By Dhatri Badri
“Why be behind when you could be in front?” an unnamed female private had asked Meghann Myers of the Army Times. She is one of eighteen women to join the force as part of the Army’s first junior enlisted female infantrymen, after the Army lifted the ban on women serving in the armor and infantry branches. Seventy years ago, the thought of women training for active combat would have been unimaginable. In this article, I will contextualize the role women have played in the U.S. Armed Forces by providing a historical perspective of women in the military, followed by a discussion of key issues that deter women from joining the U.S. military.
Women have always played an integral role in the United States military, from the washerwomen and medical caregivers in the Revolutionary War to Civil War nurses who presided over massive hospitals. Though most women still served in a voluntary capacity, a handful were hired by different military branches and worked in administrative positions. Subsequently, World War II created an unprecedented need for soldiers and dramatically changed the military’s non-combat ranks. In an effort to free up men to fight on the front lines, the U.S. Armed Forces recruited women for non-combat roles such as linguists, weather forecasters, and telephone operators. In recognition of women’s contribution to the war effort, President Truman signed the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act into law in 1948, which let women serve as full, permanent members of all branches of the military. By 1970, women were finally allowed to rise to command roles in non-combat units, and women and men began training together. In 2013, women achieved full status in the military by being granted the right to serve in direct ground combat roles.
While the U.S. military today has never before had a higher percentage of women in their ranks, they remain just 16 percent of the total force, reflecting the work that still needs to be done to integrate women into the military. Percentages have roughly doubled in the last generation for the various services, but even today, averaged across the four major Department of Defense services, women represent only one of every six Americans in uniform, ranging from about eight percent in the Marine Corps to 19 percent in the Air Force. In senior leadership, the numbers are slimmer still. Since General Ann Dunwoody of the U.S. Army became the first female four-star military officer in 2008, the United States has named roughly 100 more people to the rank, of which only a mere six were women. This means that only about six percent of four-star generals have been women even in the period after the glass ceiling was shattered. There has not yet been a female deputy secretary of defense, female secretary of defense, or female member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
This means that only about six percent of four-star generals have been women even in the period after the glass ceiling was shattered.
Nevertheless, women continue to make strides in the military regardless of their low representation. Laurence et. al. claims the repeal of combat restrictions by gender raises the importance of understanding factors related to the acceptance of women serving in the full range of military jobs. Previous research showed blatant gender bias in the Armed Forces. Military-affiliated cadets, especially males, are substantially less approving of women serving in military jobs, especially those involving exposure to direct combat or command positions, than are other college students. The opening of combat positions to women is seen as weakening the link between masculinity and the male-dominated military. Unfortunately, gender equality issues in the military go beyond rules about what positions women are allowed to serve in.
Women are hesitant to join the service due to their fitness levels being looked down upon. There is an unspoken discrepancy between the physical fitness standards expected of males and females in the military. I believe that physical standards should be the same across the board. While the current standard for anyone to enter combat arms is not satisfactory for determining physical fitness, the solution to these problems is to create appropriate, age- and gender-neutral standards for combat arms—not to ban an entire demographic group because there is a subpar standard in place. When Captain Trobaugh devised a survey to understand gender disparities preventing women from thriving in Army culture, she asked this question: “If the Army decides to integrate females into combat arms and combat arms–related training, do you think that those females who succeed in meeting standards will have (mark all that apply) 1. Received special treatment; 2. Met standard; 3. Been allowed to pass at a lower standard?” One person commented:
Physiologically, women are composed differently than men and many cannot perform
the same physical tasks as men. It is apparent even with the APFT [Army Physical Fitness
Test] grading scale where the men and women scoring scales drastically differ. Since this
is such a big push by the Amry to integrate women into combat arms, they will do
whatever [is] necessary to integrate as rapidly as the public wants them to regardless of
the level a woman is at in comparison to her male counterparts within combat arms
branches.
Another question asked was, “Do you think that females are capable of meeting standards in combat arms units and training?” One person commented:
Can't speak for entirety of combat arms, but if you're asking if I could see a female in the
ranks with the pipe swinging meat eaters of a Ranger Battalion, hell no. Can't see them
carrying around a mortar tube living the gruntiest [sic] dirtiest life in the military possible
either. Physically capable is indifferent to me. I have literally watched a group of
professionals completely change for the worse, become petty and show offish because 1
attractive female was attached to the platoon. If you want to make combat unit
ineffective, assign some women to it.
The common theme throughout these comments is an acknowledgment by soldiers that there is an institutional difference created in the APFT. Furthermore, the differences in the test for men and women give credence to the soldiers’ belief that women are incapable even when they have witnessed women meeting the standard in training. Women were perceived as weaker because their institutional standards are so much lower which in turn led men to view women to be physically weaker. This begs the question: if women pass, will male soldiers in the Armed Forces accept that women have met or exceeded the same standard as men, or will women be forever perceived as having been accommodated in order to meet a political agenda?
This begs the question: if women pass, will male soldiers in the Armed Forces accept that women have met or exceeded the same standard as men, or will women be forever perceived as having been accommodated in order to meet a political agenda?
These comments also highlight male soldiers’ beliefs that they will react inappropriately around women. The very presence of women seems to elicit the thought that men will become foolish, as readiness and cohesion suffer. The professionalism of men remains a concern as women enter into these previously closed jobs. Women in the military services continue to experience high rates of sexual assault from their male counterparts. One of the major reasons cited for why women cannot serve in some roles is the need for separate sleeping quarters, and, in particular, the worries about women being subject to sexual crimes. Regrettably, these worries are still all too well-founded. Furthermore, other comments from the survey spoke to the culture of the combat arms being too hostile to women or demonstrated a respondent’s hostility. One person commented:
As far as combat arms units go, there would be an extremely negative effect within units
which are traditionally male. The things that go on there, the bonds, would be damaged.
SHARPs [the Army’s Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention program] stuff
would be through the roof. I would almost rather die before changing my demeanor
within my unit. Standards need to be met and maintained, but we should all strive to
exceed the standard.
This comment, and others like it, reveal deep-rooted attitudes that need to change within the military culture to allow women to serve free of bias and stereotypes. This type of behavior can also be found in the Navy. Tarren Windham, Hospital Corpsman First Class for the Navy and Marines describes a not-atypical scenario: "Sometimes, before you even check into a command [present orders to superiors after being transferred], they will look at the orders of the incoming personnel and see that it's a woman. The first thing people start talking about is, ‘I wonder if she's hot, I wonder if she puts out, I wonder if she's fat.’” The problem is prevalent and is often reinforced by those in upper command—a serious impediment to overcome if the military as a whole is ever going to progress beyond these views.
Gender discrimination is alive and well, and if the military cannot eliminate blatant sexism, they will not see equality for many more years. That said, the military is a gendered organization, and changing this male-dominated culture takes time. Slowly but surely, more and more women are assuming leadership positions in the Armed Forces. Sydney Barber, the first female Black commander of the Naval Academy, will be the first Black woman to lead the student body in the institution's 175-year history. She will be the 16th woman to serve as a brigade commander in the forty-four years that women have been allowed to attend the Naval Academy. We do not have to stray too far away from our very own Foggy Bottom campus to see this progress: the NROTC program at GW has six female midshipmen who have tried to make the gender gap easier to navigate for the group of approximately 40 women in GW’s program. We have come a long way from the idea of women in the military to now seeing women joining combat roles in the military, but there is still an ample amount of work to be done to encourage the participation of women in the military and to ensure their experiences and opportunities are equitable to those of the men who serve. If we put the work in, we will have a stronger military—and country—to show for it.
Dhatri Badri is a GW Scope staff writer for the George Washington Undergraduate Review. She is a junior majoring in Biology with a concentration in Cell and Molecular Biology and is minoring in Bioinformatics and STEM Teaching. She is currently working for the Crandall lab in the Computational Biology department. Her most recent research project involved finding potential epitopes sites in the COVID-19 spike protein. When she is not busy in the lab, she loves giving back to the community with her sisters from Epsilon Sigma Alpha.
Comments