Does integration of women in all MOSs mean that there is no more double standard for PT/BF%?

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Dec 2015 19:55:33 -0500

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Dec 4 at 2015 7:56 PM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Fri, 04 Dec 2015 19:56:32 -0500

You can bet your ass that it does not mean that.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Dec 4 at 2015 8:09 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 04 Dec 2015 20:09:39 -0500

I think the two gender based scales will stay, and non gender specific standards will be MOS based.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 4 at 2015 8:10 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Dec 2015 20:10:36 -0500

Agreeing with SGT Jerrold Pesz, It won't mean anything. I still think it should, but wishing won't change anything 1SG.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 5 at 2015 2:23 AM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Dec 2015 02:23:31 -0500

Hells yeah! I love my job!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 5 at 2015 10:40 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Dec 2015 10:40:42 -0500

What if it were viewed differently than the same standard on PT/BF but rather on the requirements of the position? If a woman scores a 300 under female standards and a 267 under male standards is that good enough?

Response by SGT Christina Barron made Dec 5 at 2015 11:33 AM

SGT Christina Barron — Sat, 05 Dec 2015 11:33:41 -0500

There should be no gender-based standards for MOS-specific skills. If a female wants to have an MOS which requires a lot of physical strength, she will have to demonstrate that she is equal to males in that particular feat of physical strength.

But, PT scores are an evaluation of overall physical fitness, not a measurement of a particular feat of physical strength. And it is a matter of the structural engineering, in general, that the female body is built differently than the male body. Female center of gravity is generally lower than the male center of gravity, making pushups more difficult for females. Try adding a weight 10 pound belt around your hips to lower your center of gravity to see how well you do pushups, the raise that weight belt up to around your chest and compare the difference. Same total weight up are pushing up, but different place on the body will certainly make a difference in your pushup ability.

Because female hips are generally wider than male hips, female femur bones tend to be more out of plumb than male femur bones, which makes females have less efficient strides, at any speed, than males. Not to mention that females, in general, are shorter than males, so have shorter legs, meaning that their stride is just plain smaller than male stride length. The difference in stride style and stride length means a female is simply going to be slower than a male of similar age and size.

These differences in structural engineering are the basis for the gender differences in the PT point scales. The few females who can score 300 on the male PT scale are actually in BETTER overall physical fitness than males in the same age group who also score 300. If the Army decides to use the same PT scale for males and females, then that will mean either a lot of unfit males, if they lower the scale, or a lot fewer females in the Army at all, if they raise the scale. Either way would be wrong, in my opinion.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2016 2:20 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 14:20:34 -0400

I don't think BF is really that relevant vs determining PT or any other physical fitness standard for performing jobs that are physically demanding. Then just enforce that all around. There are a lot of weak guys that wouldn't make the cut just like a lot of women may not make it either. I don't see why this hasn't already been in place. Seems kind of common sense. If it were we wouldn't be having these issues. Women would just need to meet the standard like anyone else.