Female Combat Soldiers in T2K

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by jester

But, then again the overall ability of women would degrade the units ability. Moving by foot would would be much slower, women would only be able to serve as riflemen, as often the loads of crew served weapons would be beyond their ability to manage for very long.

Those are just some simple observations at the moment.

I think that relative to each person and over simplifying things. Its the training institution's responsibility to weed out those problems. Besides, from my experience size means little - I'm was the smallest guy in my infantry section and never fell out of any foot march or had my gear and weaponry downsized.

If females can make it to the special forces, I'd say 'enough' could be trained into combat troops at the same level.

[Mohoender]

I'm not really sure that I want to get back on that issue. I continue to disagree guys as I think you underestimate women. I also think that you are thinking from wrong bases.

In T2K, the women you are talking about won't be the one you can find today. They won't be there to make a point or because they want some kind of equality (or whatever you call it) but simply because they have no other choices.

Concerning their hability, I have no doubt about them but that won't be an issue anymore. Concerning the military you'll find them around, completing the losses and that would be true in many armies. Strangely I have the feeling that they would be less numerous in the US forces than in any other forces (including muslims) but that's only a matter of opinion. In some armies, you might very well find them in large numbers (Russia, Israël...).

Whatever, the place of women would have changed dramatically from what it is today and I expect several social structure to exist under the Twilight.

1) Societies where women would be more or less enslaved to their master men.
2) Women forming independent communities from which men would be banned. In that case they would feel the rank of every social aspect, including defense.
3) Structures where women are doing most of the work (if not all) and where men are essentially entitled to provide defense. I think that this will be the most common social structure with either a matriarcal or patriarcal organization.

Anyway, women in T2K won't be complaining about speed or about carrying heavy stuff. If they can't do that, they are dead meat anyway. Your idea of women is similar to that of your fathers and grand fathers when they were saying that women wouldn't be able to work in factories. Two world wars proved them entirely wrong and pre-1950 factories had nothing in common with our current factories. You also easily forget that each time men are going to war, women have to take everything else in charge (strangely I really like the fact that I'm a man ). In my opinion, the only limitation to women enlisting in armies is men (and probably feminists). From, the last discussion we had on that subject what I recall is that men cannot take it. We should start thinking with our brain and I mean the upper part of it (no offense). Of course you have physical limitations but T2K is a world of adaptation. If you can't adapt, you are out!

As Sacha Guitry was saying: I'll willingly grant superiority to women if only they could stop pretend to be my equal.

[kato13]

One thing to remember is that in times of 50% infant and 50% childhood mortality and 40 year lifespans women have to be pregnant for about half of their lives beyond the age of puberty to maintain a population. This in addition to obvious physical limitations are why historically women were kept away from combat.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by kato13

One thing to remember is that in times of 50% infant and 50% childhood mortality and 40 year lifespans women have to be pregnant for about half of their lives beyond the age of puberty to maintain a population. This in addition to obvious physical limitations are why historically women were kept away from combat.

In fact, that is more simply because they can become pregnant. You are reluctant to waste your future in combat. However, they were not banned from anything else and I still have a friend who was borned in the field. Her mother went to work in the morning, had her around noon, finsihed the work that she had and went back with the baby in the evening.

About physical limitation I don't agree at all as, historically, women tend to do work that are more physically demanding than men, it just depends on the type of work.

About being pregnant all the time, you are right but you forget that many women are not well suited for that. Many will die because of it, others will not have babies at all, several won't want to have babies... They were used at others tasks. Also being pregnant doesn't prevent you to do your full part of the job. However, obviously, you will not go to fight unless you have no choice.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

About physical limitation I don't agree at all as, historically, women tend to do work that are more physically demanding than men, it just depends on the type of work.

In my opinion, evolutionarily men are more optimized for combat and women are optimized for childbearing and rearing. Can a car designed for speed go offroad, sure. But I would still perfer a Jeep, as going offroad is what it is designed for. Biologically sacrafices have to be made. Women gain stronger abdominal muscles, better endurance in extreme situations, and pain tolerance from being optimzed for giving birth. From a combat perspective men have better agression, speed, strength, muscle recovery, navigation skills, and night vision (but worse perception of color).

I am not saying no woman could ever be as efficient as the average man in combat but if you compare averages, men are going to be more capable infantry soldiers than women are. Personally on average I think women are better than men in most jobs, but not soldiering.

[headquarters]

been used lots of times in war -as rank and file and as officers -in all women units and in mixed units .

I have served with both female soldiers,NCOs,Officers etc .

Since the women in our forces have typically been volunteers whilst the guys are conscripts there seem to be a slight difference in motivation I feel .

I think the problem with women in mixed units would be that some or all the guys would start getting antsy and a lot of drama would come up.Imagine the added pressure of war,maybe drink -alot of guns .Trouble maybe.

As for womens ability to fight - since it is all pretty much done from a fair bit of distance I quote bruce Lee - "Any fool can pull a trigger"-
meaning they use children ages 8-16 for soldiers many places -why wouldnt a full grown woman with physical and military training be able to lug her 20 kg pack and her 5 kg rifle -and shot it too.Maybe some male units /soldiers would be alot better .But compared to regular troops they would be better than them too.

I have heard about the Israeli female troops stopping to aid a wounded squaddie too -sounds like what I would do actually - but NEVER seen a shred of documentation .I have -however -read about the Finns finding their dead female red army enemies in their firing positions on top of a mound of spent machinegun shell casings -riddled with bullets- but never surrendering .It was very disturbing to the sisu of the Finns .

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by headquarters

I have heard about the Israeli female troops stopping to aid a wounded squaddie too -sounds like what I would do actually - but NEVER seen a shred of documentation .I have -however -read about the Finns finding their dead female red army enemies in their firing positions on top of a mound of spent machinegun shell casings -riddled with bullets- but never surrendering .It was very disturbing to the sisu of the Finns .

It was equally disturbing to the Germans. They made a similar observation about Red women tank crews.

[Targan]

I went through basic training with a dozen or so women and while every single one of them was enthusiastic and really put in the effort, the strongest of them was still not as strong as the weakest of the men they were training with and they had big problems carrying heavy loads over long distances. Also, back then we were only just starting to be issued Steyrs so in basic we were shooting SLRs (FN FALs) and the female recruits really took a hammering firing the 7.62N round. It was kinda sad and kinda funny at the same time.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Targan

I went through basic training with a dozen or so women and while every single one of them was enthusiastic and really put in the effort, the strongest of them was still not as strong as the weakest of the men they were training with and they had big problems carrying heavy loads over long distances. Also, back then we were only just starting to be issued Steyrs so in basic we were shooting SLRs (FN FALs) and the female recruits really took a hammering firing the 7.62N round. It was kinda sad and kinda funny at the same time.

Erf! Whe are going back to the old issue. I have a question? Why were there for, in the first place?

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by kato13

I am not saying no woman could ever be as efficient as the average man in combat but if you compare averages, men are going to be more capable infantry soldiers than women are. Personally on average I think women are better than men in most jobs, but not soldiering.

I think I understood you well kato. I'm not saying that I would use women in every combat situation but, in the case of T2K, things will be entirely different IMO. Of course, there are differences between both sexes but for many combat duty (in T2K) that might not matter that much. Most fighters won't have access to heavy equipments anyway and most will be grouped in small freedom fighter like units. Strangely, when I'm talking about snipers, the general answer is everyone in the army is not a sniper. Right, but everyone in the army is not heavy weapon crew as well. The most important thing to me is: women will have to fight in the first place.