Women of West Point

While this is starting to get off topic, I think the issue has two sides, both with pro's and con's.

Any fitness test in the Army should theoretically test your ability to meet the physical demands of your job. Those demands are no greater/lesser for anyone, regardless of gender- if you have to pick up a 120lb shell, that shell will weigh 120lbs whether you are a 260lb man or a 140lb female.

The problem with that is two-fold. 1. Different jobs have different demands. An FA soldier does different physical tasks than an SF soldier who does different tasks than a Finance soldier. So do we make branch specific PT tests? If we do that, which Branch test should cadets take? 2. The average male will outperform the average female in virtually any physical test of speed, strength, or endurance. Can we accept then that males will, on average, score higher on gender neutral tests and thus be placed higher on any OML?

Personally, I think a Branch specific test would be great- the current APFT/APRT is not a good measure of pretty much any physical skill required to be a good soldier. I also feel like gender neutral testing makes sense because we deploy into gender neutral situations in real life. However, as others have said, I do not think that is practical because society simply cannot accept that one group can consistently outperform another without somehow being unfair.
 
USNA1985 and CGA82

If I may, it appears that you two are focusing on different definition of fitness

1.the condition of being physically fit and healthy:

or

2. the quality of being suitable to fulfill a particular role or task:

If a male cadet does 40 push ups and a female cadet does 40 push up, the female cadet should be more "fit." (Definition 1).

If raw push up number is converted to a score, the female cadet would have scored more points that the male cadet. But a female cadet with higher points will more than likely no "fitter" (Definition 2) than a male cadet with lower points (but same repetition,) to have ability to say carry a mortar tube.

So, for certain things, "scores" should be used and for certain things raw number should be used.
 
BigBear said:
Personally, I think a Branch specific test would be great- the current APFT/APRT is not a good measure of pretty much any physical skill required to be a good soldier. I also feel like gender neutral testing makes sense because we deploy into gender neutral situations in real life. However, as others have said, I do not think that is practical because society simply cannot accept that one group can consistently outperform another without somehow being unfair.
Click to expand...
How about a branch specific TASK test? Keep the APFT/APRT as a measure of fitness but require all personnel to actually perform the physical tasks required for a certain branch/task. For instance....if FA requires the ability to repeatedly lift a 120 lb shell (as an example) 10 times in an hour....then test all applicants for FA on their ability to perform this specific task. If an infantry person must be able to march 10 miles with a 120 lb pack then all applicants must demonstrate their ability to perform this specific task along with passing the current "fitness" test. Special Forces such as SEALS would probably require more task tests than FA for instance.....but it should be possible....and fair.
 
aglages said:
How about a branch specific TASK test? Keep the APFT/APRT as a measure of fitness but require all personnel to actually perform the physical tasks required for a certain branch/task. For instance....if FA requires the ability to repeatedly lift a 120 lb shell (as an example) 10 times in an hour....then test all applicants for FA on their ability to perform this specific task. If an infantry person must be able to march 10 miles with a 120 lb pack then all applicants must demonstrate their ability to perform this specific task along with passing the current "fitness" test. Special Forces such as SEALS would probably require more task tests than FA for instance.....but it should be possible....and fair.
Click to expand...

Mostly because the APFT is a horrible measure of fitness. Personally, I don't think it makes any sense to have a test that compares people on a relative scale when none of the tasks they'll be performing are relative.

We don't see similar scaling in any other category here at USMA. Imagine if cadets who scored higher than 2200 on their SATs were graded on a normal scale while cadets who scored less than 1800 were scored on an adjusted scale. Since everyone is scored relative to their capabilities, that system is "fair" if we use the physical score system as the baseline for fairness.

Furthermore, when the Academy has repeatedly publicized cases of female cadets performing well in physical events (on the male scale), it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to expect all females to do 45 pushups and run two miles in less than 16 minutes.
 
BigBear said:
Furthermore, when the Academy has repeatedly publicized cases of female cadets performing well in physical events (on the male scale), it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to expect all females to do 45 pushups and run two miles in less than 16 minutes.
Click to expand...

But would you end up with fewer females? Sure, some will choose to suck it up and train harder, but, if you raise the female standard, will you have fewer females than the 22% that matriculated this August? If so, that new lower percentage just might not be satisfying to that virago Old Grad Brenda (Sue) Fulton or Senator Kristen Gillibrand.
 
Sledge said:
But would you end up with fewer females? Sure, some will choose to suck it up and train harder, but, if you raise the female standard, will you have fewer females than the 22% that matriculated this August? If so, that new lower percentage just might not be satisfying to that virago Old Grad Brenda (Sue) Fulton or Senator Kristen Gillibrand.
Click to expand...

Right, which is why I doubt we will ever see a system like that implemented.

But now we're heading towards a debate over whether we need diversity for the sake of diversity, which is really not the point of this thread
 
Sledge said:
But would you end up with fewer females? Sure, some will choose to suck it up and train harder, but, if you raise the female standard, will you have fewer females than the 22% that matriculated this August? If so, that new lower percentage just might not be satisfying to that virago Old Grad Brenda (Sue) Fulton or Senator Kristen Gillibrand.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think you will end up with fewer female cadets if we expect "all females to do 45 pushups and run two miles in less than 16 minutes."

First, how cadets are treated is different from how cadets are recruited. Don't have the numbers but I am sure that there are females cadets that can already do 45 pushup and run two miles in less than 16 minutes, and a certain number that are capable but for whatever reason are not pushing themselves. And not meeting "expectation" does not result in separation, not meeting standards will result in separation.

Your comment reinforces Bigbear's point - no disrespect, but what has Fulton accomplished so we should listen to her - according to Wiki, 1980 grad, first class to graduate females, 5 years of service, found a LGBT organization, and appointed to the West Point Board of Visitor by President Obama. I believe I know one of her female classmates and I think she have accomplished a far more than Fulton but no one cares (no disrespect) about her opinion.
 
The service academy environment is so different from active service that I have no problem with the current set-up, which focuses on mids/cadets reaching a baseline standard of physical fitness while at the academy. The physical demands of being a SEAL vs. being a Marine vs. being a Surface Warfare Officer (SWO) are different enough that we don't need a standard set at "future Marine infantry officers only" when most mids mathematically won't doing that. If the percentage at West Point is overwhelmingly infantry as a branch, maybe that changes the calculus somewhat and they should radically bump up the lower end for women (and for men too possibly).

What mids seemed most upset about (when I was a mid) was that -- whether or not it was accurate -- there was a perception that it was easier proportionally for a woman to max out the PRT (with the corresponding small bump to the overall order of merit) than for a guy to do it. IF -- and I don't know what the numbers are -- IF a higher percentage of women get PRT scores giving them A grades (or whatever the highest "grade" level is), then I think the academies should "re-center" the grading scale to make it just as demanding for women to get a max score as for men. If they've already done that, then maybe educate the grumpy dudes about it to cut down on the complaining. For the reasons USNA1985 cited, I don't think it makes sense, with physiological differences, to go all the way in the PRT context and have one standard that basically automatically means women will be disadvantaged in the scoring.

Finally, also as USNA1985 said, cogently and clearly I thought, the standards for military occupations -- what it takes to be a SEAL or a Marine infantry officer -- should not be "gender normalized." Have one standard, and if it is so tough that women effectively cannot hit it in reasonable numbers to make it logistically feasible to open up the ground combat specialties, so it goes. I should add that my fellow Marine officers who are women would be generally supportive of that approach, from what I've heard in conversations. Everybody gets the difference in upper body strength and overall size and what it means for carrying a heavy pack that is some ungodly percentage of your body weight for days on end.

So far the Marines have played it straight in testing having women go through the IOC (Infantry Officer Course) and I have confidence they'll look at evidence and not bow to pressure from either side. I'm less confident, but think that probably Congress will ultimately defer to the services on this as well.

One final point -- I'd like to think an issue like this can be debated by knowledgeable professionals without the internet equivalent of shouting or ad hominem attacks against other posters or other grads who are speaking out about this in public.
 
GoSox said:
One final point -- I'd like to think an issue like this can be debated by knowledgeable professionals without the internet equivalent of shouting or ad hominem attacks against other posters or other grads who are speaking out about this in public.
Click to expand...

So tempted to make a joke about Red Sox fans not being able to debate civilly... but afraid it will take away from your EXCELLENT point. Great reminder.


(Also from New England so am allowed to poke fun at us raucous Sox fans :wink: )
 
Last edited:
GoSox said:
The service academy environment is so different from active service that I have no problem with the current set-up, which focuses on mids/cadets reaching a baseline standard of physical fitness while at the academy. The physical demands of being a SEAL vs. being a Marine vs. being a Surface Warfare Officer (SWO) are different enough that we don't need a standard set at "future Marine infantry officers only" when most mids mathematically won't doing that. If the percentage at West Point is overwhelmingly infantry as a branch, maybe that changes the calculus somewhat and they should radically bump up the lower end for women (and for men too possibly).

What mids seemed most upset about (when I was a mid) was that -- whether or not it was accurate -- there was a perception that it was easier proportionally for a woman to max out the PRT (with the corresponding small bump to the overall order of merit) than for a guy to do it. IF -- and I don't know what the numbers are -- IF a higher percentage of women get PRT scores giving them A grades (or whatever the highest "grade" level is), then I think the academies should "re-center" the grading scale to make it just as demanding for women to get a max score as for men. If they've already done that, then maybe educate the grumpy dudes about it to cut down on the complaining. For the reasons USNA1985 cited, I don't think it makes sense, with physiological differences, to go all the way in the PRT context and have one standard that basically automatically means women will be disadvantaged in the scoring.

Finally, also as USNA1985 said, cogently and clearly I thought, the standards for military occupations -- what it takes to be a SEAL or a Marine infantry officer -- should not be "gender normalized." Have one standard, and if it is so tough that women effectively cannot hit it in reasonable numbers to make it logistically feasible to open up the ground combat specialties, so it goes. I should add that my fellow Marine officers who are women would be generally supportive of that approach, from what I've heard in conversations. Everybody gets the difference in upper body strength and overall size and what it means for carrying a heavy pack that is some ungodly percentage of your body weight for days on end.

So far the Marines have played it straight in testing having women go through the IOC (Infantry Officer Course) and I have confidence they'll look at evidence and not bow to pressure from either side. I'm less confident, but think that probably Congress will ultimately defer to the services on this as well.

One final point -- I'd like to think an issue like this can be debated by knowledgeable professionals without the internet equivalent of shouting or ad hominem attacks against other posters or other grads who are speaking out about this in public.
Click to expand...

I appreciate and agree with some of your opinions. These topics have many different views and opinions. They are meant to think and stimulate thought. I may not agree with much of your post but somethings do get revealed.

"What mids seemed most upset about (when I was a mid) was that -- whether or not it was accurate -- there was a perception that it was easier proportionally for a woman to max out the PRT (with the corresponding small bump to the overall order of merit) than for a guy to do it. IF -- and I don't know what the numbers are -- IF a higher percentage of women get PRT scores giving them A grades (or whatever the highest "grade" level is), then I think the academies should "re-center" the grading scale to make it just as demanding for women to get a max score as for men."

With a same standard this would not be an issue.

It is apparent that there are scale/standards for various jobs upon commissioning(Aviation,SWO,Marines, SEALS, Infantry..etc) -You don't get the job if you don't meet the standard or higher. correct?

A Cadet or a Mid must have a 2.0(2.0 and go in my day- everything else was a wasted effort-haha) GPA or greater to graduate. correct? This is the standard. It is your job to meet that standard or higher. If you don't, you are out of a job.

It is only fair and correct to treat every person the same. Again, the perception you mention above would never have materialized.

What the standard should be-I don't know but it should be the same for everyone.

BTW: This old grumpy dude(ad hominem attack) may have a little more knowledge and experience than you give me.

I am a "knowledgeable professional". Just ask me where I stayed last night.:wink:

On a serious note: NEVER FORGET 911
 
Last edited:
cga82 said:
I appreciate and agree with some of your opinions. These topics have many different views and opinions. They are meant to think and stimulate thought. I may not agree with much of your post but somethings do get revealed.

"What mids seemed most upset about (when I was a mid) was that -- whether or not it was accurate -- there was a perception that it was easier proportionally for a woman to max out the PRT (with the corresponding small bump to the overall order of merit) than for a guy to do it. IF -- and I don't know what the numbers are -- IF a higher percentage of women get PRT scores giving them A grades (or whatever the highest "grade" level is), then I think the academies should "re-center" the grading scale to make it just as demanding for women to get a max score as for men."

With a same standard this would not be an issue.

It is apparent that there are scale/standards for various jobs upon commissioning(Aviation,SWO,Marines, SEALS, Infantry..etc) -You don't get the job if you don't meet the standard or higher. correct?

A Cadet or a Mid must have a 2.0(2.0 and go in my day- everything else was a wasted effort-haha) GPA or greater to graduate. correct? This is the standard. It is your job to meet that standard or higher. If you don't, you are out of a job.

It is only fair and correct to treat every person the same. Again, the perception you mention above would never have materialized.

What the standard should be-I don't know but it should be the same for everyone.

BTW: This old grumpy dude(ad hominem attack) may have a little more knowledge and experience than you give me.

I am a "knowledgeable professional". Just ask me where I stayed last night.:wink:

On a serious note: NEVER FORGET 911
Click to expand...

I appreciate the back and forth. We agree on standards for active duty being the same and not being watered down. We don't agree on whether or not it makes sense to take into account the physiological differences between men and women in the baseline fitness testing. I get your point -- but don't agree that your solution is fair -- and you don't think mine is. Fair enough. I am sure you are a knowledgeable professional (I'm assuming you did NOT stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night) and my reference to grumpy dudes was to current cadets/mids. I was a grumpy dude for about 5 days out of 7 at USNA -- a soldier/Marine/sailor isn't happy unless he complains. (And I was one grumpy dude when the Patriots played like a bag of crap this past Sunday. Boston sports fans = grumpy dudes and grumpy gals much of the time.)
 
GoSox said:
I appreciate the back and forth. We agree on standards for active duty being the same and not being watered down. We don't agree on whether or not it makes sense to take into account the physiological differences between men and women in the baseline fitness testing. I get your point -- but don't agree that your solution is fair -- and you don't think mine is. Fair enough. I am sure you are a knowledgeable professional (I'm assuming you did NOT stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night) and my reference to grumpy dudes was to current cadets/mids. I was a grumpy dude for about 5 days out of 7 at USNA -- a soldier/Marine/sailor isn't happy unless he complains. (And I was one grumpy dude when the Patriots played like a bag of crap this past Sunday. Boston sports fans = grumpy dudes and grumpy gals much of the time.)
Click to expand...

You are assuming that the standard would only be the male standard. I do not know what standard would be used. I know that to be fair in the job world that all(males and females) must be treated the same. That makes sense. We should treat all people the same regardless of religion, race, gender...etc. The equal treatment means under the same standard regardless of gender. I really didn't offer a solution but I think that each area of specialty(in services) have their standard and to work backwards to adjust a single standard for all Mids/Cadets.

Would it help if I told you I was from New England also?:thumb:

REMEMBER 911
 
cga82 said:
You are assuming that the standard would only be the male standard. I do not know what standard would be used. I know that to be fair in the job world that all(males and females) must be treated the same. That makes sense. We should treat all people the same regardless of religion, race, gender...etc. The equal treatment means under the same standard regardless of gender. I really didn't offer a solution but I think that each area of specialty(in services) have their standard and to work backwards to adjust a single standard for all Mids/Cadets.

Would it help if I told you I was from New England also?:thumb:

REMEMBER 911
Click to expand...

I get where you're coming from, and I have no doubt I would enjoy sharing a frosty one with you given our shared regional roots. Cheers.
 
This is coming from an aspiring Infantry Officer. There is no argument that there are in fact physiological differences between males and females. Men have the edge when it comes to speed, strength, and endurance. We got the Y chromosome and there's no way to change that.

Let's say, women aside, you have a 150 pound guy who has X body fat percentage with A muscle mass and you have a 200 pound guy who has Y body fat percentage with B muscle mass. Now, whether A is greater than B or Y is less than X or whatever way you'd like to spin it, people are just physically different. Does this mean we should also "adjust" PT standards to make the 150 pound guy and 200 pound guy so that based on those PT standards they are expected to exert the same energy and force and perform at equal(not the same) fitness level? No, and we don't. Whatever your MOS, if you're a male( big or small, tall or short, heavy or cut) you have the same standards as the rest of the guys.

The way I see it, physiological difference aside, when it comes down to it: a 100 pound pack is still a 100 pound pack, a 200 pound wounded teammate is still a 200 pound wounded teammate, 12 mile hump up a mountain is still a 12 mile hump a mountain and must be done together. If women want to be in a combat unit(or any unit for that matter) then I say they should be held to the same physical standards. War doesn't care about gender or your physical build. Whether it be a casualty, sprinting through an urban area, swimming in the open seas, or humping up some mountain. I would expect everyone(male or female) to perform those tasks with equal ability and efficiency. I would not dare sacrifice unit effectiveness, cohesion, and overall ability because so-and-so (male or female) can't cut it.

I'd say if equality and to be taken seriously is what females want, then let them perform at the same level. You want your swim buddy, or fire team, or whatever it may be, to see you as an equal, then be equal. Compromise cannot be made in combat, so it should not be done elsewhere.



Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
 
BigBear said:
Mostly because the APFT is a horrible measure of fitness. Personally, I don't think it makes any sense to have a test that compares people on a relative scale when none of the tasks they'll be performing are relative.

We don't see similar scaling in any other category here at USMA. Imagine if cadets who scored higher than 2200 on their SATs were graded on a normal scale while cadets who scored less than 1800 were scored on an adjusted scale. Since everyone is scored relative to their capabilities, that system is "fair" if we use the physical score system as the baseline for fairness.

Furthermore, when the Academy has repeatedly publicized cases of female cadets performing well in physical events (on the male scale), it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to expect all females to do 45 pushups and run two miles in less than 16 minutes.
Click to expand...

GoSox, I think that BigBear,aglages, and MiddyB posts were pretty good.

That's it for me as 911 closes for the day
 
Last edited:
So, I take it men and women should compete against each other in NCAA, Olympic and professional events such as track & field, wresting, tennis, basketball, swimming, golf, boxing, etc. Shouldn't there be a single standard? Why should women be able to win an Olympic gold medal or championship when they don't "perform as well as" men?
 
usna1985 said:
So, I take it men and women should compete against each other in NCAA, Olympic and professional events such as track & field, wresting, tennis, basketball, swimming, golf, boxing, etc. Shouldn't there be a single standard? Why should women be able to win an Olympic gold medal or championship when they don't "perform as well as" men?
Click to expand...

Don't give up the ship! I thought you expressed it very well in your original argument -- different approaches depending on whether one is measuring fitness vs. measuring ability to do a specific and highly physically rigorous job.

I think people are pretty mentally dug in on this one, though. I used to lose the argument during my days on the Yard as well but felt like it was still important to voice my point of view. I'm glad you weighed in here, shipmate.
 
usna1985 said:
So, I take it men and women should compete against each other in NCAA, Olympic and professional events such as track & field, wresting, tennis, basketball, swimming, golf, boxing, etc. Shouldn't there be a single standard? Why should women be able to win an Olympic gold medal or championship when they don't "perform as well as" men?
Click to expand...

Are we talking about trophies or lives?
 
Sledge said:
Are we talking about trophies or lives?
Click to expand...

I believe they are talking about the difference between Fitness and Capability, two different things.

While the system to measure if someone is fit is different for each gender, I don't think anyone here is arguing that the standard for capability should be different.

In the Coast Guard, the standard to measure fitness is different for men and women, if someone enters the Rescue Swimmer Course they need to meet the same capability standards whether they are male or female.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top