Women in Military Service & Combat (not just USA)

[Ken White]

that simple.

Been my observation that about 25% of the males in Infantry units, peace or war -- possibly a slight rise in wartime in all volunteer units, larger rise in those with draftees -- don't really want to or need to be there. They are a tad too sensitive psychologically speaking to enjoy what they're doing. Most cope but they do not ever really adapt well. They also tend to sustain long term psychological damage at a higher rate than their more sociopathic peers.

That percentage was slightly lower 60 years ago but has increased as our western society has gotten wealthier and more and better -- or, at least, more lengthily -- educated. It may even be slightly higher today but I think that serves as a broad average figure.

My belief is that the females I have seen in the CS and CSS units in the US Army that routinely serve in a field environment at least double that percentage.

I think I'm saying that the physical and psychological stresses of the Armed Forces in a field environment are inimical to the more sensitive among us and logically, combat exacerbates that. I have seen females of all ranks in a field environment that were ever bit as well adapted as many -- even most -- males and there is no question that women can sustain combat stress. I'm suggesting that where they sustain that stress has an impact that might be difficult to measure and that the percentage of females susceptible to ground combat stress is higher than is the not insignificant male number.

There have been numerous examples of outstanding female aviators, in and out of combat. Most female naval types are as good as or better than their male counterparts. Same goes for those in the ground forces.

That there have been and will be a number of female infantry-like fighters that are as tough as anyone is not questioned; nor is the fact that, so long as its voluntary, not that many females will opt for the infantry and those that do are likely to have a psychological profile that adapts to the role.

That, IMO, does not address the desirability or utility of having them there not does it address the impacts on the nearby male creatures.

The issue of field living -- and I mean in an austere environment, not on an FOB in an air conditioned trailer -- is not pleasant to contemplate for anyone, sex immaterial. Add to that the blood, sights, sounds and smells of close combat and you have an environment not attuned to emotional sensitivity, male or female. My perception -- and that's all it is -- is that a higher number of females are not attuned to it.

I think the infantry combat environment assists in creating a "you're on trial here" mentality in Troops; they apply it to every male that serves and the females get closer scrutiny due to a lot of cultural baggage. Possibly also to a lot of genetic and gender baggage.

Long way of saying what we all know; it's not a job for everyone -- and that, IMO, it's a lot more complex than a simple leadership issue...

Lest I be accused of being opposed to females in service or even in the infantry, I'm not; have no problems at all with that. All for it in fact -- I just think it is not a simple question and I'm unsure we know nearly as much we think we do about the answers.

And that also gives me a chance, yet again, to beat my 'psychological selection is necessary for a professional force today' drum...