Among the lessons emerging from California’s devastating fires is the idea that insurers cannot price risk on past data: the climate-change future is already here. Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump’s pick for defence secretary, has some misguided notions about women on the battlefield (10:10). And examining children’s literature: should it be all sugar and spice—or more real-world, where not everything’s nice (19:28)? Runtime: 26 min

Among the lessons emerging from California’s devastating fires is the idea that insurers <a href="https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2025/01/10/the-los-angeles-fires-will-be-extraordinarily-expensive?utm_campaign=a.io&utm_medium=audio.podcast.np&utm_source=theintelligence&utm_content=discovery.content.anonymous.tr_shownotes_na-na_article&utm_term=sa.listeners" target="_blank">cannot price risk</a> on past data: the climate-change future is already here. Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump’s pick for defence secretary, has some <a href="https://www.economist.com/international/2025/01/06/women-warriors-and-the-war-on-woke?utm_campaign=a.io&utm_medium=audio.podcast.np&utm_source=theintelligence&utm_content=discovery.content.anonymous.tr_shownotes_na-na_article&utm_term=sa.listeners" target="_blank">misguided notions</a> about women on the battlefield (10:10). And examining <a href="https://www.economist.com/culture/2025/01/09/sex-and-snow-white-how-grimm-should-childrens-books-be?utm_campaign=a.io&utm_medium=audio.podcast.np&utm_source=theintelligence&utm_content=discovery.content.anonymous.tr_shownotes_na-na_article&utm_term=sa.listeners" target="_blank">children’s literature</a>: should it be all sugar and spice—or more real-world, where not everything’s nice (19:28)? Runtime: 26 min

Listen on: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-intelligence-from-the-economist/id1449631195" target="_blank">Apple Podcasts</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/12zKAMNyS2GNentUzxq9QN" target="_blank">Spotify</a>

Get a world of insights by subscribing to Economist Podcasts+. For more information about how to access Economist Podcasts+, please visit our FAQs page or watch our video explaining how to link your account.

Get a world of insights by <a href="https://subscribenow.economist.com/podcasts-plus" target="_blank">subscribing to Economist Podcasts+</a>. For more information about how to access Economist Podcasts+, please visit our <a href="https://myaccount.economist.com/s/article/What-is-Economist-Podcasts" target="_blank">FAQs page</a> or watch <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gczo71bg1uY" target="_blank">our video</a> explaining how to link your account.

The Intelligence 

LA’s fires expose an insurance mess the world will see more of

The Intelligence

A run for cover: LA's fires and insurance

This podcast transcript is generated by third-party AI. It has not been reviewed prior to publication. We make no representations or warranties in relation to the transcript, its accuracy or its completeness, and we disclaim all liability regarding its receipt, content and use. If you have any concerns about the transcript, please email us at podcasts@economist.com.

This podcast transcript is generated by third-party AI. It has not been reviewed prior to publication. We make no representations or warranties in relation to the transcript, its accuracy or its completeness, and we disclaim all liability regarding its receipt, content and use. If you have any concerns about the transcript, please email us at <a href="mailto:podcasts@economist.com" target="_blank">podcasts@economist.com.</a>

<a href="https://myaccount.economist.com/s/article/How-we-handle-AI-generated-content" target="_blank">Read more about how we are using AI.</a>

Jason Palmer [00:00:10] Hello and welcome to the intelligence on The Economist. I’m your host, Jason Palmer. Every weekday, we provide a fresh perspective on the events shaping your world. Donald Trump’s pick for Defence secretary, Pete Hegseth has some strong opinions when it comes to women in the military. Our correspondent argues that in many ways he is, in a word, wrong. And we take a look at children’s literature and the merits and demerits of sugarcoating stories through the centuries. After all, the classic ending and they lived happily ever after, often used to be. And if they haven’t died, they’re still alive. First up, though.

Jason Palmer [00:00:10] Hello and welcome to the intelligence on The Economist. I’m your host, Jason Palmer. Every weekday, we provide a fresh perspective on the events shaping your world. Donald Trump’s pick for Defence secretary, Pete Hegseth has some strong opinions when it comes to women in the military. Our correspondent argues that in many ways he is, in a word, wrong. And we take a look at children’s literature and the merits and demerits of sugarcoating stories through the centuries. After all, the classic ending and they lived happily ever after, often used to be. And if they haven’t died, they’re still alive. First up, though.

Aryn Braun [00:01:25] It’s been sort of nightmarish here in Los Angeles.

Aryn Braun [00:01:25] It’s been sort of nightmarish here in Los Angeles.

Jason Palmer [00:01:32] Aaron Brown is the Economist’s West Coast correspondent.

Jason Palmer [00:01:32] Aaron Brown is the Economist’s West Coast correspondent.

Aryn Braun [00:01:35] Everyone’s constantly checking an app to make sure they don’t have to evacuate. Looking at the sky to see how much smoke there is and where the wind is blowing. This weekend I went out to Altadena, which is one of the neighbourhoods that has been destroyed by one of the fires. And I went out there with Henry Tricks, one of my colleagues at The Economist. We had to ask the California National Guard to even let us into the neighbourhood because they’ve got it all roped off. And this entire neighbourhood, parts of it are just wiped off the map. It’s absolutely devastated. It’s right in the shadow of the San Gabriel Mountains. So embers from the main fire burning up there blue and those really strong winds down here into a very populated area. And unlike the Palisades, Altadena is more of a mixed income neighbourhood. You have middle class folks living here, as well as kind of wealthier people living in mansions and more secluded parts of town.

Aryn Braun [00:01:35] Everyone’s constantly checking an app to make sure they don’t have to evacuate. Looking at the sky to see how much smoke there is and where the wind is blowing. This weekend I went out to Altadena, which is one of the neighbourhoods that has been destroyed by one of the fires. And I went out there with Henry Tricks, one of my colleagues at The Economist. We had to ask the California National Guard to even let us into the neighbourhood because they’ve got it all roped off. And this entire neighbourhood, parts of it are just wiped off the map. It’s absolutely devastated. It’s right in the shadow of the San Gabriel Mountains. So embers from the main fire burning up there blue and those really strong winds down here into a very populated area. And unlike the Palisades, Altadena is more of a mixed income neighbourhood. You have middle class folks living here, as well as kind of wealthier people living in mansions and more secluded parts of town.

Jason Palmer [00:02:48] I’m not sure whether we’re standing in front of burnt out houses or burnt out buildings.

Jason Palmer [00:02:48] I’m not sure whether we’re standing in front of burnt out houses or burnt out buildings.

Aryn Braun [00:02:53] It was definitely a house. I found children’s toys and a dining room table.

Aryn Braun [00:02:53] It was definitely a house. I found children’s toys and a dining room table.

Jason Palmer [00:02:58] Right. Like, you know, the things that you see. You see the burnt out washing.

Jason Palmer [00:02:58] Right. Like, you know, the things that you see. You see the burnt out washing.

Clip [00:03:01] Machines and the filing.

Jason Palmer [00:03:03] Cabinets. And over there, in a little corner of the garden, there’s like some chairs where I guess they would sit out in the garden and those are unscathed.

Jason Palmer [00:03:03] Cabinets. And over there, in a little corner of the garden, there’s like some chairs where I guess they would sit out in the garden and those are unscathed.

Aryn Braun [00:03:12] Can you see over there? That looks like a little treehouse.

Aryn Braun [00:03:12] Can you see over there? That looks like a little treehouse.

Jason Palmer [00:03:15] A little treehouse.

Jason Palmer [00:03:15] A little treehouse.

Aryn Braun [00:03:16] Swing set where kids would play and that.

Aryn Braun [00:03:16] Swing set where kids would play and that.

Jason Palmer [00:03:18] Survived. Yeah, but like, everything else is just absolutely obliterated.

Jason Palmer [00:03:18] Survived. Yeah, but like, everything else is just absolutely obliterated.

Aryn Braun [00:03:25] Henry and I met a couple, Laurie and Robert Pallotta. They live in Pasadena, right up against Eaton Canyon. And Bob actually saw the fire start on the canyon Tuesday night.

Aryn Braun [00:03:25] Henry and I met a couple, Laurie and Robert Pallotta. They live in Pasadena, right up against Eaton Canyon. And Bob actually saw the fire start on the canyon Tuesday night.

Clip [00:03:37] Yeah, I was on the national news because for two seconds, because we have a 95 and a 90 year old living in that two story house. And within the last month, she had fractured her pelvis. So I ran the policeman up there and said, you have to carry your get them out. You have to carry them down from the second story. So they got them down and Bob drove.

Clip [00:03:37] Yeah, I was on the national news because for two seconds, because we have a 95 and a 90 year old living in that two story house. And within the last month, she had fractured her pelvis. So I ran the policeman up there and said, you have to carry your get them out. You have to carry them down from the second story. So they got them down and Bob drove.

Jason Palmer [00:03:58] I drove their car down to the Arco.

Jason Palmer [00:03:58] I drove their car down to the Arco.

Clip [00:04:00] And then I had to come back, walk back up to.

Clip [00:04:00] And then I had to come back, walk back up to.

Speaker 5 [00:04:03] Get out of here.

Aryn Braun [00:04:05] They were remarkably lucky. They said an ember came and burned part of their backyard. And actually the wall that separates their house from their neighbours. And then it went out or the firefighters put it out. So their house completely survived. And they think it was sort of a miracle. Just walking through these neighbourhoods that are destroyed. It became apparent just the absolute scale of the devastation and the fact that even when these fires are put out, because let’s remember that they’re still burning, it’s going to take months, if not years to clean up these places, to get rid of all of this debris. And Laura and Robert had this really lucky escape. But they’ll be financially affected by this as well. The insurance on their two houses in California is already costing them about a thousand bucks a month. And that’s going to increase.

Aryn Braun [00:04:05] They were remarkably lucky. They said an ember came and burned part of their backyard. And actually the wall that separates their house from their neighbours. And then it went out or the firefighters put it out. So their house completely survived. And they think it was sort of a miracle. Just walking through these neighbourhoods that are destroyed. It became apparent just the absolute scale of the devastation and the fact that even when these fires are put out, because let’s remember that they’re still burning, it’s going to take months, if not years to clean up these places, to get rid of all of this debris. And Laura and Robert had this really lucky escape. But they’ll be financially affected by this as well. The insurance on their two houses in California is already costing them about a thousand bucks a month. And that’s going to increase.

Clip [00:05:00] You just don’t understand how the insurance companies aren’t going to go broke over this. It’s billions. I mean, even no matter who insured you, how can you cover that many? And that’s not including the Palisades and all the other fires that are going on.

Clip [00:05:00] You just don’t understand how the insurance companies aren’t going to go broke over this. It’s billions. I mean, even no matter who insured you, how can you cover that many? And that’s not including the Palisades and all the other fires that are going on.

Gavin Jackson [00:05:15] The Los Angeles fires will be very expensive. They’re raging through some of the most highly priced real estate in the world.

Gavin Jackson [00:05:15] The Los Angeles fires will be very expensive. They’re raging through some of the most highly priced real estate in the world.

Jason Palmer [00:05:22] Gavin Jackson is a finance and economics correspondent at The Economist.

Jason Palmer [00:05:22] Gavin Jackson is a finance and economics correspondent at The Economist.

Gavin Jackson [00:05:26] These fires are shocking, but for anybody who’s been paying attention, they can’t be said to be a surprise. In fact, the increased likelihood of these fires due to climate change has already been damaging California’s faulty insurance market.

Gavin Jackson [00:05:26] These fires are shocking, but for anybody who’s been paying attention, they can’t be said to be a surprise. In fact, the increased likelihood of these fires due to climate change has already been damaging California’s faulty insurance market.

Jason Palmer [00:05:40] Now, just to put some numbers to it then, How expensive? Safe in the knowledge that these numbers may well change still. What kind of numbers are we on now?

Jason Palmer [00:05:40] Now, just to put some numbers to it then, How expensive? Safe in the knowledge that these numbers may well change still. What kind of numbers are we on now?

Gavin Jackson [00:05:48] So JPMorgan Chase, which bank? They estimate there’s about $50 billion of economic losses. So that’s in terms of everything that the world has lost from this, the lost productivity from people not being in their jobs, the damage to health. All of those kind of things. And of that, about $20 billion is insured losses. That’s the houses that are burned in your place, as well as the money the insurance companies will pay out, you know, put people up in hotels, buy them new cars, that kind of thing.

Gavin Jackson [00:05:48] So JPMorgan Chase, which bank? They estimate there’s about $50 billion of economic losses. So that’s in terms of everything that the world has lost from this, the lost productivity from people not being in their jobs, the damage to health. All of those kind of things. And of that, about $20 billion is insured losses. That’s the houses that are burned in your place, as well as the money the insurance companies will pay out, you know, put people up in hotels, buy them new cars, that kind of thing.

Jason Palmer [00:06:14] Now, you mentioned at the start there California’s faulty insurance market. What do you mean by that? In what way? That faulty?

Jason Palmer [00:06:14] Now, you mentioned at the start there California’s faulty insurance market. What do you mean by that? In what way? That faulty?

Gavin Jackson [00:06:20] Well, many insurance companies have stopped selling policies altogether in the state. In March, State Farm, which is one of the biggest insurers in America, cancelled 30,000 home insurance policies in the state. Now, it pulled out due to the risk of losses from wildfires, a combination of climate change and people tending to live a what’s called this urban wilderness boundary. So on the edge of forest and edge mountains where there’s plenty of dry land close to their houses, has increased the likelihood of these kind of wildfires. Typically, that would be inexpensive insurance. Insurance companies exist to price risk. The problem in California is that key measures that prevented companies from actually doing that.

Gavin Jackson [00:06:20] Well, many insurance companies have stopped selling policies altogether in the state. In March, State Farm, which is one of the biggest insurers in America, cancelled 30,000 home insurance policies in the state. Now, it pulled out due to the risk of losses from wildfires, a combination of climate change and people tending to live a what’s called this urban wilderness boundary. So on the edge of forest and edge mountains where there’s plenty of dry land close to their houses, has increased the likelihood of these kind of wildfires. Typically, that would be inexpensive insurance. Insurance companies exist to price risk. The problem in California is that key measures that prevented companies from actually doing that.

Jason Palmer [00:06:54] Wait, what do you mean by that? Prevented.

Jason Palmer [00:06:54] Wait, what do you mean by that? Prevented.

Gavin Jackson [00:06:56] Back in 1988, California passed a measure called Proposition one three. This was a ballot measure that was directly voted on by people of California. And this regulated the insurance market. And one of the things it did was it forbid insurers from using model based estimates of catastrophe risks. Now, what that means is that because climate change is all about how the climate is changing, the past is not a good guide to the future. Insurers, however, had to use historical data on the risks of wildfire rather than modelling how that risk would change in future. So the insurers couldn’t pass on the cost of these higher risks to their customers. And when that happens, an insurance market, if you can’t properly place your risk, you just don’t provide insurance. So they left the state altogether.

Gavin Jackson [00:06:56] Back in 1988, California passed a measure called Proposition one three. This was a ballot measure that was directly voted on by people of California. And this regulated the insurance market. And one of the things it did was it forbid insurers from using model based estimates of catastrophe risks. Now, what that means is that because climate change is all about how the climate is changing, the past is not a good guide to the future. Insurers, however, had to use historical data on the risks of wildfire rather than modelling how that risk would change in future. So the insurers couldn’t pass on the cost of these higher risks to their customers. And when that happens, an insurance market, if you can’t properly place your risk, you just don’t provide insurance. So they left the state altogether.

Jason Palmer [00:07:35] So in short, some people couldn’t even get insurance.

Jason Palmer [00:07:35] So in short, some people couldn’t even get insurance.

Gavin Jackson [00:07:38] Well, in California, there’s this non-profit insurer of last resort called the Fair Plan is meant to provide home insurance for anyone who can’t get it. Now, obviously, that’s going to be the most expensive form of insurance available. So some people will choose not to have insurance whatsoever instead of going onto the fair plan. Well, what happened in California, especially over the last six years, is the fair plan has taken a bigger and bigger chunk of the insurance market in state. The Pacific Palisades, the neighbourhood that’s seen some of the worst fires plan, is now exposed to about $3 billion of potential claims. And Pacific Palisades, the number of policies the Fair Plan is writing grew by 85% between 2023 and 2024. Now, fair only covers $3 million of losses. So some millionaires who have, you know, $10 million houses may end up out of pocket and others will be uninsured altogether.

Gavin Jackson [00:07:38] Well, in California, there’s this non-profit insurer of last resort called the Fair Plan is meant to provide home insurance for anyone who can’t get it. Now, obviously, that’s going to be the most expensive form of insurance available. So some people will choose not to have insurance whatsoever instead of going onto the fair plan. Well, what happened in California, especially over the last six years, is the fair plan has taken a bigger and bigger chunk of the insurance market in state. The Pacific Palisades, the neighbourhood that’s seen some of the worst fires plan, is now exposed to about $3 billion of potential claims. And Pacific Palisades, the number of policies the Fair Plan is writing grew by 85% between 2023 and 2024. Now, fair only covers $3 million of losses. So some millionaires who have, you know, $10 million houses may end up out of pocket and others will be uninsured altogether.

Jason Palmer [00:08:20] So clearly, the system you were describing is living in an unsustainable state. For the near term, what happens next?

Jason Palmer [00:08:20] So clearly, the system you were describing is living in an unsustainable state. For the near term, what happens next?

Gavin Jackson [00:08:27] So once the fires burn out, people will start making claims against the fat, but they’ll won’t be paid back on the insurance policy that they’ve taken out. The first one has a certain amount of money on hand to meet those claims. And it also has reinsurance policies it can claim against if that doesn’t meet all the claims. And I think it’s very unlikely that it will be able to the plan will seek to recoup the cost from all the private insurers in the state. So because this is an industry wide non-profit, it’s essentially funded by the industry. What it does is it levies a fee, proportionate fee based on each company’s market share. Ultimately, the insurers will pass that on to their clients. So even if you’re a California not living anywhere near wildfires or even an American in the distant state and nothing to do with California, you may also see yourself paying for some of this wildfire.

Gavin Jackson [00:08:27] So once the fires burn out, people will start making claims against the fat, but they’ll won’t be paid back on the insurance policy that they’ve taken out. The first one has a certain amount of money on hand to meet those claims. And it also has reinsurance policies it can claim against if that doesn’t meet all the claims. And I think it’s very unlikely that it will be able to the plan will seek to recoup the cost from all the private insurers in the state. So because this is an industry wide non-profit, it’s essentially funded by the industry. What it does is it levies a fee, proportionate fee based on each company’s market share. Ultimately, the insurers will pass that on to their clients. So even if you’re a California not living anywhere near wildfires or even an American in the distant state and nothing to do with California, you may also see yourself paying for some of this wildfire.

Jason Palmer [00:09:12] And in the longer term, it still sounds like in the face of coming climate change, a system that can’t work as it’s currently designed.

Jason Palmer [00:09:12] And in the longer term, it still sounds like in the face of coming climate change, a system that can’t work as it’s currently designed.

Gavin Jackson [00:09:18] Well, fortunately, the system I described to you has already changed. So Californians knew this was a problem. So the insurance commissioner has already instituted a set of reforms. And on January 2nd, coincidentally, nothing to do with the wildfire. The reforms came into effect. And these reforms allow insurers to price the risk using models which may induce some to return and could lead to more expensive coverage in the very long run that will lower Los Angeles house prices. But ultimately we’re living on a hot upon it and more expensive insurance is just one aspect of that reality.

Gavin Jackson [00:09:18] Well, fortunately, the system I described to you has already changed. So Californians knew this was a problem. So the insurance commissioner has already instituted a set of reforms. And on January 2nd, coincidentally, nothing to do with the wildfire. The reforms came into effect. And these reforms allow insurers to price the risk using models which may induce some to return and could lead to more expensive coverage in the very long run that will lower Los Angeles house prices. But ultimately we’re living on a hot upon it and more expensive insurance is just one aspect of that reality.

Jason Palmer [00:09:52] Gavin, thanks very much for your time.

Jason Palmer [00:09:52] Gavin, thanks very much for your time.

Gavin Jackson [00:09:54] Thanks for having me.

Gavin Jackson [00:09:54] Thanks for having me.

Jason Palmer [00:10:13] This week, confirmation hearings for Donald Trump’s Cabinet nominees will begin in America’s Senate. The nominee for Secretary of defence is Pete Hegseth, a regular Fox News commentator. For a decade and a former National Guard officer. Among the facets of his past coming under scrutiny are his views on staffing the military.

Jason Palmer [00:10:13] This week, confirmation hearings for Donald Trump’s Cabinet nominees will begin in America’s Senate. The nominee for Secretary of defence is Pete Hegseth, a regular Fox News commentator. For a decade and a former National Guard officer. Among the facets of his past coming under scrutiny are his views on staffing the military.

Clip [00:10:32] Because I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles and it hasn’t made us more effective, hasn’t made us more lethal, has made fighting more complicated.

Clip [00:10:32] Because I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles and it hasn’t made us more effective, hasn’t made us more lethal, has made fighting more complicated.

Jason Palmer [00:10:41] These aren’t comments dredged up from long ago. They were made on the Sean Ryan podcast just last month, and he didn’t mince words.

Jason Palmer [00:10:41] These aren’t comments dredged up from long ago. They were made on the Sean Ryan podcast just last month, and he didn’t mince words.

Clip [00:10:48] The reason women started getting in combat is because of Ford support companies. That’s different than intentionally saying we’re going to put women into combat roles so they will do the combat jobs of men. Knowing that we’ve changed the standards and putting them there, which means you’ve changed the capability of that unit. And if you if you say you haven’t, you’re a liar.

Clip [00:10:48] The reason women started getting in combat is because of Ford support companies. That’s different than intentionally saying we’re going to put women into combat roles so they will do the combat jobs of men. Knowing that we’ve changed the standards and putting them there, which means you’ve changed the capability of that unit. And if you if you say you haven’t, you’re a liar.

Jason Palmer [00:11:10] Mr. Higgs has conceded that there were roles for women in other parts of the armed forces. Clearly true, but his take on women on the front line not so clearly true.

Jason Palmer [00:11:10] Mr. Higgs has conceded that there were roles for women in other parts of the armed forces. Clearly true, but his take on women on the front line not so clearly true.

Shashank Joshi [00:11:21] It’s still a relatively recent thing in most big Western armies to have women serving in frontline combat roles.

Shashank Joshi [00:11:21] It’s still a relatively recent thing in most big Western armies to have women serving in frontline combat roles.

Jason Palmer [00:11:31] Shashank Joshi is our defence editor.

Jason Palmer [00:11:31] Shashank Joshi is our defence editor.

Shashank Joshi [00:11:33] There have been a lot of lessons learnt from this over the past decade, but by and large there are vanishingly few women who choose to serve or can meet the standards to serve in these positions. But the truth is that there isn’t really much evidence that standards have been lowered across the board. Pete Hegseth is dragging up an issue and creating a controversy where I don’t think there is any big problem.

Shashank Joshi [00:11:33] There have been a lot of lessons learnt from this over the past decade, but by and large there are vanishingly few women who choose to serve or can meet the standards to serve in these positions. But the truth is that there isn’t really much evidence that standards have been lowered across the board. Pete Hegseth is dragging up an issue and creating a controversy where I don’t think there is any big problem.

Jason Palmer [00:12:06] But this topic does feel like one of those where liberal notions of equality do bump up against bare facts of body differences, though.

Jason Palmer [00:12:06] But this topic does feel like one of those where liberal notions of equality do bump up against bare facts of body differences, though.

Shashank Joshi [00:12:15] Well, we need to, I think, define just for a moment what combat means, right? In many armies, it means things like infantry armour, artillery units, in some cases which are closer to the front lines at greater risk of direct fighting. Pete Hegseth complains about sex differences in bone density, lung capacity, muscle strength, and he says these things preclude women from combat. Now, that was the official view of most Western armies until not that long ago. And there were two aspects to that. One of them was the heightened risk of injury during training. The second aspect was the raw physical demands of combat, particularly being in the infantry. The need to march long distances, carrying very substantial amounts of kit. Some of the most detailed evidence of this came from a study by the U.S. Marine Corps that was conducted roughly a decade ago. And they pitted mixed units with all male units in a battery of realistic test marksmanship, artillery, shell loading. What they found at the time was in 93 out of 134 tasks, the all male units performed better. They were especially concerned at the time by the inferior performance in integrated units on casualty evacuation. And you can understand why that’s a big deal for infantry. On the other hand, there’s a view for a long time that the presence of women actually undermines unit cohesion. I think there’s a lot less evidence supporting that view.

Shashank Joshi [00:12:15] Well, we need to, I think, define just for a moment what combat means, right? In many armies, it means things like infantry armour, artillery units, in some cases which are closer to the front lines at greater risk of direct fighting. Pete Hegseth complains about sex differences in bone density, lung capacity, muscle strength, and he says these things preclude women from combat. Now, that was the official view of most Western armies until not that long ago. And there were two aspects to that. One of them was the heightened risk of injury during training. The second aspect was the raw physical demands of combat, particularly being in the infantry. The need to march long distances, carrying very substantial amounts of kit. Some of the most detailed evidence of this came from a study by the U.S. Marine Corps that was conducted roughly a decade ago. And they pitted mixed units with all male units in a battery of realistic test marksmanship, artillery, shell loading. What they found at the time was in 93 out of 134 tasks, the all male units performed better. They were especially concerned at the time by the inferior performance in integrated units on casualty evacuation. And you can understand why that’s a big deal for infantry. On the other hand, there’s a view for a long time that the presence of women actually undermines unit cohesion. I think there’s a lot less evidence supporting that view.

Jason Palmer [00:13:44] Well, let’s go back to how that view has evolved. The history of women in combat roles.

Jason Palmer [00:13:44] Well, let’s go back to how that view has evolved. The history of women in combat roles.

Shashank Joshi [00:13:50] So in the past when you had these big conscript mass armies of the 20th century, the view was if you wanted them to gel into coherent, capable military units, the appeal to masculinity, to the male bonds was essential. What happened later is this You got these more professional, well-trained Western armies. You didn’t need that reliance on masculinity as much. And so what we saw was that some armed forces lifted restrictions on women decades ago. Sweden and Canada did so in 1989. Finland, which is one of Europe’s most capable ground forces, did that in the 1990s. America gradually eased some of its restrictions in the 90s and 2000s, but the big step came in 2015. It was the Obama administration and they opened all combat positions to women. Britain made the same change about a year later, saying that women could serve on the front lines.

Shashank Joshi [00:13:50] So in the past when you had these big conscript mass armies of the 20th century, the view was if you wanted them to gel into coherent, capable military units, the appeal to masculinity, to the male bonds was essential. What happened later is this You got these more professional, well-trained Western armies. You didn’t need that reliance on masculinity as much. And so what we saw was that some armed forces lifted restrictions on women decades ago. Sweden and Canada did so in 1989. Finland, which is one of Europe’s most capable ground forces, did that in the 1990s. America gradually eased some of its restrictions in the 90s and 2000s, but the big step came in 2015. It was the Obama administration and they opened all combat positions to women. Britain made the same change about a year later, saying that women could serve on the front lines.

Jason Palmer [00:14:48] So America of late to this particular revelation. But what about Mr. Hague’s, that suggestion that in order for things to have changed, that the bar had to be lowered.

Jason Palmer [00:14:48] So America of late to this particular revelation. But what about Mr. Hague’s, that suggestion that in order for things to have changed, that the bar had to be lowered.

Shashank Joshi [00:14:57] Systematically across the board? I have not seen evidence of that, Jason. So if you look, for instance, at the U.S. Army, they did change their standards for basic fitness tests back in 2022, and they allowed women to lift less weight and to take more time to complete runs. But studies that were commissioned by the Army showed that the scores on those specific tests did not predict performance in combat roles or rates of injury. And this is the important part. Female soldiers who wanted to serve specifically in combat positions, they must still pass more demanding and specialised tests which are gender neutral. And that’s the bit that I think people forget. And that’s not a surprise. So let’s take the example of Canada, which is now, what, 36 years on from the introduction of women. The women make up about 5% of combat arms, but a tiny proportion of infantry in America, they make up about 1.4% of infantry. Even in Ukraine, which is in the middle of this war of existential survival, there are very few women serving in assault units. So we’re talking absolutely minuscule numbers here. This is not some big issue in the armed forces. But my view is that if you reduce the debate just to combat units, I think you do a massive disservice to the role that women play much more broadly in modern militaries in the West.

Shashank Joshi [00:14:57] Systematically across the board? I have not seen evidence of that, Jason. So if you look, for instance, at the U.S. Army, they did change their standards for basic fitness tests back in 2022, and they allowed women to lift less weight and to take more time to complete runs. But studies that were commissioned by the Army showed that the scores on those specific tests did not predict performance in combat roles or rates of injury. And this is the important part. Female soldiers who wanted to serve specifically in combat positions, they must still pass more demanding and specialised tests which are gender neutral. And that’s the bit that I think people forget. And that’s not a surprise. So let’s take the example of Canada, which is now, what, 36 years on from the introduction of women. The women make up about 5% of combat arms, but a tiny proportion of infantry in America, they make up about 1.4% of infantry. Even in Ukraine, which is in the middle of this war of existential survival, there are very few women serving in assault units. So we’re talking absolutely minuscule numbers here. This is not some big issue in the armed forces. But my view is that if you reduce the debate just to combat units, I think you do a massive disservice to the role that women play much more broadly in modern militaries in the West.

Jason Palmer [00:16:24] What do you mean by that?

Jason Palmer [00:16:24] What do you mean by that?

Shashank Joshi [00:16:26] Well, intelligence officers, logisticians, engineers. So, for example, in the American military, I think women make up somewhere in the region of about 20% of intelligence officers. If you look at the Israeli military, one of the reasons we got the disaster of the October 7th attack by Hamas was that female intelligence units that saw many of these preparations were ignored, possibly for reasons of misogyny or sexism. And the fact is that Western militaries are suffering from a huge crisis of recruitment. If you denigrate women, if you push them out, if you ignore them, you are going to struggle to. Your requirements to fill your ranks.

Shashank Joshi [00:16:26] Well, intelligence officers, logisticians, engineers. So, for example, in the American military, I think women make up somewhere in the region of about 20% of intelligence officers. If you look at the Israeli military, one of the reasons we got the disaster of the October 7th attack by Hamas was that female intelligence units that saw many of these preparations were ignored, possibly for reasons of misogyny or sexism. And the fact is that Western militaries are suffering from a huge crisis of recruitment. If you denigrate women, if you push them out, if you ignore them, you are going to struggle to. Your requirements to fill your ranks.

Jason Palmer [00:17:08] Which is to say it’s about more than just passing the physical tests, but also providing a good working environment.

Jason Palmer [00:17:08] Which is to say it’s about more than just passing the physical tests, but also providing a good working environment.

Shashank Joshi [00:17:14] Absolutely right. And I think in some ways this is still a big issue. We still see continued sexual harassment, sexual abuse in Western armed forces. This is a very live issue in the UK and in the U.S. But I think there is a case to be made that the culture has genuinely changed. I was listening to a former British junior Defence minister, Andrew Morrison. He was a Conservative minister and he was saying when he was in the Defence ministry about ten years ago he said you would never get senior people talking about menstruation, bras, anything like that with anything other than a sense of profound embarrassment. And he said these days it is common parlance. So I think things have really changed. And you know what? It’s partly that cultural change that I think has triggered people like Pete Hegseth and others in the orbit of Donald Trump and on the American hard right who find this very discomforting.

Shashank Joshi [00:17:14] Absolutely right. And I think in some ways this is still a big issue. We still see continued sexual harassment, sexual abuse in Western armed forces. This is a very live issue in the UK and in the U.S. But I think there is a case to be made that the culture has genuinely changed. I was listening to a former British junior Defence minister, Andrew Morrison. He was a Conservative minister and he was saying when he was in the Defence ministry about ten years ago he said you would never get senior people talking about menstruation, bras, anything like that with anything other than a sense of profound embarrassment. And he said these days it is common parlance. So I think things have really changed. And you know what? It’s partly that cultural change that I think has triggered people like Pete Hegseth and others in the orbit of Donald Trump and on the American hard right who find this very discomforting.

Jason Palmer [00:18:06] So this isn’t a war fighters thing. It’s a culture war thing.

Jason Palmer [00:18:06] So this isn’t a war fighters thing. It’s a culture war thing.

Shashank Joshi [00:18:09] Well, I think they sincerely believe that America’s warrior ethos has been undermined by wokeness run amok in the Pentagon. Pete Hegseth himself has vilified CQ Brown, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That’s America’s top military officer, suggesting that he may only have got his job because he was black. And Lisa Franchetti, who is the chief of naval operations, the head of the U.S. Navy, saying that she may only have got her job because she was a woman. I think that these are both completely crazy claims to make. I think they’re also quite dangerous. They’re likely to push women out of the armed forces, cause morale to plummet. And all of this in this moment where America is losing its military edge to China, in which it needs people to serve their country, it needs talented people with motivation, with science and technology skills. And instead, they’re being told that they are incapable of serving in uniform, that their contributions are worth less than men. That doesn’t strike me as the way to build a strong, cohesive Pentagon.

Shashank Joshi [00:18:09] Well, I think they sincerely believe that America’s warrior ethos has been undermined by wokeness run amok in the Pentagon. Pete Hegseth himself has vilified CQ Brown, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That’s America’s top military officer, suggesting that he may only have got his job because he was black. And Lisa Franchetti, who is the chief of naval operations, the head of the U.S. Navy, saying that she may only have got her job because she was a woman. I think that these are both completely crazy claims to make. I think they’re also quite dangerous. They’re likely to push women out of the armed forces, cause morale to plummet. And all of this in this moment where America is losing its military edge to China, in which it needs people to serve their country, it needs talented people with motivation, with science and technology skills. And instead, they’re being told that they are incapable of serving in uniform, that their contributions are worth less than men. That doesn’t strike me as the way to build a strong, cohesive Pentagon.

Jason Palmer [00:19:11] Shashank, thanks very much for your time.

Jason Palmer [00:19:11] Shashank, thanks very much for your time.

Shashank Joshi [00:19:13] Thanks very much. Jason.

Shashank Joshi [00:19:13] Thanks very much. Jason.

Catherine Nixey [00:19:34] Once upon a time there were two little boys who lived in a deep, dark forest.

Catherine Nixey [00:19:34] Once upon a time there were two little boys who lived in a deep, dark forest.

Jason Palmer [00:19:41] Kathryn Nixey is a culture correspondent for The Economist.

Jason Palmer [00:19:41] Kathryn Nixey is a culture correspondent for The Economist.

Catherine Nixey [00:19:45] Their father had died and their mother was poor, so she slaughtered pigs for food while their aunt castrated Cox with a knife and then dumped butter on the wounds. When the boys grew up, Napoleon invaded. One brother travelled to war. There he saw villages burned, girls raped, and piles of corpses so vast that the villagers couldn’t bury them. But this story has a happily ever after of sorts. Because when the little boys, the Brothers Grimm, grew up, they also wrote down stories. They wrote Snow White and Cinderella. And indeed, they wrote the line happily ever after. This is a story about children’s stories. It’s about princes and princesses and fairy godmothers. It’s also about murder, rape and violence. And it is about what children’s stories should be made from sugar and spice and all things nice. Or frogs and snails and incest. And it’s about how grim the telling of these stories should be, which in the Grimms day was extremely. And the stories that were told in the late 18th century. Fathers abuse daughters. Rapunzel gets pregnant and Red Riding Hood is raped. In one Swiss retelling of Snow White. Snow White is a slut. The seven dwarves are murdered and the house is burnt to the ground. Disney didn’t option that version. This debate about whether children’s books should be full of princesses or big bad wolves is one that still matters now in Britain. Roald Dahl stories were edited to take out the bits that some considered to be filth, some in America. In 2023, 17 states attempted to censor over 100 books. It matters to this debate because not only the stakes are high, but the sales are the best selling book in America over the past decade was Dr. Seuss’s The Places You’ll Go. So adults care about children’s books because they sell. But that’s the real reason that adults care about constraining children’s books is because they know full well that they can’t. If you go into Narnia or Neverland or Wonderland, then you like Lucy or Peter Pan or Alice go alone. So if you’re sitting comfortably, then we shall begin. For centuries there was no debate about children’s books because there were no children’s books. But later they even treated them with disdain. The writer Martin Amis said he would only write children’s books if I had a serious brain injury. But there were those who paid attention to them. The philosopher John Locke said that children’s minds were so easily formed that you should write special books for them. Locke said they should have as many pictures of animals in as possible. What books there were for children were pretty heavy going. They tended to be about grammar or religion or often both together. So when the Grimms arrived with their slaughter, torture and violent deaths of animals, they felt almost lucky. But the grim stories weren’t actually intended for children. They were linguists, not novelists. And their aim was preservation, not entertainment. Industrialisation had started to creep through the deep, dark forests of Germany. And as it went, it was destroying species and stories. Narrative naturalists. The Grimms wanted to capture these stories and press them between the pages of their books before they were lost forever. Not everyone was happy about this. Some of their first readers complained about all the darkness in the gore. Even the actual structure of these stories was pretty tough going. The famous Happily Ever After Ending used to alternate with the grammar, and if they haven’t died, they’re still alive. The Grimms would reply to their critics briskly. If you want to hide children from bad things on the page, they said. You may as well simply blindfold them so that they can’t see at all. Then that was a bit disingenuous because they did change their stories a little bit. Originally, the wicked stepmother of fame was actually a mother, but eventually she gained the step. The Grimms felt that the bosom bourgeois mutti should be motherly and not murderous. The Grimms had completely unwittingly embroiled themselves in what is now a very long running debate. Should books for children be virtuous and good, or should they be? Much like children are nasty, brutish and short. Both kinds of books do really well. If you look at the Amazon bestseller list. Then a book called Guess How Much I Love You sells incredibly well, and so too does a book called The Fight That Changed the World. But then again, children’s books have never really been just for children. Adults happily read Harry Potter and Philip Pullman, and all good children’s writers know that even when you’re writing for very young children, you’re writing for a double audience. You’re writing for the child who’s being read to and for the person who’s doing the reading. And frankly, you’re also, above all, writing for the person who’s doing the buying. So perhaps you should just forget what the child wants. Buy what you want, and the child can just find something they enjoy about it. And then you’ll all live happily ever after. If that is, you are not dead.

Catherine Nixey [00:19:45] Their father had died and their mother was poor, so she slaughtered pigs for food while their aunt castrated Cox with a knife and then dumped butter on the wounds. When the boys grew up, Napoleon invaded. One brother travelled to war. There he saw villages burned, girls raped, and piles of corpses so vast that the villagers couldn’t bury them. But this story has a happily ever after of sorts. Because when the little boys, the Brothers Grimm, grew up, they also wrote down stories. They wrote Snow White and Cinderella. And indeed, they wrote the line happily ever after. This is a story about children’s stories. It’s about princes and princesses and fairy godmothers. It’s also about murder, rape and violence. And it is about what children’s stories should be made from sugar and spice and all things nice. Or frogs and snails and incest. And it’s about how grim the telling of these stories should be, which in the Grimms day was extremely. And the stories that were told in the late 18th century. Fathers abuse daughters. Rapunzel gets pregnant and Red Riding Hood is raped. In one Swiss retelling of Snow White. Snow White is a slut. The seven dwarves are murdered and the house is burnt to the ground. Disney didn’t option that version. This debate about whether children’s books should be full of princesses or big bad wolves is one that still matters now in Britain. Roald Dahl stories were edited to take out the bits that some considered to be filth, some in America. In 2023, 17 states attempted to censor over 100 books. It matters to this debate because not only the stakes are high, but the sales are the best selling book in America over the past decade was Dr. Seuss’s The Places You’ll Go. So adults care about children’s books because they sell. But that’s the real reason that adults care about constraining children’s books is because they know full well that they can’t. If you go into Narnia or Neverland or Wonderland, then you like Lucy or Peter Pan or Alice go alone. So if you’re sitting comfortably, then we shall begin. For centuries there was no debate about children’s books because there were no children’s books. But later they even treated them with disdain. The writer Martin Amis said he would only write children’s books if I had a serious brain injury. But there were those who paid attention to them. The philosopher John Locke said that children’s minds were so easily formed that you should write special books for them. Locke said they should have as many pictures of animals in as possible. What books there were for children were pretty heavy going. They tended to be about grammar or religion or often both together. So when the Grimms arrived with their slaughter, torture and violent deaths of animals, they felt almost lucky. But the grim stories weren’t actually intended for children. They were linguists, not novelists. And their aim was preservation, not entertainment. Industrialisation had started to creep through the deep, dark forests of Germany. And as it went, it was destroying species and stories. Narrative naturalists. The Grimms wanted to capture these stories and press them between the pages of their books before they were lost forever. Not everyone was happy about this. Some of their first readers complained about all the darkness in the gore. Even the actual structure of these stories was pretty tough going. The famous Happily Ever After Ending used to alternate with the grammar, and if they haven’t died, they’re still alive. The Grimms would reply to their critics briskly. If you want to hide children from bad things on the page, they said. You may as well simply blindfold them so that they can’t see at all. Then that was a bit disingenuous because they did change their stories a little bit. Originally, the wicked stepmother of fame was actually a mother, but eventually she gained the step. The Grimms felt that the bosom bourgeois mutti should be motherly and not murderous. The Grimms had completely unwittingly embroiled themselves in what is now a very long running debate. Should books for children be virtuous and good, or should they be? Much like children are nasty, brutish and short. Both kinds of books do really well. If you look at the Amazon bestseller list. Then a book called Guess How Much I Love You sells incredibly well, and so too does a book called The Fight That Changed the World. But then again, children’s books have never really been just for children. Adults happily read Harry Potter and Philip Pullman, and all good children’s writers know that even when you’re writing for very young children, you’re writing for a double audience. You’re writing for the child who’s being read to and for the person who’s doing the reading. And frankly, you’re also, above all, writing for the person who’s doing the buying. So perhaps you should just forget what the child wants. Buy what you want, and the child can just find something they enjoy about it. And then you’ll all live happily ever after. If that is, you are not dead.

Jason Palmer [00:25:22] You can read more about these grim tales in Catherine’s review of The Brothers Grimm. Buy and schmoozing. The link is in the show notes. That’s all for this episode of the intelligence. We’ll see you back here tomorrow.

Jason Palmer [00:25:22] You can read more about these grim tales in Catherine’s review of The Brothers Grimm. Buy and schmoozing. The link is in the show notes. That’s all for this episode of the intelligence. We’ll see you back here tomorrow.

Podcasts

Checks and Balance

How will the fires change Los Angeles?

A firefighter reacts as he walks among the remains of a house reduced to rubble by the Eaton Fire during search and rescue operations in Altadena, California.

After a giant week for private space travel, what comes next? 

Money Talks

How Silicon Valley fell in line with Donald Trump

President-elect Donald Trump listens to Elon Musk as he arrives to watch SpaceX's mega rocket Starship lift off for a test flight from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, USA.

Can Israel and Hamas make a ceasefire work? 

Palestinians react to news of a ceasefire agreement with Israel.

Babbage

Does AI need a reality check? An interview with Gary Marcus

After Yoon Suk Yeol is arrested, what next for South Korea?

In this image released by South Korean President Office via Yonhap, impeached South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol speaks in Seou

Drum Tower

Why China’s rust belt is producing some of its most popular literature

Editorials, columns, guest opinions and your letters, all in one place

Sign up to our Opinion newsletter

Opinion

A behind-the-scenes look at how we chose and designed this week’s cover

How we chose this week’s cover image

Cover Story

Catch up quickly on the global stories that matter

Sign up to enjoy a mind-expanding mix of stories, delivered six days a week

Catch up quickly on the stories that matter

The World in Brief

A sharp round-up of the most important US political news

Sign up for updates from our correspondents and data journalists, poll tracker and election-forecast model as the 2024 race unfolds

The US in brief

Highlights from the latest weekly issue, introduced by our editor

The Economist this week

The very best of our journalism, handpicked for you each weekday

A daily newsletter with the best of our journalism

Handpicked stories, in your inbox

The Economist today

Your essential guide to global business and technology

From supply chains to semiconductors, The Bottom Line newsletter has you covered

Need to track the megatrends shaping business and technology?

The Bottom Line

Expert analysis of the biggest stories in economics and markets

Exclusive insight from our correspondents in America

Exclusive insight and reading recommendations from our correspondents in America

Analysing the challenges facing Britain and what needs to be done to overcome them

Stay informed with our weekly Britain newsletter

Blighty

The best of The Economist’s defence coverage, in one place

The War Room

Understand a vast and complicated country that will increasingly shape the future

Stay informed with our weekly India newsletter

Essential India

Understand what the world makes of China—and what China makes of the world

Stay informed with our weekly China newsletter

Inside Europe, from the front lines in Ukraine to the corridors of power in Brussels

Stay informed with our weekly Europe newsletter

Café Europa

A weekly fix of our mind-expanding science coverage

Curious about the world? Enjoy a weekly fix of our mind-expanding science coverage

Simply Science

A weekly conversation about culture. Because culture is a serious business

Exploring trends and connections across entertainment, the arts and politics

Broaden your perspective with our weekly culture newsletter

Plot Twist

Weekly insights into a continent that is reshaping our world

Our weekly newsletter will help you make sense of the sweeping changes taking place across Africa

LA’s fires expose an insurance mess the world will see more of

Also on the daily podcast: Trump’s defence pick on women in combat and whether children’s literature should be sugar-coated

Transcript

More from Podcasts