close

Standards shouldn’t be lowered for military women

By Jacob Meyer 5 min read

Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced recently that the U.S. military will end gender restrictions on all jobs in January, including ones in combat positions. 

Women are currently unable to serve in 220,000 different job positions – approximately 10 percent of all military positions – but starting in January, women will be able to serve in those roles. 

The socially liberal side of me would normally praise a decision like this. This decision, though, goes much further than equality. 

I understand how and why those who oppose women being in combat arms positions might come off as sexist. That is not at all my intention. 

The main issue I find with this decision is women, in most combat arms branches, will be held under a lesser threshold for entry into the combat arms than their male counterparts. 

This will cause a decrease in effectiveness in these units of the military. 

Combat arms, in which women will soon be allowed to serve, include branches such as the Infantry, Field Artillery, and Special Operations, among others.  

These branches are an unbelievably brutal part of the armed forces that are based around close combat. 

Combat arms are meant for the best of the best in the military, and are often sent into harms way to seek and destroy the enemy. 

To be in any form of the armed forces, a soldier first must pass the Physical Fitness Test. The test is gender-based, meaning women are not expected to meet the same standards.  

This makes sense. For most military jobs, excluding combat arms, women should not be held to the same physical standard as men.  

Aside from serving in combat, women have served in the military, as well as basic combat, for a long time and are a vital part of the United States armed forces; without them, the U.S. military would be worse. 

I know many women who would be much more fit to be in combat than me. Look at my picture. If you’ve ever seen me or met me, you know I shouldn’t be in combat.  

But, combat arms are different than other branches of the military and should be treated that way. 

However, this new intrusion from the Pentagon does not treat combat arms separately. 

Special Operations, units such as Special Forces, Army Rangers and SEALs, are treated differently because there are more difficult tests that need to be passed in order for anyone to be admitted. 

The two women who passed through Ranger School did so with the same exact stipulations and tests as the men. 

Kudos to them. That test is excruciating, and any person-man or woman-who is able to pass that kind of test is amazing. 

For the rest of combat arms, though, there are not more difficult tests to assess soldiers. The only fitness test used for retention and promotion of soliders is the PFT tests, used across all branches and military occupation specialties of each separate branch.

Admission into combat arms is not based on the physical superiority of a soldier, rather their score on a written test for soldiers and previous criteria in the military for officers.  

For example, the Army Physical Fitness Test is used as the standard in the United States Army.  The test is based on three criteria: maximum amount of push-ups in two minutes, maximum amount of sit-ups in two minutes and a timed two-mile run.  

Each is scored out of 100, with a total score of 300 points. To pass, a 60 percent is needed, or 180 points. 

The test is tier-based on the soldiers’ ages and genders. For a 21-year-old woman to score a 100 percent on the AFPT, she must do 42 push-ups, 78 sit-ups and run the two miles in 15:36. 

If a male soldier had the same raw score, he would get a 74.67 percent, compared to the woman getting a 100 percent. For that same woman to just barely pass the test with a 60 percent, she must do 19 push-ups, 53 sit-ups and run the two miles in 18:53. If a male soldier had the same raw score, he would fail with a 35.67 percent. 

Soldiers, starting in January, could be admitted into the Infantry, and many other combat arms units, by earning a score on the AFPT test that is equivalent to a 24 percent failing score for the current soldiers in the Infantry. 

This is concerning because the future admission of women into combat arms would lower the standard for these divisions. 

By allowing soldiers who have to meet a lower standard than what we currently have, it will inherently decrease the effectiveness of the most important aspect of our armed forces. 

Marine Capt. Katie Petronio, who has written an article on this topic titled, “Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal,” does not think women should be in combat roles.  

In an interview with CNN, Petronio said, “It’s an issue of cost vs. benefit. The cost is absolutely going to outweigh the benefit. It’s not going to help the individual, and it’s not going to help the institution. 

We are a war-fighting institution, and combat-readiness is going to be affected by this.” 

The benefit here is the equality of women in combat arms. The cost is a potentially less efficient war-fighting group.  

The goal of the military is to win wars and to keep the American people safe. 

Including women in combat arms does not increase the likelihood of achieving that goal.  

When it comes to the military, effectiveness, not equality, is fundamental, because if the standards drop, more soldiers could be in harm’s way.

CUSTOMER LOGIN

If you have an account and are registered for online access, sign in with your email address and password below.

NEW CUSTOMERS/UNREGISTERED ACCOUNTS

Never been a subscriber and want to subscribe, click the Subscribe button below.

Starting at $4.79/week.

Subscribe Today