A Background article for David

dreamrider wrote:Saw this article on Yahoo, on a different aspect of/ issue for women warriors. Thought David might find it interesting for deep background.

Massive SNIP of really good stuff.

Many thanks. I know quite a few military women (and men) who have already seen this up close and personal. We don't see it much in the Honorverse because I figure society's had another couple of thousand years to figure out how to get it straight and deal with the fact that men and women face the same challenges in the military but that those challenges don't always hit the same stress buttons when they do. And, of course, for societal expectations and demands (which are unreasonable as hell all too often, unfortunately) to have evolved in tandem. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who puts his/her life at the service of his/her country and fellow citizens deserves every bit of support we can possibly give, and that very specifically includes things like helping to reintegrate them into civilian life when they leave the military and helping them maintain some semblance of a "normal" relationship with their families, spouses and children alike, while they serve. I've known about Grace After Fire for some time now, and I think it is one of the best things going for our military women. I only wish it wasn't necessary in the first place.

runsforcelery wrote: We don't see it much in the Honorverse because I figure society's had another couple of thousand years to figure out how to get it straight and deal with the fact that men and women face the same challenges in the military but that those challenges don't always hit the same stress buttons when they do. And, of course, for societal expectations and demands (which are unreasonable as hell all too often, unfortunately) to have evolved in tandem.

...

Shouldnt need that much time, as among nations with women in the military, USA is among those with the most problems coming from this, directly or indirectly, and the culture behind it seems to not be so common elsewhere(that´s not to say i know of any place where things are just perfect).

My country has had women on international missions since early 90s now and regardless type of mission, lenght or level of danger etc, anything like the differences in divorce rates mentioned isnt seen at all.
And on-station pregnancies is a complete unknown, i dont know that it´s happened even once.

One of the examples that i think shows off the difference in culture best is when it comes to submarines.
USN is vehemently against women on submarines, citing all kinds of more or less ridiculous reasons, among which is the "absolute need" for separate bunks and facilities.
Sweden has been running mixed crews in our comparatively tiny subs perfectly fine over a decade now and noone even argued about any kind of need for separate bunks and facilities... And ever since the AIP improvements were added, they can behave much more like nuclear subs, like staying submerged for a few weeks and such, and there´s no problems even remotely close to what USN gets just on its surface ships or bases.

The best attempt at an explanation i´ve seen is probably that USAs society is so worried about "macho" that military men too often are unable to consider female militaries as simply "fellow crewmember".
I wont say what i think... ^_^

While "us over here" are certainly not even close to as "equal" as is common in the Honorverse books, USA is a rather bad point of reference since its on the far end of the scale in the here and now. So, as i said, hopefully things should go a bit faster at least.

Tenshinai wrote:

runsforcelery wrote: We don't see it much in the Honorverse because I figure society's had another couple of thousand years to figure out how to get it straight and deal with the fact that men and women face the same challenges in the military but that those challenges don't always hit the same stress buttons when they do. And, of course, for societal expectations and demands (which are unreasonable as hell all too often, unfortunately) to have evolved in tandem.

...

Shouldnt need that much time, as among nations with women in the military, USA is among those with the most problems coming from this, directly or indirectly, and the culture behind it seems to not be so common elsewhere(that´s not to say i know of any place where things are just perfect).

My country has had women on international missions since early 90s now and regardless type of mission, lenght or level of danger etc, anything like the differences in divorce rates mentioned isnt seen at all.
And on-station pregnancies is a complete unknown, i dont know that it´s happened even once.

One of the examples that i think shows off the difference in culture best is when it comes to submarines.
USN is vehemently against women on submarines, citing all kinds of more or less ridiculous reasons, among which is the "absolute need" for separate bunks and facilities.
Sweden has been running mixed crews in our comparatively tiny subs perfectly fine over a decade now and noone even argued about any kind of need for separate bunks and facilities... And ever since the AIP improvements were added, they can behave much more like nuclear subs, like staying submerged for a few weeks and such, and there´s no problems even remotely close to what USN gets just on its surface ships or bases.

The best attempt at an explanation i´ve seen is probably that USAs society is so worried about "macho" that military men too often are unable to consider female militaries as simply "fellow crewmember".
I wont say what i think... ^_^

While "us over here" are certainly not even close to as "equal" as is common in the Honorverse books, USA is a rather bad point of reference since its on the far end of the scale in the here and now. So, as i said, hopefully things should go a bit faster at least.

Well the problem isn't just mixed crews. It's also the husband OR wife left behind if one of the couple is NOT in the military.

I think that's probably the greatest difficulty. "Normal" couples don't have to endure six-month separations while their loved one is at risk of life and limb on a daily basis. We who don't go through that can't truly understand it, but as David said, we should do everything we possibly can to support them.

I will also quibble on the "ridiculous" label you give those objections for mixed crews. From YOUR cultural perspective they are. But your culture is no more "perfect" than ours. So they may seem ridiculous to you, but that doesn't actually mean they really are.

FriarBob wrote:Well the problem isn't just mixed crews. It's also the husband OR wife left behind if one of the couple is NOT in the military.

I think that's probably the greatest difficulty. "Normal" couples don't have to endure six-month separations while their loved one is at risk of life and limb on a daily basis. We who don't go through that can't truly understand it, but as David said, we should do everything we possibly can to support them.

Yes of course. But this happens regardless of "crew composition".

FriarBob wrote:I will also quibble on the "ridiculous" label you give those objections for mixed crews. From YOUR cultural perspective they are. But your culture is no more "perfect" than ours. So they may seem ridiculous to you, but that doesn't actually mean they really are.

No i mean it, i and a couple of friends have discussed this on various forums, and some IRL as well, and the arguments coming from the "mixed crew opposition"(almost completely composed of americans) really IS mostly VERY ridiculous.
The common one is how its just sooo totally a MUST to have separated bunks and facilities and how dreadfully tihs would cut down on available space, which is a very valuable commodity indeed... Disproven by multiple nations running far smaller subs both with and without separation and not having notable problems nor trading away space for it.

Another common one is about how dreadfully it distracts those poor boys... If a supposedly "pro" military man cant handle having a woman nearby without loosing it, he most certainly is NOT a pro and should be thrown out for being a liability to his service regardless.

Then a really silly one(fortunately not quite as common), that women take too long because they have to wear makeup... Doh, if makeup is THAT important, the woman in question clearly isnt suited for the military (and probably wont go there in the first place), end of story.

Another *extremely* silly one is a claim that women cant handle the isolation of long submerged cruises... This is a truly sad claim to see as it´s been disproven so many times that "silly" or "ridiculous" isnt even halfway to covering it.

So yes, as i said, nearly all objections really are ridiculous, while the few that are not are more or less invalid anyway.
You might also say that the decision that even USN will begin to allow at least some female officers on subs from 2012, agrees with with what i said.

Aside from that, MY "cultural perspective" as well as experience is that as long as the people involved are professionals, gender is irrelevant.

Of course you enlightened folk don't have any combat experience to demonstrate how well mixed crews work when the shit hits the fan.

Israel had tightly integrated women into it's armed forces. It was a source of great pride about how enlightened they were. Then they got into a war and their young women started showing up in body bags and suddenly it was barbaric.

Tenshinai wrote:

FriarBob wrote:Well the problem isn't just mixed crews. It's also the husband OR wife left behind if one of the couple is NOT in the military.

I think that's probably the greatest difficulty. "Normal" couples don't have to endure six-month separations while their loved one is at risk of life and limb on a daily basis. We who don't go through that can't truly understand it, but as David said, we should do everything we possibly can to support them.

Yes of course. But this happens regardless of "crew composition".

FriarBob wrote:I will also quibble on the "ridiculous" label you give those objections for mixed crews. From YOUR cultural perspective they are. But your culture is no more "perfect" than ours. So they may seem ridiculous to you, but that doesn't actually mean they really are.

No i mean it, i and a couple of friends have discussed this on various forums, and some IRL as well, and the arguments coming from the "mixed crew opposition"(almost completely composed of americans) really IS mostly VERY ridiculous.
The common one is how its just sooo totally a MUST to have separated bunks and facilities and how dreadfully tihs would cut down on available space, which is a very valuable commodity indeed... Disproven by multiple nations running far smaller subs both with and without separation and not having notable problems nor trading away space for it.

Another common one is about how dreadfully it distracts those poor boys... If a supposedly "pro" military man cant handle having a woman nearby without loosing it, he most certainly is NOT a pro and should be thrown out for being a liability to his service regardless.

Then a really silly one(fortunately not quite as common), that women take too long because they have to wear makeup... Doh, if makeup is THAT important, the woman in question clearly isnt suited for the military (and probably wont go there in the first place), end of story.

Another *extremely* silly one is a claim that women cant handle the isolation of long submerged cruises... This is a truly sad claim to see as it´s been disproven so many times that "silly" or "ridiculous" isnt even halfway to covering it.

So yes, as i said, nearly all objections really are ridiculous, while the few that are not are more or less invalid anyway.
You might also say that the decision that even USN will begin to allow at least some female officers on subs from 2012, agrees with with what i said.

Aside from that, MY "cultural perspective" as well as experience is that as long as the people involved are professionals, gender is irrelevant.

namelessfly wrote:Of course you enlightened folk don't have any combat experience to demonstrate how well mixed crews work when the shit hits the fan.

Israel had tightly integrated women into it's armed forces. It was a source of great pride about how enlightened they were. Then they got into a war and their young women started showing up in body bags and suddenly it was barbaric.

Where do you get the delusion that "we" dont have combat experience from?

I'm curious about Sweden's resent combat experience with submarines. I heard about Norway and Russian Subs in territorial waters back in the cold war, but not Sweden. Am I wrong or weren't you guys neutral in WW 2 too? What big wars has Sweden fought since the cold war's cooling? I know the US media is ethnocentric, liberal, and anti-war, but missing a war, please.

pokermind wrote:I'm curious about Sweden's resent combat experience with submarines. I heard about Norway and Russian Subs in territorial waters back in the cold war, but not Sweden. Am I wrong or weren't you guys neutral in WW 2 too? What big wars has Sweden fought since the cold war's cooling? I know the US media is ethnocentric, liberal, and anti-war, but missing a war, please.

No big wars. And if you ask specifically about subs, the most they´ve done is intel gathering in "hot spots" and making fun of USN in exercises.

Presence in wars? Starts with Congo in the 1950s, the only time Sweden has had a fullscale extraterritorial airforce squadron base. And via a lot of peacekeeping ops, some of which turned into peace-enforcing or just pure messy we´ve recently been part of the Afghan forces for quite a few years by now.
Except for those two, Liberia, various places in the Middle-east and ex-Yugoslavia are probably the ones that have resulted in the most combat experience.

Anyway, subs whenever on duty usually operates on a "pseudo-hot" basis(ie they often behave pretty much as if it was a hot or nearly hot war going on except they dont shoot at anyone), and with our subs doing "patrols" at anywhere up to 9 weeks(that i know of, might have been longer as well) with mixed crews, claims of how it cant work seems more than a little lame.
In fact, there tend to be a lot of female sonar ops in our sub crews as many have shown talent in that direction, so maybe that´s why Gotland kicked USN rear end so badly? ^_^

*messing a bit with fly* ;)

Oh and about Norway/Soviet subs? Heh, that´s nothing, Try googling "Whiskey on the rocks 1981" for the worst incident Sweden had. Far from the only one.
Swedish military were practically seconds from firing on the Soviet naval force that wanted to salvage the stranded S-363, it wasn´t until the coastal defence force switched its radar to combat ready mode and started actively painting targets that the Soviet force turned away(but at least then it did so very quickly, obviously very much not wanting to provoke actual battle), just barely passing into Swedish territorial waters during their turn.

Even today it´s still not known for sure wether the sub got where it ran aground by mistake or by intent.
The only ones who seriously says it was intentionally seems to be the captain and his 2nd, the two people who would be responsible for the screwup if it was one, so i´m inclined to think it was accidental, also the fact that USSR was caught so very unprepared by the events also points in that direction. And since USSR no longer exists to be nasty about it, and yet noone has managed to find any evidence of the mission the captain claims, that´s another indication.

But the large number of incidents with submarines intruding on Swedish waters during the cold war(both very much real and in retrospect some more or less not real) caused a very strong reaction to improve Swedish ASW capabilities, and as a neutral nation during the cold war, the only reliable way to do that was for our own submarines to become REALLY good at sneaking around and playing hostiles so everyone had something to practise against.

Remember, during the coldwar, this place was less than 2 hours by air and 24 hours by sea from Soviet forces specifically training for an invasion here.
That, mixed with recalling the impossible situation in WWII kept Swedish military VERY well in shape.