<p>I agree the physical standards should be measured the same way. But then, I also think that all physics and calc classes should be taught at the same level there as well! If one is going to complain about the dual scoring of physical exams why are the same people not complaining about cadets who get to take lower level physics vs others who take adv physics??? The weight of an A is the same. Sounds like special treatment to me :)
Many of the female cadets at WP take their APFT scores and plug them into the on-line calculator for the men. Not surprisingly some of them still score much higher than the average male there. There are some women at SA's that can run 26 miles in a single run, and some men that can't. There are some women that can do 70 push-ups in 2 minutes, some men that can't. Some score lower, some score higher. But what many people conveniently forget is that if one has to choose between a smart leader and a leader who can bench press 300lbs, "smart" wins . Women at SA's are going graduate in excellent physical condition, as are the men. That's the nature of the beast. Competent leaders is what the service academies had better be producing.
The point is that every individual should be measured based on what THAT individual CAN DO. Not based on social perceptions and outmoded ideas that some institutions and people cling to like some sort of security blanket. Cadets (and everyone else) will usually do better making sure they are squared away themselves before worrying about whether someone else is getting a "leg up" on them for reasons beyond their control. The female cadets I know resent another female pulling the "girl card". They know the "weight" they must carry just being women in a service academy is always present. The 20% of any group that feels females don't belong are always going to be the problem, not the females themselves. I think the majority of our SA men and women measure up pretty well, despite all the BS society and it's "norms" throws at them.</p>
<p>It was commented on that the majority of cadets at USAFA on some sort of physical conditioning program were women. I wonder if the same holds true for academic issues?</p>
<p>If so, does that mean that the women are on academic probation because they are women? If a higher percentage of the total on academic probation are men is it because they are men?</p>
<p>The other edge of the same sword. Sounds to me that if they are on a physical probation program the problem is conditioning, not gender. If its academic the problem is study habits or personal academic ability, not gender.</p>
<p>I didn't say that just because they are women they are on recondo. It's a visible place and people wonder why the proportion of women on recondo is more than men? We have no real conditioning program unless you are deficient in the standards. Proportionately more women than men (based on percentages not people) are on this program. In order to be placed in the program, they would have to not be meeting standards. The ISSUE and the REASON I thought this was relevant was going back to the cynicism about females. Many consider the standards already too lax, yet so many still fail the standard. What can be done to increase the standard to that of males for equalities sake? Many already not meeting the female standard may not be able to get to the male standard. Is it ok to remove them from the academy then? That would also assure many more females would become physically deficient. </p>
<p>What I'm trying to ask here (not accuse people of being unable to meet standards because they are female) is how can we achieve real equality? Do we need to actually be "equal?" Can people accept that anatomy has favored certain jobs for men and others for women (ie spec ops).</p>
<p>
[quote]
The primary reason for "sexism" that I observe and hear about here is what ramius pointed to: standards. The female physical standards, for the most part, are set much lower than the males.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is this what most of this is about? Female physical standards? Older cadets are held to lower standards too are they not?
Does the fact that women have different standards justify the attitude that the entire gender "does not belong" there?</p>
<p>Anyway - I would blame the leadership not the standards.
I just read "Absolutely American" - they talk about the APFT and cadets who must retake - the attitude was that an Army officer better be able to MAX - not just squeak by. IMO, that's a good one to have.
Forget the gender standards for a minute - the leadership at AFA should have the expectation that ALL cadets will max physically.
If that were the case - you would see higher scores and a lot more cadets putting forth the effort - which is probably the real issue here.</p>
<p>Women have different standards at USMA and USNA as well - I have never heard of any animosity toward the gender as a whole because of it - are my eyes shut here?</p>
<p>I am having trouble following this physical standard thing to it's conclusion. High school track 1500m and 1 mile differences between the girls and boys are probably a pretty good indicatior of capabilities. Since the boys times average a little more than 10% faster than the girls, should AFA establish a single standard, do they propose making it 10% easier on the guys so they will be able to retain the women and let the men coast, or make it 10% more difficult on the women so that they will be unable to meet the standards, but have an equitable challenge for the males. Fitness is the key here. Not how fast one can run against the other. Fitness will be measured differently between men and women. It has been happening since women first entered the military. I suppose a variation of the old joke would be that I don't have to be fast enough to outrun the enemy, just fast enough to outrun my wingperson would be appropriate here.</p>
<p>JustAMom, you're missing what I'm trying to say. THE PRIMARY VOICE HERE THAT I HEAR IS THAT SOME FEMALES WANT IMPARTIAL TREATMENT BUT REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE SAME STANDARDS THE MALES HAVE. Older cadet ARE NOT held to a lower standard, that is active duty testing, NOT cadet testing. All cadets are held to the same standard without regard to age. </p>
<p>I am not saying it is justification at all. I have made it clear I understand the anatomical differences and I accept that as well as most people here. When males hear those FEW females trying to use the "girl card" to make excuses, it ruins it for everyone and the attitudes about full equality, etc. are driven to excess. </p>
<p>I am unaware of any opinions at USNA or USMA and I wouldn't try to guess. But has anyone done a similar opinion poll as was done here to find out? I would like to see that before any judgments are made that this is an USAFA specific issue.</p>
<p>I am sure the movie will probably explore the "Standards". They are what they are, not every cadet will fly planes, but it doesn't mean we change the standard and give Mr or Miss Magoo a pilots license or the ability to fly an F-22 (which he probably could do considering the avionics). You have a standard (Physical, Academic, and Military) and train to it.</p>
<p>"What I'm trying to ask here (not accuse people of being unable to meet standards because they are female) is how can we achieve real equality?"</p>
<p>Easy. Equal opportunity to either succeed or fail based on the abilities of the individual, not the perceptions of a group. Barring the door to a group as a whole regardless of whether individuals within that group are capable of being trained and executing the task at hand is not very smart.</p>
<p>On the subject of standards, one just has to look at the academic standards. They are adjusted based on a number of factors. There isn't ONE academic standard to get into a service academy, nor to stay there. If there was, there wouldn't be different levels of calc, physics, chem, etc. The physical standard argument just doesn't hold water. It is modified based on certain criteria just like academic standards and expectations are.</p>
<p>I agree with the abilities of the individual completely. I don't think any group based on sex or race or nationality should be barred. </p>
<p>I'm unsure of your argument on academic standards though? There is a baseline standard for everyone with the personal option of exceeding standards by going the honors or scholars route. Calculus 2 requires Calc 1 if by a slim chance that's the reference (I doubt it though). </p>
<p>Back to the physical standard, could you clarify "abilities of the individual?" I don't understand what you're trying to say here.</p>
<p>"Abilities of the individual"--if the individual is able to physically perform the required and expected tasks and duties of a specialty then using gender as the reason to prohibit it makes no sense. Look at women who now fly combat aircraft in the US Military. There were a lot of reasons why they were not allowed to fly combat aircraft prior to 1993---they couldn't handle it physically, they might get shot down and captured, women shouldn't ever be in combat, etc etc etc. None of those reasons having any basis in reality when it came to determining whether women COULD perform alongside their male combat pilot counterparts. Heck, The Soviets had whole squadrons of female combat pilots in WW2 fighting the Germans. Today, U.S. women are flying combat missions over Iraq and Afganistan---there doesn't seem to be any complaining about some "lowered" standard that somehow allowed them to be where they are now. I believe that a woman either has served or is currently serving with the Air Force Thunderbirds. The same issues are being confronted in the Army as well. While "officially" there aren't supposed to be women in combat roles on the ground, the reality is that there are in combat situations on a daily basis and are performing well.</p>
<p>The bottom line is that the major reason for restricting the role of women in the military is culturally based, pure and simple.</p>
<p>My comment on academic standards was meant to show that not every cadet is held to the same level of expected academic achievement. Cadet A might be enrolled in American Politics, Cadet B might be enrolled in an Advanced American Politics course based on prior academic work. This being based on whatever criteria the academy may use to place cadets in classes that are consistent with their proven academic ability. Cadet A is not going to be expected to learn the same material at the same pace as cadet B. I don't see the difference between that and different physical standards based on physiology.</p>
<p>I think you bring some great points to the table, Hornetguy, also USNA69.</p>
<p>an interesting study about female pilots in the Air Force conducted via a survey of both men and women Air Force pilots:</p>
<p>forget mandating 50% men and women or any of that crap. just like forget affirmative action. if that were to occur, it basically says "you aren't good enough to do it on your own merit, so we're going to help you." thats BS. take the applications, don't have a sex or race box, and accept people based on their own merit. granted interviews know, but for the real decision, sex and race should not be know. let people make it on there own merit, and hold everyone to the same standard. period</p>
<p>eagle36:</p>
<p>Sure - just be sure to set the standard so high that you arbitrarily exclude a huge portion of the population.</p>
<p>We could do this academically as well as Shogun is trying to point out.<br>
Let's say we make a new standard - all appointed cadets must have an IQ of 155.
Do you need an IQ of 155 to be a successful student at the AFA (or USMA or USNA)? Nope - but all who do should be able to succeed academically.
It sure would make it easy - just check the box. no race, no gender. Hold everyone to the same standard - no exceptions.</p>
<p>If that happened you would lose most of your athletes and quite possibly a lot of your leaders - you may even have trouble filling the class.</p>
<p>You gentlemen who are troubled by lowered female standards - did you know when you arrived that the PT test would be "easier" for women? Were you concerned about it before you arrived - or have your complaints surfaced from your own experiences with your fellow female cadets?</p>
<p>This has all gotten way out of hand, with too many people trying to lash out and angrily prove some point that they don't even really care about and can't do anything about. Just stop, please. Let's remember that these forums are to help people who are applying to the Academy and wanting to come...let's do what we can to serve them instead of our own issues. Women are here at the Academy, and as a whole, they are doing just as an outstanding of a job of preparing to be officers as the men. That, in the end, is the purpose of the Academy. Now let's drop it.</p>
<p>We can all wait and see how this movie turns out. Then perhaps we can come back and talk about it. But let's hope it doesn't sow as much discord as we've created here.</p>
<p>I hope no one here is angry. </p>
<p>It seemed that the discussion was fairly cordial?</p>
<p>JustAMom, I get the impression that you are viewing us as some kind of chauvanists? I don't understand why you are pinning us as this way. I have said multiple times that I am repeating the feelings AROUND us, not so much personal feelings. Do I think that female's aren't capable? I laugh at that because I remember training in the mornings my junior year of high school to get ready for the PT test for USAFA. I trained with one of my best friends who is now at USMA. She is FEMALE. I ran with her because she was able to keep me motivated and keep me going. It took me a long time to get my stamina up to hers and she was a great influence in getting me ready. I experienced this kind of motivation alongside many of my 4 dig classmates last year and I trust my female compadre's this year as much as anyone else. </p>
<p>As far as applications, you are completely twisting eagle's post. We have standards now. What is wrong with ignoring gender and race while analyzing everything else that each academy looks at. How much could that possibly change the application? We are not saying to change academic standards, where are you getting the idea academics has ANYTHING to do with male and females at service academies?</p>
<p>High standards are a way of life for us. I do recall that the army was not meeting its recruiting goals in the last few years. They lowered the standards to allow more to enter. The only service that hasn't done this is the AF. I would hope anyone would expect their military members, especially their officers to meet high standards and expectations. The public demands it. We demand it. Do you think that men and women need different standards?</p>
<p>hornetguy: I completely agree with you. my d and I were discussing this on the way home this evening and she said "If the females would stop being such "girls" and just be a person they would do much better. If all the females would just go out there and show all the males how it should be done and kick some bu-- then everything would be just fine!"
On the question of standards...they should be based on something real i.e. a firefighter should be able to carry a certain amount of weight up and down a ladder. Many times the standards are arbitrary and based on tradition rather than what is really necessary. That being said, lowering standards for any group does just that, lowers standards. No one really benefits.</p>
<p>It has indeed spiraled out of control and gained a life of it's own. The original basis of the thread was to point out a movie was being made at USAFA. I hope we all agree that it would be nice to see a positive portrayal of the Class of 1980.</p>
<p>JustAMomof4:</p>
<p>what does taking out the race and gender factor have anything to do with eliminating athletes and raising IQ? all i said was eliminate that portion of it to prevent people from being discriminated against or boosted b/c of a trait they can't control.</p>
<p>i just don't see how knowing someone's gender should play into whether or not you get to attend a SA. it's irrelevant. as for the standards, i don't care. some guys barley pass the girls standards, some girls nearly max guy standards. whatever. but their sex doesn't factor into why they should come here. look at their whole person, academics, athletics, etc, but not their sex or race</p>
<p>First off, the ranks of the AF contain x% men, y% women, z% minorities, etc. It has pretty much been proven in the military over the past 40 years years that the officer corps should reflect these same percentages. It makes for more cohesive organizations. The admissions departments of the SAs are aware of this and work to these goals. Call it what you will, it exists. If you don't like it, go back to the stone age and figure out how to have an all male volunteer military without women.</p>
<p>As far as females being looked down upon for pulling the "girl thing", that is the fault of their leaders, not them. I think if things get stressful enough, human nature is to do anything one can do to survive. Maybe for the guys it is an athlete going to "view films". For the females, it may be pulling the "girl thing". That they get away with it is as much their male leaders fault as it is their own. I bet they don't pull it on their female leaders.</p>
<p>Honestly, seriously, I still can't get a handle on this standards thing you guys are bouncing around in re physical fitness. Are some of you actually proposing that the 1 1/2 mile PFT run scores be the same for both sexes? If so, please answer my question, since women do not, as a rule, run as fast as men, do you propose lowering the unisex standard to make it easy on men, or do you propose raising it in order that the women cannot pass it? Or maybe have to spend an inordinate amount of time in PE as compared to the males in order to get a comparable grade causing their other pursuits to suffer?</p>
<p>Guy4Christ, we are all learning something here. Lighten up.</p>