What are your thoughts on women abiding by the same PT standards as men? People complain about equal opportunity but how is this equal?

PV2 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Dec 2015 13:35:09 -0500

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 7 at 2015 1:38 PM

SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Dec 2015 13:38:01 -0500

hooah.

Response by SFC Stephen King made Dec 7 at 2015 1:39 PM

SFC Stephen King — Mon, 07 Dec 2015 13:39:33 -0500

There will have to be a merge of existing standards in all services for the equality to be established. As I continually state I look to the day when it doesn't matter what the gender of a service member is. If they are willing, able and fit to complete their mission so be it.

https://twitter.com/DeptofDefense/status/ [login to see] 40104448/photo/1

U.S. Dept of Defense on Twitter

“#SecDef: Today we proceed with opening all remaining occupations & positions to women. There will be no exceptions.”

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Dec 7 at 2015 1:41 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Mon, 07 Dec 2015 13:41:05 -0500

One standard is fine with me... I would love to be able to grow a long luxurious mane of hair...

Response by SGT David T. made Dec 7 at 2015 1:43 PM

SGT David T. — Mon, 07 Dec 2015 13:43:45 -0500

This is from the top down. It will not change.

Response by SFC Stephen King made Dec 7 at 2015 1:48 PM

SFC Stephen King — Mon, 07 Dec 2015 13:48:46 -0500

https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/the-top-3-most-intellectual-lacking-responses-to-women-in-combat-roles?urlhash=1154520

The Top 3 most intellectual-lacking responses to Women in Combat Roles | RallyPoint

RP Community, As we are very much all aware now, congress has ruled that combat roles now are open to women in the military. While this is certainly not an entirely new topic; as women in Ranger school, being allowed certain Artillery MOS's etc, have also been recent news in the past year, as well. Per usual, on the ever-so graceful opinionated commentary wasteland that Facebook has become, it seems that between the trolls and flat-out just...

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Dec 7 at 2015 2:06 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 07 Dec 2015 14:06:19 -0500

There are at least 3 similar discussions currently active on this.

PT "standards" are not "equal" because men & women are different "machines." You wouldn't try to score a Rifle on the Pistol range, why would you try to score a woman's Physiology on a Male Health Test?

Response by Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth made Dec 7 at 2015 2:17 PM

Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth — Mon, 07 Dec 2015 14:17:31 -0500

The basic standards are ok for everyday "normal" AFSCs/MOS's etc. However, if females are going to be in a special job that requires special fitness standards then the standards should be the same across the board.

Response by SGT Kristin Wiley made Dec 7 at 2015 3:42 PM

SGT Kristin Wiley — Mon, 07 Dec 2015 15:42:00 -0500

If we have the same PT standards, can we also have the same body fat standards? According to the male body fat standards, I'm at 15% body fat. According to the female standards, I'm at 32% body fat. Oh, and if I could use the male's height and weight scale I wouldn't even have to get taped!

I'm still trying to figure out how running 2-miles at a certain standard is going to save my life in combat. Yes, the female standards are lax from my perspective. But the current standard is extremely harmful to soldiers, just look at the physiology of the sit-up event and I'm sure you'll notice how damaging it is to a soldier's neck and back. Throw some injuries in the mix, and watch our soldiers slowly deteriorate until we are all on disability. Stop complaining about PT equality when our current standards are fucked up to begin with. Let's make a new standard that works across the board.

Response by COL Dan Fuhr made Dec 7 at 2015 5:38 PM

COL Dan Fuhr — Mon, 07 Dec 2015 17:38:06 -0500

Now that women have unrestricted access to any position, I think a course of action to consider is duty based APFT. By this, I mean 3- 5 standards tied to the physical requirements of groups of MOSs without regard to gender. Of course, a minimum, baseline standard across the Army would be appropriate and also gender neutral. This could complicate things beyond the benefit, but there is some rationale for tying physical standards to the work performed.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Dec 7 at 2015 6:18 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Mon, 07 Dec 2015 18:18:09 -0500

PV2 Private RallyPoint Member REALLY? PV1 or PV2?

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Dec 7 at 2015 7:45 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Mon, 07 Dec 2015 19:45:44 -0500

What matters is how can we realistically expect two genders to have one set of standards for combat arms.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 7 at 2015 8:44 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Dec 2015 20:44:06 -0500

Every mos has a differnt set of AFQT requirements. Seems to be that now we should add APFT to the laundry list of PRE-assessment requirements.

"... Great you want to be a Airborne Ranger, excelent you now need a xxx score to qualify for that job. On the other hand you can be a xxx with your physical score... "

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Dec 7 at 2015 9:46 PM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Mon, 07 Dec 2015 21:46:09 -0500

Women's bodies are built different than men's. It would be pretty much impossible to make the standards the same without dropping the male standards.

Response by SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT made Dec 8 at 2015 10:02 PM

SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT — Tue, 08 Dec 2015 22:02:36 -0500

Just because you can pass a PT test does not mean that you are physically qualified to do all of the task required for a particular specialty. We had to be able to drive a standard transmission to qualify to be an MP. But mission requirement made it necessary to be qualified to operate a 5 ton truck.
Well if you are out in the field and you get a flat tire. You have to be able to change the tire.
So it is important to also identify additional physical needs inherent to a particular units mission.

Response by Cpl Benjamin Long made Dec 10 at 2015 6:36 AM

Cpl Benjamin Long — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 06:36:42 -0500

Different standards are not equal and can be considered in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jan 2 at 2016 10:11 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 10:11:27 -0500

Because the Physical Fitness test is a measure of Physiology (Health), and there are Physiological Differences between Males and Females "as a class."

The tests are "normalized" to account for those differences.

Understanding the SCIENCE behind the issue will help you understand the reasoning for the score disparity.

Simply put, a female of EQUAL FITNESS as a male running at the SAME SPEED as a male is expending MORE ENERGY. This is due to physiology. On the reverse, a male of EQUAL FITNESS to a female running the SAME SPEED as a female is expending LESS ENERGY.

To put it in more simple terms, it would be like taking a pistol to a rifle range and trying to score it accordingly.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jan 2 at 2016 10:47 AM

LTC Stephen F. — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 10:47:38 -0500

I was part of the test group which experienced this back in 1975 when women were first allowed to go to the US service academies SFC John Furr. I was at the US Military Academy prep school (USMAPS) at Fort Monmouth, NJ from August 1975 to June 1976. The next year those of us selected to go to USMA at West Point were part of the first class which included women at West Point.
Women had been part of the Army since the early 20th century and were originally known as WACs. The PT tests have changed much from the 1940's. When i entered active duty in November 1974 the APFT consisted of the run-dodge and jump. horizontal ladder, sit-ups, inverted crawl and 2 mile run in black combat boots and fatigues. A lot has changed since then; but, the concept of testing physical fitness and stamina has generally stayed the same.
The standards for men and women are intended to determine who is physically fit while taking into consideration the physical differences between men and women. A lot of science and experience has gone into developing test standards. While not perfect the differences i men and women should be reflected in different but comparable PT test standards.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2016 11:44 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 11:44:44 -0500

I would like to see ONE standard for EVERYONE. Men, Women, Old, Young. There should be one test for the army and one scoring chart. Now if certain units or MOS want to add that that basic army standard then that should be looked at. For promotion there should be one chart for all. Now what standard we end up using I don't care the male or the female or something else.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jan 2 at 2016 12:48 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 12:48:29 -0500

No, they need to meet physical mos standards.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jan 2 at 2016 12:48 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 12:48:30 -0500

No, they need to meet physical mos standards.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Jan 2 at 2016 2:14 PM

SN Greg Wright — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 14:14:08 -0500

SFC John Furr Standards should be tailored to the job, not the gender. Why? There are basic physiological differences between men and women that will not, no matter your political or social ideology, change.

1. Generally speaking, women have bones that are less dense than men:

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jos/2011/702735/
"In conclusion, the interaction between bone and muscle, in the process of growth and development and in the process of aging, differs between men and women. In females, the growth process is characterized by increased mass and strength of bone relative to that of muscle, whereas in men, increases in testosterone fuel large increases in muscle, resulting in muscle forces that coincide with a large growth in bone dimensions and strength. In both genders, aging causes pronounced losses in both tissues, but the large decrease in estrogen levels in women appears to diminish the skeleton’s responsiveness to exercise more than in men."

2. Generally speaking, women have less respiratory capacity than men:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2391086/
"Maturation of the airways and lungs continues through childhood and into adolescence during which time, for the most part, males continue to have larger lungs than females. Further, the conducting airways of adult males are larger than those of adult females, even when lung or body sizes are equivalent [8]."

3. Generally speaking, women have less muscle mass than men:

http://www.livestrong.com/article/246036-how-much-more-muscle-mass-does-a-male-have-than-a-female/
"Studies have proven again and again that men have a greater amount of skeletal muscle than women. In one such study that examined 468 men and women and was published in a 1985 issue of the “Journal of Applied Physiology,” researchers determined that men had an average of 72.6 pounds of muscle compared to the 46.2 pounds found in women. The men had 40 percent more muscle mass in the upper body and 33 percent more in the lower body."

There are always places on the bell curve where some few women will intersect the mens', and those women will be able to perform as required. But they will be statistical outliers. They will not be the norm. This isn't misogyny, it's science.

Now, if you want to talk about brain power, reflexes, the ability to manage multiple tasks...that's a whole other conversation, and men don't fare so well, there.

The Bone-Muscle Relationship in Men and Women

Journal of Osteoporosis is a peer-reviewed, open access journal that publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies in all areas of osteoporosis.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2016 2:27 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 14:27:25 -0500

Yes, they should.
But I also think that APFT standards should be established by MOS.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2016 4:07 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 16:07:56 -0500

I believe the general Army should keep it's APFT, men and women are built differently, but if they(female soldiers) want to be in lets say the Infantry, where males have always been in, then I think there should be differences. A Combat Fitness Test, where you are required to be able to carry dummies, while wearing your ACH, IOTV and throw in a few other obsolesces, get some Delta or Ranger hooah hooah guys to design it, and give some physically demanding task to a physically demanding MOS. I may lack longevity in the Army, but as a joe, if I know someone can keep their weight and I know they will do what it takes to save my butt and watch my 6 when the time comes, than I shall call them my Brother/Sister

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2016 4:27 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 16:27:17 -0500

I remember up until 1999 the AFPT was even easier for women in the 2 mile run. Men 17 to 21 had to get 11 minutes 54 seconds or faster for getting 100 on the 2 mile run. I recall a female that ran the 2 mile under 14 minutes and she maxed her situps but was let go because she could not do more than 10 pushups...a pity! I am sure many of you remember when you could get over 300 and go extended scale if you maxed all 3 events. After all the reading about gender differences the only advantage I can see is those trans gender bruce jenner types that get the sex change and have a competitive advantage in basic. Women who want to be men will find out that they will have it much tougher in basic, since their bodies are still anatommically a female to the point they wished they did not make the change earlier in life. transgenders of the future...be careful what you wish for especially if you get it done and wonder later why the gender studies/score sheets are not fair.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2016 4:38 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 16:38:14 -0500

In my opinion the PT test isn't the greatest measurement of or physical fitness levels. I think that it's pretty simple. Now, on my last PT test I did 76 PU's and 104 SU's but ran a 16:28 or something like that. Does that mean that I'm not physically fit or not capable of performing the job to standard? No. At least I don't think so. At 5'3 and 143lbs my bench press is at 215 and squat is at 300. I can do 20 pull ups with no problem. I'm capable of carrying and heavy objects and stuff like that. I think that it should be more specific to what is actually being done regularly in the MOS. Not to go on a rant about me or to brag or anything but like you said, it doable. I didn't go to ranger school or anything like that. I'm just a little Ole Chaplain Assistant so, we are out there. Then again, if the female is going into that MOS, like yours, they should know themselves and what they are physically capable of doing before going out there because it's tough. It's much easier for a male to go into something that rigorous and be able to make it then it is for a female. I say, hold them to your standard but in a way that really shows what they are capable of doing.

Response by SGT John " Mac " McConnell made Jan 3 at 2016 8:51 AM

SGT John " Mac " McConnell — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 08:51:54 -0500

I have read all these.....I am an old school infantryman. My opinion first is that Female,s need to stay out of combat arms...Then again that's just my opinion.
With that said. The standard should be equal across the board. "Even playing field". Example, I am a line tech for at&t. I have to walk a 28 foot ladder through backyards up and down hill's, etc.. Females are required to do the same. If they want the job then they must be able to perform the same functions...Otherwise, team members will be bailing them out constantly.. That is not good for team work or morale.. Thus the machine fails...All is in a world of SH#T..

Response by SFC Pete Kain made Jan 3 at 2016 3:25 PM

SFC Pete Kain — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 15:25:02 -0500

Bottom line...Do the same job have the same standards. Differences. REALLY.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2016 4:15 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 16:15:07 -0500

Why are the men evaluated by different age groups? Shouldn't they all be the same? Why are PT profiles allowed? Why are alternate PT tests allowed? If we're going to be fair and use this logic to apply it to a specific MOS, then all should be measured by a single test and no exceptions should be made, whether the individual is male or female. Is this what you want?

When looking at individual records and seeing that someone scored 300 on their APFT this can be deceiving. One must look deeper than just the score. Did they take the standard APFT or an alternate one? Did they have a walk or other profile? It's possible to receive a 100 on a walk profile. Is that the same as a 100 on the two mile run?

If applying the equal standard between males and females then shouldn't it be applied also between age groups?

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Jan 3 at 2016 5:08 PM

SGM Erik Marquez — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 17:08:08 -0500

No
Not meet a even standed on APFT
BUT MEET A CONSITANT STANDARD FOR THE MOS
so irregardless of gender
If you want to be an 88m you need to be able to dead lift 90lb
Lift your self up on to a step 20 inches high 10 times
Or some other MOS specific physical task.
For 11b it might be dead lift, endurance run, sprint, weighted pack carry and swinging a mop back and forth at 12 reps per sec...lol

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2016 5:43 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 17:43:31 -0500

I think fitness standards should be the same across genders. I was a firefighter before I joined the military, and I have witnessed first hand that the Jaws of Life don't get lighter when a female is holding them. Just as an example.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2016 7:10 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 19:10:41 -0500

I think the current standards should remain for the general Army population, but one standard can be applied as appropriate for some MOS. This is already done for Rangers, and it should be done for combat arms jobs.

Response by SSgt Jim Gilmore made Jan 4 at 2016 4:39 AM

SSgt Jim Gilmore — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 04:39:56 -0500

The established fitness standards should apply to all regardless of gender. End of discussion.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 9:46 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 09:46:50 -0500

I am 52 and my standards are higher than those for females 25 years younger than me....

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 9:57 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 09:57:56 -0500

IF we are gonna treat every soldier the same regardless of gender - then we need to treat every soldier the same, regardless of gender. Not just sometimes, but all the time.

Response by CPL Glynnda White made Jan 4 at 2016 11:05 AM

CPL Glynnda White — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 11:05:00 -0500

This question is referring not so much to PT as to the new roles open to women, which in my opinion is nothing more than a political move by the current putrid administration.....My answer....YES.....women who wish to be in these roles MUST be held to the same standards. Combat, which Rangers are prone to be involved in, is different than the normal non-combat roles held by both sexes throughout the military. In a combat (hand to hand) situation we are discussing lives being preserved or lost and the capability of the soldier to carry a fellow soldier who has been injured off the field to safety, carry his/her own weight and supplies and the ability to care for his/her self during long stints in the field under serious stress and duress. If women can pass at the same standards given to males, then they deserve the position. The two women who have gone through this process were given wide latitude and I do feel they will end up becoming problematic in their roles. Their training performance records have been "accidentally" shredded and are not available for scrutiny......suspect to me......it is my understanding that Rangers have to score at least 700 out of 1,000 points to be awarded a Ranger certification.....I have to wonder how they did score-wise and what their requirements were to earn those points as compared to the average Ranger candidate. I have seen further opinion than my own on this if anyone is interested, however my opinion remains, if women can pass under the same standards as men, they deserve the role. Further women continue to be prevented from serving on the front lines (and for good reason in my opinion) however, if they choose to go through Range training and pass, they should also be required to serve on front lines if the time comes. Women already do so who have not gone through such training and they are coming home with the injuries to show that they have done so. So here is my question for everyone out there......are the women who want to be rangers just looking for a career path? I am a person who examines motivation. Are these women looking to make changes to an elite fighting force because they are being influenced by women's groups who know nothing or care nothing about combat?

As for myself.....when I was in the Army I earned my first black belt and my best mile 6 min 30 seconds while serving. I am quite willing to protect myself and kill as needed to do so. I continue to be a very physical woman however I would not willingly enter combat simply because of what happens to women who are caught by the enemy....this is the true "elephant in the room" that the political idiots at the Pentagon are terrified to discuss. Women caught by the enemy will of course be subjected to rape and other forms of sexual torture in order to gain information, be broken mentally and destroyed physically and of course just to serve the whims of their captors. This is a problem that women who think they want to be in combat should seriously consider as well as the morons in Washington DC and the various victim-based thinking women's groups. The nations we have come up against since Geneva Convention rules took effect are not generally followed by our enemies. There will be no mercy on women who are taken in a combat situation.....I think we all know that and we had better stop with the politics and start thinking about the realities of the situations we are considering putting women into. This has nothing to do with PT and everything to do with taking care of our troops effectively and efficiently.

Response by SGT Chris Hill made Jan 4 at 2016 11:40 AM

SGT Chris Hill — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 11:40:51 -0500

Woman have fought for equality, and now they are allowed in combat MOS's, so if they want to feel equal in all aspects, hold them to the same standards as men. Make them complete the APFT standards on the same scale as men, that is part of equality.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 1:00 PM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 13:00:52 -0500

There should be one standard for a soldier, male or female. Whatever that fitness level should be it should be the same. We are all soldiers first and have the responsibility to be able to perform at the same level.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 1:48 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 13:48:58 -0500

Yes, for combat roles or any roles requiring stricter physical standards. For example AF EOD has a physical ability and stamina test, that both men and women in the AFSC must pass with the same requirements. Or for example career fields that require ability to lift more weight (alpha designator at the end of a PULHES. Our normal PT or APFT or fitness test for whatever service is not actually to determine how much of a beast we are, the standards are determined by physiologists and biologist to set a guideline of what is healthy for a person at that point in their life so we can deploy to austere locations and not keel over. And I say this as a female who can pass the AF PAST for TACP.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 1:54 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 13:54:56 -0500

Without reading previous comments, here are my two cents...
1. I don't personally think that the APFT is a "be all, end all" representation of an individual's overall physical fitness. However, I do believe that it is a good baseline to measure off of. I am an avid supporter of one, gender neutral standard. I do not think the current standard should be lowered one bit, I think the current male minimum (perhaps 17-21 as an example) should be the standard across the board. This is the Army (military) afterall, and if you cannot do 42 pushups or run a 15:36 mile, I question other aspects of your fitness. In my opinion all Soldiers/NCOs/Officers should be well rounded, meaning while yes they might be stronger is some events rather than others, they should still be capable of meeting a VERY reasonable standard. (As an aside, I can't wait for the day when my 360 PT score isn't met with a "Yea, but that's on a female scale so it doesn't really count." Eye roll....)
2. That being said, I think the Army should incorporate a Combat Fitness Test... maybe something similar to what the Marine Corps has in place. A fitness test where we can really measure someone's strength, endurance and mental fortitude under physical stress. I do NOT believe there should be MOS specific APFTs and/or CFTs. This is the Army, and (again, similar to the Marine Corps) I believe we should all be "riflemen" first and our MOS second. I got it, the Army will probably never be that way, but I can dream. A Soldier/NCO/Officer never truly knows what kind of situations they will be put in on deployment/in a combat zone, so every single person, male/female, cook/mechanic/infantryman should be capable of accomplishing certain tasks under the pressures of combat/firefights. I would want to be assured that the random cook (as an example) that joined my convoy would be able to react in a firefight and drag myself or any of my men away from danger. If I know that the cook joining my convoy has an MOS where standards of fitness are null, then I will assume they are therefore unfit and thereby assume that they will be unable to defend themselves or the rest of my convoy. Situations like those are a huge risk and not one that I would ever be willing to take.
3. Lastly, I will say that I personally and very strongly believe that PRT isn't helping anyone. It is in place to maintain the lowest standard of fitness, enable someone to merely pass an APFT, if nothing else. I really think the Army needs to revisit the program of physical fitness that they advocate for. There is a reason why SOF does not do PRT. Heck, CSM Dailey doesn't even do PRT. The way ahead is "functional fitness". I know many people cringe at the thought, but functional fitness or CrossFit, is what works, and assuming leaders are properly certified, it is the best way for Soldiers to gain the strength and endurance needed on the battlefield. Many units have already turned to this and the majority of installations have a functional fitness facility and/or a registered CrossFit affiliate on post. I am sure Senior Leaders are aware of the "functional fitness phenomenon" and I can only hope it is taken seriously and implemented across the board. Again, assuming that leaders become trained and certified (on the Army's dime), I can only see it helping our forces. The real issue will be getting the weak, leaf eating Soldiers on board and actually trying for once, because it is NOTHING like the Jane Fonda PRT we've got going on right now.

If you've read all of that, thank you! Glad to get my opinion out there :)

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Jan 4 at 2016 1:55 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 13:55:49 -0500

"so they can close with and destroy the enemy" How many times have men fallen to the age old excuse of women must do what I can do when in reality men can not do what women can do in today's religious misguided conflicts. PT standards do not make a soldier.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 3:44 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 15:44:14 -0500

Soldier's should have to meet the physical requirements of their MOS, regardless of gender. Male standards are not a good indicator of what it takes to perform an administrative task, nor are they adequate enough for an Infantry unit. We need good MOS based PT standards.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 3:49 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 15:49:03 -0500

For officers it doesn't really matter. either you pass the APFT or you don't. But for enlisted, females have an advantage when it comes to promotion points from the APFT. Consider my current age bracket. If you had two soldiers who performed identically on the APFT, the female would max at 300 pts but the male would only score a 238. That gives the female 50 promotion points and the male only gets 19. Somehow that doesn't seem "fair" or "equal" to me.....

Response by 1SG David Lopez made Jan 5 at 2016 12:31 AM

1SG David Lopez — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 00:31:11 -0500

This whole thing makes me sick! Ya'll want to be equal, but you don't want equal standards. Some female SGT said the PT Test deteriorates the body and add injuries to the mix and what does running two miles have to do with saving her life. REALLY? Until you get into the mindset of Combat Arms, performing the JOB, then you will understand the reasons for a harsh/difficult PT standard necessary for Combat MOS's. If you want to play with the big boys (Infantry/Ranger/SF/etc), don't come in trying to lower the established standards. I'm also tired of hearing about two standards, Combat Arms and Non-Combat Arms. We are One Army, ya'll should be Riflemen/Infantry first, heart and soul; then your second mos (actual mos). Stop asking for an easier standard people. Damn, what is this Army going to?
If this offends you, then you are who I am talking about, Soldier Up! It's the military, it's supposed to be hard.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2016 6:28 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:28:19 -0500

I am not sure how I feel about this question but if you look at what is happening in the military right now, I believe that 1 test standard for all Soldiers will happen at some point. Now that we are allowing female Soldiers in to things like Ranger and not changing the standards for them to pass, why should there be two standards for the APFT? (By the way I agree that females should be allowed to try for all MOS's and aspects of the Military) That being said, if we are going to allow female Soldiers in to MOS's like Infantry, Artillery and Ranger then 1 PT Standard should be the way of the future.

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2016 8:37 PM

SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 20:37:39 -0500

I agree with most of you as well. Women should be held to the he same standard. Women passed Ranger PT standards why not the measly APFT minimum for a man. Also, they will be required to do the same job as men, it seems only reasonable they meet the same requirements. I am at AIT and we are currently doing physical demands. This is multiple tests on MOS related tasks. Load 90 155 rounds in a CAT in 45 mins is one example that will be a requirement. Soon Recruiters will have to do a physical test as well. I think it's called the PAP. So, regardless of the APFT women and men will be faced with some physical challenges before making it to their unit.

Response by SPC Bobby Coble made Jan 16 at 2016 10:06 PM

SPC Bobby Coble — Sat, 16 Jan 2016 22:06:59 -0500

No. I don't think so. This gender neutral stuff can only go so far. Our bodies are not designed the same, and trying to implement something like that will either lower the standards for all, or force some to risk injury being performing tasks at a pace that the body is just not designed for. But, what do I know. I only have a basic understanding of anatomy and physiology.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2016 10:10 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 16 Jan 2016 22:10:58 -0500

Well I have a hard time believing that requiring me to do more push-ups, and sit-ups, and run faster than a female my age makes us equally capable.

Response by BG David Fleming III made Jan 16 at 2016 10:14 PM

BG David Fleming III — Sat, 16 Jan 2016 22:14:26 -0500

Promotions are based on more than a APFT score. It is a factor, but not as significant as you may think. A good file will also have advanced military education, advanced civilian education, above average/ excellent evaluations, diversity in assignments that show increased levels of responsibility!
So as you can see boards focus on the total person not just how fit you might be! Don't misunderstand, I am also less likely to recommend a person for command or higher rank if all they strive for is the minimum scores on the APFT!!!! I hope this helps you understand how most boards work or should work.

Response by SSgt Jim Gilmore made Jan 16 at 2016 10:16 PM

SSgt Jim Gilmore — Sat, 16 Jan 2016 22:16:27 -0500

Thee fitness standards should be set for the most qualified to achieve. Set the bar high and keep it there. That way you get the most qualified, most dedicated and most determined people for the job. To lower the standards for any reason is capitulation. This has not a damn thing to do with equality and everything to do with "kissing the ass" of those who can't and don't measure up to the physical demands of the job.

As an example, I would not want me as a Ranger, SEAL or other Special Operator. I say that not from self-deprecation but from fact. Forty years ago I would have made a damn good special operator BUT I cannot pass the physical standards. I could do the push-ups, jumping jacks, swimming and all the rest but I have an achilles heel...I cannot run long distances in prescribed time. I am (was) a helluva sprinter but sucked at anything over 220 meters.

The best, most fit, most determined, most qualified. Anything...ANYTHING less is doing a disservice to not just the individuals but the service and ultimately, the NATION!

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jan 16 at 2016 10:22 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sat, 16 Jan 2016 22:22:36 -0500

This pops up several times a month.

The PFT is a Physiological Test. There is a variation between the Male & Female Metrics because there is a variation between Males & Females as "Classes." The scores are "normalized" to make them directly comparable.

It is not possible to have a "gender neutral" PFT because simply put, we are looking at "different classes of machines." A very simple analogy is trying Score a Rifle on the Pistol Range OR trying to Score a Pistol on the Rifle Range. You cannot do that. It just does not work, even though they appear to function in a similar fashion.

The issue with promotions is that, we have to incentive Fitness in some way beyond a simple Pass/Fail. The best way to do that is by offering "enhanced" points for better scores. The problem however is that it presents the image that one metric is "easier" than the other, because Physiology is indeed different, which makes comparison impossible without "normalization" (of Score).

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2016 10:33 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 16 Jan 2016 22:33:59 -0500

Any thoughts on creating a combat arms specific APFT?

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Jan 16 at 2016 10:37 PM

COL Jon Thompson — Sat, 16 Jan 2016 22:37:24 -0500

I don't see this happening. While there is a small percentage of females that can score high on the current male standards, most females will not do that due to physiological differences. So if this happened, we would end up penalizing most of the women because many of them would fail to achieve a passing score. So what are the alternatives? One is lowering the male standards to something that both genders will be able to achieve. We would still have the same problem since the males would still be able to score higher. Another alternative is to keep it as it but have specific MOS task related assessments. I think that is the direction that the Army will go. I can also see a combat skills physical assessment being instituted for certain units like the Infantry.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2016 11:12 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 16 Jan 2016 23:12:14 -0500

Yes I would love to see a gender neutral APFT. If gender does not mater then well it should not mater for the PT test.

Response by PFC Ariel Granet made Jan 17 at 2016 12:02 AM

PFC Ariel Granet — Sun, 17 Jan 2016 00:02:54 -0500

What about a MOS- oriented grading scale rather than gender oriented? Because. You know. Screw your gender, if you're too weak to do the job you signed up for then gtfo or stfu and get fit enough to keep it.

Response by SPC Deborah Wert Ferner made Jan 17 at 2016 12:25 AM

SPC Deborah Wert Ferner — Sun, 17 Jan 2016 00:25:37 -0500

How would you be able to do it without making too easy for the males or too hard that females wouldn't be able to do it?
Gender neutral works for some things I believe PT is not the right area for it.

Response by CPL(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2016 12:42 AM

CPL(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 Jan 2016 00:42:44 -0500

We talked about this in another forum, but yes the physical standards need to be uniform. With transgender soldiers emerging as well as the simple fact that we base the standards for the job not the genitals; we need to be uniform. It's alright to recognize being male or female, but when it comes to duty it needs to be gender blind. The only time it becomes a protected class is when a woman is pregnant. Otherwise it's discriminatory, and violates equal protection and equal opportunity. The army is an achievement organization that fights wars. We aren't pre school with a participation trophy and gold star for everyone. For the same reason that my life shouldn't be on the line because you met a different standard; neither should yours.

Response by SFC Alfonso Moore made Jan 17 at 2016 1:54 AM

SFC Alfonso Moore — Sun, 17 Jan 2016 01:54:00 -0500

no why should they.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2016 2:23 AM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 Jan 2016 02:23:18 -0500

Yes, but it's still an imperfect fix. I think now is the best opportunity to change our PT test to fit MOS specific tasks that'd be better at judging the potential combat fitness of our soldiers.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2016 5:19 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 Jan 2016 05:19:34 -0500

I think the APFT should stay as is. If you want to add test to MOS jobs (we already have warrior tasks and drills) it would be redundant. As a leader we should track our Soldiers individually. See where you can put the Soldier to be the best fit for the team/section/platoon/unit.

Life isn't fair. War isn't fair. Enemy doesn't care what you are or who you are. We aren't civilians and we should not make this group or that group special. However allowing people for religious preferences for beards... I'll change my religion (or create one) to be able to keep mine.

Response by LTJG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2016 9:29 PM

LTJG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 Jan 2016 21:29:51 -0500

I think a physical fitness assessment should be based on the job, not your sex.

If 20 push-ups proves a man is physically fit for his job, then it should be the same for a woman. Based on their job, not their gender.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2016 3:59 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 15:59:31 -0500

Equality is what everyone wants. So equality in PT standards is what we should get.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2016 1:20 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 13:20:52 -0500

I believe ALL standards should be the same. Not just for PT.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Jan 30 at 2016 8:09 PM

SGM Erik Marquez — Sat, 30 Jan 2016 20:09:53 -0500

"women abiding by the same PT standards as men?"
Yes and NO.
There SHOULD be two standards.. ONE on a male female separate scale for things like boards, awards, competitions., promotions.. ect.. as there are REAR physiological differences between male and female which allow for strengths and weakness difference between the two.
There there should be a set standard, a NUMBER for a particular task or MOS.
If you want to be 12M Firefighter, you (you = male, female, other) you must be able to lift X, carry Y.
If you want to be an 88M you must be able to lift X, carry Y and sit for N min (lol)
If you want to go to ranger school, both would apply.
a Min run, lift, carry and meet XX% in your PT scale

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2016 9:12 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 21:12:49 -0500

I think that ALL standards should be EQUAL. One standard for the entire army. Not just for PT. Standards should be the same for everything from major things like PT all the way down to the little things like grooming. EVERYTHING without bias should be equal.

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 7 at 2016 6:38 PM

CPL Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Jun 2016 18:38:24 -0400

No, this is ridiculous men are automatically stronger in shoulders, and thigh muscles; it's been proven..but yet we see more overweight men than women in the army maybe they should go up on that and keep the female track where it is, that's retardation we're going to change the standard for transgenders (nothing against it) but that's ridiculous might as well take the standards off of fraternizations and adultry...wow this is crazy