Males "mate-guard" in many species, especially those species where females tend to mate with more than one male. The fact is that males and females, as evolutionary agents, have both interests in common and conflicting interests, based on the genetic and non-genetic contributions [ or not] to their offspring. [Please note Dr. Samsa that I am not using 'good" or "bad" in an ethical sense, but an evolutionary one].

Mate-guarding is a double-edged sword, because in bird studies in particular, the male will both try to guard the female, and try to indulge in extra-pair mating. So while he is cuckolding another male, someone else may be cuckolding him. Females may try to mate with "alpha" or "fitter" males, but try to influence their own male to provide care for the offspring, even though some of those offspring might not be his.

As humans [particularly females] are obliged to provide care for the helpless offspring for years, I see no reason why mate guarding is present here too. [In other words, male who mate-guard and contribute to the nurture of offspring would tend to end up contributing to the gene pool in greater frequencies than those who do not]. Sneaky-fucking or "rape" strategies would also pay an evolutionary dividend to males, so there might be a frequency-dependent dynamic that is going on.

In any case, human cultural evolution would tend to warp/obscure any genetic component here. Most cultures are very male-dominated, and I guess this trend intensified after the advent of agriculture.

Either way, this argument has no bearing on whether or not females should serve in combat roles. The best person for the job is what matters here, and as others have pointed out, women have served with distinction in combat.

It is probably unrealistic that any cultural biases against women will be solved overnight, so women-only units would seem to be the way to go.

95these you said,

What is important is that the Woman who can pass all requisite physical tests wants to fight, and should be allowed to because a) there is no reason to stop her, and b) nothing will ever change if we don't force it through at first.

I do not think it is quite this simple. Consider the implications of making something a level playing field that is not currently. If women are good enough to compete in the mens 100m sprints at Olympic level, then we should let them. At the moment there has never been a female sprinter whose time would qualify her for the mens event, so this means that all women would be disqualified, so we would then have a situation where certain women are selected as being able to compete with men, while others who are not able to compete with men would have a ‘women only’ event so they are protected from competing against men and thus eliminated from elite competition. You have then created an equal scenario that has no relevance because there are few or no women who make the grade. You have also created a segregation between a few elite women, created and the majority that need a women only event in order to excel.
Staying with athletics, women were prevented from running middle distance in early Olympics because they were considered too weak to do so. Clearly women have no issues in competing in middle distance track BUT can only be considered excellent if they are protected from competing with men.
Unless someone can mount an argument that says women do not do as well as men in track events (and swimming , field, tennis, golf etc) because it is a ‘cultural’ thing and we just need to persevere and they will get to the same standard, I suggest that placing women into combat positions is the same as placing them in the same 100m race. Biology is the basis for what has become cultural segregation in most sports events and the armed forces. In sport we have plenty of empirical evidence, but it an area that is avoided when it comes to these discussions. Combat positions are not quite so easy to assess, although the physical criteria are often used as if they equal the actual process of front line soldiering. I have no doubt that some women have great capability on physical criteria in the military and can handle weapons effectively, just as we have some very capable women sprinters and tennis players, but just not at the same level as men. If we are so accepting of gender based segregation in sport, why is it such an issue combat roles? I think the process if lip service, a few women will get in, there will be some fanfare, it wont really get any legs, but it will be seen a politically correct gender equality but have no real relevance.

The prejudices (whether benign or not) of the other people She wants to serve with are not grounds for preventing her from serving.

That depends what my prejudices are based upon. If I decide to have a prejudice to prevent women (just because they are women) from competing in gender blind elite athletics and sport, because if I do not, we will wipe out an entire profession of female athletes and sportswomen – ie. its a political and pragmatic decision and totally prejudicial to both men and women – but it works and is accepted, by both men and women. Ie. men are OK that women have sheltered events, and women are OK to be classed as elite athletes without forcing them to test this against men.

Consider the following argument:

"I'm culturally conditioned to not like black people, therefore I can't have black people in my unit because I know I wouldn't treat them equally to the white soldiers"

This is not about liking or disliking a group, it is about recognising political sensitivities as well as being pragmatic. I might decide that as a pharmacist selling skin lightening creams and hair straightener I exclude caucasians from my target market, not because I dislike them, but because they are not potential customers

What you do is recognise the conditioning you have, appreciate that it is incorrect and unfair on her, and do your damndest to get over yourself and send her out of cover to draw the fire if you would have asked the same of a male soldier.

Why are you assuming that conditioning in this case is somehow morally wrong? Is it bad because I am conditioned to accept that women have protected sports events because they are not capable of competing at the very highest level? You have taken a moral position on this that is also conditioned into you, that regardless of any biological implications, we must strive for gender equality. But note the catch, do you campaign to get the barriers lifted in athletics and sport so women are not patronised by having their own events? I imagine not, because you have also been conditioned that this is OK, because in this case women are benefitted by this arrangement?
Consider another example of conditioning. In 2010 Australia awarded 65 Bravery Awards for acts of civil bravery. 5 recipients were women, 60 were men. You might argue that men are conditioned to act in situations that lead to these things and women are not, but if our objective is equality, we should be lobbying for this number to be equal, but of what value would that be? Women take less physical risks than men in these circumstances, and is this conditioned? You bet it is. Does it also fit with their biology? You bet it does.
Men also dominate the worlds prison systems for crimes of all types. Surely this could be considered social conditioning that men commit the bulk of the worlds crime, even though male biology makes them better equipped to commit crimes of all crimes especially violent ones. We might think that with modern weapons, women should be committing as many murders as men are because any physical advantage should be balanced by the use of weapons, but it seem like our culture and biology work together on this Even when women do intend to commit a murder they often use a male proxy to do in on their behalf, whereas men either do it themselves or get another man to do it. Women are more inclined to let males do their dirty work. Is this just culture operating in a vacuum, or are men and women biologically different when it comes to things like combat and physical achievement?

that is what she wants, not to be mollycoddled.

Really? The current incarnation of Mixed martial arts is a brutal and there are women who compete, but go to any bill of fighters and its dominated by men. The women are really just an afterthought and the levels of violence and aggression in the men are in a different league to the women. More cultural conditioning? Do we want to impose some alternate cultural conditioning and try make the men and women equal here and make them compete with each other?

Also, however I feel about it, Women do not require special attention or help and do not deserve any more protection than men do.

Then start by shutting down womens only sport and athletics and remove this unrequired protection and attention, because politically we are uncomfortable with seeing biological as well as cultured differences. If you can get this right, then getting them into the combat roles will be a doddle.

TMB wrote:95these you said,

What is important is that the Woman who can pass all requisite physical tests wants to fight, and should be allowed to because a) there is no reason to stop her, and b) nothing will ever change if we don't force it through at first.

I do not think it is quite this simple. Consider the implications of making something a level playing field that is not currently. If women are good enough to compete in the mens 100m sprints at Olympic level, then we should let them. At the moment there has never been a female sprinter whose time would qualify her for the mens event, so this means that all women would be disqualified, so we would then have a situation where certain women are selected as being able to compete with men, while others who are not able to compete with men would have a ‘women only’ event so they are protected from competing against men and thus eliminated from elite competition. You have then created an equal scenario that has no relevance because there are few or no women who make the grade. You have also created a segregation between a few elite women, created and the majority that need a women only event in order to excel.
Staying with athletics, women were prevented from running middle distance in early Olympics because they were considered too weak to do so. Clearly women have no issues in competing in middle distance track BUT can only be considered excellent if they are protected from competing with men.
Unless someone can mount an argument that says women do not do as well as men in track events (and swimming , field, tennis, golf etc) because it is a ‘cultural’ thing and we just need to persevere and they will get to the same standard, I suggest that placing women into combat positions is the same as placing them in the same 100m race. Biology is the basis for what has become cultural segregation in most sports events and the armed forces. In sport we have plenty of empirical evidence, but it an area that is avoided when it comes to these discussions. Combat positions are not quite so easy to assess, although the physical criteria are often used as if they equal the actual process of front line soldiering. I have no doubt that some women have great capability on physical criteria in the military and can handle weapons effectively, just as we have some very capable women sprinters and tennis players, but just not at the same level as men. If we are so accepting of gender based segregation in sport, why is it such an issue combat roles? I think the process if lip service, a few women will get in, there will be some fanfare, it wont really get any legs, but it will be seen a politically correct gender equality but have no real relevance.

A lot snipped

One of the reasons for men and women not competeing in sports at international level is resistance in the governing bodies.
In quite a few events, and not neccessarily the likes of athletics, men and women can compete quite successfully, how ever when this has been suggested by the sports persons the idea has been quashed by the governing bodies.

One of the reasons I have been told is that were men and women to be allowed to compete on an equal footing, then,the islamic nations among others would withdraw from the Olympics and appropriate world championships resulting in a massive loss of television revenue - 'Money Talks'. The old farts at the top of these bodies are not interested in the sports, just in the jet-setting life style and the money.

As a note on the thoughts on women in combat roles in the military, the next time an RN or USN surface warship goes into action, say like the Falklands, then women will be in the front line, one may even be in command!

Ramseyoptom, you said,

One of the reasons for men and women not competeing in sports at international level is resistance in the governing bodies.

If this is so, why do you think that sport is segregated by gender in schools, clubs, state and national levels? Because once we get good enough to have international, we then go back and change it at every level. I would say that competition at local levels existed before we had it at international level and everywhere I look I see different events for boys and girls. There are exceptions to this, and up to a certain age, competition is limited and sexes are mixed, but at some stage they split them. Governing bodies would just be reflecting the larger system that ensures women are protected from competing with males. Once this attitude is enshrined it will perpetuate itself. Note however that some attitudes on sex discrimination do still get overturned. Pay packets at Wimbledon were lower for womens singles than for mens, this has now (after strong lobbying) been equalised, yet there are no lobbies to stop women from being protected from competing even while earning the same prize money.

In quite a few events, and not neccessarily the likes of athletics, men and women can compete quite successfully, how ever when this has been suggested by the sports persons the idea has been quashed by the governing bodies.

Can you provide some examples where this happens? I see plenty of it in preteen school and club sports in western countries and in non contact, lower competitive sports (touch rugby for example), but as major systems I would say these are exceptions – however since you say there are quite a few of these events, I am interested to see which ones they are. Governing bodies perform in response to their society. Sports officials acquire their roles through election, politics, commitment skis etc and although they can and do impose unpopular ideas. Wimbledon singles tennis purses is an example of how lobbying effectively can overturn entrenched ideas.

One of the reasons I have been told is that were men and women to be allowed to compete on an equal footing, then,the islamic nations among others would withdraw from the Olympics and appropriate world championships resulting in a massive loss of television revenue - 'Money Talks'.

Once again, the process of sex segregation in sport exists in western countries at every level. I have seen this happen in countries around the world. There is limited segregation in some non competitive martial arts, however when it comes to direct competition it is segregated. At a demo level and training level, women do train with men, and interestingly enough the women generally do not hold back while the men do. It results in the women inflicting injuries and pain on the males without much regard, yet are in a sense protected from the same. Its a self sustaining scenario since males would be unlikely to try and take out a female because there would be no honor in this, and suggestions that males need protection from uncontrolled competition from females would also be labelled.

The old farts at the top of these bodies are not interested in the sports, just in the jet-setting life style and the money.

I would say that power and status drives them, the perks are just a bonus. However note that at every level of sport, the people who lead and drive it can be quite toxic. I am involved in school and adult sports competition and administration and parents can cause more issues that the athletes as they strive to get unfair advantage for their kids. The parents of girls (including me) would not entertain gender blind events. Ie. males competing at the same level as females.

As a note on the thoughts on women in combat roles in the military, the next time an RN or USN surface warship goes into action, say like the Falklands, then women will be in the front line, one may even be in command!

I think the interesting part of seeing how this evolves is how women ascend the executive ranks of the military versus the combat troops. I can see some women being in command and directing male troops in battle ( a massive formal responsibility), but I do not think these positions will appeal to as many women as men. I just do not see many women wanting to get down and dirty on the front lines. There are plenty of unpleasant and dangerous manual jobs that are open to women, where mostly they vote with their feet and choose something else.

I would propose for a limited time drafting young woman with the goal of forming all woman combat brigades. Affirmative action if you will to make up for past discriminatory practices.

The legislation has now been passed. I wonder how this will actually manifest itself, and how the evidence will be politically managed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/se ... line-roles