Times article re US military

Now the military declared that women and men have to reach the same physical standards.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/22/pete-hegseth-women-combat-army-fitness-test

As some people here mentioned earlier, some things aren't physically possible for women (the marches with maximum luggage that men carry), which means that much fewer will be left.

It might be that this is about his goal to keep women out of combat.

Thank you. This is helpful info for the lay person trying to follow along.

It blows my mind how much I've learned about all sorts of things by being on this MN board.

I fully understand that in a stream such as infantry, this may be different. However, the military exercises etc in other areas of the military will not necessarily require female officers to match male lift capacities etc.

But, no. I know that people will not be promoted to commanding officer levels without having been through the junior officer ranks. And yes, they certainly have to complete specific levels of training and exercises at the very least. I have not said that they would.

If being misgendered is akin to genocide, all enemy forces would have to do is chant “you’ll never be a woman” and the US forces would crumble.

Having been an NCO myself for many years I am aware of that, thanks.

Ironically it's both your CO is your commanding officer but when talking about NCOs and COs it's non commissioned officers and commissioned officers (just to be confusing to civilians) the terms date back to the time whe a commissioned officer could/would buy their commission from a retiring officer (yes you would actually pay to be an officer) whereas NCOs were members of the rank and file who earned their rank but could not sell that rank on

Ok - having done some internet searching, it seems that, as I thought, it's also commanding officer in the UK and the US.

Certainly in Canada CO is commanding officer.

But in any case, any officer in the combat arms is actually going to have to do their job and go into the field with the NCOs during their career, they aren't hanging around in an hq or something.

I think a "commissioned officer" is just called an officer.

CO stands for commissioned officer not commanding officer

How would that even happen, an infantry officer is going to have to start as a Jr officer, and so will be in a position of being in charge of troops on a battlefield.

No one skips all that and just becomes a CO.

I suspect that for him to successfully do this, will require him to convince a great many people which would require evidence rather than his personal belief. And he would have nothing to stand on in regards to Navy and Airforce personnel, I would hazard a guess. Army / Marines I think would also think will take some convincing. He might be successful in a few roles, but I doubt he would be successful in a blanket ban.

However, I look forward to seeing just what he has that he feels is going to be convincing.

@Helleofabore I think it because Pete Hesgeth keeps saying it and he's going to be Defence Secretary? He said "I'm straight up saying we should not have women in combat roles" fairly recently, which seems unambiguous. I think I read somewhere it's actually one of the core beliefs of his Church.

You may know more though, maybe Trump will overrule that bit. I'm not in the US so am outside looking in.

I don't know.......but ultimately it will be about what he does, rather than his motivations for it. Maybe the announcements so far are predicated on which people he has in place and their primary agendas?

Of course, to go through officer’s training though, women will have to do exercises and certification. And as junior officers there is a chance they will be deployed to action.

As far as weight limit lifting management is concerned, I believe that is managed by load sharing with women taking only as much as the designated limit. The rest is managed amongst the group.

My understanding is that while on exercise the group will only progress at a rate safe for the slowest in the group. Because I have asked friends about this in the past. This is the policy that I believe some country’s military training follows. Even then, I know that some women end up with injuries. It can be quite hard to manage.

This type of combat is becoming a thing of the past compared to how wars were fought during the Falklands. Look at the Ukraine war and Gaza these types of engagements are not the norm. What you are saying is true but as combat changes there are more roles that can be done easily by men and women.

Yes @ToBeOrNotToBee through the NCOs. COs as a general rule don't do the real front line combat, they tend to be in the safer positions/field bases and relay their orders to/through the NCOs, it's a sensible system that protects the COs from the worst risks whilst allowing them to give orders in real time, an army without officer's quickly breaks down into a ineffective headless snake so to speak.
My point stands if we want more women as admirals, generals or field marshals we need them to go through officer's training.

Who commands on said battlefields???
The COs

@ConstructionTime I think you might be confusing NCOs and COs.
The commissioned officers (COs) ie captins, generals, admirals etc go to officers training at places like Sandhurst in the UK or West point in the US.
Non commissioned officers (NCOs) so warrant officers, Sargent major etc and below all start out as ordinary soldiers, sailor's or marines.
They are 2 completely different career paths. If you want more women in command then you need to get them into officers college not battle fields.

Yes why are they all so insane over there?? Why can’t they just let people do their jobs with reasonable rules and regs in place? I doubt this is even legal tbh, I assume a lawyer can argue it’s a constitutional right to join the military or something something.

I have never been in favour of different fitness tests for male and female combat troops. If soldiers need to be able to carry Xkg for Xkm, then they need to be able to carry Xkg for Xkm. If the weight and distance can sensibly be reduced, it should be reduced for everybody. Combat personnel should be interchangeable as far as possible. Fewer women would pass the standard tests, but some would.

The turn the discussion has taken has reminded me of two things I read - the first being a short paper about fitness of women in the US military. It turned out that the women who did best in the assault courses, cross-country running type fitness tests were the soldiers with good strength over weight ratios. Small and wiry.
But the women who could march for long distances, day after day, carrying their equipment were the tall, well built types - rower physiques - because their absolute strength was greater and the packs were a much smaller proportion of their overall weight, so less stress on their joints etc.
Which I found fascinating.

Second interesting thing was that among the nomadic steppe tribes of Classical and pre-classical times (generic name Scythians) women warriors were fairly commonplace - estimated at between 15 and 40% of the total. Crucially, they (Scythians) were mounted archers. The horse was a big equalising factor between men and women, but so was the bow they used. The Scythian bow was a technological marvel, being both extremely powerful and fairly small. They also used spears with smaller handles (grips?) and fought on foot with swords when they had to.

I'm glad you said this.

Even though I don't have any knowledge of the military other than a basic layman's understanding, this is what was knocking around in the back of my mind.

I guess it helps to highlight that sensible decisions need to be taken using facts but overreach needs to be avoided. Whether that's about women or people with a transgender identity. Banning women or banning trans-identifying people on a blanket basis is overreach. A proportionate approach is what's needed - and bravery to make sure sensible rules on fitness to serve (and sex-based facilities) are followed.

@Hoardasurass
Ok, I understand that. Then I would amend my statement by saying that they should be in combat when reasonably possible - depending on the specific role.

Because decision-makers / higher ranking military should have women amongst them, but for that they need to have field experience, too.
(That does not mean that I see combat roles "only" as a step on the ladder).

@ConstructionTime I hate myself for saying this but there are certain front line combat roles that women should not be in purely and simply because we don't have the same physical abilities or endurance as males.
If you think about the Falklands war and the yomp (a March carrying all your kit) those marines had to cover 56 miles of rough terrain in harsh weather carrying about 20kg (their largest bergens way about 45kg)in 3 days and still be able to fight at the end of that. Most women won't be able to do that so if there's a woman in the squad it has to go slower and carry less gear to move as 1 group or leave her behind (huge no no), same with paratroopers, foot soldiers and the SAS or in the case of the US the seals. Having women I'm these sorts of roles reduces combat effectiveness.
Now when it comes to the navy and air force there's no such disadvantages in having a woman in any front line combat roles, women can do many front line combat roles (gunners, tank drivers etc) but not all.
Unfortunately women keep being told that we can do anything that men can and there's no difference between us but it's just not true. Women were getting stress fractures to their pelvis from trying to keep pace with the men in training before the requirements for women were reduced.
Basically if you want a fully combat effective military there's certain roles that need to be restricted to male only