Posted on Jan 28, 2015
Infantrywomen: What the Evaluations Are Not Considering
17.4K
132
74
18
18
0
Male vs Female in Infantry: by GEN(R) Kroesen
INFANTRYWOMEN: WHAT THE EVALUATIONS ARE NOT CONSIDERING
By Gen. Frederick J. Kroesen, U.S. Army retired
January 1, 2016, is the deadline for the military services to integrate women into the Infantry, Armor, Field Artillery and Special Forces combat units. It is contended that this will offer an equal opportunity for advancement up the promotion chain to the highest levels of command for both men and women.
Many tests, surveys and polls have been conducted during the past year, most of which have determined that physical strength and stamina will have to be gender-normed in order for the requirements to be fair and equally achieved; if they are gender-neutral, the standards will have to be much less demanding.
Test results and surveys have not been widely disseminated, but leakage seems to establish that men are five to six times more likely to meet standards being tested. This does not deny that some women are able to match the average male measurements, but very few match the higher scores posted by many men. Such findings are no surprise to anyone who recognizes that we have separate Olympic events for men and women, we have separate professional sports leagues, and we have separate world’s records for most everything requiring physical skills. The first woman to finish the Boston Marathon, who comes in ahead of a thousand men, also loses to a hundred or so men who crossed the line minutes before her.
For some reason, there have not been tests, surveys, polls or agitation aimed at integrating women into the Chicago Bears or the St. Louis Cardinals, and no demand that the Professional Golfers’ Association and Ladies Professional Golf Association be merged so women have an equal opportunity to be golfer of the year or win the money title. Apparently, however, the armed forces are different. Despite the fact that infantry warfare is often a life-or-death matter, quite often requiring strength and stamina to survive, we are asked to man our teams at a reduced capability.
Sgt. Amanda Olmeda in an observation tower on Forward Operating Base Fenty in Afghanistan. (Credit: U.S. Army/Sgt. 1st Class John D. Brown)
Sgt. Amanda Olmeda in an observation tower on Forward Operating Base Fenty in Afghanistan.
(Credit: U.S. Army/Sgt. 1st Class John D. Brown)
I am not aware of the names or qualifications of the various study groups or the means and values used by the testers that are determining the final recommendations. I hope, however, that they have consulted with some combat infantry veterans—for example, those who fought in the Huertgen Forest, Pointe du Hoc, the Battle of the Bulge, Pork Chop Hill, Outpost Harry, the retreat from the Chosin Reservoir or Hamburger Hill—and their views on whether their effectiveness would be improved or diminished or perhaps not affected at all if wives, mothers, sisters or daughters had been present. Those were all occasions that resembled line play in the National Football League without the rules that prevent lethal mayhem.
None of us wants to deny women the right to military careers. Nobody wants to question their determination to excel or to interfere with their willingness to die for their country, but we want them to do those things in positions at which they do as well or better than men. Infantry combat is not one of them.
The advocates for this policy change do not seem to realize that assigning women to the Infantry will consign them to second-class status. Most will be less capable than their male counterparts, and their efficiency reports, always a comparative measurement, will have a negative impact on their assignments and promotions. Their careers will be affected—probably stunted—unless, of course, a quota system that will further reduce squad, platoon and company effectiveness is adopted.
The armed forces are again complying with policy dictates of our government, and they deserve credit for the exhaustive effort expended to find a way. We can only hope that a final review of the effects of the proposal will result in reconsideration and a decision that the policy be abandoned. Congress, constitutionally the provider of our national defense, should make the final decision. o
* * * *
Gen. Frederick J. Kroesen, USA Ret., formerly served as Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army and commander in chief of U.S. Army Europe. He is a senior fellow of AUSA’s Institute of Land Warfare.
- See more at: http://www.armymagazine.org/2015/01/26/infantrywomen-what-the-evaluations-are-not-considering#sthash.lfAxiMXa.dpuf
INFANTRYWOMEN: WHAT THE EVALUATIONS ARE NOT CONSIDERING
By Gen. Frederick J. Kroesen, U.S. Army retired
January 1, 2016, is the deadline for the military services to integrate women into the Infantry, Armor, Field Artillery and Special Forces combat units. It is contended that this will offer an equal opportunity for advancement up the promotion chain to the highest levels of command for both men and women.
Many tests, surveys and polls have been conducted during the past year, most of which have determined that physical strength and stamina will have to be gender-normed in order for the requirements to be fair and equally achieved; if they are gender-neutral, the standards will have to be much less demanding.
Test results and surveys have not been widely disseminated, but leakage seems to establish that men are five to six times more likely to meet standards being tested. This does not deny that some women are able to match the average male measurements, but very few match the higher scores posted by many men. Such findings are no surprise to anyone who recognizes that we have separate Olympic events for men and women, we have separate professional sports leagues, and we have separate world’s records for most everything requiring physical skills. The first woman to finish the Boston Marathon, who comes in ahead of a thousand men, also loses to a hundred or so men who crossed the line minutes before her.
For some reason, there have not been tests, surveys, polls or agitation aimed at integrating women into the Chicago Bears or the St. Louis Cardinals, and no demand that the Professional Golfers’ Association and Ladies Professional Golf Association be merged so women have an equal opportunity to be golfer of the year or win the money title. Apparently, however, the armed forces are different. Despite the fact that infantry warfare is often a life-or-death matter, quite often requiring strength and stamina to survive, we are asked to man our teams at a reduced capability.
Sgt. Amanda Olmeda in an observation tower on Forward Operating Base Fenty in Afghanistan. (Credit: U.S. Army/Sgt. 1st Class John D. Brown)
Sgt. Amanda Olmeda in an observation tower on Forward Operating Base Fenty in Afghanistan.
(Credit: U.S. Army/Sgt. 1st Class John D. Brown)
I am not aware of the names or qualifications of the various study groups or the means and values used by the testers that are determining the final recommendations. I hope, however, that they have consulted with some combat infantry veterans—for example, those who fought in the Huertgen Forest, Pointe du Hoc, the Battle of the Bulge, Pork Chop Hill, Outpost Harry, the retreat from the Chosin Reservoir or Hamburger Hill—and their views on whether their effectiveness would be improved or diminished or perhaps not affected at all if wives, mothers, sisters or daughters had been present. Those were all occasions that resembled line play in the National Football League without the rules that prevent lethal mayhem.
None of us wants to deny women the right to military careers. Nobody wants to question their determination to excel or to interfere with their willingness to die for their country, but we want them to do those things in positions at which they do as well or better than men. Infantry combat is not one of them.
The advocates for this policy change do not seem to realize that assigning women to the Infantry will consign them to second-class status. Most will be less capable than their male counterparts, and their efficiency reports, always a comparative measurement, will have a negative impact on their assignments and promotions. Their careers will be affected—probably stunted—unless, of course, a quota system that will further reduce squad, platoon and company effectiveness is adopted.
The armed forces are again complying with policy dictates of our government, and they deserve credit for the exhaustive effort expended to find a way. We can only hope that a final review of the effects of the proposal will result in reconsideration and a decision that the policy be abandoned. Congress, constitutionally the provider of our national defense, should make the final decision. o
* * * *
Gen. Frederick J. Kroesen, USA Ret., formerly served as Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army and commander in chief of U.S. Army Europe. He is a senior fellow of AUSA’s Institute of Land Warfare.
- See more at: http://www.armymagazine.org/2015/01/26/infantrywomen-what-the-evaluations-are-not-considering#sthash.lfAxiMXa.dpuf
Infantrywomen: What the Evaluations Are Not Considering
Posted from armymagazine.org
Standards
Infantry
Women in the Military
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 31
9
9
0
I'm surprised at how few responses there are from females on this topic. As a female, I do agree with opening all the positions to everyone....who is qualified. I feel that if the individual (male or female) is able to pass the in-place standard then *high-five*! But I do not believe the current standard should be lowered. There is a reason that standard is in place. I have seen 18 year olds surpass minimum standards for the Physical Ability and Stamina Test (PAST) for PJs and then still fail out of Tech School.
If I were 15 years younger, I would be setting myself up for trying to be a TACP. I was able to do the pull ups and the sit-ups, but that run and push-ups...LOL. Those are rough. But I'd try my hardest to get there. However, I would not expect either one of those standards to be lowered for me. When you are out in the field bullets don't care that I can't run as fast and the enemy sure doesn't care. They aren't going to give me a pass because of my pony-tail.
If I were 15 years younger, I would be setting myself up for trying to be a TACP. I was able to do the pull ups and the sit-ups, but that run and push-ups...LOL. Those are rough. But I'd try my hardest to get there. However, I would not expect either one of those standards to be lowered for me. When you are out in the field bullets don't care that I can't run as fast and the enemy sure doesn't care. They aren't going to give me a pass because of my pony-tail.
(9)
(0)
9
9
0
ok so.. i realize i dont have the experience that alot of members have on here.. i have never been deployed and i am not an infantryman.. but in my oppinion i hate the whole female soldier and male soldier thing.. are we not all soldiers??.. if a 'female soldier' can pass the standards set... then they should not be held back based on there sex.. but if they lower the standards than it is just setting them up for failure.
(9)
(0)
SFC Shane Funkhouser
MSG Tom Earley - I believe the PFC said if they could meet the set standard. He also said the standard should not be lowered as that would be setting them up for failure.
(0)
(0)
9
9
0
COL Jean (John) F. B.
SFC Drake,
GEN (Ret) Kroesen tells it like it should be told, not with the "political correctness" that has undermined our country and our military.
While some may say that the whole equality and social engineering bandwagon that the military has been on (due to the liberal policies of the administration) is the right thing to do, and, morally, I guess it is, it is absolutely the wrong thing to do for the readiness and effectiveness of the military.
By saying that, I am certainly not saying that women do not have a place in the military or that they are not an asset. What I am saying is that they are not suitable for certain jobs and, in my opinion, being in the Infantry is one of them, for all the reasons GEN Kroesen points out and others.
I have worked with and for some awesome female military members and would put them up against their male counterparts without hesitation, in the right place, position and location, but not in 100% of the positions, locations or situations. It is about biology and physiology, not about desire or effort. Like it or not, there is a difference between men and women and no liberal social engineering will change that basic fact.
As an aside, because of my name, Jean (which is French for John), several times in my career, when I was on a list for one thing or another (promotion, school selection, command, etc.) I would receive letters/notes of congratulations from female officers I had never met and assumed it was because they thought I, also, was a female. In fact, when I reported to my first duty assignment (C Co, 2nd Bn, 4th Infantry) in Germany, I was told that they all wondered (because of my name) how a female officer had (1) gone to Ranger School and (2) been assigned to an Infantry battalion.
GEN (Ret) Kroesen tells it like it should be told, not with the "political correctness" that has undermined our country and our military.
While some may say that the whole equality and social engineering bandwagon that the military has been on (due to the liberal policies of the administration) is the right thing to do, and, morally, I guess it is, it is absolutely the wrong thing to do for the readiness and effectiveness of the military.
By saying that, I am certainly not saying that women do not have a place in the military or that they are not an asset. What I am saying is that they are not suitable for certain jobs and, in my opinion, being in the Infantry is one of them, for all the reasons GEN Kroesen points out and others.
I have worked with and for some awesome female military members and would put them up against their male counterparts without hesitation, in the right place, position and location, but not in 100% of the positions, locations or situations. It is about biology and physiology, not about desire or effort. Like it or not, there is a difference between men and women and no liberal social engineering will change that basic fact.
As an aside, because of my name, Jean (which is French for John), several times in my career, when I was on a list for one thing or another (promotion, school selection, command, etc.) I would receive letters/notes of congratulations from female officers I had never met and assumed it was because they thought I, also, was a female. In fact, when I reported to my first duty assignment (C Co, 2nd Bn, 4th Infantry) in Germany, I was told that they all wondered (because of my name) how a female officer had (1) gone to Ranger School and (2) been assigned to an Infantry battalion.
(4)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
Effectiveness vs fairness. Sometimes they are mutually exclusive. Not to say that there are females out there who could hack the physical requirements and be effecitve combat arms soldliers. There certainly are. But as the article states, to make it "fair" we would have to sacrfice effectiveness (either gender neutral standards which will be more difficult for majority of females to achieve or gender specific, which potentially decreases effectiveness). There is not such thing as relative in combat. You are either stronger, faster, tougher than your opponent or you are not.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google