Women in combat

Over at Ricochet, there’s a really interesting post about women in combat, written by a former paratrooper.  The point that fascinated me was his claim that women aren’t leaders.  I’ve always defined myself as a born follower.  I’ll fill a vacuum if no one is leading, and I have no problem taking a leadership role when I’m caring for children but otherwise, I don’t want to be a general.  I’m a foot soldier, and a damn good one.  What amazed me is that, apparently, I’m not the only one.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    Women lead by cooperative ventures. Men lead by dragging everybody else behind em through example or fear.

    In the military, there’s not much need for leading by cooperation. It’s a benevolent dictatorship, mostly. You do what you are told, or as close to it as you can get away with without killing yourself.

    The women advocates in the US military are advocating for more combat roles for a simple reason. They want faster promotions and they can’t get it in the Army if they don’t have “combat roles”. Even if they are designated MP or supporting member of an infantry, it isn’t a “combat role” and thus not indicative of combat experience necessary for the fastest rank promotions.

    The female politicians outside the military advocating for more roles in combat is due to feeding their various special interest groups and ideological bends.

    There’s no guarantee that any of these policies, regardless of origins, are any good for America or its military protection wing.

  2. 11B40 says

    Greetings:

    After the suspension of the military draft for men, the decision to enlist large numbers of women in our military is the most important in the hollowing out process our government seems intent on following.  

    One of my memories of our past turbulent ’60s, was a bit of hippy-dippy folk wisdom that mentioned something along the lines of “old men sending young men off to war” as one of the tragedies of the age. Not that there would be much logic to the reverse, but, as usual, it was about feeling and emotion not logic and intelligence. Several years later, as the feminists pursued their equality creation myth, our representatives decided, probably not based on their own personal military experience and intelligence, that 10-15% women in our military would do something to appease the determine minority at their doors. Thus, with no real plan to scientifically measure the venture, we quickly evolved to “old men and women sending young men and women off to war”. C’est magnifique, n’est ce oas?

    I was working for the US Navy as a civilian printer back in the early ’80s, when, one day, as I was checking the copy for a manual we were to print, I came across an illustration of the Navy’s pregnancy uniform. At that point, I realized that something had happened that was not going to be corrected. Our military had, probably as they would put it, in deference to civilian authority, but more likely in deference to the military’s flag and general officers who could see the handwriting on the walls of the Congress whose members approve all those pretty little stars those officers so covet. And so, on it goes, with the latest news being that the Navy thinks it should be able to handle a 20% female service. C’est tres magnifique, n’est ce pas?

    As with every affirmative action scheme, the most likely outcome is less for more. In the fine tradition of Justice Elena Kagan of our US Supreme Court who has recused herself from more than half of this court-term’s cases but not any of her salary, the military will maintain the requisite level of oblivion about what is really happening. If our representatives say, “Jump!”, they will and if there’s a cliff involved, oh well. The CDR Salamander website has a weekly Diversity Thursday item that does a good job uncovering the machinations of the committed affirmative actioneers within the Navy’s ranks. It’s not a pretty picture and it’s not one that going to be changed any time soon, if at all. 

    Is there no end to the stupidity ???

  3. jj says

    A crafty and strategically-minded female general is one thing, but to get to that level, particularly in the Army, you have to rise through the ranks.  The ranks you rise through can be very physical.  Women can fly – fine.  They can officer and captain ships – fine.  But they can’t sling a wounded guy over their shoulders and haul him back to their own lines, and on to an aid station – and occasionally it comes up, particularly in the Army and the Marines.  The Amry and the Marines continue to require some ‘grunt,’ and women are not  – for the most part, there are always exceptions – good at this.  Part of being a leader of ground troops is that you may have to get some of them home alive by carrying them.

    This was the issue in our little country volunteer fire department, too.  We were a very highly trained volunteer fire department - we could hardly fail to be.  Among our volunteers were one NYFD fireman, two NYFD lietenants, and one captain in the NYFD.  (The NY FD Captain was Bobby Morris, who in his day job was the Captain of Rescue One in NYC – which means he was probably one of the four or five best fire and rescue people in the country.  Maybe, to judge from the amount of time he spent traveling around training other departments from NY to Miami to Los Angeles to Seattle, the best.  In  our department he held no rank, but he organized a hell of a lot training for us.)

    Anyway, we of course had female firefighters.  The problem is the same as in combat.  You go into burning buildings to find and put out the fire, and you do it in pairs.  Generally, because things are a bit hurried, the first guys who show up, gear up – and in they go together, advancing a line.  So, you have three 200+ pound guys – and one 110 pound female getting into their gear, and throwing on air bottles.  Now you can’t just send them in, you don’t really have two teams, do you?  Now you have to take time to think about it.  “Jesus – I can’t send Laurie in with Dave, if he goes down she’s going to need divine intervention and half a dozen angels to pop down from the sky to help her get him out of there!”  So – whaddaya do?  You don’t want to discourage her – and legally you can’t – but you know what?  Sorry, ladies – but she’s a danger to whoever she goes in with.  She gets trapped easily, because she’s not strong enough to horse through collapsed stuff, so if it happens Dave has to stop and free her.  He’s got his eye on her as much as he does where he’s going.  If a wall falls on him, can she get him out?  Nope, she can’t.  But some jackass in a ball gown who knows nothing about it sitting in a court room says you have to let her go.

    Fire departments, just like, I suspect, the Army, have had to address the idiot problems caused by the idiot courts by lowering their standards to make women able to meet them.  Which, to my hidebound way of thinking, is bass-ackwards.  They can’t pass the test, so the solution is, in this society as currently constituted, to make the test easier?  What the hell good does that do Dave if a wall falls on him?  (Or me – I have been in burning buildings, unlike most judges.  I am 6’3″ tall, and weigh 215 lbs.)  Same for the military.  Generals, colonels, and majors may not need to physically rescue people – but it’s not at all unheard of for captains and lieutenants.  And to get to be a major, colonel, or general, you pretty much first have to have been a lieutenant and captain.

    Technical jobs – fine.  (We pretty much trained our girls to drive and engineer the trucks.)  But far too much of it’s not technical.  Doesn’t require thought – requires muscle.  And that’s just the way it is.

  4. Charles Martel says

    I think the threshhold should be quite simple: If you can pass the strength/endurance test, it doesn’t matter what your sex is. If you can’t pass the test, it doesn’t matter what your sex is.

  5. MacG says

    Martel, I agree there are some pretty slight guys that I would not want tryin’ to pull me put of a burning building.  But given America’s battle of the bulge those 6’3″ guys aren’t going to be big enough anyways.

  6. says

    In business, I’ve known quite a few women who are excellent leaders. Not many of them fit the obnoxious-bitch stereotype.

    Indeed, much of the career advice directed at young women…”don’t be so nice, be more selfish and demanding”…is extremely harmful, and does no one any good except the authors of the books that perpetrate it.

  7. says

    A lot of those people are trying to get women to be more assertive, but since they don’t understand the difference between assertion and aggression nor do they understand the difference between male and female types of leadership, their advice is often erroneous.

  8. Oldflyer says

    Ymarsakar pretty well sums up my “gut’ feeling; and that is all I have.  The dominant characteristics I see are those of facilitator, and consensus builder.  Those are good characteristics, in and of themselves, but…
    Just a personal observation.  One daughter is a successful Executive type.  She occasionally  unburdens herself on Dad’s shoulder over the frustrations triggered by the human problems in her job.  Sometimes I tell her, “Hon, you’re the boss; exert your will.  Don’t put up with that.  Kick …. and take names, if need be”  Invariably, the response is “but Dad isn’t it better to reach an agreement that everyone can accept?”.  Well, up to  a point, yes.  Granted, this may not be  a representative example; but it sums up my perception.
    I played a role in the training of the first three  women jet pilots for the Navy.  I have mixed feeling about that evolution, but seemingly it has turned out ok.  On the other hand, I know we lost at least one really fine Admiral  during the phase-in of women pilots simply because he did his job, and it didn’t fit the template. He had more missions over North Viet Nam than any other Naval Aviator and commanded all Naval Forces in the first Gulf War; but it mattered naught when a woman complained that she had been treated unfairly in training, and he did not take her side.  We have certainly paid a price to achieve this cultural advancement.  Now, women are going on submarines.  I simply cannot imagine.
    Like most; I am prepared to accept women in leadership positions if they prove themselves on the same level field as men.  Like some, I will always have nagging doubts about how level the field is; just as I have since affirmative action became the law and the norm.

  9. says

    ok, historically women did excel in some combat roles.  The Soviets had female snipers during WW2.  One had over 300 kills during defence of Odessa and Sevastopol.  Another example would be 3 all-female air force regiments, which were quite successful.  The fighter regiment of the 3 was mostly used in the air defense role, defending rear areas from German attacks and, thus, saw less combat than a regular front line regiment.  But 2 of the grls got transfered to a regular male regiment and had 11 and 10 kills in less than a year.
    Women have some advantages in these roles: patience for snipers and ability to withstand more Gs for fighter pilots.  I’ll try to write more detailed on this subject later on my blog.  However, these roles do not require physical strength necessary for just infantry combat.
    Eric.

  10. Charles Martel says

    I think one silver lining here is that once women are assigned to submarines, naval architects will find out quickly which of the boats’ most remote nooks and crannies are useful for doing the dirty deed.

  11. says

    There are two issues. the Local unit level and the command and control level at the organization scale.

    Affirmative action is top to bottom, on top of whatever little issues they have at the unit level.

    It is in fact easier to get people to agree when you stop them from arguing an infinite point and make the decision for them. 

    Two staffers that are at opposite points and are relatively equal in influence or rank, will argue and argue and continue to argue without getting anything done. So they spend a lot of their time and energy thinking about one upping the other guy when they should be focused on creative productivity.

    In this situation, the leader’s job is to get rid of the arguments by sheer force of will and authority. Instead of two people who are equal with each other arguing about an issue, they now have to confront the fear of going up against their boss. That means that if the issue was a meaningless, time waster of an exercise, they will shut up. But if they felt really strongly about it, they would continue to challenge your authority or resign. Either way, that’d be good to know ahead of time but you’ll only know ahead of time if you interject yourself in between them.  

    The people in an argument will accept the arbitration and mediation of their superior, when they would never accept any such thing from their competitor. It’s just how humans are.

    People have relatively low resources to deal with stress. That’s why stress is bad. If it goes on for too long because people can’t solve it, their efficiency goes way down. A leader is a leader by warrant of the fact that that person has the resources to solve problems. Including interpersonal problems. When people in a group can rely on a leader to do that, their stress levels go down and interpersonal conflicts go down. 

    but Dad isn’t it better to reach an agreement that everyone can accept?”.

    Basically, everyone will reach an agreement when the leader tells them what their agreement will be or else they’ll have bigger problems than just being in an argument.

    Most people, however, of both males and females tend to dislike social conflict and will avoid it when feasible. Women more than men in a competitive environment, but there are plenty of males as well who have been taught by culture not to be aggressive or openly competitive, thus they will favor ignoring an issue than confronting it. That’s fine so long as they don’t do anything to harm the group. Females will avoid open conflict in order to smooth out personal relationships so that bad feelings don’t exist to bar social cooperation. Males will avoid open conflict because males are more focused on work and results, rather than talking about their little issues. Most of the time, this works fine as it men and women were programmed genetically to handle certain tasks. But human society has gotten a lot more complex and affirmative action has only made it more fauked up in the end.

    So essentially, most people are followers. They won’t handle other people’s problems because they’re more focused on their own goals. The ones who have the ambition or courage or foolishness to speak out, are also in a minority. And the greatest minority of all, are actual leaders. When society was made out of 100 tribesmen and women, one leader was all you needed. In a nation of 330 million males and females, you need a lot more than “one leader” or even 1 million leaders.

  12. says

    I think one silver lining here is that once women are assigned to submarines, naval architects will find out quickly which of the boats’ most remote nooks and crannies are useful for doing the dirty deed.

    Then the enemy submarines will detect the location of the sub through sonar audiograph and then blow the US sub out of the water. Mission Accomplished as the Left would say.

  13. Danny Lemieux says

    If there is one thing that I have learned from marriage is that men and women are different and complement one another. I propose the same thing applies to women in the military: there will be some functions where men will excel and others where women will excel. My own ideal of American women is as fighters that conquered the frontier side-by-side with their menfolk and children.
     
    The real question is: what is the cost of overlapping men and women when sex gets in the way? My martial arts Master is a Navy veteran who served on a co-ed ship during the first Gulf War. According to him, the moment it was evident that hostilities were about to begin, the pregnancy rate among his female shipments skyrocketed and they were suddenly granted shore leave. In the Israeli army, they found that women in combat positions distracted the focus of men during dangerous firefight situations.
     
    In submarines that spend 3-6 months at sea…well, we shall see!

  14. says

    The fact that the politicians of America want women on subs, is a good indicator that the US Navy will cease to be a professional navy absent a real blue water war.

    The units that see the most combat, are the ones that are the least PC. The Navy, however, has been going PC a lot faster than even the Army. And the Army has been faster at it than the US Marines.

  15. Danny Lemieux says

    Charles M posits the point that, “I think one silver lining here is that once women are assigned to submarines, naval architects will find out quickly which of the boats’ most remote nooks and crannies are useful for doing the dirty deed.”
    To which, Ymarsaker replies:
    “Then the enemy submarines will detect the location of the sub through sonar audiograph and then blow the US sub out of the water.”
    To which Danny Lemieux cannot help but respond that “the sea is already alive with the sounds of wails, Snookies and gropers”

  16. 11B40 says

    Greetings:  especially M. Martel (#4)

    At the risk of appearing contentious, I would submit the following.  Certainly, the biology is a fundamental consideration, perhaps the sine qua non if you remember the Jessica Lynch history in the Iraq invasion. How some grown adult can see a 5’2″, 90 pound woman and think “soldier-worthy” is well beyond my delusional capabilities. And yet there she was.

    Most of my take on “Women in Combat” comes from my stint as an infantry squad leader during my all-expense-paid tour of sunny Southeast Asia. I was in the 1st Cav and due to the then miracle of helicopter resupply, we would spend 30-40 days at a time in the bush. Now this may well be an unrepresentative lens through which to view the problem, perhaps it’s actually the worst-case scenario, but when the Jesuits were making their contribution to the shaping of my however limited intelligence, they seemed to think that the worst-case was an important part of that whole “best-case, worst-case, most-likely-case” analytic technique.  

    Accepting the biological imperative, I would like to offer a sociological one. Introducing females into previously all male groups can have wondrous effects but I find it difficult to foretell an improvement in combat effectiveness as one of them which may very well be why this argument is so rarely offered. So, the WiC proponents want us to embark on this venture basically to meet their “social justice” illusions and equality myths. “Don’t worry about that cliff,” they seem to be saying, “just jump”. 

    The introduction of women into combat is a sociological bridge too far. When I was working for the Navy as a civilian back during the ’80s, there were reports of the “pregnancy problem” (and I don’t mean problem pregnancies), the expense of altering quarters on both ships and shore, the lesbian delights on the USS Norton Sound, and the administrative costs and infrastructures required to protect the new workforce and make an ill-conceived idea work. Obviously, very little of this was deemed newsworthy or, as they say these days, it didn’t fit the narrative.

    Things happen when young men and women find themselves in close proximity in far away and dangerous lands and improved job performance is not the most likely. One of the things that I could have done without during my service was mail call. One of our platoon received the proverbial “Dear John” letter and somewhat promptly went off and shot himself in the foot. Things happen, don’t you know, and trying to keep on top of a bunch of healthy young men is difficult enough without introducing a new “Love Jones” opportunity. There wouldn’t be enough saltpeter in the world to deal with that. 

    To my mind, this WiC idea comes from people who have much more interest in bending our culture to their political will than taking care of or improving our armed forces. If they are not consciously trying to hollow out our military capabilities, they certainly don’t seem to let that eventuality concern them much. 

  17. says

    Charles made right point, I think, which is to state the job description and its requirements, and then to find people who can fill the job, male or female.  The problem is that, for quotas, we change the requirements.  If the requirements are reasonable to the goal, to weaken those requirements by lowering standards is dreadful, for men and women alike.

  18. Charles Martel says

    I work with a woman (she’s an extremely good copyeditor) who used to be a San Francisco City fireman. She’s told me that the job was often lonely and miserable because of the resentment the men firefighters felt about her presence. I can tell that it was very hard on her.

    When she talks about these things, which is only occasionally, I try to steer the topic elsewhere. My reason is that my sentiments lie with the male firemen. Although my acquaintance is a very strong woman, it is obvious that she was allowed to take a test where the physical requirements for the job were greatly watered down. It’s not hard to see that every time she did a stint at a fire station, her presence was a reminder to her mates that their lives were not important. She wasn’t there to help out in life-and-death situations, which she obviously lacked the strength for. She was there to make a point and give the liberal egoists at City Hall a chance to score some cheap grace. 

  19. Charles Martel says

    11B40, you’ve made me rethink my comment (#4). If strength were the only criterion, my statement would make sense. But you’re correct to point out that there is so much more involved here, including the very strong, elemental attraction between the sexes.

    Even in combat, were you to have women fighting who are as strong as men (highly unlikely in today’s PC world), you would still have the problems stemming from menstruation, debilitating physical effects if somebody is pregnant, lack of privacy, sexual urges exacerbated by the life-and-death nature of the situation, and legitimate concern about the horrendous things that could happen to women soldiers if they were captured by barbarians like the Arabs or Iranians. (That isn’t to say that those savages wouldn’t be equal-opportunity torturers. It’s just that, given Muslims’ unholy rage against women, a female soldier would suffer a particularly gruesome death.) 

    I suppose one argument against what I’m saying would involve women’s ability to “man up” just as well as men. I don’t doubt women’s courage. But I do find it strange that the subliminal argument behind most moves to impose women’s participation in traditonally male occupations is this fierce desire to be like men. With the exception of a few strange men you run into in places like San Francisco, no man would ever aspire to be a woman. They’re so much better at it than we are.

  20. says

    If nature found it necessary to use women in place of men, they would have done so instead of specializing male and female sexes for different roles. If humans think they have a new and better progressive plan for the human genome, they might want to lay it out first before implementing policies based upon it.

  21. Charles Martel says

    Ymarsakar, I’ve always thought that grace is a gift. That leftists think they can create it themselves or expropriate it from others is why I can never be one of them again.

  22. Oldflyer says

    I wonder what data Eric used to support his statement that women have higher “g” tolerance than men do.  It may be true, and maybe there is data to support it; but, it goes against everything I learned over a long career.  The conventional wisdom, pushed on us by the aero-medical experts was that strong stomach muscles and overall muscle tone were the important factors.  I know that dedicated women are physically fit, but I do not believe that they are inherently more muscular than men.
    One more quibble.  The Russian Air Force claimed huge numbers of victories over the Germans.  Ten and eleven victories were pretty modest.  I don’t know whether the claims were accurate; but, they did have some advantages fighting defensive battles against German bombing aircraft that were not particularly well armed.
    One question I have always had about women pilots was how they would hold up emotionally in a time of heavy losses among their comrades.  When I entered Naval Aviation, we were losing nearly 800 aircraft/year–in peace time. Pilot losses were not an every day event, but were not so rare either.   Some guys had a little problem emotionally flying the rest of the day’s schedule after the loss of a squadron mate.  It was traditional to do so.   Fortunately, we may never know the answer to that question; as peace time losses are now rare, and combat losses are historically low.

  23. Mike Devx says

    Oldflyer: I wonder what data Eric used to support his statement that women have higher “g” tolerance than men do.

    I’ve heard the same claim, that women handle G-force better than men.  I’ve heard it often enough that I’ve been accepting it as truth.  I too wonder what data backs it up…

    I can’t add much about women in combat.  On my last software gig, I interacted with four teams.  Two of the teams’ leaders, I’d join any project they led, anywhere, anytime.  One of the two was a woman.  She had all the leadership qualities you need for a software team.   I’d imagine that if a woman had whatever was required to be an excellent leader in combat, you just might follow her, too.  She’d have extra things to prove to win over her team, I imagine, but that’s life.  You don’t get to lead, you don’t win your team to your side, by whining “It’s not fair!”

    She was the first woman in software I’ve encountered that I would follow no questions asked.  As the guy at Book’s link said, leadership qualities in women do exist, but they seem to be rarer.

    At the highest level, Commander-in-Chief, who would you rather follow, Golda Meir or Obama?   Thatcher or Obama?   (That’s more of a political question, not combat, I know…)

    The huge question for integrated troops is the sexual relations issue.  As Book’s link author pointed out, and many of you did too.  I see the same huge problem.  It’s completely a separate question compared to combat fitness, which you can solve simply by making all standards for fitness the same.  But the sexual relations question is a human nature question – especially for the young 18-25 year olds – and I don’t see any solution.

    In older days (1985?) I was at Fort Dix for reserves basic training.  We got hold of the drill sergeant office’s key, I forget how.  We wanted to see our fitness training scores.  In the desk were two photos of pretty young thangs in regular fatigues.  One of the guys recognized one of the girls in the two photos as being currently in training.  She was very, ahem, noticeable to the guys, it seems.  And to at least one of the drill sergeants.  No proof of improper fraternization, so to speak.  But the photo was a personal-style camera shot.

  24. says

    Women have a lower center of gravity. Which essentially means that more blood is being pulled out of a man’s upper body and head than would be the case for a woman. The blood then surges back up with negative or positive gs, causing various sorts of consciousness fluctuation. The difference isn’t that significant, but it tends to do a sort of ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’. If women are good at gs, then more women are motivated to train as pilots, and you will then find more candidates from the trainees irregardless of failure rate.

    These are slight variances which are mostly paved over by skill, attitude, training, and luck.

    What they are trying to do is equalize, through PC quotas, the numbers. They aren’t interested in quality, but numbers. And there just aren’t as many leaders, let alone combat leaders, amongst women as there are in men. It’s not a matter of training, culture, or anything like that. At its base, its genetics and hard wiring.

    The Leftist Utopia will remake humans into their perfect and undying state. That is their Heaven., But on our earth, it is a hell unvying.

    If they want to replace 10 men in every 100 men unit, with women, where are they going to find enough women leaders to lead the 10? For every 100 men, you’ll find a more or less average leader. For women, you will only find that amongst 1000 or so, from a guesstimate. Women don’t need to function in SMALL groups like hunters did. They mostly functioned in large social groups with intricate hierarchies. They didn’t need a “leader” that was any good at it everytime a small group of women went out to do a task.

    In the military, there are NCO leaders required for every 10 people and officers for every 33 and 100 people.

    In a company of 100 people, you need one cpt officer, 3 lieutenants, and 10 NCOs (Centurions). 

    Men, at a rate of 1 average leader per 10, will have around 10 potential leaders to choose from. A US military company needs 14 leaders per 100, so they train the officers and tries to retain experienced NCOs. Even then you’re not guaranteed that a damn company has enough leaders. 

    Women, assuming a rate of 1 average leader per 100, will have one leader per a company of 100. That means if you replace 10 men with 10 women in each company, you are losing 1 person that can lead. And if you replace it to 30%, you will lose 3 leaders. And if you try to “train” these women to lead men, you’ll have problems. Problems they picked up back at Annapolis because the laws favored rape accusations. Problems they picked up because they just don’t get how to command, let alone how to command men in combat. Problems that arise from sexual and relationship tension. Problems that arise from a unit having to live together but not being on the same page because they’re forced to work with male and female problems at once. Units that need to fight together must believe that they are one. They can’t be thinking “I’m male and she’s female”.

    Now imagine a division with thousands of people. Imagine what can happen when you start messing around with the chain of command requirements, manpower requirements, logistics required for male/female cohabitation, and various other things that can go wrong in peace and war.
    Even still, there is no required war necessity for this introduction. We’re not the Russians where we wasted 50 million lives on suicide charges, and are now reduced to forcing women into the military. And even if we needed women in our volunteer military, who do we trust to make this change, the Democrats? Women were never allowed in the military to begin with, even in technical roles before. Accessing such positions in the US military is already naturally progressive. What the Left wants to do is to “progress” backwards where soldiers, men and women, were given inadequate training and told to die in war so that Senators and the powerful could receive bigger bribes into their bank account.

  25. says

    Abu Ghraib, for example, was commanded by a female general. If it was true and standards were not relaxed, then that female general should have been as good as Napoleon, Alexander the Great, and Petraeus put together. But she wasn’t, was she. Discipline was so bad in her unit that people were sending sex pictures back to their family. Well, that’s a front line, disciplined, Shock force type of unit isn’t it.

  26. says

    On the other hand, there is a female Afghan general and I can bet you a lot she’s much better than her male counterparts in the Afghan army. That’s because Afghan is Afghan and there’s no PC protections in Afhgan like there is in the US. To survive that kind of battlesphere, politically and militarily, you need to be the best. And a female general would have to be better than a million or so other candidates.

  27. says

    Males and females have an instinct to cooperate, not compete against each other. In the military, this can royally F things up like evaluation reports and “truth”. The US military needs truth to function. If people are slanting stuff in such a way because they want the “favor” of their romantic other, the entire system is going to get screwed and everybody is going to die on the battlefield.

    The military has had centuries to figure out how to channel the male aggressive/competitive urge to something more useful. When are they going to learn how to figure out how to configure male/female naive softness toward each other in the same way? After we receive some casualties in several different wars?

    The Left would love to see that, wouldn’t they, as it would argue against “US oversea interests”.

  28. Mike Devx says

    The military has had centuries to figure out how to channel the male aggressive/competitive urge to something more useful. When are they going to learn how to figure out how to configure male/female naive softness toward each other in the same way?

    Ymar, I got one of my images in my head: Two 10,000 strong armies, facing each other across 300 feet of no-man’s land, suddenly breaking and running, swarming toward each other, howling in rage, ready to do battle.

    Each with one pillow.

  29. says

    If I was in charge of implementing gender integration, i would do it this way.

    I would form units made exclusively from women or homosexuals. Historically this has WORKED people, and it worked for primitives without any real idea of how to train elite soldiers. What makes a unit elite and fearsome in battle is essentially their will to fight and their will to fight is directly dependent upon their unit cohesion and belief in their buddies.

    But people won’t do this, because they aren’t interested in what works. They’re interested in how to destroy the US military and American culture. Or did people forget the ultimate objective of the Left and think they were just misguided on the facts.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] Bookworm linked to an interesting article analyzing the possible performance of female members of  American military in combat.  While it is obvious to any sane individual that lowering standards in order to allow women to participate in combat will be deadly, it is useful to look at historical examples of women in combat and analyze possible advantages that women might have over men.  These historical examples do not need to be from some ancient history.  World War 2 examples are very relevant for this purpose. [...]

Leave a Reply