Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

1-5-90 Here are further thoughts on the debate about women in combat. Some conservatives argue that, since women are weaker than men and combat requires strength (among other things), women should not be able to serve in combat or hold positions that might require fighting. This is like saying that, since Iowans know more about farming than New Yorkers, no New Yorkers should be able to farm. It’s true, as a general matter, that women are weaker than men, just as it’s true that New Yorkers know less than Iowans about farming. But surely some New Yorkers know more about farming than some Iowans! By the same token, some women are stronger than some men. If we’re not prepared to forbid farm-minded New Yorkers to farm, why are we prepared to forbid strong women to serve in combat? The point this analogy makes is that generalizations are useless when we’re talking about individual rights. A given woman is either strong enough to do the job at hand or she isn’t. If she’s strong enough, why should the mere fact that she’s a woman matter? And notice that I’ve been assuming something quite false for the sake of argument: that combat requires strength, or that strength is an important attribute for those in combat positions. It’s probably not. Other qualities, such as leadership ability, strategic thinking, tactical prowess, and stamina, are probably much more important than physical strength. The argument is therefore weak. It fails to treat women as individuals; it insists on treating them as members of a class.