# USMC changes fitness requirement for women



## LimaOscarSierraTango (Nov 27, 2012)

This might get interesting...



> Female Marines soon will be required to perform pull-ups, just like male Marines do, as part of their annual physical fitness tests, the Marine Corps’ top general announced Tuesday.
> 
> The change takes effect Jan. 1, 2014, Gen. Jim Amos, the service’s commandant, alerted Marines in a force-wide message. Officials will phase in the change throughout the coming year to accommodate what is expected to be a significant adjustment.
> A spokesman for the commandant declined to comment. However, the general's message makes clear that he expects this to be a success, and he has ordered all Marine units to add pull-ups training to their fitness programs during the coming year.
> ...


 
While I like the fact that they are starting to equalize the PFT, I wonder if this is being done to lead to them opening up the direct combat arms MOSes to women in the near future.

SOURCE


----------



## Hillclimb (Nov 28, 2012)

Most female marines I've met have ran 300 PFTs. I wish they'd tweak the scoring on the 3 mile run instead. I can understand them catching static on a movements that requires upper body strength, but maybe the cardiovascular portion should be an even playing field. Just my .02


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 28, 2012)

ROR!

ACLU just filed a lawsuit demanding WM's get a shot at Combat Arms, here's your wish chicky-poo.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 28, 2012)

SOWT said:


> ROR!
> 
> ACLU just filed a lawsuit demanding WM's get a shot at Combat Arms, here's your wish chicky-poo.


 
I just read about that this morning.


----------



## 0699 (Nov 28, 2012)

Hillclimb said:


> *Most female marines I've met have ran 300 PFTs*. I wish they'd tweak the scoring on the 3 mile run instead. I can understand them catching static on a movements that requires upper body strength, but maybe the cardiovascular portion should be an even playing field. Just my .02


 
I'd like to know where you've been meeting female Marines that score 300 PFTs.  I knew very few that scored 300s; most were somewhere in the middle and a few were on the low end.

The flex-arm hang is no joke.  It does test upper body muscles, just different ones.  I think this is a step forward, but unless until the PFT is completely neutral there cannot be true equality.


----------



## Hillclimb (Nov 28, 2012)

0699 said:


> I'd like to know where you've been meeting female Marines that score 300 PFTs. I knew very few that scored 300s; most were somewhere in the middle and a few were on the low end.


 
Perhaps I was fortunate enough to only be exposed to 300PFT female Marines then. We had all the little bean pole track stars in supply. They only had to run 21:00 to max their 100 points on the 3 mile, and that's usually the brick wall between male Marines and their 300PFT.



> until the PFT is completely neutral there cannot be true equality


 
+1


----------



## 104TN (Nov 28, 2012)

Obviously not a Marine, but IOBC (or the Marine equivalent - SOI maybe?) has been open to and soliciting women Marines for a while now.

To date only two have stepped up. One washed out day 1 the other another two weeks in. I can see the doors being opened but the service member still needs to be able to hack it.


----------



## Spider6 (Nov 29, 2012)

The June Sitrep from Military Times discussed the push to raise the standards on the PFT to help cut some "weaks links".  However Manpower said changes could only be made after a decision on  women in combat has been made.

http://www.militarytimes.com/multim...8,+2012/57707019001/57494968001/1695786038001


----------



## Brian1/75 (Nov 29, 2012)

Hillclimb said:


> Perhaps I was fortunate enough to only be exposed to 300PFT female Marines then. We had all the little bean pole track stars in supply. They only had to run 21:00 to max their 100 points on the 3 mile, and that's usually the brick wall between male Marines and their 300PFT.
> 
> 
> 
> +1


Isn't the male max 18:00? I always thought that would be incredibly tough to run.


----------



## Hillclimb (Nov 29, 2012)

Brian1/75 said:


> Isn't the male max 18:00? I always thought that would be incredibly tough to run.


 
Correct. Sorry, I only covered half my ground.

The female 100 point max is 21 minutes, and male 100 point max is 18:00. Thats where I feel the playing field should be equal.


----------



## digrar (Nov 29, 2012)

The male and female 5000m records have nearly 2 minutes difference. So I don't have too many dramas with having separate max point times. Then on the other hand where it's a case of females coming into jobs like Infantry, I think they should have to meet the same standard and be scored accordingly.


----------



## Etype (Dec 2, 2012)

digrar said:


> The male and female 5000m records have nearly 2 minutes difference. So I don't have too many dramas with having separate max point times. Then on the other hand where it's a case of females coming into jobs like Infantry, I think they should have to meet the same standard and be scored accordingly.


The long standing argument has been this- make the scale exactly the same for both men and women, but make the men have to achieve a higher score than women.  That way, you can objectively compare the two, but still grade them fairly by gender.  If they are scored on the same scale, you will know exactly how much better a man is than a women (or vice versa), this is important with all these ideas of letting women fill combat jobs.  You can't be saying, "oh, well she maxed her PT test so she's better than this guy who only scored XXX points," if they aren't scored the same way.

Facts-
- Women are slower than men.
- Women are weaker than men.

Women who want to serve in combat arms jobs need to acknowledge this before they even show up, we don't need liars on the battlefield.


----------



## Brian1/75 (Dec 2, 2012)

Your facts are true on average, but there are women definitely faster than me and probably quite a few stronger than me. With that said, reaching 60% on a Army PT test isn't exactly the cusp of strength and speed for either gender. I mean we require a young ass 17 year old combat soldier to run 2 miles in just under 16 minutes? 42 push-ups? Those certainly seem like bare minimums women can attend and I think even the 100% end is attainable for those that want it.


----------



## Etype (Dec 2, 2012)

Brian1/75 said:


> Your facts are true on average, but there are women definitely faster than me and probably quite a few stronger than me. With that said, reaching 60% on a Army PT test isn't exactly the cusp of strength and speed for either gender. I mean we require a young ass 17 year old combat soldier to run 2 miles in just under 16 minutes? 42 push-ups? Those certainly seem like bare minimums women can attend and I think even the 100% end is attainable for those that want it.


Oh geez, don't be the, "there are women faster than me," guy.  Someone show me an objectively measured physical performance type sport/event where women outperform men.  I'm talking any type of race, powerlifting, weightlifting, etc.

I believe the fact that people are so afraid to say that women are weaker and slower than men outlines the fact that there is a bias in place to see them succeed- why else is it so taboo to say so when all the official forums clearly state it is so?


----------



## Brian1/75 (Dec 2, 2012)

Yes on average or when talking about the Olympics. Soldiers aren't olympians and we don't require them to be. As I said, getting a sub 13:00 minute 2 miler is attainable by a good deal of women. There are female High School athletes doing that. This isn't about bias. It's about not making concessions for women that don't rate being in a combat role. As I said, 60% is easy and 100% is attainable. We don't need to make it okay for women to attain lower scores.


----------



## Etype (Dec 2, 2012)

Brian1/75 said:


> It's about not making concessions for women that don't rate being in a combat role.


That is really the key. I'm a big fan of their being a separate or additional PT test for combat jobs. Fortunately, SF and Rangers aren't going to have women shoe horned into our ranks for political reasons any time soon.

Most Marines I've worked with are in pretty good shape to begin.  With women already having to do the flexed arm hang, and 1.6 pull ups being the average- 3 shouldn't be very hard to attain.


----------



## Viper1 (Dec 3, 2012)

0699 said:


> I'd like to know where you've been meeting female Marines that score 300 PFTs. I knew very few that scored 300s; most were somewhere in the middle and a few were on the low end.
> 
> The flex-arm hang is no joke. It does test upper body muscles, just different ones. I think this is a step forward, but unless until the PFT is completely neutral there cannot be true equality.


 
Anyone have any ideas or suggestions on how a PFT can be completely neutral?  I haven't seen it done and my opinion is that there is no such thing as a gender-neutral PT test.

I'm not trying to start a fight, just trying to get educated.


----------



## 0699 (Dec 3, 2012)

Viper1 said:


> Anyone have any ideas or suggestions on how a PFT can be completely neutral? I haven't seen it done and my opinion is that there is no such thing as a gender-neutral PT test.
> 
> I'm not trying to start a fight, just trying to get educated.


 
One test, one set of standards.  If women want to compete with men, or vice versa, they should be graded the same.  3 mile run, max points requires it to be run in 18 minutes or less.  Pull ups and crunches should be the same.  AFAIK, we require female police officers & fire fighters to meet the same standard as their male peers.

I also think we should do away with the seperate age standards...


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 3, 2012)

0699 said:


> ...
> 
> I also think we should do away with the separate age standards...


 
I agree.  A rifle weights the same no matter if you are male or female, and no matter what age you are.  A mile is the same distance for everyone.  Having one standard gives both the Soldier and his or her leaders at all levels an instant snapshot of individual fitness without the false inflation of age or gender norming.  

It would work like this:  everyone takes the same test (like they do now) but with the same scoring standards.  Then, that score can be compared against age and/or gender norms to produce a secondary rating.  This shows two things- how a Soldier compares overall, and how he or she compares to his or her age/gender group.  

Some possible secondary ratings, on a five-tiered scale going highest to lowest:
Excellence
High Pass
Pass
Below Standards
Fail

So, in this scheme, a middle-aged field grade officer who scores a 180 on the new scale still gets an "excellence" rating  based on the secondary rating based on age and gender.  On her officer evaluation report, it shows 180//Excellence.  This ensures that neither she nor the commander of the unit confuse her physical abilities with that of the 20-year-old specialist who just scored a 300.  In the regular monthly counseling given to him by his team leader, his PT stats are 300//Excellence.  But Private Schmedlap, who is also 18 but only  manages to eke out a 180 on his PT test, gets a 180//Pass, due to the marginal physical fitness for his age and gender.  This shows he is physically as capable as the middle-aged female field grade, but he is far below his age/gender peer.

Or you can just forget the age/gender thing altogether.


----------



## AMRUSMCR (Dec 3, 2012)

If you keep telling people what they can't do based on their gender, age, size, health etc what incentive do they have to even try?  We're not competing at Olympic levels in the PFT so I don't see why it can't be normalized.

The job description doesn't change based on gender, so the physical fitness requirements shouldn't either.  Hold women to the same standards and grading as the men.  If you want to make it extra fair then add pull ups to the women AND add flex arm hang to the men.   I think Marauder has the right of it.... the standard and the subset within the standard.  Or maybe do it based on MOS? 

Women's careers might be hurt in the interim while everything gets monkied out and for that I am truly sorry.  The ones who make it through the initial cuts will have nutted up and done what needs to be done in the gym and on the road to stay in and the next generation of women Marines brought in are there with the expectation that they'll have to meet these standards, and will achieve them.  Women fought for the right over the years to train and serve as Marines, and as such we need to fight for the right to stay in as Marines.  We are no longer there to just "free a desk" so we can no longer cry foul when we're required to meet the same standards as men. 

My experience as a woman in the Marine Corps showed me that if you asked for help from other Marines, you go it.  No questions asked other than "What time's good for you?"  You can't do a pull up?  Ask someone to work with you.  There is ALWAYS a Marine in any unit that will take the time to work with someone on their fitness.


----------



## DAVE101 (Dec 3, 2012)

When reading this, the first thing that came into my head was "what about promotion points or other favorable actions?" I think the current system helps differentiate _how hard someone worked_ on their fitness, rather than raw performance, aptitude, genetics or whatever.



Marauder06 said:


> It would work like this: everyone takes the same test (like they do now) but with the same scoring standards. Then, that score can be compared against age and/or gender norms to produce a secondary rating. This shows two things- how a Soldier compares overall, and how he or she compares to his or her age/gender group.
> 
> Some possible secondary ratings, on a five-tiered scale going highest to lowest:
> Excellence
> ...


Interesting... seems like a good solution. So we'd use this for things like Evaluations, deciding who goes to a school, etc?


----------



## Etype (Dec 3, 2012)

DAVE101 said:


> "what about promotion points or other favorable actions?"


That's why they could make the points required lower for females in non combat arms jobs. However, if you are in a combat arms position, then you should be awarded promotion points etc based on the same scale as men- there'd be no point in promoting a female infantryman who can't attain the male's standard.

I remember having squad and team leaders who couldn't perform at my level physically, I remember how it made me feel about them.  I can only imagine how it would've been having a woman over me who _really _couldn't perform at my level.

The big thing about fitness is this- it only works on a sliding scale when you are above a point.  If you don't possess a certain level of fitness, you are non mission capable.


----------



## Short Round (Dec 4, 2012)

I get into this arguement at work quite often here as an instructor at ITB SOI. The arguement for females isnt one of equality, we have filters in place to ensure the fleet gets a good product, its one of logistics. Putting young men and women together in high stress situations creates new problems that the Marine Corps infantry would need to address. For instance you create the need for seperate gender specific billeting, which in an expeditionary enviroment could pose significant delays in effectiveness.


----------



## 0699 (Dec 4, 2012)

I'm going off of memory here, so feel free to dive it if you know more about the topic...

As I remember it, the Army tried task based fitness standards back in the late '70s.  Basically, they figured out what levels of strength, endurance, and agility were required for EVERY job in the service and grouped them together in five categories.  Category 1 were those jobs that required a lot of all three, and category 5 jobs were those that required minor levels of the three.  IIRC, the test even included such things as lifting a 100 pound box five feet (loading ammo in the back of a truck) or carrying a box weighing xxx a certain distance as in a casualty evac.  They then set up a fitness test that incorporated all these parameters and put soldiers through the test, with the intention that if you scored a category 1 on the test, you'd qualify for any job in the Army, or if you scored a category 3, you'd only qualify for those jobs in the 3rd, 4th, or 5th category.  Almost like an ASVAB, except you'd have to take the test every six months or so to maintain your MOS.

Thoughts?


----------



## dirtmover (Dec 4, 2012)

[/quote]
I get into this arguement at work quite often here as an instructor at ITB SOI. The arguement for females isnt one of equality, we have filters in place to ensure the fleet gets a good product, its one of logistics. Putting young men and women together in high stress situations creates new problems that the Marine Corps infantry would need to address. For instance you create the need for seperate gender specific billeting, which in an expeditionary enviroment could pose significant delays in effectiveness. [/quote]​​In my MOS (12N), when we are jumping from base to base improving their force protection or the various construction bases that we made while working on the road we slept in the same tents as the males...it was for our own protection from the ANA or other nations armies that lived with us. If you can't keep it in your pants while you are deployed then you probably need to check yourself and this goes for both males and females.​


----------



## Spider6 (Dec 4, 2012)

0699 said:


> I'm going off of memory here, so feel free to dive it if you know more about the topic...
> 
> As I remember it, the Army tried task based fitness standards back in the late '70s. Basically, they figured out what levels of strength, endurance, and agility were required for EVERY job in the service and grouped them together in five categories. Category 1 were those jobs that required a lot of all three, and category 5 jobs were those that required minor levels of the three. IIRC, the test even included such things as lifting a 100 pound box five feet (loading ammo in the back of a truck) or carrying a box weighing xxx a certain distance as in a casualty evac. They then set up a fitness test that incorporated all these parameters and put soldiers through the test, with the intention that if you scored a category 1 on the test, you'd qualify for any job in the Army, or if you scored a category 3, you'd only qualify for those jobs in the 3rd, 4th, or 5th category. Almost like an ASVAB, except you'd have to take the test every six months or so to maintain your MOS.
> 
> Thoughts?


 
You're right based on what I've read. They proposed a test called the Military Enlistment Physical Strength Capacity Test in 1977 and I believe gave it a trial run in 1982. Based on what the Women in the Military Policy Review reported "only 8 % of women were capable of performing jobs in the heavy lift category;" therefore the test was discontinued.  The attached article summarizes a few other studies.

I tried to attach the review itself but its 255 pages.  here's the link

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA122251


----------



## digrar (Dec 5, 2012)

The Australian Army is going towards a PES now, Physical Employment Standards. 10km Pack march, lift and carry (2 water jerries), box lift and place and fire and movement. Two different standards, arms corps and all corps, no age or sex distinction. The old BFA and CFA are being maintained at this stage.


----------



## Short Round (Dec 5, 2012)

dirtmover said:


> ​If you can't keep it in your pants while you are deployed then you probably need to check yourself and this goes for both males and females.​


I agree. Hopefully the majority of GP could "check themselves." It's that 1% that would create problems for the rest of us. I am not pushing the arguement to bar women from the infantry, their integration is inevitable I think any realist can see that, I am merely trying to argue that the issue shouldnt be "will women be able to keep up", it should be how we can mitigate the issues of a mixed gender enviroment in an infantry that has never dealt with it.


----------



## reed11b (Dec 5, 2012)

Short Round said:


> I agree. Hopefully the majority of GP could "check themselves." It's that 1% that would create problems for the rest of us. I am not pushing the arguement to bar women from the infantry, their integration is inevitable I think any realist can see that, I am merely trying to argue that the issue shouldnt be "will women be able to keep up", it should be how we can mitigate the issues of a mixed gender enviroment in an infantry that has never dealt with it.


 I disagree that the discusion should not be "how do we insure they keep up". We absolutly most insure we are not reducing the physical capability of the combat arms just to allow women to serve in those roles. Do I think some of the expectations expressed for levels of combat arms fitness are unrealitic? Yes. I was a 125lb paratrooper, and while I could carry my 100+ lb ruck and keep up, I was nver going to be able to sling a 250lb soldier over my shoulder and sprint to a woodline. Yes there are women that could do the job, but they are few in number and even fewer of the ones that could would want to. I don't see how it is inivitable unless we make physical standards job specific and truly gender neutral, and I don't see that happening.

On the second point, "how we can mitigate the issues of a mixed gender enviroment in an infantry that has never dealt with it?",  I say two things, one, recruit from a more mature pool of recruits. Focus on Prior service and college students, not High School kids. Two, stop treating female soldiers differnt. When I was co-located with an MP company in Iraq, we had no issues of sexual assault or harrasment, and there were no "measures" in place to prevent them. We were to busy fighting to see each other as anything but fellow soldiers. In Kuwait, where there were "measures" galore, i.e. Women must always be with another woman, certain areas off limits to male soldiers, safety brief after saftey brief etc., there were assaults and pregnacies everywhere. The Army would also have to hammer down on the culture of victim blaming and individually, we, the current male soldiers would have to stop spreading and laughing at the female soldier "making sandwiches or being in the kitchen" jokes. I find them offensive personally, having served with female soldiers that served honorably under fire.
Reed


----------



## Short Round (Dec 5, 2012)

reed11b said:


> On the second point, "how we can mitigate the issues of a mixed gender enviroment in an infantry that has never dealt with it?", I say two things, one, recruit from a more mature pool of recruits. Focus on Prior service and college students, not High School kids.


While that makes perfect sense in theory I would be amazed to see in put in practice. Recruiting will always be tainted by the implacement of quotas. A recruiter (at least from my understanding) is forced to focus on making his target number, regardless of his desire to select a more qualified candidate. If the pool dries up in that district, he is forced to scrape the bottom of the barrel.
As for treating women the same I completely agree with you. My concern is again that 1% that is too ignorant to see the contributions that women have and will continue to make to the fight. From FET to EOD etc. they already work in conjunction with the infantry on all fronts. Its the 1% that force the brain rape of monthly SAPR training, the need for classes on barbecue safety before holidays, the continuing explanation of the dangers of DUI. Until recruiting eliminates the 1% from the military, the rest of us 99% will have to continue mitigating their disasters.

Also forgive me if I implied that the physical aspect of women in the infantry was not a concern, I meant that it shouldnt be THE MAIN concern. I say this because I expect that female infantrymen (I guess infantrywomen) would be expected to meet the same standard as men. This is already being exemplified in the changing of the USMC pft for females. By making the standard the same you simply open up the opportunity for women to make the cut.
I say this is inevitable because of the nature of American society. We are a military influenced greatly by the civillain population. They want a force structure and enviroment that as much as possible mirrors a free democratic society. 
It is my opinion that as much as we grunts protest and argue eventually women will be allowed to enter the combat arms.


----------



## AWP (Dec 5, 2012)

0699 said:


> As I remember it, the Army tried task based fitness standards back in the late '70s. Basically, they figured out what levels of strength, endurance, and agility were required for EVERY job in the service and grouped them together in five categories.


 
As you know that still exists across every branch with the physical requirements for each and every job. Now, it isn't something that is tested, but each job has a "must be able to lift xxx pounds" type description. Almost universally, we aren't upholding that standard. One more "standard" or "benchmark" that is completely and utterly ignored by commanders and schoolhouses the world over.

This begs the question: if we can't/ won't uphold those standards, what makes us think we'll uphold one that is graded?


----------



## Spider6 (Dec 6, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> As you know that still exists across every branch with the physical requirements for each and every job. Now, it isn't something that is tested, but each job has a "must be able to lift xxx pounds" type description. Almost universally, we aren't upholding that standard. One more "standard" or "benchmark" that is completely and utterly ignored by commanders and schoolhouses the world over.
> 
> This begs the question: if we can't/ won't uphold those standards, what makes us think we'll uphold one that is graded?


 
It's funny that you bring that up.

http://www.militarytimes.com/multimedia/#/Most Recent/Military Times: Sitrep Online for November 5, 2012/57707019001/57238597001/1949008979001

The above link is from the Military Times: to summarize the Army discharged 450 Soldiers in September alone for height and weight. The Airforce has dropped 1,320 Airmen this year for PT failures while the Navy has dropped 1,550.

Agree with you completely sir. We must enforce the current standard to see where we really are before we figure out where we need to go!


----------



## AWP (Dec 6, 2012)

Spider6 said:


> Agree with you completely sir. We must enforce the current standard to see where we really are before we figure out where we need to go!


 
Imagine if we took the PULHES standards or color blindness standards and applied them as "rigidly" as we do the physical standards for MOS's/ AFSC's/ Rates.

"Oh, you need a "1" in "Hearing" to be an Air Traffic Controller and you're actually a "3"? No problem, we'll just pair ou up with someone who has a "1" so you can do your job."

And if anyone thinks that's far-fetched, it is how we handle physical job requirements every day. Can't lift xx pounds? No problem. A) Someone else will go in your place or B) A solo job becomes a two-man job.

In a sense, the PT standards are the least of our worries when it comes to physical performance since we aren't upholding the standards anyway.


----------



## Spider6 (Dec 6, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> Imagine if we took the PULHES standards or color blindness standards and applied them as "rigidly" as we do the physical standards for MOS's/ AFSC's/ Rates.
> 
> "Oh, you need a "1" in "Hearing" to be an Air Traffic Controller and you're actually a "3"? No problem, we'll just pair ou up with someone who has a "1" so you can do your job."
> 
> ...


 
Roger that...another example would be 4 Soldiers carrying a litter as opposed to just 2.  That's a whole fire team out of the fight.


----------



## Rampart (Dec 15, 2012)

This may be a useful aside...

In my company we have one standard for all. You want to work you pass the test every 3 months. That includes me at 48 years old. 

We have a number of women in front line positions and they are there because they have made the grade and are up to the job. 

I see absolutely no reason why there should ever be a variance of fitness requirements to be deemed able to do the same job. The job dictates the required standard. You only allow those who meet the standard to do the job. End of story.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 15, 2017)

Apparently The Corps has changed men's standards too...

EDIT - It appears that "someone" got to Terminal Lance and begged for the video to be pulled.  Frickin' Marines and their "gay" videos....


----------



## Gunz (May 15, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Apparently The Corps has changed men's standards too...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It says "video unavailable," Marine. How about getting all your shit in one green ditty bag.


----------

