NationStates Jolt Archive

Gender-norming is the practice in the US military of holding women to lesser physical standards. For instance, if I have to run a mile and a half in 12:15, a female of the same age would have to run it in 15:00.

So, just a simple question: do you agree with the practice of gender-norming?

Agree with? Well. It is a fact that female bodies aren't made the same way as male bodies. They simply are not athletic. If you talk with them out on the PT field, they will tell you it really does take them more work to reach the same standards.

That doesn't mean that women aren't capible. They are quite capible! And I am convinced they are as much an asset to the military as men are.

Right now, the US military is hurting for recruits, especially the Army and Marines. Can we afford to raise any standards to unreasonable limits?

I'm not going to put out a stance on this since I'm way to tired to really think it through, but I am going to say that this is probably the most original and interesting thread I've seen in a long while. Thank you for making what should be a very good thread.

Nope I don't agree with it. If women what equality, then let them have it. If they can't make that run in the same amount of time that a man can make it, though shit.

Welcome to equality-ville ladies, I hope you enjoy what you earned.

I belive in equality but hate egalitarianism.

Nope I don't agree with it. If women what equality, then let them have it. If they can't make that run in the same amount of time that a man can make it, though shit.

Welcome to equality-ville ladies, I hope you enjoy what you earned.
Well, I think I would have at least attempted to be more polite about it, but you've summed up my feelings on the subject.

Well, I think I would have at least attempted to be more polite about it, but you've summed up my feelings on the subject.

Eh niceness gets you no where. If you want to be heard you have to be mean, and crude. Just like Bender.

I think women should get every single opportunity as men, period.
BUT, if a person wants to be in a branch of service, such as the Marines, then there should be no differentiating for the sexes.

A MARINE must run the mile under this time...

A MARINE must do so many push-ups.....whatever....

I think women should get every single opportunity as men, period.
BUT, if a person wants to be in a branch of service, such as the Marines, then there should be no differentiating for the sexes.

A MARINE must run the mile under this time...

A MARINE must do so many push-ups.....whatever....

Exactly, I mean if we want our militatry to function as a unit, then everyone must meet the same phsyical requirement.

I think women should get every single opportunity as men, period.
BUT, if a person wants to be in a branch of service, such as the Marines, then there should be no differentiating for the sexes.

A MARINE must run the mile under this time...

A MARINE must do so many push-ups.....whatever....


Exactly, I mean if we want our militatry to function as a unit, then everyone must meet the same phsyical requirement.Exactly, I mean if we want our militatry to function as a unit, then everyone must meet the same phsyical requirement.
The 3 of us are on the same page anyways

As long as the people in charge are paying attention to the people, all the people, they are making train for this stuff. My stepmother wanted to get back into the military and they marched her so very hard. If she had gone on one more ruck-sack march her pelvis would have broken in 3 places and she already had hairline splits in her shinbones by the time they sent her to the doctor. They're not helping her either, no help with medical attention and if she doesn't apply correctly then she won't even get any money from them... just jobless and barely able to walk.

Yeah, make people do the same things regardless of gender, but this is an extremely physical thing and you really have to watch how your people are handling it. Any perception levels that are as low as my stepmother was treated with are teetering on the lines of negligence.

edit: hehe 69th post! says I'm a member too and not a newbie. sweet!

Saxnot, The Philosophes why do you agree with gender-norming?

Most men can't complete the physical and mental hardship of some training schemes. Like the SAS and french foreign legion. Should their standards be lowerred to allow weaker men to pass? Of course not, these people will be put in very dangerous situations and if they can't run a mile in 10 minutes carrying 30 kilos of equipment they stand a much greater chance of dying.

I believe it should be the same for the marines, special forces etc... Anyone who's life will depend on their physical fitness should be able to run a mile in 12 minutes, do 40 push ups etc.. Gender norming here could end lives and not just the lives of women who didn't meet the same requirements as the men. If a woman has the same mental discipline and physical abilities of a man then I don't see why they shouldn't become a marine.

For less dangerous professions, like engineering, I you have to be fit and healthy, but there really isn't an urgency to be extremely fit. So there is a need for gender norming, so that more people are allowed to enter the services.

P.S. Gender norming isn't a practice. It's a policy.

Practice
To do or perform habitually or customarily; make a habit of: practices courtesy in social situations.

They don't say, oh, this woman should be able to pass if she can run a mile in 15. They would have to do it due to policy. So it is neither habitually or customarily.

I belive in equality but hate egalitarianism.

You believe in equality, but you hate equal civil rights for all people? Nice.

End women's suffrage now!

As soon as we have soldier-bots, gender norming will be obsolete.

As soon as we have pleasure-bots, war will be obsolete. We'll all be too busy.

I just don't think women should be in the army

Yes I agree with it, but not in all situations. In the army, for example, you may need to move at a certain speed to escape a situation. The enemy will not be taking account of who is female and giving them a headstart. But in most situations, yes, I would agree with it.

P.S. Gender norming isn't a practice. It's a policy.

Practice
To do or perform habitually or customarily; make a habit of: practices courtesy in social situations.

They don't say, oh, this woman should be able to pass if she can run a mile in 15. They would have to do it due to policy. So it is neither habitually or customarily.It's really annoying when people nitpick words for no valuable purpose.

>>I don't think women should be in the army.<<

I don't think men should be in the army.

If we work together, we can have world peace.

Yes I agree with it, but not in all situations. In the army, for example, you may need to move at a certain speed to escape a situation. The enemy will not be taking account of who is female and giving them a headstart. But in most situations, yes, I would agree with it.In what situations wouldn't you agree with it? Even in the Navy, speed and strength are important. Getting to your battle station quickly could mean the difference between life and death for the whole crew. Having the strength to lift a fallen frame could save the life of an injured colleague.

>>I don't think women should be in the army.<<

I don't think men should be in the army.

If we work together, we can have world peace.

the problem with that is human nature. Say EVERY army in the world was abolished. Men still kill and fight each other on their own. Then one charismatic person gets a few friends to help him, you have a gang. The gangs begin fighting each other. The gangs get bigger, you have mobs. The mobs take territory, and now they're an army. Where there is humanity, there is War. It is our way of expressing our love for each other. All that you can do is try to dissuade war, and try to lessen the devastation of the war, that is if you really want to better something.

the problem with that is human nature. Say EVERY army in the world was abolished. Men still kill and fight each other on their own. Then one charismatic person gets a few friends to help him, you have a gang. The gangs begin fighting each other. The gangs get bigger, you have mobs. The mobs take territory, and now they're an army. Where there is humanity, there is War. It is our way of expressing our love for each other. All that you can do is try to dissuade war, and try to lessen the devastation of the war, that is if you really want to better something.

Exactly. You can't have world peace because you can't control the free will and actions of every individual on earth. I think some people narrowly define world peace to mean no war or no international conflicts. I take world peace to mean no violence or conflicts on earth. Even so, world peace isn't a problem like nuclear weapons or global warming. You can't pass a law that implement world peace or something. The most you can do is create an open forum to discuss conflicts, something like the UN, and establish a military capable of defending its borders from invasion. Rules require enforcement.

It seems to me that rarely does job performance rely on one's ability to perform very specific physical tasks within predictable time-frames.

In other words, what is at issue is not whether a woman's taking longer to run a certain distance will hurt her ability to do a job.

Rather, it seems to me that most jobs that set physical standards (e.g. military, astronaut, etc.) do so in order to identify healthy and fit individuals. Physical health is required in order to perform these jobs successfully.

Now, since men's and women's bodies are built differently, it makes sense to use different standards to test their physical health and overall fitness.

Thus, I see no problem with gender-norming.

To be clear, if a job does require that someone be able to do Task X in Time Y, then I do not support gender-norming. That would be stupid.

As for the military, I am not familiar enough with their reasons for physical requirements to say. If it is true that the reason for their standards is that these standards reflect the literal requirements of military service, then gender-norming is a pretty bad policy.

However, the fact that the military already practices gender-norming suggests to me that their reason for physical requirements is to test general fitness, not to establish job-related performance criteria.

After all, how can you predict exactly how fast someone will need to run in order to escape enemy fire? No matter how high a standard you set, in some situations people who meet that standard will not be fast enough. Does that mean you should raise the standard?

As some people have suggested, it may be a matter of probability: running slower or being able to carry less increases one's probability of failure.

However, in this case one has to ask how much that probability increases... and to apply a simple cost/benefit analysis: is the number of soldiers we will lose by lowering standards greater than the number we will gain by lowering them?

In other words, for women:

By applying lower standards, our armed forces can accept more women into the military. Of course, it costs money to train them, but having the additional troops may also be valuable...

But when they go into combat, will their lesser physical ability result in such casualties that it outweighs these benefits?

Following a "market" principle, one should set standards at the level that produces the greatest "profit".

you can't control the free will and actions of every individual on earth.
I can, muahahaha. **ahem** okay nevermind :D

Why not award points to people for being small? Small people have two important automatic advantages. They are harder to hit and they find it easier to hide.

Gender-norming is the practice in the US military of holding women to lesser physical standards. For instance, if I have to run a mile and a half in 12:15, a female of the same age would have to run it in 15:00.

So, just a simple question: do you agree with the practice of gender-norming?
Nope. It's true that female bodies aren't capable of some of the things male bodies are capable of, just as female bodies are capable of many things that male bodies can't even attempt. To pretend that males and females can be exactly equated is just plain ignorant.

the problem with that is human nature. Say EVERY army in the world was abolished. Men still kill and fight each other on their own. Then one charismatic person gets a few friends to help him, you have a gang. The gangs begin fighting each other. The gangs get bigger, you have mobs. The mobs take territory, and now they're an army. Where there is humanity, there is War.

I don't see how we can do without police, but I see plenty of evidence that we can do without war. For example, France and Germany seem very unlikely to go to war any time soon. No attacking army has crossed the Rhine for over sixty years, which is aparently the longest period of peace since Roman times. Although it will take some work, I see no reason why we can't end organized warfare in a generation. There may still be some violent extremeists, but they will be delt with via internationally cooperating police forces. Defence forces will stay withing their own territories for defence.

Gender-norming is the practice in the US military of holding women to lesser physical standards. For instance, if I have to run a mile and a half in 12:15, a female of the same age would have to run it in 15:00.

So, just a simple question: do you agree with the practice of gender-norming?


It takes you 12:15 to run a mile and a half? ROFL

Also I'm a marine and females are treated just like us. No advantages or anything.

I do aggree with it because I run cross country, But its nearly impossible to compeat with the guys when they run, we woman are not ment for such vigirus activity our bodies arn't made to handle it as well as a man's.

I really hadn't thought this one through before I voted in the poll... I voted that I agreed with it... but after thinking it through, I don't. It's true that women can't handle the same activity as a man physically, so if they can't handle it, they shouldn't be put in the same situation as a man when it requires you to be as physically fit as a man.

Basically I believe that if a woman doesn't want to deal with having to meet the same standards as the men, they shouldn't be in the military in the first place.... men don't get to be in the military if they can't meet the standards, so why should women?

Oh by the way, i'm a girl.

I think there should be equal standards for everyone, and anybody who can achieve the benchmark, be they male or female, should be accepted in as an equal and treated as such. (Equal in the sense that all recruits achieved the same target, not in the sense that they are equal to everyone else in the military...there's a thing called heirarchy)

I think it depends on what the standard is for. If it's for something that could be life or death, then no - there shouldn't be a difference. However if it's to ensure that you're in good physical shape, then yeah, it does make sense.

Men and women who have comparable fitness levels are going run at different speeds, and be able to lift different amounts of weights. That's just a fact of life.

"It's really annoying when people nitpick words for no valuable purpose."

The practice of gender-norming makes gender norming sound like the practice of slavery or the practice of wiping out the families of political enemies. It's really annoying when people use wordplay straight out of 1984.

It takes you 12:15 to run a mile and a half? ROFL

I'm one the fastest kids I know, and it takes me 20.45 to run two miles.

As a female, I can't say that I agree with gender-norming. I think everyone should be held to the same standards. But I do agree with what some people are saying, in that if you're just testing general health as opposed to needing to actually do a certain thing in a certain time, then differences may occur. In which case that wouldn't necessarily have to be considered gender-norming the standard is health, as a male and a female at the same level of health aren't going to be able to do the same physical things as each other.

I have a friend that's planning on joining the military, and I don't think she'd accept herself not keeping up to par with everyone else.

I'm one the fastest kids I know, and it takes me 20.45 to run two miles.


Thats funny. LOL no hard feelings I know thats pretty good for a kid. Join the marines :D When I was in basic we we're running 10 to 15 miles a day.

I think this is wrong, as it is allowing inferior service people in to the forces, and is sexist.
I don't have a problem with women in the army etc. but they should be held to the same standard as men.
The differences in gender, and gender equality, should not preclude making it easier for women because the majority are physically weaker.
Any enemies they face are not going to go easy on them due to gender, therefore it is a disservice to all involved to change the standards

I'm one the fastest kids I know, and it takes me 20.45 to run two miles.

That's not very fast.

I'm one the fastest kids I know, and it takes me 20.45 to run two miles.

Don't feel too bad. It took me 23 min to run 2 miles when i started basic, now I can consistantly do it in 14. But I am slow for my unit.

I don't like gender norming, but I do understand it. Women are not allowed into line units, so lower PT standards are exceptible.

Gender-norming is the practice in the US military of holding women to lesser physical standards. For instance, if I have to run a mile and a half in 12:15, a female of the same age would have to run it in 15:00.

So, just a simple question: do you agree with the practice of gender-norming?

It depends what it is for. Statistically, women are less physically strong than men. Statistically, they are going to be able to run less. If we are simply talking about high school/college PE requirements or something like that, then they probably should be gender-normed, as women are biologically and physically different.

If we are talking about a job that requires certain standards of physical fitness (certain branches of the military, police, firefighters, etc.), then the standard should be set where it needs to be and any applicant, whether male or female, should have to meet the same standards. If this means that, due to statistical averages and the fact that many women would have to work much harder to attain such standards, there are less women in those jobs, so be it. As long as an applicant of either sex is given equal opportunity to succeed.

I say:
Screw "equality". Screw affirmative action. Screw gender quotas. If a woman can't keep up with a man in the army, why should she fight? The enemy is not going to give a damn. If demanding that women be just as capable as men means that no women are going to be on the battle field, so be it. It's better to have less that last longer than to have more that couldn't last 5 seconds without getting their daily value of vitamin Lead.

Can I just say how interesting I find it that most of the people in this thread have focussed almost completely on the military? I rechecked the first post twice to see if it referred specifically to gender norming in the military, and it didn't. However, everyone has jumped onto that.

I gotta say no. Not because I don't like women or don't want them out there or something(because I DO like women :fluffle: ) but because it would be yet another stupid "justification" for not allowing women in combat. Some Republican senator will use the gender-norming as evidence that since men are recognized as more physically capable, they should be the ones fighting, while women wouldn't measure up.

There are still plenty of women who can measure up, so it's not like NOT gender-norming will keep women forever from the armed forces.

I just don't want to give any ammo to the people who don't want women in combat.

Can I just say how interesting I find it that most of the people in this thread have focussed almost completely on the military? I rechecked the first post twice to see if it referred specifically to gender norming in the military, and it didn't. However, everyone has jumped onto that.

The military is just the most visible example of such. For the most part, I think that the standards should be set to match the physical needs of the job (police, military, fire fighter, ect...) and thats that. You meet them, your in, you don't your out. Gender shouldn't come into it.

I remember a news story several years ago about seveal women who tried out for the fire department of some major city, but couldn't complete the obstical course, and sued to try and get the standards lowered for women. Don't remember how it turned out, but will try and find the story.

Don't feel too bad. It took me 23 min to run 2 miles when i started basic, now I can consistantly do it in 14. But I am slow for my unit.

What are you in? I'm in the marines...I can run 2 miles in about 12 without stopping but when I was in basic I had to walk some of it lol hard to believe it use to take me 20 minutes to run 2 miles. I can normally get 3 1/2 to 4 in 20 minutes now a-days.

This might be why we're not allowed in combat >.>

Can I just say how interesting I find it that most of the people in this thread have focussed almost completely on the military? I rechecked the first post twice to see if it referred specifically to gender norming in the military, and it didn't. However, everyone has jumped onto that.

You checked the first post twice and didn't see it? Check a third time.

This has been said before, but it bears repeating: it really depends what is being tested for.

Men's and women's bodies are different. Duh. If we are testing for general health, than the standards should be different, because an equally healthy and physically fit man and woman will take different lengths of time to run a mile, will be able to lift different weights, and so forth. If we are testing for ability to perform a specific action, than the standards should be the same. So, for example, if in a certain job one must regularly lift a 100-pound weight, all applicants for that job should be judged on whether they can lift a 100-pound weight, regardless of gender.

So, my answer is yes or no, depending on the nature of the gender-norming. I voted yes, though, since the majority of cases I know of are those in which general fitness is the criterion for judgment.

Who gives a damn about differences in abilities between men and women when you have to be able to do a basic minimum anyway? The enemy isn't going to let female recruits fire the first shots. Fires aren't going to give a damn if the firefighter is male or female. If you can't do the job, go home. Equality be damned. If it led to the public sympathy for blacks that led to blacks having high unemplyment and poverty rates, it's not worth having.

It seems to me that rarely does job performance rely on one's ability to perform very specific physical tasks within predictable time-frames.

In other words, what is at issue is not whether a woman's taking longer to run a certain distance will hurt her ability to do a job.

Rather, it seems to me that most jobs that set physical standards (e.g. military, astronaut, etc.) do so in order to identify healthy and fit individuals. Physical health is required in order to perform these jobs successfully.

Now, since men's and women's bodies are built differently, it makes sense to use different standards to test their physical health and overall fitness.

Thus, I see no problem with gender-norming.

Some of the military drills that use gender norming are removing wounded soldiers from combat. The women trainees are given teo extra personell to cary the 'casualty. This is a situation that could occur anywhere in the service it could happen to e radar operator onboard a ship but females are held to a lower standard. Do you want to write the letter home to the dead soldier's familly saying, "We are sorry for your tragic loss. But due to the need for a new politically correct military your daughter sacraficed =her life. We could have saved her but there were only four female soldiers where she was wounded and subsequently bled to death waitng for someone to cary her to medical attantion."

Some of the military drills that use gender norming are removing wounded soldiers from combat. The women trainees are given teo extra personell to cary the 'casualty.
Source, please?

I ask for a source on that last post because something about it seems "fishy."

First of all, the military must already have a sense of "acceptable losses" in setting their standards of casualty evacuation ability.

Why? Because there are some very large men in the military, and some relatively small men. I have seen them. And it is simply absurd that the smallest men should be expected to lift and carry the heaviest. Thus, it seems likely that the military must set a standard somewhat less than "ability to carry anyone." Therefore, some losses occur do to the inability of the average (male) soldier to carry at least some of his companions.

My point? It does not make sense to talk in absolute terms. "If only one soldier dies because..., then that's too many." Well, that's a nice thought... and a noble one, given that we all care about the soldiers who give their lives to serve our country.

Nevertheless, real militaries have to deal with reality. Thus, they are forced to speak in terms of costs and benefits, and if we are to understand their reasoning in gender-norming certain requirements, we need to have the data they do. Our "guesses", however well-intended, simply do not provide an accurate picture of the costs and benefits of gender-norming.

In the second place, the athletic, physically fit women that I know are perfectly capable of lifting and carrying the average man that I know... once, that is, they are taught proper techniques for picking up and carrying someone. I know this statement carries no statistical significance, so don't bother attacking me on that front. My point is only to show that it is not unthinkable that military-trained women are capable of evacuating a good number of the casualties they might encounter. The costs may not be as great as you think.

I voted that I agreed with gender-norming.

Women cannot physically keep up with men (with the exception of a rare few). Most women who achieve the kind of physical prowess to compete with men had long training sessions. Not to mention that when a women finally achieves this state, her menses stop and her body begins producing more testosterone and much less estrogen and progesterin. Essentially, her body goes male.

I do think that women should not be allowed in the front lines. Besides the physical aspect of it, women need to stay cleaner. We (women, yes I'm a chicky) are more vunerable to certain kinds of ailments then men are when proper sanitation is unavailable.

I am not against women in the military in general, however. There are plenty of positions that can easily be filled by women that would not put them in any compromising situations.

Overall, gender-norming is there because what's physically fit for a man, is not what's physically fit for a women. I feel women should embrace the fact that we are different from men, not try to be like them in every way not possible by nature.

Why? Because there are some very large men in the military, and some relatively small men. I have seen them. And it is simply absurd that the smallest men should be expected to lift and carry the heaviest. Thus, it seems likely that the military must set a standard somewhat less than "ability to carry anyone." Therefore, some losses occur do to the inability of the average (male) soldier to carry at least some of his companions.

In the second place, the athletic, physically fit women that I know are perfectly capable of lifting and carrying the average man that I know... once, that is, they are taught proper techniques for picking up and carrying someone. I know this statement carries no statistical significance, so don't bother attacking me on that front. My point is only to show that it is not unthinkable that military-trained women are capable of evacuating a good number of the casualties they might encounter. The costs may not be as great as you think.

to the first, although some of the men will not be able to carry the largest wounded men, they will be able to carry a much greater portion of the spread of weights. The average man will be capeable of carrying a much larger cross section of the armed forces than the average woman.

To your second comment : if the women you know are perfectly capeable of carrying an average man then it is likely they would pass the test mentioned without much difficulty and so would not need gender norming.

In the field a female soldier will need to carry the same equipment as a man, they will have to march the same distance (when required) as a man, and at the same pace. If they have to fight then they will have to fight the same enemy as a man. A female soldier should be held to the same standard as a male soldier in the same job as the job requires the same efforts from each.

The same goes for any job where physical ability is core to a persons ability to peform their job properly.

Gender-norming is the practice in the US military of holding women to lesser physical standards. For instance, if I have to run a mile and a half in 12:15, a female of the same age would have to run it in 15:00.

So, just a simple question: do you agree with the practice of gender-norming?

no.
standards should not be dropped for one group or another.
But then i think men and women should compete equally. Sports/gov. service/work/etc

to the first, although some of the men will not be able to carry the largest wounded men, they will be able to carry a much greater portion of the spread of weights. The average man will be capeable of carrying a much larger cross section of the armed forces than the average woman.

It's still a matter of costs and benefits... and we just don't have the numbers on which to make those judgments.

To your second comment : if the women you know are perfectly capeable of carrying an average man then it is likely they would pass the test mentioned without much difficulty and so would not need gender norming.

Actually, probably not... as the average non-military man is almost certainly lighter than the average military man. Then again, I also expect military-trained women to be even stronger than the athletic women that I know.

So, perhaps you are right.

In the field a female soldier will need to carry the same equipment as a man, they will have to march the same distance (when required) as a man, and at the same pace. If they have to fight then they will have to fight the same enemy as a man. A female soldier should be held to the same standard as a male soldier in the same job as the job requires the same efforts from each.

Well, if the tests are equipment-carrying, marching, and fighting, then I do not support gender-norming. However, if the tests are sit-ups, push-ups, and pull-ups, then I do. From what I have been reading, these are precisely the tests to which the military applies gendered rules.

You checked the first post twice and didn't see it? Check a third time.

I would say that it must have been changed, but it doesn't have an edit time. Looks like I was a little brain-dead yesterday. Or maybe I am just aware that gender-norming occurs in areas other than the US military and thus didn't see it. *shrug* LOL

If women want equality let them be equal.


Gender-norming is the practice in the US military of holding women to lesser physical standards. For instance, if I have to run a mile and a half in 12:15, a female of the same age would have to run it in 15:00.

So, just a simple question: do you agree with the practice of gender-norming?

My $.02 when I was in the Marines the smallest man in the unit 135lbs was expected to evact ANY man in that unit. PERIOD. Also my TO load when I was in the Corp weighed almost as much as me.




Why? Because there are some very large men in the military, and some relatively small men. I have seen them. And it is simply absurd that the smallest men should be expected to lift and carry the heaviest. Thus, it seems likely that the military must set a standard somewhat less than "ability to carry anyone." Therefore, some losses occur do to the inability of the average (male) soldier to carry at least some of his companions.

If women want equality let them be equal.

Equality means that all people are treated the same, regardless of gender, not that all people are equivalent.

What are you in? I'm in the marines...I can run 2 miles in about 12 without stopping but when I was in basic I had to walk some of it lol hard to believe it use to take me 20 minutes to run 2 miles. I can normally get 3 1/2 to 4 in 20 minutes now a-days.

In the Army. I have great upperbody strength and endureance, but just never have been all that great of a runner. 13 flat for 2 miles is the best I've ever done, but 120 push/sit in 2 min is nothing.

I voted that I agreed with gender-norming.

Women cannot physically keep up with men (with the exception of a rare few). Most women who achieve the kind of physical prowess to compete with men had long training sessions. Not to mention that when a women finally achieves this state, her menses stop and her body begins producing more testosterone and much less estrogen and progesterin. Essentially, her body goes male.

I do think that women should not be allowed in the front lines. Besides the physical aspect of it, women need to stay cleaner. We (women, yes I'm a chicky) are more vunerable to certain kinds of ailments then men are when proper sanitation is unavailable.

I am not against women in the military in general, however. There are plenty of positions that can easily be filled by women that would not put them in any compromising situations.

Overall, gender-norming is there because what's physically fit for a man, is not what's physically fit for a women. I feel women should embrace the fact that we are different from men, not try to be like them in every way not possible by nature.

Army sanitation standards are much different for men and women.

Women are required to be able to have a shower every 4 days. Standard for men in the infantry? 6 months

There should be one and only one set of physical and mental requirements for any jobs allowing for no bias on race or sex, you either pass or not.




Equality means that all people are treated the same, regardless of gender, not that all people are equivalent.

If the men have to stink, then so should the women, unless the women are medical personel. Who wants a dirty person removing a bullet from you? And to think that some people wonder why women aren't allowed on the front lines. They are getting spoiled.

There should be one and only one set of physical and mental requirements for any jobs allowing for no bias on race or sex, you either pass or not.

So long as the requirements are truly necessary for the job, this is absolutely true.

I don't agree with it, so long as the right thing is being tested.

For running times, if you need a person to run a certain distance in a certain time, you need to do it in the same time whether you're male or female. If you're looking for fitness then a track time is only a proxy measurement, and should be adjusted, so that the level of fitness being measured is equal for everyone.

Either way you need to measure what you are really trying to measure equally. That is both fair and, crucially, much more relevant as far as the military is concerned anyway.


The only problem is that it is much easier for a 6'2" man to run a mile than a 5"2" man, because he has nice long legs. So do you adjust for height as well? And build? Where do you stop?

I think women should be allowed unrestricted participation in the armed forces, full equality. But I think they should have to be just as capable as the men in order to do it -- which means passing the same tests, pyshical and mental. If women are going to be given lesser tests, they should be given lesser positions.

I'm sorry, but I would say exactly the same thing if it was reversed. The military is too important for this sort of thing.

Well, if the tests are equipment-carrying, marching, and fighting, then I do not support gender-norming. However, if the tests are sit-ups, push-ups, and pull-ups, then I do. From what I have been reading, these are precisely the tests to which the military applies gendered rules.
Yes, those are the tests to which the military applies gender-norming, but the purpose of the running, sit-ups, pull-ups, etc. is to make the soldier fit enough to carry their gear into combat.

Yes, those are the tests to which the military applies gender-norming, but the purpose of the running, sit-ups, pull-ups, etc. is to make the soldier fit enough to carry their gear into combat.

Okay, but my question is this:

Instead of testing how fast they can run without gear, why don't they test them on a double-time march with full gear?

Instead of testing them on how many sit-ups they can do (which are actually a physically damaging exercise), why don't they test their endurance of combat-like conditions?

When testing on "abstracts" like the number of push-ups a person can do, gender-norming makes perfect sense, because a different number of push-ups (or sit-ups, or running-time) reflects the same level of physical fitness and/or endurance for women as opposed to men.

I think the most fair (and least controversial) thing the military can do is to set standards for actual combat-related tasks, and then test those on an equal basis. After all, no one is doing sit-ups on the battlefield.

I would have no problem with equal standards for directly job-related tests. It is these indirect tests with which I have a problem.

Push up, sit ups and the run are used to measure general physical fittness because they are a quick and easy to test. The intangibles that apply to front line duty are much harder to asses.

Okay, but my question is this:

Instead of testing how fast they can run without gear, why don't they test them on a double-time march with full gear?

Instead of testing them on how many sit-ups they can do (which are actually a physically damaging exercise), why don't they test their endurance of combat-like conditions?

When testing on "abstracts" like the number of push-ups a person can do, gender-norming makes perfect sense, because a different number of push-ups (or sit-ups, or running-time) reflects the same level of physical fitness and/or endurance for women as opposed to men.

I think the most fair (and least controversial) thing the military can do is to set standards for actual combat-related tasks, and then test those on an equal basis. After all, no one is doing sit-ups on the battlefield.

I would have no problem with equal standards for directly job-related tests. It is these indirect tests with which I have a problem.

SHHH! My commander might here you. I admit that doing manuvers in full battle rattle are a better standard, they are much more dangerous physically. Running with an extra 80 lbs of gear puts tremendous amounts of strain on your knees, hips and lower back. One wrong step can lead to a blown knee or broken bone that didn't need to be.

Okay, but my question is this:

Instead of testing how fast they can run without gear, why don't they test them on a double-time march with full gear?

personally I think that's a good idea, however it's not particularly feasible since it means possibly acquiring gear for people who they otherwise wouldn't have to (not everyone makes it through boot camp).

Instead of testing them on how many sit-ups they can do (which are actually a physically damaging exercise), why don't they test their endurance of combat-like conditions?
You mean like obstacle courses? Which by the way is something they do indeed do. I can't remember whether the obstacle course is an actual part of the U.S. Army's PT test, but it is for the Marine Corps. Also, how are sit-ups physically damaging?

It physically harmful for a female to do full push ups because of their top heavy build. It harms the lower back. Maybe the government/army could find an equally strength challenging exercise to set standards with.

It physically harmful for a female to do full push ups because of their top heavy build. It harms the lower back.
If that is actually the case, which I doubt, then they just shouldn't join, because they are obviously physically incapable of doing the job.

If that is actually the case, which I doubt, then they just shouldn't join, because they are obviously physically incapable of doing the job.

Yup but I think he is wrong cause there is 12 women in my company alone and I'm in the marines so...the way I see it if it hurt them they wouldn't be here.

I'd be kind of curious to see how many of the people who are in favor of gender-norming aren't/weren't in the military.

I'd be kind of curious to see how many of the people who are in favor of gender-norming aren't/weren't in the military.


Why...

Why...
Because it seems to me that they have no idea what they're talking about. Most of the people that have stated that they are or were in the military seem to be opposed to it.

Because it seems to me that they have no idea what they're talking about. Most of the people that have stated that they are or were in the military seem to be opposed to it.


Oh...This has nothing to do with what your talking about but I thought I'd just state it.

Most women enjoy having the same challanges because when gender-norming comes in it makes them feel like they are lesser then anyone else. At least most women I know think that.

Gender-norming makes sense in some situations, like in PE while you're in school, in a gym, or maybe even in competitions (altought this last situation is kind of controversial, I need to think it better to make up my mind). After all, wimen's muscles don't get the same amount of testosterone as we do, wich gives us a natural advantage in strenght and stamina. It doesn't mean that they can't achieve a certain standart like we do. It just means that, generally, the best they can do isn't as good as the best we can do. It takes lots of hard work to compensate for this difference. If you ever saw a female culturist, you'll notice she has manly features (not every female culturis, but a big majority). That's because of steroids and hormones, and any other substance that she may take to compensate for the lack of testosterone. All that to say that they have limitations men don't usually have.
HAving said that, I think that, like many people posted here, ifa marine or whatever other special forces member is going to risk is life, he has to meet a minimum of physical fitness, or else he will be risking his life much more than his colleagues who meet that standarts. Of course that there still be differences, and some may die where others live, but either if you're a man or a woman, you should be able to do a minimum, or you won't be more than a moving target on the battlefield.
(sorry if the english isn' very great, I finished my english classe 2 years ago, and I hadn't been praticing, so I have no idea of the "quality", shall we say, of my english)

Gender-norming makes sense in some situations, like in PE while you're in school, in a gym, or maybe even in competitions (altought this last situation is kind of controversial, I need to think it better to make up my mind). After all, wimen's muscles don't get the same amount of testosterone as we do, wich gives us a natural advantage in strenght and stamina. It doesn't mean that they can't achieve a certain standart like we do. It just means that, generally, the best they can do isn't as good as the best we can do. It takes lots of hard work to compensate for this difference. If you ever saw a female culturist, you'll notice she has manly features (not every female culturis, but a big majority). That's because of steroids and hormones, and any other substance that she may take to compensate for the lack of testosterone. All that to say that they have limitations men don't usually have.
HAving said that, I think that, like many people posted here, ifa marine or whatever other special forces member is going to risk is life, he has to meet a minimum of physical fitness, or else he will be risking his life much more than his colleagues who meet that standarts. Of course that there still be differences, and some may die where others live, but either if you're a man or a woman, you should be able to do a minimum, or you won't be more than a moving target on the battlefield.
(sorry if the english isn' very great, I finished my english classe 2 years ago, and I hadn't been praticing, so I have no idea of the "quality", shall we say, of my english)

Well, your english isn't great, but it is understandable, and your point is well stated. :)

:gundge: No because the contest isnt to see the fastest male or female. It is to see the fastest person, which brings me to womens rights which is a load of crap. They want more pay for less work. But they think if a male hits them it is more of an offense if a male hits a male. I say, either all the way or no way

Army sanitation standards are much different for men and women.

Women are required to be able to have a shower every 4 days. Standard for men in the infantry? 6 months

Exactly. On the front lines of combat, having a shower every 4 days is not always achievable. The sanitation reason is the main reason that women are not allowed in the front lines.

For general information: I was in the army. I did my 4 yrs.

It physically harmful for a female to do full push ups because of their top heavy build. It harms the lower back. Maybe the government/army could find an equally strength challenging exercise to set standards with.

But women don't have a top heavy build in comparison to men (unless their breasts are HUGE). And in general they are much lighter and shorter - both of these have the effect of reducing the force required to maintain the position - if a woman is 75% of a mans weight and height the reduction in force required to keep a straight back will be (0.75*0.75*0.75) = 0.42 - i.e the bending force of a womans weight will be only 40 - 50% of the same force a man would have (on the 75% assumption).

I'd be kind of curious to see how many of the people who are in favor of gender-norming aren't/weren't in the military.

For the record, I am not and have not been in the military service. I don't think they'd accept a 15 year old.

But women don't have a top heavy build in comparison to men (unless their breasts are HUGE). And in general they are much lighter and shorter - both of these have the effect of reducing the force required to maintain the position - if a woman is 75% of a mans weight and height the reduction in force required to keep a straight back will be (0.75*0.75*0.75) = 0.42 - i.e the bending force of a womans weight will be only 40 - 50% of the same force a man would have (on the 75% assumption).

It is harder for me to pass a PT test at 5' 8" and 200 lbs than a female at 5' 6" and 140 lbs, but stacking 50 to 80 lbs of battle rattle on slows me down much less than it would a smaller person.

For the record, I am not and have not been in the military service. I don't think they'd accept a 15 year old.

Is it anything that you hav considered?

Lets assume that X>Y.

The job requires that you be able to do X.
You are only able to do Y.
Why should you get the job?