Do Women Make Better Soldiers Than Men?

Warned you all...Clem has access to female things...We blokes don't understand...

But seriously...we are losing track..the one thing is should they serve as infantry...can they physically serve as infantry...As to killing...women of many cultures have proved they have no problem doing that when necessary..and more than a few here and there...in considerable numbers.

As to the shooting...Proof is needed there that any difference exists. The ability to kill is in all of us..to kill without emotion may be another thing.

 

That is has been the perceived problem in our societies for years...That is precisely the argument I have had many times with females in uniform of my own time. I may have made fun of my wraf argument but I was deadly serious in that I was supporting that view. I have watched as time goes by and seen that particular argument losing its way. I don't know about combat infantry it may not work...but certainly the fights against Royal Navy having females at sea...was fought for years..and yet here we are..all the tired arguments put up against were proved to be wrong. Even nuclear subs..and it won't be long till a British Trident Boat carries its first female captain who will have the responsibility to launch...sort of puts a rifle infantryman into the shadows...I'd estimate within 10 years if we keep Trident. So the killer part of the argument lies dead and buried already over here..as the RAF Typhoon and Tornado female airwoman are proving on a daily basis.

There is however the male perception and maybe thats our problem not the womans...back a few years ago. the silly Royal Naval bods let a boarding party be captured by Iran...The press..the media...the policians...they concentrated on the POOR girl...and unashamedly USED her for their own reasons. Bringing the nurture crap into the light. She was a serving Royal Navy sailor and took her situation on the chin..if anything the young male who complained of losing his mp3 player and seemed to be near to tears all the time was of more concern to me.

Infantry soldiers? I don't know..Killers..certainly...Commnders..too late they already command.

 

I think you've split the arguement here...and rightly so...Killing in itself, women can do, but again, arent naturally predilicted to...Just look at the homocide stats...100 odd men for every woman. Woman kill for a reason, men...becasue thats what we do. You've split the situation into different "fighting" categories...the fighter pilots are a good example, they dont "meet" men in the air so everything that is man is negated...but not quite. (Still issues of killer instinct, reflexs etc...although becasue of their bigger chests, women carry more blood in the upper torso so can acheive better G results.) As for the Navy...i have to disagree...We in Australia have and are STILL having issues with men and women at sea...obviously this revolves around sex...both wanted and unwanted. If anything the case AGAINST is growing stronger every day...You put a 19 year male in a confined space with a female (and no others) for a couple of months and what exactly do you THINK is going to happen. This man/woman thing has not been tested in true combat to date...i still have issues of men remaining on station with a female crew member disabled nearby. But again...the Navy fight generally negates the "male" need...In both the Airforce and Navy, technology is replacing the need for men and people in general...and thats by design. But the Infrantry man is a whole different kettle of fish...they remain our true warriors, willing to kill face to face, with their hands if need be (and be able to). Any General will tell you that no matter what technology one uses, there will STILL be a need for people on the ground to "mop up"...So i cant see the "fighting man" going anywhere soon.

 

Yep I think it has to be split..so it don't go down the lanes of sexism....I have to disagree with you cac on the navy bit...why should Aussie navy be any different from the Royal Navy experience...we had exactly the same issues and problems...no different...They stopped nothing and today the RN is female manned if you like as much as the proposed Aussie navy would be. There is nothing they are stopped from doing. However Nuke subs were the last bastion...due to pregnancy issues etc...that has been binned now too..with the first wren getting ready to board an astute hunter killer. I can't see why your navy should differ from ours...the same problems were talked of and didn't really happen. Yes few pregnancies and adulterous affairs..but to be honest in the RAF I saw lots more in the RAF land bases...affairs between wraf and RAF and civvies on land are just as likely. Its no use saying yes but at sea you can be in action..you always could on an RAF base. The wraf block used to empty regularly when the hooter went off in Germany to tell us Russkie had sneaked over the borders...He hadn't but no one had any idea it was not for real...and the number of blokes married that left rooms they shouldn't have been near has always been quite regular...at sea...whats the difference....?

 

From what I understand of the Israeli Defense Force, women were slotted into combat roles due to the shortage of bums on seats. They made it as an extension of their kibbutz lifestyle, with women serving from the same kibbutz's, and encouraged, therefore, to wear makeup and look as feminine as possible. It was another aspect of their cultural up-bringing, and apparently, it worked just fine.

My step-daughter is 16 and wishes to join the Australian Army as a medic. Just to show her that women can do anything they want to given enough will power and effort, i bought a book for her called "Dressed To Kill", written by a British woman Apache pilot, and written in the Iraqi/Afghan desert by the lady herself. She is a member of what is descibed by another Apache pilot as "The most exclusive flying club in the world". These Apaches are 'souped up' in the best traditions of the RAF 'erk', (take a bow Urqh). It takes them 12 months just to condition their eyes to act independantly of one another, so they can get the maximum from the 'Head up Displays'. Ed Macy claims also to be able to read two books simultaniously!

I'll leave the details of this amazing woman to those that pick up a copy of her book, but suffice to say that "Dressed To Kill" is the real deal, a warts and all look at exactly what it takes to be some of the world's best, and to stay there under the most trying of conditions. Highly recommended, and my daughter loved it too!

 

No, women do not make better soldiers, neither do men. It depends on the individual soldier. In tasks that do not require physical strength and endurance, I do not think there should be any barring of women from serving in those fields. In those that do require strength and endurance you WILL have a less capable force because the standards WILL be adjusted to insure that a sufficient percentage of female soldiers/Marines will serve in that field, regardless of the results, because that is what the civilian leadership has ordered. That's the way it works. That's the way it has always worked. There is no innate difference in shooting ability, it all depends upon the shooter, it is a skill nothing more, nothing less. Are men more aggressive than women yes. No doubt. Why? Testosterone. Ever hear of roid rage? Are women less physically capable, as a group, yes. Why? Testosterone. If this were not so why have women and men used the male hormone testosterone as a performance enhancer, and why would virtually all sporting organizations ban it? Are there weak males? Yes. On average are males in the military stronger, faster, and have more endurance? Yes. (The physical fitness modifiers for women are one indication. On a run in the Marine Corps PFT a 17-26 year old female only has to perform at the level of a 46 year old male.
If we are going to base our decisions determining military capability based upon the weakest males and the strongest females, you will not get an accurate picture. You need to view the picture as a whole. The vast majority of our population is not even physically qualified to enter the military, so comparing it to civilian occupations that require strength and endurance, and how a woman may have compared to her male, civilian counterparts is also an invalid comparison, because chances are NONE of them would be up to the rigors faced by an infantryman. Civilians vs military, how many civilian jobs, except for athletes require you to do physical training everyday? Hell, something like 40% of the military age population can't meet the physical requirements to serve in any capacity much less as an infantryman. (Only something like 13% of the military age population in the US actually meets the intelligence, physical and lack of criminal background requirements to enlist. The biggest hurdle is actually the aptitude requirement, 57% of the military age populace lacks sufficient educational or intelligence ability to serve). If we make the right choice we have fewer die, if we make the wrong choice you have killed people that need not have died. This ain't no game people.
Physical ability is crucial to infantrymen, and snipers (90% or more of what you do is not related to taking the shot) and special forces, etc. Been there and done two of the three and it was the hardest physical job I ever had and I've had quite a few. Also, not to brag but in my day I could put most peoples privates in the dirt physically and I wasn't a big guy, 6 foot 185-190 pounds, all muscle no fat. If you believe there is no difference in physical ability between men and women, I mean really believe it, the first thing you need to do is petition your congressman or senator to simultaneously do away with men's and women's divisions in sports. One category, only the best in each field compete. How many women would place in the top ten? In the Marathon (endurance), the 100 meter dash (speed), weightlifting (strength). Swimming, this is one where the playing field should be level, nope (important skill to SEALS and RECON Marines). How about we combine the NBA with the womens NBA, there is probably no difference in shooting ability. But, shooting is only part of the requirement, and it will never happen because it would deny too many women the chance to play professional basketball, because it would be solely based upon performance. Then when our composite teams compete against nations that do have male only teams, we'll have our tails handed to us. The only difference will be that when you lose a sporting event you only lose a sporting event. You can come back and try again later. When you lose in battle, people die and nations are destroyed.
Physical fitness not important? When the Marine Corps during the Iraq War realized that the standard PFT (despite being the hardest basic PFT of the US military services), was not a good predictor of fitness as it related to combat tasks it instituted an additional Combat PFT to measure Marines abilities and strengthen them for the tasks that were combat related. Were not talking ancillary combat where your convoy might take some fire. We're talking about in your face, kick down doors, no holds barred, infantry combat, for extended periods. Now, because congress wants them to look at opening combat arms to women, they'll be doing away with both and trying to come up with some test where they don't have to gender norm. All it will result in is less physically fit male Marines.

I know I'm probably making someone mad, but most of the stuff mentioned so far has little to do with what is actually required of an infantryman or SOF type soldier/Marine.

 

Beautifully said...I hope they listen to you at least.

 

Example 1: Airborne School. When I went to Airborne School one of the rules was that if you dropped out of two formation runs you were dropped from the course. Dropping from a run did not necessarily mean you did not finish the formation run, it could also mean that you did not finish with the formation. There was an older, mid-40's Marine that was assigned to a supply/support unit, an FSSG. He wasn't going to be an infantryman, or recon type. There were a number of women in the class and they ran in a separate formation from the men because they were allowed to run at a slower pace (gender normed). Normally at the end of the run they were 3/4's to 4/5th's of a lap behind the male formation. During the second week he finished 10-15 yards behind the formation and was warned that one more and he would be gone. Yet he still finished a good 3/4's of a lap ahead of the females. He dropped out of a second run the last day of the second week, finishing 20 yards or so behind the formation and was dropped from the course. On the second drop he again finished 3/4's or more of a lap ahead of the female formation. Was he any less physically qualified than the females? On an unadjusted level no. He did need to be dropped because he was weak, if the male standards were further reduced you'd just graduate less physically fit paratroopers. I personally didn't think the runs were very hard, but I PT'd all the time. Was it fair, yes and no. Was the level of fitness required of him excessive for the job he had? Probably so, he was after all going to a support billet just like the females. Would you want to further reduce the physical standard to accomidate him no.

 

Some people will never accept a woman's equality if they can only think of the hormones that make us different. How little respect that shows for the other 85% of what makes up a good soldier, leader or statesman. If all wars were fought in a way that only strength of muscle would win perhaps I could reason on that level. However so many other traits make up leadership, endurance, dedication, knowledge, instincts, the anticipation of our enemies, the diplomacy required to position our forces, and also the realization that guns on the ground are not the only warfare we have to engage in these days to win against an opponent. It may very well be that being able to run a joy stick may triumph over muscles and guns. It may very well be the delicate touch that accomplishes the victory. Perhaps a "pfft" is all the thought that one may have towards imagining these qualities in the opposite sex. I think this reasoning by those who oppose women is much like that reasoning after the civil war that thought economies would fail with the loss of slavery. Ultimately the only thing that failed was the owner that failed to know how to do his own work. We need more of the ladies as soldiers and we need more of them in politics to help fix the mess the dominant group has made of things. There has been a lot of testosterone in congress and very little done to do the people's business.

 

Example 2: Again Airborne School. Males are required to do a minimum number of pullups, females a bent armed hang. This is gender normed to accommodate the lesser upper body strength of the female soldier. Unfortunately, being able to do a pullup is the same movement required to steer the T-10 parachute. You have to grip the risers and do a pullup to steer the canopy to avoid other jumpers, or to compensate for wind drift. Most times you will not just be pulling up your weight, but the additional weight of your weapon, LBE, water and most times a 70lb rigged below your reserve chute. Our first jump at jump school. An administrative jump, no equipment and using the T-10 parachute. We had one female left in the class, the rest had DOR'd. We all exit the aircraft and here she comes, grabbed by the wind and tearing through the rest of the jumpers. You worry that she'll hit you, you'll become entangled and both go screaming into the ground. She was trying to steer but couldn't pull up on the risers enough to spill air from the canopy and steer it. I grabbed my front and rear, right side risers and pulled so hard my hands came almost down to my waist and slipped out of her way as she sailed off into the trees. Her lack of physical strength was a safety hazard to both her and other jumpers. She quit after they found her. In a male he would have been long gone because he had failed to do the requisite number of pull ups to continue on.

 

Hormones do make us different and ignoring it will not change the facts. Testosterone makes you stronger, faster, have greater muscle mass and be more aggressive. It's a fact.

Victor, did you read what I wrote? I at no point stated that a male made a better soldier in most cases. Only in those jobs that require excellent physical ability which is probably only 10% or so of the military. I even stated that gender did not make a soldier better or worse. Males have no inherent advantage in intelligence, leadership, (they do have in endurance), knowledge, instincts or diplomacy. Those jobs are already open to women and most do a very good job, just as their male counterparts in those same jobs do a very good job.

And I never stated that it was the only type of warfare, the current policy debate is however about women in infantry billets. Guns on the ground as you say. Physical ability in that field is of utmost importance. It also relates to leadership ability in that field. If an officer can't hang physically he/she can't push their troops as far. I know of many times that when I was physically past my limits, the only thing that kept me going was the desire to outlast the SOB leading us. That was my opinion of him while I was suffering, most of them were really good officers, and well liked and respected when the pain went away.

Here we agree. Where did I say a woman was less capable of operating a joystick? I have nothing against women, they're my favorite species. I am not blind however, to the fact that there are physical differences and most people that weigh in on this issue do not realize how physical the job of an infantryman is. Those that oppose women in the infantry for other reasons are also off base. Sexuality between male and female soldiers is a matter of discipline. It can be managed. The male/female, over protective aspect is also, IMO, invalid. In my experience I'd try no less hard to save one of my male troops than a female troop. They're one of my people.

 

Again Victor, you make the common mistake of seeing women as the same as men...and its only short sightedness or bigotry that parts us. THIS IS ROT - Forget the tripe you have had thrust down your throat. Men and women are PHYSICALLY different...if you want to talk other than muscle then lets visit the brain for second...mens brains are bigger (so what? We judge ALL our ancesters by the size of their brain...so think about that)...The hemispshers of our brains are connected differently to womens...a MAJOR difference...we have also discovered that there is Grey matter and White matter in the brain...guess what? Men have massIve amounts of gray matter and women have massive amounts of white brain matter...gray is linked to things like spacial awareness and deep thought...white matter is linked to languages and emotion...of course this anecdotally is widely known already. Add the testicles and ovaries which produce similar and completely diffderent "drugs" to the brain effecting behaviour no less...So to "pretend" that there isnt a HUGE divide between men and women is to stuff ones head in the sand and ignore reality. I dont quite understand the reluctance of some to admit the obvious...women are not inferior to men...we NEED each other and what we both bring to the table to survive...they are Different. And, if you want to chose a particular area, in this case Infantry...Then yes, men ARE superior...lucky we are not talking about subjects that women excell in, maybe its us who'd start feeling insecure about the truth.

 

I do not argue that women are different and I don't see them as being the same as men.......I argue that they are equal........what I am saying is there needs to be a balance so that they can participate in an equal way with men in defending or leading our country......I will admit there is a physical difference and that it is not possible for them to pass tests of physical endurance at the same strengths of men but what I am saying is there is a need for the balance their presence will bring to our forces as long as they are permitted to participate in an equal opportunity way. You may have some practical arguments that are correct about their participation......but since your understanding is so great why haven't you suggested ways to integrate their participation to success. I haven't seen or heard that. I was in charge of sports for girls when they were first allowed to play basketball and there were gory injuries in the games for a while......not because they played inferior but because they had no trained people to instruct them in their game for several years. I am amazed at the high level they now play and find many games more interesting than some of the men's teams. We don't know what their possibilities are until they are allowed to compete without the oversight of people who are there only to witness and document their failures. Then when they are given the fair opportunity we will see what those results will be.

 

Look, in a general sense i agree, we all live in an unatural, devised world so there is no reason why women cant participate equally. But in the subject we are talking WAR, older than prostitution is the job of warrior or protector. Long, long, long before the PC brigade trotted out MEN fought wars...and men fought wars and MEN fought wars...not becuase someone told them to, but because it comes naturally. History is NOT littered with females and war. So the "natural world" says that men fight and women nurture...they create the next generation of warriors or protectors of the group. Its a symbiotic relationship...what im saying is that war is no joke or picnic...there is NO place for PC or rights...only for what works. Women have no place on the battle field, no one can argue against that. Except the "day is night" PC brigade, who wouldnt know a gunshot wound from a hole in the ground. Listen to people with knowledge not passion.
I respect your level of knowledge and intelligence...and know that you can see my points...your points have been overstated by too many to gain much traction with me these days sorry mate.

 

You state "Women have no place in the battle field, no one can argue against that." I will cease to discuss this further but I will cite this from history in Vietnam about 40 A.D. the Trung sisters (Trung trac and Trung Nhi) after suffering 2 centuries of Chinese rule, did raise 36 women generals who led the forces that succeeded in kicking out the Chinese from their country. In the long run they were unable to keep the Chinese out but no one questions their victory that succeeded for a while in this military campaign. The sister Trung Trac became known then as Trung Vuong or the She-King Trung.
Queen Vishpala who lost her leg in battle was the first story of a soldier being fitted with prosthetic metal leg to be able to return to the battle field.
Queen Sammuramat who was a cunning leader in battle, and taken away from her husband for her skills and then was able to triumph over the person who took her and became the Assyrian leader. I will say perhaps we could find common ground in that general sense you find we may agree to and hopefully in time we can make that general sense grow as I believe in finding what common ground we can.

 

So there we have it..and I do agree...Infantry women soldiers is a lot different from women in any armed forces being armed and having the ability to shoot or even kill...they can do all of that except perhaps perform as an infantryman....If we state an infantryman does what he does today. That does not and indeed has proved to not hinder women in the forces...both in the front line...Airforce...Navy, engineers, signals etc...The difference between women in forces and those outside is as different as between men in forces and those outside. The task and way of life is different to anything a civilian may be asked to do in the main. But the skills...shooting..the discipline and behaviour...the willingness to perform and perform as well and in as many cases better...by females should never be contested. Infantry though as I have said all along..is another matter...its nothing to do with killing or bearing arms. Edited to include statement....nor is it anything to do with the morals or nurture route..or even some guys wishing to protect the gentler sex...If they are in the military in my experience the gentler sex if you wish to call them that...need no protection from males. That idea has well and truly seen its day. They have a duty to perform and will do and do it well.

 

Blimey Victor...is that like the view held at a certain time on Coloured fighter pilots...The T....airmen...I won't even dishonour them by trying to spell it wrongly. The arguments will always be there until it is actually proved wrong. Infantry I still do not believe apart from the individual woman that they can serve at this time in infantry. Infantry are not though the requirement of the commander in all priorities these days...the hill will always need taking...and the land held...but private security is dwindling some of that role..and that area of warfare if you like..and certainly private personal protection teams aremd to the teeth..has its fare share of females ready to kill for money. In fact the lady I spoke of as being first official Brit killer in an infantry type role now serves in one such unit...personal protection and no she is not protecting a schoolchild or her vulnerable mother...she's armed to the teeth and deadly. The arguments will always rage until the ladies prove themselves just as others have had to do before them...The T airmen as one example...Cac raised the Aussie navy and the present reluctance there...I see no difference in the arguments we had here over Royal Navy...They were found not judged..found and proved still to be wrong. As they will by in Australia. Editing again.....I should say that the Navy has females on ships here in UK and I'm not in fact agruing against it but asking what is the difference in our navy and any others...Are other countries ladies not as good as my own countries ladies? That seems to be what I am hearing here.

 

The entire thread is filled with interesting and perceptive comments from both sides of the issue - the problem, is rather in the format of the question which asks "Do women make better soldiers than men?" You cannot take any grouping of peoples, gender, race, culture and give any one group a "better than" rating. Within every group there will be those who excel, those who fail, and those who meet levels between at whatever task is placed before them. Within every group there will be those who physically, mentally, and emotionally will excel in military tasks - and it is quite probable that the criteria for a combat infantry soldier would easily be met by women who had been raised to be able to meet the same criteria used for male soldiers. There was a time that a male nurse went through hell to take on that profession. We live in a time when rules about who can do what role are being changed from predetermined attitudes based on "group statistics/assumptions" to individual assessments. There is no question that men and women are different from each other physically based upon sexual organs and chemistry - but difference does mean one cannot do what the other can. From a physical viewpoint, the most decorated American soldier of World War II was a teenager with a lack of education, and who was of a slight build - but who had basic firearms skills, and a strength of character and natural skill that saw him overcome all the obstacles others thought would be too much.

Like most real women, I am proud that I am a woman - but my hackles rise when someone tells me I can't do something just because I am a woman. I'd feel the same if someone said I can't do something because I'm Canadian, or because I'm over a certain age, or because I have MS.

In my twenties, I took Tae Kwon Do. I initially had some difficulties dealing with group training - I've never been good at being a follower; but by the time I reached the point of testing for my first belt, I'd been mentally and physically challenged internally to succeed - and was 2nd in a class of 40 men. The end of Tae Kwon Do for me was following my first fight in a tournament when I encountered my own primal nature. I'd never met my opponent before, but the second the fight began I had tunnel vision and did everything in my power to take her down. Masters were the referees in the tournament and the only way my referee could get my attention was to physically step between me and my opponent. I'm relating this, because it is my personal experience that it is not just men who have an instinct to fight and to compete. Perhaps the question that does need to be addressed for soldiers in general is not whether they can kill and function as combat soldiers, but if after training and having their primal nature tapped by combat whether they also have the temperment and the necessary training to be able to live in peace afterwards. I may have digressed from the question....