In the follow up to Defense Secretary Ash Carter’s recent announcement that all combat jobs will be open to women, there have been several articles highlighting men’s fears about working with women on the frontline. In particular, a survey of Special Operations men found that the majority would prefer not to work with women, and that some held serious “fears” and “concerns”- especially in relation to women’s apparently unpredictable bodies. That’s right, the Special Forces- the tip of the spear, the elite of the US military- are scared about the three P’s: periods, pregnancy and PMS. Most of these discussions pit women’s unpredictable, leaky, and fragile bodies against men’s stable, solid, and predictable ones. But is that true? Well, if folks want to take the debate to this level, its worth considering what science tells us about men’s creaky, leaky, fluctuating and hormonal bodies and how this might impact their combat readiness.
So, I’ve compiles a list of 3 ways men’s bodies might be a liability in combat. It starts with- you guessed it- unexpected erections (bet you didn’t expect to see that arrangement of words in an IR blog post today).
1. Unexpected Erections: Did you know that men, on average, get 11 erections a day? That can be a serious physical liability in an intense combat situation. If we are going to talk about unexpected pregnancy or women’s PMS, we should talk about men’s boners too. Sounds silly? Well, it is actually a serious consideration. It should be noted that erections aren’t just about sexual arousal, many men experience “reflex erections, which can happen when a man is nervous, scared, angry, or under stress.” Sounds like a definite combat liability- particularly with younger male troops. Also, men can get unexpected erections due to the need to urinate, which can be a reality for soldiers travelling or in action in the field. All these fears about women ‘holding it’ and getting bladder infections in combat might be nothing compared to the risk of men ‘holding it’ and getting an erection. I’ll spare you all the jokes about negligent discharge (ok I won’t), but in all seriousness, we need to ask if men’s unexpected erections put troops at risk.
2. Testosterone is unpredictable and fathers loose it rapidly: Many opponents of women in combat point to the role of testosterone in providing men with an edge when it comes to aggression, bravery, fearlessness, physical strength and other attributes that are presumed to be essential in combat. Conversely, women’s lack of testosterone and ‘excessive’ estrogen has been attributed with women’s apparent nurturing, risk averse, and weak nature. But such characterisations assume that testosterone is dependable and expresses itself the same way in each ‘man’ (we’ll leave aside for the moment, the broader assumptions about biology, bodies, and gender here and how trans* and non-conforming bodies are erased in this type of discussion). The truth is testosterone fluctuates significantly over the course of an average man’s life and declines steadily with age. Moreover, men who have kids experience a decline in testosterone that is nearly double the ‘normal’ rate of childless men. Another study concluded that “dad’s brain looks like mom’s” as the result of hormonal and emotional shifts that come with fatherhood. This begs the question: can fathers really perform as soldiers or will their fluctuating hormones and emotions get in the way?
3. Men think about sex too much to focus on combat: You’ve probably heard that men think about sex every 7 seconds? According to research this is an exaggeration. However, the average man thinks about sex 19 times per day. True, even trying to talk about “the average man” or the impact of him thinking of sex might be sexist/heteronormative and may reify an ideal about men’s bodies that is destructive and exclusionary. But since the Washington Post has chosen to list quotes from Special Ops expressing concerns about PMS, including: “Acting on emotions may be a problem. Judgment may be altered. The effects of combat may have a different impact during those times, I’m not sure” and “I think PMS is terrible, possibly the worst. I cannot stand my wife for about a week out of the month for every month. I like that I can come to work and not have to deal with that” then I think the door is wide open to talk about men’s capacity to focus on combat operations when they are so distracted by sex. If we assume that women are overcome with their mothering roles or disabled by regular hormones perhaps we should consider evidence about how thoughts of sex might also distract men and result in reduced combat readiness.
The Washington Post, Huffington Post, and other major news outlet’s decision to give air time to Special Forces’ list of concerns regarding women’s bodies (as well as concerns about how their wives would feel about them working with women) reflects embedded sexism within the US military and the media outlets that cover it. Why indulge a small number of men’s unfounded fears about working with women?
Worries about women’s bodies are rarely based on science or evidence. More often, such concerns are emotional reactions that are code for ‘we just don’t want them there.’
In a fantastic post, “The Military’s Elite Soldiers are Afraid of Women’s Periods,” Tracy Clark-Flory noted that science tells us there is *not* a link between women’s cycles and ‘moodiness’ or weakness. She includes the following quote from a large study on PMS: “These studies failed to provide clear evidence in support of the existence of a specific premenstrual negative mood syndrome in the general population…This puzzlingly widespread belief needs challenging, as it perpetuates negative concepts linking female reproduction with negative emotionality.” Similarly, despite chatter about the costs and liability of women’s pregnancy in the military, research shows that when compared to the time lost for male disciplinary issues and drug or alcohol rehabilitation, “pregnancy is a wash.” And we haven’t even talked about the fact that almost half of women who served in Iraq and Afghanistan were sexually harassed, or that between 20-40% of female troops experience rape or attempted rape during their careers. Special Forces are worried about how their wives will react to them working in close proximity to women? Female service members have consistently had to worry about the probability of violence from their male comrades.
To the Special Forces, Washington Post, and opponents of women in combat who cling to ridiculous biological arguments I say, let’s have a discussion about hormones, bodies, and emotions. If you want to open the “PMS, period and pregnancy” door, I hope we can kick it open a little wider and talk about boners, wet dreams, plummeting testosterone, hernias, gender non-conformity, addiction, disciplinary action, rape, transitioning, and depression.
This is the most hilarious article I’ve read for ages, Megan! IR could definitely use more mockery of stupid, sexist arguments like this.
May I add a couple? These are courtesy of American gay men’s press during the initial DADT debate about why straight men should not be in the military: they constantly flaunt their sexuality, making gay men uncomfortable (and many women, too); and straight men are militant about converting others to their lifestyles, which has consequences like unwanted pregnancies, Sexually-transmitted diseases and the proliferation of cheap cologne.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJqw3BBe8u8
effing brilliant.
This begs the question: can fathers really perform as soldiers or will their fluctuating hormones and emotions get in the way?
No, it does not “beg” the question. It raises the question, prompts the question, leads to the question etc., but it does not “beg the question.” To beg the question means something else. Sorry, pet peeve.
I know this was kinda jokey and in response to (legitimate) concerns about women in combat (being physically weaker, being affected by mood swings and hormonal cycles) but your points have no merit. Getting a boner would have no affect on a person in a combat situation while getting your period probably would affect you while in combat.
Just wondering if you have credible, empirical evidence to support this opinion, Arobin? A condition called amenorrhoea (the absence of menstruation) affects women who exercise rigorously and/or have reduced body fat and/or are under unusual stresses, and some deployed female soldiers could well be affected by this condition for these reasons. The periods of some 50% of women who use a 12-14 week injectable contraceptive called Depo Provero will cease entirely, and another 20% will be much lighter than usual. If a female soldier did not wish to be bothered by her menstrual cycle on deployment, DP is certainly one option as many symptoms (such as mood swings) often disappear along with periods. Cramps are often alleviated by over-the-counter painkillers.
Historically, a small percentage of Soviet women served in the Red Army as tank crews, snipers and even in combat infantry during WWII. One of their most effective snipers was a woman; Ludmdilla Pavlichenko had 309 confirmed kills. Women also served in partisan units elsewhere in Europe.
As for male sexuality, it has historically been an issue of critical importance for discipline, morale and readiness. For Australian WWI servicemen, for instance, venereal disease and time spent in hospital meant that significant numbers of male soldiers were unavailable for combat duties at any given time, which added to the pressure upon their comrades to do their jobs for them. Advances in medicine and the ready availability of condoms greatly improved that situation, but what about sexual assaults and harassment of fellow soldiers? This form of misconduct is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men. While women are at a higher risk of sexual assault, men make up the largest number of military victims because they comprise the majority of soldiers and the opportunities for predators are more plentiful. Military sexual traumas (MST) are known triggers for PTSD, and terrible for morale of the victim(s), especially if reported and the chain of command responds by retaliation or harassment. While this situation, too, is finally being taken seriously, MST has deprived many tens of thousands of dutiful soldiers, sailors, airmen and women, and officers of their careers, deprived the taxpayers of their talent, experience and service, and exacted financial costs in replacing personnel needlessly lost because a small number of men let their sexuality run amok.
And then there are the sexual war crimes committed by male soldiers. Rape has long been recognised as a weapon of war, but in an occupation, it costs hearts and minds. The United Nations has acknowledged that the biggest threat to the success of its peacekeeping missions is sexual misconduct by male peacekeepers.
Contrary to your assertion that Megan’s ‘points have no merit’, the female reproductive cycle has not nearly been the problem for discipline, morale and operational effectiveness that the preponderance of evidence clearly demonstrates male sexuality has been.
The article is literally talking about just getting a boner while on the battlefield, not male sexuality in general. Getting a boner while on the battlefield will not affect anything. In this article, it is only being brought up in a petty tit-for-tat manner because menstruating while in combat was questioned as potentially affecting someone in combat.
There are ways for periods to be prevented but if someone has their’s out in the middle of a fire fight, they will be affected by it in a way that a boner will not affect a male soldier. Periods and boners are not actually comparable in terms of how they affect people and yet this article uses the possibility of a boner to dismiss the possibility of a period.
Thank you for taking the time to respond. My original question was – and still is – do you have empirical evidence for this opinion? Have there been clinical studies done?
I’m asking because I’m interested in all of the discourses around women in combat generally, and I’ve seen the menstruation thing bandied about a lot, but I haven’t yet come across a study that either confirms or refutes these assertions.
In terms of comparing how women respond to their periods and men respond to their erections, well, I can imagine a woman might be embarrassed under normal circumstances if she was caught out by the unexpected arrival of a period, but if someone’s shooting at her with the intent to kill her or her team-mates, then it would be the least of her concerns.
After all, by the minimum enlistment age, most women would’ve had 60 or 70 of them at least. It’s not a big deal.
Might the real problem be how men would respond to a woman unexpectedly getting her period ‘on the battlefield’? I mean, if blood grosses a man out, perhaps being a soldier isn’t the right profession for him, because that’s all periods are. They’re no more gross or unnatural than, say, getting diarrhoea, and soldiers have to contend with messy and embarrassing things like dysentery all the time.
I don’t know if there has been any studies done on the effects of getting one’s period while in armed combat. I took it as an accepted fact that in general, while a woman is on her period, she is aware of it, she feels it, and is often affected by it in some, usually negative, way for at least some of it’s duration.
Yes embarrassment, but also physical pain through cramps or noticeable mood swings due to changing hormones, periods are known to often have perceptible effects on the body, aren’t they? Of course the effects would vary wildly from person to person. Someone might be completely unaffected while someone else could be quite debilitated.
Of course it shouldn’t be used to disqualify anyone from combat but if there is a significant possibility that something is going to potentially affect someone while in combat, I think it’s worth at least mentioning and taking a look at. I don’t think getting an erection is likely to have any effect on the person having it in a comparable way. To me it doesn’t seem like an equal thing to compare. But for all I know, there could be a correlation between getting adrenaline boners and sudden uncontrollable desires to rape.
I agree that many men in the military would be just as, if not more uncomfortable with a female peer experiencing a period than she would be. It would probably take considerable time spent serving together for that obstacle to be fully overcome.
You’re certainly right re experiences varying from woman to woman. For me, tearing three ligaments in an ankle playing soccer was infinitely worse as far as both pain and nuisance value were concerned. With most women, you’d never know unless they mentioned it because they just get on with whatever they have to do. I rather doubt women who find pain debilitating would attempt to join a combat unit where pain can be par for the course.
The puzzle I’d love to see solved is how so many women got away with disguising themselves as men and serving in such pre-20th century conflicts as the American Civil War. I’ve seen 400 or so mentioned for that conflict alone, though I don’t know what evidence that figure is based upon. Apparently remaining aloof was one strategy, though at times that would have been difficult. I suspect the combination of poor nutrition and long marches caused amenorrhoea in some of those female soldiers.
Those who were discovered seem to have been found out when they suffered battlefield injuries and doctors removed clothing to treat them. Clearly they’d kept up with the men during marches and didn’t desert or out themselves to their superiors when things got rough. They were evidently good enough soldiers that their male peers didn’t suspect them. Some served for two years or more before discovery (at least one even successfully passed as a man until near her death), and it wasn’t as if discreet sanitary products or Depo Provero could be purchased and used then; those are 20th century innovations.
The thing is, in those days, combat was most often up close and personal – fixed bayonet charges and the like. Apparently there were women who had sufficient strength and stamina to handle that, regardless of their menstrual cycle, and what the men didn’t know seems not to have bothered them.
Here’s the Smithsonian article if you’re interested: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next=/history/the-women-who-fought-in-the-civil-war-1402680/
That was a genuinely interesting article from the Smithsonian but I feel like my point still stands. I’ve never doubted that women have fought in combat before and I’ve never been opposed to women fighting in combat.
My point was always that this article brings up getting erections out of pure pettiness because another article brought up periods. That article had a legitimate reason to bring up periods while this article had no reason to bring up erections. Periods “can” have perceptible affects on the person having them in a way that erections do not. It’s not a fair comparison.
Even though of course there is historical precedent for women fighting in combat, the fact is that a period is something that “often” affects the person having it (even mildly affected) and if they are going to be having it while in combat, then the effects might be worth at least looking into or doing a study on. There is a genuine possibility that female soldiers might perform slightly differently while on their periods because the body is (in general) affected by it. The same cannot be said about erections. I don’t think I’ve said that women are incapable of fighting in combat because they get periods, just that periods in general do have some sort of effect on the person having them, even if the person is used to dealing and putting up with them and might not even notice any effect herself.
I definitely agree it needs to be studied, but not some half-assed, dodgy study. Its design would need to be bullet-proof for it to be effective. Actually, perhaps all reproductive system-related effects should be studied to settle the debate once and for all.
I don’t have first-hand knowledge of Megan’s motivations, but I heard her speak at a conference. I rather doubt this article would’ve been written out of pettiness.
Frustration with the various ‘women can’t fight’ discourses seems much more likely to me, because some – not all, but some – women clearly can fight. Not only historically have they been effective combat soldiers, but have recently been so in theatres in Iraq and Afghanistan. The nay-sayers who deny the bleeding obvious (no pun intended) on spurious grounds are the people she probably had in mind for writing this.
If you’ll indulge me a moment longer, I have the perfect example to demonstrate with. A retired US Marine Corps lieutenant general called Gregory Newbold wrote last year for the ‘War On The Rocks’ blog, arguing that there was a mysterious alchemy that bound infantry men together in the very worst conditions and that women would destroy merely by being present – the kinds of mythical, exclusive ‘Band of Brothers’ narratives about which Megan published a book last year.
Right up front, Lt. Gen. Newbold quoted Rudyard Kipling from ‘The Jungle Book’: “For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.”
He apparently doesn’t know a hell of a lot about wolves. Wolf packs hunt as a family, which includes the females, even heavily pregnant wolves and nursing mothers. Male wolves don’t drag their kill home for the females; if the females aren’t on the hunt, they go hungry, and they can’t nurse their pups if they don’t eat.
So some of the strength of the wolf pack is attributable to females, completely contrary to what the good general was arguing. A short time later, a fellow similarly ignorant of lupine hunting arrangements wrote for a conservative Australian magazine using exactly the same contradictory quote to argue much the same thing to try to keep women out of Australia’s combat infantry. Didn’t work and the last figure I’ve seen was that 28 women had passed all the necessary physical standards for infantry or Navy clearance diver training. (Newbold’s article is here https://warontherocks.com/2015/09/what-tempers-the-steel-of-an-infantry-unit/ )
Menstrual cycle aside, at least some of what gets written and repeated about the ‘women in combat’ issue is demonstrably absurd. Perhaps that was Megan’s point, made with subversive humour.
Speaking of which, I heard a (female) comedienne speak in the 1990s on the topic of women in combat. Her take on it was that commanders, knowing there’d always be one or two women who’d be a bit pre-menstrual, would just point at the enemy and say ‘THEY ate all the chocolate!’ If you have a wife, teenaged daughter, a sister, I’m sure you can relate!