Army Female recruits can't pass the physical

#26
#26
Wireless1 said:
I believe there has only been one woman pass the navy seal test (not the program, just the test to get into the program) you think it'll be modified so that we can have our first...... whatever you call a female seal......
Click to expand...

Probably. the entire ranger school is modified when a female enters a class and that is coming from an RI.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Wireless1
#27
#27
hog88 said:
It’s a complete waste of time to even attempt to engage with you. You know damn well the fact that combat arms is not extraneous to the point because there isn’t a singular point.
Click to expand...

20% of MOS's are combat arms. The APFT applies to 100% of the MOS's - if your intent was to be myopic in the real world application of APFT's and the impact they have on promotions etc, you succeeded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ENGRVOL
#29
#29
SpaceCoastVol said:
What is your aversion to raising the bar instead of lowering it?
Click to expand...
It's funny how the military might be the most colorblind segment of society because your life truly depends on the person beside you. And from many of the women who earned their position based on a single set of standards it should also be the least sexist, but our politicians have to get involved......
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and 82_VOL_83
#30
#30
Septic said:
20% of MOS's are combat arms. The APFT applies to 100% of the MOS's - if your intent was to be myopic in the real world application of APFT's and the impact they have on promotions etc, you succeeded.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it doesn’t make sense that a good female trauma surgeon or a lab scientist be passed over for promotion because a less talented male can score higher on a physical fitness test that tests very little on what makes a good soldier for that MOS. Especially if the army has a critical shortage in their MOS. There should be basic fitness standards for all like they used to have for the apft but I think people who are freaking out about lowering standards don’t really know that not every soldier is combat infrantry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lukeneyland and Septic
#32
#32
SpaceCoastVol said:
What is your aversion to raising the bar instead of lowering it?
Click to expand...

I don't have an aversion to the where the bar is, but measuring feats of strength and speed equally between the sexes is myopic. Raise it for both, but they should still be measured with different expectations of ability.

As I stated, I happen to agree that in combat arms - there should be consideration to equal standards, given the importance of their rolls.

The ado about nothing here is that you guys are bemoaning a "reduction in standards" whereas the "standards" were just set and were almost immediately being found to be untenable. Going back to a rational standard that acknowledges there's a physiologic disparity between the strength and speed of the sexes is common sense.
 
#34
#34
ENGRVOL said:
Yeah, it doesn’t make sense that a good female trauma surgeon or a lab scientist be passed over for promotion because a less talented male can score higher on a physical fitness test that tests very little on what makes a good soldier for that MOS. Especially if the army has a critical shortage in their MOS. There should be basic fitness standards for all like they used to have for the apft but I think people who are freaking out about lowering standards don’t really know that not every soldier is combat infrantry.
Click to expand...

Precisely. This isn't about "lowering" the standard, it's about making a standard attainable.

You wouldn't scrap a Corvette because it didn't hold it's own against a stock car. But at the same time, if the 'Vette couldn't keep up perhaps it shouldn't be seeking to race a stock car.
 
#35
#35
Septic said:
I don't have an aversion to the where the bar is, but measuring feats of strength and speed equally between the sexes is myopic. Raise it for both, but they should still be measured with different expectations of ability.

As I stated, I happen to agree that in combat arms - there should be consideration to equal standards, given the importance of their rolls.

The ado about nothing here is that you guys are bemoaning a "reduction in standards" whereas the "standards" were just set and were almost immediately being found to be untenable. Going back to a rational standard that acknowledges there's a physiologic disparity between the strength and speed of the sexes is common sense.
Click to expand...
Have you ever taken a military PT test? Here's some enlightenment for you: They ain't that hard. They are minimums. Even a damned doctor should be healthy enough to do a few pushups. As a matter of fact, I would hope that they would want to be healthy enough to do that.
 
#36
#36
ENGRVOL said:
Yeah, it doesn’t make sense that a good female trauma surgeon or a lab scientist be passed over for promotion because a less talented male can score higher on a physical fitness test that tests very little on what makes a good soldier for that MOS. Especially if the army has a critical shortage in their MOS. There should be basic fitness standards for all like they used to have for the apft but I think people who are freaking out about lowering standards don’t really know that not every soldier is combat infrantry.
Click to expand...

I do know that not every soldier isn’t (or capable of being) an infantry soldier. If they want to revert to separate standards for the sexes then revert back to baring females from combat arms.

I would rather see an APFT and rank/pay structure by MOS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ENGRVOL and SpaceCoastVol
#37
#37
hog88 said:
He’s floundering in search of a coherent argument.
Click to expand...

The argument is coherent, your inability to understand it is the issue.

Or are you really so obtuse as to recognize the physical differences between men and women?

Maybe you're struggling because there's not much difference in your case?
 
  • Like
Reactions: n_huffhines
#38
#38
Septic said:
Precisely. This isn't about "lowering" the standard, it's about making a standard attainable.

You wouldn't scrap a Corvette because it didn't hold it's own against a stock car. But at the same time, if the 'Vette couldn't keep up perhaps it shouldn't be seeking to race a stock car.
Click to expand...
Do I interpret this as "If a woman can't pass the APFT she shouldn't be in the Army?" If so I need to add a like.
 
#39
#39
Septic said:
I don't have an aversion to the where the bar is, but measuring feats of strength and speed equally between the sexes is myopic. Raise it for both, but they should still be measured with different expectations of ability.

As I stated, I happen to agree that in combat arms - there should be consideration to equal standards, given the importance of their rolls.

The ado about nothing here is that you guys are bemoaning a "reduction in standards" whereas the "standards" were just set and were almost immediately being found to be untenable. Going back to a rational standard that acknowledges there's a physiologic disparity between the strength and speed of the sexes is common sense.
Click to expand...

2 soldiers in the same MOS shouldn’t have different standards for the same pay and promotion opportunities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Wireless1 and SpaceCoastVol
#40
#40
SpaceCoastVol said:
Have you ever taken a military PT test? Here's some enlightenment for you: They ain't that hard. They are minimums. Even a damned doctor should be healthy enough to do a few pushups. As a matter of fact, I would hope that they would want to be healthy enough to do that.
Click to expand...

Dude, I've taken 9 APFT's and maxed two. I can't speak for your branch (AF?) but certainly no one would argue with that statement (especially if AF). However the ARMY test has changed considerably since I've been in - none of this is central to the point.
 
#41
#41
Septic said:
The argument is coherent, your inability to understand it is the issue.

Or are you really so obtuse as to recognize the physical differences between men and women?

Maybe you're struggling because there's not much difference in your case?
Click to expand...
Bullets and the enemy give no quarter to sex/race/religious affiliation or whatever feel good metric you choose to defend. Dead is dead. I get what you are saying to a point, but there is a meaning to the word standard. I am reminded of the Patton moment (I think) when he told the journalist to pick up a rifle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wireless1
#42
#42
Septic said:
The argument is coherent, your inability to understand it is the issue.

Or are you really so obtuse as to recognize the physical differences between men and women?

Maybe you're struggling because there's not much difference in your case?
Click to expand...

I do understand the physical differences between men and women. Why do you want to negate the achievements of the females that do meet the standard?
 
#43
#43
Wireless1 said:
Do I interpret this as "If a woman can't pass the APFT she shouldn't be in the Army?" If so I need to add a like.
Click to expand...

Of course, there has to be standards - as there always has been. In fact they should be tougher for both men and women, but they should still be evaluated differently due to the differences in physical ability.
 
#44
#44
Septic said:
Dude, I've taken 9 APFT's and maxed two. I can't speak for your branch (AF?) but certainly no one would argue with that statement (especially if AF). However the ARMY test has changed considerably since I've been in - none of this is central to the point.
Click to expand...
It absolutely is central to the point. (I was a squid btw). I don't remember how many I did, nor what I scored. I passed. And it wasn't that hard. I HATE running, and I am a terrible runner. No one has to outrun the bear with me in the group. But I passed.
 
#45
#45
hog88 said:
2 soldiers in the same MOS shouldn’t have different standards for the same pay and promotion opportunities.
Click to expand...

I guess the only way you're able to deal with this intellectually is to over simplify it. Should a female army dentist have to match the strength and speed of a male dentist in order to get promoted? What if she's the better dentist and he's a gym rat? She can't do as many push ups, so he gets the promotion despite inferior work? Stop being lazy, the comparison you're foisting is apples and oranges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: n_huffhines
#46
#46
Septic said:
I guess the only way you're able to deal with this intellectually is to over simplify it. Should a female army dentist to match the strength and speed of a male dentist in order to get promoted? What if she's the better dentist and he's a gym rat? She can't do as many push ups, so he gets the promotion despite inferior work? Stop being lazy, the comparison you're foisting is apples and oranges.
Click to expand...
I highly doubt that the PT test for dentists would be the determining factor for promotion. If it is, then yes it is one more discriminator. Are her dental skills superior to his but he can do more pushups? Then she gets promoted. Same with any other MOS. You are being the lazy one here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#47
#47
hog88 said:
I do know that not every soldier isn’t (or capable of being) an infantry soldier. If they want to revert to separate standards for the sexes then revert back to baring females from combat arms.

I would rather see an APFT and rank/pay structure by MOS.
Click to expand...
Agree. APFT or ACFT should be based on MOS. What was frustrating was when the new ACFT was announced a few years ago there was only a minor distinction for different MOS. Failing a fitness test is a major hindrance to promotion and a lot of good female soldiers working in such areas as the medical corps left or thought about leaving the army as they felt their chances of career advancement were poor if they can’t make rank. These were soldiers who had no issue with the old apft (push-ups, sit-ups, 2 mile run) and sometimes maxed their score. It was the new acft that added things like squats and the pull-ups with leg tuck that people really struggled with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#50
#50
hog88 said:
I do understand the physical differences between men and women. Why do you want to negate the achievements of the females that do meet the standard?
Click to expand...

They'll still be meeting the standard you dolt.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top