Panel: Let women serve in combat roles

Well, you better start doing push ups now! Running, and swimming are also huge. I want to be a CRO (if I become an officer, which I hope I will). I mean you have to in the BEST shape to be able to pass, and the most mentally tough possible (that is kind of hard to work on I think, but not impossible). Good luck, and ill say this again start training now if you want to have a chance of getting in, because if they do it in a year and you aren’t ready, you are not going to pass. Good luck! :thumb:
 
"Equality is earned, not legislated."

Not that I am against women serving in combat roles, but the fact that they are granted exceptions in the CFA, shows that maybe they aren't fit for combat.

If a women isn't able to do one cadence pull up, she should be failed for the event, not allowed to do a flexed arm hang instead.

It's small, but it would be a start.
 
I really hope both you high schoolers learn some life lessons when/if you enter the academies. Not being able to do a pull-up makes women not fit for combat? Are you serious? In my time at USAFA I saw plenty of men struggling to make the male minimum, and plenty that struggled to do 3 or 4. With a male's stated greater muscle mass and "testosterone" injected strength, 3 or 4 is pretty sad, yet they will still be allowed into combat....but then again, we're talking the CFA and people's bodies will continue to change over the next four years and people can learn better strength training. Somehow failing an 18 year old woman for lack of a pull-up when a flexed arm hang can demonstrate potential for developing that necessary strength seems to me like possibly losing a potentially valuable asset. Rather see performance on the CFA that shows the person can improve or become able to meet fitness, and combat if needed, standards.

Again, I really hope you two have your eyes opened when/if you enter an academy.
 
I really hope both you high schoolers learn some life lessons when/if you enter the academies. Not being able to do a pull-up makes women not fit for combat? Are you serious? In my time at USAFA I saw plenty of men struggling to make the male minimum, and plenty that struggled to do 3 or 4. With a male's stated greater muscle mass and "testosterone" injected strength, 3 or 4 is pretty sad, yet they will still be allowed into combat....but then again, we're talking the CFA and people's bodies will continue to change over the next four years and people can learn better strength training. Somehow failing an 18 year old woman for lack of a pull-up when a flexed arm hang can demonstrate potential for developing that necessary strength seems to me like possibly losing a potentially valuable asset. Rather see performance on the CFA that shows the person can improve or become able to meet fitness, and combat if needed, standards.

Again, I really hope you two have your eyes opened when/if you enter an academy.

With all due respect, what is a valuable asset when there are 20,000 prospective candidates in the pool?

The service academies are a compilation of the best soon-to-be officers on a basis of 60% Academic, 30% Athletic, and 10% Leadership.

If the academic and leadership characteristics are negligible, then obviously those competing for admission would need to prove themselves as superior to their peers physically. You do not lose a potentially solid officer by expelling the person with 1 pull up. Their strength in combat is a means of survival, you may be doing them more harm by allowing a physically unprepared candidate admission. Sure they have four years to develop but they would never surpass those previously prepared for the rigorous routines with longer histories in active lifestyles.

There are certainly those who excel in the academic field while lacking in another, but the final composite of a military officer does not depend merely on their intelligence but often their aura of physical strength and composure.
 
Sure they have four years to develop but they would never surpass those previously prepared for the rigorous routines with longer histories in active lifestyles.

That's a very bold claim. During those 4 years, people, guys especially, are still developing and coming into their full strength and development. I think its ridiculous to say in FOUR years, people can't surpass others in physical fitness. Four years of training is a very long time. Its also a long time that for young adults who are away from mom and dad for the first time to develop their own habits that may or may not be conducive to staying in the best physical shape (look at regular colleges).


As a note to the above as well, sure coming from an active lifestyle background is useful, and for those candidates who "pass" but don't score well on the CFA, that's definitly a paying attention to point for admissions to see their patricipation in athletics, etc. Besides, unless you are administered the CFA at one of the summer seminars or by a liason officer (and even then that's highly dependent on the cadets and the officers), there's no way you can say that the CFA is applied uniformly to all candidates. What a gym teacher considers a push up can be actually much different in its standards to be what is and isn't counted.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't be in shape to attend the Academies, that's a given, but admissions also looks at something called the Whole Candidate Score to find the potential leaders they admit to the Academies.
 
With all due respect, what is a valuable asset when there are 20,000 prospective candidates in the pool?

First, the pool is closer to 9000-10000 than 20000. With your physical cut-offs, you could probably lose 25% to 50% of that pool. Easy. You've essentially reduced your qualified applicant pool in half with probably no gain in performance since many of those people were still able to pass physical standards for fitness. There were more people who were very physically strong and washed out for lack of academic ability than the other way. I'd rather follow an intelligent officer with moderate strength than a dumb horse into battle. Raising a standard unnecessarily (not correlated with officer capability) but by your arbitrary desire for your definition of equality limits the pool. So yes, you're losing applicants. IIRC, the USAFA rhodes scholar had difficulty doing a few pull-ups, I'm glad she was admitted.

The service academies are a compilation of the best soon-to-be officers on a basis of 60% Academic, 30% Athletic, and 10% Leadership.
You've switched it, athletic is only 10%

If the academic and leadership characteristics are negligible, then obviously those competing for admission would need to prove themselves as superior to their peers physically.

When did 60% academic become negligible??? And then debunking your 30% claim, in reality, the physical side is the negligible one.

You do not lose a potentially solid officer by expelling the person with 1 pull up.

Sure you do. I went through USAFA with some stand-up females. Some of those struggled for a pull-up, but I'd still follow them before many of the males I served with. They made fantastic officers. So yes, you would lose solid officers.

Their strength in combat is a means of survival, you may be doing them more harm by allowing a physically unprepared candidate admission. Sure they have four years to develop but they would never surpass those previously prepared for the rigorous routines with longer histories in active lifestyles.

Casey hit this one pretty well. I'll expound with a couple personal stories. First is me. I only was doing 9 pull-ups, 41 push-ups, and 72 sit-ups on the CFA. By the time I left USAFA (and I reached these level far before firstie year) I was at 21 pull-ups (max), 95 sit-ups (max) and 65 push-ups (top quartile). I demonstrated I could improve and had a baseline physical ability amenable to service. Then I went on and improved once I had better access to training and facilities.

A female from my squadron. She was not allowed to do jump after 4 dig year because she could not complete a pull-up (and you must be able to do a pull-up due to the physical requirements of jump). She was on reconditioning with <250 on her PFT. Within one year as a 3 dig she boosted her score to the high 300s, was able to do 3 pull-ups, and became a Recondo CIC for her last two years. Those two years she helped countless dozens of cadets improve their conditioning, pass the PFT, and become successful cadets/officers. I'd follow her.

There are certainly those who excel in the academic field while lacking in another, but the final composite of a military officer does not depend merely on their intelligence but often their aura of physical strength and composure.

Seriously? Composure yes. Physical strength as more important than intellect? No. Of course I want a well-rounded leader, but I was a smart one. I won't comment into combat, haven't been there and others can chime in if they wish. But just in training at USAFA, the dumb horses led us into bad situations and did a good job at failing IMT objectives. The smart ones led us to success.

While I rarely ever will say this, but where are you getting off defining a good military leader with no experience? You're in high school trying to explain how the biology and hormones of a female make them ineffective in combat. Until you can be in the situation to see the reality, keep your mind open and don't enter with such short-sighted and naive assumptions.
 
You've switched it, athletic is only 10%

Correct.

That's a very bold claim. During those 4 years, people, guys especially, are still developing and coming into their full strength and development. I think its ridiculous to say in FOUR years, people can't surpass others in physical fitness. Four years of training is a very long time. Its also a long time that for young adults who are away from mom and dad for the first time to develop their own habits that may or may not be conducive to staying in the best physical shape (look at regular colleges).

It's a rhetorical syllogism...

Person x can score well on their CFA prior to admission to a service academy.

Person y theoretically fails parts of their CFA but is admitted to the same academy and even assigned to the same company.

Both conduct the same drills, exercises for four years. (I don't think cadets go to the gym at 3 AM to catch up on their conditioning.)

Person y will most likely NOT have surpassed person x in physical capabilities in regards to specific strength exercises denoted by the CFA... They may have caught up, but really, consider the history that of the body of the initially superior physically candidate in comparison with the newly developed strengths and mass of the other...

It's theoretical, as is the whole of my argument. I did not actually poll candidates or walk the streets of Kabul scrutinizing service members.

Muscle memory isn't a joke, although some biochemists in the building may begin to rattle their keyboards. Put a retired, yet able soccer player who received a year of preparation against a man of similar stature who spent the past year preparing for the first time in a race, the odds might just be in favor of the one who received the same recent period of conditioning although having a superior history in the use of those muscles.

Likewise, working harder than Lance for a year will not send your bicycle through the finish line first in the Tour de France. But of course.... there are exceptions aren't there. :thumb:

When did 60% academic become negligible??? And then debunking your 30% claim, in reality, the physical side is the negligible one.

Read again please. If the academic and leadership characteristics are negligible...

In other words, if they can be overlooked when comparing candidates that score quite similarly in those fields...

Not to mention, SATs (Yes, I understand this is not the only academic criteria) don't directly (<- please mind this word) determine officers... A 680 doesn't make someone superior in officership to a 650. In a case when comparing similar candidates, and ONLY addressing the competitive side of their athleticism...

Sure you do. I went through USAFA with some stand-up females. Some of those struggled for a pull-up, but I'd still follow them before many of the males I served with. They made fantastic officers. So yes, you would lose solid officers.

You lose someone with 1 pull up and gain someone of similar intelligence with 15 perhaps. In respect to combat (infantry) oriented officers, it's pretty significant. (I hope I'm not the only one who thinks so. :yllol:)

Seriously? Composure yes. Physical strength as more important than intellect? No. Of course I want a well-rounded leader, but I was a smart one. I won't comment into combat, haven't been there and others can chime in if they wish. But just in training at USAFA, the dumb horses led us into bad situations and did a good job at failing IMT objectives. The smart ones led us to success.

Reread the statement, there is no deference of intellect.
 
Well, you better start doing push ups now! Running, and swimming are also huge. I want to be a CRO (if I become an officer, which I hope I will). I mean you have to in the BEST shape to be able to pass, and the most mentally tough possible (that is kind of hard to work on I think, but not impossible). Good luck, and ill say this again start training now if you want to have a chance of getting in, because if they do it in a year and you aren’t ready, you are not going to pass. Good luck! :thumb:
Yep I am:) Good Luck to you too, futureAFA:thumb:
 
Oxford. The problem with your argument, is that you're confusing the difference between "Physical Fitness" and "Physical Capabilities". The CFA has NOT.... Let me repeat myself. "I'm originally from New Jersey and I don't want my accent to confuse you". The CFA has NOT 1 THING TO DO WITH PHYSICAL CAPABILITIES. It is only measuring Physical Fitness. And where your argument gets confusing is: Doing push-ups as part of the "Requirements" to be a PJ; and doing push-ups as part of your CFA; are 2 totally different things. One is for physical fitness (CFA) and the other (PJ's) is for physical capabilities.

In other words, it is completely feasible and legitimate to have different physical fitness requirements in the CFA, PFE, etc... for women and men. It is simply a measurement of how fit they are. But fit has nothing to do with strength, balance, endurance, etc... Swimming under water, while holding your breath, for 100 feet (or more), is about physical capabilities. "You MIGHT NEED TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT!!!! Ya Think???". Carrying 150 lbs on your back is a Physical Capability; not Physical Fitness. "You MIGHT NEED TO CARRY THINGS AS A PJ!!! Ya Think?"

Point is: STOP it with the biology, physiology, chemistry, and psych lessons. Most of us here have studied way too much of that stuff; and it's TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the conversation. I don't know why you keep going there. It makes no difference. Even if what you say is correct; and academically it is in many respects; it is still totally irrelevant. WHY???? Because if 95,987 women try out to become a PJ; and 95,986 of them can't pass the physical, emotional, psychological, and academic requirements; then they aren't going to be a PJ. And if "HISTORICALLY SPEAKING", 99% of all women can't perform physical tasks equal to a man, that still leaves one. And if that 1 woman out of the 95,987 who tried out for being a PJ; using the EXACT SAME STANDARDS for Physical Capabilities, then she should be allowed to be a PJ.

There needs to be a "DIFFERENT SET OF STANDARDS" for measuring "Physical Fitness". You can't tell if a woman is "Fit" if you're gauging here against a man's performance. The results are totally meaningless. You have to judge her fitness based on what is considered average/acceptable/etc... But when a "TASK" needs to be done, then the task knows no gender. Whether it's a rescue swimmer, a PJ, a Green Beret, ABGD, Seals, TACOM, etc... Certain tasks need to be accomplished. Women and men must BOTH be able to accomplish those tasks in a satisfactory manner. And testing/evaluating this in training is purely for the purpose of determining "Physical Capabilities". So..... Stop with the biology/chemistry/anatomy/etc... lessons. You're not teaching most of us anything. Most of us took all those classes in college. But more importantly, they don't have any bearing on your argument. Argue that the average woman isn't capable of performing certain physical tasks. Argue that the standards for tasks that require measuring of "Physical Capabilities" needs to remain the same for women and men. There's a lot you can argue. But don't mix the two. It doesn't matter if a man's heart is bigger; or his lungs are bigger; or that he can lift more weight; etc... than a girl. That doesn't mean crap. What matters is: Can a person who wants to be evaluated for a special type job/career field/task/etc... satisfactorily accomplish the evaluation tests set as a standard. If she can; then she should be allowed to do it. If she can't, then she shouldn't. Same as for men. It really is that simple.
 
It's a rhetorical syllogism...

Person x can score well on their CFA prior to admission to a service academy.

Person y theoretically fails parts of their CFA but is admitted to the same academy and even assigned to the same company.

Both conduct the same drills, exercises for four years. (I don't think cadets go to the gym at 3 AM to catch up on their conditioning.)

Person y will most likely NOT have surpassed person x in physical capabilities in regards to specific strength exercises denoted by the CFA... They may have caught up, but really, consider the history that of the body of the initially superior physically candidate in comparison with the newly developed strengths and mass of the other...

It's theoretical, as is the whole of my argument. I did not actually poll candidates or walk the streets of Kabul scrutinizing service members.

Ok, now play with me here a second, theory is good, but we're talking real world applications, right? I honestly am curious how much experience you have had with the cadets at any of the acadmies.

Here's a few of the fallacies that I would wonder in your theory that I would wonder about having had interactions for a pretty good deal of time with West Point cadets having grown up as an Army brat with connections to the post, cadets there, professors, alumni (not going to pretend to be able to speak of the other Academies as well despite my dad also having had housing on Annapolis and us living in Colorado Springs while he was working out of Ft Carson...just putting this out there that we have a pretty good idea of the kind of people that make it to be cadets and graduate and is a great deal of the reason I want to be there as well).

Anyways, back to the point, cadets don't all do the same exact drills that pertain to their physical fitness. Some do the bare minimum that's required of them (intermurals, PT, etc) and pass their PT tests while others are playing for Varsity sports or add in extra fitness to their daily routines (can't say how many cadets we've seen do their 5am runs just to run), etc. The point is that the bare minimum training is the same for all theoretically, but the effort that an individual puts into them and desire that they have to better themselves will have a great affect on their physical fitness. You could be a great athlete before the Academy and do the minimum that they ask you to do to pass your PT tests and be surpassed by someone who's taken it upon themselves to train harder that may have been in lesser shape before entering the Academy.

Even if, let's go with theory for a sec, all cadets had the same exact physical fitness regimen, there's still variables within that include the effort put in. You can coast and do the minimum or you can be 110% effort that will actually do to improve yourself or anywhere in the middle.

For your theory to have any merit, we'd not only have to assume that cadets were having the same exact fitness routine which is not always the case, and that they were all giving the same exact effort which is a highly individualistic thing that theory really can't take into account.

I didn't even touch on the biologic component that you keep bringing up of anatomy on development during adolescent which will also play a factor as mentioned, especially in men who are coming into their full development.




Also, as a side note, if you fail 1 part of the CFA, you will not pass the entire thing, so I'm not sure where that comment came from unless you are referring to females not having to do pulls up to pass. It will be said that if a female chooses to not do 1 pull up, all admissions officers will tell you that no matter how long you hold the flex arm hang, you won't earn the same amount of points in that section of the test as if you had done a pull up. So there is the scaling there when it comes to the Whole Candidate Score that it was admissions looks at, and I would imagine that it is a red flag that would make admissions look at the overall athletic background a little closer.
 
the·o·ry - a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Private message me if you wish to continue to debate these "biological, psychological, chemical" ideals...

I defended my initial reasoning, which was just an expression of opinion which I drew together using simple logic. There were no stark assertions, just an opinion that if actually broken down and scrutinized, made sense in a completely theoretical, nonspecific fashion.

A combatant that can't perform a pull up can't support his body weight, no matter what you say or how far you go in your analysis, that's a detriment to their survival. It's not a matter of ow smart they are or what their potential is, two clones - with the exception that one has greater physical strength, stamina than the other - are not alike, and one clearly would make a more effective person. There are SO many exceptions to everything, and those of you who continue listing them are only contributing to a thread about a completely different matter (Please debate the extent of this comment). Do you actually believe that I think all service members must perform a specific amount of reps on physical aptitude tests in order to be effective?

Please PM me, I would be honored to get on the same page. One of us could learn about the many life stories and morals that go against theoretical odds, the other could learn what a theory is an understand that it is not an actual assessment but an idea comparative to recent matters that can express a unique perspective.
 
Please PM me, I would be honored to get on the same page. One of us could learn about the many life stories and morals that go against theoretical odds, the other could learn what a theory is an understand that it is not an actual assessment but an idea comparative to recent matters that can express a unique perspective.

I can respect that. I only was debating as theory that has merit should be able to stand up to scrutiny when applied to real world application. At least you made people think on a weekend and you stood by your points.
 
Thank god humility will be learned at USNA. Let's remember that many of the contributors to this thread are tried and trusted and not speaking from hypotheticals. You are young and idealistic, an admirable trait, however it doesn't hurt to be humble in the presence of those with real world experiences.
 
I really hope both you high schoolers learn some life lessons when/if you enter the academies. Not being able to do a pull-up makes women not fit for combat? Are you serious? In my time at USAFA I saw plenty of men struggling to make the male minimum, and plenty that struggled to do 3 or 4. With a male's stated greater muscle mass and "testosterone" injected strength, 3 or 4 is pretty sad, yet they will still be allowed into combat....but then again, we're talking the CFA and people's bodies will continue to change over the next four years and people can learn better strength training. Somehow failing an 18 year old woman for lack of a pull-up when a flexed arm hang can demonstrate potential for developing that necessary strength seems to me like possibly losing a potentially valuable asset. Rather see performance on the CFA that shows the person can improve or become able to meet fitness, and combat if needed, standards.

Again, I really hope you two have your eyes opened when/if you enter an academy.

Then why even have the Upper Boddy Strenghth testing or for that matter, any standards at all if one group has an advantage.

I get your point but the whole argument is ridiculous.
Obviously the reason the Military is having this discussion is because it's planning on allowing standards to change and it will favor one group.<period
Why? To appease a very small minority of women officers that want....and again, something that was quoted here in another thread: 'career enhancing billits' on their resume.

Combat designations need to be change and also combat expearience should not be a resume enhancer. I don't believe that's a good idea but it's what needs to happen if you want to play this game. A PAO needs only to have the same expearience as say an Infantryman. Everyone is nice and equal....
 
Oxford,

1st off, I think everyone understands what you are trying to say here, but, I don't believe when you live 24/7 in the military world you will see the AVG person.

I mean that from both physical and mental perspectives.

By throwing avg in your argument, it really is theory.

When a person truly wants it from a mental standpoint you would be amazed at what they will put their body through to try to obtain it.

That being said, I also acknowledge that from a physical standpoint our bodies are built differently, and thus, for some no matter how bad you want it mentally, it may never equate physically.

Here's my guesstimate of what will occur.

Women will come in at first, but I suspect that these women really, really want it, so they will be able to at least meet the min. male pt.

People are actually talking about things like Ranger, PJ, Seal etc. The stds exist for males, not females. They take more than the PT test, they have other things like water and arctic survival to become qualified. Due to the fact that they do not have any women now in the system, it will probably be yrs before they can come to a decision of what women must achieve compared to men when they test for these areas from a pt stand point.

The question I think people should be asking is will they change these stds to have one for women and one for men.

The AF has had women in combat zones for yrs. Jeannie Flynn has been flying fighters for decades, and has been operational. That means she has performed combat missions. Fifi also has been combat, and I can continue down the line with Michelle, Denise, Cheryl, etc. All of them fly the F-15E. All of them have flown over the badlands be it ONW, OSW, or OIF. They took the same risk of getting hit with AAA as Bullet and the same risk of being captured.

Bullet was stationed as a commander in the green zone back in 04. His 2nd in command was suppose to be a woman. Obviously the green zone would be classified as combat for the AF. The job was a desk assignment, there was no need to qualify from a physical standpoint more than a man, yet it wasn't a safe area either.

Now, let's throw some real reality about women in combat.

That woman never made it to the green zone. Why? Because 36 hours prior to deploying from Kuwait, she came to him and said "I am pregnant". She knew just like him months in advance where she was going, but hours in advance they had to scurry to find a replacement.

That forced a guy who was suppose to return home to his family to stay weeks longer until they could get another replacement. It caused the AF to re-jig their personnel for her because the bunny rabbit died.

We now allow married military members to be stationed in the same areas. This officers husband was also in Kuwait. She got pregnant there.

Leave physical capability aside when we discuss combat, let's acknowledge there are also other issues that play into the mission. I do not want to go down the biology lesson road, but some of that will need to be addressed. Do we tell women if you want combat you must take a DEPO shot?
 
Last edited:
Oxford,

1st off, I think everyone understands what you are trying to say here, but, I don't believe when you live 24/7 in the military world you will see the AVG person.

I mean that from both physical and mental perspectives.

By throwing avg in your argument, it really is theory.

When a person truly wants it from a mental standpoint you would be amazed at what they will put their body through to try to obtain it.

That being said, I also acknowledge that from a physical standpoint our bodies are built differently, and thus, for some no matter how bad you want it mentally, it may never equate physically.

Here's my guesstimate of what will occur.

Women will come in at first, but I suspect that these women really, really want it, so they will be able to at least meet the min. male pt.

People are actually talking about things like Ranger, PJ, Seal etc. The stds exist for males, not females. They take more than the PT test, they have other things like water and arctic survival to become qualified. Due to the fact that they do not have any women now in the system, it will probably be yrs before they can come to a decision of what women must achieve compared to men when they test for these areas from a pt stand point.

The question I think people should be asking is will they change these stds to have one for women and one for men.

The AF has had women in combat zones for yrs. Jeannie Flynn has been flying fighters for decades, and has been operational. That means she has performed combat missions. Fifi also has been combat, and I can continue down the line with Michelle, Denise, Cheryl, etc. All of them fly the F-15E. All of them have flown over the badlands be it ONW, OSW, or OIF. They took the same risk of getting hit with AAA as Bullet and the same risk of being captured.

Bullet was stationed as a commander in the green zone back in 04. His 2nd in command was suppose to be a woman. Obviously the green zone would be classified as combat for the AF. The job was a desk assignment, there was no need to qualify from a physical standpoint more than a man, yet it wasn't a safe area either.

Now, let's throw some real reality about women in combat.

That woman never made it to the green zone. Why? Because 36 hours prior to deploying from Kuwait, she came to him and said "I am pregnant". She knew just like him months in advance where she was going, but hours in advance they had to scurry to find a replacement.

That forced a guy who was suppose to return home to his family to stay weeks longer until they could get another replacement. It caused the AF to re-jig their personnel for her because the bunny rabbit died.

We now allow married military members to be stationed in the same areas. This officers husband was also in Kuwait. She got pregnant there.

Leave physical capability aside when we discuss combat, let's acknowledge there are also other issues that play into the mission. I do not want to go down the biology lesson road, but some of that will need to be addressed. Do we tell women if you want combat you must take a DEPO shot?

That is a good point. I think that it will be a matter of just coming to an agreement of women being comfortable taking the shot, or whatever they decide to do, and the military being able to enforce a no pregnancy rule. It will probably be a little bit of politics and a little bit of trial and error. For example if they are initially just saying don’t get pregnant, then in the first year too many women do get pregnant, they may toughen the rules. If they did they might do too much and get a lot of complaints. I think you get the idea of what I’m saying.
 
Thus, that is my point, imagine the firestorm when the military demands this for women who want to serve in combat missions?

Where is the equality?

Why should she be forced to get a shot? Flip side if she doesn't what will be the recourse if she gets pregnant.

We can pretend to be ostriches, but the fact is there are many married military couples. SO how do you fairly address that issue? Guys can't get pregnant. Women can.

That is facts of life folks.
 
I agree with the majority of what Christcorps has said (unfortunately I don't know how to quote) but I think the most important point to remember when considering averages is that they don't necessarily apply to the sample group. If, say, Rangers decided to allow women to compete for a slot, the women who would compete would be almost definitely better than average in physical aspects. They would know the requirements and therefore be able to judge whether they had a chance or not - a self-selecting process. So while I agree with the validity of the biological arguments presented, it is important to remember that the average is not necessarily important when dealing with a few outliers, but instead the performance of the individuals. Just like with men, all women in the army will not automatically be able to branch in certain combat roles without meeting standards, but those meeting the standards should not be denied because of the average capabilities of their gender.
 
What is relevant is:

1. Establishing accurate and relevant standards and measurements for a "SPECIFIC" job/career field, mission, etc... that is required to perform that task. Physical, emotional, psychological, etc...
2. Allow anyone who can pass/satisfy those standards and measurements to perform those tasks.

Why is ANYTHING else RELEVANT? It isn't. It doesn't matter at all how many "X" or "Y" chromosomes someone has. It doesn't matter the color of their skin. Yes, men may and on average WILL find performing certain physical tasks to be "Easier" than for a woman. There's no arguing that. But my point: "And I'm having a difficult time understanding why ANYONE would need to argue BEYOND my point"; is, if the standard set for a particular job/task/etc... can be met by an individual, then why does is matter if one individual can meet those standards better than another. You either meet the standards, or you don't. It really is that simple.

I don’t agree that it’s that simple. To me, the bottom line isn’t about standards although standards are important. (Averages are nearly meaningless.) The question I think we need to ask is how integrating a woman into a SEAL (I’m not shouting, it’s an acronym) platoon will change the dynamic of that platoon. Does changing that dynamic affect the mission in a positive, negative, or neutral way?

Currently in the Navy the only designator not open to young women coming out of USNA, NROTC, or OCS (to my knowledge) is SEALs. If Congress enacts a change I don’t think it really makes any difference whether they have the same minimum PST requirements as males. An officer candidate has to compete into the program so meeting the standards is barely relevant since a competitive PST score far exceeds the standards. Candidates that have competitive PST scores are then evaluated according to many other factors to include academics, leadership, languages, etc. It’s not a matter of whether brain or braun is more important. A competitive candidate needs to be great at both.

Once in BUD/S, everything there is a competition as well (and it pays to be a winner). Yes, there are physical standards that must be met but that is a fraction of what is required. BUD/S is clearly not just a test of physicality. Mental toughness, academic ability, and technical skill are also major components. A successful female candidate won’t be concerned with meeting the standards since she’ll be driven by wanting to blow those standards out of the water and helping her classmates do the same.

I doubt it makes any difference whether one female graduates from BUD/S & SQT or if several females are in her class. After SQT they’ll all go to SEAL Teams and be assigned to different platoons. They don’t put all the newbies in the same platoon or even the same Team, particularly officers. Platoons have their own unique personalities and platoon dynamics are a crazy thing. It’s what the SEAL Teams are all about and it’s what enables them to do amazing things that no one ever hears about.

The effect on the mission is not only relevant but far more important than the debate over minimum standards.

As an aside, I don’t think the pregnancy issue matters all that much in the SEAL Teams. As much as I hate the analogy, I believe it would be dealt with in the same way as a major injury. SEALs like to be deployed, particularly to any “hotspot”. Many would be happy to jump in and take her place.
 
I don’t agree that it’s that simple. To me, the bottom line isn’t about standards although standards are important. (Averages are nearly meaningless.) The question I think we need to ask is how integrating a woman into a SEAL (I’m not shouting, it’s an acronym) platoon will change the dynamic of that platoon. Does changing that dynamic affect the mission in a positive, negative, or neutral way?

Currently in the Navy the only designator not open to young women coming out of USNA, NROTC, or OCS (to my knowledge) is SEALs. If Congress enacts a change I don’t think it really makes any difference whether they have the same minimum PST requirements as males. An officer candidate has to compete into the program so meeting the standards is barely relevant since a competitive PST score far exceeds the standards. Candidates that have competitive PST scores are then evaluated according to many other factors to include academics, leadership, languages, etc. It’s not a matter of whether brain or braun is more important. A competitive candidate needs to be great at both.

Once in BUD/S, everything there is a competition as well (and it pays to be a winner). Yes, there are physical standards that must be met but that is a fraction of what is required. BUD/S is clearly not just a test of physicality. Mental toughness, academic ability, and technical skill are also major components. A successful female candidate won’t be concerned with meeting the standards since she’ll be driven by wanting to blow those standards out of the water and helping her classmates do the same.

I doubt it makes any difference whether one female graduates from BUD/S & SQT or if several females are in her class. After SQT they’ll all go to SEAL Teams and be assigned to different platoons. They don’t put all the newbies in the same platoon or even the same Team, particularly officers. Platoons have their own unique personalities and platoon dynamics are a crazy thing. It’s what the SEAL Teams are all about and it’s what enables them to do amazing things that no one ever hears about.

The effect on the mission is not only relevant but far more important than the debate over minimum standards.

As an aside, I don’t think the pregnancy issue matters all that much in the SEAL Teams. As much as I hate the analogy, I believe it would be dealt with in the same way as a major injury. SEALs like to be deployed, particularly to any “hotspot”. Many would be happy to jump in and take her place.

That pregnancy issue is a little more complicated than jumping in and out of combat for a year or so. I get your argument, but you are kind of speculating to the point that you lose some validity. Assuming a female will hurt team dynamic is pushing it. Also you are preaching to the choir on most of what you said, about its more than just physicality, and she will be driven to surpass the minimum standards to be a SEAL. I want to go CRO (as probably everybody on this forum by now knows because I feel like I say it on every post) and I think everybody here agrees with cadets need to be more just a dumb athlete. Not trying to target you in an aggressive way, just pointing out that we already covered a lot of this, and I don’t expect you to read over 100 posts so just filling you in a little.
 
Back
Top