Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 marv335 wrote:
If there is a reason for the standard, then it should be met regardless of the sex of the person that is required to make it.
If you can meet the standard, then you should be allowed to do the job.
If you can't meet it, then you shouldn't

That should be the end of the discussion.

It certainly should be, the question that remains to be answered is whether or not it will be. There's little doubt the military can get the overwhelming majority of females to the point where they can pass the basic combat arms physical requirements. The concern I'd have is for considerably tougher standards; what happens when a woman wants to go to BUD/S or SFAS? It's going to be a very, very low percentage that make it through - it's already a pretty low percentage among males. If we weren't dealing with a political agenda, that'd be the end of it, but inevitably someone's going to want to see female SEALs or 18As or whatever.

Naval aviation learned some very hard lessons about integrating females. Stick to the same standards and the same treatment as the males, and things can actually work out. Start deviating, and you run into problems.

Crazy how .4 seconds was the difference between the RIO's life and her death.

 Seaward wrote:

 marv335 wrote:
If there is a reason for the standard, then it should be met regardless of the sex of the person that is required to make it.
If you can meet the standard, then you should be allowed to do the job.
If you can't meet it, then you shouldn't

That should be the end of the discussion.

It certainly should be, the question that remains to be answered is whether or not it will be. There's little doubt the military can get the overwhelming majority of females to the point where they can pass the basic combat arms physical requirements. The concern I'd have is for considerably tougher standards; what happens when a woman wants to go to BUD/S or SFAS? It's going to be a very, very low percentage that make it through - it's already a pretty low percentage among males. If we weren't dealing with a political agenda, that'd be the end of it, but inevitably someone's going to want to see female SEALs or 18As or whatever.

Naval aviation learned some very hard lessons about integrating females. Stick to the same standards and the same treatment as the males, and things can actually work out. Start deviating, and you run into problems.

I could give you similar stories about this happening to male pilots. I do agree, though, with the sentiment about standards being the same for males or females.

I think Seaward was alleging that standards were lowered for the female pilots. I'm not sure on that though, so maybe he can clarify.

Relapse wrote:
I could give you similar stories about this happening to male pilots.

If she had survived and crashed a few more planes, she could have been a Senator from Arizona.

 Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I could give you similar stories about this happening to male pilots.

If she had survived and crashed a few more planes, she could have been a Senator from Arizona.

That's a little cold man, for all parties involved...

It seemed a fair rap. You're a woman and crash a plane, it's implied because you're an incompetent who only cut it because standards were lowered (although those facts weren't presented).

You graduate bottom in your class, have your dad pull some strings, and subsequently crash 4 planes (at least one of which also clearly pilot error); you're a conservative hero. /shrug

It's a tragedy she died, but if there's a cautionary tale here, maybe it's that sometimes pilot error happens and is useful to flog a political end on wargaming message boards if you're cheap enough to do so?

Relapse wrote:
I could give you similar stories about this happening to male pilots. I do agree, though, with the sentiment about standards being the same for males or females.

I could probably give you more. I couldn't give you any that failed car quals once and struggled non-stop to get aboard their entire career, though, because those guys never got to stick around.

A lot of guys struggle behind the boat at some point in their careers. I would never admit to being guilty of it myself, of course, but that's not the point. With the first crop of female naval aviators, things just didn't work out well. It was pretty much immediately after the first Tailhook scandal (I say first, as there's bound to be a second sooner or later), so there was pretty much exactly nobody willing to be even cordial with the women for fear of getting gakcanned, which didn't lead to a lot of useful mentoring or even moral support. There was an immense amount of pressure to make sure they all got through the pipeline, both on them and on the people responsible for making that happen. There were a lot of consistently low landing GPAs that somehow didn't result in ladies getting thrown ashore. Were things fudged to keep unsafe pilots flying for political or PR reasons? Dunno. It was widely assumed, that's for sure. Doesn't make it the case, and it's irrelevant either way. I personally doubt it, at least to any serious degree, though the fact that exactly none of the first females made it through or continued in naval aviation lends a little credibility to the notion that those selected just weren't up to scratch.

Your standard stud going through the pipeline doesn't have national interviews to deal with or the weight of history or whatever else on his shoulders. The women that followed the first batch? They turned out a lot better. There are some great female aviators catching wires today. There are women who've washed out. The point isn't that women can't do the job - they can - the point is that varying the standards or the treatment is never a good idea. Hultgreen was probably legitimately above the cut point. I've got nothing but decade-and-a-half-old rumor to suggest otherwise, as this all was well before my time. Even with that being the case, I suspect she'd be alive today had there been a lot less external pressure, of all types.

Because that's the thing. Dude #1005876 going through the RAG isn't a story. Girl #1 doing so is. That's inevitable, but focusing on it, making it some indicator of the future, or putting too much significance on her shoulders? Bad idea. The same will be true of the first female infantry officer. So don't do it. Treat 'em like the guys.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
It's a tragedy she died, but if there's a cautionary tale here, maybe it's that sometimes pilot error happens and is useful to flog a political end on wargaming message boards if you're cheap enough to do so?

Or you could try reading what's actually being said for a change.

There should be a standard. It should be set according to real service needs, and it should be gender neutral.

If it is essential for marines to do three pull ups, and that is a difficult task for women, they can compensate by having extra training in it.

There probably are standards that men would find it harder to achieve than women, however it is unlikely those are incorporated into current military practice as the prevailing culture is male.

The physical requirements should be set without bias.

People applying for the role should be tested without bias.

I would not wish to be in the situation of needing to have my injured body dragged to a position of cover by someone who was physically not up to the task and had to give up halfway, leaving us both exposed.

Does the boot camp actually give ample opportunit to improve that specific task, though? I tried to do more than 6 pull-ups for years, even having some weight taken off via a machine (sadly it puts it right back on once you're done...).

But then as Chaosxomega said, I started rock climbing, and I can now do quite a few more, in series. Plus it is a great focusing exercise. For the lock-offs, Frenchies ought to be able to fix that in about 3 weeks, if done two to three times a week.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
Does the boot camp actually give ample opportunit to improve that specific task, though? I tried to do more than 6 pull-ups for years, even having some weight taken off via a machine (sadly it puts it right back on once you're done...).

Not sure about Marine Boot... but when I went through Army Basic Training, we had a series of exercises that we had to complete prior to being allowed the privilege of eating in the Drill Sergeant's Mess Hall. Included in my platoon's routine was pullups, dips and pushups. Honestly, the only time in my life where my shoulder didn't want to come out of socket while doing a pull up


Also, I have no idea if they still do this, as the newbs that come through these days are, well.... soft.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
Does the boot camp actually give ample opportunit to improve that specific task, though? I tried to do more than 6 pull-ups for years, even having some weight taken off via a machine (sadly it puts it right back on once you're done...).

Not sure about Marine Boot... but when I went through Army Basic Training, we had a series of exercises that we had to complete prior to being allowed the privilege of eating in the Drill Sergeant's Mess Hall. Included in my platoon's routine was pullups, dips and pushups. Honestly, the only time in my life where my shoulder didn't want to come out of socket while doing a pull up


Also, I have no idea if they still do this, as the newbs that come through these days are, well.... soft.

To some degree. To even begin the training cycle you need to pass the Initial Strength Test, which has lower standards than the PFT. If you don't pass that, or you cant improve your conditioning, you get put into the Pork Chop Platoon, which just focuses on getting you into good enough shape to resume training. Boot is only 3 months long, and the training schedule is packed, so you wont see huge improvements in your PT once you get there. The point of boot camp is into instill military discipline and prepare the recruits for life in the military, not get you into super good shape, but rather good enough shape. Its not uncommon for PT studs to get in worse shape during boot as there really isnt any free time to PT outside of whats scheduled. You get into stud shape once you get to the Fleet.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
Does the boot camp actually give ample opportunit to improve that specific task, though? I tried to do more than 6 pull-ups for years, even having some weight taken off via a machine (sadly it puts it right back on once you're done...).

Not sure about Marine Boot... but when I went through Army Basic Training, we had a series of exercises that we had to complete prior to being allowed the privilege of eating in the Drill Sergeant's Mess Hall. Included in my platoon's routine was pullups, dips and pushups. Honestly, the only time in my life where my shoulder didn't want to come out of socket while doing a pull up


Also, I have no idea if they still do this, as the newbs that come through these days are, well.... soft.

There is the PCP, or physical conditioning platoon where recruits that don't stack up physically get placed until they can meet standards. After they meet standards, the recruit get placed in training. At least this was the way it went back in the day when I was in. My platoon had about a 30% attrition rate with some going into PCP. We never saw them again in our platoon, but they'd be slipped back in to a new new platoon at whatever week they had been dropped out on. Whenever we'd receive new recruits that had been dropped out from other platoons, the DI's would thrash the living crap out of them for at least a half hour at a time, leaving them in a pool of sweat and looking like they had a bucket of water poured over them.


Ninja'd!

Gotta earn your way into the platoon! Incidentally, the recruit depot record for pullups is 76, a number my overclocked monkey brain cannot handle.

@Deus, I know what you mean about losing strength in boot. I was a sheet rock hauler for about 9 months before I went in and would be in contests to see who could pack the most sheets when we were stocking construction sites. We'd be schlepping as many 12, 10, or 8 footers as we could fit into our hand( in my case for 8 footers,it was 5) and be carrying them by ourselves, wading through mud or running up or down stairs with them.
After doing that for a few months as an 8-12 hour a day job a man feels like he could rip a tank in half.
When I went through boot, it was all I could do to keep from cracking a smile as the DI's tried to convince me how rough it was.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
76 pullups is animal. I've seen many recruits going for the record coming away with their hands slick with blood.

This is a complicated issue, but it isn't shocking at all. Lets face it, the Marine Corps does not need females. We don't. We have thousands of males who would step up and take their jobs (basically just Comm, MT, supply and admin,depending where you are). They are more than welcome to join if they meet the requirements, but the Marine Corps should not be bullied into accommodating for them if they aren't willing to put forth the effort to do pull-ups and run a little faster.

If they don't take themselves seriously enough to learn how to do pull ups and compete with their male counterparts, they probably aren't going to be successful in the Marine Corps anyway.

If female enlistment slowed to a crawl, Parris Island would have a hard time accumulating enough bodies for full companies, as if they don't already. I think November, our sister company, consisted of about 120 female recruits, which was fairly large, I believe.

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
This is a complicated issue, but it isn't shocking at all. Lets face it, the Marine Corps does not need females. We don't. We have thousands of males who would step up and take their jobs (basically just Comm, MT, supply and admin,depending where you are).

(snip)

If female enlistment slowed to a crawl, Parris Island would have a hard time accumulating enough bodies for full companies, as if they don't already. I think November, our sister company, consisted of about 120 female recruits, which was fairly large, I believe.

.... help me out here. How do these two ideas fit into the same post?

Not entirely sure, but he's hinting at another question: if the representation rate of females in infantry/ combat arms minuscule, is it worth the cost to integrate them? Clearly, we don't have nearly sufficient data quantitatively or qualitatively to make that call yet, but something to mull over.

This may sound stupid, but in my HS the girls had the same requirements for dudes for many things(The only class in which the standards where not the same was weights, where you had to max out, so it was different for everyone) including a mile. Why doesnt(or didnt?) the military have this?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
This may sound stupid, but in my HS the girls had the same requirements for dudes for many things(The only class in which the standards where not the same was weights, where you had to max out, so it was different for everyone) including a mile. Why doesnt(or didnt?) the military have this?

You seem to indicate the standards were not the same for the girls as it was for the boys for weight training, is that correct?

The problem with that is that we're not trying to achieve some arbitrary standard. A rifleman in the field has a job that realistically will require them to be able to pull x pounds, which represents carrying a wounded comrade along with their gear and so on and so forth. That standard is asexual, and since there is a real world rationale for it there is no good reason, and many bad reasons to alter them.

If you're asking "why doesn't the military do this", it's because women have proportionately less upper body strength on average than men do. As a result, we don't reach a 50/50 ratio of women to men in physically arduous combat roles, and probably never will. There is political pressure from lobbying groups on elected officials to make sure women are "equally represented", which in their minds means 50/50. Since elected officials are at the mercy of the populace, the tendency of the political leadership is to have different standards because it's simple and more expedient than providing leadership and educating their constituents. No one wants to be painted as "anti-women", despite the fact the most likely result differing stanards will have is needlessly slain American troops.

Its not stupid, but the answer is simple and complicated: politics.

If you have different scoring systems/ standards for each gender, it allows men and women to remain competitive with each other promotion/point wise, but is inherently unfair.
With the same scoring standards, men will USUALLY have an advantage simply due to human physiology. Women generally won't score as high on PT, which will hamper promotion and career chances.
I think the best solution is a hybrid. Have hard standards when it comes to unit MOS/accession, for example 10 pullups, 100 crunches, 22 min 3 mile time for infantry regardless of gender. Have gender calibrated PFTs for promotion score.

I, however, won't go into the inherent advantage with superiors a pretty female Marine has over her...more rugged fellow Marines.

No, it was a personal standard in weight class, you did a max out at the begginging and you had to be your previous maxout at the end of the semester.
But I think I get it. Political pressure

 Ouze wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
This may sound stupid, but in my HS the girls had the same requirements for dudes for many things(The only class in which the standards where not the same was weights, where you had to max out, so it was different for everyone) including a mile. Why doesnt(or didnt?) the military have this?

You seem to indicate the standards were not the same for the girls as it was for the boys for weight training, is that correct?

The problem with that is that we're not trying to achieve some arbitrary standard. A rifleman in the field has a job that realistically will require them to be able to pull x pounds, which represents carrying a wounded comrade along with their gear and so on and so forth. That standard is asexual, and since there is a real world rationale for it there is no good reason, and many bad reasons to alter them.

If you're asking "why doesn't the military do this", it's because women have proportionately less upper body strength on average than men do. As a result, we don't reach a 50/50 ratio of women to men in physically arduous combat roles, and probably never will. There is political pressure from lobbying groups on elected officials to make sure women are "equally represented", which in their minds means 50/50. Since elected officials are at the mercy of the populace, the tendency of the political leadership is to have different standards because it's simple and more expedient than providing leadership and educating their constituents. No one wants to be painted as "anti-women", despite the fact the most likely result differing stanards will have is needlessly slain American troops.

Spot on. Certain groups will scream and cry until they feel there is adequate representation, regardless of the cost or the bounds of reality.

 DEUS VULT wrote:
Its not stupid, but the answer is simple and complicated: politics.

If you have different scoring systems/ standards for each gender, it allows men and women to remain competitive with each other promotion/point wise, but is inherently unfair.
With the same scoring standards, men will USUALLY have an advantage simply due to human physiology. Women generally won't score as high on PT, which will hamper promotion and career chances.
I think the best solution is a hybrid. Have hard standards when it comes to unit MOS/accession, for example 10 pullups, 100 crunches, 22 min 3 mile time for infantry regardless of gender. Have gender calibrated PFTs for promotion score.

I, however, won't go into the inherent advantage with superiors a pretty female Marine has over her...more rugged fellow Marines.

Not necessarily true in the Air Force at least. Our PT scores only factor in promotion based on whether we pass or fail. It doesn't matter if I score a 75 or 100, the impact to my EPR is the same. I believe the Navy works similarly.

Are there different physical requirements based on MOS?

That being said, I'm not sure alternating standards based on such would be a good idea. Certainly there are cases where units have you wound up in combat even if they shouldn't have - and, after all, "every Marine is a rifleman".

 djones520 wrote:

 DEUS VULT wrote:
Its not stupid, but the answer is simple and complicated: politics.

If you have different scoring systems/ standards for each gender, it allows men and women to remain competitive with each other promotion/point wise, but is inherently unfair.
With the same scoring standards, men will USUALLY have an advantage simply due to human physiology. Women generally won't score as high on PT, which will hamper promotion and career chances.
I think the best solution is a hybrid. Have hard standards when it comes to unit MOS/accession, for example 10 pullups, 100 crunches, 22 min 3 mile time for infantry regardless of gender. Have gender calibrated PFTs for promotion score.

I, however, won't go into the inherent advantage with superiors a pretty female Marine has over her...more rugged fellow Marines.

Not necessarily true in the Air Force at least. Our PT scores only factor in promotion based on whether we pass or fail. It doesn't matter if I score a 75 or 100, the impact to my EPR is the same. I believe the Navy works similarly.

Gotcha. For E-4 and E-5 Marines combing your PFT, Proficiency/Conduct marks, TIG, TIS, Rifle qual, Education, etc into a total, composite score. E-6 and above go to a board. PFTs are heavily weighted in both of these. Low enough PFT score and your command will generaly non-rec you for promotion, regardless of your performance elsewhere.

I think the issue here is that they're shooting for equal representation rather than equal opportunities - I, in my zero-military-experience capacity, think that while women should have the same OPPORTUNITY to try to become a marine as a male candidate, she shouldn't get an advantage over him (I.E easier goals) just so that politicians can grin happily over their 50/50 male/female split.

That's gender inequality, in my view.

And ok, so maybe (some) women are at a disadvantage, but who's to say that all the male candidates start at the same level?
I imagine some find it harder to achieve the required fitness than others, but you don't see them getting lowered requirements - they either work harder, or admit that they're not up to the job.
(I know I'd have a harder time than someone who spends more time exercising than I do, rather than browsing the OT forum!)

Everyone should have the same chance to try to reach the same required standard, but if you can't reach that standard, then surely that should the end of it?

Anyway, that's what I think.

 Ouze wrote:
Are there different physical requirements based on MOS?

That being said, I'm not sure alternating standards based on such would be a good idea. As I am sure the 507th Maintenance Company can attest to, sometimes you wind up in combat even if you shouldn't - and, after all, "every Marine is a rifleman".

To go to Reconnaissance, Sniper and other cool guy schools there are. Generally speaking, no. However, there is a lot less tolerance and much higher standards in combat arms than, say, Air Wing (which is kinda funny cause the most yoked dudes are always the biggest POGS) Of course, a lot depends on the Command as well.

http://terminallance.com/2010/01/26/terminal-lance-7-good-reasons-to-not-go-to-the-gym/

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
I think the issue here is that they're shooting for equal representation rather than equal opportunities - I, in my zero-military-experience capacity, think that while women should have the same OPPORTUNITY to try to become a marine as a male candidate, she shouldn't get an advantage over him (I.E easier goals) just so that politicians can grin happily over their 50/50 male/female split.

That's gender inequality, in my view.

And ok, so maybe (some) women are at a disadvantage, but who's to say that all the male candidates start at the same level?
I imagine some find it harder to achieve the required fitness than others, but you don't see them getting lowered requirements - they either work harder, or admit that they're not up to the job.
(I know I'd have a harder time than someone who spends more time exercising than I do, rather than browsing the OT forum!)

Everyone should have the same chance to try to reach the same required standard, but if you can't reach that standard, then surely that should the end of it?

Anyway, that's what I think.

You're right, there are men who do have a harder time meeting those standards. I have incredibly long arms, so doing push-ups is a lot more difficult for me then shorter stockier men. I have to "travel" further then most people while doing push-ups, so I technically have to work harder. The standard is the standard though, so I have to meet it.