Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Are Women Meant for Combat?
C&Rsenal is one of my favorite YouTube channels, I even support them on Patreon. They are doing a collaboration with Ian from Forgotten Weapons where they are testing out various WWI light machine guns against each other. Now for those of you who don’t care about any of those things, please stick around, because I have a larger point. Here’s one of their latest videos; please go to about 33:33:
Now Mae, the woman there, is not shrinking violet. She knows more about guns than I do and is a better shot than I will ever be. Even so, Othais, the big guy on the left, basically says that she couldn’t perform as well on the tests of the guns because she’s a woman. Note that she doesn’t get upset; in fact she agrees with him.
When I was a police officer, I served alongside quite a few tough and able female officers. I’ve worked with a lot more tough and able female nurses. But nursing is not combat, and despite some similarities, neither is law enforcement. None of the women I worked with in either career could have been in the infantry.
The military is not a social services organization. The job of the military is protect the country. And sometimes doing that requires doing dangerous, dirty and strenuous things that are beyond the capability of 99.9% of women. If that means that maybe the career path for women in the military is a little more difficult than for men, so be it. Promoting gender equality is also not the job of the military.
I think most women understand that. Mae, who knows quite a bit about guns and history, understands it. Most of the people who are trying to turn the military into the Girl Scouts (and who, not incidentally, know very little about guns and history) do not.
Published in Military
I agree completely: the frank and honest discussion of frame and mass differences between the sexes was refreshing.
I’ve spent a lot of time at the range teaching others, and particularly women, to shoot, and I’ve noticed the tendency of women to experience misfires with semi-automatic handguns. Grip strength is important, and the male’s testosterone-inspired bones, joints, and musculature contribute more readily to a strong grip than do those of the fairer sex. It’s hardly insurmountable when shooting handguns, but it’s easy to imagine real strength-related challenges for women in combat.
One of my pet peeves at the range are guys that get their girls too much gun. It is dangerous to all and no fun for her.
Agreed.
Another peeve of mine is the opposite side of that, when the RSO gloms onto and pesters and condescends to female shooters. I watched an RSO at outdoor range pester and annoy several experienced female shooters like he was somehow GD’s gift to shooting (he was pretty annoying to everyone, but especially to the women). A creek ran behind the range, and I was surprised nobody shoved him in.
I’m glad this post was promoted to the main feed, and it will be interesting to see which line of conversation becomes the dominant one: either the question of women serving in direct combat roles (like Infantry, Armor, and Artillery), or the more general topic of civilian women’s firearms experiences and related subjects.
I’ll shamelessly attempt to flog the first possible thread, as it is what I thought of when I first read the OP. And, yes, I am unapologetically opposed to women serving in direct combat units (those that are organized, equipped, trained and sent out to close with enemies and then kill them.) As a 30-year US Army veteran, with experience in Mechanized Infantry, US Army watercraft, and finally serving as a Chemical Warfare officer, I can attest that bravery and a willingness to place oneself in harms way to accomplish the mission are certainly not limited to male Soldiers. However, the physiological and psychological differences inherent in male and female biology means the vast majority of women are not fit for sustained service in combat.
The unmistakable struggle the young woman in the video clip linked in the OP is one small example. She appears to be fit, and certainly mentally capable. However, she also clearly struggles with the mass and size of the machine gun, and this is in a situation where she need not move forward in three-to-five second rushes, at the same time that a determined enemy is returning fire.
Anyone who thinks women are not fit for combat has never been in a relatioship with one.
I agree, women are not meant for combat, but I have different reasons. First, shooting is not the only criteria. Lifting and fighting and general strength is required for a whole host of tasks. Women in general do not pass those requirements. Second, and more important to me, women’s primary role in society is nurturing, raising children, keeping a household. I’m sorry if that is sexist, but that’s the way it is. Even if women can perform as men in combat – and I acknowledge some may – the traumatic and soul debilitating aspect of war runs contrary to the primal nurturing instinct. People who return from combat have undergone personality altering experiences which then erode the nurturing capabilities. It’s bad for society when men come back from combat. It’s doubly bad when women do.
Personally I don’t see any issues why a woman can’t do police work. In some cases their female skills may be preferred.
Completely different for fire fighting. It is a very rare woman who has the strength levels for those requirements.
Let’s talk about the REALLY amazing thing about this video… a Chauchat that actually works! :)
I hope you are saying that with a smile . . .
I do not believe that women are meant for combat, for the reasons given in the clip. But unlike many women today, I don’t think that has anything to do with “superior/inferior,” “better/worse” or even “stronger/weaker” (other than in the obvious physical strength; lots of women are plenty tough in other respects). Therefore, I’m happy to cede combat roles to men.
Men and women complement each other in their roles, and traditional society (to this point) has evolved to make the best use of the strengths of both sexes (this is a favorite hobby horse of, among others, Camille Paglia). It’s a partnership. It’s common sense. While men are “taking care” of their women by fighting on the front lines; women are “taking care” of other things important to the continuation of the line, and the furtherance of Western Civiliziation. The sexes are “taking care” of each other, which is the way it’s supposed to work, when it’s working. Why this is not obvious, and why these natural and normal male and female roles have become so toxic today baffles me. (I mean, I do understand why, please don’t feel you need to explain it to me, but Lord, it’s stupid.)
Yes, but it took their master gunsmith to re-fabricate and hand fit the parts to make it run. the 1918 Chauchat in 30-06 is a really rare find.
One of the reasons that Mae was selected for what she does on the channel, besides being very knowledgeable on the subject and very easy on the eyes, is that she happens to be the same size and weight of an average WWI solder (5ft 5in at about 115lbs).
If you follow either of the channels, they actually have a lot of respect for the Chauchat. It was literally on the bleeding edge of technology at the time and put into battle before all the kinks were worked out. It also suffers from other factors-all the examples are over a hundred years old and it was mass produced with poor quality control. The Americans didn’t like it because the version they had in .30-06 was even more thrown together and also suffered in comparison to the BAR. You’ve got to compare it to what you had at the time. If I were French (perish the thought. . .) in 1915, I certainly would rather have had a Chauchat than a Berthier or Lebel.
I would guess that she is also in better health than the average soldier, knows more about guns, and is a better shot. I respect her a great deal; I’ve followed the channel almost from the beginning. She doesn’t belong in combat.
Yeah, I was amazed at how positive they were about that POS.
And miss all the good stuff?
One thing that this video misses is that there is a big difference between walking towards and firing at a paper target and one that is firing back at you. I believe that there is certainly a difference between the physical strength of men and how that can effect the workings of a semi or fully automatic weapon. I have seen quite often the jambing of a 1911 when the shooter is limp wristed. I have, however, trained women to shoot a 1911 with excellent results, even a small, Asian woman who was eventually able to outshoot me with my own gun. However, as well as she shot that gun, I don’t believe that she would have been able to use it, even in self-defense, against a living target.
All of this does not have anything to do with my feelings about women in combat. My concerns have much more to do with the interactions that are set up between the men in the unit when women are present. It has nothing to do with the ability of a woman to fight. I know full well that women can be very dangerous. However, the cohesion of fighting unit is essential, and nothing can more powerful impact that cohesion than sexual tension created by the presence of a woman.
But that is a man’s problem and men need to get over it so womyn are happy. In the end all that matters is that womyn are happy, how many men are hurt, killed, maimed is immaterial as long as one womyn is made happier.
Off topic but is the guy in the middle trying to look like Vladimir Lenin
Geez, I never thought of it that way. I am so embarrassed!
I just watched the sixth video in the series; they had to repair the Chauchat with a zip-tie.