Women’s Right To Get Shot

So the papers have a fair bit in them this week about Australia’s decision to make all combat roles in its military available to women. Obviously this means they’ll be able to do any of the things men do, including getting shot at and blown up right in the middle of things. And so there’s also lots of stuff in the papers about this being a great thing for equality, and lots of other stuff about it being a terrible thing for the army, for the country, and even for women themselves.

What I don’t understand (apart from why anyone, male or female, would ever want to join the armed forces in the first place) is what some people think is really going to be the outcome of this.

Firstly, there are obviously many women who want to be soldiers. And I can’t really imagine that not being able to fight on the front line had previously put some women off, in a “Well, if I can’t potentially stand on a mine, I’m not going to bother” sort of way. And I find it equally hard to envisage that some women would be put off joining the forces because they could now do all the things previously reserved for men. So I would think that there wouldn’t be that much difference in women’s participation in the military as a result of this ruling.

Secondly, some people seem to be saying that this move will fundamentally weaken the Australian armed forces, because women are fundamentally weaker than men. But if it was the case that only the fittest, strongest, best-trained male soldiers ever got into fighting units previously, wouldn’t it be the case that only the fittest, strongest, best-trained soldiers of either sex would ever get into those units now? So, if women are to get onto the front line, it will probably be through having earned the right – so what difference would it make? There are plenty of women in the police, and they all have to pass tests to get in – are the police any less effective as a result?

Thirdly, there’s some idea that women, just by being there, will make male font-line soldiers less effective – usually something about arousing their protective or chivalrous or even paternal instincts. But are we really imagining some sort of Private Benjamin re-run here? Are there really going to be cute, vulnerable, perfectly made-up sex-kittens skipping about the battlefield, making all their male comrades risk their lives to protect (and even impress) them? Doesn’t everyone look pretty much the same in combats, with a face full of mud and twigs in their hat? And don’t male soldiers take care of their buddies pretty well already? It’s hard to imagine a huge spike in the awards of Victoria Crosses because men in the forces have suddenly started making more of an effort to retrieve wounded colleagues because they were women.

So really, I can’t see this bringing about such a massive change in things. Of course, I don’t mean this for the women in question; I just mean it from the point of view of the armed forces as a whole. And if it means I’m even less likely to get drafted in some future foreign policy misadventure debacle, then I’m all for it.

Contact the author here: thewhy@morningquickie.com