The Bible tells us that God created two sexes, male and female. They are not interchangeable. They are different from each other in every single solitary cell of their bodies.
Women can become mothers who breastfeed their young. Men cannot. Men can become fathers, women cannot. Men can carry heavy loads long distances, women cannot. Men have much greater upper body strength, lung capacity, and stamina than women. So what happens when the military ignores these biological and biblical realities and tries to integrate the sexes in military service? It’s not pretty.
We’ve spent long enough pursuing this exercise in futility to realize the dumbness of ignoring God’s created order. It radically affects the three central components of military success: recruitment, retention, and readiness.
Here’s what happens when you ignore the immense differences between men and women in upper body strength and stamina:
Female Royal Marine and Army recruits are suffering career-threatening injuries from wearing a kit-carrying system designed for men.
The high-tech £79 million Virtus battle equipment system is causing women trying to become Britain's first commandos and infantry soldiers to endure agonising leg and hip problems, according to scientists.
In 2013, female Royal Air Force recruits were awarded around $123,000 to compensate them after they suffered pelvic fractures caused by trying to march in step with taller male colleagues during basic training. Many of the women who tried to join elite commando units suffered lower-limb injuries.
The British military just spent $100 million developing a new state-of-art battle kit, only to find the rucksack is too big for most female troops. The ammo pouches worn around the waist hurt women’s hips, which are wider than men’s. There are just too many pronounced differences in height, hip-width and pelvic angle in the physiology of men compared to women.
Readiness is impacted when female soldiers are advanced in training programs even though they are undeserving, and even though a male with the same performance record would be flushed out altogether.
In the first integrated class of the elite Army Ranger school, none of the 19 female candidates made it through the first phase of the course. Eight of them were given a re-do, and none of them passed on their second go-round. Three of them were given an unheard-of third try.
Females were given passing grades for substandard performances in training missions. For instance, platoon sergeants have one primary job: accounting for all the soldiers in the platoon so that none are left behind. A female platoon sergeant was given a passing grade even though she lost a soldier who got so thoroughly separated from his platoon that instructors had to shut down the entire mission until they found him. The entire platoon failed to complete its assigned mission, but the female candidate, whose failure ended the mission, inexplicably received a passing grade.
The male candidate who went missing was washed out of the course - standard procedure - while the candidate who lost track of him was advanced to the next phase, even though 90% of the Observation Report was about her numerous failures. She also led her platoon into a “friendly-fire” incident and then left the one casualty behind. Nevertheless, she bizarrely was the only candidate who received a passing grade - when she should have received a “major minus,” a strike as in a three-strikes-and-you’re-out policy.
As former U.S. Army captain James Hasson writes (he himself is a graduate of the Ranger course), those he interviewed “expressed admiration for the graduating females’ grit and perseverance,” and respected their efforts. But they lamented that political pressures are forcing changes to the legendary Ranger course, changes that damage its integrity and reputation and leave a weakened military in their wake.
The author may be contacted at email@example.com