3 ms·

The lack of women in the military is purely a result of sound military strategy. Suppose two idealized states in a perpetual state of war, where they have frequ

The lack of women in the military is purely a result of sound military strategy. Suppose two idealized states in a perpetual state of war, where they have frequent engagements in which both sides lose 50% of their soldiers in each generation. The state that uses no women as soldiers whatsoever will eventually win. This is because of biology, but it is not because of any sort of hardwired instincts. It's just that 200 men and 200 women can on average have the same number of children as 100 men and 200 women, but the reverse is not true. 200 men and 100 women can have roughly the same number of children as 50 men and 100 women.

onemoreact 15y ago
I think my original point still stands even if you were correct because I am arguing the biological basis for many behaviors. However you’re missing the basic concept that the country that used both women and men could simply create a larger army and crush the other country. The reason this did not work historically was more to do with men’s larger size and muscle mass than reproductive issues. If you can fire an arrow and extra 20 feet you can kill someone before they can attack back. If can lift a heaver weapon with a longer range you are far more likely to win in melee combat. Such minor advantages are far less important in gathering food so sending a largely male army off to combat is simply more efficient prior to the use of fire arms. (There is some evidence that women do better in modern firefights so you could see a reversal of this trend fairly soon.) PS: Population sizes are far closer linked to the ability to gather food and avoid disease than the ability to reproduce. In theory more women = more baby’s but you could also see 4x population growth in 30 years which does not happen.
rmc 15y ago
Militaries do not think like this. They do not plan like this. If they did, they would only allow gay men in the military. In fact the opposite happens. Your theory doesn't match reality.
- lukeschlather 15y ago
  I'm not talking about the modern military. I'm talking about the constraints under which humans evolved. I'm also simply looking at it from the assumption that all the players are rational actors, and the rational choice is to maximize chances of victory in warfare. I think the modern world is much more complex, and the rational choice in general (possibly even in antiquity) is to avoid violence if at all possible and find mutually beneficial solutions to resource scarcity.
Tsagadai 15y ago
Various nations through history have used all female fighting units for psychological power. It isn't a sound military strategy, it is cultural belief. Many cultures consider men to be more expendable and that makes killing them easier. For a modern counter example, can you imagine the effectiveness of an all gay special forces regiment against the Taliban? Can you imagine morale within Taliban forces after getting repeatedly defeated by an all gay unit? Read some history, the same thing has been done several times with all female forces. Militaries are predominantly men only for cultural reasons.

onemoreact 15y ago

I think my original point still stands even if you were correct because I am arguing the biological basis for many behaviors. However you’re missing the basic concept that the country that used both women and men could simply create a larger army and crush the other country. The reason this did not work historically was more to do with men’s larger size and muscle mass than reproductive issues. If you can fire an arrow and extra 20 feet you can kill someone before they can attack back. If can lift a heaver weapon with a longer range you are far more likely to win in melee combat. Such minor advantages are far less important in gathering food so sending a largely male army off to combat is simply more efficient prior to the use of fire arms. (There is some evidence that women do better in modern firefights so you could see a reversal of this trend fairly soon.) PS: Population sizes are far closer linked to the ability to gather food and avoid disease than the ability to reproduce. In theory more women = more baby’s but you could also see 4x population growth in 30 years which does not happen.

rmc 15y ago

Militaries do not think like this. They do not plan like this. If they did, they would only allow gay men in the military. In fact the opposite happens. Your theory doesn't match reality.

lukeschlather 15y ago
I'm not talking about the modern military. I'm talking about the constraints under which humans evolved. I'm also simply looking at it from the assumption that all the players are rational actors, and the rational choice is to maximize chances of victory in warfare. I think the modern world is much more complex, and the rational choice in general (possibly even in antiquity) is to avoid violence if at all possible and find mutually beneficial solutions to resource scarcity.

Tsagadai 15y ago

Various nations through history have used all female fighting units for psychological power. It isn't a sound military strategy, it is cultural belief. Many cultures consider men to be more expendable and that makes killing them easier. For a modern counter example, can you imagine the effectiveness of an all gay special forces regiment against the Taliban? Can you imagine morale within Taliban forces after getting repeatedly defeated by an all gay unit? Read some history, the same thing has been done several times with all female forces. Militaries are predominantly men only for cultural reasons.