Last week 60 Minutes ran a feature called Women in Combat: Cracking the Last All-Male Bastion of the US Military. The segment, led by David Martin, focused on Marine Infantry Officer training. He finds that, although the Marines are required to integrate women as a result of the removal of the combat exclusion, no women have made it through the rigorous physical training requirements. This re-raises key questions around women in combat:
*Do women have what it takes to serve in combat? and
*Should the military adjust its standards to accommodate women?
Physical standards are- by far- the greatest sticking point when it comes to debates on women in combat. Opponents of gender integration have long argued that the average physical differences between men and women are proof that women are inferior. They also argue that any adjustments in the current physical standards would be tantamount to ‘softening’ ‘diluting’ or weakening the standards and thereby reducing military effectiveness. Focusing on whether women can meet the current physical standards maintains a stalemate in terms of their full integration into the US military and limit the military’s ability to develop standards that reflect modern warfare. There are three reasons for this:
1. Physical standards are out of date and disconnected from the job.
2. Physical standards are not as objective as we think.
3. There are no exclusive combat roles, and therefore no need for exclusive combat physical standards. Let me explain:
1. Standards are out of date and disconnected from the job.
The contemporary Army Physical Readiness Test (APRT) was established in 1984. The test is composed of sit-ups, push-ups, and a two-mile run. Counter to common perceptions, the APRT has never been designed to measure job capacity. Decades ago the US General Accounting Office declared: “the physical fitness program is actually intended only to maintain the general fitness and health of military members and fitness testing is not aimed at assessing the capability to perform specific missions or military jobs.” Actually, there is (and should be more) debate about the use of generalized fitness tests for a military that requires varied skills and operational capabilities.
Although there are no established combat physical standards across the services, the Marines have rigorous physical standards designed to prepare individuals for combat. In the Wall Street Journal Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, argues that Marine standards directly correlate to combat duties. One official summarized this argument saying, “pull-ups have been used to test Marines’ upper body strength for over 40 years. The ability to pull-up one’s own body weight over a bar shows the upper body strength that, in combat, is needed to lift fallen comrades, pull one’s self over a wall, and carry heavy munitions. Combat Marines also carry a pack that weighs around 90 pounds, with gunners carrying an additional 50 or 60 pounds.” But not everyone agrees that pull ups and heavy weight lifting prepares soldiers for combat. In response to O’Hanlon, David S. Holland, a US veteran of the Vietnam War, questioned the emphasis on upper body strength in physical testing. He characterizes tests of upper body strength as “contrived and subjective” and asks, “How high are the walls? Four feet? Six feet? Ten feet? What is the combat load? Is there any research as to what and how often walls of various sizes are encountered? Or is the standard a seat-of-the-pants estimate by someone who happens to be blessed with superior upper-body strength?” Holland recalls that during his service, he “encountered zero walls in need of climbing.” Finally, Holland questions the presumption that a Marine must be able to move a wounded soldier across a battlefield- pointing out the variety of body types and means to move the wounded available to soldiers.
Given how rapidly the current realities of counterinsurgency, drone, and cyber security and warfare are changing, it seems ridiculous to cling to standards that presume men need to pull themselves out of trenches and drag bodies across battle lines. Reassessing the current physical standards will remove standards that were designed for men’s bodies and better prepare soldiers for modern war.
2. Physical standards are not as objective as we think.
I’ll keep this one short. But the bottom line is that debates about women’s physical capabilities are filled with emotional reactions and assumptions about women getting pregnant ‘strategically’ to avoid duties, women’s periods knocking them out cold, and women’s inability to handle the sanitary conditions of combat. Put simply, women’s bodies are treated as a liability- by their very nature. It is assumed that menstruation and pregnancy render women completely unpredictable, and therefore unreliable. In a recent post on American Thinker, Russ Vaughn laments that CBS didn’t deal with the ‘stickier’ issues associated with women in combat, including- it seems- dirt, diarrhea, and periods. He recommends that the military consult with “an objective panel of gynecologists…regarding the hygiene problems associated with menstrual events and increased risks for feminine disease” for women in combat. Yikes, menstrual events? Find more on this, including anecdotes about menstruating female Navy Seals potentially attracting sharks, in my forthcoming book.
3. There are no exclusive combat roles, and therefore no need for exclusive combat physical standards.
Although it is generally accepted that modern warfare doesn’t include battle lines and clearly identified enemies, combat physical requirement debates still manage to rely on old-school ideals of what ‘combat’ is. Warfare in both Iraq and Afghanistan in particular has been described as irregular and “characterized by guerrilla fighting in urban war zones with no clear front lines.” Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez summarised the impact of these changes for combat operations, saying “the nature of today’s conflicts is evolving; there are no front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan.” The point here is that, if it is impossible to distinguish front and rear battle lines, then how can there be calls for exclusive combat physical standards. Shouldn’t all soldiers be prepared for any aspect of war? The US military thinks so. It recognized the changing nature of warfare and had been including women in combat training since 2003, when the Army altered its basic training procedures in order to ensure that all soldiers were prepared for irregular warfare.
In the face of evidence about the changing nature of warfare, and shifts in policies and training related to combat, there is still an effort to cling to ideals of combat as exclusive, elite, and essential to US operations. This cling is an important site of gender politics and one that requires further debate and exploration- one that moves beyond simply counting how many women meet existing Marine standards. If standards don’t change, inevitably, very few women will ‘make the (male) cut’ into combat roles, including into the Marines. But a lack of change will also keep the entire military behind. There is a need to develop physical standards that reflect modern warfare, recognise areas that women excel physically- including in endurance and flexibility, and changing a sexist culture that values bands of brothers and men’s bodies over all else.
Just one point I want to make; it is always interesting that people think that the next war will be like the last war. Is it really impossible to imagine another war against a nation state? Or conditions within any type of conflict that leave infantry depending on brute force?
The criticism that ‘generals fight the last war’, has been around so long that I keep expecting people to know better.
The military standards reflect the real possibility of varied combat conditions. And the standards are minimums. The low bar to passing.
I don’t think the author is acquainted with the realities of modern war as she thinks. And even if she is, it is downright dangerous and short-sighted to make the assumption that all future wars will be counter-insurgencies based on a 15 year trend. That being said, she is clearly herself wrapped around the emotional “boys-against-girls” logic and not considering the facts.
1. Women are currently excluded only from direct combat roles (i.e. those which would directly involve the very things she says are now irrelevant to warfare- like trenches). The physical standards about which she is complaining (the Marine infantry officer training for example) are specifically tailored for jobs which require physical strength those standards are not baring entry into the cyber warfare roles that she is referencing. Therefore, these physical standards are not arbitrary and irrelevant as she falsely implies.
2. It is certainly true that modern war does not have front lines in the conventional sense. However, she reveals her ignorance to modern warfare when she uses this to justify logic that women have been serving in combat roles just like the infantry. A simple understanding of the situation in the Iraq or Afghanistan wars reveals that the multi-day, foot patrols with >100 pounds of gear which are the main sticking point in physical standards are in fact still done almost exclusively by infantry and armor Soldiers/Marines (jobs that are still closed to women). In fact, I would be surprised if the author knows what the role of the Infantry is from this article.
The really sad thing about this whole situation is that it won’t be informed people who want to maximize the combat integrity of the Armed Forces who make this decision, but, rather, it will be forced by gender equality crusaders like this woman who are far more concerned with forcing women into units than with combat effectiveness. And people like this author will not be the ones in the units who have to deal with the consequences.
Thanks for your comment NoSpecialStandards. I haven’t been in a trench lately, but I have spent a lot of time studying physical standards and US policies around combat. I know that the ‘exclusive’ combat roles you are talking about are a total fantasy. Yes, there are infantry roles that see soldiers carrying heavy packs and living in very different conditions BUT those soldiers are not the only ones facing ‘combat’. We know that 78% of women who died in Iraq had their deaths classified as the result of hostile activities. So this idea that physically superior men serve on the front lines, while women are in more secure positions in the ‘rear’ is something even the US military has admitted is completely unrealistic. Women have been getting combat pay, receiving combat badges, and dying as a result of combat for years. Assuming that some elite physical standards excludes them from infantry-type situations is unrealistic. Also, thank you for calling me a gender equality crusader. :-)
NoSpecialStandards – Megan has “spent a lot of time studying physical standards and US policies around combat” and therefore she understands combat more than a grunt. Know your role NoSpecialStandards and let the military expert do what’s best for combat effectiveness and mission accomplishment. Get it through your head that the life of a grunt in sangin at PB Vegas is the same as the POG who conducts missions every few weeks who spends their time at Camp Leatherneck receiving combat pay, eating at DFAC5, enjoying 24/7 wifi and showers, going on dates to Green Bean, and sleeping in an AC cube while face-timing their significant other every night.
You’re right- I should know my place and step aside when the military experts show up to tell us how sexist we are for trying to keep the military strong. It’s not like I even want to exclude women- I just can’t believe when I hear people say they want to lower standards because women can’t meet them. The more say the “fairness” advocates have, the weaker the military gets. The standard exists to make sure everyone is physically and mentally strong enough to do the job. If you can’t meet it, there are other jobs in the military you can do.
No one ever said that you need to be in a combat role to be killed. That is why I think you don’t understand what a combat role is. A combat role means a MOS which is specifically tasked with engaging the enemy in close combat. Anyone can be sitting on a FOB and get killed by a mortar or drive a truck and get taken out by an IED. That is not to say that these are not also great sacrifices. I am just as sorry to hear about such a death than as that of an infantryman who was killed by SAF. However, that does not change the fact that the vast majority of combat deaths in all wars are combat arms soldiers. Those jobs- without question- require more physical strength and endurance than jobs such as cyber security or maintenance. This is why those jobs have a higher physical standard. I would highly encourage you to read more about what Soldiers/Marines carry (notcie I say carry and not drive because the infantry have to be able to go places vehicles cannot) into combat in making your decision to lower standards. It is not the idea of women in combat that I find despicable, but, rather the idea that so many people who have no idea the physical demands of combat feel a need to fight to lower standards. Standards are what makes a fighting force (and most organizations in general) strong, and the idea that we should sacrifice that capability to make people, who will never know the consequences, feel better about opportunities is shameful. If you want to do something for gender equality while not weakening fighting capability, advocate opportunities for women to prove that they can also meet the standard.
I really appreciate the engagement. How are you sure that the majority of deaths in all wars are combat soldiers? I’m not asking in a snarky way- I really just have found no evidence that this is true.
Please take a look at https://icasualties.org/ This breaks downs KIA/WIA in the theaters of Iraq/Afghanistan. It will tell you what unit they were with. Just by looking you can see that the majority of these KIA/WIA are from combat arms units. This should help you with your studies and we would all be interested to see the break down % wise in a new posting.
Also as a former IOC graduate, I can tell you that the mindset within the 03 MOS is this:
-women PFT is now 20/100/18mins with 225 being the minimum for 1st class
-be able to enter boot camp with an open contract,
-all women sign up for selective-service just like the males,
-complete IOC to the current standard
then by all means let that women join the suck, known as the infantry because she would be a badass
I have a feeling that Megan will not be responding to this post. After all, it conflicts with her preconceived notions.
Thanks for the link- this is an excellent resource. Can you clarify where it indicates the breakdown of units? I can only find data on branches, which doesn’t tell us much about whether the individual was in a combat or support unit. Given the restructure of units in 2012, where is the distinction made between combat arms and combat support. Maybe I’m wrong, but I understood that when casualties were recorded, the main indicator was whether those KIA/WIA were the result of hostile or non-hostile events.
Scroll all the way right and see the column that states unit….
This will show you what unit that individual was with. From there you can determine if they were combat arms, combat support, or combat service support and also if they were attached to a combat arms unit. As an apparent military expert you should know what units are CA, CS, or CSS. If you don’t, then bless your heart and it’s hard to take you seriously as someone who truly knows very little about the US military.
Whether or whether not the main indicator is recorded as a hostile or non-hostile event has nothing to do with this current thread.
Thanks Standardsaretoohigh I was looking at another page, where they are merely listed by branch, not unit. I am and expert on gender, security and policy- not a military expert, but I do know the difference between CA, CS, and CSS- but I always love a little sarcasm- I get the feeling you don’t take me serious anyway, but I’m doing my best to engage here. And actually, to me, whether the death is recorded as hostile or not does matter- since this provides an indication of non-combat arms roles that regularly face hostile action.
While I’m sure this is all sound research, I have a broader question about the ethical implications of the kind of research you are doing. Some of the arguments you put forward here are especially interesting because they shift from a broader issue of equality/rights/etc. between men and women, and towards a subsidiary claim that integrating women into combat will make the U.S. military more effective (and if they don’t this “will also keep the entire military behind” or “limit the military’s ability to develop standards that reflect modern warfare.” Here feminist scholarship is contributing towards making more technically and strategically effective the U.S. military, perhaps one of the most oppressive and violent entities involved in geopolitics, at least from the perspective of the great majority of the world’s population (note: this is not a critique of any individual serving in the U.S. military, just a broader claim that the U.S. military’s operations are generally considered as ‘bad’ by most of the world). How does then this attempt to ‘help’ the U.S. military become more ‘effective’ (against ‘insurgents,’ especially, which refers simply to hostile foreign civilians) square with feminist literatures on intersectionality, as well as- generally- more critical feminist literatures? Does this concern you in your work at all? Thanks.
THanks John. This is perhaps the most important question related to my work, I think. The overall objective of my work is not to make the military more effective as an institution. My overall objective is to critique and unravel dominant military culture that privileges male bodies, male-only groups, valorises violence as a political strategy, and assumes that the exclusion of women enhances workplace culture. These elements of military culture- I think- not only are the permissive causes of a rampant sexual violence problem within the forces, but also bleed out into civilian society. We watch war movies about a few good men, and we have stereotypes confirmed about the physical limits of women- but also more broadly about the apparent inadequacies of women as a gender.
That said, at times I meet the military and my critics on their turf. I’m interested in the physical standards arguments and the mythologies behind these arguments. But what is also interesting is that even if we take the argument at surface value- i.e. that women are weaker and therefore poor combat soldiers- there is ample research to contradict this statement. In turn, the military’s assumption that the exclusion of women enhances security is a fallacy. I’m not sure that the inclusion of women enhances security or effectiveness- but I’m sure their exclusion is not key to effectiveness or security either. I could go on forever here. I do map my theoretical position clearly in the book- I hope it comes through.
“The overall objective of my work is not to make the military more effective as an institution. My overall objective is to critique and unravel dominant military culture that privileges male bodies, male-only groups, valorises violence as a political strategy, and assumes that the exclusion of women enhances workplace culture.”
love this! You show your true colors. Who cares about combat effectiveness or mission accomplishment? You care about fairness and equality while I care about combat effectiveness and mission accomplishment. How will women in the infantry increase combat effectiveness and mission accomplishment.? Please answer that question. Will you be advocating for fairness and equality when it comes to selective service for all females?
Also you like to throw assumptions out there without empirical evidence. Case in point is your endurance and flexibility. Really? How about some examples that relate to the US military? What happens to endurance when you throw on a 100lb pack? How does being flexible (yoga) overcome all the other physical standards that are not met?
:-)
This is why it’s hard to take you seriously. I asked you hard questions that are important to this debate and you respond with an emoticon.
That tells me 1) the answers conflict with your preconceived notions (as mentioned above), 2) you never thought about these questions because you truly know very little about the US military, or 3) you only want equality when it’s convenient for you, so you just ignore the “bad” equality (selective service, women’s current PFT score is currently lower then the males, and open contract to boot camp).
“‘Bad’ Equality.'” Seriously? You’re throwing that out there? At least you put it in inverted commas… I guess.
yes, if you want equality, then let’s ensure equality across the board when it comes to the infantry. All men need to sign up for selecive service, why not women? Men go to boot camp with an open contract and get the 03 MOS without wanting it, why not women? The female PFT is currently much less difficult then the men. Why? Could it be that there would be a lot of non-recs and adverse FITREPS for failing the PFT or getting 2nd/3rd class and not getting promoted?
Equality in the military covers everything not just women integrated in combat arms units. Your thoughts?
Standardsaretoohigh, several women actually sued for the ‘right’ to have to sign up for selective service. It is congress and the supreme court that has continually decided to only have men sign up. The female PFT was adjusted based on the recognition that PFTs are meant to measure effort and fitness, not job capacity. Since men and women have different bodies (on average- and yes, I do acknowledge this research), the tests are different to measure this difference. Over time dual standards have been assumed to be ‘double’ standards even though women haven’t fought or asked for them, and even though the standards reflect the goals of the test, not job capacity. There is a comprehensive history of physical standards testing in my book, you might find it interesting.
1) Congrats to those few women who demanded equality. Congress won’t make any changes until the majority of Americans are in favor of their 17 yr old daughters signing up for selective service.
2) Unfortunately, the USMC had to cancel their pull-up experiment last year. Very few women at bootcamp could do the minimum and few women in the fleet could get the 10 max let alone enough for a 1st class score. Pull ups are difficult but also a great indicator of upper body strength a good baseline for determining one’s physical strength. If you don’t think upper body strength is important, then you are just naive. Please, let me know how one would pass IOC, Selection, BRC, Buds, Ranger School, MGLC, or ISLC with little or no upper body strength. Good luck.
3) The US govt is all about fairness, equality, and job creation. The US military, especially the infantry’s main focus is mission accomplishment. The US govt does not take mission accomplishment as #1 priority and thus the military will eventually bow down to the political pressure and be forced to create gender-neutral standards (another name for lowering standard) and open all MOS to women. It will happen and you will be excited. You might want to join in on this lawsuit…
https://www.duffelblog.com/2012/07/women-in-combat-activists-celebrate-mediocre-war-experience-to-bolster-calls-for-female-infantry/
4) It appears you wont be answering the tough questions from past comments for whatever reasons. Maybe address them in a new book…
I am done talking in circles. Cheers!
Blimey, ‘Standards’ made you look a bit out of your depth here Megan.
Thank you for the reply! Your position is pretty persuasive. I’m going to look out for the book it looks super interesting :)
:-)
I agree that physical standards are outdated and are generally skewed in favor of male physical capabilities . There should be an overhaul of physical requirements and testing should be done to make sure that the standards are more job specific and reflective of the specific task, since there are various combat specialties and not all require the same amount of brute physical strength. For instance the skills needed to be a infantryman are different than those of a combat engineer, tank mechanic, mortarman, or sniper, etc..(by the way, some of the best snipers in the Soviet army during WWII were women.) Certainly denying an entire group of people access to jobs solely based on their gender is not only backwards and discriminatory, but counterproductive since it limits the talent pool. BTW, looking forward to the book about the band of brothers myth, it looks really interesting.