How to Argue Against Women in Combat?

January 29, 2013 | 5 comments

What is the proper Catholic apologetic against using women in combat?

That was the question I posed to Catholic Answers' leadership last week when we met off campus for two days for our annual planning retreat. At the start of one day's session I brought up the Pentagon's decision to incorporate women in nearly all phrases of combat. All of us at the table were opposed to that, but, I asked, what is the right way to argue about the issue?

I pointed to arguments that may convince some people but that really don't provide a conclusive answer.

1. The argument from lack of strength. Women differ from men in physical capabilities. Even those most of favor of women serving in combat roles acknowledge this. Since the average woman is less strong, less swift, less able to deal with suffering on a battlefield, women shouldn't be allowed into combat—so goes the argument.

But some women are more capable physically than some men, even some men in the military. There are women who can shoot more accurately, throw a grenade farther, rush opposing lines more quickly. This means that this argument is only a partial argument: It demonstrates only that many women should not be put in such roles; it doesn't demonstrate that no woman should.

2. Next I brought up what one might call the "Kinder, Kueche, Kirche" (German for "children, kitchen, church") argument: A woman's role is chiefly domestic. If women are on the front lines, we'll find that we have placed there mothers or potential mothers. Women are nurturers by nature, men protectors. It makes sense to send fathers and husbands into war, when war is necessary, but not to send mothers and wives.

The weakness with this argument is that many, perhaps most, women in the military are not mothers now, and many of them apparently have no intention of being mothers ever. They don't see themselves in a future nurturing role. If, heaven forbid, they die in combat, the loss to the upbringing of the next generation will not be noticed because they would not have participated in that process anyway.

3. The next argument brought up at our discussion was what we might call the modesty issue. Tim Staples, a former Marine (as is Chris Check, who sat opposite Tim at our table), told of an incident where a contingent of Marines, after subduing a target that contained a high level of hazardous contaminants, had to strip off and destroy all their clothes and be hosed down naked out in the field. What, he asked, if a woman had been in that group?

Proponents of women in combat have an easy answer to such objections: Don't assign women to such roles. There are plenty of tasks they can perform that don't involve blatant problems of modesty—say, driving a tank, dropping bombs from a bomber, firing a mortar.

4. The fourth argument we considered concerned battlefield psychology. When a platoon of men is sent after a target, it's possible that some of the men will be wounded or killed. The others in the platoon may not be free to tend to the injured or to remove the bodies of the dead. Their job is to forge ahead, even if they have to ignore cries they hear from their comrades.

But what happens when it is the lone woman in a platoon who takes a bullet? What will the men do when she writhes on the ground, crying out in pain? Men by nature are protective of women. It's likely that her comrades will break off from their task to assist her, where they would have pushed passed an equally wounded man in order to accomplish their objective. In going to her assistance, the men could put their own lives and their mission in jeopardy.

Again, there are answers to this objection. One would be not to assign women to forward roles where such injuries are most likely to occur. Another would be to train the men, through mock exercises and explicit classroom instruction, to treat a wounded woman exactly as they would a wounded man.

So here are four arguments commonly used against having women in combat. Each argument is based on utilitarianism, and each has something of a workaround. Each argument, inadequate as it is, will convince some people, but then some people are easily convinced, especially when they want to be convinced.

I ended the discussion at our planning meeting by asking, "What is the best, the most convincing Catholic argument against having women in combat roles? It must be an argument that goes beyond the utilitarian, because each utilitarian argument seems to have a sufficient counter."

We didn't attempt to formulate that ideal argument (after all, we were meeting to plan the future of Catholic Answers, not to solve problems of this kind), but we all sensed that the ideal argument would have to rise from a consideration of human nature and natural law, from a recognition that, in terms of teleology (ultimate ends), men and women, at least here below, have different roles because they have different purposes.

The conundrum is how to flesh that out, how to achieve an apologetic that convinces not us—we who don't need convincing—but those who have yet to hear an argument that even begins to move them on this issue. Second-best arguments or partial arguments won't do. At best hearers will come to agree that some women should not serve in combat roles or that some combats roles should be withheld from women. It will take a higher-level argument to make the overall case.

Karl Keating is founder and senior fellow at Catholic Answers. He is the author of seven books, including the recently published The New Geocentrists and the forthcoming The Ultimate Catholic Quiz. His books Catholicism and Fundamentalism and What Catholics Really Believe...

Comments by Members

#1  Obilaz Peter - Asaba, Delta

This will definitely help me in a forth coming argument on why Christ did not call any female among his 12 apostles

December 1, 2013 at 4:48 am PST
#2  Ann Jefferson - Macedonia, Ohio

I was a bit shocked at how antiquated some of these answers are. Mr. Keating, what is your research to make this comment in any way credible:

"The weakness with this argument is that many, perhaps most, women in the military are not mothers now, and many of them apparently have no intention of being mothers ever. They don't see themselves in a future nurturing role. If, heaven forbid, they die in combat, the loss to the upbringing of the next generation will not be noticed because they would not have participated in that process anyway."

I am a veteran of the Marines and the US Air Force and am now in the US Navy. I have four (4) children. My sister is a Lt.Col. with four (4) children. Both of us have deployed. Most of the women I served with in Afghanistan were mothers. WHERE do you get the idea that women in the military are not mothers, not interested in motherhood and are not nurturers? And do you realize how crucial the role of women is in the middle-eastern conflicts? From what I'm reading here, I'm going to guess you've never served or never served with women. You've left out two incredibility important factors on the value of women in combat: the thought-process and logic of how women see things vs. men, and the lives they save through their presence in figuring out solutions plus direct contact with those we're fighting and fighting alongside overseas. I could go on and on. Sir, if you're going to make statements such as the one I quoted above, back it up with FACTS. Otherwise you're spreading a false impression. As a devout Catholic and a mother who re-joined the armed forces AFTER 9/11 and AFTER I already had 3 children, who has used the unique opportunity to share parts of my Catholicism w/ those who were of no faith, Muslim, Jewish and other Christian denominations, these arguments you have listed above should not have been posted without true research to show how they are more factual than speculative.

July 30, 2014 at 11:43 am PST
#3  john walsh - murrels inlet, South Carolina

Outstanding article Karl.
Hey Jefferson there. I find your post very amusing. Especially that you were in three different branches of the service? O REALLY. YEAH ok. I served in the military, but I find your last post a little bit good to be true. You females as MRTs ( Male Role Takers) have a way of adding a whole lot more icing on the cake. In layMAN’s terms that means, the cake needs a little cake, it has enough icing on it. Maybe Karl did or did not serve . But this issue is not exactly rocket science or brain surgery.
I after reading your post, you don’t sound too much like a Catholic, nor a Christian. You sound more like the anti-Christ, who claims to be a follower of god. What you need to know is what god commanded, what roles are for men, and what roles are for women. Obviously you and all other militant feminist fail to understand that. Just like what Karl said the women’s role is domestic. To nurture and be a caregiver. A life giver, not a life taker.
You claim to be a good mother. You and your LTC sister. But the problem is where you there full time? How are you kids truthful wise? I served in the ARMY with women. And it just plain Stunk to high heaven. So I know. CO-ED military is a failed military and a weak one at that. And now the ARMY wants to debut women in the RANGERS? Oh REALLY? I believe that will NOT work. I say WRONG. And that is an acronym. Women Rangers Overall Not Good. The fact of the matter is, being a mother is a FULL TIME JOB. Obviously women in present day military, are not doing their full time duty as mothers. You make it sound like women can do it all. Not true. The deal with superwoman, is just a HOAX. Women make crucial decisions? And saving lives? Well let me ask you something , wonder woman , why isn’t there a victory in sight, for the U.S.A. over there? Been 13 years now. And don’t say it’s the governments fault. It looks like Al Qaida and the ISIS has the upper hand. The problem with you females, in the military, is that you’re OVERATED.
No Jefferson there, I don’t by your story. Especially how you overly exaggerated it. Again, Karl good story, you hit the nail on the head.

October 10, 2014 at 11:28 am PST
#4  john walsh - murrels inlet, South Carolina

Well it looks like Ann Jefferson, won't respond nor re-act to my post. I'm very disappointed.

October 15, 2014 at 8:58 am PST
#5  numnum mum - New York, California

This is very much interesting. Thanks for sharing this useful information.
buy followers on instagram

November 16, 2014 at 7:37 pm PST

You are not logged in. Login or register to leave a comment.