The Report of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission: An Inadequate Basis for Lifting the Exclusion of Women from Direct Ground Combat

The recommendation of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission to lift the exclusion of women from ground combat is deeply irresponsible and cannot be taken seriously. The CommissionÕs lodestar was diversity, not military effectiveness, and it failed to take into consideration a wealth of information bearing on its recommendation. The CommissionÕs recommendation was based primarily on sources that cannot be considered authoritative, and the CommissionÕs analysis of the sources that it did consult was superficial and in conflict with some of the facts, as opposed to the Òspin,Ó contained in these very sources. The Commission substantially downplayed the sex difference in strength and other physical capacities, striking down the straw man that Òall women lack the physical ability to perform in combat roles,Ó but never addressing how many women there are who actually possess that ability, a piece of data that is highly relevant to its recommendation. Moreover, the MLDC report does not mention the word Òpregnancy,Ó despite the fact that there is much data to suggest that pregnancy has substantial adverse effects on deployability and readiness even with the ground-combat exclusion in place. Finally, the CommissionÕs conclusion that there was Òlittle evidenceÓ that integration of women has had a negative impact on cohesion and performance ignores not only a wealth of information to the contrary in sources it did not consult, it also ignores a great deal of evidence to the contrary in the sources that the Commission actually did consult

Biological Sex Differences in the Workplace: Reports of the End of Men Are Greatly Exaggerated (As Are Claims of Women’s Continued Inequality)

Common examples of perceived workplace inequality – the “glass ceiling,” the “gender gap” in compensation, and occupational segregation, among others – cannot be well understood if the explanation proffered for their existence is limited exclusively to social causes such as discrimination and sexist socialization. Males and females have, on average, different sets of talents, tastes, and interests, which cause them to select somewhat different occupations and exhibit somewhat different workplace behaviors. Some of these sex differences have biological roots. Temperamental sex differences are found in competitiveness, dominance seeking, risk taking, and nurturance, with females tending to be more “person oriented” and males more “thing oriented.” The sexes also differ in a variety of cognitive traits, including various spatial, verbal, mathematical, and mechanical abilities. Although social influences can be important, these social influences operate on (and were in fact created by) sexually dimorphic minds. Substantial changes in the environment of a complex organism will often result in changes in its behavior. Therefore, we should not be surprised when changes in the economy or changes in the nature of work are followed by changes in workforce behavior and, hence, changes in workplace outcomes. For those keeping track of “the numbers,” these changes may be characterized as either increasing or decreasing equality, depending upon the particular definition of equality selected. Moreover, whether one views a particular outcome as a harbinger of the “end of men” or a reflection of continued sexual inequality of women may be a consequence of whether the focus is on group averages or the tail end of distributions. It may turn out, for example, that even if women may do better as a group on some measures, men may still dominate at the top