Should PT standards be neutral across the board?

Not at all. MOS and rank/paygrade are completely different. The military doesn't guarantee a paycheck; but you guarantee your dedicated servitude. I consider my pay a bonus to serving my country - an important bonus, but I'd continue to serve regardless. Regardless if I am pushing paper in an 8 hour day-staff position, gathering intelligence 12-16 hours a day, or on the front lines 24/7 in the harshest environments known to man, I enlisted to do a job. I had no problem with the pay before I came, and I certainly will not let a sense of entitlement or superiority make me feel that I deserve more than anyone else. No one in the military is irreplaceable, but I digress. Rank is earned through time, acquired skill, and proven leadership. That is what you are getting paid more for. When you first enlisted for your MOS, you accepted the fact that you have different expectations and requirements than any other MOS. A legal-men has no real need to run 2 miles in 12 minutes or ruck 60 lbs no including their weapon uphill while possibly dragging their buddy behind them...but an infantryman might. These were things that infantrymen accepted before they even joined. If you had asked them, "are you sure you're still okay with this knowing you will get paid the same as a cook? Wouldn't you rather be a cook?" I'm sure the answer would be unanimous across the board.

You get paid for rank/paygrade - and as a bonus to your service.. nota guarantee.
You perform to the expectations and requirements of your MOS. This has no affect on pay..

This is the same reason why stellar Soldiers in the same MOS get paid the same as shitty ones of the same pay grade. Performance has no affect on pay. We aren't snowflakes, were servants to this country. That's why it's called the "Service". We protect and SERVE our fellow Americans. Always have - always will.

LTJG (Join to see) - Look, I get that we all signed up for our own jobs knowing what our pay would be. But we are still promoted against one another(at least in the army, can't speak for navy). Further, what happened to everyone is a rifleman first? We are opening the door to something that is completely unnecessary, and that will have many adverse effects on the force in the long term. It's a slippery slope once we start letting things slide.

Why not one standard? The fems that sign up say they can do anything the men can. Are you one of these sexist pigs that think 115lb woman can't do anything a 230lb man can?

Ok I see you are a Marine so I'll get my crayons and draw you a picture. It is not physically possible for women to do what men can physically. It's not sexist it's physiology. And before you go and ramble on about this female you saw before out do guys save your breath. Those females are the minority. Read a book

I have a reading suggestion for you: dictionary. Look up sarcasm.

Great response CPT Jack Durish. However, what is your opinion on advancement points and ranking boards. Wouldn't the "new-female" have an mind blowing advantage being that she 'MAY' be able to easily max out the female PT scores?

I agree for the most part with Capt Jack Durish. As a Coast Guardsman I recognize that there should be a common base line physical fitness score for all, but, consider the training that a rescue swimmer needs to accomplish, far and above the basic requirement that all coasties should be able to swim. Not all of us are physically qualified to fly C-130s or helicopters for SAR missions. each job in the service has its own requirements, how about a ET that is partially color blind? has a hard time telling the color of wires. could cause an electrical "malfunction". I feel that as a person finds his or her place in the job pool, what ever their specialty is, will by necessity carry its own physical qualification standards. This might only work for organizations that are not combat oriented, basic standards should be met that would and could logically apply to both sexes and age groups, I saw one older CPO have a heart attack trying to keep up with recent high school grads.

SFC (Join to see), but the military doesn't seem to look at Soldiers are male soldiers and female soldiers, they look at them as soldiers - a UNIform. Shouldn't an 11B or 68W be able to perform to the standard of an 11B or 68W regardless of the Soldier's gender? If I was a fictional "99Z", and one of my job requirements was to push broken down humvee's, I would expect any 99Z to be able to perform that task..if a 99Z couldn't accomplish that requirement perhaps they shouldn't be a 99Z.

TSgt Jackie Jones what is it was a MOS standard - not one based on gender?

LTJG (Join to see) - That may not be a bad idea! Pass or fail. Get and keep the job or don't! That may be about as equal as equal can get. I'm sure there are some cons... But hey, there always are.

Is anyone at all surprised that the vast majority of women get the physical differences between the vast majority of women and the vast majority of men, particularly among persons interested in serving in the military? I am totally in favor of one fitness requirement for one branch of service. but make it the requirements the males must meet now and raise the minimum score. For example, it's shameful for any Marine who is not partially disabled by combat, from not being able to perform three pull ups. Yes, three was the minimum when I served. You couldn't get by on the minimum for the entire PFT, but you could get by with the minimum in one category. The standard should be the same regardless of MOS. Even for the computer networking guys. If you can't get your butt off the couch long enough to barely pass a PFT, you have the wrong mindset for the military; and this comes from a guy with a degree in computer networking.

Just to go on that line of thinking why cant someone look like a slob if they can do there job very well?

Somebody hasn't studied their history very well. Vietnam was won militarily, that is a fact. The South Vietnamese armed forces were well equipped and doing a fine job of holding back the communists right under the Democrats voted to cut off the financial support so they couldn't maintain their equipment and could no longer properly train people. Had that funding continued it is very likely South Vietnam would still exist. This is not speculation of some right-wing conspiracy theorist, it is congressional record. President Ford literally begged on the house floor for the US to keep it's promise to Vietnam and he was rebuffed. Iraq is another excellent example. Iraq was defeated militarily, and after the surge the country was on it's feet again. Then, again the Democrats pulled the plug when everyone knew better. I know George Bush set the original time table, which was a goal, but do you really think Obama was taking orders from Bush? Obama could have changed anything he wanted to change after he took office in order to keep Iraq afloat, but didn't. There are other actions they took as well at every opportunity to undermine the Iraqi situation for political gain. So the Iraq War was won just as Vietnam was won, but the Iraq peace was lost just as the Vietnam peace was lost. A soldier who has attained the rank of Sergeant should have been able to put that together. If you are still serving, why would you serve if you thought you were on a losing team?

Clearly not Marine Corps material. Marines have often notice how shiny Army uniforms are with as many trinkets as they can fit. It's like a RPG club where people talk about being a 3rd level wizard apprentice or something. You won't hear me argue about that. In the Marines it is quite a different story. Medals are not handed out for bypassing the dessert cooler at the chow hall, so they mean something when you see one. Oh, the reason we don't needs 3 lbs of sparklies for our uniform is the USMC on the pocket says it all. Can I get an Oorah! brothers?

Still, I thank you for your service in the Vietnam Era, where credit due was credit not received.

SP5 Christine Conley - I do NOT lie! Starlight Bar, Yokosuka Japan, circa late 50s. It still exists in the more remote regions along with communal Bath Houses that are unisex. Rather than making insulting statements do some research.

SP5 Christine Conley - No, they're the normal size. And how are your ovaries since you asked?