Are women held to a higher standard than men?

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 10:19:16 -0500

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.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jan 2 at 2016 10:27 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 10:27:48 -0500

Unfortunately we view women through a "societal lens" which is different than we view men. That is not to say we hold them to a higher or lower standard, but it is a different standard depending on subject. To say otherwise would be lying.

We can look at our criminal justice system and see how punishments are met out for the same crimes to see examples of "better treatment."

We're human, and we like to categorize things. It doesn't matter if it is by make & manufacture, like Coke & Pepsi, Colors like Red & Blue, or gender. We do it. It's built into our subconscious. We must actively work to not use the garbage data, and only use the portions which actually matter.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2016 11:06 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 11:06:00 -0500

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.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jan 2 at 2016 11:06 AM

LTC Bink Romanick — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 11:06:11 -0500

CPT Private RallyPoint Member unfortunately women are held to a different standard than men. We have a changing culture where women are in less traditional roles (and have been for some time). There are sectors in our society and regional differences in attitude on this change.

The fact that women are achieving in all sectors is unnerving to some and the differences in ways and means of goal achievement can be construed as a difference in performance. This difference is not negative but it appears to be to the chauvinist.

There shouldn't be different standards but there certainly are, but women achieve no matter how the goal posts are moved.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Jan 2 at 2016 12:25 PM

COL Jon Thompson — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 12:25:58 -0500

I don't believe women are held to a higher standard. I think you can argue that is the opposite. A case in point is LtCol Kate Germano who commanded the USMC female recruit battalion (see link below). She complained that male Marines did not expect female Marines to perform at a higher level. She was relieved in part because she wanted to hold the females to a higher standard. Another example is the female APFT standards which outside of sit-ups are lower then male standards. I think men and women are portrayed differently because we are. I have also seen that in higher level staffs, the gender did not make a difference. There it was the quality of the work the person did and in that, males and females were held to the same standard. I think we need to accept the biological and physiological differences between the majority of men and women and use those differences to our advantage.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/07/07/kate-germano-fired-marine-corps-female-recruit-unit-commander/29763371/

Controversy surrounds firing of Marines' female recruit battalion CO

A command investigation into Lt. Col. Kate Germano's leadership at Parris Island's 4th Recruit Training Battalion found she was "hostile,

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Jan 2 at 2016 1:08 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 13:08:12 -0500

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

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Jan 2 at 2016 1:23 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 13:23:43 -0500

Google this article. It is an excellent treatise on the subject. I would provide the link, but it is two pages in length.

The Arrival of the Female Four-Stars

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2016 1:26 PM

CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 13:26:02 -0500

Social standards... Maybe. Army standards... Negative. It's clear that standards will need to be level at some point in the near future.

There are two sets of standards in my mind. The obvious are those that are in the ARs. And those are clearly not asking women for more, but for less. The other is the social standard. Combat arms MOS's are going to hold females to a higher standard for now. Many are not yet convinced that it will work. Every change throughout history has been the same way. I think we level the first to help deal with the second. That would be a start.

Response by SSG Keven Lahde made Jan 2 at 2016 1:38 PM

SSG Keven Lahde — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 13:38:15 -0500

CPT Private RallyPoint Member Yes Ma'am I believe you are. I don't think its right but you are due to the fact that men in general feel they can do everything better than women and I don't think its right. There are a lot of women who I would pick over some men to take into battle with me. I am glad times are changing, but I think that stigma might never go away.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2016 2:10 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 14:10:55 -0500

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.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2016 3:49 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 15:49:28 -0500

I wouldn't say necessarily a higher standard, but women are held to a standard using much different criteria then their male counterparts. Both men and women should have similar critical thinking and reasoning abilities, so both have the ability to be great leaders. In question would be the ability of strength, agility and mental toughness of the mind to cope with the rigors of the challenges to be faced. Especially if you are talking about the spec ops community or combat arms. I would think you would want someone from both sides of the coin, knowledgeable and physical not necessarily either or. I also think women in command are harder on other women then many men are. Just look at COL Jon Thompson link on this thread. 1SG Private RallyPoint Member also offers a great analysis on this subject. I personally have the greatest respect for all the women I had pleasure to serve with. They did there jobs very well. Are there some who failed to maintain what I perceived to be proper standards and etiquette of military culture, that answer would be yes. But there was also many men who fell in that same boat and didn't belong in the military. As MAJ Carl Ballinger said, "That is not to say we shouldn't work hard to treat people fairly, but "fair" does not always mean same. Men and women are different, and that is a good thing."

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2016 5:15 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 17:15:34 -0500

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y5Ld_zx_zw
In my first 5 years in the CA ARNG, I was an MP enlisted then moved up to 1LT and I worked with female BN XO, company co, company xo, 1sg, psg, platoon leader, sergeants and team leaders. they are capable and one shown here is a good example for others to emulate with or without a firefight.

Sergeant Leigh Ann Hester - First female soldier to win Silver Star since WW2

Sergeant Leigh Ann Hester talks from Baghdad to a reporter from CBS about her role as a military police officer with the 617th Military Police and the attack...

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jan 2 at 2016 7:19 PM

PO1 John Miller — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 19:19:30 -0500

I don't necessarily see it that way: when men cry I tend to think of them as b**ches. When they are abrasive I view them the same way I do abrasive women, as butt holes.

As far as your second paragraph, I guess it really depends on the job. If we're talking about a combat arms field where muscular strength and endurance are of the utmost importance, I would want a woman who can score high on male PT standards. If we're in a field such as mine (IT), I want the most knowledgeable person.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2016 4:14 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 04:14:42 -0500

I'd like to comment on the aspect of this discussion related to APFT standards, Ranger School and combat Arms. The issue, IMO, isn't one of standards but of opportunity. Yes, the APFT has different standards for men and women, that are normed to the population as a whole and reflect the physiological differences between men and women. Just as the differences in the standards for age groups account for the physiological differences that develop from aging.

But the thing to recognize is that the current APFT has no tie to or is normed against actual job performance in any MOS. Going back decades, the Army talked about developing true physical standards for each MOS, to address things like do you have to lug around huge artillery rounds or change track, etc. That way, any soldier seeking an MOS would have to demonstrate they could meet those standards. But the task proved to unwieldly and I believe no standards were ever adopted.

So the bottom line on the APFT is that the Army has known for decades that it is not a tool for assessing the physical requirements for any MOS, including combat arms. It reminds me of a British AAR after the Falklands War that noted that it turned out that many of the troops who were considered tremendously in shape because they could run fast for miles and miles faired much worse carrying their rucks in the bogs than so called "slow" soldiers who struggled on 5 mile runs but could hump a ruck like crazy.

Now to Ranger School. The issue here isn't the APFT standards because the same ones were used. The issue is one of the opportunity to try. Every year, hundreds or thousands of male soldiers are sent to Ranger School and they wash out in the first week or so because they can't hack the physical demands. They passed the necessary tests before going to the school, but when they got there, they failed. Usually around half of them.

But the important point is that they got the opportunity to try. The Army looked at them and said if you can meet the prerequisites of the course, then you young man, get a chance to prove you can do it. But a female in that same situation, who met the identical physical standards for attendance, didn't even get the chance to try or to prove she could do it. Instead, the Army as an institution said, " you can't go, even though you showed you qualify, because you're a girl. ".

That's it. It doesn't matter if 40% of men can make it and maybe only 15% of women can, overall for the total population. Ranger School isn't about the average population. It's about identifying the best. So for example, if you have two MI LTs as Plt Ldrs in the same company, one male and one female, and both meet the same Ranger School prerequisites, how can we as an Army say the male can attend the premier leadership school in the Army, and it will make him a better leader and soldiers under him will benefit, but sorry LT #2, you're a girl so you don't even get a chance to try.

That's not right. Now, as to combat, the same issue is involved. The key is it is up to the services to maintain the appropriate standards. Then if someone can meet those, they should be good to go. If the services fail to keep those standards the same, then that will be a great leadership failure on the part of the senior officers that allow that to happen. We can't blame the POTUS or SECDEF for that. If a bunch of 4 star generals don't have the courage to maintain standards then they are doing a great disservice to the country.

So that's my long take on it. People want to conflate the different APFT standards with Ranger School or combat standards, but that's not the issue. All soldiers had to meet the same standard in Ranger School and will in the combat arms.

And one last note, since there is an unfortunate tendency by some in the Army to judge ones opinion by what badges they wear, yes I earned my Ranger Tab back in 1978. In fact, I think it may have even been the last hard class . ;)

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2016 9:20 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 21:20:03 -0500

At times there are superficial standards set beyond that which is expected. I don't think women are held to a higher standard. Sometimes it could happen I am sure. Each work place may vary. I wouldn't say that a workplace in nature would be sexiest. Some that may be in places in which they make HR decisions maybe. Overtime they will be replaced. We have come a long way to where we are in equality. I don't ever know if we will ever have true equality. I don't know if that will even by possible. You will always have those that don't see others as equals. It doesn't matter what factor it may be. It could be sex, race, or anything else.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jan 3 at 2016 10:13 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 22:13:22 -0500

I can only comment from Personal Experience. As a Cryptologic Technician the most Pull-Ups I've ever seen done was by a Marine Female Cryptologic Technician. As a Navy 5K runner my Female LTJG and ENS left me in the Dirt, They were the only ones that did though.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 9:41 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 09:41:47 -0500

Being in a field artillery unit, we have only recently started integrating female Officers and Soldiers in the ranks (no NCOs yet). By far the best lieutenant in the battalion was one of my female LTs (who is unfortunately branch detailed and will not remain FA). She had awesome attention to detail, would get things done in an expedited manner, see implied tasks for what they were, had property accountability, and most importantly would cuss people out if they deserved it. This last point was amazing for dealing with typical Army shenanigans and bureaucracy.

On the physical side, she scored a decent 291 on the APFT but would always finish towards the back of runs. Given her job performance and satisfactory PT score, I overlooked this and continued to advocate her top ranking to the BN CDR. She left the unit with a stellar (well deserved) evaluation.

However, my question is this: What do junior Soldiers on the gun line and out front see in their female leaders? Do they know about the late hours spent planning training, coordinating for support, property accountability, and the myriad of behind the scenes dedication to mission accomplishment that I value as a commander? My answer is probably not. They interacted with her the most every day during PT when everyone was present and not tasked out to do the endless requirements from higher.

This brings us back to the question that the original poster asked and I'll answer with another question: Why is being knowledgeable and and achieving high scores on the PT standard mutually exclusive?

Response by SPC Margaret Higgins made Jan 4 at 2016 9:57 AM

SPC Margaret Higgins — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 09:57:03 -0500

I absolutely agree with you; CPT Private RallyPoint Member. I believe that women are far more dispensable to the military; than men.
When I was serving, during the Cold War: I was a Squad Leader and heading for Honor Graduate.
I believe all of us, in my barracks, had just gone through an IG inspection....and had been up all night.
I broke down in tears, when my Platoon Leader asked one more thing; of us Squad Leaders.
So, I was in class, (During AIT) and a Soldier came into the classroom and told me to grab my purse.
Then I went to a small office; and a Soldier asked me a number of questions about my MOS. (Remember, I was slated to be Honor Graduate.) I didn't know the answer to any of them; so I was sent to the psychiatric ward of a hospital.
At that point, they wanted to discharge me....but did not.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 11:30 AM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 11:30:37 -0500

I agree this is a minefield of a "debate" that has been going on for as long as I can remember, with passionate views on both sides. I read the letter (attached) and found it rather impressive, maybe you will also.

Response by PO3 Sherry Thornburg made Jan 6 at 2016 2:24 AM

PO3 Sherry Thornburg — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 02:24:10 -0500

This nonsense has always been with us and while the subjects and rhetoric changes, the fight is still the same. Either men and women are different and have to be assessed differently, or we ignore differences and force both to fall under the same standards. This can be unfair to both depending on the issue.

When I entered the service my ASVAB scores had to be higher than a man's to be accepted. My PT requirements were different. I was blocked from many jobs and units. If I was pretty it was counted against me. If I was tough I was a bitch. If I was nice, I was a push over. If I dated I was a slut. If I didn't chose to date someone I was a dike.

I was once offered mentorship by a superior non-comissioned officer, but then found out that he really wanted sex in return for his attention. Yeah, he also knew at the time I was engaged. When I refused he said I wasn't worth his time. Its crap like this that keeps the male/female roles and relationships tied up in knots.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2023 7:20 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 12 Jul 2023 19:20:11 -0400

No they are not. Women ruined the old physical test APFT for the army. Due to many of them not being physical ready and failing it they made it easier to pass the new ACFT. That's why the new ACFT is here it's to help reduce women physical failures. Ironically most women in the era Still fail the physical test. I miss the APFT. I hate the ACFT.