Standards, Strength, and the Soldiers We Overlook: Women in the Military.
- Kandy
- 5 days ago
- 4 min read
September 2025, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth delivered a speech that reignited one of the most contentious debates in modern military policy: Who belongs on the battlefield?
His call to “get back to basics,” eliminate what he described as “woke ideology,” and enforce a single “male standard” for combat roles sent shockwaves across the nation. Some hailed it as a necessary return to discipline and readiness. Others warned it signaled a dangerous step backward.
The impact of that speech still lingers in recruitment conversations, in leadership discussions, and most importantly, among the soldiers it directly affects.
To understand why this moment still carries weight today, we must look beyond politics and listen to the people whose lives are shaped by these decisions.
“Back to Basics” — Or Backward?
In that speech last year, Hegseth argued that the military had lost its focus. He said inclusion had weakened readiness, that the armed forces were trying to “please every group or gender,” and that if women could not meet a male combat standard, “so be it.”
On paper, the argument sounded rooted in discipline and performance. In practice, it sent an unmistakable message: combat excellence was being framed as male.
For many women in uniform, that did not feel like motivation — it felt like erasure.
And that distinction matters.
The Man Behind the Message
By the time of that speech, Pete Hegseth was already a familiar and polarizing figure. A veteran and former Fox News host, he built his public identity on unapologetic conservatism and forceful political messaging.
Long before last year’s address, he had:
Criticized diversity programs as “weakening readiness”
Framed inclusion as political interference
Linked masculinity with military strength
Repeatedly questioned the role of women in combat
To supporters, he speaks uncomfortable truths. To critics, he revives old barriers under new language.
So when someone with that record stood on a national stage last year and invoked “male standards,” many doubted neutrality. Policy became personal. Leadership became ideological.
The Question of Standards
The U.S. military absolutely requires rigorous, uncompromising standards. Lives depend on them. National security depends on them. No one disputes that.
But one standard does not fit every body.
Men and women are biologically different in muscle mass, endurance profiles, and physical structure. Recognizing that difference is not weakness. It is reality.
A female performance standard is not a lowered standard. It is a measured standard, calibrated for physiological truth while still demanding excellence.
The evidence is already apparent: Women have:
Led convoys under fire
Treated wounded soldiers in active combat zones
Flown helicopters into hostile territory
Commanded troops under enemy threat
And died for this country
Discipline builds armies. Exclusion fractures them.
Why the Speech Sounded Sexist
The reaction to Hegseth’s speech was not about one sentence. It was about pattern and tone.
When leadership repeatedly:
Frames masculinity as the benchmark
Dismisses inclusion as ideological distraction
Suggests women are liabilities rather than assets
The message becomes unmistakable: some service is being valued more than others.
History shows that exclusion rarely arrives openly. It arrives quietly through language, framing, and standards that appear neutral on the surface but produce unequal outcomes in practice.
The Women Who Broke the Barrier are the most powerful rebuttal to this debate and it is factual.
Army Ranger School
In 2015, the first women graduated from U.S. Army Ranger School — one of the most physically punishing leadership programs in the world. They endured:
Mountain warfare
Jungle operations
Extreme sleep deprivation
Constant physical and mental stress
They were not given exceptions. They met the same standards. And they passed.
Multiple women have now earned the Ranger tab proving this was not symbolic. It was earned.
SERE School
Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) training pushes soldiers to the limits of human endurance and psychological resilience.
Women have successfully completed SERE training and gone on to serve in aviation, intelligence, and elite operational support roles where failure is not an option.
Special Operations & Combat Integration
Women now serve as:
Combat pilots
Tactical intelligence officers
Embedded special operations enablers
Elite logistics operators in hostile environments
Their presence is no longer a pilot program. It is a battlefield reality.
Why Female Warriors Matter in Modern Warfare
Modern warfare is not trench warfare.
It is:
Urban
Asymmetric
Intelligence-driven
Psychological
Embedded within civilian populations
In Iraq and Afghanistan, Female Engagement Teams provided:
Access to female populations in conservative regions
Intelligence that male soldiers could not obtain
Cultural navigation that prevented violence
De-escalation in volatile communities
These missions saved lives not just American lives, but civilian lives.
This is not politics. This is modern combat effectiveness.
A military that restricts talent based on gender weakens itself.
Why This Still Matters
More than a year after Hegseth’s remarks, the consequences are still unfolding.
The U.S. military continues to face:
A national recruiting crisis
Retention problems in critical career fields
Cyber warfare escalation
Near-peer global adversaries
Asymmetric conflict environments
Tomorrow’s wars will not be won by nostalgia.
They will be won by:
Adaptability
Critical thinking
Intelligence integration
Leadership under pressure
Unified force cohesion
When leadership frames women as obstacles instead of assets, it creates fractures inside the ranks.
And when soldiers believe their service is conditional readiness erodes from within.
Moving Forward
Perhaps Hegseth believed last year that he was restoring order.
But the question remains the same:
At what cost and to whom?
Strength does not come from sameness. It comes from everyone who is willing and capable to serve.
Women have already proven they belong in elite spaces
not through ideology, but through performance, sacrifice, and resilience.
The debate is no longer whether women can serve.
The real question is whether leadership will fully acknowledge the reality that already exists.
Final Thought
Military history offers one truth above all others:
Armies that embrace change endure. Armies that hold onto outdated methods perish.
This is not a debate about gender. It is a debate about the future of American strength.
Sources
U.S. Department of War — Hegseth Official Remarks
U.S. Department of Defense — Army War College Speech
Reuters — Pentagon Diversity Coverage
Army.mil — War Department Reform Announcements
AP News — National Military Policy Reactions
Comments