What tempers the steel of infantry

[abc_123]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by WarriorDiplomat

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]

Originally Posted by Old Dog New Trick

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]

Originally Posted by abc_123

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]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

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]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

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]

Originally Posted by WarriorDiplomat

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]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Flagg

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 ...