Hello internet! Recently one of my Facebook friends and fellow soldiers shared an article by the Operator As Fuck Nation which sought to deconstruct efforts to integrate women into combat arms using common sense and logic. That is a noble goal, and one that I would in many ways support, but unfortunately a careful reading finds that most of his assertions are based on faulty assumptions. The article is pretty short and definitely bears reading. I'll only be reproducing excerpts below, but you can find the full article by clicking here.
There are many reasons why it could be true that the ideal percentage of women may be greater than 0 but less than 100%. It may be logistics, cohesion, potential mating opportunities, or any number of other factors. Perhaps they could do the research and find that wouldn't ya know it, a 100% male unit actually the way to go! Still, it is not logical to categorically state that because 100% isn't ideal then no other combination should be considered.
Next up we have the standard argument, that being physical capability.
While it may be true that men are, on average, fitter than women this does not preclude the possibility that certain driven and gifted women can not also make the cut. This is why the various branches have been mulling a gender neutral standard of performance for combat arms positions that would eliminate any man OR woman who cannot physically perform, eliminating this as a concern. It would be valid to say that because men are on average more likely to pass such a test then we would expect the pool of qualified applicants to be biased towards males, but that statement does not preclude the possibility of certain females in the mix.
This may possibly be the most valid of his assertions because it centers on something that is pretty much beyond dispute: Women have more sanitation needs than men do and sanitation can be on short supply in the field. If you doubt that I can only say that the stench of an infantryman who has recently emerged from the field is something akin to a ten day old hobo who has recognized the insulating properties of rotting animal carcasses.
Unfortunately, once again he takes a true statement and draws an invalid conclusion. While it may be true that having women in combat units puts logistical strain on a unit it is not necessarily true that this implies it should be avoided. The cost/benefit analysis is yet to be determined. I suspect they will find that the benefit of having more guns shooting freedom towards the enemy will outweigh the ursine attracting potential of periods.
Finally, he concludes with the Band of Brothers argument.
For the other part, I think it unlikely that the "bonds of brotherhood" cannot possibly be formed with women who go through the same trials. Stories abound of women who have been thrust into combat roles who performed admirably and were respected by their peers. Men and women are more alike than we are different and any group is bound more tightly together when going through shared adversity.
He does allude to the protective instinct many men feel towards women, which is a valid point. Once again, however, that does not necessarily mean that the barrier is insurmountable. The entire training regimen has been designed to train out certain selective instincts in men under specific circumstances. For example, humans tend to have a pretty big aversion to face murdering their fellow humans. In fact, we have a word for those who don't share that particular value.
Yet our soldiers are able to engage the enemy effectively when ordered to do so by a superior. They are also able to return to the civilian populace and do not engage in murdering any more than their civilian counterparts. Our training reduces the block against killing under specific circumstances without affecting it in general. For more on this topic I recommend "On Killing" by LTC Grossman. Very good book.
It stands to reason that we can likely design training that can remove the protectiveness instinct without damaging the psyche as a whole. Of course, that may not be true, which would then make this a valid argument against incorporating women. Until we try, however, we will not know.
All this is not to say that we should jump in with both feet. I love a good sandwich as much as the next guy, but there are definitely issues that have to be addressed before we can integrate combat arms. These issues run from logistics and physical standards to cohesion and instinct. I have every confidence that these obstacles can be dealt with if we acknowledge them and come up with sound strategies to adapt and overcome. I also have complete confidence that the Army will fuck it up in the most spectacular sense possible.
In the interests of full disclosure I will remind you that I myself currently serve as an infantryman, completely steeped in the hard charging swinging dick philosophy that goes with the title.
OAF was apparently prompted to write the editorial by a study conducted by the Marine Corps which takes an experimental unit that is comprised of 25% women and analyzes their combat effectiveness, with the stated goal of finding the "magic number" of women to men that maximizes readiness.
I want to first address the issue of this “magic number”. We know men are fit for combat right? There’s no “magic number” for the amount of men needed for a combat effective unit. I know that I can form a unit comprised of 100% men and it has the potential to be combat effective. So if women really are fit for combat, shouldn’t I be able to make a unit composed of 100% women and have the potential for combat effectiveness? If I’m trying to find a golden ratio of women in a unit before it’s no longer combat effective, aren’t I admitting from the start that having women in a unit will degrade its combat effectiveness?The assumption here is that since they are looking for a "magic number" that is less than 100% it means that any combination whatsoever necessarily degrades readiness and therefore should not be considered. By this logic, only pure iron should be used for all weapons from here on out. Steel will no longer be considered because if you add too much carbon to the iron it becomes brittle and ineffective. This must mean that carbon degrades the alloys' readiness and should be purged.
 |
| We don't need any of your bullshit around here, carbon! |
Next up we have the standard argument, that being physical capability.
It’s hard to explain to the uninitiated the physical rigors of combat, so I’ll use sports as a parallel. We separate genders in sports because we know that men are naturally bigger, stronger, and faster than women. Sure, there are rare occasions when women find their way onto men’s sports teams at the high school, and even more rarely, at the collegiate level.The implied assumption is that because men on average are more physically fit women should not be considered. Once again, this assumption is false. We have physical standards in the military because we acknowledge that not all men are up to the task of performing in combat.
 |
| Pictured: The height of combat readiness |
Men in combat live like animals. They spend months on end with no showers, no toilets, no electricity. Every day they wake up to the reality of kill or be killed.In other words, their menstruation attracts bears.
This may possibly be the most valid of his assertions because it centers on something that is pretty much beyond dispute: Women have more sanitation needs than men do and sanitation can be on short supply in the field. If you doubt that I can only say that the stench of an infantryman who has recently emerged from the field is something akin to a ten day old hobo who has recognized the insulating properties of rotting animal carcasses.
Unfortunately, once again he takes a true statement and draws an invalid conclusion. While it may be true that having women in combat units puts logistical strain on a unit it is not necessarily true that this implies it should be avoided. The cost/benefit analysis is yet to be determined. I suspect they will find that the benefit of having more guns shooting freedom towards the enemy will outweigh the ursine attracting potential of periods.
Finally, he concludes with the Band of Brothers argument.
This intense hardship forges bonds of brotherhood that can’t be explained and can’t be replicated. At times, the relationships these men have with their brothers in arms are quite literally the only thing they have to drive them forward. So what happens to these men who are living at the basest levels of human existence and instinct, when you insert a woman into the fold? What happens to those bonds of brotherhood? Is it realistic to expect them to live and die by their animal instincts, but completely turn off the most powerful instinct that human beings possess? When all the men in a unit are sex deprived they can turn that aggression and frustration towards more productive things like killing.For the sex part, the military simply needs to realize that their soldiers do in fact like to mash their genitalia from time to time. As long as soldiers use protection and can keep such genital mashing outside of their immediate area things will probably turn out okay. We already have rules again rubbing sexy parts against people too close to you in terms of operational capacity.
For the other part, I think it unlikely that the "bonds of brotherhood" cannot possibly be formed with women who go through the same trials. Stories abound of women who have been thrust into combat roles who performed admirably and were respected by their peers. Men and women are more alike than we are different and any group is bound more tightly together when going through shared adversity.
He does allude to the protective instinct many men feel towards women, which is a valid point. Once again, however, that does not necessarily mean that the barrier is insurmountable. The entire training regimen has been designed to train out certain selective instincts in men under specific circumstances. For example, humans tend to have a pretty big aversion to face murdering their fellow humans. In fact, we have a word for those who don't share that particular value.
 |
| That word is fucking sexy. |
It stands to reason that we can likely design training that can remove the protectiveness instinct without damaging the psyche as a whole. Of course, that may not be true, which would then make this a valid argument against incorporating women. Until we try, however, we will not know.
All this is not to say that we should jump in with both feet. I love a good sandwich as much as the next guy, but there are definitely issues that have to be addressed before we can integrate combat arms. These issues run from logistics and physical standards to cohesion and instinct. I have every confidence that these obstacles can be dealt with if we acknowledge them and come up with sound strategies to adapt and overcome. I also have complete confidence that the Army will fuck it up in the most spectacular sense possible.
