Women in Military Service & Combat (not just USA)

[SJPONeill]

For that matter, there should be one PFT scale for all service members regardless of age or sex. Adam L

Well...no....The fitness scale should be relevant to the trade and employment group...those relevant for a pilot are not the same as those required in the infantry or armour and those may be different again from those necessary for SF or CSS or staff...

It's all very well to want a force all at the same high standard but I'd suggest that would be a very small force indeed...

Certainly my current requirement to navigate the Zimmerframe around the circuit in less than a week is less than the standards that had to met in my infantry days but the current requirement for me is certainly adequate for my (non-op) staff role...

[82redleg]

I'm with Adam. If we truly have an expeditionary army, then everyone must be capable of the minimum of physical exertion. Yeah, you're only a ...... (Patriot missile maintenance unit anyone?) but, push comes to shove, you need to be able to fight.

SPJONeill, your mindset is indicative of the mindset we had to get rid of from the US Army after 2003.

That isn't to say that individual units shouldn't set higher standards, based on the unit mission, but in the units I've been in, the unit standard was a single standard, regardless of age/gender, not age- and gender-normed, like the APFT is. An example is the XVIII ABN Corps 20km footmarch standard- the standard is 4 hours, with 35lb pack, weapon, helmet and LBE, regardless of age and/or gender. That said, IN (and other combat arms units) hold themselves to significantly higher standards.

[SJPONeill]

I'm with Adam. If we truly have an expeditionary army, then everyone must be capable of the minimum of physical exertion. Yeah, you're only a ...... (Patriot missile maintenance unit anyone?) but, push comes to shove, you need to be able to fight.

SPJONeill, your mindset is indicative of the mindset we had to get rid of from the US Army after 2003.

That isn't to say that individual units shouldn't set higher standards, based on the unit mission, but in the units I've been in, the unit standard was a single standard, regardless of age/gender, not age- and gender-normed, like the APFT is. An example is the XVIII ABN Corps 20km footmarch standard- the standard is 4 hours, with 35lb pack, weapon, helmet and LBE, regardless of age and/or gender. That said, IN (and other combat arms units) hold themselves to significantly higher standards.

But you are still only talking of a minimum standard. I'm sure that the standard you cite above from XVIII ABN Corps was the minimum , not the only, standard within that corps and that the various functional units within it had their own (higher) standards applicable to their roles. From an infantry perspective that standard is pretty light and I'm willing to bet that the infantry community in that corps would have been interested in longer distances, heavier loads AND, most importantly, being able to operate at the end of the foot march.

My point is that, if you insist on a single service fitness standard (as opposed to a practical (i.e. based on operational requirements) minimum standard), you will either have a standard based on the lowest common denominator or a service that is a lot smaller...

[davidbfpo]

As I read this thread and reflecting limited newsreel watching - what is practice in the Israeli Defence Forces? Who appear to have conscript women in some roles, although my limited memory cannot recall them being combat roles.

(Incidentally do we have an Israeli members?).

[Infanteer]

As I read this thread and reflecting limited newsreel watching - what is practice in the Israeli Defence Forces? Who appear to have conscript women in some roles, although my limited memory cannot recall them being combat roles.

(Incidentally do we have an Israeli members?).

Don't know about Israel but we've had women in all branches for a few decades now. We've lost two female soldiers from the combat arms in Afghanistan - A FOO in a ambush/firefight and an armoured recce trooper to an IED.

It's really a non-issue up here.

[Perpetual_Student]

Infanteer: What have you seen to be the advantages/disadvantages of women in combat arms MOSs? Also are they both enlisted and officer or just one or the other?

SJPOneill: I think a smaller service would not be the end of the world. But I do not think that the qualifier/disqualifier should not necessarily be a physical test because their are some people out there that just are not physically fit but are very smart and have great critical thinking skills, which certain services demand. I still want those guys on my side but maybe not in certain MOSs. So does it change from service to service or from MOS to MOS (the standard)? Then linking it back into the topic, does a female that passes whatever the standard is have the ability to join combat arms MOSs and then test at that follow on schools PT/academic test?

[Adam L]

Don't know about Israel but we've had women in all branches for a few decades now. We've lost two female soldiers from the combat arms in Afghanistan - A FOO in a ambush/firefight and an armoured recce trooper to an IED.

It's really a non-issue up here.

Hmmm....yes and no. Yes, the Canadian Forces is fully integrated, but the debate over whether they are better of for it is still a matter of some debate. Norfolk made some very interesting and insightful comments to this respect in this thread.

Adam L

[Infanteer]

Hmmm....yes and no. Yes, the Canadian Forces is fully integrated, but the debate over whether they are better of for it is still a matter of some debate. Norfolk made some very interesting and insightful comments to this respect in this thread.

Adam L

His observations from 20 years ago are simply that, observations from 20 years ago. Times are a bit different these days.

[82redleg]

But you are still only talking of a minimum standard. I'm sure that the standard you cite above from XVIII ABN Corps was the minimum , not the only, standard within that corps and that the various functional units within it had their own (higher) standards applicable to their roles. From an infantry perspective that standard is pretty light and I'm willing to bet that the infantry community in that corps would have been interested in longer distances, heavier loads AND, most importantly, being able to operate at the end of the foot march.

My point is that, if you insist on a single service fitness standard (as opposed to a practical (i.e. based on operational requirements) minimum standard), you will either have a standard based on the lowest common denominator or a service that is a lot smaller...

The standard is always the minimum, because, by definition, you can exceed it, but not fall below it. If it is not the minimum, it is a goal, not a standard.

[JMA]

... in the units I've been in, the unit standard was a single standard, regardless of age/gender, ...

That's how it should be.

[Adam L]

Well...no....The fitness scale should be relevant to the trade and employment group...those relevant for a pilot are not the same as those required in the infantry or armour and those may be different again from those necessary for SF or CSS or staff...

It's all very well to want a force all at the same high standard but I'd suggest that would be a very small force indeed...

Certainly my current requirement to navigate the Zimmerframe around the circuit in less than a week is less than the standards that had to met in my infantry days but the current requirement for me is certainly adequate for my (non-op) staff role...

I never said we should have the same scores necessary for given positions. Rather, I am suggesting that there be a single scale. A 120 should be a 120 and a 295 should be a 295. There shouldn't be a different test for women. Instead there should simply be different acceptable minimums.

Sorry for the confusion.
Adam L

[JMA]

There shouldn't be a different test for women. Instead there should simply be different acceptable minimums.

Sorry for the confusion.
Adam L

What are you saying now? That everyone done the same test but the minimum standard required from women is different (lower)?

[Adam L]

What are you saying now? That everyone done the same test but the minimum standard required from women is different (lower)?

For combat arms there should be one standard, but there are a great many areas where physical strenght isn't as important. What is needed though is good general fitness. An average woman in minimum acceptable fitness will score lower than an average male who is at minimal acceptable fitness. In an ideal world there would be one standard, but there are certain areas where we need everyone we can get.

Adam L

[Uboat509]

Over the years I have somewhat moderated my feelings physical fitness in the military. I have decided that competence at your job is FAR more important than physical fitness. When I go to finance to get my pay problems fixed, I want a guy who will get that done in a timely and effective manner. If I can find that guy, I don't care if he can do A sit-up or run two miles in under a day, he is still much preferable to the guy who can score 400 on the extended scale PT test but leaves my paperwork in a desk drawer for two months until I have to resubmit it for the second or third time. Sure, ideally we would like to have both, in a perfect world but since we live in this one I would prefer that supervisors recognized which of those two things is more important.

There is a caveat to my view, however. For some jobs, notably most Combat Arms (excluding Armor ) physical fitness is a component of job competence. In other words, you can be fat and out of shape and still be a good PAC clerk or Heavy Wheel Vehicle Mechanic but you cannot be a fat and out of shape and be a good infantryman. That is an oversimplification and I realize that some basic fitness standards are necessary for everyone in the force. I am simply trying to put things in perspective with regards to physical fitness standards. I have seen too many guys who were good at their jobs whose lives were made extra difficult because they were not the strongest at PT or did not meet the arbitrary height/weight standards and at the same time I saw way too many "PT Studs" get over with not being particularly good at their jobs because they were good at PT.

Having said all that, I am definitely a proponent of changing PT standards to be more in line with the Branch or even MOS.

[JMA]

Over the years I have somewhat moderated my feelings physical fitness in the military. I have decided that competence at your job is FAR more important than physical fitness. When I go to finance to get my pay problems fixed, I want a guy who will get that done in a timely and effective manner. If I can find that guy, I don't care if he can do A sit-up or run two miles in under a day, he is still much preferable to the guy who can score 400 on the extended scale PT test but leaves my paperwork in a desk drawer for two months until I have to resubmit it for the second or third time. Sure, ideally we would like to have both, in a perfect world but since we live in this one I would prefer that supervisors recognized which of those two things is more important.

There is a caveat to my view, however. For some jobs, notably most Combat Arms (excluding Armor ) physical fitness is a component of job competence. In other words, you can be fat and out of shape and still be a good PAC clerk or Heavy Wheel Vehicle Mechanic but you cannot be a fat and out of shape and be a good infantryman. That is an oversimplification and I realize that some basic fitness standards are necessary for everyone in the force. I am simply trying to put things in perspective with regards to physical fitness standards. I have seen too many guys who were good at their jobs whose lives were made extra difficult because they were not the strongest at PT or did not meet the arbitrary height/weight standards and at the same time I saw way too many "PT Studs" get over with not being particularly good at their jobs because they were good at PT.

Having said all that, I am definitely a proponent of changing PT standards to be more in line with the Branch or even MOS.

I believe you are casting the net too wide. This issue being argued here is simple.

Is it necessary to have the same physical fitness standard and physical capability for male and female soldiers doing exactly the same job?

[reed11b]

My personal experience with being co-located with a company of MPs in Iraq in '03 at (then) Camp Kalsu tells me that some women could do just fine in combat arms. The last two excuses of why women could not be in combat arms that I held on too were disproved there. Our hygiene and living conditions were as minimal as they can be and not a single female soldier was sent home for "feminine issues". There was also no sexual harassment or women sent home pregnant, we were too busy fighting and surviving. They kept cool under fire and did not complain any more (often less) then the men. Now when we got to Kuwait, where the women were treated different, sexual assault and pregnancies were the rule, not the exception. Treat them like soldiers and they might surprise you and live up to the expectation. My final caveat is that until there are enough women that want to do infantry, the few who could do it and are willing to try will be harassed and hazed into quitting, unfortunately.
Reed

[JMA]

For combat arms there should be one standard, but there are a great many areas where physical strenght isn't as important. What is needed though is good general fitness. An average woman in minimum acceptable fitness will score lower than an average male who is at minimal acceptable fitness. In an ideal world there would be one standard, but there are certain areas where we need everyone we can get.

Adam L

This standard would be varied because of the differing physical demands of the various work requirements or to accommodate females?

[Adam L]

This standard would be varied because of the differing physical demands of the various work requirements or to accommodate females?

Forget about the two standards thing. Make one standard and waiver in anyone we really nead. (For example: Mathematicians who just don't cut it physically, but it doesn't matter because the closest they will get to the frontlines will be a computer several thousand miles away.) All I was trying to say is that absolute minimum standards for waiverability for men and women should be different. That was kind of stupid now that I think about it. If we suddenly need a brilliant computer programer who hasn't left his mother's basement in 35 years and is 2 cheeseburgers away from a heart attack we probably won't give a damn. )

Adam L

[baduin]

The issue of women in combat is, as usual, obscured by the traditional Western prejudice, romanticism and chivalry. Therefore, some obvious facts:

1) Women, on average, make much worse soldiers than men.
2) It makes no sense to require women to possess physical standards identical to men. You will not make women men, anyway. I hope I will offend nobody by observing that women differ physically from men, and this has consequences for various tests. If someone doubts it, I suggest to watch some sports on TV. A woman in a good physical condition will have different physical capabilities from a man.
3) This is no reason not to allow female citizens to die for their country. Al-Qaida does it, despite the notorious Arab sexism. Why shouldn't America do the same? The main problem in Afghanistan is not enough soldiers on patrols. Any soldier helps. Even if women are not as good as men, they can still fight, die, and kill. They will suffer perhaps more casualties - but even so, if we send 1000 women to Afghanistan, and 200 are eliminated, we have still 800 soldiers more than we would have otherwise. Anyone, Taliban are a fairly weak opponent, and women should manage to kill them.
4) It is well known that young women and men tend to engage in sex when placed in close proximity; and even if they do not, thanks to the well-known American self-discipline, you still get some feelings, which are impossible to eliminate. This is bad for unit cohesion. Moreover, women are, as I wrote above, different physically from men (on average smaller, weaker, lighter etc) and therefore require different standard kit, etc.
5) For those reasons, women in combat will be most useful if placed in an all-female unit. This has been the usual practice in all armies that used female soldiers. I think that as a minimum, an all-female battalion would be required to function effectively. Such a unit could help to offset inadequate number of troops in Afghanistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahomey_Amazons

6) Such a unit would also have wide ranging public relations possibilities. It would serve to showcase the oppression of women by Taliban, esp. if there was a widespread volunteer movement amongst feminists.