Co-ed Combat
The New Evidence That Women Shouldn't Fight the Nation's Wars
-
- $14.99
-
- $14.99
Publisher Description
A scholar makes a definitive, controversial argument against women in combat
More than 155,000 female troops have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002. And more than seventy of those women have died. While that’s a small fraction of all American casualties, those deaths exceed the number of military women who died in Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War combined.
Clearly, women in combat isn’t a theoretical issue anymore. Women now fly combat aircraft and serve on warships. Even the remaining all-male corners of the military are blurring the lines in Iraq. And for many advocates, this trend is considered progress—toward a better, “gender neutral” military.
Co-ed Combat makes the opposite case, based on research in anthropology, biology, history, psychology, sociology, and law, as well as military memoirs. It asks hard questions that challenge the assumptions of feminists.For instance:Has warfare really changed so much as to reverse the almost unanimous history of all-male armed forces?Are men and women really equivalent in combat skills, even leaving aside physical strength?Do female troops respond to traditional types of motivations?Can the bonds of unit cohesion form in a co-ed military unit?Can an all-volunteer military afford to reject women?
This is a controversial book, likely to draw a passionate response from both conservatives and liberals.
PUBLISHERS WEEKLY
Women serving in the armed forces deserve their nation's thanks, law professor Browne announces in his first paragraph, quickly adding that they are unfit to be soldiers. To support his argument, Browne presents an avalanche of intriguing psychological and military studies that examine male-female differences. He points to evidence that men are generally better able to carry the necessary gear, and that although even noncombatant women must be prepared to fight hand-to-hand, they are generally more cautious: we would rather solve the situation; if somebody has to die, then nobody really wins, explains one. Men have superior hand-eye coordination and situational awareness as well as a greater willingness to take risks and function better in hierarchies, he says. Women are more democratic and tend to resent taking orders, especially from other women, but overwhelmingly oppose complete equality (e.g., being assigned combat roles involuntarily on the same basis as men). Since Browne makes no secret of his opinion and is a lawyer, readers may suspect they are hearing only one side of the case. Still, the question of how women should be treated within the military is timely. "" .
