What tempers the steel of infantry

[WarriorDiplomat]

http://warontherocks.com/2015/09/what-tempers-the-steel-of-an-infantry-unit/

[Old Dog New Trick]

Horaaah!
(that's well said in Marine speak)

[WarriorDiplomat]

http://warontherocks.com/2015/09/what-tempers-the-steel-of-an-infantry-unit/

What Tempers the Steel of an Infantry Unit
Gregory Newbold
September 9, 2015

It is artificial to constrain the debate about women in the infantry to physical capabilities. This doesn't address what holds an infantry unit together in the worst conditions humanity has to offer.
13902532207_da93f7752b_o
Print Friendly

Facebook Twitter Google+ LinkedIn

“For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.” –Rudyard Kipling, The Law of the Jungle, The Jungle Book.



The current debate about women in the infantry takes place in an artificial context, because it nearly always self-limits the discussion to physical capabilities. Within these incomplete parameters, the argument is then set, and the preamble is that physical standards and performance are measurable and what is not measurable is subjective and probably unfair.

Once physical quantifications are set as the only requirement that matters, it then stands to reason that if you can define infantry requirements in terms of, for example, a number of pull-ups, a hike with 60 to 80 pounds of extra weight, or carrying a 180-pound simulated casualty to safety, then you can assess whether females are suited to infantry units.

Honest and informed observers will acknowledge that medical science indicates that, in the physical domain, the two genders are an unequal match. Even a very fit woman is not generally the equal of a fit man. The competition is no competition in aerobic capacity, load bearing, reach, body fat percentage, and other germane measures of combat fitness. But (the informed argument proceeds), even if it is only the top 5 percent of women who can replace the bottom 5 percent of men, why not allow the 5 percent to integrate and thereby improve the combat efficiency of the unit? For example, it has been argued Ronda Rousey — the accomplished and undoubtedly tough mixed martial artist — could be an excellent addition to an infantry unit.

The falsity of this debate is found in its restriction of analysis to its physical context (as most recently demonstrated in an article published yesterday at War on the Rocks). Why is the debate limited to physical capabilities? For two reasons. First, supporters of full integration will not accept what cannot be irrefutably proven (and sometimes not even then). Second, practitioners of infantry warfare have great difficulty describing the alchemy that produces an effective infantry unit, much as it is difficult for those of faith to explain their conviction to an atheist. Try that by quantitative analysis. But allow me a poor effort to explain what tempers the steel of an infantry unit and therefore serves as the basis of its combat power.

The public understands that individuals who have engaged in brutal combat seldom want to talk about their experiences, and it is broadly thought that this is because of the horrors evoked by these memories. More generally, though, this reticence is due to an inability for one side to convey, and the other to understand, not only horrors, but the context of the fight. Saying that “It was hot” is a futile way to describe the 23rd consecutive day of temperatures over 100 degrees and flesh-soaking humidity, but the description does an even poorer job of conveying the exacerbating details — the burden of 30 to 80 pounds of personal equipment, mind-bending physical exertion, energy-sapping adrenaline highs, or the fact that the threadbare clothes you wore were unchanged for over three weeks and may have been “scented” by everything from food, to blood, dysentery, and whatever was in the dirt that constituted your bed. And don’t forget insects of legendary proportion and number. More importantly, a story thus told cannot explain that the fellow soldier or Marine who you tried desperately to put back together was the same one who shared the duties of clearing the urinals, the pleasures of a several nights of hilarious debauchery, and multiple near-death experiences — a comrade in arms who has heard more about your personal thoughts than your most intimate friends or family. So veterans of the true horrors of combat don’t talk about it. Please understand, then, that it is equally difficult to describe the ingredients of an efficient ground fighting machine, because the ingredients are intangible, decidedly not quantitative, and proudly subjective.

An infantryman’s lot is to endure what we think is unendurable, to participate in the inhumane, and to thrive in misery. Normal humans do not deliberately expose themselves to confront a machine gun that is firing at them over 10 rounds a second. “Smart” humans do not run toward the sound of gunfire. Logic does not tell you to lay down your life in the hope that you can recover an already dead comrade. And normal organizations do not strive, as their first priority, to evoke fear. For you see, the characteristics that produce uncommon valor as a common virtue are not physical at all, but are derived from the mysterious chemistry that forms in an infantry unit that revels in the most crude and profane existence so that they may be more effective killers than their foe. Members of such units deliberately reduce the individual and collective level of humanity and avoid all distractions so that its actions are fundamental, instinctive, and coldly efficient. Polite company, private hygiene, and weakness all step aside. These are the men who can confront the Islamic State, North Korean automatons, or Putin’s Spetsnaz and win every time. Believe me, you will need them, and we don’t get to choose when that will be.

In this direct ground combat environment, you do not fight for an ideal, a just cause, America, or Mom and apple pie. You endure the inhumanity and sacrifices of direct ground combat because, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” This selflessness is derived from bonding, and bonding from shared events and the unquestioning subordination of self for the good of the team. But what destroys this alchemy — and, therefore, combat effectiveness — are pettiness, rumor-mongering, suspicion, and jealousy. And when fighting spirit is lessoned, death is the outcome. So “fairness” is an obscenity. Fairness is about individuals. It’s selfish. And selfishness can kill.

Nineteen-year-old males everywhere are from Mars. They, and their early twenty-something brethren, are overloaded with testosterone, supremely confident about their invincibility, and prone to illogical antics. This sometimes produces intemperate behavior in everyday America, but the same traits are, by the way, nearly ideal for direct ground combat. The same youthful ingredients produce unacceptable behavior in the pristine and low pressure environments of boarding schools, academic institutions, and cubicle farms. Truth be told, in later stages of life these traits also lead to humiliating interactions on Capitol Hill or in the White House. Why, then, do we suppose that sexual dynamics — or mere perceptions thereof — among the most libido laden age cohort in humans, in the basest of environs, will not degrade the nearly spiritual glue that enables the infantry to achieve the illogical and endure the unendurable?

Two women just graduated from the Army’s very, very difficult Ranger School. The surprise of that is that it surprised anyone. There unquestionably are women who can pass any physical challenge the military may require. We should celebrate those who succeed and encourage others. They are worthy role models, and certainly not just to women. But the issue we’re now debating has to include a recognition of cohesion and the cost of sexual dynamics in a bare-knuckled brawl, amidst primeival mayhem, in which we expect the collective entity to persevere because it has a greater will and fighting spirit, and not because it is bigger, faster, or more agile. The championship team in virtually any professional sport may only coincidentally be the most physically talented, but it most assuredly will be the most cohesive. Why not appreciate the same ingredients in infantry units?

Finally, you may bet your future earnings that the current effort to integrate the infantry will not cease with a few extraordinary females, but will eventually accommodate a social engineering goal by changing standards. Think I am wrong? It’s already happening. Read the words and understand the goals of the current Secretary of the Navy (an arsonist in the fire department) and the Secretary of the Air Force, and examine what we now call “the Dempsey Rule.”

If I’m wrong, the cost may be denied opportunity to strong and impressive young women. If you’re wrong, our national security is shaken and there is a butcher’s bill to pay. Make your choice. The line forms on the left.



Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold (U.S. Marine Corps, ret.) is a former infantryman, having commanded units from the platoon through the 1st Marine Division. His last assignment was as Director of Operations, the Joint Staff.

[Dusty]

Outstanding thoughts.

[bailaviborita]

The feminists don't buy anything they say is a social construction. In fact, they want to use integration to change society. Many actually state that they are anti war and don't think we should have a military at all, much less a strong one...

[Badger52]

Excellent. (Trying to find a single money quote in there is futile.) Well thought out General.

[The Reaper]

I am envious that the Marines produce leaders such as this, and our Army counterparts seem so willing to openly carry water for the politicians, damn the cost or consequences to the force.

TR

[Sohei]

Well said, Brother...well said, indeed!

I wish there were more like him.

[the squid]

http://www.washingtonian.com/1979/11/01/jim-webb-women-cant-fight/

Written by Jim Webb way back in 1979.

Prophetic words. Wonder if his feelings have changed since then.

[Streck-Fu]

http://www.washingtonian.com/1979/11/01/jim-webb-women-cant-fight/

Written by Jim Webb way back in 1979.

Prophetic words. Wonder if his feelings have changed since then.

Foretelling many service secretaries but very striking considering what Mabus is doing today:

Civilian political control over the military is a good principle, but too many people, especially those involved in the political process, have lost their understanding of what that principle means.

Bravo:

It was worse when McNamara and his whiz kids began social experimentation by instituting “Project 100,000,” whereupon 100,000 borderline intellects were dumped into the military, and the military was then faulted for having failed to make them good soldiers (Harvard and Yale at that time having decided to sit out the war, and Johnson choosing to go after the mental rejects rather than the deferred leaders of tomorrow). But it has become absolutely intolerable during the 1970s. The military has a politician’s toy, a way to accommodate interest groups without losing political support in the home district. a test tube for social experimentation.

And here we are .... almost 40 years later:

The Washington Post ran a front-page feature story last July that lionized one female midshipman, showing a picture of her bracing up a plebe. Late in the article, the reporter quoted two male midshipmen who had mentioned, while drinking in a bar, that they thought the presence of women at the Academy was debilitating, and that the women midshipmen were not of particularly good officer potential.

The two men were severely reprimanded for stating their beliefs. Both were invited to resign from the Academy, and one man did leave the summer detail program. I ate dinner in the mess hall that night with a plebe summer squad. As I watched the so-called indoctrination on the mess-hall tables, several first-classmen stopped to speak of their disgust both for the article and for the treatment their classmates had received. None would speak for attribution, however. The system had scared them silent.

Interesting point but I don't think the graduates of those institutions would allow it.:

What are the other alternatives? We could stop allowing women to attend the academies at all. ROTC scholarships and OCS appointments would remain available to women, as would career opportunities short of combat roles. Or, if it is the consensus of Congress that the service academies no longer perform their historic function of preparing men to lead in combat, but are now primarily mere academic institutions, it would be logical and cost-effective to close them down. If the taxpayers, now spending $100,000 for each Academy graduate, want simply to buy a brain with military training, they can purchase that combination through an expanded ROTC program at a fraction of the cost.

[sinjefe]

http://www.washingtonian.com/1979/11/01/jim-webb-women-cant-fight/

Should be required reading for those in decision making positions.

[Box]

meh

all good to read, but never really acted on by the politicians that have the power to fix it
Many of those that author and publish these article do little to actually address what they write about.
Most of them just want to be published somewhere.

I wonder if this is presidential candidate Jim Webb or Space Telespcope/politician Jim Webb?

Either way, both are democrats, the champions of talking about shit being bad while still making sure that it succeeds.

[Pericles]

My money quotes from Webb's article:

I broke down plebe year. We all did. I went around to an upperclassman once with three M-1 rifles and held them in front of me all 33 pounds until it was physically impossible to do so. Then I held two, straight in front of me, straining until my arms hit my knees. Then one. Then seven books. Then six, five, four, three, two, one. Then a pencil. Then a toothpick, as the upperclassman gathered his friends and they surrounded me, talking about the irrelevance of pain as the toothpick hit my knees, demanding answers to questions, imploring me to resign and go home. The next night, after physically running me to exhaustion, he and three others took turns beating me with a cricket bat, telling me they would stop if I admitted it hurt. Finally they broke the bat on my ass. I returned to my room and stuck my head inside my laundry bag and cried for fifteen minutes, standing in the closet so my roommates wouldn’t see me. I hated the upperclass and I hated the Academy. But I had reached a place deep inside myself, and when I got up at 5:30 the next morning and began preparing to enter that man’s room yet another time, I knew something about myself that I could never have learned in any other way.

That may seem a sadistic and barbaric way to learn self-truths, and I would not suggest a reinstatement of plebe year to that extreme, but I will say this: When I watched 51 of my men become casualties over seven weeks in Vietnam, and when I sat down next to number 51and cried like a baby, I’d been there before. It was a lot easier to pick up and keep going, and by then I was not merely Jim Webb, plebe, trying to survive a morning of a malicious upperclassman; I was a Marine platoon commander.

I don’t see anything at the Naval Academy anymore that can take a person deep inside himself.

I went to Texas A&M and the women cadets were segregated into two companies. The guys at least had some of that experience. The cadet companies are integrated now.

During the 1975 congressional debate on the amendment that allowed women to attend the service academies, one congressman offered a substitute amendment that would have required the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study on establishing a separate academy purely for women. Under this plan, one academy could train women to be commissioned.......

The female midshipmen I interviewed unanimously resisted this possibility, claiming that it would not prepare them for leadership positions over men.

I suspect there is much more to this - are these women seeking power over men as a psychological need? Is the underlying motivation for attending the Academies and the combat arms schools and assignments?

What we won't get is a study of women in the military who are toxic leaders.

[bailaviborita]

My money quotes from Webb's article:



I went to Texas A&M and the women cadets were segregated into two companies. The guys at least had some of that experience. The cadet companies are integrated now.



I suspect there is much more to this - are these women seeking power over men as a psychological need? Is the underlying motivation for attending the Academies and the combat arms schools and assignments?

What we won't get is a study of women in the military who are toxic leaders.

I think each woman is different- but a lot of them have been indoctrinated to believe they can be men. That the sexes are social constructions...

[Joker]

I think each woman is different- but a lot of them have been indoctrinated to believe they can be men. That the sexes are social constructions...

Until they get popped in the face or their ass slapped...

[abc_123]

I think each woman is different- but a lot of them have been indoctrinated to believe they can be men. That the sexes are social constructions...

That's because "social constructions" keep them from getting punched in the face by boys when they are growing up..

Edited to add: Do boys even punch each other anymore? ??

[Box]

Do boys even punch each other anymore? ??

...not if they want to keep from getting kicked out of school.

They just build suitcase-clocks now

[Old Dog New Trick]

...not if they want to keep from getting kicked out of school.

They just build suitcase-clocks now

No, I think you're wrong there. They bring a gun to school and attempt to massacre as many as possible.

Punching someone in the face is so "old school" and boyish. Can't have none of that.

[abc_123]

...not if they want to keep from getting kicked out of school.

They just build suitcase-clocks now

That's too bad. A punch to the face by the coat closet shortly after school started was a quick and effective way in 6th grade for me to let Ricky Rodgers know that this was a new year and I really didn't feel like being called fat anymore. Once I worked my way through a couple other of the "cool" kids over the next year everyone had a good understanding and we all got along fine after that. ;)

[Sohei]

Sadly enough, in today's environment, you can't even allude to the fact you may want to kick someone's butt or you will be threatened with "terroristic threatening" and suspended or expelled.

Today, "words may in fact hurt you" without the need for sticks and stones.

That's what we have become.

[PedOncoDoc]

Sadly enough, in today's environment, you can't even allude to the fact you may want to kick someone's butt or you will be threatened with "terroristic threatening" and suspended or expelled.

Today, "words may in fact hurt you" without the need for sticks and stones.

That's what we have become.

Not always true. We've relocated to a new state in the past year - at both his previous school and his new school, my son has gotten into physical altercations with other children from his class who were trying to bully kids.

Thankfully, my son is a fine young man who doesn't stand for bullying and established a trusting relationship with his teachers. After trying through talking to them to get the bullies to stop being jerks to kids who were doing nothing wrong, he told his teachers that the bullying was happening and, if nothing was done by the teachers about it that he would. He on a few occasions has but a young punk or two on the ground - he told me he gave them a warning/choice to leave the kids alone or he would stop them himself before finally coming to blows.

He has not gotten in trouble in any of these instances because he tried to work within the system and had several children speak on his behalf when the bullies went crying to the teachers that my little man dropped them and supported his claims that he was defending the other kids.

The teachers have informed us that they didn't necessarily approve of him getting into the fights, but they have a lot of respect for his quality of character and strength of conviction to do what was right, and that he has never been angry or nasty when stopping a bad situation.

He also knows that his mother and I have his back if he is doing the right thing and we will fight any disciplinary action from the school if he was acting as he has been raised, and that we'll come down hard on him and support the school's disciplinary decisions if he's not.

Again - this has happened at 2 different schools across the country from each other, so it wasn't an isolated incident or school.

:lifter :cool:

[Sohei]

^^^You are fortunate. My co-worker had to fight the school board and the district attorney's office for exactly the same thing.

I fought the school board myself for a situation like that with my son. I know of several others personally that have suffered the "zero tolerance" death penalty.

As I said...you have been fortunate!

[Badger52]

The teachers have informed us that they didn't necessarily approve of him getting into the fights, but they have a lot of respect for his quality of character and strength of conviction to do what was right...Which apparently they lacked?

Good on your son & you; right upbringing is self-illuminating.

[PedOncoDoc]

Which apparently they lacked?

Good on your son & you; right upbringing is self-illuminating.

Yeah - my wife shamed the teachers pretty hard on their lack of resolve. We informed the teachers that the situations could've been defused prior to the physical altercations if the teachers were willing to discipline the children with whose safety they've been entrusted - our son had informed us of the bullying and reporting it to the teachers in the days leading up to the fights.

The teachers were quite uncomfortable and unwilling to accept responsibility for letting things get to that state. Some of the bullies were minority kids - I wonder how much that influenced the teachers' unwillingness to stop bad behavior out of fear of the race card being pulled on them.

ETA: The schools send a really mixed message to kids these days - they loudly display a bunch of anti-bullying messages and take pride in teaching the kids to stand up to bullying, and reassure everyone they have a zero tolerance to bullying policy - but when they are confronted with bullying they don't want to do shit about it, especially when those bullies are from a protected class/demographic.

Kids learn through observation - if they see you be true to your word and willing to put yourself in harm's way to do the right thing they will do the same - especially when they know you've got their back and you catch them being good as often as you catch them making bad choices.

[Badger52]

The teachers were quite uncomfortable and unwilling to accept responsibility for letting things get to that state. Some of the bullies were minority kids - I wonder how much that influenced the teachers' unwillingness to stop bad behavior out of fear of the race card being pulled on them. Completely believable. For all the "anti-bullying" rhetoric that is disseminated in the schools, blocks of instruction (incl 'death by powerpoint'), etc., it is empty & makes the sound of the parents of one of the kids in a Peanuts cartoon. Former AG Holder set the tone on this by saying that in order for someone to be a victim of a hate crime they have to be a member of a "historically disadvantaged class."

To your son Bravo Zulu :lifter & I say always show diversity - be willing to deck a bully on their ass without regard to their race, etc. It also may teach an object lesson to the victim at the time, that they don't have to continue wearing the mantle of victimhood so many seem to pull off the rack these days.

[Box]

sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will have Reverend Al Sharpton at the Mayors house within 24 hours if you're not careful

[PedOncoDoc]

sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will have Reverend Al Sharpton at the Mayors house within 24 hours if you're not careful

...and are also the preferred weapon from the UN - a sharply worded letter will apparently fix everything.

[GratefulCitizen]

Just an observation, and wondering if it applies to infantry.

There seems to be this idea that men are somehow naturally more aggressive than women.
I disagree.

Men are more capable of physical aggression, and better tolerate being on the receiving end of aggressive behavior.
This isn't the same thing as being prone to aggressive behavior.

Men can be physically violent towards one another, and then quickly set that aside when facing adversity which requires cooperation.
Noticed that women have more of a tendency to be subtly aggressive towards their close allies, and it often worsens when facing adversity.

IMO, the critical difference in genders is the ability to cooperate under severe stress.
All-male groups just seem to do it better than mixed-gender or all-female groups.

That's been my observation over the years.
Maybe others have had different experiences.

[ProudGSMom]

That's because "social constructions" keep them from getting punched in the face by boys when they are growing up..

Edited to add: Do boys even punch each other anymore? ??

at least the kind of creature that passes for men in their world. And no, boys don't punch each other anymore in their world either, or they can't grow up to be the kind of creature they call 'men'.

I've always said women should be allowed to do anything they want and are capable of doing, as long as they do it to the same standard as men. As a young woman of 18, 20 and even all the way into may late twenties, even after childbirth, I could do more pushups, chin-ups, sit-ups, climb a rope faster and run farther than most men. At 29, just for fun, I did the PT test with my girlfriend's husband, a Marine. He was shocked and he and his buddies treated me just a little bit like I was a freak.

They may have been Marines, but they were boys. They showed me once again boys don't like girls who are too smart or too strong. This is one of the causative factors of the feminist thinking, and it's not wrong.

But, again, the creatures feminists are surrounded with, associated with or aware of aren't men. They aren't even boys; they are some sort of emasculated chromosomally male thing capable of procreation. Perhaps if they did so less frequently, the subspecies would die out sooner as another failed evolutionary branch.

No matter how strong, tough (yes, my older brother DID punch me. I even got in fist fights with the boys in the neighborhood, usually about what a girl couldn't do) I was I could never have been an Infantry soldier. Or a fireman or even a paramedic. Nor could I have done any job that required me to carry 80+ pounds of gear, or lift much less carry a grown man. Because no matter how strong I was, I was still a 5'2" 110lb woman. All muscle, incapable of floating in water, but a female.

And that doesn't address the emotional or social side that is the unquantifiable part of the equation that has been left out of the calculations.

I dare anyone to say I'm not a fully realized, emancipated woman in control of my own destiny. In other words, I live the life the early feminists only dreamed. And I fully believe women are not capable of being the physical equal of a man in many jobs.

[Flagg]

Just an observation, and wondering if it applies to infantry.

There seems to be this idea that men are somehow naturally more aggressive than women.
I disagree.

Men are more capable of physical aggression, and better tolerate being on the receiving end of aggressive behavior.
This isn't the same thing as being prone to aggressive behavior.

Men can be physically violent towards one another, and then quickly set that aside when facing adversity which requires cooperation.
Noticed that women have more of a tendency to be subtly aggressive towards their close allies, and it often worsens when facing adversity.

IMO, the critical difference in genders is the ability to cooperate under severe stress.
All-male groups just seem to do it better than mixed-gender or all-female groups.

That's been my observation over the years.
Maybe others have had different experiences.

I've met and worked with some very aggressive females both on civvie street and in the military.

I'm 100% behind continuous improvement in best leveraging human capital to solve problems.

Because I believe our "elevator pitch" is "problem solving is our profession".

And I think effective problem solving/decision making requires diversity of thought/persepctive(the good effective, earned diversity as opposed to the bad enforced diversity).

There's been a lot of discussion(backed by solid analysis) around female physiology and combat roles:

http://warontherocks.com/2015/12/sports-science-physiology-and-the-debate-over-women-in-ground-combat-units/

While I have read heaps of concerns about female physiological unsuitability, lack of long term durability for combat roles, and small unit social dynamic disruption, I have read nothing about concerns over cognitive capability.

I would be the first to stick my hand up and say I've had the good fortune to work with women who are my betters in terms of cognitive performance.

But that's in an environment with low physiological stress.

Women(and men as well) approaching maximum load carriage not only risk being a broken physical link in a small unit chain but broken mentally as well.

Cognitive performance declines when physiological stress pushes one above the heart rate high performance zone/envelope.

I haven't really seen this important(most important in my mind) slice of the debate covered.

The link article I've included above(found as a related article from an earlier link) has great value.

But it's a shame that it doesn't also include data driven analysis of cognitive capacity , decision making/problem solving while under very high physiological stress.

I think results of such a study would further add weight to lack of value-added, poor return on investment, and malinvestment of human capital in a political push for gender integration of combat roles.

I also don't wish to see unnecessarily broken female soldiers, but I also don't wish to see substantial intellectual horsepower and mental agility under-leveraged ,negated, and/or made irrelevant.

[abc_123]

Just an observation, and wondering if it applies to infantry.

There seems to be this idea that men are somehow naturally more aggressive than women.
I disagree.

Men are more capable of physical aggression, and better tolerate being on the receiving end of aggressive behavior.
This isn't the same thing as being prone to aggressive behavior.

Men can be physically violent towards one another, and then quickly set that aside when facing adversity which requires cooperation.
Noticed that women have more of a tendency to be subtly aggressive towards their close allies, and it often worsens when facing adversity.

IMO, the critical difference in genders is the ability to cooperate under severe stress.
All-male groups just seem to do it better than mixed-gender or all-female groups.

That's been my observation over the years.
Maybe others have had different experiences.

You have got to be shitting me. Social convention and the law rob males of the very things that you admit that are their advantage. Bring the credible threat of physical violence into play and then tell me about all your "aggressive" females.

[WarriorDiplomat]

Just an observation, and wondering if it applies to infantry.

There seems to be this idea that men are somehow naturally more aggressive than women.
I disagree.

Men are more capable of physical aggression, and better tolerate being on the receiving end of aggressive behavior.
This isn't the same thing as being prone to aggressive behavior.

Men can be physically violent towards one another, and then quickly set that aside when facing adversity which requires cooperation.
Noticed that women have more of a tendency to be subtly aggressive towards their close allies, and it often worsens when facing adversity.

IMO, the critical difference in genders is the ability to cooperate under severe stress.
All-male groups just seem to do it better than mixed-gender or all-female groups.

That's been my observation over the years.
Maybe others have had different experiences.

Is this a joke?

There is a huge difference between the aggression of someone pumped with testosterone and an angry woman.

IMO, the critical difference in genders is the ability to cooperate under severe stress.

The "critical difference" is the size, strength and aggression of a man over a woman.

Men are born hunter, killers even if society has attempted to neuter there natural instincts instilled for survival.

[GratefulCitizen]

Is this a joke?

There is a huge difference between the aggression of someone pumped with testosterone and an angry woman.

IMO, the critical difference in genders is the ability to cooperate under severe stress.

The "critical difference" is the size, strength and aggression of a man over a woman.

Men are born hunter, killers even if society has attempted to neuter there natural instincts instilled for survival.

I was unclear in the overarching idea.
It was focused on cooperating under stress as opposed to in-fighting under stress.

Wasn't referring to aggression towards threats.
That is what "better tolerate being on the receiving end of aggressive behavior" means, i.e. men fight back when necessary.

Was referring to unprovoked aggressive behavior towards non-threats and/or allies, and the breakdown of cooperation against a common threat.
Women seem to be worse in this category.

[Old Dog New Trick]

I'll take an angry man over a pissed off woman in the foxhole any day of the week. ;)

[abc_123]

I'll take an angry man over a pissed off woman in the foxhole any day of the week. ;)

Sure. How about if you could slap her in the mouth and tell her to STFU with impunity... which one would you pick?

[Old Dog New Trick]

I punch an angry man in the face I accept an AR-15 and move on, if I slap a woman across the face certain discharge papers are awaiting my signature. See, there is a difference. One action is tolerated and acceptable the other action is a career ender.

[GratefulCitizen]

You have got to be shitting me. Social convention and the law rob males of the very things that you admit that are their advantage. Bring the credible threat of physical violence into play and then tell me about all your "aggressive" females.

That's precisely my point.
Women tend to be aggressive to the level that's allowed (the limit of their power).

Just looking at how this affects group dynamics when working towards a common goal.

[Old Dog New Trick]

Just looking at how this affects group dynamics when working towards a common goal.

There is no common goal without a common objective. Eliminate 'biological sex' from the equation and there is still a societal difference between men and women. Even if we could get past the genetic differences there is a social order and a history of legal protections catering to one at the expense of the other. Until that barrier is smashed into dust there is and will not be "equality" between the sexes.

[WarriorDiplomat]

I was unclear in the overarching idea.
It was focused on cooperating under stress as opposed to in-fighting under stress.

Wasn't referring to aggression towards threats.
That is what "better tolerate being on the receiving end of aggressive behavior" means, i.e. men fight back when necessary.

Was referring to unprovoked aggressive behavior towards non-threats and/or allies, and the breakdown of cooperation against a common threat.
Women seem to be worse in this category.


The context is women in combat or in this thread infantry, throughout history to the beginning of time warrior cultures are predominantly men. Having the protective instinct of someone born to bear children should never be confused or compared to someone who willingly hunts and preys on those who would do us harm. Men seek to conquer and express dominance and develop hierarchies....tiers of lesser men with the same goal. The military is built in the image of patriarchal societies. The differences between men and women can be seen in prison culture where people are stripped to their basic primordial instinctive self. Men in prison usually developed heightened predatory senses such as sensing fear and always looking for prey.

Women in prisons are highly social and tend to develop families for protection and strength but it is rare for women to be predators.

Men have different relationships and can thrive in isolation barring threats to self and relationships are usually not so much about socializing as they are about dominance.

On top all the above I would expect a 6' 200lb man to be capable of not only dominating a room with his presence but to intimidate and close with and kill the enemy like a predator.

[GratefulCitizen]

The context is women in combat or in this thread infantry, throughout history to the beginning of time warrior cultures are predominantly men. Having the protective instinct of someone born to bear children should never be confused or compared to someone who willingly hunts and preys on those who would do us harm. Men seek to conquer and express dominance and develop hierarchies....tiers of lesser men with the same goal. The military is built in the image of patriarchal societies. The differences between men and women can be seen in prison culture where people are stripped to their basic primordial instinctive self. Men in prison usually developed heightened predatory senses such as sensing fear and always looking for prey.

Women in prisons are highly social and tend to develop families for protection and strength but it is rare for women to be predators.

Men have different relationships and can thrive in isolation barring threats to self and relationships are usually not so much about socializing as they are about dominance.

On top all the above I would expect a 6' 200lb man to be capable of not only dominating a room with his presence but to intimidate and close with and kill the enemy like a predator.

Prisons are a good example.
It helps to demonstrate the nature/nurture line (both matter).

Most of the men in prison didn't have strong father figures.
How do those with "authority" treat their "subordinates"?

Not having first-hand experience, you'll have to inform me of how surrogate father figures affect the selection and development of infantry.
How do those with authority treat their subordinates?

It's just been my observation that the more "patriarchal" sub-cultures tend to act "dominant" and ultimately look after the well-being of their subordinates.
The less "patriarchal" sub-cultures tend to act "domineering" and oppress their subordinates.

Patriarchal vs non-patriarchal isn't the same thing as male vs female.
This distinction is important.

[sinjefe]

Was referring to unprovoked aggressive behavior towards non-threats and/or allies, and the breakdown of cooperation against a common threat.

Just what you need on the battlefield:rolleyes:

[WarriorDiplomat]

Nurture vs nature hmm

Those who believe that nature can be nurtured out of humanity are IMO dangerously naive. We will always have the primitive parts of our brains that keep us alive and drive our instincts, needs and desires our higher intellect and reasoning squelches these instincts.

A fitting description of the military culture specifically the Infantry is best described as a primitive warrior society of tribes. Every individual is competing against the rest to be the most lethal warrior in his unit. Every fire team wants to be the best most lethal warriors in the squad the squad competes to be the most lethal warriors in the platoon the platoon wants to be the most lethal in the company and up the hierarchy. Everyday the military is primitive competition to be the most lethal. Every leader has the responsibility to hone the soldiers under their control to be the best most lethal killing machine in the military. Every skill taught is to take the natural killer instinct of man and make it more efficient. They fight together and each other it is OK for someone from the unit to fight a fellow warrior but someone from outside the tribe attacks then the tribe closes ranks and fights the outsider. The military is tribal and has a primal purpose as old as mankind itself. How are they treated? They are praised for being the best and not performing usually brings pain the warriors will many times ride the subperformer until he rises and embraces the tribe or he is voted off the island. The Infantry is not for the weak or faint of heart the strong are celebrated and honored and the weak are eaten alive. That is the essence of the infantry.

[Sohei]

^^^Outstanding post! No truer words have been spoken.

Well said, Sir! Well said indeed!

[Flagg]

Nurture vs nature hmm

Those who believe that nature can be nurtured out of humanity are IMO dangerously naive. We will always have the primitive parts of our brains that keep us alive and drive our instincts, needs and desires our higher intellect and reasoning squelches these instincts.

A fitting description of the military culture specifically the Infantry is best described as a primitive warrior society of tribes. Every individual is competing against the rest to be the most lethal warrior in his unit. Every fire team wants to be the best most lethal warriors in the squad the squad competes to be the most lethal warriors in the platoon the platoon wants to be the most lethal in the company and up the hierarchy. Everyday the military is primitive competition to be the most lethal. Every leader has the responsibility to hone the soldiers under their control to be the best most lethal killing machine in the military. Every skill taught is to take the natural killer instinct of man and make it more efficient. They fight together and each other it is OK for someone from the unit to fight a fellow warrior but someone from outside the tribe attacks then the tribe closes ranks and fights the outsider. The military is tribal and has a primal purpose as old as mankind itself. How are they treated? They are praised for being the best and not performing usually brings pain the warriors will many times ride the subperformer until he rises and embraces the tribe or he is voted off the island. The Infantry is not for the weak or faint of heart the strong are celebrated and honored and the weak are eaten alive. That is the essence of the infantry.




Thoughts on "the good sociopath" or some sociopathic characteristics/behaviour commonly found in "teeth arms" units if not fitting entirely within the sociopathic box?

And gender differences there?

As I understand it, females can be clinically sociopathic as well, but are less likely to, and exhibit different sociopathic traits and tendencies to men on average.

[Sdiver]

Thoughts on "the good sociopath" or some sociopathic characteristics/behaviour commonly found in "teeth arms" units if not fitting entirely within the sociopathic box?

And gender differences there?

As I understand it, females can be clinically sociopathic as well, but are less likely to, and exhibit different sociopathic traits and tendencies to men on average.

Yes, men tend to kill their victims quickly ...

Whereas women kill their victims V-E-R-Y S-L-O-W-L-Y over time ... usually after they're married.

.



Sorry, I couldn't pass that one up.
Back to your regularly scheduled thread ...

[GratefulCitizen]

Nurture vs nature hmm

Those who believe that nature can be nurtured out of humanity are IMO dangerously naive. We will always have the primitive parts of our brains that keep us alive and drive our instincts, needs and desires our higher intellect and reasoning squelches these instincts.

A fitting description of the military culture specifically the Infantry is best described as a primitive warrior society of tribes. Every individual is competing against the rest to be the most lethal warrior in his unit. Every fire team wants to be the best most lethal warriors in the squad the squad competes to be the most lethal warriors in the platoon the platoon wants to be the most lethal in the company and up the hierarchy. Everyday the military is primitive competition to be the most lethal. Every leader has the responsibility to hone the soldiers under their control to be the best most lethal killing machine in the military. Every skill taught is to take the natural killer instinct of man and make it more efficient. They fight together and each other it is OK for someone from the unit to fight a fellow warrior but someone from outside the tribe attacks then the tribe closes ranks and fights the outsider. The military is tribal and has a primal purpose as old as mankind itself. How are they treated? They are praised for being the best and not performing usually brings pain the warriors will many times ride the subperformer until he rises and embraces the tribe or he is voted off the island. The Infantry is not for the weak or faint of heart the strong are celebrated and honored and the weak are eaten alive. That is the essence of the infantry.




The last piece of the puzzle:
Willingness to lay down one's life for a friend (a friend, not your own flesh and blood).

Does this trait come more naturally among men or women?
Is it purely conditioned?

Honestly don't know the answer.

Have observed, in the culture of this nation, that willingness towards self-sacrifice (among the whole group) tends to be stronger in all-male groups vs all-female or mixed-gender.
Might be nature or nurture.

Suspect that men have a greater capacity for both self-preserving and self-sacrificing acts.
Probably depends on when, where, and how each nature is called out in them.

From the outside looking in, the dichotomy of the necessary traits for an infantryman are remarkable.
He must be willing to take a life in the service of his friends, and he must be willing to lay down his life in the service of his friends.

On the other hand, the existence of these dual traits seems inevitable.
The absence of them leads to extinction, as societies without warriors perish.

Thank you for your insights, WarriorDiplomat.

[abc_123]

I punch an angry man in the face I accept an AR-15 and move on, if I slap a woman across the face certain discharge papers are awaiting my signature. See, there is a difference. One action is tolerated and acceptable the other action is a career ender.

And that's a fact, Jack!

[Old Dog New Trick]

The last piece of the puzzle:
Willingness to lay down one's life for a friend (a friend, not your own flesh and blood).

Does this trait come more naturally among men or women?
Is it purely conditioned?

Honestly don't know the answer.

Have observed, in the culture of this nation, that willingness towards self-sacrifice (among the whole group) tends to be stronger in all-male groups vs all-female or mixed-gender.
Might be nature or nurture.

Suspect that men have a greater capacity for both self-preserving and self-sacrificing acts.
Probably depends on when, where, and how each nature is called out in them.

From the outside looking in, the dichotomy of the necessary traits for an infantryman are remarkable.
He must be willing to take a life in the service of his friends, and he must be willing to lay down his life in the service of his friends.

On the other hand, the existence of these dual traits seems inevitable.
The absence of them leads to extinction, as societies without warriors perish.

Thank you for your insights, WarriorDiplomat.

There's a simple word/phrase for that - Esprit de Corps

Something those of us understand can only exist through shared sacrifice and honorable achievement. It can't be engineered or taught through a PowerPoint presentation. It's something that's more likely to be achieved by reducing people to their most basic primal level and then built up over time. Military units especially frontline combat units understand this. A major reason for PCS cycles being what they are and the training cycle and field training exercises that follow bi-yearly rotation rates. The military is always in a cycle of build up, replace 10 to 20 percent and begin again. There is an ultimate deployment cycle (where everyone and everything is gelled) and a start from scratch cycle (where everyone and everything is a complete cluster fu*k). As a commander or leader I would not want to deploy a unit that is in or remains in the CF cycle just to meet minimum manning (guess we're going to have to change that term too) requirements.

This exists for both male and female groups but less often in mixed groups for of all the reasons we've already covered.

It's also a reason we failed in Vietnam and off an on during the 1st and 2nd World Wars under draft conditions and casualty replacement. I'm sure I can find other examples where a failure of unit cohesion and the establishment of "Brotherhood" within the unit ultimately led to failure and high casualty rates but military history is replete with quantifiable experience.

[Flagg]

Yes, men tend to kill their victims quickly ...

Whereas women kill their victims V-E-R-Y S-L-O-W-L-Y over time ... usually after their married.

.



Sorry, I couldn't pass that one up.
Back to your regularly scheduled thread ...

I walked into that one. :)

[bailaviborita]

One thing raised a lot is that our technology can make up for any loss of "warrior-ness" that having females might bring. The other is that the "brotherhood of warriors" is a myth in terms of fighting quality.

I would say- some of the more interesting comments during internal conversations are those in which the feminist advocates admit that they are okay with a theoretical loss of tactical combat capability if it ends up getting us more strategic capability- diversity of sex allowing theoretically more views to be entertained while crafting war plans.

Even though I'd be strongly against risking a loss of tactical combat capability just to appease a special interest group- the assertion that strategy is best done from a more diverse group is intriguing from a theoretical view.

I have asserted in these conversations that diversity of sex does not guarantee diversity of view- that in the military all generals and field grades- whether male or female - are molded by the same system and, under our current peace time structure- incapable of independent strategic thought...

[Old Dog New Trick]

One thing raised a lot is that our technology can make up for any loss of "warrior-ness" that having females might bring. The other is that the "brotherhood of warriors" is a myth in terms of fighting quality.

I would say- some of the more interesting comments during internal conversations are those in which the feminist advocates admit that they are okay with a theoretical loss of tactical combat capability if it ends up getting us more strategic capability- diversity of sex allowing theoretically more views to be entertained while crafting war plans.

Even though I'd be strongly against risking a loss of tactical combat capability just to appease a special interest group- the assertion that strategy is best done from a more diverse group is intriguing from a theoretical view.

I have asserted in these conversations that diversity of sex does not guarantee diversity of view- that in the military all generals and field grades- whether male or female - are molded by the same system and, under our current peace time structure- incapable of independent strategic thought...

Yeah but, they kick ass playing Mobile Strike!

[abc_123]

One thing raised a lot is that our technology can make up for any loss of "warrior-ness" that having females might bring. The other is that the "brotherhood of warriors" is a myth in terms of fighting quality.

I would say- some of the more interesting comments during internal conversations are those in which the feminist advocates admit that they are okay with a theoretical loss of tactical combat capability if it ends up getting us more strategic capability- diversity of sex allowing theoretically more views to be entertained while crafting war plans.

All feminist propaganda bullshit. I think we as a country did pretty well during the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Indian Wars, the Spanish American War, and every other conflict to include World Wars I and Ii.

This is not "interesting" this is folly.

[WarriorDiplomat]

One thing raised a lot is that our technology can make up for any loss of "warrior-ness" that having females might bring. The other is that the "brotherhood of warriors" is a myth in terms of fighting quality.

I firmly believe the above is what makes liberals think this will work without repercussions.

I would say- some of the more interesting comments during internal conversations are those in which the feminist advocates admit that they are okay with a theoretical loss of tactical combat capability if it ends up getting us more strategic capability- diversity of sex allowing theoretically more views to be entertained while crafting war plans.

I do not understand the thinking of losing tactical capability to gain strategic capability it makes no sense, tactical is intertwined with strategic in that the tactical prowess is a micro of the macro in strategy. If we lose and give up the threat of tactical capability and they(insert name) know it our leveraging in the strategic realm will have no teeth. If the thinking is to address the female side of the strategic plan it makes sense there is 50% of the impacted citizenry that will be part of any plan that is going to succeed.

Even though I'd be strongly against risking a loss of tactical combat capability just to appease a special interest group- the assertion that strategy is best done from a more diverse group is intriguing from a theoretical view.

I have asserted in these conversations that diversity of sex does not guarantee diversity of view- that in the military all generals and field grades- whether male or female - are molded by the same system and, under our current peace time structure- incapable of independent strategic thought...

As previously mentioned without the threat of credible tactical force strategic, diplomatic, economic planning will have no leverage. If the enforcers of policy aren't the biggest, baddest, most intimidating, and tactical units on the block U.S. interest will suffer. And in countries where the threat was enough we may have to fight to give combat credibility to our female counterparts and.... if we falter?.....name a country who will want our partner nation support without gaining bargaining leverage over us.

It seems our feminist liberals in strategic positions lack the critical thinking required.

[(1VB)compforce]

As previously mentioned without the threat of credible tactical force strategic, diplomatic, economic planning will have no leverage. If the enforcers of policy aren't the biggest, baddest, most intimidating, and tactical units on the block U.S. interest will suffer. And in countries where the threat was enough we may have to fight to give combat credibility to our female counterparts and.... if we falter?.....name a country who will want our partner nation support without gaining bargaining leverage over us.

It seems our feminist liberals in strategic positions lack the critical thinking required.

This goes back to what we were taught during the Cold War period. The US Army is all about projecting peace by convincing everyone else that they would be obliterated if they chose to cross us. If we accept the loss of tactical advantage, we also must accept that we will be involved in more conflicts in more places. Deliberately giving up the short term tactical advantage in return for a long term strategic advantage, which is only theoretical and subject to quite a few fallacies, while we also reduce the size of the force is sheer madness. The more important point is that, if we draw down and also change the level of force we can bring to bear, how long would it take to reestablish the dominance that we lost? And would we survive long enough in a true (defensive) conflict to bear the fruits of that strategic advantage?

The US' huge advantage is our geographic distance from the other countries/groups that may want to do us harm. Importing them into the country as "refugees" at the same time as we lower our tactical capability is worse than madness, it's suicide.

Global Peace through force of arms... or learn to speak arabic. Those are the choices. Guess which one we are pursuing as a country.

[WarriorDiplomat]

The US' huge advantage is our geographic distance from the other countries/groups that may want to do us harm. Importing them into the country as "refugees" at the same time as we lower our tactical capability is worse than madness, it's suicide.

Agree wholeheartedly, If we were superimposed on Germany or France we would be done.

Global Peace through force of arms... or learn to speak arabic. Those are the choices. Guess which one we are pursuing as a country.[/QUOTE]

Here we work so hard to contain terrorism from being exported as a military costing us billions to do. I am thinking the POTUS is trying to "reduce the deficit" by importing terrorist :confused: Aha this must be the libs diabolical strategy.