The issue of women in combat roles has been a fixture in the headlines recently and yet, despite all of the discussion, it still inspires intense and spirited debate that is not always constructive. My goal is not to advocate either side of the debate, but to raise the quality of the discussion.
So let’s talk about sex … the noun, not the verb.
“Sex” is a biological term, defined by Oxford online as: “Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans … are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.” For the vast majority of humans, one of these two adjectives (male or female) applies. Much of the historical debate about women in combat — fitness standards, for example — has been about the physical differences between males and females. These sex differences can be described, tested, and measured. More recent discussion, however, is really about gender.
“Gender” is not the same as sex. Oxford defines gender as: “The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).” In other words, gender is a cultural construct and describes concepts like masculinity and femininity, while sex is generally binary and common to all humans. For a hilarious example from American culture, watch this clip from The Big Bang Theory. Like all other cultural constructs, gender varies between societies and evolves over time. Gender roles in Sweden, for example, are culturally different than gender roles in Saudi Arabia. Similarly, the gender roles of women in American society have changed significantly, especially in the last 50 years. An important component of that change has been the expanding role of women in the military, a profession traditionally very closely associated with masculinity. We still hear the phrase “Join the military and become a man.” I wonder perhaps if this is why men in the military are “men” (“Make sure to take care of the men.”) and women are “females” (“How many females are in your unit?”). A perhaps under-appreciated aspect of the debate is the disparity between the expansion of women’s roles and men’s roles in American society.
While women’s roles have evolved and expanded, culturally acceptable roles for men have not kept pace. For example, why do we still say “male nurse?” American men as well as women are confined by gender boundaries. For men, the once exclusive role of being responsible for direct ground combat, an occupation traditionally considered to be among the most “masculine” in our society, is being challenged. It is not just about the practicalities of integrating females into all-male units — the military has been doing that for decades. Rather, the issue raises much more fundamental questions not only for the men in those units (How does integration affect my sense of self as a Ranger/SEAL/infantryman?) but for our society as a whole (Will the opening of combat roles become an expectation for women to serve in a time of war as it is for men?). These are gender questions, not sex questions. And they are difficult questions not just for the military but for our culture overall because they are challenging a fundamental aspect of our individual and collective identities. My hope is that an understanding of gender as a cultural construct, and an appreciation for the deeply held perspectives of men and women on both sides, will inform and temper this important debate. In order for that to happen, however, all parties need to be willing to have a constructive conversation.
While the concepts of sex and gender are easy to understand, they’re exceptionally difficult to talk about. Because gender is so fundamental to identity, even constructive comments can feel personal, which can blind us to the topic at hand and make objective debate impossible. Contributing to the difficulty are the labels so often and quickly applied to those on both sides of the conversation: sexist, misogynist, feminist, etc. In 1995, Drs. Claude Steele and Joshua Aronson introduced the concept of “stereotype threat,” which “refers to being at risk of confirming, as self-characteristic, a negative stereotype about one’s group.” While their research was focused on determining whether stereotype threat affects academic performance, I believe it is also a barrier to open, honest, and constructive debate about women in combat roles (and other culturally sensitive topics like race and religion). Quite simply, people avoid discussing certain things because they want to avoid being labeled, and, perhaps more important, they want to avoid the social (and sometimes professional) costs associated with those labels. This caution is natural and understandable, but it also prevents mutual appreciation of opposing points of view, a prerequisite to productive discussion. My hope is that the concepts of gender and stereotype threat contribute to that mutual appreciation and raise the quality of the debate about the important issue of women in combat roles.
Colonel Katherine Graef is a U.S. Army logistics officer currently studying at the Army War College. She commanded a Combat Sustainment Support Battalion and has served in Europe, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Iraq. Most recently, she served as a Military Professor at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. The views expressed in this article are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Army War College, the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.
Bruce Fleming 
I fail to see the point of this article. The distinction between sex and gender, Oxford on-line notwithstanding, is highly contentious, resting as it does on feminist ideology dating to the late 60s and early 70s and not on any hard science. It also allows one to deflect attention from the even more contentious point about whether biological sex differences actually influence behavior. It does in every other species of animal. My bottom line is this: whether gender is some sort of social or personal construct or not, the physical reality of the differences between the sexes will dictate certain types of behaviors and strategies no matter what else. No zero state is possible in terms of such perceptions, so the effective condition is one in which gender and sex will forever remain conflated. Any discussion of a coed military that does not recognize this fact – and any policy based on ignoring it – is flawed. I’d also add that the contradictions with the gender-sex distinction are most obvious with respect to transgender people. If gender is simply a construct, then it’s essentially the same thing as saying there is no such thing as male or female beyond the biological sense, which is exactly the opposite if what transgenderism claims.
Mr Mirvish, I’d argue that “[t]he distinction between sex and gender, Oxford on-line notwithstanding, is highly contentious, resting as it does on [Western masculinist] ideology dating to the [ancient Greeks] and not on any hard science.” Speaking of the Greeks, particularly Herodotus, they wrote of a tribe of women warriors they called Amazons, and while some of the tales were outrageous, there was a kernel of truth. We know these peoples now as Scythians and Samartians, from the steppes to the north and east of the Black Sea. They were a nomadic people, a horse culture, and about 1/3 of the graves that have been discovered with weapons (daggers, bows & arrows, and even swords) amongst the grave goods went with female skeletons. Some of those showed evidence of what can only be battle injuries (i.e. heavy blade marks such as from a sword) and most of which show evidence on the bones that they developed certain muscle groups from riding and bowmanship. But they didn’t burn off breasts or anything silly like that; most Greek art of them clearly shows them with both breasts intact. Now, you’ve mentioned sexed behaviours in other species; I’ll give you an example that flies in the face of the inferiority you’re implying with that argument, and it’s from the world of horse-racing. I live in Australia, and the race that stops our nation – it’s on next week, in fact – is the Melbourne Cup, run since 1861. It’s 3200 metres, or 2 miles roughly, and it’s worth about 6 million in prize money (maybe 5 mill US), so it’s hotly contested and draws an international field. The ONLY horse ever to win it three times was a mare – Makybe Diva. (2003,4 & 5). Australia recently produced another mare, Black Caviar, who won every race she she was ever entered into – 25 wins from 25 starts, and, just like Makybe Diva’s wins, those races had stallions and geldings in them. Just two weeks ago, Winx, yet another mare, won the Cox Plate (first run 1922, 2040 metres, worth $3 million (about $2.1 million US, so again – not small change). She won it by 5 lengths, and in a race-record time, beating yet more geldings and testesterone-enhanced stallions. So why is it that mares can beat stallions? Is it because their trainers ignore the fact that they have a ‘female’ on their pedigrees and train them to the same they would train a stallion or a gelding? And then their jockeys ride them as if biological sex is irrelevant? That mares can be trained to the same standard as stallions and win in a fair contest clearly has implications for women in the military, and particularly for those who would participate fully in combat units were they permitted. That ALL female soldiers are weaker than ALL male soldiers is demonstrably NOT true; Rangers Griest, Haver & Jaster proved it. The Marine Corps also clearly conceded as much in the much more nuanced version of its infantry study (the additional pages that were leaked to the Christian Science Monitor on September 23rd). When you raise expectations of what female recruits should be able to do, as (again Marine Corps) Lt. Colonel Kate Germano did and got fired for earlier this year, they can perform equally as well as male recruits. It’s when young women are punished (usually indirectly by derogatory comments about their appearance, femininity, etc – it’s called ‘gender-policing’ in academic parlance) for aspiring to be anything other than eye-candy baton-twirlers and cheer-leaders that they’re set up to fail and the result becomes a foregone conclusion. So I get Col. Graef’s point, and I hope that’s not simply because of my biological sex, my gender, or a combination of the two.
At the US Naval Academy at Annapolis, where I have taught midshipmen as a civilian professor since 1987, the Navy’s ham-fisted and panicked attempt to deal with sexuality has gutted morale among men and women and created more ill will than any program I have seen in nearly 30 years. The UCMJ defines “sexual assault” as stretching from rape down to “USC,” unwanted sexual contact, which includes a touch or a kiss. And though the USNA has tried repeatedly to get a conviction for rape, it has never succeeded. Nonetheless it herds men and women together for countless hours of mandatory training to ram home the point that rape is wrong. Of course. So is murder: where are the anti-murder briefs? In fact the military doesn’t even know what problem it’s targeting. Is the problem rape (if so show us that this is on the rise–rather than “sexual assault” defined above) or the fact that men find some women sexually attractive? The military is hedging its bets: all of the above. Mandatory training for men only starts with a video recounting a male-on-male rape. All students are told that saying that someone was “screwed” is contributing to the “culture of rape.” Women are not to be “objectified.” The gifted radical anti-intercourse feminist Andrea Dworkin, who maintained that any sex between men and women is degrading to the woman, is certainly smiling down from heaven: her extremist beliefs have been adopted by the most Neanderthal of all institutions, the US military, that still offers male SEALs and Marine ground officers as the gold standard in military service. The feminist professor Catherine McKinnon famously holds that all men are potential rapists: this extremist position is now shoved down the throats of everyone in the US Navy in a deeply conflicted and panicked response to an ill-defined problem. The military wants to change the way we speak and our “culture.” The military’s attack on sexuality and male desire when what they seem to be aiming at is the relatively small (and regrettably more than zero) number of rape cases (but why this problem now?) is carpet bombing its own people rather than using a surgical strike. The result is that men are alienated, as are the women who hate the poisoned atmosphere this anti-male attack has created. Besides, it’s self-destructive. The US Navy is 85% male and touts recruiting virtues that young males still identify as male. That’s also part of the “culture” that the military has taken on the task of changing. Nowadays the military seems bent on stamping out any expression of sexuality, most typically by men–which means telling men that they are morally wrong to have any sexual impulses at all. It all comes off as an attack on maleness, rather than attempt to guide its expression. Acknowledge sexuality (yes, male sexuality–this campaign is all about men coming on to women, and oh yes, raping both men and women) and talk about when its expression is appropriate. Don’t try to stamp it out–you won’t succeed, and everyone will tune you out, as most now do. And don’t spend countless government-funded hours to tell men that they’re all rapists waiting for a chance to strike.