Posted on Jun 10, 2015
Why are the Marines delaying equality in fitness standards?
12.5K
61
37
2
2
0
I am not sure how many of us are taking this. There are more equality issues going on besides the US Army's Ranger School. So far the Marines have been striving to lead the other Armed Forces in this. We know how their Infantry Officer School program went. But I am not just focusing infantry. Not everyone is infantry.
Currently have service members in gender neutral MOS's. The Marines have tried to implement a Marine Corps wide fitness even that would be for males and females. All Marines would have to do 3 pull ups. The found "At the time, officials said that 55 percent of women had been unable to complete the minimum standard of three pullups to pass the PFT."
With was to start in 2013 but has been delayed twice now. According to a new message released by Marine Corps Headquarters, women will continue to be able to choose between pullups and the flexed-arm hang until the end of 2015. With the two year delay of this do you think it is reasonable? Was a year of preparing for this not long enough?
Now lets look at the implications of this. If you fail your Fitness test you would be facing some pretty adverse actions. If it is anything like the Army you could be facing anything from failing to promote, bar from reenlistment, all the way up to a early discharge.
Shouldn't an equal standard be applied? Do you think an anticipation of failure is delaying this? Is this political driven or equality driving this?
Should they keep to their guns and start this standard this year?
http://www.quanticosentryonline.com/news/article_80152628-0e6e-11e4-8fc3-001a4bcf6878.html
Currently have service members in gender neutral MOS's. The Marines have tried to implement a Marine Corps wide fitness even that would be for males and females. All Marines would have to do 3 pull ups. The found "At the time, officials said that 55 percent of women had been unable to complete the minimum standard of three pullups to pass the PFT."
With was to start in 2013 but has been delayed twice now. According to a new message released by Marine Corps Headquarters, women will continue to be able to choose between pullups and the flexed-arm hang until the end of 2015. With the two year delay of this do you think it is reasonable? Was a year of preparing for this not long enough?
Now lets look at the implications of this. If you fail your Fitness test you would be facing some pretty adverse actions. If it is anything like the Army you could be facing anything from failing to promote, bar from reenlistment, all the way up to a early discharge.
Shouldn't an equal standard be applied? Do you think an anticipation of failure is delaying this? Is this political driven or equality driving this?
Should they keep to their guns and start this standard this year?
http://www.quanticosentryonline.com/news/article_80152628-0e6e-11e4-8fc3-001a4bcf6878.html
US Marine Corps (USMC)
Standards
Equality
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 11
5
5
0
The answer is pretty simple and using the Occam's razor theory it is that they will not like the results so the implementation is delayed. Pull ups measure your upper body strength relative to your weight (you are moving you). You can either pull yourself up three times or you cannot. Given a year or more to prepare you are without excuse if you cannot do so.
If 55% failed it would embarrass those pushing for women can do whatever a man can story. Today, if a man cannot do three, he is on remedial PT and in a world of hurt because he just failed his PFT.
There is no such thing as a perfect metric. Looking for it is a fools errand. Three pull ups is minimal. Should we reduce it to 1 to allow more to pass? We would have to reduce men to 1 too, not going to happen.
The story talks about needing time to learn. What is there to learn. You grab the bar and pull up. Not hard to learn.
The other reality is a man that can only do three pull ups likely will not survive in an infantry unit. That is not enough upper body strength relative to your size/weight, period. It might be a passing score but it is not an indicator of success in the infantry.
If 55% failed it would embarrass those pushing for women can do whatever a man can story. Today, if a man cannot do three, he is on remedial PT and in a world of hurt because he just failed his PFT.
There is no such thing as a perfect metric. Looking for it is a fools errand. Three pull ups is minimal. Should we reduce it to 1 to allow more to pass? We would have to reduce men to 1 too, not going to happen.
The story talks about needing time to learn. What is there to learn. You grab the bar and pull up. Not hard to learn.
The other reality is a man that can only do three pull ups likely will not survive in an infantry unit. That is not enough upper body strength relative to your size/weight, period. It might be a passing score but it is not an indicator of success in the infantry.
(5)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
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.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
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.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
TSgt Joshua Copeland
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS, apparently, there is an issue with woman being able to accomplish the required 3 pull ups.
(3)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
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)
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)
(1)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
How many would be able to complete the proposed 2 you are saying Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS ?
(1)
(0)
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 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).
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
I am not sure the reason behind the delay but if we are speaking about equal opportunity, should that involve taking a universal PT instead of have a different standard for males or females or should we move toward MOS specific PT standards.
(4)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
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.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
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."
"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."
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google