h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Topic drift, but... Wittgenstein (the 20th century's greatest philosopher) wrote the book that made his name (Tractatus Logico Philosophicus) as a soldier in the First World War. Although, I guess he probably wasn't thinking about it whilst actually getting shot at, etc. (You never know though, sometimes extreme circumstances can prompt some surprising thoughts.)

On the topic, I don't feel much inclined to comment because the conversation seems to be largely about stereotypes and prejudices. But I will say this. As far as I can tell, the only relevant difference between men and women - as far as being in the army is concerned - is to do with strength and physical endurance. I have no problem with men and women being assigned different roles in the army to the extent that these factors are significant, but anything beyond that is just sexism.

The idea that you shouldn't have women fighting alongside men because the poor wee men get so terribly upset when women get hurt is so obviously and absurdly sexist that it is hardly worth replying to. I suppose I had better say something though.

"Second - the difference in reaction of that soldier to the death of a woman is hardwired and something no amount of training will change."

SoRB, if you can back that up with any evidence, by all means do so. Otherwise I shall assume that you're just talking rubbish motivated by prejudice. You can train men to kill, rape and torture women, but you can't train them not to get so upset when one gets killed in a battle that they can't concentrate? I don't think so. But like I said, if you can back up your statement with any evidence, please do so.

Yes, we have been sidetracked by stereotypes rather. But that is simply a reflection of the realities of service life.

Consider this: our forces currently consist of volunteers so it can be successfully argued that women who die in combat zones do so as a result of their own free choices. In an all-out war, there would be conscription and it is unlikely to be possible to re-invent the army to make combat units male only. Would you still feel so self-righteously egalitarian if young girls and mothers were being used as cannon fodder?

Is it possible that the feminisation of the forces directly led to the display for the cameras by the 15 captured personnel?

"Yes, we have been sidetracked by stereotypes rather. But that is simply a reflection of the realities of service life. "


Yes, all we've seen is stereotypes and anecdotes as evidence. I'm glad SWL and SoRB aren't engineers who build massively complex chemical plants.


Oh, wait.

SWL,

I would be equally indignant if young boys and fathers (men) were being used as 'cannon fodder' as I would if 'young girls and mothers' (women) were. Nobody should be used as 'cannon fodder' - isn't that one of the lessons of the World Wars?

Incidentally, an 'all-out war' of the kind you describe (with conscription) is sort of unlikely because any such war would be fought with nuclear weapons which would quickly lead to all our deaths.

I genuinely have no idea what you mean by your last sentence.

I have to say that what I've experienced with my own eyes, and what I've heard the guys from the frontline say actually do back up what SWL and SoRB have said: men who up to that point have been the usual non-PC stereotypical sexist so-and-sos the military expects them to be... suddenly become protective cavemen towards the frontline women serving with them.

It's nothing to do with the women, and everything to do with the nature of humans. So, what we need to do is to calculate that into the way we deploy the women on the frontline (let's be honest: are we ever expecting anything like a 1:1 ratio of women to men on the frontline?) and do that.

Everything else is just so much hot air. And I speak as a comitted feminist ex-lady-soldier who was totally frustrated and angered during large portions of deployment and exercises due to the sexist behaviour of my peers, subordinates and superiors.

Evidence.


http://www.cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp?DocID=237

"To summarize an enormous body of well-documented evidence produced by physiologists in the U.S. and Britain, in close combat women do not have an “equal opportunity” to survive, or to help fellow soldiers survive."

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/01summer/simons.htm

SoRB

from SoRB's CMR link:
"Centuries of military experience should not be disregarded if the burden of proof has not been met. It is not up to the skeptics to disprove a case that has not been made."

Where is the proof? The executive summary of the report does not list any actual evidence along the lines of "on date D, unit A, with x female members, was completely unable to function when y female members were injured". Even better would be "out of I incidents of women injured in combat, the units involved were incapacitated due to the occurence of the female injury J times". What it does contain is heavy on opinions of soldiers - soldiers who have *not* served with women in combat. In contrast, there are *millenia* of military experience about women serving in combat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Women_in_Ancient_Warfare


Furthermore, women serving in combat units is already fairly commonplace:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051202002.html

So where is the real, hard evidence?


Regarding the evidence from SWL about the Israeli Defense Forces: that story must have come from prior to 1948, as the IDF hasn't allowed women to serve in combat since before then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military#The_Arguments
(under "tactical concerns")

ultimate source: "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Killing:_The_Psychological_Cost_of_Learning_to_Kill_in_War_and_Society



Again, the CMR site references heavily the "1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces". Which supposedly contains heaps of actual evidence. I can't find it on the web. I apologize, I really would like to read this. If anyone finds this please post the link.



The old saw about "basic human reaction" is provided by *asking* men how they would react - not *observing* how they react. I think it's safe to say that in general, these 2 are not equivalent.



Of course, it is the same sort of logic which states no gays in the military
http://www.cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?DocID=229
(site provided by SoRB).

and previously was used as arguments against non-whites in the military.

Tut Tut Arnie. W*k* indeed.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/femcom.html

"In 1999, Israel announced that women would begin serving as combat soldiers in the year 2000."


http://www.israelmilitary.net/showthread.php?t=13
(Worth waiting for it to load. They look a sight better than Fay whatchamacryher)

An account of the experiences of a woman soldier in the IDF:
http://www.jewcy.com/daily_shvitz/real_straight_girl_miriam_libicki

Looks like there's actually some widespread confusion regarding this point.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PBZ/is_2_83/ai_106732262


Also, there's no point in complaining about Wiki. I just changed it. That's the whole point.

All I can say is WTF?

so, is there ever going to be a discussion on h2g2 which doesn't descend into who can post the last link gainsaying what the other poster said?

Has anyone here actually got/had combat experience, serving on the frontline with women and men?

The point is, and this is easy to observe in any job, that women and men often regard women and men differently even when they are doing the same job.

Instead of bleating about how unfair it is, and how wrong it is, why not actually do something about it.

Currently there is huge discussion going on about Mme Royal and Ms Clinton both of whom would like to be President of their country. How often do we have to hear that they are mothers, what clothes they are wearing and how nice their hair looks. That twaddle is never written about their male opponents. And sad to day, it is often women making the comments.

In peace time, with all the time we have to discuss, reflect and think before we speak or act we still don't take a consistent view about how women and men are reported/viewed doing the same job.

How the heck can anyone do that while they're being shot at, shooting at others, dodging bombs and watching their male and female comrades getting blown to bits?

I'm sorry Sho; I guess you prefer thoughts and feelings to evidence.

Maybe she prefers reality to theoretical.

It's a common theme here. Unless it can be measured, quantified or linked to - it's irrelevant.

For instance, how do you evaluate the following:

"In 1990 when we were mobilised for the Gulf we had one woman in the Squadron, the decision was taken by a VSO to let her come with us. At that time even we didn't envisage what this would mean, for her.

The flight out to Dhahran (not very) International airport went OK, we were bussed up the coast to the port of Al Jubail where we got our vehicles off a ship. It started to go a bit pear shape at this point. For the first couple of weeks we were living a couple of miles from Al Jubail sleeping in sleeping bags out in the desert and getting used to desert conditions & training, that sort of thing.

We had about 500 men in the Regiment, and one woman! at this stage it was rapidly becoming obvious she shouldn't be there. If a bloke wants to piss he takes a piss no big deal, but trust me, no woman wants to drop her pants in front of 500 men and there were no trees, it was as flat as a snooker table for thousands of miles. She had absolutely no privacy, no one did but it never mattered before, blokes don't care. We would strip wash in a pint of cold water, we didn't expect her to join us but she couldn't wander off either. She slowly withdrew and became very quiet and subdued. I felt very sorry for her and whenever I spoke to her she was on the verge of tears. It seemed obvious to me she couldn't stay with us, for her own sake. About 48 hours before the ground war started she was shipped back to Al Jubail, she seemed happy with the move and we were happy for her. This isn't macho b u l l s h i t we all liked her and back in Germany the lads looked after her but this was different. She was put in an intolerable situation by some VSO back in Osnabruck who never really considered the consequences of sending a woman to war in a male Regiment."

A *real* experience of how the little things make a huge difference. Much of the argument here seems to be based on a front line, close combat role. Well, very little of the military actually engages in that. The bulk is support. On a ship, it's relatively easy to make adaptations to accomodate women. But in the field, it's different. Now given that there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that women do not improve the effectiveness of units, quite the opposite in fact, why should the Army spend precious money and limited resources accomodating women? What would you rather see the money spent on? Body armour or female WCs?

The forces are (were) the last bastion of male-only chauvinism, where boys are trained to cast off the veneer of civilisation and become unthinking killers. The forces have been compelled to accept women into more & more forward positions to appease the compensation/victimisation legions of lawyers. Even the IDF put women in danger not because of PC thinking, but because they are desperately short of manpower facing enemies at every turn.

I welcome a truly equal society in every respect, but that has to be fought for and I want the forces to be the meanest, baddest barstewards who ever walked the earth. I want hostile countries to tremble at the thought of British squaddies even glancing in their direction. You don't get that when they're more worried about charges of sexism and denying women's rights.

Sho went into the forces with her eyes wide open, as do all female service personnel. It's pretty dangerous to start tinkering at such a fundamental level with an institution that has served us so well in the past.

Thanks SWL

Arnie: don't be ridiculous. I like evidence, but this ping-pong of "my link is better than yours" is one thing that drives people away from so-called "debate" here.

As for evidence: did I not spell it out enough. I didn't have combat experience because I left about a month before the Iraqui invasion of Kuwait, but I have enough experience of being in a severe female minority doing a "man's job" in an operational unit to know what the score is. Sorry I can't give you a link to the evidence I've seen with my own eyes.

Which is why I'd welcome comments from (especially male) currently or recently serving military personnel to see if I am anywhere near the mark with my experience and suspicion.

When I was on Wintex in about... oh, 1985?.. it was flippin' cold (got to about -13°C) we were a detatchment of 10 or 11 people, 2 of whom were female. Two wagons and a land-rover. And our "latrine" was a spade and a trek to the woods. The purile sense of humour on the part of grown up professional soldiers meant that we two (who didn't actually like each other, and never mixed socially) spent 24/7 together for 3 weeks of this. Trekking into the woods when you need to pee, with your female buddy as a lookout isn't actually what we were training for.

I did hear that during the campaign I narrowly missed that the purile sense of humor was replaced by the kind of uncomfortable situation SWL related above - but nevertheless, it wasn't a situation people had considered until it happened.

Sho - *I* wasn't playing ping-pong. I was reading all of the provided links and learning. Is that what you were doing? I found the previous posts very enlightening - I learned a lot. For you to come on and then say that it's a game of one upsmanship is utterly ridiculous. If it seems that way, it's only b/c you are unwilling to put in the effort.


And still, SWL, WTF is up with your posted link about hot female IDF soldiers? Just what is the point of that?

This is the greatest contradiction ever posted:

"Maybe she prefers reality to theoretical.

It's a common theme here. Unless it can be measured, quantified or linked to - it's irrelevant."


For me, as a scientist, most everything can be measured and quantified. Things that can't aren't irrelevant - but they are less valuable. In other words, "talk is cheap b/c supply exceeds demand". You can "talk" all day about how you think this, or person X thinks that, but that's basically worthless until you start getting facts.

Ah stow it with the "as a scientist" bull Arnie.

The whole point of discussing the role of women in the military is that it's an emotive issue which goes to the root of morality and society.

I mean, really, what are you looking for? "Soldier X neutralised 8.25 opposing combatants in time period Y whilst catalyst termed "woman" was not present, whereas soldier Z neutralised 8.49 opposing combatants in the same time period when combined with catalyst "woman", conclusively proving that catalyst "woman" provides an enhancement to military effectiveness".

There are at least two ex-service personnel contributing to the thread with pertinent experience. Perhaps more would care to contribute?

Well, Arnie, you may be a scientist, and it's not only directed at you but...

I get sick & tired of "proof" of something only being accepted as a link.

Perhaps I'm just strange. I am prepared to read the links, in fact I have and find them interesting. I just prefer to have a bit of intellectual ping-pong rather than an h2g2 all-comers Google challenge


and, of course, I have seen, with my very own eyes. A touch Marie Curie there, I think.

Anyway, I've said all I have to say, so I'm off. This is going round in circles.
Have fun.

Actually SWL, I'm looking for

"Soldiers in unit X neutralised 8.25 +/- 0.10 opposing combatants in time period Y. Unit X contained Y women. Soldiers in unit Z neutralized 8.49 +/- 0.08 opposing combatants in time period Y, unit Z contained T women." Error bars are important too. And then depending of the relative numbers Y and T, we could make a decision.

Better yet, many measures of military effectiveness. How else would you make an informed decision? The data is out there - as has been stated, although not intentional, many more women are serving in combat roles in Iraq now.


And SWL, you still haven't explained what's up with the "hot female IDF soldier" link you posted. What exactly does that prove?



Sho - Actually, I also referenced an actual book. It's not much, but it's more than just a link. SoRB indirectly referenced a commissioned report. But since is the internet, you're going to either have
1) completely unconfirmed statements
2) statements confirmed by links to webpages
3) statements confirmed by reference to other media (books, journals, etc.)

You can't actually expect live demonstrations can you?

You've never served have you Arnie? It shows. You haven't got the faintest idea of how the military works. You can't measure esprit de corps or morale on a clipboard with a survey. Similarly, no two engagements are the same and no direct comparisons of the type you're looking for can be drawn.

What you can observe is the reaction to female personnel being killed or captured. Private Jessica Lynch's capture led to a massive propaganda operation which would have never been contemplated if she were male. 15 service personnel were abducted two weeks ago and the media, together with the Iranians concentrated on the female member. The IDF captain I mentioned earlier stated his unit were unable to function after their first female casualty.

Soldiers regularly suffer from PTSD following active duty. How much is this going to be exacerbated by seeing female colleagues killed? War is one of the most natural activities for men. From when they're old enough to pick up a stick, they point it at people and shout 'Bang Bang'. Fighting with or against women is not a natural state. In civilised society, a man who hits a woman is regarded as a beast. What kind of man sticks a bayonet in a woman's throat? What kind of man does he become if he is forced to do such a thing?

I am happy to view women as equal but different. Women have strengths, just as men do. The battlefield is not the place to fight the sex discrimination fight.

As to the "Hot IDF Soldiers" link, .
Compare how those troops look with how Faye "Gimme the money" Thingummy looks. Which do you think could run their own length without getting out of breath? Which could walk past a pie shop without flinching?

SoRB,

I haven't had time to read those links yet - I skimmed them very quickly so I might have missed it. Does it address the specific claim you made about men's brains are hardwired and can't be trained to treat female soldiers the same as male ones if they get wounded? It seemed to me that neither of them talked about what was possible, only about attitudes in the military at present. But like I said, I haven't had time to read them carefully yet.

Sho,

"So, what we need to do is to calculate that into the way we deploy the women on the frontline (let's be honest: are we ever expecting anything like a 1:1 ratio of women to men on the frontline?) and do that."

Yep, that fits with what I was saying. (Assuming that the calculation was done based on evidence rather than prejudice of course.)

"so, is there ever going to be a discussion on h2g2 which doesn't descend into who can post the last link gainsaying what the other poster said?"

Think of links in messages as footnotes. You don't have to read them, but if someone makes a claim with a link, then if you want to disagree with the claim, or say that there's no basis for it, you can check the link. There should still be an argument or discussion of some sort here on h2g2, but links to external sources which in some cases are more authoritative than personal experience can enrich that debate.

To take my post as an example, I asked SoRB for evidence of the very specific claim he made, but I also gave an intuitive argument for why it seemed unlikely to me. I'm happy to engage in discussion at either level.

"Has anyone here actually got/had combat experience, serving on the frontline with women and men?"

Isn't this just a way of excluding people from the discussion? I mean we all like to comment on politics and I shouldn't think many of us have any personal experience of actually being in power and making those sorts of decisions.

"I like evidence, but this ping-pong of "my link is better than yours" is one thing that drives people away from so-called "debate" here."

I think there is a danger of this, but I think if you think of them as footnotes it's not such a problem.