Via NPR:

Starting Jan. 1, every woman in the Marines Corps was supposed to meet a new physical standard by performing three pullups. But that has been put off.

The Marine Corps announced it quietly. There was no news conference — just a notice on its social media sites and an item on its own TV show, The Corps Report.

Lance Cpl. Ally Beiswanger explained that the pullup test had been put off until sometime next year, to gather more data and "ensure all female Marines are given the best opportunity to succeed."

So far, female Marines are not succeeding. Fifty-five percent of female recruits tested at the end of boot camp were doing fewer than three pullups; only 1 percent of male recruits failed the test.

The three pullups is already the minimum required for all male Marines. Now the Marine Corps has postponed the plan, and that's raising questions about whether women have the physical strength to handle ground combat, which they'll be allowed to do beginning in 2016.

Marine officers would not talk to NPR on tape. They said they delayed the pullup requirement to avoid losing not only recruits but also current female Marines who can't pass the test.

The Marine Corps has been using it to test upper body strength for men for more than 40 years. And that upper body strength, they say, is necessary to serve in ground combat: to pull yourself out of a canal in Afghanistan, to climb over a mud wall, to carry an ammunition box.

Full story here.

I was going to comment about it till i realized i can barely pull 3 pullups :/

As a former Marine, let me tell you how shocked, SHOCKED I am at this.

Jesus. My not-in-great-shape ass can do two.

This is where gender politics breaks down: at inescapable facts regarding gender based differences.

Don't women generally make better pilots, due to their higher resistance to g-forces?

feeder wrote:

Don't women generally make better pilots, due to their higher resistance to g-forces?

Maverick and Ice Man certainly don't think so

But, we do know that generally speaking, women are better at situps and other abdominal muscle exercises. The military maintains that women have "smaller hearts" (physically) on a proportional level, which is why they cant run as fast... to which I call BS, because I have known plenty of female soldiers who routinely smoke their male counterparts on the run (this could also be due to them not being as tired, since they dont have as many pushups to do either ) it's just that many play off of, and get away with the type that women are slower runners, so they do enough to pass their standards (which are, again, garbage)

So while I cannot actually comment on their abilities to handle G-s, there are plenty of other facets where we can observe gender differences.

Did they take there breath away?


Iv always heard women have better pain tolerance. duno if its true or not.

Even I can do three, and I'm a wargamer.

But then again, women do have a lot less upper body strength than men. I remember reading an article which says that women only half half the body mass on men on the upper body, mostly due to the fact that they have smaller muscles.

 Desubot wrote:
Did they take there breath away?


Iv always heard women have better pain tolerance. duno if its true or not.

If, after intercourse, I was going to have to gak a cantaloupe, I'd shoot myself in the face instead.

Holy crap, 3 as a minimum?

It helps that I'm travel-sized, but 3 series of 15-20 is my daily regimen, and that barely maintains my really-not-that-great shape...

Is this pull-ups in nothing but fatigues? Or pull-ups with full kit/equivalent weight?

Gender equality doesn't require fair outcomes, it requires fair opportunities. It's possible for a test to output gender imbalanced outcomes without being sexist based on the facts of human biology.

If the requirements are a realistic requirement of what is expected of a combat Marine, the standards should not be changed. However I also don't see any reason not to alter basic training regimens to include more upper body strength training opportunities for women, either - it would serve the best interests of recruits and the Corps both.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Is this pull-ups in nothing but fatigues? Or pull-ups with full kit/equivalent weight?

That is a good question even i could do a good number of the first.. but the second... fuggedaboutit

I can do between 3 and 6 depending on whether I do it at the start of my workout or the end. I'm coming 17 and relatively healthy but not muscular.

Then again, if its in full combat gear I doubt I could manage 1.

feeder wrote:
Don't women generally make better pilots, due to their higher resistance to g-forces?

Male pilot's s pass out more it's true.

When they see a cloud in the shape of a pair of boobs (or even one boob) the blood flows from their brain to their crotch, which with the added g-force results in loss of consciousness and quite often tragedy.

But at least they get to die with a raging boner.



As for pullups I could manage about one I think.

But only if,


1, It was a matter of life or death.

2, I'd had a good bowel movement recently.

3, I had a pair of Sherpa's pushing me from below.

4, There was a slice of cake (chocolate) and Reece's peanut butter cup at the top.

Not surprised. Give them the time to improve. A year is fair.

For the longest time I struggled to do 1, let alone 3, and I was basically done after 1 "set", right now I'm doing sets of 10, probably doing 5 sets a night (up from basically 0 months ago)rock climbing helps... a LOT, but I think most of it is just getting your body used to it... I dated a girl who good do like 30-40 of them though, she wasn't particularly strong, she just weighed less than 100 lbs soaking wet.

I remember the time my class did a training day with the marines. We did some of the exercises they did, pull ups where hard, I could do none. Most of the girls could do 2-3, the only one that couldnt was built like a stich fiqure so couldnt. What happens if the marines, already in service, cant meet it?

 Desubot wrote:
Iv always heard women have better pain tolerance. duno if its true or not.

It is sort of true. When a woman is pregnant her pain tolerance is upped through hormones to prepare her for the childbirth, but when not pregnant it isn't higher.

 Ma55ter_fett wrote:

feeder wrote:
Don't women generally make better pilots, due to their higher resistance to g-forces?

Male pilot's s pass out more it's true.

When they see a cloud in the shape of a pair of boobs (or even one boob) the blood flows from their brain to their crotch, which with the added g-force results in loss of consciousness and quite often tragedy.

But at least they get to die with a raging boner.



As for pullups I could manage about one I think.

But only if,


1, It was a matter of life or death.

2, I'd had a good bowel movement recently.

3, I had a pair of Sherpa's pushing me from below.

4, There was a slice of cake (chocolate) and Reece's peanut butter cup at the top.

This was hilarious, but verging off topic. I am strangely reminded of Jack Black's impressive push up style, which you may google if you are curious.

I am not for compromising physical requirements of combat troopers- that's their job. I doubt any marine wants someone incapable of pulling them out of the line of fire if they're hit in the name of equal opportunity.

The only alternative I can see is replace the arbitrary pull up test with a series of combat activities that must be completed to a certain level in order to pass. Say, hauling ammo drums, pulling a wounded trooper back into a foxhole.

As a tiny (5'6" and 130 lbs) SCA fighter (wooden swords, heavy armor) I can tell you that I'd never be able to hit legally with a straight shot from the shoulder. But I can deliver a powerful blow using my hips and legs to generate the power I need. Perhaps female combatants can also skin the cat of combat operations in a different way. I say give them a combat style PT test, and see what they come up with.

Keep the minimum in place, if it is there for combat roles.

When it's life and death situations like combat, the woman should be able to meet any standard that the man has to.

If they can't, then their should be no reason they are on the front line. You'll only be putting others lives in danger all for the sake of political correctness, and that is wrong.

 djones520 wrote:
Keep the minimum in place, if it is there for combat roles.

When it's life and death situations like combat, the woman should be able to meet any standard that the man has to.

If they can't, then their should be no reason they are on the front line. You'll only be putting others lives in danger all for the sake of political correctness, and that is wrong.

Completely agree.

Ok, for some filler to the discussion.
3 pullups is the minimum; and it's nowhere near an acceptable score. 10 is borderline with 15 being good and 20 a perfect score. This is done in PT (shorts, running shoes, tshirt) gear, from a straight arm dead hang position and NO KIPPING. Women traditionally have done a flexed arm hang (holding your head above the pullup bar) for a period of time, 70 seconds being a perfect score, 15 the minimum. I'm not clear on the new standards; either women will have to do the three pullups (pass/fail) AND a flexed arm hang (for points) or just the pullups. If it's the pullups, women are going to face a lot of adversity promotion-wise until they can compete with the average Male Marine as your total PFT score holds a deal of weight on your promotion chances (don't want to get technical). Failing a PFT depends on your unit, but typically you'll at least receive an adverse counseling statement, put on remedial PT, and generally be held in low regard until you improve.

A point to make is that PT in Boot Camp isn't meant to get you in great shape. It's simply meant to get you into good enough shape. Recruiters are gonna have to start working with female recruits on their pullups before they head off to bootcamp. The Marines also have a Combat Fitness Test which is meant to be a supplement to the traditional PFT, not replace it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Fitness_Test

Gitzbitah, I fight SCA too, and using your hips would result in kipping, which is a no-no.

feeder wrote:
This is where gender politics breaks down: at inescapable facts regarding gender based differences.

Don't women generally make better pilots, due to their higher resistance to g-forces?

Not in my experience.

 DEUS VULT wrote:
Ok, for some filler to the discussion.
3 pullups is the minimum; and it's nowhere near an acceptable score. 10 is borderline with 15 being good and 20 a perfect score. This is done in PT (shorts, running shoes, tshirt) gear, from a straight arm dead hang position and NO KIPPING. Women traditionally have done a flexed arm hang (holding your head above the pullup bar) for a period of time, 70 seconds being a perfect score, 15 the minimum. I'm not clear on the new standards; either women will have to do the three pullups (pass/fail) AND a flexed arm hang (for points) or just the pullups. If it's the pullups, women are going to face a lot of adversity promotion-wise until they can compete with the average Male Marine as your total PFT score holds a deal of weight on your promotion chances (don't want to get technical). Failing a PFT depends on your unit, but typically you'll at least receive an adverse counseling statement, put on remedial PT, and generally be held in low regard until you improve.

A point to make is that PT in Boot Camp isn't meant to get you in great shape. It's simply meant to get you into good enough shape. Recruiters are gonna have to start working with female recruits on their pullups before they head off to bootcamp. The Marines also have a Combat Fitness Test which is meant to be a supplement to the traditional PFT, not replace it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Fitness_Test

Gitzbitah, I fight SCA too, and using your hips would result in kipping, which is a no-no.

Back in the old days, when I went through boot camp, the record was 50 pullups. Had that changed much when you went through?

My experience is that most dudes had a hard time doing a flexed arm hang.

 djones520 wrote:
Keep the minimum in place, if it is there for combat roles.

When it's life and death situations like combat, the woman should be able to meet any standard that the man has to.

If they can't, then their should be no reason they are on the front line. You'll only be putting others lives in danger all for the sake of political correctness, and that is wrong.

Thank you for saying what I was thinking

If there is a reason for the standard, then it should be met regardless of the sex of the person that is required to make it.
If you can meet the standard, then you should be allowed to do the job.
If you can't meet it, then you shouldn't

That should be the end of the discussion.

I have never understood the difference between holding men to a higher physical standard in the military.

In my age group I am required to be able to do a minimum of 33 push ups in one minute. Females are required to do 18. I have to be able to run 1.5 miles in 13:36 minumum, while they have nearly 3 minutes longer to run the same distance.

A womans job is in no way shape or form any different from mine, so why do I have significantly different physical standards?

I understand that yes there is a significant physical difference between the two sexes, but if the AF determines that I am unable to complete my mission without being able to do 33 push ups, then how does the female sitting next to me with the same rank, doing the same job, with the same amount of time in service, get it done?

 djones520 wrote:
I have never understood the difference between holding men to a higher physical standard in the military.

In my age group I am required to be able to do a minimum of 33 push ups in one minute. Females are required to do 18. I have to be able to run 1.5 miles in 13:36 minumum, while they have nearly 3 minutes longer to run the same distance.

A womans job is in no way shape or form any different from mine, so why do I have significantly different physical standards?

I understand that yes there is a significant physical difference between the two sexes, but if the AF determines that I am unable to complete my mission without being able to do 33 push ups, then how does the female sitting next to me with the same rank, doing the same job, with the same amount of time in service, get it done?

Airforce PT standards are a joke anyway...

On topic, I agree with this.

 marv335 wrote:
If there is a reason for the standard, then it should be met regardless of the sex of the person that is required to make it.
If you can meet the standard, then you should be allowed to do the job.
If you can't meet it, then you shouldn't

That should be the end of the discussion.

It certainly should be, the question that remains to be answered is whether or not it will be. There's little doubt the military can get the overwhelming majority of females to the point where they can pass the basic combat arms physical requirements. The concern I'd have is for considerably tougher standards; what happens when a woman wants to go to BUD/S or SFAS? It's going to be a very, very low percentage that make it through - it's already a pretty low percentage among males. If we weren't dealing with a political agenda, that'd be the end of it, but inevitably someone's going to want to see female SEALs or 18As or whatever.

Naval aviation learned some very hard lessons about integrating females. Stick to the same standards and the same treatment as the males, and things can actually work out. Start deviating, and you run into problems.

Crazy how .4 seconds was the difference between the RIO's life and her death.

 Seaward wrote:

 marv335 wrote:
If there is a reason for the standard, then it should be met regardless of the sex of the person that is required to make it.
If you can meet the standard, then you should be allowed to do the job.
If you can't meet it, then you shouldn't

That should be the end of the discussion.

It certainly should be, the question that remains to be answered is whether or not it will be. There's little doubt the military can get the overwhelming majority of females to the point where they can pass the basic combat arms physical requirements. The concern I'd have is for considerably tougher standards; what happens when a woman wants to go to BUD/S or SFAS? It's going to be a very, very low percentage that make it through - it's already a pretty low percentage among males. If we weren't dealing with a political agenda, that'd be the end of it, but inevitably someone's going to want to see female SEALs or 18As or whatever.

Naval aviation learned some very hard lessons about integrating females. Stick to the same standards and the same treatment as the males, and things can actually work out. Start deviating, and you run into problems.

I could give you similar stories about this happening to male pilots. I do agree, though, with the sentiment about standards being the same for males or females.

I think Seaward was alleging that standards were lowered for the female pilots. I'm not sure on that though, so maybe he can clarify.

Relapse wrote:
I could give you similar stories about this happening to male pilots.

If she had survived and crashed a few more planes, she could have been a Senator from Arizona.

 Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I could give you similar stories about this happening to male pilots.

If she had survived and crashed a few more planes, she could have been a Senator from Arizona.

That's a little cold man, for all parties involved...

It seemed a fair rap. You're a woman and crash a plane, it's implied because you're an incompetent who only cut it because standards were lowered (although those facts weren't presented).

You graduate bottom in your class, have your dad pull some strings, and subsequently crash 4 planes (at least one of which also clearly pilot error); you're a conservative hero. /shrug

It's a tragedy she died, but if there's a cautionary tale here, maybe it's that sometimes pilot error happens and is useful to flog a political end on wargaming message boards if you're cheap enough to do so?

Relapse wrote:
I could give you similar stories about this happening to male pilots. I do agree, though, with the sentiment about standards being the same for males or females.

I could probably give you more. I couldn't give you any that failed car quals once and struggled non-stop to get aboard their entire career, though, because those guys never got to stick around.

A lot of guys struggle behind the boat at some point in their careers. I would never admit to being guilty of it myself, of course, but that's not the point. With the first crop of female naval aviators, things just didn't work out well. It was pretty much immediately after the first Tailhook scandal (I say first, as there's bound to be a second sooner or later), so there was pretty much exactly nobody willing to be even cordial with the women for fear of getting gakcanned, which didn't lead to a lot of useful mentoring or even moral support. There was an immense amount of pressure to make sure they all got through the pipeline, both on them and on the people responsible for making that happen. There were a lot of consistently low landing GPAs that somehow didn't result in ladies getting thrown ashore. Were things fudged to keep unsafe pilots flying for political or PR reasons? Dunno. It was widely assumed, that's for sure. Doesn't make it the case, and it's irrelevant either way. I personally doubt it, at least to any serious degree, though the fact that exactly none of the first females made it through or continued in naval aviation lends a little credibility to the notion that those selected just weren't up to scratch.

Your standard stud going through the pipeline doesn't have national interviews to deal with or the weight of history or whatever else on his shoulders. The women that followed the first batch? They turned out a lot better. There are some great female aviators catching wires today. There are women who've washed out. The point isn't that women can't do the job - they can - the point is that varying the standards or the treatment is never a good idea. Hultgreen was probably legitimately above the cut point. I've got nothing but decade-and-a-half-old rumor to suggest otherwise, as this all was well before my time. Even with that being the case, I suspect she'd be alive today had there been a lot less external pressure, of all types.

Because that's the thing. Dude #1005876 going through the RAG isn't a story. Girl #1 doing so is. That's inevitable, but focusing on it, making it some indicator of the future, or putting too much significance on her shoulders? Bad idea. The same will be true of the first female infantry officer. So don't do it. Treat 'em like the guys.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
It's a tragedy she died, but if there's a cautionary tale here, maybe it's that sometimes pilot error happens and is useful to flog a political end on wargaming message boards if you're cheap enough to do so?

Or you could try reading what's actually being said for a change.

There should be a standard. It should be set according to real service needs, and it should be gender neutral.

If it is essential for marines to do three pull ups, and that is a difficult task for women, they can compensate by having extra training in it.

There probably are standards that men would find it harder to achieve than women, however it is unlikely those are incorporated into current military practice as the prevailing culture is male.

The physical requirements should be set without bias.

People applying for the role should be tested without bias.

I would not wish to be in the situation of needing to have my injured body dragged to a position of cover by someone who was physically not up to the task and had to give up halfway, leaving us both exposed.

Does the boot camp actually give ample opportunit to improve that specific task, though? I tried to do more than 6 pull-ups for years, even having some weight taken off via a machine (sadly it puts it right back on once you're done...).

But then as Chaosxomega said, I started rock climbing, and I can now do quite a few more, in series. Plus it is a great focusing exercise. For the lock-offs, Frenchies ought to be able to fix that in about 3 weeks, if done two to three times a week.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
Does the boot camp actually give ample opportunit to improve that specific task, though? I tried to do more than 6 pull-ups for years, even having some weight taken off via a machine (sadly it puts it right back on once you're done...).

Not sure about Marine Boot... but when I went through Army Basic Training, we had a series of exercises that we had to complete prior to being allowed the privilege of eating in the Drill Sergeant's Mess Hall. Included in my platoon's routine was pullups, dips and pushups. Honestly, the only time in my life where my shoulder didn't want to come out of socket while doing a pull up


Also, I have no idea if they still do this, as the newbs that come through these days are, well.... soft.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
Does the boot camp actually give ample opportunit to improve that specific task, though? I tried to do more than 6 pull-ups for years, even having some weight taken off via a machine (sadly it puts it right back on once you're done...).

Not sure about Marine Boot... but when I went through Army Basic Training, we had a series of exercises that we had to complete prior to being allowed the privilege of eating in the Drill Sergeant's Mess Hall. Included in my platoon's routine was pullups, dips and pushups. Honestly, the only time in my life where my shoulder didn't want to come out of socket while doing a pull up


Also, I have no idea if they still do this, as the newbs that come through these days are, well.... soft.

To some degree. To even begin the training cycle you need to pass the Initial Strength Test, which has lower standards than the PFT. If you don't pass that, or you cant improve your conditioning, you get put into the Pork Chop Platoon, which just focuses on getting you into good enough shape to resume training. Boot is only 3 months long, and the training schedule is packed, so you wont see huge improvements in your PT once you get there. The point of boot camp is into instill military discipline and prepare the recruits for life in the military, not get you into super good shape, but rather good enough shape. Its not uncommon for PT studs to get in worse shape during boot as there really isnt any free time to PT outside of whats scheduled. You get into stud shape once you get to the Fleet.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
Does the boot camp actually give ample opportunit to improve that specific task, though? I tried to do more than 6 pull-ups for years, even having some weight taken off via a machine (sadly it puts it right back on once you're done...).

Not sure about Marine Boot... but when I went through Army Basic Training, we had a series of exercises that we had to complete prior to being allowed the privilege of eating in the Drill Sergeant's Mess Hall. Included in my platoon's routine was pullups, dips and pushups. Honestly, the only time in my life where my shoulder didn't want to come out of socket while doing a pull up


Also, I have no idea if they still do this, as the newbs that come through these days are, well.... soft.

There is the PCP, or physical conditioning platoon where recruits that don't stack up physically get placed until they can meet standards. After they meet standards, the recruit get placed in training. At least this was the way it went back in the day when I was in. My platoon had about a 30% attrition rate with some going into PCP. We never saw them again in our platoon, but they'd be slipped back in to a new new platoon at whatever week they had been dropped out on. Whenever we'd receive new recruits that had been dropped out from other platoons, the DI's would thrash the living crap out of them for at least a half hour at a time, leaving them in a pool of sweat and looking like they had a bucket of water poured over them.


Ninja'd!

Gotta earn your way into the platoon! Incidentally, the recruit depot record for pullups is 76, a number my overclocked monkey brain cannot handle.

@Deus, I know what you mean about losing strength in boot. I was a sheet rock hauler for about 9 months before I went in and would be in contests to see who could pack the most sheets when we were stocking construction sites. We'd be schlepping as many 12, 10, or 8 footers as we could fit into our hand( in my case for 8 footers,it was 5) and be carrying them by ourselves, wading through mud or running up or down stairs with them.
After doing that for a few months as an 8-12 hour a day job a man feels like he could rip a tank in half.
When I went through boot, it was all I could do to keep from cracking a smile as the DI's tried to convince me how rough it was.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
76 pullups is animal. I've seen many recruits going for the record coming away with their hands slick with blood.

This is a complicated issue, but it isn't shocking at all. Lets face it, the Marine Corps does not need females. We don't. We have thousands of males who would step up and take their jobs (basically just Comm, MT, supply and admin,depending where you are). They are more than welcome to join if they meet the requirements, but the Marine Corps should not be bullied into accommodating for them if they aren't willing to put forth the effort to do pull-ups and run a little faster.

If they don't take themselves seriously enough to learn how to do pull ups and compete with their male counterparts, they probably aren't going to be successful in the Marine Corps anyway.

If female enlistment slowed to a crawl, Parris Island would have a hard time accumulating enough bodies for full companies, as if they don't already. I think November, our sister company, consisted of about 120 female recruits, which was fairly large, I believe.

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
This is a complicated issue, but it isn't shocking at all. Lets face it, the Marine Corps does not need females. We don't. We have thousands of males who would step up and take their jobs (basically just Comm, MT, supply and admin,depending where you are).

(snip)

If female enlistment slowed to a crawl, Parris Island would have a hard time accumulating enough bodies for full companies, as if they don't already. I think November, our sister company, consisted of about 120 female recruits, which was fairly large, I believe.

.... help me out here. How do these two ideas fit into the same post?

Not entirely sure, but he's hinting at another question: if the representation rate of females in infantry/ combat arms minuscule, is it worth the cost to integrate them? Clearly, we don't have nearly sufficient data quantitatively or qualitatively to make that call yet, but something to mull over.

This may sound stupid, but in my HS the girls had the same requirements for dudes for many things(The only class in which the standards where not the same was weights, where you had to max out, so it was different for everyone) including a mile. Why doesnt(or didnt?) the military have this?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
This may sound stupid, but in my HS the girls had the same requirements for dudes for many things(The only class in which the standards where not the same was weights, where you had to max out, so it was different for everyone) including a mile. Why doesnt(or didnt?) the military have this?

You seem to indicate the standards were not the same for the girls as it was for the boys for weight training, is that correct?

The problem with that is that we're not trying to achieve some arbitrary standard. A rifleman in the field has a job that realistically will require them to be able to pull x pounds, which represents carrying a wounded comrade along with their gear and so on and so forth. That standard is asexual, and since there is a real world rationale for it there is no good reason, and many bad reasons to alter them.

If you're asking "why doesn't the military do this", it's because women have proportionately less upper body strength on average than men do. As a result, we don't reach a 50/50 ratio of women to men in physically arduous combat roles, and probably never will. There is political pressure from lobbying groups on elected officials to make sure women are "equally represented", which in their minds means 50/50. Since elected officials are at the mercy of the populace, the tendency of the political leadership is to have different standards because it's simple and more expedient than providing leadership and educating their constituents. No one wants to be painted as "anti-women", despite the fact the most likely result differing stanards will have is needlessly slain American troops.

Its not stupid, but the answer is simple and complicated: politics.

If you have different scoring systems/ standards for each gender, it allows men and women to remain competitive with each other promotion/point wise, but is inherently unfair.
With the same scoring standards, men will USUALLY have an advantage simply due to human physiology. Women generally won't score as high on PT, which will hamper promotion and career chances.
I think the best solution is a hybrid. Have hard standards when it comes to unit MOS/accession, for example 10 pullups, 100 crunches, 22 min 3 mile time for infantry regardless of gender. Have gender calibrated PFTs for promotion score.

I, however, won't go into the inherent advantage with superiors a pretty female Marine has over her...more rugged fellow Marines.

No, it was a personal standard in weight class, you did a max out at the begginging and you had to be your previous maxout at the end of the semester.
But I think I get it. Political pressure

 Ouze wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
This may sound stupid, but in my HS the girls had the same requirements for dudes for many things(The only class in which the standards where not the same was weights, where you had to max out, so it was different for everyone) including a mile. Why doesnt(or didnt?) the military have this?

You seem to indicate the standards were not the same for the girls as it was for the boys for weight training, is that correct?

The problem with that is that we're not trying to achieve some arbitrary standard. A rifleman in the field has a job that realistically will require them to be able to pull x pounds, which represents carrying a wounded comrade along with their gear and so on and so forth. That standard is asexual, and since there is a real world rationale for it there is no good reason, and many bad reasons to alter them.

If you're asking "why doesn't the military do this", it's because women have proportionately less upper body strength on average than men do. As a result, we don't reach a 50/50 ratio of women to men in physically arduous combat roles, and probably never will. There is political pressure from lobbying groups on elected officials to make sure women are "equally represented", which in their minds means 50/50. Since elected officials are at the mercy of the populace, the tendency of the political leadership is to have different standards because it's simple and more expedient than providing leadership and educating their constituents. No one wants to be painted as "anti-women", despite the fact the most likely result differing stanards will have is needlessly slain American troops.

Spot on. Certain groups will scream and cry until they feel there is adequate representation, regardless of the cost or the bounds of reality.

 DEUS VULT wrote:
Its not stupid, but the answer is simple and complicated: politics.

If you have different scoring systems/ standards for each gender, it allows men and women to remain competitive with each other promotion/point wise, but is inherently unfair.
With the same scoring standards, men will USUALLY have an advantage simply due to human physiology. Women generally won't score as high on PT, which will hamper promotion and career chances.
I think the best solution is a hybrid. Have hard standards when it comes to unit MOS/accession, for example 10 pullups, 100 crunches, 22 min 3 mile time for infantry regardless of gender. Have gender calibrated PFTs for promotion score.

I, however, won't go into the inherent advantage with superiors a pretty female Marine has over her...more rugged fellow Marines.

Not necessarily true in the Air Force at least. Our PT scores only factor in promotion based on whether we pass or fail. It doesn't matter if I score a 75 or 100, the impact to my EPR is the same. I believe the Navy works similarly.

Are there different physical requirements based on MOS?

That being said, I'm not sure alternating standards based on such would be a good idea. Certainly there are cases where units have you wound up in combat even if they shouldn't have - and, after all, "every Marine is a rifleman".

 djones520 wrote:

 DEUS VULT wrote:
Its not stupid, but the answer is simple and complicated: politics.

If you have different scoring systems/ standards for each gender, it allows men and women to remain competitive with each other promotion/point wise, but is inherently unfair.
With the same scoring standards, men will USUALLY have an advantage simply due to human physiology. Women generally won't score as high on PT, which will hamper promotion and career chances.
I think the best solution is a hybrid. Have hard standards when it comes to unit MOS/accession, for example 10 pullups, 100 crunches, 22 min 3 mile time for infantry regardless of gender. Have gender calibrated PFTs for promotion score.

I, however, won't go into the inherent advantage with superiors a pretty female Marine has over her...more rugged fellow Marines.

Not necessarily true in the Air Force at least. Our PT scores only factor in promotion based on whether we pass or fail. It doesn't matter if I score a 75 or 100, the impact to my EPR is the same. I believe the Navy works similarly.

Gotcha. For E-4 and E-5 Marines combing your PFT, Proficiency/Conduct marks, TIG, TIS, Rifle qual, Education, etc into a total, composite score. E-6 and above go to a board. PFTs are heavily weighted in both of these. Low enough PFT score and your command will generaly non-rec you for promotion, regardless of your performance elsewhere.

I think the issue here is that they're shooting for equal representation rather than equal opportunities - I, in my zero-military-experience capacity, think that while women should have the same OPPORTUNITY to try to become a marine as a male candidate, she shouldn't get an advantage over him (I.E easier goals) just so that politicians can grin happily over their 50/50 male/female split.

That's gender inequality, in my view.

And ok, so maybe (some) women are at a disadvantage, but who's to say that all the male candidates start at the same level?
I imagine some find it harder to achieve the required fitness than others, but you don't see them getting lowered requirements - they either work harder, or admit that they're not up to the job.
(I know I'd have a harder time than someone who spends more time exercising than I do, rather than browsing the OT forum!)

Everyone should have the same chance to try to reach the same required standard, but if you can't reach that standard, then surely that should the end of it?

Anyway, that's what I think.

 Ouze wrote:
Are there different physical requirements based on MOS?

That being said, I'm not sure alternating standards based on such would be a good idea. As I am sure the 507th Maintenance Company can attest to, sometimes you wind up in combat even if you shouldn't - and, after all, "every Marine is a rifleman".

To go to Reconnaissance, Sniper and other cool guy schools there are. Generally speaking, no. However, there is a lot less tolerance and much higher standards in combat arms than, say, Air Wing (which is kinda funny cause the most yoked dudes are always the biggest POGS) Of course, a lot depends on the Command as well.

http://terminallance.com/2010/01/26/terminal-lance-7-good-reasons-to-not-go-to-the-gym/

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
I think the issue here is that they're shooting for equal representation rather than equal opportunities - I, in my zero-military-experience capacity, think that while women should have the same OPPORTUNITY to try to become a marine as a male candidate, she shouldn't get an advantage over him (I.E easier goals) just so that politicians can grin happily over their 50/50 male/female split.

That's gender inequality, in my view.

And ok, so maybe (some) women are at a disadvantage, but who's to say that all the male candidates start at the same level?
I imagine some find it harder to achieve the required fitness than others, but you don't see them getting lowered requirements - they either work harder, or admit that they're not up to the job.
(I know I'd have a harder time than someone who spends more time exercising than I do, rather than browsing the OT forum!)

Everyone should have the same chance to try to reach the same required standard, but if you can't reach that standard, then surely that should the end of it?

Anyway, that's what I think.

You're right, there are men who do have a harder time meeting those standards. I have incredibly long arms, so doing push-ups is a lot more difficult for me then shorter stockier men. I have to "travel" further then most people while doing push-ups, so I technically have to work harder. The standard is the standard though, so I have to meet it.

 DEUS VULT wrote:
Not entirely sure, but he's hinting at another question: if the representation rate of females in infantry/ combat arms minuscule, is it worth the cost to integrate them? Clearly, we don't have nearly sufficient data quantitatively or qualitatively to make that call yet, but something to mull over.

Personally, we have nearly all the data we need... For the past few years the Marines has been sending female after female to its Infantry Officer school, and ALL of them have washed out. The same thing for the Army. The army, due to our presence in the 'Stan/Special Ops have created a "Special Branch" of SF that women can apply/try out for that is quite physically demanding by their standards in order to have a female presence in those extremely remote villages, etc.... that whole "winning hearts and minds" BS.

As the Standards of today are set, women quite simply cannot cut it in the infantry (I won't say combat arms, because there are tankers and artillery people around who make many military people look bad). I am personally of the belief that if we muddle the standards, by making them completely equal (which means often times the male standard will be lowered an extent), then it will cause serious harm to our overall combat effectiveness. That isn't to say that I don't think women can't handle combat situations (Iraq and supply convoys have shown us that they indeed can), just that the Infantry isn't the likely best place for them in a combat role.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 DEUS VULT wrote:
Not entirely sure, but he's hinting at another question: if the representation rate of females in infantry/ combat arms minuscule, is it worth the cost to integrate them? Clearly, we don't have nearly sufficient data quantitatively or qualitatively to make that call yet, but something to mull over.

Personally, we have nearly all the data we need... For the past few years the Marines has been sending female after female to its Infantry Officer school, and ALL of them have washed out. The same thing for the Army. The army, due to our presence in the 'Stan/Special Ops have created a "Special Branch" of SF that women can apply/try out for that is quite physically demanding by their standards in order to have a female presence in those extremely remote villages, etc.... that whole "winning hearts and minds" BS.

As the Standards of today are set, women quite simply cannot cut it in the infantry (I won't say combat arms, because there are tankers and artillery people around who make many military people look bad). I am personally of the belief that if we muddle the standards, by making them completely equal (which means often times the male standard will be lowered an extent), then it will cause serious harm to our overall combat effectiveness. That isn't to say that I don't think women can't handle combat situations (Iraq and supply convoys have shown us that they indeed can), just that the Infantry isn't the likely best place for them in a combat role.

Yeah, IOS has been a debacle, and that's the EASY part. Marines have the Female Engagement Teams, which sounds like a similar role. Recently, a small handful of women have graduated from the enlisted infantryman course. They won't be sent to infantry units, and were simply part of a data gathering exercise to see what the pass rate was among females. However, the standards in the fleet are much higher than those in the schoolhouse. As for artillery (I was a Forward Observer, 0861, a 13F in the Army) I'd be ok with women in some sections, like FDC, radar, and weather. Arty is the first to be turned into provisional infantry in a pinch, though.

 DEUS VULT wrote:


Yeah, IOS has been a debacle, and that's the EASY part. Marines have the Female Engagement Teams, which sounds like a similar role. Recently, a small handful of women have graduated from the enlisted infantryman course. They won't be sent to infantry units, and were simply part of a data gathering exercise to see what the pass rate was among females. However, the standards in the fleet are much higher than those in the schoolhouse. As for artillery (I was a Forward Observer, 0861, a 13F in the Army) I'd be ok with women in some sections, like FDC, radar, and weather. Arty is the first to be turned into provisional infantry in a pinch, though.

Possibly in the Marines, but here in the army, the first line "we need infantry who arent 11B/C/D/etc" are the Tankers and Cav Scouts (well, really the Scouts are already infantry... but better)... At the same time, I can't see too many females that I've seen/known in my decade in the army who could handle a full time, round the clock fire mission. I know those dont happen very often any more, but, depending on situation, the ability to constantly load and fire those 155 shells from our field guns is critical, and there arent too many females who could handle it.... Then again, there are quite a few males who would struggle or couldnt handle it either.

And infantryman who says Cav Scouts are like infantry but better? They must be completely different to our Cav Scouts, who just sit in the back of their vehicles and spank it.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 DEUS VULT wrote:


Yeah, IOS has been a debacle, and that's the EASY part. Marines have the Female Engagement Teams, which sounds like a similar role. Recently, a small handful of women have graduated from the enlisted infantryman course. They won't be sent to infantry units, and were simply part of a data gathering exercise to see what the pass rate was among females. However, the standards in the fleet are much higher than those in the schoolhouse. As for artillery (I was a Forward Observer, 0861, a 13F in the Army) I'd be ok with women in some sections, like FDC, radar, and weather. Arty is the first to be turned into provisional infantry in a pinch, though.

Possibly in the Marines, but here in the army, the first line "we need infantry who arent 11B/C/D/etc" are the Tankers and Cav Scouts (well, really the Scouts are already infantry... but better)... At the same time, I can't see too many females that I've seen/known in my decade in the army who could handle a full time, round the clock fire mission. I know those dont happen very often any more, but, depending on situation, the ability to constantly load and fire those 155 shells from our field guns is critical, and there arent too many females who could handle it.... Then again, there are quite a few males who would struggle or couldnt handle it either.

Totally. The gun line is no place to be weak. Cannoneers work. I was ok with them doing charts and darts, handling AFATIDS

 motyak wrote:
They must be completely different to our Cav Scouts, who just sit in the back of their vehicles and spank it.

How can an American citizen volunteer to join the Australian military, with a preference for a job in the cav scouts?

Asking for an interested party who wishes to remain anonymous and totally is not me. Totally.

 nels1031 wrote:

 motyak wrote:
They must be completely different to our Cav Scouts, who just sit in the back of their vehicles and spank it.

How can an American citizen volunteer to join the Australian military, with a preference for a job in the cav scouts?

Asking for an interested party who wishes to remain anonymous and totally is not me. Totally.

Well don't arrive by boat, we as a nation seem to be terrified of people who arrive by boat. Just show up to recruiting and say "I want to pretend to be infantry, but I don't want to use my feet at all". Then they'll go "Are you sure that you don't want to be a man and go to the Light Infantry Battalions in Townsville?" And you'll say "Good god no that sounds like work, I want to sit in Darwin and occasionally go on ex to Pucka" And then you'll shake hands, say the words, and be off to Kapooka to start your new life as a Cav Scout.

I'm kidding I respect everyone who joins our army for honourable reasons, and cav scouts aren't particularly bad compared to the Q-store rats, but then no one is...

 motyak wrote:
And infantryman who says Cav Scouts are like infantry but better? They must be completely different to our Cav Scouts, who just sit in the back of their vehicles and spank it.

In theory our scouts are supposed to to much the same.. or in a traditional war, they use those vehicles to go behind enemy lines and... ya know... scout gak out for people and gak.... But, more often than not, they end up kicking in doors like the infantry (at least in Iraq and Stan)

 Ouze wrote:
Are there different physical requirements based on MOS?

That being said, I'm not sure alternating standards based on such would be a good idea. Certainly there are cases where units have you wound up in combat even if they shouldn't have - and, after all, "every Marine is a rifleman".

Every Marine a rifleman.

I have a solution. Bring back the Agoge, but for da wimminz.

THIS...IS...SP er AMERICA

Americans, what is your profession?

hoorah hoorah hoorah

 djones520 wrote:
Not necessarily true in the Air Force at least. Our PT scores only factor in promotion based on whether we pass or fail. It doesn't matter if I score a 75 or 100, the impact to my EPR is the same. I believe the Navy works similarly.

Yup. Nobody ever gave a gak about my PRT.

 Seaward wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Not necessarily true in the Air Force at least. Our PT scores only factor in promotion based on whether we pass or fail. It doesn't matter if I score a 75 or 100, the impact to my EPR is the same. I believe the Navy works similarly.

Yup. Nobody ever gave a gak about my PRT.

Honestly, this is a much better way of doing things... from what I understand of the Navy system is that each year you have to take a test. approximately 75% of questions regard your job at your current rank, and the rest are your job at the next rank. How you score on that test determines the greater portion of your promotion points (this was passed on to me from a guy who got out of the navy about a decade or so ago, so it could be off by now)... This makes so much sense to me, as I absolutely hate it when I MUST respect someone's rank, yet they know feth all about their actual job. And usually if they are horrible at their MOS, then they are also horrible at leading troops as well.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Not necessarily true in the Air Force at least. Our PT scores only factor in promotion based on whether we pass or fail. It doesn't matter if I score a 75 or 100, the impact to my EPR is the same. I believe the Navy works similarly.

Yup. Nobody ever gave a gak about my PRT.

Honestly, this is a much better way of doing things... from what I understand of the Navy system is that each year you have to take a test. approximately 75% of questions regard your job at your current rank, and the rest are your job at the next rank. How you score on that test determines the greater portion of your promotion points (this was passed on to me from a guy who got out of the navy about a decade or so ago, so it could be off by now)... This makes so much sense to me, as I absolutely hate it when I MUST respect someone's rank, yet they know feth all about their actual job. And usually if they are horrible at their MOS, then they are also horrible at leading troops as well.

That would be nice. And as far as my anecdotal experience with PT ... Basic and AIT got me good at running, everything else I just did 'decent' at until I started working out on my own time. And I never got really good at sit ups. I could do 'em all day, but I never got quick. I could knock out 71 pushups in about 75 seconds, and run two miles in 11:30-12:00, but not those godsdamned situps.


And yeah, our second trip to Iraq, my E-4 ass was literally the most experienced person in my section. My boss had spent 3 years working on the Soldier Show and the ten years before that on completely different equipment, and all our other NCOs were garbage. Still the second best Node Center in OIF III - our other platoon beat us by like 47 minutes of up-time.

 Frazzled wrote:
I have a solution. Bring back the Agoge, but for da wimminz.

THIS...IS...SP er AMERICA

Americans, what is your profession?

hoorah hoorah hoorah

So like the Lingerie Bowl?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Not necessarily true in the Air Force at least. Our PT scores only factor in promotion based on whether we pass or fail. It doesn't matter if I score a 75 or 100, the impact to my EPR is the same. I believe the Navy works similarly.

Yup. Nobody ever gave a gak about my PRT.

Honestly, this is a much better way of doing things... from what I understand of the Navy system is that each year you have to take a test. approximately 75% of questions regard your job at your current rank, and the rest are your job at the next rank. How you score on that test determines the greater portion of your promotion points (this was passed on to me from a guy who got out of the navy about a decade or so ago, so it could be off by now)... This makes so much sense to me, as I absolutely hate it when I MUST respect someone's rank, yet they know feth all about their actual job. And usually if they are horrible at their MOS, then they are also horrible at leading troops as well.

Since we shared the same MOS, I know exactly how you feel. Having a bunch of NCOs re-classing in from Infantry and FA, that not only lowered our chances of getting promoted, but were also slowed absolutely sucked. One of the reasons I got out.

Granted, that was not always the case. One of the best NCOs I ever knew re-classed from FA. However, he was the exception, not the rule.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Honestly, this is a much better way of doing things...

Bear in mind I have no idea if that's how it works for enlisted sailors. I just know that, for JOs, it's basically automatic as long as your fitreps aren't disasters.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Honestly, this is a much better way of doing things...

Bear in mind I have no idea if that's how it works for enlisted sailors. I just know that, for JOs, it's basically automatic as long as your fitreps aren't disasters.

I'm not an officer, but I think that's how it works for all officers. I had an old CO who was thoroughly surprised when he got pinned Major while still in his masters program (he had a letter of reprimand on file from his time as a 1LT serving as a company XO... what he called "the tazer incident" lol)

I may have missed it but the following link has the events and scores:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/marines/l/blfitmale.htm

3 gets males 15 points for that event. 12 pull ups gets males 60 (out of 100 possible points). 20 pull ups gets you the max 100 points.

Do the Marines do burpees?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do the Marines do burpees?

no one does a burpee "test"... occasionally we'll do them as part of a pt "workout"

 Sasori wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I have never understood the difference between holding men to a higher physical standard in the military.

In my age group I am required to be able to do a minimum of 33 push ups in one minute. Females are required to do 18. I have to be able to run 1.5 miles in 13:36 minumum, while they have nearly 3 minutes longer to run the same distance.

A womans job is in no way shape or form any different from mine, so why do I have significantly different physical standards?

I understand that yes there is a significant physical difference between the two sexes, but if the AF determines that I am unable to complete my mission without being able to do 33 push ups, then how does the female sitting next to me with the same rank, doing the same job, with the same amount of time in service, get it done?

Airforce PT standards are a joke anyway...

On topic, I agree with this.

If the Air Force PT standards are a joke, what does that make the Navy's? Its the same test, except Air Force gets half the amount of time to do the same amount of pushups and situps. Similar could be said of the Army as well, however they have a 2 mile run instead of the AF/Navy's 1.5 mile, and their scoring is done entirely differently.

I will however say, the female 'standards' were ridiculous when I was still in ROTC. We had female cadets who more or less power walked the 1.5 mile run , and their score was more or less the same as mine despite the fact that I ran the same distance in 10 mins vs their 13 or so.

 Seaward wrote:

 marv335 wrote:
If there is a reason for the standard, then it should be met regardless of the sex of the person that is required to make it.
If you can meet the standard, then you should be allowed to do the job.
If you can't meet it, then you shouldn't

That should be the end of the discussion.

It certainly should be, the question that remains to be answered is whether or not it will be. There's little doubt the military can get the overwhelming majority of females to the point where they can pass the basic combat arms physical requirements. The concern I'd have is for considerably tougher standards; what happens when a woman wants to go to BUD/S or SFAS? It's going to be a very, very low percentage that make it through - it's already a pretty low percentage among males. If we weren't dealing with a political agenda, that'd be the end of it, but inevitably someone's going to want to see female SEALs or 18As or whatever.

Naval aviation learned some very hard lessons about integrating females. Stick to the same standards and the same treatment as the males, and things can actually work out. Start deviating, and you run into problems.

Well, she might not have had the chops to fly, but it sounds like she could meet PT standards at least!

 Ouze wrote:
It seemed a fair rap. You're a woman and crash a plane, it's implied because you're an incompetent who only cut it because standards were lowered (although those facts weren't presented).

You graduate bottom in your class, have your dad pull some strings, and subsequently crash 4 planes (at least one of which also clearly pilot error); you're a conservative hero. /shrug

It's a tragedy she died, but if there's a cautionary tale here, maybe it's that sometimes pilot error happens and is useful to flog a political end on wargaming message boards if you're cheap enough to do so?

From everything I've read McCain was actually regarded as a good/skilled pilot by his peers, but was also seen as reckless (hence the incidents in question). Also of note, from what I've read/heard/been told, that sort of thing was far more common in those days, while a single incident could potentially end your flying career today, in those times it wasn't altogether uncommon for stuff like that to occur.

Are there different physical requirements based on MOS?

Can't speak for the Marines, but there are for some in the AF (TACP, Pararescue, and CCT come to mind). I do know, regardless of branch, there are "unofficial" standards to contend with, your average Marine/Soldier/Airman/Sailor entering certain positions might be more physically fit than average, and if its a selective MOS, while the official required standards might be the same as whatever the service wide standard is, if you want a realistic chance of being picked up you're going to have to score a good bit better than that.

That being said, I'm not sure alternating standards based on such would be a good idea. Certainly there are cases where units have you wound up in combat even if they shouldn't have - and, after all, "every Marine is a rifleman".

Rifleman doesn't equal infantryman, just keep that in mind.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


Possibly in the Marines, but here in the army, the first line "we need infantry who arent 11B/C/D/etc" are the Tankers and Cav Scouts (well, really the Scouts are already infantry... but better)... At the same time, I can't see too many females that I've seen/known in my decade in the army who could handle a full time, round the clock fire mission. I know those dont happen very often any more, but, depending on situation, the ability to constantly load and fire those 155 shells from our field guns is critical, and there arent too many females who could handle it.... Then again, there are quite a few males who would struggle or couldnt handle it either.

Know how I know you're a cav scout? Because you think you're infantry (and/or better).

 motyak wrote:
And infantryman who says Cav Scouts are like infantry but better? They must be completely different to our Cav Scouts, who just sit in the back of their vehicles and spank it.

Nope, as I understand it, thats pretty much true of our cav scouts too ;P

How can an American citizen volunteer to join the Australian military, with a preference for a job in the cav scouts?

http://www.stripes.com/news/serving-down-under-australia-offers-military-jobs-to-us-troops-facing-separation-1.176622

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do the Marines do burpees?

no one does a burpee "test"... occasionally we'll do them as part of a pt "workout"

In AFROTC we never did burpees, we did body-builders, which are like burpees, except longer, more complicated, and more painful. (8 count exercise: 1. go down 2. kick your legs back 3. kick your legs out (split them to the sides) 4. kick your legs back in (together) 5 pushup down 6. pushup up 7. kick your legs forward 8. stand up to position of attention, rinse/repeat as needed). But again, that wasn't a test, it was just physical training, usually a sort of 'reward'...

 CptJake wrote:
I may have missed it but the following link has the events and scores:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/marines/l/blfitmale.htm

The form and standard for crunches is weird. I mean, what is it meant to demonstrate?

 dogma wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I may have missed it but the following link has the events and scores:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/marines/l/blfitmale.htm

The form and standard for crunches is weird. I mean, what is it meant to demonstrate?

Marine crunches aren't really what most people think of when they think of crunches. It's more like a half situp, really. It's supposed to demonstrate core/abdominal strength, but in my experience it tends to work the hip flexors as much as the abs, if not more.

 Hordini wrote:

Marine crunches aren't really what most people think of when they think of crunches. It's more like a half situp, really. It's supposed to demonstrate core/abdominal strength, but in my experience it tends to work the hip flexors as much as the abs, if not more.

I've thought about it a little more and they make sense now. The exercise specifically targets the abdominal wall, which aids in breathing and protects internal organs.

 dogma wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I may have missed it but the following link has the events and scores:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/marines/l/blfitmale.htm

The form and standard for crunches is weird. I mean, what is it meant to demonstrate?

You're basically in the up position the entire time, unless you stop, or don't know how to do them correctly. In addition to being able to do a crunch, it also shows that you can keep your abdominal area firm for the time it takes you to do 100 crunches. The down position is the bottom of your shoulder blade making contact with the deck. 100 is a joke though. I can do 130 or more if it's just a max set, and I could probably do more if I really had to.

It's all about breathing, and getting into the rhythm of it. Oddly, throwing your chin up every time seems to make them easier, much like pull-ups.

I don't believe we should lower the standards in order to increase the number of people from an under-represented demographic in anything where the skills needed determine whether someone lives or dies.

You wouldn't lower the physical requires so that morbidly obese people can join the military. If they can't meet the standards that are needed then they aren't qualified for that job.

This of course assumes that the standards are really the minimal skill/ability to perform a task.

 Somedude593 wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Is this pull-ups in nothing but fatigues? Or pull-ups with full kit/equivalent weight?

That is a good question even i could do a good number of the first.. but the second... fuggedaboutit

The PFT is done in t-shirt, shorts, and running shoes. It consists of pull-ups (between 3 and 20), situps (50 - 80 in a 2 minute time), and a three mile run (18 min to 28 min time).

chaos0xomega wrote:


Know how I know you're a cav scout? Because you think you're infantry (and/or better).

I'm not a Cav Scout. During my second tour in Iraq, I was attached, at different times to a scout platoon, an armor platoon, and an infantry platoon. I felt, by far and away, safer and in better control of all situations we faced when I was with the scouts than I was the infantry, and it was the scouts who best had their gak together, needed "guidance" from higher far less often, and things just ran more smoothly.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not quite sure how I ended up in this quote box.

Yeah, I was about the farthest from Cav scout you can get, best not to assume silly things Chaos0xomega.

Fixed that Sasori... Yeah, I had to cut quite a bit of his post down for that one, musta overlooked it

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:


Know how I know you're a cav scout? Because you think you're infantry (and/or better).

I'm not a Cav Scout. During my second tour in Iraq, I was attached, at different times to a scout platoon, an armor platoon, and an infantry platoon. I felt, by far and away, safer and in better control of all situations we faced when I was with the scouts than I was the infantry, and it was the scouts who best had their gak together, needed "guidance" from higher far less often, and things just ran more smoothly.

lol, I was just busting your chops haha (I actually do know some cav scouts, they usually get really upset when you tell them they aren't as good as infantry).

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:


Know how I know you're a cav scout? Because you think you're infantry (and/or better).

I'm not a Cav Scout. During my second tour in Iraq, I was attached, at different times to a scout platoon, an armor platoon, and an infantry platoon. I felt, by far and away, safer and in better control of all situations we faced when I was with the scouts than I was the infantry, and it was the scouts who best had their gak together, needed "guidance" from higher far less often, and things just ran more smoothly.

lol, I was just busting your chops haha (I actually do know some cav scouts, they usually get really upset when you tell them they aren't as good as infantry).

Is that because their armor and ballistic skill is a point lower?

Relapse wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:


Know how I know you're a cav scout? Because you think you're infantry (and/or better).

I'm not a Cav Scout. During my second tour in Iraq, I was attached, at different times to a scout platoon, an armor platoon, and an infantry platoon. I felt, by far and away, safer and in better control of all situations we faced when I was with the scouts than I was the infantry, and it was the scouts who best had their gak together, needed "guidance" from higher far less often, and things just ran more smoothly.

lol, I was just busting your chops haha (I actually do know some cav scouts, they usually get really upset when you tell them they aren't as good as infantry).

Is that because their armor and ballistic skill is a point lower?

Ballistic Skill maybe... but armor?? ohh feth no. Cav guys/tankers have things like "Death before dismount" and, when I was in 3d ACR, my "ruck march" was from the parking lot where my POV was, to the motorpool with my gear, when I loaded it into my vehicle for field exercises.

And remember, Light Infantry is one of the biggest oxymorons in the military

Gitzbitah wrote:


The only alternative I can see is replace the arbitrary pull up test with a series of combat activities that must be completed to a certain level in order to pass. Say, hauling ammo drums, pulling a wounded trooper back into a foxhole.

We have that already, it's called the Combat Fitness Test. You take both a PFT and a CFT every year, usually Jan-Jun is "PFT season" and July-Dec is "CFT season".

 Ouze wrote:

If the requirements are a realistic requirement of what is expected of a combat Marine, the standards should not be changed. However I also don't see any reason not to alter basic training regimens to include more upper body strength training opportunities for women, either - it would serve the best interests of recruits and the Corps both.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

If it is essential for marines to do three pull ups, and that is a difficult task for women, they can compensate by having extra training in it.

I'm not sure how much additional training will help. A female friend of mine (officer, and prior enlisted) spent most of 2013 in the gym trying to improve her upper body strength in preparation for the new PFT standard, with negligible results. I think she's out of the Corps now (a great leader and very knowledgeable, but also couldn't shoot worth a gak).* Another female officer I know is a total beast; I think she has bigger arms than I do, and would probably have no problems doing pull-ups.

Like so many other things in life, you either "have it" or you don't, IMO.

*Political BS definitely plays a huge role in my not-so-beloved Corps. Our squadron CO was female. When it was time to select a LT to send on the MEU, she selected this particular female, saying it would be "a good opportunity" for her. Said female LT protested vociferously. The MEU is almost all male, she was uncomfortable with the idea, had no interest in going, and there were about a dozen male LT's all chomping at the bit to take her place. The CO sent her anyway. Grrrl Power! *rolls eyes*

 djones520 wrote:

You're right, there are men who do have a harder time meeting those standards. I have incredibly long arms, so doing push-ups is a lot more difficult for me then shorter stockier men. I have to "travel" further then most people while doing push-ups, so I technically have to work harder. The standard is the standard though, so I have to meet it.

I too have long arms. Back in my Army days I just focused on doing wide-arm push-ups. It significantly reduces your travel distance so suddenly banging out 70+ in 2 minutes is easy.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Personally, we have nearly all the data we need... For the past few years the Marines has been sending female after female to its Infantry Officer school, and ALL of them have washed out.

Which doesn't surprise me one bit. In my IOC class, I felt like one of the smaller guys @ 5'11"-170lbs. About 35-45% of the class failed the initial Combat Endurance Test, myself included (we all completed it, but were just too slow, around ~8 hours). Definitely the most physically demanding and grueling day of my life. But if you FINISH the CET, albeit slowly, you are simply required to take the "remedial CET" which basically boils down to having one of your recovery-day Saturdays ruined with another grueling PT event. According to this article, 13 of the 14 female IOC failures haven't even made it past the CET.

But the real breaker in combat performance, in my admittedly combat-inexperienced opinion, is the slow grinding of your body and mind over longer durations.

There's a lot of talk about upper-body strength, but I rarely recall doing anything pull-up-like during field exercises. Maybe climbing in windows in an urban op, but usually you have help for that. Spending a week in the field is a combo of walking around with 150lbs of gear and staying mentally sharp for 20 hours a day, or more. People "go internal" (i.e. think about their personal discomfort and not much else) after just 1-2 days. Big beefy guys (who can handle the burden of weight slightly better) and thin wiry guys with insane cardio-respiratory endurance (they stay sharp because their body has an easier time keeping their brain fed with oxygen) seem to handle this sort of work best. As a medium-sized guy with sub-par (compared to my peers) endurance.....I tended to hit my limit of mental clarity fairly quickly. Having a rapid, keen sense of tactical vision and an encyclopedic knowledge of military hardware is useless outside of sand table exercises in a classroom if your brain just plain isn't functioning. I washed out about 85% of the way through.

I bet most females get broken by the weight loads before any cardio advantages they have kick in. Across both the Army and the Marine Corps, the number of females I know who suffered lower-body injuries during ruck marches, even with comparatively small packs of 50-70lbs, is off the charts.

This article talks about injuries and physical differences.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/01/13/data-predicts-spike-in-female-troop-injuries.html?ESRC=army.nl

And brings up points I've made about this before.