Women of West Point

[MemberLG]

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

Unless things have changed getting Ranger school is hard for non combat arms or combat arms non Ranger coded position holders. If you don't get to Ranger school, no chance. If you make it Ranger school, you got about 50% chance of graduating. Back in mid 90's Ranger school changed from a leadership course to tactics course. If it is a leadership course females should allowed to attend. Only way my mech infantry unit soldiers went to Ranger school was as an reenlistment option and that was rare as most positions in the mech unit were not coded Ranger.

 

[cga82]

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

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, 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.

If being worlds apart means that not 1 standard is being practised then we are worlds apart.

I tend to agree with BigBear, MiddyB, Sledge and others. If you don't have a same standard for all then you create all types of problems.

Whenever you add a BUT or AND to a standard then it's just a flowering of the standard or watering down that standard. It's like making excuses or giving an alibi. We should not care who is doing the job only that that person is capable of doing it because they have met the same requirements (or better) that the others have met. To say anything more is like adding the alibi of AND's and BUT's to change the standard.

It's really quite a simple concept -same standard for the same job- no IFs , ANDs or BUT. Are you saying that all MIDS/CADETS are under the same standard?

 

[usna1985]

It's really quite a simple concept -same standard for the same job- no IFs , ANDs or BUT.

That's a very simplistic view of the world and one that assumes that physical skill is the only -- or most important -- criterion in today's military. Men tend to hold this view because they know that, on average, they are faster and stronger than their female counterparts -- not because they work harder but because of genetics. Thus, if the standards are "equal" in terms of certain physical skills, they really aren't equal at all and give men an inherent advantage. I get that.

If one admits that the most critical skill is intelligence, the playing field truly is equal because, on average, men and women have equal intelligence. I get that too.

Finally, the standard for most jobs, including military jobs, is excellence. There are many paths to excellence and measuring excellence is typically more subjective than objective.

The above said, I do respect your opinion, even though I disagree with it.

 

[bruno]

It seems to me that this thread is basically composed of two non-intersecting arguments. The "fitness" tests like the APFT really are a measure of general physical health and it seems both fair and valid to have different standards for men and women and at a place like USMA it seems perfectly appropriate. The APFT is not a measure of Physical capability or absolute strength and really doesn't relate to job aptitude much other than weeding out the very worst prepared. Plenty of 300's on PT tests who can not hump an hour with a 100 lb Ruck and a Mortar bipod much less slog thru swamp phase in Florida. This thread highlights the need for the services - especially the Army and Marine Corps- to develop branch/MOS specific standards that accurately portray the physical demands of types of MOS's and units.

My concern with all this is frankly that the Army has a long history of adjusting its requirements and tests to what it perceives as the "correct" outcome, (it's no coincidence that the Army adopted the ACU and persisted with doing so, despite troops in the field complaints about the uniform as being ineffective ) and as one of the earlier posters pointed out in this thread- I can well imagine the hue and cry should they develop an Infantry Physical strength and endurance standard in which 4x as many males pass as do females. My bet- even if a test like that is accurate as to the requirements, the Army will not chance a test that produces anything other than numerically balanced outcomes. (The Marines might though- until the current Commandant at least, they seemed to be the most institutionally honest of all the Services when it comes to standing by what is good for their service on all kinds of issues.) Rather- I suspect they will resort to some convoluted parsing of best case scenarios and change the requirements ("modern warfare" is the phrase that seems to crop up a lot) to reflect an acceptable (and even) pass rate. Then they will buck the real problem down the line to the Company level grunts who will suddenly be confronted with yet another "training challenge" to produce a unit that can perform in the pre-modern warfare that places a premium on physical strength and endurance that a Grunt actually has to exist in.

 

[Sledge]

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.

.

Same standards "to be accepted?" The minimums? As was pointed out earlier in the thread, I imagine there are a good number of women that can do that. What about earning the tab? What is that standard?

If the requirements to graduate aren't changed (I'm very skeptical), the problem will be after the first woman or two graduates - legitimately - when we are sometime down the road from that warm afterglow of the Today Show/Oprah/NYT celebrations, and someone decides the "percentage"of women graduating from Ranger school just isn't right. Might just need to "review" the requirements at that point.

 

[NorwichDad]

IMy concern with all this is frankly that the Army has a long history of adjusting its requirements and tests to what it perceives as the "correct" outcome, (it's no coincidence that the Army adopted the ACU and persisted with doing so, despite troops in the field complaints about the uniform as being ineffective ) and as one of the earlier posters pointed out in this thread- I can well imagine the hue and cry should they develop an Infantry Physical strength and endurance standard in which 4x as many males pass as do females. My bet- even if a test like that is accurate as to the requirements, the Army will not chance a test that produces anything other than numerically balanced outcomes. (The Marines might though- until the current Commandant at least, they seemed to be the most institutionally honest of all the Services when it comes to standing by what is good for their service on all kinds of issues.) Rather- I suspect they will resort to some convoluted parsing of best case scenarios and change the requirements ("modern warfare" is the phrase that seems to crop up a lot) to reflect an acceptable (and even) pass rate. Then they will buck the real problem down the line to the Company level grunts who will suddenly be confronted with yet another "training challenge" to produce a unit that can perform in the pre-modern warfare that places a premium on physical strength and endurance that a Grunt actually has to exist in.

True on making things fit. Maybe there is a need to make it fit. Looking at the mission and the past years of actual practice in places with 12th Century attitudes towards women, it is nice to show what women can do in front of them. It can break some deep sterotypes and make some people think. For some it may just piss them off. Some of those women assigned to special forces did amazing things that only women can do in those places.

 

[cga82]

That's a very simplistic view of the world and one that assumes that physical skill is the only -- or most important -- criterion in today's military.

Nope, don't put words in my mouth. Intelligence is very much an important factor and to add that slur is a cheap tactic.

I do like the KISS principal because it puts lawyers out of a job.

When people add things to a statement and try to claim them as to what you said or believe, as you have done, it only shows that they have to make things up to try to win.

That approach may work on others but not here!

Same job same standard. Ya, same intelligence.

It's only fair!

 

[Jcleppe]

Same standards "to be accepted?" The minimums? As was pointed out earlier in the thread, I imagine there are a good number of women that can do that. What about earning the tab? What is that standard?

If the requirements to graduate aren't changed (I'm very skeptical), the problem will be after the first woman or two graduates - legitimately - when we are sometime down the road from that warm afterglow of the Today Show/Oprah/NYT celebrations, and someone decides the "percentage"of women graduating from Ranger school just isn't right. Might just need to "review" the requirements at that point.

Well, as of now they intend to keep the standards for graduation the same as they are. We can all speculate but nobody has a crystal ball, all anyone can do is see how this plays out if they get any applicants.

 

[MomWPgirl]

With all the talk of different APFT gender standards, I am curious what posters think an acceptable APFT score for females should be. I looked up averages and found that for all 17-21 y/o (both male and female) the army average is 243. For males (all ages) the average is 238. For females (all ages) the average is 236(female standard). So on the "male scale" what do you think an appropriate female score should be for a cadet. Many of the females I know score a 230-250 on the "male scale". Just curious to see what score others would feel is fair as there is some much discussion about the different standards.