"gender-neutral physical standards for all soldiers "

[JJ_BPK]

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/2...ESRC=army-a.nl

[mconneway]

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!

[Dusty]

What a freaking nightmare.

[mark46th]

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.

[sinjefe]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

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?

[Sohei]

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]

Originally Posted by The Sheepdog

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.

[Sohei]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

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]

Originally Posted by The Sheepdog

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.......

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

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.

[SF_BHT]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

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]

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.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by uspsmark

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.

[uspsmark]

Originally Posted by Dusty

What are you talking abou..oh...you mean Marksperson Badge.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least, in this day and age, if that was indeed what they are calling it now.

[BKKMAN]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

...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

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.