Cadian Females?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Shaozun**

Lynata wrote:
Spetulhu wrote:most western armies (or any armies) still don't allow females in front-line units
You'd be surprised.
Although that list is kinda outdated by now. For example, Australia has removed any and all purely gender-based restrictions in 2011. [src]

Spetulhu wrote:I'm sure a lot of it is cultural, but surely part is from our more primitive animal heritage?
According to the most recent studies, gender segregation in human evolution (aka hunter-gatherer society) is actually a fairly recent thing, "just" about 45-10k years old. It is theorised that back then, this allowed our ancestors to survive whilst the Neanderthals (whose females had comparable physical capabilities to the males) died out as they were only hunting but not gathering. [src]

Contemporary attitudes really are just a cultural thing. It's not like female warriors haven't been around before - an interesting example being the Mino regiment of the African Dahomey Empire, or some of the Germanic and Britannic tribes before Rome invaded.

Spetulhu wrote:And ofc, women on average can take more G than a man in a fighter but we don't like sending them out either
That seems to be less controversial, I think, even though aerial combat is quite physical as well all things considered. Even India and Pakistan have female fighter pilots by now - with the Indian Air Marshal commenting that on average they test consistently better than their male colleagues.

All in all, it's just a fairly new thing that, unfortunately and unsurprisingly, faces quite a bit of resistance. Give it one or two decades and an evolved society will have gotten used to it. It's no different than back then when black people were allowed to join the US military. There are some rather shameful "studies" in the archives about how they would supposedly destroy the esprit-du-corps as well, or how they'd always need a white officer to watch them etc.
It is in humanity's nature to segregate .. whether you do this based on gender, skin colour, religion, etc. is secondary, as long as those in power can feel superior.

The problem with women on the frontline is that men actually make different choices if a women were in danger compared to a man. They take stupid risks for them. It's no ones fault really, it's just biological, but it is a major reason why many militaries allow women in to service but actively try to keep them away from any roles that involve regular contact with the frontline.

If they can perform the same or better as the average male then no one cares; it's just when an inconvenient evolutionary history gets in the way that it's a problem. There was a lot of debate over it over the past few years here.

Having all-female units doesn't solve the problem either, but there's no reason for them not to be NCOs or in the airforce or navy which aren't typical frontline roles (and you can't exactly go out of your way riskily to save a female pilot)