Nowadays, seeing an Uncle Sam poster causes a visceral reaction in most people. Which is conflicting, because I often find myself wanting to enlist when I see it. More and more people are becoming aware of the environmental and cultural disruptions that it has created across the globe. At the same time, the current job market isn’t great for recent college graduates, leaving many like myself to believe there is no hope for the future. Unsure of what to pursue after graduation, the benefits and the security that come with enlisting have been calling my name.
Last month, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth introduced a new military directive aimed at creating a better environment. His goal was “putting America First.” Some of these initiatives Hegseth introduced include setting male standards for combat, eliminating diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and freezing career stalls for anyone with misconduct allegations (Removal of DEI in the military).
By setting standards that cater to the male physique, the military now requires women to meet performance requirements that do not account for physiological differences. While these are aimed at creating a better military that caters to “America First,” it feels as if only men will benefit, and give them a better look in the military. With Hegseth and the Trump administration introducing this new agenda, I think it is safe to say that I’d now rather try my luck in the job market.
The new “fit, not fat” initiatives are aimed at raising the standards of combat by setting the fitness bar higher and more challenging for those people who want to join. While creating a gender-neutral fitness standard seems to be a relatively good thing, it makes it more difficult for women and nonbinary people who now have to work that much harder to fit into a standard built for a stereotypical, biological male.
Raising these standards fails to acknowledge that women and non-conforming people have physiologically different bodies. In all honesty, it seems rather discouraging to think that now women have to work harder to fit into the male standard in a country that is supposed to be for all. These actions also tie into the removal of DEI initiatives that were set in place as part of the “anti-woke” military Hegseth proposed. Removing these initiatives is discriminatory, diminishing the experiences of people of color and LGBTQ+ peoples in the military.
Another initiative that Hegseth introduced was limiting restrictions on misconduct in the Army. Current soldiers who are under misconduct investigation wont be stopped from continuing their service with a waiver and will be allowed to aim for promotions, awards and start new assignments. Though this doesnt apply to major misconducts like sexual violence, it provides a gateway for smaller infractions, like drug and alcohol misuse or theft.
These initiatives might motivate people to commit bigger crimes, due to them being historically overlooked by the Army. This initiative feels targeted towards men rather than women. A study by the National Library of Medicine found that among soldiers, men are two times more likely to be accused of a crime compared to women. According to these numbers, men are more likely to commit misconduct, but don’t receive as many repercussions as women and LGBTQ+ people do, which would only feed into Hegseth’s initiatives.
Not all of Hegseth’s policies are bad. For example, he has taken an initiative to improve the quality of life of our military personnel by targeting the current housing standards. By redirecting funds, the ongoing problem of terrible housing conditions will get a greater spotlight, and much-needed improvements, such as a “barracks task force,” will go into place.
Hegseth has yet to finalize the planning and details of the barracks task force, citing that Senate? Should finalized the planning and execution by the end of October. What we do know is that the task force will ensure that military barracks are “clean, comfortable, and safe” for service members. Overall, maybe our fitness standards are up to par with other countries’ military. After all, we are seen as a “fat” country by everyone else in the world, so maybe the military needed this rebranding. And it could motivate people to join to test their capabilities.
However, this “rebrand” will potentially make a lot of women like me and non-identifying people question whether the military is right for us. That sense of stability provided by the military isn’t enough to sacrifice our identities and literal bodies. For a country that preaches about liberty and equality “for all,” it feels as if we are not being given this opportunity due to our sexual orientation or just what we identify as. If the government is employing so many standards for people who are literally signing up to die for them, then how long until our military goes from the strongest in the world to the weakest?
