[*As a note before I begin; I wrote - literally, pen and paper - this post well over a year ago, and it went into the Crate Of Unpublished Blogs - again, literally. It is getting resurrected because I have time to type it, and a friend - yes, I'm looking at you, Kelli - who pestered me to actually start posting these archaic protoblogs, this one in particular. So, without further ado, here we go.*]
For all the hoopla we seem to make about it, the notion of women in combat arms isn't exactly new. there have been many societies in history in which women fought.
Those societies were very different from our own, however. And it's THOSE differences - NOT the physical ones - that make the issue such a thorny one for us.
So, let's talk about the physical differences first, and get that out of the way, hmmm?
...And bear in mind here that this is ALL generality; I will address that specifically later.
First off, men are bigger than women.
Obvious, right?
The overwhelming majority of women who possess the kind of physical fitness required by the military weigh in the region of 130 pounds, as opposed to 180 pounds or so for males. Of that mass, a significantly higher percentage by weight of a male's body is muscle when compared to a woman's, even assuming similar levels of fitness.
There are many, many physucal differences, but simple size is the major one; here's why. A typical soldier's load, counting rucksack, web gear, body armor, weapon, helmet, commo devices and ammunition, can easily come to 80 pounds or more.
On a 180 pound male, that's no light burden, but on a woman weighing 120 pounds,that's two thirds of her entire body mass. Which means, proportionally, the woman must exert FAR more effort to move it.She will tire more quickly.
The same phenomenon presents itself when moving heavy objects, like ammo cans or wounded comrades; a female simply has to work harder to get the same results as a male, strictly by virtue of size.
That, in and of itself, is no big deal. There is a simple solution, which is to let only the females demonstrably able to perform to the required standard to join combat teams.
But here's where those cultural differences start to be an issue. See, in previous societies in which women have fought, that solution would have been applied without a second thought, but we suffer from the mistaken notion that "fairness" applies - or should apply - to everything.
In fact, it does not. In real life, nature doesn't give a damn if you want to be a firefighter or soldier; the reason so few females ARE is strictly a matter of physique. A 120 pound woman will have significantly higher difficulty - and thus risk - associated with rescuing a 200 pound smoke inhalation victim or gunshot victim than will a 200 pound man; Mother Nature simply doesn't CARE if that's "fair."
But we have the mistaken notion that fainess applies regardless; so, if we let one female on a combat team, they all get to go. And most of them - hell, most men - can't.
Combat arms, specifically the infantry, but any combat element - is gruelingly hard physical labor, day in and day out. Most men, much less most women, simply collapse under the strain. The washout rate at Infantry School is very high, and the more advanced you get, the higher it gets. Airborne? Higher. Ranger? Higher. SF / SEAL? Higher still.
Ranger school earns you convalescent leave.
And most - like, 95% most - women are not physically capable of doing the job.
But that's "unfair." And the solution to THAT, of course, at least so far, has been to lower the physical fitness standards - but only for women. Not only not "fair," but dangerous, because it allows people not capable of doing the job into positions where lives depend on their performance, and worse because that unfairness is brutal in its effect on morale. Imagine how it feels, to see someone who does less than you earn the same rewards for their lesser effort that you earned for yours.
But that's only on one level.
There is another.
One thing that changed immediately when women began filling military jobs is the environment for the soldiers. Much of the environment for combat soldiers is designed to desensitize - to make the soldiers inured to violence and its inevitable lingering emotional traumas as much as is possible.
Traditional "combat" cadences, gone, because a female soldier might overhear "Napalm Sticks To Kids" and get offended. Suddenly every soldier has to watch his mouth, and edit everything he says, for fear of being accused of creating a "hostile work environment."
Fine and good on civvie street. But combat is the world's ultimate hostile environment. And quite frankly, if you can't handle the stress of hearing someone joke about death, or say "motherfucker!" you are ill-equipped indeed for the emotional impact of seeing a child that actually HAS napalm burns. Or your friend, down with a sucking chest wound.
And when others are depending on you to back them up, you cannot be in a position to fail them because your feelings got hurt.
Politesse and "steely-eyed killer" don't mix well.
Now, I personally know a couple of females who not only could handle being in combat arms, but would likely excel; but they are the exception. Most women could not. Not until that idea of "fairness" goes out the window, at least with regard to the military.
Real life does not hand you a stress card.
And enemy - you know, with bullets - does not CARE if you feel put upon, and someone unable to deal with the trauma of hearing a joke - even a sexist joke - is simply not equipped to function in the conditions of combat.
Is sexism wrong? sure; but as long as people - men and women both - go out of their way to keep the stereotypes true, it will not only exist but flourish.
The way to put women in combat arms is simple indeed; require them to fit in. If they cannot physically meet the standards set by the men, they are unfit for that duty, period. There are plenty of equally important but less physically demanding jobs, and nothing dishonorable in doing them.
Dishonor lies in laying claim to a job you cannot do, and causing deaths by your failure.
That said, I think if they can keep up, women are potentially a huge tactical advantage in combat, for several cold, bloody-minded, cruel reasons. Since I am a mean bastard, I will explain.
First, the bulk of the world's soldiers are men; and those soldiers are, by and large, trained to automatically consider females to be civilians; that can cause hesitation, and let the females shoot first, always a good thing.
Secondly, and more cold-bloodedly by far, the bulk of the world's soldiers are males, and those males are, by and large, trained to think of women as civilians - and something to be protected. the post-combat trauma of having to kill women will eat enemy soldiers alive in a way killing men will not; devastating to morale.
Thirdly, and yet more cold-bloodedly, is the fact that the bulk of OUR soldiers are male - and trained by and large by society to defend women. Revenge is a powerful motivator; how much more so when coupled with the guilt - deserved or no - arising from the perception of a masculine failure to protect the females?
...I told you I am a mean bastard.
Fourth, is the fact that the bulk of the world's soldiers are men, which means that regardless of their nation's specific tactical and strategic doctrine, their basic thought processes are very similar. Female thought processes are quite different, and that plays out on the battlefield in the form of doing the unexpected, which can create surprise - which wins battles.
For all these reasons, women can be tremendously advantageous in combat, if able to do it at all.
But honestly, my soul weeps at the prospect. Maybe it makes me a chauvinist; I can live with that label if you can live with the fact that I would lay down my life without question to save my wife from ever knowing what it feels like to "win" a battle.
To keep her from knowing the self-revulsion that comes when you realize how glad you are that it was the enemy, and not you, who fell. The glee, however fleeting, that says "Yeah, take THAT, motherfucker!" and wants to pull the trigger again. the part of your deepest id that bares bloody fangs and hisses at the bodies of the slain.
And God forbid, the part of you that likes it.
For me, the beast within is closer to the surface than in some; my darker side is dark indeed.
But for some - most women, but a lot of men, too - it's buried so deeply they're not even aware of it. They may really believe that the PTA and the 4-H club are who and what they are.
And combat will bring you face to face, inexorably, with what you really are inside.
It is for that reason that I ask - beg - women: Please. Please do not do this to yourselves. You will ruin yourselves in a cause that does not require you.
Learn to defend yourselves, great.
But don't charge to the sharp end.
You will hate what you learn about yourself when you get it stuck in.
And you can never, ever unlearn it.
