Do you agree with gender norming the standards of military physical fitness tests?

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 16 May 2015 12:24:58 -0400

Regardless of your stance on this issue, please elaborate. I am personally very conflicted on this topic. On the one hand, I am a female PL with only male Soldiers. Nevertheless, I fully expect to set the example for physical fitness by being the best PT stud in my platoon. If I was satisfied with merely meeting the female APFT standards, I would be completely unable to do so. Furthermore, the mission is not gender normed, so why should physical fitness tests be gender normed? That said, basic physiological facts reveal that an equally fit male and female will have different capabilities. Does it make sense to lose talented female Soldiers in combat service and combat service support branches because they can not meet male physical fitness standards? In my QM BOLC class, one of the most squared away leaders I have ever seen was a female West Pointer who ran 16 minutes on her 2 mile run. Does her inability to run an exceptional 2 mile time by male standards detract from her unparalled intellectual acumen and exceptional leadership ability? I definitely do not think so. I appreciate the viewpoints and proposed solutions of the RP community. Thanks very much!

Response by SGT Joe Sabedra made May 16 at 2015 12:32 PM

SGT Joe Sabedra — Sat, 16 May 2015 12:32:23 -0400

I think that there should be one standard for all soldiers.

Since this will take time to incorporate I think that any one in a combat arms school or unit needs to be held to one standard of physical readiness.

The only difference I see that should stay the same are hair and uniform and hair is dependent on if it's a combat arms unit/school.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 16 at 2015 12:52 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 16 May 2015 12:52:15 -0400

I believe studies have shown that males are better designed for push ups then females so there should be a difference in expectations but they have shown females are better designed for sit-ups but yet there is no difference which I disagree with and the run I
They show that both are fairly equally designed with males having a slight edge so why not find the median and make this standard the same?

Response by PO1 Jason Taylor made May 16 at 2015 12:52 PM

PO1 Jason Taylor — Sat, 16 May 2015 12:52:47 -0400

The service is all about standards and conformity, so yes I think there needs to be one standard not many!

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made May 16 at 2015 12:59 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Sat, 16 May 2015 12:59:09 -0400

You are asking a double edged question. On one hand, if we are going to open up combat MOSs to females, they need to be able to perform at the same levels as the males. Female APFT standards are not going to cut it in the infantry. On the other hand, there are real physiological differences between males and females. Males simply carry more muscle mass and have more cardiovascular reserve that allows males to have more strength and endurance and perform at a much higher physical level than females. That is a product of testosterone which males simply have more of. So in the end we have to balance what is fair to ask of females against what it takes to successfully complete the mission...and sometimes the answer to that question is not politically correct. IMHO, if we are going to open combat MOSs to females, females in those positions need to be held to male standards.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 16 at 2015 1:02 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 16 May 2015 13:02:39 -0400

No. Let me clarify. I think PT Standards should be a set standard across the board. I do not think how they are currently calculated is best way to calculate them.

When it comes to Combatant Roles, the standard needs to be the same across the board here. IF you want to be a Grunt, be a Grunt, but get ready to Grunt things. Your Ruck should be packed according to how it always has been. You should be held accountable to the same standard as those before you. There is a purpose behind standards and why we should maintain them.

Response by SGT Dylan Epp made May 16 at 2015 1:06 PM

SGT Dylan Epp — Sat, 16 May 2015 13:06:40 -0400

With the moves that our military is taking to become fully gender integrated it only makes sense to have a uniform PT standard across the board. If this does happen there should be a standard test with the individual having to reach a certain score to say be infantry, field artillery, Ranger and Special Forces etc... For example your QM from West Point while she may be an outstanding leader with a 16 min two mile has no place in combat arms as physical prowess is an absolute necessary.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 16 at 2015 1:10 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 16 May 2015 13:10:21 -0400

This is a good topic. It brings up many good points. What I am about to say may be somewhat inflammatory to some. But it is what it is. We are not all the same in a sense of our physical duties. A Cannon Crew have to be able to move 155 mm rounds. The APFT does a horrible job accessing ones ability to go that. In other units such as the 10th MTN were mountaineering is taught the APFT fails to correlate any strength requirements. Some jobs are more physical. That doesn't mean we should lower the regular standard for everyone but some CMFs should have another means to gauge this.

If you say we have "One Standard" you are fooling yourself. We don't. We have 10 different standards depending on age and sex. So don't try to say there is one standard. Now with what CPT Private RallyPoint Member is saying I totaling. How could you be a leader when she is held to a completely different standard. They are all doing the same job. Women can do it. They did it for Ranger. We shouldn't think of them as the weaker sex. We are doing a disservice to them.

In addition, I would get rid of the push ups and get pull ups. They are the great equalizer and you can't cheat on them as easily as you can on push ups.

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made May 16 at 2015 1:09 PM

SGT Jeremiah B. — Sat, 16 May 2015 13:09:19 -0400

Gender norming would require one of two things

1. Lowering the male standards - Extremely problematic in the combat arms MOS's because we relied on significant strength and endurance to be effective.

2. Raising the female standard - Also extremely problematic because it then shuts out a large number of great soldiers who are top of their game physically but not able to match male physicality.

The way I always saw it was - The score is what matters. If you're pushing yourself to excel in the reasonable standards created and perform the duties you've been assigned, there is absolutely no reason you should be able to be able to keep up with that 6' PT monster. Quality leadership simply doesn't require it.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made May 16 at 2015 1:23 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sat, 16 May 2015 13:23:28 -0400

It's a PHYSICAL FITNESS test. You cannot have a singular test. You can have a singular SCORE, but not a test.

The reason is a matter of simple physiology and effort. If a male and female are equally fit and running at the same speed the female is expending more effort. Inversely, if they are expending the same effort, they are not running the same speed. The same applies to upper body strength.

That's for a Physical Fitness test. This doesn't mean a seperate test like the USMC Combat Fitness Test which meauses a different standard. Rather than using a comparative score (normalized), it uses simple objective tasks. The Army Chief of Staff alluded to MOS specific tests, and they would be ideal for this.

Response by SGT Richard H. made May 16 at 2015 1:28 PM

SGT Richard H. — Sat, 16 May 2015 13:28:51 -0400

CPT Private RallyPoint Member I think that "gender norming" for PT standards probably had it's place at one time, and maybe still does, but I think that maybe in today's environment of women in ever expanding combat roles it has less of a place than in the past...or maybe needs to be changed to "MOS Norming".

A point to support that: Male or female, a legal clerk may not necessarily need to be in the same shape as an Infantry soldier, but male or female, if women are at some point going to become a part of the Infantry, in that case they would.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made May 16 at 2015 1:46 PM

SrA Edward Vong — Sat, 16 May 2015 13:46:21 -0400

It really depends on the career field. For example, if we need more "office folk", then bringing down the standards just for those who will never work a physical job might be a good idea. However for combat roles, that might just bring about some danger to the unit.

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made May 16 at 2015 1:58 PM

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA — Sat, 16 May 2015 13:58:40 -0400

PT standards should relate to the job that one is expected to perform in combat. This means that the standards -- if they are not the same all across the board -- should be on a rank/MOS scale, rather than a gender/age scale.

Remember that the issue is capability, not fitness.

Response by COL Charles Williams made May 16 at 2015 1:59 PM

COL Charles Williams — Sat, 16 May 2015 13:59:41 -0400

CPT Private RallyPoint Member The Army has male and female standards, so I was told at OCS in 1985, based on phisoligical differences between men and women, which I get. I was in the Army, since 1980 in a branch that has women; minus several years as an Armor/Cav guy after OCS. Nevertheless, those are the current standards. We Army Officers model and enforce them. These are my thoughts, not the Army's.

1. I believe the Army (DOD) should have baseline PT standards for the military, to qualify, and be retained. I believe each speciality should have gender neutral PT standards for the job; police, fire, infantry, armor, field artillery, etc. require certain abilities and fitness levels for the job. Think about the job, not the gender. We have lowered standards more than once.

2. That said, a side of me also thinks, if you want to be a Soldier, and we are all supposed to be Soldiers first, there should be only one standard. If, a Soldier is a Soldier.

3. Since many of my colleagues and friends are women, who work in still a man's world, I know they all have feelings on this. Most all seem to believe, believed, that to be a credible female leader in the Army you had to be able to excel on male standards; yes, the male standards. Most men, because we are in large part Neanderthals, don't think maxing at 42 push-ups when that is just passing for a male if impressive. Same holds true for the run, a female can max at 1536 and a male barely passes at 1554.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 16 at 2015 2:17 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 16 May 2015 14:17:17 -0400

Personally I don't think the Army is ready for equal standards because the truth will be far from palatable. I would like to see ONE standard in a PT test for males and females especially because I am in a CMF where they are trying to force women into but no one will address the elephant in the room. Everyone is afraid to just come out and say that men and women are different even though we have different standards/codes for males and females in everything from PT to uniforms.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made May 16 at 2015 2:42 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 16 May 2015 14:42:53 -0400

First, as a male Soldier and Senior NCO, please get away from the false paradigm that you have to be the best PT stud in your platoon to set the example. For years now, the officer corps as well as many NCOs have mistaken setting the example for being the best. Although if you are the best that is great, but there is more to setting the example than score. Think about being on time of physical training, giving 100% even when weather conditions are not the best, staying motivated even through the most grueling physical fitness events, helping the Soldiers who are not as physically fit as you are, going back and getting that falling comrade on the APFT run or motivated your Soldiers to give one more push up or sit up, and lastly, just being a part of the team. It does you no good to stud up while you have a Soldier who fails or does not perform well. Now onto the queston. I think that keeping the APFT standards separated by gender based on the physiological differences between the two sexes. It has been proven that the average man has the "potential" to possess more upper body mucles which gives them the ability to lift more weight. Average males also have larger lung capacity than women, which gives them the potential to run farther and faster. Likewise women are naturally built to have more core muscle and possibly have an advantage with sit up. So for the APFT, I think the standards should be gender separate and based on physical fitness from average to elite and score likewise. It is not a contest between the two genders. Now when it comes to things like Ranger School, Special Forces, Airborne Training, tank crew member, mortar team member, I think the Gender Norming would be a total mistake. For instance, if the standard is to carry a fallen comrade of 180 pounds 50 meters, that is the standard that should be met by both sexes. Or the ability to carry a Mortar base plate, artillery round, etc. When I came in the Army, the requirement was to lift a 60 pound radio, regardless of Gender. So APFT score should be separate from functional ability. Gender Norming in the APFT should not be an issue, however, in funtional ability, there should be one standard, which is the standard to get the task completed. To other points you brought up. The military, specifically the Army has made mistake after mistake of not balancing physical ability with technical and tactical ability. I have seen many leaders praise the PT stud only to find out he or she was worthless outside the PT field. Do your best and continue to excel at physical fitness, but don't let any leader fool you that as a female, you are expected to outstud any Soldier, male or female. I have watched many young female as well as male officers get caught up in that mentality and end up injuring themselves and cutting their careers short. Give your best and motivate your Soldiers to do their best. hopefully this was not too much of a bable.

Response by SFC Stephen King made May 16 at 2015 2:46 PM

SFC Stephen King — Sat, 16 May 2015 14:46:52 -0400

This move will require balance. To expect all to perform a one standard is great in theory. I see this occurring but where is the balance will the standard be set as achievable to all if not do you take the existing. Physical assessments need to be just that.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 16 at 2015 3:12 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 16 May 2015 15:12:10 -0400

I personally believe that female soldiers are capable of meeting the male standards. I think that the female standards should be gradually raised. The soldiers who are motivated to train should be able to keep up and those who lack motivation will be exposed.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 16 at 2015 3:14 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 16 May 2015 15:14:05 -0400

LT-
Do I believe that the PT standards should be the same across the board? No for the simple fact, as you stated, the physiological make up of male and females are different. While some females are able to perform at the same level or even exceed some males it is rare.

I do believe that if females are joining the Army to be combat arms or special operations they should be held to the same standard. In these CMFs Soldiers lives depend on each other much more so than combat support jobs. In my opinion political correctness should not outweigh the safety of Soldiers lives and that's exactly what is happening when we set two different standards for combat arms Soldiers.

Response by MSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made May 16 at 2015 3:18 PM

MSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 16 May 2015 15:18:23 -0400

This is only my opinion: if we were to gender norm then we should age norm as well. The solution I have consider was this. To PASS the minimum standard make it one standard across the board. Now this may require the women's minimum to raise and the men's to lower, HOWEVER, to show exceptional accomplishment adjust the maximums to accommodate age and sex. When it comes to passing the standard, box checked! But for those seeking to excel and for promotion and NCOER/OER points then a scaled system based on age and sex could be instituted. I'll be honest. 13-17 push-ups for females to pass is a ridiculous standard I also don't think 16 minutes for an 18 year old female to pass the run isn't out of the question as I know several that can run sub-15 two miles. I know a 60 year old male soldier who can run it in 14 or less. I'm 45 and run it in low 13s. How does he do it? Training! Honestly, I don't see the point. The standards we have aren't being enforced anyway so why create a new standard?

Response by CPT David Lehnerd made May 16 at 2015 3:51 PM

CPT David Lehnerd — Sat, 16 May 2015 15:51:20 -0400

LT you are correct standards are there for a reason and we don't need a political decision to compromise our standards.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made May 16 at 2015 4:27 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Sat, 16 May 2015 16:27:10 -0400

Combat does not have two standards. Build standards based on combat, then enforce them across the entire force uniformly. Combat focus, uniformity, discipline, equality. One team, one fight.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made May 16 at 2015 4:48 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 16 May 2015 16:48:01 -0400

I'm not even going to touch this one. It opens up the slippery slope, and the next thing you know, my commander will be dinging my 48 year old (as of Tuesday the 19th of this month) self on my next OER for not performing as well on the APFT as the 25 year old PFC......

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made May 16 at 2015 5:11 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 16 May 2015 17:11:06 -0400

I strongly believe that certain MOSs (or rates, as they're called in the Navy) should have identical standards. I'm particularly referring to high-tempo combat operator ones (rangers, SEALs, recon, etc...) that DEMAND high level of physical fitness and where many lives are put on the line.

All other 'mainstream' MOSs that aren't so physically demanding (think admin, intel, non-combat medic, etc...) I think can do fine without unisex standards. LTC Paul Labrador implied well in females not having same muscle build as males, and I think we've performed exceptionally as overall DoD thus far in meeting essential, physically demanding goals. Great question, LT

Response by SPC David Hannaman made May 16 at 2015 6:47 PM

SPC David Hannaman — Sat, 16 May 2015 18:47:34 -0400

I'm against it. IMO the standard should be a bit more logical.

We had some "monsters" bench pressing 300+ lbs that were put out for height / weight in the post Desert Storm RIF.

Some MOS don't need strength, they need more intelligence.

I'm not saying don't have a standard, everyone should be in shape, but certain situations require mort than others.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made May 16 at 2015 7:28 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 16 May 2015 19:28:22 -0400

I believe our very American obsession with "testing" is part of the problem. Certainly we must have standards and goals. We must also have unit cohesion. We've gone too far over the years with the "Army of One" to the point of having an Army of None--too much emphasis on the individual and individual testing, like the two mile "every person for him or herself run"... I'm for a basic set and advanced set of standards that everyone must meet REGARDLESS of age or sex. Meet the advanced standards and you get extra pay. Note that true cardio fitness isn't adequately measured by running an unrealistic two miles while you still smoke cigars (which many of my peers easily did). As a martial arts instructor for the Army once upon a time, we had many small, thin people who could run circles around everyone and toss people twice their weight on the ground but couldn't do pull-ups. Which is more effective, pull-ups or disarming an enemy soldier? We need more small unit, squad cohesion--events that measure how well a group of soldiers get their jobs done under stressful conditions--basic tasks for all soldiers that prove interoperability within a unit; advanced tasks that measure leadership, skill, and problem solving. The resulting peer pressure to not let the squad down does wonders for motivation and morale.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made May 16 at 2015 7:33 PM

COL Jon Thompson — Sat, 16 May 2015 19:33:10 -0400

On one hand, the Army wants equal opportunity for females in all MOS's. On the other hand, with lower PT standards for females, they admit there are physiological differences. It seems they want to have it both ways. As long as there are different standards, there will always be questions about the performance of women in the Army. If they open up all combat arms to women but have different standards, then it is clear to me that PC is running its course and the decision was not made based on what would make the Infantry more lethal but because it opens up career opportunities to females. IMHO, there should be one PT standard across the board and everyone should be meet that or be separated from service.

Response by CPO Joseph Grant made May 16 at 2015 7:37 PM

CPO Joseph Grant — Sat, 16 May 2015 19:37:13 -0400

It's pretty simple really. Especially for combat assignments there should be no lowering of standards. You are setting up personnel to be killed or wounded if you decide that it's more important to ensure both sexes have the opportunity to serve in Bombay billets. This is the military. Not everyone gets to have a turn playing every game. That's grade school and scouting. The standards exist for a reason.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made May 16 at 2015 9:41 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 16 May 2015 21:41:06 -0400

We already do this to a certain extent. Throughout the SF qualification course all male candidates are graded on the 21 year old scale no matter what their age. If this logical is applicable across age, which has its physiological variables, then it should be applicable across gender as well for physically demanding MOSs.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 16 at 2015 10:14 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 16 May 2015 22:14:08 -0400

Once upon a time, females were limited to clerical and medical duties, the legacy of the old Women's Army Corps (WACs). Back then, the only MOSs open to women didn't require them to perform physically, so a lowered standard was acceptable. This has been revised over the years, but the basic premise of performance has endured.

I think that if we are really going to open up every job in the Army to women, there needs to be a functional test of sorts that would have no difference between the sexes.
Infantry would have to ruck/ buddy carry/ orienteer.
Artillery would have a loading drill of some sort.
And so on.

I am all for someone who is qualified going out to Ranger School, SF, etc. But if you can't hack it, that is the deal.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 16 at 2015 10:16 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 16 May 2015 22:16:46 -0400

Yes and no. Yes because I know I can not compete with males in PT standards, and by no means do I want to leave the army. But at the same time, if a female wants to be in bad enough I feel like she would do her hardest to met the standard. If we made the standard the same for new soldiers I am sure our females would be awesome and dedicated. But I feel like if we did it for all soldiers we would loose some great leadership and potential leaders. So I'm 50/50 on it

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 17 at 2015 9:06 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 May 2015 09:06:12 -0400

Having served along female Soldiers for the past few years, I've noticed a trend on where they stand on PT: those that fall out of formation group runs and those that crush most guys in fitness tests. All else being equal, it is the latter category who are more respected by their peers and more entrusted by seniors to take a leadership role. Given that the SMA has placed heavy emphasis on PT, I'll wager to say that this trend will continue.

I'm not saying that PT is more important than leadership ability or technical skill, but it is a vital foot in the door to allow you to begin building that crucial reputation. If your new CO showed up at your unit out of shape and dismal at PT, would you as the PL mentally question his/her work ethic?

Response by SN Greg Wright made May 17 at 2015 9:38 AM

SN Greg Wright — Sun, 17 May 2015 09:38:47 -0400

Absolutely against gender norming for ground combat positions (or any combat position where physical strength and endurance may come into play in a significant manner). As un-PC as it is to say, it is a simple FACT that female bones are less dense, their muscles mass less, and most have smaller cardio capacity. Now, before you send the villagers to get their pitchforks, yes, THERE CERTAINLY ARE EXCEPTIONS -- plenty of females out there able to put plenty of males to shame when it comes to physical exertion. They are the exceptions, however.

One need look no further than the Army's recent test of allowing 19 females, for the first time ever, to join the most recent Ranger class. 1 dropped before starting, leaving 18 on the first day. By the end of the first week, only 8 were left, and, three weeks later, all had dropped out. Another example? The female marine officers who attempted the Advanced Officer Infantry course -- again, zero successful completions.

All of the women in these test programs were exceptional -- the services picked those they thought had the best chances. These weren't random picks from the ranks. And yet they still were unable to complete these tough courses. Gender norming would perhaps allow them to...and then suddenly, you have a female ranger in a combat situation who is unable to perform to the levels that her male counterparts are. That's a danger to herself, her battle buddies, and the mission.

Having said that, when the rare woman comes along who IS capable of completing these tough courses to the same standards...bring 'em on. I'll be their loudest supporter.

How bad-assed would a female SEAL be?

Response by SSG Eric Thompson made May 17 at 2015 1:05 PM

SSG Eric Thompson — Sun, 17 May 2015 13:05:55 -0400

Men and Women are in fact physically DIFFERENT!! Just look at the Olympics. These men and women from around the world demonstrate the epitome of human performance. Men always out run, out swim, out jump out throw, etc etc women. That's because we are made differently and for different purposes. Why do we insist on trying to compare men and women on the same playing field? It cannot be done. There are many, many things women will always do better than men. But as far as physical performance... we're comparing apples and oranges!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 17 at 2015 3:47 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 May 2015 15:47:55 -0400

As a female prior NCO I think the female standard in some areas should be raised. I was a PT stud that 95% of the time scored 290 & above. I worked out at home as well at the gym to be able to be fit & raise my PT score. I was competitive.

Now equaling it is pretty unfair (in my opinion). As I worked out I couldn't run faster then a 15:32. I tried, came close tho a few times. Push ups were ridiculous for the female standard. 19 & you pass, really….

To me personally I think there should be a PT test for your mos. As an 15R (Apache Mechanic) I would never run 2 miles. For my MOS would be more for carrying tools in gear for example. Now I'm not saying take the run out cause we all need to maintain cardio, but they need to implement something fair & equal since the male/female body isn't like raising the female standard.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 17 at 2015 4:52 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 May 2015 16:52:00 -0400

This is why back in the day there was the "WAC" Women's Army Corps.
The West Pointer who did two miles in 16 minutes I will infer is about 22-23 years old. I did 16:04 @ 53 years old and Airborne School @ 42 on the 17 year old standard. We need one standard that is enforced. The enemy is not into Affirmative Action. When the enemy engages he is not going to count "Mississippis' based on MOS or gender.

Response by SGT Steve Oakes made May 18 at 2015 12:16 PM

SGT Steve Oakes — Mon, 18 May 2015 12:16:43 -0400

IMHO. It would be more fair and lead to a more combat ready and effective force. If all branches made the physical requirements match the MOS not the gender and/or age of the service member. If an Army 11B needs to be able to carry 80 lbs. ten miles per day( just throwing random numbers as examples). Then ALL 11Bs need to be able to meet that standard. Obviously the higher ranks will not necessarily need to meet the same standard due to a change in what their day to day duties entail. An E-7 will probably not be hauling M-2 and ammo for same around the battlefield. But a female E-3 would, a 45 year old male E-6 might. If there is a reasonable expectation that the individual will have to perform the most physically demanding aspects of the job. They need to meet the standards required to do so.

Response by SGT David T. made May 18 at 2015 12:47 PM

SGT David T. — Mon, 18 May 2015 12:47:45 -0400

I have sort of a different take on it. I think that the physical standards should be based on the specific job and not the gender. Obviously, an Infantry Soldier needs to be in better shape than an Admin Clerk. This would also imply a need to have the testing changed based on what that Soldier is expected to do. For example, a grunt would be required to run and ruck march. An admin clerk may need to lift a box of files or a computer weighing x amount. However, the height and weight standards should not be done in this way due to the "military appearance".

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made May 18 at 2015 5:16 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 18 May 2015 17:16:58 -0400

This is probably my biggest pet peeve. We are constantly bombarded with everyone is equal, everyone can do the same job and just need a chance to prove it. I am fine with all that; however if the military was serious about complete equality then the FIRST thing they would do is have a single PT standard regardless of age or gender. Once we establish a single standard then we can talk about woman in the Infantry or anything else we want to. Right now APFT failures is one of the largest problems the military faces and yet we seem to be ok with just passing a PT test with 60 point minimums.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 19 at 2015 5:44 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 19 May 2015 05:44:48 -0400

As a male, Senior NCO, and member of the Field Artillery Branch, I have to agree that if women want to be in the Combat Arms they have to meet male standards. I don't care how much die-hard females want to believe it, but they just aren't physically built like men. Just look at the great Ranger School experiment. 19 started, 8 remain, all 8 are getting recycled through Darby Phase. These were 19 of the absolute best females the Army could muster, given extra time to train and prepare unlike most of the men, and they are struggling. While mediocre males can get through it just by digging up a little heart. But being a great leader isn't about having the highest PT score. There are other ways you can earn your Soldiers utmost respect, and that is to show them you genuinely care for them, to be with them when the suck, sucks the most. Don't waste their time, train them, and train with them, listen to your Platoon Sergeant and become a true command team. Respect your Soldiers and learn their stories. Practice empathy, but maintain that fine line between being their leader and being their buddy. Make fair, common sense decisions, and don't dismiss what they have to say. You may still go in a different direction, but at least you hear them out, and that goes a long way. Yeah PT is important, but that will not be what they remember about your leadership.

Response by SSG Brian MacBain made May 20 at 2015 6:51 PM

SSG Brian MacBain — Wed, 20 May 2015 18:51:48 -0400

I been retired since 2006 so I do not know if any requirements had change. But when I was in, the males had to do more push ups and had shorter times on the run. The sit ups were almost the same. Now I know I am going to get a lot of bad feed back here when I say this. Females has more muscle mass in the stomach area whereas the males has more muscle mass in the upper body. I would think the females would have to do more in the sit up event then the males. I have seen females out do the males in PT test under the male standards when I was active.

Response by SPC John Lee made May 21 at 2015 12:09 AM

SPC John Lee — Thu, 21 May 2015 00:09:36 -0400

The enemy won't care what sex you are, if you are not fit for combat, you're dead.

Response by SR Lawrence Brew made May 24 at 2015 10:12 PM

SR Lawrence Brew — Sun, 24 May 2015 22:12:05 -0400

This is a common sense issue. We have a place for all qualified soldiers. The standard can vary. Of course the qualification standard has to be a little more complex depending on Rate and job description, but you wouldn't send a tank to sea nor put a ship on land. Both are very powerful weapons in their proper environment.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2015 10:02 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 10:02:01 -0400

There are some aspects of gender norming that make sense, but I do not htink standards should be as different as they are. Furthermore I think the AF Fit 2 Fight Test is, by far, the best example of a piss poor way to manage and score a fitness test.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 26 at 2015 12:41 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:41:52 -0400

Absolutely not unless the woman is applying for a strenuous job that requires greater physical ability.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 2 at 2015 1:25 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 13:25:22 -0400

You sound like a great Platoon Leader with great common sense. You sound like the type of leader I would want to follow. I have counseled all of my Junior Officers and NCOs to set the standard (don't talk about it) in every area of soldiering. I am not saying that they need to be #1 in every area but regardless of sex, age, MOS I expect them to meet a certain standard (above the Army minimum) that sets an example to their soldiers. I have especially encouraged this among my female leaders because many get stained with the perception that they are only in those positions because of quotas. It is a silent manner in which they can prove that they meet the criteria just like any soldier and earned the right to be there.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 2 at 2015 2:03 PM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 14:03:44 -0400

Does being a PT stud make you a better leader, no. Is it important to be in good physical shape, yes. If you have Soldiers and leaders who are smart, have common sense, can lead and are physically fit, then you have found the ultimate Soldier. In my case, I was a PT stud well before I developed into a great leader and technical expert. For me, now that I am 16 years older, my ability to lead and manage logistics are far more important than running a sub 13 two mile run. Don't get me wrong, I still conduct PT to the best of my natural and physical ability because it is a large part of being a well rounded leader and because of the obvious health and long-term benefits. I do know some Officers and NCO's who struggle at PT and barely pass APFT's for one reason or another but they are some of the most intelligent people that I know and their management and planning skills are top notch. Its unfortunate that we discount the contributions from many leaders because of their lack physical ability.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jul 2 at 2015 2:05 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 14:05:02 -0400

How will they determine the scores?

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Jul 2 at 2015 4:06 PM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 16:06:14 -0400

I kind of don't like typing this because it implies I see women not as good as men and that couldn't be further from the truth, but I don't generally speaking think that the average military female is going to be as fast or as strong as the average military male and to expect them to match that standards for basic training or FMF PT would be unrealistic and unfair. I think that for specialty schools and specops they should meet the same standards of physical ability but thats for different reasons.

Now all that being said, to assume women in PT will consistently be the last ones across the finish line is absurd, and simply not true.

Response by SSG Dylan Tyahla made Aug 5 at 2015 3:27 PM

SSG Dylan Tyahla — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:27:00 -0400

I understand men and women are different. I have seen women score that would meet the male standard. Just as I have seen men that couldn't pass and would have meet the female standard. I though the point of the PT test was to judge the performance of the individual to ensure they are fit to preform their job. So logic would dictate that there is a cut off point shared by both genders because they are preforming the same job. I standardized test means to set a standard not two. By saying this I am not picking on any gender. This could be resolved by finding middle ground between the the two tests. Equal Opportunity should be followed; if there are two standards there is no equality. There are currently women going though ranger school it makes me wonder if standards were split. I know I never do it but a standard should not be biased towards gender if so it fails to be a standard.

Response by SSgt Terry P. made Sep 2 at 2015 5:04 PM

SSgt Terry P. — Wed, 02 Sep 2015 17:04:15 -0400

CPT Private RallyPoint Member Your post has drawn some very interesting feedback to which i can add nothing.Your concern with this matter and asking for the viewpoints of others shows great leadership qualities,keep pushing the envelope.

Response by SFC Alfredo Garcia made Apr 17 at 2016 3:19 PM

SFC Alfredo Garcia — Sun, 17 Apr 2016 15:19:10 -0400

Retired for a number years now and reflect how the military continues to change. It blows my mind to imagine what it will be like 10 years from now. I always have been a proponent of a single standard. At the very least a 'hybrid' that fully and fairly assesses our different body makeups. I believe there is a definitive difference between 'passing' and 'maxing'. My personal idea is based on the minimum standard on PASSING that is EQUAL across the board this should be regardless of gender and maybe even age. The PASSING qualifier should be based on a singular standard that includes the required fitness the successfully perform any basic mission. I don't know what that is but a study should be done (if not already) to determine what that is. No Soldier should have to compensate for the inability on a basic level for another. However, as you well note, we are physiologically different; therefore, MAXING is different animal. This should be based on gender, age, et cetera. Promotion point should be based on a non-linear scale with the heaviest those that actually earn that level of fitness. I remember it somewhat linear upon retirement.

Two stories: On 12 mile road march, full battle rattle, and halfway through I twist my ankle in spite of my well supported boots. I was offered 'A pass' due to no fault of my own as I was limping along much slower than before. If this were a mission there are no time outs or 'passes'. I also needed to set the example. A young petite female Soldier came up with ALL the same gear. After a bit of back and forth and slight blushing on my part (humility), I compromised. She took my ruck to assist me and finished the march with me at her side. This showed teamwork, selflessness on her part and she was obviously fit for any basic mission. Her attitude would be a Soldier that would not accept merely passing.

Two: I am a short person and a Soldier. On a APFT a Soldier complained that it was not fair that I could do push ups so fast and easily. I would always max it in less than a minute. He said it was due to me having shorter arms that it was so easy to go from breaking-the-plane to lock-out. I asked him why it took him over 15 minutes to complete the two mile run? I asked him why I can do the same run consistently at less than 12 minutes (back then). I have much shorter legs; hence, potentially many more steps/strides. His theory should make the run so much easier for him, right? We can complain what we have or don't have but the maximum effective range of an excuse? Zero meters.

In short, ONE passing standard for ALL Soldiers based on mission completion effectiveness potential and have it progress by gender and age on a nonlinear scale to award those in peak physical shape.

I don't know if it helps but applaud your open-mindedness on the subject.

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Apr 29 at 2016 12:14 PM

Capt Tom Brown — Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:14:02 -0400

CPT Private RallyPoint Member Just out of curiosity sake what unit were/are you in at the time in May 2015? Must have been quite a challenge in many ways. Being a super athlete does not always make a super leader and I always felt that past or current PT events did not reflect the tasks or abilities necessary to function in a combat zone. Never once did we ever have to run 3 miles in full gear, climb a 25' rope, do sit-ups or push ups. The PT events and standards should reflect the real world of combat and should be the same for everyone. The trick is coming up with something like that.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 20 at 2016 2:31 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:31:50 -0400

Short answer, No. If there is to be any Norming, it should be a little less noticeable. If a male SM is required to run XX miles in XX.XX minutes, females' time limit should not be multiplied by 2 or anywhere near that. I used to watch young ladies walk the 1.5 mile run while I had to haul ass (as a 40 year old). Compatibility should be something the Genius's need to be looking for.

Response by Capt Judith Galloway made Nov 13 at 2016 4:36 PM

Capt Judith Galloway — Sun, 13 Nov 2016 16:36:27 -0500

Gender norming will result in more casualties and less readiness.

Response by Capt Judith Galloway made Nov 13 at 2016 4:37 PM

Capt Judith Galloway — Sun, 13 Nov 2016 16:37:05 -0500

Gender norming will result in more male and female casualties in combat and less readiness.

Response by SSgt Paul Esquibel made Nov 16 at 2016 12:26 AM

SSgt Paul Esquibel — Wed, 16 Nov 2016 00:26:56 -0500

From an Air Force point of view, I would say yes in regards to the running & abdominal standard and no to the upper body. I have many fellow Female Airman that can run their 1.5 faster then I could, they would average between 10-12min. So the AF like to apply the outlook of one is all however not when it comes to the physical testing. Men posses more upper body strength then women so naturally the standards should be different but core/ability to run should play no part, the excuse of "I'm not a runner" matters nothing, basic for all branches proved what you thought you could do and did as your body adapted. As far as specialized career fields, the standard needs to be high and exceptional based off the mission requirements, again if a person is willing they will adapt their body to the standard. Leadership is not merly based on PT or going to a specific school etc, it's based off of experience and in my opinion that comes best by being prior enlisted.

Response by Capt Judith Galloway made Nov 18 at 2016 1:30 PM

Capt Judith Galloway — Fri, 18 Nov 2016 13:30:11 -0500

The issue isn't just about what one West Point graduate can do on the PFT, or whether or not they are acknowledged as superior leaders. The real issue about gender norming is whether or not integrated combat specialties can function as effectively as non-integrated ones. Good order and discipline is undermined by jealousy and rivalry. Women's mere presence, regardless of their qualifications, is disruptive to good order and discipline. Readiness is the issue not equal opportunity.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 12 at 2018 4:59 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:59:15 -0500

Yes. Equality demands it.
Either you officials say the party line “we are all equal and everyone can do any job”. Or you state we are not equal and we will limit certain people based on certain characteristics. You can’t say men and women are equal and then have a different standard.

Response by CW3 Jeff Held made Feb 13 at 2018 1:14 AM

CW3 Jeff Held — Tue, 13 Feb 2018 01:14:48 -0500

There was nothing wrong with the previous standards.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 19 at 2018 11:58 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Apr 2018 23:58:22 -0400

Although this is a very old question I believe the Army has begun to address this question. Personally for the several reasons mentioned above I disagree with gender not in for the physiological differences. That said with the introduction of the Occupational Physical Assessment Test, the Army has normalized every career. Male or file in order to maintain qualification for the specific career recruits must meet or exceed the minimum rating for that career.
This new test creates a gender normalized requirement for the job, while recognizing the physiological difference in the APFT.

Response by 1SG Harold Piet made Jun 24 at 2018 6:29 PM

1SG Harold Piet — Sun, 24 Jun 2018 18:29:21 -0400

As soldiers, we should have one standard. When soldiers have to face the enemy, it takes just as much fight to win, weather you are male or female. It is also the one standard no matter what age or rank. If you have to Move out, females will have to move as fast as males, and 35 year olds will have to move as fast as 18 year olds. I know as we get older we tend to slow down but we should have one minimum standard for everyone. This is not a race, age or gender thing, this is a combat ready thing.

Response by MAJ Raymond Haynes made Sep 26 at 2018 11:01 PM

MAJ Raymond Haynes — Wed, 26 Sep 2018 23:01:46 -0400

Cpt Elifson, you are mistaken if you think you must meet male APFT standards to gain the respect of your men. What is next, a competition to see who can pee the farthest while standing up? You gain the respect of your men by leading by example and always from the front. If you score in the top 1% on the female APFT would it not be unreasonable to ask your troops to score in the top 1% on the male APFT. Quit defining your command style by male or female and define your command style by setting the example under all conditions. Don't worry about your troops respect, set the bar high by your own actions and the respect will follow.

Response by SPC Mike Davis made Sep 27 at 2018 8:42 AM

SPC Mike Davis — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 08:42:26 -0400

The male troops can run 2 miles in 12 minutes at which time they meet up with the enemy. The troops are leaderless for 4 minutes waiting for their female leader. The enemy (being the good sportsmen they are) also wait for the female leader to catch up. The female leader applies her unparalleled intellectual acumen and exceptional leadership ability (after she catches her breath and dignity.) Organizes the troops and destroys the enemy. History books are filled with pages of such victorious battles. Of course they are. When using this recorded history and such logic as demonstrated above. How could any honest thinking person deny women leadership roles in combat?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2019 9:41 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Jan 2019 09:41:19 -0500

As a medical support officer who spent most of my career in combat arms and special operations I have strong opinions about this topic. As gender specific Olympic records attest, there are massive unarguable differences in the genders when it comes to physical abilities. For jobs that require that the soldiers are the strongest and harder fighting the standards should be the only qualifying factor. If that creates a unit comprised solely of 6 foot tall Asian males so be it. What matters is that the most qualified are selected. The military is not a Silvia’s experiment nor a social club. Nothing should matter but achieving the requirements both mental and physical. We as a military need to determine the correct qualifications but once a high measure of assurances are met that we are on target for those qualities we should strictly adhere to those standards and not pander to political correctness. The enemy doesn’t not care that they are facing a “rainbow that reflects the cornucopia of diversity that is America”. The only thing that matters is our ability to project an offensive and defensive posture around the world. I am a true classical liberal. No one should be denied opportunities based on gender, race, sexual preference, religion etc but no one should benefit from those attributes either. The moment we deny a qualified male or female soldier an opportunity based on their genitalia, skin color etc we have lost and surrendered our American Values.
Establish proper MOS specific qualifications and never yield on them. Give every military member the same chance to succeed or fail and let the chips fall where they may.