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

SWL,

"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?"

Your attitude is offensive and sexist. You won't even dignify her with a surname. You attack her appearance and weight. You call her 'Gimme the money' distinguishing her despite the fact that the only reason she is being paid so much more than the others is because the media was so obsessed with her being female.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone could now take what you say on this subject seriously after such a transparent display of sexism.

The forces are sexist. Period. And we're discussing the role of women in a sexist organisation.

Not only should that woman not have been the cox of a small boat in dangerous waters, she is blatantly seriously overweight and unfit.

Her money grubbing actions further make her a disgrace to the uniform she wears. "I just want my story to be told", she opines. Why did she dodge the press conference then? Oh yeah, she'd signed up for cash. If she had a sense of honour or an ounce of understanding of naval traditions she would donate every penny to the British Legion.

And I don't absolve the other guy who's taken the money either. I've tried to avoid his witterings, but caught a glimpse of a headline - "I cried like a baby when they locked me up". What kind of navy have we got ourselves?

- The role of the Forces is to defeat enemy combatants when conflict proves neccessary.
- Only volunteers serve in this capacity.
- Some of the volunteers are women.
- With current military technology, women can be as effective as men.
- Some men react badly to the presence and/or injury of women, reducing the overall effectiveness of the Forces.

The question presumably is how to maximise the effectiveness of the fighting force. Proportion of women among the volunteers, training, the individuals involved, experience, equipment, etc. all affect the answer to that sum. I can't see any easy way to standardise the problem.

- With current military technology, women can be as effective as men.

When the technology is available and working.

Iraq, 1990. An SAS operation goes wrong. In an epic demonstration of fitness the team elects to walk & fight hundreds of miles through enemy territory.

Falkland Islands, 1982. Due to a shortage of helicopters, troops are forced to "yomp" cross-country carrying full kit and fight at the end of it. The Welsh Guards are not fit enough and have to be transported by sea, leading to the tragedy at Bluff Cove.

Neither men nor women can expect technology to always be available. Whereas there are obviously exceptions, the average female is not as strong as the average male. This is recognised in army fitness tests.

"A senior military official explained that the study concentrated solely on testing whether women "can carry the load." And the answer was: Only if it's not as heavy as the guys' burden. Seventy percent of women, in contrast to 20 percent of men, were unable to carry 90 pounds of artillery shells over a measured distance. While 17 percent of men failed a test requiring a 12.5-mile march, with 60 pounds of equipment, followed by target practice simulating conditions underfire, the female failure rate was 48 percent. Women soldiers came up short in these field tests of strength and stamina despite complaints that performance on certain tasks had been "gender-normed" to mask differences in performance. Earlier this year, Brigadier Seymour Monro, the Army's director of infantry,claimed that tests had been watered down, and certain particularly difficult tasks eliminated, in the interest of enhancing women's performance. Still, enough demanding tasks remained to reveal the potentially deadly differences."

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:POP1CoDJtpQJ:www.learnenglish.org.uk/militaryenglish/Teachers/womeninmilitary.pdf+fitness+test+lowered+army+women&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk

Just caught up with this thread, having been busy over Easter.

>>The day I stop regarding women as being special is the day I stop being a man.<< SWL post 7

What a ridiculous statement. You cannot compare a war/combat situation with a normal peacetime situation. In war we drop bombs on civilians eg Dresden, Yes that again Arnie ) or Hiroshima, Vietnam, the list goes on. We are quite happy to murder vast numbers of men women and children in war.

In civilian society murderers and women beaters get sent to prison. It's apples and oranges and a meaningless argument.

There may well be an initial reluctance to accept women on the frontline because of tradition, but I think this could soon change much as our attitudes to black people or whatever have now changed, and we accept them as equals.

Ah, SWL, another brilliant piece:

"You can't measure esprit de corps or morale on a clipboard with a survey."

1) I never said take a survey. In fact, I said the opposite. I said quantify effectiveness. Did you miss that? Did you actually read my post?

2) If morale or esprit de corps has an effect on fighting ability, then by measuring fighting ability you can infer its effect.


So, SWL, got any other straw man tactics, or other nonsense you'd like to post?

Fair point SWL.

So you have to take into account the capabilities of the individual fighters when working out the sum.

Doesn't change the nature of the problem, which is that the point is to maximise effectiveness, not be PC or traditional or anything else.

since I've had comments addressed to me...
Arnie - I'm not against links as such, nor references to books, anecdotal evidence etc etc

what I don't like is the ping-pong which, thankfully this thread has now drifted away from

Dogster, I don't mind links. I actually follow them (now I have a pc that doesn't throw a hissy fit when I do that) and I do consider what people say.

I'm not trying to exclude people (by asking if anyone has experience) at all, or else I rather suspect that there'd be nobody here... what I would like, apart from picking up the phone and speaking to my mates X, Y and Z, is to see if anyone who has actually been in that position has any comment to make?

And by that I don't want to "prove" anyone's argument or back it up. I would like to hear if it really does make a difference or if I'm just seeing things from a very lopsided perspective.

Dogster - Calling me sexist is quite possibly the most ridiculous appellation anyone's ever given me. I criticised that woman for being overweight, obviously unfit and money-grubbing. None of which related to her sex.

Arnie - if anyone is posting nonsense, it ain't me pal. I've shown how the average woman cannot meet the fitness requirements. I've quoted first-hand evidence of my own direct experiences, Sho has posted hers. I've given you the stories of two others who experienced difficulties with women in the front line. Five pieces of evidence of varying weight.

Show us one piece of evidence that demonstrates that women either a) improve the capabilities of front line forces or b) make no difference.

It's very easy to sit on the outside pissing in. Let's see if you can actually contribute something constructive to a discussion.

One thing to bear in mind on this is that the armed forces (Navy less of a problem, granted) can't recruit as many people as they need. This is unlikely to change in the medium term. In that case, you might be better off with slightly less strong candidates than none?

Second thing is that the psychological problems you mention might need to be confronted - on the front page of BBC news today is a piece about a female suicide bomber in Iraq - these have been present in the Middle East for some time - if you can't deal with the idea of a female combatant, you might have a problem whether or not they are on your own side.

On the pyschological side of things, I agree with whoever it was who said it was mainly conditioning - lets face it, women and children are being killed every day in our current conflicts, and the soldiers present are having to deal with it - why should a fellow soldier rather than a female civilian make a difference?

sprout

Condition our forces so that the killing of women becomes acceptable?

I have a problem with that.

SWL - thanks for reminding us again, but don't forget you also implied that she is ugly as you ogled the 'Hot IDF women' in post 23 (where you again refused to give her a surname).

Sho - OK that's cool. I would also be interested in that.

Post 23?
Ogled? I posted a site which shows fit young female soldiers and made the comparison with the clinically obese sailor.

Why the hell should I dignify her with a surname? She's hardly acted with any dignity during or since. She had an excuse during the event, but her prattlings to the media are shameful & embarassing.

I am sure the thousands of capable, professional women serving with distinction at the moment cringe whenever she opens her mouth.

Well women are trouble anywhere you put them. Fact.

So are men, children and animals.

Ofcourse those soldiers were stunned by the first death of a female colleague.

We could all assume it was becuase whe was female or we might hold off and think about if it was this or that she was the *first* woman they had seen killed in combat.

How does any single soldier react the first time they see a commrade fall? Thin is if this happens they are likely to be surroounded by a group who has seen the like before, but not in the case you mention. So there was no one who had any prior experience to pull everything together and into perspective so they all lost their heads for a bit.

Ive never been in the armed forces I think its dumb to go around being a heavy for hire. Ive worked as a doorman and that disgusted me, barring entry to unassuming people because they werent dressed right and letting in violent nerks who happened to be friends witht eh boss. So Im against ANYONE being in the armed forces.


Thing is saying the armed forces "are sexist end off" is an argument appalingly lacking in any thought. Its like saying the "river gorge is very wide end off" and not even considering that the trouble you might of to in putting a bridge across might be worth the effort.

I think if women want to be employed in a role which they prove to be effective in then we shouldnt operate a closed shop against them, just as we dont for gays, blacks, Jews blah blah blah.

We can wring our hands about peoples uneducated and inexperienced, stereotype driven emotional response to anything. That kind of thinking leads to women going to the European courts demanding the "right to life" for her frozen embryos and getting people on her side for the sake of "her babies".

Or we can without being cold or dispassionate decide that maybe we ought to move on a species from thinking like cave dwellers.

one love

Oooh, anecdotes SWL!! WOW!! That's the same evidentiary standards used by the Bush administration to justify invading Iraq! Good for you!

I have provided evidence - you refuse to read the links. Women served in the military starting in 4000 BC through the present, as *combat* troops.


You've really got some serious problems SWL. Is there a reason you're so hostile?

Hmmm, not sure wether I want to be part of this discussion. That woman that was captured by the Iranians might have been singled out, but part of that may well have been that she was also the person in charge rather than only because she was female. It is true that the average woman is not as strong as the average male, but apart from in the infantry is that going to matter so much? Going across the Falklands is quite something, but would presumably be more about endurance than strength.
It is true that studies seem to indicate that women in the frontline do not put their tail between their legs or such, but that the male soldiers despite orders will stop and help them if wounded. You probably could condition soldiers to not think of women in such a way, but that might just end up meaning a return to the day when raping the women of the enemy country was commonplace.
However women should be ready to rough it when sent to the frontline, meaning sharing tents, showers and toilets with men. Also one thing that has not been mentioned is how females are needed to replenish a population. After a war you can get by with few males, but you need a lot of females to have babies. So a 1:1 ratio in the army would be a bad idea I´d think.