Sex-neutral army physical tests (1 Viewer)

[Aristaeus]

Women in U.S. Army combat roles will be expected to pass the same “sex-neutral” physical test as male soldiers, that military branch announced on Monday, weeks after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the elimination of lower physical fitness standards for women in combat. The change could hinder the Army’s ability to recruit and retain women in particularly dangerous military jobs . . .Like its forerunner, the new test will be administered to active duty soldiers twice a year, and once per year to National Guard and Reserve troops. If soldiers fail the test two times in a row, they may be removed from the Army. The new fitness test is very similar to the previous one. It consists of five events: dead lifts, push-ups, planks, a two-mile run and a workout where soldiers sprint, then drag a weighted sled and carry kettlebells. . . . .​

​

Women in those categories will be graded on the “male” scale, which is likely to significantly reduce the number of them who meet the requirements. For example, to pass the dead lift event, women ages 17 to 21 will need to lift at least 140 pounds, instead of the 120 required under the old standards. They will also have to run two miles in 22 minutes, instead of 23 minutes and 22 seconds.​

[cont]

Female Soldiers Will Have to Pass ‘Sex-Neutral’ Physical Test, U.S. Army Says

The new Army Fitness Test comes after Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, ordered the elimination of lower fitness standards for women in combat roles.

www.nytimes.com

On the general question, this is one of the few things I've agreed with on the right. A given combat role has exactly the same physical demands no matter what sex you are, so the test should be sex-neutral. I have no problem with that. Anything else seems self-defeating.



What shocked me was the numbers.

A 140lb deadlift? That's..... nothing. That's barely even a warm-up amount of weight.

An 11 minute mile? That's slow as hell.

Is that 11 minute mile while wearing full combat gear? Because if not, it's unusually slow.

 

[braindrain]

If anyone should know about women in the military in dangerous positions, it's the IDF. The results of their experiment? Women seem to do just fine. We have a recruitment problem in this country. We need anyone we can get. This nonsense is just American misogyny.

View attachment 67566522. View attachment 67566523. View attachment 67566524

You might want to actually do a little research on how Israel actually uses females in combat roles before making such silly statements. But then I never noticed you shying away from talking about things you have no clue on.

But please explain why you think a female doing the exact same physical job as a fellow male soldier should be held to a different standard. And how holding the two sexes to the same standard is misogyny. It seems you are using words you don’t actually understand the meaning of.


And speaking as someone currently serving in a combat role in the US military we definitely don’t need anyone we can get, and besides the Army met its recruiting goals for last fiscal year.

So all in all you just posted a lot of incorrect bs.

 

[braindrain]

Is that 11 minute mile while wearing full combat gear? Because if not, it's unusually slow.

It’s not. It’s just a regular run. And while it is very slow by the time you do the run your legs are rather smoked from the sprint drag carry event if you are maxing that event.

Still I think it should be in the 7:30 per mile range like it was back before the Army tried its first attempt at coming up with a gender neutral test.
That greatly lowered standards for males and slightly raised them for females.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Different job. Just that simple.

Wait. So in our military there are different standards regarding fitness and such for different jobs? Like someone who sits in a silo and controls drones shouldn't have to be in as good a shape?

 

[CaughtInThe]

Because they do a different job to a different standard.

Hell, if that's the case, let's have lower standards for people who sit behind computers in the military.

 

[ataraxia]

You might want to actually do a little research on how Israel actually uses females in combat roles before making such silly statements. But then I never noticed you shying away from talking about things you have no clue on.

But please explain why you think a female doing the exact same physical job as a fellow male soldier should be held to a different standard. And how holding the two sexes to the same standard is misogyny. It seems you are using words you don’t actually understand the meaning of.


And speaking as someone currently serving in a combat role in the US military we definitely don’t need anyone we can get, and besides the Army met its recruiting goals for last fiscal year.

So all in all you just posted a lot of incorrect bs.

“In 1999–2000, an amendment was made to the Women's Equal Rights Law of Israel by which men and women became fully equalized — although separately — in the Israeli military apparatus.[3]…

As of 2011, around 88% of all IDF roles were open to female candidates.[9][10]”

 

[RF667799]

Hell, if that's the case, let's have lower standards for people who sit behind computers in the military.

We do, relative to the standards required in special units. So what is your complaint?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Because they do a different job to a different standard. That this needs to be explained to you shows either incredible ignorance or outright dishonesty on your part.

Some people are incapable of understanding the obvious. They need an authority to guide them.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Wait. So in our military there are different standards regarding fitness and such for different jobs? Like someone who sits in a silo and controls drones shouldn't have to be in as good a shape?

Absolutly. Special combat units all have standards above and beyond the regular forces requirements. Delta Force in the Army is probably as difficult as Seal Team training standards. But then I cannot confirm your deny what I am not suppose to know about that.

 

[braindrain]

Hell, if that's the case, let's have lower standards for people who sit behind computers in the military.

I don’t really think having a lower physical standard creates a better military. But hey you are entitled to your opinion.

But can you explain why you think a female doing a very physically demanding job should be held to a lower standard then men.

Do you think the rucksacks get lighter if you are female. Do you think the distances you have to patrol are shorter when you are a female.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Hell, if that's the case, let's have lower standards for people who sit behind computers in the military.

The minimum standards are already too low. All soldiers are expected to be able to fight and be fit, in case their desk job is overrun.

 

[braindrain]

Wait. So in our military there are different standards regarding fitness and such for different jobs? Like someone who sits in a silo and controls drones shouldn't have to be in as good a shape?

You should probably stick to whatever topic it is because it’s clearly not this one.

 

[braindrain]

“In 1999–2000, an amendment was made to the Women's Equal Rights Law of Israel by which men and women became fully equalized — although separately — in the Israeli military apparatus.[3]…

As of 2011, around 88% of all IDF roles were open to female candidates.[9][10]”

Yes and see how those female units are utilized. And why do you think it is not 100%. Is that just good old Israeli misogyny too.

But I can’t help but notice you didn’t have the integrity to answer my other questions Do you think the reason why is not obvious.

 

[braindrain]

Absolutly. Special combat units all have standards above and beyond the regular forces requirements. Delta Force in the Army is probably as difficult as Seal Team training standards. But then I cannot confirm your deny what I am not suppose to know about that.

SEALs (outside of ST6) have no where near as high a standard as Delta.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes and see how those female units are utilized. And why do you think it is not 100%. Is that just good old Israeli misogyny too.

But I can’t help but notice you didn’t have the integrity to answer my other questions Do you think the reason why is not obvious.

Isn't it funny how these people who believe the sexes are equal in all ways, cry about raising the standards of women to that of men?

Damn. They get the equality they wanted, and now they cry about it.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Absolutly

There you go. That's the only reply you need to read.

 

[braindrain]

Isn't it funny how these people who believe the sexes are equal in all ways, cry about raising the standards of women to that of men?

Damn. They get the equality they wanted, and now they cry about it.

It’s almost like either they don’t know trust the word equality means or they are just lying when they say that is what they want.

 

[Lord of Planar]

SEALs (outside of ST6) have no where near as high a standard as Delta.

I had a Army buddy that volunteered to be a Delta. I know he went into their training, in the end he claimed he failed, but I doubt it. He would not be authorized to tell anyone if he became part of Delta Force, and he was reassigned.

 

[braindrain]

There you go. That's the only reply you need to read.

You seem really confused. You should probably just run away before you embarrass yourself further.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You seem really confused. You should probably just run away before you embarrass yourself further.

He embarrasses himself all the time, but thinks he is winning...

 

[OlNate]

Nope, that has not a damned thing to do with it. A lot of it is simple upper body strength and core strength.

Being in the military (especially combat arms) is a very demanding job. Consider that just the "basic working uniform" for such people in a combat environment is going to be in excess of 100 pounds. And you can roughly double that when they have to be wearing their pack with all of the field gear needed. And if in a "Weapons Team", add another 50-75 pounds.

Now imagine having to do a 10 mile forced march (roughly 5 miles in an hour, every hour) while lugging with you 200+ pounds of equipment.

This article is from 2013. One would assume there is no less desire to lessen field gear weight.

https://www.assemblymag.com/articles/91655-new-materials-allow-soldiers-to-shed-weight#:~:text=One%2Dpiece%20aluminum%20forgings%20also,highly%20operator%20independent%20and%20repeatable.%E2%80%9D

From 2017...continuing trend.

Personal Protective Equipment: Army and Marine Corps Are Pursuing Efforts to Reduce the Weight of Items Worn or Carried in Combat

What GAO Found The Army and Marine Corps have developed requirements for personal protective equipment (PPE) to address operational threats in ground...

www.gao.gov

And finally, this, from this year:

The Army wants to get the load soldiers carry down to 55 pounds

The Army wants to cut down on redundant and excess equipment that its soldiers carry into battle, hoping that none carry more than 55 pounds.

taskandpurpose.com

Looks like the goal is 55 pounds, which should broaden the eligibility of people who would be able to perform this service, for both men and women. A 10 mile walk carrying 55 pounds is a bit of a different proposition than 200 pounds, wouldn't you say?

Sooo...if kit carrying requirements are being greatly lowered via weight reductions, I would imagine that hand to hand combat is about the only thing left that does have a "damned thing to do with it"... hehe...

What am I missing?

 

[Mr Person]

Ah, nice, a topic that doesn't look likely to devolve into Trump Sucks / Trump Rules...hehe...

I think the more important question here is, what are the actual physical requirements?

I think a big factor would be figuring out how much hand to hand combat a soldier could expect to see in modern warfare. This, to me, would be a driving factor in whether or not the current strength requirements are appropriate or an unfair deterent to keep women out of the military.

The desired progress for most war materials, after the obvious battle effectiveness, is to make things smaller, lighter, safer. The image of the soldier rushing a trench with bayonet attached feels a little outdated. In an age of drones, long range, precise missiles, and lighter kit, if soldiers are being measured up to standards from days of much more up close and personal fighting, it could be argued that even the men's requirements are too stringent.

I'm not really answering your question there, more just thinking of things to think about.

IF the phsyical requirements can be demonstrated as being vital to safety and survivability, well... I think the greater error is sending people (women or men) into combat against foes that easily outclass them because of some gap in physical superiority being driven by lax physical requirements.

I wouldn't expect the focus to be specifically on hand to hand combat, but rather the amount of gear each combat role has to be able to lug around while functioning at maximum efficiency.

 

[OlNate]

I wouldn't expect the focus to be specifically on hand to hand combat, but rather the amount of gear each combat role has to be able to lug around while functioning at maximum efficiency.

Yeah, per post #46, looks like that's coming down a fair bit. With that in mind, I'm stuck trying to think of other things that would require some extraodinary phsyical strength, which is about the only thing I see as being problematic for women to compete with men in, outside of outlier examples.

 

[cpwill]

If anyone should know about women in the military in dangerous positions, it's the IDF. The results of their experiment? Women seem to do just fine.

That is incorrect. Israeli commanders discovered that mixed gender units underperformed in combat and took higher casualties, and generally pulled them off the front lines. That is why female infantry in the IDF is limited to female-only units that are used for mostly mounted patrol, v Heavy Infantry combat.

The U.S. Marine Corps did extensive testing prior to the decision to mix genders in infantry units, and discovered pretty much the same thing:

A yearlong Marine Corps study trying to understand how gender integration would affect combat readiness has found that all-male units were faster, more lethal and able to evacuate casualties in less time....​

"All-male squads, the study found, performed better than mixed gender units across the board. The males were more accurate hitting targets, faster at climbing over obstacles, better at avoiding injuries.​

"The Marine study says its main focus is maximum combat effectiveness, because it means fewer casualties...​

We have a recruitment problem in this country.

We had some.

As of last week, the Army had enlisted 51,837 recruits, or 85% of its 61,000 target for fiscal 2025.... The Army is poised to easily hit its recruiting target this year as the service has made enormous gains in filling the ranks ahead of its traditional summer rush of new enlistments....

For the seventh year in a row, the United States Army has met or exceeded its retention goal. This time, the accomplishment comes nearly six months ahead of schedule....

The Marine Corps once again met or slightly outperformed its goals for recruiting across all major categories in the past fiscal year, according to recruiting numbers released Thursday to Marine Corps Times....​

But they appear to largely be over (ironically, if Trump does manage to put us into a Recession, recruitment will do even better), and we never had so few that we needed women to fill infantry roles.

We need anyone we can get.

We do not.

This nonsense is just American misogyny

No, it is western gender ideology with American domestic political squabbles added - to the detriment of our lethality, and, eventually, a bunch of 20 year olds' lives.

 

[eohrnberger]

Women in U.S. Army combat roles will be expected to pass the same “sex-neutral” physical test as male soldiers, that military branch announced on Monday, weeks after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the elimination of lower physical fitness standards for women in combat. The change could hinder the Army’s ability to recruit and retain women in particularly dangerous military jobs . . .Like its forerunner, the new test will be administered to active duty soldiers twice a year, and once per year to National Guard and Reserve troops. If soldiers fail the test two times in a row, they may be removed from the Army. The new fitness test is very similar to the previous one. It consists of five events: dead lifts, push-ups, planks, a two-mile run and a workout where soldiers sprint, then drag a weighted sled and carry kettlebells. . . . .​

​

Women in those categories will be graded on the “male” scale, which is likely to significantly reduce the number of them who meet the requirements. For example, to pass the dead lift event, women ages 17 to 21 will need to lift at least 140 pounds, instead of the 120 required under the old standards. They will also have to run two miles in 22 minutes, instead of 23 minutes and 22 seconds.​

[cont]

Female Soldiers Will Have to Pass ‘Sex-Neutral’ Physical Test, U.S. Army Says

The new Army Fitness Test comes after Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, ordered the elimination of lower fitness standards for women in combat roles.

www.nytimes.com

On the general question, this is one of the few things I've agreed with on the right. A given combat role has exactly the same physical demands no matter what sex you are, so the test should be sex-neutral. I have no problem with that. Anything else seems self-defeating.



What shocked me was the numbers.

A 140lb deadlift? That's..... nothing. That's barely even a warm-up amount of weight.

An 11 minute mile? That's slow as hell.

Agreed, and welcome that there's some common ground here on these points.