Truth.
Women of West Point
- Thread starter tankercaptain
- Start date
Most, if not all, of the backlash I have seen has been in regards to the infantry comment(s). A lot of male cadets feel like females should be held to the same physical standards; while that is a whole other can of worms that we don't need to go down here, it is nonetheless the source of most of the frustration I've seen on Facebook and Yik Yak.
Spot on BigBear. Most of what I have seen starts with dissing the article and then targets the physical standards. I would add many of the females feel frustrated with what they believe to be too low physical standards for them as well. Also lots of views expressed that the article makes the guys look bad...which I didn't read into the article at all. And Dixieland..the social media sites are the one BigBear refers to as well as twitter. Due to cadet privacy I cannot and will not share on this forum.
raimius
15-Year Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,013
I'm starting to dislike the "I'm a woman and need to prove women can do this stuff too!" attitudes.
I really don't care. Prove that YOU can do the job well. Some women will be able to do the job; some won't. Same with their male counterparts. You don't have to prove the ability of your whole gender to be a leader, just demonstrate that YOU the individual are capable and competent. The rest will fall into place.
I really don't care. Prove that YOU can do the job well. Some women will be able to do the job; some won't. Same with their male counterparts. You don't have to prove the ability of your whole gender to be a leader, just demonstrate that YOU the individual are capable and competent. The rest will fall into place.
I don't know -- I've heard a lot of "females can't do X" or "all football players are slackers" etc. type comments based on the failure of one particular individual in one particular training evolution. It doesn't surprise me that individuals who are subject to a high degree of scrutiny would feel like their success or failure will be seen as a reflection on the competence of the entire group . . . because that kind of judgment is made all the time as far as I can tell.
As a white guy in the USA I don't get that kind of scrutiny and I don't feel like I'm making a point for a larger group. But when I was in a training environment abroad where as an American I was a small minority I absolutely felt like if I crapped out people would make larger judgments about Americans (soft, etc.).
Finally, mids loved to complain and I presume the same is true about cadets. They also take shots at anybody getting media love. (For example, high profile athletes who were seen as slackers militarily but were getting written up like they were all bound for BUDS.) Too bad nobody took the youngest cadet aside and told her to be careful of the crazy backlash she'd get.
The problem starts with folks saying ""females can't do X" or "all football players are slackers" etc. The only thing absolute in life is death. Some of us like to make excuses and say that's not what I meant even though "females" imply all females and "all football players" means every football player. Individual female or football player, and etc shouldn't feel like they represent the whole group as they don't.
People should be taking shot at the media, not the folks getting media love. True story, I was interviewed by a Baltimore Sun reporter and he totally misquoted me on the article.
Sledge
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2014
- Messages
- 755
In my opinion - "Sort of." I have no doubt that certain quotes may have been taken out of context. The media does that all the time to tell a story a certain way, to fit a certain agenda. But, I don't think that reporter woke up one day and said, "I think I'm going to write a story about Women at West Point." West Point set that up, and they probably had a lot of influence about how it was written. I note in the "Infantry quote," Ms. Efaw refers to the "boys" laughing in her face. Maybe she said it that way, maybe the reporter flipped "men" for "boys" to emphasize immaturity. That's the kind of tendentious editing that goes on. I know my plebe was told not to refer to females as "girls."
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
Honestly, a reporter could have woken up one day and said "I think I'm going to write a story about woman at West Point." Or maybe it was something like this....
Editor: "This sexual assult stuff is getting hot in DC. There's got to be a story there. How hard is it to be a woman in the military? Hey reporter, work up a story about women in the military. Make it about how women have to prove themselves better than the men around them, in the alpha-male dominated military. Pick four impressive ones and do a profile on them."
Reporter: "Ok."
MAYBE West Point pitched it. But now I'll let you in on a secret, journalists don't like members of the federal government (even heroes in uniform) having "a lot of influence" on their writing. Sure, the access is granted by the organization, and the time and place is likely set by their public affairs office.... the writing is not dictated by that office.
Some journalists will let you have an advanced copy. Some journalists will ask you to inform them if there are any issues. But a journalist will laugh in your face if you want to review and approve before they go to press. That's a great way to burn a bridge.
Well, from my personal opinion quality of writing (content) looks like that that the reporter just work up and wrote the article. I would venture to guess if a basic West Point and military knowledge test is given to the reporter, he or she will fail it. Perhaps I am expecting too much for the report to have some basic understanding about West Point and military before he or she writes the article. How hard is to some background research before writing an article?
usna1985
15-Year Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 7,853
This makes no sense. Ask yourself why men and women don't compete against each other in track and field events, in tennis, in gymnastics, or in most sports. It's because there ARE certain physical differences in certain disciplines that make men perform better than women -- generally those requiring speed and strength.
The question is whether you are measuring fitness or setting standards to complete a task/job. If you are measuring fitness, some standards should differ because a fit male is faster and stronger than a similarly fit female. If you hold men and women to the "same" standards in, for example, a run, you are asking the woman to be more fit. If you don't believe me, see above -- men and women in the Olympics are equally fit but don't compete against each other in the 100m dash or the marathon or the shot-put . . .
If the purpose is to ensure military personnel can accomplish a task (e.g., SEALs), then a single standard is absolutely the right way to go.
Service Academy standards are about measuring fitness; thus there should be differences in the standards to reflect reality. The proper "difference" between requirements for males and females is something best left to the experts. But any guy who thinks a female who runs 1.5 miles in the same time he does is demonstrating she is as fit as him is nuts -- she is clearly in much better shape.
Is it fair that women achieve a higher standard than males?While it may be the "right way to go"; how surprised will you be if the following poster is correct and the current single standard is lowered to admit fit women and less fit men?
Sledge
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2014
- Messages
- 755
This is EXACTLY what the Army is formulating as we speak. An occupational fitness standard that will allow more women to serve in Infantry and Armor fields. It will, presumably, be a lesser standard than that is currently in place for men. The goal is gender neutral. So, as you suggested, men won't have to be as fit as they are now to serve in these fields. Women will probably have to be slightly more fit than their current APFT standards to serve in the combat arms.
Sure, as a Nation, we'll have to realize that 80%-90% (the men) of our combat arms won't be held to the high standards they once were. But, that will surely be more than offset by how good we'll all feel when we read New York Times articles about the first female infantry platoon leader, Ranger School graduate. etc.
Last edited:
This makes no sense. Ask yourself why men and women don't compete against each other in track and field events, in tennis, in gymnastics, or in most sports. It's because there ARE certain physical differences in certain disciplines that make men perform better than women -- generally those requiring speed and strength.
The question is whether you are measuring fitness or setting standards to complete a task/job. If you are measuring fitness, some standards should differ because a fit male is faster and stronger than a similarly fit female. If you hold men and women to the "same" standards in, for example, a run, you are asking the woman to be more fit. If you don't believe me, see above -- men and women in the Olympics are equally fit but don't compete against each other in the 100m dash or the marathon or the shot-put . . .
If the purpose is to ensure military personnel can accomplish a task (e.g., SEALs), then a single standard is absolutely the right way to go.
Service Academy standards are about measuring fitness; thus there should be differences in the standards to reflect reality. The proper "difference" between requirements for males and females is something best left to the experts. But any guy who thinks a female who runs 1.5 miles in the same time he does is demonstrating she is as fit as him is nuts -- she is clearly in much better shape.
Well said.
I'll add a couple examples.
When my son ran high school cross country there were a few that could not make the boy's varsity team but could beat the girls state champ. This in no way means that the girl was not fit. Fitness standards are different for men and women.
On the other hand, my sister is a firefighter, her standard fitness test is not the same as the men, however, the Physical Capabilities Test is a different story. The women have to carry the same weight, meet the same time requirements and standards as the men.
Hopefully the military will follow this same example.
Have you seen the minimum scores for Ranger School, not exactly in the "Stud" category
Ranger APFT Minimum Scores
Push-ups in 2:00 49
Sit-ups in 2:00 59
Pull-ups 6
Two-mile run 15:12
5 Mile run 40:00
16-mile hike w/65lb pack 5 hours 20 minutes
15-meter swim with gear Pass/Fail
Of course if your at the minimums....Ranger School will rough.
Ranger APFT Minimum Scores
Push-ups in 2:00 49
Sit-ups in 2:00 59
Pull-ups 6
Two-mile run 15:12
5 Mile run 40:00
16-mile hike w/65lb pack 5 hours 20 minutes
15-meter swim with gear Pass/Fail
Of course if your at the minimums....Ranger School will rough.
However, some Ranger students will run into "no," "no," "no" - right or wrong. Although the PT regulation is clear, but the arms becoming parallel to the ground during push up or the back being perpendicular to the ground during sit up can be somewhat subjective.
Can't remember when my Ranger class did our 5 mile run, but I am pretty sure it was several days after little sleep and little food. For my class, the 12 mile hike or more was after a week of getting smoked, little sleep, and little food. Throw in the Worm Pit (short obstacle course) and the Darby Queen (longer obstacle course), again with being tired, little sleep, and hungry, standards that seem not be in "stud" category become much harder that it looks.
P.s. My class broke ice to do our 15 meter swim - I heard a rumor it's indoor now - if not nothing like jumping into a 32/33 degree water . . . It was like a song "take my breath away . . ."
p.s.s For my class, a kicker was being allowed to retest land nav if you failed it first time, while students who passed rested.
Last edited:
EDelahanty
10-Year Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,577
No women have been permitted in Ranger School yet (contrary to the Duffel Blog), but some females have passed the Marine infantry course. I doubt Ray Rice would get away with sucker punching Pfc. Julia Carroll.
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20...y-Combat-schools-closed-women-until-MOSs-open
This makes no sense. Ask yourself why men and women don't compete against each other in track and field events, in tennis, in gymnastics, or in most sports. It's because there ARE certain physical differences in certain disciplines that make men perform better than women -- generally those requiring speed and strength.
The question is whether you are measuring fitness or setting standards to complete a task/job. If you are measuring fitness, some standards should differ because a fit male is faster and stronger than a similarly fit female. If you hold men and women to the "same" standards in, for example, a run, you are asking the woman to be more fit. If you don't believe me, see above -- men and women in the Olympics are equally fit but don't compete against each other in the 100m dash or the marathon or the shot-put . . .
If the purpose is to ensure military personnel can accomplish a task (e.g., SEALs), then a single standard is absolutely the right way to go.
Service Academy standards are about measuring fitness; thus there should be differences in the standards to reflect reality. The proper "difference" between requirements for males and females is something best left to the experts. But any guy who thinks a female who runs 1.5 miles in the same time he does is demonstrating she is as fit as him is nuts -- she is clearly in much better shape.
Really, I guess the enemy will be engaged only in area's of different standards. "Is it fair that women achieve a higher standard than males?" Is it not fair that men should be given the same standard as women?
usna1985
15-Year Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 7,853
You miss my point. I was very clear that if certain standards are required to perform a task or to qualify for a job, then this standards should be enforced regardless of gender, size, age, rank, etc.
The last time I checked, SA cadets/mids were not engaged with the enemy. Physical fitness standards at SAs are designed to ensure fitness. Once the cadets/mids are ready to be commissioned, they may need to meet different standards to enter/succeed at their next station/school.
"You miss my point." YOU VERY MUCH MISSED MY POINT.
"I was very clear that if certain standards are required to perform a task or to qualify for a job, then this standards should be enforced regardless of gender, size, age, rank, etc. " NO, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. A MALE AND A FEMALE "to perform a task or to qualify for a job" MUST HAVE THE SAME STANDARD. I MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THEY HAVE DIFFERENT STANDARDS. THE SAME WORK FOR THE SAME STANDARD.
"The last time I checked, SA cadets/mids were not engaged with the enemy." GOOD POINT! AFTER ALL THE KIDS ARE IN COLLEGE!
"Physical fitness standards at SAs are designed to ensure fitness."ANOTHER GOOD POINT! SO, THE SAME STANDARD WON'T PROVIDE THE SAME PHYSICAL FITNESS TO ALL? "then this standard should be enforced regardless of gender, size, age, rank, etc."
"Once the cadets/mids are ready to be commissioned, they may need to meet different standards to enter/succeed at their next station/school." EXCELLENT IDEA! THIS SHOULD BE TOLD TO THE KIDS IN HIGH SCHOOL. DON'T WORRY ABOUT YOUR PREVIOUS YEARS, YOU ARE GETTING READY TO GRADUATE AND YOU NEED TO THINK ABOUT ATTENDING COLLEGE NOW.