Posted on Jan 30, 2014
MSG Cannon Crew Member
18K
11
15
1
1
0
<div>To become a fully gender integrated Military, should gender neutral physical fitness tests exist targeted at each specific MOS? &nbsp;</div>(please be professional)<div><br></div><div>In my own opinion, I feel it would be an outstanding idea. Also it would assist in weeding out male Soldiers that lack physical attributes needed for certain MOS.</div><div><br></div><div>(Field Artillery can be immensely physically demanding at times as can some other MOS)</div><div><br></div><div>What are your opinions?</div>
Edited 10 y ago
Avatar feed
Responses: 6
SPC Squad Member
3
3
0
I made a comment similar to this earlier in another discussion, SSG. The standard is the standard is the standard. I think, combat arms for example, certain MOSs should have a gender neutral APFT but not at the cost of lowering it or changing it to accommodate those who couldn't hack it before. There are reasons why you get remedial PT if you don't score a 270 as an 11B. I understand that genetically males and females are engineered differently but I think they should both have to adhere to the current standard because it was set with the thought in mind that this is the bare minimum a soldier needs to achieve in order to be successful. I think if the job isn't necessarily physically demanding then there is no need to change anything, SSG.
(3)
Comment
(0)
MSG Cannon Crew Member
MSG (Join to see)
10 y
The CFT is again graded by gender for points and it's not bad I guess. Their way of doing things. I volunteered to be a test subject for a similar test the Army is considering. It was conducted with body weight + 97LBS in my case. Complete a 6 mile ruck march in less than two hours, drop the ruck and execute several tasks in full kit with dummy weapon. I ended the ruck at 1:40 and proceeded to sprint, balance on beams, do IMT's, individually pull a 250LB casualty from a HMMWV, drag a casualty, toss sand bags, fill buckets of sand, flip a giant tire multiple times, climb over barrier walls, build a sand bag wall, etc. All for time. The Army will change. It just takes time and effort.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SPC Squad Member
SPC (Join to see)
10 y
Now that is a test that is more relevant to physical needs, SSG.
(0)
Reply
(0)
MSG Cannon Crew Member
MSG (Join to see)
10 y
You recognized just fine. Lowering the current standard is unacceptable, but for physically demanding MOS an additional requirement should be met by ALL soldiers to qualify for that demanding MOS.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SPC Squad Member
SPC (Join to see)
10 y
Preaching to the choir SSG.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SFC James Baber
1
1
0

I think it would be good if it was able to be decided on and created, but because of the politics and the implausible complaints being derived from the lack of input from the affected members is making the possibility still years away.


It should be equal across the board in today's environment anyways, since I know many females that can run circles around many men.

(1)
Comment
(0)
MSG Cannon Crew Member
MSG (Join to see)
10 y
I'm understanding to a minimal requirement that we have with the current APFT. It sets out what should be the minimum expected of a Soldier. In regards to what occupational specialty I feel a separate physical fitness test should apply to qualify you as fit for that position. Think about carrying a casualty with body armor or lugging artillery rounds, etc. I feel our military will slowly become less effective if we don't pay attention to such things..
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SSgt Randy Saulsberry
0
0
0
i dont think it would be a good idea. im all for gender equality but there are some realities that connot be denied. the female body is not genentically designed (bone density, muscle density, standard body fat percentage) to be able to deal with the amount of physical stres that the male body can deal with. in the Marine Corps we see the effects of physical stres son the female body all the time. in boot camp the females carry the same gear that a male carries and the results are that many females end up with fractured hips, and pelvises, as well as lower back and leg injuries at a disproportionate amount. the other reason i dont agree with it because it can only be applied in one of 2 ways. either you have a lower standard that is reasonable but chalenging goals for femlaes to reach but easy for the males to accomplish or you have a standard that is a challenge for the males but virtually immpossiblel for the females to reach. i do however agree that different occupational specialties should have a their own physical standards.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close