Why are the Marines delaying equality in fitness standards?

I agree with you on that. What bothers me is that they say they shouldn't have to do the same physical activities but they want to do the same job. It is a bit of a miss for me. I will say that Ranger did make them have the same standard. So it can be done.

CPT (Join to see) . I would agree that there are many women Marines that could pass the men's PFT. They would need to do 3+ pull ups, 80+ crunches and a 3 mile run under the time...All do-able. The PFT only ensures that you are in decent physical condition relative to your body. A good test but not the gold standard for sure.

The reality is we have had two standards (male and female) for so long I think many just accept it and act like it isn't there. They also talk in the article about women maxing their score at 8 pull ups, men max at 20. That sounds like more gender norming to me. That is not one standard. If you want to play in the big leagues you need to measure up.

if we do not accept a male SM or throw out a male SM because they cannot meet this standard then it is discrimination to allow women to be admitted or retained when failing to do so. We need to have ONE standard and adhere to it for a given MOS. No one should have their civil rights violated.

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS, apparently, there is an issue with woman being able to accomplish the required 3 pull ups.

TSgt Joshua Copeland yes, about 55% are able to meet the requirement.

The problem is that 3-8 (F) and 3-20 (M) aren't "equivalent" measures of upper body strength.

For a female, that is 37.5% of the section of the test. For a male, that's 15%. This is using very simple math, but a female is expending over twice the effort to get the same "pass."

If the requirement was 2 Pull Up (F) vs 5 Pull up (M), they would both be at 25%~ maximum output assuming "effort" was linear. That would likely raise the pass rate for females, and "slightly" lower the pass rate for males (pull ups are worth the most points per iteration at 5 points each compared to 1 per crunch and 6 per minute).

From a lay perspective, I believe they are attempting to "dial it in" to get the correct pass rate, and difficulty level. The goal is that 3 Pull ups, because that has been the traditional minimum standard for men (for at least 20 years).

CPT (Join to see)

How many would be able to complete the proposed 2 you are saying Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS ?

TSgt Joshua Copeland Unknown. I don't have that data, and not sure if it's available. But better than the 55%. I'd hazard 70-80~% at a guess though. I'm not proposing it BTW, just pointing out that it would make it "more equal, assuming linear effort." It's all conjecture from my part.

I would love to see raw data on how many pull ups were completed by each female, and average as well as pull up % by male (X % fail, Y% 3, etc).

I completely agree. I don't think it is equal for a one soldier to be expected to perform at a high standard than the next when they are in the same MOS.

CPT (Join to see) those are two separate things though. Being able to perform in your MOS is one standard. Being Physically Fit is another standard.

"We" keep trying to link the two, but they aren't directly related. You can be 130lb and physically fit, but horrible at carrying a pack and an machine gun, just because of the weight. Just like someone who is not physically fit can do better at the same task because of "engine to mass ratio."

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS That is fine still to me. At least they have the same base line of 3 pull ups.

CPT (Join to see) And I believe that is why they chose that number. They want to make the minimums the same. However I mention below to TSgt Joshua Copeland that "effort" becomes non-linear when you have 3-8 v 3-20. I think the proposed change is a good one. It just needs to be dialed in. We want the test to be as close to gender neutral as possible, but we need to account for physiology. I think the USMC is doing a good job at it, and these delays are an attempt to make the test right, the first time.

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS I think the Marines are steps in front of everyone else in relation to this. It seems they like are trying and finding out what he results are.

CPT (Join to see) This is my assessment as well. Between the TBS/MCT, IOC/SOI, and this initiative I like the progress.

If you get a chance, take a look at the recent 29 Palms TTP studies they have done using females in line positions. It's not complete yet, but some of the initial findings and comments are definitely worth reading.

One thing of note is that the USMC is only 7% female compared to the services as a whole (15%~), so we are able to test this better on a small scale in many ways. Unfortunately, because of our size, statistical relevance gets trickier.

Sergeant I would disagree. But I would do so with a critical caveat. We absolutely can and should measure everyone on a single playing field. One test, same generated cold hard numbers by which everyone is enumerated based upon a fixed gender neutral performance scale on whatever test is given… a number that is without opinion, emotion; no right sizing or correcting, simply a number. Consider the Olympics; do we adjust the run times of women to make them equivalent to the men’s scores, of course not. The numbers are published as is without bias or emotion. The challenge comes out of that critical caveat. We then need to decide if the test is a valid measure of the outcome that we seek. We then need to ask honest questions about genetic differences and permit intellectual honesty about what career direction the genetic or individual composition of that person and their gender point them towards. Not everyone can become an athlete like Michael Jordan. It is a ridiculous to ignore even the critical genetic performances differences within a gender so why do we do it between genders? Some of us are fast, some smart, some short, some tall and these traits point us in a direction. It is not discriminating to recognize that taller height constitutes and advantage for a basketball player. It is not prejudice that recognizes the benefit of strength, tolerance for pain and endurance has for a cage fighter. We need to establish what characteristics are required for each military position and without bias publish those characteristics and if that means that in general few women fit the criteria then so be it. And this applies the other direction as well. The opposite may also become true for men in some MOS’s. Women have been found to have more neural connections that their male counterparts. The science of neurobiology is new but scientists agree that this assists women in collating information from various parts of their brain and may account for their universally higher / better grades while University Students. They may also convey a yet undiscovered benefit. Allow everyone to compete openly for any position but have tested and established intellectually honest criteria for acceptance and admission to a position. Let’s not suffer from the death of reason in a pursuit of tolerance. Determine what criteria is the minimum MOS requirement and what traits (like the ability to fight hand to hand) that might enhance that MOS as well. Certainly strength is a Combat Multiplier in the right setting. The people in charge (military leaders) need to lock themselves in a room, free from the lobbyists’, read veterans past accounts of combat, analyze data and write the criteria in an intellectually honest manner. A fair system is not one which grants everyone the same thing but what permits equal access through achievement. Fairness is the opportunity to fail as well as achieve a goal. One of the expressed purposes of the military is to project defensive and offensive strength around the world. Let us not be known as the generation that lied to ourselves and abandoned standards in order to create a false equality. If we do so we may become the last free American Generation for our enemies will not sacrifice military strength or intentionally reduce their effectiveness in combat. We need to consider our national defense and the civil rights of those who may meet that criteria but be denied access in order to create more room for those who are not meeting that standard. I have served with many women who deserve to be in the military, make their nation proud AND can meet the criteria for their positions and rank. I would stand shoulder to shoulder with them here in the states and downrange but they are meeting the standard. Do not tarnish their achievements. Let’s not compromise on standards, set honest realistic standards and let the chips fall where they may.

LTC (Join to see) I hear your disagreement and understand it, but using your first example of the Olympics. Women & Men do NOT compete against each other on several key events. Women & Men don't compete in basketball. Heck, they don't compete in "most" physical sports at all, because of basic physiology.

As I have said in other threads, and likely this one, it is not possible to make a 1 test fits all for "physical fitness." Any test we design will either be too easy for one, or too difficult for the other, because of the differences in physiology.

That doesn't mean we can't develop Objective measures like "Must complete 12 mile ruck in X time" to be a member of Y MOS, but... "normalization" of a Health Test is a requirement.

Most people can't separate the difference between a "Combat Prowess" test and a "Physical Fitness" test. They measure two different things.

The (A)PFT is a Health Diagnostic test, which somehow expanded, and "perceptually" became used to measure Combat Prowess, even though it is a piss-poor measure of that. Since the test only measures the ability to move one's own mass, it has limited impact on the realities of moving weight. A mantra I am forced to repeat is that one can be Physically FIT, but not very STRONG. One can be very Strong, but NOT physically Fit. The two concepts are not directly correlated, no matter how much we wish they were.

The article (main post) specifically highlights the delay in modifying the USMC PFT. I've outlined some of the issues regarding it. It's not about equalization. It's about a change to the existing fitness test, and whether it is actually viable.

Agreed. Even though men and women do not compete in the same "name your olympic event" everyone is keenly aware that the swim time for the 100 meter butterfly, half mile run, etc. is the time for covering the same distance. The numbers speak for themselves. No one gives the women extra minutes or claims that they are the fastest in the world at a given event if they do not have the fastest time. I agree that we don't have a good physical fitness test for combat. I also agree that the physical requirements for various jobs should be vetted out. However should female soldiers get more credit for doing less reps or running a slower time? I feel we don't need to cook the books and give women who do less pushups or pullups or etc need to have a buffered or weighted average scores. Simply hold to one standard or give them the score they earn and say that women do not need the same score as a man if that is going to be the standard. Don't award a female soldier a 370 on her PT test with the commensurate points towards promotion which giving a male candidate a 280 (less points) for performing more aka doing more reps at a faster pace. Women cannot be treated equally if are not equal standards. If a men or women require different physical standards them that seems to clearly indicate that there may be inherent physical differences that may also justify different MOSs or positions within the military. I am against pegging MOSs or jobs to gender as it constitutes a civil rights violation. However I am all for establishing a criteria and letting everyone equally compete. I imagine there are many weak men who would love to see the requirements for admission to the military and acceptance into combat units lowered. How are the rights of these men who may be genetically and physically inclined to be weaker any less important than those of a physically weaker woman? What about the rights of physically stronger women... are we undermining their achievements by lowering the standard?
We need and are required to find a solvent sensible policy which violates no ones civil rights while being honest about our differences, still keeping our eye on the ball which is national security.

LTC (Join to see) The issue is that we've tied "Health" to "Promotion" in the first place, not that we're "cooking the books." Normalizing the scores is reasonable. Making "health" a promotable criteria is not (let alone one with a variable scale).

Gunny, you are right. I really truely admire the Marines. I think they are doing this much better than the Army. I know the Marines still aren't perfect but I still think they are a few steps ahead of the Army on this.

I think you could do it. In all honesty if you had two years and were on active duty I have no doubt you would be killing it.

I was on Active Duty. I used to go out to the PT field and work on them. I usually just hung there, on the bars, red-faced and kicking my feet. Nowadays, I'd probably break my arm.