Latest news women in combat roles

[pathnottaken]

so why don't they have the same PT test standards?

Because as the name of this thread implies women are not allowed in combat units thus they do not need to meet combat unit PT scores. Men on the otherhand are expected to be in combat units and thus need to meet PT levels.

 

[Frankie]

Because as the name of this thread implies women are not allowed in combat units thus they do not need to meet combat unit PT scores. Men on the otherhand are expected to be in combat units and thus need to meet PT levels.

What if they're in a support unit? Why don't the PT standards for them drop?

 

[pathnottaken]

What if they're in a support unit? Why don't the PT standards for them drop?

Becaue the military hasn't got to the point were they want to differentitate men into different classifications. If they were having trouble filling the ranks with volunteers and a draft was not coming they would consider it I am sure.

 

[bruno]

And why would the winner of the 2012 Olympic Women's 10k not only not have finished before any of the 26 Mens runner's in that race but would have finished behind the top 25 men (all amateurs - none of whom went to the Olympics )of the 2012 Peach Tree 10k Road Race if there is essentially no difference?. Why would there be no women playing with men in any level of Professional Hockey, Basketball or Soccer- all of which require raw strength and speed to succeed in the sport, and all of which have robust womens programs at the Collegiate Amateur level?

This is a stupid argument being made for the sake of an argument. There is no doubt in any reasonable observers mind that there is a significant difference in the physical strength and speed of the vast majority of women compared to men and Outside this forum there is virtually no one actually making the argument that they are the same- in fact the proponents of these changes are arguing that strength and endurance no longer matter to the degree that they once did due to changes in warfare, and what does matter is reasoning, language and motor skills. Now that at least would be debatable- if there were people on this forum who actually have the knowledge and experience to make that claim. Right now though - the people with that experience on this forum seem to be disputing that the requirement for physical strength has really decreased in Infantry and Army/Marine Special Operations units and Navy SEAL teams (see TPG's posts for further clarification) .

 

[DHinNH]

It is not necessary that all women -- or even most women -- or even many women -- be able to meet the physical standards required for service in a combat unit. If one woman meets those standards and all other standards and she wants to serve in a combat unit, then she should be allowed to do so.

Judge based on knowledge, skills, and abilities of the individual. Pretty simple.

 

[pathnottaken]

And why would the winner of the 2012 Olympic Women's 10k not only not have finished before any of the 26 Mens runner's in that race but would have finished behind the top 25 men (all amateurs - none of whom went to the Olympics )of the 2012 Peach Tree 10k Road Race if there is essentially no difference?. Why would there be no women playing with men in any level of Professional Hockey, Basketball or Soccer- all of which require raw stregth and speed to succeed in the sport as well as finesse and fine motr skills and all of which have robust womens programs at the Collegiate Amateur level?
This is a stupid argument being made for the sake of an argument. There is no doubt in any reasonable observers mind that there is a significant difference in the physical strength and speed of the vast majority of women compared to men and Outside this forum there is virtually no one actually making the argument that they are the same- in fact the proponents of these changes are arguing that strength and endurance no longer matter to the degree that they once did due to changes in warfare, and what does matter is reasoning, language and motor skills. Now that at least would be debatable- if there were people on this forum who actually have the knowledge and experience to make that claim. Right now though - the people with that experience on this forum though seem to be disputing that the requirement for physical strength has really decreased in Infantry and Army/Marine Special Operations units and Navy SEAL teams (see TPG's posts for further clarification) .

First I am NOT claiming women are the physical equal to men (on average or at the extremes) what I am arguing is that some women are fit enough to qualify for combat/SOF.

If strength is the only thing that matters than why do many of the fittest men flunk out of training. They are not mentally tough enough!

Second when I was a youngester I would have bet that there was not anyone in SOF that would run 10 miles faster than me so does mean all SOF of the 70's should not have qualified.

Last One has to "experience" something to understand what it takes to accomplish it agruement is not a good one. I know many an engineer who worked for DoD as civilians that review, analyze and reccommend changes to SOF methods , and most of them are luckly to do even 10 push ups.

 

[USMCGrunt]

Experience alone tells me that you cannot expect a person to carry that much percentage of their body weight over extended periods of time without it compromising the unit integrity and ability to fight. The Infantry is indeed very physical and this is a barrier to females serving in those units.

Combat operations is not just fire and maneuver either. Sometimes is dirty work like hand to hand combat where you swing an e-tool to take a mans head off or stick a knife in a persons chest. This is the type of work I am discussing and that is what concerns me. Both of those actions mentioned takes brute power and when you are done dispatching one combatant, you better be prepared to take on another. You don't get to sit down and take a break just because you have carried a 100lb pack.

The mission of the Infantry is to "locate, close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver and/ or repel enemy assault by fire and close combat" Sometimes destroying the enemy is done at 500 meters and sometimes it is done at 5 inches.

I couldn't agree more. Excellent summary of the physical requirements necessary for the role. Disclaimer: I have no combat experience, but six years as Infantry Officer.

Can we find individual women that could handle it? Probably. But truly don't see the value of this debate. The effort expended in the selection process wouldn't justify the results.

 

[pathnottaken]

During the 70's and 80's when racial intergation and gender intergration was still new and move place I would look for Doctors and other professionnals of race and gender. I felt the if they had overcome the odds to become a Doctor they must be really good. ( And most imtes I was right)

I think if a women was to overcome all the hurdles that are/would be put in her way a make it through SOF training I would want to be on her team. She would be one tough ...

 

[pathnottaken]

I couldn't agree more. Excellent summary of the physical requirements necessary for the role. Disclaimer: I have no combat experience, but six years as Infantry Officer.

Can we find individual women that could handle it? Probably. But truly don't see the value of this debate. The effort expended in the selection process wouldn't justify the results.

Had to smile at "the effort expended...wouldn't justify the result" I can remeber my grandfather saying same type of thing when it came to intergration...

 

[scoutpilot]

A disgusted high schooler who happens to have family members in special operations, please, don't talk down to me. You don't have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about. This is detrimental, and our operational capability of our various SOF units will decrease dramatically and for what? For "equality"? Women can't live up to the standards, those standards will drop, and the operational integrity and overall effectiveness will decrease dramatically. Despite what some posters on here want to believe, many of which have no experience in SOF, that is the fact of the matter...these are the sentiments I've hard time and time again from every person I know.

Don't you ever pretend to speak for the SOF community or know anything about it. You want to talk about what we do? Assessment happens every month. Until then, know your place.

Know who has no experience in SOF? YOU.

 

[goaliedad]

so why don't they have the same PT test standards?

Because as the name of this thread implies women are not allowed in combat units thus they do not need to meet combat unit PT scores. Men on the otherhand are expected to be in combat units and thus need to meet PT levels.

What if they're in a support unit? Why don't the PT standards for them drop?

The APFT was NOT developed to test capability for combat, it was developed to validate that the soldier was keeping "in shape" as part of the discipline of being prepared.

The standards are based upon what an person who is taking proper care (in the Army's opinion) of his/her body should be able to do. The exercises all deal with one's own body weight, not an absolute amount.

Given the physiology of men and women, women are not as long of leg nor as endowed in upper body strength, so running and pushup scores are adjusted. Note that situp standards (where men and women have no significant difference in muscle mass in their core) are the same.

Bottom line, don't confuse APFT with qualification to serve in the Infantry.

 

[USMCGrunt]

Had to smile at "the effort expended...wouldn't justify the result" I can remeber my grandfather saying same type of thing when it came to intergration...

I appreciate the comment. As a rule, people are resistant to change.

Not sure this subject should become a comparison to the integration of the armed forces but there is an interesting approach to the issue that could be considered. All black units were formed in 1776 after Washington lifted a ban on black enlistment. They fought and performed with distinction all the way through the Korean War. The last unit was disbanded in 1954, six years after Truman had signed Executive Order 9981 integrating the military and mandating equality of treatment and opportunity.

Perhaps the step change is all female combat units?

 

[bruno]

Last One has to "experience" something to understand what it takes to accomplish it agruement is not a good one. I know many an engineer who worked for DoD as civilians that review, analyze and reccommend changes to SOF methods , and most of them are luckly to do even 10 push ups.

Oh- I would disagree with that in virtually every profession- experience always trumps theory- always. One of the most interesting and I believe destructive trends in American business is the willingness to turn over engineering and management decisions to outsid econsultants who virtually never have the experience in the core functions of the business , nor are they forced to live with, the consequences of their Business School theories. And while there are some functions that are so generic that they are virtually the same regardless of the circumnstances- most of them aren't. So I have to say- that while I always appreciate theoritical discussions- I virtually ALWAYS defer to those who have the experience on the ground when making process and engineering decisions about processes. does that mean things don't change? No. But it does mean that absent hugely compelling evidence to the contrary- I value the opinion of those who understand the details and parameters associated with a job more than I do the opinion of those who generalize and extrapolate from small samples to reach the conclusions that they wish to arrive at, especially if they can not answer the detailed- "how do we deal with this requirement and this contingency" questions that the experienced ask. Now granted I am a retired Infantryman and a current manufacturing executive so I tend to value cost/benefit analysis and even more , those who do as opposed to those who pontificate- but I am willing to listen to someone try to discount TPGs arguments. Haven't seen them posted so far though. In addition to TPG's points a couple questions of my own:

a. Will the Army or Marine Corps accept absolute standards that result in one group passing at a 60% rate and another at a 5% rate or will it alrer those standards in order to generate an acceptable outcome (and there is that experience thing again- because anyone with any time in the Army knows the most likely outcome to that situation.)
b. Is a unit better or worse off if it has to make significant accomodations for the one 1-2% that will succeed? Is the Army really about maximizing the personal individual goals of those in it, or is it about maximizing its combat performance? Will this change help to accomplish the latter?

 

[goaliedad]

And why would the winner of the 2012 Olympic Women's 10k not only not have finished before any of the 26 Mens runner's in that race but would have finished behind the top 25 men (all amateurs - none of whom went to the Olympics )of the 2012 Peach Tree 10k Road Race if there is essentially no difference?. Why would there be no women playing with men in any level of Professional Hockey, Basketball or Soccer- all of which require raw strength and speed to succeed in the sport, and all of which have robust womens programs at the Collegiate Amateur level?

This is a stupid argument being made for the sake of an argument. There is no doubt in any reasonable observers mind that there is a significant difference in the physical strength and speed of the vast majority of women compared to men and Outside this forum there is virtually no one actually making the argument that they are the same- in fact the proponents of these changes are arguing that strength and endurance no longer matter to the degree that they once did due to changes in warfare, and what does matter is reasoning, language and motor skills. Now that at least would be debatable- if there were people on this forum who actually have the knowledge and experience to make that claim. Right now though - the people with that experience on this forum seem to be disputing that the requirement for physical strength has really decreased in Infantry and Army/Marine Special Operations units and Navy SEAL teams (see TPG's posts for further clarification) .

It was only 1 period of a pre-season game, but Manon Rheaume played for the Tampa Bay Lightning against the St. Louis Blues and came out with a 2-2 tie.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=642005

Yes, small sample size, but considering that she did not have the background of playing a career entirely against the best of the "boys", she held her own.

Not at the NHL level, but speaking of a non-goalie, I can remember a certain 5'1" female from Chicago who was playing on a nationally ranked men's 16U team as a 15 year old and not exactly dragging up the 4th line either. Most of her teammates/opponents had at least 1 ft on her and 80 lbs. She grew up playing with/against them and had the respect of all from what I understand. She's playing NCAA women's today and has been the top women's player on the various national age-denominated teams for a number of years.

Now granted these 2 individuals are exceptions. Would we have more "exceptions" if we integrated more on ability than physiology? I can't answer that. I know that my daughter was run out of boys hockey locally not because she couldn't play at their level (they invited her and she shut them down), but because they were reading the long term writing on the wall that says "girls can't play with boys past a certain age". In the end, that drove her to play with the women (going away to boarding school) younger and probably stunted her development.

While my military knowledge is not up to the experienced folks around here, I have been exposed to a little more women's hockey than most (despite being neither a woman nor a hockey player). Not an expert, but in this case perhaps the one-eyed man in the kingdom of the blind.

That being said, I agree that there would be an honest debate of what skills ARE truly necessary to be a successful soldier. There is a school that says "This has always been the recipe for a warrior, so why should we change?" Then David came along and slew Goliath, proving that perhaps skill with a different skill set might be worthwhile...

 

[goaliedad]

In addition to TPG's points a couple questions of my own:

a. Will the Army or Marine Corps accept absolute standards that result in one group passing at a 60% rate and another at a 5% rate or will it alrer those standards in order to generate an acceptable outcome (and there is that experience thing again- because anyone with any time in the Army knows the most likely outcome to that situation.)
b. Is a unit better or worse off if it has to make significant accomodations for the one 1-2% that will succeed? Is the Army really about maximizing the personal individual goals of those in it, or is it about maximizing its combat performance? Will this change help to accomplish the latter?

a. Before this debate, the 40% who never got tested and weeded out were making for a weaker force anyway. Point here is that there should be a testing that is realistic of what should be expected of MOS X and it should apply to those 5'4" males as well as the 5'4" females.
b. A unit is better of knowing that everyone there regardless of gender has what it takes to do the job. Making accommodations (non-performance) to accommodate them isn't much different in principle than providing kosher food for the similarly small fraction that require that.

 

[BigBear]

The APFT was NOT developed to test capability for combat, it was developed to validate that the soldier was keeping "in shape" as part of the discipline of being prepared.

The standards are based upon what an person who is taking proper care (in the Army's opinion) of his/her body should be able to do. The exercises all deal with one's own body weight, not an absolute amount.

Given the physiology of men and women, women are not as long of leg nor as endowed in upper body strength, so running and pushup scores are adjusted. Note that situp standards (where men and women have no significant difference in muscle mass in their core) are the same.

Bottom line, don't confuse APFT with qualification to serve in the Infantry.

What about short guys? Shouldn't they get a slower run standard?
What about rucking? Do those same disadvantages not apply then? Or carrying a load, as others have stated?

The APFT, as terrible a measure of fitness as it is, is frequently used as the first step in the screening process when it comes to a lot of the combat arms and SOF schools. Make a better test, sure. But the fact remains, if you are going to ask people to perform the same tasks, they need to be compared at the same level

 

[DHinNH]

Bruno, suppose the answer to your question "a" is "absolute standards will apply." Then women in SF/SEALS/etc is fine, right?

If that is right, then there is no question that women should be allowed. The only issue is to be sure that absolute standards will be maintained.

"No women because it means standards will be compromised" is not a valid reason to exclude women. That reasoning presupposes a fact that cannot be proven.

"No women because no woman is capable of performing "task x," and "task x" is required" is completely valid.

 

[bruno]

Bruno, suppose the answer to your question "a" is "absolute standards will apply." Then women in SF/SEALS/etc is fine, right?

If that is right, then there is no question that women should be allowed. The only issue is to be sure that absolute standards will be maintained.

"No women because it means standards will be compromised" is not a valid reason to exclude women. That reasoning presupposes a fact that cannot be proven.

"No women because no woman is capable of performing "task x," and "task x" is required" is completely valid.

If I thought that the answer to my first question was :"yes they will absolutely set a standard and then results be damned that is the standard even if it's a 99% failure rate for one group or another" then I would proceed to the second question. Will the units in question be better? will the payback be worth the investment if they wind up getting someone who passes the standard honestly? If the answer were yes to both then yes I would support it.
I don't know the answer to the second question- but I utterly doubt the ability or desire of the military to establish and stand up for a standard that will produce widely divergent pass rates. The first time they go before the HASC and some Congressman starts berating them in public about how a failure rate of 90% vs 40% indicates institutional bias, they will change- or more likely to avoid getting to that point,they will devise a test using all of the baloney statistics that have been cited on here to indicate that it will be valid to give different passing scores (norming) but that will be acceptable because they are accurate indicators of relative strength to size and body mass etc... And it will produce similar pass fail rates. What it won't do is ensure that an individual can carry a 115 pounds of weapons, ammo, radios, water, chow etc up & down hills for multiple days and accomplish the assigned mission... but that will just be a detail to be worked out down at the squad level. And everybody will high five the policy success because the stats show that it all works out. Am I cynical? Absolutely. Am I realistic in my concern? Well I sure am not the only guy who has seen how the Institutional Army can and will spin on a dime to proclaim a policy or program a success if it is politically expedient.

To be honest- I'm not going to post anymore on this subject. The DoD and the services are going to do what they do and nobody on here is going to convince them otherwise with rehashed arguments for or against. The proponents don't care to hear them and the the opponents have made the arguments thousands of times before. So knock yourselves out- and if you don't place more credence in the opinions of those who have done or are doing the jobs than those who haven't seen what they are so blythely changing- that's your prerogative. You after all could be correct- but I certainly hope you have more than theories to base your proposals on.

 

[goaliedad]

The APFT was NOT developed to test capability for combat, it was developed to validate that the soldier was keeping "in shape" as part of the discipline of being prepared.

The standards are based upon what an person who is taking proper care (in the Army's opinion) of his/her body should be able to do. The exercises all deal with one's own body weight, not an absolute amount.

Given the physiology of men and women, women are not as long of leg nor as endowed in upper body strength, so running and pushup scores are adjusted. Note that situp standards (where men and women have no significant difference in muscle mass in their core) are the same.

Bottom line, don't confuse APFT with qualification to serve in the Infantry.

What about short guys? Shouldn't they get a slower run standard?
What about rucking? Do those same disadvantages not apply then? Or carrying a load, as others have stated?

The APFT, as terrible a measure of fitness as it is, is frequently used as the first step in the screening process when it comes to a lot of the combat arms and SOF schools. Make a better test, sure. But the fact remains, if you are going to ask people to perform the same tasks, they need to be compared at the same level

My best friend in 8th grade ran a 5:08 mile. He also did a 2-mile in under 12 minutes. He was 5' 2" (and is to this day). My point here is that ALL physiological builds of a gender who are medically qualified should be able to max out the APFT with the correct amount of dedication.

Granted short people (think women here) do have to extract a higher percentage of their potential to get that score. Women are biologically programmed to carry a higher amount of body fat (hence the different height/weight standards). That affects their absolute potential for running speed (carry an extra 8% body fat and try to get the same score). Hence, their scores are rated at a similar percentage of potential.

And don't worry - short people actually have an advantage of in situps. Yes, that 14 lb mass at the end of your neck is further from the bending part of the core on a 6' 4" soldier than a 5' 4" person. That mass has to be swung a greater distance to complete a situp.

And yes, women are shorter than men, but they also have physiological differences that affect the work necessary to accomplish a situp.

I'm not here to debate the APFT as the final word on qualification. It is only a measure of dedication to GENERAL fitness an important part of personal discipline.

And what is this about rucking??? Not a part of the APFT last I checked.

The funny thing about this whole topic is that not only do people think that aren't any women who can perform at the highest level, but they think women are not smart enough to figure out when they are in over their heads. Any MOS that requires a performance-based test (school) to enter will present a test that those not sure of their capacity will stay away from. And those who overestimate their capacity will be weeded out soon enough. And I think most women are smart enough and less ego driven to figure out that a special forces badge isn't what validates their existence.

And I don't think women want a watered down standard made for their admission to a MOS. Having grown up in a minority dominated high school with mainly minority friends, several of us who were selected to go to a top-20 national university, we didn't expect a different grading curve in classes because of our background. In fact, we would have felt insulted by it.

 

[goaliedad]

If I thought that the answer to my first question was :"yes they will absolutely set a standard and then results be damned that is the standard even if it's a 99% failure rate for one group or another" then I would proceed to the second question. Will the units in question be better? will the payback be worth the investment if they wind up getting someone who passes the standard honestly? If the answer were yes to both then yes I would support it.
I don't know the answer to the second question- but I utterly doubt the ability or desire of the military to establish and stand up for a standard that will produce widely divergent pass rates. The first time they go before the HASC and some Congressman starts berating them in public about how a failure rate of 90% vs 40% indicates institutional bias, they will change- or more likely to avoid getting to that point,they will devise a test using all of the baloney statistics that have been cited on here to indicate that it will be valid to give different passing scores (norming) but that will be acceptable because they are accurate indicators of relative strength to size and body mass etc... And it will produce similar pass fail rates. What it won't do is ensure that an individual can carry a 115 pounds of weapons, ammo, radios, water, chow etc up & down hills for multiple days and accomplish the assigned mission... but that will just be a detail to be worked out down at the squad level. And everybody will high five the policy success because the stats show that it all works out. Am I cynical? Absolutely. Am I realistic in my concern? Well I sure am not the only guy who has seen how the Institutional Army can and will spin on a dime to proclaim a policy or program a success if it is politically expedient.

To be honest- I'm not going to post anymore on this subject. The DoD and the services are going to do what they do and nobody on here is going to convince them otherwise with rehashed arguments before or against. The proponents don't care to hear them and the the oponents have made the arguments thousands of times before. So knock yourselves out- and if you don't place more credence in the opinions of those who have done or are doing the jobs then those who haven't seen what they are so blythely changing- that's your prerogative. You after all could be correct- but I certainly hope you have more than theories to base your proposals on.

If they are not worse, then the Army is better for showing that it can be the place where you rise based upon your performance. This isn't just about the unit, but the Army as a whole. When the forces were integrated, it lifted up the morale of those who had been excluded from higher ranks even if they themselves didn't achieve it.

And if the Army is smart, the first congressman (or congresswoman) who brought out the proportional representation line would be greeted by the female who did make it who doesn't want the slackers of her gender putting her life at risk because of Congress' micromanaging of military training.

And trust me, the women who do make it will not want their achievement watered down. Please understand that women take as much pride in military achievement as men when held to the same standards and will defend that achievement even more fiercely than you might think.