gender discrimination in the military essay

• CCO Case Studies
• CSWMD Case Studies
• ICAF Case Studies
• NWC Case Studies
• Faculty Seminars
• PRISM Issues
• China Strategic Perspectives
• CSWMD Occasional Papers
• CTNSP Defense and Technology Papers
• CTNSP Working and Occasional Papers
• INSS Strategic Perspectives
• Middle East Strategic Perspectives
• Defense Horizons
• Strategic Forums
• Strategic Monographs
• Working Papers
• Asia and the Pacific
• Latin America and the Caribbean
• Middle East and North Africa
• Sub-Saharan Africa
• Acquisition
• Biological & Chemical Defense
• Countering WMD
• Cybersecurity
• Defense Budgets
• Defense Policy
• Ethics & Leadership
• Homeland Security
• Humanitarian Assistance & Disaster Relief
• Insurgency/Irregular Warfare
• International Law & National Security Law
• Terrorism & Extremism
• Joint Strategic Logistics
• Military History
• Military Psychology & Resilience
• Military Strategy
• Missile Defense
• National Security Reform
• Nuclear Policy
• Organizational Change
• Stabilization & Reconstruction
• Supply Chain Management
• Technology & Innovation
• WMD Elimination
• WMD Preparedness/Response

Women, Regardless: Understanding Gender Bias in U.S. Military Integration

By Elizabeth M. Trobaugh Joint Force Quarterly 88

W omen have been part of the U.S. military and its campaigns since the American Revolution. With the advent of the Women’s Army Corps in 1943, women could officially enlist for military service. During this time, female enlistees faced unofficial slander campaigns that sharply reversed enlistment. Over the last 70 years, women’s roles in the Army have morphed as fast as—or in some cases faster—than society has changed. Many of these changes have been good. For instance, many women have succeeded and excelled in newly accessible jobs, specialties, and skills. However, women still face stereotypes about who they are and how capably they perform their duties. These attitudes and beliefs threaten the integrity of the Armed Forces as well as their mission.

Army team at Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center wins Commandant’s Cup relay race at Presidio’s Price Fitness Center Field, Monterey, California, June 15, 2016 (U.S. Army/Steven L. Shepard)

The war on terror and the U.S. military’s use of counterinsurgency ushered in a new era of warfighting: there are no frontlines, and everyone must be prepared to fight. Regardless of whether society thinks women should be in combat, the reality is they already have been in the fight. Yet the current combat arms culture has been slow to adjust as evidenced by the ongoing commentary about what women can and cannot do in the military. As Marine Corps Commandant General Robert B. Neller noted in his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, we can no longer go to war without women. 1

Therefore, as former Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter announced in 2015, women will be (and subsequently have been) integrated into previously closed combat jobs and training. To promote the former Secretary’s proposal, there also needs to be a change of culture within the Army (the Service in which my own experiences are rooted), as well as in the broader military, to ensure the success of women entering combat arms. Policymakers often do not notice adverse attitudes toward women serving in combat arms capacities. Although leaders may be aware of sexism when it takes the form of blatant comments, they may be less aware of more subtle forms of sexism that manifest as reduced training standards for women. Whichever the case, women may have to go above and beyond the standard to prove themselves and may routinely have their work overlooked until there is an immediate benefit. These commonplace events are indications of pervasive stereotypes that prevent women from doing their jobs effectively and accomplishing the mission.

Current Research

In 2015, the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command Analysis Center published its Gender Integration Study. 2 The research team conducting the study looked to the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy and to the senior noncommissioned officer corps to help identify risks that may come with female integration into combat arms. Furthermore, the research team conducted a feasibility assessment to evaluate the risks associated with integrating women into previously closed military occupational specialties (MOSs). The research team contacted 4 Brigade Combat Teams and interviewed 35 command teams for the assessment. Additionally, the study engaged with senior Army leaders at high levels for additional guidance and feedback. The results from the study stated:

The Army should proceed with integrating women into previously closed combat arms MOS/units. To successfully integrate, the Army must address the following barriers: inconsistent enforcement of existing standards and perceptions of double standards; incidents of unprofessional behavior and indiscipline; fear of sexual harassment and assault; cultural stereotypes; and ignorance of current Army policy. 3

The data presented in this article underscore much of what was explored in the Gender Integration Survey . Similar conclusions were extrapolated from many of the same concerns presented from research participants. Male Soldiers are afraid of lowered physical standards, increased sexual assault and harassment, reduced readiness, and destruction of the masculine culture of brotherhood. However, much of what is discussed here goes beyond the thoughts and attitudes about women integrating into jobs in previously closed MOSs. This article explores women’s thoughts about their own abilities, Soldiers’ experiences with training women to perform physically demanding tasks compared with what they thought women could achieve, and how men think they would react to the presence of women.

Investigating Gender Bias

Gender stereotypes and institutional bias within the military come as no surprise to anyone, least of all women, in the military. However, how to pinpoint these incidences as they occur and to formulate solutions seems to befuddle leaders at all levels. Researchers have distinguished between two forms of sexism: hostile and benevolent. 4 Whereas hostile sexism is more obviously negative, benevolent sexism is often disguised as positive, portraying women as needing and deserving greater care and protection. Both forms deem women as less capable and competent, justifying lower expectations of them and limiting their roles. These beliefs are apparent in a variety of male-dominated professions, including the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics professions as well as the military. 5

Drawing from my own experiences in the Army, I devised an online survey as part of an independent study for Soldiers to evaluate the areas where gender biases may prevent women from succeeding in Army culture. This survey aimed to assess where stereotypes may exist within Army training environments as well as attitudes toward female integration into previously closed jobs and schools. Army culture may be a permissive environment for attitudes that women do not belong. For this reason, the survey also aimed to address some of the institutional gender biases plaguing the Army and hopefully to inform the broader military community of such biases. Out of these findings come proposed policy recommendations to course-correct as the joint force begins to “gender integrate” all jobs within the Services.

The online survey asked female respondents about their training in warrior-type tasks. Warrior-type training , for our purposes, is defined in the survey as having the skills required to be successful on the battlefield or frontlines—for example, basic rifle marksmanship or patrolling. The online survey asked women across all officer and enlisted ranks—and across all MOSs available to women in 2015—about the quality of training received, if they struggled, why they might have struggled, if they received additional help, and if they would like to join combat arms jobs or training. The point was to identify each woman’s view of her own abilities in this crucial area and to determine if she felt supported in training. Next, both male and female Soldiers were asked if they had trained women in the Army. The survey also asked respondents to think of one instance of training women in a warrior task. Furthermore, it looked at warrior-type training among men and women in order to establish whether women were or are receiving the same training and whether they were held to the same standards as male Soldiers. The survey asked respondents if they had trained women in a warrior-type task, what the quality of that training was, and, ultimately, what may have prevented women from doing better. The goal of this section was to identify attitudes toward women and their abilities in training among both male and female Soldiers, across military ranks, and across military skills.

The online survey then sought to evaluate the attitudes about women integrating into combat arms and combat arms training. It posed questions about the difficulty of such warrior tasks and the ability to perform them. These sections also asked respondents to evaluate their beliefs and attitudes about the biggest effect of integrating women into combat arms. The data collected in this section can easily be compared to data about how women were actually trained and performed during that training.

The survey also sought to discover whether women were failing en masse in warrior-type skills training. If anecdotal evidence showed that women were not failing to meet the standard, why are gender-based stereotypes so pervasive when it comes to female integration? If women were failing en masse, what was the root cause? Two outcomes could be extrapolated from questions about culture. First, trainers either have been allowing women to pass at a lower standard by turning a blind eye to their failures or were refusing to push women to retrain if they failed (I refer to this as the “if she fails, therefore she can’t” syndrome). The second conclusion is its reverse. In this scenario, women were held to a harsher standard as a means to prove their capability above and beyond male standards.

Georgia Army National Guard’s 648 th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade Soldier participates in Best Warrior Competition’s obstacle course event, Fort Stewart, March 9, 2017 (U.S. Army/James Braswell)

Confirming the Bias

In the first section of the survey (women only), 70 percent of respondents stated that they received adequate training in warrior-type tasks in basic training or officer basic. Yet 70 percent of respondents also stated they could have used additional training in a warrior-type task. Discouragingly, nearly 53 percent responded “no” when asked if their chain of command would support additional training if they (the respondents) needed more training. The three answers most frequently cited for why female respondents may have failed a warrior-type task were, in order, “need of additional training or familiarization,” “never failed or anticipated failing,” and “lack of time and/or resources to properly train to meet the standards.”

The survey showed female Soldiers had a generally positive view of their abilities. They were willing to and capable of completing the warrior-type tasks. Moreover, respondents noted they were not perfect and would have liked more training in some areas, but their chains of command would not support additional training. Not unsurprisingly, many women are still eager to prove themselves in combat arms jobs and training, but more often than not, they would like more training before even trying to enter combat arms.

The next section of the survey asked both male and female respondents if they had trained women in a warrior-type task. Results indicated that 72 percent of those who trained women in warrior tasks reported that they trained women the same as they trained men. Furthermore, nearly 72 percent of respondents reported that the women they trained met the standard. The data are clear in showing that most female trainees were trained about the same as their male counterparts. Yet both male and female respondents cited lack of familiarization with the task as the most prevalent deficiency that prevented female trainees from doing better. Male respondents indicated a lack of physical strength as the second most prevalent deficiency, while female respondents indicated a lack of motivation.

The last section of the survey asked both men and women what they thought about women integrating into combat arms jobs and training. This section aimed to evaluate the culture surrounding integrating women into previously closed sectors. Contrary to previous sections in the survey, wherein a lack of familiarization with the task was the most cited challenge, physical strength was the highest ranked challenge for female Soldiers who may integrate into combat arms jobs, and training was cited among men, enlisted Soldiers, combat arms, and noncombat arms jobs. A dichotomy arose in the survey: despite respondents having experienced women in training pass the standard in warrior-type tasks, they thought women were less physically capable of passing warrior-type tasks. Unlike their counterparts, however, female (regardless of rank) and male officers ranked “attitudes toward women in training” as the biggest obstacle to female integration. The officers surveyed support female integration, with 86 percent of officer respondents believing women were capable of meeting standards. However, among male officers, enlisted, and across all job demographics, negative effects of female integration were ranked highest in a list of possible results. “Logistical problems” were ranked the highest among those demographics, while female respondents ranked “increased readiness due to increased training of force” as the highest effect of integrating women into all jobs.

Even though respondents experienced women meeting the standards in their training, the section regarding thoughts and attitudes toward gender integration showed that 40 percent of male respondents believed standards would change to accommodate women. This response to integration, regardless of experience, suggests that women were not being fully trained as well as men or that there was bias among respondents about the abilities of women. Respondents may not have conducted training to standard, and they might have allowed women to “pass” even when they had not actually done so. Perhaps retraining was cumbersome, or they had to meet a quota for unit readiness.

Respondents experienced women in training passing the standard, and they indicated that “lack of familiarization” prevented them from doing better. Yet the idea of integrating women into combat arms and jobs seemed to evoke negativity about female ability. Male respondents cited “lack of physical strength” as the biggest obstacle to women entering combat arms. Combat arms jobs and training are a compilation of warrior tasks performed in succession. The endurance required may account for why respondents thought women would perform at a lower standard. However, with successful female integration into artillery, the inauguration of women into the infantry, as well as women passing Ranger training, women are demonstrating they can and will succeed. Additionally, it is unfair to state the standard would be lowered for women wanting to join the infantry if women have not been afforded the same training as men. As this survey demonstrates, women may not be receiving the same training.

Respondent Comments

To get a better sense of opinions, the survey asked respondents to provide comments or feedback. Respondents who had trained women were asked to provide comments on several questions, though not all questions. For instance, one question was, “During this same event, what were the female trainees’ most significant deficiencies that might have prevented them from doing well in training?” Some responses included:

• “Lack of perseverance while under duress.”
• “Many MOS in the Army seem to have a lower standard for women. It’s almost as though they don’t expect as much of them because they feel it’s a waste of time. It is absolutely not true and saddens me thinking of all the lost potential.”
• “Stereotype that they ‘couldn’t do it’ led to them being trained to a lesser standard.”

Written responses varied concerning thoughts and feelings about integrating women. When asked, “Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: If the Army decides to integrate females into combat arms and combat arms–related training, the standards will be lowered to accommodate females,” some responses included:

• “There are two standards. The Army standard, and the female standard. Until the female standard is removed, females will never be equal to males.”
• “Standards aren’t the problem. [There are] plenty of strong women, the problem lies within the change in men around women. The biological and unpreventable reactions between males and females of the same species [do] not equate to a good cohesive unit. If you want to make a combat unit ineffective, assign women to it.”
• “Political demands will result in a degradation of standards to meet quotas and to prevent fallout from the imminent failure of a high majority of females with the current male infantry standards.”

Another question was, “If the Army decides to integrate females into combat arms and combat arms–related training, do you think that those females who succeed in meeting standards will have (mark all that apply) 1. Received special treatment; 2. Met standard; 3. Been allowed to pass at a lower standard?” One person commented:

Physiologically, women are composed differently than men and many cannot perform the same physical tasks as men. It is apparent even with the APFT [Army Physical Fitness Test] grading scale where the men and women scoring scales drastically differ. Since this is such a big push by the Army to integrate women into combat arms, they will do whatever [is ] necessary to integrate as rapidly as the public wants them to regardless of the level a woman is at in comparison to her male counterparts within combat arms branches.

Two contrasting responses to the question, “Do you think that females are capable of meeting standards in combat arms units and training?” are telling:

• “Can’t speak for entirety of combat arms, but if you’re asking if I could see a female in the ranks with the pipe swinging meat eaters of a Ranger Battalion, hell no. Can’t see them carrying around a mortar tube living the gruntiest [ sic ] dirtiest life in the military possible either. Physically capable is indifferent to me. I have literally watched a group of professionals completely change for the worse, become petty and show offish because 1 attractive female was attached to the platoon. If you want to make combat unit ineffective, assign some women to it.”
• “I believe individual women certainly are [capable of meeting standards]. Once again, so long as we limit accessions to those individual women, the force should be okay. I am also far from confident we have the political and organizational will to pre-emptively weed out those [who] won’t [meet standards].”

The common thread throughout these comments is an acknowledgment by Soldiers that there is an institutional difference created in the APFT. Furthermore, the differences in the test for men and women lend themselves to Soldiers believing that women are incapable even when they witnessed women meeting the standard in training. Many other comments expanded on the gender-based bias with sweeping generalizations about physical ability. Women were viewed by respondents as weaker either because their institutional standards are so much lower or because they perceive women to be physically weaker. That leads to an important question: If women pass, will male Soldiers in the military accept that women met or exceeded the same standard as men, or will women be forever viewed as having been accommodated in order to meet some political agenda? These comments also highlight male Soldiers’ beliefs that they will react inappropriately around women. The very presence of women seems to elicit the belief that men themselves will become foolish, while readiness and cohesion suffer. The professionalism of men remains a concern as women integrate into these previously closed jobs.

Furthermore, other comments spoke to the culture of the combat arms being too hostile to women or demonstrated a respondent’s hostility. One person commented:

As far as combat arms units go, there would be an extremely negative effect within units which are traditionally male. The things that go on there, the bonds, would be damaged. SHARPs [the Army’s Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention program] stuff would be through the roof. I would almost rather die before changing my demeanor within my unit. Standards need to be met and maintained, but we should all strive to exceed the standard.

This comment, and others like it, reveal deep-seated attitudes that need to change within military culture to allow women to serve free of bias and stereotypes. Because the mission requires women to be on the battlefield, new policies could be implemented to help ease the transition of women into combat arms and break down gender-based stereotypes in order to improve readiness. One positive step Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley already implemented subsequent to the first three women passing Ranger training was to mask the names and number of women entering. 6 However, more can be done to bolster an environment primed for fair gender integration.

Soldier qualifies with M4 rifle during New York Army National Guard Best Warrior Competition at Camp Smith Training Site, March 30, 2017 (U.S. Army National Guard/Harley Jelis)

Practical Policies

The Gender Integration Study provides a complex, detailed assessment of issues and attitudes facing the Army as it moves to gender-integrate the force completely. Yet many of the policy recommendations going forward are lacking in substance and practical application. Leaders at the highest levels can publish policy and issue statements in an attempt to mitigate many of the issues discussed in the study. However, without follow-through and practical guidance for all levels down to the platoon or development of a way to measure effectiveness, the policies will continue to fall flat. Stating that commands must create an equal opportunity environment and prevent sexual harassment and assault is not enough. Leaders at all levels must have practical tools to encourage a climate of tolerance while maintaining readiness.

U.S. Army Field Manual (FM) 7-22, Army Physical Readiness Training , can be improved. The easiest way is to include pictures of women demonstrating physical tasks. 7 There are currently no images of women in FM 7-22 beyond how to measure a woman’s body for her body mass index. Young Soldiers who need to seek guidance in the regulation regarding physical fitness will see pictures of both sexes completing tasks. Furthermore, showing women completing tasks with their male counterparts will make the institutional statement that women are capable.

The physical fitness manual should again read, as it did in 1980, “Just because women are different does not mean they are incapable of achieving satisfactory levels of performance.” 8 This sentence instills the belief that women are capable and are expected to perform alongside their male counterparts. The importance of this statement will reverberate through not only combat arms but also all training as well. This form of legitimacy puts all female Soldiers on notice that they are expected to meet required standards. These standards apply whether trainers or the women themselves believe they are capable of meeting such standards. The Army as a whole would benefit from the institution of the Service and its leadership putting both in writing and in pictures its confidence in its female Soldiers.

Additionally, in Army Regulation 600-20, Command Policy , the Department of the Army outlines in chapter 6, paragraph 1, that “Commanders are responsible for sustaining a positive EO [Equal Opportunity] climate within their units . . . Create and sustain effective units by eliminating discriminatory behaviors or practices that undermine teamwork, mutual respect, loyalty, and shared sacrifice of the men and women of America’s Army.” 9 The rest of the chapter goes on to discuss in vague and legalistic terms an equal opportunity command climate. This chapter does little to influence the culture inside the Army or protect unfair treatment of minorities, including women.

The 1949 Army Pamphlet 21-41, Personal Conduct for the Soldier , did more for equal opportunity than the current regulation. It brought good order and conduct to the force. It raised the expectation that the Soldier was going to do what was right because “what was right” was in a manual in the Soldier’s pocket as an inspectable item. The pamphlet outlined conduct on and off duty, on and off post. The regulation stated, “Beware of the man who speaks disrespectfully of women. Your sister or one of your friends may be his next victim,” and stated of female Servicemembers, “In the Army you will frequently see members of the Women’s Army Corps. Accord them the same respect and courtesies you extend male(s). . . . They are doing a fine job and have established an excellent record in the Army.” 10 Something similar could be outlined, such as:

Beware of the Soldier who speaks disrespectfully of others. He or she is not to be trusted. Your friends or family may be his or her next victim. You will often see members of the Army who are different from you. You are a professional and will treat all officers and noncommissioned officers with the respect due to them and their rank, regardless of how you feel about them.

The pamphlet could outline how to treat members of the opposite sex in subsequent chapters in order to further illustrate the importance of respect.

Lastly, the changing character of war reinforces the high level of physical readiness Servicemembers must achieve. Anyone, anywhere, and at any time can be engaged by the enemy regardless of gender, MOS, or age. It is imperative to maintain high physical standards. Because the current standard is so low for women, many female Soldiers are often discounted as weaker, even when they can meet the same standard as men. Female Soldiers between the ages of 17 and 21 are required to do 19 push-ups and run 2 miles in 18:54 to pass, while male Soldiers in the same age group are asked to do 42 push-ups and run 2 miles in 15:54. There is no difference for sit-ups. The differences noted above serve as the basis for institutional bias. Since the Army policy requires women to do only fewer than half the push-ups males are required to do, the message conveys that women are half as capable as men.

It would benefit the Army to close or eliminate the gap altogether. The low standard for push-ups and run time for 17- to 21-year-old women is not only insulting, but it also serves to reinforce that women are not as capable as their male counterparts. Many women may find it difficult to run faster or do more push-ups, but they should be brought up to a higher standard because war demands it. Implementing a single standard for all 17- to 21-year-olds should adequately test the baseline for a passing rate no matter the gender, such as 16:30 for 2 miles, 30 push-ups, and 53 sit-ups.

Since these examples lower the standard for men, a fear may develop among Soldiers that a broad standard may hurt the combat arms skills where physical fitness is paramount to the job. Therefore, it would be better not only to have one standard for a baseline (not based on gender), but also to apply minimally acceptable standards for each job skill, as Army leaders have discussed in recent years. 11 For instance, if a score of 60 percent in each event on the APFT is passing, then a Soldier must meet an 85 percent requirement to stay within combat arms jobs, a 75 percent requirement to stay in combat support, and a 70 percent pass rate within Service support. Thus, the 60 percent would be maintained for Soldiers with professional jobs, such as lawyers, doctors, and chaplains.

Soldier learns survival skills during Exercise Kowari, designed to enhance U.S, Australian, and Chinese friendship and trust through trilateral cooperation in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region, Northern Territory, Australia, August 30, 2016 (U.S. Marine Corps/Osvaldo L. Ortega III)

A benefit to restructuring the APFT is that it gender neutralizes the standard. Everyone must pass the same APFT to enter the Army, but their jobs will demand more of them with job-specific minimally acceptable standards. This model takes “male” and “female” out of the standard and replaces it with “Soldier” in combat arms, “Soldier” in combat support, and “Soldier” in service support. It incentivizes staying fit because Soldiers who love their jobs will work to maintain their job-specific standards out of fear they could be involuntarily reclassified to another job for poor physical performance. Furthermore, this kind of APFT standard emphasizes quality at a time when the Army must sacrifice quantity. Each job classification demands an appropriate level of fitness and will ensure the best Soldiers remain in the correct jobs.

A job skill differentiating standard might unintentionally create hierarchy among combat arms, combat support, and service support. Promotions might be affected to favor combat arms Soldiers. The bias might arise that since combat arms Soldiers would have to do more physically, they must be better Soldiers. An answer to this unintended consequence is to place more emphasis on education in the combat support and service support jobs. These jobs require organizational skills, technical expertise, and administrative management ability. The Army should invest in the Soldiers who perform these essential functions that require more brainpower than physical ability. Providing education would be a way to afford service support and combat support Soldiers the same promotion opportunities as their combat arms counterparts.

Instead of arguing whether we should integrate women into the force, the better question would be to ask how we can better prepare all Soldiers for upcoming global strategic challenges. The changing face of battle includes the fact that women are part of the success equation. If war is going to include winning hearts and minds, that will include the hearts and minds of women. Development is severely hindered when women are not included. Therefore, women in the military will continue to be on the battlefield. As such, they should be as battlefield-ready as their male counterparts. Furthermore, we should expect more of our male and female Soldiers, not less. The fact that women are different from men does not make them incapable of meeting satisfactory levels of fitness. Female Soldiers have to be able to pull the trigger, traverse the battlefield, and deal with casualties no differently from their male counterparts. In addition, the Army can expect its male Soldiers to act with decency and respect toward their fellow Soldiers, regardless of gender. JFQ

1 U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, “Testimony of U.S. Marine Corps Commandant Robert B. Neller,” March 14, 2017.

2 Lynette Arnhart et al., Gender Integration Study (Fort Leavenworth, KS: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command Analysis Center, April 21, 2015).

3 Ibid., 11.

4 Peter Glick and Susan T. Fiske, “The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Sexism,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70, no. 3 (March 1996), 491–512.

5 Ernesto Reuben, Paola Sapienza, and Luigi Zingales, “How Stereotypes Impair Women’s Careers in Science,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, no. 12 (January 2014), 4403–4408.

6 Michelle Tan, “First Official Integrated Ranger School Underway, Army Won’t Talk About the Women,” Army Times , November 3, 2015.

7 U.S. Army Field Manual (FM) 7-22, Army Physical Readiness Training (Washington, DC: Headquarters Department of the Army, October 26, 2012).

8 U.S. Army FM 21-20, Physical Fitness Training (Washington, DC: Headquarters Department of the Army, 1980).

9 U.S. Army Regulation 600-20, Army Command Policy (Washington, DC: Headquarters Department of the Army, 2014), chapter 6, paragraph 1.

10 U.S. Army Pamphlet 21-41, Personal Conduct for the Soldier (Washington, DC: Headquarters Department of the Army, 1949).

11 Kevin Lilly and Michelle Tan, “Army’s New Fitness Tests: New Details Emerge from Leadership,” Army Times , February 18, 2016.

Women Warriors

How have the experiences, representation, and recognition of women in the military transformed, a century after the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? As Brookings President and retired Marine Corps General John Allen has pointed out , at times, the U.S. military has been one of America’s most progressive institutions, as with racial integration in the years after World War II. But it also embodies a traditional, conservative, and in some ways “macho” culture. It’s an organization where many (though far from all) jobs require a type of physical strength that is more frequently attainable for the male frame. And the military is, in large part, a deployable institution whose members can face difficult conditions in the field. Women are no less suited to braving such austere conditions and have proved that in combat. But there can be major challenges associated with sending a mix-gender force into such conditions.

For these reasons, it took a long time to make the military fully accessible to women. Notably, it was only in the Obama years that all combat positions, including in the ground forces, were open to them. Previous milestones had been reached only gradually. Legislation formally allowing women into the military was passed in 1948 (even though tens of thousands had served in both world wars, and women like Harriet Tubman and Mary Walker had served in the Civil War as nurses, spies, and even soldiers disguised as men). Women first entered the military service academies in the 1970s and were only allowed to fly combat missions or serve on Navy combat ships in the 1990s.

Given the integral role women play in the future of the armed forces, at this juncture in 2020 it is important to step back and ask: Is the U.S. military a leading or a lagging organization in regard to gender equity? And, should its leadership be proud of what it has accomplished to date, or prodded to do much better?

On both questions, the answers are mixed. The armed forces have come a long way in the last few decades, but this is hardly the time to spike the football in the end zone. There is so much further to go and addressing these issues of gender equity will not be easy.

The U.S. military by the numbers

Today’s military is much more integrated along gender lines than at any time in the past. Women are no longer excluded from any type of combat mission: They are pilots and vehicle drivers and mechanics and infantry officers. But while the U.S. military today has never had a higher fraction of women, they remain just 16 percent of the total force. Percentages have roughly doubled in the last generation for the various services but, even today, averaged across the four major Department of Defense services, women represent only one of every six Americans in uniform, ranging from about 8 percent in the Marine Corps to 19 percent in the Air Force.

In senior leadership, the numbers are worse and reflect the work that still needs to be done to help integrate women into the military. One of us had the honor of pinning four stars on her shoulder and becoming the first woman in American history to run a military combatant command. But there have only been six women who have ever reached four-star rank. Since General Ann Dunwoody of the U.S. Army became the first in 2008, the United States has named roughly 100 four-star military officers. This means that only about 6 percent of four-star generals have been women even in the period after the glass ceiling was shattered. There has not yet been a female member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or a female secretary of defense (or deputy secretary), either.

While the U.S. military today has never had a higher fraction of women, they remain just 16 percent of the total force.

These gender disparities contrast with a military that, in other terms, is rather diverse today, with roughly half of its enlisted recruits either Hispanic or members of a minority. 1 About half of all U.S. military personnel are married, and 39 percent have children; single parents make up about 6 percent of the total armed forces. About 5 percent of military personnel are married to another member of the armed forces. In terms of their family income backgrounds, there is fairly equal representation across all five quintiles of U.S. income distribution. But there is modest over-representation from the three middle quintiles, and modest under-representation from the top and bottom income brackets. Politically, the American armed forces lean conservative, especially among the officer corps, but there is considerable breadth of opinion in the enlisted ranks. All of these generally encouraging facts stand in contrast to the poor gender balance.

While the share of women in the military is higher than ever, the experiences of women in the military are often inequitable. Women in the military services continue to suffer high rates of sexual assaults from their male counterparts. That is unacceptable and one of the many issues that must be addressed if we are to eventually see equal shares of men and women in the armed forces.

Addressing the issues

What can be done to address the issues of inequity and underrepresentation of women in the military? Without claiming to address the entirety of the problem, we have a few thoughts. The first few are designed to broaden the appeal of military service in general, including for men and women, and our final ideas here focus on improving gender representation directly.

First, the American armed forces need to recruit from a broader pool of Americans. Some 60 percent of Army recruits now come from military families, for example. And as of 2018, the Army recruited 50 percent of its enlisted soldiers from just 10 percent of the nation’s high schools, suggesting too much dependence on certain geographic areas. This suggests that military service has become a largely family affair, with most volunteers emulating their parents’ (usually their fathers’) career paths. There is nothing wrong with family pride, and it is admirable how many children of military parents are willing to accept the sacrifice of service even after they have experienced it growing up. But passing the baton from generation to generation like this tends to perpetuate traditions—most, but not all, of them good—and leaves too few American young people of both genders willing to consider service.

There may be ways to broaden the recruiting pool even in the face of a diminishing number of suitable applicants in today’s youth population who measure up to military standards. For example, in regard to the nation’s high level of obesity, while the military should not lower physical standards, it might look for clever ways to encourage would-be recruits to get themselves into shape. Perhaps they could be offered employment conditionally, provided that they worked with a nutritionist and physical trainer for a certain trial period to improve their fitness. If they reached appropriate standards in the process, they could then join the armed forces of the United States.

We need more women in the senior ranks of the military; it is not enough just to do better with the younger and more junior demographics, which means finding ways for women to return and continue their careers after they have children.

When it comes to addressing the issues of underrepresentation, it is important to examine the barriers that keep women from pursuing military service, most notably, that it remains very hard to have a family while in military service, and this is true even more for women than men given the realities of biology. It will not always be realistic for women in particular to maintain continuity of service through their childbearing years. However, we should not give up hope for these individuals. Career paths that offer more realistic ways to return to military service after an extended absence should continue to be developed by the military services. We need more women in the senior ranks of the military; it is not enough just to do better with the younger and more junior demographics, which means finding ways for women to return and continue their careers after they have children.

Elevating women’s voices

In order to increase representation and the appeal of military service for women, we should amplify the voices of women who have had the honor of serving to spread the word about how fulfilling it can be. They can be among the most persuasive, and one hopes also the most inspiring mouthpieces for the military. Marine Colonel Amy Ebitz highlighted some bright spots that reflect the opportunities for women in the military in regard to pay and experience, in a piece for Brookings in 2019: On the issue of equal pay, she wrote, “the military absolutely embodies the equal-pay-for-equal-work principle. Regardless of your gender, your pay will be equal to others with the same time in service and qualifications. In the U.S. economy more broadly, a woman earns only 79 percent of what a man earns.” And on experience and opportunity, she added, “military service allows you to learn skills and to experience places and things you otherwise may have not. That experience, coupled with veterans’ preference for many follow-on occupations, is priceless. … In combat, my female Marines, alongside their brothers, manned machine guns and fought bravely. And no one by their side questioned their role.”

Amy’s story is not entirely different from Lori’s, even though they come from two very different military services and cultures. What the stories have in common is that both have risen very high in the ranks and feel very positively about their respective times in service, even while recognizing how rare their experiences are. We finish with Lori reflecting on her years in uniform, as well as her decision to join the armed forces in the first place, back in the early 1980s. Her message is designed to be an inspiration, we hope, to women who might consider a career in the armed forces, but it is also an admonition to policymakers, in and out of the military services, about how far we still have to go:

“I am the luckiest person in the world. I am the daughter of an amazing airman, who flew Reece aircraft for his career, RF-101s and RF-4s. I didn’t understand the importance of what he did, but I knew that he was good at what he did. He flew throughout Europe during the Cold War, and flew in the Vietnam war as well. But when it came time for me to go to college, comparing his goals and mine, I realized we’re different. You see, I was the oldest of five children, from the oldest to the youngest was six years—yes, six years. My father suggested that I should go to the Air Force Academy. I smiled sweetly and said, uh no, I had been in the Air Force for 18 years and I was ready to move on. Once in college, it took me a while to settle on a concentration. Eventually, I landed on being an English major. When it came time to figure out what to do, I decided that I would join ROTC, become a commissioned officer in the USAF, and then decide what to do with rest of my life.

Life has a way of figuring things out for you also. I had no idea that I would stay in for 37 years. No idea that I would be promoted beyond major. No idea that I would have the privilege to support and defend the Constitution of the United States at the highest level. No idea that all of my mentors would be men and fighter pilots.

But you know what? I did and it all started with a couple of things:

—The military is a meritocracy. We all start out on the same playing field with the same oath.

— What was important was the fact that I was competent in what I did. In fact, one fighter pilot stated, ‘if I had to go to war, I want Lori on the radio.’

—What I realize is that I am a woman and I have done things that no other woman had done before, like being the first female instructor at the Nellis Fighter Weapons School, and ultimately running NORTHCOM and NORAD during the North Korean crises of 2017. But what I want people to understand is that I was a part of something bigger than myself; it was never about me, but it was about the institution. And I know that I am a role model and that I want to use this for the greater good.

Our nation needs diverse voices around the table. Whether it is a CEO’s table, the Joint Chiefs table, or the cabinet of the United States, a diversity of thought, background, heritage, race, and gender all add to the capability of any leader to make a decision. It makes our nation stronger and better.”

So yes, we’ve come a long way. But there is plenty of work yet to be done to encourage the participation of women in the military and to ensure their experiences and opportunities are equitable to those of the men who serve. If we put the work in, we will have a stronger military—and country—for it.

• America’s Promise Alliance, “U.S. Military Demographics,” Washington, D.C., 2019, https://www.americaspromise.org/us-military-demographics

About the Authors

Lori robinson, nonresident senior fellow – foreign policy, center for 21st century security and intelligence, michael e. o’hanlon, senior fellow – foreign policy, more from robinson and o’hanlon.

A conversation with Gen. Lori Robinson, the first woman to command USNORTHCOM

As the first woman in U.S. history to lead a combatant command, retired General Lori Robinson, who has joined The Brookings Institution as a nonresident senior fellow, was at the forefront of NORAD and U.S. Northern, Central, and Indo-Pacific Command missions to defend and secure America and its interests. Now retired, she brings a wealth […]

MORE FROM THE 19A SERIES

Leaving all to younger hands: Why the history of the women’s suffragist movement matters

Dr. Susan Ware places the passage of the 19th Amendment in its appropriate historical context, highlights its shortfalls, and explains why celebrating the Amendment’s complex history matters.

The history of women’s work and wages and how it has created success for us all

Former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen examines the history of women entering the labor force and analyzes both the challenges that remain today and potential solutions to meet those challenges.

Women’s work boosts middle class incomes but creates a family time squeeze that needs to be eased

Middle-class incomes have risen modestly in recent decades, and most of any gains in their incomes are the result of more working women. Isabel Sawhill and Katherine Guyot explain the important role women play in middle class households and the challenges they face, including family “time squeeze.”

• Media Relations
• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy

The Company Leader

Leadership lessons from the tactical level of war, athena thriving, a unit guide to combating gender discrimination in the army, by my squad.

A groundbreaking policy in 2016 opened every job, unit, and location in the Army to women. However, despite clear guidance from Army Senior Leadership, patterns of frustratingly pervasive sexism and gender discrimination remain within our ranks. A Government Accountability Office study earlier this year found that female soldiers, who make up 15% of the Army, are 28% more likely to leave service than their male counterparts. The similarly disproportionally high rates of sexual harassment and assault military women experience speak for themselves. The brutal murder of Specialist Vanessa Guillen earlier this spring at Fort Hood resulted in a flood of personal stories shared under the hashtag #IAmVanessaGuillen. This was a tipping point that reinforced the need for unit level leaders to drive significant cultural change for our Army to be more inclusive of women. It pushed us beyond ignoring longstanding problems of gender discrimination.

Our Army’s success depends on bringing talented soldiers together in teams built on competence, resilience, discipline, and trust; to ensure every soldier can say with confidence and pride, “This is My Squad.” -GEN James McConville, The 40th CSA, 14 October 2020

Placing “People First” means we must combat gender discrimination. This is the right thing to do. But, more importantly, it is fundamental to our nation’s ability to innovate and outpace our adversaries. Research shows that diversity in the workplace leads to a more talented and competitive workforce. Diversity increases organizational adaptability and enhances problem solving capability, factors that have the potential to increase our effectiveness and military prowess. If our goal is to develop an unparalleled military force, then it is imperative we enable leaders to build teams that tap into unlimited potential. This means eradicating gender discrimination and sexual harassment/assault.  

One word of caution: Many units still have no or very few women serving within their ranks. This reality can lull those leaders to place less emphasis on gender inclusion until more women arrive at their units. We beg you not to fall into that trap. Units cannot simply “flip a switch” on cultural change. If you don’t have women in your unit now, you will. You likely work with other units that already do. Set conditions now for successful integration.

Sexism in the Ranks

Microaggressions, standards and corrections, mentoring women, cohabitation, and family care plans.

Sexism is the “prejudice or discrimination on the basis of sex or gender, especially against women.” Sexism exists within our units, both overtly and covertly, with malice and without (i.e.: unconscious bias). It is deeply rooted in conventions left over from a male-dominated profession born out of a male-dominated culture. It thrives in comments, gestures, “jokes,” harassment, and preferential treatment toward men. Sexism lurks in our team rooms, on the ramps of our combat vehicles, in our command posts, off-duty, and online. 

Sexism casts a shadow over a unit where women are not fully integrated and equal members of the team. It impairs the performance and growth of those soldiers and gives cover to the elements that actively harm them. Sexism breeds a culture that objectifies and devalues women. It sets the stage for discrimination, sexual harassment, sexual assault, a hostile work environment, and retention issues among military women. To reap the benefits of a diverse and gender inclusive military force, we must address sexism. To this end, we review microaggressions toward sex, gender, and race in accordance with military standards.

On Sexist Microaggressions  

Microaggressions are prevalent vehicles for sexism. Sexist microaggressions are the commonplace verbal or behavioral indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, demeaning, or negative attitudes toward women. Some microaggressions are more subtle than others, but all of them speak volumes about who is, and isn’t, part of the team. For example…

“I bet she didn’t have to meet the same standards that I did.”

“She only got the job because she is a woman.”

“Have you noticed she and 1SG spend a lot of time together?” (insinuating a sexual relationship)

“You’re too pretty to be in the Army.” 

“The boys are out here getting after it.” (during a training event that includes women)

A tank named after a prominent female porn star.

“That’s what she said.” (in order to sexually charge an otherwise benign comment)

“Take care of your men and equipment.” (as commander’s guidance) 

“Good morning/afternoon, gentlemen.” (in meetings where women are present)

Sgt. Brittany Farley competes in the sprint, drag, carry at Camp Zama, Japan, June 9, 2020. (Winifred Brown)

These are merely examples, but once you start to listen for such comments, you will likely find aggressive terminology all around us. These kinds of statements diminish the accomplishments of talented women, while not extending the same sentiments to their male counterparts. Furthermore, these microaggressions are alienating and insulting. Leaders must be on the lookout for sexism and make corrections to ensure soldiers understand that sexist innuendos have no place in our Army. Make these corrections immediately, publically, and professionally. Your actions during these moments will set the tone for your unit and give women on your team the confidence that you are serious about their inclusion. Some examples of corrective statements are included below.

“Help me understand your thinking.”

“I’m not comfortable with that.”

“What I’m hearing you say is (harmful belief or stereotype). Is that what you’re saying?”

“That’s not funny to me. Can you explain the joke?”

“We don’t say things like that here.” (and avoid saying things like “we’re all thinking it but you shouldn’t say it out loud.” )

“Would you care to repeat that?” 

“I don’t share that belief.”

“That’s not okay with me.”

“What you just said is harmful.” (and bonus if you can explain why)

“I find that offensive.”        

These corrections should not be made in an effort to belittle or shame the offender. Ideally, they lead to productive discussions that shed light on the problematic nature of such comments. It also reinforces individual responsibility among us all in calling out sexist behavior, and is a clear demonstration of our adherence to the Army Values. 

On Standards and Corrections 

Leaders uphold standards through on-the-spot corrections. A common abdication of this responsibility, and one that signals policies affecting women are not of concern to the command, is a reliance on women to police grooming standards on other women. There is no clearer sign that some service members are not on the team than a leader who can’t be bothered to read three pages of a common regulation on women’s appearance.

That said, we are also mindful that Eurocentric hair standards can be damaging to women of color in the ranks . To achieve current standards for appearance, some women must use relaxers that can irritate or burn the scalp. Protective hairstyles such as braids, knots, twists, weaves, and wigs, while now authorized , are often targeted as “unprofessional” according to women we spoke with. 

Hair should not be a source of stress for a service member. It is often a source of identity, even confidence, for some women (and men). Leaders need to understand the struggles of textured and ethnic hair to reduce stress and prevent alienation among the ranks. Leaders with soldiers who struggle to maintain these standards should not assume they do so intentionally, and should instead engage in empathetic conversation to better understand why. Failing to understand and justly apply female and ethnic hair standards provides a vehicle for microagressions against women and black or non-white soldiers, discouraging them from feeling part of one cohesive Army team. 

On Mentoring Women

Applying standards unevenly extends beyond appearance and grooming. Members of the group recalled leaders who refused to meet with women behind closed doors, or worse, refused to mentor them at all, to avoid the perception of impropriety. Yet these same leaders did so comfortably with other men. A workplace focused on accomplishing the mission should be more concerned with the content of a conversation than the angle of a door. Keeping women at arm’s length, with the assumption that other women will take the junior soldier/officer under their wing, fails in several respects. 

First, it assumes that other women, particularly with more experience and rank, will be available to mentor junior women. Despite the “leaders first” policy for gender integrating combat arms, the overall percentage of women in the Army is low — female mentors simply may not be available, particularly for low-density MOSs. Second, it reinforces the stereotypes that women are by nature nurturing and that their concerns are too radically different from men’s. While this article shows there are some considerations unique to women, it is insufficient to assume such knowledge will be passed down through an informal Army sisterhood. Finally, it is a failure of leadership. If you are unable to competently and comfortably mentor your women as well as your men, then you are not forging the strongest team possible. This group recommends the book Athena Rising, which addresses this topic in detail and inspired the title of this article.

On Cohabitation

Cohabitation in field environments is often contentious and can create unintended sexism. For education and recommendations, we have included an article in the reading list titled “Committing to Gender Integration: Get Rid of the Female Tent,” which recommends units prioritize mission success over comfort, use informal leadership, and be comfortable asking “what’s best for the team?” However, keep in mind that, despite the practicality of these recommendations, you might have soldiers in your unit who remain uncomfortable with cohabitation. These concerns warrant consideration and merit candid and empathetic discussion with your teams to understand the origins of their anxiety so leaders can make informed decisions that balance mission requirements with the individual comfort level of soldiers. Compromises such as private changing areas and ground rules on clothing for all genders can alleviate these concerns. Units can also leverage the Army supply system to acquire individual pup tents, increasing unit field readiness and affording soldiers both privacy and comfort in gender-integrated environments.

On Family Care Plans for Military Women

Lastly, an often overlooked topic is the issue of family care plans and how leaders may approach them with a conscious or unconscious bias against women who serve in either dual military or single family homes. Leaders should be wary of the stereotype of women as primary caretakers and ensure family care plans are discussed equally among men and women in their formations. In dual military families, for example, there are two service members responsible for the family care plan. It is prejudice and irresponsible to assume the caretaker role defaults to the woman just because of traditional gender roles. Furthermore, while women do make up the majority of heads of household for single parent families, men also make up a significant percentage—24% to be exact. Therefore, we recommend you make no assumptions when approaching your soldiers about their family care plans. 

A Soldier assists in the laborious and delicate art of rigging and packing a parachute. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Benjamin Vilchez)

Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault

Sharp training, reacting to a sexual assault, and sexual harassment/assault against military men.

#1 on the CSA’s Sexual Harassment/Assault, Response And Prevention (SHARP) Top 10 List is that “Sexual assault and sexual harassment represents an insider threat with the potential to cause significant, irreparable harm to the Army.” According to DoD statistical data , 1 in 4 women report they’ve been sexually assaulted. Unfortunately, this problem is not going away on its own, despite clear focus from senior leaders. Between 2016 and 2019, rates of reported sexual harassment and sexual assault across the DoD grew for both active duty men and women. This group acknowledges an uptick in reports might correlate with the success of programs that have more soldiers reporting who were previously uncomfortable doing so; regardless, we’ve still got a lot of work to do in our formations. 

Sexual harassment and assault are a form of fratricide, plain and simple. They destroy teams, decay unit cohesion, erode trust, and inflict lifelong trauma on victims. According to the DoD Inspector General , our soldiers might be more likely to develop post-traumatic stress disorder from a sexual assault than any other type of traumatic event, including combat. When it does happen, we must take appropriate action under the circumstances while providing support to victims. We also must get beyond a reactionary culture and dig deeper into creating a climate of mutual trust and respect where harassment and assault will not happen. Actions speak louder than words, and your soldiers will watch with great interest when these incidents occur.

Incidents of SH/SA are not naturally occurring phenomena that “happen” to victims . They are acts of violence most often perpetrated by one of the victim’s teammates. The FY19 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military concludes that more than 85% of victims knew their assailant, and alcohol was involved in 62% of the assaults. By and large, our soldiers are not being attacked by the Hollywood depiction of an unknown perpetrator jumping out of the bushes at night. They are being attacked by their brothers and sisters in arms.

On SHARP Training

Units must train often on the prevention of sexual harassment and assault. Training must go beyond an annual handful of PowerPoint slides outlining reporting procedures and showing the “tea” video . Disseminating reporting procedures is certainly an important part of a comprehensive SHARP program, but we must do better. The Army has provided a plethora of SHARP training resources , readily available to all leaders. 

Training and education should make SHARP personal for your soldiers. It should provide a clear understanding that these are not things that happen “somewhere else.” Our soldiers should walk away from this training with a sense of anger and determination not to allow these things to happen to their teammates. 

Of note, this group does NOT recommend asking soldiers to share personal experiences of SH/SA. Instead, sanitized vignettes from previous SH/SA cases may be used as powerful tools to create dialogue and reinforce the humanization of male and female survivors. However, if you find that a survivor of harassment or assault is actively looking to share their story, it is crucial to support their ability to do so safely. We recommend you consult with your behavioral health team to ensure a safe and thoughtful avenue for disclosure. As leaders, we want to be careful to avoid retraumatizing the survivor.   

Sgt. Jasmine Jenkins, an M88 Recovery Vehicle commander, executes Table 4 mounted machine gun range, April 16, 2020. (U.S. Army photo by Gertrud Zach)

Training should also avoid victim blaming. Additionally, discussions on “defensive” strategies for women (e.g.: don’t walk alone at night, don’t drink, don’t be too friendly, wear conservative clothing, etc.) might be more effective if you ask women to discuss their common defensive measures so men can better understand their perspectives. Among our roundtable, the men were astonished to hear stories of women in the group describe complex navigations of social situations that were seemingly innocuous to us, such as drinking at unit functions or having a meeting with a male superior alone. Ultimately, while the reality is that women must still implement defensive measures, we recommend the preponderance of training focus on why SH/SA is unacceptable, the impact it has on victims, and why we should not harass or assault each other. 

SH/SA training should focus extensively on consent and include the concept of “enthusiastic consent,” which is the idea that unless both intimate partners give an enthusiastic “yes,” then there is no true consent. Additionally, it is important to reinforce that consent can be withdrawn at any time for any reason by either party. This is a subject where sexist stereotypes and microaggressions drive distorted perceptions for young adults. Discussions can and should extend beyond preventing rape, assault, and harassment to encouraging healthy sexual relationships.

Training should not center on repercussions for perpetrators. While it is true that SH/SA offenders can be subject to prosecution under UCMJ or the civilian justice system, that is tangential to the rationale for the training. The motivation should not be about avoiding jail time or other forms of punitive action; instead, it should be because in a team we treat each other with dignity and respect. If a leader is asked about false allegations, the leader should respond by educating the soldier on the process. All allegations will be investigated, and sometimes those allegations involve different versions of events from the alleged victim and the suspect. The military justice process is geared toward ensuring the accused maintains their Constitutional rights while determining whether the allegations meet the appropriate burden of proof. 

While each allegation of sexual assault will be investigated based on the facts and evidence presented, data from the Department of Defense indicates that a small percentage (1% in 2019) of accusations are determined to be false or baseless (compared to 63% where misconduct is substantiated) and, therefore, the fear of false allegations should not be the predominant concern for your soldiers if they do not harass or assault their teammates. It is clear that SHARP is rarely used as a tool to “get back at someone,” “get attention,” or “ruin someone’s career,” and instructors should focus the training to the task at hand: to eliminate sexual harassment and assault.

Lastly, we should avoid “fear mongering” or trivializing SHARP. By this, we mean the idea that accidentally bumping into someone, promoting a female soldier (removing and replacing the rank), making a uniform correction, or other clear instances of appropriate physical contact will result in SHARP complaints. When you hear someone make a reference about how someone “got SHARP’d,” use that as another opportunity to delineate appropriate from clearly inappropriate touching. 

Commanders should be deeply involved in the development of the instruction, physically present, and involved during the training. Training should cover the fundamentals of SHARP for every soldier in your unit, but you should also consider advanced education commensurate to leadership positions. For example, a block of instruction that goes into detail on receiving reports and providing support to victims for company commanders and first sergeants. To promote candid and comfortable conversations, commanders should think outside the box for innovative training methods, such as meaningful group participation, external resources, and guest speakers. Lastly, don’t allow someone to rapidly flip through slides while a sign-in roster is passed around. Many of the leaders in our group have experienced such “training,” and allowing this to happen is just as damaging as allowing a microaggression to go unchecked. As with all training, you will set the tone with your level of preparation and involvement, as well as the standards you enforce.

On Reacting to a Sexual Assault in your Unit and Supporting Victims

Commanders should plan and rehearse their Sexual Assault Response Plan with a heavy emphasis on support to victims. Response to a sexual assault is a battle drill that the staff and subordinate commanders must practice before it is put into action. Failure here is not an option. Our default should be that victims get whatever support they want or need within reason, and that they receive our deepest levels of empathy as they begin a long journey to recovery. Additionally, commanders must make a concerted effort to ensure victims (and alleged perpetrators) receive consistent updates on their case. Routinely follow up with them to ensure this is happening and engage the proper agency if it isn’t. 

Although survivors may respond variably to trauma, common, observable reactions to trauma include depressed mood, concentration issues, increased anxiety, being on edge/keyed up/overly alert, sleep problems/fatigue, hyper-sexual behavior, risk taking behavior, avoidance, increased alcohol use, illicit substance use, increased irritability, and isolation. While we, as non-healthcare providers, may not necessarily understand the linkage between these reactions and exposure to trauma, these symptoms are, in fact, well documented and based on decades of psychological research. It is important that we respond with empathy and use resources available to us and our formation, even if survivors seemingly do not match our expectation of “acting like a victim would.” If you observe these behaviors among soldiers who have experienced sexual assault, consult with your embedded behavioral health providers to formulate actionable plans that involve support and treatment. 

We also recommend that leaders be familiar with the legal process of making a report of sexual assault. Leaders should seek to answer the following questions: Who is allowed to know what (i.e.: confidentiality)? How do investigations work? What support is available to victims? What is the role of the special victim counsel? What can be done to alleged perpetrators while under investigation (e.g.: suspension of duties, relocation, protective orders, etc.)? What will we do if the accused is popular or high in rank? How will we prevent a backlash toward the victim or a “rallying” to support the accused while the investigation is ongoing? Some answers to these common questions can be found in the 2014 DoD Report on Sexual Assault Prevention and Response , as well as the Army’s SHARP website . 

It is also crucial to highlight resources in the local area for soldiers in the event they feel uncomfortable using on-post resources or if they are away from their installation when an incident occurs. Consult with your embedded behavioral health providers who will be knowledgeable about off-post referrals and community-based resources. 

We encourage leaders to be proactive in implementing these suggestions and educating themselves about sexual harassment and assault. Doing so will likely minimize potential missteps that may be common when navigating such sensitive and challenging situations. In service of this goal, consider collaborations with JAG and your Behavioral Health Officer to develop leader professional development (LPD) seminars to educate junior officers and noncommissioned officers. Lastly, this group advocates that Commanders send their organic medical providers to the Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examiner (SAMFE) course in San Antonio. This training can be invaluable in the aftermath of a sexual assault, particularly in a deployed environment.

On Sexual Harassment and Assault Against Military Men

Although this article is focused on the unique issues faced by military women, we would be remiss if we did not acknowledge the occurrence of sexual harassment and sexual assault among military men. Per a VA report, 1 in 100 male veterans have experienced Military Sexual Trauma (MST). Although the rate of sexual harassment and sexual assault is higher among military women, there are significantly more men who are victims of sexual harassment or assault but never report . The lack of discourse and emphasis on male survivors of sexual trauma underscores sexist beliefs that men, or more harmfully put, “real men,” do not experience sexual harassment or assault. These are damaging messages rooted in a culture of sexism that not only disenfranchises women but also disempowers men to speak up when they have been victimized. An often overlooked idea is that sexism in our organization impacts us all, women AND men in uniform.

Army Spc. Catherine Downes moves through an obstacle during the 2020 U.S. Army Reserve Best Warrior Competition at Fort McCoy, Wis., Sept. 5, 2020. (U.S. Army Reserve photo by Staff Sgt. Kenneth D Burkhart)

Issues Impacting the Health of Women in the Army

Self-advocacy, field hygiene, contraception, abortion, family planning, fertility, pregnancy & postpartum, miscarriages, and breastfeeding..

Beyond creating a climate within units that eliminates sexism, sexual harassment, and sexual assault, there are several unique aspects to leading gender integrated units that remain taboo topics among some leaders in the Army. An important aspect of inclusion is to bring these issues to light and educate leaders so they aren’t relegated to hushed whispers between women who rely on generational knowledge passed down from generations to aid one another in survival. If you’re a leader in our Army, you should be familiar with the following women’s health topics so you can provide or enable the level of care and readiness that all of our soldiers deserve. 

On Self-Advocacy and Navigating Healthcare Systems

Statistics show that men and women are treated differently in healthcare settings. For instance, women wait longer to be treated for similar abdominal pain levels than men. The most at risk population for inequities in adequate pain mitigation is African American women . Black, American Indian, and Alaska Native (AI/AN) women are two to three times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than white women – and this disparity increases with age, according to research from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report in the MMWR . 

Soldiers’ pain should be acknowledged, and if a soldier is unsatisfied or confused with the care of providers, leaders must act by encouraging her or him to continue to work with the provider. If the soldier is still unsatisfied, resources are available, such as patient advocates and the Interactive Customer Evaluation (ICE) process. Give all soldiers the information they need to take charge of their health and the resources to identify the care they need.

On Field Hygiene & Sanitation

Field conditions present different considerations for women than men. With a proactive approach by leaders, women can be well prepared to remain healthy, avoid inconveniences, and be tactically effective. 

FM 21-10 (Field Hygiene & Sanitation) recommends all soldiers bathe as often as possible and daily for menstruating soldiers. However, this does not mean women must be evacuated to shower facilities, particularly when their male peers are not. Field expedient measures can be sufficient, but leaders must plan when and how they will afford all soldiers the resources and reasonable privacy to accomplish personal hygiene while in the field. There are great commercial options available for portable latrines and shower tents that provide sufficient privacy but do not take up space or require much time to establish.

Vaginitis and Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs) are two common conditions women can experience while in field conditions, but education, hygiene, and precautions can reduce the risk of infections. Check to confirm your medics, field sanitation team, and leaders are educated on ways to prevent these conditions and that all leaders (men and women) and healthcare professionals (i.e.: PAs, medics, etc.) are educating women on preventative measures.

In addition to urinary and vagina infections, women (and men) commonly experience fungal skin infections during field training. Hot and humid weather, excessive sweating, wet conditions, decreased hygiene, restrictive clothing, and pregnancy increase risk for developing a fungal infection. Typical locations include the breast folds, groin, and inner thighs. The preventative measures for fungal infections are good hygiene (frequent cleaning), changing socks and underwear frequently, staying dry, and applying powder to problem areas.  

Packing lists for women should include sufficient supplies of feminine hygiene products, but leaders should ensure unit medics maintain backup supplies of a variety of these products. These items are easily available in the Class VIII supply system and NSNs exist for ordering. Unexpected menstruation, or heavier than anticipated menstruation, should not cause undue stress if soldiers and leaders are prepared.

As a leader YOU are responsible for the complete sustainment plan of your unit. This includes  ensuring there are plans to properly dispose of all waste, including used feminine hygiene products. Soldiers should never be forced to carry these used items with them in Zip-Loc bags in their cargo pockets, as was the case for one of our participants.

A U.S. Military Academy cadet participates in an obstacle course during training at West Point, N.Y., July 20, 2020. (U.S. Army photo by Matthew Moeller)

Leaders should also plan to provide time and space for urination. Women who cannot urinate frequently or during restrictive operations will often limit their fluid intake, leading to dehydration and increasing their risk for other medical problems such as UTIs, heat injuries, kidney stones, and seizures. To assist women with urination, there are several optional Female Urinary Devices (FUD) available in the supply system. FUDs require some preparation and training to use (one source recommends practicing in the shower before going to the field), but the FUD can help women urinate through the fly of the uniform while standing and without having to remove gear. This skill and capability is particularly important for women restricted to the inside of combat vehicles during operations or in areas of high threat, such as IEDs, where dismounting is infeasible. 

On Contraception

Contraceptives have a wide range of benefits beyond preventing pregnancy, including reducing risk of reproductive cancers and regulating menstrual disorders. Access to contraception is also mandated by law. Indeed, Section 718 of the 2016 NDAA required the DoD to ensure “women members of the Armed Forces have access to comprehensive counseling on the full range of methods of contraception.” As such, leaders must educate themselves on various forms of contraceptives available to women. These include pills, implants, injections, vaginal rings, surgical procedures, and intrauterine devices (IUDs). To start, leaders can read about birth control basics here . 

Do not assume your soldiers understand the range of options available to them. Young women, especially those who did not have access to comprehensive sex education, might not know about the variety of available contraceptives or how to access them. To address this, we recommend you engage your unit medical provider to coordinate educational opportunities for your soldiers (e.g.: women’s health expo). You and your soldiers can also obtain contraceptive information and resources from your installation Women’s Wellness Clinic. This service received rave reviews among the women in our group. Lastly, we recommend you ensure leaders in your formation are equally knowledgeable about contraception. Conduct a leader’s recon to engage the staff on what services are available to your soldiers and request education for your leaders.

While healthcare providers strive to provide the best medical care to their patients, a 2019 Congressional Research Service study identified the lack of standardization for training on contraceptive methods among DoD healthcare providers as a potential issue. This specific issue could impact how female soldiers are counseled on the contraceptives available to them, particularly when needing to account for upcoming extended field exercises or deployments . We have no reason to suspect widespread negligence among Army healthcare providers, so we recommend engaging your unit providers to ensure soldiers are getting access to the contraceptives that best fit their needs. In other words, “trust but verify.” Lastly, advocate for your medics and unit providers to have time away from the Troop Medical Clinic for skills sustainment training, including OB/GYN and other specialty fields.

On Emergency Contraception and Abortion

Leaders should also understand and educate soldiers on the availability of emergency contraception. “Plan B” is available in military health facilities without a prescription. Abortions, however, are not performed in military medical facilities, nor are they covered under Tricare, unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest, or the life of the mother is at risk. While abortion remains a controversial topic in the United States, and despite your personal beliefs, Army leaders should be aware that soldiers may choose to, and have the right to, terminate an unwanted pregnancy. 

With this in mind, it is worth educating both leaders and soldiers where safe facilities exist, understanding they could be located far away based on the availability of clinics. Depending on circumstances and location, government transportation may be authorized for transporting service members to gain access to an abortion. Women might not be inclined to discuss an abortion with their chain of command, but you should discuss it with the women in your formation so they know and trust you will provide non-judgmental support with aftercare. Understand that they might request time off work, a mileage pass, financial support, or a physical profile. Soldiers might not be comfortable with discussing why. With this in mind, we cannot overemphasize how important it is to develop trusting relationships with our soldiers.   

On Family Planning

Women in the Army face difficult decisions when choosing if and when to have children. The consensus of this group is that there is no magic solution or “perfect time” for women to become pregnant, give birth, and recover. However, across the board, the women within our roundtable were adamant that the empathetic support of leadership in the chain of command was the single greatest enabler to family planning, reduced stress, and a healthy pregnancy when it came to career-related issues.  

Leaders should avoid any assumption that all women want to, or are able to, become pregnant. Avoid asking questions such as, “When do you plan on having kids?” To be clear, these kinds of questions can be just as offensive to male service members afflicted with infertility issues. Rather, as with any soldier, we recommend you shape these discussions around the full spectrum of personal and professional goals. For example, you may choose to ask, “What are your short- and long-term family goals, and how can I support you?” This is perhaps the single greatest conversation driver a leader can ask. 

If a woman decides to discuss pregnancy as part of her goals, the leader should help the soldier develop a comprehensive plan that considers deployments, operational requirements, fertility challenges, options for limited duty, maternity leave, and postpartum recovery. This advice applies to men as well. Part of “People First” is showing soldiers that we care about their families, which includes letting them go to appointments and ensuring they can provide support to their spouse before, during, and after pregnancy.

On Fertility

Fertility is a critical aspect of family planning. With early career pressures, some soldiers might feel compelled to prolong family planning, increasing the risk of fertility issues. Additional risk factors associated with higher rates of infertility among military include exposure to toxins, use of psychiatric medication, and higher rates of sexual trauma. Although military women of various demographic backgrounds may experience fertility issues, infertility rates are highest among women in their 30s, senior enlisted/officers, married women, and non-Hispanic black women.

Fortunately, fertility programs exist for service members, retirees, and dependents at the following installations: Walter Reed (WRNMMC), Tripler (TAMC), Womack (WAMC), Madigan (MAMC), Joint Base San Antonio (SAMMC), and Naval San Diego (NMCSD). Although the Military Healthcare System has adopted these services, several access to care issues exist. For starters, fertility services are not covered by TRICARE, placing an undue financial burden on those seeking fertility treatments.

As leaders, we may not be able to solve organizational challenges to improve access to care; but, we can provide empathy and support to our soldiers struggling with infertility. It is important that we are aware of medical issues that disproportionately impact women in uniform. 

On Pregnancy

First and foremost, pregnant soldiers are not broken soldiers. You shouldn’t wrap them in bubble wrap and separate them from the rest of the unit. You also shouldn’t be upset because their pregnancy puts them in a non-deployable status or they miss the NTC rotation. Leaders must be deliberate in maintaining their inclusivity on the team by assigning them meaningful work that is within their capabilities.  Put another way, a pregnancy is a limited time frame in a woman’s career when she is “on profile.” You should afford pregnant soldiers the same respect and latitude you provide to soldiers with any kind of profile. A lengthy profile that precludes someone from deploying doesn’t create a negative environment unless a leader encourages or condones it.

While every pregnancy is an intensely individualized experience, pregnant soldiers want to continue contributing to the team in a fulfilling way. Enabling this might require you to change the environment in which they work or the duties they perform, but you should not separate pregnant soldiers from their units. By including pregnant soldiers in planning and operations, you ensure they can more seamlessly reintegrate into their duty positions when they are postpartum.

While this group had plenty of great discussion on the topic of pregnancy, in the scope of this article we will not attempt to recreate the depth of material available in the Army’s 2010 “Guide to Female Soldier Readiness.”  While ten years old, it contains a wealth of information on environmental considerations for conception, pregnancy counseling, profiles, postpartum considerations, and many more. We highly recommend this document as a starting point for all leaders. However, some specific recommendations from this group are below.

Detailed pregnancy counseling should be done with every soldier, regardless of rank. This counseling should create shared understanding and open dialogue. Leaders must know their soldiers’ rights throughout pregnancy and postpartum. These discussions must also include honest dialogue about family care plans and options for administrative separation from the Army, should the soldier choose. The guide referenced above provides topics, outlines, and examples of effective pregnancy counseling. 

2nd Lt. Nicole M. Leighty establishes communication at the beginning of Cerberus Stakes, a 36-hour, nonstop training exercise executed by Cerberus Battery, 5th Battalion, 5th Air Defense Artillery Regiment. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Amanda Hunt)

Pregnancy and Postpartum Physical Training (P3T) is a tremendously beneficial program when executed to standard, and it is not optional. Leaders should familiarize themselves with the P3T programs at their installation. One key consideration is whether the P3T program is centralized or conducted at the brigade or battalion level (each has its advantages and disadvantages). Regardless, P3T programs must be run by individuals who have been properly trained and understand the long-lasting impacts of improper training while pregnant, not as an additional duty or tasking. Lastly, as a commander, you likely do PT with your platoons, but how often do you go do PT with the P3T program? This simple gesture demonstrates your support to all of your soldiers and allows you to spot check the effectiveness of the program.

Additionally, leaders should be aware that pregnant and postpartum soldiers may desire additional medical care that will require more time for appointments and for recovery. For example, soldiers may want to receive a referral to a pelvic floor physical therapy exam between 6-8 weeks postpartum to help alleviate future injuries and help guide soldiers as they begin safely training for the ACFT. This might be a scarce resource and not available on every installation, and it may require soldiers to attend frequent appointments off-post. However, the long term impacts on soldier well-being and ability to continue their physical fitness regimens post-pregnancy may rely on it.

On Miscarriages

Sadly, early loss of pregnancy (miscarriage) happens in up to 31% of pregnancies . While Army Regulation provides clear guidance for women who miscarry beyond 20 weeks, prior to 20 weeks is more heavily dependent on the empathy and decisions of the Chain of Command. With any miscarriage, there is likely tremendous grief that needs to be acknowledged along with physical, mental, and spiritual recovery for both partners in the relationship (if applicable). Commanders should provide extensive support and convalescent leave, if required, to allow for proper recovery after a miscarriage. Lastly, ensure you are engaging your profile providers to understand how they approach recovery for miscarrying soldiers. 

On Breastfeeding

It is critically important that Army leaders support breastfeeding soldiers, and that this support begins when the soldier is pregnant. The American Academy of Pediatrics advocates breastfeeding for the first 12 months of life and the World Health Organization recommends for the first 24 months. Breastfeeding may not be a short-lived experience for some mothers, so we must make it convenient for them . Not only is this the absolute right thing to do for the health of child and mother, it has been Army policy since 2015 with Army Directives 2015-37 and 43, and has been incorporated into the recent publication of AR 600-20.

Commanders are required to designate private and proper space, time, and provisions to express milk during field training, mobility exercises, and deployment (to maintain physiological capability for lactation). There are a variety of readily available resources to assist Army leaders in upholding these requirements and providing maximum support to breastfeeding mothers in your formation. When in doubt, contact a certified lactation consultant to assist you in establishing spaces or procedures to support breastfeeding mothers in your organization.

AR 600-20 articulates a number of requirements to support breastfeeding soldiers. In addition to those, here are s ome tips for leaders establishing lactation rooms in their organizations:

• A curtain to prevent someone from opening the door and exposing the soldier to people in the hallway, as well as the ability to lock the door from inside.
• A refrigerator for storage of milk (separate from community refrigerator).
• Comfortable chairs or couch with side tables.
• Power outlets easily accessible from chairs or couch. 
• Small lockers or cubbies for storage of pump supplies.
• Microwave to allow for sanitization of supplies between sessions.
• Drying racks for bottles.
• A phone and/or internet connection.
• Lactation consult materials from the clinic.
• Cork board to display pictures of babies. This is not merely a feel-good decoration, but actively aids in releasing hormones necessary for pumping. 

Ensure that leaders (and this may include you) are having candid discussions with postpartum soldiers who are going to the field. Postpartum soldiers may be concerned with maintaining their milk supplies and preventing infections. Uncertainty around pumping can lead to anxiety; therefore, leaders need to have safe field breast-pumping procedures that reduce the risk of medical complications associated with infrequent breast-pumping, such as mastitis. Mastitis occurs in up to 10% of breastfeeding women and is associated with oversupply of milk, infrequent feedings, and maternal stress/fatigue. While most common in the first 12 weeks postpartum, it can occur anytime while breastfeeding.

In addition to breast pumping procedures for the field, leaders will also need to develop a feasible logistics plan to transport breastmilk to a caregiver in the rear. This will require some planning and preparation, but one option would be to place breast milk in a cooler, take the cooler to a refrigeration unit at the field kitchen, transport it to the rear with LOGPAC, and then hand it off to the caregiver. If stored at refrigerated temperatures, breast milk can last up to 72 hours, which is a reasonable window for transportation.

Above all else, postpartum soldiers must know they are supported. A supportive command team will alleviate a good portion of that stress and anxiety, helping soldiers perform their tasks so they can focus on their training while in the field.

Lastly, this group investigated whether shipping breastmilk home while TDY is an authorized expense in accordance with the Joint Travel Regulation . Our assessment is that it can be authorized by a Defense Travel Systems (DTS) Approving Official (AO), and we spoke to women who have successfully done this. Interestingly, the words “breast,” “breastfeeding,” or “breast milk” are not specifically mentioned anywhere in the JTR, which this group recommends as an update to remove ambiguity. One word of caution, however, is that the overnight shipment of breastmilk could cost hundreds of dollars and not be fiscally reasonable given unit travel budgets. Units should forecast accordingly. 

After months of restriction due to Covid-19, a U.S. Army Paratrooper secures her equipment after an airborne operation from U.S. Air Force 86th Air Wing C-130 Hercules aircraft at Rivolto Italian Air Force Base, Udine Italy, June 24, 2020. (U.S. Army photo by Paolo Bovo)

The team who wrote this article sincerely hopes it assists unit level leaders in the continued integration of women in our Army. We believe very strongly that, aside from passionate leaders driving cultural change, teaching our leaders about the subjects above and empowering them with resources they need will have the most significant impact in this endeavor. This group encourages leaders to discuss the issues in this article, and our hope is this article provides a framework to lead those conversations. 

One idea is to form an informal “Soldier 2025 Forum” in your unit, where you talk about what your team wants the Army of the future to reflect in diversity and inclusion, and how you can take action at your level. This forum could be used to discuss ideas in this article on gender discrimination, along with other topics on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. on a monthly rotation. Through candid and engaged discussions such as this, leaders can help create the most integrated winning force our Army has ever seen.  

Army senior leaders have been crystal clear in this effort. In 2016, Under Secretary of the Army Patrick J. Murphy proclaimed, “We’re not going to turn our back on 50 percent of the population.” Support from senior leaders is absolutely necessary, but now the lion’s share of the work rests with leaders at the company and battalion levels.

But to be clear, none of the topics covered in this article are new experiences or solitary incidents. These are topics we, as a culture, have historically designated as “women’s problems” and slapped with a “taboo” label. Many service members have put up with patterns of being ostracized, many have spoken up, and far more have found themselves in command climates where they have not been able to share their concerns or experiences. By opening up this conversation and echoing the voices of women who have felt every shade of sexism, we are sowing the seeds for more empathetic leaders in the future. 

For the older leaders, the Army we joined many years ago is not the same one we are now called to lead. We must adapt.

Commanders must do their duty and crush the organizational and systemic obstacles facing women in their units so they can thrive to their fullest potential. Doing so will increase good order and discipline, improve retention of women in the Army, and enhance combat effectiveness. 

We are the greatest Army in the world, and that means we understand the entire world is watching. Young women who could enhance our military are hearing stories like these and watching with bated breath for our next move. Some may be deterred, but many are not. The next generation of Athenas are waiting in the wings.

Some soldiers may be tempted to fight this movement, but their time in the Army will eventually come to an end…sooner than later without behavioral changes. “People First” does not condone privileging soldiers and prejudicing others because of their gender, race, or religion. To those resistors, we implore you to educate yourselves and search inside your hearts and minds for factual truth: women are fully capable of meeting and exceeding the standards for service in all aspects of our Army. 

This truth has been proven by data, science, precedent, and the sheer grit of women who refuse to allow deep-rooted misogyny to stand in their way. Supporting women with the recommendations in this article is a necessary investment that will reap infinite returns.

To our sisters in arms: we hear you, we see you, and we support you. There are many more of us who wish to see you thrive than there are those who could ever have a hand in your downfall. Your allies will not stop fighting for you. 

Inch by inch, we will continue making this profession safe for you and all those who wish to follow. The changes we make here, the parts of our culture we address now, and the support we give down the line will only increase our Army’s effectiveness as a fighting force. 

This is MY Squad! And it is better because of the amazing women who are in it.

This tank crew, led by 1st Lt. Jillian Collins, shot 934 10/10. When asked, “Why Barbie Dreamhouse?,” 1st Lt. Collins had this to say: “Every little girl dreams of having a Barbie Dreamhouse. For me, it became my Tank. For years, I was told, “No.” I was told, “Armor isn’t open to Women;” but I kept pushing. Thus, I eventually found myself in my dream job with my very own Barbie Dreamhouse.” (Photo from @3rd_Infantry Twitter page)

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Medical Command, US Army, Defense Health Agency, Department of Defense or the US Government.

*Authors Listed Alphabetically

Capt. Ashley Barber received her commission through ROTC at Norwich University in 2013. She is a military intelligence officer currently serving in the 10th Mountain Division G2. She has previously served in MI brigades and IBCTs (LI). She completed her KD time in 2/10 IBCT (LI) as the brigade AS2 and the 2-87 Infantry Battalion S2 through iterations of LTP, JRTC, and a deployment to Afghanistan. She tweets at @BarbtheAsh.

Maj. chris barber is honored to serve as an army physician assistant and pa educator. he is currently assigned to the keller army community hospital at west point, ny. maj barber spent 10 years as an enlisted infantryman before commissioning and attending the interservice physician assistant program (ipap). he has multiple combat, operational, and humanitarian deployments. any views expressed by maj barber belong to him alone, and do not imply endorsement by the defense health agency or army medical command., lt. col. ian fleischmann commissioned from the united states military academy in 2004 and is selected to command a military intelligence battalion. he is currently assigned as an operations officer with the headquarters, department of the army, g-8. he is a career mi officer with intelligence assignments from battalion to division level in infantry, cavalry, field artillery, and aviation units. he and his wife aspire daily to raise their three boys to be men of character. he tweets at @tecumsehburning., capt. michelle gonzalez , phd, is a clinical psychologist currently serving as the behavioral health officer for the 1st armored brigade combat team of the 3rd infantry division. capt. gonzalez has a long standing research and clinical career focused on serving ethnic, racial, economic, and gender minority groups. cpt gonzalez has specialized clinical training in the treatment of sexual trauma with an emphasis in women’s mental health, having completed a postdoctoral fellowship at the durham va medical center. as a female army officer and research scientist, capt. gonzalez continues to “fight the good fight” in pursuit of gender equality and equal opportunity., lt. col. trey guy received his commission through army rotc at the virginia military institute in 2003 and is selected to command an air defense artillery battalion. he is a career air defense officer, currently working as an instructor at the joint forces staff college. he has served in short range air defense units as well as joint and combined assignments. he is a proud and loving husband and devoted father to two young ladies and two young men. he tweets at @treyguy13., 2nd lt. gillian longoria is an armor officer currently attending abolc at fort benning, ga. she is a proud 3rd generation service member, a tcu grad, and a survivor. she hopes to inspire other young hispanic women to find their voices in the military., capt. christina lowry commissioned as a chemical officer and served with the 10th combat aviation brigade, including rotations to korea and germany. she is a survivor who pursued law school in the hope of empowering and supporting other survivors. having graduated from law school through the funded legal education program, she is currently attending the judge advocate officer basic course with orders to fort sill., lt. col. tony newman received his commission through rotc at rochester institute of technology in 2003. he served as a logistics officer in tactical, operational, and strategic positions. he is currently assigned to the white house communications agency and will take command of a brigade support battalion next summer. he is a husband and father to two daughters and two sons. he tweets at @abnsupplyguy., lt. col. stoney portis is a phd student at duke university and will take command of a combined arms battalion next summer. he tweets at @stoneyportis., spc. sheyla scholl is a former cbrn soldier of the minnesota army national guard, spouse to an active duty airman, and a mom of two. after being diagnosed with stage 4 blood cancer in 2017 at 19 years old, she founded a nonprofit called combat boots & cancer to help change the military’s attitude toward injury and disease while serving. she has served as a consumer reviewer on the congressionally directed medical research program twice. she is a dedicated public policy advocate for issues affecting national guardsmen, cancer patients, disability in the military, and survivors of sexual violence, while healing from her own military sexual trauma. she tweets at @terminalyill3st., 1st lt. neha sharma is an intelligence officer in the us army reserve, pending active orders in usag wiesbaden, germany. originally from chennai, india, 1st lt. sharma immigrated to the united states right before 9/11. she is currently working on her second master’s degree, is a published researcher, civil rights activist, women’s rights advocate, and a survivor. she tweets at @appasglock., lt. col. scott stephens is an armor officer and commander of a combined arms battalion. in his 22 years of service, he has led armor and combined arms units from the platoon to battalion level through multiple combat and rotational deployments, as well as serving in a variety of broadening assignments. he is the proud husband of an army veteran, and the loving father of one fierce young woman and two amazing young men. he tweets at @scottjstephens., capt. jordan supan is a logistics officer currently commanding the brigade field maintenance company for 3rd brigade combat team at fort hood, texas. she was enrolled in the simultaneous membership program while in college, serving in the georgia national guard while pursuing her commission through georgia southern university’s rotc program. the daughter and granddaughter of service members, she has long been an advocate for comprehensive gender inclusion of all military branches and combat roles. as a survivor, she is dedicated to inciting change in our army to create an organization that will support our personnel, allow them to thrive, and provide them with the dignity and respect owed to all people in our formation. she tweets at @marchingwith7..

Subscribe to The Company Leader!

Complete archive of The Company Leader Posts

Back to Home

Recommended Reading

• Army Regulation 600-20
• Athena Rising , by David Smith and W. Brad Johnson
• The GAMe: Unraveling a Military Sex Scandal , by MG(R) Robert Shadley.
• Know My Name , by Chanel Miller
• “ The Men Who Mentor Women ,” Harvard Business Review
• A Higher Standard , by GEN Ann Dunwoody
• Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men , by Caroline Criado Perez
• A Good Time to be a Girl: Don’t Lean In, Change the System , by Helena Morrissey
• Tough As Nails: One Woman’s Journey Through West Point ,  by Gail O’Sullivan Dwyer
• 2010 Army Guide to Female Soldier Readiness
• “ Committing to Gender Integration: Get Rid of the Female Tent ,” by Captain Ashley Barber
• “ When Doctors Downplay Women’s Health Concerns ” by Camille Noe Pagán
• “ Sex Signals ,” by Catharsis Productions;
• “ Writing About Rape: Use of the passive voice and other distancing text features as an expression of perceived responsibility of the victim ” by Gerd Bohner
• That’s What She Said: What Men Need to Know (and Women Need to Tell Them) About Working Together , by Joanne Lipman
• Gender Intelligence: Breakthrough Strategies for Increasing Diversity and Improving Your Bottom Line , by Barbara Annis and Keith Merron
• Red Table Talk: Sexual Consent and What Every Woman Should Know , 

Did you enjoy this? Check out these pieces!

Advertisement

Gender Inequalities in the Military Service: A Systematic Literature Review

• Published: 04 October 2019
• Volume 24 , pages 1004–1018, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

• João Reis   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8504-0065 1 &
• Sofia Menezes 2  

2492 Accesses

12 Citations

Explore all metrics

This paper provides an in-depth analysis of the literature regarding gender inequalities in the military service. In doing so, it discloses challenges and opportunities for women’s integration and finds new avenues for future research. Recent scientific research has evidenced that women still represent a growing minority in most Western militaries. Women’s integration deserves equal opportunities across all branches and levels of responsibility in the military, however, their expansion to ground combat roles is still a challenge to the military and policy-makers. Scholars have also reported about the decision to increase the number of women in combat roles, as it may potentiate adverse experiences, due to closer proximity to men in circumstances with little or no privacy. Conversely, scientific research has shown that more egalitarian women reported significantly less sexual harassment victimization. Furthermore, our insights suggest that it might be fruitful to integrate women in ground combat roles as special forces’ operators, with a view to induce a reduction of marginalization and sexual harassment, by gaining respect in a male-dominant culture. The presented idea should be interpreted with caution and needs to be supported by empirical research; although we are convinced that future research will be revealing and might represent a game-changing situation to women inequalities in the armed forces.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Gendering Conflict Analysis: Analysing Israeli Female Combatants’ Experiences

Impacts Relating to Gender Issues

Military Women: Changes in Representation and Experiences

Al-Ali, N., & Pratt, N. (2008). Women’s organizing and the conflict in Iraq since 2003. Feminist Review, 88 (1), 74–85.

Google Scholar  

Alvinius, A., Krekula, C., & Larsson, G. (2018). Managing visibility and differentiating in recruitment of women as leaders in the armed forces. Journal of Gender Studies, 27 (5), 534–546.

Beere, C., King, D., Beere, D., & King, L. (1984). The sex-role egalitarianism scale: A measure of attitudes toward equality between the sexes. Sex Roles, 10 (7–8), 563–576.

Bostock, D., & Daley, J. (2007). Lifetime and current sexual assault and harassment victimization rates of active-duty United States Air Force women. Violence Against Women, 13 (9), 927–944.

Brenner, J., & Savran, B. (2008). The disengagement from Gaza: A feminist approach to a political crisis. Women & Therapy, 32 (1), 88–104.

Brown, M. (2012). “A Woman in the Army is still a Woman”: Representation of Women in U.S. Military Recruiting advertisements for the all-volunteer force. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 33 (2), 151–175.

Bumiller, E., & Shanker, T. (2013). Pentagon is set to lift combat ban for women . Retrieved December 4, 2018 from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/us/pentagon-says-it-is-lifting-ban-on-women-in-combat.html?_r1⁄40 .

Burrelli, D. (2013). Women in combat: Issues for congress . Library of Congress Washington DC Congressional Research Service.

Campbell, J., Garza, M., Gielen, A., O’campo, P., Kub, J., Dienemann, J., et al. (2003). Intimate partner violence and abuse among active duty military women. Violence Against Women, 9 (9), 1072–1092.

Carreiras, H. (2006). Gender and the military: Women in the armed forces of western democracies . Abingdon: Routledge.

Carreiras, H. (2012). Gender relations in the armed forces: Does the draft make a difference? Sicherheit und Frieden (S + F)/Security and Peace , 30 (1), 19–24. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24233117 .

Carreiras, H. (2015). Gender and civil–military relations in advanced democracies. Res Militaris (1), women in the military, Part One, 1–18. Retrieved February 10, 2019 from http://resmilitaris.net/ressources/10217/79/res_militaris_article_carreiras_gender_and_civil-military_relations_in_advanced_democracies.pdf .

Carreiras, H., & Kümmel, G. (Eds.). (2008). Off limits: The cults of the body and social homogeneity as discoursive weapons targeting gender integration in the military. In Women in the military and in armed conflict (pp. 29–47). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Chan, D., Chow, S., Lam, C., & Cheung, S. (2008). Examining the job-related, psychological and physical outcomes of workplace sexual harassment: A meta-analytic review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32 (4), 362–376.

Cock, J. (1989). Manpower and militarisation: The role of women in the SANDF. In J. Cock & L. Nathan (Eds.), War and society: The militarisation of South Africa (pp. 51–67). Cape Town: David Phillip.

Coombes, P., & Nicholson, J. (2013). Business models and their relationship with marketing: A systematic literature review. Industrial Marketing Management, 42 (5), 656–664.

Derks, B., Van Laar, C., & Ellemers, N. (2016). The queen been phenomenon: Why women leaders distance themselves from junior women. The Leadership Quarterly, 27 (3), 456–469.

Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics, 105 (3), 1809–1831.

Elsevier. (2018). Women’s studies international forum . https://www.journals.elsevier.com/womens-studies-international-forum .

Eysenck, H. (1995). Problems with meta-analysis. In I. Chalmers & D. Altman (Eds.), Systematic reviews . London: BMJ Publication Group.

Ferber, M., & Lowry, H. (1976). Women: The new reserve army of the unemployed. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 1 (3, Part 2), 213–232.

Firestone, J., & Harris, R. (2003). Perceptions of effectiveness of response to sexual harassment in the U.S. military, 1988 and 1995. Gender, Work & Organization, 10 (1), 42–64.

Fitriani, R., & Matthews, R. (2016). Women in ground close combat. The RUSI Journal, 161 (1), 14–24.

Fox, C., & Paine, C. (2019). Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution. Ecology and Evolution, 9 (6), 3599–3619.

Given, L. (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Golan, G. (1997). Militarization and gender: The Israeli experience. In Women ’ s studies international forum (vol. 20, no. 5–6, pp. 581–586).

Gottlieb, D. (1978). Women soldiers: On joining the army. Youth & Society, 10 (2), 159–164.

Greenburg, J. (2017). New military femininities: Humanitarian violence and the gendered work of war among U.S. servicewomen. Gender, Place & Culture, 24 (8), 1107–1126.

Greer, T. (2017). Career development for women veterans: Facilitating successful transitions from military service to civilian employment. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 19 (1), 54–65.

Hancock, D., & Algozzine, B. (2016). Doing case study research: A practical guide for beginning researchers . New York City, NY: Teachers College Press.

Hourani, L., Williams, J., Bray, R., Wilk, J., & Hoge, C. (2016). Gender differences in posttraumatic stress disorder and help seeking in the U.S. Army. Journal of Women’s Health, 25 (1), 22–31.

Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15 (9), 1277–1288.

Jacsó, P. (2010). Comparison of journal impact ranking in the SCImago Journal & Country Rank and the Journal Citation Reports databases. Online Information Review, 34 (4), 642–657.

King, L., & King, D. (1997). Sex-Role egalitarianism scale: Development, psychometric properties, and recommendations for future research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21 (1), 71–87.

Mulrine, A. (2013). Women in combat units: Could it reduce sexual assault in the military? Retrieved December 18, 2018 from https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2013/0125/Women-in-combat-units-Could-it-reduce-sexual-assault-in-the-military .

Pawelczyk, J. (2017). It wasn’t because a woman couldn’t do a man’s job: Uncovering gender ideologies in the context of interviews with American female and male war veterans. Gender and Language, 11 (1), 121–150.

Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004). Networking and innovation: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5, 137–169.

Reis, J., Amorim, M., Melão, N., & Matos, P. (2018). Digital transformation: A literature review and guidelines for future research. In World conference on information systems and technologies (pp. 411–421). Cham: Springer.

Reis, J., Gonçalves, R., Menezes, S., & Kaczynska, M. (2020). The obstacles women face in gaining access to special operations forces. In Á. Rocha & R. Pereira (Eds.), Developments and advances in defense and security (pp. 281–291). Singapore: Springer.

Reis, J., Santo, P., & Melão, N. (2019). Artificial intelligence in government services: A systematic literature review. In World conference on information systems and technologies (pp. 241–252). Cham: Springer.

Robbins, J., & Ben-Eliezer, U. (2000). New roles or “new times”? Gender inequality and militarism in Israel’s nation-in-arms. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 7 (3), 309–342.

Rosen, L., Kaminski, R., Parmley, A., Knudson, K., & Fancher, P. (2003). The effects of peer group climate on intimate partner violence among married male U.S. Army soldiers. Violence Against Women, 9 (9), 1045–1071.

Sasson-Levy, O. (2007). Contradictory consequences of mandatory conscription: The case of women secretaries in the Israeli military. Gender & society, 21 (4), 481–507.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students . London: Pearson Education.

Savell, J., Woelfel, J., Collins, B., & Bentler, P. (1979). A study of male and female soldiers’ beliefs about the “appropriateness” of various jobs for women in the Army. Sex Roles, 5 (1), 41–50.

Segal, L. (2008). Gender, war and militarism: Making and questioning the links. Feminist Review, 88 (1), 21–35.

Springer. (2018). Sex roles . Retrieved February 2, 2019 from https://www.springer.com/psychology/journal/11199 .

Stachowitsch, S. (2012). Military gender integration and foreign policy in the United States: A feminist international relations perspective. Security Dialogue, 43 (4), 305–321.

Tayyeb, A., & Greenburg, J. (2017). Bad papers: The invisible and increasing costs of war for excluded veterans . Providence, RI: Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University.

Torgerson, C. (2003). Systematic reviews . London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14, 207–222.

Vogt, D., Bruce, T., Street, A., & Stafford, J. (2007). Attitudes toward women and tolerance for sexual harassment among reservists. Violence Against Women, 13 (9), 879–900.

Weatherill, R., Vogt, D., Taft, C., King, L., King, D., & Shipherd, J. (2011). Training experiences as mediators of the association between gender-role egalitarianism and women’s adjustment to Marine recruit training. Sex Roles, 64, 348–359.

Wilén, N., & Heinecken, L. (2018). Regendering the South African army: Inclusion, reversal and displacement. Gender, Work & Organization, 25 (6), 670–686.

Wilkinson, S., & Callister, L. (2010). Giving birth: The voices of Ghanaian women. Health Care for Women International, 31 (3), 201–220.

Woelfel, J. (1981). Women in the United States Army. Sex Roles, 7 (8), 785–800.

Woodward, R., & Winter, P. (2006). Gender and the limits to diversity in the contemporary British Army. Gender, Work & Organization, 13 (1), 45–67.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project is under the sponsorship of Erasmus+ program. We would like to thank the European Commission for their support.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Economics, Management, Industrial Engineering and Tourism, GOVCOPP, Aveiro, Portugal

Department of Management and Leadership, CINAMIL, Lisbon, Portugal

Sofia Menezes

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to João Reis .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests.

The authors declare they have no conflict of interests.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Reis, J., Menezes, S. Gender Inequalities in the Military Service: A Systematic Literature Review. Sexuality & Culture 24 , 1004–1018 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-019-09662-y

Download citation

Published : 04 October 2019

Issue Date : June 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-019-09662-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Inequalities
• Systematic literature review
• Special operations forces
• Ground combat
• Sexual harassment
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Culture, Gender, and Women in the Military

Implications for international humanitarian law compliance, executive summary.

The increased number of women in the Armed Forces presents a timely opportunity to examine how the changing gender makeup of the US military affects operations and culture, what potential barriers exist, and what women’s participation means for compliance with international conventions such as the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda and International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

We conducted semi-structured interviews with former enlisted personnel, active and retired commissioned officers. The interviews, along with a comprehensive review of government and military policies, independent review reports, and academic literature, allow us to illustrate how the combination of an entrenched masculinized military culture and overreliance on Special Operations Forces (SOF) present an obstacle to women’s full integration, impeding the implementation of the WPS agenda and IHL compliance.

We recommend that the US Department of Defense address three central gender-related issues—the equal and meaningful inclusion of women, restrictive physical standards, and sexual assault—to achieve the goals of the 2020 Strategic Framework and Implementation Plan (SFIP).

This research report is the third in a series of outputs of a research program at the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security, supported by the Principality of Liechtenstein.

Key Findings

• While they are gaining seniority in the US military, women continue to face discrimination .
• Prioritize certain physical standards such as upper body strength regardless of job requirements that advantage men over women;
• Place a premium on combat experience for promotions curtailing women’s pathways to senior leadership positions;
• Give Special Operations, which continue to be almost exclusively men, a central role in US military strategy.
• The prioritization of physical strength has coincided with two other dynamics that curtail women’s opportunities in the military : greater emphasis on combat experience for climbing the ranks and heavy reliance on Special Operations that remain men-dominated.
• Interviewees emphasized the importance of a holistically diverse force , one that goes beyond tokenism or essentialism. Tokenism is not equal nor meaningful participation and therefore prevents the tokenized, whether they are women or other minority groups, from effectively influencing decisions, tactics, and strategies.

Policy Recommendations

Our policy brief includes recommendations to increase the meaningful participation of women across the Joint Force and increase compliance with IHL.

To achieve the Department of Defense’s three SFIP objectives and increase compliance with IHL, the United States armed forces must foster an inclusive environment that encourages the participation of women. We provide recommendations to facilitate this focusing on three central issues:

• Ensuring women’s meaningful participation : meaningful participation of women involves, among other things, promoting them to leadership positions, ensuring they have influence, valuing their input, and providing access to adequate childcare during all operational hours and during deployment, as well as equality in parental leave policies for men and women.

• Correcting physical standards and barriers : Military leadership must improve its communication of the difference between gender-neutral occupational standards and physical fitness assessments that are gender- and age-normed because they are an administrative tool to assess overall health and fitness.

• Addressing sexual assault : We particularly emphasize two intertwined steps: First, holding leaders at all levels—from company commander to four-star general—accountable for their actions and inactions. Second, we recommend greater civilian oversight over cultural norm setters such as Special Operations Forces.

Download the Resource:

Explore our priorities, dei syllabus resources, women peace & security index, voices in peacemaking, countering violent extremism, economic empowerment, peace & security, climate change & disaster risk reduction.

clock This article was published more than  2 years ago

Black women pushed the U.S. Army to become more inclusive and equal

On oct. 20, 1978, women were fully integrated into the army. it was black women during world war ii who paved the way..

Oct. 20, 1978, heralded two landmark victories for women: the end of the gender-segregated Women’s Army Corps (WAC) and the full integration of its members in the U.S. Army. On that day and for the first time in the 36-year history of women in the U.S. military, the Army entitled its female troops the same rights as their male counterparts in all fields, save combat. It was a momentous occasion made possible by the women who had forged this road for more equitable treatment.

But it was a rocky road for WACs, especially those battling both gender and racial discrimination in the military. A generation earlier, Black WACs had put their careers and even their freedom on the line to demand their rights to serve as military personnel. Asserting their equal status, these women helped set the course that led to the Army’s 1978 acceptance of women as fully legitimate soldiers.

The Army first enlisted women in 1942 during the tremendous mobilization for World War II. Historically opposed to women in the military, it created the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps, a separate and distinct unit. The women’s roles were so limited that, within a year, the Army replaced the Auxiliary with the WAC to employ them more efficiently. Though tied more closely to Army operations and directives, including equal pay and same-rank designations, the WAC remained a separate, subordinate and temporary corps scheduled to dissolve after the war. It also remained racially segregated.

Committed to racial segregation, the War Department roundly rejected civil rights leaders’ demands to racially integrate its troops. However, in need of African American support, it offered compromises. In 1940, the War Department mandated the equal treatment of troops regardless of race and, in 1942, allowed Black women to enlist in the WAC. The Army was the first service to open its new female corps to Black women.

The 1940 directive and the nation’s wartime zeal for democracy assured some Black women that they would be able to serve as equals. Others saw the WAC as an opportunity to escape their traditional employment as menial laborers, and signed on.

Ultimately, 6,500 Black women enlisted, which still equaled less than 5 percent of the total WAC force. They sought to help the war effort, and they were also drawn to the promises of skills training and advancing their social and economic status. Black women had long desired an equal fighting chance, and that was precisely what the WAC was offering.

Many Black WACs did not get what they were promised, however.

In October 1944, the Army transferred 100 Black WACs to Fort Devens, Mass., where a White colonel assigned them to cleaning duties. Assuming these menial tasks were temporary, the women worked hard while inquiring about training for the skilled assignments that White WACs at Fort Devens received and that they had enlisted to do. Two months after their arrival, the colonel halted all speculation when blurting out that Black WACs were there to do the “dirty work.”

Morale plummeted among Black WACs, but they did not end their pursuit of the equal treatment that was due to them. Like White WACs, they had answered the nation’s urgent call to replace men in essential military jobs. Like Black men, they were committed to the war for freedom abroad but also for freedom at home. They rallied behind the popular “Double V” campaign, in which African Americans fought for dual victories, one against tyranny overseas and another against the tyranny in the United States that so viciously targeted them.

Additionally, as Black women, these servicewomen felt the sting of their “Jane Crow” status, a term yet to be coined by African American intellectual Pauli Murray yet codified in military policies that segmented them by gender and by race. Nonetheless, the WAC was also a formidable new platform for Black women to protest their multiple-subordinate status. As early as 1942, during basic training, Black WACs were demanding the same treatment as other WACs — and with some success. They established desegregation days in the mess hall, prevented further attempts at segregation and honed strategies for collective actions to take other posts.

Six months after their arrival at Fort Devens and after numerous failed appeals to their officers to address their concerns about being relegated to “dirty work,” Black WACs refused to report to work. Their strike ended with the arrests of privates Alice Young, Anna Morrison, Mary Green and Johnnie Murphy. Each had opted for a court-martial over returning to cleaning duties, with Murphy adding that she would rather take death.

Though a mutiny in military terms, Army officials only charged them with disobeying orders to avoid the attention that an unusual court-martial of female soldiers might bring. But the Army had not considered the reach of the Black press, which helped make the strike and the trial that followed one of the most publicized military incidents of the war.

During the trial, the defendants’ accounts of their attempts to serve as soldiers galvanized widespread support. Mary McLeod Bethune, a renowned Black activist and adviser to U.S. presidents, applauded the women’s courage and sought their release. The NAACP’s Thurgood Marshall agreed to represent the four women while his mentor Charles Houston investigated the circumstances that led to the strike. Other notable and ordinary citizens lent their support to the WACs. From across the nation’s racial, gender and class lines, many held rallies and wrote letters protesting the discrimination against Black women in uniform.

The defendants’ officers, including their Black WAC commander, disputed charges of discrimination, insisting that they had followed the War Department’s directive of equal racial treatment. The problem was not racism, they explained, but the limited abilities of Black WACs to master assignments beyond menial labor. The public overwhelmingly disagreed. It came to light that these officers had reassigned even Black women who were Army-trained surgical technicians to cleaning duties. Correspondence expressing outrage over the ill-treatment of the women flooded the War Department.

Persistent civilian pressure compelled an odd outcome that, while eventually freeing the women, affirmed the racial and gender status quo that had sparked the strike. Seeking to end the troublesome trial, the Army used a technicality to warrant a dismissal and returned the WACs to Fort Devens — and their cleaning duties.

Nevertheless, the strike sent a message to the War Department that Black WACs would resist discriminatory treatment. When it organized a new company, it took meticulous care to staff it with Black WACs representing a range of ranks and skills, and it carefully monitored their treatment. Subsequently, officers remarked upon the company’s high morale and impressive performance. It was the same at other posts where WACs, regardless of race, worked in skilled assignments.

The Fort Devens strike was one of hundreds of incidents that forced the Army to acknowledge Black WACs and properly incorporate them into its operations. Contesting confinement to menial labor through individual resistance, collective action and the backing of outside allies, Black WACs during World War II pried open doors to gain access to various assignments at posts such as Fort Oglethorpe, Ga., and in Europe through service in the 6888th Postal Battalion. Even at Fort Devens, the strike produced training courses for WACs assigned to cleaning duties, including Young, Morrison, Murphy and Green.

The war ended, but the WAC did not dissolve as initially planned. Its personnel had proven too valuable. In 1948, the corps became a permanent force in the Army, and by 1950, it had been racially integrated. The WAC’s much-reduced size and President Harry S. Truman’s desegregation orders often prescribed the Army’s inclusion of women. Yet it was Black WACs’ continued presence, commendable service and continued struggles against discrimination that paved the road toward full integration.

It would take another troop shortage and the 1970s transition to an all-volunteer force for the Army to at last concede to the realities of military efficiency and accept female soldiers as equals.

It is fitting therefore, on this very ordinary 43rd anniversary of women’s assimilation in the Army (further fulfilled when combat duties opened to them in 2013) to recognize the many ordinary rank-and-file members of the U.S. Armed Forces, of all racial and gender identities and sexual orientations, who have demanded their full rights and opportunities.

Home — Essay Samples — War — Women in Combat — A View at the Gender Discrimination Evidenced In the United States Army

A View at The Gender Discrimination Evidenced in The United States Army

• Categories: United States Army Women in Combat

About this sample

Words: 1616 |

Published: Jan 15, 2019

Words: 1616 | Pages: 4 | 9 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Government & Politics War

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

5 pages / 2129 words

1 pages / 1006 words

5 pages / 2483 words

8 pages / 3679 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Women in Combat

Enzymes are essential biological molecules that catalyze biochemical reactions in living organisms. One such enzyme, amylase, plays a crucial role in the digestion of carbohydrates in the human . This essay will explore the [...]

The role of women in the military has been a topic of much debate and controversy. One of the most contentious issues is whether or not women should be allowed to serve in combat roles. This essay will explore the arguments for [...]

The medieval romance Yvain, also known as The Knight with the Lion, written by Chrétien de Troyes, is a tale filled with symbolism and allegory. One of the most prominent symbols in the story is the lion, which serves as a [...]

The Powhatan Dilemma, Written by Camilla Townsend, is a thought-provoking and insightful book that delves into the complex interactions between the English colonizers and the indigenous Powhatan people in the early years of the [...]

Are women too feminine to fight; do they not have the courage men have? Women are just as courageous as men (if not more) and also just as powerful. I think the real reason women haven’t been allowed in combat is because there [...]

It is a widely debated topic whether females should be allowed in combat or not. Throughout history, we have seen men fighting in wars and some argue that it should stay that way. The question is, why? There are [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Improving writing skills since 2002

(855) 4-ESSAYS

Type a new keyword(s) and press Enter to search

Gender discrimination in the military.

• Word Count: 739
• Approx Pages: 3
• Has Bibliography
• View my Saved Essays
• Downloads: 48
• Problems? Flag this paper!

            Gender Discrimination in the Military.              Sexual harassment issues have caused gender discrimination in the United States military. After much publicity, high ranking officials have set forth double standards in the U.S. Air Force. Guidelines and strict rules have been set forth to compensate gender in all aspects of the workplace. A woman is simply not an employee that can be approached in the same manner as her male counterpart. There are rules against sexual harassment, fraternization, and simple policies that point out the discrimination by gender. Sexual harassment is by far the most destructive and controlling means of discrimination.              Sexual harassment comes in verbal and physical threats. Sexual advances that are unwelcome or requests of sexual favors constitutes quid pro quo harassment. Quid pro harassment also occurs when an employee is led to believe that if they are not to participate in the desired sexual conduct that loss of job or promotion may be the result. Other forms of harassment may include physical aspects such as touching, fondling, hugging, kissing, intercourse, or other acts of a sexual nature. Dirty jokes, rumors, discussing one's sexual activity, and public displays of affection may also be considered sexual harassment. Sexual harassment has become such an ongoing problem for the U.S. military that double standards have been set according to gender.              The gender of the employee, whether in command or lower on the chain, affects the way that employee is treated. This begins in basic training. All men have their heads shaved to show a sign of equality. The men are started out with a sense of no matter race or wealth that everyone is now on an even playing field. This is not so for women in the military. Women are allowed to keep their hair as long as it is pulled up and kept nicely. Military men and women are both taught teamwork through association. However, this association has rules governing the limitations to the type of socialization.

• Page 1 of 3

Essays Related to Gender Discrimination in the Military

1. society and gender roles.

When does society start individualizing us as a certain gender? ... The sexual orientation of a person is much different from their gender. ... The effects of gender expectations and discrimination are also seen in different cultures. ... I was just a young woman out of high school when I decided to join the U.S. military, and to my family this was taboo. ... One of the many great values that I have learned by serving our country as a military service member is the value of team work and co-dependence. ...

• Word Count: 907
• Approx Pages: 4
• Grade Level: High School

2. Are Gays Safe In The Military?

Are Gays Safe in the Military? ... One of the main issues is that of gender segregation. The author explains that gender segregation is based on two principles: "People have a preference for people of the opposite sex and they should be allowed to choose to whom they expose an aspect of their sexuality." ... The key to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation in the military is to bring an end to homophobia or antigay bias. ... In his speech announcing the "Don't ask Don't tell," policy President Clinton makes a very compelling argument against discrimination. ...

• Word Count: 2210
• Approx Pages: 9
• Grade Level: Undergraduate

3. Gender in the Military

Gender in the Military Since the Revolutionary War women have partaken in numerous roles vital to the success of our nations military. ... With women's rights organizations pushing for gender equality in the military, it has proven to be anything but equal. ... Holly Devor writes in one of her articles, " both males and females are popularly thought to be able to do many of the same things, but most activities are divided into suitable and unsuitable categories for each gender class. Persons who perform the activities considered appropriate for another gender will be expected to per...

• Word Count: 2074
• Approx Pages: 8

4. Sex Discrimination

Sex Discrimination. ... Discrimination against men is a problem that is rarely noticed. ... Women have come a very long way and are certainly challenged to gain gender equality, and avoid discrimination. ... It is unjust to hear that confident, sturdy women are excluded from employment opportunities such as secretaries and military general/leaders, purely on the difference in gender. ... Discrimination is a serious problem that must be solved. ...

• Word Count: 505
• Approx Pages: 2

5. Sex discrimination

The advances that women have made since the passing of the 19th Amendment have been great, yet discrimination towards women in United States society still exists. Although it can be argued, in areas such as the workforce, the family, and in the military, women are constantly faced with discrimination. ... If an American citizen has the desire to serve their country, they should be able to, regardless of gender. ... The reason for that is because if only one gender is allowed in some military situations due to privacy concerns, and if females can qualify and accomplish the same physical trai...

• Word Count: 1903

6. Military Drafts

Smith University students as education, wealth, race and gender decided who got drafted. ... Ruffin also said, "Discrimination should not have played such a major role in the draft." ... Another JCSU student said, "It is discrimination for women to not be included in the draft." ... African American soldiers made up 13 percent of the U.S. military. ... Wortzel supports a draft because military service helps to socialize young Americans. ...

• Word Count: 797

7. Gender Equality and U.S. Political Culture

• Word Count: 1908

8. Women in the Military

Everyone wants to take part in helping our country, but some women simply can't because of their gender. ... by April Carter, and "Toward a Gender-Blind Military" by Cynthia Dunbar. ... Where as in Dunbar's Essay, "Toward a Gender-Blind Military" she seems to be more for it than against it. ... President Harry Truman put an end to this discrimination when he integrated combat units in 1948." ... by April Carter, and "Toward a Gender-Blind Military" by Cynthia Dunbar, I found that Dunbar covered many more counter arguments, along with a variety of different topics, where April Cart...

• Word Count: 1227
• Approx Pages: 5

9. Race,class,gender

Topic: Race and Gender in American Culture Subject: Kurt Bessel My Subject for this essay is Kurt B. ... I having grown up in India where discrimination between different types of races exists to the maximum amounts was curious to know if there was any discrimination here in the United States. ... Talking about gender, Kurt believes that everyone should have equal opportunity without taking gender into affect or rather disregarding gender. ... During the time of the World War 2, US military and intelligence officials intruded into his house and dismantled his radio verifying that it was...

• Word Count: 1029

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

Essay on Gender Discrimination

• Updated on  
• Jul 14, 2022

One of the challenges present in today’s society is gender discrimination. Gender discrimination is when someone is treated unequally based on their gender. Gender discrimination is not just present in the workplace but in schools, colleges and communities as well. As per the Civil Rights Act of 1964,  gender discrimination is illegal in India. This is also an important and common essay topic in schools and competitive exams such as IELTS , TOEFL , SAT , UPSC , etc. Let’s explore some samples of essay on gender discrimination and tips for writing an impactful essay.

Tips for Writing an Impactful Essay

If you want to write a scoring and deep impact essay, here are some tips for writing a perfect informative essay:

• The most important and first step is to write an introduction and background information about and related to the topic
• Then you are also required to use the formal style of writing and avoid using slang language
• To make an essay more impactful, write dates, quotations, and names to provide a better understanding
• You can use jargon wherever it is necessary as it sometimes makes an essay complicated
• To make an essay more creative, you can also add information in bulleted points wherever possible
• Always remember to add a conclusion where you need to summarise crucial points
• Once you are done read through the lines and check spelling and grammar mistakes before submission

Essay on Gender Discrimination in 200 Words

One of the important aspects of a democratic society is the elimination of gender discrimination. The root cause of this vigorous disease is the stereotypical society itself. When a child is born, the discrimination begins; if the child is male, he is given a car, bat and ball with blue, and red colour clothes, whereas when a child is female, she is given barbie dolls with pink clothes. We all are raised with a mentality that boys are good at sports and messy, but girls are not good at sports and are well organised. This discriminatory mentality has a deeper impact when girls are told not to work while boys are allowed to do much work. This categorising males and females into different categories discriminating based on gender are known as gender discrimination. Further, this discriminatory behaviour in society leads to hatred, injustice and much more. This gender discrimination is evident in every woman’s life at the workplace, in educational institutions, in sports, etc., where young girls and women are deprived of their rights and undervalued. This major issue prevailing in society can be solved only by providing equality to women and giving them all rights as given to men.

Essay on Gender Discrimination in 300 Words 

Gender Discrimination, as the term signifies, is discrimination or discriminatory behaviour based on gender. The stereotypical mindset of people in the past has led to the discrimination that women face today. According to Kahle Wolfe, in 2015, women earned 83% of the income paid to men by working the same hours. Almost all women are not only discriminated against based on their salaries but also on their looks.

Further, most women are allowed to follow a certain dress code depending upon the work field and the dress women wear also decides their future career.

This dominant male society teaches males that women are weak and innocent. Thus women are mostly victims and are targeted in crimes. For example, In a large portion of the globe, women are blamed for rapes despite being victims because of their clothes. This society also portrays women as weaker and not eligible enough to take a stand for themselves, leading to the major destruction of women’s personalities as men are taught to let women down. This mindset of people nowadays is a major social justice issue leading to gender discrimination in society.

Further, gender-based discrimination is evident across the globe in a plethora of things, including sports, education, health and law. Every 1 out of 3 women in the world is abused in various forms at some point in their lives by men. This social evil is present in most parts of the world; in India, women are burnt to death if they are incapable of affording financial requirements; in Egypt, women are killed by society if they are sensed doing something unclean in or out of their families, whereas in South Africa baby girls are abandoned or killed as they are considered as burden for the family. Thus gender discrimination can be only eliminated from society by educating people about giving equal rights and respect to every gender.

Top Universities for Gender Studies Abroad

UK, Canada and USA are the top three countries to study gender studies abroad. Here’s the list of top universities you can consider if you planning to pursue gender studies course abroad: 

We hope this blog has helped you in structuring a terrific essay on gender discrimination. Planning to ace your IELTS, get expert tips from coaches at Leverage Live by Leverage Edu .

Sonal is a creative, enthusiastic writer and editor who has worked extensively for the Study Abroad domain. She splits her time between shooting fun insta reels and learning new tools for content marketing. If she is missing from her desk, you can find her with a group of people cracking silly jokes or petting neighbourhood dogs.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Leaving already?

8 Universities with higher ROI than IITs and IIMs

Grab this one-time opportunity to download this ebook

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

September 2024

January 2025

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Vatican Document Casts Gender Change and Fluidity as Threat to Human Dignity

The statement is likely to be embraced by conservatives and stir consternation among L.G.B.T.Q. advocates who fear it will be used as a cudgel against transgender people.

By Jason Horowitz and Elisabetta Povoledo

Reporting from Rome

The Vatican on Monday issued a new document approved by Pope Francis stating that the church believes that gender fluidity and transition surgery, as well as surrogacy, amount to affronts to human dignity.

The sex a person is assigned at birth, the document argued, was an “irrevocable gift” from God and “any sex-change intervention, as a rule, risks threatening the unique dignity the person has received from the moment of conception.” People who desire “a personal self-determination, as gender theory prescribes,” risk succumbing “to the age-old temptation to make oneself God.”

Regarding surrogacy, the document unequivocally stated the Roman Catholic Church’s opposition, whether the woman carrying a baby “is coerced into it or chooses to subject herself to it freely.” Surrogacy makes the child “a mere means subservient to the arbitrary gain or desire of others,” the Vatican said in the document, which also opposed in vitro fertilization.

The document was intended as a broad statement of the church’s view on human dignity, including the exploitation of the poor, migrants, women and vulnerable people. The Vatican acknowledged that it was touching on difficult issues, but said that in a time of great tumult, it was essential, and it hoped beneficial, for the church to restate its teachings on the centrality of human dignity.

Even if the church’s teachings on culture war issues that Francis has largely avoided are not necessarily new, their consolidation now was likely to be embraced by conservatives for their hard line against liberal ideas on gender and surrogacy.

The document, five years in the making, immediately generated deep consternation among advocates for L.G.B.T.Q. rights in the church, who fear it will be used against transgender people. That was so, they said, even as the document warned of “unjust discrimination” in countries where transgender people are imprisoned or face aggression, violence and sometimes death.

“The Vatican is again supporting and propagating ideas that lead to real physical harm to transgender, nonbinary and other L.G.B.T.Q.+ people,” said Francis DeBernardo, the executive director of New Ways Ministry, a Maryland-based group that advocates for gay Catholics, adding that the Vatican’s defense of human dignity excluded “the segment of the human population who are transgender, nonbinary or gender nonconforming.”

He said it presented an outdated theology based on physical appearance alone and was blind to “the growing reality that a person’s gender includes the psychological, social and spiritual aspects naturally present in their lives.”

The document, he said, showed a “stunning lack of awareness of the actual lives of transgender and nonbinary people.” Its authors ignored the transgender people who shared their experiences with the church, Mr. DeBernardo said, “cavalierly,” and incorrectly, dismissing them as a purely Western phenomenon.

Though the document is a clear setback for L.G.B.T.Q. people and their supporters, the Vatican took pains to strike a balance between protecting personal human dignity and clearly stating church teaching, a tightrope Francis has tried to walk in his more than 11 years as pope.

Francis has made it a hallmark of his papacy to meet with gay and transgender Catholics and has made it his mission to broadcast a message for a more open, and less judgmental, church. Just months ago, Francis upset more conservative corners of his church by explicitly allowing L.G.B.T.Q. Catholics to receive blessings from priests and by allowing transgender people to be baptized and act as godparents .

But he has refused to budge on the church rules and doctrine that many gay and transgender Catholics feel have alienated them, revealing the limits of his push for inclusivity.

“In terms of pastoral consequences,” Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, who leads the Vatican’s office on doctrine, said in a news conference Monday, “the principle of welcoming all is clear in the words of Pope Francis.”

Francis, he said, has repeatedly said that “all, all, all” must be welcomed. “Even those who don’t agree with what the church teaches and who make different choices from those that the church says in its doctrine, must be welcomed,” he said, including “those who think differently on these themes of sexuality.”

But Francis’ words were one thing, and church doctrine another, Cardinal Fernández made clear, drawing a distinction between the document, which he said was of high doctrinal importance, as opposed to the recent statement allowing blessings for same-sex Catholics. The church teaches that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”

In an echo of the tension between the substance of church law and Francis’ style of a papal inclusivity, Cardinal Fernández said on Monday that perhaps the “intrinsically disordered” language should be modified to better reflect that the church’s message that homosexual acts could not produce life.

“It’s a very strong expression and it requires explanation,” he said. “Maybe we could find an expression that is even clearer to understand what we want to say.”

Though receptive to gay and transgender followers, the pope has also consistently expressed concern about what he calls “ideological colonization,” the notion that wealthy nations arrogantly impose views — whether on gender or surrogacy — on people and religious traditions that do not necessarily agree with them. The document said “gender theory plays a central role” in that vision and that its “scientific coherence is the subject of considerable debate among experts.”

Using “on the one hand” and “on the other hand,” language, the Vatican’s office on teaching and doctrine wrote that “it should be denounced as contrary to human dignity the fact that, in some places, not a few people are imprisoned, tortured, and even deprived of the good of life solely because of their sexual orientation.”

“At the same time,” it continued, “the church highlights the definite critical issues present in gender theory.”

On Monday, Cardinal Fernández also struggled to reconcile the two seemingly dissonant views.

“I am shocked having read a text from some Catholics who said, ‘Bless this military government of our country that created these laws against homosexuals,’” Cardinal Fernández said on Monday. “I wanted to die reading that.”

But he went on to say that the Vatican document was itself not a call for decriminalization, but an affirmation of what the church believed. “We shall see the consequences,” he said, adding that the church would then see how to respond.

In his presentation, Cardinal Fernández described the long process of the drafting of a document on human dignity, “Infinite Dignity,” which began in March 2019, to take into account the “latest developments on the subject in academia and the ambivalent ways in which the concept is understood today.”

In 2023, Francis sent the document back with instructions to “highlight topics closely connected to the theme of dignity, such as poverty, the situation of migrants, violence against women, human trafficking, war, and other themes.” Francis signed off on the document on March 25.

The long road, Cardinal Fernández wrote, “reflects the gravity” of the process.

In the document, the Vatican embraced the “clear progress in understanding human dignity,” pointing to the “desire to eradicate racism, slavery, and the marginalization of women, children, the sick, and people with disabilities.”

But it said the church also sees “grave violations of that dignity,” including abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, polygamy, torture, the exploitation of the poor and migrants, human trafficking and sex abuse, violence against women, capitalism’s inequality and terrorism.

The document expressed concern that eliminating sexual differences would undercut the family, and that a response “to what are at times understandable aspirations,” will become an absolute truth and ideology, and change how children are raised.

The document argued that changing sex put individualism before nature and that human dignity as a subject was often hijacked to “justify an arbitrary proliferation of new rights,” as if “the ability to express and realize every individual preference or subjective desire should be guaranteed.”

Cardinal Fernández on Monday said that a couple desperate to have a child should turn to adoption, rather than surrogacy or in vitro fertilization because those practices, he said, eroded human dignity writ large.

Individualistic thinking, the document argues, subjugates the universality of dignity to individual standards, concerned with “psycho-physical well-being” or “individual arbitrariness or social recognition.” By making dignity subjective, the Vatican argues, it becomes subject to “arbitrariness and power interests.”

Jason Horowitz is the Rome bureau chief for The Times, covering Italy, the Vatican, Greece and other parts of Southern Europe. More about Jason Horowitz

Elisabetta Povoledo is a reporter based in Rome, covering Italy, the Vatican and the culture of the region. She has been a journalist for 35 years. More about Elisabetta Povoledo

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

Rising numbers of americans say jews and muslims face a lot of discrimination, most u.s. adults think speech related to israeli and palestinian statehood should be allowed, but not calls for violence.

Pew Research Center conducted this survey to explore the U.S. public’s views on discrimination and free speech in the context of the Israel-Hamas war. We surveyed a total of 12,693 U.S. adults from Feb. 13 to 25, 2024. Most of the respondents (10,642) are members of Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel, an online survey panel recruited through national random sampling of residential addresses, which gives nearly all U.S. adults a chance of selection.

The remaining 2,051 respondents are members of three other survey panels – Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel, SSRS’s Opinion Panel, and NORC at the University of Chicago’s AmeriSpeak Panel – who were interviewed because they identify as Jewish or Muslim.

We “oversampled” (i.e., interviewed a disproportionately large number of) Jews and Muslims to provide more reliable estimates of their views on the topics covered in this survey. But these groups are not overrepresented in the national estimates reported here, because we adjusted for the oversampling in the weighting of the data. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education, religious affiliation and other categories. In total, 1,941 Jewish and 414 Muslim respondents participated in this survey.

While the sample design was identical for Jews and Muslims, the resulting sample sizes are different. There are two main reasons for this. The Jewish population in the United States is roughly double the size of the Muslim population . Consequently, national survey panels have roughly twice as many or more Jewish panelists as Muslim ones. In addition, decades of research on survey nonresponse has shown that some groups in the U.S. are more likely to participate in surveys than others. Generally speaking, Jewish adults are more likely to participate in surveys than Muslim adults.

The survey also included questions about where people were born and whether people identify as Arab or of Arab origin. Because of insufficient sample size, we are unable to analyze Arab Americans or Americans of Israeli or Palestinian descent separately.

In this survey, Jews and Muslims are defined as U.S. adults who answer a question about their current religion by saying they are Jewish or Muslim, respectively. Unlike our 2020 report on Jews in America , this report does not separately analyze the views of “Jews of no religion” (i.e., people who identify as Jewish culturally, ethnically or by family background but not by religion).

For more information on how we conducted this survey, refer to the ATP’s Methodology and the Methodology for this report . Read the questions used in this report , along with responses.

The share of U.S. adults who say there is a lot of discrimination against Jews in our society has doubled in the last three years, according to a new Pew Research Center survey, jumping from 20% in 2021 to 40% today. A somewhat larger share – 44% – say Muslims face a lot of discrimination, up 5 percentage points since 2021.

Many Americans particularly sense that discrimination against Muslims and Jews has risen since the start of the Israel-Hamas war. The vast majority of U.S. Muslims and Jews themselves agree: Seven-in-ten Muslims and nine-in-ten Jews surveyed say they have felt an increase in discrimination against their respective groups since the war began in October.

The survey, conducted Feb. 13-25 among a nationally representative sample of 12,693 U.S. adults that includes an oversample of American Jews and Muslims, also probed the public’s views on the limits of free speech related to the war.

It finds that Americans are broadly comfortable with speech both for and against Israeli and Palestinian statehood. But most U.S. adults are not OK with calls for violence against Jews or Muslims.

Pew Research Center surveys conducted on our American Trends Panel (ATP) always include Jews and Muslims. But these surveys do not always have enough Jewish or Muslim respondents to report their answers separately. This is because they make up relatively small shares of the U.S. adult population: Roughly 2% of Americans say their religion is Judaism , and 1% say their religion is Islam .

To provide more reliable estimates of Jewish and Muslim views on the topics covered in this survey, we included Jewish and Muslim respondents from three other national panels run by large research organizations (Ipsos, NORC and SSRS). All these panels are probability based, meaning they use random sampling methods to recruit respondents. They are not “opt-in” polls . In total, 1,941 Jewish and 414 Muslim respondents participated in this survey.

In this report, Jews and Muslims are defined as U.S. adults who answer a question about their current religion by saying they are Jewish or Muslim, respectively. Unlike our 2020 report on Jews in America , this report does not analyze the views of “Jews of no religion” (i.e., people who identify as Jewish culturally, ethnically or by family background but not by religion).

While the sample design was identical for Jews and Muslims, the resulting sample sizes are different. There are two main reasons for this. The Jewish population in the U.S. is roughly double the size of the Muslim population . Consequently, national survey panels have roughly twice as many or more Jewish panelists as Muslim ones. In addition, decades of research on survey nonresponse has shown that some groups in the U.S. are more likely to participate in surveys than others. Generally speaking, Jewish adults are more likely to participate in surveys than Muslim adults.

• 70% say expressing support for “Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state” should be allowed.
• 58% say expressing opposition to Israel’s right to exist should be allowed.
• 66% say speech supporting “Palestinians having their own state” should be allowed.
• 61% say speech opposing a Palestinian state should be allowed.
• One-in-ten say calls for violence against either Jews or Muslims should be allowed.

On the questions about speech related to statehood, substantial shares of respondents are not sure. For example, 23% say they aren’t sure whether speech opposing Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state should be allowed. And 25% say they aren’t sure whether speech opposing Palestinian statehood should be allowed.

When it comes to speech advocating violence, however, there is less uncertainty. Roughly three-quarters of Americans say that calls for violence against either Muslims or Jews should not be allowed.

The survey comes amid a flurry of news reports about antisemitic and anti-Muslim incidents in the United States, especially on college campuses , where fierce debates have erupted over the limits of free speech . For many Jewish and Muslim Americans, these debates are not just ideological, but personal:

• 74% of U.S. Jews and 60% of U.S. Muslims surveyed say they have felt offended by something they saw on the news or social media about the Israel-Hamas war.
• 27% of Muslims and 26% of Jews in the survey say they have stopped talking to someone in person – or unfollowed or blocked someone online – because of something that person said about the war.

A previous Pew Research Center report, based on the same survey, examined the U.S. public’s views on the war, including questions about:

• The acceptability of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack and Israel’s military response
• Americans’ attention to the war
• Americans’ knowledge about the war
• The emotions the conflict has unleashed

In this report, we focus on perceived levels of discrimination against Jews, Muslims and Arab people in the U.S. For context, we analyze perceptions of discrimination against other religious, racial and ethnic groups, including evangelical Christians and Asian, Black, Hispanic and White Americans ( Chapter 1 ).

We also delve into public attitudes toward speech related to the war, including how these views vary by age, education, political partisanship and other demographic factors ( Chapter 2 ).

How much discrimination do U.S. Jews and Muslims see against their own group?

The vast majority of U.S. Muslims surveyed (85%) say there is at least some discrimination against Muslims in our society today, including 67% who say there is a lot . Overall, Muslim respondents are more likely to feel there is at least some discrimination against their own religious group than to say the same about Jews (50%).

An overwhelming majority of U.S. Jews (94%) say there is at least some discrimination against Jews in our society, including 72% who say there is a lot . And more say there is a lot of discrimination against Jews than say the same about Muslims (57%).

For Jews, this represents a shift: In our 2020 and 2013 surveys of American Jews, they were more likely to say that Muslims (as well as Black people) face a lot of discrimination than to say this about themselves. 1

The change in Jewish Americans’ perceptions appears to be tied, at least in part, to the conflict in the Middle East: 89% of Jewish respondents say they have perceived a rise in discrimination against Jews since the start of the Israel-Hamas war.

They are not alone in feeling the effects of the conflict. Seven-in-ten Muslim respondents say discrimination against Muslims has risen since the start of the war. (Jewish and Muslim Americans are also paying greater attention to news about the Israel-Hamas war than most other Americans.)

In addition, most Muslims and nearly half of Jews say discrimination has increased against Arabs since the war began.

Unlike most U.S. polls, this survey has enough Jewish and Muslim respondents to allow their opinions to be broken out separately . Although Arab Americans also are included in the survey, there are not enough of them to reliably represent the views of Arab Americans as a whole. All three groups are very small in proportion to the overall U.S. population, which makes it hard to get a representative estimate through random sampling alone.

Free speech and the Israel-Hamas war

The survey included several questions to gauge tolerance for public speech about Israeli and Palestinian statehood, asking whether people in the U.S. should be able to express these sentiments – even if they might offend some people. Outright opposition to these expressions of opinion are relatively rare; instead, sizable shares say they are unsure. In contrast, most Americans say public speech calling for violence against Jews or Muslims should not be allowed.

Like the public overall, a large majority of U.S. Jews are in favor of allowing people to express support for Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state (92%). Majorities of Jews also say speech either supporting (77%) or opposing (74%) Palestinians having their own state should be allowed. But Jews are less likely to say this about speech opposing Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state: 55% say this kind of speech should be allowed, while 34% say it should not be allowed.

Similarly, a solid majority of U.S. Muslims say that speech supporting a Palestinian state should be allowed (70%). About half of Muslims say people should be allowed to express support for (47%) or opposition to (50%) Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. And 43% of Muslims say that speech opposing a Palestinian state should be allowed; 27% say this kind of speech should not be allowed, and 28% are unsure.

Like many public attitudes toward the Israel-Hamas war, opinions on these issues vary depending on people’s age, political party and education:

• Compared with other age groups, Americans 65 and older are more likely to say there is a lot of discrimination against Jews in our society today. Older Americans are far more likely to report an increase in discrimination against Jews than against Muslims or Arabs.
• By contrast, Americans ages 18 to 29 are more likely to say that Black, Muslim, Arab and Hispanic people experience a lot of discrimination than to say the same about Jews. Adults under 30 are equally likely to perceive an increase in discrimination against Muslims, Arabs and Jews since the start of the Israel-Hamas war (47% each).
• People ages 65 and older are the most likely to say they have felt personally offended by something they saw on the news or social media about the war (41%).
• Adults under 30 are the most likely to say they stopped talking to someone, or unfollowed or blocked someone online, because of something that person said about the Israel-Hamas war (16%).

Partisanship

• Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are generally more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to say there is a lot of discrimination against the groups asked about in the survey; Democrats are most likely to say there is a lot of discrimination against Black people (62%), Muslims (61%), Arab people (55%) and Jews (41%).
• Republicans are most likely to say there is a lot of discrimination against Jews (40%), followed by Muslims (27%), evangelical Christians (24%) and White people (24%).
• Democrats are about twice as likely as Republicans to say that, since the start of the Israel-Hamas war, discrimination has increased against Muslims (52% vs. 26%) and Arabs (49% vs. 23%).
• Republicans (61%) and Democrats (57%) largely agree that discrimination against Jews has increased since the outbreak of the war.
• Republicans and Democrats are also broadly in sync on the survey’s questions about speech. They largely are in favor of allowing expressions for or against statehood, but do not think calls for violence should be allowed.
• Americans with at least a college degree are more likely than those with less education to say discrimination against Jews, Muslims and Arabs has increased since the start of the Israel-Hamas war.
• People with at least a college degree are far more likely than those with less education to say that speech supporting and opposing Israeli or Palestinian statehood should be allowed. Those with lower levels of education are much more likely to say they are unsure.
• The 2013 survey of Jewish Americans included a similar question about discrimination, but the response options were different. The 2020 survey response options were “A lot,” “Some,” “Not much” and “None at all,” while in the 2013 survey the response options were “Yes, there is a lot of discrimination” and “No, not a lot of discrimination.” Despite this change, both of these previous surveys found that more Jews perceived a lot of discrimination against some other minority groups than against Jews. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivered Saturday mornings

Report Materials

Table of contents, younger americans stand out in their views of the israel-hamas war, how u.s. muslims are experiencing the israel-hamas war, how u.s. jews are experiencing the israel-hamas war, majority in u.s. say israel has valid reasons for fighting; fewer say the same about hamas, how americans view the conflicts between russia and ukraine, israel and hamas, and china and taiwan, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .