• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Military Watering Down Standards So Females Can Meet Them

Women have a place to serve if they want it.

Do really feel it was necessary to post the same reply three times to counter a point no one was making. Noone is suggesting women shouldn't serve. Not wanting standards lowered and a less effective infantry all in the name of PC social justice is not the same thing as not allowing women to serve
 
Women have a place to serve if they want it.
1. No one I'm aware of says they shouldn't be in the military. I certainly wouldn't say that - I served with some fantastic females, and played a small role in integrating them into SOF.

2. The military does not exist to offer people a means of self-fulfillment. It exists to destroy; to out-hump, out-carry, out-smash, and out-murder the enemy in a hyper-violent competitive grind of muscle and machine.

3. When we integrate the genders in the infantry, we reduce their ability to do that. We make the military less effective. Except the military doesn't pay a civilian price for being less effective. We don't lose money, or market share, or a shot at the championship. We pay in a currency of dead 19 year olds and shattered families.
 
Do really feel it was necessary to post the same reply three times to counter a point no one was making. Noone is suggesting women shouldn't serve. Not wanting standards lowered and a less effective infantry all in the name of PC social justice is not the same thing as not allowing women to serve
It reminds me of the meme going around a while ago of progressives as NPCs.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
And what is the current need that is forcing us to lower standards and have a less effective military
The need to keep Dianne Feinstein from saying mean things to Generals.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
Tell that to Israel. Somehow or other they manage to defend themselves against overwhelming odds of the countries that want to wipe it off the face of the earth...with the help of women! I'm aghast.
 
I don't think one generation is any tougher than another. The individual Rambo doesn't win wars. Well trained soldiers each doing their part is what wins wars.

I see no wannabe Rambo's in them pictures just the difference between those that were coddled in coed boot and those that got a boot up their asses when they screwed up. There were NO Berghdahls in VN either.
 
Do really feel it was necessary to post the same reply three times to counter a point no one was making. Noone is suggesting women shouldn't serve. Not wanting standards lowered and a less effective infantry all in the name of PC social justice is not the same thing as not allowing women to serve


I agree. I was being extremely brain lazy. I don't feel like the Army is lowering its standards for men. Standards for men have not changed. There has been a recognition that women's bodies are different so physical requirements in Army testing have been tailored to the differences in women's bodies. I don't know what the Air Force does. There have been only a few women that have made it through Marine training. One Navy Seal women, one so far in the Marine combat officers corp. As far as intelligence as a matter of combat readiness women in many cases out perform men or are at least equal to men. I recognize that some women are complaining that they should be given a chance or chances to pass the same physical requirements as the men.
 
Tell that to Israel. Somehow or other they manage to defend themselves against overwhelming odds of the countries that want to wipe it off the face of the earth...with the help of women! I'm aghast.

Perhaps you should actually look up what women in the Israeli military really do before coming to your conclusions.
 
The biggest problem the Army has in this regard isn't physical fitness, or lack there of. It's the lack of tactical and technical training non-combat arms Soldiers receive in infantry skills. A good example would the Ft Bliss Maintenance Company Soldiers who were ambushed in Iraq in 2003. They got lost because of of lack of land nav skills and then got overrun by the Iraqis. Most hadn't properly cleaned their weapons, which jammed and didn't know how to respond to an ambush.
 
I agree. I was being extremely brain lazy. I don't feel like the Army is lowering its standards for men. Standards for men have not changed. There has been a recognition that women's bodies are different so physical requirements in Army testing have been tailored to the differences in women's bodies. I don't know what the Air Force does. There have been only a few women that have made it through Marine training. One Navy Seal women, one so far in the Marine combat officers corp. As far as intelligence as a matter of combat readiness women in many cases out perform men or are at least equal to men. I recognize that some women are complaining that they should be given a chance or chances to pass the same physical requirements as the men.

You may not feel like standards are being lowered but that is exactly what is happening. And the fact that you feel that way leads me to believe that you didn't even bother to read the OP. When before you had an event like the combat endurance test at thier infantry officer training course that used to be a must pass event but after the vast majority of women failed they changed to an unscored event. And it's not just unscored for the women it's unscored for everyone.

And many of us were predicting this very thing. The military leadership knew how horrible the optics would be if they simply lowered standards for women so instead they lower them for everyone. So now instead of just having women that don't met the standard you have a bunch of guys who don't belong thier either.

And I am fully aware that womens bodies are different then men's. But here's the problem with that. The equipment doesn't care if you are a man or a woman it weighs what it weighs. Rucksacks don't get lighter because you are a woman. The mountains don't get less steep or the times to get to where you need to be don't get longer simply because you are a female.
 
Last edited:
You may not feel like standards are being lowered but that is exactly what is happening. And the fact that you feel that way leads me to believe that you didn't even bother to read the OP. When before you had an event like the combat endurance test at thier infantry officer training course that used to be a must pass event but after the vast majority of women failed they changed to an unscored event. And it's not just unscored for the women it's unscored for everyone.

And many of us were predicting this very thing. The military leadership knew how horrible the optics would be if they simply lowered standards for women so instead they lower them for everyone. So now instead of just having women that don't met the standard you have a bunch of guys who don't belong thier either.

And I am fully aware that womens bodies are different then men's. But here's the problem with that. The equipment doesn't care if you are a man or a woman it weighs what it weighs. Rucksacks don't get lighter because you are a woman. The mountains don't get less steep or the times to get to where you need to be don't get longer simply because you are a female.

I read the OP. I think you should talk to a general on active duty. Brig Gen. Jason Q Bohm said "The course is as hard as its ever been". I don't know what source the op used but if it was the Washington times under a byline by one of its reporters interviewing Gen Bohm I view it with a bit of skepticism. I don't read the Washington post either.
 
Women have a place to serve if they want it.

And have you ever seen me say otherwise? Ever?

Here is clue #1, I first put on the uniform in 1983. I am still wearing the uniform today.

The Battalion Commander I still respect the most to this day is female. And if she was to ever call me up and say "Hey, I want you to transfer over and join me in combat operations", I would say yes and go join her wherever she was. Without hesitation. I served with her in a combat command on a combat deployment, and would do so again without hesitation.

But it was also not an Infantry command. Do not confuse the two, or think that every combat command or position is infantry.

And here is clue #2. I have served under every President since Ronald Reagan's first administration. That is 6 Presidents, in 2 different branches, in 4 different official MOS. So I actually have an idea what I am talking about. I do not give a damn about political correctness, and simply say things as I see them.

And when I see things like what you just said, all I can think is that you completely ignored everything that I said and went off into your own little world, ignoring what I actually said.

The biggest problem the Army has in this regard isn't physical fitness, or lack there of. It's the lack of tactical and technical training non-combat arms Soldiers receive in infantry skills. A good example would the Ft Bliss Maintenance Company Soldiers who were ambushed in Iraq in 2003. They got lost because of of lack of land nav skills and then got overrun by the Iraqis. Most hadn't properly cleaned their weapons, which jammed and didn't know how to respond to an ambush.

Ahh, the 507th Maintenance Company. Known today as Echo Company, 5-52 AMD.

Yes, I know that story quite well, having met and talked with people involved in it directly. Of course, I was stationed for years in 1-43 ADA, less than 100 meters from them.

I hinted at that earlier, in how the Army and Marines differ. Yes, I was in PATRIOT for 5 years. But most of that time I was actually assigned to Force Protection. Every First Sergeant I worked for knew I had been a Marine Infantryman, so putting the square peg in the square hole put me in Recon-Security section. This is why I talked about "Motor T setting up as Force Protection did security". That is real world experience, as in me doing such in a PATRIOT Battalion. Exactly as the 507th Maintenance company did in 5-52.

Yes, for most in the Army the "Basic Soldier Skills" are seriously lacking. They get a week or so of basic combat skills, and that is it. Yes, they know how to respond to incoming fire (single envelopment) without hesitation. But ironically, ask them what to do in the event of a near ambush and they are completely clueless. Most even think I am joking when I told them "Turn and Burn", and thought that was some "Marine Corps BS", until I pointed put to them that the Army Infantry TM says the same thing.

Outside of infantry, things like weapons cleaning, practicing hand and arm signals on a squad level, or even filling out a "Range Card" are largely unheard of. Most times I found myself manning the M2 because I was the only one who even knew what a range card was and how to designate sectors of fire, predesignated fire positions and things like dead zones. Things even a "Grunt E-2" knows is almost unheard of to even an E-4 in a "high tech" field like PATRIOT.

Yea, I was a "dumb grunt". Who could do a 3 hour land nav course in just over an hour, finding 5 out of 5 points. Who could ruck march all but the former 11B Lieutenant into the dirt (even though the rest were all half my age or less). Who kept his weapon clean because that is how I had been trained since day 1, that my weapon is taken care of before I am.

It is always interesting, in that in every Army unit I have been in, there is a small group that were Marines before. And we all stand apart from the rest of the soldiers. Hell, we can often spot each other within a few minutes, we just stand, talk, and behave differently. I am actually looking to move to another unit shortly, because the last of the other "Marines" just transferred out, and I am alone other than a Lieutenant Colonel and a Major. Of course, as part of the S-6 of a Headquarters Company of a Reserve Brigade, I am about as worthless as teats on a boar hog. My unit is 6 of E-3 to E-5, 10 of E-6 through E-8, and over 30 officers (from O-2 to O-6). Within the next few months I hope to return to a more "normal" unit, where the E-1 through E-4 will actually outnumber those of E-5 and above.
 
Women have a place to serve if they want it.

And now I am going to comment this one last time, stressing the latter part.

It really does not matter what somebody wants. Wants are irrelevant to needs.

I want to be a multi-billionaire with the looks of Tom Cruise and the body of an NFL running back. I also wish I was still the near Olympic class skier that I was in the early 1980's.

What I want really does not matter, it is what I can do that really matters.

I have seen you give snide remarks over and over in here, and it is rather funny to be honest.

Ultimately, it does not matter what somebody wants, it is what they are able to do. If all that matters is that somebody wanted, then the saying about "100 men will test today, but only 3 win the Green Beret" would be meaningless. Then every single one of the 100 men would be Green Berets, because all 100 of them "wanted it".

Sorry snowflake, the military is not a place where everybody who wants to join wins a "Participation trophy". When we are talking about actual lives, I want the very best who can perform at the very best. Simply "wanting" means nothing.
 
Oh. Gosh. If only someone had predicted things like this this.
If you can't adjust it for women then you can't adjust it for age, either. Lots of senior NCOs won't like that....
 
Why does the military lower standards for white men?
So if the scale is designed for white men and is easier for black men, only when every single black man exceeds the maximum possible score, do you have a point.
 
The biggest problem the Army has in this regard isn't physical fitness, or lack there of. It's the lack of tactical and technical training non-combat arms Soldiers receive in infantry skills. A good example would the Ft Bliss Maintenance Company Soldiers who were ambushed in Iraq in 2003. They got lost because of of lack of land nav skills and then got overrun by the Iraqis. Most hadn't properly cleaned their weapons, which jammed and didn't know how to respond to an ambush.
The land nav and weapon maintenance standards are perfectly uniform across MOSs, that's not a valid argument.
 
If you can't adjust it for women then you can't adjust it for age, either. Lots of senior NCOs won't like that....

Well, here is where it would actually get interesting.

I am old, and I admit it. I am 54. And because of the damage to my knee, I do the "Walk" portion of the PT test.

That means at my age, I must walk 2.5 miles in 37:30 or less. And that is something I actually laugh at, and do normally in around 30 minutes. I am the unofficial "unit pace setter" for those that walk, as my speed would be a solid passing score for somebody who is 17. And that is younger than my youngest child.

But talk to most in the Army, and they will admit they would rather do the 2 mile run than the 2.5 mile walk.

And if you look at most "Senior NCOs", most of them who are still in tended to do very well when they were of a lower rank. In my prime, I averaged the 3 mile run in around 20 minutes, or 88 points out of 100. Yes, I have slowed down over the decades, that is just a fact of life. And even though I can no longer "run", I bet I could "walk" 8 out of 10 into the dirt.

But if the adjustments for age were thrown out, then I think that few would last beyond age 40. At that point the body really starts to break down. I notice I have degraded more from 44 and 54 than I did from 18 to 42. At 28 I was in better shape than I was at 18, and scored much higher. At 42 I had to work to pass the test with good scores, but now a decade later at least 1 part is a struggle for me.

And it also would vary, depending on the branch. In the Army, 60-60-60 is the standard all must pass (some units even require 80-80-80 if you want to get promoted). In the Marines, it is less obvious. You have a minimum passing score (which is lower than the Army), but you also have a cumulative score that is much higher. Apples to apples, a 181 (out of 300) and you can pass the Army APFT test. But in the Marines, anything lower than 220s out of 300 is a failure. There, you can get the bare minimum in 1 event, but you had better pretty much max out the other 2 if you want to pass.
 
I read the OP. I think you should talk to a general on active duty. Brig Gen. Jason Q Bohm said "The course is as hard as its ever been". I don't know what source the op used but if it was the Washington times under a byline by one of its reporters interviewing Gen Bohm I view it with a bit of skepticism. I don't read the Washington post either.
I read the OP. I think you should talk to a general on active duty. Brig Gen. Jason Q Bohm said "The course is as hard as its ever been". I don't know what source the op used but if it was the Washington times under a byline by one of its reporters interviewing Gen Bohm I view it with a bit of skepticism. I don't read the Washington post either.


First of all I don't need to ask a general as I am an actively serving soldier in a MOS directly effected by lowering standards and I have seen the effects.
Secondly if you think that the general doesn't have a lot or reasons to play rather lose with the truth then I think you are being a bit naive. The very fact that they took a must pass event that everyone used to have to pass in order to move on that just happened to be something women were struggling to pass and made it no longer matter proves he is not telling the truth.
 
Oh. Gosh. If only someone had predicted things like this this.

Ever see women on a Navy ship trying to handle 1 1/2" and 4" fire hoses as a team?

I witnessed one 2nd Class Petty Officer (female) get slammed against a bulkhead one day because she was too stupid to let go of the hose. The other females stood there watching a break away hose tear up a shipmate instead of crimping the hose which would have rendered the hose limp. The female Petty Officer ended up with a severe concussion, a couple dozen stitches to her face and neck, and a shattered collar bone.

There are limited places for a female to act competently in physical positions, and it's about time the civilians stop turning the military into their petri dish.
 
Well, here is where it would actually get interesting.

I am old, and I admit it. I am 54. And because of the damage to my knee, I do the "Walk" portion of the PT test.
If "equality" is the rule we should aspire to then if you have to walk, you can't be in the Army, because the enemy will not shoot slower because you're old. You have to RUN 2 miles in 14:48 or you get chaptered out as a PT failure.

Or we make reasonable accommodations for physical ability. Your choice.
 
First of all I don't need to ask a general as I am an actively serving soldier in a MOS directly effected by lowering standards and I have seen the effects.
Secondly if you think that the general doesn't have a lot or reasons to play rather lose with the truth then I think you are being a bit naive. The very fact that they took a must pass event that everyone used to have to pass in order to move on that just happened to be something women were struggling to pass and made it no longer matter proves he is not telling the truth.

Sorry, this is a little bit different than opinion threads on this site. It is pointless to have a conversation with someone who passes themselves of as a original source. Even if true you are most likely Army which doesn't qualify you as some kind of expert on Marine training. I have much more faith in Gen Bohm who is responsible for the Marine training course. Sure I am naïve in the area of military preparedness. That's why I trust what Gen Bohm has to say. I respect your opinion but have to believe that's all it is.
 
This is the problem the military faces:

"The American military is not getting the leaders it needs for the complexities of 21st-century warfare. This refrain has been a centerpiece of the “Force for the Future” initiative, and now there is some hard evidence to support it. According to data obtained from a Freedom of Information Act request, the intelligence of new Marine Corps officers has declined steadily since 1980. Two-thirds of the new officers commissioned in 2014 would be in the bottom one-third of the class of 1980; 41 percent of new officers in 2014 would not have qualified to be officers by the standards held at the time of World War II. Similarly, at the top of the distribution, there are fewer of the very intelligent officers who will eventually become senior leaders."

https://ndupress.ndu.edu/JFQ/Joint-...icers-are-less-intelligent-what-does-it-mean/

The military is dumbing down while the demand for intelligence for the technology is skyrocketing. Having enough troops that can run fast and far with a 70 pound pack is NOT the challenge facing the military.

I know for a fact that for truly brilliant new potential recruits the military will wave virtually every requirement even for enlisted - as they can draw officers from the enlisted and many positions requiring high intelligence do not require being an officer - such as all technicians and maintainers.
 
And have you ever seen me say otherwise? Ever?

Ahh, the 507th Maintenance Company. Known today as Echo Company, 5-52 AMD.

Yes, I know that story quite well, having met and talked with people involved in it directly. Of course, I was stationed for years in 1-43 ADA, less than 100 meters from them.

I hinted at that earlier, in how the Army and Marines differ. Yes, I was in PATRIOT for 5 years. But most of that time I was actually assigned to Force Protection. Every First Sergeant I worked for knew I had been a Marine Infantryman, so putting the square peg in the square hole put me in Recon-Security section. This is why I talked about "Motor T setting up as Force Protection did security". That is real world experience, as in me doing such in a PATRIOT Battalion. Exactly as the 507th Maintenance company did in 5-52.

Yes, for most in the Army the "Basic Soldier Skills" are seriously lacking. They get a week or so of basic combat skills, and that is it. Yes, they know how to respond to incoming fire (single envelopment) without hesitation. But ironically, ask them what to do in the event of a near ambush and they are completely clueless. Most even think I am joking when I told them "Turn and Burn", and thought that was some "Marine Corps BS", until I pointed put to them that the Army Infantry TM says the same thing.

Outside of infantry, things like weapons cleaning, practicing hand and arm signals on a squad level, or even filling out a "Range Card" are largely unheard of. Most times I found myself manning the M2 because I was the only one who even knew what a range card was and how to designate sectors of fire, predesignated fire positions and things like dead zones. Things even a "Grunt E-2" knows is almost unheard of to even an E-4 in a "high tech" field like PATRIOT.

Yea, I was a "dumb grunt". Who could do a 3 hour land nav course in just over an hour, finding 5 out of 5 points. Who could ruck march all but the former 11B Lieutenant into the dirt (even though the rest were all half my age or less). Who kept his weapon clean because that is how I had been trained since day 1, that my weapon is taken care of before I am.

It is always interesting, in that in every Army unit I have been in, there is a small group that were Marines before. And we all stand apart from the rest of the soldiers. Hell, we can often spot each other within a few minutes, we just stand, talk, and behave differently. I am actually looking to move to another unit shortly, because the last of the other "Marines" just transferred out, and I am alone other than a Lieutenant Colonel and a Major. Of course, as part of the S-6 of a Headquarters Company of a Reserve Brigade, I am about as worthless as teats on a boar hog. My unit is 6 of E-3 to E-5, 10 of E-6 through E-8, and over 30 officers (from O-2 to O-6). Within the next few months I hope to return to a more "normal" unit, where the E-1 through E-4 will actually outnumber those of E-5 and above.

Small world. I was at Ft Bliss at the time as well. I served in 2-1 ADA with SFC Robert Dowdy, who was the Battalion Motor Pool NCOIC, when we deployed to Saudi Arabia in support of Southern Watch. We were having lunch together and he expressed a desire to retire when we redeployed. Of course he made the E8 list before we redeployed, accepted the promotion and was transferred to 11th Brigade and eventually was laterally promoted to 1SG of the 507th. He was killed in the ambush.

That situation actually confirmed my decision to retire. I was a MSG at Ft Sam in 2013. I was ready to drop my paperwork (I had already declined consideration for the SGM board) when I came down on orders to an Intel unit at Ft Lewis. I had always wanted to go there and the fact that I was a senior NCO going to an Intel unit meant I would be getting a TS clearance. However, they were on order to Afghanistan and I had numerous deployments and I thought I was starting to push my luck. I also remembered the situation with Robert Dowdy and I did retirement in lieu of PCS,
 
The land nav and weapon maintenance standards are perfectly uniform across MOSs, that's not a valid argument.

While the standards may be the same, Soldiers in non-combat units don't spend nearly the time on these skills as combat arms Soldiers do.
 
Back
Top Bottom