Training Women for the Military

¶ … Training Women for the Military\nEven as the lines between combat and non-combat assignments become increasingly blurred and women who are assigned combat roles find themselves in active war zones, there remain a number of questions about how women are to be integrated into the military. Some of these questions arise from simple sexism: People who think that women do not belong in the military can find reasons to support their position. Other objections to or questions about women\'s role in the military are more complicated. Some critics of women\'s full integration into the military arise from arguments about how physically fit they are.\nIn this paper I will examine some questions about the fitness of women in the military in terms of designing an exercise program that would help women soldiers become as fit as they need to be. This research project is designed to assess what elements of a fitness program are most effective for women and to determine how well these aspects of the program match up with the parameters of current military fitness programs.\nBefore proceeding to the research design that I am proposing, I would like to explore briefly some of the parameters of the assumptions about the ways in which women are currently trained for military duty and how well current modes of training match the requirements of fitness for the modern soldier. The argument that all soldiers (regardless of gender) should be fit may seem neutral -- after all, who can argue with the idea that soldiers should be physically fit? However, arguments about how fit women should be often contain sexist assumptions.\nBasic Training in the Twenty-First Century\nThese assumptions -- that women cannot be as fit as men -- arise in part from the ways in which the U.S. military units measure fitness. Soldiers cannot graduate from boot camp without passing physical tests that emphasize upper-arm strength, a form of strength that favors men\'s genetically determined musculature. This prompts a series of questions, but they can essentially all be answered under the rubric of how well current training reflects the kind of high-tech warfare that is now the norm? And how much does it reflect an older mode of warfare? \nThe algorithm involved in setting the current standards are complicated and even tortured. Women are barred from combat duty and yet are subjected to the same basic training requirements that are men -- but they do not have to meet the same standards. Standards that are clearly designed to meet the needs and strengths of male recruits. When considering this circular set of reasoning, it is difficult to know how to assess the physical fitness of women in the military.\nDoes one try to prepare them to be combat soldiers? Is this the direction in which the U.S. military will go? Is this even a relevant question given the ways in which non-combat soldiers are frequently exposed to danger? Or if the military is dedicated to keeping women out of formally designated combat roles, is there any reason to train them to meet the types of physical demands that male soldiers -- who will go into combat -- have to meet?\nThe following citation summarizes these issues, noting that the ways in which women are trained by the military reflect a very limited idea of physical strength. What is most striking about this summary is that the article is from almost thirty years ago -- a point in military strategy and technology in which traditional measures of strength were less relevant.\nMost of the current arguments, says Rogan, center on physical strength and its importance in soldiering. But, she points out, women are growing up stronger because of school sports programs under Title IX. Even if most women cannot do as many chin-ups or run as far as fast as most men, can they still make capable modern soldiers? Regan\'s answer, which the book mainly bears out, is yes (O\'Reilly, 1981).\nOr is the best answer to have different soldiers train for the positions that they will be most successful in, regardless of the gender of the soldier -- even though the effect of such training will in all likelihood lead to a de facto segregation of training program. A possible example of this would be to select soldiers who are likely to be the best shots and give them extra training in this area. If this were to be done, then the majority of sharpshooters might well be women: \"Women often do better at riflery than men because they listen to instruction while men tend to think they know it all\" (O\'Reilly, 1981).\nArguably one of the major reasons that current physical fitness programs in the military are structured the way that they are is because there is sufficient misogyny in the armed forces to set up programs in which women will necessarily fail. The following on-line comments are typical of this attitude. The first describes himself as \"Medically Retired 11B4V. Former instructor\":\nYour basic training is going to be a cake-walk and all the male trainees are going to get over, too, because in gender-integrated training, the weakest are in charge! I called it the \"Barney Army\" when I was an instructor at Ft. Jackson and many of the higher-ups reacted with anger, but not disbelief, that I would think such a thing.\nGo ahead. Stand there in formation at graduation and pat yourself on the back for having undergone such an ordeal and for having \"earned\" that black beret but the truth is, all you\'ve done is passed as the lowest common denominator and deprived those who are stronger from \"being all that they can be\".\nI can guarantee you that the typical grad from your gender-integrated BCT unit would not make it through two weeks of Infantry OSUT. You are going into the weak, watered-down version of the Army. Be proud. (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100121052640AAZ1xPL)\nA second quote (by an Army MP) from this same source reflects the same attitude. It is important to note that these quotes are only a few weeks old: They reflect current attitudes in the military.\nsame training ....yes same standards far from it\nif a guy does 42 push ups 53 sit ups and runs his two miles in 15:54 he gets a score of 180 on the pt test which is the bare minimum, however\na girl has to do 19 push ups 53 sit ups and gets about 19 minutes to do there run ....\ni kinda think that is retarded because as a dear friend of mine said \"bullets dont travel faster for men and slower for females\" also i dont wanna be in a firefight one day and sprinting to where i need to be and have someone who \"passed the pt test\" still lagging behind\nI have presented the above description of the current state of physical training for women because any experiment designed to initiate new forms of physical training must take into account the current methods as well as current attitudes. The presumption of this paper is that there may be changes in the physical fitness regimens in the military that will benefit not only female soldiers but the service a a whole. That presumption is based on the fact that there are problems and contradictions -- as well as anachronisms -- in the current modes of training that could be ameliorated. Before exploring such possibilities, it is important to note that such changes might well be dismissed summarily by military officials.\nResearch Design\nThe key to the following research design is the existence of a control group on whom no interventions are performed. In this case, this means that the control group will consist of a group of female soldiers who undergo physical conditioning as it is currently carried out in the armed forces. The function of a control group is that it provides a baseline. The results of the control group (such as how well women trained in the current methods fare in terms of passing basic training) are compared to the results of other groups (in this case, women who are trained in different ways. \nThere will also be three other groups that are treated in a variety of different ways, with different variables (or interventions) being tried in each case. I should note that in the real world, it might be difficult to get one of the armed forces to agree to such an experiment given that the services are in many ways conservative and that the way in which basic training is conducted has a great deal of mythology about it.\nThis does not mean that basic training has not changed over time, for it has -- and it has changed even during the course of the current two wars, as described below:\nChanging civilians into Soldiers is what TRADOC does as the architect of the Army, and that involves changing with the times. Gone are the days when recruits arrived at basic training to learn just the fundamentals of weaponry, how to fight from a foxhole, how to march in parade formations and a mere three days in the field. In those days prior to 2003, TRADOC gave recruits nut-and-bolt basics, then sent the new Soldiers to their units where the real training started....\nTo achieve \"Soldier\" status, recruits now spend 21 days in the field during basic training. The training focus has changed dramatically from what was primarily a standards, discipline and soldierization process to one of intensive combat skills. (Leipold, 2009)\nHowever, such changes have tended to come about without any sort controlled, rigorous study. There is nothing wrong about changes that come from within and that grow organically out of the requirements of an organization. However, a controlled experiment offers certain key advantages because it can cast off old attitudes and biases.\nI have already described the control group in this experiment. The three experimental groups add different elements to the equation. The first of these experimental groups is actually one that I predict will reduce the overall fitness of women soldiers and decrease their chances of joining the armed forces. Why would one want to do this as a researcher? The short answer is that all data are useful: Seeking out the factors that make a situation worse is another route to finding out what makes things better. (For example, when trying to understand what makes a car run efficiently, letting the oil get dirty -- which slows efficiency -- tells us something about how to make things better.)\nOne strategy that has been tried before in terms of training women soldiers -- although not in the United States -- is treating them exactly as if they were men. This was a relatively short-lived experiment in the British armed services because it lead to a much higher rate of injuries for women. \nDuring the gender-fair period of training, which ended in 1998, female trainees suffered 467 injuries per 10,000, compared with 118 among their male colleagues. After gender-free training was introduced, men\'s injuries rose to 147, but women\'s injuries went up to 1,113 per 10,000.\nAfter the publication of the inspectorate\'s report, which was commissioned by the Ministry of Defence to examine training across the Services, Lieutenant-General Anthony Palmer, Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (personnel), said that the issue of gender-free training was being reviewed.\nThe report said that the problem of injuries in the Services had been \"exacerbated by change from a gender-fair policy, in which women were set training goals appropriate to their physique, to a gender-free approach, prompted erroneously by a conviction that equality of opportunity demands it\".\nWhen gender-free training was introduced in 1998, the Government declared that it was another step in efforts to provide equality of opportunity for all. The old system, which required men to run 1.5 miles in 13min 15sec but allowed women 15min 15sec, was perceived to be no longer legally defensible on the grounds of discrimination. (Evans, 2005).\nIn other words, when women were treated as if they were physically the same as men, they tended to get hurt more often.\nExperimental Group #1\nThe first experimental group in my research would be to replicate this experiment with American soldiers. I predict that the results would be similar for a number of reasons. The first of these is that women may (or may not) be in less good physical shape than the men when they enter basic training. The second -- and far more important -- is that the exercises are designed for male bodies rather than female bodies. The third is that the overall culture of the training program may be psychologically more hostile to women than to men. \nThis last factor may be different in the United States than in England, so the results may be different. However, I predict that the results will be comparable: Women are likely to be injured more often in a gender-blind exercise program, with the result that they will be less fit (being injured is by definition a condition of less fitness). Women are also more likely to drop out of military training and not join the armed forces in a full-time capacity if they are injured in the course of basic training.\nThe following table represents this experimental design:\nIndependent variable\nDependent variable\nPredicted outcome\nGender-blind regimen\nFitness of female recruits\nLowered fitness level\nExperimental Group #2\nThe second experimental group is one in which conditions are established that I believe will help women achieve their optimum fitness. For this group, women will be given a pre-basic training regimen that includes a range of activities designed to reduce overall psychological stress and anxiety. While it is certainly true that one of the ways in which current military physical regiments tend not to serve women well is the fact that they emphasize upper-body strength, it is also true that women tend not to be well served (or to do well) in current basic training programs because of the stresses that they have to endure that men do not.\nThe pre-basic training part of the process would include a regimen of cognitive-behavioral therapy designed specifically to reduce anxiety. This form of psychological treatment is designed to have long-lasting effects so that even when the recruit moved from this pre-treatment phase into basic training, the skills learned to reduce anxiety will remain potent and effective. Here is a description of how cognitive behavioral therapy (or CBT) id helpful:\nThe cognitive part of the therapy refers to thinking or learning and is the part of therapy that can be \"taught\" to the person. The person then needs to take what has been taught, practice it at home, and through means of repetition, get that new \"learning\" down into the brain over and over again so that is becomes automatic or habitual.\nThis is essentially the same process as school or college learning. You are taught some new information or skills, and then you learn them. When you learn them well enough (through repetition), this affects your memory processes (and physiologically your brain\'s neural pathways) and allows you to begin thinking, acting, and feeling differently. This takes persistence, practice, and patience, but when a person sticks with this therapy, and does not give up, noticeable progress begins to occur (Richards, n.d.)\nThis \"immunization\" of women to the greater degree of stress that women will face in basic training should increase their ability to become more fit and their chances of staying in the military.\nThe following table represents this second experiment:\nIndependent variable\nDependent variable\nPredicted outcome\nStress-reduction training\nFitness of female recruits\nIncreased fitness level\nExperimental Group #3\nIn this group, women will train in basic training camps that have been modified to be as free of sexism as possible. This would include sanction of any recruit or officer who engaged in sexist behavior toward women. I realize that this would be extremely hard to do, but it would be possible to put into effect a number of protections that would certainly reduce the overall degree of sexism. Here is one brief description of the rampant sexism that permeates basic training -- and every level of military service after that:\nShe described certain sexist army running chants (cadences) called \"jodis,\" in which trainers bark narratives of weak and scheming men having affairs with the soldiers\' wives (aggression training that both feminizes civilian men and demonizes soldier\'s wives). Discussing the recent New York Times series on murder at the hands of Iraq war vets -- an article that upset many veterans -- she notes that a lot of the victims were wives and girlfriends. \"I think that\'s highly related to sexism in the military.\" She also described shooting practice done in basic training that requires soldiers to shoot \"pop-up\" targets in three seconds -- no time to distinguish civilian or soldier, let alone women or children -- a description that recalled one panelist who talked about the way soldiers were taught to be suspicious of pregnant women, whose bellies were likely to be bombs. (Segura, 2008)\nLimiting -- since eliminating is impossible -- the degree of sexism that women face will, I predict, increase their ability to train harder and more successfully.\nThe following table represents the third experimental designed:\nIndependent variable\nDependent variable\nPredicted outcome\nReduction in sexism\nFitness of female recruits\nIncreased fitness level\nA fourth possible experiment group might combine the parameters of the last two groups to determine if there is a synergistic effect between adding tools to combat anxiety and reducing the sexist atmosphere. (I believe that there would be.) Other variables might be added as well -- for example, having women eat a highly healthy diet for a month (or longer) before beginning basic training, or having women participate in a strength-training program before they enter basic training.\nFindings\nThe table below summarizes the findings of a multiple regression analysis performed using the four scenarios outlined above. \nThis analysis demonstrates that the worst performing group is that of the gender-neutral trial in which women are measured by the same physical standards as are men. This group performs below the control group. This was predicted. The next best performing group was that in which the members participated in a physical conditioning regimen before basic training, followed in terms of improved performance by the group of women who received training to reduce stress. Finally, the group that performed best (as measured by their scores on the Army Physical Fitness Test) was that in which the overall culture of their military training environment was made as equitable in terms of the treatment of men and women as possible.\nI believe that all of the variables that I have suggested (except for the design of Group #1) will improve the ability of women to train for the military, as will be evidenced by their improved performance on all of the parameters that the military uses to assess the physical fitness of recruits. I still wonder whether the skills that are being tested for -- such as the ability to do pull-ups -- are the skills that will most benefit the twenty-first century soldier. But that is a much larger question for another day.\nReferences\nEvans, M. (2005). Women pay painful price for equal military training. The Times, retrieved 9 February 2010 from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article434024.ece.\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100121052640AAZ1xPL \nhttp://www.military.com/military-fitness/fitness-test-prep/physical-fitness-test-anxiety \nLeipold, J. (2009). Not your father\'s basic, anymore, retrieved 8 February 2010 from \nhttp://usmilitary.about.com/od/armyjoin/a/newarmybasic.-u5p.htm.\nO\'Reilly, K. (1981). Dick and Jane in basic training. Newsweek. \nhttp://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,953209-\n2,00.html#ixzz0fYEyTybe \nRichards, T. (n.d.) What is comprehensive cognitive-behavioral therapy? \nRetrieved 10 \nFebruary 2010 from \nhttp://www.socialanxietyinstitute.org/ccbtherapy.html.\nSegura, L. (2009). Veterans Decry Institutional Sexism in Military, retrieved 11 February 2010 \nfrom http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/79877/.