Introduction

According to traditionalist American conservatism, women cannot perform adequately as soldiers because of their unique physical, mental, and emotional characteristics. This perception is greatly influenced by the tradition of patriarchy in the United States and Western European societies in general and reflects both realistic observations about the physical characteristics associated with biological sex as well as prejudices about gender roles. Women have been acting as warriors and have been actively soldiering since before recorded history, and there are many ancient and modern examples of women serving as both soldiers and military leaders. Gender equality in the US military came about slowly and was the result of activism and shifting perceptions of gender roles and rights.

Topics Covered in this Chapter Include:

Over the last century, it has become clear that gender is a complex phenomenon that does not come in two varieties. There is, it seems, a spectrum of gender identity that involves many concepts perceptive masculinity and femininity. Until relatively recently in history, many—if not most people—conflated gender and biological sex, but societies around the world are gradually learning that these are two very different things. This is a difficult adjustment in many societies because access to certain roles has been dictated by perceptions of both gender and biological sex. As societies evolve under pressure from citizens pushing for a greater level of equality, societies must determine what factors related to gender and sexuality are important to various roles.

A person’s biological sex is the result of the way that DNA codes for the expression of proteins, especially hormones. These hormones determine how a person’s body develops, including the presentation of primary sexual characteristics—genitalia and internal biological structures that produce gametes or eggs and that make reproduction possible—and secondary sexual characteristics—related to the presence of hormones that also determine a person’s primary sexual characteristics.

It is the secondary sexual characteristics that result in the perception of two basic types of humans: male and female. The development of facial and chest hair, the shape and structure of the pelvis, the development of mammary glands and breasts, the deposition of fat in the body, the musculature of the upper body, and the speed with which the body develops muscle mass are the most obvious and widely recognized secondary sexual characteristics.¹

For most of history, the perception of secondary sexual characteristics has been used to divide people into binary sex and gender categories, meaning male and female. More recently, it has become clear that even sexual characteristics exist on a spectrum. There are individuals who are biologically male, who develop secondary sexual characteristics associated with being biologically female. There are likewise females who develop muscle mass or might have patterns of body hair that are typically associated with being male. Biological sex is a complex phenomenon because there are many variations in the distribution of hormones, and this means that there are many ways that a person’s body can develop with regard to sexual characteristics.²

While the subject of biological sex is complex, it can generally be said that biologically male individuals develop larger bodies with more upper body muscle mass and develop muscles more quickly than individuals who are biologically female. This means that individuals whose bodies develop toward the male side of the spectrum tend to be stronger and capable of physically dominating individuals at the other side of the spectrum. There are exceptions to this rule, of course, but over the long stretch of history, biologically male individuals have used their strength to physically dominate and then to curtail the freedoms of individuals who are biologically female.

The development of secondary sexual characteristics has also been used to determine the kinds of roles that individuals play within their societies. Only biological females can carry and birth children, and so the responsibility for caring for children has traditionally fallen to women. Women have also traditionally been permitted to fill roles that are perceptively related to childbirth and childrearing, such as being educators or nurses or helping other women to birth children (midwifery). More directly reflective of patriarchal attitudes is the fact that women have also been allowed to serve in many roles where they care for or assist men. The common stereotype of the woman as the secretary or executive assistant or as the homemaker are all reflections of the ways in which women’s roles have been engineered to benefit men for most of history.

Biological males, by virtue of their larger average size and musculature, were able to create their own roles within a society. In the ancient world, males were more likely to hunt, though females likely played as large or a larger role in keeping their communities fed. Because of their increased strength and different musculature, males were also typically expected to engage in violence on behalf of their families or communities. As societies evolved, violence on behalf of a society became known as being a soldier.

Biological males were the warriors of their societies by virtue of their musculature and physical traits, but can individuals who are biologically female also perform in these roles, or are they ill-suited because of the way that their bodies develop?

Female Warriors

Since time immemorial, biological females have taken up arms and have utilized violence to defend their communities and to attack their rivals. While biological males were more likely to fill this role, women warriors have existed since before recorded history, and their feats have often been recorded, in part because women warriors were typically rare. Nonetheless, there are many examples of women, from around the world, performing as soldiers or even as leaders in military establishments.

One of the earliest female warriors for whom there is some biographical information is Fu Hao, who lived during China’s Bronze Age, around 1200bce. Fu was one of the 64 wives of the king of the Shang Dynasty, but she blazed a trail of her own, becoming one of the only known female property owners in China at the time and, amazingly, the only known female general to lead a contingent of the Shang Dynasty’s armies. According to records scrawled into “oracle bones,” Fu Hao led a contingent of at least 4,000 soldiers in military campaigns against the Shang Dynasty’s rivals, and she was buried in a tomb decorated for honored military leaders with more than 100 weapons, a variety of precious objects, and the bodies of a number of slaves who were expected to serve her in the afterlife. Another famous figure in the history of women warriors is Boudicca, who led the Iceni People in Eastern Britain during the Roman invasion in the first century CE. Roman historian Tacitus describes how Boudicca destroyed Roman settlements and successfully led her rebel armies against the Roman legions until her army, and her people, were defeated at the Battle of Watling Street around 61 ce.³

Historical records prove incontrovertibly that women can and have fought in wars and performed as soldiers and generals. They have performed these duties to such a degree that they have been able to defeat male warriors and armies led by male counterparts. In some cases, women were forced into this role because they were the only individuals available to counter an external threat, but in other cases women have demonstrated an internal desire to perform in this role. For some women, performing as a soldier or warrior was symbolic of defying the narrowly defined roles for women in their societies. In other cases, women warriors were simply trying to play their part in defending their societies or communities.

Slightly closer to home, there are many stories of women performing in warrior roles during the American Revolution. Though the Continental Army was an entirely male institution, with women statutorily prohibited from serving as soldiers, there were a number of women who traveled with the soldiers. Often known as “camp followers,” these women cooked, cleaned, and looked after the male soldiers but, in the heat of battle, many stepped forth and took the soldier’s roles as well. There has long been a story about a brave Revolutionary War woman named Molly Pitcher, who took over for her wounded husband on the field of battle, using his artillery weapon to drive back the British soldiers. Historians have since determined that the story of Molly Pitcher is likely an amalgamation of a number of stories involving women who stepped into battle in aid of wounded soldiers. There were many women who fought and died in the Revolution, taking up rifles or artillery positions in situations of emergency or in the heat of battle, though many of these women’s stories were never individually recorded. Their brave efforts have, instead, been amalgamated into fictional folk tales like the story of Molly Pitcher.⁴

There are many women who used subterfuge to perform in the warrior’s role when doing so was prohibited. One of the most famous is Deborah Sampson, a New England woman who was passionate about the independence movement in the lead-up to the Revolutionary War. Prohibited from joining the Continental Army because of her sex, Sampson dressed in men’s clothing and, in May of 1782, enlisted under the name of Robert Shurtleff.

Over the course of the war, Sampson fought in a number of battles, and she was present at the Battle of Yorktown. She was, additionally, wounded several times during battle but tended to her own wounds to prevent her sex from being discovered. There is even a record that she once used metal probes to remove a musket ball from her own leg, not wanting to allow the physician to get a close look at her. Following Yorktown, Sampson fell ill with a fever and was taken to Philadelphia, where a doctor discovered she was female but decided, for unknown reasons, to keep her secret. Instead, the physician kept her until she had recovered from her fever and filled out paperwork to officially discharge her, honorably, from service in the Continental Army.

After she married and had children, Sampson decided to tell her story, and she became something of a local celebrity, even becoming an acquaintance of Paul Revere and several other famed Revolutionary War heroes. Over the centuries that followed, Sampson’s story was often resurrected whenever there was any debate about women in the military or performing as soldiers. For instance, this short article in the Wilmington Morning Star from 1942 revives Sampson’s story as part of a broader discussion about women in service:

“Washington Daybook”

The WAAC mentioned in the article was the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps, the first official US Army Division for female servicemembers. In 1942, the WAAC was a major news story, but it was an achievement that was many decades in the making.

A Slow Integration

From the Revolutionary War to World War I, women’s rights activists and pioneering women urged the government and the military establishment to integrate. Each time the United States faced a foreign threat, there were women who wanted to perform in the warrior’s role and who urged to be allowed to play an active role in combat.

Men were often dismissive or critical of integration of the military, and it was and is still commonly claimed that women are not suited for soldiering, physically, mentally, or emotionally. Despite this attitude, women continued to agitate for inclusion and, eventually, the military establishment was forced to create a more significant role for women in the armed services. World War I saw major leaps forward for women’s integration into the military, with the Army, Navy, and Coast Guard providing new roles for women.

In 1917, a woman named Loretta Walsh made history as the first woman to be inducted into the United States Navy. A novelty at the time, Ms. Walsh’s achievement was treated with a mixture of skepticism and amusement in the popular press. This article from Five Mile Beach Weekly Journal, published in 1917, demonstrates how this defining moment for women in combat spread through the public conversation.

“In a New Role”

Though Walsh’s appointment was historic, the navy had not chosen to truly integrate but had simply created a subordinate role deemed suitable for women.

By the time World War II came along, the idea of women in service was not quite as shocking, though none of the branches of the military were even remotely prepared to allow for full integration. Rather, military branches began creating new roles for women who could enlist in the armed forces but would serve in supporting roles. The WAAC of World War II provides an excellent example. Though this organization represents a major leap forward in terms of female integration into the armed forces, women who became members performed one of three basic roles: switchboard operator, mechanic, or clerk. To be certain, allowing women to fill these roles while collecting the benefits as employees of the US military was a step toward equality in the armed forces, but women were still relegated to supporting or subservient roles.

Lingering Questions

Most recent polling on this issue suggests that around 66 percent of Americans support allowing women to perform in active combat roles and do not believe that this will pose a threat to military effectiveness. The Gallup Organization has found between 65 and 74 percent support for allowing women to perform in combat roles since as early as 2005. When Gallup asked similar questions in 1992, there was still a slight majority (55 percent) who favored allowing women to occupy combat jobs. Overall, polling indicates that most Americans have been comfortable with women occupying combat roles for more than 30 years.⁷ Though there were few specific polls on the issue in the 1980s and before, research indicates that it was during this period that the general opinion on women in the military and in combat roles began to change and that prior to this period, a slight majority would likely have opposed women serving in combat roles.

The integration of women into combat positions was not a leap forward but a slow evolution. In the Korean War, the services were integrated but women were still prohibited from combat and were unable to command male soldiers. In Vietnam, women, for the first time, were placed in charge of units containing male servicemembers. From the 1980s to the 2000s, women broke many of the remaining barriers. This period saw the first female fighter pilots and the first four-star woman general. Finally, in 2013 under the Obama administration, the “risk rule” was lifted, allowing women to serve in combat positions in all the US military branches.⁸

Each step in the integration of the military has seen passionate objections from individuals in society who object to women in combat roles. In some cases, critics argue that allowing female servicemembers to serve in combat roles will distract male soldiers, thereby making them less effective in combat. Another of the most common arguments is that women lack essential qualities to perform well in combat, whether physical or emotional.

Conservative pundit Heather Mac Donald used these same political talking points in a 2019 Op-Ed she wrote for the Wall Street Journal. She begins the article by stating,

Most of Mac Donald’s arguments were well-trod claims about feminine suitability for combat roles, but a recent study provided ammunition for critics like Mac Donald who wish to defend the previous status quo. The study, conducted in 2015, found that all-male combat units performed better than units with women. The differences came down to physical characteristics and the primary difference was speed. Male units were able to move more quickly and engage in the objectives of the exercise more effectively than units with female combat personnel. The tests were designed to examine the kinds of activities that would occur in an actual combat situation, and so the implication was that female soldiers did not perform as well as male soldiers and that their presence in an integrated unit reduced the effectiveness of the unit.¹⁰

The 2015 study seems to bolster the argument that women are ill-suited for combat, based primarily on the physical differences between biological female bodies and biological male bodies. However, this report was not as damning as it originally seemed. Critics argued that the study was biased against the female servicemembers from the start. A deeper look at the data showed that some of the female soldiers in the study were outperforming many of the men in many of the tasks and matched the top male performers in the study. Critics also took issue with the fact that the study did not account for prejudice within units that might impact how well male soldiers worked with female counterparts, bias on the part of instructors, or the fact that detailed data from the study was not released, only a summary of data.

Megan MacKenzie, a senior lecturer at the University of Sydney in Australia, said of the study in an interview with Stars and Stripes,

Company Commander and Infantry Officer Micah Ables wrote a response to MacDonald’s critique for the Modern War Institute at West Point in February of 2019, in which he argued:

Last month, Heather Mac Donald’s Wall Street Journal op-ed argued that “women don’t belong in combat units.” In it, Mac Donald makes four main claims: first, that women are physiologically incapable of handling combat; second, that women cannot meet physical standards; next, that the “inevitable introduction of eros” will erode unit cohesion; and, finally, that military policies should only be made to improve combat effectiveness. While I agree with many of her premises and beliefs, I disagree with her conclusion. The US military’s combat arms branches do not need to ban women. They need to fix their standards problem.¹²”

Conclusion

The debate over the role of women in the military is ongoing but is also changing. In the twenty-first century, a majority of Americans believe that women should be permitted to serve in combat roles, and support for gender equality in the military is likely to increase as research indicates that younger Americans are more supportive of gender equality. The United States is still influenced by leaders from the Greatest and Baby Boomer generations, who were brought up in an environment that emphasized traditional gender roles. As individuals from these generations die or leave positions of power, it is likely that gender equality and integration will become less controversial. The broader debate about gender equality in America not only includes the debate over women in the military and other traditionally male roles but also considerations about gender identity and sexuality, and attitudes about these aspects of American culture are likewise experiencing a generational shift.

Discussion Questions

Works Used