It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Men and women in the military and physical standards

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: birhan

If you read the thread you will get all of those answers.




posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: birhan

If you read the thread you will get all of those answers.




soooooo. i just went and reread your posts.... no answers.... thanks for wasting my time.


Now back to the topic that you have opened.

Just answer those questions from my previous post. Nothing wrong with the truth right? or was this a thread for the rant forum?



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: birhan




soooooo. i just went and reread your posts.... no answers.... thanks for wasting my time.


You clearly didn't. Read the OP. Read his posts.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

As a veteran, and the wife of a now-retired career soldier, I will simply say that the standards are not fair. If a woman can't meet the same standard as a man, then she can't do that job, period. That would be fair, but that isn't how it is. As it is, guys have to pick up the slack for women that can't handle the task, in many cases.

Women in the military is one thing, but they should not be in positions where they can't meet the standards the guys have to meet. Fair is fair. We are not, after all, the same.
edit on 29-4-2016 by LadyGreenEyes because: typo



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 12:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Domo1

Well i just checked again and maybe you can help me? Has he served? LIKE OVERSEAS or was he just in the navy and didnt have issues with women?


The questions of this thread relate to battle situations in theatre or overseas. His original post says nothing about him being in those situations.

regardless let me be more clear,

OP have you served OVERSEAS OR BEEN IN COMBAT which required you to be in the situations you described.


edit on 29-4-2016 by birhan because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-4-2016 by birhan because: you should know im bored



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: birhan

I tried out for special programs where dragging people buddy tows and buddy carrys were a big part of the training because for obvious reasons in the military you have to be able to accomplish these tasks.

Your not making a valid point.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Firstly thanks for responding to that post.

Secondly that was exactly what i wanted to know, i kinda get the gyst of the background of the thread. ive heard enough thanks for the thread.


You'll get them next time!
edit on 29-4-2016 by birhan because: pro typo is pro



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: SmurfRider
a reply to: pl3bscheese

If you want to serve, they should let you serve.


No. It's a job that requires specific abilities, if you don't have them people die. It's just stupid to make such a statement.


If you can't make it through bootcamp, then your out or you do bootcamp as long as it takes to build up the strength & skills necessary.


How does this jive with your prior sentence, and how does it not show the same basic step that the military takes by doing the first step of qualification in physical assessment testing? Do you realize this is a multi-step process for a reason?


That is my point. Is the OP hoping for someone to question him & show him why women should have lower standards? There's no reason to disagree with anything he said, my point is that it is a very narrow minded viewpoint (despite how applicable it might be to the way things are currently done. The electoral college exists also so discussing changing modern policy in anything government related is futile) again, what's the point of this thread except to demean women & the MICs current policies? OP just hoping for some mental group masturbation Imo


Again, you don't have a point at all. I can't believe you actually fail this hard and then attempt to call it a "very narrow minded viewpoint" that's "misogynist". In the first freaking step of qualification, they're already being given leeway. The battlefield doesn't care for that. It's just ridiculous to think that the average female can carry out the same physical duties as a male.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Ugh I hate this topic because Yet again Onequestion is right.

Since someone decided to pick on Navy here are the SEXIST standards of the NAVY.

MALES: AGE 17 TO 19 YEARS

PERFORMANCE POINTS CURL PUSH 1.5-MILE SWIM
CATEGORY UPS UPS RUN 500-YD 450-M

"Maximum" 100 109 92 8:15 6:30 6:20
Outstanding 90 102 86 9:00 7:15 7:05
Excellent 75 90 76 9:45 8:30 8:20
Good 60 62 51 11:00 11:15 11:05
Satisfactory 45 50 42 12:30 12:45 12:35
Failure 12:35

FEMALES: AGE 17 TO 19 YEARS

PERFORMANCE POINTS CURL PUSH 1.5-MILE SWIM
CATEGORY UPS UPS RUN 500-YD 450-M

Maximum 100 109 51 9:29 6:45 6:35
Outstanding 90 102 47 11:30 8:30 8:20
Excellent 75 90 42 12:30 9:45 9:35
Good 60 62 24 13:30 13:00 12:50
Satisfactory 45 50 19 15:00 14:15 14:05
Failure 14:05



MALES: AGE 60 TO 64 YEARS

PERFORMANCE POINTS CURL PUSH 1.5-MILE SWIM
CATEGORY UPS UPS RUN 500-YD 450-M

Maximum 100 75 57 11:21 7:20 7:10
Outstanding 90 70 52 12:04 8:20 8:10
Excellent 75 56 44 13:53 10:05 9:55
Good 60 26 14 17:47 12:50 12:40
Satisfactory 45 20 8 18:52 14:05 13:55
Failure 13:55


FEMALES: AGE 60 TO 64 YEARS

PERFORMANCE POINTS CURL PUSH 1.5-MILE SWIM
CATEGORY UPS UPS RUN 500-YD 450-M

Maximum 100 75 26 13:34 9:00 8:50
Outstanding 90 70 22 15:08 10:15 10:05
Excellent 75 56 16 16:25 11:35 11:25
Good 60 26 5 18:51 15:15 15:05
Satisfactory 45 20 2 19:43 16:15 16:05
Failure 16:05

Maximum Allowable Weight Chart male

Height (inches) Maximum Allowable Weight

57 127
58 131
59 136
60 141
61 145
62 150
63 155
64 160
65 165
66 170
67 175
68 181
69 186
70 191
71 196
72 201
73 206
74 211
75 216
76 221
77 226
78 231
79 236
80 241

Maximum Allowable Weight Chart female

Height (inches) Maximum Allowable Weight

57 127
58 131
59 136
60 141
61 145
62 149
63 152
64 156
65 160
66 163
67 167
68 170
69 174
70 177
71 181
72 185
73 189
74 194
75 200
76 205
77 211
78 216
79 222
80 227

Male Body Fat Standards:

18-21 years old = 22 percent body fat
22-29 years old = 23 percent body fat
30-39 years old = 24 percent body fat
40 + years old = 26 percent body fat


Female Body Fat Standards:

18-21 years old = 33 percent body fat
22-29 years old = 34 percent body fat
30-39 years old = 35 percent body fat
40 + years old = 36 percent body fat

Raw numbers do not lie you can see the discrepancy for yourself.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 01:04 AM
link   
a reply to: birhan

I'm really not trying to be a dick, but is English not a native language?

What does it matter if he's been in certain programs?

I've never served in the military and am offering my opinions and it's fine, but he's not allowed to and WAS in the Navy?

I feel like we click, then the gears are stripped for awhile.

Serving doesn't mean serving in combat. This is why I asked if English is a 2nd (or knowing Europeans 15th language - not being a dick but confused by your confusion), you make sense, but you seem to not get some basic stuff leading me to believe you're not from the US, English isn't your native tongue, or you're being a pain for fun (which I'm fine with).

It's not about his specific situation, but about other situations where standards are dropped because someone up top wants to diversify.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 01:07 AM
link   
I never worried about minimums. Those will be weeded out on their own male and female.

On the other end of the spectrum of fitness and equality (in the Army) is the APFT. An event on which every soldier of both genders is judged by superiors and peers and on which promotion is based (100 possible points in an 800 point total).

As we age our minimums decrease but the maximums increase, because we should be better and stronger by then


Most soldiers will be competing for SGT in their early to mid 20's, unless they join late. So these are the requirements for the events:

Males
Push up (2 minutes)- 75
Sit up (2 minutes)-80
2 mile Run - 13:00

Female:
Push up (2 minutes) - 46
Sit Up (2 minutes) - 80
2 Mile Run - 15:36

So, two high speed and motivated individuals attend a promotion board for E-5 (Sergeant). If they were the above mentioned takers on an APFT they would both have equal scores of 100, if you mixed up their cards and gave them each others raw data the female would get 353 out of 300 (4 day pass, APFT badge, and possible AAM), the male would now have 238 points and would have to justify being sent to a promotion board.

I've seen football superstars that fall apart under fire and I've seen supermodels go "John Wayne" during an ambush. You never know what a person is capable of until it's too late (or when it is needed, depending on your point of view). So please do not think that "little girl" is a liability and that "big strong dude" is a good patrol partner.

You think there is no equality in the physical standards and you are right. However it is different than you present and is leading to unqualified soldiers attending schools (where only 180 points on the APFT is required), and underqualified soldiers being promoted ahead of their peers (easier standards means more points).
edit on 29-4-2016 by 200Plus because: changed a word



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 01:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: birhan


...I feel like we click, then the gears are stripped for awhile...






correct me if i am wrong but if you are saying we are gears then are we both naked right now


the "served" confusion is understandable in all seriousness, but personally i refer to veterans as people who have served and then there are troops who are still doing training and havent had the opportunity to serve and experience (which is nothing to be ashamed of) but on the same note if you have not "served" it is easier to ask for clarifications from people who have and experienced situations then let those statements out that can confuse further people.

and the points i was lazily playing at making were more eloquently said by the posters above and below your last post.

edit on 29-4-2016 by birhan because: english just may be my second language.

edit on 29-4-2016 by birhan because: or issss itttttttt

edit on 29-4-2016 by birhan because: *puts nuts and bolts clothing back on and rolls away*

edit on 29-4-2016 by birhan because: nothing like a good one night click



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 01:53 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Those women who were the first to pass selection for the Rangers last year...they did the same course as the men, yes?



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 02:17 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK


The two that passed made it after their sixth recycle, men are given two attempts and sent back to unit.

The two that passed were given months of preparation at Benning by Rangers. Men are not given one-on-one tutelage and counseling for the course.

The two that passed had access to the land-nav course for months prior to classes beginning. The men see it at school.

The two that passed were allowed to make "on the spot" corrections to patrols. Do-overs men don't get.

On the bright side there are now Female Ranger School Graduates (Rangers have Scrolls)!!! and one of them is going to be the first Infantry Commander as well.

I wonder what corners they'll cut to get her qualified for that Blue Cord.

Doesn't really matter I guess. Yea, equality!


edit on 29-4-2016 by 200Plus because: stuttered



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: SmurfRider



totally agree, there literally shouldn't be any restrictions. That's what basic fricken training is for.


No. Basic combat training is meant to teach you a few things. Basic habits, basic combat tactics, discipline and order of rank.

Restrictions are there so people aren't "broken". In my time at Fort Benning in 2012 my company had 4 recycled students and one medical discharge. All were for broken bones and internal injuries like cracked hips. We're talking 18 year old males who made the medical cut and satisfied army regulations for physical fitness.

Lifting all restrictions would make this a far larger number.

That said, I believe the restriction of women in combat should be reinstated. If they only have to meet half of my physical requirements then they will be set up for failure from the beginning. Either find a way to actually make it equal and effective for everyone or end the social experiment that will get people killed.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 03:31 AM
link   
a reply to: 200Plus

Thanks. It's quite telling how much stuff is left out when the news reports a story.



Those things aside though, physically, they did the same minimum specs I guess?

See, I think as long as a woman can do the same CFT as the guys, there ought to be no bar to entry, though elite units, with their own standards ought not to be diluting them in order to create news.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 03:57 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK


Those two (now three) women are peak specimens of the human condition. They would out perform some of the top athletes in the world in a toe-to-toe match up. Especially distance running. I am by no means trying to infer that all women entering into military schools are given an instant pass.

Ranger School is not a "minimum requirement" school. Walking in the gate a person has to be in serious physical shape. Walking out the gate they will be half dead
They deserve kudos for attempting and staying with the program (15 other females tried, failed, and left). These three had the heart to carry on and perhaps that will be enough to ensure good men do not die in the future.

I will call BS all day when it's said they "did the same as the guys", because simply put they didn't. The guys entering the course had to meet the same high standards and had go/no-go rules enforced. So give them credit for doing something no female has done before, just don't give them credit for making standard (unless the bar was lowered).



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 04:02 AM
link   
a reply to: 200Plus

Yeah, I get ya.

I do think though that when talking about line units, there have to be women that would meet the same specs as the guys have to...Just far fewer per capita, purely because generally women tend to be built more slightly. That is absolutely not to say that none could make it.

I've heard talk of allowing women to try out for the Commando course over here, I don't know if anything has moved on it yet, because there is no way the RM would allow their standards to be diluted.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 04:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: onequestion

As a veteran, and the wife of a now-retired career soldier, I will simply say that the standards are not fair. If a woman can't meet the same standard as a man, then she can't do that job, period. That would be fair, but that isn't how it is. As it is, guys have to pick up the slack for women that can't handle the task, in many cases.

Women in the military is one thing, but they should not be in positions where they can't meet the standards the guys have to meet. Fair is fair. We are not, after all, the same.


I don't think women need to meet the same standards frankly they are built differently they don't have the same upper body strength. That doesn't mean they can't be effective in combat however look at the Israelis they have had women in combat roles and do just fine. What I will say however each mission thr comanders would need to evaluate their needs and if a woman doesn't meet the criteria he needs for the mission he should have the option to say so. I'm afraid that commanders will not put the best people in thr right positions for fear of being labeled a sexist.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 04:42 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK


I'm retired, fat, and happy now.

Back when I was an NCO in the Army I was 5'8, 220 lbs, 12% body fat, I ran 12 miles a day 5 days a week, did a 10 mile force march on Thursdays and a 20 mile road march on Sundays.

I still had females that would out perform me at PT, some could out perform me on sling load times, though I've never had anyone beat me at land-nav.

We have guys in the Army that barely make physical standards. 105 lbs soaking wet with rocks in their pockets. Nobody is ever going to convince me that ALL men are stronger than ALL women.

The problem is "equality" isn't equal. Two people, male and female, take a PT (physical Training) test to get into a school. Both do 50 push up, 60 sit ups, and run two miles in 16 minutes. Both are above the minimum. The male scores 211 points, the female scores 269 points and will get the school slot. It's even worse when more rigorous schools require a minimum in the lower age brackets where females are required far less to "pass" than a male.

Our Special Operations schools have constantly lowered the requirements for entry and completion over the last two decades for political reasons. Both the physical standards have gotten easier as well as the intelligence requirements. That's not to say everyone gets a trophy at Robin Sage, as the beanies will "cull" those they do not want from the applicants throughout the process. However, just like the Ranger School, eventually a General will come down and say to the Commandant "a female will pass selection" and it'll be a done deal.

I as an old Infantry soldier, look forward to the day that the APFT (physical test) is universal. I also hope that people with Stars make the requirements for combat arms and combat related schools so difficult, only the best and brightest can make the grade. Male or female.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join