Women in Combat Arms

Before we move any further, I feel it is important to recognize one immutable fact: men and women are different. This ifference though stems from biology, and diminishes nothing about individual achievement. Secondly, that biology predisposes itself to gender roles. Notice I am not stating that a gender must or should engage in something, only that gender is immutable with regards to physiological process and certain capability. Introduction- So, as we begin, lets look at what we want out of combatants: lethality. Aggression. Strength. It makes perfect sense as to why historically combat (and the armed forces in general) was exclusively a male endeavour. On average, males were stronger, more aggressive, etc. As time wore on, women did find their way into the military, though those rolesstemmed around logisitics and support, and very infrequently were front line roles unless borne of dire necessity. Now, in the modern military, specialized troops have been developed in order to provide very specific roles. While today's wars might have strayed from the drawn lines and heavy lifting of days gone by, the requirements of what we want in a solider hasn't. The Obvious-The answer relates back to biology. Women can get pregnant. Before this gets dismissed as a sexist argument out of hand,lets explore it for just a moment. Is pregnancy always planned? Does it entail an ever increasing degree of complication? Can it diminish the desired traits of a soldier? And lastly: can a male get pregnant? The answer to all of these are rather plain. To lend credence to this prong, it should be noted that in the armed forces, unplanned pregnancies was estimated to be at rates 50% higher than that of the civilian population. (1) This article further highlights the immediate problems of females and males being deployed regarding privacy, however that falls outside the immediate scope of this particular argument. The Dynamic- Currently, the number of enlisted members aged 18-25 is roughly 43%, predominantly male. (2) Speaking generally, this is also a male's sexual prime. In keeping the idea of assault and out right rape out of the picture, the male/female dynamic at the height of one's sexual peak has obvious implications. Females are an immediate distraction to males, sexually. Combat units are forged to hedge out every type of diversion, but in the name of equality this particular diversion is being inserted into the combat unit. If the goal is for lethality, why do anything to interrupt that? In this particular instance is where the privacy issue previously mentioned comes into play. To eliminate the distraction, the privacy is needed as it thwarts the potential for diversion, however active combats might not have such an ability for privacy and now we have unneeded variables chipping away at the resolve of the unit. Passed the Bar, but…- If the female soldiers in question get injured more frequently, or fail to consistently perform, so what if they passed a standard? In their continued quest for lethality, the armed forces conduct tests and studies to improve the qualities they seek, and in doing so found that units with mixed genders did not perform as well as units comprised of all men. (3) Sure, the standards were passed, but much like a student cramming for a test whom doesn’t retain the knowledge, does passing the standard once really mean the candidate is appropriate? The study conducted leans to the conclusion that the effectiveness of the unit is harmed compared to other units of a homogenous gender. The answer is pretty clear: the lethality of the unit decreased. Cautionary Tale- Standardised tests are excellent. They make a hard bar to clear, and in the instance of the armed forces, make for definitive ways in which to weed out troopers that would be unqualified for specific roles. Like many standards, though, the are subject to “Creep”: that woeful influence of society to lower the bar so as to include more people. We have seen this happen through many facets of society, the moist poignant is education. The military is no different. Under the auspices of ‘equality’, rigorous standards could very well be eased. As it stands, the Marines are under scrutiny. Here is a smidge of gloom and doom: “Elaine Donnelly, who directs the Center for Military Readiness and has issued papers arguing against women in direct landcombat, said all standards for special operations, Army infantry and the Marines are “very much in jeopardy. ” “Over time, and it wouldn’t be long, the ‘Dempsey rule’ would apply, meaning, ‘If it’s too hard for women, it’s probably toohard,’” she said. (4) Conclusion- The desired goal of the armed forces is to have a combat lethal unit of soldiers. This is accomplished through eliminating potential complications, ensuring the reliable physical ability of a unit, and eliminating distractions. The addition of females to combat units runs contrary to all of the above, as such, their role should not be that of front line combat. 1) . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...2) . http://download.militaryonesource.mil...; 3) . https://www.washingtonpost.com... 4) . http://www.washingtontimes.com... In my quest for various media of edu-tainment, I stumbled across one “Lindybeige” on Youtube. In addition to being incredibly entertaining, “Mr. Beige” is also a well-read individual of various disciplines from martial arts to history. I would highly recommend hitting up this video: ;should you have the time, and are interested in a historical to modern take on the sexes.