well be considered “bleak” irrespective of other concerns about equality.

Beyond the headline, the piece sticks narrowly to the facts. I don‘t think the author let any obvious bias through.

You're projecting, and the author has presented the information neutrally. The results are also bleak to gender-segregationists, since integration is mandated in less than half a year.

The thing is, there's a predominant strain of American thought that believes perfect social harmony is attainable. You don't need a Communist plot to provoke it into its current form; you just need a sufficient number of more cynical people willing to levy penalties from the first group via grievances.

Are you saying that promotion of gender equality is a CIA plot? Can you elaborate a bit more about this “manipulation” you’re talking about, and what it is supposed to accomplish?