Why aren't women held to same physical standards as men in the armed forces?

Started by TempAccount3 pages

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:

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. 😆

The hair thing is kind of odd.

Is hair shaving strictly a conformity thing? Or is it shaved because its seen as a liability in combat?

Originally posted by cdtm
The hair thing is kind of odd.

Is hair shaving strictly a conformity thing? Or is it shaved because its seen as a liability in combat?


Hygiene (disease carrying lice used to be a big problem in the barracks).

Uniformity (individuality is not a benefit when you're trying to train people to work as a cohesive unit)

Safety (getting hair caught in equipment or giving the enemy something to hold on to in a fistfight is not good)

Equipment (helmet fits better. Many gas masks need smooth skin to get a perfect seal.)

Here’s an article on female head shaving.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/4306365

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.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
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.
Where did that come from lol? I mean I'm down for Raven or Azula violently killing me, but that's on another level.

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

Just going w. what i inferred from the OP.

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.

Originally posted by riv6672
Here’s an article on female head shaving.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/4306365

"shaved styles are considered trendy"

That is the reason for this sexism? lolololol

Originally posted by Surtur
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.

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"

Also don't believe in age brackets. Male at his peak strength (late twenties) should be the standard. No compromises for those older or younger.

Originally posted by TempAccount
Also don't believe in age brackets. Male at his peak strength (late twenties) should be the standard. No compromises for those older or younger.

#agreed

Most reasonably fit men through their 40's could achieve "warhawk."

Originally posted by TempAccount
Also don't believe in age brackets. Male at his peak strength (late twenties) should be the standard. No compromises for those older or younger.

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.

Originally posted by Raptor22
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 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.

Originally posted by Surtur
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.

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.

I think ill continue to mull this one over a bit.

Lowering the standards would mean more pawns could get in, which you say that we need. so what is the problem?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Lowering the standards would mean more pawns could get in, which you say that we need. so what is the problem?
it would also decrease the number of queens produced. Which are also necessary.

Originally posted by Raptor22
it would also decrease the number of queens produced. Which are also necessary.

So men are gonna be held to different standards, should women receive equal pay to them in the military?

Originally posted by Raptor22
it would also decrease the number of queens produced. Which are also necessary.

The best of the best already far exceed the minimum standards, so lowering the standards wouldn't effect them.