<p>I'm kicking myself for even entering this discussion, because it's going nowhere, but here goes .... </p>
<p>Scroll down to the section titled "Revealing Testimony" for the main info on West Point and women, about halfway through. The article is pretty interesting, it's kind of old, but relevant nonetheless.</p>
<p>i think bodasivrak's article attests to the fact that woman are biologically different than men and should not be allowed in front line combat. i am happy that women are allowed into the military and when im climbing herndon and that female hand reaches down to help me i will gladly take it, but i think there is a point to where their advancement seems illogical, and their strengths can be used better elsewhere.</p>
<p>I am not sure how well you can compare push-ups and pull-ups to carrying a person. I mean forget the different muscle groups... Carrying someone is just about raw strength. I think that when everyone is trying to get into Academies, or programs in the military push-ups and pull-ups etc. are used because it is equal for everyone. I remember speaking to a SEAL online, and he said, "SEAL does not stand for Sea, Air, Land it stands for Sleep, Eat, and Lift!" </p>
<p>I think sheer strength is what is more important in later duties, but in order to get there a non-bias equal test must come first.</p>
<p>Agreed, the argument and discussion will continue. Unless women prove themselves incapable of performing well in real life combat situations (such as today in Iraq), I will continue to be of the opinion that they deserve the chance to be officially accepted into the roles they are already serving in by way of circumstance. Women already are proving themselves in combat roles. This reality flies in the face of any argument that is not supported by the actual observation of women in combat. The "proof" is in the pudding.</p>
<p>I still don't think the lowering of standards at West Point (as stated by Colonel Toffler in the article) was in any way a good thing, but that's just my two cents ... </p>
<p>I'm curious also Shogun, what was her two mile time and pushup count?</p>
<p>At army her pushups were 55 in two min and at Navy it was 60 last summer. She is a bit better now after almost another year of conditioning. I 'll have to ask her what her 2 mile time was. </p>
<p>As far as Col Toffler's statement, remember it was made nearly 15 years ago, and I doubt you'd find a lot of brass today who would say that West Point is lowering it's standards. Heck, women had only been allowed at the academy for only 15 years when he made that statement and there are STILL army officers today who would have denied women that privilige. His statement was made at a trial in which one party was hoping to exclude women from attending VMI, another politically and socially charged issue---hardly one that was going to elicit non-biased opinion! The Heritage foundation is a socially and politically "conservative" organization---I don't put too much weight in conclusions drawn by those folks who obviously have their own agenda to put forward (as do many of the links I have posted, I admit---the internet is a bit like the Fox News Channel and CNN---you need to find a way to pull some truth out of it, 'cause it's not just laying on the surface). I could posts statement by officer's at various periods of our nations social and political history concerning, blacks, women, etc that would make your head spin in today's "enlightened times".
This is why I prefer to gauge the actual results of our American women soldiers in combat situations rather than make my decisions based on all the "reason's" why it might be bad or good.--Again, allowed officially or not, women are serving in combat---and they are performing well. As one observer noted above, the nature of war has changed, the front lines are fewer and far between, the weapons are changing, the tactics are changing, etc.</p>
<p>The only socially and culturally devisive and damaging thing is not whether women are in combat, but rather war itself. Maybe the "women and children" thing might be relevant, if we men had figured out a way to keep war from killing women and children. Again, women soldiers could do no worse (and aren't).</p>
<p>Col Toffler five years later:</p>
<p>This year also marks the 20th anniversary of the admittance of women to the academy. In 1976, the U.S. Military Academy, along with the Naval and Air Force academies, enrolled women cadets for the first time.</p>
<p>Despite some harassment problems over the years, West Point's leaders say the change has been an unqualified success. </p>
<p>"Women as a group have done a superb job. They are earning their appointments clearly. They are performing very well and serving with distinction as commissioned leaders in the Army," said Col. Patrick Toffler of the U.S. Military Academy.</p>
<p>Toffler in 1991 testimony: "Cadets no longer train in combat boots because women were suffering higher rates of injury; cadets now wear jogging shoes." Huh? clearly not accurate today :)</p>
<p>On the PRT I had 73 push-ups (and that was touching chest to shoe, thank you) in two minutes and ran the 2 mile in 14 minutes. Unfortunately, my 2-mile time isn't quite what it used to be, but that's why I'm conditioning now. :)</p>
<p>heyitsme, please explain to me how allowing women to endeavor at the same training exercises as men will be so much more costly than NOT letting them? Since there are already not that many women in the military, why would there be a sudden rush to try that kind of thing? The only cost I can see coming from it might be time in Congress while they debated the Bill.</p>
<p>Boda:</p>
<p>Her 2 mile was 12:32 last summer at NASS</p>
<p>Marines4me: awesome pushup stats!! I can see why you thought Marines first! Maybe we'll see you on R day. Are your parents coming with you?</p>
<p>I'm not taking sides on this one at all, but I know that the cadets I met at USMA weren't too thrilled about the idea of women being at the Academies at all due to the lower physical standards they were required to attain. They talked about it like women were just recently allowed to attend. It was pretty surprising. I was captain of my wrestling team, we had 3 girls on the team this year. They really killed themselves at practice and at meets, worked harder than most guys on the team, but in the end they only ended up winning our respect, not any matches. Respect is important, and must be earned as an officer, but getting the job done is key. I'm not equating high school wrestling to the rigors of combat, but the Infantry is a physical, male-dominated culture. Either way, I'm going into Beast with an open mind and I guess I'll (and most of the other people here) will get to formulate my own opinion regarding women in combat in a little over a month.</p>
<p>One problem with females (a problem from an employer's perspective) is that women get pregnant. It costs the Air Force $3 million to train one pilot for fighters or bombers. The cost to retrain aviators who have been off flying status ranges from $70,000 (helicopters) to $247,847 (fighter pilots). If a woman gets pregnant she is not allowed to fly in ejection seat aircraft such as fighters and bombers. This means that she is out from the job for at least 9 months and the military has lost its investment. during the time the woman is nondeployable, and when she returns she needs to be retrained. That is just one cost.</p>
<p>here are some other findings on the differences between males and females.</p>
<p>Findings by The Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces:</p>
<p>Compared to the average male Army recruit, the average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, weighs 31.7 pounds less, and has 37.4 pounds less muscle mass and 5.7 pounds more fat mass. In general, women are at a distinct disadvantage when performing military tasks requiring muscular strength because of their lower muscle mass. Since fat mass is inversely related to aerobic capacity and heat tolerance, the average woman is also at a disadvantage when performing aerobic activities such as marching with heavy loads (related to the lower cardio-respiratory capacity of women) and working in the heat.</p>
<p>Research findings have indicated a high risk for injuries during Army basic combat training. During training, 51% of women and 27% of men were injured. The risk of lower extremity injury for women was 2.13 times that of men and for stress fractures, 4.71 times that of men. The higher risk of injury for women was related to a lower level of fitness when compared to men. It has also been reported that 54% of women sustained reportable injuries during Army basic training. These injuries resulted in an average time loss of 13 days. During this study, women participated in an integrated conditioning programme and completed extensive road marches wearing combat boots. Incidence of injury was related to greater body weight and body fat and limited leg strength.</p>
<p>In general, women are more sensitive to the effects of thermal stress due to several factors which include lower cardio-respiratory fitness, higher body fat content and lower skin surface area. During marches at a set pace, women exercise at a greater percentage of their aerobic capacity than men, resulting in a higher heart rate, oxygen consumption and heat production. Because of this higher metabolic rate, women experience an earlier onset of fatigue and are at greater risk of heat injury then men during forced marches in a hot environment. Studies, however, have not found operationally significant gender differences in heat tolerance among acclimatised men and women of similar fitness. Women's physical advantages are that they are less susceptible to altitude sickness and, normally have a greater tolerance of cold temperature due to their extra body fat.</p>
<p>Army Lieutenant Colonel William Gregor, a former faculty member at West Point, had compared the performance of 3540 male and 623 female West Point and Army ROTC cadets at summer training.</p>
<p>Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that the upper quintile of women at West Point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile of men. </p>
<p>From these data, he concluded that if the Army selected those who met a nominal standard on the test, 80% of the women who applied could not get an Army commission. </p>
<p>Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.</p>
<p>On the push-up test, only 7% of women can meet a score of 60, while 78% of men exceeded it.</p>
<p>Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70% of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only 3% would be eligible for the RECONDO badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness Badge, because not a single woman achieved a score equal to what men must meet to get the badge.</p>
<p>Few women can meet the male mean standard. Men below the standard can improve their scores, whereas the women who have met the standard have already achieved a maximum level beyond which they cannot improve.</p>
<p>According to Gregor, women begin losing bone mass at an earlier age than men, meaning that they are more susceptible to orthopedic injuries, which "leads to the conclusion that women initially selected for the combat arms would not survive to career-end." Adopting a single standard for fitness at mid-career in the Army would eliminate most women for failure to meet the standard.</p>
<p>Again, I am proud that I will be serving with woman in the armed forces and I am glad that they have the opportunity to serve their country as well as I do, but I don't think we need to be pushing for equality where there obviously isn't any.</p>
<p>I thought this quote would be appropriate for the discussion...</p>
<p>"I'm jealous of girls because they get to wear dresses"</p>
<p>~Rod Flanders</p>
<p>Gee, I guess everybody knows that in today's army, the more you can benchpress the better fighter and combat leader you'll be. (Only one problem--Somebody forgot to tell some of the women serving in combat in Iraq)</p>
<p>Col Gregor is entitled to his opinion, even one given 15 years ago. It does not however refute the fact that TODAY women already serve in combat zones, under fire, and competently. One in seven soldiers in Iraq is a woman---</p>
<p>" Female American troops in Iraq have killed Iraqis with bombs and bullets. They have won medals for valor and Purple Hearts for combat wounds. They have been captured as prisoners of war, killed by enemy fire and buried as heroes in Arlington National Cemetery.</p>
<p>American women have participated more extensively in combat in Iraq than in any previous war in U.S. history.</p>
<p>They have taken roles nearly inconceivable just a decade or two ago flying fighter jets and attack helicopters, patrolling streets armed with machine guns and commanding units of mostly male soldiers. Seven have been killed in combat......But the conflict in Iraq, like other modern wars, has blurred the line between combat and non-combat units.</p>
<p>Women can serve as military police, which patrol Iraqi cities and often have been involved in fighting with Iraqi insurgents. Supply convoys and troop transports often include female soldiers and have been the targets of repeated attacks by anti-U.S. forces.</p>
<p> Army Pvt. Teresa Broadwell, 20, won a Bronze Star for valor for laying down machine-gun fire while her military police unit was under attack in Karbala in October."</p>
<p>Gee I wonder if the male members of Pvt Broadwell's MP unit were glad she was there on that day with them or not?????</p>
<p>Her story--(not bad for someone who wouldn't have met the "army's physical standards for a male soldier" :) )</p>
<p>I'll reply to the rest of the stuff when I have time this afternoon, it's time for the last day of school. :) </p>
<p>Shogun, I'm coming up alone to R-Day. I'm flying up on the 26th and staying on-post with my soon-to-be-sponsor family, the family I stayed with while on my visit. What time is your daughter reporting? 'Cause I'd certainly like to stand with someone besides me, myself, and I in line. :) I report at 6:30.</p>
<p>Oh, and I have some drastic new changes in Corps policy that I got straight from a Cadet that'll be a Squad Leader during Frederick. I'll post it this afternoon as well.</p>
<p>marines4me, how the sam hell did you do so many pushups?!!!</p>
<p>(<em>jealous!</em>)</p>
<p>AND WHY DON'T YOU HAVE ANY MORE SCHOOL?!!! I STILL HAVE 16 DAYS UNTIL GRADUATION AND I AM SOOOOO BORED!</p>
<p>BTW, at my IAW, we never ran a 2-mile, although my squad leader did take us all out for a nighttime road run, 'bout 3.5 miles or so. And then there was the ability run, based on self-reported 2-mile times...but I think we did more than 2 miles. </p>
<p>Does anyone know what the APFT "max-out" is for girls in each event?</p>
<p>FM 21-20 has the APFT standards for male and female, just google it.</p>
<p>man im jealous too. i don't graduate till June 25 so that 4 day break before I-Day will be really nice.</p>
<p>If women see combat already then why is there complaining? The current system works so why fix something that isnt broken. With the front lines of war being scattered, some women get their opportunities to fight. Pvt. Broadwell served honorably and her comrades are glad she was there, but who's to say that a guy couldn't have done the same job or done it better? Nothing has shown that women perform their combat tasks better than men, the only standards we have are pft scores and other events like that which show the top women meeting the same standards as the lower guys. Women may be able to serve in combat in these isolated instances, but they are not exposed to the daily rigors of front line combat. The firefight Broadwell was in doesn't happen every other day to her. The attrition factor that I talked about in my earlier posts hints that because of their physical nature, girls are more inclined to injury and less likely to be able to maintain the same level of performance over the extended periods of time that are being asked of the soldiers who comb the streets of fallujah and other places.</p>
<p>I'm starting to lose faith in this discussion. We appear to be going in circles.</p>
<p>H.</p>
<p>You have just learned the biggest lesson to be learned from this board: Don't waste time on useless discussions that can't be proved based on old information coming second-hand from others that are in no better position to reach a conclusion than you are.</p>