Women in Warfare

[fable]

[QUOTE=Macleod1701]Fable I think you officially lost the plot for the first part of that, have you been at grannies special brownies again?[/QUOTE]

You need to do something really unusual to figure it out, MacLeod. It's called reading the rest of this thread.

[Vicsun]

[QUOTE=Witch King]you apparently haven't read the latest clinical studies results out of Berne labs. it has been scientifically proven that, though sometimes beautiful, women just don't have have what it takes for a vast plethora of vocations, particularly those involving science, math, art or any of the areas requiring higher brain functions.[/QUOTE]

I laughed. And then cried when the rest of the SYM populace failed to detect the bantering tone.


Regarding the original question.
I voted yes because I didn't agree with the reasons given for no. The fact that women are physically weaker, might play a role as might the fact that due to the way our society currently works, they might not make the best of leaders among men.

However, I will just jump on the bandwagon saying women's emotional responses are no obstacle to their possible value as soldiers as I honestly do not believe them to be different.

[Macleod1701]

ah Fable my old sprout are you practicing your sarcasm now I had read the whole thread, just typical me had forgotten most of it due the distractions of scantily clad women outside the office. Now if that isn't a reason for them to be in the military what is? They could distract enemy troops then precision bomb them in F18's, (or the crappy Eurofighter if they're British).

[InfiniteNature]

I think in today's military it is little problem, in the pretechnological military though it was simply a question of strength. Men in general are stronger physically then women are (in terms of actual strength not emotional strength), technology such as swords, or blocking, hacking something's heads of lends itself to that. Women do in general have greater endurance, but warfare isn't about endurance its about a short battle, with lots of little long waiting periods in the interim.

I'll say it hasn't been proven to absolute certainty what women are capable of on the battlefield, they might be a asset or not; there is a lot of ideas that they are quite capable and its all a example of male predujudice. But the examples used just do not happen often enough to make a certainty, they are exceptions to the rule not rule, at least as yet anyway. Not to say it shouldn't be experimented with, but I would like to see more tests first to have a opinion.

It might be that because of technological innovation, women are now on par on men, or it also might be that combat is not in general for women (maybe women have not often fought in history for a reason). Even if this is true, there will be exceptions to the norm, so it still doesn't invalidate ALL women, just most.

On the other hand women still would be useful for combat logistics, and I know I know some are going to say stupid, sexual agression. Paired men women soldiers might fight better, rather like the old Theban soldiers in Greece, except those were men you might argue, yes but the concept still might be applicable.

Or it might be that feminists are right and that there are absolutely no significant differences in combat between men and women, and that every reason why men fight more often in combat is just predujudice, that there is no practical reason why, Maybe but can you explain the majority of history as just predujudice.

[fable]

[QUOTE=InfiniteNature]I think in today's military it is little problem, in the pretechnological military though it was simply a question of strength. Men in general are stronger physically then women are (in terms of actual strength not emotional strength), technology such as swords, or blocking, hacking something's heads of lends itself to that. Women do in general have greater endurance, but warfare isn't about endurance its about a short battle, with lots of little long waiting periods in the interim. [/QUOTE]

Actually, warfare today is about endurance. It's not about wielding a bayonet or using a scimitar to take on a mamaluke, but carrying large, powerful ranged weapons for long distances--and using them. Why couldn't a woman do that?

And men aren't stronger than women. On average, men have more upper body strength than women, but 1) that varies from one person to another in a great degree, and 2) it can be cultivated easily, with training. As anybody who has ever seen a woman working out with weights in a gym can tell you.

[frogus23]

[QUOTE=fable]mamaluke[/QUOTE]Aren't mamalukes the slaves one get to fan one while relaxing in ones luxurious desert tent?

On topic - **** off do males have lesser compassion, empathy or emotions.

[Chanak]

Old Hat

Naturally they should be able to. If a woman meets the standards required for a combat role, nothing should prevent her from being deployed in said role in a combat situation.

I know I've posted rather extensively on this topic before. The only obstacle preventing females from direct combat deployment in the US Armed Forces is a political one. I imagine it's the same in other Western nations. There are two camps which currently oppose females in direct combat roles, but for different reasons:

1. Politicians. I'm not even going to go there with politicians, especially now in the current neo-con environment that coddles Christian activist groups, who are very opposed to permitting women in combat.

2. Military Brass. Why are military (read Army and Marine) commanders generally opposed to the idea? Is it an outdated sexist motivation? Or is it because they're scared to death that the government will push quotas on them that they are forced to meet at any cost, and therefore must change existing standards in order to meet the mandated quota?

The answer to that is simple. Sexism as a policy died in the US military long ago. The past few decades have witnessed the remaining pockets of it exposed, lambasted, and expelled. The Tailhook scandal, et al are examples of what I'm referring to. There are strict non-discrimination regulations in place within the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which make it a felony to discriminate or harass a servicemember because of their gender. If you don't believe it, I witnessed the courts martial of an Air Force senior master sergeant (an E-8) charged with sexual harassment while I was stationed in Germany, and that was back in 1990. He was reduced in rank to E-1 and sentenced to 5 years in Fort Leavenworth Federal Penetentiary in Kansas.

Back when females were permitted into the ranks of the active military, tests were conducted by military researchers to determine if the government-mandated quota of female recruits could be met successfully using existing physical standards already in place for soldiers - in other words, male soldiers. The results of these tests concluded that using the physical standards for males, the quota could not be met. Therefore, the entire spectrum of physical fitness standards and occupational standards were re-evaluated, and a formula arrived at which would permit the mandated quota of qualified female recruits to be met.

Needless to say, this made many people in the military angry, and for good reason. The majority of combat specialties require a degree of upper body strength in order to be performed successfully. Fable pointed this out, and it is very true. What no one here seems to understand, or cares to understand, is that a soldier who cannot perform their role to standard is a liability that will cost lives. The military fought to keep the combat specialties free of tinkering, but unfortunately at a price: the across-the-board exclusion of females.

There are different physical fitness standards for male and female soldiers. Females are not required to possess the demonstrable upper body strength that males must evidence. They are also permitted by the physical standards set for them to run a 2 mile course in more time than is required of a male. Example: A 21 year old male Army soldier must run 2 miles within 14 minutes. A 21 year old female Army soldier must run 2 miles within 17 minutes...etc, etc, etc.

Why are the standards different? They were changed so more females could join. They needed more females to join so the military could meet the mandated quota. Philosophy or politics has nothing to do with meeting a basic physical standard. However, it does for the military, and commanders despise that.

@frogus: Mamalukes were slaves especially chosen for their combat skills.

EDIT: If the example of physical fitness standards I illustrated above wasn't enough to drive my point home, here is something that should. My own military occupational specialty required a soldier to be able to lift a 120 pound teletype off the ground, carry it 25 feet, and place it in the bed of a truck. Out of the seven female soldiers in my training class, only one could do this. The other six were "passed" by the evaluators despite failing to meet the standard.

[fable]

Chanak, we've all seen women who can benchpress more than their weight, even if the tendency in training is to go for endurance and agility. Isn't it possible for most female recruits to train up their strength? I don't see why they couldn't, not if they truly wanted to be on the lines.

[Magrus]

Bending the rules in a military training thing like that for people could lead to bad things occuring in a real combat situation. I could see why the military personnel training the recruits would be unhappy with that, it would reflect on them, and it could lead to those they've trained being hurt in the field for not being able to properly do what they are needing to do.

[Chanak]

@fable: Of course. Please note, I personally feel that any female who desires a combat role and meets the standards should have nothing preventing her from doing so. In fact, ask any grunt out in the field and they'd say the same.

Just about anyone who trains hard with a goal in mind can achieve that goal. And yes, I have met a few females who naturally possessed upper body strength that rivaled any male's (they didn't work out to get that way, they just were). Please bear in mind, however, that as an average, upper body strength and endurance is higher in males, whereas cardiovascular endurance and abdominal strength is higher in females. Hence, in military physical fitness standards, a 21 year old female must demonstrate a minimum of 62 properly executed sit-ups in two minutes, whereas a 21 year old male must only execute a minimum of 40 properly executed sit-ups. The coin is flipped, however, when it comes to push-ups: a 21 year old male must execute 50 proper push-ups in two minutes, whereas a 21 year old female needs only execute 26 in the same time.

When dealing with quotas, averages come into play. It was not enough for the military to open the doors to female soldiers. Instead, the military was ordered to achieve a 20% female force composition in X amount of years. Test runs at basic training centers with female platoons proved that the mandated quota was not attainable with imposing male physical fitness standards.

Instead of being free do what I feel is the right thing - that is, having the same physical standards apply to all soldiers, regardless of sex - the military had to come up with a way to meet the mandated quota, and that meant creating a separate standard for females.

You'll recall my own training example in my previous post. The right thing, in my eyes, was to fail the other six females who could not lift that teletype unit.

@Magrus: That's what is behind resistance in the military right now to permitting females in direct combat roles. Female soldiers are measured by different standards than male soldiers are. This creates a problem. It's not that Joe Blow infantryman doesn't "want to see girls get hurt." Rather, he's worried about the female that might show up in his platoon, not strong enough to tote around pieces of an M-2 machine gun like she's supposed to do as a grunt. These guys run around like apes with 130 pound rucksacks, diving in the dirt, getting back up to run some more, all the while toting a fully loaded weapon and strapped with fragmentation grenades. All they want is a fellow female grunt that can do the same.

Let me tell you, I had the chance to train with an infantry unit in Washington state. My military occupational specialty could be assigned to any kind of unit: Infantry, Artillery, Airborne, or Air Assault. So, for two weeks I was an infantry communications specialist. I weighed my rucksack before we deployed and I had loaded it up according to SOP: that sucker weighed 130 pounds. It contained a radio, extra batteries, my sleeping and mess gear, and a few other items (including ammo). To make matters worse, I was the M-60 gunner for my squad, so that meant *I* had to drag that beast around, with the tripod for it. A buddy in the squad carried my M-16A2 for me, which freed me up to use that M-60 unhindered.

The first 4 days were sheer hell. My feet killed me, my arms were noodles, and my brain was overcooked in a kevlar oven. 25-mile road marches and little strolls through the woods, sometimes running, had me singing the Mickey Mouse song over and over in my head just to get my mind off the misery. I'll never forget the platoon sergeant as he strolled out in front, making it look like a piece of cake. I am not religious nor christian, but I shall say at that time I believed the man was Satan himself, grinning and walking like a tireless demon. He knew I was a newbie and was demonstrating to me that no one - and I mean no one - was gonna outlast Sergeant First Class Hammer (yep, that was his name). And you know what? By the middle of week 2, I was loving it, and moving right along. I knew then that I had lost every marble and should be on medication.

[Golden Lion 86]

My Opinion

I agree with Chanak. I have no military experience myself, but it is common sense to have the same standards for both sexes if both sexes are expected to do the same things.

Basically, no woman who wants to be in the military should be kept from the military UNLESS she does not physically qualify. There are plenty of strong women out there, and there are plenty of weak ones too. a 5'0", 90 lb woman does NOT, unless she has super-human lb for lb strength, have the ability to serve in the military as a soldier, because she will probably have trouble handling her weapon.

Otherwise, physical requirements are not as strict as they used to be, because it takes no strength to fire a pistol, and you don't have to wear heavy armor. Let's face it, on average, women are considerably smaller than men. This generally means that they are weaker than men in the same category in his gender (lightweight vs lightweight, etc.). Now, I work as a sacker at our local grocery store, so I get the privilege of seeing a considerable part of our local population. Now, I have yet to see a woman who is my size or bigger, and those who approach my size are generally spherical (I don't think I can put it any more delicately than that). The average woman that comes through is small and thin, or medium and thin, so in other words, a fragile sort. Men who come in, on the other hand, are generally large and well-built, and a few have come through who were bigger than I. Even the older men are generally in excellent shape. Now, there are, of course, men who are old and frail, or who cannot see well, or move fast, but those are the elder citizens. This does not mean that strong women do not exist, and it does not mean that the army requires women my size, and no smaller, but it is safe to assume that the spectrum of people I see is pretty thorough.

Now, take me for instance. I am 18.5, and I am 6'2" (about 1m87), and 255 lbs (116 kg). You can safely assume that I am large, and powerfully built, though I do have a little in excess, maybe 10-15 lbs. Now, my endurance is poor, but it can be trained, and I am physically adaptable, and I recover as quickly as I tire. This means that you can put me through a training routine and physically, I will be soldier material. Right?

Yes! But, there is one big problem: all the things I am afraid of! Most notable is my fear of death which would make me a hell of a liability in any battle, and my fear of flying, which means that, despite excellent vision, I can (or rather will) never be a pilot. And as for the emotional facet of the discussion, I am every bit as compassionate as you say women are. I drive myself halfway to tears just thinking of hitting someone (someone who deserves it, mind you!), because A) Hitting him will hurt him, and that's mean, and B) His parents are going to be sad because I hurt their son (though he deserved it) and because they have to pay medical bills instead of living their lives. This means that I am unlikely to ever hit someone. How do you think I will react to the prospect of killing someone who, most likely, is just defending himself and does not deserve death?

So I might have all the physical aspects of a soldier, but psychologically, I could never be one, because I would spend all my time worrying about dying, or worrying about killing. On the other hand, there are plenty of women out there who could meet the qualifications (but still be no match for me, physically), but could kill, and could be ready to die.

So, personally, I think that any woman physically and psychologically capable of being a soldier should be a soldier if she wishes it. There are also men (like me), who have everything required to be a soldier, physically, but who cannot be soldiers because of fears or moral concerns.

It's a case-by-case scenario. If a woman is fit to serve, very well. If not, then she must train harder, or not serve. I know that there are probably women out there who haven't even the potential to acheive the necessary strength (generally, their skeleton is too small to adequately support a strong musculature) who wish to serve, but it is reasonable to deny these ladies admission into the armed forces because willpower alone is not enough. You need two things: willpower, most importantly, and potential. Without one or the other, you cannot make it. Again, I have the potential, but I haven't the willpower, or the inclination, to work out. This is not enough.

Anyway, this is getting lengthy and there are plenty of tangents, but the bottomline is this: women who have the potential to meet the requirements, and the willpower to develop that potential, should serve, regardless of gender. Those who cannot meet the potential or willpower requirements are a liability (becuase they will be, respectively, unable or unwilling to do the duties), so they should be denied.

[The Z]

[QUOTE=fable]As anybody who has ever seen a woman working out with weights in a gym can tell you.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. I have a friend who consistently has girls beating him in chin-up tests. He finds it embarassing, but hell: if you get beat by someone, you got beat by someone, end of story - gender means nothing.

Take it from me, people. Women, in my athletic experience, have as much endurance as any guy. I've seen them cover 18km swimming while doing another 6km running (ok, maybe jogging) and then come back the next day ready for more. Endurance is not a problem. Pure brute strength? Maybe. Emotional issues? I wouldn't know, I'm not a mind reader and I don't like prying into other people's heads. What I do know is that ladies have plenty of stamina. More than many guys I've met.

As far as I'm concerned, toughness gets proven in the ring. It's not prudent to assume you're stronger or faster than someone until you see what they can really do.

@Chanak...So you're telling me that people passed even though they failed? Like I said before, gender doesn't matter...they fail, they failed. If they were good enough to pass, then let them in. Why have seperate standards if it jeapordizes the safety of others?

Ok, so they have lower standards for women to get into certain sporting events because quite simply, they can't compete with the speed/strength of the men (I can't think of a sport where the best woman is better than the best man...sorry if that's a little sexist). But this is the armed forces we're talking about. Whether they succeed or not doesn't affect their placing - it affects the war/battle/world.

I believe many women are capable of serving in the front lines and if they meet the standards and have the inclination to do so, then there's no reason why they shouldn't. If they don't meet the standards then they shouldn't get in. As Chanak said (or maybe hinted at, or maybe I misinterpreted him), how can grunts get the job done if they're distracted by the fact that one amongst their number didn't meet the rigorous training standard? How will they expect that person to fare when they're pushed to their limit?

BTW - two miles is three-and-a-bit kilometers right? Are we talking fully loaded, or simply clothed, because fourteen minutes to cover 3.5km without weight isn't blazingly fast; I'm not that fast a distance runner compared to many I know and I can cover five kilometers in about 19 mins (at least I'm not as skinny as they are...damn hardcore distance runners). On the other hand, my max bench press four years ago was 130 lbs. (I haven't done it since)...I think carrying the 120 lbs. teletype 25 feet would be much harder. Then again I was only 130 lbs back then...

[oozae]

[QUOTE=Chanak]@frogus: Mamalukes were slaves especially chosen for their combat skills.[/QUOTE] I can't remember who but some desserty people (no offence meant, just means people who live in the desert or a dry and hot place) had trained warrior slaves who fought on camels called Mamelukes, they made armies of mamelukes and used them to conquer a lot of land but the mameluke army revolted, eventually leading to their master's defeat. Mayhap it is that I will dig up some more info on this.

[Magrus]

@ The Z, I'm fairly certain that military personel are required to do all of their marching and running exercises in full gear to see to it they're able to do so in the field when on missions. I know I walk a lot more than most people in my life, but wandering around just walking for more than 3 miles at a time makes my feet sore and thats just me wandering around with a soda and discman. I couldn't do that kind of thing without a lot of training and hard work, let along carrying that much weight. I used to haul 50lb sacks of potatoes up and down stairs at work, I can't imagine having to carry two or three of those on a 25 mile hike.

Lowering standards like that means that if you were to let someone in who could only carry say 75 lbs of weight the same distance as the rest of your peers you would be a liability. Either you'd be unable to carry your gear and go without, or other people would have to carry it for you. Regardless of how much you want to be a soldier and how good you are at it and such, if you aren't strong enough to carry say your medkit your screwed. You can't say when you'll get seperated and need whatever is in your military kit for survival, thats why it's given to you and you haul it around with you. You may not need it for weeks on end but it could save your life at some point. Dumping that radio and extra ammo to lighten your load could well lead to your death out in a battle, and possibly those around you as well. Thats about as dangerous as letting someone fire one of those assault rifles without training under the right conditions.

[Chanak]

@Z: Actually, the military prefers soldiers to be slim (contrary to the Arnold image people get from the movies). The weight standards are based on height, age, and sex. I would be 12 pounds overweight right now if I were still in. I knew a guy who was a bodybuilder and he was rather bulky; he had to have uniforms specially fitted to accomodate the tree trunks he had for arms (he couldn't roll up the sleeves of his BDUs over his biceps). He had to lose some weight and bulk or face a discharge. The Army started cracking down on the weight standards big time following Desert Storm. I knew of some soldiers who ended up being shorted on retirement because of that.

Anyway, the physical fitness standards I refer to are universal and apply to all soldiers regardless of occupational speciality. All male soldiers have the male standard they must meet, and female soldiers have their own standard they must meet. Occupational standards vary from job to job. 14 minutes to run 2 miles is easy enough for anyone who is in decent shape...however, you earn points for higher scores, so running 2 miles in 12 minutes shows up on your record and counts towards promotion. Don't be fooled by the push-up and sit-up counts I refered to above, though. 50 push-ups itself is no big deal either, but notice how I specified properly executed push-ups. You must do a push-up exactly how the Army wants it: body in a straight plane from head to toe (no bending in the legs, no sagging in the back, your head in line with the rest of your body)...your upper arms must meet the plane of your back when you go down, and your arms must be fully extended when you push up. You wouldn't believe how many people think it's a breeze, and then fail their first physical fitness test. An evaluator watches you and counts as you do the push-ups...during my first physical fitness test when I was 19, I must have done at least 120 push-ups, but the grader only counted 54. My arms were quivering jelly when I was through.

Of course gender shouldn't matter, Z, but remember what we're dealing with here. Some politicians decided that in order to afford equal opportunity and appear non-discriminatory, the military should change their standards to allow more females in. And of course it's true that if a female is lacking in upper body strength, she can build it up. Generally speaking, a female must work harder than a male to develop upper body strength, and a male must work harder than a female to develop abdominal strength and cardiovascular endurance. And finally, I've known some women whose build was such that they possessed a good deal of upper body strength without purposefully having to develop it. This is simply averages, and that's what the military has to deal with. Exceptions cannot be applied to everyone, but averages can.

Training is done in full gear. 25 mile road marches in full battle dress, with your gear and weapons. An M-16 rifle might not feel like much when you pick it up the first time. After mile 12, however, it begins to feel like a bag of rocks. The M-60 machine gun that was assigned to me was a beast in comparison. I hated that thing with a passion, but it was assigned to me so therefore I was married to it. I LMAO every time I see the images of Rambo firing an M-60 in one arm, feeding the ammo belt with the other. Uh huh. It would knock you on your ass if you attempted to do that. You have to mount it on the ground using a tripod or on a vehicle to operate it properly. Automatic weapons are difficult to control - they climb up on you and require some skill to use. Even mounted on the ground, an M-60 wants to climb. You have to place one hand on top (there's a spot on the weapon just for that, NEVER touch the barrel), place it securely in the hollow of your shoulder and yes, you have to aim using the sighting assembly. That's one reason why every third round is a tracer. As much as I hated the M-60, I was an expert marksman with it (I could squeeze off single rounds by slightly pulling the trigger).

Road marches are not conducted at the pace of a leisurely Sunday stroll, either. You are moving out...walking very briskly. That was why I thought that Sergeant was the devil. The man must have been taking 4-foot steps with every stride. I had to jog every now and then to keep up. Back in those days, Z, I only weighed 165 pounds, compared to 200 now. I was leaner and meaner back then.

[fable]

A uniform system of requirements specific to each job certainly seems the right way to go, I agree. Logically, that would extend to combat, too. I only regret that the US, like so many other nations which proclaim "fairness" and "equality," maintain a disparaging inequality in their military.

[Chanak]

[QUOTE=fable]A uniform system of requirements specific to each job certainly seems the right way to go, I agree. Logically, that would extend to combat, too. I only regret that the US, like so many other nations which proclaim "fairness" and "equality," maintain a disparaging inequality in their military.[/QUOTE]

This is the irony of the situation, isn't it? In the name of equal opportunity, inequality is created. That happens across the board, sadly...it just stands out more in the example of the US military. Other examples of this can be discussed, but it would be a topic for a different thread.

[Maharlika]

For as long as the female is fit and capable to do the tasks expected of her then I don't see why not.

A question though pops up my mind.

Would their monthly menstruations, PMS, and the potential of getting pregnant get in the way when they are in actual combat situations?

Just a thought I'm pondering on.

[Magrus]

Would their monthly menstruations, PMS, and the potential of getting pregnant get in the way when they are in actual combat situations?

Just a thought I'm pondering on.

I brought that up when the thread was first started and no one else addressed it. I'd have to say thats the only disadvantage I could think of that women would have apart from men. Given how some women deal with that, it could have varying degrees of effects in combat I'm quite sure.

[dragon wench]

[QUOTE=Maharlika]For as long as the female is fit and capable to do the tasks expected of her then I don't see why not.

A question though pops up my mind.

Would their monthly menstruations, PMS, and the potential of getting pregnant get in the way when they are in actual combat situations?

Just a thought I'm pondering on.
[/QUOTE]

Hmmm... interesting thought...
Well I know I am in a pretty nasty frame during PMS, and I also suffer from some really debilitating cramps around that time. So, were it me personally, yes it would affect me in a combat situation. However, all women are different in that regard, and some are hardly troubled by cramps etc.

As far as pregnancy goes, I would say that is the simplist issue to deal with. After all, there are some pretty good contraceptives out there these days