Women and Swordfighting

Musculoskeletal
Injuries in
Military Women



”Pubic Ramus Stress Fractures
Pelvic stress fractures were first described in military recruits in 1937.66–70 Although relatively rare, representing only 1% to 10% of all stress fractures, they most commonly affect long distance runners54,71–74 and fencers.75 “
https://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borde...px?docid=b42d1acd-0b32-4d26-8e22-4a518be998f7

thought some who fence might find the study interesting

 

Musculoskeletal
Injuries in
Military Women

Pubic Ramus Stress Fractures
Pelvic stress fractures were first described in military recruits in 1937.66–70 Although relatively rare, representing only 1% to 10% of all stress fractures, they most commonly affect long distance runners54,71–74 and fencers.75 “
https://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borde...px?docid=b42d1acd-0b32-4d26-8e22-4a518be998f7

thought some who fence might find the study interesting

 

It is. I was going to add to the groun and lunging is perhaps one area where in swordfighting you might train women differently.
In fencing its a particular problem that (an admittedly small) some female fencers face, though it does happen in men too. Much like kickboxing women have greater flexibility in the groin area at least initially that allows some of them to develop longer lunges and/or displace the target area without sacrificing explosive power, while men generally face with torso at 45 degrees (anatomically more comfortable)

However it seems that women fencing on the circuit and I do mean those that take it seriously and drag themselves every weekend to an open have a higher risk of developing this from repeated lunges, though don't quote me on that.

Mind you you are more at risk from tennis elbow or knee injuries from over lunging. Nice article. I didn't know it was a feature of runners too. (So perhaps not from lunging but something else?)

 

If one reads the entire article the takeaway is basic differences between male and female muscle skeletal structures, give males an advantage in different activities.

Which is why in most cases there’s no direct competition between the sexes, it’s understood.

It’s not to say that female fencers or sword Practitioners cannot win against their male counterparts. If the relative skill sets are the same they have to find another way to use their advantages and exploit the other’s weaknesses.

using the same weaponry or the same style ie “like a man” probably not a good idea.

 

It notes that women are more prone to lower extremity injuries than men (including ACL tears and pelvic stress fractures) during PT, and recommends exercises and equipment to help mitigate risk of injury. It does NOT in any way suggest or conclude that women shouldn't be in the military because they're fundamentally not meant for it, or anything like that. And I suspect that its authors, Col. Barbara Springer and Maj. Amy Ross, would be very displeased to see it be used to advocate barring women from the military.

If one race had a rate of discharge for musculoskeletal injuries of 81 per 10,000, and another race had a rate of discharge for musculoskeletal injuries of 140 per 10,000, would you suggest a blanket ban of all members of the latter race from the military?

 

Based on my "experience"
They should not be allowed into combat arms or other areas of the military that studies show would be dangerous to their health and endanger the lives of others that may depend on them

There are no studies showing a net positive leading to combat efficiency for allowing women into
combat arms. none

"Conclusions Based on the body of evidence developed in support of this research, as well as existing related research, the integration of females into the combat arms MOSs and units will add a level of risk in performance/effectiveness and cost. While this risk can be mitigated by various methods to address failure rates, injuries, and ability to perform the mission, the bottom line is that the physiological differences between males and females will likely always be evident to some extent."

"race" Wasn't aware that females belong to a different "race"
is it something that's changed?

 

Your keep throwing around the personal experience card. What personal experiences did you have with female soldiers in combat? Because a coworker of mine referred to a small statured woman in his vehicle crew as the best machine gunner in the unit during a tour in Iraq.

In terms of benefits to combat efficiency, in societies where it's taboo for male soldiers to interact with local women and children, female soldiers mixed into units dramatically improves the ability of a combat unit to interact with locals. Which really matters in counterinsurgency.

An article posted by the Modern War Institute at West Point: Where Are the Women? The Unfortunate Omission in the Army’s COIN Doctrine - Modern War Institute

Also, when you can't meet recruitment targets, it makes more sense to let in higher-quality recruits from demographics you've traditionally excluded than to let in lower quality recruits, right?

Spoiler

In 2005, as long, hazardous deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan became common, the Pentagon relaxed standards for recruits who had fared poorly on standard military exams.
Those who scored in the lower third of the tests, so called Category Four recruits, had been limited to 2% of new troops. The standard was relaxed to 4% and was exceeded at times.

The hazard of accepting recruits with poor qualifications was highlighted by a case from 2006 in which an Iraqi girl was raped and her family killed by soldiers, one of whom required waivers for minor criminal activity and poor educational background to join the Army.

Smarter soldiers, RAND has found historically, are better fighters. One study showed that tank crew members were less effective in destroying the enemy than recruits who had scored higher on military tests.

Army is accepting more low-quality recruits, giving waivers for marijuana to hit targets

So because one woman failed to qualify, we should ban all women?

Have no men ever been injured by gear that doesn't fit them well?

Have no men ever suffered injuries trying to earn the Royal Marine green beret?

It's a hypothetical to show that the statistics in the study you're relying on don't justify a blanket ban.

 

cool

stick to your co worker's viewpoint
do you have any direct experience either way.

you seem to feel its a good idea based on?

Why is it a good idea?
whats the benefit?

I don't, based on having served in infantry units
and mixed combat support units / the only places it makes sense
are those MOS that are needed in support roles not directly related to combat arms.

As far as recruitment goals,
that's what selective service is for.

If it becomes an issue they could start
a call up....

 

Read the rest of my post.

I talk about the benefits for counterinsurgency in interacting with local women and children (the West Point thing).

I also talk about filling recruitment targets when you're struggling (the spoiler tag). Would you rather have all men and 4% need waivers for criminal activity, drugs, and insufficient education? Or 96% male, 4% female, with nobody needing a waiver for those issues?

As for selective service, you really think conscripts who don't want to be there will make better soldiers than women who want to serve?

 

There are none for men either.

 

You retired from the Army in 1995, which means:

You don't have first hand experience with women in combat (that's post-2013).

You don't have first hand experience of how the post-2005 increase in Category Four recruits affected combat readiness.

You don't have first hand experience with how unwilling conscripts (selective service) affect readiness (the last draft ended in 1973).

You have first hand experience I don't have, sure. But not for the specific issues we're discussing here...whether female troops would really be inferior to conscripts and/or Category Four recruits, as you're suggesting.

 

I think we are starting to veer slightly off topic from the main thrust of my original question. I don't think that anyone here seriously contesting that anatomical differences between men and women cause a disparity in the level or capacity between the sexes, especially in strength and aggression, only that when weapons are involved the act as an equaliser that when coupled with higher levels of skill allows women to have a higher percentage chance of women defeating men in weapon to weapon combat.

My original take is why he so fearlessly asserted zero women!, which Klaven must have known as outrageous nonsense.

Taking on a different route to this discussion ....I coming round to thinking its a tactic. Recently I read something that Rory Miller wrote on his old blog, namely that "intensity is not the same thing as truth" and that as humans we are hard wired to take intense experiences as more 'real' than perhaps they warrant. Originally he took this train of thought into two sections

1) That intense experiences in the ring/cage/training mat despite being intense are not a 'real' analogue to actual violence

2) That human groups frequently involved with violence tend to believe that a life intense life round violence is more 'real/authentic' than a normal life, hence when groups like groups of criminals involved in violence accept it more readily as part of the human condition or some soldiers returning to the 'mundanity' of civilian life struggle to readjust, hence the importance of breaking the narrative they have created in their heads that has been conditioned by 'intense' experiences'

I offer a third analysis:


That unscrupulous individuals consciously or unconsciously are aware that this flaw in human nature, that is the propensity to confuse intensity with truth can be manipulated to their own ends. This would include Charlatans, Ring leaders, Messianic Religious leaders, Political extreemists, Salesmen, Youtube podcasters....Infact human beings from all walks of life.

So perhaps rather than outrage we should be calling Klaven out on his 'intense' message for the manipulation it is.

"You're just out to get more hits, you Sly dog. You probably don't even believe what you say"

 

Watched it a couple of times, my takeaway was that he felt the scenes he commented on were unrealistic, and meant to support a larger narrative. One that he apparently disagrees with.

is this true

“ Almost all major tournaments and many smaller ones have separate men's and women's categories (as well as splits by age and/or ranking). You will be hard pressed to find a national or international tournament that does not have gender split categories.”

A comment on Reddit pertaining to the question

“Can elite female fencers compete with elite men?”

for those that fence if this is true why is it so?

 

i’m not suggesting anything I’m only pointing out the studies and facts based on my experience and current experiences by others in today’s military.

my last job In the military has working as part of a staff for what is called combat developments.

our job was to represent the end-user for present and future weapons systems currently deployed and user interface for those systems.

This is where the the personnel and strength requirements to operate different systems are developed and studied

It really boils down to cost and more Importantly combat effectiveness. There are no studies suggesting or showing female soldiers add any combat effectiveness to combat units.

in all cases it’s negative

this does not mean they do not serve with distinction valor it only means that there are limits to what they can do and the type of service that makes the best use of limited resources.



A present only men in the US at 18 years of age have to register for the selective service. The idea of selective service is to replenish combat units as they become diminished during a war.

Those chosen by or through selective service do not choose the units they go to. They are assigned by the needs of the military.

at present the only reason women in the US do not have to register is because they cannot be assigned directly to combat units. Should this change there will be a push to change the law.

 

Yes, in my experience as a non-elite fencer at an elite school in high school, yes, elite men and women do train together, and the women can hang with the men, even though they compete separately.

There are gender separation for competition in trap, skeet, and billiards as well. It doesn't mean that gender is a primary determination in performance, so much as it reflects a societal demand (right or wrong) for gender separation in competition.

Want proof that strength is not the key factor in blade combat? There are no weight classes in fencing. It's the only Olympic combat sport without weight classes. Edit: I don't think HEMA competition has weight classes either.

Here's a collegiate strength coach and a HEMA instructor talking pretty well about how Klavan misunderstand the role of strength in blade combat:

 

Just necroing this thread with an interesting example I've come across. Valentina Vezzali (6 olympic golds, 15 world championship golds) vs Peter Joppich ( 1 olympic Bronze, 5 world championship golds) in an exhibition match.



Now Joppich isn't engaging his full speed here, I know him well enough that he can accelerate faster, But Vezzali is 8 years older and on verge of retirement here and Joppich is in his prime, and I guarantee you here that Joppich isn't letting her off easy, and that if he takes easy he's going to get rolled over. Now bear in mind that with sharp smallswords rather than foils you can't go as fast as you want because it would be suicidal to lunge on a sharp points, so in reality he would even have less of an advantage in leveraging his physical strength...

 

Sorry. Isn't that precisely what the guy in the video DID say though? I mean, yeah, he asserted that they fought "like men." But that dude couldn't defeat a wet paper towel in single combat. What does he know about how men fight? Even the assertion that that's one thing (man fighting) is silly.

Normally the argument for weaponry stems from an acknowledgment that weapons equalize things. How much someone could carry is an unmitigated measure of strength. Whether someone with a bladed weapon could defeat someone else with a bladed weapon isn't the same thing, is it?

 

To be fair, every single grunt and door kicker I know has serious issues with their knees and back from long term stresses. Really that just likely means a shorter service life for women in combat arms, but by how much, that would take some significant volume of data to determine.

And there are relatively few showing anything detrimental. If they have to meet the same physical standards, they're going to do well enough. The big problem really is logistics. Having a separate shower/toilet/barracks is a lot of work for a handful of soldiers simply to say you're representing both sexes, especially when you're going to have to take a dump in the woods in front of members of the opposite sex anyway.

Starship Troopers style co-ed or bust.

 

I would love to put him up against my wife that is 4'11, 110 pounds, and 59 years old. She would show him a thing or two about martial arts and swords lol. This man, I use the term "man" loosely lol, he apparently never has seen a Wushu competition with woman, or any real females truly demonstrating the sword. Many, many, many years ago, there were times the police would be called when my wife and I would be practicing with the bamboo. My wife is truly fantastic with the swords, and I am speaking of many different types of swords.

 

Is this not true for everyone, man or woman? Combat arms endangers the lives of everyone, and puts at risk the well-being of all those who depend on them. Strange I need to point that out…