A Crash Course in Feminism Mk. II (or, why everyone should be a feminist)

[Psychosplodge]

Also, more [URL="http://thesquishyone.tumblr.com/post/83695257740/ealperin-thehappysorceress-samwanda"]female armour[/URL]

[Denzark]

Why shouldn't a military reflect the society? It's not like modern western military forces get involved in fair fights anyway, otherwise they'd be in Russia right now. You can talk all you like about combat effectiveness and such like but really the days of a large standing army are behind us anyway, modern combat means the only issue with female soldiers would be the male soldiers attitudes. Perhaps we should just ban male soldiers from front line duties, that would solve all the problems then.

I'll take these one at a time:

1. A military force shouldn't reflect the society it protects because that's not what its there for. It simply can't - old, young, disabled, blind, etc. So you have an established principle of not reflecting demographics for demographics sake.

2. No military gets involved in fair fights by choice. (the fact you make this sound a bad thing probably means you are being deliberately provocative or just don't understand). We prefer unfair fights - the more advantage over the enemy the better. Western military has not got involved in the Ukraine because their democratically elected governments haven't told them to is all.

3. You don't define 'large standing army'. You then talk about 'modern combat'. Many commentators who have said the days of conventional warfare are over, are keeping quite schtumm because it would appear from Ukraine that there is more of a risk now that we will be doing something 'old school' against - wait for it - a large standing army. Have a little think about that paradox.

4. 'The only issue with female soldiers would be men's attitudes' Yes correct. That is the crux of the matter. The question can be boiled down to: Do the potential positives of including females in dedicated combat roles outweigh the potential negatives of attitude and the potential disruption in the period of the attitude correction until it becomes the norm? As to rectifying the problem by removing men from the front line, I would support that - if science backed the fact that the average female physique is stronger than the average male physique.

[URL="http://www.polygon.com/2014/4/23/5640678/playing-with-privilege-the-invisible-benefits-of-gaming-while-male"]Great article on male privilege in gaming culture[/URL]. Read it before jumping to conclusions, it actually breaks down how it works and what it is quite neatly.

On the military issue, the experience in Israel and the US has demonstrated that women CAN function on front lines as effectively as men. The argument about whether or not we can is over. The argument about whether or not it is healthy is the same argument that was used against black servicemen and then LGBT servicemen and in both cases it was shown to be false and the same will happen with women.

There are huge differences between dedicated combat roles (infantry) in conventional warfare and what US and Israeli women have been doing in assymetrical campaigns/counter insurgency. Besides Israelis have a whole different problem being conscripts. It is easy to find numerous examples of how unprofessional some of these citizen soldiers are.

If a person meets the physical standards to perform front line duties then they should be able to regardless of gender, it is that simple. Many women can, just like many men can't. The only difference is women have been barred from doing so and men have built this giant edifice of bull**** to convince themselves only they can do it.

This line starts well and degenerates into histrionics. For 'giant evidence of bull' read long ingrained socialisation - protect the woman - with long experience of how a divisive element can prevent a formation from operating at full efficiency. I am NOT saying it isn't wrong or old fashioned. I am NOT saying it can't be overcome. I am NOT saying 'all women are a divisive element'. I AM saying that the reward for inclusionhas not been cohesively argued to outweigh potential risk. It has absolutely nothing about men convincing themselves that only they can do it. That is feminist spin and patently untrue.

I don't think its comparable to allowing mixed ethnicities to serve together. I don't think the issue is as divisive in the UK as the US, as far as I'm aware we've never had anything like the jim crow laws.
Anecdotally I've heard of several instances during WW2 where white GIs had trouble with locals after coming into pubs and causing trouble with black GIs already there.

I think the empire always employed willing volunteers from anywhere most obvious example being the gurkhas.

A good point Psycho. Although we would usually keep Native troops (the term of the time not me being offensive) separate from the British battalions in any given campaign (accommodate not fighting) because of long held wisdom that groups of troops do better when within their own social groupings. Sounds familiar?

[eldargal]

This line starts well and degenerates into histrionics. For 'giant evidence of bull' read long ingrained socialisation - protect the woman - with long experience of how a divisive element can prevent a formation from operating at full efficiency. I am NOT saying it isn't wrong or old fashioned. I am NOT saying it can't be overcome. I am NOT saying 'all women are a divisive element'. I AM saying that the reward for inclusionhas not been cohesively argued to outweigh potential risk. It has absolutely nothing about men convincing themselves that only they can do it. That is feminist spin and patently untrue.

I'm not saying you are saying those things, but long ingrained socialisation based on nothing is still a giant edifice of bull****. As to the issue of inclusion, not allowing women in because you think you will struggle ti maintain unit cohesion or whatever is still blaming women for the immature and unprofessional behaviour of men. Our armed forces is supposed to both protect and represent the moral values of the society it protects and it cannot do that if it is a bastion for things which run contrary to that moral core. When you talk about potential risks of allowing women into front line duties I see evidence that most men lack the emotional maturity to be there, but they get a pass because Reasons.

A good point Psycho. Although we would usually keep Native troops (the term of the time not me being offensive) separate from the British battalions in any given campaign (accommodate not fighting) because of long held wisdom that groups of troops do better when within their own social groupings. Sounds familiar?

Gender segregated units would be a reasonable response to the 'problem', I believe Israel does that?


[URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24622762"]There is also Canada[/URL]

Those who argue against putting women into combat sometimes say that a woman would not be able to carry a wounded fellow from the battlefield. Collette says she was tested every year in "soldier carry" and "soldier drag" exercises. Although she was paired with someone of a similar weight to herself, lifting bigger people using the "fireman's carry" is not as hard as you might think when you know how.

A priority in any infantry unit is to develop team cohesion. The traditional way to do this is to train, eat and sleep as a unit. But when Canadian female soldiers were first placed on the front line, they were segregated from the men.

It didn't work. Now they are mixed in together, and sleep in the same dorm.

This does present some logistical challenges, but Collette took pains to be modest. While the men slept in boxer shorts, she would wear pyjamas. While training in Canada, she would climb into a cupboard to change, or pull her sleeping bag around her and change underneath.

"Normally this would be a successful endeavour," she says wryly, before going on to describe a sleeping bag malfunction in which somehow the thing slipped from her grasp and she was left standing in electric blue knickers and bra. Someone shouted "Look at Ashley!" and all the men turned to laugh.

"I laugh with them because what can you do? I pull the sleeping bag up and change my clothes and everyone carries on, because you have way bigger things to worry about."

In Afghanistan, she shared a room roughly 3m x 4.5m (10ft by 15ft) with up to 10 people. But if anybody needed privacy they would just ask for it.

When you share a small space with a group of men for a length of time, they become like your brothers, she says. When men from other units came to her platoon and made the mistake of commenting on her appearance, her own soldiers cut them down.

[Psychosplodge]

Gender segregated units would be a reasonable response to the 'problem', I believe Israel does that?

It would probably be the most sensible way to have female frontline infantry.
No ideas about the practicalities.
Though Israel does appear to live in a constant state of siege mentality.

[eldargal]

Seems it didn't work for Canada and they are much closer to us culturally than Canada.

[Psychosplodge]

That sounds like they were having mixed units with separate barracks?

[eldargal]

Pfft, semantics. But yes.

[Denzark]

As to the issue of inclusion, not allowing women in because you think you will struggle ti maintain unit cohesion or whatever is still blaming women for the immature and unprofessional behaviour of men.

Unfortunately soldiers can be immature and unprofessional at times. It is not blaming women for it - it is just a fact. They are young and often not academically qualified. Again, the question is: Is modifying their behaviour worth the end result?

Our armed forces is supposed to both protect and represent the moral values of the society it protects and it cannot do that if it is a bastion for things which run contrary to that moral core.

I agree and disagree. The armed forces often are required to operate outside that morality and do horrible things. Kill that person. Leave that one to die in open ground because I need all my troops in cover. Where I disagree is that the current status quo is not an immoral decision - it is amoral. It has nothing to do with equality and all to do with military effectiveness. I genuinely don't believe there are a load of sexist old Generals who merely want to preserve the old boys club - because we don't find them in the trenches.



When you talk about potential risks of allowing women into front line duties I see evidence that most men lack the emotional maturity to be there, but they get a pass because Reasons.

The forces deliver EFFECT. Emotional maturity is irrelevant as long as the required military effect is delivered. How will the inclusion of women make this more likely?


Gender segregated units would be a reasonable response to the 'problem', I believe Israel does that?

I think I'd be in favour of this as a starter.


[URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24622762"]There is also Canada[/URL]

I really dislike this Canadian example. Canadian military have trialled lots of things. Including merging all 3 services into one. This failed to deliver any benefits - the negatives from smashing the Navy and Air Force into one great blob with the Army outweighed the things like 'ooh we can only have one uniform how much cheaper'. Secondly, she was on the front line - it is not clear that she was infantry. The front line is blurred for sure in Afghanistan. But we should train for 'A war' not 'The current war'. We will not always do counter insurgency. To say that there will never be a conventional war again is as naïve as Neville Chamberlain. May of these examples are front line of Afghan but NOT combat dedicated troops - which you will see at link above the US is still considering. Also, in the Captain's quotes, at one point, the troops call her by her first name.

Instantly does not ring the most professional image to me.

[eldargal]

The forces deliver EFFECT. Emotional maturity is irrelevant as long as the required military effect is delivered. How will the inclusion of women make this more likely?

But if their immaturity is being used an excuse to bar half the population from serving their country then it is relevant. It amounts to 'we are going to stop women doing something they can do because that is easier than raising young men to ****ing behave themselves and act professionally in a professional military'. I mean these exact same arguments were used decades ago to try and bar women from workplaces because they would be distracting.

In other news:

Afghanistan in the 1950s. Prior to the Soviet and Taliban eras Afghanistan was well on its way to being a relatively prosperous, democratic constitutional monarchy with equality for women at a similar level to the West. It all got shot to pieces. This is (one reason) why feminism is important because the idea that what we have achieved now cannot be lost is as false as the idea we are post-sexism and feminism is obsolete. Also next time someone tells you Afghanistan has always been a hellhole and nothing will ever change thump the ignorant ****.

[URL="http://news.distractify.com/people/scenes-from-the-past-you-never-expected-never-seen-before/?v=1"]Photo source[/URL]

[Psychosplodge]

I never knew that. So was that right up to the soviet invasion or did the fundamentalists appear first?