It’s Not About Gender Equality

The problem with arguments about including women in the United States draft as a token of gender equality is that gender equality is a metaphysical concept that has zero bearing on biology. Ruth Ben-Ghiat’s piece in CNN is a classic example of a tunnel vision argument for why women should be included in the draft.

First, she cites that “with women cleared for combat roles, the 1981 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the subject will not hold for long.” Second, “that the military for which women would be registering is now a more equitable institution. Women shoulder similar burdens to men throughout the military bureaucracy.” Finally, because “many women have been de facto involved in combat situations even though they were officially banned from combat.” She insists that because a select group of women “joined Special Operations troops in the field in Afghanistan in 2010 had an ambiguous status” means that all women ages 18-25 can meet these standards and be justly drafted as a whole. She leaves her reader asking “If it’s reserved only for men, what message does this send about gender equity?”

Ben-Ghiat fails to realize the harsh truth, true equality between the sexes has never and will never exist on a physical level. For all our biological similarities, our differences are too great to be equal. Until women get testosterone shots pumped into their veins and psychological conditioning from birth, there will be clear differences in male and female performance. Until then, combat is not an equal opportunity to survive.

In 2013, the United States Marine Corp’s a Force Integration Plan confirmed the stark disparities. They examined all male and mixed-gender combat groups. All female combat groups were not researched. Overall, the all-male combat groups performed 69% better than mixed-gender combat groups. The all male groups were not only stronger and faster but they were more likely to hit their targets and six-times less likely to get injured than woman. In combat groups, each individual’s ability or dependability puts the entire group at risk.

Not only were mixed-gender combat groups 69% worse than all men, but active-duty females are 23% more likely to experience sexual assault than men. It is unacceptable to join Fox News pundits’ rhetoric saying, “Well duh, what did they expect? They’re soldiers.” So far, the military uses a rape report system that is either unrestricted, allowing anyone to know about the accusation putting both victim and their career in jeopardy or restricted which keeps the accusation private but fails to charge the assailant. The many limitations of filing restricted include: ineligibility of military protective order, ineligibility of Expedited Transfer to a different unit or base, and lack of accountability which defeats the purpose of filing anything confidential.

On top of all that, female military veterans are six times more likely to commit suicide than non-military females. These high sexual assault rates on duty and high suicide rates after suggest there is something the military needs to address before the inclusion of drafting women. Adding more women to a problematic system won’t fix the problem.


One comment

  1. geneveivefox · April 27, 2016

    Hey CF,

    I did some reading on top of the post you presented, and I would have to agree with you.
    I think it’s a dangerous decision to put young adult women 18-25 into the draft, and in certain combat positions. I understand the desire to be politically correct, and please the mass amount of feminists in the country; but what about the women who actually join these combat positions to make a point, or because it is their desire? I think it’s foolish. Girls are generally smaller in physique, and many aren’t raised with the same mental understanding as their boy counterparts are. They generally aren’t rough-housed with by their fathers, and they generally can’t wrestle around the house like their brothers do. Granted, I know some women are the rare exception to the rule, but I still don’t believe its a safe idea to put those rare exceptions into a pool of special combat men who have no reason to hold back their raw thoughts and actions.

    Beyond that, if the men in those positions- and the statistical results- state that they work better in a one-gender team, then why challenge that to make a point if it only affects the effectiveness of the unit? I know that most women (and all feminists) have a goal to break barriers and find equality, but I wonder if it’s better to avoid certain barriers because they are their for a reason….



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s