There’s a new book out by Kingsley Brown entitled “Co-Ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn’t Fight The Nation’s Wars”. Oh my! What is this new evidence? Is it from Afghanistan and Iraq, where women are seeing lots of combat? Is it from Israel, where women are actually allowed on the front lines? No, no, that’s too much hard data for Kingsley. Instead, he has turned to…evolutionary psychology. Fortunately, Punkass Blog has provided a handy evo psych bingo card. Ready, everyone?
Here’s Brown fighting the noble man-fight in an interview with Newsweek:
What “new evidence” are you offering to show that women aren’t fit for war?
The evidence comes from the field of evolutionary psychology, which recognizes that the human mind is a product of our evolutionary history. The reason men don’t like women comrades in dangerous situations is they don’t trust them when the shooting starts, and that is probably because women don’t possess whatever cues evoke trust in men. And trust is central to combat cohesion. Men don’t say, “This is a person I would follow through the gates of hell.” Men aren’t hard-wired to follow women into danger. It is largely an emotional reaction.
Do we have bingo? From the card, we’ve got:
- Pseudo-scientific justification of the status quo
- All human behavior is hardwired into our genes
- The gender dynamics of our savannah ancestors looked curiously like those of 1950s America
- “It can all be traced back to our savannah ancestors!”
- “Science isn’t PC.”
No Bingo. Please soothe your disappointment with Douglas Adams’ summary of evolutionary psychology’s central argument.
“`In those days spirits were brave, the stakes were high, men were REAL men, women were REAL women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were REAL small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.'”