• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Army Considers Lowering Physical Standards As Too Many Women Fail ACFT

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,619
Reaction score
39,894
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm so old, I can remember when we decided to put women in the infantry, and people warned that "just have one standard and we all agree we won't lower standards" would be swiftly replaced by "well, we have to have different standards because otherwise lots of females can't make it".

I'm shocked. Shocked. To discover this.

Army's Revamped ACFT Would Create 'Gender-Specific' Promotion Evaluation Categories

The U.S. Army is evaluating a new version of its gender-neutral Army Combat Fitness Test, one that would likely create "gender-specific" evaluation categories for men and women when it comes time for promotion.

The move would back away from the Army's original plan to have the new six-event test be gender-neutral in all aspects. It's in recognition of data showing that physiological differences between men and women cause individual scores to differ by 100 points on average by gender, according to an Army official familiar with the effort....

Okay, actually, no one is shocked, and no one should be. This is pretty much what was always going to happen.

Though it's good to see one of the female Ranger grads speaking up:

" "As the Army’s first female infantry officer, I have long awaited the elimination of a gender-based fitness test," Griest wrote. "The drastically lower female standards of the old Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) not only jeopardized mission readiness in combat units but also reinforced the false notion that women are categorically incapable of performing the same job as men. ...

The intent was not to ensure that women and men will have an equal likelihood of meeting those standards. Rather, it is incumbent upon women who volunteer for the combat arms profession to ensure they are fully capable and qualified for it," she continued. "To not require women to meet equal standards in combat arms will not only undermine their credibility, but also place those women, their teammates, and the mission at risk."

Griest also wrote that "under a gender-based system, women in combat arms have to fight every day to dispel the notion that their presence inherently weakens these previously all-male units."

"Lower female standards also reinforce the belief that women cannot perform the same job as men, therefore making it difficult for women to earn the trust and confidence of their teammates," she added....
 
I'm so old, I can remember when we decided to put women in the infantry, and people warned that "just have one standard and we all agree we won't lower standards" would be swiftly replaced by "well, we have to have different standards because otherwise lots of females can't make it".

I'm shocked. Shocked. To discover this.



Okay, actually, no one is shocked, and no one should be. This is pretty much what was always going to happen.

Though it's good to see one of the female Ranger grads speaking up:

There should be one physical strength standard for all genders of citizens who want to serve.
 
More transgender soldiers is the answer.
 
I'm so old, I can remember when we decided to put women in the infantry, and people warned that "just have one standard and we all agree we won't lower standards" would be swiftly replaced by "well, we have to have different standards because otherwise lots of females can't make it".

I'm shocked. Shocked. To discover this.



Okay, actually, no one is shocked, and no one should be. This is pretty much what was always going to happen.

Though it's good to see one of the female Ranger grads speaking up:
Honestly it would have been better had they just left two separate standards then what they did. Which was just too lower the standard for everyone down to ensure that enough women can meet it. Now rather then just having women who are too physically weak to handle the job we are going to have to weak men as well.

The new ACFT is such a joke. The minimum standard is ridiculous. As an example all you need to do is 10 push ups, run two miles in 21 minutes and deadlift 140lbs. Tell me how someone who can only deadlift 140lbs is going to pick up a wounded soldier who wears 240lbs in kit.

This crap is going to get a lot of people killed.

But hey now we are all equal. That's more important right.
 
There should be one physical strength standard for all genders of citizens who want to serve.

How does one square that with a mandate for Title IX? The “woke” version is to have separate but (not?) equal standards.
 
Back
Top Bottom