![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Amazon Legion
Dec. 2nd, 2013 10:34 amI mentioned that I was reading Tom Kratman's novel The Amazon Legion. Kratman's very much a libertarian / conservative type, so when he wrote a book about training female infantry combat units, I felt it might be interesting. It was, for a number of values of "interesting."
The plot is simple enough - Panama-analog nation-state in colony world has pissed off the US-analog major power. Small state is ruled under Starship Trooper-style only ex-military can vote system. Heinlein-ish competent and benevolent semi-dictator counts troops, knows he needs more, decides to form separate regiments of gays and women. The later end up being used in guerrilla warfare when big state invades. Much blood and gore ensues.
Now, I have no problem with Kratman's portrayal of the women's boot camp. They train separately than the men (much like the current USMC) and train to somewhat lower physical standards. Kratman explicitly understands that one of the reasons of training to physical collapse is to ensure that the people being trained know what physical collapse is and how close they can get to it. (The other is to get more out of people than they think they can deliver.)
I have a general problem with the "only vets can vote" model, in that one risks creating a permanent underclass, and I have somewhat of an issue with segregated units. The argument against said units is that the men will spend more time protecting the women than fighting - something that tends to break down in combat. Even in Kratman's book, by the end of it, the women are fighting in mixed guerrilla units with great effect.
But this whole women in combat argument has a bit of a straw man. Most people, including me, don't want equality of result, we want equality of opportunity. It's fair to ask if a certain physical skill-set is really necessary, but if it is and women can't make it, then so be it. The other straw man is that modern combat includes many activities other than front-line infantry.
The third straw man is effectiveness. The average woman may be less effective than the average man in infantry combat, but "less effective" is not "ineffective." As Stalin said, "mass has a quality all its own" and if you don't have enough troops, or enough of a certain skill (language, for example) then you become ineffective.
The plot is simple enough - Panama-analog nation-state in colony world has pissed off the US-analog major power. Small state is ruled under Starship Trooper-style only ex-military can vote system. Heinlein-ish competent and benevolent semi-dictator counts troops, knows he needs more, decides to form separate regiments of gays and women. The later end up being used in guerrilla warfare when big state invades. Much blood and gore ensues.
Now, I have no problem with Kratman's portrayal of the women's boot camp. They train separately than the men (much like the current USMC) and train to somewhat lower physical standards. Kratman explicitly understands that one of the reasons of training to physical collapse is to ensure that the people being trained know what physical collapse is and how close they can get to it. (The other is to get more out of people than they think they can deliver.)
I have a general problem with the "only vets can vote" model, in that one risks creating a permanent underclass, and I have somewhat of an issue with segregated units. The argument against said units is that the men will spend more time protecting the women than fighting - something that tends to break down in combat. Even in Kratman's book, by the end of it, the women are fighting in mixed guerrilla units with great effect.
But this whole women in combat argument has a bit of a straw man. Most people, including me, don't want equality of result, we want equality of opportunity. It's fair to ask if a certain physical skill-set is really necessary, but if it is and women can't make it, then so be it. The other straw man is that modern combat includes many activities other than front-line infantry.
The third straw man is effectiveness. The average woman may be less effective than the average man in infantry combat, but "less effective" is not "ineffective." As Stalin said, "mass has a quality all its own" and if you don't have enough troops, or enough of a certain skill (language, for example) then you become ineffective.
