Running head: WOMEN IN COMBAT: THE TRUTH ABOUT MODERN G.I.

JANES 1

Women in Combat: The Truth About Modern G.I. Janes

Sean P. Mullin

Stockton University

Abstract
WOMEN IN COMBAT: THE TRUTH ABOUT MODERN G.I. JANES 2

This paper delves into a recent decision made by the Pentagon and the Secretary of Defense to

lift the ban on women enlisting into combat MOSs. With such an unprecedented shift in policy

came a mix of positive and negative reactions. Government officials, veterans, active service

members, and civilians were quick to voice their biased, unsupported opinions, claiming that

women are not as physically capable as men, that the integration of females into combat roles

will weaken the Army, and that historically, women were not involved in combat so there is no

reason to introduce them now. Two peer-reviewed sources and two other articles were analyzed,

resulting in the finding of statistics, qualitative data, and quotes from high ranking government

officials that all disprove the common, negative opinions on this topic. It was found that men

and women are not much different in physical capabilities, and that any deficiencies would be

exploited by pre-enlistment high physical demands testing (Baldor, 2016; Yanovich, 2016).

Additionally, women have historically held critical roles in combat and war in general, and have

proven time and again that they step up when the mission requires, regardless of their gender or

MOS (Lemmon, 2015). This information, accompanied by other points from the four sources

previously mentioned, all show how women are equally as capable as men in combat, and that

the integration of women into combat roles will only make the worlds most elite fighting force

even more effective.

Keywords: military occupational specialty

WOMEN IN COMBAT: THE TRUTH ABOUT MODERN G.I. JANES 3

Women in Combat: The Truth About Modern G.I. Janes

With the Army quickly increasing in female strength, the United States has recently taken

steps to bring the Armys equal opportunity program to the next level. Since the birth of the

Army, women have been restricted to specific roles that kept them out of combat positions such

as armor, infantry, and field artillery, however, this has recently changed. All female soldiers

were recently declared eligible to enlist into combat positions in the army which is an

unprecedented decision for the military. This decision was made on January 24, 2013, when

over 220,000 jobs previously held only for men, became open to females who met the physical

standards (Bradner, 2015). What this meant for women is that if they met the physical standards

to fulfill the job they enlisted for, they would become eligible to go to Advanced Individual

Training for combat positions and eventually serve as Active, Reserve, or National Guard

components in these jobs. Since the lift of a ban like this has never been seen before, soldiers

currently serving, veterans, and even civilians have had opposing views on the situation with

their own reasoning to support their claims. Although as Americans we have the right to openly

voice our opinions on topics, there is plenty of research that indicates how effective female

soldiers are in combat. Women in the Army are equally as capable as their male counterparts in

combat, and the decision to allow women into combat jobs will only increase the strength of the

United States Army in the future.

As women begin to take on more physically demanding jobs in the Army, people often

question whether or not they are as physically capable of carrying out their duties as efficiently

as their male counterparts. Some of these duties include loading artillery shells into a cannon,

carrying a large rucksack long distances, and carrying heavy weapons long distances. While the

public is focused on the brute strength of one gender versus the other, there are other physical
WOMEN IN COMBAT: THE TRUTH ABOUT MODERN G.I. JANES 4

qualities that need to be investigated, such as endurance, flexibility, and core strength.

Endurance is one of the most crucial physical attributes to have when joining the Army in

general, but specifically in combat jobs. These positions are some of the most grueling jobs in

the world and require a person with a balance of these three traits to succeed. It has long been

believed that men are superior to women as far as physical capabilities go, but how accurate is

this belief? A team of researchers at The Institute of Military Physiology, led by Ran Yanovich

(2016), conducted a study on male and female basic training soldiers physical fitness and

abilities before, during, and after Basic Combat Training. The study showed that although there

is a slight gap in ability, when soldiers train in a gender integrated unit, this physical gap is

dramatically reduced. It was also found that 4 months of military training resulted in an average

weight gain of 1.54 pounds in women while the same groups body fat decreased by 3.5%

(Yanovich, 2016). The same study also explains statistics on basic training survivability

between the genders and the closeness in physical capabilities in men and women. According to

Yanovich (2016), Although their initial fitness was higher, male survivability during BT was

25% lower in comparison with their female counterparts (pp. S658). This statement shows that

even though men and women have different physical capabilities, more women complete basic

training successfully by a margin of 25%. Yanovich also points out in this article that men and

women are equal in a very important category of fitness; core strength. His findings showed that

core strength and endurance did not differ between genders, as measured during multiple Army

PT tests, and that both genders could do the same amount of sit-ups in the 2 minute allotted time

period (Yanovich, 2016). The information gathered from this research is important because it

shows how military training positively affects a female soldier and how Basic Training prepares

both men and women effectively while bringing any physical gap between the genders
WOMEN IN COMBAT: THE TRUTH ABOUT MODERN G.I. JANES 5

substantially closer. This falsifies the old myth that men are physically superior to women, and

proves that the capabilities of female soldiers enlisted into combat jobs are more than sufficient

enough to effectively carry out their duties equally to men.

The Army preaches its equal opportunity policy to all soldiers, especially new recruits,

and now that the Army is completely gender equal, a physical standard has to be set to ensure no

recruit is enlisting into a job they cannot physically accomplish. Fortunately, the Pentagon

thought ahead and started developing a physical test 3 years prior to the lift of the ban, which

analyzes a recruits physical fitness through multiple exercises in order to place them in a job that

best suits their physical capabilities. Recruits will have to run to measure cardiovascular

endurance, perform a standing long jump to analyze leg strength, sit and throw a medicine ball

by pushing outward from the chest to observe upper body strength, and dead lift increasing

weight until failure or completion of all weight levels to gauge lower body strength and

endurance (Baldor, 2016). This new testing, however, will not be performed solely by female

recruits, but instead, all recruits, male and female. This idea came in large part from the United

States Secretary of Defense, who amongst other pro-ban lift military leaders, agreed that

lowering the physical standards for combat jobs just to enlist more women was not going to

occur. Instead, it was decided to increase recruiting efforts to spark the interest of more women

(Baldor, 2016). In a PBS article published in 2016, author Lolita Baldor explains how the Army

is planning on increasing the enlistment of women through changes in recruiting such as placing

more female recruiters at recruiting stations in order to give new female recruits someone they

can easily relate to and discuss the options for female soldiers in the Army (Baldor, 2016).

Baldor (2016) explains:

WOMEN IN COMBAT: THE TRUTH ABOUT MODERN G.I. JANES 6

As part of the effort, the Army will increase the number of female recruiters to better

target women. The goal will be to add 1 percent each year for the next three years in

order to get at least one woman at each of the Armys more than 780 larger recruiting

centers across the country. (pp. 2)

Following the revamp of recruiting efforts, recruits will all be required to take the initial physical

assessments if they are attempting to enlist into a job that requires high physical demand. By

implementing these recruiting and testing tactics, female interest in the Army and combat

positions will increase and those who do not meet the physical requirements will be redirected to

a different MOS, creating a stronger Army where males and females work together.

When arguments are made against allowing women into combat positions, the false

statement that the Army has successfully operated without women since its birth is often brought

up. Since the birth of the Army, women have technically not been allowed to enlist into combat

jobs, but that does not mean they have not stepped up to fill these roles when the mission

required them to do so. In an LA Times article written in 2015, author Gayle Lemmon reveals

historical information of women in war, and uses powerful quotes from Secretary of Defense

Ashton Carter to defend her point that the ban may have just recently been lifted, but this does

not mean women have not seen combat in the past. When speaking about womens roles in

combat before the lift of the ban, Carter was quoted saying (Lemmon, 2015) It was a reality,

because women had seen combat throughout the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan serving,

fighting, and in some cases making the ultimate sacrifice alongside their fellow comrades in

arms. (pp. 1). Prior to the Pentagons lift on the female combat soldier ban, women have

historically fought in war when, and however the mission required them to do so. According to

Lemmon (2015), Women have served in intelligence gathering, as combat pilots, field artillery
WOMEN IN COMBAT: THE TRUTH ABOUT MODERN G.I. JANES 7

officers, special operations civil affairs officers, and even the ultra-secretive Delta Force. 160

women have given their lives to their country. (pp. 3). This quote, coupled with a grim statistic,

shows how women have served in pivotal war time roles fearlessly, and at times have given the

ultimate sacrifice to their country. At a glance, some may think 160 human lives isnt a large

number in the overall breakdown of Army deaths in war time, but the statistic mentioned by

Lemmon only accounts for female deaths since the beginning of the War on Terror on September

11, 2001. As more statistics like this arise and are presented to the public, the true role of women

in combat can be better understood by civilians. It was noted by Lemmon that roughly 300,000

women served in Iraq and Afghanistan since the commencement of the War on Terror, making it

nearly impossible to deny the fact that female soldiers have had a tremendous impact on war in

the past and present (Lemmon, 2015). The United States government, and specifically Secretary

of Defense Carter, realized this fact and took the proper steps to recognize and integrate women

into roles they were already serving in.

Although the lift of the ban was seen as a positive step by some, others dispute the

decision strongly and openly. While being faced with constant scrutiny from other government

officials and the citizens of the United States, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter has remained

resilient by not showing any doubt in the decision that was made. Carter has received the largest

amount of criticism and doubt from Marine General Joseph Dunford, who openly disagrees with

the decision and believes that some roles should still be limited to men only. Dunfords biased

opinion was not reviewed well, and for good reason when historically women have always

played tremendous roles in war. According to author Eric Bradner (2015), World War I broke

down barriers between military and civilian life. With the men away in battle, women took on an

extraordinary role in support of the war, whether it was on the front lines or at home in factories
WOMEN IN COMBAT: THE TRUTH ABOUT MODERN G.I. JANES 8

and farms. (pp. 2). While the Army recognized this and made an unprecedented move to

enhance its already stellar equal opportunity policy, the marines sought to keep positions like

infantry, fire support, and reconnaissance restricted to men only (Bradner, 2015). Carter

acknowledged Dunfords protest and made it clear that the marines opinion did not bother him

or sway him to regret what was already done. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Carter has

also received the respect and support of law-makers and politicians in the United States such as

Hillary Clinton, who praised the decision and spoke of how it will strengthen the Army moving

forward (Bradner, 2015). The support of the decision to lift this ban is crucial to the successful

integration of women into these fighting roles, and the true weakening factor of the Army is not

women entering combat, but instead the civilians and all the citizens who oppose the decision

and form biased, uneducated opinions.

In review, females are being integrated into combat roles in the United States Army, a

step that has never been taken before. This is important to all citizens of the United States

because after decades of women stepping into combat roles unofficially and fighting for us in

war, they are finally being recognized as equal to their male comrades. Women in the Army are

equally as capable as their male counterparts, and the decision to allow women into combat jobs

proves that this fact is beginning to be recognized and widely accepted. Although there are

opposing views regarding this topic, factual evidence and research statistics show the reality of

the situation, and that is that men and women are equal in their abilities to fulfill roles in combat

jobs. Physical gaps between genders have been proven through research to be small and

generally irrelevant, with each gender excelling in different aspects of physical fitness

(Yanovich, 2016). To bridge any gap in physical abilities, both male and female recruits will be

required to take a high physical demands test prior to enlisting, to ensure the recruit is capable of
WOMEN IN COMBAT: THE TRUTH ABOUT MODERN G.I. JANES 9

successfully executing all aspects of their new job. Based on the results of this initial test,

recruiters can find both male and female recruits jobs that will best fit their physical abilities,

while simultaneously keeping physically incapable future soldiers out of combat MOSs (Baldor,

2016). By being selective in the process of choosing the recruits who get to enlist into a combat

job, there will be no weak links, and the Army will function as it always has, regardless of the

addition of women. In the past, women have served in critically important roles in the military,

and the lift of this ban gives them the perfect opportunity to show the world that this is how the

Army should have been from the beginning.

WOMEN IN COMBAT: THE TRUTH ABOUT MODERN G.I. JANES 10

References

Baldor, Lolita C. Army recruiting will adapt physical testing, seek to hire more women. PBS,

13 Feb 2016, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/army-recruiting-will-adapt-

physical-testing-seek-to-hire-more-women/. Accessed 10/2/2016.

Bradner, Eric. U.S. military opens combat positions to women. CNN, 3 Dec 2015,

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/politics/u-s-military-women-combat-positions/.

Accessed 10/20/2016.

Lemmon, Gayle T. Women in Combat? Theyve already been serving on the front lines, with

heroism. LA Times, 4 Dec 2015, http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1204-

lemmon-women-combat-20151204-story.html. Accessed 10/20/2016.

Yanovich, Ran et al. Differences in Physical Fitness of Male and Female Recruits in Gender-

Integrated Army Basic Training. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, vol. 40,

issue 11, American College of Sports Medicine, 2016, pp. S654-S659.