The American people are afraid to change the military routine now and so will continue to support men in their leadership positions. Unfortunately, this will never give women the chance to leave their tactical marks and strategies in the military.
Although women have been higher ranked in containing leadership qualities, men have been ranked higher for decisiveness. Thus the majority of Americans have concluded that men would make better leaders.
However, this viewpoint is limited and wrong. Women have so much that they can bring to the table.
The physical and chemical differences between male and female brains are undeniable. For example, female frontal lobes – responsible for problem solving – are larger than those found in men.
Molly Edmonds’s article on "Differences in Male and Female Brain Structure" concludes that:
- Females have 10 times more white matter in their brains
- White matter is responsible for connecting different parts of the brain
- Women tend to remember things better than men as a result of extra connections that are more complex
- Men have 6.5 times the amount of grey matter in their brains
- Grey matter is associated with information processing
- The female brain produces more serotonin than the male brain
- Serotonin is a neurotransmitter that helps increase feelings of relaxation, happiness and well-being
Taking these differences into consideration, it would explain why women are better at multitasking than men. The more complicated and sophisticated connections allow women to do more things simultaneously.
British psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen summarized the differences between male and female brains as:
- Men are better at “systemizing” (analyzing information and categorizing it)
- Women are better at “empathizing” (understanding and caring about others’ feelings)
Bringing this back to the military perspective, the female’s ability to be less impulsive and ability to better regulate one’s mood and gut-feelings would be a crucial and beneficial advantage under high stress situations.
Keeping a level head during pressure could essentially save thousands of lives, and ultimately result in better ending consequences for the nations involved.
While men are good at taking the information and dividing it, women also take into account the emotional effects that specific decisions may have.
Such thoughts would be useful when being diplomatic with other countries. Obviously the goal is to solve the issue at hand, but it is important to remember that those leaders who are conversing have wants and needs just as their countries do.
Expectations for higher leadership positions should not be lowered, as the fundamental standards keep only the best of military personnel in these positions.
However, there should be an equal opportunity field for women to fulfill these roles. A lack of physical strength of the body does not relate to a lack in the clarity and ability of the mind.
I am not discrediting the fantastic jobs that previous leaders have done before this point, but I do think that the natural female tendencies could create a slight but effective change and perspective within military leadership.
I think it's interesting that you approached this topic by examining the differences in male and female brains. It certainly shows that women have an advantage in decision making since they have more white matter, allowing them to make more connections better decisions. However, I was a little concerned the fact that women tend to empathize; this certainly comes in handy with diplomacy, but I can't help but think that it would prove a disadvantage in military operations. Women would have a tendency to hesitate more often than men, who generally very logical decisions based on fact, because they feel compassion for whoever they're coming up against. Having a balance of men and women in leadership positions in the military would really benefit our Armed Forces because they'd be able to take advantage of the strengths and cancel out the weaknesses of the way men and women think, and ultimately make the best decisions possible.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the acknowledgement of approaching the differences in a unique way! In response to women empathizing, I was mostly thinking of women in higher leadership positions. For example, I was considering a woman sitting behind a desk and deciding on strategies that the military would put into effect. While this situation is not entirely realistic, I was not planning on the women being in direct combat. I think that women could hesitate more, but if they are not directly faced with the situation, the emotional side might be less of an influence. So yes, I see the advantage in diplomatic situations but it is true that if a women were face-to-face in combat, my reasoning could be less valid. I completely agree that having more of a balance of males and females would be highly effective. They could definitely make up for each other’s weaknesses and bring their personal, best qualities to the table.
DeleteThe comparison of the male and female brains is really interesting and give a good basis for what you are arguing. Women do have qualities that they can bring to the table that men don't have. But the main quality that I got from your blog is that women can empathize more than men. I don't really understand how that could be a quality that helps while in combat. We need people that can make strategic and good decisions while under pressure and make those decisions fast! Since women empathize more, doesn't that mean it will not only take them longer to make a decision but their choice might not be the best?
ReplyDeleteI wasn’t thinking so much that the empathizing would help in combat as it would in leadership and planning roles. The ideal case I was imagining was that the decisions were made before faced in the actual situation. One of the things I was hoping to get across was that women do not always have the opportunity to get to these roles in the first place, because of the limitations of their strength. It is undeniable that men are stronger than women, physically that is just the way they are built. If women cannot get up to the leadership roles, then I don’t see how they are going to be able to leave there mark in the military tactics. Once again, my point was not that these women would be in direct combat, but that they would be helping invent the military strategies. But unfortunately they don’t have the chance to help because they cannot make it up to the leadership because of lack of physical strength.
DeleteThis is a very unique take on this topic and it was nice looking at this topic from a different perspective. You support your argument well and it is interesting to read. It seemed that you focused on empathy quite a bit. Your quote, "women also take into account the emotional effects that specific decisions may have." was a really good point because it is true that men are often more black and white thinkers while women think in all shades of grey (not related to the actual matter in the brain!). I understand your connections if women were to remain in an office-style position, but I agree that if placed in combat empathy would be more harmful than helpful. There is a split-second decision that must be made and empathy requires pausing to think. What would happen though if we needed a decision immediately? Would empathizing with all the players really be beneficial? Would women end up getting too emotionally attached in various ways that their judgement is clouded?
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for this comment! It seems like you were one of the few readers to really understand the points I was trying to get across with women making these decisions in office-style positions. Also, I enjoyed your pun even if it was not intended. I had never thought that a woman in action, if then faced with a split-second decision, would be categorized as harmful. However, I see your point there. Harmful could mean that the leader was not the best choice for that time, and I completely understand that. Any hesitation in a situation like that could be deadly and devastating. I think the best strategy to do would be to have the female leaders think of all the possible outcomes/turns that the confrontation could take, and then give the officers in combat options to chose from, depending on which way the situation turns. I also think that empathizing would truly be beneficial in any situation, empathy could almost be played as a manipulation card. The female leader can see what means most to the enemy – whether that be money, land or power – and then play it to her nation’s advantage.
Delete