One giant step Backwards?

[rutherford]

Food for thought. This was posted on another message board by somebody I know and respect.

I've had discussions with my wife on this idea, as well, in relation to writing about female characters who resort or are forced to resort to violence. And one of the points we both agreed on was this: Women don't, as a rule, fight for fun. The idea of finding a fight "entertaining" or "sportsmanlike" that's common to most cultures' male machismo is mostly absent from female conception. If you're fighting, you fight; it's deadly serious, not a game or contest, and the point is to win, not "lose well".

One of the books my wife likes to cite is a book called Shoot the Women First, the author of which escapes me but which can probably be found by Googling or on Amazon fairly easily. This is a study of women's roles in guerrilla or terrorist movements in the last half of the twentieth century, and it concluded that almost without exception it was the women who were more violent, more dangerous, and less willing to surrender or negotiate in combat situations.

We theorized that this perhaps dates back to the tribal instincts of humanity and the way we've evolved to deal with physical force between tribes. A tribe can survive the loss of a majority of its menfolk and still produce the next generation without much difficulty. It can not survive the loss of a majority of womenfolk the same way. And so, if two tribes' conflict has ratched up to the point where the women have to fight as well as the men, every instinct in our bodies -- both the women for having to fight, and the men for seeing the women fighting -- is saying: That's it. The gloves are off. This is the last stand. If you don't win here and now, you're all of you dead and gone.

Some might say that if a modern army has to be sent in at all then the situation has already reached that point, so there's no harm in having women on the front lines to begin with. Others might point out that anything that increases the desperation or aggression quotient among soldiers to the point where they're more difficult to control is a bad idea.

But then I'm far more comfortable speculating idly with my wife on hypotheses than being asked to formulate actual military policy, so I wouldn't take this idea to the Joint Chiefs, as it were.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Two completely seperate issues.

Only if you're schizophrenic. Otherwise, you can't make the paradoxical statements that A) No US soldier should be in combat in Iraq B) Female US soldiers should be in combat in Iraq

unless you're saying C) ONLY Female US soldiers should be in combat,

in which case you've performed an illegal function and will shutdown immediately.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Show me a woman who is as aggressive or conditioned as much as the top 5% of men, and you'll have an argument. Hardly the same as saying as saying women should be restricted from duties they are performing admirably in Iraq.

Again, i'll be waiting for someone to give me the name of that woman, she'll be the one fighting Roy Jones Jr. next month. Saying that women aren't as suited for physical combat as the most elite men, isn't a slight. Of course the top 5% of women, are more than a match for a majority of men.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Food for thought. This was posted on another message board by somebody I know and respect.

Originally Posted by Stephen
I've had discussions with my wife on this idea, as well, in relation to writing about female characters who resort or are forced to resort to violence. And one of the points we both agreed on was this: Women don't, as a rule, fight for fun. The idea of finding a fight "entertaining" or "sportsmanlike" that's common to most cultures' male machismo is mostly absent from female conception. If you're fighting, you fight; it's deadly serious, not a game or contest, and the point is to win, not "lose well".

One of the books my wife likes to cite is a book called Shoot the Women First, the author of which escapes me but which can probably be found by Googling or on Amazon fairly easily. This is a study of women's roles in guerrilla or terrorist movements in the last half of the twentieth century, and it concluded that almost without exception it was the women who were more violent, more dangerous, and less willing to surrender or negotiate in combat situations.

We theorized that this perhaps dates back to the tribal instincts of humanity and the way we've evolved to deal with physical force between tribes. A tribe can survive the loss of a majority of its menfolk and still produce the next generation without much difficulty. It can not survive the loss of a majority of womenfolk the same way. And so, if two tribes' conflict has ratched up to the point where the women have to fight as well as the men, every instinct in our bodies -- both the women for having to fight, and the men for seeing the women fighting -- is saying: That's it. The gloves are off. This is the last stand. If you don't win here and now, you're all of you dead and gone.

Some might say that if a modern army has to be sent in at all then the situation has already reached that point, so there's no harm in having women on the front lines to begin with. Others might point out that anything that increases the desperation or aggression quotient among soldiers to the point where they're more difficult to control is a bad idea.

But then I'm far more comfortable speculating idly with my wife on hypotheses than being asked to formulate actual military policy, so I wouldn't take this idea to the Joint Chiefs, as it were.

Eileen MacDonald's book "Shoot the Women First" suffers from it's FIRST profound difficulty in that it's title, "Shoot the Women first", was derived from what was allegedly told to GSG9 snipers. The whole book is founded around this quote, and it turns out to have never even been said by any GSG9 member. The rest of the book is equally poor at supporting her case. Aside from a bunch of distorted anecdotal evidence, MacDonald offers nothing of real substance.

As far as the general assertion goes, it's become a truism in our society (with no real evidence behind it) that women can be MORE violent than men. However I find no single piece of evidence throughout history to support this conclusion (unless you count Hollywood as history). I don't intend to be sexists, women are extremely capable, but I kind of like proof of an assertion before I accept it. As far as tribal history is concerned, women were usually the victims of tribal warfare, not active participants. That is because a woman armed with a sword or mace or spear, is (generally) really no match for a physically larger and stronger male armed with the same. There were exceptional women, but they were by no means the rule.

I can think of no (or scarce few) incidents in history where women played an active role in combat against enemy forces (predating modern firearms of course). As the saying goes, however, god made all men, colonel colt made them equals. I guess in that sense, the gun brought as much equality to women as anything else. It is the lightweight M4 carbine that allows women to engage in combat to the extent they do in Iraq.

 

[arnisador]

Only if you're schizophrenic. Otherwise, you can't make the paradoxical statements that A) No US soldier should be in combat in Iraq B) Female US soldiers should be in combat in Iraq

Surely someone could believe:
a.) The army should not be in Iraq
b.) Women should be allowed to serve in the army

It would follow that the army shouldn't be in Iraq; but that if the army was in Iraq, women should be there too.

Mind you, I'm not saying these are or are not my beliefs...I'm saying, the ideas are indeed separate.

 

[Andrew Green]

Only if you're schizophrenic. Otherwise, you can't make the paradoxical statements that A) No US soldier should be in combat in Iraq B) Female US soldiers should be in combat in Iraq

unless you're saying C) ONLY Female US soldiers should be in combat,

in which case you've performed an illegal function and will shutdown immediately.

umm... no... but good try...

But you can't jump from:

"The war is unjust"

and

"Females should have equal opportunities"

to a paradox, the two statements are independant of each other.

 

[47MartialMan]

Same here....as long as the same standards are met, let them at it. Fair is fair.

But I know a female in the army. When the going gets tough, she had a tendancy to use feminine traits to her advantage.

But, I say, if females want to shoot be, get shot, and die, then anyone can be trained to to this.

 

[Tgace]

As the military is all about teamwork, its not a matter of "well if they want to let them". If a person is less than capable the result will not just be their own death...

I have no problem working/serving with anybody as long as theyre capable. If survival means everybody has to be able to hump a 75lb ruck 20 miles and fight at the end, thats the standard. If you cant do it youre out, no exceptions......no "this group has to be able to carry 45 lbs. 8 miles".

 

[47MartialMan]

But a lot of people, including the media, have the ooos and ahhhs, when a female is KIA.

 

[Sapper6]

But a lot of people, including the media, have the ooos and ahhhs, when a female is KIA.

i agree.

we would never go to war again, afraid of what someone might think if we lost female soldiers.

 

[bignick]

Show me a woman who is as aggressive or conditioned as much as the top 5% of men, and you'll have an argument. Hardly the same as saying as saying women should be restricted from duties they are performing admirably in Iraq.

Again, i'll be waiting for someone to give me the name of that woman, she'll be the one fighting Roy Jones Jr. next month. Saying that women aren't as suited for physical combat as the most elite men, isn't a slight. Of course the top 5% of women, are more than a match for a majority of men.

What does the top 5% have to do with anything? Pick any male from any outfit and see if he's in the top 5% of the armed forces....if he's not, do we kick him out? After all, he can't cut it with the elite of the elite...so he shouldn't be eligible for his job.

If a woman can cut it in the training why shouldn't she be allowed to go? I've still not seen one good argument on to this thread about why a woman that has completed the training and qualifies shouldn't be allowed to fight on the front lines. I've heard, in flippant statements like "women are generally weaker"..."they can't handle the stress"...etc

Perhaps, but we aren't talking about "generally" or "on the whole" or "overall". How many guys, for the matter, would "generally" be able to handle the stress of combat? If someone doesn't cut it in training, flunks all his PT tests, can't shoot the broadside of a barn, would they be allowed to fight on the frontline? Would you want them fighting on the frontline, watching your back? What if it's a guy? Then do we let him anyways? Well? I didn't think so? So what about a woman that has completed all the training, past her marksmanship tests, and fulfilled every requirement that every other soldier needs to fill. What do we do with her? Let her fight? No...she needs to go sit off to the side and knit the soldiers socks and maybe a nice rifle warmer...

Do I agree with the war in Iraq? No...I'm not going to lie to you. Do I think any of our soldiers should be there dying? No. Do I think it's a disgrace that even though we're in the 21st century we still try to put women in their place and keep them safe so they don't get scared by the "big, bright world" outside of their kitchens? Absolutely.

I find it quite asinine that at a time when we the military is supposedly falling far short of it's recruiting goals that we are trying to cut back a section of our armed forces from doing the job that they've been doing quite capably for sometime.

 

[Tgace]

The issue is that in some areas there are separate standards....there shouldnt be.

 

[bignick]

The issue is that in some areas there are separate standards....there shouldnt be.

And I agree...

 

[Kane]

I guess it depends what job we are talking about here. I think a woman can do a great job in the frontlines driving a tank or airforce unit. I also think they would make great spies and snipers.

However as far as being an army man or woman in the front lines, I think that job should be only to men. As much as we may hate it, men do have better endurance, strength, and speed for infantry shootouts and what not. I am not saying that a woman cannot be as good as a man, but in general no matter how much a woman trains men will always be stronger and I think in situations that involve more strength, endurance, and speed that it should be left to men. That's my opinion.

Now should there be a law? I am not sure, I am really never been for too many laws. I think there are not going to be as much women trying for a frontline infantry job so it it might not make much of a difference whether there is a law or not. So a law might be unnecessary.

 

[Andrew Green]

However as far as being an army man or woman in the front lines,

I think you mean Infantry man....

I think that job should be only to men. As much as we may hate it, men do have better endurance, strength, and speed for infantry shootouts and what not.

And women got more patience and accuracy... Not all infantry jobs on the front lines are the same. And again, there is courses that test these skills. Some women CAN keep up with the men that are supposed to be better then them.

I am not saying that a woman cannot be as good as a man, but in general no matter how much a woman trains men will always be stronger and I think in situations that involve more strength, endurance, and speed that it should be left to men. That's my opinion.

But you are looking at the top level of each, and using mens strengths as the judging criteria. Let's say 100 men qualify and can do the job, and 5 women do.

 

[47MartialMan]

Authored by Jake Willens, 7 August 1996;
Proponents of opening all positions in the military to women argue that military readiness is enhanced when there is a larger pool of applicants, whereas opponents insist that due to politics, quotas would be undeniable, thus allowing unqualified women into key military positions. Opponents of allowing women to compete for combat billets argue that it is too dangerous to put women in the position of becoming prisoners of war. Without a doubt, there is a much greater probability for acts of sexual molestation and rape with the addition of women to the front lines. The "front lines" in modern combat, however, are fluid. Although they were technically in support roles, two female U.S. soldiers were taken captive and one was sexually abused by the Iqaqis in the Gulf War. This situation made those who were already skeptical about putting women in such a compromising position further question whether women should be subjected to the horrors of combat. Many, however, argue that adult women who make the decision to join the military are aware of the consequences (Minerva, Spring 1994).

More than 40,000 American women served in the war against Iraq. The Marine Corps awarded twenty-three women the Combat Action Ribbon for service in the Persian Gulf War because they were engaged by Iraqi troops. Desert Storm was a huge turning point for women, much like Vietnam was for African-Americans, and it showed that modern war boundaries between combat and non-combat zones are being blurred. It makes no sense to cling to semantics (combat vs combat support) given the reality of war. Furthermore, allowing both men and women to compete for all military occupational specialties is not an equal rights issue, but one of military effectiveness. If the United States is to remain the world's most capable and most powerful military power, we need to have the best person in each job, regardless of their gender.

 

[Tgace]

Like Ive stated before, IMO if anybody can meet standards then they should get the job. However as that last post stated, female soldiers are going to have to face the reality of sexual abuse if they are captured, wrong as it is, its going to happen. If they and the public are willing to accept that facet as "reality" and drive on, have at it.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

"Republicans in the US Congress are trying to pass legislation which would keep female soldiers out of combat."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4560847.stm

There have been a number of revisions to this bill, most notably the one requiring that all tank crew members have at least one woman so that they'll be able to stop and ask for directions.



Regards,



Steve

 

[47MartialMan]

Like Ive stated before, IMO if anybody can meet standards then they should get the job. However as that last post stated, female soldiers are going to have to face the reality of sexual abuse if they are captured, wrong as it is, its going to happen. If they and the public are willing to accept that facet as "reality" and drive on, have at it.

But the media will have a blast when more women are reported KIA, POW, etc., giving more exposure as if these were more tragic than males.

 

[Tgace]

I have met with very competent and profesional women in the military and in LE. And men who were not.

That being said, I do have to agree that based purely on numbers. The inate and socialized aggression, basic "interest" in the role and biology of men is going to make them better "suited" for infantry roles in larger numbers than women.