Co-Ed Combat
I've always had a pretty simplistic view on women in the military: If men have to die for our country, women should not be immune. Well, it seems that it's not that simple.
Kingsley Browne, a Wayne State law prof I know from evolutionary psych conferences, has written an excellent book, Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn't Fight the Nation's Wars, which I recommend.
His viewpoint -- that women are physically and psychologically ill-suited for combat positions -- is going to be very controversial, but his claims in the book are well-supported by psych and military data on male-female differences.
An example from the book -- page 67, from the section, "Many Noncombat Tasks Also Require Strength":
A 1985 study found that "while clear majorities of women (more than 90 percent in some cases) failed to meet the physical standards for eight critical shipboard tasks, virtually all the men passed (in most cases 100 percent)." One percent of women but 96 percent of men, for example, could carry water pumps to the scene of a fire or flooded compartment. As one former Navy officer with damage-control experience sardonically noted, "When your air-conditioned seat in front of a radar console is a smoking hole in the deck, you grab some shoring or a pump and apply some serious strength and stamina to the problem at hand." If the ship has a crew that is 20 percent women, the damage-control enterprise starts off in nearly the same position it would be in if the initial emergency rendered 20 percent of the crew incapable of assistance.
Yes, these are generalizations in these studies -- but they are generally true, and thus worthy of attention vis a vis what women's role in the armed forces should be. In short -- and forget your personal prejudices, because Browne's got the data -- more men are likely die if women are in combat situations. (More about that in the Newsweek link at the bottom of the post.)
Browne's blogging about the book this week at Volokh.com. Here's most of his first post:
Co-ed Combat starts from the premise that policies concerning sexual integration of combat forces should be measured first by their effects on military effectiveness. Other goals, such as expansion of women’s opportunities, must give way to the extent that they impair combat effectiveness. Although the premise is contestable, it is a foundation upon which virtually all political discussions of the role of women in the military rests. Advocates of sexual integration of combat forces seldom argue that military effectiveness must be traded off against equal-opportunity concerns; instead, they contend that there is no tradeoff at all.Under policies in place since early in the Clinton administration, women are permitted to serve on warships (other than submarines) and in combat aviation. They are still barred from “direct ground combat,” however, including positions that “collocate” with (that is, operate side-by-side) ground-combat units. The Army seems to be violating the collocation rule routinely in Iraq, a practice that results in increased combat exposure for women, and some argue for completely scrapping the bar on women in ground combat.
I argue that those who believe there are no substantial tradeoffs involved in including women in combat roles are wrong. Inclusion of women in those roles results in a segment of the force that is physically weaker, more prone to injury (both physical and psychological), less physically aggressive, able to withstand less pain, less willing to take physical risks, less motivated to kill, less likely to be available to deploy when ordered to (partly, but not exclusively because of pregnancy), more expensive to recruit, and less likely to remain in the service even for the length of their initial contracts. Officers and NCOs must reassign physical tasks (or do them themselves) because women cannot get them done fast enough, if at all.
The fact that women, in general, are less effective warriors is only part of the problem. The more fundamental problem comes from the mixing of men and women in combat forces, which creates a variety of problems for reasons rooted in our evolutionary history. Women frequently are placed in units with men who do not trust the women with their lives and who do not bond with women the way that they do with other men.
The groups into which women are introduced become less disciplined and more subject to conflict related to sexual jealousy and sexual frustration, and men receive less rigorous training because of women’s presence. Officers and NCOs must divert attention from their central missions to cope with the “drama” that sexual integration brings. Men, who traditionally have been drawn to the military because of its appeal to their masculinity, now find that the military tries to cure them of it to make the environment more comfortable for women.
Against these impairments of the military’s ability to wage war, what are the benefits to the military of full combat integration? One possible benefit is an increase in the recruiting pool. Contrary to rhetoric, however, the pool is not “doubled” in any meaningful sense. Sexual integration of the military generally has increased the pool by only fifteen to twenty percent. Expansion of the potential pool of combat volunteers (in the ground forces, at any rate) would probably be more on the order of one percent at most.
If it is not numbers that women bring, then it must be something unique to women, but it is not obvious that women qua women would bring much in the way of specific benefits to the combat forces. In short, no one argues that eliminating the combat exclusion would unleash the whirlwind on America’s enemies.
I should emphasize that my arguments are not an indictment of military women, although I do not believe that many women are suited to combat, especially, but not only, ground combat. But, in researching my book, I was struck by the high regard that most military men I spoke with have for military women outside the combat context – even though most of these men opposed women’s participation in combat. One can simultaneously appreciate military women’s service to their country and also believe that all-male combat forces are more effective than mixed-sex ones.
The argument that full integration would be effective rests on a number of assumptions, including:
• That the high-tech nature of modern warfare means that the sexes no longer differ much in combat-relevant ways
• That as long as a woman possesses the individual physical and psychological attributes of an effective soldier, her inclusion in a combat unit would not impair its effectiveness
• That the primary obstacle to integration are men’s “masculinist” attitudes, which can be overcome with adequate training and leadership.
All of these assumptions are flawed, in my opinion, and, as a result, the costs and difficulties of sexual integration of combat forces are often substantially underestimated.
Here's Browne's Newsweek interview with Martha Brandt.
For speaking the truth, he will undoubtedly be castigated. But it's an open secret - even a high-tech military has a lot of physically demanding jobs.
The truth is, outside of the administrative offices, most military positions have the potential to be seriously physical. The training is supposed to reflect this. I read a report by a woman athlete who went through basic training. Her summary: as an athlete she assumed that she could keep up with the average male. She was complete shocked to find that she had no chance. Jogging up and down hills with an 80 pound pack is just not supported by female anatomy - smaller muscles, lower lung capacity - it just doesn't work.
Is that kind of physical standard really necessary? In a lot of cases, yes. Want to load that high-tech 80kg missile onto an aircraft? Gotta carry that injured soldier on a stretcher over rough ground? Need to change that 200lb aircraft tire, fast?
In the military, this is a forbidden subject - only talked about carefully with friends. But the truth is that "equal opportunity" too often means "drop the standards so the women can pass, and we will pretend they can handle the job."
So, as with anyone who presents non-PC truth, he will undoubtedly be condemned...
bradley13 at December 6, 2007 2:28 AM
My mother, as you know, ran a business when That Isn't Done, had a pilot's license, a teaching license and was clearly smart. My oldest friend's mother was a welder of Liberty ships during WW2. Patty Wagstaff and Mary Gaffney are and were world champion aerobatic pilots.
But these are exceptions. Recruiters can't get only the exceptional to join the service.
Here's something you probably didn't know - it's suppressed by Congressional censure of senior officers: when a carrier group's departure date approaches, Naval facilities like the Shore Intermediate Maintenance Activity at Mayport, FL would fill up with pregnant women - who got pregnant to avoid deployment. This forces the Navy to pull replacements - men - from their earned shore duty to fill the vacated spots on the carrier. Setting aside for a moment the idea that the taxpayer now gets to foot the bills for single motherhood (or the shams set up to keep the "new mother" from being disciplined), and the retention-killing effects of getting yanked back to sea because somebody shirks their duty, I have to ask: of what use is a pregnant soldier or sailor?
It's stylish for the media to note that having both parents in the service is a big hardship on children. No kidding? Duh! Service is all about hardships and overcoming them. It always has been - even when we were patrolling forest clearings with spears. It's not about "family", "friends" or any other warm-glow, touchy-feely thing. Vets generate these for their fellows in the service to avoid going mad at the idea they killed, enabled killers and suffered in other ways for the ideal they chose in the first place. This satisfaction comes *after* one has done their duty. It isn't automatically granted to anyone, even as there is a bit of respect due for having signed up; ask Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush about that.
This issue is here because people cannot imagine that the entire purpose of military service is to be the first in harm's way when it becomes necessary. (This is why the American military is really "conservative" - they have the idea that sacrifice is "right".) Just being stationed in some places involves far more risks than most can imagine. There is a big noise about "rights" when the services are discussed. Just what about the battlefield, and preparing to kill or be killed on it, has anything whatsoever to do with "rights"?
Radwaste at December 6, 2007 2:45 AM
All the truth, but the attendant drama between men and women is a far bigger detriment to good order and discipline, and subsequently, military capabilities, than the physical weaknesses ever could be.
You can't imagine the sheer contempt that Soldiers [male or female] harbor against their fellow [female] Soldiers when the deployment orders come up and pregnancy rates coincidentally spike. And who can blame them? The military and the taxpayer ARE footing the bill for a Soldier who can't serve when their country calls.
The groups into which women are introduced become less disciplined and more subject to conflict related to sexual jealousy and sexual frustration, and men receive less rigorous training because of women’s presence.
Painfully true. I can vouch that the Soldiers in Basic and AIT loved it when there were females present; it meant that we [males] could run as slowly as we wanted and still not have to worry about being the slowest.
"Females in the formation" = lower physical training standards and increased sexual frustrations. I know firsthand.
Ayn_Randian at December 6, 2007 3:05 AM
A challenge to be repeated, to any authority figure involved in this issue: if you think women are so effective, assign them one nuclear submarine. The quality controls ensure that no one can forge or even fudge the maintenance and supply records. The crew will, at least initially, have something to prove. Send this thing on typical missions and see what happens in two years of service after initial certification and deployment.
That will answer all questions, and it will be cheaper - assuming the sub isn't lost - than the uproar over the next female American POW.
Radwaste at December 6, 2007 3:27 AM
I am female, and I was a soldier in the army. I agree with this article.
I remember in Basic when the drill asked us if we felt women should be in combat. I was the only one who raised my hand for no. I was young and had a difficult time articulating the reasons for my position. I stuck with the concrete since words failed me for the other reasons. I said that in the event of a war, and I was deployed, sitting in some foxhole or equivalent somewhere with a male that I would be unable in any way shape or form to be able to change a tampon in front of him, if i was even lucky enough to have one. supply in a combat situation can be a bit tricky sometimes I would imagine and I can just imagine a supply sergeant preparing an emergency drop. Hmm,more ammo or a box of tampons?. Riiiight.
It was funny watching the other females comprehend what I was saying. The light from the bulbs flashing on was blinding to say the least.
Almost 20 years have passed since then and I have grown enough over the years to put into words the other thoughts, though not well. I realize that even then I knew these theoretical males would be my squadmates, friends, co-workers and family, complete with aw-shucks moments and totally frigging dysfunctional moments. I really really do not want to see these men turn into the dangerous killing machines the military would need at that time. I think that they would not have wanted that either, now that I think about it.
I know that if I had been deployed I would have given 110 percent to be an asset but I know that my lack of strength and testosterone would have made my willingness moot. Possibly leading to death or injury for my fellows that could hav ebeen avoided. Who would willingly do that to their team, their fellows? and also who would willingly bring such sorrow and guilt onto their own head? For what? A misguided belief that I am just as effective at that task as the males? PFFFFT to all who would and/ or do.
Civilians, academics especially, dont understand the military or willfully crap on it. It is not just like civilian society only with dress-up clothes and guns. It needs to function with lethality and precision exactly when needed and where, and trying to fold women into combat disrupts that, I know it isnot just that they need to "adjust" then everything will smooth out, but that the disruption from gender integration in combat would be permanent.
That said, women do contribute well to other militar endeavors.
Sorry this rambled.
thanks
rsj at December 6, 2007 5:06 AM
No apologies necessary, rsj, and thank you from the bottom of my heart for your service. You know, there is one comedienne out there, might be Elaine Boozler, who said something about recruiting menopausal women for combat, because we'd be bloated, low on estrogen, heavily armed, and wouldn't take shit from anybody! And I hope she was joking, because no way in hell could I run anywhere with an 80-lb backpack and shoot straight while doing it! It's one thing to be able to in theory, and quite another to actually make the attempt. I know I, for one, would fail miserably. YMMV o_O
Flynne at December 6, 2007 5:25 AM
I agree with all but one minor point in this, so I'm really just nitpicking here. Women able to withstand less pain? If there is good research that clearly shows this (although how do you quanitfy something so subjective as pain tolerance?) then I'll retract my stance. However, I know far more females that are capable of tolerating high levels of pain that I do males. My admittedly anectotal and not researched experience has shown me many more examples of women bucking up and tolerating injuries without complaint. There is a clear difference in how my husband and I, and also most of my friends and their male significant others, deal with pain.
I'm not saying that I think women as a whole handle pain better than men, I'm just wondering how it was determined that they are less able to as a whole. And does that determination change depending on whether the pain is in the context of a combat situation or not?
Allison at December 6, 2007 5:59 AM
Does the Israeli army deploy their male and female soldiers differently? If not, I'd be curious to see how someone who has served in that military would respond.
deja pseu at December 6, 2007 6:04 AM
Yes. They currently deploy them pretty much the same way we do, although they're also talking about whether or not to allow them in combat roles again. In their 1948 Independence War women did serve in combat roles. The Israelis found that, even ignoring physical ability, women in combat increase the risk for male soldiers due to the chivalrous nature of male troops. Rather than triaging wounded soldiers impartially The male soldiers and medics often continued to treat female soldiers that were beyond help at the expense of male soldiers that could have been saved.
There have been tons of studies on pain tolerance and the results are very consistent. Here's one of the first I found on Google if you're interested. I've read that different types of pain show more or less difference, but self-reported pain levels from traumatic injury to ER doctors is one area where there's a very clear gender difference and women report higher pain levels from similar injuries.
SeanH at December 6, 2007 6:41 AM
I looked up the reference for the one of the references for pain tolerance in Kingsley's book -- it's Aloisi, A.M., and Bonifazi, M. (2006). Sex hormones, central nervous system and pain. Hormones and Behavior 50:1-7
A quote from Kingsley's book:
Amy Alkon at December 6, 2007 6:55 AM
I'd like to echo rsj's last point and thank her as well. Females serve fantastically well in most noncombat positions and there's nothing at all wrong with serving by supporting combat troops.
A big part of the reason the US military is so powerful is that we have the greatest logistics and communications the world has ever seen. No other army in the history of the world has had front-line combat troops that can deploy anywhere in the world and never have to worry about going without food, ammo, or contact with their superiors.
SeanH at December 6, 2007 6:58 AM
One more quote from Browne: "...men's higher tolerance is a consistent finding" (in studies).
Amy Alkon at December 6, 2007 7:01 AM
The thing that I found amazing about the discussion on the Volokh blog was that there were hundreds, if not thousands, of posts debating the utilitarian aspects of women in combat ( upper body strength vs. pain tolerance, etc.), but *nobody* had the slightest interest in discussing the ethical or moral aspects.
(Maybe it's just that they are all lawyers over there, and hence don't care about morality -- just kidding!)
But seriously: To someone like me, who was raised on traditional (i.e. pre-1960's) values; it is just unthinkable to deliberately put women into harm's way as long as there is even one able-bodied male between the ages of, say, 12 and 75, left standing.
What happened to the idea that the most fundamental responsibility of men in a civilised society is to protect women, and that individual males are, frankly, very expendable.
el_viejo at December 6, 2007 7:55 AM
But seriously: To someone like me, who was raised on traditional (i.e. pre-1960's) values; it is just unthinkable to deliberately put women into harm's way as long as there is even one able-bodied male between the ages of, say, 12 and 75, left standing.
Kingsley Browne is an evolutionary psychologist and this is a big part of his book. People can say "You've come a long way, baby" until they're blue, but the fact is, our genes haven't.
Amy Alkon at December 6, 2007 7:59 AM
:::earworm alert:::
...you are obsolete
look at all the white men in the street...
Flynne at December 6, 2007 8:00 AM
Rad has it nailed. This debate was over ten minutes after the first fistfight; women don't belong in combat.
It has been a "treehouse" issue. The military is a career path not fully accessible to women because rapid promotion requires service in the operations side rather than support. In other words, it's the principle of the thing and anytime someone says "it's the principle" it's not the principle.
There are two factions in the effort to get women into the trenches. One really doesn't care what happens to military readiness. They see paychecks being cut for people who aren't their clients and their thought process begins and ends with that.
The other faction thinks warfare and militaristic thinking can be ended by properly worded committee resolution. Putting women into combat will allegedly force the world to realize how utterly stupid fighting is and usher in a new age of peaceful conflict resolution and better accessorization.
The most obvious objection to this idealism turns out to be not quite right. Our gruff and bearded enemies will not overwhelm our wailing and fainting petticoated forces on day one. What happens instead is that women who serve come closer to understanding concepts that men had given up thinking they'd ever understand. They go native. See http://www.amazon.com/She-Went-War-Rhonda-Cornum/dp/0891415076/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196959722&sr=8-1 .
I served during the most fortuitously peaceful time in the history of green clothing. I was in basic training for Grenada and back on campus for the Panama coup and the only person who tried to kill me during that time was a civilian with anger management issues. My observation is that the U.S. military is doing a smashing job of bringing the best that women have to offer to our common defense.
The only problem for N.O.W. is that the little minxes are coming home and voting the wrong side of the ballot.
martin at December 6, 2007 8:57 AM
I was going to post exactly what Allison said. The pain studies are very interesting. It would seem to be the opposite, with women being able to tolerate more pain than men.
The most interesting argument against women in combat that I have heard was that if you send both men and women, an entire generation would be wiped out. With only men in combat, the women could still procreate with the older men and the men who return and society would continue.
Amy at December 6, 2007 8:58 AM
"Here's something you probably didn't know - it's suppressed by Congressional censure of senior officers: when a carrier group's departure date approaches, Naval facilities like the Shore Intermediate Maintenance Activity at Mayport, FL would fill up with pregnant women - who got pregnant to avoid deployment."
That's not suppressed all that well. But you have to concede that hospital beds were already half-full of able bodied young men with mysteriously timed ailments. Women didn't invent malingering.
And I like your idea about the all-gal sub tour. Are you thinking a boomer or attack?
martin at December 6, 2007 9:13 AM
I don't really have a position on women in combat per-se. But I do really REALLY resent having anyone tell me that I CAN'T do something, so I can't help but question this article at least a little bit.
And really the thing that sticks out to me is the framing of this whole conversation. Here we are, looking at an institution that has existed one form or another, always almost 100% male dominated, for thousands of years, and wondering why we can't fit women into it.
We're saying that women are weak because they cannot use equipment, or carry packs that were designed for men. We're saying that women can't function productively in a form of combat that was created by and for men, or get along socially well in a group designed to function entirely without them.
I mean, if I asked my cat to live, hunt, and get along socially with a pack of dogs I wouldn't be that surprised when it totally failed.
Anyway, I can't help but agree with the statement that women are not fit for combat in our existing military. But I do think women could fight and defend our country just as well as men if they could do so within a system designed for and by them. It might require a little more engineering rather than brute strength. (Has any research been done on women operating and working with automated combat vehicles? They just gave a university a big grant to build a robot tank.)
And I know this almost sounds like "making exceptions for women." But the changes that one would make to accomidate women are only "lowering the bar" or "exceptions" if you assume that men are normal and women are the lessor. In my opinion making changes to allow over half of our country's population to take steps in its defense wouldn't really be lowering the bar as much as wisening up.
Shinobi at December 6, 2007 9:13 AM
We're saying that women are weak because they cannot use equipment, or carry packs that were designed for men
See the sub-flooding example above. That isn't in any way "designed" -- it's something women are not as able to handle. Or able at all.
Women are not "weak" -- they are not as strong and as emotionally equipped as men are to deal with combat situations. "Emotionally" because of the way they are prone to empathize with a suffering enemy. And that comes from biology. Designing a Hello Kitty tank isn't going to change that.
Amy Alkon at December 6, 2007 9:26 AM
"Designing a Hello Kitty tank isn't going to change that."
Quite true. Military equipment is generally rugged and heavy for very good reason (spy gadgets nothwithstanding).
Anyone in any of the services knows they could be called on to drive a truck, put out a fire, shoot the enemy, or carry the wounded. A friend of mine was a Navy bo'sun --- pretty much a 100% sea duty billet --- and ended up fighting alongside Marines in Iraq. That's the way it goes sometimes.
That's really the question --- not would you like to do it, but can you do it when your comrades need you?
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at December 6, 2007 9:56 AM
If one assumes that there is at least some truth to the widely held belief that men are hard-wired by evolution to 'kill people and break stuff' whereas women are hard-wired to nurture, then does it not follow that women will have hugely greater post-combat psychological problems than men, even if they survive physically?
Has anyone asked themselves what would be the long-term effects on society if the next generation of children were raised by semi-psychotic mothers who had been trained to kill?
el_viejo at December 6, 2007 9:56 AM
"Women are not...as emotionally equipped as men are to deal with combat situations."
As a man, I will raise a small objection to that. I think it is a myth that men are not as much affected by traumatic events. Men are taught from an early age to be stoical and to take pride in their ability to project the outward image but there is a cost.
There are certainly differences and it's all part of the equation but let's not overstate the case. Combat will take an emotional toll on anyone involved and I happend to think women can learn at least some measure of the stoicism display.
martin at December 6, 2007 9:57 AM
Yeah, Hello Kitty, that's exactly what I think women need to be effective in combat. *eyeroll*
I wonder if men are really "naturally" that much stronger emotionally, considering all the psycholigical issues that men sent into combat seem to have. But that's considered normal, whereas if women have issues it's because their weak?
Anyway, I'm not in the military for a reason, i couldn't kill a squirrel much less a human. And its fine with me if no one expects me to die for the country because I have a vagina. I just think it is interesting that we don't attempt to see the problem as being with the system or the equipment, but rather with the people.
Shinobi at December 6, 2007 10:01 AM
I think it is a myth that men are not as much affected by traumatic events.
Page 104 of the book:
Amy Alkon at December 6, 2007 10:06 AM
The Hello Kitty design was a joke. But, the point is good. And it's buttressed by points like the one I posted above, and hundreds of pages of well-supported points in the book.
Amy Alkon at December 6, 2007 10:07 AM
Amy - Thank you for posting the specifics on pain tolerance. It's interesting research, and goes to show that while there are always exceptions to any rule or average, when making policies the average must be the rule.
Allison at December 6, 2007 10:16 AM
I think at least part of the explanation for those results (survivor studies etc.) is societal expectations. A man may be afraid or troubled by memories of danger and will know that he is expected to work it out within himself while a woman knows she can ask for help without stigma.
It's partly "nature" but some "nurture" as well.
martin at December 6, 2007 10:17 AM
You're welcome. It's all there in the book. As I wrote above, very well-supported.
Amy Alkon at December 6, 2007 10:17 AM
"People can say "You've come a long way, baby" until they're blue, but the fact is, our genes haven't."
Amy this is a point you often make and one I'm grateful for. From choosing mates, to careers our genes stink for these modern times.
PurplePen at December 6, 2007 10:24 AM
Sorry, it's biology, not societal expectations. Men have more testosterone than women, for example. That's not something you can socialize into a woman. Boys and girls will play with sex-typed toys -- even if you make an effort to encourage "non-sexist" play. Boys will turn sticks into guns and go for transportation items and girls will pick up dolls.
Amy Alkon at December 6, 2007 10:24 AM
Amy this is a point you often make and one I'm grateful for. From choosing mates, to careers our genes stink for these modern times.
Thanks so much. Yeah, we live in "evolutionarily novel" times. And like it or not, men and women are substantially different, based on their differing survival problems 1.8 million years ago.
Amy Alkon at December 6, 2007 10:26 AM
Allison & (the other) Amy -- I think there is pain, PAIN and anticipated pain. I see the guy side of a lot of couple's complain about little stuff or accidental injuries, but I think that has more to do with relationship dynamics than the actual pain. A bit of feminine sympathy helps make the boo-boos go away. We're the care givers so we suck it up and keep quiet.
I'm a pretty independent, do-anything I want, kinda girl. In building this house, I'm not sitting around watching. I've been lifting, cutting, measuring, building and so on. However, after the 3/4" drill with a one inch bit jammed and crushed my hand and wrenched my arms for the fourth time, I conceded that my husband would be drilling the rest of those holes. He's smashed his hands a couple times, but he keeps going. Not me, it hurt and I became more tentative each time I did it, resulting in it happening more often. I'll admit to being entirely frustrated, but just because I didn't want to concede I have less upper body strength and am less willing to accept the inevitable occassional hand crush, didn't make it less so.
moreta at December 6, 2007 10:29 AM
Most of it's not realated to the system or equipment. Parts of some military jobs just flat require a great deal of upper body strength and we evolved with a big gender disparity in that department. If your submarine springs a leak seawater's coming in with a pretty fair amount of force and no change in sub design will get around that. A sailor has to be strong enough to overcome that flow and get a patch over that leak now or the whole crew is dead. Or say one of your folks gets shot. Most male soldiers can run out, grab another soldier, pull them out of danger, and barely break their stride doing it. Very, very few women have the strength for something like that.
SeanH at December 6, 2007 10:42 AM
I don't think anyone is about to mistake me for one of those "gender is a social construct" types but I do think people, men and women, can learn traits that make them better suited to serve.
Modern military operations are an enormous and complex network of systems from supply train/support to standing face to face with the enemy. Only a small percentage will be shoving bayonets into abdomens and yes, as a matter of policy and doctrine, those will always be men. (Though circumstances are notorious for contravening policy and doctrine.)
A person's fitness to serve in any capacity within that range is a function of who they are. I've seen big, strapping, testosterone drenched men nearly overturn a small landing craft because they didn't want to get their socks wet and I've seen dainty, curvacious women put themselves in danger to help someone she didn't even know.
I'm just saying, keep a big glass of "go figure" handy as you get into this. It comes down to character.
martin at December 6, 2007 10:45 AM
I spent 10 years on Navy active duty, half of that aboard ships in the 50s and 60s. At the time WAVES (yes, that was their official designation) did not serve on warships, and were usually administrative types at shore facilities. You'd think that minimalist gender integration would work fine, but realistically it simply didn't. When young men and women are placed in close proximity for prolonged periods, basic biology trumps every hand, rules and regs be damned. And when those folks are literally squeezed together on a ship at sea for months at a time, all the political correctness and attempts of grandiose equality become just so much bilgewater. As a man, I occasionally think I might like to be able to give birth to another being, but reality intervenes and I get over it. Some things are what they are.
John Foland at December 6, 2007 10:54 AM
As a man, I occasionally think I might like to be able to give birth to another being,
Think of it as pushing a Ford Escort out your nostril and you'll get over it fast.
Amy Alkon at December 6, 2007 10:58 AM
Back in my younger days I worked for an electrical company as an apprentice. For 2 1/2 years. Went to night school and everything, and I did everything that was required on the job, pulled wires, put up pipes, light fixtures, you name it. It was grueling work, but I worked along side the guys, and even though there was some trepidation at first on their part, we got along well once they saw I was willing and able to pull my weight. But when the company started to tank, due to mis-management, I took the civil service test and went to work for the post office. (That was way more sucky than working in construction!) Now I work in an office and am much better off, financially and emotionally. Go figure! o_O
Flynne at December 6, 2007 11:03 AM
moreta, I love to see a woman get her hands dirty, you go girl. Consider this: If your job site was under OSHA regs, you'd have had to write up your incident/injury reports and your site admin would be ordering a drill that you could use without hurting yourself. It might be unholy expensive but it wouldn't be out of your pocket. You'll notice you don't see many old-fashioned wheelbarrows or jackhammers on commercial job sites anymore. They have powered tools that allow a smaller (or less fit) person get the job done. Changing the tools and the procedures makes a big difference in who can do a job.
SeanH, your scenarios are valid in principle but the guy who is physically able to run through a hail of bullets to fetch his fallen comrade might also be the guy who says "fuck you sarge!"
A 170 lb kid equipped with testicles can no more carry a 250lb comrade than my nine y.o. daughter could. You don't carry anyway so much as drag. It takes technique and it takes courage and I'm insisting those are not uniquely male things.
martin at December 6, 2007 11:13 AM
Testosterone/adrenaline response is far greater in men. It's biological. Really, it is.
Moreover, even a small man probably has more muscle mass and strength than a larger woman. I'm 5'9" and my boyfriend has to open bottles for me.
Amy Alkon at December 6, 2007 11:21 AM
meant "upper-body strength"
Amy Alkon at December 6, 2007 11:21 AM
martin - you're going to have to explain, then, why the Armed Forces have differing physical fitness standards for men and women.
your scenarios are valid in principle but the guy who is physically able to run through a hail of bullets to fetch his fallen comrade might also be the guy who says "fuck you sarge!
Uhh...yeah, that's a total non-sequitur. Unless you're saying that one's physical prowess is proportional to his disrespect for authority.
Fuck it...I can't make sense of that argument, because it's total nonsense.
Ayn_Randian at December 6, 2007 11:30 AM
Sweet Jebus am I really this bored?
"martin - you're going to have to explain, then, why the Armed Forces have differing physical fitness standards for men and women."
For the same reason they have different standards for people of different ages.
"Uhh...yeah, that's a total non-sequitur. Unless you're saying that one's physical prowess is proportional to his disrespect for authority."
The key word is might. A strong guy who won't rescue you is no better than a brave woman who can't; it takes both ability and will and those things can be taught.
"I can't make sense of that argument, because it's total nonsense. "
Praise from Caesar.
martin at December 6, 2007 11:59 AM
It's not often that I agree with Amy, but on this point I do. You can't change biology. Men and women are simply wired differently. Of course, there are sometimes exceptions to the rule, but I don't know too many Brunhildas that could withstand the rigors of combat. I wish feminists would just accept that they can't change biology for all their good intentions--unless they want women to start injecting steroids a la the East German women's swim team.
drflykilla at December 6, 2007 12:08 PM
A strong guy who won't rescue you is no better than a brave woman who can't; it takes both ability and will and those things can be taught.
Wait, you can teach someone the physical ability to save someone?
It's a lot easier to start with people who have the physical ability and instill in them the respect for authority that comes with being a Soldier than it is to attempt to defy nature and physics.
Ayn_Randian at December 6, 2007 12:13 PM
Martin--Going native? Possibly. I have found that I tend to get along with men better than some of my female friends do. I think my experience in the army was a halfway. It wasnt like civilian interaction, because I was part of the team and boy you better believe I could hold my own with them. Shoot, I made them blush sometimes. I also believe that it wasnt the same as an all male group would have been. There are lines, even if they are not front and center in yhour thoughts. It has served me well because I work in a factory with mostly men and when they get reallllly man-like it doesnt bother me. heheheh. Having my son helped me totally grasp in my gut that men are different. they are wired different from the gitgo and that is just how it is, accept it cuz there aint no changing it. you can train it, and civilise it a bit and give young men tools to master it, but in the end they are male.
Shinobi--the hello kitty reference from amy made me snort coffee. Who will pay for the R and D for the machines? production? training? Billions we do not have, just to allow a small minority of women to feel equal. The problem with high-tech mech war is that you have to be careful. Use it, but dont depend on it 100 percent. What happens when it breaks, or supply chain is broken and no spares or odd terrain etc? Dismount, hand to hand. In the end the possiblility of ancient old one on one or small unit to small unit fighting must be kept in your thought, becuase it may just come down to it.
My ex-husband once told me that he didnt think women should be in combat, but damn they would make the most awesome home-defense body ever. His point was that the conquering hero/brute going out and invading and killing is best done by men(for all the reasons amy and her sources say)but the last ditch defense of home and hearth and cubs etc the females are vicious, tough and scary.
rsj at December 6, 2007 12:59 PM
"...for all their good intentions..."
Oh... is that what motivates all this nonsense? Please. This and any related issues are simply proof that however much the aspiration of universal literacy and education (Extremely recent phenomena) increases production and enlightens society, it also produces a gigantic amount of intellectual pollution.
Women, we love you: please do not nag us into letting you into combat. Thanks!
dan at December 6, 2007 1:02 PM
By the way, am i the only one who thinks it's a sign of decadence that all these propositions must be ultimately adjudicated by evolutionary biology and psychology? As Nietzsche said somewhere, Darwinism may be true, but it is, for culture, for life, a dangerous idea...
Strikes me that the first thing to go is Honor, as the older gentleman observed.
dan at December 6, 2007 1:04 PM
Dan, men and women are different, and we also have evolved morality -- contrary to the contentions of many that morality comes from Jesus. What's dangerous, if you'll look to Kingsley's point, is not "Darwinism," but ignoring the data about the differences between men and women.
Amy Alkon at December 6, 2007 1:35 PM
oh i agree - i just didn;t need a study to confirm it is all.
dan at December 6, 2007 1:59 PM
I think we need to base policy on more than ideas about what should be. For example, as I wrote at the top of the article, I didn't think it's fair that only men die in the service of our country. That was my opinion, not based in data. The data suggests that having women in combat is a negative.
Amy Alkon at December 6, 2007 2:12 PM
"I didn't think it's fair that only men die in the service of our country."
I will second that but also add that generations of men have survived the battlefield and found that they had developed or discovered components of themselves they'd never have considered possible before. Even after four relatively easy years of peacetime service, I felt a world different from the guys I went to high school with and other vets tell me the same thing.
Women, and society in general, could benefit from this even at the risk of some women winding up in a fight. Character can be built.
Military service and the risk of winding up in combat is just another visage of the lifeboat effect. Some group (not just feminists) will insist that equality is the highest virtue until the ship is sinking (or the army needs cannon fodder)and then the innate traits are listed to justify an inequality.
If defending society is a fundamental human responsibility, then society will have to create ways to distribute that responsibility to any and all with the ability to carry it.
martin at December 6, 2007 2:47 PM
There's something not fully exposed here that I think needs to come out.
There is a kind of backlash to suggesting that "women in general cannot do...{something}. Many women try to suggest it is up to me, me and my fellows, men in general or an Establishment to recognize them, as a class, as "equals". This isn't the case, and it has never been the case, however appealing the masochist might find the image of "the little lady" being told by some guy she couldn't do a "man's job", but makes a fine cup of coffee.
There is a time to point out that the reason somebody can't do something is that they suck at it. That's the reality; it's another hint that the Universe is unfair. I can't play guitar like Clapton, Madonna doesn't think I'm a god, and Bill Gates doesn't borrow money or get advice from me. I do a great many things better than some people, and some not at all - and I admire everybody who has real talent and works hard. The fact that they exist - that artists in every field produce heartbreakingly beautiful work - is the salve I apply to my ego when it suffers by comparison.
Radwaste at December 6, 2007 2:59 PM
By the way, Rad, I always love hearing about the stuff your mom did. I've been meaning to call a woman whose writing I've been a fan of -- she was a Life Mag correspondent during WWII -- and I was thinking of how incredible it was to accomplish what your mom did back in the day.
Pinker pointed out at an ev psych conference in Austin that women are better suited to "talking" professions like therapy. Would we shove men into a profession where they weren't as comfortable? Why shove women into physics, etc., if it's not their deal? Sure, there are male therapists who are excellent and female physicists, but it seems the male and female brain have distinct paths and they don't always (or even often) fit with the idea of the gender-blind culture we're supposed to be.
Amy Alkon at December 6, 2007 3:21 PM
The effects of this feminism policy go even deeper than most people think. Because anyone who debates these feminists policies is automatically suspect or even disciplined. I spent over 20 years in the US Navy and retired. Up until very recently in the Navy, it was a requirement that you had to have a comment on your evaluation that, "John Doe' supports the Navy's equal opportunity program". If you did not agree with that statement, then you could be turned down for advancement or were even kicked out! Well, I did not agree with those programs for just the reasons supported by many people in this thread but I dared say so if I wanted to continue my career and that is NO EXAGERATION. The effect was to create a culture of cowardice and madatory feminism in the services. Any Army officer who would speak up and decry the use of women in 'combat support' roles, which was actually combat, would not advance in rank, or may find himself riding a desk in Alaska. This feminism of the military mentality goes all the way to the top and creates leaders who are more loyal to political correctness than they are to our country and what they really believe. They worship government and affirmative action and no one who differs will rise in power or authority becuase they are neandrethals. As a result, you have most of the senior advancing officers who are of a leftist point of view who don't see the enemy as radical tyrants building bombs but people on the right who speak their mind and don't neccessarily agree with the liberal point of view. This is why so many govt beaureacrats in the CIA and FBI etc, are democrats and tend to have no problem turning on a man like George Bush, ie. Colon Powell. The feminism of the military has givin us an acceptance of treason in the name of political correctness because when they divulge secrets to the NY Times that make him look bad, they think they have a good reason to do it because our leader is not acting properly according the THEIR standards! I could write a book about this problem. Political correctness in the military is the basis for the destruction of moral and effectiveness of an armed force and it is the reason why recruitment is way down, even for a much smaller force. And don't give me that, 'all the services are meeting their recruiting goals garbage', that is a bold lie. Why do you think they keep lowering the standards for recruits? Recently I had a friend of mine ask me if it was a good idea for his son to join the military and I told him I wouldn't reccomend it because he was a white male, and being such, he was at a ten percent disadvantage right off the bat to any female and twenty percent to any female minority in competing for rank or assignments.
Bikerken at December 6, 2007 4:00 PM
Who knew?!
Via Michelle, via e-mail, the Hello Kitty Armoured Personnel Carrier actually exists!
http://www.kittyhell.com/2007/07/19/hello-kitty-armoured-personnel-carrier/
Amy Alkon at December 6, 2007 5:03 PM
I guess I have to be one of the few dissenting voices. Exactly what do you call all the women who have been in combat in the last four years.
An HVT was caught at the beginning of the Iraq war by a woman standing guard at a check point. When he tried to run, she chased him down and whacked him with her rifle butt.
Leigh Ann Hester. A captain leading patrols in Afghanistan. Another Sgt who won a CAB and a bronze star with V device. Combat medics. Combat pilots. These are all women serving today. They are not nearly as "exceptional" as you all believe it is. And, from my perspective, directly contradicts this book and the comments made here.
Several women have been killed or wounded in "combat". Unless you think that IEDs and snipers do not constitute "combat", nor the action that typically follows.
Your conscience and morality are a day late and a dollar short. Or, more succinctly, your reality is not the reality of female soldiers today.
kat-missouri at December 6, 2007 5:16 PM
No one is saying that there aren't admirable women out there. I am grateful to anybody, of any gender, working to protect us, whether in police, fire departments, or the military.
Your response, however, is emotional, and not based on the data. I have not read such a well-sourced book in a long time. This is solid stuff -- and I had to throw aside my own prejudice (and fast) when reading it, that women should fight and die if men have to. It's simply more dangerous (and deadly) for the men if they are. And, not just because of female makeup -- but, for example, because men are hard-wired to save or protect a woman -- moreso than they would be for male fellow soldiers.
Amy Alkon at December 6, 2007 5:33 PM
amy i'm not blaming you - that was an excellent column. my complaint is more general: for if it is the case that morality evolved with us, it is also the case that our moral sensibility evolved as well, and however much the scientific investigation of moral questions may regarded as yet another evolutionary phase, it strikes me as cowardly that one's - not yours, i get the point - plain animal sense is insufficient to ground these observations and policies.
women - the sweet ones, with ponytails, who like babies and shopping, and prefer conspiracy to open combat - do not belong in combat. period. if the doctrine equality is offensive in only some respects, it is surely most offensive to reason when it regards the animal human male and the animal human female as equivalent - and obliges them to accept this idiocy until the fearful tendrils of science can convince its adherents of their folly. this is just fucking stupid in my opinion. goddamn i hate babyboomers, you gullible self-serving pieces of shit! look at all that has to happen just to get back to zero!
dan at December 6, 2007 6:25 PM
Even underparented-child-loathing broads like me don't belong in combat. I might be churlish, but I have the wrists and arm-strength of the average seven-year-old. Girl, that is.
Men and women should be equal under the law -- be accorded the right to vote and the opportunities they're physically, emotionally, and mentally qualified for, absent gender. But, to pretend men and women are biologically (and psychologically) the same is just idiocy, and anti-science, and leads to the worst in policy-making.
Amy Alkon at December 6, 2007 6:37 PM
*goddamn i hate babyboomers, you gullible self-serving pieces of shit! look at all that has to happen just to get back to zero!*
Perhaps you can just be a zero on your own, then.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at December 6, 2007 6:52 PM
While history does have examples of combat troops of women (the Fon regiment of the Kingdom of Dahomey lasted until end of the 19th century, the Soviet women in WWII), I'd think that the psychological issues should outweigh even the upper body strength arguments. Can a fighting unit bond without the risk of sexual interaction?
And then there's the risk of rape. Rhonda Cornum, flight surgeon, was captured in 1981 by Iraquis, and raped, and then told not to mention it. I'd bet that Jessica Lynch was raped. Wouldn't that kind of assault by enemy troops have a devastating effect on the morale of other soldiers?
Aren't there enough jobs for women to fill in the armed servies without sending them to combat?
KateCoe at December 6, 2007 6:52 PM
whoever commented that male pain-reaction is partly meant to elicit female sympathy - thank you. that is a very sweet observation. i'd never thought of that, but of course, it's true. see? we love you. please, no combat.
dan at December 6, 2007 7:40 PM
Shinobi -
The very real thing about this is that women are simply not capable of taking or delivering a hit like a man.
I'm not terribly strong. In fact, I'm weak for my size. However I seriously doubt that even a woman of similar size to me would be able to win a punch for punch match.
For as much as people might revile him, Vox Day often writes about how the women in his various martial arts classes couldn't take a single hit from any of the men they sparred with without folding up.
Sure, a woman that is trained can take down an untrained man who isn't expecting a response. But in a hand-to-hand combat situation, the women are going to be the first ones to die.
brian at December 6, 2007 8:59 PM
So let's suppose the women who equal men in these circumstances are "exceptions" for the sake of argument. Why should they be denied because 90% of the rest of their gender couldn't do it? I do agree the bar shouldn't be lowered. Let everyone, male or female, pass tests that show they can physically and mentally handle what they may be called on to do and those who cut it, cut it and those who don't, don't. I suspect the majority will be male simply because of biology (and I am an ardent women's libber) but that said, there's a woman who can shouldn't be denied her chance just because she's female just as a couple where the woman is one hell of a business tigress and the man is gentle and nurturing should be told he has to go to work and she stay at home with the children even though she's more apt to lose her patience with the kids and he can only earn $20,000 a year to her $50,000. There's always exceptions and they should be considered. I couldn't do it but, hell, there's also plenty of men who couldn't and plenty of women who could. Let it be a test and pass or fail. The question of pregnancy/periods on the battle front is much more difficult, however, and needs to be addressed and not ignored and that does have to be done before we can say simple pass/fail on the rest.
Donna at December 10, 2007 11:37 AM
Donna-
It's not just a matter of whether any particular individual can pass certain tests. The real test is on the armed forces as a whole: and the question you have to answer is "does a mixed-sex force do better than a singe-sex force at defending your country?" - or whatever you think the job of the army is.
Norman at December 11, 2007 5:50 AM
No, Norman. It would be does a mixed force do as good a job -- not better. In other words, if male/female does as well a job as an all male, there's no reason to exclude women. However, as I said, the bar shouldn't be lowered, the testing shouldn't be made easier to insure that a certain number of women qualify. If they want to be a soldier, they should meet the same criteria.
Donna at December 11, 2007 7:35 AM
The Hotlips Hullihans and pussywhipped Frank Burnses of the military have taken over. To question them or thier idiotic ideas is to commit political and/or carreer suicide. Why? Because no one has the nerve to stand up to them anymore (Even Hawkeye Pierce had enough sense to recognize Frank as incompetant and Hullihan as manipulative.) In today's military its mostly Franks hoping to get some action in return for playing along and Margaret Hulihans hoping to get themselves a nice little lost puppy dog of a tool to do thier bidding for them. Everyone else gets left holding the bag, both the guys and the gals who actually try to do thier jobs.
JoeBob at February 23, 2009 10:41 PM
So let me try and understand the liberal mind set .. . . . you want to be liked really badly .. so you establish kindness as the highest good . . but you take it to far .. . you start to equate kindness with tolerance. Then suddenly almost everything must be tolerated because after all it is so "mean" to be intolerant. Then once you have your tolerance you begin to realize that to be truly tolerant you must apply this tollerance to almost anything. Abandoning reason for emotion, you begin to accept this because deep down you really wanted to be liked really bad or just got bored with the kindness you already had. So you end up indiscriminately treating everything equally in an attempt to follow your new found morality. Genders get treated equally and rich and poor get equall pay because after all we need to tolerate the lazy people too. Capitalism must seem so unfair to you with jobs being lost and all . . . its just so . . . intolerant. Well do I grasp liberalism? And could it be that you just can't handle the intolerance that you find in the real world and that just makes you really really depressed?
right wing nut at December 31, 2009 9:53 PM
But tolerance can lead to tolerating cruelty, which is unfortunately something liberals have not given enough thought to. And it can become unfair when things are tolerated that do not benefit mankind or when one persons wishes are granted at the expense of anothers. You cannot make everyone happy, but if you wish to do so then tolerance is not the answer. It is in fact impossible to makes 'everyone' happy. Think on these things.
right wing nut at December 31, 2009 10:04 PM
If I'm wrong about liberalism or I missed something, please do tell. I'm all ears.
right wing nut at December 31, 2009 10:08 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2007/12/06/coed_combat_1.html#comment-1685806">comment from right wing nutTo whom are you talking?
Amy Alkon at January 1, 2010 2:26 AM
The owner of this blog. I believe I am talking to you. I was curious to know if you had deep insight into how American liberals think.
right wing nut at January 1, 2010 9:59 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2007/12/06/coed_combat_1.html#comment-1685963">comment from right wing nutWell, I generally think people on the left tend to have poor math skills (vis a vis the national debt, legislating like there's a pot of money on every corner, etc.) and are naive about government's role and abilities. I think the Republicans are profligate spender who pretend not to be, and I think most politicians, no matter what the party, are pandering sleazebags. The only guy I've been impressed with in years is Arizona Republican Jeff Flake, an outcast in his own party for being against earmarks. He ran the Barry Goldwater Institute, he's a Mormon with 12 children, yet doesn't seem to want to legislate his morality on the rest of us. And he seems like a nice, decent, sensible guy who can add. We need more of that in government. Lots more.
Amy Alkon at January 1, 2010 10:48 PM
Leave a comment