Posted on Oct 2, 2014
Is the US military ready for an honest, objective, and realistic evaluation of women as it removes the last of sex-based barriers?
11.4K
45
28
3
3
0
Since women's large-scale integration into the armed forces in the mid-late 70s, women have been subject to double-standards, both restrictive and beneficial.
While 15-20 years ago the military seemed more concerned about military effectiveness and defended its policies and culture and less concerned about the aspirations and grievances of a relatively small percent of the serving population. Today, that outlook has inverted, with full and equitable (not necessarily equal) integration being assumed as an inevitability.
Part of that headlong rush to accomodate the aims of proponents of modern feminists in regards to this issue is a lack of acknowledgment of the challenges and realities, frequent use of political double-speak, and a somewhat cavalier attitude toward military effectiveness (in favor of opportunities and supposed "rights").
Does the current atmosphere allow for an honest appraisal of women's contributions and limitations as well as the effects on the force, both positive and negative?
While 15-20 years ago the military seemed more concerned about military effectiveness and defended its policies and culture and less concerned about the aspirations and grievances of a relatively small percent of the serving population. Today, that outlook has inverted, with full and equitable (not necessarily equal) integration being assumed as an inevitability.
Part of that headlong rush to accomodate the aims of proponents of modern feminists in regards to this issue is a lack of acknowledgment of the challenges and realities, frequent use of political double-speak, and a somewhat cavalier attitude toward military effectiveness (in favor of opportunities and supposed "rights").
Does the current atmosphere allow for an honest appraisal of women's contributions and limitations as well as the effects on the force, both positive and negative?
Equality
Combat Arms
Women' s, Gender, & Sexuality Studies
Policy
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 6
3
3
0
No it is not. Do you realize Sir, that women continually have to prove themselves over and over. It's not enough to be technically and tactically proficient, women have to be better in every area than their counterparts to get the same recognition. Put a man and a woman on the ground facing each other doing pushups and you will hear the men say, "You are not going to let HER beat you? Are you?" When she wins what is the outcome for the male? Do you think there is an honest appraisal in the end or are we going to hear how she didn't "break the plane", how someone "double counted", "she's a dike", "she's a feminist".... all kinds of excuses will come into play for why this "phenomena" occurred. So no Sir, we're still not ready.
(3)
(0)
MAJ Bill Darling
Ma'am, I agree that some women have to prove themselves over and over. And some take the same kind of mental ribbing and/or abuse that many men get. But perhaps it is because the system allows them to perform (in APFT, for example) to lower standards and get the same recognition (PT award, scores, etc). My observation, which I think is validated by Mr Carter's decision last week, is that someone in the chain of command thinks that the ends determine the means. In other words, it doesn't matter what the facts and metrics say, it will push the "equality" agenda fully. I think the system is broken and it has not been honest and direct with women and what they bring (or don't bring) to the table since they were first integrated in large numbers.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
MAJ Bill Darling -
You did not address the issue of how we are not ready to talk about the outcome of a male failing to out preform a female and the effects that will have among men. You also did not address why it is that even when everything is "fair" men will not give women credit and will make up excuses for why she outperformed the male. I am not debating the issue of female v. male APFT standards. I am talking about the social/psychological issue our society still has regarding women who outperform men. As for opening all combat roles to women. This is a different issue than that which I addressed.
You did not address the issue of how we are not ready to talk about the outcome of a male failing to out preform a female and the effects that will have among men. You also did not address why it is that even when everything is "fair" men will not give women credit and will make up excuses for why she outperformed the male. I am not debating the issue of female v. male APFT standards. I am talking about the social/psychological issue our society still has regarding women who outperform men. As for opening all combat roles to women. This is a different issue than that which I addressed.
(1)
(0)
SGT Francis Wright
When I was in, when dinosaurs roamed the earth. When I was a squad leader, my female soldiers would ask me; "what are the standards for a school?" I would break out one of my leader books and look it up. They always wanted to know what the standards for a male candidate. So as to be ready, in my experience that is the standard for everyone male or female.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bill Darling
CPT (Join to see) - What is there to address about males failing to outperform females? Anyone younger than fifty propably grew up with female athletes in school or in their family and realize that some women excel and can meet or exceed male standards. As for women not getting credit, I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about there. Is it all men? And when is everything "fair"? On the contrary, I have seen female officers and NCOs get recognition as Soldiers of the Month/Year, honor graduates, and other awards knowing full well that they were never tasked to meet, at the very least, the physical standards the males they supposedly beat. I recall very clearly how PFC Jessica Lynch was mistakenly lionized and how willing the public was believe the mythology regarding her firefight and capture. It's not the example you were looking for, but I'm using it to illustrate how military women sometimes get recognition for things that would be ignored if they were male. I think you overstate the social and psychological issues. The vast majority of men accept that a certain percentage of women will outperform them. What they cannot accept is when women aren't graded the same way and yet get the same (or greater) recognition.
(0)
(0)
I don't feel the discussion is on whether we should have a discussion of women's contributions and limitations, rather if the military (both leadership and 'those in the field') should recognize that one soldier/sailor/marine/airman is not like another.
One of the most often heard gripes is about APFTs. I remember an OMB study that Congress directed to look at the physical fitness standards across the military for exactly the reason that many gripe - there are different standards between men and women. Lots of discussions and studies, but what it comes down to is that there are two different requirements for physical fitness - general and job specific.
I see absolutely no issue with general physical fitness (which is what our physical fitness program is geared towards), because as SSG V. Michelle Woods pointed out in another post, there ARE physical differences between the sexes (she wants equal treatment .. not being equal). A good physical fitness program is to keep military personnel in general all-around shape and isn't geared towards any specific requirement (usually).
However, job specific requirements should be absolute and not dependent upon the sex of the individual. Addressing 1LT John Martin's example, the 12C MOS requirements very clearly show that it is in the 'very heavy' category. When cross-referenced, that means that the individual needs to be able to lift 100 pounds with frequent constant lifting in excess of 50 pounds.
EDIT: Adding (SGT (Join to see) / CW2 Jonathan Kantor / TSgt Joshua Bringhurst / MAJ Bill Darling)
I have very rarely seen anything in the military where there is additional testing to address the physical requirements of a job. You occasionally see where a unit will set a higher standard for the APFT, but that's about it. There should be two fitness standards that are conducted every six months (or 12 months for the RC), the APFT to gauge general fitness and then a job specific fitness measure.
The Army flirted with this concept previously with the Military Entrance Physical Strength Capacity Test (MEPSCAT) in the early 80s to better match new recruits with a job that matched their physical capabilities. As you can predict, this was very controversial when implemented and it quickly became a 'counseling tool' and further moved to a 'general guideline' ... I don't think I've ever seen any mention in the Army of it except by my crusty Bn CSM when I was a young platoon leader.
Something akin to the MEPSCAT needs to be implemented. Not the old one as there were many issues/complaints across the board from males and females, but something that accurately gauges the physical requirements of the MOS. If we can throw together large panels to determine the right hair styles, we should easily be able to do the same regarding the physical requirements that are specific in nature to a particular MOS.
Again, this would apply equally across the board, as there are many female AND male soldiers that are in general good shape but can't meet the demanding requirements of a mos like 12C. Every soldier should be treated equally and fairly, but physically, every soldier is not like every other soldier.
One of the most often heard gripes is about APFTs. I remember an OMB study that Congress directed to look at the physical fitness standards across the military for exactly the reason that many gripe - there are different standards between men and women. Lots of discussions and studies, but what it comes down to is that there are two different requirements for physical fitness - general and job specific.
I see absolutely no issue with general physical fitness (which is what our physical fitness program is geared towards), because as SSG V. Michelle Woods pointed out in another post, there ARE physical differences between the sexes (she wants equal treatment .. not being equal). A good physical fitness program is to keep military personnel in general all-around shape and isn't geared towards any specific requirement (usually).
However, job specific requirements should be absolute and not dependent upon the sex of the individual. Addressing 1LT John Martin's example, the 12C MOS requirements very clearly show that it is in the 'very heavy' category. When cross-referenced, that means that the individual needs to be able to lift 100 pounds with frequent constant lifting in excess of 50 pounds.
EDIT: Adding (SGT (Join to see) / CW2 Jonathan Kantor / TSgt Joshua Bringhurst / MAJ Bill Darling)
I have very rarely seen anything in the military where there is additional testing to address the physical requirements of a job. You occasionally see where a unit will set a higher standard for the APFT, but that's about it. There should be two fitness standards that are conducted every six months (or 12 months for the RC), the APFT to gauge general fitness and then a job specific fitness measure.
The Army flirted with this concept previously with the Military Entrance Physical Strength Capacity Test (MEPSCAT) in the early 80s to better match new recruits with a job that matched their physical capabilities. As you can predict, this was very controversial when implemented and it quickly became a 'counseling tool' and further moved to a 'general guideline' ... I don't think I've ever seen any mention in the Army of it except by my crusty Bn CSM when I was a young platoon leader.
Something akin to the MEPSCAT needs to be implemented. Not the old one as there were many issues/complaints across the board from males and females, but something that accurately gauges the physical requirements of the MOS. If we can throw together large panels to determine the right hair styles, we should easily be able to do the same regarding the physical requirements that are specific in nature to a particular MOS.
Again, this would apply equally across the board, as there are many female AND male soldiers that are in general good shape but can't meet the demanding requirements of a mos like 12C. Every soldier should be treated equally and fairly, but physically, every soldier is not like every other soldier.
(3)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
COL Randall C. I've made the point more than once that many support units and their gallantry and dedication make the lives of combat personnel a lot more agreeable. And if you take a nurse, medic or a doctor for example, I am pretty sure their ability doesn't go unnoticed and they don't need heavy gear to do what they do.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SSgt (Join to see), I agree with you but sadly many support personnel don't get the credit they deserve. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against combat arms but a lot of times their actions are put above the actions of a combat service support individual. I have heard so many comments towards denying certain awards, schools, etc against support personnel that it's not even funny. Many of those people say "Well, it's their job to do XYZ. they didn't do anything to risk their life." That's very condescending and insulting. Well how about the 92A SGT who consistently ensures supplies and equipment are pushed out to units the very same day it arrives? How about the 42A SPC who submits paperwork to BDE as quickly as possible, and follows-up on a regular basis until an answer returns? How about the 92G SSG who regularly trains and mentors his Soldiers to provide the absolute best meals they can for the Troops, as well as taking the time to create great meals himself? I could go on.
Here's part of the problem and the hypocrisy I see. If all of these things are just "part of the job" for support personnel then the same can be said of combat arms when they are in a firefight. After all, isn't being in a firefight and defeating the enemy just part of the job for an infantryman? I'm sure there will be some who get angry with me for these comments but I speak the truth. If someone is upset at my comments, ask yourself why. Have I lied or stated anything inaccurate? Or maybe I touched on an emotional subject that is equally the same for support personnel. While it's nice to be recognized once in a while, I don't do things to be noticed like that. I do get upset when my own Soldiers aren't recognized for their hard work and effort to support the "door kickers". But that's just me. In fact, one of the best moments for me was when one of my S4 clerks, a brand new supply PFC, stepped up to the plate, learned how to do the USR and ran with it. And he did it WELL. Later on, while I was in ALC, he literally took charge of the S4 section during a BDE exercise ensuring tasks were accomplished. He was put in for and received an ARCOM for his diligence and efforts. A phenomenal young man with a lot of potential who unfortunately the Army lost the next year from a debilitating disease. He was medically retired after not even two years in service.
Here's part of the problem and the hypocrisy I see. If all of these things are just "part of the job" for support personnel then the same can be said of combat arms when they are in a firefight. After all, isn't being in a firefight and defeating the enemy just part of the job for an infantryman? I'm sure there will be some who get angry with me for these comments but I speak the truth. If someone is upset at my comments, ask yourself why. Have I lied or stated anything inaccurate? Or maybe I touched on an emotional subject that is equally the same for support personnel. While it's nice to be recognized once in a while, I don't do things to be noticed like that. I do get upset when my own Soldiers aren't recognized for their hard work and effort to support the "door kickers". But that's just me. In fact, one of the best moments for me was when one of my S4 clerks, a brand new supply PFC, stepped up to the plate, learned how to do the USR and ran with it. And he did it WELL. Later on, while I was in ALC, he literally took charge of the S4 section during a BDE exercise ensuring tasks were accomplished. He was put in for and received an ARCOM for his diligence and efforts. A phenomenal young man with a lot of potential who unfortunately the Army lost the next year from a debilitating disease. He was medically retired after not even two years in service.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bill Darling
COL Randall C. Sir, in online message board discussions in the late 90s and early 00s, I believe I was told by a recruiter or two that some of those MOS-specific tests remained when considering prospects for various MOSs.
Personally, I see physical ability tests not much different from academic or proficiency standards for each schoolhouse. Letting various branches determine their own ability standards should be left to them, while the Army keeps an overall fitness test to ensure the minimum basics of being a soldier are maintained. One could argue the latter should be quite high considering all are soldiers first (and thereby potential infantrymen) and MOS second (vis-a-vis PFC Lynch and Co).
However, as with all policy, I worry about the politicalization of such standards. For example, how long would any standard remain, no matter how valid, if, say, only 30% of women could pass? 10%? 1%?
Personally, I see physical ability tests not much different from academic or proficiency standards for each schoolhouse. Letting various branches determine their own ability standards should be left to them, while the Army keeps an overall fitness test to ensure the minimum basics of being a soldier are maintained. One could argue the latter should be quite high considering all are soldiers first (and thereby potential infantrymen) and MOS second (vis-a-vis PFC Lynch and Co).
However, as with all policy, I worry about the politicalization of such standards. For example, how long would any standard remain, no matter how valid, if, say, only 30% of women could pass? 10%? 1%?
(1)
(0)
COL Randall C.
MAJ Bill Darling, absolutely agree with the last point, but unfortunately that will be a reality. Almost all aspects of the military have in one form or another an interest group that is against it (From BRAC, equipment, MILCON to uniforms, demographics, and more). They in turn call their favorite member of Congress who tries to exert pressure, the success of which depends on things that have absolutely nothing to do with the military.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
I don't even think we should be discussing this. Point being that women should be fully integrated, and it should have happened decades ago. Why do we need to have an honest assessment and realistic evaluation of a part of our workforce? Women are no different than men and they should be fully integrated such that it isn't necessary to have these sorts of discussions.
I imagine that if RallyPoint existed in 1948 we would be having this discussion about evaluating black servicemen in the Army. I would have said it was not appropriate then as everyone on here would agree it isn't appropriate now. I think what I am trying to say (And I may be rambling a bit) is that we shouldn't need to have an assessment of women in the military because they are part of our team, capable of doing everything men are able to do, and should be treated the same as anyone and everyone.
One thing that does require attention is the staggeringly high amount of sexual abuse women suffer in the military. Not only has this gotten way out of hand, it's in violation of our values and must be addressed at the highest level. Ok, off the soapbox now.
I imagine that if RallyPoint existed in 1948 we would be having this discussion about evaluating black servicemen in the Army. I would have said it was not appropriate then as everyone on here would agree it isn't appropriate now. I think what I am trying to say (And I may be rambling a bit) is that we shouldn't need to have an assessment of women in the military because they are part of our team, capable of doing everything men are able to do, and should be treated the same as anyone and everyone.
One thing that does require attention is the staggeringly high amount of sexual abuse women suffer in the military. Not only has this gotten way out of hand, it's in violation of our values and must be addressed at the highest level. Ok, off the soapbox now.
(3)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
The physical fitness standards are not "relaxed" to allow integration into the military. Women and men are physically different. This is a biological fact. Even if I, as a woman, had the top PT score in the unit...I outran, out-pushed every single other female, I still would not beat the top male scorer. Just isn't going to happen. There are limits to what I can do with the body I have, even at 100%. I can long-distance ruck with 45 lbs. I can carry casualties. What I can't do is out-ruck the strongest male or carry a 250 man for 300 yards. Can't do it. I know this, but most women can't either.
There are women, in the military, that can compete on male PT standards. For those women, and there are very few, they should be given the opportunity to integrate into combat front-line MOSs.
We aren't SpecOps, Rangers, or Seals...yet. We can perform our duties, even in combat effectively.
I understand the possible scenarios people are envisioning with this issue, what I have an issue with is the way of thinking that the military is somehow buckling to the "feminist" agenda to place unqualified, fragile females into MOSs by "relaxing" anything.
I've dealt with both males and females who honestly, should have picked a different career. I've also known both males and females who are highly effective and tactically proficient and perform their duties exceptionally.
There are women, in the military, that can compete on male PT standards. For those women, and there are very few, they should be given the opportunity to integrate into combat front-line MOSs.
We aren't SpecOps, Rangers, or Seals...yet. We can perform our duties, even in combat effectively.
I understand the possible scenarios people are envisioning with this issue, what I have an issue with is the way of thinking that the military is somehow buckling to the "feminist" agenda to place unqualified, fragile females into MOSs by "relaxing" anything.
I've dealt with both males and females who honestly, should have picked a different career. I've also known both males and females who are highly effective and tactically proficient and perform their duties exceptionally.
(6)
(0)
MAJ Bill Darling
The APFT presents a strange dilemma for the Army. One the one hand, it's an open acknowledgement of physiological differences between the sexes and across the age spectrum--although the Army downplays this by focusing on effort rather than performance.
On the other, it purports to be something of a single standard in that scores are used as the basis for promotion and schools.
Those two concepts are contradictory and in that sense it certainly is a relaxed double standard which gives the appearance of equal performance (especially to civilians unfamiliar with the military) while arbitrarily allowing in larger numbers of women (many of whom would not be accessed in to the Army at all if scored like men) even as it screens out males who could meet and exceed those female standard with relative ease.
If the Army intends to let those females who can hang with at least the average combat arms male, perhaps it could start with a single standard throughout the force, regardless of sex (or age for that matter).
On the other, it purports to be something of a single standard in that scores are used as the basis for promotion and schools.
Those two concepts are contradictory and in that sense it certainly is a relaxed double standard which gives the appearance of equal performance (especially to civilians unfamiliar with the military) while arbitrarily allowing in larger numbers of women (many of whom would not be accessed in to the Army at all if scored like men) even as it screens out males who could meet and exceed those female standard with relative ease.
If the Army intends to let those females who can hang with at least the average combat arms male, perhaps it could start with a single standard throughout the force, regardless of sex (or age for that matter).
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
TSgt Joshua Bringhurst, I agree that the APFT standard should be the same for males and females in special forces units. And only because there are real world applications as to why.
I used the example of evacuating casualties. I am 6ft tall and 184 lbs. I can ruck for miles and carry heavy loads. My body is uniquely able to bear heavier loads than the typical female. However, there is no way that I could run carrying a large male casualty on my back for a quarter mile. If I had to pull myself over a nine-foot wall with arm strength, I absolutely couldn't do it. I have placed, several times, on the male PT scale. But that doesn't mean that I can do many of the things spec ops must do. The typical male SM can't either.
I used the example of evacuating casualties. I am 6ft tall and 184 lbs. I can ruck for miles and carry heavy loads. My body is uniquely able to bear heavier loads than the typical female. However, there is no way that I could run carrying a large male casualty on my back for a quarter mile. If I had to pull myself over a nine-foot wall with arm strength, I absolutely couldn't do it. I have placed, several times, on the male PT scale. But that doesn't mean that I can do many of the things spec ops must do. The typical male SM can't either.
(2)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
SPC Mulder, et. al...we used to have different PT tests for different skills, one for Staff & Faculty, one for Infantry, one for Airborne...all based on an MOS. Women had their own test until 1977. I've known women who could out run any man and men who could break other men in half. One size does not fit all in life. My days at the WAC HQ were quite revealing in that regard.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google