A View at The Gender Discrimination Evidenced in The United States Army

Women not being able to participate in most military combat roles has been in place since the start of the United States. Currently we have the largest military spending and largest military force in the world. Congress has always pushed for gender equality and for women to be allowed into more military combat roles. However should combat effectiveness be sacrificed for “gender equality”? Men and women are built differently, mentally, physically and genetically. Genders were created to be special, to have roles and to most importantly do things that the other gender could not. Warfare is not fun and games, peoples lives depend on each other, they depend on the teamwork, as the saying goes, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

In April of 2015 the United States Army Ranger Certification course was open to women, allowing them to participate and earn the coveted ranger tab (Latimes). Ranger school consists of a grueling 3 stage course, going through advanced physical training, mountain fighting and ambush as well as waterborne operations. The initial class of 60 women, none passed. It was not until 2 classes later, that Out of a class of 381 men and 19 women, 94 men and 2 women were able to pass and earn the Ranger tab. Following this, in late 2015 congress opened all military combat roles to women in the name of gender equality and political correctness (Militarytimes.com). This means women are able to participate in combat armored divisions, combat aviation, as well as special operations such as the 1st SFOD-D (Delta Force), Naval Special Warfare (SEALS), Airforce Pararescue (PJs), MARSOC, Army Special Forces groups and much more.

However, was the test truly equal and were the men and women given equal opportunity? According to multiple sources as reported by people.com, the answer is no. The following are the benefits they got, that other participants in the course did not receive. “Women were first sent to a special two week training in January to get them ready for the school, which didn’t start until April 20th. Once there they were allowed to repeat the program until they passed – while men were held to a strict pass/ fail standard (people.com).” “Afterwards they spent months in a special platoon at Fort Benning getting, among other things, nutritional counseling and full-time training with a Ranger. (people.com).” “While in the special platoon they were taken out to the land navigation course – a very tough part of the course that is time – on a regular basis. The men had to see it fo rhte first time when they went to the school (people.com).” “Once in the school they were allowed to repeat key parts – like patrols – while special consideration was not given to the men (people.com).” That is not equality, that is giving women special training, special preparation so they know exactly what is ahead of them, while men are left to wander blindfolded in a dark maze. After all the freebies and special treatment they received, the end result? Two women graduated in August 21st. Greist herself (One of the graduating rangers) even said that she “thought we were going to be dropped after we failed Darby [Part of Benning] the SECOND time, [she] said at a press conference before graduation. “We were offered a Day One Recycle (People.com).” This is another example of how our military is becoming a show for politics and changing policies in the name of political correctness and equality. While officials will say that standards remained the same and that they received the same treatment as the men, the instructors were able to confirm the allegations that the female participants were ensured that at least one graduated. One ranger instructor says “we were under huge pressure to comply, it was very much politicized (people.com).”

Military combat and warfare is no laughing matter, there is a bond between soldiers that must be maintained and they must trust and rely on each other whilst in warfare.

“In blunt and, at times, profanity-laced answers to a voluntary survey conducted by the Rand Corp., more than 7,600 of America's special operations forces spoke with nearly one voice. Allowing women to serve in Navy SEAL, Army Delta or other commando units could hurt their effectiveness and lower the standards, and it may drive men away from the dangerous posts. (bigstory.ap.org)”

In the name of political correctness and gender equality so often pushed by congress and our government, our military risks losing combat efficiency because of the forced push for supposed “equality”.

Men and women were not given equal treatment whilst going through the first US Army Ranger Certification Course, even despite that, only two women graduated. Men and women are built differently physically and genetically, which only adds to their combat ineffectiveness. There are a few main differences with women, such as genetics, and physical body parts. First one will be the breasts, rifle threat ballistic armor and armor carriers are simply not designed for women. Currently the US Military uses ESAPI armor plates as their main rifle threat ballistic armor, ESAPI armor plates are shaped in a way where the armor is a rectangle, with the side angles cut at 45 degrees on the top, allowing for ease of arm movement and rifle shouldering. The plate is designed to conform to the chest and cover the vital areas, with a 4 way curve on the borders. Now this curvature is designed for the flat chests of men, the breasts on a woman would cause the plate to angle downward, not only creating a gap between the body and the armor, but also causing discomfort over extended periods of time. Most current US Army ballistic plates are rated to its maximum ballistic rating ONLY when coupled with soft armor backing. The soft armor and ballistic plate must conform to the body to be most effective. Someone may present the counter argument that standalone plates can be used, that can be used, however that does not meet the US Militaries regulations for body armor, as full spectrum wrap around soft armor is also required along with rifle threat armor. Using both is not an option as standalone plates are more bulky than the ICW (with soft armor) plates. Another argument would be that armor can be redesigned. That is correct, armor can be redesigned, however such redesigning would take years of prototyping and millions in taxpayer money, the military would literally need to redesign the ballistics and physics of the armor plates, as well as military contractors and gear manufacturers having to design new female cut armor carriers. ESAPI plates are made of boron carbide, which is a type of Ceramic, Ceramic plates are already rather fragile and require care, in combat situations they are normally replaced every 6 months (When cracks form). Creating female cut body armor would mean having more extreme curves, which potentially could compromise ballistic integrity of the plate. Designers would also have to consider not only different plate sizes, but also account different cup sizes, creating a very difficult and expensive situation. I am going to cite myself for this information, as I presently own a set of ESAPI plates and have done extensive research before purchase.

Secondly, according to Livescience.com, “Men are in general, more muscular than women. Women are just over half as strong as men in their upper bodies, and about two-thirds as strong in their lower bodies (livescience.com).” In combat situations, muscular endurance and strength is a huge part of mission effectiveness and or simply survival. For mission often times the amount of total kit may be upwards 150 pounds, men even have trouble lugging around such loads, since women are built differently and have much less muscle, this task may prove simply impossible for most.

Men and women’s differences are simply genetics and biological science, not a matter of who’s sexist or abelist. “Male and female bodies are well designed for each genders role in a primitive society, women are built for carrying and birthing children, and must have wider hips and extra fat in store for the ordeal of pregnancy. Men, free from the requirements of childbirth, benefit from being as strong and lithe as possible, both in their search for food and when in competition with other men (livescience.com).” The common counter argument is that this is [current year] and that we live in an advanced society where gender roles can be eliminated. That’s correct, however this isn’t about our society, its literally about human genetics and our path of evolution that scientifically gives us gender roles. Until we evolve beyond the point of needing to give birth, this is the way its going to be.

Considering all the facts and science, that women were given special treatment and special training going through the Ranger Certification course, as well as combat ineffectiveness of the female body paired with body armor, as well as the physical and genetic limitations and roles set forth on women by our genetics and evolutionary path, women should not be allowed to participate in the special operations combat units, as well as most other military combat units. Doing so will limit/ decrease the combat effectiveness of our military and compromise operational effectiveness overall. The United States has the largest standing combat ready military in the world, we are not Israel, who is a small country, surrounded by enemies who attack them with automatic rifles, explosives and armored vehicles on a regular basis, thus requiring military training for all able bodied men and women.