Women in Combat - A Beginning

I want to begin by saying that combat is in many ways a terrible thing, and so is war, as General Sherman himself famously acknowledged. But it is also sometimes necessary. Whatever you think of the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, surely you can think of wars that needed to be fought, and whatever you think of the resources and money America now spends on the military, surely you can see that a combat-ready military is a necessity for the country. The question then becomes, how is this best achieved?

Let us first consider physical strength, typically the first concern mentioned when the topic of women in combat is brought up. I do not deny that the average man is physically stronger than the average woman. To be specific (Journal of Physical Education and Recreation, pg. 313, 1976) the average woman has 79% of the strength of the average man, assuming they are both of the same age and have performed the same physical activities. However, this is partly due to their difference in height and weight, as opposed to bodily structure. A woman of the same height and weight as the average man, performing the same physical activities, will on average have 90% of his strength, (JPER, pg. 310, 1976.) Therefore strictly speaking being female (as opposed to being short, skinny, etc) leads to an average 10% reduction in strength.

At this time the American military has lower height and weight requirements for women than for men performing the same jobs; furthermore, the maximum allowable weight for a female soldier is less than that of a male soldier of the same height, (Assessing Readiness in Military Women, pg. 89.) This is despite the fact that some of her weight must be carried in the breasts and hips, and not the muscles, contributing to the reduction in strength mentioned previously. Undoubtedly this policy leads to poorer performance from women than might be if height and weight requirements and restrictions were standardized. Therefore, until they are standardized we will not have a true picture of female soldiers' capabilities.

Female soldiers are also held to lower physical fitness requirements than males. This virtually ensures that they will be less physically fit, whatever their real potential. Whether or not we expand the role of women in the military, we must not artificially contract it through holding women to lower standards in training, inflating their job opportunities at the cost of proper performance, and then seeing those opportunities shrink as the performance is criticized.

Some say that no women would serve if they were held to the same standards as men. Those with such views would do well to consider the noted American military academy VMI (Virginia Military Institute), which became coeducational in 1997, yet holds both men and women cadets to the same physical as well as mental standard, considering that it is better to have less women when all are properly prepared than to inflate the number but decrease the ability. An average of 100 female cadets graduate from VMI every year, (http://www.vmi.edu/)

When women are held to the same standards as men in all military training, then they can be judged on their individual merits, and we may see if any qualify as combat soldiers. As it stands, women are judged lacking as a group; yet women are not the only group which, on average, displays a low level of physical strength. The American army allows citizens up to 42 years of age to enlist for the first time; naturally, the average 42-year-old man has less than 79% of the physical strength of the average 18-year-old man. The average Asian-American man, as well, is considerably weaker than the average white man. Yet neither age nor race denies any soldier the opportunity to serve in combat, as being female does. However, race did once play a part in combat restrictions, as my next post will discuss.