2 ms·

Carrying heavy loads over long distances and tolerating great risks of physical injury are two things where there are indeed significant sex disparities univers

Carrying heavy loads over long distances and tolerating great risks of physical injury are two things where there are indeed significant sex disparities universal across cultures. Exceptionally few women serve in frontline roles, historically it's been a fraction of one percent and only employed because male manpower was exhausted. That's not to say women joining the military bring large benefits. The significant majority of military personnel, men and women alike, aren't in combat facing roles. The Womens Army Corps in WWII was a big success, and the military wanted to recruit even more women than joined to the point that selective service among women was considered: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Army_Corps https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Army_Corps

lazide 4y ago
Also, willingness (and propensity) to use direct violence, and open aggression. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187704281200287X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187704281... 95% of convicted murderers are male, and it’s not the only place with an obvious skew like that.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  This is actually a factor I'm less convinced is relevant. A relatively small proportion of casualties are due to small arms fire. Artillery and mortars are the main killers on the battlefield. I doubt willingness to commit criminal homicide is correlated with willingness to lob HE shells to enemy positions kilometers away. I'm not sure if this inspired your post, but On Killing by Dave Grossman was widely influential but not highly regarded among military people. The combat veterans I've talked to reported little to no hesitation among them or the men they led to use lethal force against the enemy. They reported not only an absence of hesitation, but an eagerness to claim credit for dispatching the enemy (to the point of getting into arguments over who killed which enemy).
  - lazide 4y ago
    Indeed! Modern artillery and mortars are indeed widely lethal. As are air strikes, missiles, tanks, IFVs, etc. Boots on the ground are still what hold it though, and that still requires the willingness to do what I was describing, even if they usually aren’t called to do it because other, more effective means do it first. Being able to handle being in reach of artillery and mortars, also required, once you know the above is true. Additionally, someone willing to bayonet a stranger is going to really have no issues pulling a lanyard on a howitzer.

lazide 4y ago

Also, willingness (and propensity) to use direct violence, and open aggression. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187704281200287X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187704281... 95% of convicted murderers are male, and it’s not the only place with an obvious skew like that.

Manuel_D 4y ago
This is actually a factor I'm less convinced is relevant. A relatively small proportion of casualties are due to small arms fire. Artillery and mortars are the main killers on the battlefield. I doubt willingness to commit criminal homicide is correlated with willingness to lob HE shells to enemy positions kilometers away. I'm not sure if this inspired your post, but On Killing by Dave Grossman was widely influential but not highly regarded among military people. The combat veterans I've talked to reported little to no hesitation among them or the men they led to use lethal force against the enemy. They reported not only an absence of hesitation, but an eagerness to claim credit for dispatching the enemy (to the point of getting into arguments over who killed which enemy).
- lazide 4y ago
  Indeed! Modern artillery and mortars are indeed widely lethal. As are air strikes, missiles, tanks, IFVs, etc. Boots on the ground are still what hold it though, and that still requires the willingness to do what I was describing, even if they usually aren’t called to do it because other, more effective means do it first. Being able to handle being in reach of artillery and mortars, also required, once you know the above is true. Additionally, someone willing to bayonet a stranger is going to really have no issues pulling a lanyard on a howitzer.