Posted on Dec 31, 2023
Army must "increase" fitness standards, but can use gender-specific scores
1.01K
17
13
3
3
0
Fitness
Training
Posted 5 mo ago
Responses: 5
3
3
0
NO, NO, NO...... IF the Army is all about opening all MOS to both genders then there needs to be ONE standard, the highest of the two, and everyone should meet it.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
Once again, the equity, er, excuse me, equality pushers found out the hard way that there are physical differences between the semester. But they just can't admit defeat.
SMA Dailey is to blame for this crap. He just had to have cross-fit added in. A waste of money, time, and resources.
SMA Dailey is to blame for this crap. He just had to have cross-fit added in. A waste of money, time, and resources.
(2)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
Sir, this is the second time around for non-gender specific MOS tiered PT test, they tried it back in the Early 90's, just never got out of the test units that time. I'll dig and see if I still have any specifics, but my recollection was it was strength oriented like this last one, don't remember it requiring a lot of equipment.
The same things killed it the last time. The failure rate for female soldiers was pretty high, but the big thing was that MOS tiered PT Test would have kept females out of a lot of the MOS they wanted to open to women.
The same things killed it the last time. The failure rate for female soldiers was pretty high, but the big thing was that MOS tiered PT Test would have kept females out of a lot of the MOS they wanted to open to women.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I have long advocated for a gender AND age neutral PT test with standards determined by 5 digit MOS. Quite simply, the physical expectations for a 11B1O, a 11B50, a 88M1O and a 92G3O are all different. Yes, there should be a basic minimum across the board. But I am far more worried about the max lift for an artilleryman or tanker who has to move heavy rounds than an infantryman. But I am more worried about SUSTAINED weight carry for an I factory than the others. And for cooks, I ain't worried about none of it, aside from basic fitness. Same for intel analysts. Or CSMs, regardless of branch.
Anyone holding a specific job should have the same fitness standard, regardless of age or sex. Either you can do the job or you can't.
Anyone holding a specific job should have the same fitness standard, regardless of age or sex. Either you can do the job or you can't.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.
When I was commander of HHC, 2-34th AR, my cooks (including the E-6s and E-7s) would drop out of our morning runs and sneak in the back of the DFAC and hide out. I told my XO to lead the next run and the 1st Sgt. and I stayed well back and followed the cooks into the DFAC.
Once inside, I informed them I wanted them in my office immediately after lunch. They had recently given us the Summarized Art. 15 as a means to punish without creating a permanent black mark on a soldier's record.
That afternoon I informed the four E-6s and one E-7 that I was giving them Summarized Art. 15s and they would need to move into the barracks for two weeks beginning Sunday and they would be pulling extra duty throughout the period. I also advised them they had the right to appeal the punishment to the battalion CO. Only one did, the E-7. He came back that afternoon with his tail between his legs. . . .
Once inside, I informed them I wanted them in my office immediately after lunch. They had recently given us the Summarized Art. 15 as a means to punish without creating a permanent black mark on a soldier's record.
That afternoon I informed the four E-6s and one E-7 that I was giving them Summarized Art. 15s and they would need to move into the barracks for two weeks beginning Sunday and they would be pulling extra duty throughout the period. I also advised them they had the right to appeal the punishment to the battalion CO. Only one did, the E-7. He came back that afternoon with his tail between his legs. . . .
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google