Buffalo Law Review Volume 49 Number 1 Article 4 1-1-2001 Women at War: An Evolutionary Perspective Kingsley R. Browne Wayne State University Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview Part of the Law and Society Commons Recommended Citation Kingsley R. Browne, Women at War: An Evolutionary Perspective, 49 Buff. L. Rev. 51 (2001). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview/vol49/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Buffalo Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Women at War: An Evolutionary Perspective KTNGSLEY R. BROWNEt TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ..................................................................... 53 I. Policies Regarding Women in Combat Should Be Subjected to a Cost-Benefit Analysis ...................... 58 A. Current Policy .................................................... 58 B. A Cost-Benefit Analysis ...................................... 60 II. The Nature of Warfare ............................................... 64 A. Primitive Warfare: The "Environment of Evolutionary Adaptation" of the Male W arrior ................................................................ 64 B. The Nature of Modern Combat ......... ........ 66 III. Sex Differences in Evolutionary Perspective ............ 74 A. Sexual Selection and the Origin of Sex Differences ........................................................... 75 B. Sex Differences in Temperament: Risk- Taking and Aggressiveness ................................ 77 1. Risk-Taking ..................................................... 77 2. Aggressiveness ............................................... 83 C. Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities ............... 87 1. Measurement and Reporting of Differences ..................................................... 87 2. Sex Differences in Specific Cognitive Traits ............................................................. 89 D. Sex Differences in Physical Strength ................. 95 E. The Male Tendency to Form Same-Sex Coalitions ............................................................. 97 t Professor, Wayne State University Law School. @2001 Kingsley R. Browne. E-mail: [email protected]. The author would like to thank Chris Bernard, Steve Colarelli, Oliver Curry, John Dolan, Patti Hausman, Owen Jones, Mike McIntyre, and Erin O'Hara for valuable comments and suggestions, as well as participants in the George Mason University Law School/Institute for Humane Studies Conference on Law and Biology, and the First Annual Conference of the Society for Evolutionary Analysis in Law BUFFALO LAW REVIEW [Vol. 49 IV. War as a Masculine Pursuit ........................................ 102 A. The Traditional Link Between Warfare and M asculinity ........................................................... 102 B. A Critique of the Link Between Warfare and M asculinity ..................................................... 110 V. Sexual Integration and Combat Motivation ................. 113 A. Why M en Fight ..................................................... 113 1. Primary Groups and Unit Cohesion ............... 113 2. Fear in Battle ................................................... 126 B. Possible Sex Differences in Combat M otivation ............................................................. 129 C. Leadership and Followership ............................... 133 D. Female Combat Personnel Face a High Risk of Rape .......................................................... 144 E. The M ale as Protector ........................................... 148 F. The "Special Case" of Aviation ............................. 155 G. The Central Function of the Military is to Prepare for and, if Necessary, Engage in W arfare ................................................................ 166 VI. Potential Disruption of Unit Cohesion and Effectiveness ............................................................... 170 A. Sexual Integration Disrupts Cohesion by Creating Sexual Jealousy and Frustration ....... 170 B. Perceived Special Treatment of Women Disrupts Cohesion ................................................ 178 C. Integrated Basic Training: Will It Get the Best Out of Either Males or Females? ................. 186 D. Pregnancy Leads to Lower Rates of Female Deployability and Potentially Lower Readiness ............................................................. 190 E. Lesser Female Strength Poses Substantial Readiness Problems ............................................... 194 VII. The Effect of Sexual Integration on Recruitment, Retention, and Conscription ................. 196 A. Integration May Diminish the Attractiveness of Military Service to Men and May Affect What Kind of Men Join ............... 196 B. Sex Differences in Interest and Ability Make It Unlikely That Large Numbers of Women Will Actually Be Interested in Serving in Com bat .................................................................. 204 C. Integration of Women into Combat Positions Increases the Likelihood that Women Would Be Subject to a Reinstated Draft .............. 210 2001] WOMEN AT WAR VIII. The Problems of a Sexually Integrated Military May Be Intractable ..................................... 212 A. An Innate Male Disinclination to Form Aggressive Coalitions with Women May Be Difficult to Overcome .......................................... 212 B. Resistance to Women in the Military Has a Different Basis From Resistance to Women in the Civilian Professions ................................... 219 C. Sex Distinctions Resemble Age Distinctions More Closely than They Do Race Distinctions ......................................................... 224 D. Are Sex-Segregated Units the Answer? ........ ... ... 228 IX. How Do We Deal With the Inevitable U ncertainty? .................................. .. ... ... .. ... ... ... ... .. ... ... 230 A. The Difficulty of Empirical Testing ..................... 230 B. Who Should Bear the Burden of Proof? ......... .. ... 238 Conclusion ........................................................................... 242 Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. It is the spirit of the men who follow and the man who leads thatgains the victory. -George S. Patton, Jr.' INTRODUCTION Most contemporary policy discussions about sexual equality in almost any sphere proceed from the assumption, whether implicit or explicit, that there is one human psychology-or "human nature"-that is shared by both sexes. We should expect, the argument goes, that absent discrimination or arbitrary social practices, the sexes would sort themselves in just the same way throughout society according to their identical talents, interests, and temperaments.! The findings of modem evolutionary 1. VICTOR D. HANSON, THE SOUL OF BATTLE: FROM ANCIENT TIMES TO THE PRESENT DAY, How THREE GREAT LIBERATORS VANQUISHED TYRANNY 273 (1999). 2. Biologist Anne Fausto-Sterling, for example, has described her vision of a just society: In this world of the future men and women would fully share political and financial power; no one would be unable-in the midst of great wealth-to feed and clothe their children adequately. Men and women would be represented equally, according to their equal abilities, in all walks of life. ANNE FAUSTO-STERLING, MYTHS OF GENDER: BIOLOGICAL THEORIES ABOUT BUFFALO LAW REVIEW [Vol. 49 psychology call that assumption into question. In important ways, there are two "human natures," a male nature and a female nature,' a fact with substantial implications for public policy and the world of work,4 as well as the world of war. The assumption that humans possess a sexually monomorphic mind is pervasive in the social sciences and the public-policy literature that relies on those disciplines.' This social-science dogma stands in contrast to the common-sense intuition of the untutored that there is a fundamental difference between male and female. Recent scholarship in psychology, biology, and anthropology has cast substantial doubt on the view of the intellectual establishment and confirmed the understanding of the "man on the street" that the psychologies of the two sexes differ in important ways. One might invert George Orwell's dictum that there are some ideas so preposterous that only an intellectual could believe them and observe that there are some ideas so obvious that only an intellectual could deny them. One policy area in which the assumption of identity of the sexes is particularly significant involves the question of whether women should participate in combat and close combat support.6 To date, the argument in favor of WOMEN AND MEN 11-12 (2d ed. 1992). 3. See generally DAVID C. GEARY, MALE, FEMALE: THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN SEX DIFFERENCES (1998). 4. See generally KINGSLEY BROWNE, DIVIDED LABOURS: AN EVOLUTIONARY VIEW OF WOMEN AT WORK (1998) [hereinafter BROWNE, DIVIDED LABOURS]; Kingsley R. Browne, An Evolutionary Account of Women's Workplace Status, 19 MANAGERIAL & DECISION ECON. 427 (1998) [hereinafter Browne, An Evolutionary Account]; Kingsley R. Browne, An Evolutionary Perspective on Sexual Harassment: Seeking Roots in Biology Rather than Ideology, 8 J. CONTEMP. LEGAL ISSUES 5 (1997) [hereinafter Browne, An Evolutionary Perspective on Sexual Harassment];Kingsley