Setting the Right Conditions for Gender Integration in the Armed Services

This post originally appeared in Small Wars Journal on September 21, 2015

http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/setting-the-right-conditions-for-gender-integration-in-the-armed-services-0

By: Shelly Goode-Burgoyne

A major shift is underway across the U.S. Armed Forces. A month ago, two American Army officers, who happen to be women made history and altered the future for all American women when they graduated from our Army’s elite Ranger School. Yesterday, our Commander and Chief appointed the first openly gay Secretary of the Army, In 2010 the DOD policy of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was repealed, allowing openly gay soldiers to serve without fear of harassment or dishonorable discharge, and the Air Force is seeking ways to enlist qualified trans-gendered Americans. In the last few days and in advance of the 2016 deadline to open all combat jobs to American women or seek an exception in front of Congress, the United States Army, Navy, and Air Force have announced that they plan on opening all combat jobs to qualified female service-members, to include the Infantry, Navy Seals, and all Special Forces jobs. Top Navy Admiral, Jon Greenert and Rear Admiral Brian Losey, the head of Naval Special Warfare Command believes that if women can pass the grueling six-month Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training, they should be allowed to serve. Losey states:

“Why shouldn’t anybody who can meet these [standards] be accepted? And the answer is, there is no reason,” Greenert said Tuesday in an exclusive interview with Navy Times and its sister publication Defense News. “So we’re on a track to say, ‘Hey look, anybody who can meet the gender non-specific standards, then you can become a SEAL.'”

Nevertheless, and in spite of this progress, the United States Marine Corps, which is a component of the Department of the Navy and reports to Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, has decided to disregard the Secretary’s directive for full gender integration. On Friday, the Marine Corps Commandant publicly stated that the Marine Corps is entitled to, and will ask for an exemption from the full integration policy directed by former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in 2013. If granted by Congress, the Marine Corps would be allowed to continue to ban qualified female Marines from serving in many Marine Corps combat jobs, to include Infantry. The Marine Corps has cited their recent gender neutral standards study as evidence to keep their ban in place. This gender study which was released only in summary a few days ago has already been determined to be fundamentally flawed by the Secretary of the Navy, many active duty and reserve military officers, veterans, and several members of Congress. Secretary Mabus said this about the study:

“It started out with a fairly large component of the men thinking ‘this is not a good idea,’ and ‘women will never be able to do this. When you start out with that mindset, you’re almost presupposing the outcome. The Marines could have selected female volunteers who were better suited to the task of marching under heavy loads, which accounted for many of the injuries that were observed. For the women that volunteered, probably there should have been a higher bar to cross to get into the experiment.”

As our Congress prepares to consider allowing the United States Marine Corps to remain the only profession in our nation which bans a qualified American from a certain job because that American is a woman they must vigorously debate and query this study which the Marine Corps is citing as evidence to ban women from Infantry. They should also question the future and legitimacy of the Marine Corps’ antiquated policy of segregated training.

What sparked this most recent debate?  A year-long Marine Corps study on gender integration was flawed on many levels: the subject selection, the deduced purpose for the study, and the cherry-picked results that were released.

The Marine Corps study is at best inconsistent and Congress has ordered the Marine Corps Commandant, General Joseph Dunford, to brief them on the gender study within the month. The study was never intended to act as a litmus test to determine if women can serve in the Marine Corps Infantry, but rather, it was commissioned to assist in determining the gender neutral standards for the Infantry (there currently exist no standards for the Infantry, save being male). It is important to note that the full gender study has not been released by the Marine Corps and ultimately the Secretary of the Navy has the last word on this issue as all branches of our professional military fall under their prospective civilian leadership. The Marine Corps was directed to assess how individual women would perform in combat situations. However, they chose to include mostly average female Marines, and the study states these average female Marines included in this study performed inferior to men in many areas to include marksmanship and carrying heavy loads. The Marine Corps report also says that these women were injured at slightly higher rates. This is a fundamentally unsound approach as “average” female Marines would not realistically be competing for jobs in the Infantry, only high performing female Marines would. No one is arguing that any woman can be a Marine infantrywoman, but rather, only a few exceptional women can. Needless to say, many military officers, veterans, and members of Congress take issue with the study’s claims.

Marine Major Edward Carpenter, a military professor at the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, and the author of Steven Pressfield’s “The Warrior Ethos”: One Marine Officer’s Critique and Counterpoint, argues:

“The bottom line? Out of those 400 young men and women, the Marine Corps is currently willing to give 300 of them a pass straight to infantry, whether they are good shots or bad, whether they are strong or weak, fat or skinny, short or tall, fast or slow, simply because they are men. Similarly, it is willing to tell the other 100 that, regardless of how great they are with a gun, how fast they can run or how long they can exert themselves, that they cannot serve in the infantry, because the average female Marine scores lower in those areas.”

Rep (AZ). Martha McSally, a combat tested fighter pilot, and Army Colonel Ellen Haring have both raised concerns about the study.

Rep (AZ). McSally recently said this of the study:

“I echo some concerns by the secretary of the Navy related to, ‘Do we take a bunch of combat trained men and a bunch of non-combat trained support women and put them together, and just wonder how they’re going to do?’  You can study anything and get the results you might be looking for, or have some flawed assumptions in how you’re setting it up. And so we want to make sure we understand where the study was and what the results are from it, and then what to conclude from it.”

Army Colonel Ellen Haring maintains:

“The results of the Marine Corps’ research are not surprising. The service was told to assess how individual women do in combat situations, but the task force instead assessed groups with average female Marines — rather than high performers — in them.”

When you place average female Marines in an Infantry unit who have never served a day in an Infantry unit, they will naturally not initially perform at the same level as a man who has served in an Infantry unit for months or years. A better and more scientific approach would have been to select only the highest performing female Marines and see how they performed in a Marine Infantry unit. We expect a learning curve, and that is just what we have in this study, and not much more. But perhaps the real culprit is the Marine Corps’ policy of gender segregated initial training, which many argue has placed female Marines at a distinct disadvantage Army since 1918, the year the first American woman enlisted in the Marine Corps.

Many veterans and military officers have written at length about the Marine Corps’ archaic policy of segregated training and how this approach to training places female Marines at a clear disadvantage the minute they raise their hand to enlist. How can we expect an average female Marine to perform equally to male Marines when in her most fundamental initial training she is segregated from men and thus never competes with male Marines and works to reach only the highest female standard? We cannot and I think as we integrate the force we will continue to see the consequences of segregated training. USMC Major Kyleanne Hunter and USMC Lieutenant Colonel Kate Germano, (who was subsequently fired for her efforts to train female Marines to meet the male standard), discuss the lower standards that often result from segregated training at length in two recent articles in the New York Times: Lt. Col. Kate Germano on Marines and Women and The Cost of Lower Standards for Women in Marine Recruitment.

The two women who graduated from Army Ranger School did so because from day one they were required to run next to men, ruck-march with thirty five pounds next to men, load and fire heavy weapons next to men, swim next to men, eat and sleep next to men in the field, patrol with men… the list goes on and on. Because women and men in the all other services train together from day one most women in these services do not work to achieve only the female standard, they work to achieve the highest male standard possible. If the Marine Corps were to open its infantry to qualified women they will surely have to de-segregate their initial training of Marines, and this might just prove more of a culture shock to the Marine Corps than the idea of a female Infantry platoon leader.

So, is Congress to allow the Commandant of the Marine Corps to say on one hand that the Marines in his ranks are reflective of the American society from which they come (which he says regularly), while on the other hand say that the 51% of our population, that American society has deemed equal and deserving of every opportunity they are qualified for, are somehow banned from his infantry? American women already serving in our military and those who have served want this and are fighting for it, not politicians or so-called feminists who have never served. When Army Ranger School opened its doors to female Army soldiers, hundreds applied. When the Navy opened submarine duty to women, hundreds applied, when the United States Army opened its Infantry training to women on an experimental basis, hundreds of female soldiers applied, and when the Marine Corps opened its Infantry Officer Basic Course hundreds of female Marines applied. The American people see this issue simply on the basis of equality and democracy. Julien Mathonniere, a respected defense scholar illustrates this point clearly when he writes:

“Common people don’t reflect about the future of infantry. But they certainly do about the place of women in society. And the military would gain nothing by pitting their operational requirements against the wider demands of the public opinion; lest they be insincere about narrowing the civilian-military gap. People want their military to remain a true and fair emanation of the society they live in. It is not as if they were two separate entities.”

The military is not a brotherhood. It’s not a sisterhood.  We are all comrades in arms. Let’s hope the Marines can help set the conditions for future success for all who serve.

Advertisements

The Hancock Tower Summit

images

I have been out of the Army for quite a while now, and people often ask me if I miss it; this question pisses me off a little every time someone asks it; it seems like a question that has many dishonest motives and those who ask it never let me off the hook.  So here is my answer:  yes, sometimes I do “miss” the Army, but less and less as the years pass.  The first year or two after I got out I tended to see the Army through rose colored glasses; I only remembered the great things, and tended to not remember all the really awful days; and there were a lot of really awful days.  These days my memories are thankfully much more balanced.

But even as the years pass, there is one thing that I do actually persistently miss and it seems like a little thing, but it is not. I miss the absolutely candid, usually contentious, extremely imperative conversations I had with my soldiers, my peers, and my leaders.  There is a lot of down time in between the chaos of war, and soldiers do a lot of amusing things with this time, but they talk to each other a lot too…imagine that?  During smoke breaks, during the constant and never ending equipment inspections, in rain filled bunkers waiting for the “all clear”, and during the endless miles spent in a very hot HMMWV delivering supplies, I have talked at length with my soldiers, peers and leaders about categorically dark and difficult subjects like racism, torture, President Bush, rape, freedom, being gay in the Army, service, citizenship, fear, and loss, never once experiencing intolerance or hurt feelings. This weekend as I travelled to Chicago to meet with my fellow Tillman Military Scholars, for our annual Leadership Summit I had a few of these rare and awesome conversations; the kind one remembers for a lifetime; the kind I miss.

Continue reading

Marine Corps Times Fails to Mention that one Woman Actually Made it Through the “Endurance Test During the Latest Rotation.

gnctuesday_005_r540x270

“The two women and Pace were among 18 out of 79 Marines who failed the first day. Six were pulled out by instructors because they fell too far behind to finish in time, including one woman. Five men asked to drop out. An additional seven made it through the whole course but failed to score high enough to pass — including the other woman.” Marine Corps Times

Hmmm…a female Marine (otherwise known as a Marine) actually made it through the entire “Initial Combat Endurance Test”; she failed to earn enough points, but she made it through. Something the Marine Corps Times failed to mention. It is only a matter of time. This is first year women have been allowed to attend, so I would say that just making it through that Initial Endurance Test is a sign of things to come.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Jul/06/infantry-course-quantico-men-women/?#article-copy

Close Quarters, Small Teams, Blah, Blah, Blah…

ht_berets20_070530_ssh

“The question for SOF is whether we can absorb women into those Special Operations units whose job generally entails small teams, operating for long periods of time, in close proximity to the enemy or behind enemy lines and in close quarters with other Soldiers. And, can we achieve this level of integration without lowering our SOF standards? This is what we must find out.”  Admiral McRaven

Sir, the only question is the physical one…the rest of this nonsense about close quarters, small teams, etc. sounds like any other combat unit, so these characteristics do not make you special, your physical standard is the only thing that makes you special; and if no women can meet this standard, than that will be the only reason to ban women from your units.

http://www.fortcampbellcourier.com/news/article_c35183ee-e347-11e2-a4b2-001a4bcf887a.html

The First Female Rifle Platoon Leader; Many, Female Soldiers and Officers Desire Combat Assignments

Image

Roughly four months have passed since the “ban” was lifted; women can now officially serve in combat units. They can in theory, enter the Holy Grail of equality in the military; the Infantry.  The days that followed Panetta’s announcement were filled with many men and a few women who, barring any facts and little first-hand experience declared that the inclusion of women in combat arms would be devastating to our Armed Forces.  Thankfully there were more women and men who declared, with the compliment of facts and first-hand experience, that the change in policy was much overdue and would greatly improve our nation’s Armed Forces.  But even with nearly all of our military leaders and soldiers supporting the policy change, I sense a few hold-outs who have dug themselves in, readying for round two.

Almost all General Officers, mid -level officers, non -commissioned officers, as well as the current Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, support the new policy.  However, it seems that recently and somewhat quietly there has emerged a small group of male General Officers who have begun to assert that there are simply not enough women that have, or that will volunteer for combat jobs. Their hope is of course, that if there are not enough women who want to be combat soldiers they will be able to justify to DOD that the changes to units and training facilities needed to accommodate women, would simply be too expensive to justify, for so few.  To this, Marine Commandant General Amos recently stated: “that if too few women were able, or willing, to join the infantry, I might ask the secretary of defense to keep the infantry closed to women.” His deadline for his request is January 2016.

Continue reading

Women in Combat

wom

By: S.D. Burgoyne

Letter: Women in Combat; A Female Combat Veterans Take

Published in the Washington Times: Friday, January 31, 2013 3:22 pm

I am a former Army officer and Tillman Military scholar, a University of Maryland graduate and a combat veteran. I received my commission through the University of Arizona’s ROTC program. As a young lieutenant, I believed that women should not serve in combat units for all of the same reasons we are used to hearing: physical ability, unit cohesion, rape, capture, etc. I wrote a paper on it once. However, as most of us know, actual experience versus theory is what often changes one’s opinion (“Women in combat,” Web, Friday).

Once in combat, my opinion changed as I witnessed all of my seemingly legitimate reasons fall to pieces one by one. I expected to see combat units fall apart once a woman was attached. I expected to see women fail physically on the combat field and get men killed. I expected to see women raped when captured. I expected to see men flee a post or duty because a woman was in danger. None of it happened. Experience trumps theory every time, and when it does, intelligent humans must begin to change their minds.

Continue reading