Eight myths about women on the military frontline 鈥� and why we shouldn't believe them
This article by , PhD Student, School of Psychology | Institute for the Psychology of Elite Performance, was originally published on . Read the .
Although women have proven themselves capable in frontline combat situations 鈥� most recently in Iraq and 鈥� sceptics argue that this does not demonstrate they are capable of the dirty, exhausting, terrifying and chaotic job that is offensive close combat.
Many myths, based on stereotype and perpetuated by a minority of 鈥渙ld and bold鈥� military personnel, are . However, the findings do not seem to be filtering though 鈥� and popular opinion still believes that . It is time to put these myths to bed once and for all:
1. Women are physically inferior to men
We have known that direct measures of strength are a more valid qualification criteria than sex and that women are capable of the same level of physical fitness as men of the same size and build. Now, putting that aside, advances in military equipment such as to reduce the effort spent by soldiers while increasing the amount of weight they can carry and the distance they can cover. This will soon make physical inferiority regardless of sex a moot point.
2. Women lack violent tendencies
In truth, women are just as capable of violence as men. Although have consistently found that males are more aggressive than females, very little of the research considers the sex of the victim in comparison to the sex of the aggressor. When controlling for this, the sex difference isn鈥檛 as clear-cut 鈥� women are equal to, if not more aggressive than, men in some contexts.
One former female warrant officer in the British Army to whom I spoke for this article said: 鈥淢ilitary training ensures that all personnel regardless of sex are capable of aggressive behaviour that is appropriate and proportionate even in high-risk hostile enviroments鈥�.
3. Women lack the mental discipline required
Women have proven themselves to be mentally formidable, performing highly stressful jobs 鈥� for example, as doctors, police officers and pilots 鈥� alongside their male counterparts. of the human brain, instead demonstrating that our brains are highly individualised and mental discipline cannot be discriminated by sex.
The 707th Special Mission Battalion, a special forces unit in the Republic of Korea Army Special Warfare Command. Wikimedia/Republic of Korea Armed Forces, CC BY: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2013.4.16_%EC%88%98%EB%8F%84%EB%B0%A9%EC%9C%84%EC%82%AC%EB%A0%B9%EB%B6%80_%EB%8F%85%EA%B1%B0%EB%AF%B8%EB%B6%80%EB%8C%80_%EB%8C%80%ED%85%8C%EB%9F%AC%ED%9B%88%EB%A0%A8_Counter_Terrorism_Training_of_Republic_of_Korea_A4. Women are not as emotionally stable as men
Men and women , however there is a in which men are more likely to succeed in than women are. Men are also more likely to have . Not quite the picture of emotional stability one might assume is needed for comparison.
5. Women will be sexually assaulted by male peers
Military sexual trauma is a concern particularly in the US, where an assaults occurred in 2014, against 40% of active-duty female soldiers and 13% of active-duty male soldiers. Based on these percentages it is estimated that 11,400 male and 8,600 female personnel were sexually assaulted in 2014; so, while the proportion of women assaulted is higher, more men were actually victimised 鈥� dispelling this misconception that this is a woman鈥檚 issue.
The US figures include assaults by 鈥渙ther service members, civilians, spouses or others鈥�. In the UK, the military police received from active-duty soldiers against their colleagues.
6. Women will jeopardise unit cohesion
(See the above BBC News item: Kurdish & Yazidi women fighting ISIS)
A on women in ground close combat roles for the UK鈥檚 Ministry of Defence found a positive relationship between team cohesion and performance. However, it was unable to make a clear recommendation due to a lack of scientific data examining the effects of women in close combat teams particularly within the UK Armed Forces.
Consequently, the decision was left to 鈥渁 military judgement that under conditions of high intensity close quarter battle, team cohesion is of such significance that the employment of women in this environment would represent a risk to combat effectiveness with no gain in terms of combat effectiveness to offset it.鈥� A disappointing conclusion for equality campaigners considering the review stated there was no scientific evidence to show that women would or would not impact unit cohesion.
A that aimed to update the 2009 work came up with a different conclusion, finding that gender was not a significant factor in team cohesion. It went on to note that any negative issues related to the integration of women and unit cohesion were short-lived, and could be offset by collective experience and strong leadership 鈥� a major factor in how well units perform, rather than the presence or absence of women.
7. Female military units won鈥檛 work
There are already examples of many battle-proven all-female units, including the in Rojava, Kurdistan 鈥� the most recent female military unit to . The YPJ has been extraordinarily successful, playing a key role during the .
The YPJ have , who were trapped on Mount Sinjar in Iraq in 2014. The rescue operation saved thousands of Yazidis who had taken refuge on the mountain and fought thirst and hunger for months, including a large population of women and children who were at risk of being captured and enslaved by Islamic State (IS). For IS, who believe that , these women are a formidable threat.
8. Women can鈥檛 perform as well as men in the Special Forces
Many countries have made significant progress towards full gender integration in the military, accepting that women should have the same opportunity to serve their country as their male counterparts. However, there seems to be an unequal application of gender equality when it comes to some Special Forces (SF) units.
SF selection processes are . Arguably this isn鈥檛 appropriate for current operational requirements. Considering the irregular nature of current operating environments 鈥� where frontlines are rarer and enemies don鈥檛 wear uniform 鈥� it seems that SF units must continually evolve to deal with modern threats. A retired UK Special Forces major told me that: 鈥淸21st-century] threats will require a greater reliance on specialists embedded and working within 鈥榯raditional鈥� SF structures.鈥� They added:
More effective recruitment and retention of women is likely to be an important part of that evolution. In many respects this is back to the future, creating something that looks more like a special operations executive.
There is no shortage of female talent in the military and it is time to use it fully. While not every woman will be capable of serving in ground close combat roles, neither is every man. Access to such roles should be based on competence and qualifications, not determined by a Y chromosome.
,
Publication date: 1 April 2016