As the Army’s first female infantry officer, I have long awaited the elimination of a gender-based fitness test. 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 new Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) promised to alleviate these issues by finally assessing women on the same fitness scale as men and setting minimum physical standards based on branch requirements rather than gender.
However, these gender-neutral standards have recently garnered criticism. Due to an initial ACFT fail rate of 54 percent among women, activist groups have raised concerns that the test will disadvantage female servicemembers. As such, lawmakers directed the Army to halt implementation of the ACFT until the service can prove it will not negatively impact the recruitment and retention of soldiers in critical support jobs, particularly those with large female populations. To address this concern, the Army is considering reverting to gender-based fitness scoring for promotion and reducing the minimum standards for combat arms. Based on my experience, I feel compelled to share how this potential reversal in policy will negatively impact both combat arms branches and the women who serve in them.
First, reverting to gender-based scoring could drastically reduce the performance and effectiveness of combat arms units. Specifically, without a separate, minimum standard for combat arms, the requirements to join the nation’s combat forces could soon be as low as performing ten push-ups in two minutes, running two miles in twenty-one minutes, deadlifting 140 pounds three times, and performing only one repetition of a leg tuck or, failing that, two minutes of a plank exercise. Proponents of this ACFT standard will undoubtedly claim that it is an appropriate predictor of success for combat arms soldiers; as a recent infantry company commander, I can promise you it is not. While these low standards may have seemed adequate in a controlled study, I know from experience that they will not suffice in reality.
Indeed, the presence of just a handful of individuals who cannot run two miles faster than twenty-one minutes has the potential to derail a training exercise, not to mention an actual combat patrol. Entire companies of 130 soldiers will be forced to frequently halt operations in order to medically evacuate the ill-prepared as they succumb to fatigue and injury. Missions will be delayed and other soldiers will be overburdened with the weight of their unfit teammates’ equipment. This scenario is inconvenient and bad for morale during a training exercise; in combat it could be deadly. Instead of addressing the issue of having some soldiers insufficiently prepared for the physical rigors of combat, which sparked the APFT’s revision in the first place, a gender-based ACFT in combat arms will normalize it and make it unmanageable. It is wholly unethical to allow the standards of the nation’s premiere fighting units to degrade so badly, just to accommodate the lowest-performing soldiers.
Reverting to gender-based scoring and reducing the minimum standard for combat arms will also hurt the women in those branches. 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. The original ACFT promised some respite from these perceptions, but a reversion to gender-based scoring threatens to validate them. While it may be difficult for a 120-pound woman to lift or drag 250 pounds, the Army cannot artificially absolve women of that responsibility; it may still exist on the battlefield. The entire purpose of creating a gender-neutral test was to acknowledge the reality that each job has objective physical standards to which all soldiers should be held, regardless of gender. 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. 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.
Critics might suggest this opinion makes me uncaring about equity or unsympathetic to women, but nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, it is because I have failed almost every first attempt at a military task—from applying to West Point to graduating Ranger School—that I know first contact with failure is not a cause for concern. Similarly, an initially high collective failure rate among women on the ACFT is not indicative of their future potential to succeed, especially when this failure is largely due to an inability to perform just one repetition of one exercise. In fact, my latest first-attempt failure was on a practice ACFT. Although I trained diligently to raise my 180-pound maximum deadlift to 265 pounds over several months, I realized I should have spent similar effort on the standing power throw event. Having never thrown a ten-pound medicine ball backward over my head, I missed the minimum distance for the infantry by 1.5 meters. However, after six weeks of dedicated effort, I was able to meet the standard and I am motivated to further improve. I know other women feel this same motivation, as their posts on social media proudly display their ability to meet ACFT benchmarks they previously thought unattainable. One women’s ACFT Facebook page has amassed over forty-five thousand members who inspire, advise, and encourage each other to improve their physical skills. Instead of stymieing this groundswell of motivation and perseverance among women by reverting to gender-based testing, policymakers should foster their potential with high expectations.
Overall, there is little doubt that the gender-neutral ACFT is a more appropriate measure of combat-related fitness than the APFT. While the equity question must be addressed, the answer is not to implement gender-based scoring or reduce the minimum standards for combat arms. Doing so would have both immediate and insidious impacts on combat effectiveness, as well as on women’s credibility and potential. As the ACFT is validated over the next year, there will likely be studies, phases, revisions, and alternate exercises. However, once the Army determines the right standard to which soldiers should train, the final version of the ACFT should hold men and women in combat arms to it equally and should maintain branch-based minimum standards. Failing to do so will further marginalize women in these units rather than protect them, and will hurt the Army rather than prepare it.
Capt. Kristen M. Griest was one of the first two women to graduate from Ranger School and she became the Army’s first female infantry officer in 2016. She is currently serving on active duty at the Army Talent Management Task Force in Washington, DC.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.
Image credit: Timothy L. Hale, US Army Reserve Command
It is refreshing to see a voice actually pushing for equality of opportunity instead of equality of outcomes. Far too often we have done nothing but lower the bar for everyone and then call the standards fair and then the leaders openly lie that we have high standards at the same time, so on top of the issue of lowered standards for all we undermine faith in the chain of command. Thank you for being a rare voice of reason and frankness Captain.
Army will lower standards anyhow. It always does and more so in the failed All Vol force. Look how low standards had to slip during the worst of OIF in order to fill the force. Letting dozens slide on honor violations is a great indicator of the integrity of the institution (USMA) and the organization it feeds.
I would actually live to see her and the other females who passed Ranger school. I know meat eaters who couldn't pass it.
Maybe having a Commander in Chief who lied 25,000 times and a WP grad Secretary of State leading by example had a deleterious influence on 18 year olds. Fish rots from the head…
Remarkably well written. I could not support this more.
Some make it, some don’t. Thus is life. No special treatment for those who don’t and continued support and training for those who do. Thus is life. As an old retired soldier I just want the meanest, best trained, best equipped soldier on the wall protecting me as I did for my time. 1)Keep standards high and make it hard 2)Have a single standard. Even support soldiers must be warriors at some point. 3) Leaders must be bold enough to not allow politicians to set readiness standards.
Equality doesn’t mean equal.
Equality = APFT
Equal = ACFT
I believe in equal as in if you want in the military you meet it standards for all gender/race/religion (no religion should have special treatment). How are you getting paid the same when you do less. The bs is disgusting in equal rights. All ppl are created equal but it’s ok to let some do less?
Army = winning wars that is the main focus.
Same goes hair regs and other regulations. Make it equal stop feeding bs.
Only 1% of population will be in the army and less as 11B and less as rangers and less to SF.
Not everyone will make it. If you cannot oh well move on.
Wow, this soldier gets it. Social agenda be damned. Gender be damned. If you can't handle the requirements, you're gonna get us killed. Better to draw a hard line before the shooting starts than wish when it's so late. Lots of arrogant idiot boot Lt's in nam found out hard way, we on't let you get us killed. The term was "fragged"
Many years ago I published an article in the Army Engineer that was reprinted in several other publications entitled “Misplaced Compassion .” The article explained why reducing standards to accommodate some individuals was a disservice to both the individual and the Army. It’s dated but as relevant today as it was when I wrote it.
Here is where it can be found at page 46 – 50.
https://static.dvidshub.net/media/pubs/pdf_49073.pdf
Ron,
This article was fantastic. I will be using that "Misplaced Compassion" term in my career moving forward. That's a perfect expression to analyze the ever decreasing standards in the Army- even 31 years later.
Great article. I believe men and women should meet the exact same standards. I also would do away with age standards. If 60 year olds want to stay in then they should meet the same standards.
I agree with Captain Griest.
Equal input equals Equal output.
an overview of the number of vacancies by branch of service in the military. The Army: There are over 150 different jobs. These professions are known as military occupational specialties or MOS. La Marina: More than 100 jobs in different areas are offered here. The Air Force: There are over 200 jobs including jobs for women in the Air Force.
The author is correct but is wasting her breath. I served in the Army when they first started letting women into the Airborne program, they lowered the standard then to the dismay of all of us. "Gravity, wind current and aircraft speed doesn't care about your gender" we all said. "What's the point in training women to make 'Hollywood Jumps' ?" we all said. But the Army is driven by many forces and social/political forces are often the strongest. So regardless of the Captain's best argument, the Army is goin to do whatever Congress tells it to do and Congress isn't concerned about actual readiness, they are concerned about appearances.
I agree. They are also concerned about recruiting and retention. I'm the current environment we are leaning towards more technical positions that make the battlefield more about computers and cyber technology and not so much about foot soldiers fighting in trenches and exhausting their physical capacity. As a 21-year female veteran who has deployed multiple times over the past ten years to combat zones, I agree that equality is important; however, the ACFT is not the measure to introduce as the gold standard for this. I'm doing so, there will be a great loss in retention – particularly within specialty positions where there are experienced soldiers, to include medical providers, IT, JAG, pilots, etc. Our army is no longer centralized on fighting with an infantry mentality, yet this test focuses moreso on some of the physical aspects which are consistent in an infantry mindset. Take the alternative events, which are much more difficult to achieve in comparison to the regular ACFT events for soldiers who have limited physical activity profiles. Also, there are no females on the board who designed this test to consider postpatrum recovery and physical standards required to pass this year safely. Another failure, as these two items were not equally considered in developing a test that represents force readiness. Older soldiers who are more than capable according to current standards will also encounter more physical injuries it appears. Watch retention rates drastically decrease on or around March of 2022 and you will be bringing them back to fight an inevitable conflict considering the current sociopolitical climate. This means am excessive waste of resources to include personnel, time and money. Face it, we currently live in a world where everyone wins and everyone gets a ribbon. I don't agree with this mentality, but the military has also become more soft and accepting as well. This test goes against the current prevalent mentality it seems when comparing to the traditional force mindset.
Ma'am,
The acceptance of that "everyone gets a ribbon mentality" is precisely what needs to be attacked and culled from the ranks of an institution tasked with warfighting. Competitive advantage and a competitive mindset focused on winning is what is needed. "winning matters" and physical excellence and discipline has ALWAYS been the cornerstone of a warrior mindset. A cyber warrior or JAG warrior or Adjutant General Warrior will pursue excellence in their duty (regardless if its primarily admin related) if they view it through a competitive "warrior" mindset that contributes to warfighting effectiveness. Furthermore, the test was designed to be scored IAW with branch/ MOS specificity so Combat service Support and Combat Support scores are scaled IAW level of expected physicality, which is about as fair as you can ask from an authoritarian structure such as a Military organization. we cannot train, build and fight an Army that is burdened with endless subjective standards and criteria. Our enemies certainly would not, and they may be highly prudent in this.
Equality is not equal.
So, you believe females should be able to do less than males and be paid the same?
APFT is joke in my eyes females get more minutes to run and males get less. Same job but make gets kicked out lol.
Equality = no equal playing field. Either you can or cannot. All standards should be the same across the board.
I was in for 11 years and always struggled with the APFT. I would barely pass the run event with 60 points, while a female soldier would get 90+ points finishing almost 2 minutes slower than me.
Made me furious that they would then get promoted and be my SGTs when they cannot do the same "standard" things that were required of me.
I served in the Navy as a fleet marine force CorpsmanIn the first Battalion eighth Marines without the benefit of Marine Corps basic training. What was important was not running 2 miles, but walking 10. Not dead lifting 250 pounds, but walking those 10 miles was full pack and accessories. After serving 20 years in the Navy and Army, I can tell you that it makes no difference whether you are a chaplain or a chaplains assistant, or a foreman or a nurse, or a medical officer or a dentist. What needs to be done is the ability to maintain a certain level a physical training which will enable everybody to run a short distance, walk a long distance, and carry a weight approximating their own.
I actually want to see the training records of the female"Rangers" to see if the actually did the same standards as the males.
I would too! However, I think it would be easier to get the documents that contain who killed Kennedy than it would to get those records.
I agree that the test should remain gender neutral however, the studies done to determine the standard could have been better. The study should have been more reflective of today’s military in regards to both gender and age. It was not. In my opinion the study should include a range of ages, fitness levels and gender. There should be a baseline test and then a second test after a period of proper instruction and training for the events. I feel this would give us better insight as to where the standards should be. Elite units should obviously have a higher standard. That is one of the reasons they are considered elite.
I'm not a huge fan of the ACFT for a whole host of reasons, but I am 100 percent in agreement with CPT Griest on having gender neutral physical fitness standards for entry. It is quite refreshing to see someone discuss their own failure as well.
Female officer, retired in 94.
The first order of business is deciding what kind of soldier you need to meet modern threats.
Is classic infantry useful? Are fighter jets a cold war relic, replaceable with drones?
Who is our enemy, and why?
Then design your training. Women's endurance and lower body strength are an advantage over men.
In warfare boots on the ground, seizing and controlling important terrain features will not change. We have clear cut, albeit rare, examples of hand to hand combat occurring in the current theaters. A foe trying to defeat US forces isn't going to fight w/1 standard winning. Our standard needs to reflect what the fight needs 1st and foremost.
This is a completely false statement. Men have much stronger lower bodies and far better endurance. Let's look at the last Olympics. The woman that finished 1st in the marathon would have finished like 116th in the men's. The dead lift for the male winner was literally hundreds of pounds heavier then the female. The US female Olympic soccer team was blown out by 14 year old boys team from Texas. Not even an all star Boys team. Females can absolutely do the job but let's not make totally b.s. statements that have zero truth to them.
Since when is deadlifting a part of the Olympics?
The article is appreciated but somewhat disingenuous. First of all, separate standards for scoring men and women have existed in all branches of the military since the Women's Auxiliary Regiments were disbanded in 1976. Captain Griest, like every other woman who has served in the military, was graded on separate fitness standards, receiving a different score for her performance than a man with the same performance would have received. That is simply a fact, easily verifiable on the various military websites that describe the fitness scores. Furthermore, the distribution of the women's scores is very different from that of the men. Even top level women athletes perform only to the level of the male average, something that absolutely affects the overall level of performance that Captain Griest mentions. And it already has. In fact, in 2016, the Marines ran a test of all male versus coed units and found a huge performance difference.
The separate question, though, is why there is so much pushback on gender neutral standards if everyone really believes in them. It's because the physical differences between the sexes are so large that a neutral standard based on the higher male average performance – which is required because something less will leave the men less fit than they need to be – will so punish women that only a tiny number will qualify for military service. One can absolutely go that route, but anything less than about 10% of the force being women will result in them being perceived as outliers or exceptions: a critical mass needs larger numbers for any level of acceptance. Common standards might result in 5% of the force being women. Faced with that fact, an inescapable and unfixable fact of biological reality, many women officers, with less integrity than Captain Griest, react badly, placing their own sense of self-worth and entitlement against mission requirements.
The conflict is a philosophical one that has little to do with reason. Do you believe in the cult of "equality of outcomes" with no regard to biological realities or do you believe in "equality of opportunity" that will heavily shape the sex imbalance in the military. We stand in cognitive dissonance if we attempt to hold both of these beliefs.
I don't know how you make the claim that sex-specific scoring was abandoned in 1976 as the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) clearly displays different scores for the sexes when achieving the same number of repetitions or time.
I did not claim sex specific scoring was abandoned in 1976 and in fact said the exact opposite. I said that such different standards have been in effect since the separate women's regiments (which had no combat role and were specifically kept at 2% of the force) were disbanded. I have no issue with your first point either.
ADM64,
I do not believe you understand how the ACFT is designed. The test uses the same exercises for everyone. However, jobs which have a higher physical demand (such as combat arms, as referenced in the article) have a higher minimum standard. Those with lower physical demand (such as cooks, or computer repair) have a lower minimum standard. Use of gender neutral standards will not keep women out of the Army. It will keep them (mostly) out of combat arms – where up until very recently, they could not be anyway. Only the most physically fit women (the elite athletes you mentioned) will be able to join the combat arms – which is a good thing. Having women (or men!) who cannot "pull their weight" in a combat unit hurts mission effectiveness, and gets people killed in combat.
I started my career in the infantry. I was a lean, mean, killing machine. I could do over 100 push-ups in 2 minutes, I could run 2 miles under 11:30, I could ruck 12 miles in 2 and a half hours without running a single step, I could carry more than my body weight in gear for 4 miles, I could fireman carry a guy twice my weight for 500m. I took a tape test, just for fun and came out at 8% body fat. I was FIT.
Then, I reclassified into military intelligence. I slowly, but surely, declined in fitness. Fitness just wasn't a priority, because it didn't matter how fast you could run, it mattered how fast you could synthesize data. It mattered how accurately you could track the enemy. Yes, we still maintained minimum standards – and I continued to max out my push-ups up until I retired. But my 2-mile run time was down in the 18s, and I was BARELY able to complete a 12-mile in 3 hours – and I had to run some to do it. I could fireman carry someone my own weight for 200m, but forget someone twice my weight. I was taped REGULARLY because I was now over the maximum screening weight, and came in around 22% body fat. Etc. The lower expectations and lower priority means that I allowed myself to sink to what was expected of me.
Combat arms expects (and should expect) peak physical fitness. They expect Soldiers to get the job done and make no excuses for size or gender. Support units (to varying degrees) expect you to be good at your job, and to meet basic fitness standards. Fitness is just NOT a top priority. And honestly, it shouldn't be. In MI, a whip-smart expert analyst who can't run a mile is more of an asset than an Olympian who can't tell a truck from a tank. Even when deployed to combat. ESPECIALLY when deployed to combat. Yes, that unfit guy or gal is going to be a liability if we have to MEDEVAC or run from incoming or do a combat patrol. But none of those are things we expect to happen. If an MI Soldier is on a combat patrol, (with a couple of exceptions, such as Human Intelligence Soldiers), something has gone seriously wrong.
End State: Having gender neutral standards will NOT keep women out of the Army. It will keep the majority of them in support roles, and allow only the fittest – those able to perform the combat arms mission without being a liability – into combat arms. And it will make the testosterone-laden lugheads in those combat arms units from automatically assuming that the women fighting beside them can't be counted on.
My friend, just one question. If the gender neutral standared will keep the majority of the women in the support roles and few in the combact, then what does that tells you about women?????? Think
I am familiar with the way the test is structured. My point is that in a real war, against a peer competitor – should it come to that – the infantry and the other "combat" specialties will take losses and then those roles will have to be made up for by the cooks, intelligence specialists and the like, which is what has happened in the military in all of our major wars. If you opt for a lower workable standard on the assumption that particular specialties will not have to do certain tasks, then you create a greater weakness – and a less robust force – than would otherwise be the case. In services like the Navy, everyone on the ship needs to be able to evacuate casualties and control damage: the tasks can't simply be broken up. To my mind, anyone who doesn't recognize the risks – and the reality – of this situation is kidding themselves about the nature of warfare. In my opinion, it is essential that everyone in the military think of themselves as combat ready, even though I readily concede the best suited for the infantry are going to have to be particularly fit.
It is true – as you've said – that gender-neutral standards will not keep the women out of combat arms. My point is that even these elite women will be only average compared to their male counterparts and so few in number that they will stand out. It's fine to go that route, but it may not be the most cost-effective or practical approach. One need only look at the enormous difference in physical performance average male transgender athletes have over elite, Olympic level biological women.
What does it take to make a good infantry Soldier? Those on the page are free to correct me if needed, but for now I will assume that it takes tremendously more than a good PT score to be good at ground combat. Physical ability is the price of admission to the field, but there is a point of diminishing returns.
To be good enough to survive when combat unexpectedly comes to them, I suspect tactical awareness and weapons skills are more important than superlative fitness. Unless the Army is enforcing a tactical skills requirement with the same vigor as it tests combat fitness, the "ersatz infantry" argument doesn't hold up: the ACFT will promote support troops who are tactically fit, but still poorly trained to be infantry, and also not as good at their support roles–where they would actually win the fight.
one army… one standard. Being a warfighter is not a sport and everyone should meet the same rigid standards regardless of sex.
I totally agree. When you enter the Army you are first and foremost an infantry soldier. Then you go on to your specialty. You must at all times be combat ready
Amen! Retired field Marine/Navy Corpsman.
Captain Griest may have been scored on separate fitness standards when it came to the ACFT but not when she was in Ranger School. . If you want to serve in critical combat roles and units, you must be able to perform. Making the new test with lower standards for women but still allowing them to serve in combat roles will in fact hurt combat units. The fact of the matter is that it is not equal for women and men and takes equality back for us women as well. If we want to serve in combat roles, we must be able to perform. I know i cannot pull my battle out of a combat zone fully equipped weighing 250lbs (I am only 115 lbs myself) but I am extremely fit. It still doesn't matter. That is the point she is trying to make. At least that is what I take away from the article. Lowering the standards allows for mediocrity. If we want to serve in the world's greatest Army, step up or get out.
@ADM64, what you pointed out is correct. However, the main point of her argument was not lowering the standards for combat arms organizations. Allow all genders…keep the scoring gender neutral. If you’re non combat arms, who cares. A baseline level of fitness is all that is really needed. The question is really if that baseline effects recruitment.
Excellent lay down by CPT Geist. To her point, it requires a modified training methodology to improve performance.
The question is, are we attempting to get good grades or preparing for combat? Ammo cans, heavy equipment, and wounded casualties are not concerned with gender or age. Train how you fight is no cliche; it's the gritty reality of warfare.
CPT Geist, thank you for sharing your viewpoint. Your perspective is unique and one which must be taken seriously by leaders at all levels. I intend to share this with all the Soldiers and Cadets I lead so they are better informed about the reasons behind the test and how it translates into physical expectations in combat. Best wishes for your continued success.
Fair enough. If one is going to maintain the fully coed force and let women remain eligible for combat arms, that must be done.
A clear minded treatis on the rigors and standards of life in the combat arms. Standards should be established to best meet the demands of the mission and applied universally, regardless of age, gender, etc. Are there not minimum and maximum age restrictions? Are both straight and gay men who cannot meet physical fitness qualifications disqualified for military service? Does one not need to pass a physical exam to serve (ie: height & weight standards)? And to remain on active duty? No person wants to do a job that is beyond their ability, man or woman. And mistakes in combat cost lives. I would be proud to serve beside anyone who made the grade; fearful beside someone who did not. Keep the bar at a combat ready level.
Why was my comment deleted?
Hi Allan, it wasn't deleted and should appear now. Comments are moderated, and the traffic to this article today slowed that. Thanks for reading and for your comment.
As long as we allow "activist groups" to force changes to physical requirements because they will "hurt women" instead that those changes will "hurt military preparedness" the US military is heading for disaster. Reality indicates that women in general are not as strong as males. Reality also dictates that physical strength is absolutely necessary in combat.
What the opinion piece of CPT Grist doesn't address is ACFT standards for female (or male to that point) Soldiers who will never be required to serve on the battlefield or in a combat environment. I'm a female officer and doctor. I passed the APFT with ease. The ACFT is a completely different story. I will never be on the Frontline. The closest I will come is a CASH…and for good reason. My job (and that of every Army physician) is not to fight but to conserve the fighting strength. The Army invests millions in EACH doctor they train…so forcing those out who can't pass the ACFT (which is an even larger percentage than the cited failure rate thanks in large part to our 80 hour weeks) is a massive waste of the Army's investments. Additionally, if a physician was ever required at the front line…this country is in dire straits indeed.
DocJ, EVERY soldier, regardless of MOS, should be able to meet the minimum passing requirements of the ACFT, as that is the baseline level of fitness the Army demands of ANYONE claiming the title of 'soldier'. The minimum passing scores on the ACFT 2.0 requires a 140 lbs. deadlift, a 4.5m standing power throw, 10 hand release pushups in 2 minutes, 3 minutes to complete the sprint-drag-carry, 1 (yes, only 1) leg tuck, and a 21:00 minute 2 mile run. These standards represent the absolute minimum physical performance measures a soldier would have to employ to complete the basic, self-preservation tasks they may need to save their own lives or the lives of their fellow soldiers should they find themselves under attack. That could happen on a patrol, on a FOB, or even at a CASH. Ask the folks at Camp Lemonnier, Camp Bastion, members of the 507th from 2003, or just about anyone of any MOS that had to travel Route Irish for about the first decade of OIF. There is always the potential for a soldier to face physical danger, and these very basic, minimum standards are necessary to ensure that each soldier is physically ready to prevail against that threat.
It’s worth a caveat that the “deadlift” on the ACFT is considerably less demanding than the conventional deadlift. The trap bar makes the lift more akin to a hack squat, and almost all individuals will be able to pull more weight than were they performing a true deadlift.
I’d estimate that a 140 lb trap-bar deadlift is equivalent to a 90 or 100 lb conventional dead.
As a non-medical field technician, the Army too has spent millions of dollars and an enormous amount of time training into me and EACH one of my friends. I am in a combat service support role but am expected to perform my wartime function along side or ahead of our Infantry. You can't put a price on who or who shouldn't need to be more physically fit. I've seen surgeons on SOSTs that were not door kickers, but could and were expected to hold their own. I understand they most likely volunteered and were vetted for that role, but in combat everyone is "next in the chute" in case that person up front goes down.
Absolutely incorrect. Just because you are not on the "frontline" does not mean you will not be in immediate danger. The enemy today has the ability to reach you and all Soldiers despite your MOS easily. As an INTEL Officer, my Soldiers were in immediate danger all of the time. Yes, we were in an Infantry Brigade Combat Team (Airborne) but it shouldn't matter. We were replaced by National Guard Units soon after and they also faced the same type of relentless enemy. Also, she was not saying anything about different types of support MOS, she was directing her knowledge and experience toward her MOS and other combat MOS. Despite that, every Soldier is a Soldier. Everyone serving needs to be in top shape. One thing that frustrated me as a Company Commander was that support Soldiers did not believe this and left their physical training subside. Just my experience but lets really focus on the whole Soldier concept.
Having served alongside combat arms and Special Operations units forward, and observing CPT Griest’s performance as she became one of the first females to complete Ranger school, I 100% agree with her. The standard should not be lowered for the masses. There must be gender neutral standard for not only combat arms, but the for the entire Army. Congress should spend more time and money on studies focused on how to get Soldiers to meet the standard versus reverting. We cannot expect Soldiers to meet a standard without giving them the tools to success. Those tools go beyond a beaver box full of equipment that Troops don't know how or feel comfortable using. Or a revised FM with jargon and fundamentals beyond leaders understanding. We have "MFTs" who can't perform a basic squat but are expected to train Soldier's on how to properly perform a hex bar DL. Many will default to go on a run, instead to training mechanics of the lift.
Despite the fail rate, there still many women who meet the standard, exceed the standard with scores above 400, or have scores well into the 500 range. This is not a gender issue, it is a training issue. I truly believe the fail rate will lower due to the number of women sharing their success and training strategies in the FB group CPT Griest spoke of. The problem goes deeper than a question physical ability. We have been programmed to believe that women such as CPT Griest are anomalies, when in fact, they are not. The delta is due to learned complacency; set the bar low, you get poor results. Set the bar high, you’ll get higher results.
Not every woman want to be in combat arms. This was evident with the number (or lack there of) of women selecting combat arms Branches / MOS's. However, that does not negate the fact that we must maintain respectable standards in order to remain the most elite fighting force the world has ever known. The human body can do amazing things with the right mentality and training. The Army can help shape the right mentality with better training.
As for promotion, each branch proponent leaders could outline their desired standards for their CMF and set expectations in DA PAMs 600-3 and 600-25. That could help alleviate many of the issues with understanding the desired standards for Soldier development and career progression.
Unfortunately, TMW, your comment, "The problem goes deeper than a question physical ability. We have been programmed to believe that women such as CPT Griest are anomalies, when in fact, they are not. The delta is due to learned complacency; set the bar low, you get poor results. Set the bar high, you’ll get higher results." doesn't reflect the research being conducted at Natick on the physiological and psychological differences between women that have passed Ranger School and Special Forces Assessment and Selection and the average female soldier. Across the board, these women that have successfully completed these physically demanding courses, when tested on VO2 max, standing long jump, weighted foot march, bone density, body composition, muscular strength, and power statistically scored slightly below the average male OPAT score, as presented by Holly McClung during a recent Women in Service Conference on Facebook video. While some may believe that these "hyper-fit", elite female soldiers are proving their abilities by scoring nearly as well as the average male, the reality is that the male scores are on the OPAT, which is the entry-level physical assessment conducted on soon-to-be enlistees or pre-commissioning-level officer candidates, many of whom have not been in a rigorous physical training program to improve their overall fitness. So in fact, these elite women soldiers, after significant physical training, are in fact scoring slightly below the performance of an average male 18 year old that may or may not have been physically active up to this point in his life (again, think average male enlistee before Basic Combat Training). This level of fitness is not an overly noteworthy accomplishment, and points to the physiological limits of even the highest performing female soldier.
Excellent article. I agree that the issue of setting common standards and holding everyone to them is the best way to imbue the warrior ethos into the Army. No all can be Ranger-qualified, not all can be Soldiers. We must accept this in order to improve the physical and mental toughness of our Army. Males and females have fighting side by side in Iraq and Afghanistan as a matter of course for over 20 years. It is more than past due that we provide women in our ranks the same opportunity, training, and standards to meet and beat the enemy in combat. Doing anything less puts Soldiers at risk by depriving them of the training they need to succeed in our deadly serious business.
This is the most satisfying article I’ve ever seen on this site. I know that success after initial failure, and eventually meeting your goals in the Army, is more satisfying than any medal. So thank you, with a hand salute, Captain Griest.
Unfortunately, the commendable values she expresses and represents now count for little. The current political environment will demand equal outcomes. In fact, “woke” activists will claim that Captain Griest’s extra efforts to succeed are incontrovertible proof of sexism. So alas, Captain Griest’s achievement, and her principled outlook, are a candle flame in a hurricane.
Such intensive politicization of the US military will be disastrous, of course. Doubt that the world’s greatest military can fall so far, so quickly? Then consider France, 1940 – a nightmare for some, a roadmap for others.
I completely disagree with this article. Women are not as strong or as fast as men. I you don't like it, get over it. It's just a fact. And because of this fact, women should not be on doing fitness-related jobs in the military. They should be doing literally anything else besides jobs that require good fitness.
You write of average females. Combat arms is not going to accept nor will the average female desire to be in combat arms. I served a long time ago. yet I knew 2 females able to stand toe to toe with the vast majority of males in hand to hand and you expected them to win. One, who was running steeple chase type cross country in Az and the one to bet on because she could out run Marines, Army and special forces guys. Females on average will not pass the fitness test for combat arms. With proper training some will. This no female can, is bs. Most no, 'all' is sexist comment. I say give them a shot, they pass or fail or train up to standards. The Captain is correct. I wish her luck
The average female has 40% less upper body strength than men and about 30% less lower body strength. Women’s hearts are also 25% smaller than men’s hearts which means that woman fatigue faster than men do.
On average women have about 30% less lung capacity than men, which makes men better runners than women. Women also have less oxygen carrying capacity than men containing about 20% fewer blood cells than the average man. Women also have less bone mass than men because their bones are shorter and smaller. This gives men a mechanical advantage over women.
Your anecdotal evidence is a classic case of exceptions not making the rules.
If we only went by the scientific realities, and were sane, we would have never changed the rules in 1976 to expand women’s roles in the army.
I served 21 years; active duty and reserves, enlisted and officer, combat and combat support units. Twice deployed to Iraq. Women are a net negative to a units performance. When the Marines proved this in a study it was ignored.
If you are a man that believes women should serve in combat ask yourself this question. If you have, or had a daughter, who was married, and one night a noise was heard downstairs in her house, would you be ok with her husband turning to her and saying; “it’s your turn to check out the noise honey.”
I will support women in combat when I see women playing in the NFL, NBA, and MLB. At least in those organizations life and death aren’t in the line.
My comment was deleted because it disagreed with the article, so I'm going to spam comments and see if they delete all of them.
Your comment was not deleted. All comments are moderated and sometimes take time to get approved. Now that you know that, I assume you do not want your series of ten comments with the same message ("This article is stupid") to appear. However, if you feel including them is constructive, please reply here and I will make sure they appear. Thanks for reading and contributing to the discussion.
Here is the true problem – the Army has combined 2 tests that are not interchangeable – an occupational test and a physical fitness test. Anyone who has taken a high school science class should know that step 1 in any experiment is to define what you are trying to measure. Is it physical fitness or combat skill ability? Although they are both being measures by physical tasks, how you measure them is completely different.
The PT test was never meant to be a combat skills test. It was a measurement of general health to gauge and set the minimum standards of fitness of the the force. As such, it's standards should be as they were: relative to the age and sex of the individual. Ie; no one should expect an 18yo male in "good health" and a 50yo female in the equivalent "good health" to be physically capable of the same things. I would hope that this is apparent and good old common sense.
On the other hand, an Occupational Skills Test – which the army spent good time and money developing (the OPAT), SHOULD be sex and age agnostic. Female infantry soldiers don't get to arrive at the fight after the males and carrying less weight, and the last time I checked, rounds for artillery and tank main guns weighed the same no matter who is picking them up.
The common sense answer is to fix the "old" PT test that everyone takes to meet the current times (replace the situp and take some of the emphasis off of the run, which is the number one cause of both short and long term injuries, and update the height/weight charts to meet modern norms) and then to use the OPAT or ACFT in its gender and age neutral form as an annual test for the MOS that require it.
Too easy to fix, but the good idea fairies just need to acknowledge an error and stop trying to dress this pig up
Frank, your premise doesn't hold water. The ACFT is a measure of a soldier's physical ability (physical fitness) to complete basic soldier tasks (using standardized analogs). See ACFT.mil for a more in-depth explanation of the task/test event comparisons. The ACFT doesn't test a soldier's ability to successfully complete a specific task; that is the purpose of the EIB, the ESB, and the EMB tests (occupational tests). These are two separate tests, although the EIB/ESB/EMB includes a physical fitness test as an initial event. You're correct in that the APFT was a measure of general health, but was created during the cardio-focused physical fitness era and assumed that some muscular endurance (push ups, sit ups) and cardiovascular endurance (2 mile run) were valid indicators of general physical fitness. Exercise and physiological science has progressed in the intervening 40 years, and the research now tells us that physical fitness has many more and as if not more important components, such as muscular strength, agility, flexibility, and power generation. The APFT, although easy to administer, failed to measure these other fitness components. Army researchers developed the ACFT after several years of work investigating the basic skills every soldier should be able to perform, finding analogs that could be standardized across the Army to ensure relatively equal assessment conditions, and developing test events to accurately measure a soldier's performance in each of these fitness components. There are few that would successfully argue that a 20 year old male will score higher than a 35 year old male, or higher than the average 20 year old female, or that combat arms soldiers will likely score higher than support soldiers. That doesn't invalidate the test–it points to a required cultural shift in thinking that a less than perfect score is not only acceptable, but expected as a soldier ages. The fact that so many soldiers of all ages and genders can score 270 or above on an APFT highlights the biology-based flaws in that testing paradigm.
If you can't perform a leg tuck or throw the 10# ball 5 feet, Combat Arms doesn't need your service. Stop lowering Army standards to accommodate those who contribute the least.
Captain Greist is a hell of a soldier, no doubt. Even still, I understand she was given like six months off to train for Ranger school.
When I taught infantry tactics at Camp Buckner one summer, we had a female in every squad. They were all heart, but not one of them could evacuate a fully-loaded man without help. Not. One.
The military is supposed to be about winning wars, not making people feel good. When we turn the military into a politically-correct social experiment, we lose.
With all due respect to Capt. Greist, she should not be in the infantry.
I have to agree with you Rangerx. To add: I think that an even better location for the first female infantry officer (also Ranger tabbed) would be in an 82nd BDE Infantry Company leading 11Bs (or Ranger Regt line Company); not in Washington D.C.. That would be a true apples to apples comparison of the equality.
In Ranger school there were a lot of "men" that were much weaker (mostly support MOS personnel) than the rest of us but managed to make it through, but I am sure that they had an extremely hard time if they went to an Infantry unit.
That being said, I have worked along side some EXTREMELY tough females in the Army who were physically stronger that a good portion of men.
The DoD has got to stop being politically correct and do a true long-term "apples-to-apples" test of women in combat arms positions, not just combat arms school qualified…
She commanded an infantry line company in the 82nd Airborne Division. She finished command and is serving in a broadening assignment.
I agree with you. One commentator above said, "We have been programmed to believe that women such as CPT Griest are anomalies, when in fact, they are not. The delta is due to learned complacency; set the bar low, you get poor results. Set the bar high, you’ll get higher results." In point of fact, all the data on the differences between men and women, even in the elite range, prove exactly the opposite: there are hard-wired differences that simply cannot be overcome by attitude.
RangerX, I’m sure you know as well as I that there are plenty of men in combat arms who can’t evacuate a fully loaded man without help. Whether or not she had six months to train does not negate her accomplishments and the grit and tenacity it took to EARN her tab.
Not only were the women given more time to prepare, they were also given special treatment during the course.
https://people.com/celebrity/female-rangers-were-given-special-treatment-sources-say/
So it is a bit hypocritical of CPT Griest to advocate gender neutral standards when she was given special treatment to pass Ranger school.
CPT Griest point is well taken but she's comparing apples and oranges. the ACFT and APFT are assessments. That's all. It is used to assess the physical fitness of a Soldier at a specific moment. This assessment is used to determine the Soldier, the leaders and the unit's programs and actions to meet an Army standard or to meet a unit's mission requirements. The level of fitness needed for a combat mission, to handle the mail, process administrative actions, break track, pull a pack, repel from an aircraft is all on the unit's training and physical training according to whatever schedule they set. The ACFT and APFT are purely administrative actions used to ASSESS and/or use as a benchmark for measurement. The results the physical fitness test more serves administrative processes, promotions than they do mission success. How the APFT was graded at the time CPT Griest qualified for the ranger program had absolutely nothing to do with or had any previous affect on how she trained to achieve her suscess. What the Army is attempting to do is advance our physical training programs by setting the bar a little higher. By implementing the ACFT we now have to improve and advance our unit and individual physical training posture. The APFT was not setting the proper goal of where we needed to be as we advance to combat tempo.
Changing the gender scoring or the administrative affects of the results does not change the expectation of how a Soldier will train in their unit. Because the ACFT may require 1 leg tuck does not set a policy that a unit cannot require Soldiers to perform 5 leg tucks during PRT. In fact 7-22.02 provides a very rigorous training program that is not gender bias at all. I think we are focused on the wrong area of the physical training program. Gender neutral scoring will absolutely disproportionately have an effect on Soldiers promotions.
CSM K, the fact that the ACFT is an administrative assessment highlights the need to keep scoring standards gender neutral across the Army, regardless of unit of assignment. As you noted, the scores of the ACFT, just as the APFT before it, will be used in determining soldier and officer promotions, order of merit lists for attending training, and in evaluation reports–all administrative actions, but inarguably key actions that can directly affect a soldier's career progression. To follow the current gender-normed APFT scoring paradigm continues to artificially inflate female physical performance as compared to their male counterparts, and gives females a career 'boost' while their male peers are left to do the metaphorical and literal 'heavy lifting' in an identical job without the same artificial career benefit. This always has, and will continue to create resentment among males towards females, make people question female accomplishment (did she really deserve that school/promotion/billet, or did she get it because of her sex?), erode trust between servicemembers, and lessen overall unit morale. As soldiers and leaders in many, many units took the easy route during PT and simply trained for the 'test', I believe that if nothing else the ACFT will force soldiers Army-wide to train for physical readiness more holistically, rather than focus on muscular and cardiovascular endurance events that were easy to administer, but failed to adequately prepare those soldiers, leaders, and units that focused on merely meeting minimum standards.
Women and men can't do the same jobs. There are some jobs that both can do, with different degrees of proficience. Women and men are different. Period. They have different body composition, different capabilities, different cognitive skills. Everyone hated and hate Freud for his psychoanalytic theories specially the part relate to female development and his "penis envy" part. Well a hundred years latter and here we are feminist asking a fair place in society by trying to be a copy of men.
Hats off to you Captain . In the current PC cultural environment one might even say that you took a risk writing this.
Women don't deserve exact and equal rights as men because women don't have to worry about being drafted. no one cares about what women want voluntarily it's what happens when all hell breaks loose and the draft happens with prison time or execution depending on the country doing the draft if you refuse to be drafted.Do women go through the draft. How many women have fought to put women all women up for the draft and I don't mean 18 to 27 I mean all the way up to 45 before cut off like men have to do. See any of that because until then women don't deserve exact and equal rights to men and feminists are just faking it with their talk.
I applaud the Captain for writing this article. I could not agree more that the standards for combat arms must be consistent regardless of gender. I will admit that my views on women in combat have changed in the last few years specifically as a result of my exposure to the women who do GoRuck ( there are some hard tough women doing those events). When I served I would not have entertained the idea that women could serve in combat arms.
Now with a son in combat arms, I do not want his unit’s effectiveness compromised because the pentagon accepts equal outcome over equal opportunity.
Thought I would add one more thought. The leg tuck failure by female soldiers can correlated to the lax adherence to height/weight standards and the allowable body fat. When you are allowed 35% body fat, much concentrated in the buttocks and legs, leg tucks become very challenging.
Let me relate a personal experience performing infantry tasks in a gender neutral environment. During OCS at Benning, one task was performing road marches. We started with shorter distances culminating in the 3 hour 12 miler, as is done throughout the Army. Every female soldier fell out of every road March. That is until the command decided that instead of the platoon layout inspection prior to going to the field, the females would have a separate inspection conducted by female TAC officers in another location. Lo and behold, all of the females made the 12 miler! Rucks were whisked away, lest someone not the owner would pick it up afterwards. This does not engender confidence in equal treatment and physical ability.
CPT Griest pens a compelling argument, but her desire to set gender-neutral standards based on MOS are a bit disingenuous considering the many waivers granted to allow her to become the Army's first female infantry officer. MILPER message 16-096 released on 05 APR 16 established the requirements for female officers to transfer branches to become infantry or armor officers. Less than two months later, the Army granted CPT Griest THREE exceptions to their fresh-off-the-press requirements:
1) As a YG11 officer, she was 3 years beyond the YGs 14 & 15 window to apply
2) She did not attend either IBOLC or ABOLC, as required by the MILPER message (and before anyone says, "Well she finished Ranger School–that should count", then there are hundreds of Ranger-tabbed 2LTs each year that should by that argument be qualified to immediately attend MCCC and take command of infantry companies)
3) She did not have the required minimum of 1 year of IN or AR platoon leader time, and serving as an MP PL is NOT the same as serving as an IN PL
Thus, CPT Griest benefited tremendously from the Army waiving multiple standards due to her gender to create their first, "ground-breaking", news-making female infantry officer. For her to now advocate the importance of gender-neutral standards is at best naive, and carries an aroma of hypocrisy.
There is a reason ad hominem attacks are generally considered argumentative fallacy – they are almost always tangential to the discussion. Equally tangentially, they are almost always a commentary on the attacker’s petty ego.
Were this an article about the merits of a preparatory period for Ranger School, about the standards by which one is entitled to attend the school or earn the tab, or
the merits of exceptions to policy, your attacks may be viable. Here, however, they are irrelevant.
I’m not challenging your claims. I also recognize that many male soldiers – myself included – have taken advantage of ETPs, or at least sought to, in the past. CPT Griest’s argument in her article is not undermined by her personal experiences – though one could argue it gives her a unique perspective.
There are many who entered elite or specialized fields that now require an A & S phase long before there was an assessment. Many of those agree that the more rigorous selection process is a good thing. Incidentally, the same can also be said of preparatory programs like SOPC and pre-Ranger courses.
CPT Griest is arguing for more rigorous standards among her peers. Nowhere do I see her argue that she shouldn’t be held to these new standards, moving forward. She earned her position and honors in accordance with the standards demanded of her. There is nothing disingenuous in arguing for higher standards than what one previously faced (else, disingenuity is a prerequisite for all progress). What is disingenuous, however, is holding someone to a standard before that standard is ever set.
Hate_me (which I don't), your contention that "what is disingenuous, however, is holding someone to a standard before that standard is set" is precisely the point I made. The Army released MILPER message 16-096 on 05 APR 16. CPT Griest graduated from the MCCC around the beginning of May 16, 30 or so days AFTER the Army set the 'standard' for females looking to branch transfer to infantry or armor. Thus, the standard was indeed set and communicated across the entire force BEFORE the Army then granted multiple waivers to its brand new policy to 'force' the system to perhaps award CPT Griest for volunteering to be one of the first female Ranger School graduates. While you may perceive my post as an ad hominem attack because you don't see a connection between the article's subject and the waivers CPT Griest received, I (and others as well) see a strong connection between CPT Griest calling for gender-neutral ACFT standards in combat arms branches (which, ironically, some may not realize includes all those Cyber troops that many say shouldn't be held to even minimal physical standards) and the fact that she is where she is today due to multiple gender-based exceptions. While our opinions on this might differ, the facts are what they are, and I present them to provide other readers with a fuller picture on the context surrounding this article, as many of the facts I presented are not well known.
steve,
While some understanding of an author’s credentials and background can be beneficial to the reader, your post went further than the topic at-hand requires and became a distraction from the actual topic.
As per your assertions about her qualifications and how she got them, I fully agree there is a legitimate place for such and they should be debated – but not as a tangent to an unrelated discussion, and not as a hit piece against the individual. Double standards like that deserve to be discussed, and I look forward to any articles you wish to write on such.
ETPs have always been a part of army standards. “There is a waiver for everything” is a common refrain. I cannot access the specific MILPER 16-096 with a quick search from my phone, but I’m even willing to bet it identifies an exception authority.
I can’t blame CPT Griest for taking advantage of such. Is it fair to every other soldier who wasn’t afforded the same opportunities? Of course not, but it’s a part of the system. It could and should be addressed, but the obvious alternative of a cold, purely-bureaucratic system in which officers are nothing more than apparatchiks checking a block…. terrifies me.
From all accounts, CPT Griest worked within the system. Any issues with that should target the system, not those willing to play within the rules. Respect her accomplishments or not, she is no Katie Wilder.
Regarding the call for gender-neutral standards for Combat Arms (and I appreciate circling back to the discussion), I didn’t get the impression that she was calling for all the Combat Arms to necessarily be graded to the Heavy standards (by the current standards, even traditional Combat Arms MOSs like 11Z, 12Z, all ADA, etc., are held to lower standards). Cyber certainly shouldn’t be held to that standard, unless every soldier is held to that standard – which is my preference, so I doubt it will happen.
She was railing against the recent change to do away with gender-neutral standards on the ACFT and using Combat Arms as an example (albeit, an inaccurate one). Her main point is still disputing the double standard being pushed based on gender.
Numbers aren't that hard. You can have an ACFT or a fully staffed Army to include National Guard and Reservists. Not both. If it takes PFC Joe 45 percent of his strength to lift 140 pounds 3 times and it takes PFC Sally 85 percent of her strength to lift the same weight. The test isn't equal. I serve full time in the Guard, and I see the reality of the rest. I can pass the ACFT. I am not worried about my success, and I work to improve my failings. Until the Army designs a test that is given in the combat uniform while donning combat gear, I don't even want to hear that this is representative of what it is like in a combat scenario. How about keep the APFT and add a graded field training exercise? But, hey, I work in Retention so the ACFT will ensure job security so….
SM, the Army has designed the test(s) you want–they're called the Expert Infantryman's Badge, the Expert Field Medical Badge, and the Expert Soldier Badge. All are conducted in field uniform, with combat gear, and tests a soldier's mastery of basic MOS-related skills, and are graded on a very simple pass/fail standard. The fact of the matter is that these tests are far more resource-intensive than an ACFT, and serve to assess very different aspects of soldier performance (physical ability vs. cognitive task completion).
SM, you know what is going to happen in the Guard/Reserve. I expect 60% of females and 30% of males to fail. If 'for record', that means they Lose their education benefits, bonuses, promotions, transfers, military schools after the first failure. DISCHARGE happens on the second failure. Right now, Right here: females are looking to other components to join because they are doing their research on the huge failure crisis of the AcFT. Would you join an organization if you know you had a 60% chance of being kicked out?
“Right now, Right here: females are looking to other components to join because they are doing their research on the huge failure crisis of the AcFT.”
From a different light: Underperforming soldiers (especially soldiers unwilling to put in the effort to perform to standard) are leaving a selective service because it’s selective.
I personally, would join (and retain within) that organization over one that coddles those who refuse to carry their own load.
The ACFT minimum is not difficult to achieve.
Here here CPT. Wish you luck in this fight and in your career.
wow wow wow. So glad to hear the truth and what a strong woman to speak the truth. this is so exciting to have a woman step up and congratulate people who can do it and not dumb down the testing or lower standards. Its life and death! you wouldn't lower standards to be a Dr. AMAZING!!!!
It’s interesting that the majority of comments here are from men with gender discriminatory undertones (if you think they’re not then you don’t understand gender discrimination and micro-aggressions).
Should combat roles have higher and equal fitness standards? Absolutely. Men or women in combat roles should have the same basic qualifications and the assessment should be pass/fail. However, for non-combat roles the standard should not be as stringent … and shouldn’t be tested using the most elite females. If you want to use the ACFT for promotion points, use a sliding scale point system based on body size. I am much more impressed with someone 5’3” and 130# lifting 240# MDL then I am with someone around 6’/200# lifting the same. Not gender specific, body proportionate… and only if you want to do more than a pass/fail assessment for MOS qualification.
The ACFT is DEAD! The Congress will not allow 50%+ of the females in the Army be DISCHARGED for failing a 'made up' test. The military is subservient to the Congress (sorry guys). Also, the Guard/Reserve will be 'destroyed' by this fake test- losing well over 1/3 of its personnel after they are kicked out for failing the test the second time. Note: the National Guard is the most politically active component and Congress understands this Fact, Active Duty does not understand this concept. Take it from an S1; 1 failure of a pt test = no education benefits, no promotion etc; 2nd failure of a pt test = discharge !
One other note (look it up): Adverse Impact is a legal term and its legally recognized 80% Rule is understood as Law. Unless females can obtain '80% of the passing rate percentage' of males, the Congress will determine the AcFT is Gender Discrimination and kill it in the NDAA 2022 Law. (ie: if 90% of males pass, females Must have at least a 72% passing rate)
From my reading of the Captain's statement and that of the commentators it appears that everyone has forgotten on of the lodge poles of the APFT – it was NOT the end all to either physical training or assessing a soldiers abilities. Company commanders were too engage soldiers in a multitude of other physical training to increase their stamina and strength. As a gun bunny the APFT did not give me either to hump those 90-pound shells from the M548 to the howitzer during a mad minute over a 15-yard distance, especially when the crew was short by four persons. That was accomplished by weight lifting in the gym and the parade ground using dummy shells weighted appropriately on the heavy side. Likewise when I became a missilier there was nothing like actually turning the hand wheel to get in shape to lift a 11/2 ton missile to its firing position, never did see a hand wheel gizmo in the gym that could prepare any one for that activity. The only problem within this expectation is going to be exactly the same one that will come with ACFT. Getting in shape and preparing for this is going to take more than one hour a day, M-F, during PT. Lets place the emphasis back were it belongs, on the commander's requirement that he has fit and ready soldiers. And yes it would be nice to see both genders having the same requirements. But even that can be adjusted somewhat to fit both.
Not everyone has forgotten that the original intent of the APFT was basically to set a baseline by which that soldier could be trusted to endure real training without having a heart-attack – the real training came later, and if you can’t pass the APFT then you can’t play army – you drive the fall-out truck.
What you are overlooking, however, is that the desired effect never materialized. The entry standard became the professional standard, and there was little incentive to do more (outside the minority of units that were able to build a climate of excellence). Instead, the entry standard was reduced. Other standards, like annual or biannual rucks, water survival, obstacle courses, etc. were abandoned, because only one standard mattered on paper.
I have many issues with the ACFT, and the minimum standards (for any MOS) are probably too low to bring about a greater physical culture in the service, but it better fills the void than the old test and culture left behind.
It is more complicated than that. Yes, there is always a minimum score required, but that minimum is selected from a bell curve. In other words, they don't pick a minimum score as if they would be fine if all the soldiers scored the minimum. They pick a minimum expecting to get all of the people on the curve to the right of that minimum, and the average of all of that is substantially higher than the minimum. The issue arises when you now apply that same minimum to a bell curve that is substantially shifted to the left. If you do that, the average then drops significantly.
You really have to now use a new minimum score methodology, and you are going to need a minimum for the arduous roles and a minimum for everything else. The arduous minimum will be higher than what was the minimum in our day, and the everything else minimum will be a little lower than what was the minimum in our day.
Proud to say that my combat medic daughter, who serves on the line with an infantry unit, scored 340 on the women's scale, 280 on the men's scale under the old testing, and that she hit the black level on all the tests in the gender neutral test. . . For that reason, her fellow soldiers have no problem viewing "Doc" as their equal.
Contractors have taken over the war effort. The Army is just a political puppet masquerading as a lethal fighting force. It was inevitable with the dynamics of modern warfare and private entities becoming more and more involved in political affairs.
Capt. Kristen M. Griest,
You are spot on! Thank you for your candid opinion. I hope the politicians, within and outside the military, can hear the truth of your words.
Nik
SFC (R) USA
If they are woke, they'd allow men to take the women's test and vice versa?
This is amazing that the simple task of measuring fitness is now in complete shambles. Why can't they stick with the obvious and simple reality.
1. There is a substantial AVERAGE physical difference between the sexes.
2. Some roles in the military require substantial strength, stamina and endurance.
3. The other roles require normal strength, stamina and endurance.
A single gender neutral test will not work because of (2) and (3). Either it will be too easy and you hurt the readiness of the roles in (2), or it will be too hard and you hurt the readiness of the roles in (3). When I was in, this wasn't an issue at all. The gender based tests were fine, the men and women who passed them go into the military and then they figure out whether they are up to (2) or (3). And we were happy.
The entire society is being forced to live the woke, leftist myths and lies. I could sit here all day and list examples of the schizophrenic hypocrisy of pretending that women as physical equals to men.