Women Should Be Allowed to Serve in the US Military

There has been for the past two decades a debate about women in the military. The US has maintained a policy that women should be banned from serving in front line combat. During the Barack Obama Administration Leon Penetta lifted that restriction. However there continues to be detractors and critics of this decision. There are critics who are convinced women are not capable. One argument is that women lack the physical strength to perform certain tasks. Another claim is that women lack the courage or emotional fortitude to handle dangerous situations. The most ridiculous counter point is that men will be too chivalrous and go out their way to protect women, there by causing a break down in troop cohesion. These statements and convictions are not entirely true. Women who are qualified should be allowed to serve and not be discriminated on the basis of their sex.
     The issue of  physical fitness is an argument used by many detractors against women in combat. On average men have more physical strength than women. This is a fact  of biology, but this does not mean every man is stronger than every woman. Strength can be acquired through isometric and isotonic exercise. Women do respond well to weight training. Testosterone although a major hormone responsible for greater muscular hypertrophy in males is not the only factor in physical strength. Some individuals may genetically have a mesomorphic body type. Myostatin which regulates myogenesis, could be lower in some people. If this protein is low, a person will have a greater capacity for strength. This can be true for both women and men.

Women like this are rare, but could meet the physical demands of  that are required of a soldier. One should wonder why the army does not recruit women like this. 

The physical fitness test of the United States Army has a recruit perform certain objectives. The United States Army Physical Fitness Test assesses strength, endurance, and cardiovascular condition. The physical tasks involve sit-ups, pull-ups, and a two mile run. This is part of basic training. There was a revision in 2011, because the army though this test did not accurately measure physical fitness standards. The Army Physical Readiness Test (APRT) added new procedures. This consists of  a 60 yard progressive shuttle run, one minute rower, standing long jump, 1.5 mile run, and one minute push-ups done non-stop. There is also another test for combat readiness know as the Army Combat Readiness Test (ACRT). The tasks involved are the 400 meter run with a weapon, obstacle course, 40 yard casualty drag, 40 yard run with ammo cans, and sight picture drills with your weapon. Looking at the standards one would assume that it would not be possible for women to do. However, it depends on which woman is taking the test. Women with athletic ability would not struggle with this, because they developed physical skills. Women without this need extra physical training. The focus should be developing upper body strength. There was a controversy in 2013 when the Marines lowered the pull-up requirement for women. Women were required to do only three pull-ups. According to data 55% of women could not successfully complete the standard. This may imply that women are not strong enough, but it can mean that women were not given adequate training. The army has admitted that women have been treated differently, because the test they took was the flexed arm hang. Women will now be able to serve infantry, artillery, and armor units. Serving in these units would require upper body strength. Women must be given intense weight training to increase upper body strength.   

Women can develop strength. It will take a rigorous training regimen to make that possible. Women can see a 30 to 50 % in strength when engaging in weight training.  

There is a barrier and it has nothing to do with physical ability. There still remains a sexist prejudice that women are the weaker sex. The idea of women's physical and biological inferiority has been based on pseudoscientific  theories of the 19th century. Women were once believed to weak for physical  or strenuous activity. Any such activity was thought to harm women's reproductive systems.  This has been proven false, but the weaker sex stereotype remains. Attitudes will have to change if women are going to advance. 

   

This personal trainer has demonstrated that there are multiple techniques for doing pull-ups.

The requirement for army physical fitness test is at least ( bare minimum) 60 points to pass. Most women with proper instruction could at least make the bare minimum score. If stronger women are present in the population, one should wonder why the army is not active in recruiting them. This could be done, but the institution has to willing to change. 

         Detractors have another argument that women are too emotionally unstable for dangerous situations and lack courage. History disproves this illogical conviction. Women have a long history of being involved in warfare and combat. Women at various points in history have served in Africa, Asia,  South America, and Europe. There has been documentation of women warriors in West Africa. Ancient Ethiopia had a tradition of not only warriors queens, but women fighting in armies. These queens of Ethiopia were know as kentakes. There were multiple occasions in which they stopped Greek and Roman invasion during the classical age. The queens of notable military skill were Amanirenas, Amanishakhete, Nawidemak, and Malegereabar. Around 30 B.C.E Roman governor of Egypt Patronius attempted to conquer both Kush and the entire Ethiopian region. Queen Amanirenas was able to stop the invasion and expand territory. This is not the only time queens mobilized men and women in defense of their land. The Celtics had a tradition of women engaging in warfare. The Celtic Iceni tribe faced Roman invasion. Boudicea who was the queen of the Iceni attacked Roman positions in Camulodunum in the year 60 C.E..The Romans were unprepared for such an uprising against their rule in Britain.  

These are the mino warriors. Women fought in the army in Dahomey (Benin)  and  were considered very capable fighters. 

Dahomey ( now modern day Benin) was known to use women for combat. During the 19th century King Ghezo expanded the mino warrior force. They were highly disciplined and were sworn to an oath of celibacy. Dahomey was a very martial culture like Sparta or Japan. The women were given vigorous physical training and instruction in the use of fire arms. Sadly, Dahomey could not stop the French invasion in 1890 and lost its independence. Women's participation in warfare did not just occur in Europe and Africa, but other continents. When Simon Bolivar fought the wars of independence from Spanish rule in Latin America, many women took up arms. During revolutions of this nature, it was critical to have women's involvement.  The Sandinistas' armed force had women fight in the resistance to the Somoza regime in Nicaragua during the 1970s.  

During World War II the Soviet Union allowed women to fly bomber missions and be snipers. They were expected to take up defense of the homeland. 

Women fought on both sides of the Indochina Wars (1946-1975). This is a photograph of a Viet Cong soldier patrolling the area. 

The Peshmerga allows women in combat. Now, the fighting force is at war with Isis. When a crisis emerges it is amazing how questions of women's competence disappear. 

Eritrean women today and in the past serve on the front lines. They were contributors to the war of independence in 1993.  

Women would continue to engage in warfare throughout the 20th century. Women fought on both sides during the Indochina Wars. Many Vietnamese were resentful of French and American colonization and decided the time for liberation had to come. Before Cold War conflicts, women were involved in the resistance movements in Europe during World War II. The French and Yugoslavians had women fight in their resistance movements to Nazi rule. The Soviet Union encouraged women to fight for Russia as a patriotic duty. There are many more examples of women demonstrating bravery under perilous situations. When examining this from a historical perspective, the claim women are not capable seems to collapse. There are other countries that allow women to serve in front line positions. Israel, Norway, Lithuania, North Korea, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Eritrea, Poland, Netherlands, Romania, and Sweden allow women to serve in front line combat. So far, there has not been a major break down of their armed forces. The US may be hesitant to do as these countries have done, because of certain cultural belief systems.  Men are in this culture, seen as something expendable. There has been a myth that man is the "protector" and should gladly sacrifice himself for a greater cause. Women are viewed as helpless victims in need of male protection. That is why it is more acceptable that male soldiers come back in body bags. If women were killed as much there would be more reaction from the public. This is a demonstration of both double standards and subtle sexism.  

A map displaying which countries women can serve in combat roles. 

The fact of the matter is men and women can experience intense psychological trauma from combat. The idea that men are so tough that nothing will phase them is another gender stereotype. Men and women can both suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. Even the most brave individual can be haunted by memories of violent situations. The claim that women cannot emotionally confront combat is another gender stereotype. It takes a certain personality type with a strong constitution to go into combat. Some men may lack this mentality, just like some women. 

         The most ludicrous claim is that men will go out of their way to protect women. When personal survival is jeopardized many people could turn on one another. That is why the army tries to have units function in a cooperative group, rather than individuals. The only way to fully integrate women in the army is to treat them the same. Men will have to be trained not to engage in chivalrous acts. Women are your fellow soldiers and are expected to perform the same duties and tasks. This argument lacks cogency, when we analyzes soldiers who save their colleagues. This may not be chivalry, but there still is an element of risk. Men and women will be in precarious situations, but saying women increase that risk is baseless. What determines fighting strength is technology, tactics, and the morale of the fighting force.  The weak and helpless paradigm for women has to be over turned if they are to be a part of the armed forces. Otherwise, the myth of the female liability will continue. There is a legitimate concern about rape and torture that women could face in combat zones . Yet, we should realize male soldiers also face the possibility of rape and torture as well. It is actually more likely a woman will face sexual assault by an acquaintance, than in a combat zone. There have been numerous cases of sexual assault in the US army and   military colleges.There is covert system of institutionalized sexism in the US army and these behaviors expose it. The men as "protector" myth then evaporates. Men do not go out of their way to protect women; they may select them as targets. The only way to stop this abuse is to change attitudes and have more strict punishments for soldiers who do this to their female colleagues.Most importantly the myth of male protector needs to be discredited.  

         When looking at women in combat objectively, there is no reason to prevent them from serving in combat roles. As long as they meet the requirements and follow the needed duties and procedures the US Army should not object. There are those in positions of power who seek to discriminate, even though their arguments can be found false. The claims such as "women are not suited for combat" ignore women who are qualified. Considering that women now work in physically demanding jobs like law enforcement, professional sports, and even construction it seem ridiculous to prohibit their participation in the military. The real obstacle to progress are people's general convictions about women's abilities and roles. Officials and generals must learn to not see women as less capable, because of their sex. When discrimination is not a factor, individuals can succeed.   

Further Reading 

Jones, David. Women Warriors: A History.  Washington D.C. Potomac Books Inc,1997.