The Folly of "Women in Combat"

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 15384
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: The Folly of "Women in Combat"

Post by Joe Guy »

Miles wrote:I for one who spent many an hour in fox holes under very stressful conditions would not have wanted any female watching my back. Having said that I really don't want any feminist crap about being a chivanist. We raise our women to be mothers not killers and I think that is just fine.
Be careful Miles, you're making too much sense and that's not politically correct... :!:

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: The Folly of "Women in Combat"

Post by rubato »

Miles wrote:"... We raise our women to be mothers not killers and I think that is just fine.
While we raise our men to be killers, not fathers.

?

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 15384
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: The Folly of "Women in Combat"

Post by Joe Guy »

rubato wrote:
Miles wrote:"... We raise our women to be mothers not killers and I think that is just fine.
While we raise our men to be killers, not fathers.

?
Not killers. Protectors.

And hunters.

It's not rocket science.

It's basic anthropology.

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: The Folly of "Women in Combat"

Post by rubato »

Joe Guy wrote:
rubato wrote:
Miles wrote:"... We raise our women to be mothers not killers and I think that is just fine.
While we raise our men to be killers, not fathers.

?
Not killers. Protectors.

And hunters.

It's not rocket science.

It's basic anthropology.
Oh, give it up. The blatent unthinking misogyny is obvious.

yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 15384
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: The Folly of "Women in Combat"

Post by Joe Guy »

rubato wrote: Oh, give it up. The blatent unthinking misogyny is obvious.
It's misogynistic to have the opinion that women aren't natural born killers?

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 17265
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: The Folly of "Women in Combat"

Post by Scooter »

I would like to think that being a man doesn't make someone a natural born killer either.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: The Folly of "Women in Combat"

Post by rubato »

Exactly.

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 15384
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: The Folly of "Women in Combat"

Post by Joe Guy »

Scooter wrote:I would like to think that being a man doesn't make someone a natural born killer either.
"Natural born" may have been a poor choice of words, but close to the truth. Men have always been the hunter and gatherer and it's more natural for men to be the fighters. Generally speaking, women aren't as physically strong as men but some of them seem to want to evolve into fighters. Why, I don't know.

In the long run I guess Darwinism will decide.

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: The Folly of "Women in Combat"

Post by rubato »

I'm continually amazed by how primitive most people's understanding of statistical differences are. They will refer to the median as if it referred to the entirety of groups. It doesn't.

The following purports to be an overlay of female vs male math scores. I don't know if it is accurate and use it here only to illustrate a point.

Image

When you look at the graph two things ought to be immediately apparent. First, there is a difference in the median. Second, the fact that roughly 40% of female perform above the male median means that they are not meaningfully different groups and it would be socially retarded to withhold positions in society which require higher levels of maths ability because of it.

Even if the overlap is less than in the depicted graphs it would be a shocking injustice to women to deprive an individual woman of an opportunity just because of a small statistical difference.

When we look at "lifetime best" marathon times Sarah Palin comes in ahead of Paul Ryan. (And did not lie about her lifetime best like he did).

Image

The point is that the law has to reflect the fact that it operates on individuals not statistical averages of groups and denying opportunity cannot be justified except by comparison of individual competence.

This is and has been the basic argument of feminism and the civil rights movement for > 50 years.

Liars and retrogrades have wheezed about 'lowering standards' for that entire time, and still fail to prove it.

Our understanding of what the std should be, and does, improve over time ( 40in chest! ) but no one has yet shown that standards have fallen.

And any damn fool who thinks height, weight and strength are the most important measures for a soldier ought to look at the Gurkhas.


yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 15384
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: The Folly of "Women in Combat"

Post by Joe Guy »

rubato wrote:
And any damn fool who thinks height, weight and strength are the most important measures for a soldier ought to look at the Gurkhas.
From Wikipedia: Gurkhas were thought to be a martial race** because they were considered to be naturally warlike and aggressive in battle to possess qualities of courage, loyalty, self sufficiency, physical strength, resilience, orderliness, to be able to work hard for long periods of time and to fight with tenacity and military strength.

** typically brave and well-built for fighting

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: The Folly of "Women in Combat"

Post by rubato »

Were you going to try to make a point? Or are you just saying that "yes rubato is right, as he almost always is, biometrics for size and strength are meaningless in evaluating soldiers".

yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: The Folly of "Women in Combat"

Post by Gob »

With an automatic rifle slung over her shoulder and her sights trained on Taliban territory, Alex Neil looks every inch a frontline soldier.

Image

Her role as a supply driver takes her deep into the war zone. She has been engaged by the enemy and is expected to eliminate any insurgent who poses a lethal threat to her colleagues. Given that responsibility, Alex, 25, is a soldier first and a woman second.

Everything about her appearance is geared towards operational effectiveness. Her mousy hair is pulled up inside her helmet, her body armour is strapped tightly to her torso and her SA80 rifle is fully loaded, with 30 high-explosive rounds ready for firing.

Overall, Alex comes across as a contented soldier who relishes her role as part of 12 Close Support Logistic Regiment. And, as the name of her unit suggests, she is seldom far from the action.

But one aspect of military life perturbs Alex – that, as a woman, she is banned from transferring to any regiment in the infantry or the armoured corps.

The decision appears blatant discrimination by the Ministry of Defence and it is now under scrutiny following a landmark step in America allowing women to fill all military roles.

‘If a woman is good enough, why not? Our infantry should definitely be opened up to female recruits,’ says Alex, fixing me with a steely gaze. ‘We carry the same amount of kit as the guys, we’re trained the same and we do many of the same jobs.


‘If it is opened up, I would certainly be tempted. Do the boys want us to join? I’m not sure. We work very hard and we deserve the chance. I am fit – I do a lot of running – and while some men might be fitter, by no means all are. I want a challenge, that is why I joined the British Army. Before that I was working in an office for four years.

‘I knew I had to get out of there and find something more exciting.’

Alex certainly shows no signs of wilting under the dangers and hardships she endures – the dusty conditions and the sleep deprivation – when we meet in Helmand’s Nahr-e Bughra district.

This is the area that was once christened the ‘Heart of Darkness’, such was the potency of the Taliban threat. But wearing her greyish green ‘multi-cam’ fatigues, Alex effortlessly blends into her harsh surroundings.

She says that spending so much time with the men in her unit has meant that their speech and behaviour has rubbed off on her. ‘I’ve ended up speaking like them and picking up their crude jokes,’ she says, ‘because we’re all part of the same team, the guys and the girls. Our job is to bring essential supplies to locations like this.

We’re here for anything from six to 36 hours at a time, delivering ammo, food, you name it. And I have been engaged by the enemy before, so I definitely know I’m on the front line.’

Back at Camp Bastion, the British HQ in Helmand, I saw scores of female soldiers maintaining their fitness with long runs and sprint sessions. They also carry more equipment than they used to on patrols. Pint-sized Private Nichola Bateman, for example, routinely carries 90lb on her back on battlefield hikes.

This feat is all the more remarkable as her burden equates to fully two- thirds of her bodyweight.

But the bubbly, 5ft 1in medic is too modest to accept any praise for it. ‘It might sound like a lot to carry but I get trained to do that, it is my job,’ she insists. ‘I go out on patrol with the guys as their medical support, with the same dangers. It is scary but I got used to it and learned more every day.

Treating my first casualty was nerve-racking but I don’t think he cared if I was a woman or a man.’

Like Alex, Nichola is eager to emphasise that her gender is a secondary issue. So too is Nichola’s age. She is only 21 but is already a fully qualified Combat Medical Technician (First Class) – after leaving school with no qualifications for a medical career.

Nichola, from Darlington, Co Durham, adds: ‘First and foremost out here I am a medic, not a woman. We are all treated the same, male and female soldiers.

‘I know the public see it a bit differently, which is quite annoying, but we are equals. There are so many women on the front line doing very important jobs. I am just one of them and the guys treat me just the same. We’re all a band of brothers.

‘Do I think they’d treat me differently if I got wounded – would they lose their concentration and focus? I don’t think so.

‘I am lucky to be surrounded by such talented guys. And I am here with them because when I left school none of the jobs available on civvy street were as exciting or challenging as the military. So I joined the Royal Army Medical Corps.

‘I would recommend the same career to any woman or man. Yes, it is dangerous but I expect the danger now and deal with it on a daily basis.’

The MoD insists there remains no way of knowing if mixed-gender teams function as well as all-male teams in close-combat environments – a key argument used to justify the exclusion of women from combat units.

Its most recent review of the policy, published in 2010, said women’s capability under fire was beyond doubt but added that the situations they currently find themselves in were ‘not typical of the small tactical teams which are required deliberately to close with and kill the enemy’.

With military chiefs opposed to the units being opened up to women, the then Secretary of State for Defence Liam Fox, endorsed the review.

His decision was legally watertight because in test cases – brought before the UK courts and the European Court of Justice – gender inequality has been permitted when it has been intended to address a legitimate aim and was proportionate in the means of achieving that aim.

The only glimpse of hope for female soldiers is that, under European Union law, the UK must reassess such discriminations at least every eight years.

However, not every female on the front line wants to beat the guys at their own game. Twenty-four-year-old Private Alisha Henderson, originally from Edinburgh, is only too happy to play a supporting role.

Speaking in the canteen at Forward Operating Base Shawqat, in Nad-e Ali district, she said: ‘Some women in the Army say you should push for equality – but I think it is impossible for most women to be as strong as men. I feel my role is in the kitchen and I’d be more of a hindrance to the lads if I went out on the ground with them. I am happy looking after them in here.

‘That is not to say I don’t have a frontline role, because I do. While I am a chef I also do guard duties two or three times a week, watching to see if the enemy approach the base. There’s a rifle and a machine gun in the guard post and, if required to, I would engage.’

An MoD spokesman said there were no plans to review the policy.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
dales
Posts: 10922
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:13 am
Location: SF Bay Area - NORTH California - USA

Re: The Folly of "Women in Combat"

Post by dales »

rubato wrote: Or are you just saying that "yes rubato is right", as he .... always is....

yrs,
rubato
:lol:

Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.


yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 15384
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: The Folly of "Women in Combat"

Post by Joe Guy »

rubato wrote:Were you going to try to make a point? Or are you just saying that "yes rubato is right, as he almost always is, biometrics for size and strength are meaningless in evaluating soldiers".
Bizarro world is round!!

Image

Post Reply