Women used to be restricted to 2% of the military, that allowed for Nurses, Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants in finance and such.
People forget that even daily non-combat work is not suited for females, digging entrenchments and fox holes, handling heavy things, replacing tracks and even truck tires, handling large cooking pots holding many gallons of food at more than 8 pounds per gallon, watch the females trying to handle and use those 50 pound Jerry cans of water or fuel, the list is endless. Either they can’t do it, or they need help, but even if it gets done, it is slower, more laborious, ties up more personnel, time and resources, now magnify that effect throughout the mass military, it is a diminishing of effectiveness and a reduction of per capita strength, suddenly “a fully manned crew of 220” doesn’t really mean exactly that, it means “a 220 count of people” with overall reduced capabilities.
We see all this in civilian life, sports, construction, the separation of duties and capabilities is so natural that we don’t even notice it, but we live by it, the military consists of all this, except much worse, it is rugged, outdoor living where everything is heavy and hard and requires muscles, and on the bad days, you have 6 foot Soviet paratroopers landing on your rear echelon troops ripping their throats out with their bare hands.
Which is why most professional chefs are men. Women can be great cooks, at the domestic scale, but find it difficult at the industrial scale. This is biology, not discrimination.
Good post.
Women are good in surveillance and intelligence roles. They make good analysts. There were some naval warfare ratings that women did just fine with and were at no greater risk than the men. Problem is the lack of common sense about it these days and pretending there are no differences between the sexes. Does it make sense to put women on submarines? I don’t think so. Battlefield roles when the shells and the sh— flies? No.