Just as a quick note, the USMC as of 2015 SCRAPPED the idea of making female marines do Pullups and will look into the subject to find out why 55% of female recruits were unable to do the minimum (3) pullups.
CURRENT USMC PULLUP STANDARDS:
Male PFT standards for pullups = 3 pullups =15 pts the minimum while 20 pullups = 100pts and the maximum.
Female PFT Standards for Pullups = 3 pullups = 40pts the minimum and 8 pullups = 100pts and the maximum. After 3 pullups each pullup is worth 15pts or exactly 3 times what a Male Pullup is worth.
For reasons of promotions and PFT scores this is the standard used by the USMC to make it gender equal. however when we get into combat arms where physical fitness matters more then any other MOS it becomes a problem. Personally, my opinion is if a female can meet Male PFT standards then she should be allowed the opportunity to serve in a combat MOS. If she is unable to meet the male standards it should not be lowered as this would effect the combat readiness of that specific unit.
*SIDE NOTE: In the marines, at least when I served, anything under a 1st class PFT was considered a fail. so that means a 225 or higher to pass.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Second Side note: Im aware a topic already existed for this but it was over 3 months old and the system basically told me to make a new post about it.
The muscles in a female have an attachment point that's closer to the pivot - requiring more force to achieve the same moment as that of a man.
A woman who matches a man in ability to lift actually has a higher muscle strength than the man, but uses it less efficiently due to the different location of attachment.
This is partly a biological, and partly a physics deal. If we compare today's muscle-bound military guys to one of our ancestors; Australopithecus afarensis, you'd find that the Australopithecus afarensis woman would slam the mans arm down easily in an arm wrestle - not due to muscle but due to arm formation.
On a side note, I personally don't see a problem with women fighting. It's inspiring that they put their life on the line when many men stay at home.
In the Royal Navy we have many more women. It's a good thing.
Wulfmar wrote: The muscles in a female have an attachment point that's closer to the pivot - requiring more force to achieve the same moment as that of a man.
A woman who matches a man in ability to lift actually has a higher muscle strength than the man, but uses it less efficiently due to the different location of attachment.
This is partly a biological, and partly a physics deal. If we compare today's muscle-bound military guys to one of our ancestors; Australopithecus afarensis, you'd find that the Australopithecus afarensis woman would slam the mans arm down easily in an arm wrestle - not due to muscle but due to arm formation.
On a side note, I personally don't see a problem with women fighting. It's inspiring that they put their life on the line when many men stay at home.
In the Royal Navy we have many more women. It's a good thing.
Logistics. While it's fine an dandy if they actually make the cut, it's simply more efficient to only recruit males if their success rate is higher, especially in American Special Forces- which to my knowledge are EXTREMELY grueling careers that end up breaking your body just in training. Basically, if four out of ten males on average were to make the cut for a hypothetical military group, then why bother ever with female recruits if only three out of ten on average succeed? One is simply a greater waste of resources, however minute.
I don't see however there being much issue with the main branches, Army, Navy, and Air Force, as by and large most don't even serve in combat to begin with- most people in the military are stuck with logistics. It's with the Special Forces however I'd begin to question just how feasible it is to start allowing female recruits depending on their success rate.And by no means, never lowering the requirements.
In the end I've always said if someone can meet the standard they should not be blocked (not just military, but in everything). If someone can't pass they can't pass. End of that.
Having said that; The question should be not "why aren't women passing the same standard as men" cause that's basically a leading question that doesn't address the real issue. The question to ask is "does the PFT actually reflect real needs, or is it unnecessarily arbitrary?" I do not know the answer to that question, but it is the one that should be asked because it's the only one with any real meaning.
When I was in the Army - don't know if this has changed or not - but there were pretty strict rules about getting women to a shower every x amount of days for personal hygiene. I think it was five; good luck meeting that standard in any sort of real combat scenario. gak, we were a commo unit, and we had guys cross the berm during the initial invasion that spent 40+ days in their MOPP gear without showers.
I don't know exactly how necessary that rule was per se; but another thing to think about above and beyond meeting physical fitness or training requirements.
Yeah that's what I'm talking about. If someone can't meet the standards they can't meet the standards. So long as the standards are proper and fair I won't raise a fuss about it.
I'm way out of shape have a 31 BMI and I'm 28 years old. I can still do 3 pullups - just did 6 real pullups before I made this post. If a fit young man/woman can only do 3 pullups - they should be immediately thrown out of any combat MOS and put behind a desk. I'm going to go pass out now!
LordofHats wrote: Yeah that's what I'm talking about. If someone can't meet the standards they can't meet the standards. So long as the standards are proper and fair I won't raise a fuss about it.
That only works if the test that determines the standard measures the same thing for all people.
Hence the problem with a test that has different results for different groups of people even though they may have the same strength but a different anatomy. In that case having a standard "X of this one test" isn't really a standard if it doesn't measure the same thing for both groups.
If the standards is "must have X amount of strength" then there is nothing wrong with having different tests for different genders that accurately measures their strength while accounting for their anatomical differences.
Now I will readily admit that I have not bothered to look for any research that looks at the difference between test results vs actual strength in men and women, so for what it's worth there might not be a significant difference. But if there is one then I don't have a problem with having two different tests that end up measuring the same thing if they enable the military to have actual comparable results between the sexes.
Women are biologically inferior to man in regards to muscles / potential strength. Known fact for...how many hundred years? Men and women aren't the same.
If you cannot meet the expectations of a job, you deserve to be thrown out or denied, immediately. There are special rules in place to tackle the above mentioned problem, but, honestly, if you need to lower standards to allow a certain group to pass, that's stupid.
On the other hand, combat efficiency involves more than just brute strength, especially in modern combat.
Xenomancers wrote: I'm way out of shape have a 31 BMI and I'm 28 years old. I can still do 3 pullups - just did 6 real pullups before I made this post.
I am 28 years old and I can do 10 pull-ups! I am army-fit \o/.
Xenomancers wrote: I'm way out of shape have a 31 BMI and I'm 28 years old. I can still do 3 pullups - just did 6 real pullups before I made this post.
I am 28 years old and I can do 10 pull-ups! I am army-fit \o/.
going on whether or not a PFT is a necessary test, I would say its a great judge of a persons overall fitness. Specifically the run portion which is a no brainer.
as far as combat readiness is concerned, the USMC implemented a new test called a CFT which happens annually as well, CFT or Combat Fitness Test is designed more to test a persons combat readiness, Its a 880 yard sprint, a movement under fire course (obstacle course) and Ammo can lifts. These all simulate actual experiences in combat.
The standards here have women scoring a maximum score with about 2/3rds the times and lifts as the male marines.
It may not look exceedingly tough but I can tell you from experience that after a CFT I was usually sucking wind. The problem here again lies in physical fitness, in a Combat MOS theirs no time to readjust standards so that the woman can meet the minimums. As I posted above while I was in the Corps if you weren't a 1st class PFT and in this case a CFT then you had basically failed and were put on remedial PT (you PT twice a day...every day)
As D-USA the problem with having different standards is that it lowers the bar, you may disagree but you would be wrong. If a female marine can't carry a 120lbs pack for 9 miles then when she starts failing that means that the unit has to effect the combat readiness of a male marine to help carry her weight. Oldest rule in combat is if you can't carry your weight then your dead weight.
Heres a hypothetical situation. Lets say I am an enemy commander of a small unit and I I'm about to ambush a small US unit. I see 5 males and 5 females. I order my men to target the men first - then the females are too weak to pull the men outta fire and are forced to abandon them instead of pulling them to cover. Where as a unit of 10 men would probably have a better chance of getting their wounded out and save lives.
Ofc the situation is hypothetical but it's our job to make sure we are keeping our soldiers as safe as they possibly can be. To protect american lives and the safety of our entire nation. There should be a strength standard and it should be the same for men and women - those who don't meet the standard should be excluded. It's as simple as that.
Hypothetical answer: without the five women, then all you've got now is five men. Remember, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want.
Xenomancers wrote: Heres a hypothetical situation. Lets say I am an enemy commander of a small unit and I I'm about to ambush a small US unit. I see 5 males and 5 females. I order my men to target the men first - then the females are too weak to pull the men outta fire and are forced to abandon them instead of pulling them to cover. Where as a unit of 10 men would probably have a better chance of getting their wounded out and save lives.
Ofc the situation is hypothetical but it's our job to make sure we are keeping our soldiers as safe as they possibly can be. To protect american lives and the safety of our entire nation. There should be a strength standard and it should be the same for men and women - those who don't meet the standard should be excluded. It's as simple as that.
Or the men try to pull the wounded out and get shot, so now you have ten casualties instead of five.
Also, there is a big difference between pulling someone along the ground and pulling yourself straight up. When pulling something along the ground you can make use of your leg muscles which are much, much more effective for moving large loads than our arms are.
Simple question: Is the pull-up test an unbiased test of a characteristic needed to perform the job?
If yes, then all need to be held to the same standard.
If no, then those the test is biased against need an alternate test or a modified scoring system to compensate.
So, in giving women an alternative scoring system for the pull up test, is the military recognizing a fundamental bias in the test or pandering to some perceived need for more women in the ranks?
To figure out the answer would require a lot of research into a lot of different factors and is probably beyond a knee-jerk reaction that women are not suitible for combat because they can't do pull ups as well as a man.
The military needs more hugging. It should be required that everyone hug each other and share their feelings. Walking is also a problem so there should be no more walking. Everyone gets a personal vehicle of some sort to ride into battle. Instead of rifles soldiers should carry ping pong balls and paddles. When they meet the enemy a ping pong tournament should decide who wins, as that is the true arbiter of righteousness. If we can make these changes the world would be a better, and more advanced, place.
Xenomancers wrote: I'm way out of shape have a 31 BMI and I'm 28 years old. I can still do 3 pullups - just did 6 real pullups before I made this post.
I am 28 years old and I can do 10 pull-ups! I am army-fit \o/.
Ahtman wrote: The military needs more hugging. It should be required that everyone hug each other and share their feelings. Walking is also a problem so there should be no more walking. Everyone gets a personal vehicle of some sort to ride into battle. Instead of rifles soldiers should carry ping pong balls and paddles. When they meet the enemy a ping pong tournament should decide who wins, as that is the true arbiter of righteousness. If we can make these changes the world would be a better, and more advanced, place.
Now bring it in here for a hug.
I am okay with this.
All countries should realise that war is so outdated. Like, it hasn't been cool for centuries.
Ahtman wrote: The military needs more hugging. It should be required that everyone hug each other and share their feelings. Walking is also a problem so there should be no more walking. Everyone gets a personal vehicle of some sort to ride into battle. Instead of rifles soldiers should carry ping pong balls and paddles. When they meet the enemy a ping pong tournament should decide who wins, as that is the true arbiter of righteousness. If we can make these changes the world would be a better, and more advanced, place.
Now bring it in here for a hug.
I am okay with this.
All countries should realise that war is so outdated. Like, it hasn't been cool for centuries.
Duke it out online instead.
Wussy this is America Hurr! We should have full power armor linked with drone flyers dropping directionally controlled bombs. Guns require aiming. They should have hand flamers. Also fusion tipped rockets in case the drones get taken over.
To avoid all the insertion problems they should be dropped from low orbit...
Ashiraya wrote: All countries should realise that war is so outdated. Like, it hasn't been cool for centuries.
What? If war was not cool, why are you playing Wargames, Ashiraya? And what about all that World of Warcraft?
I would be all for no more war, but last time my country decided that war was bad and that we should never start it, we let Nazi Germany gak all over the treaties we imposed on them and build an army, and that resulted in World War II, so I would say it was rather counterproductive.
The Australian navy standards were pitifully weak this is what was needed for a male, which was ridiculously pathetic. Just keep the standards and train people to the required limit if they dont put in them give them the boot
25 pushups
25 situps
7.5 on the beep test
for females it was even less
Probs why theres so many fat useless feths in the navy
Xenomancers wrote: Heres a hypothetical situation. Lets say I am an enemy commander of a small unit and I I'm about to ambush a small US unit. I see 5 males and 5 females. I order my men to target the men first - then the females are too weak to pull the men outta fire and are forced to abandon them instead of pulling them to cover. Where as a unit of 10 men would probably have a better chance of getting their wounded out and save lives.
Ofc the situation is hypothetical but it's our job to make sure we are keeping our soldiers as safe as they possibly can be. To protect american lives and the safety of our entire nation. There should be a strength standard and it should be the same for men and women - those who don't meet the standard should be excluded. It's as simple as that.
Or the men try to pull the wounded out and get shot, so now you have ten casualties instead of five.
Also, there is a big difference between pulling someone along the ground and pulling yourself straight up. When pulling something along the ground you can make use of your leg muscles which are much, much more effective for moving large loads than our arms are.
I probably could have come up with a better hypothetical. Someone had said that strength is not an import attribute for a solider and it was the first thing that popped into my head. The point I was trying to make was that when you lower standards for your armed forces is weaken the entire force - not just those that are at the bottom of the standard.
Sigvatr wrote: Women are biologically inferior to man in regards to muscles / potential strength. Known fact for...how many hundred years? Men and women aren't the same.
If you cannot meet the expectations of a job, you deserve to be thrown out or denied, immediately. There are special rules in place to tackle the above mentioned problem, but, honestly, if you need to lower standards to allow a certain group to pass, that's stupid.
On the other hand, combat efficiency involves more than just brute strength, especially in modern combat.
Well there is a problem right now where a majority of injuries from the middle east are not due to combat but due to musculoskeletal injuries. And those are caused directly by the 80lbs they have to carry on them at all times. And that 80lbs is being used in training to wash out women at far higher rates than men, usually through injury and a discharge. They enter the military, forced to train under a load deemed unreasonable by most standards (even the military's) and they get a lifelong injury and wash out. We pay out 500$ mil in disibility per year for vets due to the load being too heavy and that doesn't include the people who wash out and have no coverage for injuries.
The truth is, young people are cheap and expendable, so there is no reason to find new solutions or address the injuries, and wash outs cost the army nothing. (until the lawsuits gets decided)
I do suppose failing due to pull ups is better than being given something else and failing because your spine broke or you tore a muscle in your leg which will never heal right again from training with an 80lb pack.
A study led by a Johns Hopkins University researcher found that nearly one-third of all medical evacuations from Iraq and Afghanistan from 2004 through 2007 resulted from musculoskeletal, connective-tissue or spinal injuries. That was more than double the number of evacuations from combat injuries.
Army reports already have shown that female soldiers, even in training, sustain injuries at a higher rate than men. A study cited in “Musculoskeletal Injuries in Military Women,” noted that cumulative injury incidence among women in basic combat training was 52 percent compared to 26 percent for men. In advanced individual training, it was 30 percent for women and 24 percent for men.
It may be we need robot packmules for combat, who knows... But why pay for a million dollar combat pack mule robot when you can just break the body of a few 20-year olds? Considering combat loads can be upwards of 120 pounds, how do you expect a 140 pound person, male or female to handle it?
It is a little more than a black and white issue, especially when the army itself knows it is a legitimate problem and admits it fully and how the issue disproportionately impacts women.
Ashiraya wrote: All countries should realise that war is so outdated. Like, it hasn't been cool for centuries.
What? If war was not cool, why are you playing Wargames, Ashiraya? And what about all that World of Warcraft?
I would be all for no more war, but last time my country decided that war was bad and that we should never start it, we let Nazi Germany gak all over the treaties we imposed on them and build an army, and that resulted in World War II, so I would say it was rather counterproductive.
Well you bailed us out in the revolution against the British so we figured we'd return the favor. There - now we are even then some!
trexmeyer wrote: I'm still trying to figure out how pullups are relevant to combat needs at all.
Back strength is definitely relevant, and pullups are the best indicator of back strength using bodyweight. Jumping to grab walls and hop over, climbing rope (usually using your legs, but upper body strength is important), pulling things (doors, people, etc.)...back strength is very important.
When we're talking hopping a wall with a weapon and fully loaded vest, a lot of guys have trouble doing it especially if they're short.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: Hypothetical answer: without the five women, then all you've got now is five men. Remember, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want.
While this could be true, it is not for the US. All branches meet recruiting standards year after year without having to recruit women into combat units.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Jumping to grab walls and hop over, climbing rope (usually using your legs, but upper body strength is important), pulling things (doors, people, etc.)...back strength is very important.
I get the first and last examples, but I am surprised by the second one. How often do you climb ropes in combat situations?
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Jumping to grab walls and hop over, climbing rope (usually using your legs, but upper body strength is important), pulling things (doors, people, etc.)...back strength is very important.
I get the first and last examples, but I am surprised by the second one. How often do you climb ropes in combat situations?
I guess it depends on the unit...some naval units do a lot of climbing on nets which is sort of similar. While we didn't *climb* ropes, fast roping was always on the table. It definitely requires a lot of grip strength for security. A weaker person could fast rope, but it's more secure if you have better grip strength.
I am not sure what fast roping is. If those people are going *down* on the rope, there are simple and efficient stuff to do that without requiring any kind of physical strength that are used in sport climbing, so I am a bit surprised. I am confident if those were suited for the task the army would use them, but cannot guess why are they unsuited?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I am not sure what fast roping is. If those people are going *down* on the rope, there are simple and efficient stuff to do that without requiring any kind of physical strength that are used in sport climbing, so I am a bit surprised. I am confident if those were suited for the task the army would use them, but cannot guess why are they unsuited?
Definitely we could get a woman to fast rope easily enough. The question is, are there enough women capable of handling the other physical duties (not related to ropes at all) to make opening combat units up to women worth the investment? After all, having soldiers wash out of training is very expensive for the military.
The IDF employs women in combat units where it is advantageous to have women: a unit that operates on the Egyptian border called Karkal, and a K9 unit called Oketz. In both of these cases, women serve in the units because they often deal with body searches and a male soldier shouldn't do that on a woman.
So maybe in that type of role, where it's actually advantageous, I could see incorporating women. Merely caving to social pressures to incorporate women on the basis of faux equality is a very dangerous thing for an organization that routinely places people in life and death situations.
I'm all for women in the infantry if they could do it. Everyone wants to see Vasquez from Aliens running around with a 240G or something, followed by a female Dietrich as a corpsman (with a flamethrower?)
The reality is, however.. as many of you might believe as well, that the 03 MOS is hardly the place for a social experiment!
My wife tells me all the time "you're out, why the heck do you care?" I guess I care because my blood will always grunt.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Definitely we could get a woman to fast rope easily enough.
Well, you gave other examples of stuff requiring physical strength, so my question was completely unrelated to that. I was just genuinely interested in how military forces have to do stuff with ropes.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: The IDF employs women in combat units where it is advantageous to have women: a unit that operates on the Egyptian border called Karkal, and a K9 unit called Oketz. In both of these cases, women serve in the units because they often deal with body searches and a male soldier shouldn't do that on a woman.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Definitely we could get a woman to fast rope easily enough.
Well, you gave other examples of stuff requiring physical strength, so my question was completely unrelated to that. I was just genuinely interested in how military forces have to do stuff with ropes.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: The IDF employs women in combat units where it is advantageous to have women: a unit that operates on the Egyptian border called Karkal, and a K9 unit called Oketz. In both of these cases, women serve in the units because they often deal with body searches and a male soldier shouldn't do that on a woman.
The PKK also have a lot of female fighters.
Sorry, not sure if I answered your question well.
Your comment made me curious - we hear about women in the Peshmerga all the time (badass women of Kurdistan, etc.), so I decided to look up their actual numbers. Wiki says this,
Although almost entirely made up of men, peshmerga forces have been known to include small numbers of women since its formation, and currently have 600 women in their ranks.[48] These female peshmerga have so far been refused access to the frontline, and are mostly used in logistics and management positions.[49]
I don't know how accurate this is, as I know that in Kobani females were participating in the fighting. The situation may have shifted since the fighting relocated closer to home.
Peace time the PFT was used to ensure everyone was physically fit to handle the rigors of combat. Promotion points to and a enforced standards along with height and weight standards.
Going on the Chub Scout program does not get one out of a combat deployment (overweight)
Failing the PT test does not get you out of a combat deployment (on purpose or one just weak physically)
Actually we're going back to peace time standards now
I would feel it is agreed that the male and female body have physical differences that can lend an inherent advantage or disadvantage.
In most cases these would only be noticed in the more extreme examples of say physical fitness or challenges.
So, if some "minimum" physical capabilities are required: do they properly represent the specific challenges of that "job"?.
The requirements should be relatively blind to gender or physical capabilities: can you do it or not?
It should not vary depending on who or what you are.
Unless there are actual physical limitations, anyone should be able to "train-up" to the level required.
My concern as a true limitation is getting everyone fit enough so that hauling a 200+lb combat wounded buddy out of a bad place is doable.
Never mind making sure that weight is not "excess baggage".
Okay, this is my own opinion but I feel women feel things in more extremes than men, I think facing an enemy combat female would be a truly scary prospect.
Mixed men and women in a unit would give enough diversity of perspective I can only feel it would operate better.
This would be ideal for multiple role units, more specialized units would probably benefit from more uniformity: all men or all women.
On the idea of cleanliness, considering the configuration between genders: if a woman goes some 30 odd days unwashed with men, they would be so much more tougher than their male counterparts. Body functions are what they are, not much use arguing about them, just grit your teeth and get the job done.
Just about every serviceman I know is all for women in combat roles, provided they can meet the male standards. I agree with this 100%. However, there is a question as to whether the standards are accurate measures of ones ability to perform the job, and there is a rather considerable amount of scientific evidence that indicates that the PFTs of all 4 branches of service don't really measure anything at all (in terms of ones overall physical health). There was an effort some years ago to update the PFT standards, I dont remember the specifics, but the events were very different (IIRC, pushups/situps/pullups were eliminated entirely, military press was added, run was replaced with timed sprints, etc.). Unfortunately it never really caught on with brass.
Also, I dont know any (male) Marines who have ever done less than 15 pullups on a PFT. Most hit at least 18, 20 is more common, and *some* of them usually keeping going after 20 to show off/a point of pride - just to put it into perspective for people unfamiliar with 'real' standards, women only doing 3-8 is looked down upon by most males, and isn't really even comparable outside of the scientific explanation of muscoskeletal differences.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Hypothetical answer: without the five women, then all you've got now is five men. Remember, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want.
If you can't get enough men, that's when you introduce conscription. Plus with modern populations as large as they are now, only very small despots may encounter problems rallying enough males. Even small nations such as Britain or Germany won't encounter enlistee issues, let alone the superpowers such as America or China or upcoming powers like India. Hell with China and India, they're practically the Imperial Guard. Crunch all you want. We'll make more.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Hypothetical answer: without the five women, then all you've got now is five men. Remember, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want.
"Take what you got, even if less capable" doesn't quite fit to my idea of a well-working army.
As I stated earlier, the USMC now has both a PFT and a CFT, the CFT is a Combat Fitness test, and is more in line with what you would be doing in a combat theater. one of the things in the CFT is you sprint, low crawl, high crawl and then you buddy carry a wounded marine and then you fire man carry the same marine back to friendly lines (I want to say 80 meters) and then you run the course a second time but you have to run it carrying 2 30lbs Ammo cans, chuck a grenade at a target (hit is -5 seconds a miss is +5 seconds) and then sprint those ammo cans back to the starting point.
Unfortunately the units usually want Marines carrying someone their own weight for these tests. Even still most females were given over 1/3rd more time to finish the event in even though the weights they were carrying (except the ammo cans) was around 1/3rd less then the average male marine.
With that said I distinctly remember having to run 2 CFT's (one practice one real) on back to back weeks where my platoon sergeant thought it would be hilarious to give me ol tubby Mcgee as my Buddy. Bastard weighed somewhere around 240-250lbs was about 6'9 (At the time I was 5'10 and about 190lbs). I still managed to carry his fat ass all the way back and beat the perfect score time by 5 seconds.
LordofHats wrote: Sooner or later it won't really matter how strong your back is. We'll have Heinlein style power armor to do all the lifting for us
You're crazy if you think that means people are going to carry less weight. They'll just have soldiers carrying around the maximum load of ammunition, rations, and general supplies as per usual.
"You've got power armor? GREAT, now carry this artillery piece."
Ghazkuul wrote: As I stated earlier, the USMC now has both a PFT and a CFT, the CFT is a Combat Fitness test, and is more in line with what you would be doing in a combat theater.
I know the army had been toying with the idea of a "combat fitness test" for at least the last couple years that I was in.
The problem with a "PFT" or "APFT" (because, you know... Army) is that you definitely do get the guys who can "fake" being in shape. You know the guys/gals... the ones who can rip through pushups for 2 minutes, situps for 2 minutes, and can do well on a 2 mile run........ Ask them to run 2.5 miles or 3 miles, and they are dying and falling out at 2.1 miles. Ask them to do dips or 8 count pushups, or orhter exercises than "pushups and situps" and they are done.
Psienesis wrote: Our next war will probably be fought primarily with drones and mercenaries, so who gives a gak?
drones...no, they will definitely be there though, Mercenaries? yeah private contracting is always there but nobody wins a war without putting Boots on the ground. And those boots will always have USMC and USARMY on them.
Ghazkuul wrote: And those boots will always have USMC and USARMY on them.
Mine never said that... mine always said things like "Oakley" or "Nike" or "Bellevue" or "Rocky"
LOL well Marines being Marines ours had the Eagle Globe and Anchor stenciled on the side. We also had US Marines and our last names sewn onto the fronts of our uniform to remind us who we were and what branch of service we were in, because sometimes we forget.....
Psienesis wrote: Our next war will probably be fought primarily with drones and mercenaries, so who gives a gak?
drones...no, they will definitely be there though, Mercenaries? yeah private contracting is always there but nobody wins a war without putting Boots on the ground. And those boots will always have USMC and USARMY on them.
Nah, probably not. Even when I was in, the face of warfare was changing as the technology was advancing, and this was before the new millennium. We basically just wasted thirteen years and a few thousand of our lives, and several hundred thousand civilian lives, meanwhile driving the country into bankruptcy, for a job that a black ops team took care of. Worse? We fethed ourselves right well and good by forgetting what it was we were supposed to be defending, what it was we were fighting for. Add to that we gave rise to what is now being described as a Death Cult that we will, no doubt, need to return to the region to combat within 20 years (barring some other state going first). Just wait for ISIS/IS/ISIL or whatever-the-feth they're calling themselves this week start making inroads against the oil fields we want.
Psienesis wrote: Our next war will probably be fought primarily with drones and mercenaries, so who gives a gak?
drones...no, they will definitely be there though, Mercenaries? yeah private contracting is always there but nobody wins a war without putting Boots on the ground. And those boots will always have USMC and USARMY on them.
Nah, probably not. Even when I was in, the face of warfare was changing as the technology was advancing, and this was before the new millennium. We basically just wasted thirteen years and a few thousand of our lives, and several hundred thousand civilian lives, meanwhile driving the country into bankruptcy, for a job that a black ops team took care of. Worse? We fethed ourselves right well and good by forgetting what it was we were supposed to be defending, what it was we were fighting for. Add to that we gave rise to what is now being described as a Death Cult that we will, no doubt, need to return to the region to combat within 20 years (barring some other state going first). Just wait for ISIS/IS/ISIL or whatever-the-feth they're calling themselves this week start making inroads against the oil fields we want.
The age old expression that you train for the last war you fought springs to mind. yeah the latest trend has been fighting insurgents, but what happens when the next large scale war kicks off...which with the way Russia is moving and China it may not be to far off in the future. Drones and a few black water agents won't stop the Russian/Chinese Armies, it will require a large conventional military and we just so happen to have one. Remember this other famous phrase, those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it"
All history is circular in nature, and eventually we are going to swing back to Large scale military actions and a military trained in counter terrorism only with lots of UAV/drones won't win that style of war.
Psienesis wrote: The US cannot afford to go to war with China, they're currently the ones who are paying for our military.
And guess what happens in a time of war against a foreign power? All Debts/loans become null and void. Furthermore, if anything go look up how many countries repaid the Debt they accrued in WW1 and WW2 from borrowing/buying and leasing from the United States. I'll give you a hint only 1 country fully paid its debt.
And guess what happens in a time of war against a foreign power? All Debts/loans become null and void.
Citation required. I've seen that stated in a number of places, mostly referring to the 14th Amendment, but that Amendment only specifically pertains to debts incurred by States involved in either suppressing insurrection or rebellion, or participating therein. It says nothing of debt owed to a foreign state.
People really just need to stop this "China owns us" nonsense. It's just not true, and even if it were, it's meaningless. China could call in our debt, and we can refuse, and then what? China makes infinitely more money collecting interest on our debt than they ever will trying to call it in (the same is true for us cause we own a substantial part of China's debt ourselves).
Unless the US economy implodes on itself, China owning US debt will never matter, and if our economy implodes on itself, China will have much bigger worries than our debt.
Forbes says some 7.2% of USA debt held by China (7.0% Japan). The majority of debt is held domestically but China is the largest foreign holder of the debt (2014).
Mention of WW2 debt accrued was not of prior to war but what was determined for damages to be paid. More a compensation for the conquered to pay their new masters.
The only one country having fully paid rang a bell.
Well, many of the advances in weaponry have tended to be great equalizers so depending on the criteria for a mission, you pick the capabilities most necessary which limits men as well as women.
As a Marine in a weapons platoon (0351) I can appily say that PFT/CFT/old PRT were our easiest days by far. In no way do they come close to being an actual indicator of the physical demands of the actual job. They may be a good disqualifier of those who should never even attempt to hump combat loads over distance. Never mind being capable of extended combat once you got there.
Though I question that since so many male Marines could pass a PFT but would in no way be considered cut out to be a Grunt. Even the female Marines in the article who were passionate about proving that women could do it had decided that they never wanted to do it full time. Why are we even considering this?
I still don't see why this issue isn't looked at through the prism of equal rights. It is not the male Americans "privilege" to serve in the infantry. The draft is still out there and the notion that we will NEVER see one again is just idiotic. It cannot be a female Americans "privilege" to serve in the infantry without it also being their "duty" to do so when the country needs it.
Make them sign up for the draft and when the time comes draft them in a percentage reflective of the gender demographic. Last estimate I heard females make up 52% of the US population. How well do you think those infantry units would do if they were 52% female drawn not just from the more muscular athletic girls but the girls in band, yearbook club and those who are just going through life trying to stay skinny.
Strategic Wastage is a thing. It gets most of the men who serve in the infantry at one point or another, they represent only a fraction of those who serve in the military. POG's aren't Grunts, don't kid yourself. You might find a woman or two who can pass an entrance level test, can we still count them on one hand? But Women cannot.
Uh... I think you will find that standards are laxer for women in just about every field, and if they're not, there's feminists campaigning to make it so.
After the last local marathon, the local gender equality league was protesting the fact that male runners earned higher monetary rewards - which are calculated from place and run time. They demand the same money for a worse result.
LordofHats wrote: People really just need to stop this "China owns us" nonsense. It's just not true, and even if it were, it's meaningless. China could call in our debt, and we can refuse, and then what? China makes infinitely more money collecting interest on our debt than they ever will trying to call it in (the same is true for us cause we own a substantial part of China's debt ourselves).
Unless the US economy implodes on itself, China owning US debt will never matter, and if our economy implodes on itself, China will have much bigger worries than our debt.
The US nullifying its debt would be akin (and basically the same thing as) a private citizen declaring bankruptcy. It ruins your credit rating, and makes lenders less-likely to lend to you in the future. In practical terms, this reduces the US' buying power on international markets, which means our money's worth less when buying imports, and thus prices on the majority of consumer goods rises.
lord_blackfang wrote: Uh... I think you will find that standards are laxer for women in just about every field, and if they're not, there's feminists campaigning to make it so.
After the last local marathon, the local gender equality league was protesting the fact that male runners earned higher monetary rewards - which are calculated from place and run time. They demand the same money for a worse result.
To put it in perspective for the military. My unit had a recon element that routinely attached to MEU's and SF's units to do TG missions and other high speed crap. Since our role wasn't strictly Combat arms we had females in every facet of our battalion EXCEPT our recon teams. A New Battalion commander came on deck and tried to increase our recon element from a single highly trained Platoon to almost a full Company. To do this he did Recon screenings for the entire battalion to force people into this new program. After the screening he managed to get his numbers and low and behold 3 females made it! The females were given ZERO extra help. good on them right? Unfortunately, 2 of the 3 females who passed also injured themselves to the point where one was medically discharged and the other became an Officers clerk because she had shattered her arm and did lasting damage to her hip. the 3rd girl? She was without a doubt the toughest one in our battalion.....and she washed out of the recon training once she got into the unit. Apparently spending days in swamps and doing forced marches and having to swim New river several times wore her down and she eventually quit. In no way was the training any different for her then any of the males and I can tell you for a fact that the training IS necessary. On a routine basis these guys are dropped off behind enemy lines or have to march to their area of operations because vehicles/transports are just not feasible for the area. If you can't keep up you become a HUGE detractor and can cost lives.
Equal opportunity means equal opportunity, that does not mean that we should lower the challenges just because of gender. The enemy wont give females the extra time it takes them to march or give them a few warning shots to make sure they are ready.
LordofHats wrote: People really just need to stop this "China owns us" nonsense. It's just not true, and even if it were, it's meaningless. China could call in our debt, and we can refuse, and then what? China makes infinitely more money collecting interest on our debt than they ever will trying to call it in (the same is true for us cause we own a substantial part of China's debt ourselves).
Unless the US economy implodes on itself, China owning US debt will never matter, and if our economy implodes on itself, China will have much bigger worries than our debt.
The thing in my mind about China is not so much debt as the fact they have a stranglehold onn rare earths. I work at a company where I saw the price of Titanium double inside of a week because of China's influence.
Equal opportunity means equal opportunity, that does not mean that we should lower the challenges just because of gender. The enemy wont give females the extra time it takes them to march or give them a few warning shots to make sure they are ready.
sarcasm
Well, maybe if evil men didn't use their manly privilege to patriarchy up a good ole boys club that lets them make up more then 99% of active combat roles.
Besides if both sides had all female armies, then we wouldn't even need armies because war wouldn't exist, at the very least they would give each other extra time to wake up and get ready for battle.
/sarcasm
In all seriousness basic entry fitness standards are already pretty low as they are, even for guys IMO, a few pull ups? that's easy... humping all that gear, for days/weeks/months, with no shower/bed/ect and still having energy to fight in combat effectively is far far harder.
The standards should be the same regardless of race/sex/ethnicity/ect just the way the rights are the same as both our rights and our responsibilities are to be applied equally regardless of such things.
easysauce wrote: [
In all seriousness basic entry fitness standards are already pretty low as they are, even for guys IMO, a few pull ups? that's easy... humping all that gear, for days/weeks/months, with no shower/bed/ect and still having energy to fight in combat effectively is far far harder.
The standards should be the same regardless of race/sex/ethnicity/ect just the way the rights are the same as both our rights and our responsibilities are to be applied equally regardless of such things.
Ideally, yes. As long as all such standards reflect the bonafide requirements for the job.
The pull up test in question may not be an accurate reflection of the requirements of the job and unfairly biased against a certain group of candidates, potentially resulting in good candidates being washed out prematurely. The military changing the standards of the pull up test may be a tacit admission from them that the pull up test is indeed not relevant to the job.
Pullups are not the reason no female candidate have completed Marine IOC or Ranger school. Women can meet the minimum pullup standards, rare though it may be. Carrying 100+ lbs on long humps or running long distances carrying a rifle and gear over obstacles is, and those are inarguable extremely relevant to infantry.
DarkLink wrote: Pullups are not the reason no female candidate have completed Marine IOC or Ranger school. Women can meet the minimum pullup standards, rare though it may be. Carrying 100+ lbs on long humps or running long distances carrying a rifle and gear over obstacles is, and those are inarguable extremely relevant to infantry.
Females have been able to pass a male PFT since the inception of it. the problem is that it is almost irrelevant to the actual job they would be required to do in an Infantry MOS. I knew several 300 PFTers who sucked on Ruck marches and when we deployed they tended to be dead weight. In all actuality the best guys in our unit were the heavier set guys who were 5'10-6'3 and about 200lbs. they could march all day, set up an OP at night and then march back to the PB the next day and be ready to do it all over again. The lighter guys usually struggled with this kind of non stop action.
We had females running with grunts in country already, they were called "FET" teams "Female Engagement Team" they were brought along to do searches of woman and children and to interact with females during patrols. this was one of the key points of COIN operations while we were in country. The problem with FET teams was they were basically combat ineffectives. the patrol leader usually had to detail at least an entire fire team to babysit them which undermanned the rest of the patrol. Overall I think a handful of woman CAN cut it, but the costs required to let 1% of the females who want to be infantry would in no way be offset by what they brought to the table. Equal opportunity is wonderful in a lot of different settings, but I won't lie to you, Combat/Infantry is not one of those settings.
Anecdotally - I was an antenna jockey. A good chunk of my job was lugging 75 pound cable reels around the desert, for which pull-up muscles probably would have helped. There were plenty of women in my unit who passed the APFT with flying colors that could barely budge one of those; there were guys who would carry one around on each shoulder that scored worse than them.
Exactly. I've known my fair share of women who could get solid pft scores, pullups included, but whom I would smoke on any exercise that involved picking up any significant amount of weight. They were great athletes, and certainly not weak, but when you're comparing a 120lb person to a 200lb person, one is going to have a significant natural advantage picking up and moving 50+ lbs repeatedly for time and distance.
The current standards for various military units produces results, and you cannot argue that infantry do not need to ruck with heavy packs or run while carrying rifle and gear. There really isn't much to discuss.
DarkLink wrote: Exactly. I've known my fair share of women who could get solid pft scores, pullups included, but whom I would smoke on any exercise that involved picking up any significant amount of weight. They were great athletes, and certainly not weak, but when you're comparing a 120lb person to a 200lb person, one is going to have a significant natural advantage picking up and moving 50+ lbs repeatedly for time and distance.
The current standards for various military units produces results, and you cannot argue that infantry do not need to ruck with heavy packs or run while carrying rifle and gear. There really isn't much to discuss.
I honestly felt a little bad, because there was our resident female PT stud - she put in an hour or two after work at the gym like daily, was like three inches taller than me, really cared and tried hard; I skeeved out of PT whenever possible, would show up to PT tests still drunk and beat her two mile by 3-4 mintues. And she could never lift a reel of cx11230 off the ground. She tried like really hard. And then my 5'7, 160 lbs lazy ass would wander up, toss it over my shoulder and be like "Where'd you want this?"
I went to Marine OCS (ended up choosing not to comission, loved it but it just wasn't the right job for me and I wasn't about to half-ass potentially leading Marines into combat), and I helped a lot of female candidates train. They struggled bigtime with pullups, but there were a few hard chargers that could do 5-10 pullups. They did ok on training rucks, but they struggled to keep up with me when I had 90lbs on my back and they had 60, and I could throw 120+ on and keep a solid pace. And after many years of crossfit, I've met some women who are phenominal athletes, including some that can do strict muscleups, but at the end of the day in workouts I'd be lifting twice as much weight on the bar and getting similar times as them.
I'm certain there are women out there who can do it, and they deserve a shot, but they should never get a pass on the standards. If they make the cut, awesome. If not, they gave it their best, and they'll nake great soldiers/Marines in a different MOS.
DarkLink wrote: Pullups are not the reason no female candidate have completed Marine IOC or Ranger school. Women can meet the minimum pullup standards, rare though it may be. Carrying 100+ lbs on long humps or running long distances carrying a rifle and gear over obstacles is, and those are inarguable extremely relevant to infantry.
But if pull ups are washing out female candidates who might otherwise have had the ability to complete the training and have successful careers while not necessarily being relevant to the job, then they are a problem.
Let the women wash out for legit reasons, not because a test does not accurately reflect their capabilities or the actual job they need to do.
Let's also remember why women want into the combat arms, without combat training, and ideally combat experience, it is extremely hard to get promotions into the upper levels of the US military. So women who want to dedicate their life to serving are being forced into positions that pay less, will see them reach terminal rank faster and ultimately leave them with a lesser pension than their male colleagyes of otherwise equal capability But happen to have a different muscular structure that makes pull ups easier .
Let's also remember why women want into the combat arms, without combat training, and ideally combat experience, it is extremely hard to get promotions into the upper levels of the US military. So women who want to dedicate their life to serving are being forced into positions that pay less, will see them reach terminal rank faster and ultimately leave them with a lesser pension than their male colleagyes of otherwise equal capability But happen to have a different muscular structure that makes pull ups easier .
Not true at all.... A buddy of mine was in the Air Force, got out, and ends up marrying an LT in the army. She's now a Major, working in the medical field. Her official job position is as a flight surgeon, and based on what I've been told she's making nearly triple what an infantry officer of the same rank and time would make, due to bonuses, duty pay, etc. Yes, she will reach terminal rank faster, as she is probably already there, because the only higher position than her as a flight surgeon, is "Aerospace Surgeon" which is in the astronaut program, and there's so few slots in the army for that, there may as well be only one.
When I was in, there were a few female generals, all of whom were in "support" MOSs, including Maj. Gen. Legere, who was in charge of INSCOM. There's an argument to be made that INSCOM is more important than artillery or cavalry, or even infantry, because if the intel people get their stuff wrong, people die.
But if pull ups are washing out female candidates who might otherwise have had the ability to complete the training and have successful careers while not necessarily being relevant to the job, then they are a problem.
Dont mistake me, if you can't meet the minimum pullup standards, you aren't strong enough to make the cut. Minimum pullup standards are not particularly difficult, and there are a lot of things that require upper body strength. How can you climb over a wall into a compound to get into position while wearing 100lbs of gear if you can't do three pullups? Heck, how can you pick up your ILBE to put on your back to go out on a patrol in the first place?
And I knew too many females who could do pullups to buy the bs excuse "but it's just too hard for women to do pullups". Well, suck it up, there was a time when I couldn't do a real pullup and my 3 mile was probably 27 minutes. I kicked myself into shape, and by OCS I never did fewer than 20 pullups and was just shy of an 18 min 3 mile. If you were a good candidate that couldn't meet the physical standards, then you didn't get selected to go to OCS, of you dropped out. OCS isn't even all that physically difficult if you can run reasonably fast and do pullups and ruck. Like most military training, its 90% mental. If you failed to meet the minimum requirements, you usually got one retake or you were gone, and virtually none of the graduating candidates had to do a retake other than for injuries. Meeting the minimums was the easy part.
If they lower standards to help a particular group of troops to enter a MOS field then they are endangering everyone else in that particular field who meet the current standards. One cannot have double standards
DarkLink wrote: Exactly. I've known my fair share of women who could get solid pft scores, pullups included, but whom I would smoke on any exercise that involved picking up any significant amount of weight. They were great athletes, and certainly not weak, but when you're comparing a 120lb person to a 200lb person, one is going to have a significant natural advantage picking up and moving 50+ lbs repeatedly for time and distance.
The current standards for various military units produces results, and you cannot argue that infantry do not need to ruck with heavy packs or run while carrying rifle and gear. There really isn't much to discuss.
This - PFTs (ours especially) tend to test speed and strength relative to bodyweight. But a M2 tripod doesn't care how much you weigh - it always weighs the same, which is why our weapons company always got the big guys relative to our "arrow" company. I have no idea where females would factor into that equation. We had some little dudes for sure, but they were also usually falling out on marches and having issues during operations. Mind you, we generally didn't operate wearing body armor unless we really expected contact...such is the work of 4th gen warfare where your enemy can just wait until you're smoked from patrolling all day and attack you in 4 in the afternoon...in the US the problem is exacerbated even more greatly as your PPE weighs probably 2-3x what ours weighed.
lord_blackfang wrote: Uh... I think you will find that standards are laxer for women in just about every field, and if they're not, there's feminists campaigning to make it so.
After the last local marathon, the local gender equality league was protesting the fact that male runners earned higher monetary rewards - which are calculated from place and run time. They demand the same money for a worse result.
To put it in perspective for the military. My unit had a recon element that routinely attached to MEU's and SF's units to do TG missions and other high speed crap. Since our role wasn't strictly Combat arms we had females in every facet of our battalion EXCEPT our recon teams. A New Battalion commander came on deck and tried to increase our recon element from a single highly trained Platoon to almost a full Company. To do this he did Recon screenings for the entire battalion to force people into this new program. After the screening he managed to get his numbers and low and behold 3 females made it! The females were given ZERO extra help. good on them right? Unfortunately, 2 of the 3 females who passed also injured themselves to the point where one was medically discharged and the other became an Officers clerk because she had shattered her arm and did lasting damage to her hip. the 3rd girl? She was without a doubt the toughest one in our battalion.....and she washed out of the recon training once she got into the unit. Apparently spending days in swamps and doing forced marches and having to swim New river several times wore her down and she eventually quit. In no way was the training any different for her then any of the males and I can tell you for a fact that the training IS necessary. On a routine basis these guys are dropped off behind enemy lines or have to march to their area of operations because vehicles/transports are just not feasible for the area. If you can't keep up you become a HUGE detractor and can cost lives.
Equal opportunity means equal opportunity, that does not mean that we should lower the challenges just because of gender. The enemy wont give females the extra time it takes them to march or give them a few warning shots to make sure they are ready.
Frankly, equal opportunity for stuff like this is wasteful. Each of those slots costs money. Each invalided out trooper costs money. Opening slots for a population that has little chance to make it through deprives others of the slot so there is also opportunity costs. Consider that the motivated women who attempt them have much higher injury rate and suffer statistically worse injuries than their male counterparts and this 'equal opportunity' comes at a cost that a resource constrained military (and the tax payer) should not be funding.
There are better ways to address the perceived lack of senior female leaders in the military. Ways that don't end up injuring some fantastic ladies who have a lot to offer.
(I'm married to a wonderful lady who is in BDE command right now)
easysauce wrote: [
In all seriousness basic entry fitness standards are already pretty low as they are, even for guys IMO, a few pull ups? that's easy... humping all that gear, for days/weeks/months, with no shower/bed/ect and still having energy to fight in combat effectively is far far harder.
The standards should be the same regardless of race/sex/ethnicity/ect just the way the rights are the same as both our rights and our responsibilities are to be applied equally regardless of such things.
Ideally, yes. As long as all such standards reflect the bonafide requirements for the job.
The pull up test in question may not be an accurate reflection of the requirements of the job and unfairly biased against a certain group of candidates, potentially resulting in good candidates being washed out prematurely. The military changing the standards of the pull up test may be a tacit admission from them that the pull up test is indeed not relevant to the job.
actually it is fair...
pull ups are easier then what is actually required,
if you cant do pull ups, you are not qualified.
If you seriously cannot comprehend why a soldier would need to be able to pull themselves up by their arms, say climbing a wall, then you need to be more creative.
In the USMC your grunt PFT is 3 mile run in under 28 minutes, 100 situps in 2 minutes and 3ish pullups for the minimums (if you don't get 100 situps as your minimum then your partner is a Blue Falcon) For your Average POG marines the PFT is 28 minutes 100 situps and 3ish pullups. Those are the BARE MINIMUMS for every part of the USMC. It doesn't matter what job you have. I said earlier though that while I was in if you didnt get a 1st class PFT you pretty much failed. so if females are losing out on combat arms jobs because they cant do that then tough crap because if you can't do the minimum then I sure as hell don't want you on patrol with me.
We are we wrapped around "pull ups". For the life of me I never had to scale a wall to get to the enemy. Granted I duck behind a few walls to avoid threatening lead bee's but never scaled them. Used a dumpster one time to look over the wall but that was iffy situation. Worse time I had was sprinting up four flight of stairs in rattle battle in like 120ish heat. That SUCKED.
Jihadin wrote: We are we wrapped around "pull ups". For the life of me I never had to scale a wall to get to the enemy. Granted I duck behind a few walls to avoid threatening lead bee's but never scaled them. Used a dumpster one time to look over the wall but that was iffy situation. Worse time I had was sprinting up four flight of stairs in rattle battle in like 120ish heat. That SUCKED.
Maybe it's just a difference in AOs, but we hopped walls (especially walls on rooftops and in courtyards) and windows all the time while on patrol.
Jihadin wrote: We are we wrapped around "pull ups". For the life of me I never had to scale a wall to get to the enemy. Granted I duck behind a few walls to avoid threatening lead bee's but never scaled them. Used a dumpster one time to look over the wall but that was iffy situation. Worse time I had was sprinting up four flight of stairs in rattle battle in like 120ish heat. That SUCKED.
Yes, but this is the MARINES we're talking about here. There's no time for a thought like, "ohh hey, that dumpster will allow me to see over that wall, lemme climb onto it and see what we can see"
Pull Ups don't prepare for combat. Pull Ups are a great means to check strength for specific muscles - as has already been explained by at least two people in this thread.
Well, you can quantify upper body strength with your ability to push and your ability to pull. Far be it from "only testing specific muscles" pullups are a very strong indicator of the latter. Regardless, squabbling over the necessity of the ability to do 3 pullups is utterly irrelevant. Running around with heavy loads is the hard part, and it's the reason women haven't been completing IOC or Ranger School. Women can do pullups, and if you show up to a military school without the ability to meet the minimum pft, women or not, you dont get to try and shift the blame on someone else.
In defense of my beloved corps, I leave it to the army.
Spoiler:
The safest place in Korea was right behind a platoon of Marines. Lord, how they could fight!
MGen. Frank E. Lowe, USA; Korea, 26 January 1952
Why in hell can't the Army do it if the Marines can. They are the same kind of men; why can't they be like Marines.
Gen. John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, USA; 12 February 1918
I have just returned from visiting the Marines at the front, and there is not a finer fighting organization in the world!
General of the Armies Douglas MacArthur; Korea, 21 September 1950
We have two companies of Marines running rampant all over the northern half of this island, and three Army regiments pinned down in the southwestern corner, doing nothing. What the hell is going on?
Gen. John W. Vessey Jr., USA, Chairman of the the Joint Chiefs of Staff
during the assault on Grenada, 1983
Back on topic, females have to meet the bare minimum service requirements. If they wish to join an all male MOS they should have to pass the MALE requirements unless we are going to become sexists ourselves and let it be ok to weaken military and let our standards drop.
Jihadin wrote: We are we wrapped around "pull ups". For the life of me I never had to scale a wall to get to the enemy. Granted I duck behind a few walls to avoid threatening lead bee's but never scaled them. Used a dumpster one time to look over the wall but that was iffy situation. Worse time I had was sprinting up four flight of stairs in rattle battle in like 120ish heat. That SUCKED.
Maybe it's just a difference in AOs, but we hopped walls (especially walls on rooftops and in courtyards) and windows all the time while on patrol.
yeah...
Nuggz, we have to consider that once a small fence or wall can hold up a soldier to the extent you have to breach it or make a human ladder, something is wrong... walls, ladders, climbing of any sort, rope acent/decent, and many more activities would require much more then 3 pull ups worth of strength
I sure your personal experience is that you never had to pull yourself up anything while out on duty, but as Jihadin points out, that's not everyone's experience...
personally I hate doors and stairs... they are death traps... pulling oneself up quietly through an ulterior entrance like a window is just uncommon sense!
also, women do pull ups fairly well in my experience... back at my jr high gym class most fit women could do 2-4 pull ups, its just not a well proven argument that this exercise alone does account for that high non pass or drop out rate of women.
Back on topic, females have to meet the bare minimum service requirements. If they wish to join an all male MOS they should have to pass the MALE requirements unless we are going to become sexists ourselves and let it be ok to weaken military and let our standards drop.
Brings up a great point. Why do the Army and Uncle Sam's Misguided Children have different PT test standards for males and females? Shouldn't there be just A Standard?
Hint: The percent of females that could meet the male minimums for the upper body strength portions is pretty slim, which would vastly decrease the number of females in the military. And since (in the Army) promotion points currently take into account how well you do, with one standard, males would tend to score higher/get more promotion points.
I can't find a link, but I recall seeing the results of a study where they looked at ROTC and West Point cadet APFT scores and showed that if the male standard was applied to every cadet, the large majority of females would not have passed.
Honest question: Would you all be good with that? A military with a vastly smaller amount of females but One Standard for the APFT (and USMC equivalent)? Or is the answer that the male standard is too high? (Even lowering it to the current female standard only solves part of the problem, the disparity in promotion points would still exist as males would typically score a lot higher than their female counterparts.)
Im perfectly fine with separate standards for the PFT for promotion points, thats fare because a male will be better able to get a higher score, but with that said the current female standards are a joke. I don't think i could have failed a female PFT if i drank all weekend, lifted for 6 hours right before the PFT and had to carry a 30lbs assault pack.
As to why the standards are different between the two services? No offense army, but Marines have higher standards.
As to why the standards are different between the two services? No offense army, but Marines have higher standards.
And yet they go to Army schools...
Like Airborne School.
Or the Armor Officers Course.
And several intel and signal schools.
and our pay checks are not label "Dept of the Navy"
Pathfinder school to
Also their Spec Op unit had to get retrain by Special Forces.
Higher Standards is a myth. I've met some dirt ball of Marines same as any other branches of service. So stop sounding like a "Boot" who just came out of the training.
One of the advantages of being an American veteran of the IDF is that I can completely ignore this inter-branch rivalry nonsense, and stick to the important things in life, like bitching about poor equipment, obnoxious commanders, and disgusting conditions.
Honest question: Would you all be good with that? A military with a vastly smaller amount of females but One Standard for the APFT (and USMC equivalent)? Or is the answer that the male standard is too high? (Even lowering it to the current female standard only solves part of the problem, the disparity in promotion points would still exist as males would typically score a lot higher than their female counterparts.)
To be frank, I would eliminate or severely cut down the "importance" placed on PT for the purpose of promotion points. During my ten years, I was under plenty of leadership who could PT till the cows came in, but were utter, miserable failures at their MOS (something which they, at one point had to have some proficiency in, or how did they make it through AIT?). I personally hated going to the board, because once the docs put me on a P2/P3 profile, everytime I went, CSM was always asking "Ensis, why is your PT score so messed up?" and I'd have to say, "CSM, the doctors said I have arthritis, which apparently means I can't run. I assure you that isn't the case, due to my hobby of playing rugby on the weekends." I think that there is far too much "He/She is a PT Stud, they will obviously be great leaders!" going on.
In talking to a contractor buddy of mine in Germany, I prefer the idea behind part of the Navy's promotion system: MOS related testing. In order to move up, you MUST demonstrate that you know your job at your current level and can do some of the job at the next level.
Ohh and Marine rifle range qualification has 500 yard shooting not just 300 like army :-P
There's actually a good reason for that.... how many times in any modern war (let's just say, any war involving US forces using "exclusively" M-16 family of weapons) have service-men/women engaged an enemy at anywhere near 500m?
It's a point of "fact" that the vast majority of engagement Army personnel come into are at 250m or closer.
Honest question: Would you all be good with that? A military with a vastly smaller amount of females but One Standard for the APFT (and USMC equivalent)? Or is the answer that the male standard is too high? (Even lowering it to the current female standard only solves part of the problem, the disparity in promotion points would still exist as males would typically score a lot higher than their female counterparts.)
To be frank, I would eliminate or severely cut down the "importance" placed on PT for the purpose of promotion points.
Okay, no promotion points for PT. Got it.
How about the real questions:
Would you all be good with a military with a vastly smaller amount of females but One Standard for the APFT? Or is the answer that the male standard is too high?
Honest question: Would you all be good with that? A military with a vastly smaller amount of females but One Standard for the APFT (and USMC equivalent)? Or is the answer that the male standard is too high? (Even lowering it to the current female standard only solves part of the problem, the disparity in promotion points would still exist as males would typically score a lot higher than their female counterparts.)
To be frank, I would eliminate or severely cut down the "importance" placed on PT for the purpose of promotion points. During my ten years, I was under plenty of leadership who could PT till the cows came in, but were utter, miserable failures at their MOS (something which they, at one point had to have some proficiency in, or how did they make it through AIT?). I personally hated going to the board, because once the docs put me on a P2/P3 profile, everytime I went, CSM was always asking "Ensis, why is your PT score so messed up?" and I'd have to say, "CSM, the doctors said I have arthritis, which apparently means I can't run. I assure you that isn't the case, due to my hobby of playing rugby on the weekends." I think that there is far too much "He/She is a PT Stud, they will obviously be great leaders!" going on.
In talking to a contractor buddy of mine in Germany, I prefer the idea behind part of the Navy's promotion system: MOS related testing. In order to move up, you MUST demonstrate that you know your job at your current level and can do some of the job at the next level.
Ohh and Marine rifle range qualification has 500 yard shooting not just 300 like army :-P
There's actually a good reason for that.... how many times in any modern war (let's just say, any war involving US forces using "exclusively" M-16 family of weapons) have service-men/women engaged an enemy at anywhere near 500m?
It's a point of "fact" that the vast majority of engagement Army personnel come into are at 250m or closer.
Actually really good points except your last, I was probably in 1 fire fight that was closer then 400 yards. in Afghanistan it was long range affairs almost every time. :_D
Ghazkuul wrote: Simple as this, army PFT 2 miles Marine PFT 3 miles
Ohh and Marine rifle range qualification has 500 yard shooting not just 300 like army :-P
While I can't speak to enlisted training, I know a bunch of people who are now officers in both the Army and Marines (and other services), and what Marine officer candidates go through makes the other branch's officer programs look like a joke.
CptJake wrote:
Would you all be good with a military with a vastly smaller amount of females but One Standard for the APFT? Or is the answer that the male standard is too high?
I guess that, in reality I don't have so much a problem with the "number" of females in the military, but rather the constitution of those we have. I wouldn't necessarily say that women need to be doing male minimums, but certainly more push-ups than they currently do. As it stands right now, currently an 18 year old female needs 19 push-ups to pass an APFT. That's ridiculous, they quite often do more than that during a standard PT session as it is (albeit, broken up into various sets). I wouldn't necessarily suggest an 18 year old female be able to do 42 push-ups as the males do, but certainly somewhere in between. Maybe 25-30 should be the minimum? Sure, it may force some out, but I suspect it'd be the ones you and I have both seen that make you scratch your head and wonder how they ever pass tape, the ones constantly falling out of platoon runs, until it's time for the PT test, etc.
speaking of "large" military women, I would most definitely fix the height/weight program. Feth the current tape test, and it's "field expedient" BS line. It is not accurate in the least bit and far too many people are able to play the system and remain in the military with their tubby behinds taking up space.
Ghazkuul wrote:
Actually really good points except your last, I was probably in 1 fire fight that was closer then 400 yards. in Afghanistan it was long range affairs almost every time. :_D
Ahh, see... being that all my warzone tours were Iraq, and most of my time there was urban ops.
CptJake wrote:
Would you all be good with a military with a vastly smaller amount of females but One Standard for the APFT? Or is the answer that the male standard is too high?
I guess that, in reality I don't have so much a problem with the "number" of females in the military, but rather the constitution of those we have. I wouldn't necessarily say that women need to be doing male minimums, but certainly more push-ups than they currently do. As it stands right now, currently an 18 year old female needs 19 push-ups to pass an APFT. That's ridiculous, they quite often do more than that during a standard PT session as it is (albeit, broken up into various sets). I wouldn't necessarily suggest an 18 year old female be able to do 42 push-ups as the males do, but certainly somewhere in between. Maybe 25-30 should be the minimum? Sure, it may force some out, but I suspect it'd be the ones you and I have both seen that make you scratch your head and wonder how they ever pass tape, the ones constantly falling out of platoon runs, until it's time for the PT test, etc.
speaking of "large" military women, I would most definitely fix the height/weight program. Feth the current tape test, and it's "field expedient" BS line. It is not accurate in the least bit and far too many people are able to play the system and remain in the military with their tubby behinds taking up space.
So you are okay with separate male and female standards and do not think there should just be A Standard?
(I'm not sure there is a 'correct answer', I am honestly curious what people think)
In regards to the PFT, I believe it's unjust, but I don't have an answer to fix it.
I'm a desk jockey, plain and simple. Women in my career field are as well. There is not a single gender difference in our jobs. We do the same exact thing. Even as a SWO doing Army Support, and having the increased combat training, everything between male and female job wise is identical.
So why does the military say I have to do 33 push ups as a minimum to pass, but women only 17? If the Air Force says that I am required to do that many to be able to meet the demands of the duty that is expected of me, then why do women have to meet a requirement half as high?
Now before anyone starts griping about how low are standards are compared to the other services, that's not what I'm going on about. Baring Spec Ops, there is not a single job in the AF that women cannot get into. Yet our physical fitness requirements between the two sexes are completely night and day.
Unless they've changed it since I was in, a female soldier in the lower end of the age range (don't remember what it was, now... 18-22? Something like that) had to complete 25 to 30 pushups in 2 minutes, whereas male soldiers in the same age-bracket had to do 42.
Mind you, I've been out of the Army for 15 years now, so it would not surprise me to learn that the standards have changed.
Psienesis wrote: Unless they've changed it since I was in, a female soldier in the lower end of the age range (don't remember what it was, now... 18-22? Something like that) had to complete 25 to 30 pushups in 2 minutes, whereas male soldiers in the same age-bracket had to do 42.
Mind you, I've been out of the Army for 15 years now, so it would not surprise me to learn that the standards have changed.
I think these are current (and seem to be the same from when I was on active duty).
Females in lowest age category need 19 to pass and max on 42. Males need 42 to pass and 71 to max.
Sit ups are identical.
Run times are very different.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I've always wondered why folks don't lobby to get the Olympics to be unisex. The best athletes could compete against each other regardless of sex.
CptJake wrote: [
I've always wondered why folks don't lobby to get the Olympics to be unisex. The best athletes could compete against each other regardless of sex.
Not really... According to olympic.org the Gold Medal winning time in the 100m dash for men was 9.63 seconds. For women it was 10.75. Men's 200m time was 19.3 seconds, womens was 21.88.
There probably are some events that could be unisex, but I don't think there's many.
Ghazkuul wrote: Simple as this, army PFT 2 miles Marine PFT 3 miles
Ohh and Marine rifle range qualification has 500 yard shooting not just 300 like army :-P
Typical "Boot" glow there High Speed
All new troops regardless of back ground, race, sex, and/or prior service upon entering my platoon I expect to either they
1. Meet MY expectation
2. Exceed MY expectation
Your NCO's are doing you a disservice if you haven't gotten that into your head already
Ghazkuul wrote: Simple as this, army PFT 2 miles Marine PFT 3 miles
Ohh and Marine rifle range qualification has 500 yard shooting not just 300 like army :-P
Typical "Boot" glow there High Speed
All new troops regardless of back ground, race, sex, and/or prior service upon entering my platoon I expect to either they
1. Meet MY expectation
2. Exceed MY expectation
Your NCO's are doing you a disservice if you haven't gotten that into your head already
Finished my 5 year enlistment back in september. even did my own EAS dance
Its not boot glow at this point its Marine Esprit De Corps
CptJake wrote: [
I've always wondered why folks don't lobby to get the Olympics to be unisex. The best athletes could compete against each other regardless of sex.
Not really... According to olympic.org the Gold Medal winning time in the 100m dash for men was 9.63 seconds. For women it was 10.75. Men's 200m time was 19.3 seconds, womens was 21.88.
There probably are some events that could be unisex, but I don't think there's many.
So I guess the females would lose those events. I don't see that as a big deal. Equality is equality, right? No real differences between the sexes and all that. The best athlete wins.
Or do folks want to apply equality to silly things like combat, but not serious things like a foot race?
CptJake wrote: [
I've always wondered why folks don't lobby to get the Olympics to be unisex. The best athletes could compete against each other regardless of sex.
Not really... According to olympic.org the Gold Medal winning time in the 100m dash for men was 9.63 seconds. For women it was 10.75. Men's 200m time was 19.3 seconds, womens was 21.88.
There probably are some events that could be unisex, but I don't think there's many.
So I guess the females would lose those events. I don't see that as a big deal. Equality is equality, right? No real differences between the sexes and all that. The best athlete wins.
Or do folks want to apply equality to silly things like combat, but not serious things like a foot race?
I can see it if combat was predictable but since combat is done by a bunch of amateurs it can't be predictable
CptJake wrote: [
I've always wondered why folks don't lobby to get the Olympics to be unisex. The best athletes could compete against each other regardless of sex.
Not really... According to olympic.org the Gold Medal winning time in the 100m dash for men was 9.63 seconds. For women it was 10.75. Men's 200m time was 19.3 seconds, womens was 21.88.
There probably are some events that could be unisex, but I don't think there's many.
So I guess the females would lose those events. I don't see that as a big deal. Equality is equality, right? No real differences between the sexes and all that. The best athlete wins.
Or do folks want to apply equality to silly things like combat, but not serious things like a foot race?
I can see it if combat was predictable but since combat is done by a bunch of amateurs it can't be predictable
Good thing we are starting to outsource it to the professional mercy now-a-days.
Since Olympiads aren't paid, they're technically amateurs... and half the time, the US military sends a bunch of paid professionals to fight a bunch of unpaid volunteers so, I dunno, kind of a fuzzy distinction.
CptJake wrote: [
I've always wondered why folks don't lobby to get the Olympics to be unisex. The best athletes could compete against each other regardless of sex.
Not really... According to olympic.org the Gold Medal winning time in the 100m dash for men was 9.63 seconds. For women it was 10.75. Men's 200m time was 19.3 seconds, womens was 21.88.
There probably are some events that could be unisex, but I don't think there's many.
So I guess the females would lose those events. I don't see that as a big deal. Equality is equality, right? No real differences between the sexes and all that. The best athlete wins.
Or do folks want to apply equality to silly things like combat, but not serious things like a foot race?
I can see it if combat was predictable but since combat is done by a bunch of amateurs it can't be predictable
Good thing we are starting to outsource it to the professional mercy now-a-days.
Oh that's right. We're hiring Mercenaries to do the job
.
