Female servicemembers sue US government

Packer said:
Bruno, I know what you are saying and you are just repeating the past justifications. The following statement is not true and never has been.
However, in the past, the Services have used this and similar terms to suggest that men and women must exert the same
amount of energy in a particular task, regardless of the work that is actually accomplished
Click to expand...
This is simply political twisting to try and justify something. It takes a certain amount of energy to move 100 lbs from point A to B and it doesn't matter who or what moved it. Simple physics.

If a woman can do the job without accomadations, great let her do it. If she can't, well she can't.
Click to expand...
You are wrong: It absolutely is true of the military and it is exactly the approach they take and that's exactly why the Congressional Research Service report includes the comment. The PT tests are absolutely gender normed. Even the Marine Corps gender norms their tests- (no pullups for the woman's test). Gender norming is wonderful if the objective is to assess relative physical fitness within that group. However- if the requirement is to move 381 pounds worth of gear with 3 people in an approach march- then either all 3 are capable of carrying 127 pounds each or others are going to carry significantly more- gender norming- that standard of military equality- does not apply. I would love to say that it was a real surprise that the first 2 women to volunteer for Infantry Officer School in the USMC failed- but it was exactly what most expected. The response though is that it is some kind of a mysery and is only a small sample that you can't draw conclusions from. But it's small in large part because it is a foregone conclusion as to what will occur should the standards be absolutely the same which is true of the MC experiment. The population being asked to volunteer for that study knows as much and are responding by not volunteering.

Do I believe that there are some women who could do the job? Sure. Do I believe that there are enough of them to demonstrate that it is viable for the Army/ Marine Corps? Nope- but more importantly the data that will support or invalidate any conclusion is going to be suspect in my opinion as I have been around long enough to know that the US is mostly in the hands of those who believe in the Lake Woebegone effect (all the Children are above average) and that the first response when there are disparate levels of success in any arena is to blame the test. In the Army-I'm pretty confident in saying that absolutely will happen (and I'm pretty confident that others who have been around the Army for a week or so mostly think so as well). So saying "if they can do it with the same standards" is meaningless because that's not how the system works.

Bluntly-this is being pushed primarily by those who don't care about the abstract effects on an Infantry Company as long as they get promoted- because this is not an issue that is framed around the good of the Army or Marine Corps. In this case: "What is good for GM is not good for the Army" to steal a line from long ago.
 
Last edited:
bruno said:
You are wrong: It absolutely is true of the military and it is exactly the approach they take and that's exactly why the Congressional Research Service report includes the comment. The PT tests are absolutely gender normed. Even the Marine Corps gender norms their tests- (no pullups for the woman's test). Gender norming is wonderful if the objective is to assess relative physical fitness within that group. However- if the requirement is to move 381 pounds worth of gear with 3 people in an approach march- then either all 3 are capable of carrying 127 pounds each or others are going to carry significantly more- gender norming- that standard of military equality- does not apply. I would love to say that it was a real surprise that the first 2 women to volunteer for Infantry Officer School in the USMC failed- but it was exactly what most expected. The response though is that it is some kind of a mysery and is only a small sample tha tyou can't draw conclusions from. But it's small in large part because it is a foregone conclusion as to what will occur should the standards be absolutely the same which is true of the MC experiment. The population being asked to volunteer for that study knows as much and are responding by not volunteering.

Do I believe that there are probably some women who could do the job? Sure. Do I believe that there are enough of them to demonstrate that it is viable for the Army/ Marine Corps? Nope and I have been around long enough to know that the US is mostly in the hands of those who believe in the Lake Woebegone effect (all the Children are above average) and that the first response when there are disparate levels of success in any arena is to blame the test. In the Army- it absolutely will happen. So saying "if they can do it with the same standards" is meaningless because that's not how the system works.

Bluntly-this is being pushed primarily by those who don't care about the abstract effects on an Infantry Company as long as they get promoted- because this is not an issue that is framed around the good of the Army or Marine Corps. In this case: "What is good for GM is not good for the Army" to steal a line from long ago.
Click to expand...
I obviously worded my statement poorly. I am in agreement with you. I know the gender norming is what is done.
What I am saying is the gender norming itself is a bunch of political b.s. If gender norming is ok it must mean the job is not that demanding and we all know that is not the case. The job requires a certain amount of energy to be expended to accomplish it and if one person can not do their equal share someone else has to pick up the slack and thus reduce the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the unit.

If women can meet the standard great let them do it but there should only be one standard. We sure don't let 130 lb men meet a "small man" standard.
 
+1 to Packer.

My fear is they will use precedence, such as Jeannie Flynn, 1st female fighter pilot.

If they do,I wonder how they can defend the small man standard. Jeannie flies the F-15E, which is a 2 seater. She is the 1st Wing Queen of an operational base, and could go into combat. Last I knew the AF still doesn't require different stds. regarding physical ability.

Not a lawyer, but as a woman I would be using her career as a defense.
 
Pima said:
Last I knew the AF still doesn't require different stds. regarding physical ability.
Click to expand...

So there's no female scale for the Air Force PFT?


Bruno hit the nail on the head already. Where is there anyone asking "is this good for the military?" Plenty of folks say it's good for women. So what? Is it good for the MILITARY? I've said it a thousand times...this isn't a damn jobs program.
 
I see a lot of discussion/debating, but really, there isn't a lot of disagreement.

PT Tests and norming is designed to determine physical "Fitness". And "Fitness" is subjective to the individual being tested. I.e. a 65 year old man or 5 year old child can be 100% "Physically Fit". That doesn't mean they are necessarily "Physically CAPABLE". And I believe we are all in agreement here.

If a task requires a "Physical Capability" of lifting 120 lbs; running a particular speed; pulling a certain weight; etc... Then that should be the measurement. If the military tries to use "Physically FIT" interchangeably with "Physically CAPABLE", then they are wrong. But the real question that needs to be asked is: Is the training, testing, etc... used to evaluate and qualify an individual as a combat career field such as seals, spec-ops, PJ, etc... actually and accurately measuring an individual's "Physical Capability" to perform that job? If it is, then great. That should be the standard whether the applicant who wants that career field is a man, woman, black, white, gay, straight, 5'0" or 6'5", 140lbs or 220 lbs. It doesn't matter.

Now; if it is determined that the physical training that a seal or PJ applicant goes through isn't really required in order to do the actual job, then that needs to be addressed. In other words, "Norming" shouldn't even be an issue. Norming for PT is good. It's needed. The purpose is to determine an individual's "FITNESS". That is different than trying to determine an individual's "CAPABILITIES".
 
Christcorp said:
I see a lot of discussion/debating, but really, there isn't a lot of disagreement.

PT Tests and norming is designed to determine physical "Fitness". And "Fitness" is subjective to the individual being tested. I.e. a 65 year old man or 5 year old child can be 100% "Physically Fit". That doesn't mean they are necessarily "Physically CAPABLE". And I believe we are all in agreement here.

If a task requires a "Physical Capability" of lifting 120 lbs; running a particular speed; pulling a certain weight; etc... Then that should be the measurement. If the military tries to use "Physically FIT" interchangeably with "Physically CAPABLE", then they are wrong. But the real question that needs to be asked is: Is the training, testing, etc... used to evaluate and qualify an individual as a combat career field such as seals, spec-ops, PJ, etc... actually and accurately measuring an individual's "Physical Capability" to perform that job? If it is, then great. That should be the standard whether the applicant who wants that career field is a man, woman, black, white, gay, straight, 5'0" or 6'5", 140lbs or 220 lbs. It doesn't matter.

Now; if it is determined that the physical training that a seal or PJ applicant goes through isn't really required in order to do the actual job, then that needs to be addressed. In other words, "Norming" shouldn't even be an issue. Norming for PT is good. It's needed. The purpose is to determine an individual's "FITNESS". That is different than trying to determine an individual's "CAPABILITIES".
Click to expand...
Well said.:thumb:
 
I get all of your positions, I am not someone who supports the position of women in combat unless they can meet their male counterparts standards, and other things too.

However, the fact is from a legal precedent, emotionally and what is good for the Army is hard to prove when precedent has been set for women in combat roles using the AF and the Navy. The Navy is also breaking barriers with subs.

To base it on physical ability leaves an opening to prove in other branches where male counterparts rely just as much on others there has been no problems.

Jeannie Flynn Leavitt, the 1st female fighter pilot in the AF is now the 1st Operational Fighter Wing Queen. Nicole "Fifi" Malachowski is an Operational Fighter Squadron Commander. Both are F-15E's, which are 2 seaters.

There has been no detriment.

That being said, AF and Navy front lines are not like the Army's.

I still go back and say medically this is an issue from a combat situation for women.

We can all pretend and believe pregnancy won't occur, but it does, and logistically it is an issue. Bullet in 04 was in Iraq, Green Zone. An officer that was going with him as a subordinate (O3) came to him the night before in Kuwait to inform him she would not be going forward because she was pregnant. AF was sending her home. Again, this was Green Zone in 04. Her pregnancy impacted the mission, it impacted other AF officers because now someone who never thought they would be tagged No-NOTICE just got hit.

I am not implying she did it intentionally, I AM implying that it happens, and it impacts the mission.

I think anyone that feels if this is not good for the military, remove the physical ability issues. Be real and honest, there are female runners and weight lifters that can beat male military members. I am not disagreeing in this issue, but if you hold onto that, and that alone as a defense you open a new can of worms. AGE. A woman under 30 could score better than a male over 40 regarding PT stds. There is inequity within the stds., yet the last time I checked, 40 yr old guys go into combat.

It is IMPHO, to take it from a medical position in combat and the impact on the mission. I don't know how long a mission is in a tank, but I do know that the AF when Jeannie came in they had to address pittle packs. Is it 10 hrs in a tank? Think about it from a medical perspective.

I do know that when they got the 1st female in the 90th, they had to re-configure the squadron regarding bathrooms (showers had to be placed in). They had to figure out rooming for deployments because when they deployed company grade def. had roommates, up to 4 guys, and she was the one and only, so she had to be addressed regarding sleeping arrangements.

Is the Army going to house female enlisted and officers together? How does that work for fraternization?

Like I said before, I have no problem with it occurring, I believe women that want to run with the big dogs, run at their pace and their standards. However, since most of you are men. I am saying, as a woman the physical ability is not the problem. The problem is the little things, and things we don't want to discuss for women. It will be a knee jerk reaction to let women serve in combat if they don't settle the silly, little things, like periods, pregnancy and sleeping arrangements.

Physical ability is a losing defense as far as I am concerned. Female fighter pilots with combat time have proven that.
 
Last edited:
MemberLG said:
Even if these four women win the law suit, will be be an empty vicotry and will still go back to the qualification.

The courts usually defer military matters to the military and courts rarely make broad ruling. Still somehow the courts say the military open up combat positions to women. Females soldiers soldiers/marines with non-combat specialty/MOS can't get into combat position because they don't have the right specaility/MOS. Most people agreed that if femals soldiers can meet the same standard, no problem having them serving in whatever position. So if the Army opens up Infantry to females, how many females would want to be Infantry. A challenging questions are branch transfer for officers and MOS reclassification for enlisted soldiers. Captains Career Course and Senior NCO courses are not physically challenging.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input MemberLG. Thank you scoutpilot as well.
 
I'm waiting for the day where technology allows a soldier to reduce their load significantly so a 100 lb pack is unnecessary. I think, if the issue isn't pushed along current lines first, that eventually technology may make it possible for the physical limitations on things like load bearing to become less important in the debate. If the most a soldier expected to carry on the front lines was 50 pounds, how many more females would then be capable of carrying out the mission effectively?

I know that would take a long, long time as things like bullets ain't goin' away anytime soon. But just a perspective. I think what helps in the situations like a fighter jet are that the physical requirements are not overly restricting to qualified females (or to put it another way, the physical needs are at a level that more females are capable of doing). When the day eventually comes that this is the case for infantry, women would certainly be more prevalent in those career fields.
 
Pima said:
Physical ability is a losing defense as far as I am concerned. Female fighter pilots with combat time have proven that.
Click to expand...

As far as I am concerned physical ability is not a losing defense for certain military speciality.

There are numerous posts before mentioning convincingly how the PT test not a good way to predict to performance during combat situation.

I will stick to what I know - my personal experiences

When I was a ROTC cadet for a year before I went to West Point, I did the Ranger Challenge. I pretty much sucked. There was a female cadet who scored way better than me in APFT, raw score (i.e. did more push ups, sit ups, and ran faster than me in 2 miles). She was a big girl too. To my surprise I beat her on the 12 mile road march.

Did my Air Assault School while I was a cadet. No female cadets, include some Div I athletes, finished top 20% on the 12 mile march.

Why am I mentioning 12 mile road march? Figher pilots don't do 12 mile road marches, but Infantry soldiers might.

I am not disputing that a woman can make good fighter pilot, but good fighter pilot might not make a good infantry soldier.
 
Christcorp said:
I see a lot of discussion/debating, but really, there isn't a lot of disagreement.

PT Tests and norming is designed to determine physical "Fitness". And "Fitness" is subjective to the individual being tested. I.e. a 65 year old man or 5 year old child can be 100% "Physically Fit". That doesn't mean they are necessarily "Physically CAPABLE". And I believe we are all in agreement here.

If a task requires a "Physical Capability" of lifting 120 lbs; running a particular speed; pulling a certain weight; etc... Then that should be the measurement. If the military tries to use "Physically FIT" interchangeably with "Physically CAPABLE", then they are wrong. But the real question that needs to be asked is: Is the training, testing, etc... used to evaluate and qualify an individual as a combat career field such as seals, spec-ops, PJ, etc... actually and accurately measuring an individual's "Physical Capability" to perform that job? If it is, then great. That should be the standard whether the applicant who wants that career field is a man, woman, black, white, gay, straight, 5'0" or 6'5", 140lbs or 220 lbs. It doesn't matter.

Now; if it is determined that the physical training that a seal or PJ applicant goes through isn't really required in order to do the actual job, then that needs to be addressed. In other words, "Norming" shouldn't even be an issue. Norming for PT is good. It's needed. The purpose is to determine an individual's "FITNESS". That is different than trying to determine an individual's "CAPABILITIES".
Click to expand...

If these women are going to "win" (be careful what you wish for) their suit, they are going to have to get beyond the usual leeway granted to the military to set their own standards (many laws do not apply to the military) by the courts. This would require them to show that the criteria the military is using to determine eligibility for the restricted branches are not related to the military's need to field the best possible fighting force. In this regard, if they were litigating about race disqualifying, it would be incumbent on the military to demonstrate that race did create a performance issue for the unit through some characteristic of race that makes those folks perform at a different level of capability.

It will be interesting to see if these women challenge a lack of documented capability criteria for the restricted branches (there is no additional performance or physical measurement required to be infantry, for example) as proof that the sex doesn't disqualify someone who meets any other "male" standard from participating (given the different PT standards for males). I would guess that this is their only argument.

That being said, I think it would actually be better for the Army/Marines (boots on the ground services) to develop performance standards based upon required field maneuvers that have to be demonstrated periodically (annually?) regardless of age/sex to qualify to stay in branches where the physical demands require it. It would remove that argument and would probably serve to improve the combat readiness of our troops.

That being done, a few select females may qualify, but would likely not be able to keep up with demands as many years as their male counterparts.

Wouldn't be bad to apply the standards to reservists as well as I can think of quite a few articles raising preparedness issues with units called up.
 
Member it is in MPO, because a 40 yr old or a 50 yr old male, like Petraeus was in combat has a different std than a 24 yr old female. If a 2,3, or 4 star can be in combat at the same physical level of a under 30 female, it is a losing argument.

That is the problem in that defense, it leaves an opening for the opposition. How can you rule against women serving if the Army allows X amount of 40+ yr olds to serve when these women have better PT scores?

I am only saying the stronger defense is the impact on the mission regarding sleeping arrangements that exist in the military now for opposite sex, and medical issues for women, such as periods, I was not being facetious when I asked how long is a mission for tanks. I discussed how the AF and Navy had to address pittle packs for a reason. MEDICAL/HYGIENE

You open this door, and other doors will follow. There will be women who can physically beat the avg guy. These women may be more Shannon Faulkners, but they also may be Olympiads.

Periods, pregnancy and quarters is a stronger reason for why it is not a good fit over physical fitness. That is all I was saying. I personally concur with you.

I love the military, I am sure they will give the 1st female a ton of crap, but I am also sure every guy will defend her as their peer against strangers too!
 
How about love? Couldn't soldiers falling in love with each other could compromise readiness or the chain of command? I know I was the one who started beating the dead horse again but every time this subject comes up, all I can think of is Johnny Rico and his girlfriend in Starship Troopers
 
Chockstock said:
How about love? Couldn't soldiers falling in love with each other could compromise readiness or the chain of command? I know I was the one who started beating the dead horse again but every time this subject comes up, all I can think of is Johnny Rico and his girlfriend in Starship Troopers
Click to expand...

Someday you'll be out in the operational force and I want you to think of this piece of advice:

Love is rarely the issue. Sex is almost always the issue.
 
Pima said:
Member it is in MPO, because a 40 yr old or a 50 yr old male, like Petraeus was in combat.
Click to expand...

Pima- Do you not understand anything about what the different branches of the Army or Marine Corps do and how they do it? (or for that matter General Officers?) In a nutshell- the "Combat" that you are talking about is a theater wide concept, but that is not what it means for an Infantry Company. Because a truck driver in a convoy is a potential casualty, it does not follow that they have the capability or requirements of the infantryman climbing a mountain range with 100 pound rucks- and the Commanding General of an Infantry Division is also in combat, yet his combat is mostly restricted to staff meetings in a tactical operations center or flying into lower ranking headquarters to perform operational reviews -yet all are popularly thought to be "in combat". They are most assuredly, however, not facing either the same daily hardships nor do they have the same requirements for physical strength- at all. The other things you mention- the women currently serving in the Army and Marine Corps already deal with. While you seem to be familiar with an operational concept that revolves around bases with big runways and most of the creature comforts of home- there are lots of Female soldiers and Marines who already have learned to deal with female hygiene in a field environment and have learned to stave off potential "romeos", pregnancy etc.. all of that is yesterday's news and has been for a generation. They are not the issue at hand and MemberLG and others are right when it comes to the principal issue for allowing women into Infantry MOS's is a physical one
 
bruno said:
Pima- Do you not understand anything about what the different branches of the Army or Marine Corps do and how they do it? (or for that matter General Officers?) In a nutshell- the "Combat" that you are talking about is a theater wide concept, but that is not what it means for an Infantry Company. Because a truck driver in a convoy is a potential casualty, it does not follow that they have the capability or requirements of the infantryman climbing a mountain range with 100 pound rucks- and the Commanding General of an Infantry Division is also in combat, yet his combat is mostly restricted to staff meetings in a tactical operations center or flying into lower ranking headquarters to perform operational reviews -yet all are popularly thought to be "in combat". They are most assuredly, however, not facing either the same daily hardships nor do they have the same requirements for physical strength- at all. The other things you mention- the women currently serving in the Army and Marine Corps already deal with. While you seem to be familiar with an operational concept that revolves around bases with big runways and most of the creature comforts of home- there are lots of Female soldiers and Marines who already have learned to deal with female hygiene in a field environment and have learned to stave off potential "romeos", pregnancy etc.. all of that is yesterday's news and has been for a generation. They are not the issue at hand and MemberLG and others are right when it comes to the principal issue for allowing women into Infantry MOS's is a physical one
Click to expand...


Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

My only contention with your point is that given the number of women we find pregnant and send home, fending off "romeos" isn't quite figured out yet by a large portion of the junior enlisted population, and a surprising portion of the NCO population.

Air Force: chow hall is out of chicken tenders. Combat is hell. :wink:
 
scoutpilot said:
Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

My only contention with your point is that given the number of women we find pregnant and send home, fending off "romeos" isn't quite figured out yet by a large portion of the junior enlisted population, and a surprising portion of the NCO population.

Air Force: chow hall is out of chicken tenders. Combat is hell. :wink:
Click to expand...

I got a "Combat Readiness Medal" for sitting on nuclear alert in North Dakota. In fact, my AFSC was "Missile Combat Crew Commander."

I know it's ridiculous.

In fairness, were we to ever engage in combat, it would be of the global holocaust, permanant orange afro variety. Hasn't happened in the history of the ICBM force and probably never will.

And it's tater tots. When there are no tater tots, Air Force people are upset.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top