14
14
0
We continually see posts about how women will perform compared to men. Despite the numerous times women have proven themselves, women are still evaluated with a different set of criteria than men are. Men have families but rarely are they looked over because of family commitments while women are. When men cry it's viewed as a sign of being overwhelmed, when women cry it's viewed as a sign of weakness and a lack of mental toughness. When men are abrasive they are viewed as lacking patience, when women are abrasive they are viewed as being unfriendly and difficult to work with.
Men and women are stereotyped and portrayed differently. Do you want the most knowledgeable person or do you want the woman who scores high on the male PT standard?
This standard of comparison is hurting us as a team and interfering with the placement of the best person for the job.
Men and women are stereotyped and portrayed differently. Do you want the most knowledgeable person or do you want the woman who scores high on the male PT standard?
This standard of comparison is hurting us as a team and interfering with the placement of the best person for the job.
Posted in these groups: 
Women in the Military
Standards
Women in the Military Standards
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 20
5
5
0
This one is a bit of a minefield, but I'll stroll on in -
I think that reasonable people can agree that men and women are different, physically and psychologically.
What we are getting at really is bias. Bias has three components:
How she sees herself.
How she sees others.
How others see her.
In the case of women in the military, the one thing that generally has consensus is how she sees herself. I have known nearly zero women in the military who did not tell herself that she was in a male dominated land with something to prove to herself and others. That's an edge, and so long as it stays a positive, it is a good motivator to excel.
How she sees others is in my observation a true cultural stressor in the Army. I have known few women in the military who are not tougher on each other than men are. To them, the women who are (for lack of a better term) more "girly" are a blight that brings their reputation down. As a leader, this is difficult to harness to productive ends, but I have had some great female NCOs over the years that have been instrumental in policing up some of the more difficult to approach issues within my female Soldier population.
However, there are issues within the female population, and that is largely what many men see at issue here, so that brings me to the last bias, how others see her.
For women to truly achieve parity, they have to overcome both institutional and interpersonal bias. In the institutional bias, there is in fact a double standard. It is prominent in such things as Physical Fitness Tests, body composition, and yes, having quotas for slots in prestigious schools like the recently celebrated Ranger School graduates. In order to eliminate institutional bias, it is necessary to bring the standards to parity and have schools be solely on merit. So do standards have to come down for males or up for females or both? The Army will wrestle with that challenge for years to come.
The interpersonal bias is bigger and in some ways a function of the institutional bias, but it is defeatable. What it mostly boils down to is people conducting themselves professionally. We are all on the same team, and all of the members of that team need to pull their weight or they are a liability. Our diversity is our strength, but our unity of effort is essential to success.
Prove it to yourself.
Prove it to others.
And grudgingly, even the most biased will have to see that women are just as capable as their male teammates.
I think that reasonable people can agree that men and women are different, physically and psychologically.
What we are getting at really is bias. Bias has three components:
How she sees herself.
How she sees others.
How others see her.
In the case of women in the military, the one thing that generally has consensus is how she sees herself. I have known nearly zero women in the military who did not tell herself that she was in a male dominated land with something to prove to herself and others. That's an edge, and so long as it stays a positive, it is a good motivator to excel.
How she sees others is in my observation a true cultural stressor in the Army. I have known few women in the military who are not tougher on each other than men are. To them, the women who are (for lack of a better term) more "girly" are a blight that brings their reputation down. As a leader, this is difficult to harness to productive ends, but I have had some great female NCOs over the years that have been instrumental in policing up some of the more difficult to approach issues within my female Soldier population.
However, there are issues within the female population, and that is largely what many men see at issue here, so that brings me to the last bias, how others see her.
For women to truly achieve parity, they have to overcome both institutional and interpersonal bias. In the institutional bias, there is in fact a double standard. It is prominent in such things as Physical Fitness Tests, body composition, and yes, having quotas for slots in prestigious schools like the recently celebrated Ranger School graduates. In order to eliminate institutional bias, it is necessary to bring the standards to parity and have schools be solely on merit. So do standards have to come down for males or up for females or both? The Army will wrestle with that challenge for years to come.
The interpersonal bias is bigger and in some ways a function of the institutional bias, but it is defeatable. What it mostly boils down to is people conducting themselves professionally. We are all on the same team, and all of the members of that team need to pull their weight or they are a liability. Our diversity is our strength, but our unity of effort is essential to success.
Prove it to yourself.
Prove it to others.
And grudgingly, even the most biased will have to see that women are just as capable as their male teammates.
(5)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
thanks for concurring CMSGT. I agree on your 1st and 2nd paragraph. I put the context of my remark to mean some just like some men like things that are boring to me but not bad. I have no empathy for our former gold medal winner turned ersatz female. Was that guy actually Dr. Death in south american Joseph Mengele. Many nazis fled to south america and helped chile and paraguay hence the same german helmets. PBS is awesome and good dramas like you mentioned are priceless tv series not the overtabloided females that keep marrying losers and make the covers of trash again and again..LOL
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) - yes i was sticking up for the normal not the social deviate in the checkout line...
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see) - thanks CPT Mc for the compliments. Sometimes I may internalize stuff here. I just think there is enough pressure on women than the H2S (oil field term for poison well gas)generated by the those shows about the transgender-spoiled family that gets ratings but kills brain cells at the same time. I strive to be fair and gender respectful.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
I would want the most knowledgeable person who can ALSO perform to the highest physical standards, as is expected of leaders in the Combat Arms. If a woman can't perform physically on the same level as her male peers, then it doesn't matter how knowledgeable she is since she can't lead from the front (a crucial aspect of leadership in the Combat Arms). What is hurting us as a "team" are the people who think that a woman only needs to be knowledgeable and perform well on the female standard for PT.
(5)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) - In the Combat Arms they are. Those who can't meet the standard don't get promoted or get any schools and get out as E-4s. The few who squeak by spend their whole careers at TRADOC or on staff. I don't know why you think the standard is otherwise.
(0)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
My percentages are taken from the 4th RTB website. Simple math took care of the rest. If the numbers are wrong, go ahead and prove it. I dare you to. You can even borrow my calculator if you need it.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SPC (Join to see) - So you are only referring to RTB training? That's pretty narrow.
(0)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
It was the subject that was brought up and it was what I addressed. To put it into larger context, what does the Ranger Tab represent? It represents that a soldier has achieved a high level of mastery of small unit tactics (raid, recon, and ambush), field planning, and patrolling. In other words Infantry tactics and the crucible that is used to test a soldier's stamina, competence, knowledge and judgement is sleep and calorie deprivation. It also represents a rite of passage in the Infantry, particularly in the Airborne and Ranger communities. Pair that with the poor showing of women at Ranger School compared to their male counterparts and the fact that these women were all specially selected to attend Ranger School.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
When I joined the Navy, I weighed 143 lbs and was 5'8". Do you suppose I would have been selected to manage the loading of rounds for a 16" gun on a battleship? (yes, they were around when I joined.). What kind of strength does it take to manage reload on an M1 tank or repair a track on a tank? Point being, there are some jobs that require extraordinary strength to perform and many, including submarines, that do not require this level of strength, but mental ability is paramount. The best person is not chosen by sex, but ability to perform the job being assigned to. Physical ability, at times precedes mental powers. JMHO
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google