Even in countries where they have been historically suppressed, women can be found defending their nations. From suicide bombers to combatants, women willingly work just as hard as men when it comes to physically fighting the enemy and putting their lives on the line. According to Darden et al., authors of Insurgent Women, “Motivations for joining non-state armed groups and participating in violence vary among individual women, just as they do among individual men” (Insurgent Women, pg. 78). This move in the right direction shows that even the more “restrictive” cultures are capable of including all of their citizens in the critical work of defending territorial sovereignty. As the aforementioned groups of militant women discussed in Insurgent Women show, the inclusion of women in military exploits is a benefit to their cause, and necessary to achieve success. According to Darden et al., “rebel groups that recruit women as volunteers are more likely to achieve victory against governmental forces” (Insurgent Women, pg. 5). The authors go on to discuss women’s participation in non-state groups and they find that “women are motivated to join militant groups by the same grievances that mobilize men” (Insurgent Women, pg. 5).
The above quote demonstrates that women often find a calling to fight for their country and to defend territorial or ideological sovereignty. Although some may not see them as equals, (as we too often find here in the West) they nonetheless feel inclined to fulfill their duty as citizens. Again, if they are willing and able, they should be welcomed with open arms and trained as the men are in every available position.
The authors of Insurgent Women mention another finding: “that leftist groups are more likely to recruit women, Islamic groups are less likely to do so and nationalist ideology seems to make little difference” (Darden et al., 2019). Thus, even in factions where women are willing to participate, such as the Islamic groups, they are still not welcome. This conclusion provides evidence to support the theory that women being unable to serve militarily stems from culture, not biological inability. Even in a state military, such as Saudi Arabia’s, women were only allowed to join their ranks as of 2018, and even then, the male guardianship law remained intact.
This tug of war between men and women, rule makers and rule breakers, comes down to what is common and socially accepted in the culture. Laws aside, where would an Eastern woman think that she deserves freedom or a right to her own mind and body if not from the “shapeless and wayward” women of the West? As though women everywhere do not have a mind of their own, or the ability to acutely feel inequality.
The Iron Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck once said, “What we learn from history is that no one learns from history.” This is more true than not. As noted previously, the ancient Egyptians have many women to thank for their successes, however, the Egyptians of modern day do not look to their female ancestors for guidance. In speaking of one of the more successful female rulers of the Eighteenth Dynasty in Egypt, author Kara Cooney says: “Hatshepsut we must resurrect from the ashes of history and investigate why female success is so easily ignored, while female failure is so beautifully aggrandized.”
When fighting for female equality, oftentimes the justification for women’s placement in society comes down to their perceived lack of physical strength, their inability to have multiple children at one time, or their menstruation. This rationale is both misogynistic and patently absurd.
Western Women Fight For Equal Rights
So what does this all mean in terms of what women can handle, and the ways in which they are stifled in reaching their potential? Earlier in this essay, I said that in the West, there is a common tactic that leverages the perceived flaws of other cultures and traditions as a way to self-aggrandize the “progressivity” of the West. This sleight of hand allows for Western cultural doctrine to claim advances, while its inhabitants ignore or downplay the many standards that need to be improved upon. This duplicitous logic is especially detrimental for women fighting for equal rights in the West.
Captain Micah Ables, author of Women Aren’t the Problem. Standards Are, makes the case for women against the aforementioned declared deficiencies of the “weaker sex.” Introducing women into the U.S. military took a long time, and did not occur in earnest until the desperations of WWI, when jobs made vacant by men sent to the front needed to be filled. Women were the only people left to work in munitions factories, as railway guards and in many other jobs previously held exclusively by men. Still, even when women were more than willing and more than needed, there was nonetheless a resistance to hiring women to do what was seen as “men’s work.” To add insult to injury, even when women did the “men’s work,” (and did it well) their pay and treatment remained stubbornly inferior compared to their male counterparts. (The Public Domain Review)
For decades, American women have been unfairly scrutinized for wanting to serve in the military, as the idea pushes back against fabricated gender stereotypes, and distorts the image of a “typical” working class, apple pie American family. Even if their presence is needed and beneficial, there will always be someone who disagrees. The arguments and tired tropes always look the same: weak physiology, inability to achieve cohesiveness, and “too many stressors” for overly emotional women to handle. Captain Ables discusses the mixed gender platoon he leads and how the women in this group make the unit stronger and better. Ables asks: “Are they average women? No. But if they can meet the standard; why ban them from doing so?” (Ables, 2019)
Any organization that requires physical agility and strength will require people who are above average in terms of physical fitness and determination to succeed. Although there will always be misogynist arguments against women joining the ranks, this is hardly the fault of the women! Ables continues: “What gender-neutral Army standards exist were not created to qualify more women, they were designed to ensure that standards were not lowered just to qualify more women.” (Ables, 2019)
Certainly, there is no dearth of examples of men who cannot handle the physical demands of military training. After all, more than 15% of male recruits do not pass boot camp (McHugh, 2020). While it is true that more men are willing and able to succeed in combat, those women who meet the standards should not be turned away simply because they are women. Rather, these outstanding women should be included, celebrated, and supported. The inclusion of women provides more diversity and a varied way of thinking to the group.
A plethora of studies have been conducted to support the advantages that women bring to cohorts. One such example is the U.S. Army’s Female Engagement Teams (FET). Some male soldiers would run into issues of trust and compliance when attempting to speak with native women while overseas. At times, there were success stories, but more often than not, the presence of a woman made these interactions more comfortable and safe for everyone around. Ables explains: “I wish I had had a female soldier with me in Afghanistan when an Afghan woman approached me begging for help. Armed males menacingly gathered around to heckle and began physically harassing her for talking to me; I tried to help, but the more I tried, the worse it got. After we left, I never saw that woman again; I’m still haunted by what may have happened to her. If I had had a female soldier with me, that situation might have ended very differently.” (Ables, 2019)
According to evolutionary biologist Dr. Sharon Moalem: “When it comes to survival, over and over throughout history we see that females have the advantage because of the extra X chromosome.” (Moalem, 2019) That extra X chromosome gives women 1000 extra genes, some of which code for things like tetrachromacy, giving women more color perception channels, and so on. According to the findings that were made by Moalem and his research studies, women have been known to have a higher pain tolerance, and a higher survival rate in less than favorable environments when compared to men. Why would we not want women, who historically outlive men when placed in brutal conditions, to be part of the team sent to fight our battles? I believe the simple answer is culture.
Biology has proven to us that women survive and thrive better in the same climates and conditions as their male counterparts. Biology has given us these answers, but it is culturethat has defined our societies since time immemorial, not biology. Historian Yuval Noah Harari paints a great picture when he talks about sex and gender in the cultural sphere of the past. Harari states: “A man is not a Sapiens with particular biological qualities such as XY chromosomes, testicles and lots of testosterone. Rather, he fits into a particular slot in his society’s imagined human order. His culture’s myths assign him particular masculine roles (like engaging in politics) rights (like voting) and duties (like military service)” (Harari, Sapiens, 2018). Harari goes on to explain how myths, rather than biology, have set the historical framework for “manhood and womanhood” from one society to another.
As it pertains to our societal perception of war, it is often cultural artifacts that dictate our prejudices, rather than biological or evolutionary facts. In Jan Matejko’s famous painting, Battle of Grunwald (circa 1878), we see brave men riding on horseback with sword and guns in hand, carrying the heavy shields through the mud and muck. When I look at a war painting like this one and others, I can understand why a topical understanding would cause people to argue that war is no place for a “lady.”
In order to succeed in combat, one needs to be physically strong enough to endure the demands. This however, is a fabricated condition of culture, not based on biological fact. In a military study that political scientist Joshua Goldstein completed in the 1980’s, he found that the strongest women were stronger than the weakest men. If this is the case, then we may logically conclude that military jobs which require strength may be open, at the very least, to those women whose strength surpasses that of some men. However, even with these findings, the “weakest” men were still assumed to be on the front lines. Goldstein claims that there is not as much of a great divide between the physical abilities of the sexes as many believe. In fact, in terms of physical endurance, men and women are comparable (War and Gender, 2001).
Of course, on average we can see that men have larger muscles and greater physical strength. I am not arguing this. However, if there are some exceptions to the rule where we find women just as strong or stronger, no matter how small the variance; why exclude them from positions they are willing and able to fulfill? In modern warfare, the absolute value of physical strength has declined, as we no longer approach the frontlines on horseback, and we no longer use heavy armor and swords. Rather, modern armies possess highly technical instruments that do much of the fighting for them. Being a physically strong tank driver does not provide an exceptional advantage in the battlefield. Big muscles do not equate to excellence in remote-controlled drone navigation.
In 2013, the United States did finally lift combat exclusions for women under the Obama administration. At the same time, we see other regions around the world involving women at high percentages, such as Israel, where women can be found in 69% of all positions. Israel has included women in combat since 1995 (UK Ministry of Defense, 2015). Even though it may take some countries longer to include women in their ranks, a move in the right direction is evolution nonetheless.
Throughout the world, women are slowly but surely gaining equality, but does this mean they will be seen and regarded as equals? The race for women to obtain equal status and recognition may be a long time coming, and the myriad reasons for this are woven into the fabric of each county. The complexities of this fight for women are as vast as the traditions they come out of. As nations begin to incorporate the history of their female ancestors, and truly fathom the leadership potential of their female citizens, a future where women are equitably treated and fairly utilized may be closer at hand than we think. As global thought leader Tian Wei reminds us, “any society that fails to harness the energy and creativity of its women is at a huge disadvantage in the modern world.” (World Economic Forum, 2014)