Say Anything Blog

What say you, guys? Can you not maintain control of your behavior around women soldiers?

It is women who civilize men.

Men without women behave badly.

The idea that women are, generally, equivalent to men when it comes to soldiering is absurd on its very face.  Men simply have more of the physical qualities necessary for the job.  It’s not that women can’t do it, it’s just that men are generally better.

Just like sports, which is why most sports segregate men and women into separate categories.

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Lyudmila Pavlichenko

one of the 2000 Soviet female snipers, of whom only about 500 ultimately survived the war.

Pvt. Pavlichenko fought for about two and a half months near Odessa, where she recorded 187 kills. When the Germans gained control of Odessa, her unit was pulled to be sent to Sevastopol on the Crimean Peninsula. In May 1942, Lieutenant Pavlichenko was cited by the Southern Army Council for killing 257 German soldiers. Her total confirmed kills during World War II was 309, including 36 enemy snipers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko#World_War_II

Rob, would you resent serving with a female to watch your back? Would you resent having to take orders from one to the extent that you felt the need to punish her for being female? As Ms. Parker implies, is that a plausible reason for rape? Or is it perhaps that these low-lifes would have behaved in the same manner at home?

Margie, I know many women I would go through a door with, and many more men I would not go through a free buffet with. This is a subject that is entirely subjective, dependant upon the disposition of the individuals involved. You never know who the tigers are till the fire flys, then you see who goes for cover, who goes for the rear, and who moves up and eliminates the source of resistance.

That is the measure of a soldier.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

And woofie, Lyudmila broke a pile of sticks, as she termed killing Germans. And died an old woman, proud of her time in the fire.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2H9, do you find the idea of a female columnist tring to blame the bad behavior of some soldiers on proximity and resentment of females as repugnant as I do? It is like she is excusing thier behavior or blaming it on the women.

Obviously, if women are the equivalent of men on the battlefield, all those special benefits and protections of Domestic Violence and Sexual Harrassment laws are surplusage.

Evidently, contrary to everything you might have witnessed in mixed-sex training, the very things that make women so different from men, doesn’t mean they can’t hold their own on forced marches, physical training, the G’s in high performance aircraft, the brute strength needed to keep the EP-3 Aries airborne after its control surfaces were torn away by a Chinese interceptor—not really needed.

Don’t believe that having the male-female interaction at play will mess with unit cohesion, the chain of command or espirit de corps because everyone will be equal and perform and be completely the same.

And forget that months in the field under conditions that would kill a rat, constantly being dirty, sweaty and freezing and boiling in turns, short of sleep for months on end, won’t give rise to serious infections to delicate female parts, or that knees, ankles and feet will fall victim to the ravages of uneven terrain at night under a combat load or jump training.

I love these maroons who think soldiering consists of driving your SUV out into the woods, changing into a green tree suit, hefting a rifle and making scary-face for the camera.

It isn’t.

In close combat, females will die in great numbers, as did the Amazons of Dahomey, who were slaughtered after the English got over the first shock of having to shoot women. 

The gaps in our lines, opened because female troops, pressed into service as if they were males, will cause many others to die as enemy troops pour into the gap, outflanking other allied positions.

Once taken PW they were suffer the same fate women have suffered from time immemorial --rape.  Moreover , the enemy will be be able put the greater mind-fuck on captive male troops by raping, or threatening to rape—their female sisters-in-arms.

It’s stupidity on stilts.

Women are great-- I cherish, love and adore them, but they are not men.  Any good fighter knows that the path to victory is to capitalize on your strengths and not allow the enemy to exploit your weaknesses.

Putting a female in a combat infantry position turns this on its head.  Women can serve wonderfully in headquarters and support positions, logistics and supply, intelligence and Admin.  They can serve in other support positions, freeing men for the heavy lifting of combat arms.

Putting females toe to toe with enemy male soldiers is sending sheep to slaughter.  It’s not just stupid, it’s criminally stupid.

Just remember, those who campaigned for it now will be at fault when disasters happen in the foreseeable future.

...for great justice

I have strengths in certain areas; some things I’m not so good at. This is true for all us. Any smart ‘leader’ will utilize individual people in the areas they are strongest at—the places where their contributions are of maximum benefit.

The subject really doesn’t need to get any deeper than that.

MZ, you are correct. We can not draft females enmass and throw them into frontline Infantry Battalions. Or Artillery Battalions. Or Armor Squadrons. There are many MOSs that females can effectively fill, and yes, there are women who are well suited to combat. And not all of them are bulldykes. I have known and do know women my size, 5’7” 140-180lbs who are fully capable of combat operations. And many men who are wholly unsuited to serve in combat.

That is our reality today. All volunteer. And the base dynamics of warfare are in flux. Technology is a dual edged bitch.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Margie,

I suggest that you go back and re-read Ms. Parker’s column again… carefully.

Parker starts by pointing to the past week’s two prominent stories of women in combat being raped.  Neither story was true, and in the case of the NYT story, Ms. Parker’s description of “untrue” is generous to a fault, as the woman involved, Navy veteran Amorita Randall, had not been raped and had never been in Iraq as she had claimed… facts which the Times had known for months prior to publication.

Parker’s point was not that male soldiers should be expected to control their testosterone and weren’t doing so, but that females should never have been put in a position of close proximity to combat operations in the first place.  The resentment toward the women is because the men are being forced to live with the lie that the women are as capable as the men, when the men, officers and enlisted personnel alike know better.

It’s the lie that breeds contempt.

The fault lies with the Pentagon and others who have capitulated to feminist pressures to insert women into combat. Although women are prohibited from direct ground combat and are assigned primarily to support roles, the lack of clear boundaries in Iraq has eliminated the distinction.

Wishful thinking and bureaucratic expansion won’t likely solve the problem of sexual conflict in the war zone, but a more-rational military structure that keeps women and men apart would help.

The solution to the problem would be a lot less political correctness and a little more common sense.  Women may be as deadly as men… in some situations.  But the instantaneous and sustained aggression necessary for success in combat make a war zone a poor place for any female, not just because she may not measure up, but because of the inherent distraction of her very presence.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

You are right, Bat One, that I reacted with indignation without completely thinking it through. That one sentence, where she said that women were not as good as men and the overall tone of blaming the women’s presence for bad behavior set me off.

Being, I hope, a half-way sensible person, I have to admit that what you all say makes sense. For MOST women. There are exceptions who would perhaps make good leaders in a women’s corp. After slapping down my feminist outrage, I can see that the separation of men and women in the armed forces would be best for both. But not for the demeaning reason she implies. Just the oposite. The protectivness of the men toward the women would give the enemy a big advantage.

Thank you for a glimpse into the thinking of our male warriors.

The protectivness of the men toward the women would give the enemy a big advantage.

Exactly. Women on the battlefield are a distraction for a whole different reason than many self-styled feminists believe. It’s a good distraction in life and in tribal survival, but not for the battlefield where the objective or mission is put above anybody else’s specific life.

So in answer to Margie’s question of “Can you not maintain control of your behavior around women soldiers?”, the answer is a resounding “NO!” Women change men’s behavior by their mere presence. This is usually a good thing. But in the battlefield it is a liability.

Margie, this post of yours was fairly insulting to our soldiers.

Absolutely not, Lik! If anything, the inference that our soldiers cannot hold to a civilized standard of conduct in a war situation is the insulting part. I do not believe that the lowering of inhibitions and the forgetting of all morality is inevitible unless we protect the women from our own troops by separating them. This was never about putting women in combact rolls, which ya’ll have convinced me would only be handing the enemy a weapon to use against us, it is about the behaviour of our own troops. I feel that the ones who are guilty of this behavior would have done so in a civillian capacity as well. In which case, more selectivity in the soldiers allowed to join is the answer, not separation. I have only the highest regard for the military. Ms. Parker seems to have doubts about your ability to control yourself so severe that she does think you deserve to be around females.

Hi Margie! A long time ago, late one evening, you and I and a couple of other people enjoyed a long and good debate, I am glad to see you back. Didn’t you ever finish that can of peaches?

Strangely, I think all things asserted here are basically true:

1. Close proximity of male and female soldiers in the field will change the dynamics of military units, often not in a positive way. Men always have and unless they are girly men, will always protect women at their own risk and thus expose themselves to greater risk.
2. Close proximity of male and female soldiers, in the field on a 24-hour per day situation will result to very normal sexual attractions and conduct. Yet, at home on any military base those hormonal tensions are greatly reduced, because there are ways and means to relieve those very natural feelings and desires.
3. Because of natural male hormonal aggression, with male and female soldiers living together in the field, it can have a negative impact upon good military discipline. Remember, these are mostly young, virile men and while not always particularly beautiful in combat gear; horny guys will still find irresistable attractions to them, and all of this can have a very negative impact upon unit cohesion.
4. You are right that we should not condone or encourage these normally well disciplined young men and woman to allow their hormones to run amok. Also, while I never faced this situation back in ancient times in Nam, I would hope that more mature soldiers, male and female would play a positive role in keeping these problems to a minimum, and I suspect they do.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

LoL! Thanks, Neiman. I remember many good debates here. But I began to feel more like a troll than a legitimate participant.
Tried to replace the can of ravioli with a more updated picture, but my inept self couldn’t do it.

I grudgingly concede that bowing to common sense rather than sticking to an idealistic position and expecting things to be the way they should be rather than the way they really are is not practical. My Letter to the Editor, very much like the post was published in the Times-Dispatch today. It will be interesting to see the response in very military minded Virginia. We have had some sexual harrsasment scandals in military schools here lately.