Jump to content

Why women don't take black


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Jaak said:

The Watch faces another military population. The Wildings.

And an advantage of Watch over Wildings is that unlike Wildings, Watch is not raising their own young.

I'm afraid I'm not following. What exactly do you mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a given strip of farmland, whether Old Gift, New Gift or north of Wall, a population of married peasants have to feed themselves, their wives and children - and only then they have something left over for warriors or builders.

In Old Gift, the Stewards do have to farm and feed for themselves - but instead of feeding wives and children, they can feed Rangers and Builders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Protagoras said:

But you don´t know how much manpower that is needed. In fact, considering th threat, getting all the fucking manpower that you can seems like a good idea no? Certainly, efficiently and few casulties would be optional - but (again) nothing in this is optimal. If the others are strong enough to threaten human existance then this will be the next Vietnam, rather than a short shirmish. Having little manpower was never an option.

To be fair, until quite recently, the Others' threat has been dismissed as imaginary, even by the Night's Watch (and still is by some).  So they were not in an existential fight (at least as far as they knew) and therefore had no need to expand their recruitment pool.  

Now that they are, Jon is essentially taking your advice, and putting any warm body he can get his hands on to man the Wall, primarily Wildlings, and specifically including women and girls.  If and when the threat recedes, I would expect the NW to go back to its all male existence, not least because the recruiting pool for women in Westeros is likely to be vanishingly small (note the common reaction to Brienne, especially among women).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nevets said:

Now that they are, Jon is essentially taking your advice, and putting any warm body he can get his hands on to man the Wall, primarily Wildlings, and specifically including women and girls.

Indeed he do. Too bad he was unable to stay out of westerosi business and choses to jeopardize the larger struggle in order to take a fight against the evil Boltons. He lacks true understanding of duty and how to use your power.

His will to help people in danger and standing up to people, risks his entire mission. Compared to that damage, the extra manpower to the wall he gains from women are neglectable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point about rapes would carry more weight if there were actually any mention of rapes among the Night Watch at the moment. Rape is not about sexual desire, it is about power, and rapes occur in all male prisons all the time. 

(In terms of the consensual stuff, Aemon's line about love and duty also runs into real problems if you have homosexual attraction between Night Watchmen).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Protagoras, a lot of valid points. It certainly has not helped that I mixed up the Night Watch's situation, today's warfare and general considerations without making clear when I take about what. I'll try to elaborate.

First, in my opinion, the Watch is basically infantry. When push comes to shove they're all grunts. And while I have no problems whatsoever with female soldiers on principle, I share a lot of the reservations against women in infantry units. So these concerns carry over to the Watch's situation, I guess.

Second, I'm all about facts and results. Men and Women are equal in their human rights and before the law (in the real world, not in Westeros, obviously) but biologically they are not, no matter how much we might want that. Real world experiences in different armed forces around the world seem to suggest that men are better suited for war and that mixed-sex infantry units come with some disadvantages. So I am against those. Now, if it turned out that females had some kind of advantage in the fight against the Others (or any other enemy) I'd consider this game changing enough to try to integrate and actively recruit women in spite of the possible disruptions.

13 hours ago, Protagoras said:

But if it´s severely disrupts discipline, morale, decision making and what not, isn´t that the real issue? Cohesion is certainly nice, but if the conflict is very "real" it should be a short-lived factor. Do you think the kurds fighting ISIS has a problem with women? Or do you most of them prefer to beat ISIS?

I agree. If the threat is great enough and you desperately need every able-bodied person, unit cohesion may not be your top priority.

The Kurds remind me of the Jewish population in Palestine before 1950. No state for themselves, threatened  from various sides, not enough people and a general civil war like and survivalist atmosphere. So in their war of independence and later conflicts men and women served side by side. To this day, the IDF conscripts women as well as men. But with the growing population and the experience of decades of now real structured warfare, they too seem to backpedal when it comes to mixed units which overall perform worse than all-male units. I wonder if the Kurds would not develop similarly if given their own state.

(I admit that I am not really familiar with the Kurds' situation, so I might be entirely off track here).

 

Okay, but considering the threat by the Others, isn't the Watch (and Westeros in general) in the same situation as the Kurds and the Jewish in Palestine? Yes and no.

14 hours ago, Protagoras said:

Because we DO have a serious benefit, more manpower. Not sexy, I know - but numbers do have a value, even today.

Yes, the danger of annihilation is the same. So more manpower would certainly outweigh the risk of diminished unit cohesion and presumed general difficulties of female integration into the Watch.

No, they won't be able to come up with the necessary increase in manpower to make cohesion less of a priority. Westerosi society is stable, especially in terms of their strict gender roles, and I don't think you could convince either men or women to send women off to war. An exception is probably Bear Island, where women are trained and expected to defend themselves, but they are under the constant threat of the Ironborn. I guess you could compare them to the Kurds und Jewish. And even if you could recruit enough women for the Watch (or any other army that supports the Watch), they would be of considerably less use than the men. Without firearms or similar weapons you cannot even out the biological disadvantages.

What you could do is assign all non-combat duties to females. I mean, somebody has to take care of logistics and medical services. That would free male personnel to take over combat roles. But I reckon a lot of the women would still have to operate in the danger zone, and that would be considered a no-go.

That's why I do not see the benefits in this particular scenario.

(Don't know about the sexy part. Have you seen pictures of the IDF Caracal Battalion? :blush:)

 

14 hours ago, Protagoras said:

I am also very, very sceptical that a mixed force will perform worse than a all-male force. If intriduction of women disrupts discipline, morale, decision making and what not, then it seems thatcertain males have a bad mental strength to do their job. And in the modern world that is very important.

First, there is evidence suggesting that mixed-sex infantry units perform worse. You won't hear me arguing against female fighter pilots, female crewmen on ships or anything else where they are not engaged in direct close combat with the enemy. But as I said in the beginning, most of the Watch's contact with the enemy is close range ground combat.

Second, I would not blame the disruption on a lack of men's mental strength alone. The majority of humans are heterosexual, and where you put men and women together in close space there's bound to be sexual tension. And it takes two to tango.

If you put them together for a prolonged time and under constant stress, of course, their mental strength will suffer. That's nobody's fault.

 

15 hours ago, Protagoras said:

Physical strength on the other hand is less useful than before. Hercules-types had an advantage in melee in the olden days, but how much physical strength does it take to pull a trigger? Certainly, you want people that are fit and able-bodied, but the old maxim that more muscles = better soldier is simply not true or not as true as before. And I am very sceptical about the need for a certain amount of push-ups to qualify as a soldier. There are other factors like reaction, mental fortitude & alertness since frontline combat is getting rarer and we instead have more irregular warfare.

I disagree. Physical strength is as important as ever. Sure, a schoolgirl can pull a trigger. But only very fit individuals can carry 30+ kg of equipment (let alone sprint with it), load the ammunition in a tank, pick up wounded comrades on so on. That goes for our time and for the olden days, which is where I place Westeros.

It is less important if you are not on the front line, yes, but in Westeros there is nothing else but front line. You even need a crazy amount of strength to shoot an 100 lbs bow repeatedly.

What makes it worse is that even if some female soldiers are able to keep up with the physical standards, they will nevertheless suffer more injuries because their bodies cannot tolerate the same absolute amount of physical stress. So you have team members who are more likey to have to be carried at some point and are less likely to be able to carry someone else.

Wether in general or in the Night's Watch, you can't accuse a soldier of poor mental strength if said soldier cannot at least be certain that everyone on their team could carry or haul them of to safety. 

 

15 hours ago, Protagoras said:

As for emotions in a unit, love can be a powerful motivator. Google Sacred band of Thebes if you want an example. People are simply less likely to flee or perform poorly if you have to leave someone you care about behind or shame yourself in front of them.

Hm. I never considered gay relationships in a unit. But since the above mentioned differences in physical ability would probably not be present in that case, isn't it a moot point?

 

15 hours ago, Protagoras said:

So to me it certainly sounds that the issue is not really efficiency but that male soldiers want people they care about or people they consider to be less good soldiers out of harms way. A sort of high-school mentality (seriously, grow up) which is argued for by false arguments.

And what in the seven hells is wrong with the desire to keep loved ones and the weak safe from harm? How can anybody seriously think of this inherently human trait as a flaw?

The US army demonstrated that you can condition a soldier to shoot on sight and to shoot to kill.

But apparently it is hardly possible to train male soldiers to not react more strongly to a wounded, captured or dead female comrade than a male one. Men seem hardwired to protect women at all costs, and this instinct is one of the reasons that mixed-sex units perform worse.

Women on the other hand seem hardwired to protect (their) children. Would you dismiss this instinct as immature as well?

It makes sense in light of human evolution, I guess. Is this male protective instinct "good" or "bad" for our modern armies or Westerosi armies? I don't know. And frankly, my dears, I don't give a damn. Since we cannot beat it out of them anyway, why put those poor bastards in a situation where they not only have to fight the enemy but their own nature on top of it?

 

15 hours ago, Protagoras said:

And that physiological reasons are quoted for a reason too much and from bias. And then we havn´t considered even more technology in the future like exoskeletons, that will further reduce the difference.

I won't deny that there are people out there who think women shouldn't be in the military simply because their philosophy, ideology or religion says so. Do these people use the same biological reasoning? In part, yes. Does this make these arguments any less valid? No!

Advanced technology could reduce the differences in the future, yes. But we are not there yet, so as for now, I would not want to put to much weight on it.

 

15 hours ago, Protagoras said:

And tbh, if you are unwilling during ANY circumstance to "treat people like canon fodder" then I don´t want you as a general during a zombie apocalypse.

This is a misunderstanding. I would not like to treat people as canon fodder (in any circumstances). Then again, I feel an irrational hate towards parallel parking as well, but I do it if there's no other option ;)

Well, you're right anyway. I'm not suited for command.

 

15 hours ago, Protagoras said:

And yes - war is not about equality & fairness. Which is why a 20-30% or maybe a 50% larger force (assuming that far less women are suitable for active combat) should have an advantage. After all, do people prefer to bitch about skirts or do they prefer to live?

My sentiment exactly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The border between Old Gift and New Gift runs 75 miles from Wall. In Old Gift, the population has always been Stewards, as celibate brethren of Watch.

Yet Mole´s Town is just a mile and a half from Castle Black - well within Old Gift.

Do Eastwatch by the Sea and Shadow Tower have their associated settlements of civilians and whores?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

The point about rapes would carry more weight if there were actually any mention of rapes among the Night Watch at the moment. Rape is not about sexual desire, it is about power, and rapes occur in all male prisons all the time.

I've always wondered about that. The Watch is comparable to a prison population. So why is there never any mention of male-on-male sexual abuse?

My fingers are itching to derail this thread with a discussion about that Brownmiller statement that without any proof ever has become a popular belief. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Bhotharh said:

First, in my opinion, the Watch is basically infantry. When push comes to shove they're all grunts. And while I have no problems whatsoever with female soldiers on principle, I share a lot of the reservations against women in infantry units. So these concerns carry over to the Watch's situation, I guess.

And in this modern world you have the luxery to reason like that. The people in Westeros might not.

59 minutes ago, Bhotharh said:

Real world experiences in different armed forces around the world seem to suggest that men are better suited for war and that mixed-sex infantry units come with some disadvantages.

Better suited? Possibly, but the Others are coming right now and we need manpower. I don´t care about suitability. I don´t care if the performance ratio is higher for certain groups. Even if the efficiency is higher (source please) then we still have more meatbags. So, if those precious orginal units don´t want mixing, ok - lets create new, possibly less good units to simply have more units in the first place!. Sure, you might not trust that female/less then perfect male unit to hold your right, but now at least now you have a unit there at all!

See it like this, if I can throw less good units at the enemy that make it less tough for my ordinary military (even by a little) the decision is the right one to take.

59 minutes ago, Bhotharh said:

Okay, but considering the threat by the Others, isn't the Watch (and Westeros in general) in the same situation as the Kurds and the Jewish in Palestine? Yes and no.

Indeed, depending on where GRRM goes with this, their position is much,much worse.

59 minutes ago, Bhotharh said:

Yes, the danger of annihilation is the same. So more manpower would certainly outweigh the risk of diminished unit cohesion and presumed general difficulties of female integration into the Watch.

Finally!

59 minutes ago, Bhotharh said:

No, they won't be able to come up with the necessary increase in manpower to make cohesion less of a priority.

Why wouldn´t they. They have double the amount of people to work with. More meat to throw against the enemy.

59 minutes ago, Bhotharh said:

And even if you could recruit enough women for the Watch (or any other army that supports the Watch), they would be of considerably less use than the men. Without firearms or similar weapons you cannot even out the biological disadvantages.

First, I have never denied that the introduction of this in Westeros is proplematic due to certain issues.

And for some reason you are stuck at performance levels. I DO NOT CARE IF THE FEMALE WATCHMEMBERS ARE SLAUGHTERED TO A WOMAN. I care about more boots on the ground. Maybe their disadvantages make that they die. But even then their death has served the purpose of facilitating for those with less disadvantages.

59 minutes ago, Bhotharh said:

What you could do is assign all non-combat duties to females. I mean, somebody has to take care of logistics and medical services. That would free male personnel to take over combat roles. But I reckon a lot of the women would still have to operate in the danger zone, and that would be considered a no-go.

Why is it a no-go? Who cares if they die? Why should anyone care if they die? Human life is overestimated anyway.

59 minutes ago, Bhotharh said:

First, there is evidence suggesting that mixed-sex infantry units perform worse. You won't hear me arguing against female fighter pilots, female crewmen on ships or anything else where they are not engaged in direct close combat with the enemy. But as I said in the beginning, most of the Watch's contact with the enemy is close range ground combat.

And again, I do not care. Why turn away someone who is willing to serve and if there is a great need?

59 minutes ago, Bhotharh said:

Second, I would not blame the disruption on a lack of men's mental strength alone. The majority of humans are heterosexual, and where you put men and women together in close space there's bound to be sexual tension. And it takes two to tango.

If men are unable to accept that females can and will die in the line of duty then its 100% on them. It is certainly a lack mental strength and a severe disadvantage.

59 minutes ago, Bhotharh said:

If you put them together for a prolonged time and under constant stress, of course, their mental strength will suffer. That's nobody's fault.

This is true anyway. So why blame women for it. If your mental strength suffers, I am not really interested in your excuses.

59 minutes ago, Bhotharh said:

I disagree. Physical strength is as important as ever. Sure, a schoolgirl can pull a trigger. But only very fit individuals can carry 30+ kg of equipment (let alone sprint with it), load the ammunition in a tank, pick up wounded comrades on so on. That goes for our time and for the olden days, which is where I place Westeros.

Too much equipment is not going to be a problem for the Watch. And if a ranger is wounded, you kill him and burn his body so he won´t be ressurrected.

Again, I am wondering if you and I look at warfare the same way - you are overvaluing the soldiers value and seem to prioritize their survival, where the whole point of the Watch is that they are supposed to die in the defense of the realm.

59 minutes ago, Bhotharh said:

It is less important if you are not on the front line, yes, but in Westeros there is nothing else but front line. You even need a crazy amount of strength to shoot an 100 lbs bow repeatedly.

Pick another weapon then.

59 minutes ago, Bhotharh said:

What makes it worse is that even if some female soldiers are able to keep up with the physical standards, they will nevertheless suffer more injuries because their bodies cannot tolerate the same absolute amount of physical stress. So you have team members who are more likey to have to be carried at some point and are less likely to be able to carry someone else.

Then leave them.

59 minutes ago, Bhotharh said:

Wether in general or in the Night's Watch, you can't accuse a soldier of poor mental strength if said soldier cannot at least be certain that everyone on their team could carry or haul them of to safety. 

Of course I can. We work with the material we have. All material. If you want to bitch that the tools are not as good as you would prefer - tough luck.

Sure, that female soldier might be less likely to carry you, but if she hadn´t been there, there might not have been a soldier who could have carried you anyway.Because there had been fewer soldiers in the first place. You are not losing anything here, but getting a bonus.

59 minutes ago, Bhotharh said:

And what in the seven hells is wrong with the desire to keep loved ones and the weak safe from harm? How can anybody seriously think of this inherently human trait as a flaw?

Of course it is a flaw. If you are unable to do your job because of your emotions, refusing to accept that you have to cut losses and move on then you perform less well, making mistakes. And refusing to take responsibilty for said mistakes, instead blaming the female soldiers for your weakness. Female soldiers who hadn´t been there in first place making your job easier if you had have your way.

Your job is to do a specific task. I don´t give a shit about any desire to "keep loved ones and the weak safe from harm". If you want to create an image of myself, be my guest - but keep it to yourself.

59 minutes ago, Bhotharh said:

The US army demonstrated that you can condition a soldier to shoot on sight and to shoot to kill.

But apparently it is hardly possible to train male soldiers to not react more strongly to a wounded, captured or dead female comrade than a male one. Men seem hardwired to protect women at all costs, and this instinct is one of the reasons that mixed-sex units perform worse.

This sounds like unproved BS, but even if its true - the problem here is the male soldiers. If you fuck up your own cohesion because you are unable to work with the (bonus) resurces you are given, then you are at fault.

59 minutes ago, Bhotharh said:

Women on the other hand seem hardwired to protect (their) children. Would you dismiss this instinct as immature as well?

Source please. And yes I would if they are in the military. They are here to do what I order. Everything else is luxery.

59 minutes ago, Bhotharh said:

It makes sense in light of human evolution, I guess. Is this male protective instinct "good" or "bad" for our modern armies or Westerosi armies? I don't know. And frankly, my dears, I don't give a damn. Since we cannot beat it out of them anyway, why put those poor bastards in a situation where they not only have to fight the enemy but their own nature on top of it?

Because their preferences doesn´t matter and are not important (and in the case of the Nights watch are condemned criminals). I am trying to win a war, adding more resources and this is seen as a problem!

The soldiers should shut the fuck up and do as they are told. Their problem is their problem, not a matter for the organization.

59 minutes ago, Bhotharh said:

I won't deny that there are people out there who think women shouldn't be in the military simply because their philosophy, ideology or religion says so. Do these people use the same biological reasoning? In part, yes. Does this make these arguments any less valid? No!

If biased persons present arguments then those arguments is less likely since that person just grasps at straws. And having someone just claiming something means people will agree with them. That in turn can lead to a snowball effect, based on nothing by a feeling.

Especially if biological reasoning is hard to measure and rarely proved in a suitable way. And is claimed by many to be an automatic win-argument, despite the unwillingness to even test it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bhotharh said:

I've always wondered about that. The Watch is comparable to a prison population. So why is there never any mention of male-on-male sexual abuse?

I know, right? If GRRM was really serious about "realism" Jon's chapters would be crammed full of hot gay action.

1 hour ago, Bhotharh said:

My fingers are itching to derail this thread with a discussion about that Brownmiller statement that without any proof ever has become a popular belief. :rolleyes:

Do it, do it, do it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Shadow of Asshai said:

Because there will be couples and families there, like Maester Aemon said, love is the death of duty, they wouldn't want to stay there forever and at the first attack, they would want to save their families.

Um? Wildings want to stay there forever. Umbers want to stay there forever. Wildings want to save their families, and so do Umbers.

The difference between Watch and Umbers is that because Watch is not burdened by children and women, Watch can support more swords for a given number of mouths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...