SMALL WARS COUNCIL
Go Back   Small Wars Council > Small Wars Participants & Stakeholders > Military - Other

Military - Other Echelons away from the trigger pullers, from operational art and theater logistics to service combat development to just plain FOBbits.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-10-2010   #161
Pete
Council Member
 
Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Mountain, West Virginia
Posts: 990
Default

Look, women are women and men are men, but that doesn't mean women don't have important contributions to make to the U.S. armed forces. When I was toward the end of my Army career in 7th Infantry Division at Fort Ord in '82-'84 I dated a woman who was a captain in Ordnance with a specialty in vehicle maintenance. When we met I was a Battalion Motor Officer and she was the staff officer for Division Support Command responsible for monitoring readiness rates of equipment. She and I became intimate and we had a lot of fun together.

Eventually we stopped seeing each other when the spark went out and our relationship became predictable and boring. She began dating a Major of Ordnance.

When her new boyfriend was away on temporary duty she phoned me with a problem -- her car had a flat tire, could I come over and fix it? Well I did, but I thought it was kind of strange, seeing as how she had been the Distinguished Honor Graduate of her U.S. Army Ordnance Officer Advanced Course, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, vehicle maintenance specialty, a couple of years earlier.

This brings me back to my first sentence, men are men ane women are women. Mary was a very competent officer, she had a successful company command, and the last time I saw her in '87 she was a Major and Secretary of the General Staff of Army Materiel Command, Alexandria, Virginia.
Pete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2010   #162
jmm99
Council Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,021
Default The Flat Tire Women

Hi Pete,

This is my flat tire story - from 35+ years ago. My wife and I are in Houghton (city across the bridge) for Sunday breakfast; and got into a discussion re: equal rights and responsibilities for women. My wife has always taken the position that women should know how to taike care of their own vehicles - to the discomfort of mechanics who have the mindset of what 120mm calls "he-man woman haters".

The conversation then turned to flat tires - and God is good to thems that's good to Him. For behold, my new Found On Road Dead F-100 had a flat (front driver's side) - which I could see but she couldn't from where she sat. So, I set her up; and she responded that if there was a flat tire on the her car or on the truck, she would change it and with no help from you, Mister.

So, we finished breakfast and when outside facing the truck, I said, OMG, there's a flat front tire on the truck. Looks like you can prove your point. Of course, since you're wearing a white pants suit and a truck is bigger than a car, I'll volunteer to change the tire if you're not able and willing. Which of course totally pi$$es her off and she changes the tire (after finding out that the Ford jack, etc., ain't worth squat; but that I do have a good hydraulic jack and tire wrenches behind the seat) - and her white suit was no longer white. So, women are different re: flat tires.

Of course, she would have some other points re: women vice men. She happens to be about 5'1"", 105#, but can lift and carry 80-100# cement and sand bags. If the two of us were at a theoretical shoot off at 100m with rifles, I'm a little more accurate; but if we both fired at the same time, it would end in a draw - a bad draw. On the other hand, she says it wouldn't be fair for me to hit her hand to hand because I'm bigger and stronger than she is - which is also true.

The point from my little dataset of 1 is that women have different capabiilities depending on the situation, and their own mental and physical strengths and weaknesses. My wife always shot in men's competitions (not many lady shooters up here back then - more now). She usually beat most of them - but always came in behind me - which really ticked her off.

I do buy JMA's requirement that all in a unit have to meet a standard for the missions that unit is "likely" (that's a loaded word) to undertake; but I don't buy his comment (may be ironic or sarcastic) that we should suck up with the PC re: women and just do the best that can be done under that circumstances.

Nice to see 120mm back into the fray. We need somebody who "looks hot in heels and a little cocktail dress."

Regards to all - a bit off topic for me, but I had to reply to the flat tire story. Now, excuse me while I go off to slug my wife. Reality is that I have to fix one of her chairs.

Mike
jmm99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2010   #163
82redleg
Council Member
 
82redleg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Mother Sill
Posts: 222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
Partly true on the leadership failure, no on the jump. That picture is from Afghanistan. Easily determined from the gear he's wearing; most of it is post 2003 stuff and IIRC, that came out about a year or so ago and he's a USAF JTAC atchd to the 173d. Those guys are always heavily loaded, even in RVN when light (30-35 lb) loads were the Infantry norm. That may explain why the AF has trouble keeping JTACs in the service....
Ken, I think you're wrong on this one. I believe the is a photo from after the jump into Iraq. He's still wearing the LBE, not the new MOLLE stuff. He's wearing an OD patch on the DCU, and he doesn't have pockets sewn on his sleaves. All of which were NOT true by 173d's first Afghan rotation, 05-06 (OEF 6). I also seem to remember seeing that picture in (IIRC) Time, before I left Korea in Jun 03.
82redleg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2010   #164
Pete
Council Member
 
Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Mountain, West Virginia
Posts: 990
Default

Men need women, even though we're often reluctant to admit it. Even though we don't like it when they nag and complain, sometimes they point out things that make a lot of sense. They focus on the practical matters of life, and whether we want to hear it or not, they'll tell us that drinking a six-pack a day, eating a poor diet, and never cleaning up the house put a guy on the fast line downhill. God bless 'em, we need 'em. In addition to that they have some fascinating attributes.
Pete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2010   #165
Kiwigrunt
Council Member
 
Kiwigrunt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Auckland New Zealand
Posts: 460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete View Post
Men need women, even though we're often reluctant to admit it. Even though we don't like it when they nag and complain, sometimes they point out things that make a lot of sense. They focus on the practical matters of life, and whether we want to hear it or not, they'll tell us that drinking a six-pack a day, eating a poor diet, and never cleaning up the house put a guy on the fast line downhill. God bless 'em, we need 'em. In addition to that they have some fascinating attributes.
Sure, but outside the wire there are no six packs, we do not control the diet, there is no house to clean and the fascinating attributes are out of bounds because they get both the boys and the girls in trouble. And the latter I can attest to going by the countless times that our MPs and RPs came across the discarded peels of the fruits of love. Good thing they were issued in our medpacks.

Seriously now, my concerns with females in and beyond FOBs has nothing to do with their abilities and capabilities. From what Iíve seen, most that pass the relevant tests are more than capable and like to prove it. Sure, some are not, but that goes for boys just as well. It has to do with the effect that their mere presence has on the boys. Now we can say that it is about time the boys grow up and get over it but a large proportion of the boys we are likely to find in an FOB simply havenít grown up yet (that includes many of the older ones). So when there is too much at stake have we not perhaps passed a tipping point where political correctness and equality may need to take second place?
__________________
Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)

All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
(Arthur Schopenhauer)

ONWARD
Kiwigrunt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2010   #166
JMA
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Durban, South Africa
Posts: 3,902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
I do buy JMA's requirement that all in a unit have to meet a standard for the missions that unit is "likely" (that's a loaded word) to undertake; but I don't buy his comment (may be ironic or sarcastic) that we should suck up with the PC re: women and just do the best that can be done under that circumstances.
OK on the first point, on the second my point was that most armies will just have to get on with integrating females (for better of for worse) for the sake of imposed PC. I don't agree with the PC approach but suggest everyone will just have to learn to live with it.
JMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2010   #167
Ken White
Council Member
 
Ken White's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,060
Default With a closer look, you're almost certainly correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 82redleg View Post
Ken, I think you're wrong on this one... I also seem to remember seeing that picture in (IIRC) Time, before I left Korea in Jun 03.
What I thought was a large Molle bag is in fact a pocket on an old Ruck. That and confusing it with another picture I'd seen in an Air Force pub earlier this year.

Or maybe thought I'd seen. That IIRC caveat gets more true every day. Ah, the perils of old age; senility is not its own reward.

Thanks for the catch and correction. I owe 120mm an apology for even speculating he may have reached an erroneous airbornius cornclusion...
Ken White is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2010   #168
Pete
Council Member
 
Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Mountain, West Virginia
Posts: 990
Default

This is off-topic, for Kiwigrunt.

A branch of my family emmigrated from Cork, Ireland to New Zealand circa 1850. They were from an old prominent Anglo-Norman Catholic family that had been stripped of its lands by Cromwell. In 1855 they emmigrated to San Francisco. The first Prendergast there in my line was said to have been the strongest man in San Francisco and he did steel work building the dome of the state capitol building in Sacramento. His son, my great-grandfather, joined a cavalry unit in the California National Guard during the Spanish-American war. He never made it closer to the Spanish than the old Camp Lewis, Washington. Grandma told me he'd scare her mother half to death when he'd get out his Army Colt .45 revolver and fool around with it when he was half-way through a bottle of whisky. "Garry Owen" and all that.

Last edited by Pete; 10-11-2010 at 10:45 PM. Reason: Fix typo.
Pete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2010   #169
Rifleman
Council Member
 
Rifleman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 499
Wink Warrior Barbie



What does this photo prove? Maybe nothing at all.....but I still liked it.
__________________
"Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper
Rifleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2010   #170
Adam L
Council Member
 
Adam L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NYS
Posts: 388
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete View Post
Men need women, even though we're often reluctant to admit it. Even though we don't like it when they nag and complain, sometimes they point out things that make a lot of sense. They focus on the practical matters of life, and whether we want to hear it or not, they'll tell us that drinking a six-pack a day, eating a poor diet, and never cleaning up the house put a guy on the fast line downhill. God bless 'em, we need 'em. In addition to that they have some fascinating attributes.
Hey, men need women for many reasons but I object to your stereotyping men as impractical, dirty and unhealthy is improper.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rifleman View Post
What does this photo prove? Maybe nothing at all.....but I still liked it.
I like it too!

Mike: After reading all of that, I believe you to be a very lucky man.

Adam L
Adam L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2010   #171
Tukhachevskii
Council Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 589
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rifleman View Post


What does this photo prove? Maybe nothing at all.....but I still liked it.
I second the motion (and you beat me to posting it too). On a more serious note I have read somewhere of a woman (I think she was asingned to an MP or Truck coy) who, along with only one man, managed to assault and clear an insurgent trench during an abmush in Iraq (I'll try and find the reference). As far as I'm concerned there should be ONE physicall standard for all combat arms. If a woman passes it then no problem (I've met women who are physically more capable than men, me included, although that was in the Balkans!). All the other shenanigans that may occur when men and women mix, a volatile mix I know, should be manageable under military rules. If they can't behave well, that goes for men and women, then they're out. Throwing the weight issue at them isn't fair to a lot of men either as commentators have already mentioned. The issue of mixed units is a different matter altogether and is as much a discipline issue as it is psychological.
Tukhachevskii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2010   #172
Tom Odom
Council Member
 
Tom Odom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: DeRidder LA
Posts: 3,951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tukhachevskii View Post
I second the motion (and you beat me to posting it too). On a more serious note I have read somewhere of a woman (I think she was asingned to an MP or Truck coy) who, along with only one man, managed to assault and clear an insurgent trench during an abmush in Iraq (I'll try and find the reference). As far as I'm concerned there should be ONE physicall standard for all combat arms. If a woman passes it then no problem (I've met women who are physically more capable than men, me included, although that was in the Balkans!). All the other shenanigans that may occur when men and women mix, a volatile mix I know, should be manageable under military rules. If they can't behave well, that goes for men and women, then they're out. Throwing the weight issue at them isn't fair to a lot of men either as commentators have already mentioned. The issue of mixed units is a different matter altogether and is as much a discipline issue as it is psychological.
That story is on the CSI Press web page as part of In Contact. the Chapter is Palm Sunday Ambush 20 March 2005.
Tom Odom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2010   #173
Tukhachevskii
Council Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 589
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
That story is on the CSI Press web page as part of In Contact. the Chapter is Palm Sunday Ambush 20 March 2005.
Sir, thank you. That's the one I was looking for.
Tukhachevskii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2010   #174
jtan163
Council Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13
Default

I have a problem with women in combat units because of what I see as uncontrollable, unenforceable problems with discipline and the biological urge to reproduce and to protect your spouse/partner/parent of your child, especially when you think you (or your partner) might not live until next Tuesday.

But given that it is likely gonna happen, I'd like to know if the nations/services that do this are going to do it with an equal rights agenda, or a women have more choices that men (affirmative action) agenda?

The sorts of questions I'd like answers to are:

Will women be compelled to serve in combat units against their will, like men are?

Will men be given the options to decline postings to combat units if women are not compelled to serve combat units?

Assuming women are NOT compelled to serve in arms corps, will those who volunteer to do so be allowed to un-volunteer if they find it doest not suit them.

Will there be affirmative action programs? E.g. increased posting of women to combat units until their representation there is equal to men's representation and vica versa (e.g. if 15% of men in the services are in risky, dirty, uncomfortable, combat units, will there be an increase in female postings until 15% of women in the services are in risky, dirty, uncomfortable combat units)?

In countries where abortion is legal, will women who get pregnant after they are posted to combat units be liable to enforced abortion?
If I recall correctly the Defense Force Discipline Act (the Aust equivalent to the UCMJ) makes it an offense for you to render yourself unfit for service, and an offense to refuse treatment and an offence to not comply with medical orders (like any other legal order - you don't get a say just because it's your body - you signed that away when you enlist).

Will women be required to register for selective service in the US and register for conscription in countries that have it (or introduce it in the future)?

Until men are given the same rights as women (e.g. the right of refusal of combat jobs) then there will not be equality between men and women. Instead there will be a group who has privileges that other people don't have.

Whilst its all very well to talk about equality and human rights of women, I think we ALSO need to think about the human rights and equality of men as well, and that with rights (for one gender) come responsibilities (for that gender).

These are I suspect areas that have probably been considered and quietly ignored at the legislature, executive and senior military leadership levels as they are too hard to deal with in the current political (-ly correct) climate.

If the services and legislatures don't think about this when they introduce these measures, then the courts will inevitably have to and I don't have confidence that the courts will settle such questions in a way that will satisfy any of the parties and in particular may cost the services and the nations a whole lot more than they gain by allowing women to server in combat roles.

Of course the governments who introduce such measures will invariably be well served by their decisions, but they only have to live with their decisions for one election at a time.
jtan163 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2011   #175
G Martin
Council Member
 
G Martin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 12
Default women in combat arms commission

Since this report came out http://www.mercurynews.com/natbreaki...nclick_check=1 I have been surprised by two things:

1- the total lack of background reporting by the media on the commission. If you look at the commission's charter and its membership- it should come as no surprise that they are recommending women serve in all jobs. Their charter is to increase diversity at the higher ranks. And their membership is made up of a majority of non-combat arms types, a heavy dose of diversity specialists, and many more Coast Guard, AF, Navy, and Guard/Reservists than Regular Army/Marines. I think the commission's establishment and background are as interesting, if not more, than their report- but I guess the media aren't interested in reporting the background.

2- most discussion in the media has been the oft-repeated fact that in today's conflicts CS and CSS soldiers (read: females) serve in combat; while most discussions on blogs revolve around women passing individual physical requirements.

On the first point: I would find it highly suspect to develop a policy for implementation in the realm of Conventional armor units by a commission that was made up mostly of Special Operations personnel. I'm not saying the commission has to be totally combat arms- but this one was so obviously stacked with those with no combat arms experience that I question their ability to make a valid recommendation in the combat arms realm.

On the second: I think that the ability to pass individual PT requirements has nothing to do with ones' ability to effectively function on a small team whose main mission is to close with and kill people up close. This is why everyone I talk to from our European armies tells me that most homosexuals don't serve openly in their armies- and especially in their combat arms branches: because they know to do so would make it very hard for them to effectively add to the cohesiveness of the unit. And even though it is politically incorrect- most service members from the U.S. and our allies will admit in private that women and men do not gell well on small teams.

Do I really care if men and women at headquarters and in support roles have a tough time forming a cohesive unit? Well, our politicians have decided it doesn't matter to them- so I guess it doesn't to me either. But, while they are debating making it tough for combat arms folks, I think taking into account the physiological differences between men and women and the effect it could have on small units dedicated to hunting down and killing folks shouldn't be dumbed down to "they are already in combat", "our allies do it", and "they made the same arguments about Blacks and homosexuals".

Lastly, comparing the U.S. armed forces to our allies should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt. Even though we like to romantisize that our European allies are more politically correct than the average New Englander- the truth is that they are- more than not- much more macho and male chauvanist than we are. They don't have diversity agendas, efforts, and pressures. They are much more politically incorrect in their speech, behavior, and culture (using the American PC definition). So- accepting homosexuals and females for them didn't bring with it all of the extra money, time, training, and attention that our other social changes have traditionally brought due to our political environment.

In terms of "small wars"- I think differently: a policy that is in place to guide conventional forces, garrison operations, training environments, and MOS assignment shouldn't guide counterinsurgency execution in-theater: which requires maximum flexibility. This is why empowering the lowest level is paramount in these types of operations. But this would take a massive change to our personnel system- which favors a centrally-controlled environment. In essence: if women are needed in a certain role in a certain environment for the betterment of the mission- by all means use them.

That is why we serve in the armed forces: not for ourselves and our "rights", but for the security of the nation. Likewise- the passing of individual requirements and concern for individual rights should not be the basis for assigning people to combat arms roles: the most effective functioning of small teams of combat arms (who close with and kill the enemy) should be. If they really just want more women general officers- then by all means change the requirements to be a general officer.
G Martin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2011   #176
troy2k
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Stuttgart
Posts: 1
Default Mindless Blather...

"EVERY Marine is a rifleman" - Just ask a Marine. As long as it's not a Marine Rifleman. That young rifleman will break the mantra in half and throw it back at you.

Are women in combat? No question. Should they be? That's really their business I suppose, if you want to bring your girly bits to a war zone, enjoy.

Pass the law if you will, but I submit that it will have a counter-intuitive effect. Once there is nothing but an even playing field for an 11B/0311 Squad Leader to work upon, I believe that PT standards and such job-specific skills as the "Buddy Carry" CASEVAC technique will be the final recourse for determining who is or is not Infantry.

Lotsa folks claim they can do what the Infantry do. Funny thing is, they simply don't do it. Fill in Airborne, Marines, Ranger, SOF, whatever hardcore title you want in that previous line. Once it is down to getting off your ass and humping a ruck 20 miles, you're gonna find that very little will really change as to who shows up for employment.

Gimme a female who can hump a mission ruck, shoot Expert, score 300 on the APFT... execute MDMP in a tent in a sandstorm for a COIN element on 2 hrs sleep, then infil over the next 30 hours... she can serve with me anyday and twice on Sunday.
troy2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2011   #177
William F. Owen
Council Member
 
William F. Owen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
Posts: 3,947
Default

The IDF was recently afflicted with yet another "women in combat" debate, as it is every 10 years for the last 60.

The issue is not weather women can fight - they clearly can - It is he negative effects of women in predominantly male units. This is why the IDF formed the Caracal Battalion, and ...to quote the IDF's official position,

Quote:
Women represent a significant portion of manpower in the combat units that they serve in; in the Anti-Aircraft Division and in the Artillery Corps, women represent 20 percent of soldiers, 25 percent of soldiers in Search and Rescue units, 10 percent of the Border Police, and the Caracal Battalion - a combat battalion - is made up of 70 percent female soldiers. In addition, this year marked the first year in which women are eligible to serve in the Field Intelligence Corps.
....but fact is, almost no men want to serve in Caracal, and the unit has a very mixed reputation amongst infantry officers.
__________________
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
William F. Owen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2011   #178
Ted Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 4
Default

In a nutshell: combat units are closely-knit groups. Introducing sex into the equation is a bad idea.

No fire team leader needs to be adding "did sgt A diddle private B" into his equation when he makes a decision. It's silliness and will only get people killed. There is no up side.
Ted Rush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012   #179
SWJ Blog
Council Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,339
Default U.S. Marine Corps to Assign Women to Ground Combat Element Units

U.S. Marine Corps to Assign Women to Ground Combat Element Units

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.
SWJ Blog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2012   #180
AmericanPride
Council Member
 
AmericanPride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
Posts: 903
Default Women in Military Service & Combat (not just USA)

Moderator at work

The title of this thread was Women, Military Readiness, and Int'l Security until today, 23rd October 2013 and has been changed to Women in Military Service & Combat (not just USA). Seven other threads, mainly SWJ Blog, have been merged in too. All prompted by a BBC News report on a Canadian women infantry officer, which will be the added soon (ends).



This appeared in the New York Times yesterday as the Marine Corps looks to study the impact of women in front-line units. Not a new debate really. More interesting is the conversation about gender relationships, security, and military effectiveness.

First, gender equality:

Quote:
Originally Posted by What Sex Means for World Peace
In fact, the very best predictor of a state's peacefulness is not its level of wealth, its level of democracy, or its ethno-religious identity; the best predictor of a state's peacefulness is how well its women are treated. What's more, democracies with higher levels of violence against women are as insecure and unstable as nondemocracies.

....

The evidence of violence against women is clear. So what does it mean for world peace? Consider the effects of sex-selective abortion and polygyny: Both help create an underclass of young adult men with no stake in society because they will never become heads of households, the marker for manhood in their cultures. It's unsurprising that we see a rise in violent crime, theft, and smuggling, whereby these young men seek to become contenders in the marriage market. But the prevalence of these volatile young males may also contribute to greater success in terrorist recruiting, or even state interest in wars of attrition that will attenuate the ranks of these men. For instance, the sole surviving terrorist from the 2008 Mumbai attacks testified that he was persuaded by his own father to participate in order to raise money for the dower that he and his siblings needed in order to marry.

We also know through experimental studies that post-conflict agreements that are negotiated without women break down faster than those that do include women, and that all-male groups take riskier, more aggressive, and less empathetic decisions than mixed groups -- two phenomena that may lead to higher levels of interstate conflict.
So, basically, gender security is a legitimate concern when predicting or resolving conflict. However, is female participation in the armed forces or in combat a substantial factor in a country's ability to favorably prosecute conflict? Is there a distinct female temperament, and what impact will it have as women enter into combat and strategic leadership roles in the armed forces?

This article provides a once-over-the-world review of women in armies around the world, while this 2009 UK MoD report goes into more detail of the applicable literature up to that time. This article points out that female youth obesity has grown slower than male youth obesity; so while both genders have shrinking eligible recruits for military service, females are less likely to be ineligible on the basis of weight (it also linked obesity with region and education, which is another conversation about military recruiting demographics and recruit eligibility).

Of course, there are objections about female temperaments, male temperament towards women, and female physical make-up and capacity but I have not seen a study yet linking female participation in combat with a unit's inability to conduct a combat mission or a country's ability to win a war. This article references US, Canadian, and Danish military reports that indicate the presence of women do not undermine unit effectiveness (and presumably, the overall war effort). That article was written in 2003, so I am curious what new evidence is out there, given the GWoT experiences, against the practicality and effectiveness of women in combat.This would seem to be the standard of proof, given that in war, only victory matters.
__________________
The Watch Officer at Tipping the Balance

When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

Last edited by davidbfpo; 10-23-2013 at 09:25 AM. Reason: Add Mod's note
AmericanPride is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mass Insanity: Latest Trend in Army Doctrine Bob's World Doctrine & TTPs 43 10-14-2012 09:23 PM
Specially Protected Persons in Combat Situations (new title) Tukhachevskii Global Issues & Threats 119 10-11-2010 07:26 PM
Impacts on Finland/EU/NATO of renewed IW/COIN focus of US military charlyjsp RFIs & Members' Projects 17 07-03-2009 05:43 PM
Appreciation for the military from the civilians yamiyugikun Small Wars Council / Journal 23 05-07-2009 10:08 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8. ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Registered Users are solely responsible for their messages.
Operated by, and site design © 2005-2009, Small Wars Foundation