The law now makes women more or less equal in the armed forces. But how much can they really do?

SPOTTING the woman amid recruits preparing to hurl themselves from a plane at Fort Benning can be difficult. She has cropped hair, a baggy uniform and looks terrified; so do her male peers. The army welcomed women to its elite Ranger School for the first time last month: 19 of them started alongside 381 men. But training for one of America’s toughest infantry forces is not easy. And it is not meant to be. On the first day, candidates ran five miles in less than 40 minutes and then completed 49 push-ups, 59 sit-ups and six chin-ups. After the first week just eight women and 255 men remained after a 12-mile march, a night-time “compass mission”, a giant obstacle course, and more.

But then the female students fell behind. News came on May 8th that all eight need to repeat tasks before they can proceed to the next phase of training in Georgia’s northern mountains (101 men must do the same.) Those who succeed can look forward to three hours of sleep a night, two small meals a day and gruelling patrols. Previous candidates have even snapped toothbrushes in half to make their packs lighter.

If a woman does manage to prove herself tough enough, however, she will not be assigned to the Ranger Regiment. She will instead just wear the black and gold tab: her foray comes only as part of research into whether women can be integrated within special combat units. A typical man loses up to 20lb (9kg) in weight during the course. No one yet knows how it will affect a woman.

The fort’s commander, Major-General Scott Miller, says “Standards haven’t changed, and they won’t change.” Command Sergeant Major Curtis Arnold, an instructor at the school, sees integration as a natural step: “I don’t care whether my soldiers are male, female or Martian. I just want more Rangers in the army.” Major Arnold may yet get his wish, even if the first female Ranger students fail.

It was President Harry Truman, just after the second world war, who first signed laws allowing women to become permanent members of the armed forces. By 2011 more than 203,000 women were in the active-duty force—about 14.5% of the total. By 2025, estimates say, one in every four military personnel will be female. Efforts to integrate the armed forces, support enlisted parents and curb sexual assault mean there has never been a better time for women to join up.

The crucial change came in January 2013 when Leon Panetta, then secretary of defence, lifted the ban on women in combat, opening 230,000 battlefront positions to them. They can now crouch in foxholes and shoot as snipers, but are still banned from driving tanks (although female engineers may fix them). The forces have until 2016 to figure out how to work women into special operations, where possible.

America’s move comes alongside a shift towards integrating armed forces across the world (see chart). Israel leads the way: a quarter of the officers in its Defence Forces are female and 92% of its jobs are open to women (proportions probably improved by its conscription policy). Countries such as Canada, Poland, France, Germany and, more recently, Australia also let women engage in combat. Britain will join the lists next year.

The thinking goes that if a female soldier can meet the necessary physical standards, there is no reason why she should not fight. Besides, a larger pool of candidates for the grittiest jobs will strengthen elite units. Women can also bring different skills to bear, according to Captain Katherine Fichtner of the army: the female Ranger School trainees were particularly good at planning and navigation (giving the lie to that old adage about women and maps). Lieutenant-General David Barno, a Ranger who led both American and international forces in Afghanistan between 2003 and 2005, and is now retired, agrees: “Commanders look for the brightest, best people—not just those who can do the most press-ups—because being an infantry soldier is about out-thinking your enemy, as much as anything.” Chaitra Hardison, who studies the best ways to hire and train people for the RAND Corporation, a think-tank, says that “plenty of women are going to make it in infantry roles”. She notes that professional female boxers would whop a man off the street, and that women are keen marksmen. “We’ll see fewer women in combat than men, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be females who are capable.” And although women are smaller than men and have weaker upper bodies, effective training can build up both stamina and strength. The most important thing, Ms Hardison says, is to find women with an appetite for combat. Elaine Donnelly, president of the Centre for Military Readiness, disagrees. “There is no evidence that women are the physical equal of men in the combat arms,” she says. “You cannot deploy people who are not capable, that will endanger both women and men.”

The few, the male, the marines

Other critics argue that women just aren’t tough enough, physically or mentally, or worry about their effect on men. Knights in shining body armour may be unable to resist protecting women in a battle. Or the women may just prove too sexually distracting. But naysayers are losing the debate. Lt-Gen Barno says arguments about unit-cohesion were also made, and disproved, when the army was desegregated after the second world war and when, in 2011, openly gay candidates were accepted into the ranks. Besides, women have already proved their cool in combat. They have been combat air pilots since 1993; and more than 150 women have died, with more 800 injured, in service in the decade since 2001.

One female veteran who faced enemy fire in both Kuwait and Iraq says she never felt nervous: “The training that you go through means your emotions don’t get involved. They can’t. Otherwise, it might cost the life of another soldier.” Front-line experience abroad has not led to the promotions it should have done, where women are concerned, because it was technically illegal. Now it is officially allowed, more promotions should follow.

Clearing the path for female advancement will also change the structure of the services’ highest ranks—now disproportionately male. Rosemery Tijada, a combat engineer sent five times to Iraq and Afghanistan, frets over the lack of senior women in her field. But she believes things are changing. “I want to show that anybody is capable of any job,” she says.

Some paths may remain blocked, however. After more than two years and attempts by 29 women, not one has passed the marine corps’ infantry officer course. Most fail the combat endurance test—a gruelling day’s march carrying 80lb of kit, followed by an obstacle course with 20-foot climbing ropes. Meanwhile, the navy is still considering whether female sailors can join special-warfare and SEAL units.

But women in the armed services are sometimes their own biggest obstacles to promotion. They are more likely than men, for example, to transfer to the national guard or reserve after having children. The greater flexibility helps, as they are also more likely to be single parents: female service members’ marriages fail at three times the rate that male service members’ do. This means that 12% of active-duty women bring up children alone, compared with 4% of men. Jennifer Spooner, a marine officer until 2006, says one of the main reasons she stopped serving was in order to be with her small daughter. “So often I couldn’t even call her because of the time differences. That was the hardest thing for me when I was deployed,” she says.

A better map-reader, too Military members with children are required to have a plan for their custody if they deploy. Arrangements become messier after a divorce (especially as almost half of servicewomen marry servicemen, who may also be whisked abroad). Almost all states have passed laws protecting the custody rights of military parents; in Georgia, for example, a parent about to be deployed can now transfer the guardianship of children to a friend or family member, rather than an untrustworthy ex. Changes like these may convince more women to stick with military life. Those who do head abroad are also safer from harm at the hands of their colleagues. The latest report on sexual assault in the forces, released on May 1st, found that the share of females on active duty who suffered unwanted sexual contact declined from 6.1% in 2012 to 4.3% in 2014 (for men, the figures dropped from 1.2% to 0.9%). It is also easier to seek recourse. The special victims counsel programme gives soldiers and their dependants aged over 18 a lawyer to represent and guide them through the military courts in a sexual-assault case. (This programme, started by the air force, has been adopted by the army and the navy.) Commanders also no longer have the power to change or dismiss a verdict on a serious charge in a court-martial: previously, a superior’s favourite might escape with a slap on the wrist. Niki Tsongas, a congresswoman who has promoted bills to change assault procedures, believes it is “a good time” for women to join the forces, but worries that those who report sexual wrongdoing too often face retaliation (in about 62% of cases, she says). Marcia Gutiérrez, who served at a base in Germany for two years during the 1970s, faced violent retaliation after reporting a colleague for his threatening advances. The day after she spoke to her superior officer, the man she feared tried to force her face against a hot kitchen grill. Only afterwards were her complaints taken seriously. “Now is the time to get these stories out there,” she says. “If more women are reporting, it is because there is finally more openness to women in the military.” A new bill sponsored by Ms Tsongas and under consideration in Congress aims to curb retaliation, as well as increasing support for assaulted men. But most victims never speak out: fewer than two in ten, according to Greg Jacob, policy director at the Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN), an advocacy group. And a new study released last month suggests that only a third seek the medical help they may need afterwards.

Find armour that fits

Health care has been another battleground for serving women more generally. Contraception and gynaecologists can be hard to find, though abortions after rape or incest may now be performed in military hospitals. As for those wounded in the service of their country, prosthetic limbs designed for men are often still a woman’s best option for a missing arm or leg. Others might have escaped harm if their body armour had fitted them properly; efforts to design it specifically for women began only in 2011.

Armed forces that adapt to the needs of their female members will probably keep them longer, making the time and cost of training them more worthwhile. That in turn will make the forces a more attractive career—and as more women enlist, their demands will become harder to ignore. There is still a long way to go, but undoubtedly there is strength in numbers.