> She (meaning women) is much more
in
> appearance. Same thing with ships, she is more likely to go with a
G'day guys, I'd tend to agree here. I've often been asked why more women don't
get into wargaming and based on personal opinion it comes down to:
a) The look of the thing. For instance take my armies/fleets:
FT - FSE because they look nice, they taper and catch the eye and they
give a feeling of power without having huge knobby bits or being bulky. I'm
also doing up a home grown fleet, for my invented minor power the Independent
Antarctic States, using an assortment of modified and recycled minatures which
were chosen because they all look sleek.
DS/SG - haven't actually got any for these yet, but I have ordered a
complete set of "The minatures are out there.." from Nic to be used for at
least one of these games. I chose them because they were different to what the
guys would have, but mostly because they're cute.
Napoleonic - Saxons and Russians, the first because I like their
uniforms and the second because I like
bearded men (long story).
Fantasy - Dwarves because they're cute and have beards.
Ancients - Persians, Wallace's scots and Sparticus' slave revolt army,
the first because I'm fascinated by the period (and the beards) the second for
familial resons and the last because its unconventional, Kirk was a hunk, and
its all too often underestimated by my opponents.
Necromunda - Nun's with guns (all of them) + the naked one, mostly
because the official figures sucked (excuse my terminology). The only decent
set were the Van Saar and my husband got to them first so I had to find
something else and the Nuns were unconventional and worth a laugh.
Most women just don't find squat, heavily armoured/gunned things
appealing. I know this sounds absurd, but it has to feel right. the closest I
can get to explaining this is that it shouldn't look like a rhino, it should
look
like a panther (if you're going to catch the average woman's eye) - and
that's the animals I'm referring to (I have this funny feeling that tanks or
something share these names). Either that or it has to have character (i.e. be
cute, humourous, unexpected or brightly coloured). I think this is why female
wargamers like dragon figures so much.
b) Abillity to suspend disbelief. Its much easier to get a woman to play if
its at least one step back from today. Thus pre-WWI (maybe with the
exception of bi-planes) and Space or Fanatasy based games appeal - at
least to me and the other female wargamers I've come across. I don't know what
it is exactly, but if its too much like what the military is envisaged to be
like now then I'm not interested. For instance I love FT, but I'm fairly
ambivalent about SG, DS and if given the choice would pick FT or another
period/genre altogether.
Maybe I don't speak for all women here, but this does seem to be one of the
biggest turn offs for the women I know, or have observed, who have ever come
into contact with wargaming (whether they then tried it for themselves or
not).
c) The shouting. I'm not having a go here (honestly), but a lot of women just
don't like the arguments that go with playing wargames or the "well if I'd had
the chance this would have happened" posturing that seems to occur alot post
game. I've learnt to deal with the first and I now just ignore the second, but
they really did bug me for ages!
d) The "she's just a girl" attitude. Now I know that many guys don't think
like this anymore (well at least not after they've had their butt kicked a
couple of times), but this is still a very pervasive attitude amongst
wargamers. Though to be fair, its either because they're from a background
where this attitude is accepted, they're too young to know any better
(yet)
or they've come along to gaming to escape the wife/mother and don't
expect to run into one there.
Basically though if you want more women to game then my advise is; they'll
often need gentle coaxing at the start (push the fun, before the realism side
of things); they need colour and grace to catch the eye; and that they're not
being stupid or flippant they just have a VERY different perspective to you.
Though you should watch for this, because we know this and we'll use it, after
all "All's fair in love and war":)
Hope this helps all of those out there who are developing figures or games or
just trying to attract someone of the fairer sex to their gaming table:)
Happy gaming,
Beth
In a message dated 98-09-10 23:54:18 EDT, you write:
<< Most women just don't find squat, heavily armoured/gunned things
appealing. I know this sounds absurd, but it has to feel right. the closest I
can get to explaining this is that it shouldn't look like a rhino, it should
look
like a panther (if you're going to catch the average woman's eye) - and
that's the animals I'm referring to (I have this funny feeling that tanks or
something share these names). Either that or it has to have character (i.e. be
cute, humourous, unexpected or brightly coloured). I think this is why female
wargamers like dragon figures so much.
b) Abillity to suspend disbelief. Its much easier to get a woman to play if
its at least one step back from today. Thus pre-WWI (maybe with the
exception of bi-planes) and Space or Fanatasy based games appeal - at
least to me and the other female wargamers I've come across. I don't know what
it is exactly, but if its too much like what the military is envisaged to be
like now then I'm not interested. For instance I love FT, but I'm fairly
ambivalent about SG, DS and if given the choice would pick FT or another
period/genre altogether.
Maybe I don't speak for all women here, but this does seem to be one of the
biggest turn offs for the women I know, or have observed, who have ever come
into contact with wargaming (whether they then tried it for themselves or
not).
> From the female starship captions/admirals on TV and in books you find
1) Commands-most of the female captions don't command "the big ships,"
but faster more maneuverable ships. My hypothisis is that these ships need
more skill to run effectively, and that there talents (i.e. thinking instead
of going in guns blazing) are better suited to this type of command. 2) Female
captions are more likely to think before acting. This also aplys (at least
from my observations) to real life.... You won't find (please corect me if I
am wrong) a woman caption commanding a Battleship on a permite bases, but a
faster (and smaller) warship (if a warship at all). Some exsamples from books:
Caption Ship:
Janeway Intrepid-class scout ship/ Light Cruiser
Murakuma ?????-class Battlecruiser
I think that part of the reason that more women are playing war games is that
it does not take a much brain power as say an RPG (as a guy I am making
observations about sertin trends) or some thing that alows a person to try to
think there way out of a situation instead of shoot there way out. My $.02 Bye
Stephen P.S. Most of the female wargames that I have battled with and aganst
have
never commaned a Dreadnought or above, they seem to like faster-more
maneuverable ships, ships that if you put them infront of a Superdreadnought
they would get fried, but they can make shure that that never happends.
> Stephen wrote:
> From the female starship captions/admirals on TV and in books you find
> 1) Commands-most of the female captions don't command "the big ships,"
but
> faster more maneuverable ships. My hypothisis is that these ships
> 2) Female captions are more likely to think before acting. This also
> Caption Ship:
Can't speak for many TV shows (though it wasn't the *male* captain of an
Omega-class who rammed in Severed Dreams!), but if you're thinking of
Vanessa Murakuma in In Death Ground (by Weber), she flew her colours from
a Viper-class battleship until it got too badly shot up in 3rd Justin -
she then moved to a superdreadnought. There are lots of female admirals
in Weber's books, BTW - most of them command the heaviest ships
available (Erika Wilson, Jessica van der Gelder, Hannah Avram just to mention
a
few).
'Course, Weber is a man himself and might not have noticed the difference
in mental vewpoints :-)
> Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au> wrote:
Rhino - German Nashorn Tank Destroyer
Panther - German Tank PzV
The Panther was one of the sleekest German designs of WWII.
Thanks for your views, Beth. I'll remember to share them with the other guys
and hopefully the gals!
> You wrote:
> bearded men (long story).
I see a trend here. Are we suggesting that growing beards is a good thing?
Unfortunately, this weekend I'm driving straight to a Con from Drill, so this
may be difficult.
> to explaining this is that it shouldn't look like a rhino, it should
- and >that's the animals I'm referring to (I have this funny feeling
that tanks >or something share these names). Either that or it has to
Amusingly, the Rhino is a 40K vehicles that is a box-on-treads, and the
Panther is one of better-looking of the WWII tanks. (Or maybe it's that
long 75 that makes it attractive).
> c) The shouting. I'm not having a go here (honestly), but a lot of
Heh. This is also a pet peeve of mine. If you can't act like an adult, you
shouldn't be playing adult games. Kids I'm suckering into a
_real_ game system I give much more leeway, but adults that want to get
into a shouting match get shown the door--one advantage of being the
guy that signs up for the table space and is technically 'running' the game
(although I usually play rather than umpire).
> d) The "she's just a girl" attitude. Now I know that many guys don't
Maybe it's just my experience, but when I see a woman on the other side of the
table I start watching for unconventional stuff that looks at first like it's
stupid but really is something insidiously effective. It's very rare that I
run into a woman who's going to be following conventional wisdom on tactics.
> You wrote:
> From the female starship captions/admirals on TV and in books you
Read some Weber--lots of Women commanding fleets with superdreadnought
flagships, etc. IIRC, even Honor commanded some straight-up fleet
actions.
> 2) Female captions are more likely to think before acting. This also
Again, some Weber stuff has women bulling through when it's necessary.
> At 06:44 AM 9/11/98 -0500, you wrote:
> Read some Weber--lots of Women commanding fleets with superdreadnought
It seems a little odd to me that everyone appears to be using fictional proof
for their theory on female command ability. Granted there are not a
whole lot of non-fiction examples to look at but basing a conclusion on
some one elses idea in a story would appear to cast into doubt the conclusion.
Joan of Arc was an incredible leader. Of course being on a mission from God
probably did not hurt:). Off the top of my head I can not think of many
others. Have to do some searching on this one. This seems to be a trend when I
talk to others about this. "Why do you think women should be in combat?" "Well
if GI Jane can do it than why cant other women" Am I the only one that sees
the problem with this logic?
I believe that anyone with the ability to meet the requirements for a job
should be able to do that job. Regardless. I will stop now.
> You wrote:
> It seems a little odd to me that everyone appears to be using
Unfortunately female command in real warfare is rather limited.
There was a woman who's name I can't recall who was the wife of a
Lombard chieftan who was noted for saving his butt in one battle--she
was commanding one of his wings and pulled his fat out of the fire.
Unfortunately details aren't readily available, and the tactics of a Lombard
formation are rather limited.
There were female officers leading Eritrean guerilla formations during
their 30-year Civil War, however again, to the general public this is
little known and details are unavailable.
The Soviet Union used women as snipers, pilots, and tank drivers during WWII,
but I don't recall hearing of them giving one a combat command.
The Israelis had women in their military formations during their War of
Independance, but again, I don't recall reading about of female senior
officers.
There's that female MP who led a company assault on a dog kennel, but she was
A) an MP, and B)Fighting the PDF, so regardless of what she did
she was going to win--US MPs are very heavily armed and the PDF was not
that hot a military organization.
> Joan of Arc was an incredible leader. Of course being on a
I have my doubts about anyone, male or female, who gets tactical advice from
voices in their head.
> I believe that anyone with the ability to meet the requirements for a
Of course, even if you opened up combat slots tomorrow, it will be some
time before any of them are really leading combat formations--it takes
the USN what, 15 years to groom a sub captain. And 25 years to make a general
or admiral.
> douglase@osabs01.inet.att.co.kr wrote:
> It seems a little odd to me that everyone appears to be using
The best Battery Commander, Battery XO and the best Platoon Leader I had in my
10 years in the US Army were all female.
Granted this was in peace time, but still, of all the BC/XO/PL I worked
for, these 3 were the ones I would want to have in charge if the USSR had come
across the Fulda Gap.
I will also allow that I was in Air Defense (long range Missiles at
that), which has a some what _odd_ view of the whole Air/Land battle
thing.
> d) The "she's just a girl" attitude. Now I know that many guys don't
I know that my wife seems to do that. We played a demo of AEG's Clan War at
the last con. This was my wifes first try at a simi traditional war game. The
first thing she did was to wheel away from the force directly in front of her.
A few turns later, one of the guys with archers on the other side got a little
upset, because there was a forest blocking his line of sight on her unit. He
had been setting that shot up for 4 turns. On turn 7 with her flank protected
by the forest, she engaged the force across from her. Before this game my wife
had only played board games, CCG's and RPG's.
> On Fri, 11 Sep 1998, John Atkinson wrote:
> You wrote:
> officers.
One female Israeli sniper was Dr.Ruth Westheimer. True story!
Later,
In message <3.0.1.32.19980911082355.006ae82c@mail.inet.att.co.kr>
> douglase@osabs01.inet.att.co.kr wrote:
> It seems a little odd to me that everyone appears to be using
Not entirely sure about the actual command ability of the following, but
they're the only ones which spring to mind without thinking too much:
Boudicca? (fought against the Romans, for a while) Aethelflaed, Lady of the
Mercians? (fought against the Danes) Charlotte de la Tremoille? (successfully
held off a couple of seiges during the Civil War).
> You wrote:
> with them has always been an odd fit. What bothers me the most is how
> 2. Most of the problems a rising from females in the military have to
My favorite pet peeve. How about going from male/female standards to
REMF/Real Soldier standards? Clerk-typists all get the old female
standards, and combat soldiers _all_ get the male standards (or
harsher).
> 3. That being said, we're not ready yet for full integration in combat
I know that even in a Guard Combat Engineer company, if a woman walked into
the sort of conversation we pass the time with, we'd all be up on sexual
harassment charges. And when we use sexual analogies for everything from demo
to small unit tactics, you'd have to have a serious paradigm shift if you
introduced women.
Most of the experiences I've had with females in the military (professional
that is) range from unpleasant to annoying, but then again I've always been in
combat arms or special operations so interfacing with them has always been an
odd fit. What bothers me the most is how stupid guys start acting when you
interject a female into their environment.
That being said, I recall one in particular female, an interpreter, that
worked with our team in Haiti for some time. She fit in perfectly well, or so
I thought, until a certain, umm shall we say, sex scandal erupted. Despite how
it turned out I still enjoyed having her on my team. We didn't have to be
different around her. I remember her turning green (hard for a black women
<g>) when we started earnest classes on how to defend herself with a pistol,
due to an impending raid against a polling station we were about to
experience.
My beliefs are:
1. Females that meet a single standard are more than capable of being in
combat arms. (hell, I think my wife would make a great grunt!)
2. Most of the problems a rising from females in the military have to do more
with us men, and the double fitness standard imposed by the Army.
3. That being said, we're not ready yet for full integration in combat arms.
If it screws up small unit cohesion then I'm against it. And like it or not,
when you interject women into the archaic all male world of a combat arms
unit, (where sexual innuendoes and humor make up 90% of the banter) the first
priority of the guys usually becomes getting laid. Half the guys try subtlety
or openly to hit on the girl, the other half, become openly hostile for having
their sacred world invaded. This problem is primarily to due with us guys and
little to do with the females.
Nevertheless, we should still perform some combat arms test cases. But without
all the political bullshit. A good example was the female F14 pilot who got
killed a while back. Buddy of mine was a flyer on another squadron on her
ship. Fact of the matter is, her landing quals were sub standard. Any guy with
her stats would have been grounded or sent dirtside, but the CO was under
pressure to make "the thing work". He turned down any requests from a pissed
off squadron commander. Sure enough, her incompetence ended up killing her and
her Wizzo. Left a very lot of bad blood on the ship.
Make one standard for everyone and then have at it!
BTW, spent a lot of time in Eritrea as an advisor to their army. It was the
first time I ever saw females in the infantry. They have some examples of
females in company command during the war, but now their regular grunts
mostly. I'll give them the credit of humping their weapons over the mountains
just like the next guy, but I didn't see a one that was as motivated as her
male counterparts. Interesting aside, all were married to guys in their
platoon. They remain until they get pregnant, at which time they have to leave
the service. The Eritrean defense force is planning to phase out females in
their infantry. It was a successful emergency measure, but now that they have
transitioned from a guerilla force to a conventional force, they no longer see
it as necessary. (this was something I was quite interested about and spent a
lot of time inquiring on).
Just to recap I do not fall into the category that females can't hack it, (due
to some perceived inferiority), an attitude which pisses me off greatly. I
fall into the category that men aren't ready for it yet. And
before anyone starts pointing to non combat arms, and service /support,
there's as much difference between an infantry unit and a transportation
company, as there is between a transportation company and a civilian
workforce.
Los spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> My beliefs are:
Agreed. That's why the Canadian army officially* has only one standard. The
entire first course of women washed out. Some have subsequently passed. Their
theory is combat requires the same from anyone, sex is irrelevant. Now you are
only barred from serving in submarines.
> 2. Most of the problems a rising from females in the military have to
True. The double standard is a BAD idea. Plus lots of guys get stupid around
women (my theory is that many military personel are poorly equipped to deal
with the opposite sex due to unusual socializations that occur in training and
afterward in military life). And some people are assinine to begin with.
> 3. That being said, we're not ready yet for full integration in combat
As an aside though, one has to start somewhere, and accept that the process of
integration and modernizing male attitudes will involve incidents and
accidents.
> Make one standard for everyone and then have at it!
Here Here!
> Just to recap I do not fall into the category that females can't hack
There were a few ladies in my infantry basic that couldn't hack it, but then
so couldn't a lot of guys. I have to admit I was marginal
(probably due to running part - the rest I excelled at). The women
didn't like being babied either because it got them a bad rep, but otherwise
it tended to get everyone extra PT mostly on their account. Slow man in the
squad is always the reason the squad suffers in training and is usually not
well received by the team. You pull your weight in the infantry or you get
out. That's the only fair way to
play it. Double standards lead to bitterness, nasty behind-the-back
comments, and crappy treatment. It isn't good for the team.
OTOH, I've met women cops and martial artists who could more than hack the
physical components of military life (I'm sure) and could kick the arse of
most guys.
As another interesting aside, when the CF shifted from the 7.62 FN to the 5.56
C7 rifle, women's shooting scores skyrocketed (beating many guys). Theory is
that women are inherently more accurate, but with too much recoil, they had
trouble controlling the weapon. With too much weapon weight (and the FN was
too much) they had troubles in the standing and the kneeling positions due to
the need to hold the heavy rifle up. The lighter, lower recoil (but still
deadly to all useful ranges) C7 removed this impediment, and many of the women
shot better scores than the guys.
> I fall into the category that men aren't ready for it yet.
We're slow learners. But we've go to learn sometime, and that might mean
starting to force the issue a bit. It takes a long tme to equalize balance in
a society that has traditionally been parochial and patriarchal. We're still
having race problems and that has been equalizing since the last century....
Tom.
/************************************************
John spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> I know that even in a Guard Combat Engineer company, if a woman walked
> into the sort of conversation we pass the time with, we'd all be up on
> sexual harassment charges. And when we use sexual analogies for
Or maybe just have women who knew what to expect and could give as good as
they got verbally and could take the job physically. I've met a few of these,
and they didn't need to take shit from anyone and
they could (no word of a lie) out rude-n-crude the guys. Not that
they'd be the kind of women you'd take to a church social, but then I doubt
I'd take some of my infantry associates to such funcitons either.
We should have the paradigm shift you mention. But we shouldn't use our lack
of it as an excuse not to move forward, nor should we use our fear of the
results to limit us. Common sense, and a cautious progression, will be the
answer. Common standards for any job regardless of sex, and warnings (and
enforcement) to the guys who can't keep it together with women around. Its
time we stopped babying the women by giving them double standards, and its
time we stopped babying the guys by not putting women in if they are good
enough. It's time we all (slowly) grow up and live in the 21st century. It's
coming....
Tom.
/************************************************
> Chuck wrote:
> It seems a little odd to me that everyone appears to be using
We don't. We use fictional proof to contradict the first one who used
fictional proofs for *his* theory on female command ability <g>
> Granted there are not a
Kristina Sture - led the defence of Stockholm during its siege by the
Danish in 1520 after the death of her husband. Betrayed during peace
negotiations :-(
Sichelgaita of Apulia, married to the great NORMAN (*NOT* Lombard - for
shame, John! ;-) She was a Lombard, though) lord Robert Guiscard,
conqueror of Sicily, scourge of the ("Byzantine") Empire and a lot of other
more or less nice things <g>
Later,
> John Atkinson wrote:
I've found a few scanty references. ( I'm not sure how accurate these are...)
There was a "warrior queen" named Boadicea in Roman age Britain who gave the
Romans a hard time. She conquered
In a message dated 98-09-11 06:36:04 EDT, you write:
<< Can't speak for many TV shows (though it wasn't the *male* captain of an
Omega-class who rammed in Severed Dreams!), but if you're thinking of
Vanessa Murakuma in In Death Ground (by Weber), she flew her colours from
a Viper-class battleship until it got too badly shot up in 3rd Justin -
she then moved to a superdreadnought. There are lots of female admirals
in Weber's books, BTW - most of them command the heaviest ships
available (Erika Wilson, Jessica van der Gelder, Hannah Avram just to mention
a few).
'Course, Weber is a man himself and might not have noticed the difference
in mental vewpoints :-) >>
Good point, I forgot about the flag change for Muakuma. I think that with my
original ideas I missed some very imported points. Bye Stephen
> John Atkinson wrote:
Time to bring back the Woman Army Corps......
In a message dated 98-09-11 08:07:06 EDT, you write:
<< Again, some Weber stuff has women bulling through when it's necessary.
> [quoted text omitted]
An DNL does not take much "finness" to run, your best bet ist to point it at
the enemy and fire, now if you were a battlecruiser going tow to tow with a
DNL is not a good idea, as to your earlyer (sp) comment, the only Weber book
that I had read was the first part of "In Death Ground," thanks for your
comments, I think (as I said in my last post) that I missed a few very
impotend points. Thanks Bye Stephen
> John Atkinson wrote:
Add to the list, the Empress Jingo' of Japan, who led an invasion of Korea,
while pregnant. Her son the Emperor Ojin was deied after his death as the war
god Hachiman. (are we back to that battle advise from voices in the head
thing?)
> Scott Jaqua wrote:
> >Add to the list, the Empress Jingo' of Japan, who led an invasion of
Hey lets not forget teh leader of teh free world...Hillary Clinton! <g>
Actually, my hat goes off to Margaret Thatcher when it comes to leaders and
ass kickers. Here's a lady that actually used to participate in SAS exercizes
to include sitting IN the kill house during live fire take down, and more than
once chastising her male counterparts for cringing in fear. hear hear.
> At 12:44 11/09/98 -0700, you wrote:
I have to agree with Los here. In my short time in the navy
(R.A.N.) I was
at the Australian Defence Force Academy. ADFA is our main officer training
school and takes in all three services and all the internal units are mixed
sex. I've seen some of these units (including my own) fall to pieces when two
members of the unit start sleeping together. I seen women who refuse to take
orders from some senior cadets, and even jack up with some of the NCOs,
because they feel that they are being singled out. I've seen senior male
cadets refuse harrass junior female cadets out of the service because they
think its not a womans place. I seen senior female cadets be twice as
hard on their commands to the point of destroying all co-operation
because they feel they have be twice as good as the men. Further there has
always been an atmosphere of sexual harassment and intimidation in some of the
units at ADFA. I don't think it was as bad when I was there (10 years ago) as
it appears to be now, but getting through is tough enough without the fear of
being raped, whcih has happened. Having said all that there were probably only
three senior cadets that I had enough respect for to follow to hell and back
without question or hesitation. One of those was a woman. She was tougher than
most of the guys, but then she had to be as she was originally the only female
in her unit, but never acted as if she had anything to prove. If women are to
take a place in combat roles, especailly combat command, there needs to be a
radical change in military culture that must start during basic training. You
must change the idea that women are inherently weaker and useless apart from
sex. The banter is part of it but more as a symptom for what is underneath
than a problem in itself (I know some of the female cadets could give as good
if not better than they got when it came to sexually innuendo). You have to
get the grunts (sailors, airmen whatever) thinking from day one that the women
are just other members of the team who will depend on them, and who can be
depended upon.
I've found a few scanty references.
> ( I'm not sure how accurate these are...)
Yep a nasty piece of work however she got beat in the only pitched battle of
the revolt. I think by division you mean Legion (about 5000 men). IIRC no
legions were lost although several smaller units and their forts were overrun.
> And there was Bat Zabbai ( Zenobia Septimia )
She ruled Palmyra. Odenathus, her predessor, and was able to conquor Syria,
Mesopotamia, Plaestine and much of the the Roman East from the PERSIANS no
less (the Romans were in a bad way). My main beef here is that she was the
political brains and her hubby commanded the armies. When they were defeated
by the Emperor Aurelian, Zenobia and hubby fled into the desert. Zenobia,
being quite pregnant and all, was slowing the party down and the Romans were
gaining. Eventually hubby got sick of all this and stabbed Zenobia, so that
she wouldn't be captured, and went his own way. Nice bloke. IIRC Montevert
Publications did a book titled "Warrior Women" on various female military
leaders form ancient and medieval history. Might be worth a look if anyone has
it or knows where to get a copy. I haven't seen one for a couple of years.
Sorry if I seem to be nick picking (ok I am nit picking) but Roman haistory is
my thing and I need an excuse to stay away from my thesis for a little while.
> On 12 Sep 98, at 10:29, Los wrote:
> Actually, my hat goes off to Margaret Thatcher when it comes to
This was supposed to be tongue in cheek, right? In which case.. <chuckle> If
not. <get better sources>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> You wrote:
> Sichelgaita of Apulia, married to the great NORMAN (*NOT* Lombard -
> John Atkinson wrote:
> >2. Most of the problems a rising from females in the military have to
OK, I'm not going to speak "ex cathedra" here, but it's time for a disclaimer:
"Any opinions expressed herein reflect my own views and not those of the
Australian Defence Force Academy, the Australian Department of Defence, nor
the University of NSW."
I teach at ADFA, the Australian Dfenec Force Academy (you may have noticed
this on the tagline. The.oz bit shows that it was on the Internet while it was
still DARPAnet (Defence Advanced Research Project Agency network). Anyway, I
teach Officer Cadets, Midshipmen etc from all services (and not a few exchange
students, from Thailand, Singapore
etc).
About 40% of the Computer Science students and 20% of the Engineers are
female. At least one top student from last year has the ambition to command a
submarine. I think she'll make it. She has the situational awareness and cool
(and intellect) to do so. Other females are going for aircrew, though not many
for fighters.
The only problem I have with the military side are the number of casualties
during training. They play sports like Rugby (Imagine Gridiron without any
padding). Males and Females. Something like 20% of the cadets get injured
badly over a year ( badly == more than one broken bone, or permanent
incapacity).
I've noticed no distinction between male vs female casualty rates. The males
are generally stronger, the females quicker. Any of them could beat me in just
about any physical activity except possibly weightlifting.
There is one difference, thinking about it: males are more likely to get
injured in vehicle accidents, and tend to get more arm injuries in sports than
leg injuries.
Summary: There are some cadets I wouldn't like to follow (at least until they
mature a fair bit...). But there are others I would feel very comfy with
It was tounge and cheek, you don't actually think I'd respect a British
leader, heck I don't even respect ours...
Los
<g>
> Richard Slattery wrote:
> On 12 Sep 98, at 10:29, Los wrote:
> Tony Wilkinson wrote:
> I have to agree with Los here. In my short time in the navy
---->8---
> Further there has always
Yes. Correction of the problem is difficult too. There is one thing
though that works for us: the constant turn-over of students. The kids
there now have quite different attitudes from previous years.
> I don't think it was as bad when I was there (10 years ago)
Alas yes it has. Did you report the problems? Was there any official or
unofficial mechanism/channel whereby you could? There's also been a
witch hunt or three since then to correct the problems. Royal Commissions,
etc. One good thing that has come of it is that there are many channels for
reporting problems now. I believe that the situation is dramatically better
now than 5 years ago, but 10 years I dunno, I wasn't at ADFA then.
Another (obvious) caveat is that as Staff, I probably know less than 10% of
what is actually going on.
> If women are to take a place in combat roles, especailly
CORRECT! And it has done, at least to some extent, and within the ADF.
> From my personal experiences, the US is not in the same position. They
> The banter is part of it but more as a
This is still true. I have to occasionally rhein it in during labs. Not
because the participants are taking offence, but because it could be
If women are to take a place in combat roles, especailly combat command,
> there needs to be a radical change in military culture that must start
I agree with the above. But when you have 2 different sets of standards with
on being lower than the other you kind of shoot yourself in the foot from the
get go. People are trying to hard to force integration on them. They didnt say
that you could not refuse a woman because she was a woman but that you "had"
to pick a woman. This is doing nobody any favors least of all the women.
That
Chuk Guy
> ---- somebody wrote:
and beth replied:
> I'd tend to agree here. I've often been asked why more women
from a ds2 point of view, how about having an airborne force? due to the laws
of physics, aerospace and fast VTOL craft tend to be pretty streamlined (i
have some of the Aries (?) VTOLs from CMD; i don't know if these still exist,
but they look ace). so, get hefty aerospace support, some gunship vtols and
some air infantry (like those lads in 'apocalypse now' who were for some
reason called air cavalry).
not only will this force be composed of sleek and sexy machines, but it will
also be a coherent, logical unit (although it might restrict the scenarios you
could play). and it would be quite unusual, so most tank'n'infantry people
would not be able to play it better. bargain.
> Stephen wrote:
> > 2) Female captions are more likely to think before acting.
ok, here is my interpretation of this.
(1) the faster, more maneuverable ships are the ones that the
show/picture usually concentrates on, as they are more exciting for joe
scififan,: they go faster and fight at closer ranges. there are precious
few battleship captains in the sci-fi hall of fame (apart from in japan,
of course); there are often carriers, but the action typically focuses on the
fighters.
(2) the female officer is typically a major character (janeway, ivanova, that
new b5 captain whose name i forget, vansen of SAAB), and major characters
typically are smarter than the rest, and more likely to think before acting.
it is also a bit of a stereotype (and since when could hollywood resist
a stereotype - i just saw 'Armageddon') that men (especially military)
are gung-ho psychotics (eg sheridan - how in the name of god did that
berk get to be the chief of the interstellar alliance?), whilst women are more
cerebral. now, this may even be true (and that is most definitely another
discussion, which we will *not* have on this list...), but i think that in
practice, someone of that temperament (like sheridan) would never make it to
captain.
this is just the way that popular (and, imho, especially american) drama
works.
> John spake thusly upon matters weighty:
Picture Vasquez from the Aliens movie?
BTW: If you can get it, the Metal Magic "Spacelords" #M3701 "Adventurer" pack
(4 figs) has a pretty good Vasquez knockoff.
- Sam
and it came to pass that Nyrath did write:
> John Atkinson wrote:
that's 'colchester', for those who care. it is from the latin/saxon
'city on the colne'. the colne is the river which flows through it (the
town is situated at the LBP; the lowest - most seaward - point at which
the river could be bridged with roman technology).
well, as probably the only lister to actually live two train stops from
colchester....
yes, this is a local figure who we all learn about in primary school. she was
a queen of the Iceni, a local briton tribe, who generally gave the romans a
hard time and sacked the town, which i think at the time was the roman
capital.
her camp was nearby, and it is my personal (and incorrect) belief that it was
at wivenhoe, where i live. in fact, i have located her command centre in the
beer garden of the Greyhound pub, where i and some
colleagues have made several in-depth studies ...
> d) The "she's just a girl" attitude. Now I know that many guys don't
> of the table I start watching for unconventional stuff that looks at
YES, that is one thing that I too have learned with gaming with women, they
have a very different take on strategy and tactics that is odd, yet often very
effective. My wife doesn't play anything like I do, to the point that we can't
even play on the same side with the same troops, we simply can't work out a
mutually compatible battle plan. If its just a factor of two armies allied,
then its not so bad...since you never expect your allies to help in any way
YOU want...
I have had to eat my words sometimes after I tell her that I thnk she
shouldn't do something because I think it is... er, tactically unsound
(I
try to be diplomatic about telling my wife I think her plan stinks, as it
tends to cause another battle that has nothing to do with mini's. . :)
and then to have it work well.
To be honest, my wife is the most difficult opponent I have to play, as she
has insights into my thought processes that no ones else does, whereas I swear
that everytime I think I have figured her out, she goes and does something
different! This may be the secret...
Later,
> ---- los wrote:
which brings us to an important point: most of the people mentioned so far
(jeanne d'arc, empress jingo', mrs thatcher) were most definitely a bit wrong
in the head. joan of arc was schizophrenic (she heard voices); to go into
battle whilst pregnant (although we do not know how pregnant: one month? eight
months?) shows that Jingo' was a bit loopy, and mrs thatcher is well known for
being off her trolley, although in a more
moderate and discreet way (in short, a more british way :-).
i think that examples of great female war leaders (all of whom were
really politicians/rulers rather than purely military officers) is not a
useful contribution to this debate. otoh, we know of very few individual
female soldiers at any time in history, so i can't propose any better source
of evidence.
> Alan Brain wrote:
excellent stuff, sir! the sweet taste of first-hand present-day data
from an expert eyewitness does wonders for the soul.
thanks a googol,
> If women are to take a place in combat roles, especailly combat
One significant problem (and one which makes arguing from fiction highly
unreliable) is that men and women have different psychological makeups.
(Disagree? So why did _Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus_ sell so
well?) I have known women who were gung-ho types who might have passed
all
the tests to be an individual soldier--but soldiers need to fight as
units, not individuals. I would not want a woman in combat with me, because I
don't know what she would do. With my buddies, I could predict who would do
what and what I'd need to cover.
I don't necessarily see a problem with all-female units, though.
> At 02:11 14/09/98 +0100, you wrote:
she
> was a queen of the Iceni, a local briton tribe, who generally gave the
I think I still have a very old copy of wargamer which included a micro game
based on Bodicea and her battles.
Just on the topic of women soldiers etc, I believe the Russians in WW2 had a
few fighter aces who were women. Then again the Russians during that war
seemed to be quite prepared to put aside any hindrances to the war effort such
as gender and get on with the job. They didn't have much choice really.
The Iranians also had a womens division (? not certain about unit size
here) during the Iran/Iraq war I believe.
What is the situation in Israel? Do women serve in combat zones there or are
they kept to rear areas?
Pardon me if I've drifted off-topic here as I haven't been following
this thread fully.
Just a couple of sites that may be of interest. One is on russian women
fighter pilots in WW2
http://pratt.edu/~rsilva/sovwomen.htm
The other is a more general site detailing numerous women warriors from
throughout history and some of the history behind them.
http://www.gendergap.com/military/Warriors.HTM
Both have some interesting information. Especially about the "White
rose
of Stalingrad" Lilya Litvyak, who was only killed by 8 Me-109s
concentrating their attack upon her alone.
> Niall Gilsenan wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> Just on the topic of women soldiers etc, I believe the Russians in WW2
XXX It has been years since this came up, but I think the top woman
ace had 17 (of was it 13) kills. JTL
XXX
> The Iranians also had a womens division (? not certain about unit size
XXX As I understand the situation, the women had multiple duties as shepherds,
minefield clearence (the ones the sheep didn't find, Using big rocks), and
cooks ( using whatever they could pick up during the other duties), In that
order. (Or was that the childrens division?) JTL XXX
I don't suppose the really says much about the womans rights movement in the
Islamic counties. Bye for now,
> Niall Gilsenan wrote:
> What is the situation in Israel? Do women serve in combat zones there
Women serve mostly as instructors in basic and advanced training, such as tank
gunnery, weapons maintenance, range instruction etc etc. There was an
interesting
piece about them on ABC 20/20 a few years ago. Israelis found that guys
are less
apt to look/act stupid around them then male instructors and they
actually learn quicker.
> At 14:15 13/09/98 +1000, you wrote:
That can only be a good thing.
> I don't think it was as bad when I was there (10 years ago)
The cases of rape that I have heard about happened after I had left. No
rumours of the sort when I was there but then until someone reports it, it
will stay underground. One woman in my Division made a complaint and whilst
the rumour mill went into overdrive but hard info was impossible. All parties
were not to discuss the issue.
> Another (obvious) caveat is that as Staff, I probably know less than
Ummm, less than 5% including how to hack into the main computer system on
which ALL records are kept (or were in my day). As for behaviour in the lines
I'm afraid no one but the cadets really know what happens and I found it
impossible to explain to other people including the officers.
> At 12:03 13/09/98 -0400, you wrote:
she was a queen of the Iceni, a local briton tribe, who generally gave the
romans a hard time and sacked the town, which i think at the time was the
roman capital.
> her camp was nearby, and it is my personal (and incorrect) belief that
As a Roman (fan) I'm very interested in seeing this barbarian den of iniquity
if I ever get to Britain again.
> Alan E & Carmel J Brain wrote:
> You wrote:
> support, some gunship vtols and some air infantry (like those lads in
Because they were from the 1st Cavalry Division--the big yellow patch,
remember? The line for the line they never crossed, the horse for the horses
they never rode, and the color speaks for itself.
> You wrote:
> YES, that is one thing that I too have learned with gaming with women,
> I have had to eat my words sometimes after I tell her that I thnk she
> To be honest, my wife is the most difficult opponent I have to play,
The secret is, IMHO (gross generalization warning ahead), that women aren't
hampered by 3,000 years of tradition. They generally don't sit down a read for
fun about battles that happened hundreds of years ago, and they don't
generally have a deep grounding in the tactics that have proven themselves
over the past umpteen centuries. So they don't come at it with any
preconcieved notions. Like if someone fights me, they know exactally what I'm
going to do because I stick to simple plans based on conventional wisdom.
Nothing fancy, nothing covoluted. I'm a
Hammer general--draw the biggest hammer you can find from the stores,
and whack away until it breaks. Women come at each game fresh, read
the rules, and figure out what works _by_those_rules_. They also
aren't afraid of complexity, and they are generally better at reading
body language and non-verbal communication to gain insights into their
opponent's thought processes. Most guys can't read body language past
the gross-and-obvious-come-on stage.
> On Sun, 13 Sep 1998, John Atkinson wrote:
> The secret is, IMHO (gross generalization warning ahead), that women
> down a read for fun about battles that happened hundreds of years ago,
> and they don't generally have a deep grounding in the tactics that
> at it with any preconcieved notions. Like if someone fights me, they
I fully agree. I just find it funny that when a guy does exactly that -
finds out what works by the rules and bases tactics on it - accusations
of rules lawyering, cheese etc. are never far away.
Do we cut the gals more slack? Is it just because they are women, or because
we assume they wouldn't have known that a particular tactic is not realistic
but a loophole in the rules?
On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:44:50 +0300 (EEST) Mikko Kurki-Suonio
> <maxxon@swob.dna.fi> wrote:
> I fully agree. I just find it funny that when a guy does exactly that
I personally find that women understand it as a game more than men. When I
have coaxed the misses into playing in the past I always lose why, well it's
simple I choose tactics based on an understanding of past battles. The misses
just sees that she has losts of guns with various ranges, she may even see
that she has objectives to get. The best example was when playing DSII I
attempted to take an objective with some of my force, with the rest covering.
To my surprise the misses seeing this tactic used every unit she had to attack
the objective. Blew me apart while I desperatly tried
to bring my non-commited units
into play. It's simple she said you wanted it and so did I, I used more men
than you. But what about the rest of the battlefield I said. She then looked
at the casulties like chess pieces and announced. Well try and grab another
one then I'm doing better than you.:)
Women! watch em or they'll take over the world;)
> At 15:42 13/09/98 -0700, you wrote:
> You wrote:
> she has objectives to get. The best example was when playing DSII I
1)Sounds to me (I'd have to look at the terrain and have more details about
the battle) like you violated the principle of mass. Dirtside II bites anyone
who does this. He who concentrates more firepower at the point of decision
wins. Con report to follow will expound on this at great length as it
determined 2 of the 3 games we played.
2)Sounds also to me that casualties aren't figuring in your victory
conditions. If your opponent doesn't have a reason to conserve troops, she
won't. Start putting loss percentages as a modifier to the
victory--if she 'holds' the objective, but has taken 90% losses and
you've taken 40% losses, then it's not a victory.
laserlight spake thusly upon matters weighty:
I have known women who were gung-ho types who might have passed all
> the tests to be an individual soldier--but soldiers need to fight as
Without being sarcastic, let me address this comment. Men and Women may think
somewhat differently due to different brain chemistry and socialization. But
you think that you are that much more expert in how men think because you are
one or because you've interacted with more of them? I'd question that. I think
no UNIT is very good as a UNIT until the men (or in this case men and women)
have worked together over a period of time. Whenever you get a new officer,
you'd be hard pressed to depend on knowing his or her reacitons 'out of the
box'. You have to work with them to get a feel for which way they react to
stress situations and how they like to play things. If you can predict what
your buddies would do, it would be because you've trained with them, been
through stress with them, and seen how they perform. Put a women in the same
mix, give her the same time to adapt (assuming single standards for combat),
and give you the same time to watch how she behaves, and I'm sure you'd have
just as good of a feel for what she'd do. If you say "I can tell what I guy
would do without training with him" then you're basing your reactions on some
sort of probabalistic model which has a pretty good chance of being off the
mark. Most of the time, people don't even know what THEY will do when the sh*t
hits the propeller, let alone what OTHERS will do. Until of course they've
been there. And then they know, and they know how their buddies will behave. I
don't think sex is real significant in that sense. In a way, the advancing of
this argument sounds like 'we don't want women because we can't predict what
they'll do, darn strange beasts that they are'. In truth, if you train with
them (I did during infantry basic), you learn how they'll pull their weight
(or won't) and whether they'll put up or crack up. They had a tougher road in
many senses than most of the guys. Some made it, some didn't. And by the end,
you could predict that they'd react mostly like the
guys would - something about that 'breaking down of individualism'
and the 'moulding of a team from the ashes'. Leads to kind of common
reactions.
Tom.
/************************************************
--
> Whole sqaurons were manned by women (3 IIRC). About the only service
Actually, women served in the Russian armored divisions, as drivers.
-Buji
> At 13:43 13/09/98 -0400, you wrote:
> (Disagree? So why did _Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus_ sell so
To be honest I don't think that this is a problem for mixed units, provided
that the mixed units work as a team. My experiance is that 10 years ago, and
most propably today, that such units rarely work as teams. You turst and can
predict your buddies because you know them and have worked with them for some
time as a team. Replace one or two of those team members and see if the
teamwork doesn't suffer to some degree. Women in a unit are not a problem once
you know them and can predict their actions, provided they work as part of the
team. Team failure has been the BIG drawback with mixed sex units to date.
> At 22:00 13/09/98 +0100, you wrote:
Whole sqaurons were manned by women (3 IIRC). About the only service that you
won't find Russian women in are Artillery and Tanks because it was felt that
they were not strong enough to be constantly lifting shells. You occassionaly
find women (though not units of them) with the front line infantry. Some are
Political offciers but some seem to be unit commanders.
> The Iranians also had a womens division (? not certain about unit size
Understrength division. Never saw combat IIRC. Hardly surprising as late in
the war the Iranians used human waves of kids to clear minefields.
> What is the situation in Israel? Do women serve in combat zones there
Mostly rear area security and support roles. Interestling 90% of Israeli
airport security are women. I didn't mind being interrogated 3 times.
Tony. twilko@ozemail.com.au
> Pardon me if I've drifted off-topic here as I haven't been following
> ---- laserlight wrote:
all sentient entities have differnt psychological makeups. the mean makeup of
men and the mean makeup of women are different, certainly, but is the
difference much larger than the standard deviation? maybe, on average, women
make worse soldiers, but that does not mean that a large proportion of women
would not make good soldiers. just as not all men make good soldiers.
> (Disagree? So why did _Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus_ sell
possibly for the same reason all those 'give up smoking with the help of the
egyptian gods' and 'find your ideal mate through astrology' books sell so
well. Anderson's first law: 80% of the people have 20% of the intelligence.
> I have known women who were gung-ho types who might have passed all
ok, if you were in combat with me (perish the thought), would you know what i
would do next? no (well, yes: i'd run away, but that's not important right
now). the reason you do not know how women fight is because you have not
trained or fought with any women.
> ---- john atkins wrote:
the acid test of this excellent hypothesis would be how women play FT. ft
players in general are not hampered by all that much tradition, as
fighting starships in a no-speed-limit, vector-based movement system is
fairly new.
> They generally don't sit
> and they don't generally have a deep grounding in the tactics that
erm ... nor do i. hey, maybe i'm actually quite good at ds2! :-)
> ---- tony wrote:
no worries, cobber! our conclusion was based largely on the fact that the
Greyhound does hawaiian nights and things, where they mix lots of
oddly-coloured cocktails, and as (a) a soldier and (b) an essex girl
(possibly *the* essex girl) Boudicca would have been right in there.
in fact, here is a suggestion to whoever maintains the ft people finder
thingy: add the location of the nearest pub to the data :-).