Women and Men in the Army

The British Army tests the physical ability of its soldiers differently depending on soldier’s sex. This is both arbitrary and dangerous. It certainly goes against any feminist view that men and women ought to be treated equally.

The reason for this discrimination is the clear difference between physical ability and the capacity to improve this ability of an average man and average woman. It is thought that physical tests may be made fairer by setting the standard to be achieved by women lower than the standard to be achieved by men. This seemingly creates relatively the same difficulty level. This method tests for relatively the same level of effort from the test subjects at the expense of testing absolute physical ability. For example it is thought that if an average woman can run slower than an average man she has to put in more effort than the man to achieve the man’s ability to run. But if the required standard for the woman is lowered by the difference between average man and average woman, the female test subject will be tested for the same amount of effort. The woman no longer has to achieve same absolute level of fitness, but only a relative level of fitness.

This is entirely arbitrary. There are women who are taller than certain men. This gives a certain advantage to the taller women in relative tests. The taller women need to show less effort than the shorter man to pass the tests. But the tests look for a certain level of effort as explained earlier. This implies that one should take the height of test subjects into account and also discriminate by height. However this creates problems. All individuals are different in most aspects. To truly create a fair test that tests the effort of an individual one must create a different test specifically tailored for everyone. This is impossible. It is entirely impractical. The main reason however is that effort is not really quantifiable and thus subjective rather than objective. One cannot measure the absolute level of effort or the relative effort in relation to other test subjects. Thus it seems that to try to test effort will always remain arbitrary, a matter of an opinion not based on any fact. This is not fair to all involved because in the pursuit of trying to test everyone to the same standard of effort all end up being tested to different, somewhat random, standards. The only way to test objectively is to hold everyone to the same easily measurable standard and thus test everyone in the same test with the same requirements for passing the test. This of course will test the absolute level of fitness not the effort someone puts into their fitness training or the effort put in on the day of the tests. But this is better.

The nature of the job of a soldier stays the same irrespective of the sex. All rifles, grenades and ammunition weigh the same. When a female soldier picks up a rifle that rifle does not readjust its mass accordingly. The nature of war dictates that absolutes like the absolute ability to carry a weight or run or fight determines the winner or loser. By testing sexes differently the British Army denies this nature. Different pass criteria in physical tests seem to imply that the enemy will fight female soldiers differently from men. This is self evidently not true.

I do recognise that in certain situations a female soldier is required. An example of this may be to help another female rape victim, who clearly will be feeling particularly uncomfortable around male soldiers. Another example is that in certain cultures women were brought up not to interact with males and thus will be only willing to communicate with female soldiers. My argument does not concern these responsibilities however. I am only talking about pure combat troops.

To really be fair and not arbitrary the British Army should have equal test for everyone. This will also help to test for the absolute readiness of a soldier to fight. An enemy soldier will try his best to kill British soldiers all the same irrespective of sex of that British soldier. The army should not think in terms of women or men. It ought to think in terms of soldiers. If that soldier passes the single absolute physical test the soldier is fit for duty, if not than soldier is not fit for duty. Of course this will result is less women passing physical tests and thus having less women on the battlefield fighting. But this is irrelevant, whoever can do the fighting better should do the fighting. This may be a woman or a man if she or achieved certain levels of ability.

A question of Belief

I once spoke to a friend who was in TA with me. She was an atheist and declared herself to be such on the officer application form. During the interview she was asked how she could maintain religious soldiers’ morale and spiritual well. She could not answer this question.

This question is a perfectly reasonable question to ask. A soldier’s fighting spirit is one of the most important resources an army has. Most people on seeing the horrors of war will start to question their beliefs and in the process forget their training and orders.

On reflection my answer will avoid the prickly issue of theism versus atheism. I would tell the soldier that God does not come into consideration. The British Army’s goal is to safeguard UK and do things for the greater good. The army does not carry out God’s will but the will of the British people which are represented by the government. That is the reason why we fight. Those are good enough reasons to fight irrespective of God’s existence or will.

Peacekeeping

As part of my Officer training I get to do a great deal of simulated exercises of platoon attacks. One of these exercises involved a scenario where I was ordered to take a trench held by rebels. We were there to provide peacekeeping. The rebels were basically poorly armed and quite demoralised civilians with shotguns and no other supplies.

My plan to tackle this led me to want to first negotiate with the rebels. Make them understand that for them it will be much better if they lay their arms down and go home. They will not be killed, which they would for sure if I assaulted their position (since I had access to artillery, anti-tank weapons and machine guns). If they gave up peacefully it would also mean that I did not put my men and equipment at risk. To paraphrase Sun Tzu, the highest form of military excellence is winning a conflict while leaving everything intact and everyone alive.

I got more or less laughed at by the instructors. It seemed quite strange that they would do that. Surely winning the hearts and minds through showing mercy and fairness is the key in a peacekeeping operation or the kind of conflicts the British Army is involved in now.

An illustrative example of this is the Second World War. During the later stages the Germans army personal were desperately trying to fight their way to the Western front. This is because on the Eastern front the Red Army showed no mercy. Their goal was total destruction of all Nazi equipment and men. The Americans and the British were not like that though, so they found it much easier to take German position because the Germans knew that they were save as POWs.

British Army instructors need to rethink their understanding of modern warfare.

Torture

I hear lots of people, particularly on the right of the political spectrum, arguing that torture is permissible as long as it is not too harsh and brings results. I always want to ask them, how would they feel if "the other side" used the same "interrogation" techniques on our soldiers? Would they agree with that? Or would they just label it as barbaric and inhumane. I always wonder how they can exalt profiting from someone's suffering while also preaching Christian values and compassion. Quite hypocritical i think.

As someone who actually serves in the British Army and who can potentially get captured I hope I can rely on the fact that British Army does not torture. When it comes down to it, that fact may be the only defence I would have against the enemy torturing me.