Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just as a quick note, the USMC as of 2015 SCRAPPED the idea of making female marines do Pullups and will look into the subject to find out why 55% of female recruits were unable to do the minimum (3) pullups.

CURRENT USMC PULLUP STANDARDS:

Male PFT standards for pullups = 3 pullups =15 pts the minimum while 20 pullups = 100pts and the maximum.

Female PFT Standards for Pullups = 3 pullups = 40pts the minimum and 8 pullups = 100pts and the maximum. After 3 pullups each pullup is worth 15pts or exactly 3 times what a Male Pullup is worth.

For reasons of promotions and PFT scores this is the standard used by the USMC to make it gender equal. however when we get into combat arms where physical fitness matters more then any other MOS it becomes a problem. Personally, my opinion is if a female can meet Male PFT standards then she should be allowed the opportunity to serve in a combat MOS. If she is unable to meet the male standards it should not be lowered as this would effect the combat readiness of that specific unit.

*SIDE NOTE: In the marines, at least when I served, anything under a 1st class PFT was considered a fail. so that means a 225 or higher to pass.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Second Side note: Im aware a topic already existed for this but it was over 3 months old and the system basically told me to make a new post about it.

When I served, WMs had the "flexed arm hang" thing in place of pullups.

The muscles in a female have an attachment point that's closer to the pivot - requiring more force to achieve the same moment as that of a man.

A woman who matches a man in ability to lift actually has a higher muscle strength than the man, but uses it less efficiently due to the different location of attachment.

This is partly a biological, and partly a physics deal. If we compare today's muscle-bound military guys to one of our ancestors; Australopithecus afarensis, you'd find that the Australopithecus afarensis woman would slam the mans arm down easily in an arm wrestle - not due to muscle but due to arm formation.

On a side note, I personally don't see a problem with women fighting. It's inspiring that they put their life on the line when many men stay at home.

In the Royal Navy we have many more women. It's a good thing.

Yah what Wulfmar said lol.

The Peshmerga have no problem with female fighters....

Just saying lol.

 Wulfmar wrote:
The muscles in a female have an attachment point that's closer to the pivot - requiring more force to achieve the same moment as that of a man.

A woman who matches a man in ability to lift actually has a higher muscle strength than the man, but uses it less efficiently due to the different location of attachment.

This is partly a biological, and partly a physics deal. If we compare today's muscle-bound military guys to one of our ancestors; Australopithecus afarensis, you'd find that the Australopithecus afarensis woman would slam the mans arm down easily in an arm wrestle - not due to muscle but due to arm formation.

On a side note, I personally don't see a problem with women fighting. It's inspiring that they put their life on the line when many men stay at home.

In the Royal Navy we have many more women. It's a good thing.

Logistics. While it's fine an dandy if they actually make the cut, it's simply more efficient to only recruit males if their success rate is higher, especially in American Special Forces- which to my knowledge are EXTREMELY grueling careers that end up breaking your body just in training. Basically, if four out of ten males on average were to make the cut for a hypothetical military group, then why bother ever with female recruits if only three out of ten on average succeed? One is simply a greater waste of resources, however minute.

I don't see however there being much issue with the main branches, Army, Navy, and Air Force, as by and large most don't even serve in combat to begin with- most people in the military are stuck with logistics. It's with the Special Forces however I'd begin to question just how feasible it is to start allowing female recruits depending on their success rate.And by no means, never lowering the requirements.

In the end I've always said if someone can meet the standard they should not be blocked (not just military, but in everything). If someone can't pass they can't pass. End of that.

Having said that; The question should be not "why aren't women passing the same standard as men" cause that's basically a leading question that doesn't address the real issue. The question to ask is "does the PFT actually reflect real needs, or is it unnecessarily arbitrary?" I do not know the answer to that question, but it is the one that should be asked because it's the only one with any real meaning.

When I was in the Army - don't know if this has changed or not - but there were pretty strict rules about getting women to a shower every x amount of days for personal hygiene. I think it was five; good luck meeting that standard in any sort of real combat scenario. gak, we were a commo unit, and we had guys cross the berm during the initial invasion that spent 40+ days in their MOPP gear without showers.

I don't know exactly how necessary that rule was per se; but another thing to think about above and beyond meeting physical fitness or training requirements.

Yeah that's what I'm talking about. If someone can't meet the standards they can't meet the standards. So long as the standards are proper and fair I won't raise a fuss about it.

I'm way out of shape have a 31 BMI and I'm 28 years old. I can still do 3 pullups - just did 6 real pullups before I made this post. If a fit young man/woman can only do 3 pullups - they should be immediately thrown out of any combat MOS and put behind a desk. I'm going to go pass out now!

 LordofHats wrote:
Yeah that's what I'm talking about. If someone can't meet the standards they can't meet the standards. So long as the standards are proper and fair I won't raise a fuss about it.

That only works if the test that determines the standard measures the same thing for all people.

Hence the problem with a test that has different results for different groups of people even though they may have the same strength but a different anatomy. In that case having a standard "X of this one test" isn't really a standard if it doesn't measure the same thing for both groups.

If the standards is "must have X amount of strength" then there is nothing wrong with having different tests for different genders that accurately measures their strength while accounting for their anatomical differences.

Now I will readily admit that I have not bothered to look for any research that looks at the difference between test results vs actual strength in men and women, so for what it's worth there might not be a significant difference. But if there is one then I don't have a problem with having two different tests that end up measuring the same thing if they enable the military to have actual comparable results between the sexes.

Women are biologically inferior to man in regards to muscles / potential strength. Known fact for...how many hundred years? Men and women aren't the same.

If you cannot meet the expectations of a job, you deserve to be thrown out or denied, immediately. There are special rules in place to tackle the above mentioned problem, but, honestly, if you need to lower standards to allow a certain group to pass, that's stupid.

On the other hand, combat efficiency involves more than just brute strength, especially in modern combat.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm way out of shape have a 31 BMI and I'm 28 years old. I can still do 3 pullups - just did 6 real pullups before I made this post.

I am 28 years old and I can do 10 pull-ups! I am army-fit \o/.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm way out of shape have a 31 BMI and I'm 28 years old. I can still do 3 pullups - just did 6 real pullups before I made this post.

I am 28 years old and I can do 10 pull-ups! I am army-fit \o/.

*army-strong

You missed a perfect joke :(

I'm still trying to figure out how pullups are relevant to combat needs at all.

going on whether or not a PFT is a necessary test, I would say its a great judge of a persons overall fitness. Specifically the run portion which is a no brainer.

as far as combat readiness is concerned, the USMC implemented a new test called a CFT which happens annually as well, CFT or Combat Fitness Test is designed more to test a persons combat readiness, Its a 880 yard sprint, a movement under fire course (obstacle course) and Ammo can lifts. These all simulate actual experiences in combat.

The standards here have women scoring a maximum score with about 2/3rds the times and lifts as the male marines.

It may not look exceedingly tough but I can tell you from experience that after a CFT I was usually sucking wind. The problem here again lies in physical fitness, in a Combat MOS theirs no time to readjust standards so that the woman can meet the minimums. As I posted above while I was in the Corps if you weren't a 1st class PFT and in this case a CFT then you had basically failed and were put on remedial PT (you PT twice a day...every day)

As D-USA the problem with having different standards is that it lowers the bar, you may disagree but you would be wrong. If a female marine can't carry a 120lbs pack for 9 miles then when she starts failing that means that the unit has to effect the combat readiness of a male marine to help carry her weight. Oldest rule in combat is if you can't carry your weight then your dead weight.

Heres a hypothetical situation. Lets say I am an enemy commander of a small unit and I I'm about to ambush a small US unit. I see 5 males and 5 females. I order my men to target the men first - then the females are too weak to pull the men outta fire and are forced to abandon them instead of pulling them to cover. Where as a unit of 10 men would probably have a better chance of getting their wounded out and save lives.

Ofc the situation is hypothetical but it's our job to make sure we are keeping our soldiers as safe as they possibly can be. To protect american lives and the safety of our entire nation. There should be a strength standard and it should be the same for men and women - those who don't meet the standard should be excluded. It's as simple as that.

Hypothetical answer: without the five women, then all you've got now is five men. Remember, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Heres a hypothetical situation. Lets say I am an enemy commander of a small unit and I I'm about to ambush a small US unit. I see 5 males and 5 females. I order my men to target the men first - then the females are too weak to pull the men outta fire and are forced to abandon them instead of pulling them to cover. Where as a unit of 10 men would probably have a better chance of getting their wounded out and save lives.

Ofc the situation is hypothetical but it's our job to make sure we are keeping our soldiers as safe as they possibly can be. To protect american lives and the safety of our entire nation. There should be a strength standard and it should be the same for men and women - those who don't meet the standard should be excluded. It's as simple as that.

Or the men try to pull the wounded out and get shot, so now you have ten casualties instead of five.

Also, there is a big difference between pulling someone along the ground and pulling yourself straight up. When pulling something along the ground you can make use of your leg muscles which are much, much more effective for moving large loads than our arms are.

Simple question: Is the pull-up test an unbiased test of a characteristic needed to perform the job?

If yes, then all need to be held to the same standard.

If no, then those the test is biased against need an alternate test or a modified scoring system to compensate.


So, in giving women an alternative scoring system for the pull up test, is the military recognizing a fundamental bias in the test or pandering to some perceived need for more women in the ranks?

To figure out the answer would require a lot of research into a lot of different factors and is probably beyond a knee-jerk reaction that women are not suitible for combat because they can't do pull ups as well as a man.

The military needs more hugging. It should be required that everyone hug each other and share their feelings. Walking is also a problem so there should be no more walking. Everyone gets a personal vehicle of some sort to ride into battle. Instead of rifles soldiers should carry ping pong balls and paddles. When they meet the enemy a ping pong tournament should decide who wins, as that is the true arbiter of righteousness. If we can make these changes the world would be a better, and more advanced, place.

Now bring it in here for a hug.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm way out of shape have a 31 BMI and I'm 28 years old. I can still do 3 pullups - just did 6 real pullups before I made this post.

I am 28 years old and I can do 10 pull-ups! I am army-fit \o/.

*army-strong

You missed a perfect joke :(

I had to google it to understand it .

 Ahtman wrote:
The military needs more hugging. It should be required that everyone hug each other and share their feelings. Walking is also a problem so there should be no more walking. Everyone gets a personal vehicle of some sort to ride into battle. Instead of rifles soldiers should carry ping pong balls and paddles. When they meet the enemy a ping pong tournament should decide who wins, as that is the true arbiter of righteousness. If we can make these changes the world would be a better, and more advanced, place.

Now bring it in here for a hug.

I am okay with this.

All countries should realise that war is so outdated. Like, it hasn't been cool for centuries.

Duke it out online instead.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
The military needs more hugging. It should be required that everyone hug each other and share their feelings. Walking is also a problem so there should be no more walking. Everyone gets a personal vehicle of some sort to ride into battle. Instead of rifles soldiers should carry ping pong balls and paddles. When they meet the enemy a ping pong tournament should decide who wins, as that is the true arbiter of righteousness. If we can make these changes the world would be a better, and more advanced, place.

Now bring it in here for a hug.

I am okay with this.

All countries should realise that war is so outdated. Like, it hasn't been cool for centuries.

Duke it out online instead.

Wussy this is America Hurr! We should have full power armor linked with drone flyers dropping directionally controlled bombs. Guns require aiming. They should have hand flamers. Also fusion tipped rockets in case the drones get taken over.

To avoid all the insertion problems they should be dropped from low orbit...

 Ashiraya wrote:
All countries should realise that war is so outdated. Like, it hasn't been cool for centuries.

What? If war was not cool, why are you playing Wargames, Ashiraya? And what about all that World of Warcraft?


I would be all for no more war, but last time my country decided that war was bad and that we should never start it, we let Nazi Germany gak all over the treaties we imposed on them and build an army, and that resulted in World War II, so I would say it was rather counterproductive.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
All countries should realise that war is so outdated. Like, it hasn't been cool for centuries.

What? If war was not cool, why are you playing Wargames, Ashiraya? And what about all that World of Warcraft?.

No WARhammer mentioning? What's up with you Ox? :((

The Australian navy standards were pitifully weak this is what was needed for a male, which was ridiculously pathetic. Just keep the standards and train people to the required limit if they dont put in them give them the boot

25 pushups
25 situps
7.5 on the beep test

for females it was even less

Probs why theres so many fat useless feths in the navy

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Heres a hypothetical situation. Lets say I am an enemy commander of a small unit and I I'm about to ambush a small US unit. I see 5 males and 5 females. I order my men to target the men first - then the females are too weak to pull the men outta fire and are forced to abandon them instead of pulling them to cover. Where as a unit of 10 men would probably have a better chance of getting their wounded out and save lives.

Ofc the situation is hypothetical but it's our job to make sure we are keeping our soldiers as safe as they possibly can be. To protect american lives and the safety of our entire nation. There should be a strength standard and it should be the same for men and women - those who don't meet the standard should be excluded. It's as simple as that.

Or the men try to pull the wounded out and get shot, so now you have ten casualties instead of five.

Also, there is a big difference between pulling someone along the ground and pulling yourself straight up. When pulling something along the ground you can make use of your leg muscles which are much, much more effective for moving large loads than our arms are.

I probably could have come up with a better hypothetical. Someone had said that strength is not an import attribute for a solider and it was the first thing that popped into my head. The point I was trying to make was that when you lower standards for your armed forces is weaken the entire force - not just those that are at the bottom of the standard.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Women are biologically inferior to man in regards to muscles / potential strength. Known fact for...how many hundred years? Men and women aren't the same.

If you cannot meet the expectations of a job, you deserve to be thrown out or denied, immediately. There are special rules in place to tackle the above mentioned problem, but, honestly, if you need to lower standards to allow a certain group to pass, that's stupid.

On the other hand, combat efficiency involves more than just brute strength, especially in modern combat.

Well there is a problem right now where a majority of injuries from the middle east are not due to combat but due to musculoskeletal injuries. And those are caused directly by the 80lbs they have to carry on them at all times. And that 80lbs is being used in training to wash out women at far higher rates than men, usually through injury and a discharge. They enter the military, forced to train under a load deemed unreasonable by most standards (even the military's) and they get a lifelong injury and wash out. We pay out 500$ mil in disibility per year for vets due to the load being too heavy and that doesn't include the people who wash out and have no coverage for injuries.

The truth is, young people are cheap and expendable, so there is no reason to find new solutions or address the injuries, and wash outs cost the army nothing. (until the lawsuits gets decided)

I do suppose failing due to pull ups is better than being given something else and failing because your spine broke or you tore a muscle in your leg which will never heal right again from training with an 80lb pack.

http://archive.armytimes.com/article/20110214/NEWS/102140308/Report-Combat-soldiers-carry-too-much-weight

A study led by a Johns Hopkins University researcher found that nearly one-third of all medical evacuations from Iraq and Afghanistan from 2004 through 2007 resulted from musculoskeletal, connective-tissue or spinal injuries. That was more than double the number of evacuations from combat injuries.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/04/10/heavy-loads-could-burden-womens-infantry-role.html

Army reports already have shown that female soldiers, even in training, sustain injuries at a higher rate than men. A study cited in “Musculoskeletal Injuries in Military Women,” noted that cumulative injury incidence among women in basic combat training was 52 percent compared to 26 percent for men. In advanced individual training, it was 30 percent for women and 24 percent for men.

It may be we need robot packmules for combat, who knows... But why pay for a million dollar combat pack mule robot when you can just break the body of a few 20-year olds? Considering combat loads can be upwards of 120 pounds, how do you expect a 140 pound person, male or female to handle it?

It is a little more than a black and white issue, especially when the army itself knows it is a legitimate problem and admits it fully and how the issue disproportionately impacts women.

 Sigvatr wrote:
No WARhammer mentioning? What's up with you Ox? :((

I thought about it, but Warhammer was included among the Wargames already .

 mitch_rifle wrote:
25 pushups

I can do that.

 mitch_rifle wrote:
25 situps

If that is what I think it is, I can do that EZ!

 mitch_rifle wrote:
7.5 on the beep test

What the hell is that? I want to know if I can do that!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
All countries should realise that war is so outdated. Like, it hasn't been cool for centuries.

What? If war was not cool, why are you playing Wargames, Ashiraya? And what about all that World of Warcraft?


I would be all for no more war, but last time my country decided that war was bad and that we should never start it, we let Nazi Germany gak all over the treaties we imposed on them and build an army, and that resulted in World War II, so I would say it was rather counterproductive.

Well you bailed us out in the revolution against the British so we figured we'd return the favor. There - now we are even then some!