|
Born Against
|
An excellent review article on this overall question concluded that there are serious ongoing problems with a gender integrated military. I've posted an excerpt below, just the section on the potential for disruption of unit cohesion. Browne reviews the entire published literature on the subject through 2001, in a 200-page analysis. It's absolutely excellent.
I'm agnostic on this question, since I've never served in the military. However, I find Browne's points difficult to refute (and he is not the only person making them; just about all controlled studies found serious problems with cohesiveness in gender integrated units). Perhaps those in favor of integration could take the time to read this and comment.
KR Browne. 2001. Women at war: An evolutionary perspective. BUFFALO LAW REVIEW 49 (1): 51-247.
Quote:
VI. POTENTIAL DISRUPTION OF UNIT COHESION AND EFFECTIVENESS
Inclusion of women into combat units can have other adverse impacts on morale and group cohesion. Integration of women, for example, may cause tensions between members of the group resulting from sexual jealousy or from a perception that women are somehow favored members of the group. Pregnancy leads to lower rates of deployability and potentially reduced readiness. Finally, there is the question of how to train a sexually integrated force. It is to these issues that we now turn.
A. Sexual Integration Disrupts Cohesion by Creating Sexual Jealousy and Frustration
To achieve tolerance and cooperation, the conflict over reproductive interests has to become subordinate to other interests.598 ÄJan A.R.A.M. Van Hooff & Carel P. Van Schaik
One of the principal concerns about integration of women involves the effects of women on military cohesion. Introduction of women can disrupt bonds among men in a number of ways.599 It has long been recognized that specific bonds between individuals may actually impair group cohesion. For example, in a squad of special forces troops, a close personal friendship between two individuals is viewed as harmful to the group because of the division of loyalties between the friendship and the unit.60ø Similarly, a study of "buddy" relationships among Korean War troops found that only because the choice of a special "buddy" was private did buddy relationships not upset unit cohesion.60' In a sexually integrated group, the stakes are higher. The personal relationship may be a sexual one, which may lead not only to greater pair-versus-group conflict but also to conificts related to sexual jealousy. 02 In circumstances in which teamwork is essential, competition within military units leads to friction and loss of efficiency.603 And, among young men and women, there is little that they compete for harder than members of the opposite sex.604
It should hardly be surprising that when young men and women, mostly in their late teens and twenties, are living together in close quarters, sexual and romantic relationships will develop. A Roper poil conducted after the Gulf War revealed that about two-thirds reported sexual activity in their integrated units in the Gulf.605 Of those reporting sexual activity, 55% believed that it had harmed morale and 36% believed that it had degraded unit readiness.606 The RAND study on integration likewise found that dating and sexual relationships were perceived to reduce morale, especially on ships and on overseas deployment.607 The study found that these relationships created a number of problems. The "sexualization" of the atmosphere makes it difficult for colleagues to regard one another as ~just co- workers and thereby undermines cohesion.6 8 One respondent complained that "[the mess.., at night [for] this unit looks more like a singles club or promenade deck than a mess hall."609 Another complaint was: I get tired of seeing a junior enlisted female and her boyfriend [at mess]. Both are attached to [this unit]. This place is like high school all over again. Everyone is dating others. To me this is not the military. We are here to do a job not meet our spouse6.10Guys seem more worried about getting a girl than doing their job. Not only are these relationships viewed as unprofessional by some, they also can create resentments based upon jealousy and sexual frustration.61' Moreover, when the relationships terminate, the morale of both the individuals involved and the unit suffers, and the man is often left vulnerable to charges of sexual harassment or even rape.612 For example, a male and female Naval Academy midshipman were found in the woman's room "after a long night of drinking and socializing."613 The man admitted to consensual sex; the woman contended that she was heavily intoxicated that night and had no memory of having sex with the man but "suspected" that maybe she had been sexually assaulted. Because Academy rules forbid sex on campus, the man was expelled. The woman, by denying engaging in consensual sex, had admitted no wrongdoing and therefore was not prosecuted. The man found himself working in a warehouse to pay off the $76,000 he owed the Navy to reimburse it for education costs, while the woman graduated to the fleet.614
When sexual relationships occur between members of different ranks, the military chain of command may be compromised by the appearance of' partiality.615 Even relationships between members of different units can be harmful. For example, if a member of one unit is dating a member of another unit, there can be resentments between units based upon either jealousy or perceptions that the member of one's own unit is being mistreated by a member of the other unit.
This is not to suggest that in the heat of combat male and female troops will be focusing on sexual relations rather than fighting. Indeed, many report that combat zones are the least erotic of places. For example, Samuel Hynes, a Marine pilot in the Pacific war, recalls that the pilots "felt no sexual need even though being apart from women for a year" and asked, `Were we living our sexual lives strafing or in the all-male committed life of the squadron?"616 Similarly, in discussing a poem about masturbation, Paul Fussell notes that "it is notably what front-line troops would stigmatize as a rear-echelon problem" because at the front the men were "too scared, busy, hungry, tired, and demoralized to think about sex at all."617 Indeed, he wrote, "the front was the one wartime place that was sexless."618 Nonetheless, relationships that have developed away from the front can have substantial effect at the front. Moreover, in a war like the Vietnam War, where combatants may return to positions of relative safety at night or every few days, it does not take long before they are thinking about sex, as demonstrated by the ready availability of prostitutes in such areas.619
Recognizing the disruptive potential of sexual and romantic relations, some have suggested that this problem can be adequately dealt with by extending anti- fraternization rules to all sexual relationships within a unit even if the participants are of equal rank.62ø Madeline Morris, in her call for greater integration of women into combat units, urges a "military `incest taboo" that would defme members of sexually integrated units as "brothers and sisters between whom sexual relationships would be unacceptable."62' This approach "would amount to a broadened fraternization policy, prohibiting not only inappropriate relationships between ranks but also sexual relationships regardless of rank within military units."622 However, there are several reasons to think that this approach will not work.
First, it treats the incest taboo as an arbitrary social rule that can be extended at our whim to other contexts. Under this view, brothers and sisters abstain from sexual relations with each other because there is a rule against it; therefore, we can simply expand the group to which the rule applies. Freud notwithstanding, however, the primary reason that brothers and sisters do not engage in sexual relations is not that society has created a rule against it, but rather that brothers and sisters (and others who are reared together from an early age) are not ordinarily attracted to each other.6~ This lack of attraction appears to be an evolved psychological mechanism designed to avoid inbreeding with its attendant reduction in offspring viability.6 The notion that the incest taboo can simply be redefined rests on an inadequate understanding of human psychology.
The military "incest taboo" is different in nature from the aversion that brothers and sisters experience for each other. It is neither a biologically predisposed aversion nor even a norm that has been instilled in individuals throughout their lives. Rather, it is an externally applied rule to which the parties are first exposed in their late teens and early twenties, a period of peak sexual interest. As numerous parents seeking to control or channel their children's sexual and romantic inclinations have found, attempts to define the class of people with whom they can have relationships are typically doomed to failure.
The second reason that redefining the incest taboo is not likely to avoid the impairment of cohesion caused by relationships between male and female personnel is that the interests sought to be protected by fraternization rules extend beyond consummated sexual activity. Although in today's politicized climate, the term "fraternization" is often shorthand for illicit sexual relations, rules against fraternization long preceded the integration of women into the military. "Fraternization" entails the association of officers and enlisted personnel (or sometimes even of officers or enlisted personnel of different ranks) "on terms of military equality."6 ~ male officer who enters into financial arrangements or gambles with male enlisted personnel violates the anti-fraternization rules.626 Thus, anti- fraternization rules are a method of reinforcing the military hierarchy, a hierarchy that facilitates the efficient operation of the military.627
The somewhat impersonal relations between personnel at different levels are believed to be necessary because superiors must sometimes order subordinates into the jaws of death. As British military historian Richard Holmes has observed: There may come a moment in even the best-conducted, most democratic of armies, when a leader gives an order which will result in the certain death of his subordinates, and a framework of discipline which does not pr~are for this eventuality does both army and society a disservice. "Undue familiarity," wrote John Ellis, "might lead the men to question one's orders or even one's right to give them."629
Anti-fraternization rules may not be consistent with civilian mores,63ø but the judgment of those most familiar with the problems of military discipline view them as critical to the maintenance of good order and discipline. Unfortunately for military discipline, however, the increasing prevalence of an "occupational" orientation leads to the same kind of resentment of such rules that would attend them in civilian life. In his study of extended field maneuvers in Honduras, for example, Charles Moskos found a widespread attitude among junior enlisted personnel of both sexes that what they did in their "private lives" was their own business, rather than the Army's.~' Given the favorable sex ratio for women, it is hardly surprising that they are the ones who most strongly object to the anti-fraternization rules.632
Sexual relationships can create other special problems in the military. In 1997, Kelly Flinn, a female B-52 pilot, was threatened with court martial for having committed adultery by having an affair with the civilian husband of a female airman, disobeying a direct order from a superior not to see him again, lying to investigators about the relationship, and fraternizing (in the form of a two-night sexual relationship) with an enlisted man.~3 The most visible reaction from the civilian community focused on the adultery charge and took the position that Flinn should not be punished for having had a sexual relationship with a married man; after all, her private life is her own business.~4 The position of the military and most of its defenders was that the adultery charge was only a small part of the transgression; although inappropriate, more threatening to military discipline was Fliim's disobeying an order and lying to her superior.~5 What may have been the greatest threat to military discipline, however, got somewhat less attention: Flinn was having an affair not just with any married man, but with the husband of a female airman. It is hard to imagine a greater threat to morale and discipline in the enlisted ranks than "poaching" of their spouses by officers.~6 Had the sexes been reversed, and a male Air Force pilot had been having an affair with the wife of an enlisted man, one doubts that the national media and congressional leaders637 would have rushed to the pilot's defense 8 or that he would have been favored with a lucrative book contract.~9
Even successful enforcement of a prohibition of within- unit sexual relations will not solve the problem of sexual attractions. The military can regulate, or at least attempt to regulate, behavior, but it cannot regulate thoughts. The male and female soldier who fall in love with each other but obey the strictures of the "incest taboo" pose little less risk to the group than a couple that consummates that love. The pair-versus-group conflict will continue to existÄperhaps in heightened form because of resentment over the limitation on their loveÄand to the extent that other members of the unit are aware of the mutual attraction, they are likely to suspect that the couple is engaging in sexual relations anyway,~ø with the same negative consequences that would flow from a consummated physical relationship.
The impossibility of preventing within-unit romantic and sexual relationships places the military in a serious bind. The harm from such relationships may be widely recognized, but if an expanded fraternization policy is unlikely to be followed, then it is not in the military's interest to adopt one, other than to satisfy political demands. As Richard Holmes has observed, "Wise leaders know that nothing is so destructive of cooperation as the giving of orders that cannot or will not be obeyed."~' Indeed, it was exactly this concern that led Douglas MacArthur, while Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, to refuse to institute a policy banning fraternization between American military personnel and Japanese women. He said, "My father [also an Army general] told me never to give an order unless I was certain it would be carried out. I wouldn't issue a no-fraternization order for all the tea in China."~2
Sexual attractions, tensions, jealousies, and frustrations comprise much of the emotional repertoire of young men and women and can substantially disrupt the performance of an organization that relies on teamwork. Yet, at the same time, they are an inevitable consequence of sexual integration.
B. Perceived Special Treatment of Women Disrupts Cohesion
One of the most significant obstacles to achieving a cohesive group is the belief that some members have privileges that others do not."3 The "we're all in this together" feeling that cohesive groups experience cannot endure when it is clear that some are "more equal" than others."~ Many male personnel believe, with some basis, that women are "more equal" in the eyes of the military and civilian leadership."5 The RAND study found that this belief is enhanced by such things as "an unofficial Army policy" under which women were to receive showers every 72 hours while in the field."6 One need not invoke sexism to understand why there would be resentment "among the men, who endure a heavier workload when the women, the vehicles, and the drivers return to base so that women can take showers.""7
Lower physical standards for women are a perpetual source of resentment among men. Physical fitness grades are considered at promotion time, and men feel that they have to work very hard to "max" the fitness tests while women can meet their lower standards much more easily. As one female Army captain complained, "My fifty-one-year old father has to run faster and do more push-ups than I do to max/pass the APFT [annual personal fitness test] ," and she noted that a "lame female in my age group still is allowed to virtually walk the two-mile run and still past the test.""8
Many men also resent the fact that women can avoid deploymentÄor even their service contractsÄsimply by getting pregnant."9 Any other act by which one intentionally makes oneself nondeployable is a court- martial offense.65ø There was a widespread perception that many of the women who were nondeployable during the Gulf War because of pregnancy intentionally got pregnant to avoid service in the Gulf.65' The military has responded to many of these problems by prohibiting their discussion.652
Many men also perceive that their superiors allow female personnel to get away with things that they could not,653and it cannot be doubted that the "gender card" is a potent weapon. A study of Army and Air Force pilots found an overwhelming belief on the part of men that women were given more time to complete tasks, more training, and more chances, and that they were not washed out of training under circumstances in which men would be.654 Women themselves also felt that instructors were more lenient with them, and "they appreciated the special considerations."655
Women are widely perceived as simply not holding up their end. As one enlisted man complained to Laura Miller, "Today all you hear in the Army is that we are equal, but men do all the hard and heavy work whether it's combat or not."656 Yet another told her: "The majority of females I know are not soldiers. They are employed. Anything strenuous is avoided with a passion. I would hate to serve with them during combat! I would end up doing my job and 2/3 of theirs just to stay alive."657
These negative attitudes are not confined to enlisted men. One major told Miller that "[ilf every soldier in the U.S. Army today had been trained at the same low level of expectation that female soldiers routinely are, the U.S. Army today would be either dead or in Prisoner of War camps."653
The RAND study on integration found that there was a common perception that junior enlisted women used "female problems" to get out of unattractive duties.659 This belief is not without foundation. Several women told Laura Miller while she was conducting a study of harassment of Army women that they avoided certain duties by complaining of menstrual cramps.66ø Others told her that they could hide contraband (such as candy) by placing tampons or underwear on top of the contents of their lockers or drawers because once encountering these items, their superiors would be too embarrassed to look any further.6 Still others obtain special consideration by flirting with their superiors.662
According to both men and women, some women use complaints of sexual harassment, or a threat of such complaints, to avoid unpleasant tasks.663 Some superiors are reluctant to assign unpleasant tasks to a woman, because she has a "club" she could use against him if he did.6~ Moreover, a woman can complain of sexual harassment if she does not like her job, and even if the charges are unsubstantiated, she is generally placed in another work group.665 Men are also reluctant to push women hard during physical activities because of fear of unfounded charges of sexual harassment.666
Men in the military are deathly afraid of these sexual harassment charges, and, given recent experience, they are right to be. This is especially true of senior enlisted men, who feel they have a large investment in their careers that could be lost by a sexual harassment charge that would render them "guilty until proven guilty."667 Most of the men interviewed for the RAND study reported being personally aware of such occurrences.6~
Women also receive favored treatment in receiving plum assignments. Nowhere has this been more obvious than in combat aviation. With the post-Cold War "drawdown" of the military, there are fewer flying billets available, and the competition for them is fierce. Women are moved ahead of men in response to pressures to train more female pilots.669 For example, the Presidential Commission reported that at the Naval Academy, some pilot billets are set aside for women, so that women can claim the positions over men with higher class standings.67ø Only if women pass these positions by can they be claimed by men. Men have responded with predictable resentment.67'
The view that "some are more equal than others" is extremely destructive of group cohesion. Paradoxically, Madeline Morris points to the following statement of a female former Army officer as support for the view that integration of women has positive effects: It helps a lot to have females there, but especially if they have some rank. Like in Saudi, during the Persian Gulf War, my commander told me to `Act like a soldier, not like a girl.' I confronted him and he backed off. So he got feedback, because there was a female thereÄbut especially because I had enough rank and the confidence to confront him. Not everyone would have been in a position to do that. Thus, members of a small, and already suspect, group have a "right" empowering them to question their superiors, in this case over a comment that is far milder than those that virtually every man must endure. Having a woman in a unit is not unlike having a general or achniral's son in the unit when the father repeatedly steps in to protect his child. At least three consequences are predictable: The son's complaints are always going to be taken seriously; everyone will resent, if not hate, the son; and unit members will lose confidence in their superiors.
A cohesive military group needs to know that it will be supported and protected by the chain of command when it is in the right. But all along the chain of command everyone now knows that conscientious service is not enough to avoid substantial career damage. A perception, however incorrect, that one is on the wrong side of "gender issues" can substantially impair, if not end, one's career.
Perhaps the most visible such case is that of Admiral Stanley Arthur, then-Vice Chief of Naval Operations, who was a legendary pilot in Vietnam and commander of naval forces in the Gulf War and, by all accounts, an honorable man.672 When Rebecca Hansen, a female helicopter pilot, washed out of training, she contacted her senator, Senator David Durenberger of Minnesota, and complained that her failure was in retaliation for her having filed a sexual harassment charge.673 The decision had been reviewed up the chain of command, but in response to an inquiry by the senator, Admiral Arthur undertook a review of the matter. Several weeks later, Admiral Arthur reported to the senator that his review revealed that the woman in question was not qualified to be a pilot.674 Not satisfied with that response, the senator placed a "hold" on the nomination of Admiral Arthur to the position of Commander in Chief of Pacific Forces (CJNCPAC), the most prestigious operational command in the Navy. Apparently unwilling to be accused of taking the wrong position on a "women's issue," Admiral Jeremy "Mike" Boorda, Chief of Naval Operations, then withdrew Arthur's nomination.675 Then, to add insult to injury as far as Admiral Arthur's supporters were concerned, Admiral Boorda overruled the decision to discharge Hansen and offered her a job on his staff.676 That was not good enough for Hansen, who demanded that the Navy send her to law school and assign her to work on women's issues. When that demand was refused, she left the Navy.677
The treatment of Admiral Arthur, based entirely on his decision to support the grounding of a female pilotÄa decision whose good faith has been challenged by no oneÄ sent "a clear messageÄone not to be missed by many admirals."678 After Admiral Arthur's experience, "[amy politically sensitive officer understood, rightly or wrongly, that women were to succeed as pilotsÄperiod."679 One of the most egregious cases (at least of those to come to light) involved a female helicopter pilot who had failed a routine safety test.~ø A subsequent performance review found that she had panicked on several occasions while carrying passengers. On one occasion, her copilot had to land the helicopter for her because she had become incapacitated. She was revived with oxygen on the ground and carried away on a stretcher.68' The admiral in charge of the Pacific Fleet's Air Forces overruled a safety panel's recommendation and allowed her to keep her wings.682 Not surprisingly, male pilots were outraged.
In his study of F/A-is Hornet training in the Navy, Robert Gandt describes a problem female aviator who was not very open to criticism.6 After she mistakenly cycled the landing gear when there was an indication of trouble, which is a serious violation of procedure,6~ a Navy commander said something along the lines of "I can't wait to hear her story about that."6 When she found out about this comment, she filed a complaint alleging "verbal assaulI~," which was treated as a claim of sexual harassment. 86 Although a JAG investigation concluded that there had been no sexual harassment, the effect of the complaint was that her mishandling of the plane was forgotten. The flight instructors believed that that was her real motivation for the charge.~7 When she was later subjected to a review board because of repeated problems, the board unanimously recommended that her flight status be terminated.688 The commanding officer of the RAG believed that removing her wings was unwarranted but recommended that she be transferred. The commander of the fighter wing agreed.~9 When the case went before the Admiral, he threw out the entire recommendation relying on "extenuating circumstances."69ø Once again, the instructors concluded that if you are female, you can't fail.69' Concerns about preferential treatment are not, of course, complaints about women themselves but rather about the way the military has responded to their presence. Mistakes in implementation of a policy do not demonstrate that the policy goal is not worthwhile. However, there is a sense in which the kinds of mistakes that the military has made are inevitable, at least as long as its performance is measured by how many women it can attract and keep.
C. Integrated Basic Training: Will It Get the Best Out of Either Males or Females?
Perhaps nowhere are the problems and perils of sexual integration more apparent than in the issue of whether the sexes should go through basic training together. Cohesion is enhanced when men have shared a particularly grueling experience, which suggests that if the sexes are both to participate in combat they should train together. If the sexes train together under the same standards, however, training must be relaxed, because a regimen that challenged most men would cause most women to fail, but a training regimen that could be survived by many women would not challenge many men, and therefore men would not develop the same sense of camaraderie that is nurtured in the crucible of ordeal. As Richard Holmes has observed, "There is a direct link between harshness of basic training and the cohesiveness of the group which emerges from it."69
Traditional basic training was rigorous and, at times, somewhat abusive. In the words of a former head of drill instructors at Parris Island: Military training exists to break [the recruit] down to his fundamental self; take away all that he possesses, and get him started out in a way that you want him to be. Issue him all new clothes, cut his hair, send his possessions home, and tell him he doesn't know a damn thing, that he's the sorriest thing you~ ever seen, but with my help you're going to be worthwhile again. Today, much of that harshness has been eliminated.694 Effort is viewed as more important than achievement.695 Navy recruits are told that it does not matter how fast they cover the "confidence course," because the point of it is `~just to have a good time."696 Recruits are shown an orientation video reassuring them that "physically, anybody can get through boot camp" and that it is "O.K. to cry."697
Numerous studies have shown that different things motivate males and females. Men respond better to harsh discipline and criticism; women respond better to positive motivation. Failure tends to make men work harder; it tends to make women quit.698 It may be a good strategy for motivating women, but no serious person can believe that the way to motivate young men is to tell them that a task is an easy one that anyone can do and that it is "O.K. to cry." There is a deeper reason than anti-female animus that drill sergeants exhort (or, at least, formerly exhorted) their recruits by calling them "ladies" and otherwise challenging their manhood. But that kind of motivation does not work well for women, so it has largely been discontinued. What has replaced it is, in the words of Brian Mitchell, a "myopic focus on getting recruits through training instead of preparing them for wartime service."699
As Mitchell writes, the "emphasis on self-esteem and `positive motivation,' inspired by the need to protect women from the harshness of military life, has led the military to an excessive reliance upon leadership and a potentially fatal neglect of discipline."700 General Claudia Kennedy, who later made headlines for her accusation of sexual harassment against a fellow general, has declared basic training to be "a safe and intensely supervised integration, see Anderson, supra note 61; see also Mark Thompson, Boot Camp Goes Soft: Empathetic Drill Sergeants Make Basic Training Easier, but the Recruits May Not Be Ready for War, TIME, Aug. 4, 1997 (noting the widespread view of male soldiers and outside experts that combining men and women in boot camp "leads to relaxed standards of physical performance"). experience."70' When the female head of the Great Lakes Naval Training Center boot camp refers to recruits as "the youngsters in our care,"702 you know that, in the words of one observer, "this is not your father's navy."703 This declaration mirrors that of General Kennedy, who began speeches introducing the "Consideration of Others" program with the proud declaration that "This is not your father's army anymore!," as if abandonment of tradition were an effective way to enhance respect for and attachment to military institutions. The commander of the naval base at Pearl Harbor has declared that his "first priority is child care,"704 a stance that may be welcome to many parents but that is somewhat disconcerting to those who believe that his first priority should be national defense.
The fact that different techniques motivate men, on average, than motivate women is a strong argument for sex-segregated basic training. The Marine Corps has found that the traditional male-drill-instructor model, in which the drill instructor screams at recruits to intimidate and motivate them does not work well for women.705 According to the female commander of the training battalion that trains female recruits at Parris Island, "Em] ales and females learn differently and we communicate differently."706 Thus, different training methods are needed, even to achieve the same goals.707 Moreover, female drill instructors tended not to be comfortable in the traditional male-style drill- instructor mode.708
There are, however, costs of training the sexes separately. If men and women are ultimately to be integrated in the same units, separate training for women may interfere with their later acceptance into those units; they will always be "outsiders." They will not have gone through the same grueling training as the men, and the men will know it and resent the women's being allowed to get through easily.709 On the other hand, when they train together, the lesser physical demands placed on women are even more apparent.
This quandary is no doubt responsible for the vacillation of the military on the question of whether basic training should be sexually integrated. The Army, for example, had integrated basic training in the late 1970s but abandoned it in the early 1980s because men were being held back and women were not able to excel.71ø Alone among the services, the Marines have never had integrated training.
The conflicting pressures are also reflected in opposing recommendations of two commissions assigned to consider the question of integrated training. The first was created by the Secretary of Defense and headed by former Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker. It unanimously recommended that the sexes be separated in basic training in all services because integrated training resulted in "less discipline, less unit cohesion, and more distraction from the training program."711 However, the Secretary of Defense rejected that recommendation.712 The publicly stated reason was that the Joint Chiefs of Staff opposed the move because it violated the precept that you "train as you fight," despite the fact that most women, of course, do not fight.
The second study was commissioned by Congress and chaired by Anita K. Blair.713 It recommended, by a bare majority, that the status quo be maintainedÄthat is, that integrated training be continued in the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and segregated training be continued in the Marines. Five of the nine members supported the recommendation, one voted against, and three abstained. The abstentions were prompted by concern that the majority was not devoting sufficient attention to the negative aspects of integrated training, especially "the overwhelming consensus among trainers that something is seriously flawed in gender-integrated training."714
There is no obvious answer to the training question. Both integrated and segregated training have their costs, and both kinds of costs are a consequence of sexual integration. The challenge for the military is to train males and females in such a way as to get the best out of both of them and at the same time creating conditions that allows them later to participate in cohesive units. If the primary purpose of basic training is to create a self-identity as a "warrior," it would seem that that result is more likely to be attained through segregated training.
D. Pregnancy Leads to Lower Rates of Female Deployability and Potentially Lower Readiness
Lionel Tiger's explanation for the origins of men's resistance to women rested in part on the fact that large numbers of women would be pregnant or nursing at any given time and therefore the missions of men who were inclined to include women would less likely be accomplished.715 Today, of course, women have greater control over their pregnancies, so one might think that inconvenient pregnancies are no longer a problem. In fact, however, pregnancy has substantial current-day effects on deployability and therefore, predictably, on military readiness. At Fort Bragg, for example, there are 600 to 800 women (equivalent to an infantry battalion) pregnant at any given time.716 While in the civilian sector employers can often hire temporary help, in the military when a soldier is out, the rest of the unit must pick up the slack.717 Moreover, it should be noted, even discounting "female-only" medical problems, women are substantially more likely than men to report for sick call. Indeed, a recent study of sick-bay visits on a submarine tender found that women outnumbered men by a ratio of six to one.718
In today's military, perhaps 10% of female personnel are pregnant at any given moment.719 When the destroyer tender U.S.S. Acadia returned from an eight-month deployment, 29 (8%) of the 360 women on board had been transferred off the ship because of pregnancy, earning it the unenviable nickname "The Love Boat."72ø Who is to blame for this obvious personnel problem? According to Linda Bird Francke, the Navy is to blame for failing "to instruct its youngest recruits on sex education and birth control."721
Pregnancy results in substantial limitations on a woman's ability to contribute to her unit. In the Army, for example, pregnant soldiers are not transferred to or from overseas commands, and they are exempt from physical training and wearing load-bearing equipment.72 After twenty weeks, they are exempt from standing at parade rest or at attention for more than fifteen minutes and exempt from weapons training, swimming qualifications, and field duty. Moreover, they are not assigned to duties where nausea, fatigue, or lightheadedness would be hazardous.723
The non-deployability rate for women is approximately three times the non-deployability rate for men, the difference being largely due to pregnancy.724 According to Martin Binkin of the Brookings Institution, the services have, so far, been able to deal with pregnancies. He notes, however, that the problem might not be so manageable in combat units, as opposed to support units, where the requirements of teamwork and burden sharing are greater.725
The problems of pregnancy are even greater than the bare numbers would suggest. A Navy study found that 41% of pregnant sailors were single.726 Thus, the services must face not only the question of how to deal with pregnant personnel while they are pregnant, but also the longer-term issue of how these women are going to combine the rigors of child-rearing and the demands of a military job.727 During the Gulf War, 16,300 single parents and 1231 dual-service couples with children served in the Gulf, all of whom were required to have approved child-care plans on file.728 The opportunity to become pregnant provides female service personnel a potential egress from military service.729 There were widespread and persistent rumors that at the outset of the Persian Gulf crisis some women intentionally became pregnant to avoid deployment. For example, four of the twenty-two women in the 360th Transportation Company scheduled to leave for the Gulf were found to be pregnant, all having conceived less than six days before their regiment was deployed.730 The argument against the suggestion that this was a deliberate act is simply that it is implausible that women would get pregnant to avoid deployment because women in the military receive only six weeks maternity leave.73' But the critical fact is that if these women did not deploy with their units, they were unlikely to be sent overseas, even if they did report "for duty," and, of course, they could elect to leave the service rather than return.732
Perhaps the most honest argument on this side of the debate has come from Betty Friedan. She acknowledges that pregnancy may interfere with performance requirements, but argues that pregnancy must be tolerated if women are to be assimilated.733 Thus, the choice is between military effectiveness and "equal opportunity."
E. Lesser Female Strength Poses Substantial Readiness Problems
The view that technological advances have rendered the very large sex differences in strength unimportant is widespread.734 While it is true that most soldiers will not engage in hand-to-hand combat, such combat is the last resort of all warriors, whether they are infantry riflemen, tank drivers, or fighter pilots, and it can be the last resort of those occupying support positions, whether signalmen, clerks, or cooks. Moreover, hand-to-hand combat is not the only combat task requiring strength. Lifting heavy artillery shells, damage control tasks on a warship, carrying a machine gun, and pulling the lever operating the ejection seat of a fighter plane all require substantial strength. Even the prosaic task of digging foxholes imposes a substantial obstacle to women.73
It is not just combat positions that require physical strength, however. Many combat support positions do, as well. In a study conducted in the early 1980s, all Army men in heavy-lifting MOSs were found q~ualified for their jobs, but only about 15% of women were.7 Since then, the Army has periodically attempted study of the strength issue, but very little progress has been made because of concern about how strength requirements would affect women's service opportunities. Some changes have been made in training to accommodate weaker females, such as training runs now being performed in running shoes rather than combat boots to deal with the extremely high level of stress fractures among women. However, there has been substantial reluctance to impose strength requirements more broadly,737 and increasing women's strength has often taken a backseat to the more palatable chore of simply making the job easier. Thus, the job of stretcher carrier in the Navy, formerly a two-man job, has been redefined as a four-person job.738
Adverse conditions often interfere with the neat system of MOSs. While women can probably drive a truck as well as a man, if the truck gets a flat tire, then the driver needs to be able to handle the seventy-pound tires. In the Gulf War, male officers had to perform heavy lifting, at a time when they should have been pursuing their command responsibilities, because their female subordinates were too weak to do it.739 If a ship gets struck by a bomb or a missile, all hands may have to turn to the tasks of damage control, such as fire fighting, flood limitation, and evacuation of the wounded.74ø Analyst James Dunnigan has described damage control as "the most dangerous, unpredictable, and chaotic" of the Navy's combat operations.7 The sex differences in ability to engage in such tasks are not small. The Presidential Commission was presented with a 1985 study that found that "[w]hile clear majorities of women (more than 90% in some cases) failed to meet the physical standards for eight critical shipboard tasks, virtually all the men passed (in most cases 100%).~~742 One percent of women, compared with 96% of men could carr~ water pumps to the scene of a fire or flooded compartment. ~
Strength differentials have led some to argue that equipment should be redesigned to eliminate the need for strength.7~ If the effectiveness of a weapon can be retained with lower weight, then such a change would benefit both men and women; if nothing else it may allow more ammunition to be carried. If effectiveness is traded for lower weight, however, then such a change would predictably result in the loss of additional lives. Equipment modification, like any other change, should be judged first by the criterion of combat effectiveness.
|
|