Women are not just small men. Although this should not come as a surprise, there are many examples of society’s tendency to default to “male” standards. Be it crash-test dummies in automobile development, standard subjects for medical research, or outfitting the military, men are viewed as the norm and women are thought of as “other” (if they are thought about at all). In the military, women are routinely issued men’s camouflage uniforms men’s boots, men’s coveralls, men’s flight gear, men’s long underwear, and men’s body armor. Many of these items claim to be unisex, yet their sizing and shape is that of men’s clothing.
Of course, ill-fitting uniforms feel uncomfortable and look frumpy, but they are not dangerous. Military body armor designed to fit men’s bodies, however, imperils women in multiple ways:
1. It interferes with women’s ability to shoulder and aim a rifle, so they cannot fully engage in the fight.
2. It impedes movement in general, so women are slowed in offensive and defensive movement.
3. It does not protect as designed, so women are more susceptible to combat injuries from bullets and shrapnel.
4. It can cause acute and chronic injuries, so women are at increased risk of occupational injuries.
Research shows taking women’s breast and torso measurements into account when designing armor can
ameliorates these dangers.1
I was issued men’s/unisex body armor in 2007 for my first deployment to Iraq. It was clear from how it fit (or did not fit) my hips and breasts, that the armor was not meant for women’s bodies. I asked about female-specific body armor at the time and was told the military was “working on it.” Now, in 2023, as I prepared for my fifth deployment,
the services are still “working on it.”
The Female Body Armor Modernization Act of 2019 is a step in the right direction. The act states that “properly fitting personal protective equipment . . . will assist in the gender-integration process . . . [and] improve overall combat effectiveness, while simultaneously bringing about a reduction in injuries.”2 A report to Congress is due in 2025 outlining “the prevalence of . . . preventable injuries attributable to ill-fitting or malfunctioning personal protective equipment.” Funding from the Female Body Armor Modernization Act will support development of new armor and services are “encouraged” to field new equipment, but there is no requirement to provide women with appropriate gear.
Of U.S. service members who sustain injuries in combat, women have a higher death rate than men. Correlation is not causation, but the statistics are still sobering. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, the death rate for injured men was 12 percent and for injured women 14.5 percent. During Operation Enduring Freedom, the death rate—frighteningly—was 17 percent for men compared to 35.9 percent for women.3 That is a huge and unacceptable disparity. Cynics may claim that women have higher mortality rates because they are not as tough. This is untrue. Women have a survival benefit in civilian trauma, dying only 5 percent of the time, whereas men die 7 percent of the time for groups with similar age and injury severity.4 The female survival benefit makes sense given that women’s physiology is prepared to survive hemorrhage during childbirth.
Thankfully, the Army is currently “working on it.” The Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Soldier Center in Natick, Massachusetts, is evaluating the body armor needs of female and male service members.5 The Army also has rolled out new armor to select units and will continue to do so.6 I wonder when the Navy and Marine Corps will follow suit.
1. Celeste E. Coltman, et al., “Effect of Torso and Breast Characteristics on the Perceived Fit of Body Armor Systems among Female Soldiers: Implications for Body Armor Sizing and Design,” Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 4, 9 March 2022.
2. Female Body Armor Modernization Act, 2019.
3. Jessica D. Cross, et al., “Mortality in Female War Veterans of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 469, no. 7 (2011).
4 Christopher D. Wholtmann, et al., “A Multicenter Evaluation of Whether Gender Dimorphism Affects Survival after Trauma,” American Journal of Surgery 181, no. 4 (2001).
5 Jane Benson, “DEVCOM Soldier Center Seeks to Improve Body Armor for Women,” Army.mil, 19 April 2022.
6 Todd South, “New Body Armor Carrier, Plates, and Female-Focused Designs Headed to Soldiers,” Army Times, 8 June 2021.