Very interesting discussion.
I would submit that there are actually three elements in competition here.
The first being that, in my opinion Mr. Coren mixed his apparent dislike for the Afghan mission with the examination of women in combat. This shows in the comment, "..increasingly futile and pointless war in Afghanistan..." which really has nothing to do with the rest of his column.
Second is the uncomfortable feelings that we have when recognize that we do treat the death of a female soldier differently than the death of a male soldier. The initial column and this discussion, as are the countless discussions about this topic that take place are indicators that we do actually view the death of a female soldier differently.
My opinion is that this bothers us so much because it goes against what we intellectually believe to be ethically correct. We ethically believe that women should have the same opportunities as men, even opportunities that may result in negative effects but that conflicts with the message our society gives us that women should be treated differently, with more respect and more reverence.
How would the captain of sinking ship be viewed if he stated men first instead of women and children first?
Lastly, and I think most unsavoury to our ethical selves is that there are in fact very real differences between men and women that, at least according to the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces may have a detrimental effect on their combat capability as compared to men.
From the same report:
"Lt Col. William Gregor, United States Army, testified before the Commission regarding a survey he conducted at an Army ROTC Advanced Summer Camp on 623 women and 3540 men."
Evidence Gregor presented to the Commission includes:
"(a) Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that the upper quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile of men.
"(c) Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.
"(d) On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet a score of 60, while 78 percent of men exceed it.
"(e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70 percent of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge…."
"The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength."
I tried to find a link to the report on line but couldn't, "Women in the Military" by Brian Mitchell is a good collected source. I must also admit to being to lazy to retype portions of the report from a hard copy and have instead copy and pasted from the internet.
These very real differences between men and women, at a physical capability level make us uncomfortable because, again my opinion, it shows us that nature doesn't care about our ethical or moral beliefs that everyone should be equal, in truth we are not.
But its our fight against nature, our refusal to accept the limitation of biology that makes us more than just animals. We as a society have determined that even if someone is not physiologically equal they will be treated as if they are. The question should be, how far does the right of equality extend to where it may potentially endanger someone else? Any military is not a group of individuals, it is a team, and as such its capability is a sum of its collected parts. If it is demonstrated, quantitatively, that some portion of the team for whatever reason reduces the overall capability where does that persons right to equality of treatment balance out with the needs of the team to be capable?
As a short, uncoordinated person I lack the capabilities to be a world class basket ball player. Do I, in an effort of asserting my equality even when it can be demonstrated I am not equal have the right to demand the same treatment as a word class basketball player? To play on their teams, to compete in the biggest games, to contribute to the success and failure of that team? Or is their a point where the needs of the team, or in the case of a military a nation, superceded my desire, perhaps even my right to be treated equally?
I hope that no one sees anything that I have written as an attack on women in the combat arms. My own viewpoint is that we are looking at a symptom and not a disease. The disease, again in my opinion, is different standards for acceptance. As LTC Gregor said, "Adopting a male standard of fitness...". Why two standards? This inherently creates doubt about capability. Why not just the military standard and everyone must meet it, no matter their gender? This would completely eliminate any discussion about capability. Sure, as per LTC Gregor's study 70% percent of the women would have failed the first year but the capabilities of those that succeeded could not be held in question because they had met the same standard. My belief is that in our efforts to provide equality to everyone over the past decades we may have actually undermined the achievements of those that are truly capable and created an artificial system that supplants finding your real limitations with a society that will instead reduce its standards in order to provide a false sense of equality. I personally see this in many more places than just the military.
Aside from the quotations from the report these are my opinions and I apologize if I have presented them in a manner some may find offensive. My condolences to Karines family .
