Women in Combat, being my reply to Kayla Williams

This morning during my daily dumpster dive over at the House of Beeker Dicksmith, I came across this post by Ms kayla Williams. I don’t really have much against Ms. Williams, in fact, I have enjoyed reading her testimony before Congress in the past. I don’t care for her husband, and I don’t care for the circle she runs in (VoteVets) but she is fairly cordial to me, and has never once been rude or dismissive when I took issue with her. As usual, I took my objection to her directly, and she encouraged me to do a post on the subject. Ergo this post.

Her basic premise is that women should be in the military (or perhaps in combat, she seems to use them interchangeably) and that all arguments to the contrary are without merit. She lists for us 5 strawmen, and then proceeds to explain why they are not accurate.

Regarding the overall premise of women in the military, I am in agreement. Which makes the line I walk all the more difficult here. I do, however, oppose women in the direct combat arms units, understanding however that they do engage in combat. My distinction being essentially, units that patrol for a week or more, or are on FOBs out in the sticks, I oppose a female presence. But, let’s look at her 5 points of her argument.

1. The Hygiene Hypothesis: According to the Hygiene Hypothesis, because women have menstrual cycles and, you know, scary womanly genitals, we supposedly cannot survive in the field…Baby wipes clean vaginas, penises, and anuses equally well.

It was a close call, but Ms Kayla has done me an unestimable favor by allowing me to use the words “vaginas,” “penises” and “anuses” in conjunction with “baby wipes” for the year 2009. Frankly, for that alone I owe her thanks.

On the larger picture, I am not a biologist, and I have no clue on it. What I do know is that on FOB Ghazni we had these pipes coming out of the ground that you had to pee into. Not as much a hygiene issue as I wonder whether this would be acceptible procedure with females present. Mind you that these pipes were in the middle of the compund, so you essentially just exposed yourself to the elements and all present. Again, not something that could not be overcome, but I wonder what additional measures would need to be taken in order to make this situation co-ed/EEO compliant. But again, I know nothing about menstrual cycles beyond what other males know, which is limited by choice.

2. The Weakness Hypothesis: This one argues that women are simply too physically weak to handle the strenuous demands of military service. Well, I’m sure some are. So are some men.

This is the weak link of her 5. She goes into great detail about various sized individuals dragging others, etc. While I agree that anyone not meeting a set standard should be let go, the reality is that this is not happening, and likely never will. Take your standard IVAW member who would no doubt fail to pull a 50 pound sack of cotton if it meant not having to deploy. I would also note that the PT Standards are different for men and women. Not just in the military. Take for instance that we segregate all sports by gender. A marathon would not be won by a woman. A weight lifting event would not be won by a woman. A boxing match would not be won by a woman. She counters that while these might be true, that some women can perform feats of strength which some men can not.

Let me posit this. If 100 men and 100 women were sent to Ranger school, what percent of women would wash out and what percent of men? Are all college graduates smarter than all people who failed to acquire even a GED? Are all individuals who had asthma as children incapable of running long distances at the same rate as those who did not?

My point here is that we engage in statistical analysis constantly. There is a cost/benefit analysis that the military uses, and we shouldn’t be changing an entire system to cover the one aberation who transcends our rule.

On the practical level, I have seen female MPs arrive at the scene of a TIC who were unable to pull back the charging handle on their weapons system. I believe that both Ms Kayla and I would agree that such an indivual has no place in that role. However, if we start having a 80% washout rate among females, and a 10% rate among males, the uproar among “feminists” would be shocking. There would be allegations of sexism and lord knows what else.

I’m just touching on this one, as I am sure we will get a ton of anecdotal evidence in the comments section.

3. The Knight Hypothesis: According to this theory, men are such noble knights that if a woman they are serving alongside is endangered or injured, men will forget all their military training and abandon the mission in order to protect the woman.

I think she is engaging in some hyperbole here. There are certainly varying degrees of “The Knight” scenario. I have been verbally accosted more for such things than for any other horrific thing I do. When I lived in DC, I refused to remain seated on a metro while a woman stood. If she refused to take my seat, which happened fairly frequently, I still remained standing regardless of whether the seat remained unoccupied. Would I abandon all cover to get to a woman pinned down when I wouldn’t do that for a male? While I will never know for sure, I would like to think I would treat them equally, but I kind of doubt it. This isn’t a moral issue, or anything else, and I certainly would take no issue with someone who acted differently. What I do know is that I have seen women struggling with physical tasks that I have aided, while simliarly situated military males bore the brunt of my abuse. Again, I am not defending my admittedly sexist behavior, yet neither am I overly ashamed of it.

I think the drastic scenario she lays out is less likely to occur that some lesser derivation thereof. She further contends that:

Some men are willing to sacrifice their lives to save their comrades; those who do so may receive our nation’s highest recognition, the Medal of Honor. Would that sacrifice be less honorable if one of the fellow troops were female?

I have no clue what this adds to the argument. Perhaps I am being obtuse in my reading, but it doesn’t seem to further the argument. It is an act that is honorable, not the result, right? Jumping on a grenade seems honorable, whether those saved are women, children or hearty males. For those thinking this undermines my “seat on the metro argument”, I don’t view that as an honorable act. That is merely doing what has been ingrained in me as appropriate. Doing your perceived duty isn’t “honorable” per se, it simply is doing what your personal mores demand.

We had a female MP SGT that worked with us occasionally. She was tough, I mean the absolute perfect case study for Ms Williams’ argument on proficient women in the military. She was way tougher than me. (Every guy I served with will know the SGT, please do not post her name guys.) Anyway, one day in the MWR tent, I was seated next to her as she talked on the phone, and started crying. It effected me so bad I just hung up on the phone and left. Now, I certainly don’t begrudge her whatever was going on in her life, hell I cried over there too when I lost my dog. But the effect it had on me was wretched. I felt crappy for about a week because there was nothing I could do. If it had been a guy I would have slapped him on the head, told him to man up, and gotten some crap vodka off the locals to get him sauced.

Again, not a mark against women, more a mark against me.

4. The Lecher Hypothesis: This theory, conversely, argues that men are such awful pigs that they won’t be able to concentrate on their missions because the presence of females will make men think only and always of sex.

Um. Yeah. Sign me up on this one. While not “only” thinking of sex, my in-depth study of men and women in proximity in a foreign country has proven scientifically that when a female is present, your average infantryman dedicates 90% plus whatever the male determines said female to be on a scale of 1 to 10 of their cognitive functions to the woman. Our last few days in country a unit came in that had a young lady who in a previous life had been an exotic dancer. As we were preparing to SP one day she was talking to some of my guys. Despite my burying a foot in the ass of every man present, we very nearly took off without the machine gun affixed to the pintle. If young lady had been young lad named “Steve” I suspect we would have SP’d on time with all the pre-combat checks completed to standard.

She draws an analogy to how workplaces in the US are not brothels. There seems to be a ton of intra-employee extracurriculars going on here, but either way, one key distinction is that there, rather than here, you don’t have your significant other there each evening. It is simply biology that dictates that young people will have sex. I can’t think of a situation where young males and young females are together that this doesn’t happen. I work as a counselor at Boys State each year, and my biggest fear is what these yuts will say to women walking around. I am vaguely aware that college is little more than an excuse for relations, although I went to an all-male college, and on account of my belligerent disregard for accepted behavior barely ever was allowed off campus.

Dudes, especially combat arms guys, are incapable of rational thought in the presence of young women. Especially when they are in a country where the women cover themselves head to toe. Is that 100% true? No, but I suspect that the average IQ drops at least 30 points when women are present. I am not defending it, not by a mile. It was the biggest pain in the ass imagineable as a squad leader. But it does happen, and you have to base policy on actual realities, not some aspirational reality.

5. The No-Need Hypothesis: Some people posit that the military doesn’t need women, there are enough willing and able men to get the job done.

I haven’t really heard this argument much. I also don’t even know how one would debate it, since as you point out it is largely demonstrably untrue. Plus, I think that women in the military is a great thing.

So, to sort of wrap up my thinking….

It sounds like I am arguing against women in the military. Nothing is further from the truth. I just don’t agree with some of the logical leaps Ms Kayla has made. Women have served as key components in Afghanistan and Iraq and will continue to do so. I agree with Kayla that standards need to be made, and those not meeting the job requirements need to be shifted. But not seeing that young Joes turn into neanderthal man when around women doesn’t help the problems any. They do, I know, I was one of them. Just look at this military blog. Our #1 google search? Angie Harmon. Over at Sniper, most read day? “Titillation Tuesdays.”

Again, not defending either my behavior, or other men around me, simply saying it exists. I hold doors, I give up my seat, and I call women “ma’am.” I don’t know if it is right or wrong, it is simply what I do. I was taught it was right, I am now being told it is not. I am completely cool with women on Poguedishu Bagram Air Base, not as much on far flung FOB’s. When I went out on patrol and had to go, I went. If a woman had been present, I would not have done so without first finding a secluded firing position (as it were.) Right or wrong is irrelevant. It simply *is*.

Proceed to tear me to shreds for my mysogyny.

Category: Politics