Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Female Warriors
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Monday, 21st November 2005
Do women have any business in any branch of the Armed Services?
Two female soldiers. The first one Jessica Lynch U.S. Army, was a truck driver during the invasion of Iraq. She was captured by the Iraqi's, and was brutalized sexually and physically.
The second, Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester, U.S. Army, truck driver, received the Silver Star, for her actions during an enemy ambush on a different convoy. This was the first time since World War II an Army woman was awarded the Silver Star for valor.
It can't be said they are of no good in combat. My favorite example, Lyudmila Pavlichenko, Soviet Union, ww2 Sniper with more than 300 confirmed kills.
If you say No, then why? Does it affect your machismo?
If you say Yes, then where is the line, or is there one?
Cheerz. -
Message 2
Posted by Sabre-Wulf (U2142937) on Monday, 21st November 2005
An interesting, and thought provoking post expat.
As far as I'm concerned, women should be allowed to serve in all the branches of the forces providing they can pass any relevant physical or skill based tests, without any leniency being offered in repect of their gender.
If they can hump the same pack as the blokes over the same distance in the same time then they've earned the right to do what they want.
Yes there is the issue of the physical abuse they may be subject to, but the Bravo Two Zero boys were tough and highly skilled soldiers who still had the snot beaten out of them in captivity. Yes forced sex can be used to intimidate and torture women, but the same goes for blokes too.
Since entering the world of work I've frequently had to work for female bosses, and as long as they've earned my respect through dint of their knowledge, skill or ability I've got no problem with doing what they tell me. I appreciate women in the forces will find it difficult to ge the respect of their male peers and junior ranks, but going back to my first point it if they've earned the job then that should get them the respect they need. -
Message 3
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 21st November 2005
Hi Expat,
Hope you and your Hummer are well!
Now this IS a can of worms!!!!
I would have to say YES to women in the Armed Forces, without hesitation. I've served alongside many of them and always found them to be the equal of their male counterparts in all situations. However, my one concern would be putting women into roles such as the Infantry, and definitely special forces units. I would say that provided they can match the same physical standards as their male counterparts, then by all means, but during my time in green, female soldiers always had different standards for their physical tests. Not sure whether that is still the case, but in my day it was!
To use the old (now phased-out) BFT as an example, the Basic Fitness Test which the Army used to have, a male soldier had to run 1 1/2 miles in a squad formation in 15 minutes (sort of a warm up) then straight after 1 1/2 miles in under 10.5 minutes (failure was not an option, or lots of extra PT was consequence!), although in reality, anything over 9 minutes would class you as a bit of a fat lad!!! At that time, I think women soldiers had an extra 1.5 minutes to complete the same distance, perhaps someone can advise if this is still the case!
When it came down to doing their job however, every woman I have served alongside has been capable of doing their job equally as well (and sometimes better, I remember one female Comms Technician who could fix practically anything, no matter how badly trashed!) as their male counterparts.
As for putting women in the frontline, in Infantry units, well, I don't honestly know. They would have to prove they were up to the job, but then so does every man who does the job-if he or she aren't good enough, then they shouldn't be there, but if they were equal in all respects, mainly combat/fieldcraft skills, physical fitness, and they can shoot well, I would have had no problem going into combat with a woman if they met all the above criteria, and I mean ALL. If they had less demanding physical tests, marksmanship skills etc, then no, I would not want to face combat knowing that one of my squad was less fit, a poorer shot, or less capable than all the rest. They would be a liability, not a soldier.
Cheers
DL -
Message 4
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Monday, 21st November 2005
...At that time, I think women soldiers had an extra 1.5 minutes to complete the same distance, perhaps someone can advise if this is still the case!
Ìý
To be fair, it's worth pointing out that allowances are also made for age in such fitness tests - i.e. older soldiers are allowed slightly more time as well. -
Message 5
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Monday, 21st November 2005
DL,
I lifted this from another board and it cracked me up. I think you will enjoy it.
Cheerz.
Actually I like Bush. I am 61 years old and he is the first president that makes me feel like I have enough intelligence to be president. -
Message 6
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 21st November 2005
You got that one spot on Matt,
I like it....
DL,
I lifted this from another board and it cracked me up. I think you will enjoy it.
Cheerz.
Actually I like Bush. I am 61 years old and he is the first president that makes me feel like I have enough intelligence to be president.
Ìý
You could just imagine the words coming from Â鶹ԼÅÄr Simpson's Dad!
Cheers
PS There's a nice thread on the US/WW2/Marshall Plan started up, I'd be interested in your take on it!
DL -
Message 7
Posted by KCLUndergrad (U2561619) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2005
At that time, I think women soldiers had an extra 1.5 minutes to complete the same distance, perhaps someone can advise if this is still the case!
Ìý
DL, the modern BPFA is not at all different different from your BFT, wander why they even bothered to phase it out! Women still have 12 minutes where men have 10.5. Women also do 23 fewer pushups than men. The values for situps are the same.
Personally, I don't have any problem with women serving how they do at the moment in the British Army. Men and women seem to be equally competant as engineers, gunners, signallers etc. I would, however, protest strongly against women joining the combat arms (Infantry, RAC, RM and SF). This is not because it would effect my machismo, I already know that there are women out there who are fitter than I am, but because psychological evidence suggests that front line unit cohesion breaks down if the unit is not homogeneous. A more conclusive study showed that the fighting effectiveness of a unit breaks down very quickly if a female member is hit or killed, compared with another man.
Perhaps the answer to this is that women could join the combat arms if they were in wholly distinct units. That would certainly spark the inter-unit competitions that the Army loves so much! -
Message 8
Posted by gooserss (U1983611) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2005
not sure about this but i thought the whole Jessica Lynch thing was discovered to be spin by the US govt. She was well cared for, and when recsued was being held in a civilian hospital who were tending wounds taken during the initial firefight.
The hollywood movie i think has been put on hold due to thw story not being as good as initially thought. ( not that this has stopped them before ).
Otherwise no problems at all with women in the armed forces. -
Message 9
Posted by gooserss (U1983611) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2005
yep
just checked the bbc and net. very overhyped story. hmmmm, a bit like those wmds ? -
Message 10
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2005
At that time, I think women soldiers had an extra 1.5 minutes to complete the same distance, perhaps someone can advise if this is still the case!
Ìý
DL, the modern BPFA is not at all different different from your BFT, wander why they even bothered to phase it out! Women still have 12 minutes where men have 10.5. Women also do 23 fewer pushups than men. The values for situps are the same.
Personally, I don't have any problem with women serving how they do at the moment in the British Army. Men and women seem to be equally competant as engineers, gunners, signallers etc. I would, however, protest strongly against women joining the combat arms (Infantry, RAC, RM and SF). This is not because it would effect my machismo, I already know that there are women out there who are fitter than I am, but because psychological evidence suggests that front line unit cohesion breaks down if the unit is not homogeneous. A more conclusive study showed that the fighting effectiveness of a unit breaks down very quickly if a female member is hit or killed, compared with another man.
Perhaps the answer to this is that women could join the combat arms if they were in wholly distinct units. That would certainly spark the inter-unit competitions that the Army loves so much!Ìý
KCL, Welcome to the boards (don't think I've had the pleasure previously).
Good points. I can't help but have a horrifically scary image forced into my mind. Can you imagine it, one night you are sat in your local enjoying a beer, and the door opens, and in walks a platoon of female paras on a night out?!!?!?! Sheer terror...
I would think that the thought of being attacked by a force of female combat troops would probably un-nerve any opponent!
Good idea though, theoretically. Since the natural instinct to protect females would kick in if we had a mixed unit, but I see no reason why they can't do the same job. I knew some female soldiers who were much scarier than many male ones, and twice as hard!!
Cheers
DL -
Message 11
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2005
It could be argued that some women have always gone to war. The recent programme on Marlborough's Blenheim campaign mentioned that there was one woman who fought in the ranks of the British army. Nelson's navy had women on board most ships and they certainly participated during sea battles. The Russian WW2 air force also had many women pilots who flew in action.
More importantly, however, up until the 20th century every army used to have its camp followers. By all accounts they could be a fearsome lot, certainly well capable of looting and plundering. It is only a small step from there to being in the front line. -
Message 12
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2005
Well I guess I’m in trouble. I think they should stay at home. Keep the home fires burning. Tend to family business and make some money. Feed my horses and oil my gun collection. Take care of the kids, let us guys do the fighting. There is no behind the lines anymore. You would spend half your time worrying about her needs and welfare. A woman screaming in horrific pain would unnerve a lot of fighting men. I imagine it’s hard enough having to listen to men doing the same. Then would come the sexual tension. Who is getting some and who aint. There is a place for female nurses, but not in a combat zone. They can serve and contribute at home that would release a guy for the fight. War is not a woman’s business.
Cheerz. -
Message 13
Posted by laforgem (U2405289) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2005
No one in the US gov hyped the Lynch story, it was done by the media.
The US media liked the idea of a fair haired blue eyed woman warrior, just like they loved the murder and rape gangs story after Katrina. Part of the whole woman are as good as men thing. The media hyped it.
Woman are as good at killing as men, I would argue better. They are harder psychologically. Men in every society are raised by their mothers after all.
Think about it. -
Message 14
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
Well I guess I’m in trouble. I think they should stay at home. Keep the home fires burning. Tend to family business and make some money. Feed my horses and oil my gun collection. Take care of the kids, let us guys do the fighting. There is no behind the lines anymore. You would spend half your time worrying about her needs and welfare. A woman screaming in horrific pain would unnerve a lot of fighting men. I imagine it’s hard enough having to listen to men doing the same. Then would come the sexual tension. Who is getting some and who aint. There is a place for female nurses, but not in a combat zone. They can serve and contribute at home that would release a guy for the fight. War is not a woman’s business.
Cheerz.Ìý
Matt you surprise me! As for the "screaming in horrific pain" bit, I can't see that as any worse than the screams from anyone wounded, they are equally horrific, and regardless of the sex of the wounded person, they stay in your mind till the day you die anyway, so what is the difference?
OK hows this for a solution? Instead of the politicians and old men sending their troops off to fight and die for government policy (Clausewitz was correct), why not set up a little combat zone somewhere, and send the politicians into it (kind of like paintball but with real ammo?), and let them fight it out amongst themselves? If this was the case, I reckon diplomacy would always find a way (Although I reckon Bush would be well up for it-particularly a good ol' Wild West shoot out against bin Laden!) It would make good TV too!!!
Call it "Diplomacy Deathmatch"!!!
As for your gun collection, what on earth are you doing heading off to war and leaving it at home????!!!! You may as well take the Hummer too-if it's the civilian version, its bodywork will be much better protection for you than the ones your troops get issued with (you could even upgrade it with some armour and mount some nasty weapons on it!!!). Sorry getting carried away there.
In fact, I do believe I am talking a load of gubbins today (my favourite word of the week!), so I'm off.
Cheers
DL -
Message 15
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
I'm quite sure that each unit of the FFLegion had its own detachment of women who were 'unofficially' part of the regiment. It's something which may still continue, perhaps in places like Djibouti (s'cuse spelling) where there's not a great deal going on. I dont think they actually took part in any action of a military kind, I think they were more for..shall we say...companionship?
-
Message 16
Posted by gooserss (U1983611) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
i think if you look at the way the us military made annoncements on the situation you would see they were part of the hype. calling an emergency press conference, telling the press that it was on the presidents highest agenda, sending elite spec forces in to storm an undefended hospital, releasing the edited footage etc.
There had already been an attempt to hand her over to the us military, but the ambulance had been fired on by the us troops.
Do you not think it was used as a good luck dramatic rescue story to please the american people ? Did the rape story come slowly from the media only ? -
Message 17
Posted by KCLUndergrad (U2561619) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
Whoever it was who mentioned the camp followers - spot on! The female camp followers of armies had worse reputations that the soldiers for certain things - principle among them being looting. Whereas the men would treat dead soldiers with some form of repect, they were stripped of anything of value by the camp followers. That went for men of their own army as well as the enemy. There is a good picture of this taken from the Peninsula War, but can't cite a reference unfortunatly.
To DL: a) Clausewitz was certainly right, I recommend you read 'The Transformation of War' (UK title 'On Future War') by Martin Van Creveld for a point by point destruction of Clausewitz. I don't agree with his arguments and his writing is atrocious for an academic text but is interesting to see such a detailed rebuke of Clausewitz b) I wholeheartedly support your suggestion of sending the politicians into a war zone, parliament already has its own unit of the army to foster better relations (kind of an MP's cadet unit), perhaps it should use conscription to get the rest of the lower house involved and blooded!! -
Message 18
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
Many Thanks KCL,
I will see if I can get hold of a copy, and post some thoughts afterwards. Surely the man must have massive urge to self-destruct his career by targetting von Clausewitz for rebuke? I doubt there are many in the field of military history who would consider his works to be too flawed?
Cheers -
Message 19
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
I am sure I read somewhere the the US Navy did a study of it's pilots and concluded the women were better than men, as they were;
1. Better able to multitask, leading to
2. Cooler under pressure
3. Less likely to go and do the "stupid" thing rather than sticking to orders...
But I might be wrong! -
Message 20
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
KCL,
Just a thought, but I'd always thought that the looting of dead soldiers on the battlefield was considered perfectly normal up until modern times, indeed if you look at the Napoleonic Wars, it was almost a respectable way of supplementing your income!
Going back to camp followers, they were equally likely to loot the dead, and indeed predispositioned towards finishing off the wounded, then looting them! However, life as a camp follower can't have been too great either, a defeat meant untold horrors, and they were pretty much passed from man to man if their "husband" was killed. Or maybe I've been reading too many "Sharpe" novels!!!!
Cheers -
Message 21
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
Expat
This discussion it somewhat similar to that one,about 50 years ago in US regarding to the black boys,who up till then mostly had been kept as noncombat troops in the logistical chain.
And to have a black officer ordering whites was out of the the question.
That debate was as silly as this one,the only thing thats count as a soldier or for that case in any jobb is if you messaure up,regardles of gender,race,relegoius or political believs,sexual prefferences etc etc.
The female military personal I´ve met are mostly both competent and motivated.
I do howewer totaly agree with DL that the standards should be the same and set after the appointment and not the gender.
For an example when I was a young second leiutenant,was I some years placed with our artic rangers altough I have a bigger brashat today,would I be incable to go out on a patroll with them today.I´m not fit enough and never vill be how hard I train that job is for youth,altough I dont doubt that a couple of Sami hunters in my age mid 50 ths,still mesure up.
So my conclusion its just a matter of time and it will quite natural to have women in all arms including special forces.
About your thinking that it would be worse to here women shoting in pain,I seriously doubt it.
y friend
Hasse -
Message 22
Posted by hallamhal (U2549864) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
i think you mean ' female soldiers' not warriors
warriors are not part of a standing army.
oh, what about molly 'pitcher'? -
Message 23
Posted by KCLUndergrad (U2561619) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
DL
Van Creveld says that the future of war will be low intensity conflicts. He then goes on to say that von Clasuwitz' strategy is not relevent to modern and future war. The thing is that it isn't professional suicide because he says what his audience wanted to hear - the Israeli and to an extent US armies have lapped up his findings. It seems that there are plenty of people who have decided to blame modern military failures on Clausewitz, giving Creveld a healthy audience.
As for looting, it certainly was a key aspect of warfare but I'm not sure until when. Certainly during the middle ages war was more of a buisiness venture than anything else, but in a recent lecture given at the National Army Museum, Chelsea, the museum's directer of something or other talked about women in war, focussing on the camp followers in the peninsular war especially. She said that they had this fierce rep. for being the most likely to loot a corpse than anyone else!
They were definatly passed from man to man. One great anecdote from the Peninsula:
A woman stands crying at the graveside of her husband. The gave was still open, as the funeral had only finished minutes before. A sergeant moves upto the bereaved and ask"I know this is awfully insensitive at this time, but I was wandering if I might ask for your hand in marriage?". The woman's tears turn to floods and she begins wailing, before saying "Oh no! I just accepted an offer from a corporal"! -
Message 24
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
HasseTh,
Great to see you. For sure they are capable, It just does not sit right with me. A guy is raised to feel protective of women. To see them in harms way is counter cultural. Myself it would be an awful experience to hear anyone screaming with a horrendous wound, but a guy can soldier thru that better than to hear a woman. That is only my opinion. Combat vets like DL and Mani tell me it would be no different. We have many female soldiers. When they leave West Point most are already para qualified. We have females in most jobs except combat arms. It's my opinion they should be doing something different.
Good to see you,
Cheerz. -
Message 25
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
Exp
I agree that we disagre
,but that is more of a cultural thing.
I´m growned up to regard women as my equals,so personally have I no trouble to serve with them,altough we still havent one that outrank me but that is probably just a matter of time
.
Y friend
Hasse
P.S.
About getting loud when hurt I think women are quiter,remember the pain they go through giving birth. -
Message 26
Posted by hallamhal (U2549864) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
that is a worse sound than soldirs any day!!
-
Message 27
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 25th November 2005
Just as an afterthought,
Women soldiers do guard duties at British Military bases the same as men. Does that class as a frontline combat role? OK I would say no if you consider it at some barracks in Catterick Garrison, but a recent programme I saw on the British deployment in Basra featured a female NCO who was quite happily standing guard on a base there, sat behind sandbags with a GPMG ready to rock and roll, and she seemed to have no qualms about it, and neither did her colleagues.
I found it interesting that she said that any insurgent who attacked the base wouldn't know he was up against a female soldier, he would just see the helmet, flak jacket and a GPMG pointed his way. So, does that mean that female soldiers are already (in a limited way) in the frontline? Going back to 1994, on an exercise with the US 1st Inf Div (Mech), I myself did a guard duty with a US female soldier, although she was unarmed, I was armed, so is the situation different with the US?
Cheers
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.