Women of West Point

In the Coast Guard, the standard to measure fitness is different for men and women, if someone enters the Rescue Swimmer Course they need to meet the same capability standards whether they are male or female.
Did the Coast Guard lower the "standards" when females attempted to become rescue swimmers? Will the Army lower it's standards for some of the combat arms (or whatever they're currently called) in order for women to meet the "standard"?
 
I believe they are talking about the difference between Fitness and Capability, two different things.

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

What is the point of having a fitness standard that by your own admission does not correlate to capability to perform the job? If passing the APFT (among other things) makes you "fit for duty," the APFT should actually measure your ability to perform your duty.

In response to the NCAA/Olympic comment- both the NCPA and Olympics declare Men's and Women's champions. Unless I missed that day of MS class, we don't declare Men's or Women's wars.
 
What is the point of having a fitness standard that by your own admission does not correlate to capability to perform the job? If passing the APFT (among other things) makes you "fit for duty," the APFT should actually measure your ability to perform your duty.

The question is . . . what is the "job?" Is the "job" being a USN officer or serving in a particular warfare specialty? Or being a midshipman?

Clearly a USN SEAL needs a higher level of fitness to perform his job than an officer serving on a submarine or ship or aircraft (or being a CEC officer, nurse, supply corps officer, etc.). The SEAL job has very high physical demands; driving ships/boats/airplanes requires many skills, but being able to run 4 miles in the wet sand in combat boots in 28 minutes isn't one of them. In order to be a ship driver, etc. there aren't a lot of physical skills required -- the USN really wants you not to be a fat slob -- so it imposes a test that measures fitness, and fitness has different standards for men and women in the USN for the same reason men and women don't compete vs. one another in most athletics.

If the USN imposed the SEAL standard on all officers, there wouldn't be enough people to fill the officer (or enlisted) billets. WRT mids, one must ask what physical skills are necessary to serve as a midshipman, who is not going to war while at USNA or even serving in a unit (other than during the summer). When they pick their warfare specialty, they will be tested for the required physical skills at the appropriate time and must pass, regardless of gender.

A USN PFT is designed to ensure that military members stay in shape. Because the test is administered to people of many ages across many, many disciplines, it is a general fitness test and not designed to measure anything more than that. Those members of the USN who need to be in better shape to do their jobs must meet the requirements of their particular warfare specialty -- e.g., SEALs, EODs, etc., -- and not only to get in but to stay in.

As an aside, I can only speak for the USN from personal experience. It may be that other services have a greater need for all officers to have meet certain physical standards in order to do their jobs. .
 
What is the point of having a fitness standard that by your own admission does not correlate to capability to perform the job? If passing the APFT (among other things) makes you "fit for duty," the APFT should actually measure your ability to perform your duty.

It seems like the issue we have is the thing called "Army Physical Fitness Test" and how it is used.

We have a situation where the AFPT is designed to assess individual's "fitness" but often the test results are interpreted as "physical ability" and in certain cases give some sort of advantage to more "fit" individuals where it should not.
 
The question is . . . what is the "job?" Is the "job" being a USN officer or serving in a particular warfare specialty? Or being a midshipman?

Clearly a USN SEAL needs a higher level of fitness to perform his job than an officer serving on a submarine or ship or aircraft (or being a CEC officer, nurse, supply corps officer, etc.). The SEAL job has very high physical demands; driving ships/boats/airplanes requires many skills, but being able to run 4 miles in the wet sand in combat boots in 28 minutes isn't one of them. In order to be a ship driver, etc. there aren't a lot of physical skills required -- the USN really wants you not to be a fat slob -- so it imposes a test that measures fitness, and fitness has different standards for men and women in the USN for the same reason men and women don't compete vs. one another in most athletics.

If the USN imposed the SEAL standard on all officers, there wouldn't be enough people to fill the officer (or enlisted) billets. WRT mids, When they pick their warfare specialty, they will be tested for the required physical skills at the appropriate time and must pass, regardless of gender.

A USN PFT is designed to ensure that military members stay in shape. Because the test is administered to people of many ages across many, many disciplines, it is a general fitness test and not designed to measure anything more than that. Those members of the USN who need to be in better shape to do their jobs must meet the requirements of their particular warfare specialty -- e.g., SEALs, EODs, etc., -- and not only to get in but to stay in.

As an aside, I can only speak for the USN from personal experience. It may be that other services have a greater need for all officers to have meet certain physical standards in order to do their jobs. .

This line of thinking makes no sense. The same job requires the same standard.

The Mids are preparing for active duty.

" one must ask what physical skills are necessary to serve as a midshipman, who is not going to war while at USNA or even serving in a unit (other than during the summer)."

The service Academies are the "UnCollege" schools for our best and brightest. They are preparing for war. Get them ready! Make it a one standard for the area's that require higher levels of fitness and another standard for the lower level of fitness and they will be tracked that way giving the each community a better product. Knowing that from the get go-prior to arrival on I-day that each group would be ready at the end of 4 yrs to enter that service. Just a thought-not an answer.

Sledge and BigBear are right on!
 
Last edited:
Did the Coast Guard lower the "standards" when females attempted to become rescue swimmers? Will the Army lower it's standards for some of the combat arms (or whatever they're currently called) in order for women to meet the "standard"?

Good question! I don't know about CG rescue swimmers. I've been out of the business for quite sometime.

I'm just an old grumpy dude who will be attending a "Marine Pilot" winging today.

Glad to see open discussions, not that anyone would change one iota.:thumb:
 
The question is . . . what is the "job?" Is the "job" being a USN officer or serving in a particular warfare specialty? Or being a midshipman?

Clearly a USN SEAL needs a higher level of fitness to perform his job than an officer serving on a submarine or ship or aircraft (or being a CEC officer, nurse, supply corps officer, etc.). The SEAL job has very high physical demands; driving ships/boats/airplanes requires many skills, but being able to run 4 miles in the wet sand in combat boots in 28 minutes isn't one of them. In order to be a ship driver, etc. there aren't a lot of physical skills required -- the USN really wants you not to be a fat slob -- so it imposes a test that measures fitness, and fitness has different standards for men and women in the USN for the same reason men and women don't compete vs. one another in most athletics.

If the USN imposed the SEAL standard on all officers, there wouldn't be enough people to fill the officer (or enlisted) billets. WRT mids, one must ask what physical skills are necessary to serve as a midshipman, who is not going to war while at USNA or even serving in a unit (other than during the summer). When they pick their warfare specialty, they will be tested for the required physical skills at the appropriate time and must pass, regardless of gender.

A USN PFT is designed to ensure that military members stay in shape. Because the test is administered to people of many ages across many, many disciplines, it is a general fitness test and not designed to measure anything more than that. Those members of the USN who need to be in better shape to do their jobs must meet the requirements of their particular warfare specialty -- e.g., SEALs, EODs, etc., -- and not only to get in but to stay in.

As an aside, I can only speak for the USN from personal experience. It may be that other services have a greater need for all officers to have meet certain physical standards in order to do their jobs. .

If the purpose of the PFT is to ensure no one gets fat, it's failing miserably. Why not just use a body composition test and save everyone some time?

If the purpose is to ensure that service members stay in shape, stay in shape for what? Most of us have agreed that the PFT doesn't do much to measure your ability to perform virtually any job in the military.
 
If the purpose of the PFT is to ensure no one gets fat, it's failing miserably. Why not just use a body composition test and save everyone some time?

If the purpose is to ensure that service members stay in shape, stay in shape for what? Most of us have agreed that the PFT doesn't do much to measure your ability to perform virtually any job in the military.

Way off topic, but are their a lot of fatties at WP? I saw a few football lineman types but that's to be expected.

I know in the field, I've seen quite the number of chunky soldiers - of both sexes. I always wonder how they get by on the test.

I always remember what my cousin (Lt. Col. - ret.) used to say about his time in the USMC: "In the Marines, if you look fat, you are fat, no matter how many push ups you can do or how fast you can run." I always thought that was funny, whether apocryphal or not.
 
Did the Coast Guard lower the "standards" when females attempted to become rescue swimmers? Will the Army lower it's standards for some of the combat arms (or whatever they're currently called) in order for women to meet the "standard"?

No, the CG did not lower the Standards for Rescue Swimmer.
 
What is the point of having a fitness standard that by your own admission does not correlate to capability to perform the job? If passing the APFT (among other things) makes you "fit for duty," the APFT should actually measure your ability to perform your duty.

There are PT studs that fail the Rescue Swimmer course all the time, I'm sure it's the same for Infantry, Ranger School, Seals....the list goes on. The APFT has little to do with it other then gauge a minimum fitness level.

Son went to Mountain Warfare, they were required to have a 270 or higher before starting. They started with 18 in their squad and finished with 11, most dropped out due the the physical demand. The one female that entered the course made it through. The standards were not different for her when it came to the training but I assume the APFT score she had was on the female scale.
Yes that means that all the rest that dropped out were male.

So I agree with you, the APFT has little to do with gauging your physical capabilities.

You only have to look at the dismal APFT scores of some enlisted infantry, I'm confident there are some females that could do better. If the current minimums for the male APFT are what you want as the standard then it still would be lacking for certain jobs.

Right now you are in a closed environment surrounded by cadets with the same goals and drive. Soon you will leave that cocoon and be in the open AD Army. Things are going to look a lot different when it comes to fitness and fitness capability, it's going to make you pull your hair out sometimes.

I have yet to be convinced that women in the Infantry and Armor is the right decision. That being said I do believe there are some that could be capable.

Always enjoy your posts and I have great respect for your views, best of luck with your final year at WP.
 
There are PT studs that fail the Rescue Swimmer course all the time, I'm sure it's the same for Infantry, Ranger School, Seals....the list goes on. The APFT has little to do with it other then gauge a minimum fitness level.

Son went to Mountain Warfare, they were required to have a 270 or higher before starting. They started with 18 in their squad and finished with 11, most dropped out due the the physical demand. The one female that entered the course made it through. The standards were not different for her when it came to the training but I assume the APFT score she had was on the female scale.
Yes that means that all the rest that dropped out were male.

So I agree with you, the APFT has little to do with gauging your physical capabilities.

You only have to look at the dismal APFT scores of some enlisted infantry, I'm confident there are some females that could do better. If the current minimums for the male APFT are what you want as the standard then it still would be lacking for certain jobs.

Right now you are in a closed environment surrounded by cadets with the same goals and drive. Soon you will leave that cocoon and be in the open AD Army. Things are going to look a lot different when it comes to fitness and fitness capability, it's going to make you pull your hair out sometimes.

I have yet to be convinced that women in the Infantry and Armor is the right decision. That being said I do believe there are some that could be capable.

Always enjoy your posts and I have great respect for your views, best of luck with your final year at WP.

This really spot on except I think women can do it. My son has done really really draining things. He says at says at a point it just becomes mental. Doesn't matter how many quick sittups, pushups you can do. Its about reaching down for that last bit inside of you. Understanding that, I dont mean to be sexist but the fact is women are tougher than men. They give birth. No man would ever handle that.

Note: I had to watch that birth thing four times
 
Last edited:
This really spot on except I think women can do it. My son has done really really draining things. He says at says at a point it just becomes mental. Doesn't matter how many quick sittups, pushups you can do. Its about reaching down for that last bit inside of you. Understanding that, I dont mean to be sexist but the fact is women are tougher than men. They give birth. No man would ever handle that.

Note: I had to watch that birth thing four times

Oh, don't get me wrong. I totally agree with you. I have no doubt there are women that could meet the current standards and mission.

My sister is a Firefighter and Paramedic in Nevada, She is just finishing up her 2nd two week tour on a wildfire in CA. Last week she and her team were air dropped on a mountain, spent 3 days fighting the fire then hiked out 13 miles carrying about 100lbs of gear each. 2 of the men on her team had to be air lifted out due to exhaustion. My sister is 49, the men who couldn't make it were 20 + years her junior.

To be honest, if I didn't agree with you....she'd probably just beat me up.
 
Oh, don't get me wrong. I totally agree with you. I have no doubt there are women that could meet the current standards and mission.

My sister is a Firefighter and Paramedic in Nevada, She is just finishing up her 2nd two week tour on a wildfire in CA. Last week she and her team were air dropped on a mountain, spent 3 days fighting the fire then hiked out 13 miles carrying about 100lbs of gear each. 2 of the men on her team had to be air lifted out due to exhaustion. My sister is 49, the men who couldn't make it were 20 + years her junior.

To be honest, if I didn't agree with you....she'd probably just beat me up.

+1
 
This line of thinking makes no sense. The same job requires the same standard. The Mids are preparing for active duty.

In a way, we're on the exact same page. In another, we're worlds apart.:smile:

The majority of USNA grads will never be in a position where speed, strength and/or endurance are critical. Rather, for most USN officers, the most important quality (other than, of course, leadership) is intelligence/knowledge/skill. Remember, most USN officers drive ships and subs or fly/navigate aircraft. Others are in "support" specialties, such as supply, medical, aviation maintenance, etc. Brains, not brawn.

Take nukes. Lots of mids/JO don't/didn't have the brains in math, science, and engineering to be a nuke (and I count myself one of them). When driving a sub, it makes no difference whether you can run a mile in 6:00, 7:00 or 12:00 -- you aren't doing much running on a sub. Nor whether you can carry a heavy pack. It's whether you understand how to run a reactor and what to do if something goes wrong, which could kill not only everyone on board but potentially create a nuclear crisis. Other than not being able to get down the ladders:smile:, you could probably be 300 lbs and horribly out of shape and still be a great nuke. And, if you're on a sub in an emergency, you would MUCH rather have a technically savvy senior officer than a PT stud (assuming both are equally good leaders).

Services that are more ground-intensive such as the USA and USMC probably have a different perspective, and I respect that.
 
And so it begins. I'd say the hard part with Ranger School is not getting in but getting through. We'll see.


Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
 
so it begins . . .

Women-invited-apply-Ranger-School

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140912/NEWS/309120058/Women-invited-apply-Ranger-School

I was told that I had to go to Ranger school because I branched Infantry . . .

This quote from the article states there will be no difference in the standards. It will interesting to see how many volunteer. The women also need to meet the same requirements as the men to be accepted to the school.

"If approved, the Ranger course assessment will have male and female soldiers training together, according to the Army. The standards will remain the same, and there will be no change to current performance requirements or graduation standards, officials said."

Have there been any women branched Infantry to date? I would assume that Ranger School would be part of that package.
 
And so it begins. I'd say the hard part with Ranger School is not getting in but getting through. We'll see.


Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app

True but that is the case with most men.

One of my son's roomates at Norwich spent some extra time there with a shoulder injury. When he got restarted he broke his foot on the last Ruckmarch on the last day. Finished the last 8 miles on that broken foot with 80 pounds on his back. Got his tab on crutches, the very tough cadre were indeed inpressed.

I guess it is one of those things a man or a woman decides how much they want it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top