The Orbis

The physiological evidence is fairly straightforward. The average woman is physically weaker than the average man. The clarity of the sociological evidence is not to be discarded either. The average man is more likely to take a risk than the average woman. The average man is more likely to kill than the average woman. And the average man is more likely to be exposed to violence early in life than the average woman. Strong, willing to kill, accustomed to violence. The perfect soldier. But are these attributes innate or are they the result of sexist socialization into gender roles?

Obviously, genetics determine our physical potential, but most of these gender differences are as disposable as the pre-20th century belief that women are unfit to attend school or to trouble themselves with intellectual activity beyond cooking, child rearing and entertaining. In the 19th century, most women probably would have performed poorly if they were suddenly sent to school; however, they would have failed because society had not prepared them for an educational setting, not because they were genetically stunted.

While sex segregation begins at birth in our culture, there are numerous women who don't fall into traditional gender stereotypes. As a result of genetics and socialization, significantly fewer women are presently suitable for battle. I'm not suggesting that all women should be considered fit for combat; neither should all men. But some women are as mentally and physically fit as the men on the front lines. So, what could possibly bar them from having the opportunity to serve their country if they can prove themselves to be fully capable and prepared?

Their only barriers are studies that claim male soldiers will be "less effective" if they are fighting with women. Male soldiers hypothesize that women in combat will make them protective of their female counterparts and, therefore, less likely to take risks. But all evidence that men will perform less like soldiers if they are fighting with women is based on stereotypes. The discrimination exists because of stereotypes, and the stereotypes are only accurate because of a tradition of discrimination.

Prior to the Vietnam War, white men were opposed to fighting with African-American men and sometimes vice versa, but by eliminating the structures that emphasized differences, like racially segregated combat units, much of the prejudice surrounding the structures was eliminated as well. Today, although prejudice will never disappear completely, little evidence of racial discrimination among soldiers exists. Similarly, if gender segregation in the military were ended by allowing women to serve where they are willing and qualified, the cycle of discrimination of women in the broader societal sense would be dealt a blow as well.

Of course, I don't just want women allowed in combat with men; I want gender equality throughout the military. If men register for the draft at 18, so should women, and when being tested for occupations that demand physical strength, women should be given the same strength and fitness tests as those administered to men.

Putting all demands for equal rights aside, the fact remains that the U.S. military has failed to meet its recruitment quotas for months. Does this sound like a time to be picking and choosing from Americans who are both qualified and willing to serve? Beggars can't be choosers ? especially when they are choosing to perpetuate gender stereotypes and deny qualified citizen the opportunity to defend their country.

Article Tools