Why aren't women held to same physical standards as men in the armed forces?
So I was looking at the physical requirements to pass basic training of the various different branches of the US armed forces (as I strive to surpass all them with my training in Shotokan Karate and love for the Imperial Japanese Military's strict standards), only to notice that women have significantly more lenient requirements than the men do.
Why is this? I thought women wanted to be seen as equals to men in the military, so why are exceptions being made?
E.g (for USAF)
Males
Run (1.5 mile) Push-ups Sit-ups Pull-ups
Liberator (minimum graduation standard) 11:57 min. 33 42 0
Thunderbolt (honor graduate standard) 9:30 min. 55 60 5
Warhawk (extraordinary – highest standard) 8:55 min. 65 70 10
Females
Run (1.5 mile) Push-ups Sit-ups Pull-ups
Liberator (minimum graduation standard) 14:21 min. 27 50 0
Thunderbolt (honor graduate standard) 12:00 min. 37 60 0
Warhawk (extraordinary – highest standard) 10:23 min. 47 54 0
On a similar topic why are only male recruits made to shave their heads while females may keep their locks? These double standards are not acceptable in my opinion.
Not all men are held to the same physical standard either (it goes by age group and gender as seen on the below chart. Also, i’ve known females who could pass on the men’s scale and men that would have failed on the women’s, its not an all or nothing world. The varioys branches try and make it as fair as possible), so your argument’s null and void:
(please log in to view the image)
The shaving head part though, i actually agree with.
I once took a poll of all the women in my unit (from Majors don to Privates) and asked if they would still have joined had shaving their heads been mandatory. Every single one said hell no.
Is hair shaving strictly a conformity thing? Or is it shaved because its seen as a liability in combat?
__________________ What CDTM believes;
Never let anyone else define you. Don't be a jerk just to be a jerk, but if you are expressing your true inner feelings and beliefs, or at least trying to express that inner child, and everyone gets pissed off about it, never NEVER apologize for it. Let them think what they want, let them define you in their narrow little minds while they suppress every last piece of them just to keep a friend that never liked them for themselves in the first place.
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
Oh I don’t think Kurk is saying women shouldn’t serve, just that the requirements should be the same. After all he is the one with fantasies about athletic muscular women sitting on him.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
The hair thing is bullshit lol. There is zero excuse for it: if men are made to shave their heads so should women.
And if stuff is broken down into age groups fine: it should still end up with a 20 yr. old male and a 20 yr. old female both needing to meet the same requirements. And with a 30 yr. old male and 30 yr. old female meeting the same, etc. and so on. Anything else is sexist.
And no the requirements should not be lowered for men so women can compete and we can still go "they have equal requirements now".
Oh and I hope when they do push ups the ladies aren't doing lady push ups.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Last edited by Surtur on Jun 2nd, 2019 at 11:13 AM
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
i agree with the hair thing. But i dont see how u can u be fine with special rules based on age but not sex.
If the whole idea is to have an equal set of physical standards for everyone, why would it be ok for some male soldiers to be held to 1 standard, but an older or younger male soldier who's slower/weaker can be held to a lower standard based off their age but a woman cant based off their sex?
Personally as for the OP, back in the day i used to have the mindset that everyone should be held to the same physical standards for fairness, equality etc... I used to think it was B.S that i could do a certain number of pushups or run a mile in a certain time and fail a physical test but someone get lower scores and get in because they're a woman. Just typing it now, kinda makes it still seem like BS, and obviously isnt fair or equal.
But while militaries defiantly need some soldiers that are physically superior. What they need more than that, are soldiers, period.
Just imagine if we removed every soldier from our armed forces, man/woman, young/old who didnt meet the strictest physical levels that a young man in his prime has to reach. Or military numbers would be decimated instantly.
People usually ask a question along these lines during these discussions - if im a 250 lb soldier trapped in combat would a weaker/slower woman be able to cary me to safety or pull me out.
I think a more appropriate question would be- if im a 250 lb soldier trapped in combat would i rather that weaker woman try to pull me out, or no one, because we didnt have enough personal and the ones we do have are stretched too thin to come for me.
To sum it up, in my op. We do need "physical monsters" out there. And men in their prime age are the ones that can attain those levels. Thats why we have those standards for them. To force the ones who can reach those levels to reach them. But we also need bodies, so we have lower standards for others (women and men before/past their prime) to fill the ranks.
Not to sound harsh to women or young/old men, , but every chess board needs pawns. Are they as good or strong as the other pieces? Nope. But go into a game without yours and see what happens. Is a pawn going to protect ur king as good as a queen? Nope. But its better than nothing.
If it were up to me the age thing wouldn't be okay either, but I wanted to focus more on the male vs female thing given that is the topic and I didn't feel the age thing negated the points being made. So that "fine" was less meant to signal "I am fine with this" and more "fine that might be true but this sexism is still wrong and if they're gonna do it by age they should at least apply it to both sexes equally"
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Yep, those soldiers who have gotten older to the point that they can no longer meet the requirements should be assigned to non-combat duties.
Likewise, if a woman can't meet the same requirements the men have to she should be assigned a non-combat role.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
If this is the logic you want to use then shouldn't the physical requirements be lowered for both men and women? After all...that trapped 250 lb soldier would also benefit from a weaker man trying to pull him out as opposed to nobody at all.
And it's not like they couldn't make it so that the more elite combat roles have higher physical requirements, but again those requirements should be equal for both men and women too.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Last edited by Surtur on Jun 2nd, 2019 at 04:47 PM
u need something in place that forces the ones that can reach the highest levels to reach those levels. Men in their prime can. Women and older/younger men cant. If u lower the requirements for the ones who can it will decrease the number of the ones that actually do because now they wouldnt have to.
Also this isnt a topic that i have a set in stone, unflappable opinion on. I personally go back and forth on this one in my own head, so its not like ur arguing something that i necessarily disagree with.
The more i think about i find myself being able to come up with better reasons for different requirements based on age rather than sex.
At least with age, a younger person, like a 19 year old, would have the ability to grow physically with age and then more would be expected out of them the older they got. With an older soldier it would make sense that even a small physical decline would be made up for with knowledge and experience.
Im finding it difficult to find good reasons for letting women, who are in their prime physical age, to be held to a different set of standards of men of the same age.
Lowering the standards would mean more pawns could get in, which you say that we need. so what is the problem?
__________________ posted by Badabing
I don't know why some of you are going on about being right and winning. Rob and Impediment were in on this gag because I PMed them. Silent and Rao PMed me and figured I changed the post. I highly doubt anybody thought Quan made the post, but simply played along just for the lulz.
So men are gonna be held to different standards, should women receive equal pay to them in the military?
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
The best of the best already far exceed the minimum standards, so lowering the standards wouldn't effect them.
__________________ posted by Badabing
I don't know why some of you are going on about being right and winning. Rob and Impediment were in on this gag because I PMed them. Silent and Rao PMed me and figured I changed the post. I highly doubt anybody thought Quan made the post, but simply played along just for the lulz.
KMC Community Forums
Jun 1st, 2019 03:34 AM
