Posted on Dec 6, 2015
With the equality of soldiers for each gender why does the Army expect less from Females Soldiers in PT?
159K
400
129
61
61
0
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?"
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?"
Fitness
Equality
APFT
Women in the Military
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 42
46
46
0
Female standards for all! To include hair standards, I would love to be able to grow a luxurious mane..
(46)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Now that you mention it, SSG Hasbun, I've always thought I'd look great growing out my Rambo hairdo from high school.
(4)
(0)
LCpl (Join to see)
When I get out of the Marine Corps next month I'll grow the most luxurious lion mane with a matching beard for you
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I wish we could wear earrings like the Navy and Air Force. Men can carry fushia handbags - AR 670-1 doesn't state men cannot... :D
(0)
(0)
43
43
0
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.
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.
(43)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
Let me be the naysayer here. If we look at professional level sports as a guide, there are dramatic differences in performance between men and women athletes. If you take a look at events that where the least difference in physiology occurs, endurance events like the Boston Marathon, even with todays superior training techniques, women do not finish in the top 15. When strength events are included, most top professional women athletes aren't competing at Men's College levels. Looking at weight lifting records in similar weight ranges, the 85 KG men's Clean & Jerk record is 220 KG, the record for 90 KG women's is 197 KG. So a 12 percent different between professional athletes giving a 22 LB weight advantage to the females. So we need to accept that there are physical difference in performance and make rational decisions based on the AVERAGE performance of Female Military Personnel and not the fact that a female Olympic Athlete can Clean and Snatch 433 LB. Do men flunk out of the physical schools? Certainly. But does anyone really believe that the dropout rate would be the same for men and women if there were equal number starting a Ranger class? Of course it wouldn't and it should not be considered sexist to understand that fact.
Back in the 80's the military experimented with a job based PT requirement, designed to allow women into more MOS's. It didn't work as planned and was quickly scraped.
The question should be can female personnel match the AVERAGE physical fitness level of those units they are trying to open up and not the minimum standard. Then the second questions should be will enough meet the standard that it makes the effort to change worthwhile.
The purpose of a Combat unit is to win wars, not to be politically correct.
Back in the 80's the military experimented with a job based PT requirement, designed to allow women into more MOS's. It didn't work as planned and was quickly scraped.
The question should be can female personnel match the AVERAGE physical fitness level of those units they are trying to open up and not the minimum standard. Then the second questions should be will enough meet the standard that it makes the effort to change worthwhile.
The purpose of a Combat unit is to win wars, not to be politically correct.
(2)
(0)
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
Yeah I'm sorry but I highly doubt that let's be real if they had the same standards on a APFT and got rid of privilege that the EO and sharp program gives them to pretty much strike fear into any male who goes against them they would be dropping like flies out of the ARMY shit look around during pt I will bet my paycheck that if they are in a unit that actually does PT she has a no running profile and working on a permanent one
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SPC (Join to see) - Equal Opportunity and Sexual Harassment and Rape Prevention equals privilege? Son, I truly hope you reconsider that position, or you will not get far.
I understand what you are trying to say, however in my 25 years of experience, I have seen many a Soldier perform outstanding deeds. It is a matter of will and conditioning.
Hiding behind a profile only happens when weak leaders allow that to become an accepted practice.
I suggest that you refrain from comments like that, especially on the internet, and reconsider how you can be the example to motivate your peers and subordinates to achieve.
I understand what you are trying to say, however in my 25 years of experience, I have seen many a Soldier perform outstanding deeds. It is a matter of will and conditioning.
Hiding behind a profile only happens when weak leaders allow that to become an accepted practice.
I suggest that you refrain from comments like that, especially on the internet, and reconsider how you can be the example to motivate your peers and subordinates to achieve.
(0)
(0)
24
24
0
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
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
(24)
(0)
CPT Russell Pitre
I agree. We if you make it easier for someone it is going to make them not try as hard. I know they are trying to compensate for something but when you do the same job that requires strength, which is pretty much every combat arms job, we can't have wildly different stands. That is what we have right now. It is like going to college class and saying that group 1 only needs to get a 60% to pass but group 2 needs a 80% to pass. What do they think is going to happen. They are going to view another as equals. It isn't even as women can't do it. We have three female Rangers that have shown us that they can.
(3)
(0)
MAJ Will Rodriguez
What would be the second order effects of a group that consistently scores 60%? E.G. Promotion, Respect, Cross loading unit equipment
The normed standards allow for the perception we are equal.
The normed standards allow for the perception we are equal.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google