BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE FAILURE OF WOMEN IN COMBAT

There is no question that women have valour. They are intelligent, capable and are as brave as men, especially when their young are under threat. Aggression and capability for violence are not foreign to females.

Yet, women are not suitable for combat duty. This was recently confirmed by a new study by the British Ministry of Defence, which upheld the British military's 1997 decision to exclude women from combat roles. The reason is that women have a far lower capacity to develop muscle strength and aerobic fitness than men. In fact, only 1% of women can equal the performance of the average man. Women have to work between 50% and 80% harder than men to achieve the same results. Thus, women cannot meet the load-marching and other combat duty tasks. Any reduction in standards would pose unacceptable risks to the effectiveness of the forces.

This report confirmed that the British military was on firm legal ground in continuing to exclude women from ground combat risks. Its decision is also in line with a 1999 European Court of Justice ruling that the exclusion of women from certain positions in the military did not violate equality legislation passed by the European Parliament since such exclusion was appropriate to ensure operational effectiveness of the military.

Pity the Canadian military, however. In February 1989, a three-member Human Rights Commission, which included feminist, Jane Banfield Haynes, a sociologist at Toronto's York University, conducted a hearing on the question of women serving in combat roles in the Canadian military. Completely ignoring the Canadian Forces' own studies that had results similar to the 2002 British study, it concluded that feminist ideology should hold sway, and, therefore, women should serve in combat roles in the Canadian military. This conclusion was based on the following:

… the Canadian Armed Forces held stereotypic views about women's capacities and capabilities and as a result adopted paternalistic policies to give women special but not equal treatment.

The Associate Minister of Defence at that time was Mary Collins, MP, who also happened to be the Minister Responsible for Women's Issues. She, of course, did not want the sisterhood descending upon her head by allowing an appeal of this decision. So the ludicrous decision of the Tribunal stayed, and it has, over the years, caused enormous trouble and endless expense for the Canadian military.

The military did its best in making a desperate attempt to place women in combat roles as ordered by the Commission. To date, despite heroic efforts, there has been little progress. Although Canada places second among NATO countries, with 11.4% of its personnel being women (the US is first with 14%), according to the British study, the Canadian Forces found that women tended to join or migrate to traditional employment areas instead of combat roles, because of "problems in selection, training, application of physical standards, sexual harassment and fraternization."

The out-of-touch, ideological-driven members of the Human Rights Commission have caused a great disservice to the military, turning it into an equal opportunity employer. They argued that the difference in physical capacities between men and women is no longer relevant in hand-to-hand combat, and is a relic of the past. They claimed that all future wars would involve only pulling triggers and pushing buttons. Tell that to the allied troops in Afghanistan who trudged over land mines and jagged rocks, where there were no roads, to reach the Taliban dead or alive in their caves. Tell that to the US ground troops, when they enter Iraq.

Someone should be brave enough to tell these feminists that the military mission is to effectively fight wars, not be an equal opportunity employer. Social experimentation, which Canada's military is now enduring, is just plain foolishness - and, typically Canadian!

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS