View Full Version : "gender-neutral physical standards for all soldiers "
Gender Neutral,, PC code for wimps...
Army Submits Plan to Open Combat Jobs for Women
May 15, 2013
Military.com| by Matthew Cox
34 Add a Comment
Female soldiers
U.S. Army trainers will soon lead an effort to create gender-neutral physical standards for all soldiers as part of a plan to allow women to serve in infantry, Special Forces and other combat arms jobs.
Training and Doctrine Command has launched “two major efforts in support of this full integration of women soldiers.” TRADOC has started a scientific review working with U.S. Army Medical Command, U.S. Army Research Institute for Environmental Medicine and Army Research Institute to assist in the development of gender-neutral physical standards for all Areas of Concentration for commissioned officers and military occupational specialties for enlisted soldiers.
In addition, the “TRADOC Analysis Center is examining the institutional and cultural barriers related to integrating women soldiers into previously all-male specialties and units in order to develop strategies to overcome these barriers,” according to a TRADOC document released to Military.com.
Army officials will submit the service’s strategy for conducting these efforts to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Wednesday to satisfy the May 15 deadline for the services to present how they will fully integrate women into combat arms units by 2016, said Army spokesman Lt. Col. Stephen Platt.
Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in January eliminated the Pentagon rule that prevented women from participating in certain combat units. The DoD goal is to open approximately 237,000 positions to women by 2016.
Some of the jobs being reviewed are infantryman, Special Forces officer, cavalry scout and armor senior sergeant.
But this does not mean the Army has decided to open these jobs to women yet.
“The Army will review these MOSs and make a recommendation to the secretary of Defense if they should remain closed,” Platt said. “If we find that the assignment of women to specific positions or occupational specialties is in conflict with the department’s guiding principles, exceptions to policy will be requested, which will prohibit their assignment to certain jobs.”
The review will analyze insights gained over the last 11 years of war as it relates to knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics -- or KSAOs, the TRADOC document states.
The plan is to validate gender-neutral occupational standards so servicemembers can be assessed and assigned to combat-arms jobs by September 2015, Platt said.
Using gender-neutral physical standards “will enable us to select those best qualified for positions and may reduce non-combat related injuries for both men and women,” Platt said.
Here is a list of the jobs previously closed to women:
11A Infantry officer
11B Infantry
11C Indirect fire infantryman
11H Heavy anti-armor weapons infantryman
11M Fighting vehicle infantryman
11Z Infantry senior sergeant
12B/21B Combat engineer
13B Cannon crewmember
13D Field artillery automated
13F Fire support specialist
18A Special Forces officer
18B Special Forces weapons sergeant
18C Special Forces engineer sergeant
18D Special Forces medical sergeant
18E Special Forces communications sergeant
18F Special Forces assistant operations and intelligence sergeant
18Z Special Forces senior sergeant
180A Special Forces warrant
19A Armor officer
19D Cavalry scout
19E M48-M60 armor crewman (Reserve Components)
19K Armor crewman
19Z Armor senior sergeant
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/05/15/army-studies-gender-neutral-physical-standards.html?ESRC=army-a.nl
:mad::mad::mad::mad:
mconneway
05-22-2013, 07:46
I agree completely. Physical standards should be gender neutral for ALL Soldiers and MOS's.
Start working on your UBRR scores and ruck up, ladies!:lifter:munchin
What a freaking nightmare.
mark46th
05-22-2013, 08:34
They can lower the standards all the want for the entry requirement. When the women put on a 80-100 pound rucksack then have to hump a 3000 foot elevation change, the truth will become self evident.
IWhat I don't agree with, that is unsaid in article, is that lowering them would be a bad thing.
So, you think lowering the standard is a good thing?
Standards are standards ALL the time. Once concessions are made, the standards will begin to degrade and will then become completely subjective to the individuals making the decisions on who to allow in.
Standards are -- and should be -- "genderless". You want the position...pass the requirements.
Team Sergeant
05-22-2013, 10:43
Standards are standards ALL the time. Once concessions are made, the standards will begin to degrade and will then become completely subjective to the individuals making the decisions on who to allow in.
Standards are -- and should be -- "genderless". You want the position...pass the requirements.
Sorry that is "not" the way the military works.......
In the United States military we will lower the standards to "ensure" that "everyone" can qualify.
If you do not believe that just go and watch how Army boot camp operates. And how the standards have been lowered every year for the past 30 years.
Sorry that is "not" the way the military works.......
In the United States military we will lower the standards to "ensure" that "everyone" can qualify.
If you do not believe that just go and watch how Army boot camp operates. And how the standards have been lowered every year for the past 30 years.
Indeed....everyone gets a trophy these days. There is no difference between first and third place. Everyone is a winner.
Team Sergeant
05-22-2013, 10:51
Indeed....everyone gets a trophy these days. There is no difference between first and third place. Everyone is a winner.
Everyone is a winner until 3-5 hundred taliban launch a close quarters ambush against your unit.
I sure hope the "leadership" passes the Special Forces female Officer position......... Should happen about the same time there's a female heading up the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
And another thing that "Chief" word is very gender specific, we're going to need to change that ASAP. Along with Commander and Chief.......
we're going to need to change that ASAP. Along with Commander and Chief.......
They have that in mind for 2016. One reason Benghazi needs to be exposed.
Everyone is a winner until 3-5 hundred taliban launch a close quarters ambush against your unit.
I sure hope the "leadership" passes the Special Forces female Officer position......... Should happen about the same time there's a female heading up the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
And another thing that "Chief" word is very gender specific, we're going to need to change that ASAP. Along with Commander and Chief.......
I think the Indians are protesting for using that term Chief...... Their feelings are hurt ...
uspsmark
05-22-2013, 11:28
Reminds me of marksmanship training and requirements from when I went through basic training years ago. If I recall correctly, there were 40 targets set from 50 meters to 300 meters that popped up and had to be engaged. Minimum "qualification" for the Marksman badge was 17 hits out of 40 targets. That's a 43% "success" rate in a relatively stress free shooting environment with nobody shooting back at you. Pretty low "standard" in my opinion.
Reminds me of marksmanship training and requirements from when I went through basic training years ago. If I recall correctly, there were 40 targets set from 50 meters to 300 meters that popped up and had to be engaged. Minimum "qualification" for the Marksman badge was 17 hits out of 40 targets. That's a 43% "success" rate in a relatively stress free shooting environment with nobody shooting back at you. Pretty low "standard" in my opinion.
What are you talking abou..oh...you mean Marksperson Badge. :rolleyes:
uspsmark
05-22-2013, 12:18
What are you talking abou..oh...you mean Marksperson Badge. :rolleyes:
Wouldn't surprise me in the least, in this day and age, if that was indeed what they are calling it now.
...I would like to see the run standard replaced with a ruck standard. The US forest service standard is 3 miles in 15 minutes with full gear and 45 lb ruck sack. Male, female young or old it does not matter. It is a pass/fail no points either you meet the standard or you do not...
I believe you mean 3 miles in 45 minutes (15 minute per mile pace).
I like the McCall Smokejumpers physical fitness requirements:
McCall Smokejumpers (http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/people/smokejumpers/mccall/physical.html)
All smokejumper candidates are required to pass the standard smokejumper physical training (PT) test on the first day of smokejumper training. Candidates must do seven pull-ups/chin-ups, 45 sit-ups, 25 push-ups, and a 1.5 mile run in less than 11 minutes (McCall's elevation is 5000'). The test is taken in one time frame with 5-minute breaks between specific exercises.
Smokejumper gear and tools weigh up to 115 pounds per person. Smokejumpers must be able to carry this gear to the nearest trail, road, or helispot after suppressing the fire. This may be a distance of 10 miles or more in rough terrain. During training, smokejumper candidates are required to demonstrate their ability to pack 110 pounds of gear a distance of three miles in 90 minutes or less, over a level course.
The current standard, male or female, has no bearing on combat reediness [sic].
True. That is why its called the Army Physical Fitness Test, and not the Army Combat Readiness Test. Its goal is to measure general fitness, not a soldier's performance in simulated combat physical requirements.
I would like to see the run standard replaced with a ruck standard...It is a pass/fail no points either you meet the standard or you do not. Why do you ask? Simple. You dont usually go into combat running in PT gear and running shoes. You usually have weapon, helmet ruck etc etc. It's the whole train like you fight crap I heard about in the 1980's I guess.
I haven't seen many soldiers carry an Olympic bar, dumbbells or a bench on a patrol, either; does that mean soldiers shouldn't use those tools to improve their fitness when not performing combat operations?
I'm not sure the push up and sit ups are a gret standard either. Great for training during PT but does not equate to combat very well unless I am missing something.
I think what you might be missing is the difference between physical training and combat readiness. There are plenty of 'vintage' guys here that ran miles upon miles in flat-insole combat boots for daily PT. Ask them how their knees and backs are doing nowadays. Training as one fights is a good goal for certain training, but not all types of training. Look at the Marines--they've recognized that a general physical fitness test is not always a good indicator of combat related physical tasks. Did they do away with the general fitness test? No, as they understood that assessment is also important, so they created a different test to measure this new metric. You have to use the right tool for the job.
The Reaper
05-23-2013, 21:47
Do you know why the Army picked 2 miles as the run? Because that is the blast zone of a nuclear weapon.
I was tracking with you right up to this point.
Source for this tidbit?
TR
I think you missed my point. As I said push ups and general PT is great for training. I am a big fan of weight training as well. My issue is that in today's Army your running ability is what everyone cares about yet many of these "PT studs" do not hold up in combat according to the Armys own report that is why they were going to change it. They didn't for political reasons. As for running miles upon miles in boots that is plain stupid as well. What I AM saying is do more ruck marches with gear along with the running pushups etc etc in PT gear. At the end of the day we are training to fight and our test should reflect that ie ruck march not PT run unless we are training to drop our weapons and run away from the battle.
Do you know why the Army picked 2 miles as the run? Because that is the blast zone of a nuclear weapon.
Push-ups have been part of Army PT for a very long time, to include the post-WW II fitness test. The reason they were retained in the '46 test is because it was thought that the movement was very similar to that used to get up out of the prone firing position--a combat-relevant task.
As for adding combat-related physical tasks to PT such as ruck marching, there's nothing stopping a unit from doing just that. The APFT is the minimum PT requirement; if a unit wants to raise the standard, they certainly can.
As for the idea of fragile "gazelles", I recall seeing squads and fire teams of Rangers from 3/75 running like their hair was on fire and their asses were catching all over Benning during morning PT in the mid-90s, and most of those studs could ruck like machines just as readily. Being able to break 12:00 on the 2-mile didn't seem to hinder many of my peers in the Q course, Ranger School or later on in combat with SOF units, either.
Some of the folks that designed the 3-event PT test were guest lecturers when I was completing the Master Fitness Trainer course. The main reason for the switch from the 5-event test to the 3-event test, according to them, was to reduce the dependency on specialty equipment or courses (think horizontal ladder, run-dodge-jump lanes) so that the test could be administered nearly anywhere, and to improve throughput. I don't recall any of them correlating the 2-mile run distance to a nuke blast, though; like TR, I'd be interested to hear your source for that.
Do you know why the Army picked 2 miles as the run? Because that is the blast zone of a nuclear weapon.
I can't remember exactly where I heard it. Somewhere in the Army.
Hunh? :confused:
I guess our DNA* test developed 600m up-wind minimum for a SADM wasn't known to whomever you got that heard it "somewhere in the Army" factoid...
As far as the 2 miles goes, the determinant was (like a stress test for cardiovascular functioning) to test one's cardiopulmonary fitness by achieving a certain level of functioning and holding it over a period of time vs how fast someone could run somewhere; running was an easier way to do it than having everybody go to the gym and use an exercycle or to the hospital for an annual stress test.
And as far a the APFT goes, the Army has nearly always had a variety of mission specific fitness programs and tests beyond the one every clerk at HRC is supposed to pass once a year, and the norm used to be that it was the individual soldier's responsibility to understand, achieve, and maintain the fitness standards demanded of his/her chosen career field.
Richard
* Defense Nuclear Agency
If you preface everything in your last post with "In my experience...", then that'll be fine, because your use of "many soldiers out there", "gold standard", "in today's Army" certainly don't appear to apply universally, both in GPF and SOF.
The 18-21 run time for females to score 100% is 15:36 yet a male in the same age group scores only a 61% at that same run time.
As you know, as a PT guy, in today's Army PT score are the be all end all of a soldiers performance by many a command. Saying things are equal is PC bullshit. IMHO the system could be greatly improved and needs to be.
I've been out for awhile, but as a female, I can tell you that, in my experience, serious female soldiers ignored the "female" standards and just aimed at max'ing the men's standard. Any soldier should want to be in shape. Today I just go for men's minimum so I don't get too out of shape too fast.
Candidly, I am not sure how many women can meet the men's standards. While I think women who qualify should be able to serve in a unit, I also know the practicality of trying to accommodate 1-2 women who meet the standard into a unit. Dropping the standards is a bad idea on so many levels, it doesn't need repeated yet again. Sad for not only the guys -- the qualified women will resent it as well.
As far as NCO evaluation driven by PT scores, that was not the case -- also in my experience. We had MOS, PT then marksmanship. If language skills were weak, or you could not carry your radio and gear, no one cared what your PT score was. You were shipped out to Ft Hood to paint rocks. :boohoo
Of course, this was almost 30 years ago. Yikes!