By Walter E. Block
Should women in the military be allowed? Let me rephrase that question: Should women be welcomed in the army of a nation that wants to win the wars in which it is engaged?
Yes, and no. (Hey, I’m an economist. We’re supposed to answer all questions with replies that include the phrase “well, on the one hand, yes; on the other hand, no.” This phenomenon generates plaintive calls for a one-handed economist.)
No, if the army fights with sticks and stones, in hand-to-hand combat, with spears, swords, shields, bows, and arrows. Why not? The average woman is far less physically powerful than the average man. The only thing females have going for them is the reluctance of most males to physically damage them. Chivalry still resides in the hearts of many people incapable of getting pregnant. (However, Arnold Schwarzenegger was with child in one of his movies, Junior, so I make this claim under correction.) On the other hand (sorry, I have already apologized for this), two women with weapons of this sort might be more of a match for a single male soldier, and if not, then three, four, or five of them certainly would be able to overrun him. If the army desperately needs more cannon fodder (sorry, we’re not quite there yet; we are still considering only close and personal fighting), then those additional female soldiers might well turn the tide.
Pygmy warriors are presumably less powerful than those seven feet tall in hand-to-hand combat, but it would be the rare soldier of such gigantic proportions who would be happy to go against a half-dozen of these smaller opponents with weapons of this sort. In not even a close battle, these fighters of smaller stature would be welcome. And so women would thereby be.
In Love With Women in the Military
Another argument against female participation in war is that love interests might render an army less effective. If the male soldiers contend with each other over their sisters in arms, that might well undermine the ability of this type of army to succeed in battle. But a similar argument applies to the inclusion of homosexual soldiers, and the evidence for this contention is unclear. However, this objection can be obviated by segregation: separate regiments for gays and straights and for men and women. (The US military was not racially integrated until 1948.) Battalions segregated by gender would obviate this objection.
Let us now consider modern warfare. Females are physically less strong than their male counterparts, but at present, in the overwhelming proportion of cases, all that a soldier needs to do is pull a trigger or press a button to deliver a bomb or turn a wheel on a tank or airplane. Women are surely the equivalent of men in all such regards.
Nor may we properly question their courage. The mother bear, in defense of her cubs, is not the only female member of a species that exhibits ferocity, aggressiveness, and a will to win. Golda Meir was one of the best military leaders Israel ever had.
What, then, is the case against women in the military? It is simple. The military is a dangerous occupation. Women are far more precious, biologically speaking, than men. It is not for nothing that the farmer keeps 50 cows and one bull, not the other way around. A mother can give birth to a maximum of, oh, 25 children, barring twins or triplets, if she starts out at puberty and continues until menopause. In contrast, there are virtually no such limits on male reproductive ability. With great enthusiasm, it might amount to literally thousands of offspring. Genghis Khan is reputed to have fathered some 3,000 progeny.
Thus, when a female soldier perishes, something very precious for the human race disappears along with her: her issue. Among them might have been an Albert Einstein or a Jonas Salk. When a male soldier meets his maker, there are plenty of other men around who are willing to step up to the plate and get the job of population replacement done. In the aftermath of World War II, many more men than women were killed in Germany and Russia. Yet, the next generation showed little evidence of this tragic loss.
What are the implications of this biological phenomenon for a country in continual danger of being overrun by its enemies, such as in the case of Israel? It is that if the IDF is concerned only, or mainly, with present protection, then by all means include women in battle. But if it is taking the long-run view, worried, too, about the next generation and the one after that as well, then it would be wiser to adopt a strict policy of female exclusion.
On the other other hand, maybe we should support women in combat in the modern era after all. All too often, civilians are killed to a greater extent than combatants. If and to the degree this is true (the jury is out on this issue as well, at least for the future), and the safest place for people is under arms, then women should be welcomed into the military in order to keep them safe.
If I were a member of the Knesset, I would bitterly oppose women in the military.
~
Walter E. Block, Ph.D. is Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics at Loyola University New Orleans and author of https://walterblock.substack.com/.
