There are a lot of things to say on this topic, so this is a follow-up to yesterday’s post on women in combat. This post is oriented toward the practical aspects of integrating women into all male combat arms units. There is support here for an alternative arrangement of inserting all female combat arms teams to enhance combat operations. This idea has already worked for the Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Some might perceive my opposition to integrating all male units as anti-woman, but I see it more as pro-man. My position is this: Integrating women into male combat arms units should not pursued because it will cause unnecessary and irreparable harm to unit cohesion.

Let me further clarify. Women should be allowed to do any dirty, brutal job they want to do, but all male units in combat arms should remain all male. This exploits the strengths of men. Perhaps female only units can be created, or specific co-ed units could be formed (this is how Israel integrates its women into combat arms – it’s called the Caracal Battalion. The Marines could also bring back the all female Lioness units used in Iraq to great success. Below see excellent use of the Marine Corps’ Female Engagement Teams).

Now, we must accept the current state of affairs. There is no more prohibition on women entering combat arms. In order to carry out this idea with a commitment to equality (which is why we are doing this right?), what should happen?

1. Women aged 18-25 must register for Selective Service, just like men.
2. Assignment to military occupational specialty (MOS) must be done in the same manner for all service members (currently this is mostly random).
3. If assignment to MOS is not random, then a fair, objective, gender-neutral system must be in place.
4. Combat arms units must determine the acceptable numbers of men and women per unit and strive to achieve those goals. It will be impossible for this to be 50-50 since women make up such a small percentage of the military in general. Without close to equal numbers of each sex, commanders must be especially aware of ostracism and potential breakdown in morale. Because of the low numbers of women available for these assignments, it is likely that many units will remain all male. Unless specifically addressed as to the acceptability of that outcome, morale amongst units will drop. (If you think morale is not that important to mission accomplishment, ask yourself why Google and others create boubou benefits for their employees).
5. No accommodations shall be made based on gender. Therefore all physical fitness tests should become gender neutral, and other physical competency standards must be reviewed for applicability to the job only. Current standards may need adjustment up or down, but whatever changes are made should be solely in relation to the requirements of the job.

The practical effect of these changes toward a gender neutral system is glaring – women will suffer. Not only will they struggle to meet satisfactory fitness scores, but they will also suffer in recruiting generally. The new “opportunity” to join combat arms units may attract some females, but likely not enough to make up for those who will no longer be interested in joining if it means the possibility of being assigned to a combat arms MOS.

If gender-neutral rules are not put into place, there will be a decline in the perception of the military as a place where advancement is based on merit. This is detrimental to fulfilling the mission of national security.

If women are allowed to choose their MOS, true equality is not achieved. If accommodations of any form are made for women, then it should be obvious that equality is not really the reason for making this change.

Comparison of basic fitness scores between men and women

Without a gender specific physical fitness test women who scored a high first class rating before, will now struggle to keep that score. And if you don’t change the fitness tests to be gender neutral, how can you advocate for women to join an environment based on physical strength?

For instance for the basic fitness test, the Army does a two mile run. For men to score 100, they must complete the run in 13:00 minutes. For women to score 100, they must complete the run in 15:36. If a man completed the run in 15:36 minutes he would only score a 64. A woman is given until 18:36 before she receives a score of 64.

In the pushup event, men must do 70 in order to achieve a max score of 100, women must do 42, which would give men only 60 points. Situps requirements for men and women are the same.

The Marines do a three mile run. In order to receive the max score of 100 points, men must complete the run in 18:00 minutes. Women must complete the run in 21:00 minutes for 100 points. If men complete the run in 21:00 minutes they will receive a score of 82. Female Marines will receive 82 points on the run if they complete it within 24:00 minutes.

Points for situps are the same for both men and women, but until recently females only did a flexed arm hang for 70 seconds, whereas men had to achieve 20 pullups for a max score. A change to pullups for females is in the works, but the start date was postponed indefinitely when 55% of female recruits were unable to achieve the minimum by doing 3 pullups. In order for females to achieve the max points in pullups they will have to do 8.

It is reported that females can do pullups. Of course they can do pullups, but pullups are not a manifestation of the natural physical strength of a female. They have to put in an extraordinary amount of work in order to achieve what men can achieve in a much shorter period of time. Some people say if only we taught little girls to exercise, and specifically do pullups, we could fix this problem. Yes, this would allow a better performance overall but achieving the male standard is unrealistic, and unfair, for most women. But maybe 3 pullups, or 8 pullups, is all you really need to be combat ready for either sex? I wouldn’t agree, but this is certainly something that must be reviewed.

By the disparity in scores for the same activity, it is clear to me that what we have up until this point declared a fit woman, is no longer a fit woman if we use the standards for a male. And this is the fundamental problem of trying to evaluate a woman by the measure of men. Each has unique attributes, and if we continue to insist in making requirements based on strengths associated with gender, one gender or the other will not be meeting their full potential – because their unique strengths are not being counted. That is not fair.

I’ll reiterate – I expect that my position on this will be perceived as anti-woman, but I don’t see it that way. I am a fiercely independent woman who is an excellent shot with a firearm, but I speak from what I consider to be a position of cruel neutrality. I’ve looked at the obstacles and risks of the situation with solely a regard for providing the best fighting force available, and I find that all male combat arms units should not be integrated.

In contrast, Female Engagement Teams (the FET – informational powerpoint) are absolutely the right way to incorporate women into combat arms assignments. This is how you use inherent female assets to make the team better. Unfortunately it appears these teams are no longer used as security is turned over to native populations. UPDATE: Actually it looks like it is being revived. The FETs are attached to male combat units and their focus is on engaging the local population. They conduct searches in culturally sensitive areas, gather intelligence, and provide a more welcoming presence of American forces for native communities.

I’d like to hear your thoughts beyond the platitudes of equal opportunity. If you are a proponent of women joining all male combat arms units, please address the concerns here and tell us how this will work to the betterment of our armed forces.