With the equality of soldiers for each gender why does the Army expect less from Females Soldiers in PT?

2015-12-06T01:13:47-05:00

Now that we finally got gender equality in the Army; when we will really have equality?

I am glad the Army went co-ed. I have seen men that were too weak to be infantry and I have seen women that would have smoked their bags if they had a shot. What really bothers me is why does the Army expect less out of women for strength. I think that is EO complaint I would file against the Army itself.

We know women can perform better than men in come cases. We seen it at Ranger School. So now that we know they can do why not make them have the same standard. Our new Female Rangers went well beyond and were graded on the male 18-21 y.o. bracket and did a timed 5 mile run. One of the female Ranger Grads was 37 years old. If she could do it it shows me we basically giving a pass for little effort to the others. If you are a 37 year old female the Army expects you to do only 13 push ups. MAJ Jaster did more than three times that. She also bested a lot of males that couldn't even do that.

Is it me or is it time to make a single standard for fitness. I don't see anyone asking for this. I don't think it is fair to the female Soldiers in the Army. They are going to go to a unit and everyone is going to think less of them due to their reduced PT standard to the males. If you make them the same you can't say they will slow you do. What happened to this "One Standard?"

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 6 at 2015 1:16 AM

2015-12-06T01:16:54-05:00

...or expect more from males.... boom.... mind=blown!

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 6 at 2015 1:47 AM

2015-12-06T01:47:54-05:00

I understand where you are coming from sir. In some CMFs such as 11 series I would imagine the Army will come up with a similar, if not the same, standard. In a job like that you almost have to because Soldiers lives depend on their physical ability.

However, during OIF II I was in an MP company and female Soldiers were pulling their own weight and then some. MK19, 50 CAL, mounted or dismounted they were still able to take care of business and had the current PT standards.

It's a mater of physiology, females can not and will not be able to keep up with males. It's not sexist or EO it's our genetic make up. Granted there are always a few exceptions, but it's not because they try harder or put forth more effort, it's because they are genetically built more masculine than other females. Not saying the look more manly but maybe they have the lung capacity of a male as an example.

Bottom line when it comes to the safety of our Soldiers politics has no business being involved nor does political correctness. I say let them in but standards will need to be raised in certain MOSs for them for their safety as well as their brothers.

Finally I think medical and hygiene will play a much bigger part and become a larger issue down the road. Then you will hear EO being cried when it's that time and a female must go in from the field to shower while the males sit and smell like ass and just hit the 5 hot spots with baby wipes.

Response by CSM Stuart C. O'Black made Dec 6 at 2015 2:05 AM

2015-12-06T02:05:20-05:00

Really its to hard to just give a simple answer online. However, I think there should be a single standard but with the understanding that there are still basic physiological difference which will make a difference in terms of generality not the exception to the rule. In the letter the Chief recently put out he sums it up pretty well "best qualified regardless of gender" and puts it in a neutral perspective.

However, until Gender socialization changes in four major agents: family, education, peer groups, and mass media. There will perceptions and biases based on those areas. We can always talk about the athletic differences between men and women which are factual and have much to do with innate characteristics determined by genetics and hormones. But that should be understood and not a bias its just a physiological fact and not a stopping point. We need to focus on what is really needed to do a particular type of JOB/MOS and the Abilities needed not gender. Nor the type of APFT given!

Interesting study
Study: This was an Israeli study
To evaluate gender differences in physical fitness before and after a 4-month gender-integrated basic training (BT) course and to determine whether this program effectively narrowed the differences between male and female soldiers in physical fitness parameters.
METHODS:
One hundred and thirty-seven soldiers (109 females and 28 males) successfully completed a 4-month BT course in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). The subject's physical fitness was evaluated pre- and post-BT by three laboratory tests [the maximal aerobic capacity (VO2max), the Leonardo Ground Reaction Force Plate, and the Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT)] and by the IDF physical fitness test (IDF-PT).
RESULTS:
Females significantly improved their scores in the IDF-PT and laboratory aerobic tests, whereas males significantly improved only in the IDF-PT. After BT, gender differences narrowed by approximately 4% in all tests except upper body strength. Although fitness improvement after BT was marginally higher in females than males, resulting in a slight narrowing of the gender differences, a significant gender gap in physical fitness still exists after BT.
CONCLUSIONS:
There was only a small overlap in physical abilities at the beginning of BT, which indicated vast differences in physical fitness between the genders. As expected, integrated combat BT improved physical fitness. Although females demonstrated marginally higher improvement in aerobic capacity, basic physiological gender differences were still evident at the end of the training regimen.

Does this mean they can't do it? We need the same APFT. Not really, it just recognizes the facts there are differences. History/time are the only true test to see if this worked out. Also, I do see MOS specific physical requirements coming and truthfully there are already MOS specific requirements if you look in the books. Minimum lifting standards, physical abilities etc... Its what the medical boards use to determine if you can stay in your MOS with a profile.
CSMOB

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 6 at 2015 2:19 AM

2015-12-06T02:19:21-05:00

I think if we challenged our female Soldiers to meet the male standards, they would rise to the occasion.
Whenever I have laid out a challenge, my Soldiers have always met or exceeded the standards. It is when we expect less that they underperform.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 6 at 2015 2:44 AM

2015-12-06T02:44:36-05:00

Every Ranger student must pass the 17-21 year old age bracket regardless of gender or age. It's only 49 push ups, 56 sit ups, don't remember the run but it isn't hard either.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Dec 6 at 2015 10:36 AM

2015-12-06T10:36:42-05:00

Because the Physical Fitness Test is a measure of HEALTH, not COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS.

The Physical Fitness Test is just a poor "comparative measure" and people just don't get that.

Women, "as a class" do not run as fast as men, "as a class." On average, they run about 1 minute a mile slower. It's not that we expect less, it's that they are not as capable because of physiological differences. The SCORE is "normalized" to counteract those differences. The same can said for the other portions of the test.

Simply put, 2 soldiers (male & female) of equal FITNESS, running at the SAME SPEED, are not putting out the same ENERGY/EFFORT. The male is not working as hard as the female. This is a scientific fact. Since this is a HEALTH test (Physical FITNESS), you have to measure it for what it is, not what you think it should be.

The problem is that many people have gotten it into their thick skulls that the PFT is some measure of Leadership, Combat Prowess, etc. NO. STOP THAT. NO, BAD. It may "help" those things, but it is not a "direct" connections. More is absolutely better, and less is worse, however a 130lb person (regardless of gender) with a perfect PFT score only has so much raw "strength," because they only have so much muscle/body to draw on.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Dec 6 at 2015 11:57 AM

2015-12-06T11:57:49-05:00

I've been bothered by this question, across the branches, since the '90's and "Women in the Navy WILL NOT FAIL..."

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Dec 6 at 2015 12:54 PM

2015-12-06T12:54:53-05:00

Their bodies are different.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 6 at 2015 1:05 PM

2015-12-06T13:05:53-05:00

The real reason that the APFT scoring standards are gender normed is that Army culture uses PT scores to determine the moral worth of a Soldier. Females obviously do differ physiologically from males, so an equal amount of drive, dedication, and intestinal fortitude will result in different PT scores for females.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Dec 6 at 2015 2:41 PM

2015-12-06T14:41:10-05:00

Female standards for all! To include hair standards, I would love to be able to grow a luxurious mane..

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 6 at 2015 3:26 PM

2015-12-06T15:26:27-05:00

They should get away from the gender based and make it based on what your job is.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2016 2:41 PM

2016-04-17T14:41:07-04:00

Why are there still regulations for men and women. Period. Different hair standards, nail standards, or standards. If people want it to be gender neutral then actually do it and stop beating around the fucking bush. The only thing that needs to be written specifically for women should be for them being pregnant. Outside of that there should be no rules or regulations that differentiate men and women.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2016 7:20 PM

2016-04-17T19:20:49-04:00

I can speak from the Marine perspective. The PFT is one of the major factors for promotion and retention. If females had to uphold the same male standars then the Marine Corps would loose a majority of females. They wouldn't be competitive for promotion or for reenlistment. The Marine Corps can't have that black eye. Having to tell the media that woman aren't getting promoted or retained. I'm basing this on the Marine Corps study on intagration, Where the top 25% of femails preformed to the level of the lowest 25% of females. It's all political, equality without equality.

Response by MAJ Rick Breneman made Apr 18 at 2016 5:08 AM

2016-04-18T05:08:33-04:00

Had a female Training Officer at FT Leonard Wood. Drills hated her until she smoked them on a company PT run one morning. She never failed to max the female PT test. But she ALWAYS graded herself against the male standards. She consistently scored over 290 on the MEN'S standard. She was always a top female Army finisher in the Marine Corps marathon.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 18 at 2016 10:34 PM

2016-04-18T22:34:40-04:00

We've talked about this a bit at my shop and think the idea of separate standards for genders is wrong. There are physical differences which make a single PT standard difficult as well. Which is where we think having job specific PT tests is the answer.

I'm a computer guy and I work behind a desk mainly. How fast I run on the PT test doesn't really matter for my job because I can't run and use a keyboard at the same time. However we do have some heavy (several hundred pounds) equipment which needs to be lifted and moved. A better test for my MOS would involve lifting and moving equipment instead of just pushups, situps, and a run.

If you want to have a single test then it needs to be the warrior based fitness test. One standard, regardless of age/gender to show you are capable of doing jobs in combat. Personally I'm a fan of the test being "can you drag a 250lb person out of a burning hmmwv" but as long as the test has some sort of relevance to combat duties it will be fine.

Response by SGT Kristin Wiley made Apr 19 at 2016 1:32 AM

2016-04-19T01:32:11-04:00

Personally, I think the female standard is too low. It's way to easy to pass the APFT. I often feel like the standard are this low so we can keep a higher number of women in the Army for 'equality'.

Response by SGT Benjamin Foster made Apr 19 at 2016 10:52 AM

2016-04-19T10:52:56-04:00

Right now it's all PR bullshit. So the politicians can pat themselves on the back. Women can perform as well as men if they are given the chance. Women have been passing Sapper school for years and that is one of the hardest schools in the Army/Marine Corps. I think the PT test should be based on the job people do and shouldn't count for promotion points. I've seen way to many soldiers get promoted because they are PT studs, but shit soldiers.

Response by SSG Jeremy Kohlwes made Apr 19 at 2016 4:44 PM

2016-04-19T16:44:08-04:00

Because the main focus is on "Equal Opportunity" (I'm sure that sends some people into a powerpoint PTSD rage). I haven't run into any women who will argue that men are biologically stronger than them, it's just a fact of life. They are more concerned with women having the opportunity to do anything a man is allowed to do. However, I would be supportive of requiring women in a combat MOS to meet the male requirements, because that is mission critical.

Response by SPC Jeremy Tucker made Apr 19 at 2016 5:34 PM

2016-04-19T17:34:04-04:00

I know men that can pass PT test with an work. And they are not strong at all. The PT proves nothing. So who cares

Response by SGT Elihennette Carreon made Apr 20 at 2016 10:52 AM

2016-04-20T10:52:53-04:00

just because some females can excel at the male standards doesn't mean that all females can, just like some man don't exceed at their own standards. take for example sports all over the world, we have 2 categories, males and females. is not about rising to the full potential and being just like men, is about my body and what my body is capable to do. what's going to happen then when some of the females cant pass the standards? then is this your way of downsizing females in the Army but saying that is because they cant keep with the standard? n I don't think that I was ever looked at different when I was in because I didn't do as many push ups as a man or ran as fast as a man, they way it sounds you want to shame us into believing that we are not enough still and should not want to be allowed the same opportunities as you do.

Response by SPC Kenneth Koerperich made Apr 21 at 2016 4:05 AM

2016-04-21T04:05:04-04:00

Why do people keep saying those 2 or 3 females are "Rangers"? They are RANGER QUALIFIED after being recycled twice(which males did not get in my day), they are NOT RANGERS! They are not in a Ranger Bat. Jeesh!

Now to the question. I do not understand the difference either. Females want equality, then they should do exactly the same as their male counter parts. Want to be Infantry, like in my unit, the standard was minimum 280 on the APFT or you were on Remedial. So, for those wanting Infantry, like the female cop here recently, who by the way, says Infantry will be like her job(LMFAO), she needs to meet the MALE standards.

Want to play w/ the big boys of Infantry, meet the same standards, not a lower one!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 21 at 2016 11:37 AM

2016-04-21T11:37:50-04:00

I just don't think the answer is as simple as standardizing the APFT. If the Army did that, while keeping the same events already used in the standard APFT, how would you go about doing it? Many recognize the physiological differences between age groups, but why dismiss the fact that there are physiological differences between males and females? Ones backed by hard science? That's first of all. Second, the APFT doesn't really measure the appropriate physical factors to determine combat effectiveness. So, the next logical step is to completely reinvent the APFT to measure things that would directly apply in combat situations (VO2 Max, energy output, etc.). That could certainly be gender standardized. But, what about all us "old soldiers" who have been in for awhile? Will time and resources be set aside for units to implement a specific training program designed to get all the older career soldiers used to and in shape for the new PT test? In the hypothetical world where this is happening, I bet the Army would see a high attrition rate. A lot of people within 5 years of retirement may be forced out. Considering the problematic nature of younger leadership within the ranks, is that something we really want?

I'm not trying to sound like a negative nancy, these are just some things to consider. If there is to be a standardized, Army-wide APFT, I think it needs to be totally revamped to measure factors most useful/prevalent in combat situations; a program developed to grandfather the older folks into the new program; and each CMF develop additional standards of their own, as needed. I suspect that was the goal of PRT, and yet...

Response by MSG Scott Bradley made Apr 21 at 2016 8:20 PM

2016-04-21T20:20:00-04:00

I think PT tests for most positions in the military are a representation of fitness - not strength. Men and woman with have different measures to evaluate fitness. The real question is: should combat arms have different fitness standards than service support?

I also think you will have very few enlisted girls choosing to join the infantry directly. This is a patch hunt for career minded female officers... And that is the problem, if a unit were 20% female integration would be easy. When a unit has one or two woman assigned, it is a distraction.

How many of us have witnessed a new young thing walk up on a group of working troops and work stops in its tracks!

Response by CPO Darrenn McComas made Apr 21 at 2016 9:14 PM

2016-04-21T21:14:21-04:00

Equality is a joke. More like equal pay for doing less. There are rare exceptions, but very few.
On another note, in my experience, doing even one more push-up than the minimum requirement is wasted energy. You are only rewarded if you score higher than anyone else in the command. Anything else= pass or fail. Every one of my 21 years worth of evals reads "pass/within standards".

Response by SGT John Efelis made Apr 21 at 2016 10:55 PM

2016-04-21T22:55:26-04:00

I agree 100% but my reasoning is different. My view is that women have fought for equality so if they want it, give it to them....all of it. The military is overflowing with double, triple and quadruple standards, the least that can be done is to rid all of the services of the double standard for PT and PF in general. Why does a 17-21 year old Female have 18+ mins to run 2 miles and a 17-21 year old Male has less than 16 mins? Males don't even surpass 18 mins until they are in their 30's!! I won't even bring up Push ups and Sit ups! Why any branch has allowed this travesty to exist and why no one has filed an EO complaint challenging this blatant discriminatory and sexist issue is bewildering to me. There really is no justification at all.

Response by GySgt Mike W made Apr 23 at 2016 5:55 PM

2016-04-23T17:55:39-04:00

Because women, in general, do not have the same physical abilities as men. That is why we still only have men in the NFL, we have women's and men's classes for elite athletes, and you have yet to see men and women in MMA fighting against each other. Only in government are the laws of nature pushed aside and ignored for the purposes of "Equality." War/combat does not know equality, it only knows who is stronger....Btw, how about making women, ALL women, register for the draft? I also want same hair standards....Out!!!!

Response by CSM Richard StCyr made Apr 25 at 2016 4:05 PM

2016-04-25T16:05:23-04:00

You wouldn't know it today but I was a master fitness trained Soldier way back in the day. This question comes up periodically and the answer has always been close to the same. "Physiology" Males and Females are simply built differently. The PT standards are based on the ability of a cross section of the population. The standards change periodically based on that cross section. When I joined the service I maxed the run portion of the APFT with a 1305 in the run, and fairly low number of push ups and sit ups (I think it was 62/ 62). When the numbers changed in the late 80s the run dropped to 1230 and the push ups and sit ups gained fairly significantly to max in my age group. The push ups and sit up numbers changed several times and each time it reflected a better representation of the population. Sit up standards for instance were an area where both male and females were graded equally towards the end of my service. The Infantry was the proponent for PT standards development. You should contact the DME (Directorate of Military Education) at Ft. Benning they used to put out some great training pamphlets on the subject.

Response by Cpl Ed Hines made Apr 24 at 2017 3:21 PM

2017-04-24T15:21:12-04:00

Except that the tests were watered down. We know it happens.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 24 at 2017 11:28 PM

2017-04-24T23:28:38-04:00

If the APFT is a measurement used to assess the promotability of a solider, then without a doubt men and women must be graded equally. Just because someone has and genetic advantage gives you the right to hold them to a higher standard. I am am gifted runner I suck at pushups and must work a lot harder to get to 70 pushups than other men but I can run a in the 10s for a 2 mile with relative ease. Should I be held to a higher standard because I have a different genetic advantage than private snuffy? Absolutely not that would be outrageous, same goes with age. Idc if you're 40 years old and it's more difficult for you. Bernard legat is out there in his late 30s and can run in the 13 minutes for 5k granted he is the 2nd fastest man ever in ghetto 1500m run but still his old and still out preforms people.
Now if the APFT was just a tool to measure fitness and not used for promotions then I'd say you can set different standards. But at the end of the day soldiers know who can run the fastest or push the most. They respect the people who are out their pushing their limits. No man or woman will earn the respect of others if they are held to a different standard.

Response by CSM Eric Biggs made Apr 25 at 2017 6:22 AM

2017-04-25T06:22:41-04:00

I don't see why we can't have one standard across the board. Male, female, no age brackets. Law Enforcement nation wide has been doing this for an extremely long time. The standard is the same for everyone and is a condition of employment.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 25 at 2017 7:09 AM

2017-04-25T07:09:18-04:00

There's no debating the scientific differences between males and females. But to argue females should get more recognition for being great at pt based on their gender seems like a violation of EO. Equality doesn't recognize gender differences. Otherwise it's not truely equal. What I'm seeing is females doing awesome at pt... proving they can achieve high standards which is awesome. so why not have a one standard pt test?

Response by SGT Scott Coughlin made Apr 25 at 2017 7:54 AM

2017-04-25T07:54:30-04:00

no shit...ive seen out of shape females max the pt test while a male needs to be in exceptional shspe to max it....when our min in an event is their max, its fucked up

Response by COL Charles Williams made Apr 25 at 2017 10:16 PM

2017-04-25T22:16:25-04:00

CPT Russell Pitre Physiology?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 26 at 2017 1:25 PM

2017-04-26T13:25:14-04:00

I'm an 11B OSUT DrillSGT and I can honestly say that from what I've seen the females would not be able to pass if they had the same male standard for PT. So far out of 30, 19 are left in one of the first female integrated classes. And more than likely 15 will graduate. I can only think of two who would meet the male standard on the APFT.

Response by ENS Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 26 at 2017 3:57 PM

2017-04-26T15:57:16-04:00

I don't understand why this is such an issue. Grow a pair and deal with it. Men and women are not built the same. Men have more muscle mass. That doesn't mean that we are better than women. If a woman can't perform to male standards that's fine. They aren't built the same way we are. Let them have proportional PT standards for their bodies. Don't make this into a big deal. They are no less of a member of the military than the males who have the higher standards. A male who scrapes minimum scores is no less of a member of the military as a male who maxes his scores. This is especially true in the Navy Reserves where PT scores don't affect promotions. Let the females have lower standards so we can keep them in the military.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2017 11:39 AM

2017-04-30T11:39:05-04:00

MOS braised PT tests. That simple. Medics have one standard of push-ups, sit-ups, run and litter carry. Infantry same thing with ammo cans and other mission essencial fitness tests. Keep the age bracket for scoring, but every soldier in that MOS passes the same standard within their age.

Response by SSG Kenny Church made Apr 30 at 2017 2:49 PM

2017-04-30T14:49:38-04:00

I don't foresee that happening as our bodies are simply different. The same applies to the age standards as well.
What I would liked to have seen when I was still serving was a pass/fail instead of a score. There is no reason to be judged on a score when the standards are different.
Who gets the special assignment? Who gets released early? Well, who's PT score is higher?
I don't mind a different gender or age standard, but I didn't like being treated different because someone older or a different gender whom I out performed received a higher score.

Response by SPC Charles Batchelor made Apr 30 at 2017 6:10 PM

2017-04-30T18:10:22-04:00

PT requirements should be by MOS and/ or schools, hit the numbers, congrats, you can be that, don't better luck next time.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made May 2 at 2017 1:20 PM

2017-05-02T13:20:44-04:00

I agree with many of your points. Women can, and do, meet stricter PT standards when held to them.
May I make a suggestion for proofreading and punctuation? I understand this is just a discussion, but it would read better if you proofread and groomed it before posting. Good luck!

Response by SSG Robert Perrotto made Jul 20 at 2017 6:17 PM

2017-07-20T18:17:08-04:00

do not change the standards for being infantry, 12 miles in 3 hours with a minimum 35lb ruck, 5 mile run in 40 minutes etc etc - the infantry is not for everyone, including males. do not care so much about the PFT, I care more that they can do the job. Can they hump a 240B with 400 rounds of ammo over rough terrain? can they do that as a 203 gunner? carrying a combat load of their M4 rounds and 203 rounds? Some of them can do this, and I would not be shamed to call them sisters, but most likely the majority of them will not. the infantry is built upon three very simple tennants - Shoot, Move, Communicate. all with a combat load. These standards must be met, regardless of gender.

Response by SGT Scott Coughlin made May 1 at 2020 5:57 AM

2020-05-01T05:57:23-04:00

This was always an issue for me...of the three events, only the situps were close...the pushups and two-mile run were ridiculously different....when the female Max in an event is the same score as the Male Minimum, its a bad process...i always scored 260s-280s...i never really came close to maxing the APFT...but magically, some of the sorriest female NCOs ive ever seen were coming back from Korea with E6 stripes because they Maxed the APFT...they went from 200 to 300...I sat at 780 -785 promotion points for almost 6 years and the points never dropped below 794...I was an All-Army athlete and i was AIRBORNE (which i did as an old man - 28yo), but maxing the APFT was not to be for me...i left after 12 years as an E5...i watched people all around me make E6 with promotion points in the 600s with 5-6 years TIS... i knew 1SGs with 12 years in...I watched a lot of good E5 NCOs in my MOS either leave the military or go to a shortage MOS in order to make that E6....its something that eats at me still after leaving the Army over 20 years ago...i really loved the Army and cried like a baby in the 1SGs office as i made the decision to leave...12 years is a long time invested only to find out that 15 years is the max years you can stay.

Response by SSG Jack Scott made Aug 26 at 2022 2:01 AM

2022-08-26T02:01:39-04:00

You want answer that question go to your local High School and observe the P.E. Classes. Not use Science and biology and look at the differences in the males from the females. Now ask yourself can that 5’2 female ruck 50lbs in a ruck sack that is almost half her body size. Stop with the Woke Science and biology and step into Reality! Do you want to win Wars and Battles or check the woke boxes?