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.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Jefffar wrote:


Let the women wash out for legit reasons, not because a test does not accurately reflect their capabilities or the actual job they need to do.

Women have to take the same tests as men. There's your valid reason.

Good job not reading the thread.

Good job trying to be witty yet saying nothing.

Pot, meet kettle.

The argument is that the tests produce skewed results while not actually being useful for measuring combat performance.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Jefffar wrote:


Let the women wash out for legit reasons, not because a test does not accurately reflect their capabilities or the actual job they need to do.

Women have to take the same tests as men. There's your valid reason.

Good job not reading the thread.

Good job trying to be witty yet saying nothing.

Pot, meet kettle.

The argument is that the tests produce skewed results while not actually being useful for measuring combat performance.

and that argument is total BS

the ability to pull your own body weight up by your arms is combat relevant on a very intrinsic and basic level.

not being able to hop/climb walls with your body weight, let alone while carrying gear, is essential to combat.

Heck, climbing over walls is just one solution...

In the USMC your grunt PFT is 3 mile run in under 28 minutes, 100 situps in 2 minutes and 3ish pullups for the minimums (if you don't get 100 situps as your minimum then your partner is a Blue Falcon) For your Average POG marines the PFT is 28 minutes 100 situps and 3ish pullups. Those are the BARE MINIMUMS for every part of the USMC. It doesn't matter what job you have. I said earlier though that while I was in if you didnt get a 1st class PFT you pretty much failed. so if females are losing out on combat arms jobs because they cant do that then tough crap because if you can't do the minimum then I sure as hell don't want you on patrol with me.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Jefffar wrote:


Let the women wash out for legit reasons, not because a test does not accurately reflect their capabilities or the actual job they need to do.

Women have to take the same tests as men. There's your valid reason.

Good job not reading the thread.

Good job trying to be witty yet saying nothing.

Pot, meet kettle.

The argument is that the tests produce skewed results while not actually being useful for measuring combat performance.

Explain how it doesn't.

We are we wrapped around "pull ups". For the life of me I never had to scale a wall to get to the enemy. Granted I duck behind a few walls to avoid threatening lead bee's but never scaled them. Used a dumpster one time to look over the wall but that was iffy situation. Worse time I had was sprinting up four flight of stairs in rattle battle in like 120ish heat. That SUCKED.

 Jihadin wrote:
We are we wrapped around "pull ups". For the life of me I never had to scale a wall to get to the enemy. Granted I duck behind a few walls to avoid threatening lead bee's but never scaled them. Used a dumpster one time to look over the wall but that was iffy situation. Worse time I had was sprinting up four flight of stairs in rattle battle in like 120ish heat. That SUCKED.

Maybe it's just a difference in AOs, but we hopped walls (especially walls on rooftops and in courtyards) and windows all the time while on patrol.

 Jihadin wrote:
We are we wrapped around "pull ups". For the life of me I never had to scale a wall to get to the enemy. Granted I duck behind a few walls to avoid threatening lead bee's but never scaled them. Used a dumpster one time to look over the wall but that was iffy situation. Worse time I had was sprinting up four flight of stairs in rattle battle in like 120ish heat. That SUCKED.

Yes, but this is the MARINES we're talking about here. There's no time for a thought like, "ohh hey, that dumpster will allow me to see over that wall, lemme climb onto it and see what we can see"




Sorry, had to be done

Pull Ups don't prepare for combat. Pull Ups are a great means to check strength for specific muscles - as has already been explained by at least two people in this thread.

Well, you can quantify upper body strength with your ability to push and your ability to pull. Far be it from "only testing specific muscles" pullups are a very strong indicator of the latter. Regardless, squabbling over the necessity of the ability to do 3 pullups is utterly irrelevant. Running around with heavy loads is the hard part, and it's the reason women haven't been completing IOC or Ranger School. Women can do pullups, and if you show up to a military school without the ability to meet the minimum pft, women or not, you dont get to try and shift the blame on someone else.

In defense of my beloved corps, I leave it to the army.




Back on topic, females have to meet the bare minimum service requirements. If they wish to join an all male MOS they should have to pass the MALE requirements unless we are going to become sexists ourselves and let it be ok to weaken military and let our standards drop.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
We are we wrapped around "pull ups". For the life of me I never had to scale a wall to get to the enemy. Granted I duck behind a few walls to avoid threatening lead bee's but never scaled them. Used a dumpster one time to look over the wall but that was iffy situation. Worse time I had was sprinting up four flight of stairs in rattle battle in like 120ish heat. That SUCKED.

Maybe it's just a difference in AOs, but we hopped walls (especially walls on rooftops and in courtyards) and windows all the time while on patrol.

yeah...

Nuggz, we have to consider that once a small fence or wall can hold up a soldier to the extent you have to breach it or make a human ladder, something is wrong... walls, ladders, climbing of any sort, rope acent/decent, and many more activities would require much more then 3 pull ups worth of strength

I sure your personal experience is that you never had to pull yourself up anything while out on duty, but as Jihadin points out, that's not everyone's experience...

personally I hate doors and stairs... they are death traps... pulling oneself up quietly through an ulterior entrance like a window is just uncommon sense!

also, women do pull ups fairly well in my experience... back at my jr high gym class most fit women could do 2-4 pull ups, its just not a well proven argument that this exercise alone does account for that high non pass or drop out rate of women.

 Ghazkuul wrote:


Back on topic, females have to meet the bare minimum service requirements. If they wish to join an all male MOS they should have to pass the MALE requirements unless we are going to become sexists ourselves and let it be ok to weaken military and let our standards drop.

Brings up a great point. Why do the Army and Uncle Sam's Misguided Children have different PT test standards for males and females? Shouldn't there be just A Standard?




Hint: The percent of females that could meet the male minimums for the upper body strength portions is pretty slim, which would vastly decrease the number of females in the military. And since (in the Army) promotion points currently take into account how well you do, with one standard, males would tend to score higher/get more promotion points.

I can't find a link, but I recall seeing the results of a study where they looked at ROTC and West Point cadet APFT scores and showed that if the male standard was applied to every cadet, the large majority of females would not have passed.

Honest question: Would you all be good with that? A military with a vastly smaller amount of females but One Standard for the APFT (and USMC equivalent)? Or is the answer that the male standard is too high? (Even lowering it to the current female standard only solves part of the problem, the disparity in promotion points would still exist as males would typically score a lot higher than their female counterparts.)

Im perfectly fine with separate standards for the PFT for promotion points, thats fare because a male will be better able to get a higher score, but with that said the current female standards are a joke. I don't think i could have failed a female PFT if i drank all weekend, lifted for 6 hours right before the PFT and had to carry a 30lbs assault pack.

As to why the standards are different between the two services? No offense army, but Marines have higher standards.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

As to why the standards are different between the two services? No offense army, but Marines have higher standards.

And yet they go to Army schools...

Like Airborne School.

Or the Armor Officers Course.

And several intel and signal schools.

 CptJake wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

As to why the standards are different between the two services? No offense army, but Marines have higher standards.

And yet they go to Army schools...

Like Airborne School.

Or the Armor Officers Course.

And several intel and signal schools.

and our pay checks are not label "Dept of the Navy"

Pathfinder school to
Also their Spec Op unit had to get retrain by Special Forces.

Higher Standards is a myth. I've met some dirt ball of Marines same as any other branches of service. So stop sounding like a "Boot" who just came out of the training.

Also did you know there are no Marines in Delta?

Simple as this, army PFT 2 miles Marine PFT 3 miles

Ohh and Marine rifle range qualification has 500 yard shooting not just 300 like army :-P

One of the advantages of being an American veteran of the IDF is that I can completely ignore this inter-branch rivalry nonsense, and stick to the important things in life, like bitching about poor equipment, obnoxious commanders, and disgusting conditions.

 CptJake wrote:

Honest question: Would you all be good with that? A military with a vastly smaller amount of females but One Standard for the APFT (and USMC equivalent)? Or is the answer that the male standard is too high? (Even lowering it to the current female standard only solves part of the problem, the disparity in promotion points would still exist as males would typically score a lot higher than their female counterparts.)

To be frank, I would eliminate or severely cut down the "importance" placed on PT for the purpose of promotion points. During my ten years, I was under plenty of leadership who could PT till the cows came in, but were utter, miserable failures at their MOS (something which they, at one point had to have some proficiency in, or how did they make it through AIT?). I personally hated going to the board, because once the docs put me on a P2/P3 profile, everytime I went, CSM was always asking "Ensis, why is your PT score so messed up?" and I'd have to say, "CSM, the doctors said I have arthritis, which apparently means I can't run. I assure you that isn't the case, due to my hobby of playing rugby on the weekends." I think that there is far too much "He/She is a PT Stud, they will obviously be great leaders!" going on.


In talking to a contractor buddy of mine in Germany, I prefer the idea behind part of the Navy's promotion system: MOS related testing. In order to move up, you MUST demonstrate that you know your job at your current level and can do some of the job at the next level.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:


Ohh and Marine rifle range qualification has 500 yard shooting not just 300 like army :-P

There's actually a good reason for that.... how many times in any modern war (let's just say, any war involving US forces using "exclusively" M-16 family of weapons) have service-men/women engaged an enemy at anywhere near 500m?


It's a point of "fact" that the vast majority of engagement Army personnel come into are at 250m or closer.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Honest question: Would you all be good with that? A military with a vastly smaller amount of females but One Standard for the APFT (and USMC equivalent)? Or is the answer that the male standard is too high? (Even lowering it to the current female standard only solves part of the problem, the disparity in promotion points would still exist as males would typically score a lot higher than their female counterparts.)

To be frank, I would eliminate or severely cut down the "importance" placed on PT for the purpose of promotion points.

Okay, no promotion points for PT. Got it.

How about the real questions:

Would you all be good with a military with a vastly smaller amount of females but One Standard for the APFT? Or is the answer that the male standard is too high?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Honest question: Would you all be good with that? A military with a vastly smaller amount of females but One Standard for the APFT (and USMC equivalent)? Or is the answer that the male standard is too high? (Even lowering it to the current female standard only solves part of the problem, the disparity in promotion points would still exist as males would typically score a lot higher than their female counterparts.)

To be frank, I would eliminate or severely cut down the "importance" placed on PT for the purpose of promotion points. During my ten years, I was under plenty of leadership who could PT till the cows came in, but were utter, miserable failures at their MOS (something which they, at one point had to have some proficiency in, or how did they make it through AIT?). I personally hated going to the board, because once the docs put me on a P2/P3 profile, everytime I went, CSM was always asking "Ensis, why is your PT score so messed up?" and I'd have to say, "CSM, the doctors said I have arthritis, which apparently means I can't run. I assure you that isn't the case, due to my hobby of playing rugby on the weekends." I think that there is far too much "He/She is a PT Stud, they will obviously be great leaders!" going on.


In talking to a contractor buddy of mine in Germany, I prefer the idea behind part of the Navy's promotion system: MOS related testing. In order to move up, you MUST demonstrate that you know your job at your current level and can do some of the job at the next level.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:


Ohh and Marine rifle range qualification has 500 yard shooting not just 300 like army :-P

There's actually a good reason for that.... how many times in any modern war (let's just say, any war involving US forces using "exclusively" M-16 family of weapons) have service-men/women engaged an enemy at anywhere near 500m?


It's a point of "fact" that the vast majority of engagement Army personnel come into are at 250m or closer.

Actually really good points except your last, I was probably in 1 fire fight that was closer then 400 yards. in Afghanistan it was long range affairs almost every time. :_D

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Simple as this, army PFT 2 miles Marine PFT 3 miles

Ohh and Marine rifle range qualification has 500 yard shooting not just 300 like army :-P

While I can't speak to enlisted training, I know a bunch of people who are now officers in both the Army and Marines (and other services), and what Marine officer candidates go through makes the other branch's officer programs look like a joke.

You guys can have your tough man pissing match all day long.

I'm in Afghanistan, and I don't even have a room mate.

Air Force, all the way.

CptJake wrote:
Would you all be good with a military with a vastly smaller amount of females but One Standard for the APFT? Or is the answer that the male standard is too high?

I guess that, in reality I don't have so much a problem with the "number" of females in the military, but rather the constitution of those we have. I wouldn't necessarily say that women need to be doing male minimums, but certainly more push-ups than they currently do. As it stands right now, currently an 18 year old female needs 19 push-ups to pass an APFT. That's ridiculous, they quite often do more than that during a standard PT session as it is (albeit, broken up into various sets). I wouldn't necessarily suggest an 18 year old female be able to do 42 push-ups as the males do, but certainly somewhere in between. Maybe 25-30 should be the minimum? Sure, it may force some out, but I suspect it'd be the ones you and I have both seen that make you scratch your head and wonder how they ever pass tape, the ones constantly falling out of platoon runs, until it's time for the PT test, etc.

speaking of "large" military women, I would most definitely fix the height/weight program. Feth the current tape test, and it's "field expedient" BS line. It is not accurate in the least bit and far too many people are able to play the system and remain in the military with their tubby behinds taking up space.

Ghazkuul wrote:

Actually really good points except your last, I was probably in 1 fire fight that was closer then 400 yards. in Afghanistan it was long range affairs almost every time. :_D

Ahh, see... being that all my warzone tours were Iraq, and most of my time there was urban ops.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

CptJake wrote:
Would you all be good with a military with a vastly smaller amount of females but One Standard for the APFT? Or is the answer that the male standard is too high?

I guess that, in reality I don't have so much a problem with the "number" of females in the military, but rather the constitution of those we have. I wouldn't necessarily say that women need to be doing male minimums, but certainly more push-ups than they currently do. As it stands right now, currently an 18 year old female needs 19 push-ups to pass an APFT. That's ridiculous, they quite often do more than that during a standard PT session as it is (albeit, broken up into various sets). I wouldn't necessarily suggest an 18 year old female be able to do 42 push-ups as the males do, but certainly somewhere in between. Maybe 25-30 should be the minimum? Sure, it may force some out, but I suspect it'd be the ones you and I have both seen that make you scratch your head and wonder how they ever pass tape, the ones constantly falling out of platoon runs, until it's time for the PT test, etc.

speaking of "large" military women, I would most definitely fix the height/weight program. Feth the current tape test, and it's "field expedient" BS line. It is not accurate in the least bit and far too many people are able to play the system and remain in the military with their tubby behinds taking up space.

So you are okay with separate male and female standards and do not think there should just be A Standard?

(I'm not sure there is a 'correct answer', I am honestly curious what people think)

In regards to the PFT, I believe it's unjust, but I don't have an answer to fix it.

I'm a desk jockey, plain and simple. Women in my career field are as well. There is not a single gender difference in our jobs. We do the same exact thing. Even as a SWO doing Army Support, and having the increased combat training, everything between male and female job wise is identical.

So why does the military say I have to do 33 push ups as a minimum to pass, but women only 17? If the Air Force says that I am required to do that many to be able to meet the demands of the duty that is expected of me, then why do women have to meet a requirement half as high?

Now before anyone starts griping about how low are standards are compared to the other services, that's not what I'm going on about. Baring Spec Ops, there is not a single job in the AF that women cannot get into. Yet our physical fitness requirements between the two sexes are completely night and day.

Unless they've changed it since I was in, a female soldier in the lower end of the age range (don't remember what it was, now... 18-22? Something like that) had to complete 25 to 30 pushups in 2 minutes, whereas male soldiers in the same age-bracket had to do 42.

Mind you, I've been out of the Army for 15 years now, so it would not surprise me to learn that the standards have changed.

 Psienesis wrote:
Unless they've changed it since I was in, a female soldier in the lower end of the age range (don't remember what it was, now... 18-22? Something like that) had to complete 25 to 30 pushups in 2 minutes, whereas male soldiers in the same age-bracket had to do 42.

Mind you, I've been out of the Army for 15 years now, so it would not surprise me to learn that the standards have changed.

I think these are current (and seem to be the same from when I was on active duty).



Females in lowest age category need 19 to pass and max on 42. Males need 42 to pass and 71 to max.

Sit ups are identical.

Run times are very different.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I've always wondered why folks don't lobby to get the Olympics to be unisex. The best athletes could compete against each other regardless of sex.

 CptJake wrote:
[
I've always wondered why folks don't lobby to get the Olympics to be unisex. The best athletes could compete against each other regardless of sex.

Not really... According to olympic.org the Gold Medal winning time in the 100m dash for men was 9.63 seconds. For women it was 10.75. Men's 200m time was 19.3 seconds, womens was 21.88.

There probably are some events that could be unisex, but I don't think there's many.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Simple as this, army PFT 2 miles Marine PFT 3 miles

Ohh and Marine rifle range qualification has 500 yard shooting not just 300 like army :-P

Typical "Boot" glow there High Speed
All new troops regardless of back ground, race, sex, and/or prior service upon entering my platoon I expect to either they
1. Meet MY expectation
2. Exceed MY expectation

Your NCO's are doing you a disservice if you haven't gotten that into your head already