The Case Against Women in Combat
The author of a new book contends that women shouldn't be in the front lines.
Kingsley Browne, law professor at Wayne State University in Michigan, is used to being called a male chauvinist. In a previous book he argued that biological differences between the sexes—rather than injustice—explain the existence of the glass ceiling. His new book, "Co-Ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn't Fight the Nation's Wars," due out Nov. 8, argues that women are not physically and psychologically suited for combat. His contention: their presence on the front lines even endangers the military itself. Browne explained his views to NEWSWEEK's Martha Brant. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: Women fly missions and serve on warships, but they aren't yet in the infantry. Is there really any possibility that women will fight alongside ground troops?
Kingsley Browne: It's an issue that could be substantially affected by the 2008 presidential election. It has come up in the Democratic debates, and the candidates expressed doubts about excluding women from any military positions.
If you talk to the military brass, they are always very supportive of women in their ranks.
For the last couple of decades one doesn't advance very far up the ladder without demonstrating a clear commitment to the advancement of women. There are a lot of military people who think women in combat is a horrible idea, but it's career suicide to say it. Many think they shouldn't be on warships or flying combat missions.
You go one step further and argue that women shouldn't be part of forward-deployed support units.
Today the Department of Defense policy excludes women from being embedded within the infantry, but that policy is being routinely violated. There are many tasks that women perform in Iraq and Afghanistan where the enemy is trying to attack them. When the shooting starts, you can't count on just being able to do your assigned task. If your supply unit gets hit, you have to engage the enemy. Your job might be a cook, but suddenly someone's life depends on your being able to drag them out of the line of fire.
But today's military is just as much about brains as brawn.
Brawn clearly still matters. Soldiers today are often carrying at least 60 pounds of gear. That doesn't even include food, water, batteries. That's huge. Remember the EP3 spy plane that got shot down over China? The pilot weighed 220 pounds. He said it took every ounce of his strength just to keep the plane steady.
Women aren't generally as physically strong as men. What about psychologically?
Women are suffering post-traumatic stress disorder at higher rates than men. We know that women in general feel more negative emotional consequences from physical aggression. Surveys show that women in the military, especially enlisted women, don't want to go into combat. The percentage of women enlistees is going down, and that seems to be tied to their exposure to combat.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: queensmonkey @ 07/13/2008 11:46:29 AM
Comment: The M-19 was constantly being used in drills that would require the "dismount" of the weapon from the vehicle and mounting it on a separate tripod. The majority of the men could lift it off of the truck and setup the weapon in the tripod in 20 seconds or less. For the other men that couldn't do it in that amount of time the driver would help get the weapon "up" and operational. For each of the women in our Platoon... the women were not able to do any part of the drill except provide cover fire with their 6 pound M-16 rifle. There isnt the thought of them getting it into the mount faster than a guy, there really wasnt a thought of a woman helping get a 115-120 pound automatic gernade launcher off the roof of a 6 foot hummer while in "full battle rattle" (wearing armor and LBV and guns). Instead, it took the Team Leader to help the Assistant gunner get the gun off of the roof while the female "gunner" or "assistant-gunner" lay in the prone with an M-16... All-the-while the Team Leader should be laying on the ground making radio calls to other units or teams while the weapon is being setup.
I want to say that I am not against women in the military, i am only against women that are assigned to a combat position. At times women will be forced to shoot back if shot-upon, that is the basics learned in military training... To have women at "forward outposts" really makes life of the soldier hard and in some cases will actually degrade living conditions.
Thank you,
Posted By: queensmonkey @ 07/13/2008 11:45:16 AM
Comment: The M-19 was constantly being used in drills that would require the "dismount" of the weapon from the vehicle and mounting it on a separate tripod. The majority of the men could lift it off of the truck and setup the weapon in the tripod in 20 seconds or less. For the other men that couldn't do it in that amount of time the driver would help get the weapon "up" and operational. For each of the women in our Platoon... the women were not able to do any part of the drill except provide cover fire with their 6 pound M-16 rifle. There isnt the thought of them getting it into the mount faster than a guy, there really wasnt a thought of a woman helping get a 115-120 pound automatic gernade launcher off the roof of a 6 foot hummer while in "full battle rattle" (wearing armor and LBV and guns). Instead, it took the Team Leader to help the Assistant gunner get the gun off of the roof while the female "gunner" or "assistant-gunner" lay in the prone with an M-16... All-the-while the Team Leader should be laying on the ground making radio calls to other units or teams while the weapon is being setup.
I want to say that I am not against women in the military, i am only against women that are assigned to a combat position. At times women will be forced to shoot back if shot-upon, that is the basics learned in military training... To have women at "forward outposts" really makes life of the soldier hard and in some cases will actually degrade living conditions.
Thank you,
Posted By: queensmonkey @ 07/13/2008 11:45:04 AM
Comment: I am a former soldier. I was in the MP core and I gotta say women really hurt the Unit, the Platoon and the Team. Overall, women are suited for many jobs in the armed forces; however, when the Unit goes to the field there are no shower "rooms" there are no changing "rooms" there is no privacy and there is a lot of personal hygiene done in the open. Its not because they choose to, it's because there isn't a place to do it in private. Many of times showers are taken in large rooms with multiple shower heads, the room you sleep in, the area you change in, and the area that personal hygiene is taken care of is in a Large Room called a GP-Medium, absolutely no privacy.
The reader might ask why I talk about the privacy so much... Having women and men in the same unit Makes the Unit Commanders accommodate for both sexes, which forces them to spend more time and effort to make shower times for each and setup or attempt to setup different holes in the ground for women and men to use the bathroom.
When it is that "time of the month" it is impossible to find any womens hygiene materials or medication.
As stated in the article soldiers use Extremely heavy equipment. Backpacks range from 75 pounds with a few days supply to 115 lbs with a decent supply of clothes and supplies. My women co-workers would never pack as they were told. Everyone put all supplies in one Ruck-Sack, while they tried to bring 3 bags... and we would always have to help them load the bags as they were too heavy for them to lift.
On top of normal operating luggage, we would have to bring large weapons with us such as the .50 cal and the Mark-19 40mm machine gun. These machine guns were quite heavy... the M-19 alone without the required accessories weighed 75 pounds with accessories weighed in at 120 pounds.