Why is it we're debating military standards and female abilities?

Sgt Spencer Sikder — Mon, 07 Dec 2015 08:48:48 -0500

Why is it that the standards, written primarily by men, in many cases years and years ago, is how we are to "set" the rules? With the advances in medicine and modern warfare, why aren't the "objectives" established and our informed military physicians, military mental health professionals and military strategists brainstorming to set the appropriate "standards?" Just a side, I notice when tagging the topics, there is one for "women in the military" but not one for "men in the military," is this a further example of the perspective "we" look at things?

Response by SFC Stephen King made Dec 7 at 2015 8:52 AM

SFC Stephen King — Mon, 07 Dec 2015 08:52:26 -0500

Sgt Spencer Sikder great question the time has come to look at all standards equally and not worry about gender male, female or Trans gender. We need to change our perspective to allow growth and a successful transition to adapt.

Response by SGT Dylan Epp made Dec 7 at 2015 8:53 AM

SGT Dylan Epp — Mon, 07 Dec 2015 08:53:11 -0500

Why don't women compete against men in the Olympics? Or any professional sport? but somehow interesting them into combat arms is just fine?

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Dec 7 at 2015 9:17 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 07 Dec 2015 09:17:32 -0500

Unfortunately, most of us are Laymen on the vast majority of topics as opposed to Subject Matter Experts. We have Specialties, and we have Opinions, but that doesn't make them facts when it comes to "standards."

Standards is a HORRIBLE word. Especially when trying to describe a concept. It just is, because people don't understand what the word actually means.

When you say "why don't women have to perform to the same standards as men on the PFT?" They do. They have to get the same SCORE. The SCORE is the STANDARD. The issue however is the the Score is Normalized to account for Physiological differences, to compare to UNLIKE "machines."

Therefore, it is not that we don't have the same standards, we have different METRICS, which is what the complaint is about. The issue about metrics is one of ignorance, and purpose.

Example: Run Speed. Males & Females have SEVERAL Physiological Differences which make them, AS CLASSES, have different run capabilities, amounting to "about" 1 minute per mile slower speed. This does not mean that an INDIVIDUAL female is not capable of running as fast as an INDIVIDUAL male, just that when comparing CLASSES, they are not equal physically. There is LOTS of empirical data on this, most notably every endurance race in existence from 5k to Marathon distances.

Now, this is SCIENCE (Medical) based, and the TIME requirements for the run portion (Metric) are OBJECTIVE measures, during the (A)PFT which is a SUBJECTIVE test (because it uses own body weight). Confused yet?

Now, let's step out of the PFT for a second. Grooming standards are OBJECTIVE. They're in B&W. There are 2 "standards" and they are gender based. These are based on cultural norms, and have been slightly modified as times have changed since the induction of women into the military. Rather than calling them standards, it is better to call them "Policy" because that is what it is. You are either inside the policy, or outside the policy (Yes/No). Whereas a standard has a minimum which must be met, but can have greater variation like a Rifle range score (Unqualified, Marksman, Sharpshooter, Expert).

When you add all these concepts together, plus the reality that this is a male dominated segment of society (85% Service Wide, 90%+ in USMC) we get some vary distorted OPINIONS about what INDIVIDUALS and CLASSES should be capable of without realizing the biases we are falling into inadvertently. We see 1 female that is keeping up, so we assume that all females should be able to. We develop an us v. them mentality (survival trait). We are adverse to change. All of this compounds a problem, and we are thinking emotionally versus logically.

The way to counteract that is to develop the CORRECT TYPE OF TESTING (the PFT isn't it), or metric for Combat Efficiency. The USMC identified that need and that is why they started with MCT decades ago. Then the Integration Testing & the IOC Testbed program, and the CFT. They're reviewing the PFT/CFT again and seeing if these are the right kinds of test for a modern warfighter.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 7 at 2015 10:30 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Dec 2015 10:30:29 -0500

let just eliminate all gender barrier in the sport too. No more girls basket ball, volley ball or female category . combine both and see what happen ...

oh ... then they will still complain male dominated the fields ... lol

This is not about equality, this is about Inequality. They want female to be "preferred" in a field that male dominates.

Then for sure, some area in the military will dominated with female too ... but then ... that is what they wanted.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 7 at 2015 11:53 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Dec 2015 11:53:33 -0500

The standards as they are now are not just arbitrary numbers, believe it or not. They started off as one set of minimum qualifications and have been adjusted accordingly throughout time. Military courses and training are constantly adapting to the most current evidence-based practices for the operating environments and enemies we are most likely to engage. Sometimes there are missteps... I'm specifically thinking of when SFAS was dropped down to 2 weeks in an attept to garner more eligible candidates for the Q course. It ended up being a failure in that it helped pump out more candidates but the gradation numbers from the Q course remained the same. In other words, the Army was paying for more candidates but wasn't reaping the benefits of more operators due to a higher attrition rate.

Response by SFC Maury Gonzalez made Dec 7 at 2015 12:38 PM

SFC Maury Gonzalez — Mon, 07 Dec 2015 12:38:33 -0500

About 2 or 3 years ago,the army warrior of the year was won by a woman, Sgt Gallagher I think was her name, from the usamu at benning

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 7 at 2015 1:17 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Dec 2015 13:17:40 -0500

Here we go again.
This is the "world according to Jerry", but I will try and take a swing and see if you all will pick up what I am putting down.
*Standards* are not "standard". They are set by the commander based upon METL and anticipated mission. An easy example of this is Infantry. Standards vary widely between light Infantry, mechanized or Stryker Infantry, and Rangers. They are all 11Bs, but they are going to train and be measured by their commanders very differently. Train like you fight.
Standardized tests like the APFT don't measure the Soldier or define whether or not they are good enough. I have seen plenty of PT studs that are useless out in the field. What the APFT does is give the commander a tool to assess the physical fitness of his/her unit and determine what training they should conduct and whether that training is effective at improving overall fitness. The PT Test instructions themselves tell us this every time we take one.

To bring it back to the topic and keep it brief, if it is my unit I am just fine with having an APFT with different standards for males and females (or younger and older Soldiers, for that matter). What I really want to see is if we have a timed event like say a 15 km road march in say two hours, that everyone in my unit crosses the line at or under two hours. Young, old, female, male, clerk, cook or grunt.
Because my unit has standards.
Set by the boss.
And if you do not meet them, I will train you until you do.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Dec 7 at 2015 11:11 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Mon, 07 Dec 2015 23:11:07 -0500

Sgt Spencer Sikder I hear your frustration. I think some times some of our brothers in arms get a little reactionary, even emotional reacting to integration.

That said many are voicing genuine concerns about what their particular part of the military is supposed to do. I personally have been a long time advocate for equal standards (of every kind) and equal opportunity (of every kind. Although this article (written by someone with unique experience and perspective on the matter) challenged me on that and I revised my thinking when it comes to non Special-Operations combat arms.
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/why-women-do-not-belong-in-the-u-s-infantry

As to your questioning of the standards: I think it is right to challenge the status quo and to seek to make ourselves ever better. Better at our mission. And the mission of the military is to kill people and break things. In the end it isn't "informed military physicians, military mental health professionals and military strategists " who set the standards,. It is combat. Combat sets the standards and combat enforces the standards, ruthlessly, heartlessly, crushingly. It is up to us to learn the standards combat has taught us through the blood of our comrades spilled. Then to train our younger brothers and sisters to those standards, knowing that if we fail to hold them to the standards, combat will do so. Lethally.

"Why Women Do Not Belong in the U.S. Infantry" | RallyPoint

From: The Marine Corps Gazette While reading the February issue of the Marine Corps Gazette, I skimmed past the “Be Bold” advertisement calling for readers to submit articles that challenge a Marine Corps policy or way of doing business. Immediately a current “hot topic” came to mind, but as usual I quickly discarded it because I have purposely avoided publicly disagreeing with the passionate opinions of many of my female peers and friends....

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 30 at 2018 9:31 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 30 Jan 2018 09:31:33 -0500

Sir I believe we are having this debate about women because it is settled regarding men. No one has any trouble excluding male soldiers from Ranger, Soecial Forces, SOAR, Special Operations, Free fall, Divers, Infantry, Piolet AOCs who fail the requirements-did to not meet the established standards. No one discusses it because they failed to meet the standard and by definition didn’t make the cut. The issue is that we want to have a military that reflects our society and it’s pluralistic values. We want to ensure that we don’t limit candidates for positions “based on gender” which is a noble and necessary goal. Eliminating a candidate merely because they are female is ileagal under current law. The question we have to ask ourselves is what should be the best physical standards for a given MOS or task? How important is strength and the ability to fight hand to hand? And the secondary deeper issue, will modification, adjusting certain qualifications reduce readiness and war fighting capability? We may decide it does but the cost is worth the gained benefit. It is a fact that attendance at high speed military schools, program and units set servicemembers up for leadership positions and denying those opportunities may reduce steer options. Changing a standard might also have no effect upon the war fighting strength of the military. This begs a larger question for society about what should be the extent of our inclusivity, reliance on standards to measure candidates and emphasis on outcomes. Where will we as a society set the limits? Is it discrimination for short people to be excluded from basketball teams? Should we allow and insist upon football linemen who are skinny? Naturally some will mock any proposals of this type with allegories of about blind Piolets, scientists or physicians who are intellectually challenged etc. Straw man arguments aside, we do need to wrestle with this thorny topic of what qualifications are immutable versus what traits must be essential and to be protected at any cost versus those which we can change or reduce in order to achieve a societal goal on inclusivity ... a very difficult question for any Democracy to engage in. If the exclusion is not class based, is it Ok? What does that say about our dedication to diversity? How do we reconcile these terms and ideas which can be in opposition at times?
Excellent issue to raise.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Aug 4 at 2018 8:06 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sat, 04 Aug 2018 20:06:10 -0400

I am an advocate for equal opportunity, however, I have concerns about the accelerated rate of depreciating female bodies in combat arms due to physiological differences between men and women. I truly want women to have an equal chance to serve in combat arms.