There are physical and physiological differences among women, which would make the demands of combat difficult. However, that is not to say that women are incapable of combat positions. Live Science produced an article explaining the challenge of the physical demands of combat women would face in such war scenarios. Written in 2015, there has since been gradual progress in terms of women entering combat positions. There still is more work required to make combat integration work. Other aspects must be considered. The most important factor is not to make a less rigorous version to add more women to positions. So far, this has been avoided with the development of functional fitness based testing . Women must qualify and meet the same standards otherwise it will generate more hostility. Women must also rise to commanding positions in military branches to ensure equal treatment. If women are going to be part of combat, then they must also register for the draft. It is not true equality if men are burdened with defense in times of crisis or attack. The reality is that women have fought in wars for centuries, just not in an official capacity. Current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have seen women fight on frontlines, even when they were banned from doing so. The real change in 2013 is that women were allowed to compete with men for military occupational specialty jobs. The measure has been added to the long list of wedge issues dividing the American political spectrum. Conservatives have made not secret of there hatred of women in uniform and liberals favor women in combat, yet do not understand the implications of sex differences. A total of 220,000 jobs were open to women and clearly over the next 20 years have a major social as well as cultural impact. Women entering combat will accelerate, doubtless of what detractors oppose. Certain considerations must be taken into account. Depending of the physical fitness level required for a position, women's numbers may not be equal in all areas in the military. If there is a draft, women will require a specialized fitness program. Sex differences cannot be ignored in terms of physical abilities. There are solutions, but all problems may not be so easily negated.
Men and women differ in terms of their physical fitness capacity. Two important elements are speed and strength. Men on average have more physical strength than the average woman. Men can carry about 12 kg more skeletal muscle mass on their body. The female body can have 40% less upper body strength and 33 % less lower body strength. Some of this is attributed to weight and height. A taller person will have more room to house muscle on their frame. A larger person with more muscular mass could generate more force. Bigger muscle do not mean more physical strength. The total number of type IIa and type IIb muscle fibers determines how much force muscles can generate. Cross sectional area also is a large determining factor to physical strength. Men's individual cross sections of the muscle fibers may actually be bigger compared to women's. The misconception is to think that women are just physically inferior. There are obviously women stronger than some men and men who are weaker than some women. Yet, it is automatically assumed that all women would just fail doing a task that requires physical prowess.
The divergence in physical strength changes during puberty. Endocrine changes in sex hormones allow men's body composition to change to where it is more muscle than fat. Bones,muscles, and tendons become significantly stronger. This means the male body could take more physical strain under certain conditions. Weight training and strengthen the female body just like men. The difference is in degree. If men have more natural strength prior to training, they will just be higher on a scale of measurement. Women can see an increase in physical strength through consistent weight training. Depending on what MOS a woman is attempting to apply for, massive amounts of physical strength may not be necessary. The modern military has become more technologically advanced in which physical strength could be negated in a battlefield. A optimal level of health and fitness is necessary for a functional combat force. Prior to the age of tanks, aircraft, and guns physical strength would have been more important. The earliest weapons were clubs, spears, daggers, and swords. Depending on the weight of the weapons, these required a certain amoung of upper body strength to wield. The introduction of fire arms radically changed the nature of warfare. Although it would seem that women who fought in the past would be at a disadvantage, there were adjustments in weapons that helped women who did fight. The naginata was a weapon of choice for women in Japan. One version known as the ko-naginata was smaller and lighter in weight, making it easier for women to use.
 |
| The naginata |
 |
| English swords |
 |
| Matchlock gun |
Daggers have fallen out of use in the modern world in terms of military combat. These were not mere knives for cutting they were designed to inflict damage on a victim. This was a weapon that did not require huge amounts of physical strength. Despite sex differences in physical fitness capacity women did engage in war throughout history. The Mino warriors of Dahomey fought French invasion in the 19th century. Onna bugeisha would enter battle along samurais. It has been suspected that the Scythians also had women who fought in battle in the ancient world. Warfare has always been a brutal and violent affair. It was worse in the past with limited chances of survival or proper medical treatment from injuries. This does not negate the fact humanity has more destructive power than ever before with nuclear weapons. Warfare has rapidly change over the past century with weapons becoming more lethal. Cyber warfare will be the next phase in future conflicts. The consequences of drones, robotics, and artificial technology make war even more frightening. Large muscles are not going to stop bullets, explosions, or full scale nuclear war. Technology, tactics, and the efforts of soldiers have won wars not their physical prowess. Arguments that women are too weak for the demands of combat are based on sex bias and irrational fears that they are less competent. History has shown it was done before. Some women during the American Civil War disguised themselves as men to fight for both the Union and Confederacy. During World War II Russian women served as combat pilots and snipers. The soldiers of the past did not have access to as much food and medical care as the ones of the 21st century.
The problem that still remains is that their are myths about women's physical capabilities. The only solution is to have women train prior to doing basic training. That way the body becomes accustomed to more rigorous physical demands. Women have the same muscles and anatomical structures in terms of the bones, tendons, fascicles, fibrils, and microfibrils. The satellite cells, myoblasts, myotubes, and muscle fibers. The physiological process of commitment, activation, proliferation, and differentiation in muscle tissue also operate the same in both sexes. The biggest factor in building strength and muscle is based on genetics relative to mysostatin function. Growth differentiation factor 8 as it also is known regulates myogenesis. The reason muscle does not continually grow is due to the MTSN gene which provides instructs to mysostatin. Both sexes can have low levels of this protein produced by myocytes. That means they have a greater potential for building muscle on their bodies. Women are not inferior in terms of strength, rather they are at different levels of the physical power scale. The weakest woman would have less strength than the weakest woman. The strongest woman could not reach the same levels as a man on a similar training regimen. A highly fit woman could be as strong as an average man with no training. The military must have a precise way assessing strength. Hand grip can be misleading. Looking at weightlifting records can give more of realistic measure of physical strength capabilities than hand grip. The 2006 study from the European Journal of Applied Physiology mentioned used just judo and hand ball players. The results may have been different if weightlifters were used in the study. Actual hand size could have been a factor, considering men on average have larger hands. There are factors that could effect outcomes in studies. What can be extracted from this information is that women will need to train harder and longer than their male counterparts to reach a certain fitness level. The simple part of this would be increasing women's muscular strength through weight training and focus on building upper body muscles.
Training may not be able to increase women's total running speed. There are anatomical and physiological reasons for this. The most obvious one is women's wider hips actually reduce running speed. Aerobic capacity is smaller in women due to differences in lung and heat size. Building strength and muscle would be more simple in comparison when attempting to increase running speed. Florence Griffith Joyner was the fastest woman in the world and since 1988 her record remains unbroken. Her record in the 100 meter dash time was 10.49. The requirement to qualify for the men's 100 meter dash is 10.16. Men run faster than women even at this level. However, this is record of an accomplished Olympic athlete and looking at Army Physical Fitness Tests she would be overqualified. Certainly an Olympic female athlete can outrun a man of average fitness level.
The lungs are responsible for getting the air we breathe to our bodies. That oxygen gained from the atmosphere is pivotal to the muscles. The muscles require oxygen to produce adensosine triphosphate. ATP a nucleotide enables muscular contraction. Aerobic power is sometimes referred to as the VO2 max. The average man has aerobic power that is 50% greater compared to a woman. The aerobic power is dependent on three factors. The heart's capacity to pump enough blood to help with oxygen transport is essential. The blood's range of oxygen carrying capacity also play a role. The lungs must also be responsible for oxygenating blood returning from active tissue. Hemoglobin levels are higher in the male body. The hemoglobin protein transports oxygen in the body. It acts in a sense like public transportation for oxygen. Training does not change the size of women's hearts or lungs. This means men can get more oxygen into their muscles faster. Running is critical when charging into battle or leaving for retreat. Further investigation would be needed to figure out how to circumvent particular anatomical differences that could effect combat performance.
Sex differences do not mean women do not have physical advantages. The one advantage women would have over men is related to endurance. More body fat means that it could be used as energy during high levels of physical exertion. There seems to be a disadvantage in having more power in comparison with endurance. More muscle and free testosterone equates to more energy used. This means men would fatigue faster in relation to women under physical stress. Current research in exercise physiology may show that women's physical fitness capacities are greater than previously thought. A study from the University of Waterloo made the claim that women had more efficient oxygen uptake calculated at 30% (
women's oxygen processing during exercise ). Although the male body seems to be able to handle more heavy duty strain, with proper training it seems women can adjust to certain physical tasks. The Society of Endocrinology found that women could handle extreme physical activity in certain environments (
women and extreme physical activity). Two weeks before the expedition to Antarctica women were given training for the physical rigor. It was a success, which indicates differences may not be a hindrance. Live Science provides the biological aspects to women in combat positions, then poses the question how it would translate into actual warfare. Some assessments can be challenged, others may be more practical.
The idea of a mixed combat unit may be difficult to imagine. It will happen just like women entering other occupations such as law enforcement, business, politics, firefighting, construction, and the sciences. The numbers of women in a collective may remain low for some to based on biology and sociological factors. Women who are capable just may not be interested in such positions. The science, engineering, technology, and mathematics fields have more men in the workforce. Women are capable of being great scientists, but women are not getting involved by choice. Part of this is due to active discouragement by various communities that believe in strict gender roles. When sexism is not a factor, women's personal choices cause this imbalance. Men are more willing to take high risk jobs compared to women. Being part of a military is a high risk job that men mostly were forced into.
 |
| Women still make up a small percent of the US Military, yet gradually the numbers will increase. |
 |
Men and women have the same muscles. The degree of muscular hypertrophy induced by exercise stimuli differs.
|
 |
| Some branches of the military women will have more of a presence. The US Air Force and Navy over the next few decades could see an increase in female leadership |
That has change mainly because women have been given more opportunities. The US Military has introduced functional fitness tests in various branches. The term used is "gender neutral" because there will only be one standard. Multiple branches have their own standards based on age and sex. Women's requirements were normally lower. Women were even given the option of substituting a different exercise. The flexed arm hang was used for women rather than doing pull-ups. The flexed arm hang does nothing for upper body strength. When it came time for women to do a three pull-up requirement, they struggled. That was no surprise, see as they were being trained the wrong way. Injury rates are not high based on the fact that women have lower bone density and muscle mass, rather it is due to poorly fitting armor. Women were given body armor designed for men's bodies. For the past five years the US Military has been gradually solving the problem by produced better fitting armor. Weight requirements were also negatively impacting women. Women who built muscle mass fell out of the BMI requirements for some branches, when they were not technically unfit (
marines allow women to bulk ). If women are going to be carrying up to 45 kg in loads, they require more musculoskeletal mass. The Marines made the right decisions in looking to change fitness requirements based on questionable measures. There are some areas in which women will have an easier time being integrated. The US Navy and Air Force could be more simple with some minor adjustments. Submarines would have to be adjusted to accommodate female sailors. The Marine Corps and the Navy SEALs will be a more arduous task. Special Forces have a high standard and even more challenging physical fitness examinations. Few women would be present in combat positions in the most vigorous in terms of physical fitness. Women will play larger roles in the US Army. One should not make predictions about the future considering how rapidly the world is changing. Weapons and technology can easily negate all the training a soldier receives. Nuclear weapons, tanks, howitzers, drones, combat planes, and hacking are going to harm soldiers no matter how well trained they are. War is unpredictable and even well trained armies can be defeated. Women being integrated into combat positions will not reduce effectiveness. This will only happen if commanders with sexist and traditional gender role attitudes seek to undermine or prevent women's success. If women meet the same standards, accept that registering for the selective service, and understand they will not get special treatment then integration can be done. The real battle may not even be the physical training, rather gaining the trust and acceptance of their male counterparts.
