Evolutionary Psychology: Co-Ed Combat

Co-Ed Combat and Evolutionary Psychology

A new published book, titled Co-Ed Combat, by Kingsley Browne details the true disabilities physically, in strength, speed and spatial aptitude, and psychologically that keep women from being capable combat soldiers, sailors and airmen contrary to what Hollywood brings to us. They prove to us in numerous movies that women have the same physical characteristics as men and have the same temperment to be just as heroic as well, i.e. the Sigourney Weaver in the Alien, the first Rambolina or Laura Croft, Angelina Jolie.

The author cites studies that show in civilian situations men are predominately participants in heroic acts. In regards to saving strangers heroic acts are exclusively male. Even in combat air flight can bring emergency events brought on by mechanical failure or when shot down. Men are much more prepared to experience these type of situations citing the case when a fighter pilot spent nine days hiding in the wilderness prior to capture.

So I concur with the assessment regarding the disabilities of women in combat that were depicted in the Co-Ed Combat. It seems once again the country is putting everything under a legal yardstick; women should have the right to combat to allow them to further their careers, it's being argued by proponents of women in combat. The author is right on target with his criticism.

Nonetheless, I couldn't disagree more at the way the book arrives at your conclusions. The Evolutionary Psychology used to buttress your arguments is simplistic and redunctionist. For example it’s rightly reported that men trained for combat greatly oppose the idea of sexually mixed groups in the military. The opposition is almost visceral one could say. The author goes on to propose this opposition manifests itself in the skepticism men view women’s ability to “cover their back”. They can “smell” she’s a loser, so to speak. This was to have arisen through evolutionary forces operating on groups of men who preferred to associate with other men, high risk takers it’s said, due to the success they enjoy versus the mixed groups, based on the book's apraisal.

The book depicts this distrust as deep-seated arising from Evolutionary processes, so called Evolutionary Psychology (EP). So I try to imagine, just as the EP freely speculates, this evolutionary process that led to distrust of women. Back in the mists of ancient pre-history men were too stupid to know women can’t run or throw and show enough physical strength so they ignorantly had no opposition to having mixed groups. The mixed groups didn’t get any food. They starve off and are deselected. Conclusion is that now men are doubly reticent to mixed groups now even when a Rambolina like Sigourney Weaver shows up. The ones who survive have a mind to all-male groups. It could be reasonably said that the men could be led to form groups under this process, but NOT necessarily distrust women. Men’s urge to adapt into men in groups must come first not the opposition to women within the group. It seems they may not need visceral, instinctive opposition to women and still want to form groups. In a scenario based on the books reasoning Sigourney (Hollywood’s creation albeit) showed up; she’s just as fast and strong and heroic as that wimpy man (he’s probably an old guy my age) whose always falling behind and in our scenario she even beats up the wimpy loser guy. … But nope… we can’t have her they say; she’s a woman. Just as easily one can imagine, prior to evolutionary propensities, they take her in and they’re better off than before. .... (Of course within the first month, a dominant male wanting to pass along his genes has impregnated her and she shortly has to drop out, it could be imagined.) Thus it would be easy to conclude, this disposition against associating with women might not have even developed, since once again it’s patently evident that the vast majority of women can’t run, throw or show enough physical strength to even begin to accompany men in groups. So its more likely females wouldn’t have been in the group in the first place unless she was Weaver/Jolie and they needed to get rid of an old wimpy guy like me; the likelihood in actuality quite slim. Where’s the unthinking, deep in the guts, instinctual distrust come from? These are simply speculations and reveries of EP.

Other scenarios could be imagined. I wonder if this struggle to survive was the determining factor in our behavior, why would the majority of males be willing to leave the females to hunt and forage and pass up the opportunity to sneak back to the village and, forcibly if need be, impregnate as many females a possible while other males were out wandering around the forest looking for their next meal. One could as easily surmise that after a few millions of years, give or take a decade here and there, men would insist on foraging with women to keep close eye on them. Mixed groups would be the vogue, one could surmise.

And so the book reports “when people act on the basis of their feelings, they are not necessarily acting irrationally”, but in the basis of … “their best biological interest” (pg 169). But here I contradict; they certainly are acting without use of their rationality because when Sijourney shows up they won’t accept her, it’s argued, even though, unlikely as it may seem (vast majority of women can’t compete at hunting and foraging, we know, but she’s an anomaly we’ll give her) she’s better than the old geezer. This is clearly contrary to rational judgment given the basis of the opposition is “biological interest” not common sense. Stating once again that men in groups are an evolutionary development which in their thinking is a likely possbililty but then it goes on to say even the distrust men show for women joining their group is evolutionary development as well.

So these ancient prejudices are deemed to be adaptations that could be used to justify race or ethnic hatred as well, methinks. Really this could justify many a bestial act, since the group, people, individual in question was acting “on basis of feelings… not necessarily acting irrationality” in accordance with “their best biological interest”. Here biological interest trumps cognitive reasoning. Now is “biological interest” a standard an individual, group or society we expect to live by?

And further “Visceral responses that are a product of evolutionary history are often not very responsive to cognitive input and can be difficult to extinguish.” (pg 169) And so we can’t think to improve the situation either by education it seems. And nonetheless military deployment decisions must kowtow to them.

Another questionable EP explanation arises in the example of the male’s visceral response to “hot” beautiful young women. However, a connection between “beautiful” women and fertility is simply highly speculative at best. It would seem more accurate to pose just the opposite question. Why are men attracted to beautiful women? The presumption of EP is that the young women were more fertile. But why beautiful as well, why not just young and fertile? EP allows for fertility as the only consideration. There’s no demonstrated correlation today between “beauty” and fertility. EP would have it otherwise in the distant past with male behavior adapted to it with the urge to “young” and beautiful plus fertile.

Now to the most mystifying part of the book it reads “…neither feelings nor thoughts are themselves acted upon by natural selection.” (pg 169) First question how did these thoughts and feelings arise, since natural selection wasn’t acting on them? Further, it’s behaviors produced by these thoughts and feelings that provide the means for selection to act. This seems somehow illogical. Humans often act for various reasons, chiefly based on thoughts and feelings. What’s driving EP? the thoughts and feelings that produce the acts or the acts that affects not thoughts and feelings? You could say the successful behavior promotes survival but as quoted above neither feelings nor thoughts are acted upon, which is the basis of behavior. How do thoughts and feeling change? And successful behaviors, since each one is a product of cognitive decision as well as gut reaction? Men may be reluctant to accept women, “who don’t cover their” back; I would hazard to guess they saw the apparent disadvantage on the elementary school playground when girls “sucked” at kickball, football, tag, etc.

In addition EP fails to explain morality. If the struggle for survival was upmost, why should any individual conform to conventional morality? Nietzsche makes a most insightful critique for conventional morality, describing it as one for losers to bind the exceptional. The true Uber-mensch transcends those conventions and gets his own way; the others are fools for conforming. This makes philosophical sense absent of belief in a transcendent moral universe. But reductionist EP only has strained suppositions why so many form groups and the presence of moral constraints observed throughout society and history. With EP part of the question becomes why morality? Not why infidelity.

EP in its sole focus on the struggle of survival fails to explain laughter, joy, music, art and even the presence and persistence of the “delusion” of religion. One could look at this way; truth is simply a product of evolutionary processes, whereby religions provided an “escape” for the terrors of reality and thus a successful adaptation. The rejection of that truth is non-adaptive and wrong, since it contradicts the evolutionary “truth” and will die out eventually. Thus EP could be considered simply a non-adaptive illusion.

Even emotional intelligence may be no more effective way to propagate your genes than simply lack of adherence to morality. Why not steal, lie, cheat, impose by will and force your way to insure your genes are passed on? Why work co-operatively and decrease your chances of carrying on your legacy by risking your demise? Why the force of morality? Why the reticence to kill? Why do soldiers need to be trained to kill as so poignantly reported that the WWII G.I. wasn’t aiming at anyone? Why do so many people conform to a moral standard? it could be asked.There’s a whole moral universe EP has little explanation for.

Under closer examination due to the deadly seriousness of combat and its implications for the well being of the whole society we must look very closely at experiments with women in combat including morale of the troops, sailors and airmen. Using EP to justify it is simply vacuous.