The conundrum of the women combat limits lawsuit
Let me say at the outset that I think this case is fine. The combat exclusion for women is kind of a dodge anyway, because it isn’t actually followed. Which is not to say I think women should be SF or anything else. But last month when I was running around, I was doing so with two wonderful young ladies from a CA unit that were patroling with the INF guys. (SSG Booth and I forget the other young ladies name.) So, I think they have a point that the policy isn’t followed anyway. Here’s the story on the case:
Two female soldiers asked a federal judge to throw out the U.S. military’s restrictions on women in combat, claiming the policy violates their constitutional rights.
U.S. Army reservists Jane Baldwin and Ellen Haring, in a lawsuit filed today in Washington, said policies excluding them from assignments “solely because they are women” violate their right to equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution’s 5th Amendment. The complaint names Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Army Secretary John McHugh as defendants.
“This limitation on plaintiffs’ careers restricts their current and future earnings, their potential for promotion and advancement, and their future retirement benefits,” the women said in the complaint filed by Christopher Sipes of Covington & Burling LLP in Washington.
I’m curious to any who support the women in this case to explain to me though how the differing PT standards would not be a good cause of action for men? If you take a male and a female service member with the exact same background across the board, and give them the same exact raw numbers on the PT test, the woman will get promoted, and the man will get flagged for PT failure. Would not the differing PT standard tilting towards women not violate the men’s right to equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution’s 5th Amendment?
It’s not a novel thing here, and I know that as well, but I’ve still never heard a good articulation as to why women excluded from combat units is an injustice, but women’s lower PT standards isn’t ALSO an injustice.
Category: Politics
>Certainly will have to conceed that it is much easier to exclude women from anything and everything than it is to enforce the rules/laws which require behaviors which do not result in pregnancy.>
The problem is that we don’t enforce any punishments or consequences that come from pregnancy. Women’s pregnancy puts units out all the time.
I agree make the PT standards the same for women, but don’t lower the men’s. IF they can make it then okay fine let them, but despite Jason’s optimistic nature I don’t foresee a lot of women making men’s PT standards.
This is all based on the same 1992 study? All I am saying is you would think that in 20 years a little more up to date study would have been completed. I could find a study that says that the average 18 year old male can run sub 11s on a 2 mile…of course they will be kenyans. See part of my problem is that you are relying all of your argument on one study from 20 years ago completely forgetting that 20 years in the field of physical fitness, nutrition, and health is eons. If you can’t see why this is a problem this I guess you really need to work on your research skills and never try to do a research paper.
Well, if you want to go by run data, wouldn’t any Marathon do? You aren’t seriously arguing that women are the same physical fitness as men are you? And if that is your proposition, then making gender nuetral PT requirements based on the current male standard couldn’t be at all onerous, right?
Or am I misinterpreting your position?
Again, I say this as someone who is fine with doing away the asinine system they have now where we all pretend women aren’t in combat. I just can’t cross the next bridge that they should all be in teh infantry either.
But to have women in specific combat roles like infantry or SF? They’d better have equal reqs, because, though I’ve never seen it, I hear combat doesn’t discriminate.
Are we going to start giving females lighter weapons, ammo, armor? I mean we’d have to supplement the lesser standards somehow.
All from the same 1992 report. Anyway, there aren’t going to be any more studies (at least in the short term) because the military has the data, but it’s inconvenient to the political position that the current administration wants to take. You might be able to show me a study about Kenyan men, but that would not be on point (physical differences between men and women in the military), the studies I reference are on point.
Go find a different study that refutes my point, I mean you are asserting that in 20 years there have been great changes so there must be some study to show that, but you won’t because no such study exists. Anyway-I did as you asked in post 45 and provided you with data, ignore it as you like, but there it is.
Melle I am more arguing that 68w can’t make a descent argument to fight his way out of a wet paper bag. I put a basic logic form out there and if you agree sure if you don’t sure, but 68w doesn’t like gurls. He has one set of data and a few anecdotes that’s it.
By the way like I said I don’t care if women can be trained to male standards. Just given opportunity.
So you are telling me that Stanford hasn’t done any research in 20 years? You are the one asserting that they can’t be trained to standards based on outdated research.
3co just like everyone else just different sized armor….at least the women I have seen outside the wire.
@50 You asked: “… if we are testing 5 women to get one to reach the lowest level of fitness comparable to males which is a better bet for our training dollar?”
Not really able to answer because I have no idea why any of us would be “testing 5 women to get one to reach the lowest level of fitness yada yada.” (Yes, I understand that 20% is 1 in 5.)
All I have suggested here (and other places) is that a standard be used – a stnadard that measures the ability to do either do or be trained to do a job. When I have administered various tests to folks, we had a minimum standard. You either met that standard or you did not. Someone somewhere else had already determined that it was worth our training dollar on everyone who met that standard.
You are simply wrong is your statement: Oh-and it has constantly proved impossible to “enforce the rules/laws which require behaviors which do not result in pregnancy”. I have personally been in mixed gender units since the early 1970’s in a wide variety of circumstances and pregnancy was never an issue in any of them except once. My clerk was already pregnant (unknown to her) when we deployed to DS/DS/DS. We got her out of theater.
I can only speak of my own experiences and those I have read about. Do those apply universally? Of course not, but then, neither do yours.
>Again, I say this as someone who is fine with doing away the asinine system they have now where we all pretend women aren’t in combat. I just can’t cross the next bridge that they should all be in teh infantry either.>
And I agree with you TSO. Women are doing a lot more and should be trained accordingly, but I also think the side that thinks that the have to do EVERYTHING is delusional. Men and women are different. That is okay. I have never felt substandard to a man before just different. I have different talents. We need to be realistic and stop being so damn sue happy.
TSO, I’m not really saying a whole lot other than saying we quit pretending they aren’t in combat already. 68w is making a good job of showing he don’t like gurls. Personally, I don’t really care if they change the pt test or not. It’s just that some people get so wrapped up in can they/can’t they they forget um soldiers already are in combat and dying. We can pretend they aren’t there and limit the training they get or say yep they are there and open up more training and maximize the combat training they can get. How fucking hard is that to comprehend?
Some of you point out facts (biological ) and studies (congressional)and you get to be called names (“woman-hater”). If you buy the line of women should be allowed in combat units, you are enlightened. Yes, today’s military women are in combat(mostly CS and CSS). These units are not designed for Objective Taking, QRFs and the like. Objective Taking-isn’t that a principle of the old Air-Land-Battle and today’s COIN?
An old 5th Group story about a woman trying to standards in jumpmaster school:
“She was assigned to or worked in the 5th Group Headquarters S2 shop. She also was in the same jump master school (run by 5th) I was in and failed because she could not get the bundle out the door on the green light. Darn thing was too heavy. The way I remember it she tried to get the standards changed (lighter bundle) for her so she could lift it but was refused. The light went green and she began to push and shove and scoot and darn if she didn’t get the bundle out the door…..But The Red Light Was Now On…….She did not pass.”
For you military guys and gals- riddle me this:
What units have the best PT scores?
SF/Ranger
Airborne/Infantry
Military Police
Personnel-Admin Section
Transportation
Aviation
What are the corresponding male/female ratios?
@57 it’s true I haven’t seen outside the wire, I’m not arguing that, I’ll be the first to admit it. Standards shouldn’t vary for gender, fact of the matter is, your average guy is going to be able to move more weight around than your average female. Yes smaller body armor will be lighter, but what about ammo and weapons?
No. 61 — a wild guess — Military Police ??
Jason-so link to one of those studies. I’ve provided some data to support my position.
OWB-you said “…it is much easier to exclude women from anything and everything than it is to enforce the rules/laws which require behaviors which do not result in pregnancy.” So I took it that you were talking about sex, not pregnancy. Do you now assert that in your experience you have been in units in which sex was not an issue. I’ve been in mixed gender units and it was always an issue in one way or another.
Someone somewhere else had already determined that it was worth our training dollar on everyone who met that standard.
And I’m saying that that someone perhaps made that decision with an eye more towards political expediency than military efficiency.
>68w is making a good job of showing he don’t like gurls?|>
So because i agree with 68 that women are the physically weaker sex I don’t like girls either.. Logic fail there Jason.
@63… “Beat your boots” on that one!
No, I did not intend disrespect to Special Forces, by guessing MP’s.
Crosstalk — again — I posted No. 67 BEFORE I could see No. 66 !!
However, I confess I DO NOT KNOW THE MEANING of “Beat your boots” !!
When the discussion degenerates to the meaning of words and unwarrented assumptions, there really isn’t much use in continuing. But thanks for playing, 68W58.
(Referring here to the words issue and pregnancy, not the phrase beat your boots!)
Speaking of qrf etc..
When we had epws that needed to be picked up the MP that picked them up usually had ad least one or two females. Our company had a female medic assigned to us she was a paramedic on the civilian side. I don’t know how many female truck drivers I have seen. Female apache pilots were common. They already are there in combat, trust me these soldiers see shit that some couldn’t imagine. So yeah we are arguing training standards when they are in actual combat.
68w I honestly think OWB kinda did a number on your data. The only reason I pulled stanford out of my ass is because they are probably the best sports medicine research school in America. Stick a fork in me I am done arguing with you, because you are now onto boys and gurls are gonna do it argument.
No. 66 Must mean “You’re wrong — March twenty miles.” ??
Beret verde you are running late on the early bird special at golden corral.
@72… Nope! Early Bird at Denny’s!
OWB-I don’t think you and I have “degenerated” at all. It seems to me that we are having a perfectly civil disagreement, but frankly I wonder what other meaning I was supposed to take from “…require behaviors which do not result in pregnancy”. What other behaviors would those be?
Jason-I don’t think OWB was able to demonstrate that the data I presented was false. Why do you think he did?
Ok BV well played, if we ever meet we will either beat each other with canes or joust with scooters. I am not looking forward to my early on set dementia.
Apache pilots is kind of a weak argument, might as well site all aircraft pilots to include predators. It’s not the same as roles specifically designated for combat (again like infantry and SF). ANYONE could at some point or another find themselves in combat, even AF Comm troops, doesn’t mean we add up to infantry, etc. I have a lot of friends that did deploy and go outside the wife on ILO deployments who did stuff, again I have to say (this is definitely not the site to misrepresent yourself) I have never done such a thing. But it’s different to fulfill an MOS that is specific to ground combat as a female.
Since I’m clearly ignorant on the subject are there any combat vets out there who can speak up and say “yes, I highly recommend females in infantry and SF with lower standards than males have to fulfill.”
I’ll give an example: my wife. I love her to death, and she’s one helluva tough chick, she could outrun, out push up, and out sit up any female in our squadron, by far. But she could not fireman’s carry me to save her life. She’s slowed a bit now that she’s preggers but even still the can usually finish 3ks before most. Maybe that’s a weak example but it was just one I wanted to put out there.
and btw I meant outside the wire* not outside the wife… wtf does that even mean?
No he actually used your data against you.
No. 61 —
Wild Guess No. Two (although seems obvious) — “SF/Ranger” ??
Jasin-well he said that he had experienced situations where people were tested to a standard without saying what that standard was. Without me knowing what that was and how he did it, I couldn’t argue it one way or the other. He asked why we would do what was done as if to say that he had a different idea about what to do instead, but declined to say what that was in any detail.
I’ll give you this though, you’ve remained civil today. That’s to your credit.
@79… You get to go to the front of the line at the mess hall and an extra pack of heat tabs!
No. 81 — Thanks for the Free Meal —
Y’all may quit referring to me as he, ‘K? The B in OWB does not stand for brother.
OWB-makes no difference to me, it’s generic in the absence of other information (I refuse to write s/he like some idiot radical English prof).
No. 84 — Don’t forget “it” (I don’t know WHAT to call THEM Trans-Geese.)
And that pretty well explains the situation. Brief English lesson for you here – you may indeed use the generic when referring to groups or mankind in general. But, you used a personal pronoun to describe a particular individual incorrectly.
Your failure to understand and use the language correctly evidently led you to jump to several erroneous conclusions earlier today. I stated my position fairly clearly. There is simply nothing for me to add.
Meanwhile I hope that something in this mess is of use to TSO.
@ #85 DR B – #86 was (obviously) not directed at you. But it would have been pretty funny??
85-“shim”?
OWB-yes and now that I know I will refer to you by the proper pronoun, don’t see how we could be held accountable for that mistake up to now, which is what I meant with comment 84.
*sarcasm*
Gee, hope no “body?” was offended by anything anytime on any post anywhere — some of us might get into trouble with the Everyone Is Exactly Indistinguishable POLICE .
OWB: 68W58 has a point. When dealing with an individual of unknown gender, the use of the masculine pronoun “he” as a generic form is acceptable standard English. And I too was unaware of your gender until today, so I don’t believe you can argue that was an accountable error on 68W’s point.
— break —
JustPlainJason: Evolution moves at a pace measured in centuries to millenia – not decades. If human males and females were X% different regarding average physical baseline capabilities 20 years ago, you can bet that the difference between then and today is essentially nil.
Further: remember that both males and females will have benefited from any advances in either nutrition or training methods. And in general, someone (or a group) with a higher ceiling will benefit more from more advanced training methods.
Finally: if anything, physical fitness (and thus average baseline physical capabilities) are lower on average today for both males and females than 20 years ago. We’re a more obese and sedentary society today.
Bottom line: the norms for males and females are different when it comes to strength and stamina. Males are simply stronger, and have greater physical stamina. Both are distributed essentially normally – but the mean for males for both quantities is significantly higher. That’s due to evolution, and nothing we can do in one lifetime will change that for the population as a whole. Yes, a few women will perform as well physically as many men do. But they will be the rare exception vice the rule. And they’ll still be well behind the top-end males.
“It’s not a good idea to argue with Mother Nature.”
I’ve been following this topic with interest. It seems like I’m the only one with real life experience dealing with this. It boils down to you have one standard for everyone or it’s BS. The lady that helped pull me out of that burning building passed the same physical standards as us guys. My niece and nephew are now on the job. How did Monica get there? By passing the same physical standards as Deuce, my nephew. There were no women in my brother’s academy class in 1980. There were five women my academy class in 1988. There were seven or eight in my niece’s/nephew’s academy class in 2007.
IMHO it’s very simple, women pass the same physical fitness standard and agree to live like everyone else. Grunts, SF, tankers, amtracers, etc. Otherwise it’s all an argument of academic futility.
Current Army Physical Fitness Standards (analysis by age group). Situps are the same for both males and females, so I’m not including those numbers.
Male 17-21
Pushups: 42(PASS) – 71(MAX)
2-mile run: 15:54(PASS) – 13:00(MAX)
Female 17-21
Pushups: 19(PASS) – 42(MAX)
2-mile run: 18:54(PASS) – 15:36(MAX)
In the 17-21 year old age group, a perfect score on the female scale is equivalent to barely passing the male scale.
Male 22-26
Pushups: 40(PASS) – 75(MAX)
2-mile run: 16:36(PASS) – 13:00(MAX)
Female 22-26
Pushups: 17(PASS) – 46(MAX)
2-mile run: 19:36(PASS) – 15:36(MAX)
A perfect female score at this age group is equivalent to about 65% on the pushup and 70% on the 2-mile run scale (60% is passing).
Male 27-31
Pushups: 39(PASS) – 77(MAX)
2-mile run: 17:00(PASS) – 13:18(MAX)
Female 27-31
Pushups: 17(PASS) – 50(MAX)
2-mile: 20:30(PASS) – 15:48(MAX)
Max score at this age group(female) is equivalent to about 70% on male pushups and 73% on male run
Male 32-36 (My age group)
Pushups: 36(PASS) – 75(MAX)
2-mile: 17:42(PASS) – 13:18(MAX)
Female 32-36
Pushups: 15(PASS) – 45(MAX)
2-mile run: 21:42(PASS) – 15:54(MAX)
It drops SHARPLY for females at the 37-41 age group. The MAX for the male 2-mile doesn’t fall below 15 minutes until age 62.
Where the REAL discrepancy is, however, is in body fat standards.
Male:
17-20: 20%
22-27: 22%
28-39: 24%
40+: 26%
Female:
17-20: 30%
21-27: 32%
28-39: 34%
40+: 36%