Americans are generally proud and thankful for the accomplishments of the U.S. military and all the service members spanning the whole array of functions from the ones high in the sky to the ones leagues beneath the sea. When Americans think of the military they are not ambushed by stereotypes, sexism, and inequality; they see the accomplishments of America’s fiercest warriors in their finest hours. What if we look beneath the hood of America’s World War winning machine? What will we see? Is everything working in perfect synchrony or are there improvements that need to be made?

From my experience in the Marine Corps the flaw that immediately draws my attention is the physical fitness standards for men versus the physical fitness standards for women. One may question whether this is a flaw because women are biologically different than men; therefore, they should be tested according to the abilities of their sex. Treating women differently on account of their sex, however, is the same old reasoning that kept women altogether from serving in the military in the not-so-distant past.

The last few years have brought about much progress and change within the military; women are now allowed to fill combat Military Occupational Specialties. This is a significant event not only for the sake of equality, but it further amplifies the unequal standards men and women meet to fill all the same positions.

It is important to view the standards in question to get acquainted with the vast differences in physical fitness testing standards. The Marine Corps Bulletin 6100.15, published on December 15, 2016, outlines how the Marine Corps Physical Fitness Test (PFT) and the Combat Fitness Test (CFT) are to be performed and the scores required to make a Marine promotable. Both tests are required of all Marines annually regardless of rank, occupation, or sex.

Both the PFT and CFT are comprised of three exercises meant to challenge an individual in all aspects of physical fitness. The following are highlights of required PFT scores for men and women ages 21 to 25. Men must perform 23 pullups to get the maximum score of 100 points added to their PFT score. As a minimum, men must perform 5 pullups to receive a score of 40 points. Women of the same age group must perform 9 pullups to receive 100 points added to their PFT score. As a minimum, women must perform 1 pullup to receive a minimum of 60 points.

This vast difference in score is seen again during the three mile run. Men must finish in 18 minutes for 100 points, and a minimum time of 27:40 will award men the minimum 40 points. Women must finish in 21 minutes to receive the maximum score of 100 points, and a minimum time of 30:50 will award women the minimum 40 points. These differences are seen in every event at every age group of both the PFT and CFT.

Defense reporter Matthew Cox alludes to the need for higher physical fitness standards for female Marines when he begins his article PT Standards in Question for Women in Combatsaying, “The Marine Corps may have to change its physical standards in order to put females in positions to one day lead infantry platoons in combat” He briefly mentions the danger for female service members who have not trained adequately to perform the demanding tasks of ground combat jobs. Therefore, women are put at a disadvantage compared to men due to lower fitness requirements but identical job requirements thus making them more prone to injury. Since every single injury on the battlefield takes multiple troops out of the fight in order to assist their fallen comrade, it is apparent that this is a larger matter than just personal risk. The mission is at stake when troops are under trained for their assigned tasks.

National security writer for The Washington Post Dan Lamothe says, “Women in a new Marine Corps unit created to assess how female service members perform in combat were injured twice as often as men,” in summary of a studyconducted in 2015. An astonishing 40.5 percent of female participants suffered musculoskeletal injuries. It can be deduced that these types of injuries must be tied to physical fitness. If the female Marines were held to the same physical fitness standards as the males before they started the exercise, the statistics would show a completely different outcome.

Many use the outcome of the experimental Marine Corps battalion as a rally cry against integrating females into ground combat units previously open only to males. However, the injuries cannot be attributed to sex or anything other than excessively low physical fitness standards. A service member’s sex does not genetically or in any other way predispose him or her to get injured more frequently. The female Marines in this experiment were set up to fail because of the lower standards.

Women should not be excluded from combat jobs altogether as national security and foreign policy analyst Daniel Davis deems necessary in his article The Truth about Women in Ground Combat Rolessaying, “I observed infantrymen on patrol who had to carry up to 100lbs of body armor and equipment. There would likely be few women who would be able to perform those tasks”. In contrast, “if properly trained your average male and female soldier should be able to perform the same physical feats, at the same level”, Brandi Heckman suggests in her Penn State blog, Women vs. Men PFA (Physical Fitness Assessment).

It could almost be common sense to assume a man and woman of equal fitness will be able to perform the same feats, so why should there be a difference in fitness requirements if they fill the same positions in the military? A male who, by means of genetics, is born with and develops a less athletic physique is held to the same standard as any other male. Nobody considers this to be unfair because the physical demands of the mission remain constant. Likewise, the requirements of the mission do not change if the sex of the individual performing it changes.

It is easy to see the negative effects of lower standards per individual on a much smaller scale, but the hazard that this poses on a much larger scale is monumental. The United States is a first responder to worldwide crisis, and historically has performed extraordinarily well. What if the U.S. were to face a larger foe with more sophisticated weapons, a real logistics system, and disciplined ground combat troops? In this context, the weakest links running the three mile in 30:50 just got a lot weaker. Allowing our military members to meet these excessively low criteria poses a threat to mission success.

National security commentator Amber Smith proposes a persuasive argument about the notion of false achievements in her article Gender Equality? A Double Standard for Women in the Militarywhen she says, “[Female service members] want to succeed based upon their own actions and merits, not be handed a consolation prize because they were granted special treatment.” Anyone who has ever worked hard for something would agree that the harder the battle, the sweeter the victory. Female Marines do not ask to be pampered. They are tough as nails, but there is still a stigma because of the lower standards people assume females “get hooked up” with higher composite scores that ultimately lead to faster promotions.

Competing for a promotion is much like a 100 meter dash. If a runner wins the race but only started at 75 meters, the losers will resent the winner. On the other hand, the winner is not going to feel like they actually won because he or she was not required to run as far as the rest of the contestants. In a way, nobody wins. The winner wants to win because of the hard work that put them ahead of the competition.

Smith later criticizes high ranking military officials by blaming them for perpetuating unequal standards for the sexes saying, “Unfortunately… we are seeing military leadership more concerned with fulfilling quotas than meeting mission priorities.” If the requirements for females were to be raised to the level that males must achieve, the military could see a large exodus of female service members. This possibility is the force that is keeping the bar low for females entering and serving in the military. The idea of having less females in an already male saturated branch of the government creates a nightmare for those only interested in achieving equality through a headcount. Military leadership is aware of this possibility, and they are unwilling to budge because of it.

By the time women and men reach basic training or boot camp, they have been socialized physically to meet certain physical fitness standards set by society. To avoid dwindling numbers of female service members, a stronger emphasis must be made for physical fitness at a much younger age. I remember all too well learning how to play table tennis in physical education classes. I also remember dreading the one mile run once a year. That is hardly instilling even the most basic knowledge of physical fitness in future adults.

Young girls and boys alike should be taught how to perform rudimentary exercises to promote overall physical well-being rather than focusing almost exclusively on playing games and sports. This would aid in leveling the playing field when it comes to occupations that require a significant amount of strength and endurance. If elementary and middle schools started teaching kids about physical fitness that they can all apply to their lives, we might see a culture that no longer hesitates when women want to fill physically demanding combat roles.

All members of society are therefore partially to blame for not making it the norm for women to have the same opportunities as men. Collectively we can correct this injustice and mitigate inequalities like lax fitness standards because they put females at a higher risk for injury, they perpetuate gender stereotypes, and they are detrimental to our military’s combat readiness. The standards in place skew the goal of the military and make it seem like the focus is on appeasement and trying to achieve equality through a head count rather promoting equal standards to select the most ideal warriors to fight for our country.