USMC changes fitness requirement for women

[DAVE101]

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.

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

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

 

[Etype]

"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]

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]

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]

[/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]

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]

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]

​

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1484348964949281

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