Women?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

the point is the representation of women in CM SF:

if women are in SBCTs and tank platoons, then they should be in, if they are not, there is no reason to include them in CM SF. simple as that.

Oh, agreed. Never any doubt about that in my mind. It's just that this discussion has taken some interesting turns.

Michael

[Dillweed]

A word on steve would be nice here. Both on the game issues and his personal opinion. He seems pretty knoledgable about this stuff as its kinda his job to know it.

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

Yes but that is a recent developement (in a historical timeframe). If we were monogamic from the beginning men and women would look much more alike.

How on earth do you figure that?

Michael </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Ideas on human evolution may have changed a bit since that book was written. Most of those arguments sound pretty spurious to me.

Even in traditional societies where marriages are arranged, the male has to prove himself and often has to provide generous gifts to the bride's family. And the daughters of successful families are the ones most sought after. So the competition still remains.

Where your text may be coming from is that among what might be called "patriarchal" species, where the males compete physically for mates, and the winner usually takes all, males tend to be much larger than females.

But in "matriarchal" species where the female choses from among suitors, the female is often the larger animal.

Humans would seem to have descended from patriarchal species, but to have at least practised matriarchal mating for some tens of thousands of years, with occasional reversion to patriarchy. In general, males tend to be larger, heavier, and more robust, but the margin is much narrower than among species that have practised pure patriarchy all along.

N.B. I have used the terms 'patriarchy' and 'matriarchy' imprecisely here, I know, because I don't know the exact terms or have have forgotten them. Apologies and I hope I haven't created confusion. I think my meaning can be gleaned from the context.

Michael

[Bigduke6]

Long post, every one is warned.

There are two intwined issues that need to be separated, if you are going to think about whether women should/could be in combat.

The first is of course the question "what is combat?" For many, riding in a vehicle and in case of an ambush using paintball-type skills (with ball ammunition flying about, but overall unlikely to hurt you) is not combat. It's not dangerous enough, and it's not dangerous enough for enough time.

For some, the definition of combat includes the real threat of death, in case you make a mistake and often even if you don't, for days and even weeks. It is a situation where the soldier must often live primitively, on limited food, sleep, and support. At times, in this definition of combat, small units will get called on to perform actions - attack a well-defended position, defend a position to the death - that will get a significant percentage of the members maimed or killed, no matter what. It is a situation where death and maiming of the primal group takes place regularly, and must be dealt with.

Going by this definition, no member of the U.S. forces, male or female, is in a war right now. (Okl, maybe some super-secret special forces somewhere. I don't count them. ) The danger that the average U.S. soldier faces, at worst, is on a par with police entering a violent neighbourhood in the U.S. The death rate for professional fishermen based in New England or Alaska is worse, than that of the U.S. combat arms troops in Iraq - and far, far, worse than the danger support troops in Iraq face. The danger level in Iraq, for U.S. forces, is not comparable, not remotely comparable, to the stress placed on humans in fighting, say, at Stalingrad or LZ X-Ray, never mind, for instance, Waterloo or Agincourt.

The discussion about whether women can serve successfully in Iraq is moot. They are doing it, and they are doing it in numbers and situations that make clear they can do at least 90 per cent of what men are called on to do. In Iraq. One side has an overwhelming advantage in resources, and that's the side the women are on - women in "combat" is already a done deal.

But is that experience war? Are conclusions drawn from Iraq valid for other conflicts?

The truth about any post- Cold-War conflict involving U.S. forces, is that the people on the winning side are not placed an any serious stress, as compared to most wars that have gone before. An army that loses about as many of its people to traffic accidents, than the enemy, is not an army under particularly severe pressure.

It is just a false comparison to say that the Iraq experience vindicates women in all combat, just as it is a false comparison to say that U.S. tactics and war-fighting techniques developed against the Iraqis would necessarily prevail, or even be effective, if the opponent was a force with decent training, tradition, and weaponry such as the Chinese, Russians, or even Indians.

It would be like taking a 3rd-rate prize fighter, sticking him in a bar fight, and then when he wins concluding you have "proved" that fighter could stand up to Ali in his prime. Or even Marciano when he was getting old.

That said, "modern" war is all about a small tooth and a large tail. If your definition of war takes both tooth and tail into account, and you can keep the war modern, then there is no question but that women can participate. If 90 per cent of your force will never fight, then you never need really to address the question "Should women be fighting?" No one is going to be fighting.

To prevail in stressful, life-threatening combat, however, soldiers need several things that, frankly, are typical male characteristics. They need aggression, because that is the instinct that keeps a human fighting instead of running; and what's more makes a human willing to risk his own life, in order to kill another. It also, critically, often turns a battle survivor into a better fighter: a man who has lost his buddy very frequently wants revenge, and is willing to dehumanize the enemy.

IMO the female reaction to physical threat, violence, loss of a non-family close friend, is far less agressive and violent (and usually more rational).

For women to fit into that primal fighting group, the military needs to overcome some basic problems. For fighting and enduring in long-term combat, participants need physical strength, not just in terms of upper body, but in terms of dealing with the stress of hauling their bodies and heavy objects through an unpleasant environment for more than an hour. It is quite true that women have better endurance than men, but it is just as true that women are physically smaller than men, meaning that the less machines you have to help, the more physically difficult things get for a woman. The rifle, armor, ammunition etc. weigh the same, no matter the sex of the carrier.

Any one who has handled a Ma-Deuce MG has seen this. That sucker is hard enough to cock on a range when you're fresh. Who do you want on your .50 when every one's tired, the bullets that are flying will probably hit some one and kill them, and the regular .50 gunner just got shot: a man or a woman?

This stuff taken together makes questionable use of women in combat where it is truly stressful. Certainly, history is full of examples where a country in dire straits could have put women into combat, and elected defeat instead.

So really, the question that needs to be asked here is whether the war can be kept safe enough, to prevent severe wartime stress on your troops. If the stress is high then non-family primal bonds, agression, and physical strength come more and more into play; and all of those are female weaknesses, as compared to men.

The second issue at play is of course the human taboo on women as killers. Human society has never had a problem with women getting killed in wars or as the result of wars - in the old days it was rape, murder, and pestilence, and more recently it was carpet bombing and "surgical" strikes that happen to take out the suspected terrorist's wives and children. Human society clearly accepts deaths like that.

What human society clearly has had a problem with, throughout the ages, is the idea of women killing, and more specifically women killing men. This is not so suprising considering us humans have been on this planet for about 3 million years, and for all that time the rule has been: the men kill (be it animals or each other), the women nurture.

The placement of women into a modern military where they are doing the active killing violates that taboo, which is probably as deeply ingrained in us humans as the idea that adults should not be violent towards children, that close relatives should not have sex, or that age merits respect. Those concepts are for practical purposes universal human values. The present opinions prevailing among the wealthier members of western societies (a minority worldwide) is meaningless compared to the total human experience.

This is not to say the taboo about women killing cannot be overcome, but it is to say doing so will be neither easy nor automatic. Certainly it becomes easier when one kills by pressing a button, and sees one's enemy not as a human but a vehicle or a building. Of course, it's not always possible to eliminate all your enemies at the touch of a button.

If you want to answer the question about women in combat, you first need to decide what kind of war you are going to fight - and remember, that not always is it possible to define the terms of a war, before you decide to get your women involved.

[mazex]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mazex:

I once met a bunch of israeli girls that had just finished their 3-year military service in Greece...

Wait a sec. Why Israeli girls doing their service in Greece? Is there something I haven't been told about Greco-Israeli relations? Has Greece followied Turkey's example of military cooperation with Israel? Is Israel trying to position itself to join the EU?

Michael </font>

[Sgt Joch]

To a large point, this is a theoretical argument, the supposed superiority of men over women in combat are greater upper body strength (about 30%) and testosterone. The first is mostly irrelevant in modern combat and the second, as all men know, can lead us to make as many stupid decisions as brave ones.

It would be nice if Steve stepped in at this point to say if we will be leading all male armies or not.

[MikeyD]

Significantly more American women had died in combat in the first two years of the Iraq occupation than had died in the entire 10 years of the Vietnam conflict. And I suspect a fair proportion were middle-class midwestern moms in their mid-thirties who had been using the extra income from 2 weekends a month of National Guard service to help pay the mortgage. We don't see the coffins of female soldiers on the news because we haven't been permitted to see any soldiers' coffins coming home. "No chicks in-game because they just can't cut it" smacks of macho swagger. Behind the sentiment, though, some may want no chicks in-game because the macho business of war seems rather more cruel and inhuman when women become active participants.

[aka_tom_w]

I have done my VERY best not to contribute to this thread....

However I feel I must now say something that may seem somewhat out of character for me.....

[rant on]

ITS JUST A GAME!

How many other games of this nature, have women in them?

None?

Does BFC really need to be ground breaking on this front as well?

I think NOT.

How about keeping it simple.

The market for this game is mostly male dominated. (Does that mean is should have "chicks" in it?? I don't think so.)

How about this motto...

"CM:SF Made by men for MEN and its about modern male combat soldiers in modern combat, chicks need not apply."

[/rant off]

[Sixxkiller]

There is atleast 1 woman attached to a SBCT. Maybe not enough to model them in the game but by 2007 my guess is that since the Pentagon is pushing rather hard for women to be assingned to infantry units that it will change. Soon there will be no choice as its either let them in or draft all the men who dont want to go....

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/35/11143/printer

There ya go.

-Ray

[ November 04, 2005, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: MantaRay ]

[aka_tom_w]

That was a very informative article Ray posted.

Just so my first post is not misinterpretted, I have NO problem what so ever with women in combat roles as longer as they REALLY want to be there and volunteer for that duty or service.

No problem there .

My previous rant was a self servering plea NOT to over complicate the CM:SF game, and possibly DELAY its release by requesting YET another model and another set of animations for female units.

Just keep the game simple and leave the women out of the game so that we can play the game sooner and let them release it without any additional delay!

(please)

-tom w

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

ITS JUST A GAME!

Sounds like something I would say

I agree that whether all the characters in CMSF are men or if 1-2 are women will have no impact on gameplay. In fact, in full combat uniforms, the only noticeable differences would be the size and the faces. However if it is reasonable to expect women to be serving in Stryker brigades in 2007, it would be nice if they were included in the game.

I remember when I got Jane's F/A-18, how surprised I was the first time I had a female AI wingman. By the 10th mission, I did'nt care what sex my wingman was as long as he/she was a good shot.

[akd]

And make all the guys white so we can play it sooner. And make them all wear the same uniform so we can play it sooner. And make them all carry the same weapon so we can play it sooner. And abstract the squads down to three-man groups so we can play it sooner. Where does it end?

The reality is, in 2007 there would almost certainly be women in combat with a Stryker unit, even if they were just attached. Furthermore, any realistic depiction of the scenario of war in Syria would have to involve unit and convoy security (which women are currently actively involved in, including as .50 caliber gunners ). To try and pretend that this would play out like CMAK with modern tanks is absurd. The real war in Syria would be much like Iraq today.

And even if we look at only the "major combat" phase of OIF (only a fraction of the combat and casualties in Iraq), and try to imagine a similar scenario in Syria, it has to be kept in mind that there were women fighting and dying then.

"We live and work with the infantry," said Maj. Mary Prophit, 42, who heads a four-person civil affairs team with a Stryker battalion in Mosul. An Army reservist and librarian from Glenoma, Wash., Prophit handles security duties from the hatch of a Stryker armored vehicle, watching houses during searches and returning fire when shot at. "Civil affairs teams have to be prepared to perform infantry functions, because at any time we could be diverted," she said.

I think that says it all. 47 women in the U.S. armed forces have died in Iraq.

As far as women in the context of total, sustained war, the Soviets proved beyond a doubt that women are capable in such an environment (and this is despite the deeply ingrained chauvinism of Russian culture).

Seriously, I could replace the word "women" with "negroes" in some posts in this thread and probably dig up nearly indentical papers and statements from the '30s and '40s regarding blacks serving in the military.

[ November 04, 2005, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: akd ]

[M1A1TC]

Female soldiers are hot. I like playing with them for the sex appeal

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Long post, every one is warned.

Good post, Duke. I'm not sure I agree with all your points, but at least you made them in an intelligent, coherent manner. I wanted you to know that I appreciate that.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JC_Hare:

It would be nice if Steve stepped in at this point to say if we will be leading all male armies or not.

Perhaps Steve has remained silent because he feels that he already answered this question a couple of weeks ago and it doesn't interest him at the moment.

BTW, IIRC the answer was that no, there will not be females nor mixed races. The reason is that the increased complication to the coding just wasn't worth it at this time. Maybe later.

Michael

[Dead Horse]

The Canadian experience. "PPCLI" is "Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry", one of three full-time infantry regiments in the CF.

For what it is worth, I see no use in giving different physical capabilities to female soldiers, but would like to see them included in CM:SF. Lest anyone think them unequal to the task, this was posted at a Canadian Forces website:

As a company commander with 3PPCLI during Op APOLLO, I had a female infantryman under my command. We did the Army PT test and I had to tell her to stop at 350 sit-ups because it was becoming pointless. She had proved the point, and then some. We had another female infantry soldier who was equally hard. Neither of these PPCLI soldiiers who had met all of the "hurdles" ever let me or their fire-team partners down. They did the job, full-stop.

When we air-assaulted into the Shah-i-Kot Valley, both of those infantrymen were there. The ultra-fit soldier who had done the sit-ups twisted a knee disembtarking from the helo and had to be evacced. It was a legit injury. The other soldier did the business just like anyone else. She was later involved in a mine-strike during a routine KAF patrol that wrote-off the armoured Hummer her patrol was riding in. She got bruised and battered, but soldiered on. I give full credit to her and the soldiers that she served with in B Coy 3 PPCLI. Full-stop.

Those here who demean or otherwise question the role of female soldiers on combat operations are fundamentally wrong. I have served on combat ops with female infantrymen, and I am here to tell you that they can do "the business" just like any man can. The truth of the matter is that that most "men" don't have the parts to soldier at the sharp end. Just as most women don't have that particular inclination. But those that do have the gumption to get on a helo when they're told that that there are determined enemy awaiting them at the far end? They are genderless. A soldier, is a soldier. And I had the distinct honour of serving with genuine soldiers regardless of gender.....

When certain ladies step up to the plate, they are good to go. When we were staging for Op Torii into Tora Bora, as the acting 3 PPCLI CO I had a male Cpl from A Coy (Para) refuse to muster. He would not Air-Assault a second time, and I therefore had to send him back to Kandahar and then home. He had failed to rise to the occasion. So much for gender superiority....

The female infantry soldiers that I had the benefit of serving with in 3 PPCLI were an admitted minority. Having said that, those that did make the grade and join the unit were exceptional soldiers. They met the standard, and were good to go. Full-stop. They went on to soldier on combat operations, and did the Regiment proud. What more could one ask?

I would soldier alongside those female Patricias any day of the week. They got on the helo's when the forecast called for "pain". They got off at the other end, prepared to do the business. Most did the same, but there were some "men"who flinched to the point of refusal. Neither of the female Patricias flinched when it came time for mulitiple combat air assaults.....

The "hard men" here can spout all they like. At the end of the day, you've either faced deliberate combat operations, or you haven't. You've either encountered an unexpected life or death situation while "peace-keeping", or you haven't. If you haven't, then you have no right to comment upon the ability of female infantry soldiers to do the buisness. Am I hearing a thundering silence from the peanut gallery? I thought so.....

My thoughts on the matter of "gender equality".... for what it's worth.

Nicely sums up the utter crap being posted about lesser physical requirements and all that other nonsense. Those Patricia's were in the air and on the ground because they did the same job as the men.

If it is the same in the US, there is no point in not including them in the game, as Mike Emrys as pointed out.

[ November 04, 2005, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: Dead Horse ]

[MikeyD]

"Perhaps Steve has remained silent because he feels that he already answered this question a couple of weeks ago"

D'oh! Ah well, an enlightening philosophical/sociological thread anyway, whether or not it has anything to do with the final game

[SgtMuhammed]

Michael,

You're not going back far enough. Physical characteristics were set long before social structure. The basis of the argument is that other monogamous species, ones that are so by instinct, tend to look very much alike.

Anywhoo...it's neither here nor there. Great fun though.

P.S.

My wife is from Olympia.

[Bigduke6]

Michael,

That's right kind of you! Thank you!

I am itching to take a crack at Dead Horse's last post, but I'll try and apply self-discipline.

I will say that I have seen Chechen women who have gone through violence and destruction unseen by U.S. infantrymen in probably a generation (i.e., the U.S. soldiers were on the receiving end) and who have continued to function with astonishing bravery. These women were, of course, products of a chauvenistic and quite Muslim society; so one can't credit that behavior to equal education and government funding to women's intramural teams.

I am not arguing against female bravery and guts, not one whit. When I see what women in a place like that go through, and I then think about what it takes to rate combat pay in a first-world military these days, well, let's just say I think women like that deserve far more respect than they get.

[SgtMuhammed]

Let's not forget who was largely responsible for cleaning up Germany immediatly after WWII. With most of the men interred or otherwise missing it was women who had to reclaim building materials and remove the rubble.

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JC_Hare:

It would be nice if Steve stepped in at this point to say if we will be leading all male armies or not.

Perhaps Steve has remained silent because he feels that he already answered this question a couple of weeks ago and it doesn't interest him at the moment.

BTW, IIRC the answer was that no, there will not be females nor mixed races. The reason is that the increased complication to the coding just wasn't worth it at this time. Maybe later.

Michael </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JC_Hare:

...if you are going to respond to my posts Emrys, please refrain from using that tone, it reminds me too much of my wife when she is having her period and one nagging wife is enough for any man.

What tone? :confused: I intended that to be purely informational and matter of fact, and it still reads that way to me. If ever I mean to nag you, there won't be any doubt about it.

Michael

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Long post, every one is warned.

A short response to two tiny parts of it:-

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

The truth about any post- Cold-War conflict involving U.S. forces, is that the people on the winning side are not placed an any serious stress, as compared to most wars that have gone before. An army that loses about as many of its people to traffic accidents, than the enemy, is not an army under particularly severe pressure.

Surely (Joad mode) that all depends on what you mean by "pressure". I think there is more to "pressure" than raw casualty rates. In terms of keeping the primary group gelled and maintaining the mental health of the individuals, the occasional short, sharp bloodbath may be a lot less stressful than a sustained "low-intensity" grind over months and years. You'll often have heard it said that "the waiting is the worst bit", so more waiting and less fighting may be a much tougher proposition, psychologically, than the old-fashioned close-combat wargasm.

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

To prevail in stressful, life-threatening combat, however, soldiers need several things that, frankly, are typical male characteristics. They need aggression, because that is the instinct that keeps a human fighting instead of running; and what's more makes a human willing to risk his own life, in order to kill another. It also, critically, often turns a battle survivor into a better fighter: a man who has lost his buddy very frequently wants revenge, and is willing to dehumanize the enemy.

I'd be very interested to know your reasons for thinking those things; they do not match the picture I have of what makes people successful in combat. I do not believe that it is aggression that keeps soldiers fighting instead of running, but rather loyalty to the primary group with which they have strong social bonds. While it may be necessary to "summon up the blood" and have the red mist come down at the point of a final assault, simple animal aggression at any other time is I think most likely to result in people doing something stupid and getting themselves killed. It is for these reasons that "hate training" has been pretty well discredited, at least in the British Army, these past sixty years; it was probably Lionel Wigram's one really bad idea.

Nor have I ever seen any evidence that losing friends and a desire for revenge are important contributors to combat motivation. Likewise, the idea that people become better fighters by the experience of surviving battles seems to me to be wrong; as Lord Moran pointed out, courage is a wasting resource. Some people crack after a short time, some people crack after a long time, but everybody cracks eventually, and the more combat you experience, the closer you come to cracking, if you survive.

All the best,

John.

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JC_Hare:

...if you are going to respond to my posts Emrys, please refrain from using that tone, it reminds me too much of my wife when she is having her period and one nagging wife is enough for any man.

What tone? :confused: I intended that to be purely informational and matter of fact, and it still reads that way to me. If ever I mean to nag you, there won't be any doubt about it.

Michael </font>