Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: An Old Male Fantasy that needs to pass
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero)
Date: 12 Oct 92 10:45:32 PDT
Distribution: world
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA

In article <1992Oct10.201820.6237@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
|> I appreciate Michael Rivero's efforts at maintaining
|> one of the older Male Myths about warfare...
|> 
|> but it is Time to grow up and face reality.
|> 
|> I will direct the reader to this quarter's issue of MHQ
|> as a technical reference. But the Grand Fantasy about
|> the 'end game' of Cold Steel Bayonets - is Romantic -
|> but both impractical and not supported by the data.
|> 
|> Less than 2% of the casualties of WWI were from bayonets.

  The majorityy of casualties were from, poison gas attacks (such as
the one which took my Grandfaher's left lung). Once gas weapons were outlawed,
there vwere more "endgame" type battles.

  The figures are much higher for WW2, especially in the Pacific. The Japanese,
towards the end of the war, established the "Special Southern Unit" for
the island defensive campeigns. These soldiers, preferring their Gunto swords
over their more conventional firearms enjoyed an 8 to 1 kill ratio. Much
of the reputation for the Japanese sword in WW2 came from this unit.
Using a sword is a matter of physical strength. Not a bayonet technically,
but a weapon requiring physical strength.

  And bayonets aside, there is still the basic requirement that a soldier
carry a lot of field equipment over long distances when the mechanized
transportation is unavailable. That requires a lot of strength.


|> { I use these stats as this was a war that was impassionately
|> infatuated with the massed charge of bayoneted infantry...}

 Not quite. The "selling" of war is infatuated with catapult launches
and stealth fighters, and other high tech toys that transform bloody
battlefields into giant open-air Nintendo sets to play in. Part of this
is to convice conscripts that it's easy and "glorious" work. Part of it
is to mentally isolate the killer from the killing itself. Check out
the actual breakdown of a modern army. Most soldiers are still ground pounders,
greatly outnumbering tank crews and air support. 



|> 
|> Also worth noting: when the special forces camp down the road
|> from Khe Sahn was over run by NVA units backed up with PT-76
|> tanks... the Special Forces boys learned that bayonets were not decent
|> anti_tank weapons....
|> {hum, wonder if this proves that those Green Beenies were wimps?}
|> 
|> So Michael, if you wish to use historical data points as a
|> part of your Sexist Fantasies.... At least try to make them
|> work a little more effectively.

  The point I wanted to make was that once mechanical support is gone,
women make less effective soldiers because they can (on the average) 
fight less and carry less. If they want to fight that's just fine, but
they will suffer excessive losses compared to the men.

  People have been trying to prove that women can fight men on equal footing
for centuries. Most people don't know it, but for a brief time there were
female gladiators in Rome. This was a practice started by Nero to 
"spice" up the games which quickly died out (along with the female contestants).
The only Emperor to make it something worth wagering on was Domitian who 
paired female gladiators armed with Thracian swords against male dwarves 
armed with tridents.  Even the Roman masses thought it was silly and left to
go watch the Lions versus Christians in the arena across the Appian Way.
Females vanished from the arena in about 90 B.C. less than 20 years before
Sparticus' revolt.

  Hey, if you want to fight, go ahead. There's been way too much sexual 
discrimination in Arlington National Cemetary. I just hate to see anyone,
male or female, leave portions of their anatomy all over the landscaping.

  All I am saying is that there is a lot to modern warfare that depends on
sheer physical strength, and the average woman is smaller and weaker than the
average man. Any military commander who sends women into a hand to hand
battle is either a fool or desperate.

  There is also the larger issue that whenever a nation enters into warfare,
it must be looking forward to replenishing it's stock of workers/soldiers
to make up for expected losses in the battle, otherwise, it will win a war only
to find many of it's factories and farms unattended and empty. Only when 
a nation is facing imminent defeat does this consideration lose importance, 
which is why women historically are put into combat very late in conflicts, 
and only on the side that thinks it is in danger of losing. In this larger 
context, nations tend to value and protect women much more highly than men, 
who are seen as disposable (and easily replacable) segments of the 
breeding population.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  "Middle-aged Mutant Ninja Animator" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|  "The great masses of people. . .will more easily fall                 |
|  victims to a big lie than to a small one."                            |
|                                          --Adolf Hitler                |
|                                                                        |
|   "All men are potential rapists, and that's _all_ they are!"          |
|                                 -- Susan Brownmiller                   |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Xref: sparky soc.women:17825 alt.sex:33252