EP159: Elites

[JoeFitz]

Awesome in scope and delivery. Well done!

[OsamaBinLondon]

Sigh!

A low groan escaped my mouth when I began to listen to this one.  I just found the  whole "women turn out to be more ferocious than men" thing a threadbare notion from he bra bruning sixties than really needs to be left behind with skinny ties and suspenders.  The whole thing was so cliched with the bio-engineering, military directives, and social attitudes thrown in for bad measure, there was absolutely nothing new here. So much premise delicately constructed from a tissue thin deck of waterlogged cards hinged so precariously on any number of convenient details.

The chill Steve?  The chill!  Where is the chill, there was no chill here!

Ah well, I suppose I have next week to look forward to.

[yicheng]

This story was so frustrating because it has such potential, but because of execution flaws, just came across like a silly Grrl-Power thing.  There's no dispute that women can be great soldiers, especially they're not coddled or put on pedestal.  Militaries of other nations (e.g. China, UK, Israel) have no problems with putting capable women in combat situations, and numerous historical battles (e.g. Stalingrad) can be sited where women soldier hold up their end of the fight as well as any man.

It just completed ruined it for me, however, when Rusch had them PMS-raging their way to victory.  I think the she was attempting to make the soldiers be strong and still feminine or something, but it just came across as sophomoric and unbelievable, like watching the Charlie's Angels try to pass their Chop-Socky Wire-Fu as real martial arts.  Someone mentioned female boxers.  Look at any Laila Ali fight and I guarantee you won't ever see her lose control and start swinging wildly.  The best fighters are controlled and calm.  To paraphrase Million Dollar Baby, boxing is about balance: keeping yours and taking it from the other guy.

IMHO, the author should have painted the women soldiers as cold-blooded killers, and made the rehab about regaining their emotional empathy (sort of like Post-Partum to the nth-degree).  It would have lent credibility to the characters and provided plenty of opportunities to make them feminine without going overboard with the hormones.  There's a reason why sociopaths make the best assassins: emotional detachment.  And I've known plenty of women that I would not want to be the enemies of, and where getting physically beat up would be the least of my worries.
 
For the record, I have taken over a decade of martial arts and have sparred (both tournament and none) countless times against women opponents, some of which handed me my ass, but a vast majority of them would be in serious trouble if they ever tried to fight a trained man one-on-one without the element of surprise.  To pretend otherwise is an insult to the few women who actually *have* worked to be that good, and just plain patronizing to women in general.

[qwints]

I don't really get the anti-feminist backlash. Mama bears defending their cubs are probably the most dangerous mammals in North America. I know nothing about fighting, so I'll take people's word for it that being detached makes you a better fighter than unrestrained aggression, but why does that mean that aggressive woman are unrealistic?

As a statistical matter, men are stronger than women. But the government was purposely selecting and then enhancing the strongest women. There's no suggestion that women have suddenly become naturally more muscular than man. Outside the story, a lot of modern warfare has greatly diminished the importance of upper body strength. Hand-to-hand combat in the future wouldn't be about arm-wrestling.

[Void Munashii]

This story was so frustrating because it has such potential, but because of execution flaws, just came across like a silly Grrl-Power thing.  There's no dispute that women can be great soldiers, especially they're not coddled or put on pedestal.  Militaries of other nations (e.g. China, UK, Israel) have no problems with putting capable women in combat situations, and numerous historical battles (e.g. Stalingrad) can be sited where women soldier hold up their end of the fight as well as any man.

It just completed ruined it for me, however, when Rusch had them PMS-raging their way to victory.  I think the she was attempting to make the soldiers be strong and still feminine or something, but it just came across as sophomoric and unbelievable, like watching the Charlie's Angels try to pass their Chop-Socky Wire-Fu as real martial arts.  Someone mentioned female boxers.  Look at any Laila Ali fight and I guarantee you won't ever see her lose control and start swinging wildly.  The best fighters are controlled and calm.  To paraphrase Million Dollar Baby, boxing is about balance: keeping yours and taking it from the other guy.

IMHO, the author should have painted the women soldiers as cold-blooded killers, and made the rehab about regaining their emotional empathy (sort of like Post-Partum to the nth-degree).  It would have lent credibility to the characters and provided plenty of opportunities to make them feminine without going overboard with the hormones.  There's a reason why sociopaths make the best assassins: emotional detachment.  And I've known plenty of women that I would not want to be the enemies of, and where getting physically beat up would be the least of my worries.
 
For the record, I have taken over a decade of martial arts and have sparred (both tournament and none) countless times against women opponents, some of which handed me my ass, but a vast majority of them would be in serious trouble if they ever tried to fight a trained man one-on-one without the element of surprise.  To pretend otherwise is an insult to the few women who actually *have* worked to be that good, and just plain patronizing to women in general.

  While I stand by my first reaction that this is what would happen if The Sci-Fi Channel and Lifetime collaborated on a story I do not see this as at all being a "silly Grrl-Power thing". Maybe it's just the fact that I am not in the military, but the way the elites are depicted as essentially becoming beserkers in battle seemed beleivable to me. The best fighters may be the ones who are always calm and in control, but I don't think that can be said about soldiers. your average soldier does not go through the years of training and discipline that a martial artist does.

  I expect that on the battlefield the Elites are hot-blooded killers (as opposed to cold-blooded), but this story was about them trying to overcome that, to regain their humanity, and control of their hormonally altered emotions. I didn't see any real attempts to make them seem "feminine", just attempts at making them seem like humans who had been used and discarded once they were no longer useful. The point was that the military found a way to take advantage of a woman's natural instincts to protect their young, and direct it against the enemy. It wasn't about removing their emotions, it was about magnifying them.

  The women you have sparred with may be at a disadvantage normally against a trained male fighter, but what about if that man was threatening their child? That could make all the difference.

 

[wintermute]

The women you have sparred with may be at a disadvantage normally against a trained male fighter, but what about if that man was threatening their child? That could make all the difference.

More to the point, a woman who would be at a disadvantage against a trained male fighter would never have become an elite in the first place. The story makes it quite clear that the requirements for being a front-line soldier were far more stringent that just having two X chromosomes.

[OsamaBinLondon]

Qwints, no no no! No anti feminist backlash from me at all.  I have really only analysed the story as I see it with the flaws protruding like porcupine spines.  Mama bears defending their cubs is fine but lets face it, men are naturally more aggressive than women.  I found the notion that by somehow enhancing  this natural protective instinct creates a super warrior ludicrous. 
If you have a male solider who is already stronger more aggressive than its gender counterpart, surely the thing to do is enhance whatever instinct, emotion, motivation, makes it already more successful.  That is what I mean by precariously hinged on convenient details.  For 'me' the whole story seemed to revole around this flawed ideology and everything else seemd directed at making this lopsided logic comfortable.

   

[OsamaBinLondon]

By the way, I thought I would aslo just add, that My wife has seen my above posts and placed me on kitchen patrol for two days.  Pah!

[DKT]

By the way, I thought I would aslo just add, that My wife has seen my above posts and placed me on kitchen patrol for two days.  Pah!

Two days?  Bah!  I live for kitchen patrol.  I love the smell of kitchen in the evening!

[Void Munashii]

The women you have sparred with may be at a disadvantage normally against a trained male fighter, but what about if that man was threatening their child? That could make all the difference.

More to the point, a woman who would be at a disadvantage against a trained male fighter would never have become an elite in the first place. The story makes it quite clear that the requirements for being a front-line soldier were far more stringent that just having two X chromosomes.

  True, the story does state that a woman has to already display the traits of a beserker to be considered (being the type of person who could kill three people before realizing she had activated her weapon and all), but I meant to be clearer that I was referring to two equally trained parties, not a trained woman versus just any random man nor vice versa.

[yicheng]

  While I stand by my first reaction that this is what would happen if The Sci-Fi Channel and Lifetime collaborated on a story I do not see this as at all being a "silly Grrl-Power thing". Maybe it's just the fact that I am not in the military, but the way the elites are depicted as essentially becoming beserkers in battle seemed beleivable to me. The best fighters may be the ones who are always calm and in control, but I don't think that can be said about soldiers. your average soldier does not go through the years of training and discipline that a martial artist does.

It depends on what you choose to label the "average soldier".  If you consider that most moderns wars will become more and more asymmetrical, you essentially have two kinds of soldiers left: the low-tech 14-year old indigenous guerilla with dirt cheap weapons (like an AK-47 or an RPG), versus the high-tech highly-trained professional special forces able to call in precision air-strikes, sporting wearable personal computers, and packing enough smart-weapons to level entire villages.  I assumed the Elites to be of the later type.

  I expect that on the battlefield the Elites are hot-blooded killers (as opposed to cold-blooded), but this story was about them trying to overcome that, to regain their humanity, and control of their hormonally altered emotions. I didn't see any real attempts to make them seem "feminine", just attempts at making them seem like humans who had been used and discarded once they were no longer useful. The point was that the military found a way to take advantage of a woman's natural instincts to protect their young, and direct it against the enemy. It wasn't about removing their emotions, it was about magnifying them.

I'm saying that Cold-blooded female killer would have been more believable (definitely scarier) and made a better story, IMHO.  I'm well aware of the actual plot as I did sit through it's entirety.  :-)

  The women you have sparred with may be at a disadvantage normally against a trained male fighter, but what about if that man was threatening their child? That could make all the difference.

You're just guessing here, and since I've never been in a life and death fight either, I guess I am too.  It's just that every single time I've seen a fighter lose control, it's usually a sign that they've already lost.  Contrary to what movies would have us believe, there's any number of injuries (broken limbs, hemorrhaged organs, most hits to the head) that will stop you cold no matter how much rage or blood-lust you have.  I suppose I wouldn't have made a fuss if the author didn't *specifically* make a point about hand-to-hand combat.  And given how most battles in Asymmetrical Warfare plays out (i.e. civilian genocides, ambushes, and very few stand-up battles), the Elites may well have been used on enemy civilian populations since their bloodlust would extend to killing anyone to was a threat, including harmless civilians, while most normal un-enhanced soldiers would have trouble shooting down a 12 year old girl running at them with a hand grenade, a la Full Metal Jacket.

More to the point, a woman who would be at a disadvantage against a trained male fighter would never have become an elite in the first place. The story makes it quite clear that the requirements for being a front-line soldier were far more stringent that just having two X chromosomes.

My understanding is that the Elites were picked for the ease and degree with which their "female-bloodlust" could be controlled, not their actual physical abilities.  And if that were the case, you wouldn't have a majority of the combatants be female, as Rusch depicts.

I don't really get the anti-feminist backlash. Mama bears defending their cubs are probably the most dangerous mammals in North America. I know nothing about fighting, so I'll take people's word for it that being detached makes you a better fighter than unrestrained aggression, but why does that mean that aggressive woman are unrealistic?

As a statistical matter, men are stronger than women. But the government was purposely selecting and then enhancing the strongest women. There's no suggestion that women have suddenly become naturally more muscular than man. Outside the story, a lot of modern warfare has greatly diminished the importance of upper body strength. Hand-to-hand combat in the future wouldn't be about arm-wrestling.

I really do hope that I don't come across as an anti-feminist.  I'm not saying aggressive women are unrealistic.  I'm saying that aggressive women as effective soldiers are unrealistic, and that it seems (to me at least) that the depictions of women as hormonal basket-cases are rather demeaning to real women soldiers.

[qwints]

Qwints, no no no! No anti feminist backlash from me at all.  I have really only analysed the story as I see it with the flaws protruding like porcupine spines.  Mama bears defending their cubs is fine but lets face it, men are naturally more aggressive than women.  I found the notion that by somehow enhancing  this natural protective instinct creates a super warrior ludicrous. 
If you have a male solider who is already stronger more aggressive than its gender counterpart, surely the thing to do is enhance whatever instinct, emotion, motivation, makes it already more successful.  That is what I mean by precariously hinged on convenient details.  For 'me' the whole story seemed to revole around this flawed ideology and everything else seemd directed at making this lopsided logic comfortable. 

I was talking more about the tone of some negative comments than the content of your post in particular.

"silly Grrl-Power thing."  "PMS-raging"

"bra burning sixties" 

I also think the fact that some people react so strongly against the idea of female super-soldiers suggests that maybe such "Grrl-Power things' are needed to raise consciousness. I'll buy the criticism that berserker soldiers in a modern warfare situation rings false, but there's no good reason to believe that the individuals capable of the most violence with enhancement would not be female. Such an idea seems to suggest a hostility to the idea of women being powerful and thus seems anti-feminist to me.

Also the "some women have beat me in a fight" might be similar to "some of my best friends are black."

*edited for grammar and clarity

[lieffeil]

Ok. So we've hashed through exposition, themes, feminism, and reflection on the way veterans are treated.
What I'd like to discuss, open up a bit, is do you think that Amber and Carla were right? We can speculate that the government got to them, but that's all cotton-fluff conspiracy so far as the end of the story is concerned. The main character accepted that they were right, that the method could be used on a grand scale to help more Elites out. But she did have doubts. Were they founded on her emotional instabilities, or was there something to them?
The Method itself, now that's a little sketchy. What exactly did you pick up was the way that things were run, besides "three strikes, you're out"? Could something like that work if there was somewhere else that they could go, once they were kicked out of the House? Would it just be an empty threat?
And what happens to the others, the ones who do get kicked out?
If the government ran an extensive program, they'd have to have answers to these and to the questions asked by the Boss, like "will they know when to bend the rules"?

I was caught by this story, though I was a bit let down by the ending. I wasn't expecting anything flashy, like a fight or a sudden epiphany, just something... more. A hint as to what the central message of the story was. Maybe I'm just a lazy listener. This made me want to hunt for deeper meaning, rather than just accepting what was there and moving on.

[yicheng]

I also think the fact that some people are react so strongly against the idea of female super-soldiers suggests that maybe such "Grrl-Power things' are needed to raise consciousness. I'll buy the criticism that berserker soldiers in a modern warfare situation rings false, but there's no good reason to believe that the individuals capable of the most violence with enhancement are female. Such an idea seems to suggest a hostility to the idea of women being powerful and thus seems anti-feminist to me.

Also the "some women have beat me in a fight" might be similar to "some of my best friends are black."

You are free, of course, to form your own opinion, but I don't think ad hominem attacks are constructive.  I'll not waste words explaining what I've already stated, as I think you're taking something from your own personal worldview and inserting it into my mouth.  I should have, however, explicitly stated that if it were male soldiers going beserk, I would have found it equally implausible and ridiculous.  I'm not sure where you extrapolate the fact that I have "hostility to the idea of women being powerful".  I would have loved it, in fact, if the women in this story *were* powerful, as in controlled/calm/lethal, instead of hormone-driven hair-triggered messes they were made out to be.  Perhaps you are confusing "Power" with "Violence"?

[Void Munashii]

Ok. So we've hashed through exposition, themes, feminism, and reflection on the way veterans are treated.
What I'd like to discuss, open up a bit, is do you think that Amber and Carla were right? We can speculate that the government got to them, but that's all cotton-fluff conspiracy so far as the end of the story is concerned. The main character accepted that they were right, that the method could be used on a grand scale to help more Elites out. But she did have doubts. Were they founded on her emotional instabilities, or was there something to them?

  I don't know if the government got to Amber and Carla or not, but I beleive that they want to be right. I do not think they are right, but then I have a general distrust of government. I do not think that the Roweena thinks they are right, I think she's just giving up. She's been fighting too long, far longer than she realized, and can't do it anymore. Weena does want her friends to be right though, she just doesn't really beleive deep down that they are.
  There is definitely something to Weena's doubts, because if the government was really on the level, they would not be sending fake Elites into the house to collect DNA samples. If you are trying to gain someone's trust, committing such an outright violation of that trust is not something that will convince them that you are trustworthy.

[Chodon]

I can totally believe the "mother grizzly" analogy put forth in this story.  My mother, if my brother or I were threatened, could rip a man's arms from his side and beat him to death with them.  She may not even stop there.  I could see her laying entire cities to waste if the need arose.  She is also the best shot with a rifle I have ever met.  I could totally see her being an Elite in this story.

There is absolutely nothing preventing women from being as good or better soldiers than men except social conditioning.  It's totally plausible at some point we will be able to remove that social conditioning and viola!  We have the story "Elites".

[wintermute]

I think it's fair to say there's nothing stopping them being as good as men, except social conditioning. But I don't think there's any reason why, absent society, women should generally be better soldiers than men. I'm willing to be convinced, though.

[Chodon]

I think it's fair to say there's nothing stopping them being as good as men, except social conditioning. But I don't think there's any reason why, absent society, women should generally be better soldiers than men. I'm willing to be convinced, though.

If you ever get the chance, threaten me in front of my mother.  That'll prove it to you. 

Seriously though, I see why you're challenging my point.  I should clarify: with modified brain chemistry like in the story I could see how they could be superior to their male counterparts (if indeed the men could not be modified in this way as the story proposes).

[wintermute]

Yes, women with special enhancements would probably be superior to men without them. Just as women who have spent years studying martial arts would probably be superior to men who hadn't. But that doesn't support the contention that all other things being equal, women would be superior to men. And I know that's not exactly what you were arguing, but I don't think it's an unreasonable interpretation of what you said.

And, of course, it's a truism that all other things being equal, the side with the simpler uniforms will win. But only because "all other things" covers a lot of territory

[Void Munashii]

And, of course, it's a truism that all other things being equal, the side with the simpler uniforms will win. But only because "all other things" covers a lot of territory

  I thought, all else being equal, it was the side with the shorter hair that wins:

"Think about it! Why did the US cavalry beat the Indian nation? Short back and sides versus girly-hippie locks. The Cavaliers and the Roundheads, 1-0 to the pudding-basins. Vietnam, crew-cuts both sides, no score draw."

[wintermute]

Heh. Possibly. The idea behind the "simpler uniforms" thing is that there's less to get in the way. Longer hair is probably more likely to get in your eyes, which would be a bad thing, so that would be true as well.

But again, all other things would have to be really equal for hairstyle to be the deciding factor.

[qwints]

You are free, of course, to form your own opinion, but I don't think ad hominem attacks are constructive.  I'll not waste words explaining what I've already stated, as I think you're taking something from your own personal worldview and inserting it into my mouth.  I should have, however, explicitly stated that if it were male soldiers going beserk, I would have found it equally implausible and ridiculous.  I'm not sure where you extrapolate the fact that I have "hostility to the idea of women being powerful".  I would have loved it, in fact, if the women in this story *were* powerful, as in controlled/calm/lethal, instead of hormone-driven hair-triggered messes they were made out to be.  Perhaps you are confusing "Power" with "Violence"?

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend you. I think your second post did a very good job of clarifying your position and agree with a lot of it. The post you quote was intended more to point out that there was, what I thought, an unusual amount of time being spent arguing that women would not be the best choice for super soldiers. I quoted your first post because of phrases like "silly Grrl power thing" that seemed hostile to the idea of empowering women. Your later posts have clearly shown that (I think, feel free to correct me) you thought that the author sacrificed plausibility in the effort to make an ideological point. This is, of course, a good and valid criticism of any story.

That said, I think I've missed a broader point about women being the super-soldiers that wintermute brought up.

I think it's fair to say there's nothing stopping them being as good as men, except social conditioning. But I don't think there's any reason why, absent society, women should generally be better soldiers than men. I'm willing to be convinced, though.

I think I've misinterpreted people's arguments that it wouldn't make sense for all Elites to be female as a misogyny that wasn't actually there.

[wintermute]

That said, I think I've missed a broader point about women being the super-soldiers that wintermute brought up.

I think it's fair to say there's nothing stopping them being as good as men, except social conditioning. But I don't think there's any reason why, absent society, women should generally be better soldiers than men. I'm willing to be convinced, though.

I think I've misinterpreted people's arguments that it wouldn't make sense for all Elites to be female as a misogyny that wasn't actually there.

I don't remember, exactly, but I got the impression that there wasn't any good scientific reason why the elites should be all female, but one of the original researchers said "Hey! Mothers defending their young!", and since then it had mainly been a point of dogma, or maybe ideology, that women (of the right sort, with the right stimuli) would be better front-line soldiers than men.

[Chodon]

That said, I think I've missed a broader point about women being the super-soldiers that wintermute brought up.

I think it's fair to say there's nothing stopping them being as good as men, except social conditioning. But I don't think there's any reason why, absent society, women should generally be better soldiers than men. I'm willing to be convinced, though.

I think I've misinterpreted people's arguments that it wouldn't make sense for all Elites to be female as a misogyny that wasn't actually there.

I don't remember, exactly, but I got the impression that there wasn't any good scientific reason why the elites should be all female, but one of the original researchers said "Hey! Mothers defending their young!", and since then it had mainly been a point of dogma, or maybe ideology, that women (of the right sort, with the right stimuli) would be better front-line soldiers than men.

I thought I remembered something about women having a stronger drive to defend things they loved than men.  Maybe I made that up in my head though.

[wintermute]

I thought I remembered something about women having a stronger drive to defend things they loved than men.  Maybe I made that up in my head though.

You may be right. But even given that, I got the impression they didn't look very hard to see if men had similarly effective triggers that could be exploited.