How could we not be gender neutral with our fitness standards?

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Feb 2021 11:07:43 -0500

This is a great piece from a pioneer in women equality in the Army. I think she speaks from experience and not from ideologies. I really like how she pointed out how different standards affects unit cohesion. How would the person next to you have a different expectation when then have the same position?

https://mwi.usma.edu/with-equal-opportunity-comes-equal-responsibility-lowering-fitness-standards-to-accommodate-women-will-hurt-the-army-and-women/

With Equal Opportunity Comes Equal Responsibility: Lowering Fitness Standards to Accommodate...

As the Army’s first female infantry officer, I have long awaited the elimination of a gender-based fitness test. The drastically lower female standards of the old Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) not only jeopardized mission readiness in combat units but also reinforced the false notion that women are categorically incapable of performing the same job […]

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Feb 25 at 2021 11:24 AM

SGM Bill Frazer — Thu, 25 Feb 2021 11:24:59 -0500

I agree, that was one thing that scared us when women tried out for Ranger School, would be double standards. The thing , women have screamed and fought equality, so why should we try them differently? I was IN all my life, didn't have many Rocks, in the units, just normal folks to worked to be at the standard with high expectations. Now women are leading IN Platoons. I carried my 100+ lb of ruck, LBE and gear and I would expect her to as well, and go just as far, for just as long. What are you suppose to do- "Gee LTC we can't take that OBJ, cause our LT is tired and had to stop?

Response by SFC Casey O'Mally made Feb 25 at 2021 11:42 AM

SFC Casey O'Mally — Thu, 25 Feb 2021 11:42:53 -0500

Love love LOVE the opinion here from CPT Griest. Especially when she shares her own difficulty in meeting the standard, but shows that this is not a problem for the ACFT but a good thing. Her difficulty in meeting the standard proved to be nothing more than showing her where she needed to put in more work. Which she did.

Response by SFC Melvin Brandenburg made Feb 25 at 2021 11:46 AM

SFC Melvin Brandenburg — Thu, 25 Feb 2021 11:46:20 -0500

One standard. One team. If we want to be treated the same, we need to perform at the same standard. If women want to join, and they can do the job, let them. More power to them. Welcome to the team. But it should be that everyone on the team can pull their own weight. If they want equality, so be it. Equality, not equity. Same rules. Same respect.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2021 11:59 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Feb 2021 11:59:38 -0500

I've been saying this same exact thing for years. It has a major negative effect on unit cohesion when one person has to meet a lower standard than another. Especially when that standard, like a score from a PT event, is used as a basis for promotion. Promotions for E5/E6 rely on promotion points that are received directly from PT scores. How do you tell a Soldier that their peer scored 100 promotion points for running an 18 minute two mile but they received half that for running the same distance in 16 minutes? That creates animosity between Soldiers and undermines the credibility of female leaders.

Even the female Marine Boot Camp Commandant who was relieved said the same thing. She said the only reason females couldn't do pull-ups is because nobody ever bothered training them to do pull-ups. Once they started training to do pull-ups they actually were able to do them. If we keep expecting our females to just be weak and telling them they can't meet the standards then they never will.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Feb 25 at 2021 12:03 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:03:34 -0500

Non concur. There should exist a baseline of performance should it be based on MOS or army standards. However, the proposed gender neutral ACFT will give males a tremendous advantage.

What are the ramifications for the ACFT scores? Promotion points? NCOERs?

Response by SSG Bill McCoy made Feb 25 at 2021 12:19 PM

SSG Bill McCoy — Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:19:47 -0500

"Lowering fitness standards to accommodate women will hurt the army and women."
That's a fact that I think every seasoned soldier recognizes. If any woman, OR man, wants to get into a specific MOS (i.e., Infantry or SF; any MOS actually), the standards should be the same.
While a touchy subject, in reality many women (and men) just can't cut it. If a woman can, and is otherwise qualified, then by all means, let her/them excel. Realistically, in combat missions there can be no lesser standard. I've known some fine female MP's who were just as capable as men, emotionally and physically. I also knew some who were flakes. Men can also fit that category. At 6'5" and (then) 200 lbs, I never encountered another man who i couldn't physically restrain; but I knew a few female MP's who would have certainly been my equal either due to strength or skills such as martial arts.
Give any/all women a chance at any MOS; but maintain standards which exist for a valid reason.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2021 12:25 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:25:09 -0500

It's interesting to see how males respond to females whose opinions they agree with on this topic but discount those they don't.

I applaud her for what she has done but she doesn't represent all females nor do I.

Everyone agrees the APFT needs replaced. I have yet to see anyone say it shouldn't. The ACFT isn't the sword the Army needs to be dying on to replace it though. It has issues. I have seen things for "ACFT 3.0" (already on version 3) and that's what she mentions about they will still have gender neutral scoring but then gender categories for promotions, etc. But that's not exactly approved either.

Here's the issue I see with the ACFT. When they were conducting the Baseline Soldier Physical Readiness Requirements Study to identify which fitness events most predict performance on stimulation tests of common physically demanding military tasks, the final report identified flaws within the study, including conflicting findings and a considerable gap in test participants. The Army claims the ACFT is 80% predictive in "promoting the assessment of regular and recurring duties of a military occupation" the BSPRRS demonstrated the leg tuck was not a significant variable but was chosen as one of the six events. With no supporting data.

Females were underrepresented in the BSPRRS test group. The average participant was 24 years old, male. In Phase II, 14.3% of test participants were female. Phase III - 10.5% were female. That's less than the amount of women in the Army. The study used 16 women with an average age of 23. An external review by the University of Iowa Virtual Soldier Research Center even criticized the study as having an "inherently unbalanced study design...determination of which tasks best predict or represent performance could be influenced towards strategies used predominantly by men."

We need a new test - and we need to find the right one. The ACFT, from all I have read, holds females to a disadvantage. We weren't very well represented. And on average 23 year old females as the baseline testing...sorry but I'm almost 40 and have had a child. My body has changed. The Army has destroyed my body. I have been working on these events - but there's a great difference in 23 year old females and 40 year old females - and males. Also - not everyone has had the same combat related experience as others. I realize combat can change and won't be COIN forever. Even people I talked to who were in direct combat don't see the point of some of the events on the ACFT.

I was in a combat EN BN - in HHC yes. I was S2. But the first half of my time there I was one of 15 females. I was the only female enlisted out of S2/S3. In my experience, I had to prove myself solely because of having a vagina because of stereotypes in the Army toward females. No matter what. And we get pounded into our heads in basic "Be OnE oF tHe GuYs!" Which is toxic and ridiculous. But the whole time I was there, I had no issue with cohesion with male counterparts because the standards were lower on the APFT. Any males I had issues with were toxic, misogynistic predatory jerks. That's my experience with males I've had friction with. They just don't want females around period. I was even friends with guys in the line companies too.

I already know the responses I'll get on this though. Just a different view and opinion. I absolutely respect CPT Griest and what she's done. I just don't entirely agree with her POV based on how the ACFT came to be.

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Feb 25 at 2021 1:13 PM

CSM Darieus ZaGara — Thu, 25 Feb 2021 13:13:18 -0500

Strong article, opinion of many throughout the years. Nothing new. What else will not be new is the military’s unwillingness to adopt any other methodology. This goes back well before the 80’s, MOS manuals would and still place separate standards for the sexes, 1 person lift Vs. 2 female lift for the same position.

It is however a very complex issue, while it seems not to be for a few. The bottom line is that there are more willing to lessen standards for one group over another, rather than make them equitable.

Response by MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P made Feb 25 at 2021 1:51 PM

MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P — Thu, 25 Feb 2021 13:51:47 -0500

BLUF: Unpopular opinion to follow. Stop reading now if you are easily offended/upset/feel you are superior because of your Adonis physique.....

I have worked with some "PT Studs" who could crank out 200 pushups and 100 sit-ups without breaking a sweat. Those same Gym Ratz could barely tell one end of a Jane's manual from the other. I've even seen the opposite extreme of the troop who couldn't do 10 regulation push ups if his/her life depended on it but could cite adversary OOB data to include the current operator's name of said system without using reference documents and could build target decks with devastating precision.

I think a better system would be to look at MOS/AFSC/whateverthenavycallsit and see what the minimum standard for that SPECIFIC duty should be. A finance troop sitting at a desk all day probably doesn't need to run a 3k at the same rate while carrying a 100lb ruck (if at all) as the Infantry troop maneuvering on hostile ground (probably poor analogies but best I could think of on short notice). I never did and never will have the upper body strength of some other males. There are some duties (such as TACP, Pararescue) that I just couldn't qualify for. I'm ok with that because my deficiencies could have cost lives. I did make a fairly skilled Intelligence analyst though which was a MUCH better fit for my physical and mental abilities. Other than a couple short sprints to the bunker during rocket attacks, I never did have to run in any of the combat zones I deployed to. Even as a police officer (military and civilian) I learned to use leverage and defensive tactics to my advantage to subdue aggressive subjects who were much stronger physically.

Sure, there should be a base-line physical fitness standard (for overall health if nothing else). No one wants the "Walking heart attack waiting to happen" guy in their AO. The "one size fits all" and "men have this standard, women have this one" approach probably needs to go the way of the biplane and horse cavalry though.

BLUF: (for those who don't know....) Bottom Line Up Front

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2021 2:21 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Feb 2021 14:21:23 -0500

White Tigers —-> “...no dispensation given as to gender...”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6A_eaP_k14

Female Special Forces

In the South Korean Military there is a small unit of elite female soldiers. They are part of the super elite 707th Special Missions Unit "White Tigers". Whe...

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2021 2:51 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Feb 2021 14:51:14 -0500

I agree with her 100%.

Response by LTC Ken Connolly made Feb 25 at 2021 7:57 PM

LTC Ken Connolly — Thu, 25 Feb 2021 19:57:58 -0500

Could physiology have something to do w/ women having a different physical standard?

Response by CPT Russell Pitre made Feb 25 at 2021 8:31 PM

CPT Russell Pitre — Thu, 25 Feb 2021 20:31:34 -0500

She is right. You be expect to be equal in just the areas you choose. If you want to be "equal" you get everything that comes with it.

Response by SFC James Welch made Feb 25 at 2021 9:36 PM

SFC James Welch — Thu, 25 Feb 2021 21:36:24 -0500

Everyone has to meet the same standard!

Response by Cpl Bernard Bates made Feb 25 at 2021 10:33 PM

Cpl Bernard Bates — Thu, 25 Feb 2021 22:33:04 -0500

Do you think our enemies will be gender neutral. Will they lower there standards when it comes to combat with women? Only one way to find out. Semper Fi.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Feb 26 at 2021 10:33 AM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Fri, 26 Feb 2021 10:33:38 -0500

Okay, I notice there isn't a single female in the group of respondents. If we go back and read the old PT manual that talked about the differences between men and women, we get into hip structure, arm structure, and other things that make us anatomically different. That said how many of the exercises here would be more favorable for a female over a male? IMHO none of them. I have had male mechanics who would take that deadlift exercise and crush it. That same mechanic would not last 10 seconds on that funky hanging bar exercise. Likewise anatomically if you took me when I was 18 and weighed 143lbs, I could hang on that bar till the cows came home, hand me that deadlift and forget it. Now my question is, are these exercises real? If you aren't a tanker or a Redleg how often do you dead lift stuff as part of your skills? How many of us have to hang as part of our skill set? IMHO this exercise set was created by some really jacked up people who want females to fail. I watched a youtube video where a female Marine took the new Army PT test, she failed, She was no slouch, she was fit. Right then and there I knew if this otherwise very fit Marine female could not do it, we have a problem with the test before we hit jump street. Because I think she would of been a high scoring person under the old standard. One standard does not, by any stretch, equal fairness. Anatomically we are all different, and we need to recognize that.

Response by SMSgt Bob Wilson made Feb 26 at 2021 9:20 PM

SMSgt Bob Wilson — Fri, 26 Feb 2021 21:20:34 -0500

Another $10 million wasted on a study which means nothing. Make it simple. Take the female standards and the male standards and split the difference. Everyone must maintain the difference.

Response by MAJ Byron Oyler made Feb 26 at 2021 9:52 PM

MAJ Byron Oyler — Fri, 26 Feb 2021 21:52:53 -0500

This is a conversation for females and only females to be part of and I have said that for years. Setting standards to prove women are the same as men can negatively affect their menstrual cycle and ability to reproduce. This may not be important to the very intelligent and well spoken female that wrote the report however it is very important to the thousands of females serving in the US military. Hence this should be a conversation for women to have amongst themselves.
https://www.womenshealthmag.com/uk/health/female-health/a708160/body-fat-percentage-women/

Has 'lean' Gone Too Far? What You Need to Know about Body Fat Percentage

How to know if 'lean' has gone too far

Response by MSgt Gloria Vance made Feb 27 at 2021 10:41 AM

MSgt Gloria Vance — Sat, 27 Feb 2021 10:41:09 -0500

If you change the standard to accommodate women you lose the whole point. Equal means equal. If you want to be fit, it takes work for either sex. Making different levels of fitness for men and women could very well impact the ability to see the mission through. Nope.... nope and nope!

Response by SN Charles Weinacker made Apr 15 at 2021 1:57 PM

SN Charles Weinacker — Thu, 15 Apr 2021 13:57:21 -0400

Women are Men are...but those in Military leadership cannot figure that out...after millions of years of prove...would not serve in combat military under WOMEN/PERIOD!!!
With that said...having fought and killed many NVA female troops in Nam...a pissed momasahn..is lethal!!

Response by SN Charles Weinacker made Apr 15 at 2021 2:19 PM

SN Charles Weinacker — Thu, 15 Apr 2021 14:19:28 -0400

Are we talking Combat or typewriter???...I did both...can she??

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2021 5:31 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 29 Apr 2021 05:31:43 -0400

To me there should and only be one set standard when it comes to APFT regardless of gender or age. When in uniform we are all Soldiers period. It shouldn’t be based on gender or age. One standard you pass or fail that is it. Stop catering to these Soldiers and start putting Boot to Ass!

Response by PFC Martin Potashner made May 23 at 2021 3:38 PM

PFC Martin Potashner — Sun, 23 May 2021 15:38:09 -0400

I went into the army in 1956 never saw any women with regular troops

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 25 at 2021 9:04 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 May 2021 09:04:45 -0400

You can't. There are fundamental, biological differences between men and women, and the more we try to pretend there's not, the more we're hurting everyone. Men can do things women simply cannot. Women can do things that men simply cannot. Its objective reality. Be happy with what you got, make the most of your gifts and stop trying to be something you're not.