Performance Based

In the neighbourly nation to the south, policy makers  have decided that women may now serve in combat roles within the their nation's armed services. I for one applaud this decision. I don't see it as an equality issue. I see it as a decision to maximizing potential. It doesn't make any sense to me to eliminate half the potential candidates for a position because they have perfectly heathy but different anatomy. There are a number of reasons to say someone can't do that job but being a woman is not one of them.

I doubt we will ever see half the people in combat roles as women. There are a number of reasons.

Self-selection will always limit the number of women in combat roles. Let's be honest, there are not a lot of women that want the job. In an all-volunteer service you only take those who cut the mustard of those that want the job and there are not a lot of people to begin with and especially women who want to fill a combat role. It doesn't mean some wouldn't be good at it.

In general, women are built different than men. This doesn't mean that there are not women that are strong and fast enough to do the job it just means there may not be as many women. Remember, not every man is physically capable of filling a combat role but we still allow all to apply.

Some women will not have the right mix of traits to be able to do the job. As a corollary to that, some men will not have the right mix of traits to be able to do the job. They may be big enough and strong enough but can't shoot to hit the broad side of a barn.

When you consider all of this, there will probably never be a lot of women in combat roles in all-volunteer armies. That's okay. What isn't okay is saying you can't even try. Yesterday in her column in The Globe and Mail, Margaret Wente argued that America made a mistake with the change in policy and Canada has been doing it wrong for a long time.  Everyone has the right to their opinion and she makes a living writing hers for a national audience. So, even though I didn't agree with her, I just left it to something I read. So today when I read her column, I was a bit surprised to see her argue that women were taking over the country.

There are and have been several women as provincial premiers. I also commend this. The impression I got from her column is these women deserved to be there based on their performance. So, if a women can lead a province based on their performance, why can't they work on the front line of the battle-space based on their performance?

I am not advocating a quota. I'm not even suggesting that women should be actively recruited for these roles. I'm just saying it should stay the way it is. If they walk though the front door of the recruiting centre and say they want to serve in the infantry, they be given the same opportunity to be trained and if they can develop the proper knowledge, skills, and abilities, they be permitted to serve. The issue isn't how many women are serving. The issue is that they can serve if they choose to and meet all the required minimum standards, just like  a man, and just like for any other job in any other organization.

As long as we have people that think that somebody can't do something based on what they are instead of what they prove, as an individual, they can and cannot do, we are only going to continue to cheat ourselves of potential talent and make any organization weaker.