Lowering of Physical Standards

[Brave]

Every once in a while, I'll read a post or two that suggests concern over what is perceived as the lowering of physical standards. Whether ppl are commenting on DD's having lower physical standards than DS's, or worries that we are catering to the "liberal agenda" by allowing a diverse population into the service, there seems to be an element of concern that borders on fear.

There are many here who have correctly pointed out that our military should be comprised of the ppl it serves. There is strength in diversity, and as an administrator of a public high school I see this everyday. I see the flight that takes places out of fear of "those kids". Voucher programs have exploded in popularity because many parents see this as a way out. Many parents take their kids to private schools to get away, but often times those schools don't perform much, if at all, better than the public schools. I don't understand, why we as a nation are okay with public dollars being used to promote religious education, when there is to be a separation of church & state. I see vouchers as a concentrated effort to move us from a population that's different to a population that's all the same. I'm sure that's a different rant for a different forum. Let's get back to this issue...

Physical standards are different for males and females, because they are physically different. However, it does not mean that one is lower than the other in the sense that many fear. Through years of observations those standards have been looked at and set as the minimum needed for the demands of the program. If one can not meet those standards, then one should not be granted entry. I dare say, that if anyone were to get a waiver for not being able to perform what is being required, then you may have cause to be concerned. Then again, as the new threats shift to the cyber world, I could see some exceptions being granted. The mind, and it's ability to code, write algorithms, solve complex security tasks, hide emails <insert winky face here>, etc. may be equally, if not more, valuable as doing X number of push ups. The world constantly evolves for a reason.

A differentiation of standards based on a differentiation of body physiology is not something that needs to be feared. If at the end of the day, females can meet those standards then by all means they should be allowed to progress. Males should meet the male standards and females should meet the female standards. Male standards and female standards are not the same, because males and females are not the same. It doesn't mean there's a problem.

Males do have higher standards of physical performance over females. Besides the physiological differences being taken into consideration, I believe there's something else at play. Competition. There are more males interested in this line of work. Being that there's more males, means that there's more competition, and more competition means a more difficult time for determining who's admissible. The more ppl you have in your qualified pool, the pickier you can be with what you want. Sure, the minimum standards may be the same based off research, job performance, observations, etc. but when you have such a high percentage of males who can already meet those standards, then the numbers will drive up the bar. Some would see this as a lowering of the female standards, when in fact it's just natural competition within a homogeneous population.

I understand the concern and the argument that I want the "guy" next to me to carry his/her own weight, and then some. No one wants to have or be the weak link in the chain. So long as the standards for the females are set at a level that demonstrates the minimum standards needed to perform those tasks, then there's nothing to worry about. The fact that the males standards are higher, doesn't necessarily mean that the female standards have been lowered.

Tis my observation of some of the comments I've read. I am the father of both a son and a daughter...and it is my daughter who is determined to dedicate her life to the service of this nation like many of you and your sons and daughters. We need to stop focusing on the things that make us different as weaknesses, and celebrate the strength that diversity brings to the team. I believe the USMA essay question had this as a focus, and I for one couldn't be more proud to see them lead us in this direction.

 

[madhttr]

DD's goal from day 1 has been to exceed the minimum standards for males. That said, if you haven't already, check out the book Band of Sisters by Cathy Gohlke. It's a good insight into the minds of female soldiers in recent wars and how they generally just wanted to do their jobs the same as men. Of course there were challenges that men did not face, but there were also circumstances in which females added value because of their gender, not in spite of it. The author relates stories of searching house to house for illegal weapons and how the female soldiers were instrumental in calming Muslim women who were fearful in the presence of men. Some male soldiers also found it comforting to confide to a female soldier about grieving lost comrades, being homesick, missing their family or girlfriends, etc. And there are numerous stories of women performing admirably under enemy fire--before women were allowed in combat roles--but as the author points out, the changing nature of warfare has blurred the lines of what is a combat role and what is not. The book helped me as an old-school dad come to grips with my DD's intention to serve, and would reassure others as to the capabilities and contributions of women in our military forces.

 

[1337BeachedWhale1337]

Physical standards are different for males and females, because they are physically different.

I am physically different than LeBron James. If LeBron were to want to join the military, should he be held to a different standard because of his natural physical gifts? No two humans possess the exact same natural physical gifts, so shouldn't the physical standards curved for everyone?

Through years of observations those standards have been looked at and set as the minimum needed for the demands of the program. If one can not meet those standards, then one should not be granted entry.

If this were the case, there would be no minimum physical standards to be met for Cyber Officers. The minimum number of push-ups needed to meet the demands of being a cyber officer is 0.

there's something else at play. Competition. There are more males interested in this line of work. Being that there's more males, means that there's more competition, and more competition means a more difficult time for determining who's admissible. The more ppl you have in your qualified pool, the pickier you can be with what you want.

I don't think that's quite how competition works. There are more males interested in being surgeons. Does that mean that the standard for male surgeons is higher than for female surgeons? After all, there are more people in the qualified pool for male surgeons, so we can be pickier on who becomes a male surgeon.

 

[NavyHoops]

Actually the cyber argument of 0 push ups is false. I have a buddy on the Navy side who is a cyber officer. They deployed to Iraq and went on plenty of raids, convoys, etc. It was a joint team that had cyber folks from all services. They worked hand in hand with many SF and ground units. Sure these types of billets are limited, but they exist. Or what about when you are deployed and there is guard duty, convoy duty, etc and you and your team of cyber soldiers are tasked with that? It does and will happen.

 

[cb7893]

It does and will happen.

As we speak.

 

[Jcleppe]

Every once in a while, I'll read a post or two that suggests concern over what is perceived as the lowering of physical standards.

There is often confusion between Physical Standards and Physical Fitness Standards. One measures the fitness service member as a whole, this standard is different for men and women as I believe it should be based on the differences between the two. The other, Physical Standard is used to measure the physical ability of service members for certain branches and MOS, the two are different and should remain so.

I do not think many have an issue with separate Fitness standards for men and women. The issue becomes much more heated when there is any mention of reducing Physical standards. For now the physical standard for Ranger School, BUDS, Infantry IBOLC and Marine Infantry to name just a few have kept the same standard for both men and women. When people raise concern, this is usually the issue.

 

[Jcleppe]

There are many here who have correctly pointed out that our military should be comprised of the ppl it serves.

If this were true then the military would be at least 40% overweight, 10% with criminal records, 25% with medical conditions, and so on. The military has standards for a reason, the idea that the military would ever mirror the nation it serves is something that should never happen in it's entirety.

 

[1337BeachedWhale1337]

Actually the cyber argument of 0 push ups is false. I have a buddy on the Navy side who is a cyber officer. They deployed to Iraq and went on plenty of raids, convoys, etc. It was a joint team that had cyber folks from all services. They worked hand in hand with many SF and ground units. Sure these types of billets are limited, but they exist. Or what about when you are deployed and there is guard duty, convoy duty, etc and you and your team of cyber soldiers are tasked with that? It does and will happen.

I stand corrected.

However, I still feel that putting no physical standards for certain jobs(cyber in particular) could improve the military's functionality, especially with the rapid growth of computer science over the last several decades.

If you haven't heard of Stuxnet, it was an extremely malicious computer virus that was used to blow up centrifuges and sabotage Iran's nuclear program. If someone were to use a similarly malicious program against the United States, and say, blow up a factory or something, this would be a Department of Defense issue. It would be the military's job to deal with this, and I feel it would be best if the military had the best group of programmers possible to handle the situation, regardless of their physical abilities.

The US Army dominates the land. The US Navy dominates the sea. The US Air Force dominates the air. Dominating these three domains requires physical fitness. Now there is a new domain that the United States needs to dominate, cyber, and it doesn't require physical dominance to do so.

 

[Sledge]

There is often confusion between Physical Standards and Physical Fitness Standards. One measures the fitness service member as a whole, this standard is different for men and women as I believe it should be based on the differences between the two. The other, Physical Standard is used to measure the physical ability of service members for certain branches and MOS, the two are different and should remain so.

I do not think many have an issue with separate Fitness standards for men and women. The issue becomes much more heated when there is any mention of reducing Physical standards. For now the physical standard for Ranger School, BUDS, Infantry IBOLC and Marine Infantry to name just a few have kept the same standard for both men and women. When people raise concern, this is usually the issue.

But, if the old expectation for graduation was 270 APFT on the men's scale, because the infantry was entirely populated with males, and now the graduation standard for the APFT is 270 on the "gender-specific" APFT, have not the physical abilities required for graduation been lowered? I mean, certainly now you can pass IBOLC with lower #'s of push-ups and a slower 2-mile, if you are a female, than was previously the case.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it appears IBOLC instituted some "new," "gender-neutral" High Physical Demand Test (HPDT -pg. 9 and again on pg. 49 of second link below) that was, in the Army's words, "Science-based" instead of "lore-based." These included negotiating a 2-meter wall, extraction of a casualty from the battlefield and a vehicle, etc. As I was not in the Infantry, I will leave it to those that have to determine if scoring 270 on the female APFT and passing the GO/NO-GO events of the HPDT are a sufficient bar to overcome in preparedness for life as an Infantry officer. I note that the two events of the HPDT that appear to require the most upper body strength - the 2-meter wall and the casualty extraction from a vehicle, are collective tasks.

It also appears that the number of LandNav points have been reduced from 6-8 to 4-5 while the time has stayed the same. I do not know if this is significant or not. Peer evaluations also appear to have been removed.

Old Standard for graduation - http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/199th/ibolc/content/pdf/IBOLC Graduation Requirements.pdf

New Standard for graduation - http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/199th/ibolc/content/pdf/ISAP Information/ISAP Standards.pdf?V_9

 

[cb7893]

The US Army dominates the land. The US Navy dominates the sea. The US Air Force dominates the air. Dominating these three domains requires physical fitness. Now there is a new domain that the United States needs to dominate, cyber, and it doesn't require physical dominance to do so.

In the domain of Cyber defense there are plenty of work stations available to talented, overweight, sun deprived programmers and hackers. It's not as if those opportunities don't exist in abundance. The shortage is of qualified native born Americans, willing to give up weed, work for less money and pay for their own Red Bull.

Does the DoD really even need to build out a capability beyond protection of its own forces, when other three letter agencies are already taking care (or trying to) of civilian and government targets? Not sure of the numbers, but military installations around to world host large numbers of civilian contractors to do that very thing.

 

[Brave]

If you recognize there's strength in diversity, then you have accept there are challenges too. I would hope the standards are based on scientific research. Reading through some of your posts, you have way more insight on this issue than I do. I don't want my DD to fail, and I don't want her to be a liability to others either. Lowering the standards just so she can be in the "club" would be wrong...both her and I would tell you that. If the expectations for success aren't met, then you should not proceed...male or female.

At the end of the day, I believe it's perfectly fine to measure males and females differently, because they are different. I would hope the standards for females give the same indication for success as the male standards do for them. If that's the case, then the standards really haven't been lowered in the sense that many fear. Instead, the standards have been adjusted. Adjusting the standards to reap the benefit of diversity is worth the effort.

...I guess that's the point I was trying to make.

 

[Jcleppe]

But, if the old expectation for graduation was 270 APFT on the men's scale, because the infantry was entirely populated with males, and now the graduation standard for the APFT is 270 on the "gender-specific" APFT, have not the physical abilities required for graduation been lowered? I mean, certainly now you can pass IBOLC with lower #'s of push-ups and a slower 2-mile, if you are a female, than was previously the case.

This is true, but it seems from reading the docs you linked that the remaining tests such as the 5 mile run and the 12 and 16 mile FM have the same standard regardless of gender. So while the APFT determines physical fitness there are still non gender specific standards for physical ability.

 

[Jcleppe]

Adjusting the standards to reap the benefit of diversity is worth the effort.

If the current standard is to dead lift and carry 200lbs for 25 meters, but they adjust the standard for females to 150lbs for 15 meters.... then adjusting the standards to reap the benefit of diversity would certainly not be worth the effort.

My sister is a 52 year old Firefighter, very proud of her by the way, she just recently completed her physical assessment testing. She was required to pass every phase with one standard, not standards based on male/female. Glad to say she did very well, carried the same weight as the men and had the same requirements to pass, even beat several of her male counterparts. This is all anyone is asking, pass the standards that are set for physical ability.

I agree with you, men and women are different, and the physical fitness assessment reflects that difference, but physical ability assessments should not differentiate between the two. I also agree that women should have the right to compete for all Branches and MOS, because of the high standards most will not make it through but there will be those that do and they should deserve the same respect as their male counterparts. Certain Branches and MOS should not strive to some level of gender diversity just for diversity's sake, but continue to fill their slots with the best they can whether they are male or female.

 

[Sledge]

If the current standard is to dead lift and carry 200lbs for 25 meters, but they adjust the standard for females to 150lbs for 15 meters.... then adjusting the standards to reap the benefit of diversity would certainly not be worth the effort.

I agree with you, men and women are different, and the physical fitness assessment reflects that difference, but physical ability assessments should not differentiate between the two. I also agree that women should have the right to compete for all Branches and MOS, because of the high standards most will not make it through but there will be those that do and they should deserve the same respect as their male counterparts. Certain Branches and MOS should not strive to some level of gender diversity just for diversity's sake, but continue to fill their slots with the best they can whether they are male or female.

The question is whether the physical ability assessments were designed in such a way as to allow or predict a certain "acceptable" percentage of females to pass. I do not know the answer to that question.

And it is overtly stated by the SWAN types that certain percentages of female representation are desired, if not "needed," in combat arms if females are to progress to the highest ranks in the army.

 

[Brave]

I agree lowering what's expected for diversity's sake is not good. However, if research has shown that the job only requires you to carry 150lbs for 15 meters, then this adjustment would be justifiable. If the job requires 200lbs for 25 meters, then so be it. I think it makes more sense to look at expectations that are more task oriented. I'm sure there are females out there who would not be able to do as many push ups as males, but who could perform the task. If the task is researched based then it's the standard for both...no argument. I contend it's an adjusting of the standard, not a lowering.

 

[1337BeachedWhale1337]

Does the DoD really even need to build out a capability beyond protection of its own forces, when other three letter agencies are already taking care (or trying to) of civilian and government targets?

The Department of Homeland security holds the cyber responsibilities of prevention, policy and recovery. It is their job to safeguard and secure cyberspace.

The Department of justice holds the cyber responsibilities of investigation and enforcement. It is their job to investigate and monitor digital security risks.

The Department of Defense holds the responsibility of national defense. It is their job to defend DoD networks, systems and information, defend the US homeland and US national interests from cyber attacks, and provide cyber support to military operational and contingency plans.

In the event of a virus leading to something like a factory exploding on US soil, it would be the duty of the DoD to address the situation. The DoD is responsible for national defense.

 

[Jcleppe]

However, if research has shown that the job only requires you to carry 150lbs for 15 meters

This would only be true if the weight of soldiers drop to 150lbs and the Medivac Helo always lands closer to the injured soldier. I would be really worried if we see research showing such a drastic change was acceptable.

Whenever there is talk about "Adjusting" the standards, the focus seem to always be on the female soldier which is unfair. Every class, be it Ranger School. IBOLC, ARBOLC, and so on, there have always been male soldiers that have not made the cut. Adjusting the standards does not just effect female soldiers, the result would also be that many of the male soldiers that could not meet the standards would now be able to pass. Infantry and Rangers and so on have always been able to fill it's quotas with the current standards, there has not been a call to adjust the standards simply to meet recruiting goals.

 

[Jcleppe]

I'm sure there are females out there who would not be able to do as many push ups as males, but who could perform the task.

On this I agree, the APFT has never been a true measure of a soldiers physical ability, fitness yes, not ability. There are those that could carry a small car on their back for a hundred yards but can only score a 270 on the APFT. This is why these courses have such a varied measure to actual physical ability. If a female soldier can't do the same number of push ups as a male but can still ruck as fast, carry the weight, and perform the tasks, then she deserves the same shot as a male soldier.

 

[Brave]

This would only be true if the weight of soldiers drop to 150lbs and the Medivac Helo always lands closer to the injured soldier. I would be really worried if we see research showing such a drastic change was acceptable.

Don't get me wrong, I was not actually advocating a change. I was merely pointing out that the standards should match the expectations of the job. If that's what it takes, then it's the job that discriminates, not the arbitrary standards.

 

[NavyHoops]

I am physically different than LeBron James. If LeBron were to want to join the military, should he be held to a different standard because of his natural physical gifts? No two humans possess the exact same natural physical gifts, so shouldn't the physical standards curved for everyone?


If this were the case, there would be no minimum physical standards to be met for Cyber Officers. The minimum number of push-ups needed to meet the demands of being a cyber officer is 0.


I don't think that's quite how competition works. There are more males interested in being surgeons. Does that mean that the standard for male surgeons is higher than for female surgeons? After all, there are more people in the qualified pool for male surgeons, so we can be pickier on who becomes a male surgeon.

In the domain of Cyber defense there are plenty of work stations available to talented, overweight, sun deprived programmers and hackers. It's not as if those opportunities don't exist in abundance. The shortage is of qualified native born Americans, willing to give up weed, work for less money and pay for their own Red Bull.

Does the DoD really even need to build out a capability beyond protection of its own forces, when other three letter agencies are already taking care (or trying to) of civilian and government targets? Not sure of the numbers, but military installations around to world host large numbers of civilian contractors to do that very thing.

The Department of Homeland security holds the cyber responsibilities of prevention, policy and recovery. It is their job to safeguard and secure cyberspace.

The Department of justice holds the cyber responsibilities of investigation and enforcement. It is their job to investigate and monitor digital security risks.

The Department of Defense holds the responsibility of national defense. It is their job to defend DoD networks, systems and information, defend the US homeland and US national interests from cyber attacks, and provide cyber support to military operational and contingency plans.

In the event of a virus leading to something like a factory exploding on US soil, it would be the duty of the DoD to address the situation. The DoD is responsible for national defense.

The DoD would not investigate this. It would be the FBI. Sure there are task forces and lines blur in the cyber world and one of the main issues is agency sharing of information. The DoD would be interested in the virus and ensuring that it safeguards DoD assets. And those who do the majority of this type of work are contractors and civilians with very fe uniformed personnel in oversight and management roles. The DoD could have personnel assigned to the FBI for joint work and task force work. As mentioned by someone else, hacking is a crazy world. I am not a cyber person, but work in this field (won't get into the details). As more and more state sponsored hacking takes place it gets more complex as those who are the best hackers are now being paid by governments and being provided more resources to do this. Uniformed personnel will never be the leaders in the this. As cb stated, we don't need them to be (or I at least I think you said that). This is where the DoD would lean on civilians, contractors and working other agencies for this level of expertise.