".... but why does someone working on cyberlogistics have to even take the same test? We should be trying to support people on a fitness journey.”
Said Emma Moore, a research associate for the Military, Veterans, and Society Program at the Center for a New American Security, quoted in "Where Fitness Is the Job, Army Struggles to Be a Fair Boss With Female Troops/As the Army revises its physical test and otherwise rethinks fitness, it faces difficult questions: Do current requirements penalize women? Do they overshadow expertise and intellectual preparation?" (NYT).
The new 120-minute test, known as the Army Combat Fitness Test, features six events that cover speed, endurance and strength. The standards to pass are identical for men and women, and for all ages. A soldier must achieve 360 points out of a maximum 600 to pass, and greater scores have historically greatly increased chances for promotion.....
Women are expected to weigh less than men... but need to gain quite a bit of muscle weight to do the heavy dead-lift that the new test requires.... “Fitness in the Army is so integral to your job,” said Captain Griest, adding that she wrote her piece* because “women in combat arms are pretty underrepresented.” She wanted to give them a voice.
The Army needs to determine “what is needed on a battlefield and just hold everyone to that standard,” she said. “For instance, I want a soldier to be able to pull their body over an obstacle in the infantry.”
She said she learned to dead-lift far more weight than she ever imagined she could when properly coached. “I have heard people criticize me and say I have internalized misogyny,” she said. “I think I have a sense of internalized empowerment.”
The Army is expected to announce changes to the test this month....
__________________
* Here's Griest's piece: "WITH EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMES EQUAL RESPONSIBILITY: LOWERING FITNESS STANDARDS TO ACCOMMODATE WOMEN WILL HURT THE ARMY—AND WOMEN" (Modern War Institute).
Posts
150 comments:
Being women penalizes women.
Repeat after me, given the same amount of training there are practically no women who will be stronger than any men at the end of the training period. Much less than 1%.
Because every person in the military should be fit for combat. Whatever their particular official duty, being ready to fight is job 1 for all soldiers.
Son #2 is Ranger Qualified, and is competing in the "Best Ranger" competition next month. He's seen a consistent lowering of physical standards and other requirements to make women mainstreamed in combat arms. How can you staff (I edited that from "man") an artillery position if some of the crew can't lift a shell to the breech? Just exempt them from the labor, and maybe have them count the discarded shell casings? Members of the ARTB (Airborne and Ranger Training Brigade) have told him that they have been issued quotas for women to pass Ranger School because the "optics" of only male graduates is bad. Rangers depend on their "Ranger Buddy"--like all forms of affirmative action, is combat a good place to learn if someone earned their role, or was gifted it?
The soft misogyny of low expectations.
MILLER: “I need someone who speaks French and German.”
UPHAM: “Yes sir.”
MILLER: “My two guys were killed.”
UPHAM: “Yes sir it’s just that I never, I haven’t held a weapon since basic training.”
MILLER: “Did you fire the weapon in basic training?”
UPHAM: “Yes sir.”
MILLER: “Well then, get your gear.”
UPHAM: “Yes sir.”
UPHAM: “May I bring my typewriter sir?”
Yeah, the Army has this weird obsession with physical fitness. Not like noncombat personnel ever find themselves in combat.
(OK, wasn't sure I'd get my eyes back to normal after rolling them that hard, but we're good.)
The interesting thing to me is that the ACFT was meant to be a step forward in terms of treating women fairly. Instead of the APFT, with very different grading standards for men and women, and for different age brackets, there would be a single score chart. This was part of allowing women into combat specialties: If they meet the physical standard, then they meet the standard and that's that.
(I think that's cool, and good for CPT Griest – both for succeeding as she has, and for speaking out against diluting standards for women.)
There are three different standards based on the physical intensity of one's specialty. So in fact you don't have to score as high to stay in logistics as to stay in the infantry.
Now people who have assumed men and women are absolutely interchangeble are shocked to discover that men and women pass the single-standard test at different rates, and they are outraged.
Whatever women do, they'll try to do it with common household rules, and won't be happy until it's domesticated. In the meantime they'll nag or form a women's workplace issues committee.
Guys go for structure instead. One being that rules are rules.
McHale's Navy is the model? I had a Beret veteran neighbor who had to carry a wounded comrade to a pickup point for medevac. Wanna try that one girls? Or let him die?
In my experience with military recruiting, I see few women who join to get to combat. Most are happy to do clerical stuff. The combat obsession is with female officers who want promotion and need a combat term to get the next step. Women pilots do not need physical strength but there are serious risks if captured.
The Army is on the road to oblivion with racial politics so why worry about the loss of physical fitness?
You take the same test because you are expected to be ready to enter combat at any time. Logistics is nice and safe until the enemy breaks through the front and puts an armored regiment three klicks from your brigade staging area. Or, you have a thousand refugees show up demanding food and medical care, and then the insurgents among them start whipping up the mob. Or, your convoy gets hit by an IED and suddenly you're fending off a complex ambush while trying to load the wounded and clear the road.
Every once in a while, when the subject of sexually integrating some traditionally sexually segregated institution, I feel a need to mention that often this is a very bad idea, and the people behind are not very good people who probably have the mental disorders so common to the bourgeois class.
I would also remind people that this thing has never been done successfully before, and when it fails, innocent people will die, and no one will take responsibility for the failure.
Here is an article on problems integrating the sexes in the IDF: https://www.lawfareblog.com/female-service-idf-challenge-integrated-army
Obsession???? Who is this Emma Moore????
I bet she and none of her pointy headed 'think tank' fellow associates have ever been in the military nor combat.
Physical fitness is a must in times of great stress and war is one of the greatest stresses out there!!
I haven't been following very closely, but the few reports I've seen about the new ACFT suggest that it's turning out to be a classic goat-rope in true Army fashion. Difficult to administer, poor performance, results not in line with what the brass hoped, etc. I figure it will be quietly killed in a year or two.
"Do current requirements penalize women? Do they overshadow expertise and intellectual preparation?"
In an existential conflict, do we want to survive or to fantasize we will be remembered for "being inclusive?"
I will have to check but if I understood my son (SSGT) correctly, different minimum scores are required for different MOS.
Herger the Joyous : When they come, we form a circle in the center of the room, backs to one another.
Ahmed Ibn Fahdlan : I am not a warrior.
Herger the Joyous : Very soon, you will be.
Just finished reading "East of Chosin" where a US Army RCT was surround by 5-6 Chinese Divisions... Temps ranging from 0 to -30. They fought for 3 days and what was left of the RCT had to RUN FOR THEIR LIVES..
Try that when you are fat and out of shape.
Physical fitness, on a personal scale, is NOT necessary for being in the military.... if you don't want to live. On a military structure scale it is not necessary if you don't want to win either! I guess this think tank does not feel winning battles a 'must'.
Because every person in the military should be fit for combat. Whatever their particular official duty, being ready to fight is job 1 for all soldiers.
Agree completely. You might ask men who were rear echelon troops in Bastogne about whether they needed to be fit for combat when the Panzers broke through. Or in my war, whether the support troops in Saigon didn’t need to be fit to fight during the Tet Offensive. In the asymmetric warfare our troops face today any soldier at any time can be in a fight for his — or her! — life with fanatical guerillas.
In sports trans-women beat women every time. And in combat an all-male unit will beat a unit functioning at women's strength level every time. So we're being set-up to lose the next war just as women athletes are losing in women's sports.
Let them be Shield Maidens and serve in Amazon Brigades.
You never know - the woman truck driver whose convoy was ambushed in Desert Storm, for example. And when a missile hits a ship, or the ship hits mine, everyone is instantly turned into a damage control worker - which is very physical, or a firefighter, or is needed to carry a casualty up 10 flights of ladders.
Video of a woman getting a perfect score on the USMC Fitness exam:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.menshealth.com/fitness/amp35233583/marine-combat-fitness-test-crossfit-games-lauren-fisher-austen-alexander/&ved=2ahUKEwjLnsObwqjvAhUOU98KHdwqBvYQtwIwAHoECAEQAg&usg=AOvVaw1lkW_0C5eM9v_kcQbyoHjA&cf=1
Why? Because your MOS isn't guaranteed to you. You may be joining to do cyber logistics (whatever you think that is), but you may end up in infantry or artillery. You also don't get to pick your deployment station. Jessica Lynch was a Supply Specialist (aka Logistics) when she was captured by Iraqi forces.
There is an alternative for Emma Moore; don't join the Army as soldier. The Army has many contractors that don't have to meet the physical requirements.
I looked at the requirements Griest listed--I can perform all of them, and I am almost 60 years old. The thought that there are young women who cannot do the things I can do (two miles in 15 minutes; 30 push-ups in less than 2 minutes) who nonetheless are demanding to be in combat arms is terrifying.
Because I know that there is no way that I could do any of the things necessary to be in combat. Why do women insist on this? God forbid we find ourselves in a hot war and have women dying in the field--and causing their brothers-in-arms to die.
Anyone on the ground in a combat zone needs to have the same minimal standard physical ability. But I have come around on changes to how we fight and no longer believe that one size fits all, so to speak, really is best. For other combat jobs, like drone warfare in some shithole country done from Omaha or Kentucky, I would want the best drone operator doing the combat. If that is a fat kid who videogamed from his mom's basement his first 20 years then do be it, as long as he is dedicated to his new job and can otherwise Be All That You Can Be If the kid is delivering the deliverables where they need to be delivered, and is good at doing it, who cares if he can't get over the wall, under the crawling mesh or is otherwise a Disgusting Fatbody?
Women like Griest who've met the standard will encourage other women to meet the standard. "You can do this just like I did" is a powerful tool.
If you can't fight, you're dead weight in the Army.
It doesn't matter what other jobs you can do, you are dead weight that has to be protected by a real member of the Army when things go bad.
Now, this is the "Army" under the control of Democrats. So if they want to destroy its ability to function, I'm ok with that
But let's be honest about what they're doing
Upside down freaking world. Why have a Military that is weaker than previous, when China is building up theirs???
Gilbert Pinfold said...
Rangers depend on their "Ranger Buddy"--like all forms of affirmative action, is combat a good place to learn if someone earned their role, or was gifted it?
As with all other forms of "Affirmative Action", the results will be the same: everyone of the protected class will be assumed incompetent and worthless.
Which, in this case, means they'll be left to die when the SHTF, because no one's going to risk their life to find out that risk wasn't worth it
This is an extension of the "every participant gets a trophy" thought. Recipe for defeat. Truly today's Democrat.
Kate said...
Women like Griest who've met the standard will encourage other women to meet the standard.
What "standard"? The watered down pathetic "let's not exclude girls" standard?
Or the real ones that were in place before the scum at the top of the Army (I'm talking about Generals here, not their civilian bosses) accepted lowering the standards in order to make the feminists happy?
At the start: I am woman hear me roar, we're just as good as men!
Then: Ah, we women can't do it. We need to lower the standards.
Finally: Y'know all these standards are bunk. We need quotas.
If we lived in a world that really depended on the Army to defend the country, I'd be upset at this. But that's not the case anymore. The US army is just an imperial strike force used to police the natives and push our elites absurd beliefs on foreigners. So, the less effective it is the less likely we're going to get into a useless war.
So, more women and affirmative action. More painted finger nails and hairdos. More affirmative action Generals. its all good.
Isn't the point that in the army, even the janitor can be called upon to fight if necessary?
Leland,
"Because your MOS isn't guaranteed to you. You may be joining to do cyber logistics (whatever you think that is), but you may end up in infantry or artillery."
If you enlist, you get the MOS that's in your contract. If your recruiter doesn't give you that MOS, you don't have to sign. Once it's in writing, that's that.
Officers will get the highest branch on their list that is consistent with needs of the Army, but nothing is promised: Needs of the Army win.
Anne-I-Am, 9:11:
My poor mother (then in her early sixties) had a hard time with my joining, but she tried to be supportive, and in the end she really succeeded.
Somewhere in the process of coming to terms, she asked about my running and training. (I was older than the usual recruit, and she wanted to know what I was aiming for.) Then, out of curiosity, she asked about the standards for women.
When I told her the passing 2-mile run time for a 22-year-old woman, she was appalled: "I can do that!"
I'd second rcocean. The armed forces are primarily a jobs program and have been for some time. Wars in countries that can't hit us back in any military sense don't require very many people who can fight.
We have stopped being a serious people... a real war or some other major disaster is going to be what brings us back to reality, hard...
So which of the following AF career fields do you want to be safe for those who can't pass the rigorous fitness test?
Finance clerk maybe? Except I am aware of an clerk who was taken by C-130 to a remote and shady location in a country that ends in -stan not named Afghanistan shortly after 9-11 to deliver a very large amount of cash and was told he had 30 minutes to get back or the plane was leaving without him.
Public Affairs Officer? Except if you are assigned to escort media who are embedded with Marine or Army combat units.
Logistics Officer? Except you get assigned to support Special Ops Forces and end up in a situation that requires your action resulting with you getting a Silver Star.
I've seen many AF officers and Airmen pulled out of my office to be assigned to fill shortages overseas and they don't need to be deciding if they are coming from a career field that meets the physical requirements.
I asked my son, he explained that there are categories with different minimums. Some examples:
Heavy: Infantry, Artillery, Armor
Significant: Mechanics
Desk job: moderate
This has been in the works for a while - it's not a Biden thing. When he first told me about it over a year ago, he thought it was actually more rigorous than the previous test. He's artillery, so he has to hit the highest standard but even the moderate struck me as enough to ensure the ability to take care of yourself in a bad situation, and assist your buddies. I don't think this is as bad as some here seem to think.
We were promised that allowing women to serve would not involve lower standards or lower fitness requirements.
We responded with: "Bullshit".
They replied: "Trust us".
and here we are.
My experience in the army was that people in combat arms were usually in way better physical condition than us REMFs. And the reason for that is that they, as a unit, worked out a lot harder. Most of the units I was in worked out 3 times a week, mostly calisthenics and a 2 to 3 mile run. Then time for a shower, breakfast, and off to our sedentary jobs. A lot more than most civilians but to somebody in an airborne or ranger battalion that would have been a vacation, barely a warm up and then they did "not sedentary" things like land nav and road marching with a full kit, etc . There were people in support units who maxed out on the PFT, but they worked out way more than what the unit did as a whole.
A Wisconsin Veteran's story... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCabZdoD0OI
Remarkable indeed!
No woman must be made to feel bad about, or responsible for, anything, ever.
Birches said...
Isn't the point that in the army, even the janitor can be called upon to fight if necessary?
Which makes properly fitting flight suits for our pregnant warriors a top priority for our Commander-in-Chief.
My father in law was trained by the Marine Corp as a pharmacist assistant, but turned into an infantryman every time he landed on an island in the South Pacific.
the heavy dead-lift
3 REPETITION MAXIMUM DEADLIFT (MDL)
FIELD TEST
60 and 100 point scores: 140 pounds and 340 pounds
A soldier must achieve 360 points out of a maximum 600 to pass
Interesting: 360/600 = 60/100
Video of a woman getting a perfect score on the USMC Fitness exam:
Women are scored differently than men; see @2:20 with the ammo box.
I think the basic idea here is, "Just how strong do you really need to be, to hold a submachine gun on a bunch of deplorable women and children while they are loaded onto a one-way train?"
They treat our military like it’s a jobs program.
Democrats want to feminize our military. Our adversaries are grateful for that and will use it - and all other gifts presented - to their advantage.
Which makes properly fitting flight suits for our pregnant warriors a top priority for our Commander-in-Chief.
25% of female sailors on ships during Gulf War I got pregnant while serving. That was the first occasion where females were allowed to serve aboard ships.
Ideological purity is much more important. There are some very big, strong guys who would balk at loading women and children into one-way trains.
Again, the Chinese laughing their asses off. If it ever comes to a ground war we are fucked.
Don't even get me started on cops. I think they take a physical test when they first join the force at 23yo and just gain three pounds every year until retirement.
I'm 60 and not in great shape (although I was a better-than-most athlete back in the day), but I see women cops all the time (especially ones 30+) who could only cuff me if I wanted them to.
We have sacrificed all standards to the god of diversity.
@Joe Smith
I remember reading way back when that when the Atlanta police department was mostly big mean rednecks they had far fewer shootings by the police than after the PD was "professionalized." That's because big mean rednecks don't have to shoot people who won't comply with their instructions. They have other methods.
Army needs to add 60 yard dash, grenade throwing speed, shuttle cone, and vertical leap.
"Army Struggles to Be a Fair Boss With Female Troops"
Translation: Army still trying to figure out how to lower standards without making it entirely obvious that they are sacrificing performance to PC-feminist ideological priorities.
"it faces difficult questions: Do current requirements penalize women?"
IOW, the difficult questions are not how to beat the Russians and the Chinese and any other bad guys, but: are we "penalizing" women? Nothing worse than that, after all.
Army needs to add 60 yard dash, grenade throwing speed, shuttle cone, and vertical leap.
I've long been an advocate for ditching the two-mile run in favor of a 40-yard dash and a 5 mile road march.
Pull ups
Push ups
Bodyweight squats
40-yard dash
5 mile road march
If you want to add weights, I'd go with either thrusters (front squat combined with an overhead press) or make them haul a 150 lb sandbag across their shoulders for 100 yards.
Why does everyone have to be fit?
Because at the end every soldier is infantry. At Kasserine Pass they were throwing in bakers, mechanics, clerks, everyone that could hold a rifle. That's why.
"Video of a woman getting a perfect score on the USMC Fitness exam:
Women are scored differently than men; see @2:20 with the ammo box."
Yes. Even a test specifically set up to show the possibility of equality, with a very fit Crossfitter, in fact demonstrates the double standard.
On a combat ship an office worker (Yeoman, Personnelman, many others) wil have a general quarters station and has to be able to competently perform damage control and firefighting duties. The presumption is that all sailors have to be able to perform combat duties, like carrying a rolled up fire hose up a ladder. Try it some time.
Every soldier has to be physically prepared for every combat eventuality, including hand to hand combat in the event of an enemy breakthrough, including rear echelon troops and high ranking (and thus older) officers behind the lines. The Chinese and Russians aren’t going to cut someone, male or female, any slack in that type of situation id that soldier isn’t up to the standards of physical fitness and capability. At that point, it is kill or be killed (or if a soldier is “lucky”, wounded and / or captured. Our betters in administrations run by Democrats don’t seem to understand this concept. But then again, many are anti-military and want to emasculate the military in the name of gender equality and fairness, sometimes with a vengeance.
I have lost all respect for the military. It's just another institution, like the university, my Episcopal church, the public schools, taken over by the left. I know so many unworthy people living it up at taxpayer's expensive in every government institution.
I personally know single women who fought for custody for their children only to abandon them to join the military. The military gladly let these children be abandoned for months at a time. I'm embarrassed to call myself a veteran anymore. The title deserves as much honor as a teacher, which is zero.
Even in today's world, at some point you are going to need some people in the army who exhibit extreme courage under physical and mental duress, maybe for days or for weeks.
The people who do this are going to expect to be rewarded for it with promotions and other perks.
The generals will insist that, therefore, equal opportunity demands that half the people who do this are male and the other half female.
This is where denial of biological reality gets you. Actually, it is a way station, where it gets you is soldiers who can't fight well because half of them require the assistance and protection of the other half, or soldiers who do not believe that women need assistance and protection.
OK..if having women in the military is a good thing.
And if, as progressives claim, women are just as good as men (maybe better!) at being soldiers...
Shouldn't we have an all-female military?
Seriously. 99.9 percent of the casualties in the history of U.S. warfare have been men. Is that fair?
No, it is not.
Men demand casualty equity.
And bring back the draft. Women and trans only.
Women are being trained to fight against having standards.
They are being taught to avoid and resent responsibility.
That is going to work out as well as it has always worked out.
"Do current requirements penalize women?"
Consisting of words on paper and having no sentience of their own, the current requirements cannot penalize anyone. Presumably, there is a reason for having the requirements and applying those requirements equally to living people will likely result in some passing and some failing. Failing is a recognition of reality with regards to how an individual measures up to the requirements and is not a penalty unless the word "penalty" is redefined.
Can we just All Agree; that All Women should be allowed to do WHATEVER THEY WANT?
it does NOT matter how that affects the job. The ONLY THING that matters, is how it affects women
[bonus round: can we All self identify as women, now?]
If anyone has any interest in learning what's actually in the new test, it's here. https://www.army.mil/acft/
It looks like an improvement to me. Even desk workers have to be able to deadlift 140lbs three times; throw a 10lb medicine ball backwards over their head at least 15 feet; there's an event where they have to sprint 25m, then drag 170lbs back, then drag it back again, then run sideways (both ways), then carry 80lbs the remaining 25m. In three minutes. Gotta do 2 miles in 20 minutes, and a couple more events on top of that.
We'll see how long it lasts after the failure rates start stacking up. But this is harder than the old one.
The United States Marines Corp has a saying, "Every Marine a rifleman." Clerks, cooks, pilots, quartermasters, or nurses may have no expectations of engaging in combat, but they have to be prepared to fight alongside everyone else. That should apply to geeks too.
There's a reason my wife doesn't open pickle jars, haul the treadmill downstairs, carry bags of sand and bark into the back yard, take down the holiday decorations from the top of the garage shelves.
Because as a rather petite woman she can't do those things easily.
Hell, I can't do some of those things easily either, but I can do them without injuring myself.
Men and women are different.
Go figure.
This is what organizations and cultures do when they no longer think they are in jeopardy and need to compete.
Listen, to some extent I understand the argument. If you are having difficulty recruiting, and you need the bodies, you loosen standards. Our military has done it, others have done it. And there's an argument to be made that a drone pilot operating out 3,000 miles away from the action can be fat and lazy.
But physical fitness training is about FAR more than actual physical fitness and that's being ignored here. It develops discipline and mental toughness, attributes far more important and lasting. When you are in logistics, or flying drones 3,000 miles away, you need those attributes. And they come best from rigorous physical training and pushing through tiredness, exhaustion, etc.
"My father in law was trained by the Marine Corp as a pharmacist assistant, but turned into an infantryman every time he landed on an island in the South Pacific."
: )
"Video of a woman getting a perfect score on the USMC Fitness exam:"
Here you go...
Iman said... They treat our military like it’s a jobs program.
Yeah. Do not confuse the Army with the School District.
“Do current requirements penalize women?” Well, I don’t know. Does the requirement that one be sighted to obtain a license to drive penalize the blind?
I am reminded of Chesterton’s parable of the fence. Roughly, “Don’t tear down the fence if you don’t know why it was put there.” https://www.chesterton.org/taking-a-fence-down/
Among the very few upsides of the impending oligarchy is that when the oligarchs no longer need disruptive elements to erase America’s heritage they will stifle the bleating of the Pink Pussy Hatters and other gender benders.
Our senior military leadership weighs in:
SMA Michael Grinston
@16thSMA
Women lead our most lethal units with character. They will dominate ANY future battlefield we’re called to fight on. @TuckerCarlson
’s words are divisive, don’t reflect our values. We have THE MOST professional, educated, agile, and strongest NCO Corps in the world.
What's old is new again. I recall an argument about the fitness test for the Boston Fire Department from, I think, the 1980's. Same arguments from both sides. The winning one to me is this: there is a set of minimum physical abilities needed to do the job and they do not vary based on the gender of the individual applicant. If you can meet or surpass them then you are in, if you cannot, you're out.
I remember a while back Tucker Carlson saying the reason you don't hear anyone criticizing the military anymore is because it's been co-opted by the left.
It was shocking to hear, having not given it much thought. I know some libtard woman now runs the USAF, my former branch, but all of it?
Browndog: ‘Our senior military leadership weighs in: SMA Michael Grinston @16thSMA, “Women lead our most lethal units with character. They will dominate ANY future battlefield we’re called to fight on.”’
Who believes this? What else can they say, “In the interest of equality we have emasculated our ground forces, putting the nation at risk in future conflicts?”
Everybody knows that our military is governed by Obots pursuing “transformation.”
"The winning one to me is this: there is a set of minimum physical abilities needed to do the job and they do not vary based on the gender of the individual applicant. If you can meet or surpass them then you are in, if you cannot, you're out."
The disconnect here happens when the makeup of the workforce (sex, race, whatever...) becomes more important than doing the job the workforce is supposedly being hired for.
Watch Hari's video link- USMC fit test. That is a solid strength/endurance test.
There are always minimum standards to do anything. Lowering those standards means getting people who can't actually do the required things.
JPS,
Yes, your MOS (or rating in the Navy)is guaranteed to you if it's writing. Well, almost- it's guaranteed as long as you continue to meet all standards. Fail a test or two in your school? Academic review board evaluates your performance and decides if you get recycled or go bye-bye. If bye-bye you go where the needs of the service dictate. Pass rates in schools range from 95% to well less than 50% depending on school.
There are all kinds of ways you can end up in other than your "guaranteed" MOS. Have a disciplinary problem? Bye-bye. Oversleep a few times and end up late to formations? Bye-bye. Lots of ways.
The Army is going to a more job oriented Physical Fitness regimen. and ALL soldiers need to be able to wage war if needed. So many "rear echelon" positions get attacked and/or overrun.
If women ever want to be treated as an equal combat multiplier they need to be fit enough to keep up with the men, period. It is not really about equality its about the person next to you trusting you with their lives... and if they cannot they will kill you themselves.
My cousin was third in her class at DLI for Korean. She ended up as a driver because there were no slots for linguists.
They'll send you to your MOS school, and then put you wherever they need you once you get to your unit.
Every Marine, a rifleman.
- Krumhorn
The job of the military is to kill people and break things. The single most important job of the Federal Government is the protection of it's citizenry. The People's Liberation Army (CCP) is advancing well beyond our current capabilities. I'm sure they'll be very impressed at our diversity and our attention to equity when they overrun Taiwan, and destroy a few US bases and aircraft carriers along the way.
Yow. Ever think the goals of our 'leaders' is to destroy us? I do.
I have a child that is part of a group that have been test subjects for the new PT standards for the last couple of years. His observation of the test is that it is very easy to pass and extremely difficult to max. Very few have maxed the test, a much smaller percentage than maxed the old test. Although the new test was specifically designed so that men and women would have similar standards...and results, females are failing the new test at a higher rate than are males.
The test is going to be a logistical nightmare for any unit in the field or deployed. The beauty of the old test was that you could administer it anywhere. Push-ups, sit-ups, two mile run. All you needed was a reasonably flat surface and small improvised area to run. Look at the the equipment requirements for the new test. Dead lift squat racks, chin-up bars, medicine balls, dumbbells, etc. Additionally, the old test could be administered in an hour, soldiers could then shower and get on with their day. The new test takes half a day to set up and another half of a day to administer.
There are two reasons for all this bullshit.
1) We have the "You Go Girl" lefties in charge, and they'll tell you to your face that the girls can compete on equal footing with the men, then change the standards when you're not looking, you sexist white supremacist.
2) There are very few young adults fit and sane enough to enlist. Gotta have more girls, because there ain't enough boys. I know, it's hard to imagine that with 330 million, we don't have enough, but truly, we don't. Fewer kids, more fat, more mental issues.
So, must recruit more girls. But girls don't have same promotion opportunities, because ya gotta do some sort of combat specialty to get the stars on your shoulder. Therefore, weaken standards and ignore deficiencies. It's win-win!
The military needs everyone to have minimum fighting skills, and particularly fitness, for any emergency. In the Marines, my son told me that every officer no matter what MOS has the training to lead a platoon. Apparently in WW2 there was a pilot (lieutenant) shot down in the Pacific onto an island who then led an infantry platoon that had lost its leader.
Xi's sides are splitting...
The battlefield is not an equal opportunity employer.
Blogger Hari said...
Video of a woman getting a perfect score on the USMC Fitness exam:
3/11/21, 9:08 AM
Not sure of what point you're trying to make? But after reading your posted site/article I came away thinking Ms. Fisher got snookered into believing her score (watered down for SJW purposes) was something great? I guess even the Marines now award 'trophies for everyone' concept. Next we'll have Doctors who get MDs with an IQ of 100 (average). BTW, am all for women being in the Service but under rational rules not some SJW political activism pushed by crooked politicians. Finally, all of this Armed Forces experimentation will fall by the wayside when the next war comes around - and there will be another War (actual combat). That's 'Human Nature'!
Thank you for the correction, JFS.
Do current requirements penalize women?
Given that all humans are the same -- no.
So, what happens when less fit men start identifying as women? .
Since women, on average, are smaller than men, does that give them an advantage as smaller targets for being shot at, on the front lines? Maybe something to consider, while we're at it....
Seriously, a Real question
Can't the Army just declare; that, From now on:
EVERY soldier will be self identified as a woman?
won't This, Solve EVERYTHING?
You all are looking past the sale by the way.
Pretty soon all humans are going to be liabilities at best in combat.
This is a fight about who controls the robots that kill everyone else.
At least until humans are just removed from the decision making entirely.
This is a fight about who controls the robots that kill everyone else.
At least until humans are just removed from the decision making entirely.
Bring ON Skynet!! Only Skynet can save us, from ourselves
(well, The Forbin Project probably could as well, but now you're just picking nits
Can't we just use the global warming argument in response? If we do all these things (challenging physical fitness) and it turns out we're wrong, the worst thing that can happen is that we'll have an armed forces full of people in great shape.
Lower the physical standards - let 'em all be soldiers.
Lower the academic standards - let 'em all get bachelor's degrees.
Decriminalize all property crimes - let 'em all be free citizens.
Seems to me we are headed in a direction with many surprises in store for us.
oh, and repeal the nineteenth.
When the robots become conscious, won't they be human because they are human creations?
"Why does someone working on cyberlogistics have to even take the same test?"
Two answers:
Irrelevant. Gender is just a construct. [Your monkeys, your circus].
or
If you have two levels of fitness, how long until the question becomes "Why are you holding the less fit back?"
The military rewards successful field commanders. This could cut off paths for advancement. How sexist.
Prof van Creveld puts it this way: why is it women aren't capable of playing highly-paid and celebrated pro sports alongside men, but somehow ARE capable of the nasty, rough, dangerous, work of winning wars alongside men?
It illuminates our priorities as a culture, doesn't it?
Narr
Cloud-Cuckoo-Land got nothing on the Pentagoons
80% of women failed the new gender neutral PT test. This article is prepping the battlefield to lower the standard to get a better pass ratio.
If not enough women measure up just lower the standards. Problem solved.
I contend that men are more often excluded from something due to their physical limitations than women are. In sports, in the armed services, in physically demanding jobs, men learn early that there is always someone better than you and you are just going to have to accept that you cannot do some job or other. Even those magically physically gifted men will eventually reach a level where someone is much better for some position. They get over it. Get over it.
The military rewards successful field commanders. This could cut off paths for advancement. How sexist.
This is the reason all this pressure for combat arms and lower standards is coming from women officers who want to get promoted. They want ticket punches and not combat.
Because it's the Army. They are supposed to fight wars. At some point you might need everyone to pick up a rifle and fight. Cyber logistics does zero good when an electromagnetic event takes out all electronics and you're left with weapons and physical strength.
Howard said...
When the robots become conscious, won't they be human because they are human creations?
They don't need to be conscious to beat us at Go.
They don't need to be as human as humans to beat us at war.
They just need to be better at war.
Reminds me of Friedrich Wilhelm's (Fred the Great's dad's) regiment of giants.
Narr
Fashion and ideology over reality
Robots will have everything but reasons to fight. Those will have to be programmed in.
Narr
I'm sure we can do it
"Robots will have everything but reasons to fight. Those will have to be programmed in."
Asimov will have none of it...
Cyber logistics does zero good when an electromagnetic event takes out all electronics and you're left with weapons and physical strength.
There have been plenty, both inside the Pentagon and out, that have been advocating for a separate cyberwar branch of the military specifically because the culture of effective cyberwarriors is not even in the same sport, let alone the same stadium, as typical war-fighters. I was frankly surprised that Space Force got the nod before a Cyber Force. Regardless, that EMP you're talking about may happen, or it may not (I know senior people in DC that are kept up nights worrying about it), but it will be a singular event. Cyberwar takes place nearly every day and is a lot like punching smoke.
"I was frankly surprised that Space Force got the nod before a Cyber Force."
If we don't have this program working covertly right now then we deserve to have the Chinese eat our collective lunches.
Just because it's not on the books doesn't mean it's not there...
"Robots will have everything but reasons to fight. Those will have to be programmed in."
Asimov will have none of it...
Good intentions will override principles. Think wicked solution. Also, color privilege, diversity dogma, political congruence, etc. The robots will be the first of second to follow this progressive path and grade.
"Good intentions will override principles. Think wicked solution. Also, color privilege, diversity dogma, political congruence, etc. The robots will be the first of second to follow this progressive path and grade."
It has already been established here recently that black robots would be racist.
It is insensitive and triggering for black people to have to imagine all the black robots who picked cotton so long ago.
I do declayuh! (said in a Scarlett O'Hara voice)...
Fit people are healthier and get sick less. Military is mission critical. You can't have a force that you can't deploy because they are unfit to do hard things, even if they'll never do more than sit behind a desk.
With respect to the psychological aspects of fitness requirements -- If you haven't read J.D. Vance's "Hillbilly Elegy", you should at least read the part about his experiences in Marine Boot Camp. The services really need to be careful that they don't soften requirements to the point that trainees/recruits don't get an ego boost from meeting them. When I was growing up (I'm now 78), there was no worse insult than "you throw like a girl". I don't know how "you whine like a Karen" plays today. Of course, a lot of Karens are (or identify as) male, so there's that.
no worse insult than "you throw like a girl".
"Throw like Fauci" are fighting words.
Achilles : You all are looking past the sale by the way. Pretty soon all humans are going to be liabilities at best in combat. This is a fight about who controls the robots that kill everyone else.
I think this gets to the point. Never mind whether Achilles' prediction is precisely right, the point is - the purpose of the military is to win fights (preferably by scaring the other guys into backing off, but if necessarly by turning them into marmalade.)
So you want Marmalade Making Max based on the current state of technology. And technology has moved on since the battleaxe. There are lots of big strong fit hairy guys who are no use to the military because they're too dumb to work the equipment.
If there was an unlimited supply of qualified labor, then sure you'd want your smart button pushing soldiers to be as fit as frontline combat soldiers. But since there isn't, you have to make compromises. If the Army needs 25,000 smart button pushers, who normally serve way away from the frontline do we want :
(a) 6,000 combat fit button pushers and 19,000 vacancies because the others failed the fitness test, or
(b) 6,000 combat fit button pushers and 19,000 not so fit button pushers ?
Women have brains. No really. A smart woman can be more use in the modern military (in some roles) than a dumb man. No different from the workplace. Deny yourself your binders of women and you're throwing away a lot of talent. Making the military less effective.
The point in cutting women some slack in the fitness stakes to make sure you're up to strength in the button pushing departments is - or at least should be - to create the most effective military, not to be "fair' to women. Being fair is not the point. Being effective is.
It's people like Emma Less who give women a bad name.
The Army in particular has an obsession with physical fitness.
The Army in particular has an obsession with keeping its troops alive and making the enemy dead.
If we don't strive to be best, we'll wind up like the Dutch Military.
Leland- "Jessica Lynch was a Supply Specialist (aka Logistics) when she was captured by Iraqi forces."
They were in a Transportation Convoy. Truck drivers.
There was an ambush.
Every man joined the fight.
Every women cowered in the cabs of the trucks.
Men died that day doing the thing that soldiers do. The women didn't do what soldiers do.
Here's the difference. An ambush pisses men off. Women just want to run away. To fight an ambush, you advance into it. Women can not understand that. Run away!
The Feminists in the Pentagon made up a story about Rambo Jessica. She fired her rifle until the barrel melted down, and then went hand to hand.
She didn't, and there's not a single Man who faults her for cowering. She shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Robots will be functional after a nuclear fallout. They will fair decently after a kinetic energy weapon strike. Over pressure doesn't really hurt them much. Fire and heat not so effective. It is fairly trivial to build important electronics behind a faraday cage so the whole EMP thing is kinda silly.
An Armed Forces that is staffed by a bunch of fat women that hate the world and hate productive people makes a lot more sense when you start taking into account the goals of the Regime.
Les Moore - "Women have brains. No really. A smart woman can be more use in the modern military (in some roles) than a dumb man."
We've always recognized that. We had the Woman Auxiliaries. WAC, WAF, WAVES.
Women are important to the fight, just not in the Regular Army/Marines/Navy.
The Clintons changed that for Grrlll Power.
Osama bin Laden saw the spectacle of the decay of the paper tiger. The news media showed their 'Specials' of 'Women in the Military' in the '90s.
Across the world the signal was sent...women crying in frustration on an obstacle course. Broad hipped, narrow shouldered women proclaiming that, 'Gosh darn, I just want to be the best soldier I can be.
The Beast of War salivated. The Twin Towers came down.
I'll make a prediction: The United States will lose the next war it gets involved in.
Throughout history, rear, support positions have been over-run or attacked. Unless you are running a drone in Iraq from Texas, you might get into the war. During the iraq war, jessica lynch, a truck driver was ambushed and captured and the whole army was held hostage.
I commanded armored units during the Cold War, ODS, and afterwards, when women were not allowed in combat units. Combat arms is tough. Logistics can be hard, too -- try chaining a tank down on a heavy equipment transporter, etc. Given that the policy is in place to open all specialties to women, then (1) establish minimum physical strength and fitness for all in uniform (depending on the service) that apply regardless of sex/gender; (2) establish specialty related strength and fitness standards -- you want to be a tanker -- show me you can pull this 90 pound tow cable 50 yards in X seconds, French press a 65 pound tube over your head 45 times to simulate loading a tank with its combat load, etc.; you want to be infantry -- road march 12-15 miles with a 100+ pound pack in X hours/Y minutes; do the old run, dodge, and jump in assault pack to demonstrate agility; etc. There are women who will be able to do it and men that can't. No more gender-normed standards -- equality means equality.
My husband is actually going through something similar. He has an audition for the army choir – he is a professional singer - but one thing that might hold him back is he is blind in his left eye which would typically be something to automatically disqualify him from serving. He is currently attempting to get a medical waiver. After all, he has survived this far as a singer with only being able to see out of one eye. But we are learning that it’s just not that simple. Possible, but not simple at all.
Physical standards for draftees were lowered continuously during WW II. An all-volunteer force (even one deployed on fool's errands) ought to be able to command and demand exacting physical standards.
It's easy to predict that they'll lose the next war, even without this nonsense, since they've lost every war since DS1--and that was only 'won' because it had a very limited and definable aim.
Narr
"They" being our selected leaders
Way way back when women were first put aboard Navy ships, a CO on the waterfront i Norfolk did a little experiment. Told the female officers to pick the 4 fittest females for a little Damage Control race. He randomly picked 4 males from a hat.
Set Condition Zebra throughout the ship. All watertight doors and hatches shut and dogged. Took the two teams to the designated repair locker, outfitted them in OBAs, just like they might be in a real casualty situation. Had them light off the canisters, and instructed them to take P-250 pumps from Point A, the repair locker, to point B, where they were needed. It's not that the men did it faster then the women. It's that the women never got to Point B. They gave up. It was too hard. They were sitting next to the pier. The ship wasn't rocking and rolling. There were no wet slippery decks, no real fire and smoke. And they flat out didn't make it to Point B.
The CO told the powers that be- and the other ship COs at a weekly conference what he had done, and the results. And what happened? He was ordered not to write anything up about it, and the other COs were told not to even think about replicating the race, and they were all not to talk about it.
So I'd show you an official reference to this- but none exist. I'd tell you what ship it was, but I wasn't on it. I was in Norfolk, and the story flitted around, but it never officially happened, therefore, it never happened....
Lots of things in the Navy happen that never happened.
Hercules, not that one though, 6:24:
Mindset matters. Jessica Lynch's heroism may have been largely invented. SFC (then-SGT) Leigh Ann Hester's was not. She went MP because it was the closest she could then get to infantry. From her Silver Star citation:
"While serving as the Team Leader for RAVEN 42B in the 617th Military Police Company, 503d Military Police Battalion (Airborne), 18th Military Police Brigade, Sergeant Hester led her soldiers on a counterattack of anti-Iraqi Forces (AIF) who were ambushing a convoy with heavy AK-47 assault rifle fire, PRK machine gun fire, and rocket propelled grenades. Sergeant Hester maneuvered her team through the kill zone into a flanking position where she assaulted a trench line with grenades and M-203 rounds."
She's not the norm. But she and women like her exist.
Scott, 8:03: Hat's off to you, and right on.
Natatomic, I hope he gets his waiver.
natatomic said...
My husband is actually going through something similar. He has an audition for the army choir – he is a professional singer - but one thing that might hold him back is he is blind in his left eye which would typically be something to automatically disqualify him from serving
Sometimes things happen. One of my uncles worked for the railroads, I don't know which one, before WWII started. His civilian boss was a reserve Brigadier General. My uncle had one eye. The war started, his boss was activated. And he told the War Department- "My assistant is a logistics expert. You will draft and commission him." And my uncle was put in charge of logistics in Portland OR IIRC, and spent the war making sure the railroad cars got to right piers with the right cargo ships with the correct cargo on board. This was before computers and containerization. And he did that until discharged. Meanwhile his brother, another uncle, had both eyes. But bad vision. No invaluable skills. In January 1942 he was turned down for service in the Army, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard. Went to war as a merchant sailor. Received service medals for all 4 theatres of operation and the WWII Victory Medal, was all over the world, under military law the whole time, and wasn't recognized officially as a veteran until 1988. My great-uncle, his uncle, was torpedoed twice on merchants during WWII. To add to the three times he was torpedoed in WWI. Not certain if his WWI sinkings were aboard Navy or merchant vessels or a mixture of both.
I'll make a prediction: The United States will lose the next war it gets involved in.
No, but we'll take heavy casualties before the right people can make reforms.
Mr Wibble: Exactly what I was thinking. There's precedent, after all.
JPS - White Knight. "she assaulted a trench line with grenades and M-203 rounds."
Do you know what an M-203 round is?
You're white knighting...do you know what an M-203 is? Probably not because you allow girls to fight the battles in which you were too cowardly to engage.
The M-203 is a grenade launcher affixed to the underside of an M-16. You launch them when you don't have line of sight on your target, which means they don't have 'line of sight' on you. Potential threat, but not yet a threat. Important, but only a deterrent.
Tell us what happened next in your Amazon Girl Warrior story, white knight.
Girls in today's Army get Silver Stars for brushing their teeth.
We have a habit of losing our first battles; there are whole books about it.
But one battle is all we may get this time around.
And it's really unlikely that the game-addicted, drugged-out, pc-ed, wussified, crappily-educated VAST majority of American young people will be up to any challenges at all.
Narr
And that's assuming the war they might have to fight is worth fighting in the first place.
Narr - Pretty much sums it up.
We created a K-12 Public Education system that we thought would educate. The Government Employee Unions have no interest in education. They represent dues paying members, 'teachers'. They use children to get the next levy. What young parent can resist the Union bullying, threatening them with, "Give us what we want. We have your children."
On and on it goes.
Herc, despite our differences, we have to agree about this!
I hope I'm wrong, but it doesn't look promising.
Narr
Night all!
Narr - In the fullness of time, differences dissipate. I'm sorry for calling you a demon.
In war, no plan survives contact with the enemy. Asymmetric warfare continues to prove this truth. The enemy will always hit you where you're weak, where they can enjoy "local superiority".
The "fat gamer" (of either sex) operating a drone from Kentucky is not safe (mentioned earlier in above comments). Future enemies will find a way to attack (your pronouns here) where they are - Kentucky/Nevada, etc. No place where an effective military asset is based is truly safe when confronted by a determined, motivated, creative enemy.
A military command that is either so cowed by the woke or so lacking in imagination as to think there are "safe" roles for physically unqualified soldiers is doomed to a 9/11 type debacle.
Hercules, if you're still here:
"do you know what an M-203 is?"
Yes. I quoted her Silver Star citation. It's not my description.
"you allow girls to fight the battles"
It's not up to me.
"in which you were too cowardly to engage."
I asked for Infantry and got it. I went where they sent me, and did my duty.
"The M-203 is a grenade launcher affixed to the underside of an M-16."
Thanks for clearing that up. Been awhile since I fired one.
No harm, no foul Herc. But thank you.
Narr
Gentledemon, perhaps
What does the IDF do? Haven't they had women in combat for sometime. One assumes the US has looked at their standards in this regard.
Of course the irony here is that if we get into any kind of super serious War with anyone (think China), and a huge amount of lives are truly at stake, all of this PC BS would get very swiftly thrown out the window. It is everyone’s survival and freedoms we are talking about! What the heck is happening with having any common sense in this country?
Michael K said...
The military rewards successful field commanders. This could cut off paths for advancement. How sexist.
This is the reason all this pressure for combat arms and lower standards is coming from women officers who want to get promoted. They want ticket punches and not combat.
Michael said it first.
This trend is a cascade from USMA female officers wanting to be the Army Chief of Staff, who is always a combat arms type, therefore we need women to be allowed in Combat arms, and promoted along with their peers, and meet all the required merit badges and PFT scores, therefore standards need to yield equity, etc, etc
- ex rough man, whose wife was a retired Army Colonel (lawyer)
ultimately the Army's job is to kill people. standards need to be set to improve force readiness, not to make people feel good about themselves. Adding women or Trans-people to a combat unit is a social experiment to make people feel good. A civil rights objective, not a force readiness decision.
Michael K said...
The military rewards successful field commanders. This could cut off paths for advancement. How sexist.
This is the reason all this pressure for combat arms and lower standards is coming from women officers who want to get promoted. They want ticket punches and not combat.
Michael said it first.
This trend is a cascade from USMA female officers wanting to be the Army Chief of Staff, who is always a combat arms type, therefore we need women to be allowed in Combat arms, and promoted along with their peers, and meet all the required merit badges and PFT scores, therefore standards need to yield equity, etc, etc
- ex rough man, whose wife was a retired Army Colonel (lawyer)
ultimately the Army's job is to kill people. standards need to be set to improve force readiness, not to make people feel good about themselves. Adding women or Trans-people to a combat unit is a social experiment to make people feel good. A civil rights objective, not a force readiness decision.
"While serving as the Team Leader for RAVEN 42B in the 617th Military Police Company, 503d Military Police Battalion (Airborne), 18th Military Police Brigade, Sergeant Hester led her soldiers on a counterattack of anti-Iraqi Forces (AIF) who were ambushing a convoy with heavy AK-47 assault rifle fire, PRK machine gun fire, and rocket propelled grenades. Sergeant Hester maneuvered her team through the kill zone into a flanking position where she assaulted a trench line with grenades and M-203 rounds."
read all about her. a heroic soldier and a good fit in the MP's. But MPs are not Infantry. They don't carry 140 pounds of gear up hills. They fight, when they fight from light vehicles
Post a Comment