The public is sharply divided on military fitness standards linked to gender equality. Many argue for equal standards regardless of gender, emphasizing that all soldiers must meet the same physical requirements to ensure combat effectiveness and safety. Conversely, some express concerns that lowering standards to accommodate different genders could compromise military readiness. The debate highlights underlying tensions between the need for equality in military roles and the potential risks associated with perceived lowered standards.

United States Military

Gender Equality Advocates

Obviously, jobs that are heavily physical, such as military positions, should have standards to be held to. But they should only be standards within that job requirement. The standards shouldn't be completely outrageous, just what it takes to actually complete the required tasks.

Johnsmitish

The policies should be age and gender neutral.  

The point of testing should be to discern who is physically fit enough for various jobs. 

&gt;I heard a lot of male soldiers complaining about how 'the feminists always say that they want equality, but they get angry when women are held to the same standards as men,'

IMO, the point should be whether the standards are relevant to the job.  

I *would* be angry if the standards we're set too high for the job for the purpose of discrimination.

It's not just about sex/ gender.  If a young man isn't very strong but is still strong enough for the job, he should be considered.

npd_reflect

If you'll allow me to be kind of shitty:

If women aren't fit to serve, men can shut the fuck up about being the only ones required to register for selective service.

Now for the non-shitty version:

I think women, even if they can't compete physically one-on-one with men, can lend a lot to the military, and it's the military's fault for not recognizing that and using their talents to the best ends. They are talented. They are skilled. They are determined. Brushing them off because they can't run-carry 250 pounds is short-sighted. There are many women who want to serve their country-- why not really think about how that could work? Instead of just going "well you're not as strong as a man so go drive a desk and/or fuck off."

KaliTheCat

I really like gender neutral standards for military service. It's just an issue of making the fitness test appropriate for the job so that suitable candidates aren't accidentally weeded out because the test is designed as a generic test of fitness for men. For example, deadlifts and endurance runs seem pretty relevant to the job, but I'm not sure where being able to do tons of situps would be necessary in combat.

parkweekachru

I looked over the gender-neutral ACFT requirements and since you are in the ANG, I have a question. Is gear (chest plates, ruck packs, etc) honest to god geared towards women?

I really struggle with this. On one hand, I want combat effectiveness that achieves a mission with little loss in life and simultaneously not chronically maiming our troops while training them to do it. I also want physically eligible women to take their shot without being stopped by old school sexism.

I'm most concerned with the "Reduce Preventable Injuries and Attrition" aspect. While pointedly meant to decrease the frequency of improper training for the main events, I wonder if that means the program has overall been structured to make up/account for the discrepancy in male and female physiologies? Essentially finding the common denominator level for men and women and setting the bar to that?

For example, women have a shorter stride than men. When weight loads are applied, frequency in stride is needed to make up for the loss of distance most men can achieve naturally. This leads to common pelvis injuries often seen in short-statured and less strong people. To combat this, decreasing the loads carried and increasing the time needed to transverse an area is given. Doesn't that very science equate to decreased effectiveness and safety in achieving a mission in unfavorable (to most women) conditions? Yes, this can be worked around but in 4th/5th generation hybrid warfare, climates aren't exactly predictable.

I'm not military. I am married to a service member who served in the Marine's ITF. While commendable for breaking barriers, the infantry groups with women consistently produced the lowest scores in the physical combat expectations - with afforded extra times/fewer weight loads/etc. This tells me that pft standards being differentiated by MOS would weed out bodies that could actually sustain the infantry requirements, but at a possible steep cost to the literal life and limb of women if the DOD remains behind in adapting to women's bodies.

mochiplease

Many combat jobs (like special forces) already have specific standards which are gender neutral. As it should be. Different physical requirements for different jobs makes sense to me.

&gt; Instead, different military jobs will have different standards. This change is being made largely due to the integration of women into combat jobs which necessitates improved physical screening.

Good if this is done for capability reasons (I'm assuming this). Bad if done only because reactionary leaders still don't want women in infantry &amp; it doesn't actually help fighting capacity.

&gt; I heard a lot of male soldiers complaining about how 'the feminists always say that they want equality, but they get angry when women are held to the same standards as men,' or other things along those lines.

Is bullshit. Lots of anti-feminists claim feminists want women to get stuff for free without putting in effort. Ain't true. Just a version of the "welfare-queen driving a cadillac" smear.

P.S. Depending on what you do in logistics, there might actually be MORE reason for strength requirements than in many combat positions.

MizDiana

Pretty sure this has already been through here, but oh well.

I agree with you to an extent. Everyone, male or female, should have to pass the same requirements *for the position that they are to be in*. Obviously physical requirements for front-line soldiers should be more stringent than those who operate behind the scenes.

The problems arise with the tests themselves. Pull-ups aren't necessarily a good test of combat effectiveness; they are merely a test of arm strength. And memory serving, women are statistically worse than men at pull-ups due to genetic differences.

Basically, yes all people should meet the same requirements; the problems are with whether the tests for the requirements are equally unbiased with regards to gender.

&lt;&gt;{

Ichthus95

Except most physical fitness requirements are basically for showing that you're in shape.  

It's not to show that Private Vagina and Private Scrawny Balls are capable of carrying a full combat load while dragging their wounded friends.  Because Private Vagina is an admin clerk and Scrawny Balls is a helicopter mechanic.

They need to be fit, but they are not expected in any way shape or form to be fully capable infantry.

You can be fit, and healthy, by jogging and do some light calisthenics.  Will it let you be a Navy SEAL? No.  Will it be enough to keep you in the military? Yes.

You're aware that basically 99% of the military is non-combat oriented correct?

Why should you hold 99% of your force to the same standards of your elite few? That's ridiculous and stupid.

Women biologically have less upper body strength than men, but it doesn't preclude them from being fit, active, and healthy.  Which is what the purpose of the requirements are.

Infantry units already are held to higher standards than the rest internally.  That's why there's very few fatties in Infantry, but scores of them in the desk jobs.  The support units adhere to branch minimums, the combat units don't.

There's no functional purpose to requiring females to adhere to the same fitness standards as men outside of combat roles; because it's a measure of fitness, not strength.

Casus125

&gt; Studies have shown that more than half of all women in the military are unable to throw a grenade far enough to reach minimum safe distance. http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/97/military-fem.html[2] In fact, there are multiple cases of women killing themselves and their comrades because they throw like a girl.

Not only is that source more than 15 years old and biased, you also changed the 45% to 'more than half' in your post. Could you add some more reliable sources to your post so we can have an accurate discussion?

[deleted]

You seem to hold your view firmly - what would need to be proven to change your view?

Would you be open to an argument that women bring a different, valuable perspective to the military which outweighs the difference in physical ability?

How about an argument along the lines of showing how the racial integration of the army was originally unpopular, but led to positive changes in both the military and society?

Something else?

Thanks!

garnteller

First the military PT standards are based more on a general level of fitness, not the requirement to perform any given task for a certain MOS. Is it fair that as I got older I had to do less to earn 100%? 

I will not comment on the quote with no citation from a article written in 1997.

Special Operations Forces are asking for women soldiers to augment their operations all the time. When doing civilian clothes intelligence work, a man and woman look less out of place in most settings, than two men. And in certain cultures there is a lot of hostility generated if a male stranger touches a female. This has nothing to do with "the liberal establishment".

The Battle of Mogadishu, did turn into a shit sandwich because of leadership failures. But those failures were in the *LOCAL* leadership. Six previous raids had gone off without a problem. But those raids were *nighttime* Raids, when most of the city was asleep. And then there's that whole thing were PFC Blackburn missed the fast rope and broke his back on in-fil. Local leadership *assumed* that a daytime raid would go down without any problems, they were wrong and didn't not have necessary contingency plans in place.

Again I will not comment on your link as it is an opinion piece.

Right now the PT standards are NOT duty position dependent. They are based on the distribution of fitness of the American population. If/When the government decides to allow women to serve in front line positions, then we should be able to start looking at defining the physical requirements for that particular duty position. 

But this is not a Liberal / Conservative issue....

Source- 21 years active service, 12 in US Army Special Forces, including 3 years as Cadre in the SFQC (18D), 9 years in Airborne, awarded the RANGER tab in 2003. I am willing to answer most any question you have.

Trimestrial

Since it is a definitive fact that most women are not as physically strong as men, perhaps this will be something that you have not considered. 

I meet all of the physical requirements for a male Marine. I can do ten pull ups in a row, I meet the push-up and sit up requirements, everything but the mile time due to asthma. 

But I'm also a 120lb, 5'3" female who would never be considered as an applicant for the military.

My argument is not that women do not meet the standards, but rather that the standards have absolutely no bearing on whether or not someone will perform well as a soldier. My endurance is higher than many males who are stronger than I am, but I would still lose in a fight due to a lack of sheer physical strength. That being said, that does not mean that I would not be able to 'pull my own weight' if it came down to it. 

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that the standards are rather arbitrary and useless when it comes to determining who will be a good (not bare minimum) soldier. Excluding a gender on the basis of a test which proves almost nothing is ridiculous. 

You seem so have some sort of ax to grind with women, feminism, and the liberals. For one thing, women in the military have been disallowed from serving in combat for as long as women have been in the military. It is unrealistic for a person to expect women in the military to immediately be able to meet and/or surpass the physical standards set for combat arms if the decision to even allow them to join was recent.

In addition, military standards for fitness have long been chided for being unrealistic, for both men and women. Before the BMI requirement was changed, even muscly men with little fat would have to starve themselves for days before a physical, because not doing so would risk their BMI being read as obese, and being mustered out of the military. Supposedly, the standard was only changed after a mid-ranking officer procured the roster of the Washington Redskins with a BMI for each player, and showed a general that every player on the team would be considered physically unfit to serve in any role at all in the military. 

Your first source is hardly what one might call academically rigorous or unbiased. It reeks of the old, "basic training is too easy now, it was much tougher when I was doing it!" tales of bravado, and the language that it uses points to the writer having an agenda. It also omits vital information. Who found that 45% of women at Parris Island could not throw a grenade minimum safe distance? How did they test it? For how many of the men was the same true? How many men needed the stool to get over the wall? Were recruits actually using it to get over, or was the stool there for some other reason? It also ignores major differences between war in the 1950s and 1960s and war today. 4 people are needed to carry a stretcher because soldiers carry much more gear. In Vietnam, soldiers had their uniform blouses, pants, and boots, plus undergarments, to wear. Soldiers now have all of those, plus heavy body armor that weighs the soldier down. 4 soldiers carrying a stretcher makes more sense in terms of doctrine. It is better to have 4 men slightly more tired than the rest of the squad/platoon/whatever from carrying a stretcher, rather than 2 that are exhausted.

The US Military in its entirety is exempt from civil rights laws. It can exclude anyone it wants, for whatever reason. Women are not given spots due to Title IX, or any similar law.

Like I said above, the physical fitness standards may not be the best measure of a person's aptitude in combat, and is not the be-all and end-all of standards.

As stated above, it is not fair to women to give them lower standards, then test them to a much higher physical aptitude than was demanded of them and dismiss them from being capable soldiers, doubly so for SOF units. As you said, 2/3rds of men already drop out of those training programs. A sample size of a few women in each SOF program is not adequate to establish whether or not women can be Delta operators, SEALs, or Rangers.

Do you have a source on the 80% of women being unable to pass male fitness standards? Even if it is true, it is unfair to suddenly hold women to a much higher standard. Changes would require phasing in and changing of female fitness standards over several years so that women are not suddenly being held accountable to a radically different set of rules.

Hk37

Has having women in the military caused the military to be less effective?  If it hasn't, I don't see the point in nitpicking over test scores.  The point of the military isn't to pass tests, it's to defend the country.  If the ability of the military to defend the country hasn't been lessened by the addition of women, I don't see a problem.

trublood

Ahem. Most feminists are in favor of equal requirements. You are just looking for reason not to allow women into the military via outdated sources and sexism. Perhaps consider that the build of the femal body is more suited for a **bent** arm hang than for pull ups. And most women *can* perform one pullup. Quit veing sexist and realize that equality is coming whether you want it to or not.

TrishyMay

I think a lot of people here are missing the point.

Whether the standards are too high for women or whether you think that these tests are outdated (nonsense) the point is that they should be the same.

The enemy doesn't care about political correctness or human rights tribunals. They care about killing as many of you as they can and if strength winds up being a factor in deciding whether or not you can cut it in the field then that's all there is to it.

Bullets don't go %50 slower just because they're fired at women.

Funcuz

I don't think men and women should have the same standard. I believe people and people should have the same standard. If a person can get kicked out for a standard, then every other person should be forced to the same stnadard, unless there is a clear reason for the standard to be different.

If pushups situps pullups and running dont tell whether or not a soldier/sailor/marine/AF is going to be able to perform, then find new standards, but if you are kicking out 1 person for getting 35 pushups done and saying the other one is outstanding, there is an issue.

This effects advancement as military readiness is a block on the eval.

So if one person can have his/her career enhanced by a category that another would get kicked out for, this is in no way fair.

I fully recognize there are many spots that males have it easier than females, just as I recognize there are many spots females have it easier than men. This is not a contest to see who has it worse, but all people should perform at whatever the minimum standard is set to be.

AND I recognize that pull ups do not equal combat readiness, but if we could do a scenario where men and women performed various combat situation drills under controlled measurable settings, do you think they would score the same? Let me give an example.

First event is pull a 180 pound dummy 100 yards timed, then release the dummy. Then pick up a 125 pound dummy and fireman carry it back 100 yards. This is done while wearing full flack jacket with metal plates and carrying an M4. This is timed.

Then immediately upon completion, fire 20 rounds downrange to a 200 yard simulated target(this means the target is really only 25 meters away but is smaller to make up for it, math). Minimum passing score is whatever.

Then proceed to take a radio pack and carry it from location A to B, which is let's say 200 meters away, not timed, but less than 5 minutes. At the end of that 5 minute interval, each person must throw a grenade 25 meters away in a direction of less than 15 degrees off center.

Then each participant is required to pick the radio pack back up and carry it back to its starting point. same 5 minute rule.

Then each person must fully disassemble a rifle in 3 minutes.

Failure to meet any of these standards would result in a failure for the cycle.

This is just an example, but does anyone think both genders would perform at anywhere near the same pass/fail rate as each other? Does anyone dispute that each exercise is at least somewhat related to real situations that a military member could find themselves in?

Now, I get that would be a nightmare to bring online and accomplish. It is a thought expirement. But you know what is very cheap which correlates pretty well to something like that? PUSHUPS SITUPS AND RUNNING!

paashpointo

The purpose of the fitness standards is not to make sure you're ready for combat. That's the point of the training. The point is to make sure you're fit enough that you won't injure yourself during training (which is why they also differ based on age). How fit you need to be not to injure yourself is not the same for every human being, so the standards are different to match.

BlackHumor

Interesting view, most people in the military do not see combat with their own bodies however that doesn't quite bring up a point against you.   I believe you mean to say that the people actually seeing combat should be held up to the same standard, so my argument starts with why? 

Why would men and women need to be up to the same physical standard? Modern skirmishes rely on strategy and precision.  Something that can be done with training in the use of firearms and routine practice with your squad mates.

You mentioned in another comment about morale being low because the woman could not carry you two miles.   Now is that actually a thing? I believe most non-specialized ground troops are not faced with tasks such as this, and maybe would have to carry someone for a block or so to get them to cover inside of a room.  However let's keep your argument going, and that they did have to carry someone for a long time.  Our bodies are very capable machines with an even better reaction response to danger, its how we even got to this position right now.  The adrenaline system in our bodies would surely make up for any deficit that a woman lacks when being measured at the gym. 

That brings up another question about the differences in psychology between men and women when faced with danger.  I think that would be a more interesting topic and could offer more discussion than physical attributes. 

Randy_McCock

This same topic has shown up in CMV countless times.

I think it's interesting that you clearly have no actual experience with the military yourself and are instead simply relaying stories about your father's time in service.

The basic fact is that the military's physical fitness standards have absolutely no basis for anything beyond a slight attempt to have fit people in the military.

The standards also drop dramatically with age.  The requirements get dramatically easier when someone reaches 25.

I will agree that there are serious problems with the quotas method of operation and how it places the wrong people in the wrong places.  However, that's systematically how the military operates and not really gender related.

LucubrateIsh

There is little arguing that the standards for regular infantry and other front-line combat positions should have gender neutral standards, thought I would argue that those standards are out-dated anyway and are slanted towards measuring male-fitness instead of combat-fitness due to decades and centuries being male-only by default. I would, however, argue that the "cooks and bakers" philosophy is outdated in the current realities of modern combat. There's a wealth of examples of specialist roles where women would be just as capable as men, in some cases more capable possibly, that are excluded simply because their physiology prevents them from meeting infantry standards. 

To put it another way, assuming a non-combat role can be performed equally well by men and women, then you cut the number of top-percentile performers in that role in half by excluding women because they cannot meet infantry standard. The question here is this: Is it worth preventing highly qualified women from performing vital non-combat tasks because of the fact that they will be less effective in the  unlikely scenario where they would be forced to fight in an emergency?

I think the military as a whole is stronger when you get more specialized in that way, you get higher qualified people in important roles, which makes your infantry more effective. 

Makes_Poor_Decisions

OK, the link you provided is for the APFT, it is simply a health test which is why it is based on not just gender but age. In addition to the exercises they also take your height and weight to get an estimate of BMI and if you are over\under weight you automatically fail regardless of if you max out on all the exercises. It in no way determines if you are able to physically perform a job, just that you are considered healthy enough to be in the military. 

Each soldier goes through basic training which determines if you can physically capable enough to be in the military. During basic training everyone has to complete the exact same tasks. Females and Males all have to carry the same weight, run and march the same distances with the exact same weight, get the same scores on the exact same rifle and grenade ranges. In addition to Basic training each job gets its own advanced training whose difficulty varies greatly depending on your job. For most jobs the physical differences between genders aren't going to matter. Even if females were allowed into combat arms they would still have to complete the exact same training for their job as a male. 

ImAtWorkDog

&gt; By forcing Special Forces, like Navy Seals,

Sorry to be a pedant, but Navy SEALs and Special Forces are two different organizations. Navy SEALs are not SF. 

PastorOfMuppets94

My argument is that the standards are completely arbitrary from the start.  In 7 year as a USMC 03, I never had to do anything remotely like a chin up in battle gear, which is a good thing, because when you add 40 pounds of dead weight (let alone a pack), most men can't do a single chin. The guys that run like the wind for max PFT times are sometimes good at humping, but sometimes they're too thin to do well under a heavy pack, so that's a toss up. 

Typical infantry operations tax you in ways that are completely unlike anything measured by a PFT. I saw it dozens of times, where the huge imposing guy would drop out of forced marches, couldn't hack this or that, despite maxing his PFT scores. Physical strength is nothing next to intestinal fortitude, and women can have that just as much as men.

Cryptomeria

This is probably going to get flagged because I'm not challenging the point directly enough, but I just want to say on behalf of conservatism that you're making conservatism look bad by trying to pin decades of this on the Obama administration, like this is only liberals that believe this.  Conservatives have been in charge of the military for every bit as long as liberals, and this is a pattern that continues through every administration and every Congress. 

I agree with your larger point, that the standards should absolutely be equal, but trying to say this is some kind of "liberalism" at work is just petty politics.  

scottevil110

Physical standards don't always translate to job ability, especially when the goal is set statistically based on the average abilities of men rather than on what is needed for the job. For example, in Canada, a case was decided in which firefighters were tested on lung capacity, an area in which men always lead women. The goal was based on the abilities of other men. When the fire department could not prove that the lung capacity demanded was require for the job, the rule was dismissed as not only arbitrary but discriminatory.

stardog101

I would think that in modern warfare there are no shortage of roles where physical strength isn't all that important.     

For the other physical roles there should absolutely be some minimum requirement that is specific to that role.  I don't think that specific requirement corresponds to the general fitness test they give at bootcamp.  

It should be fine to have different standards for the general fitness test as long as you keep the same standards for the role specific requirements.  

AsterJ

Proceed to defeat an enemy soldier with a pull up and I will consider your position.

BoboTheTalkingClown

3? I feel like this number is bullshit as the minimum pull up requirement for my 9th grade gym class was 10.

I knew a lot of men who couldn't pass the female hanging from a pull up bar test. It's a matter of center of gravity. A woman would have to be substantially stronger than a male on average to do the equivalent amount of pull-ups than a male does.  And if females can't pass it, do we just have no females in the military? That removes our chances of having females search females in Afghanistan checkpoints, for bombs and what have you, because it violates their beliefs for a man to. It's ignorant to think a male and female should be held to the same physical standards. We may as well force the women into testosterone therapy to let the playing field. 

Chronic_Wisdom

I would be satisfied with this if I was confident that he wouldn't take it a step farther.

Leading-End4288

I've met a few navy special programs women, and they all seemed to be in great shape, do cross fit, and probably passed male standards easily. That's all anecdotal, though. That being said, if they are doing this, I'm curious about what the new standards would be? I'm also curious if this would now apply to the aging enlisted and officer corps, who spend less time out in the field. Or, in the case of the navy, who many monsters can you drink on a watch/flight rotation without having a heart attack? The last part is a joke in case anyone takes it the wrong way...

Dismal-Manner-9239

All job requirements should be based on function, regardless of whether most in a particular gender can do that function.  That’s the job.   I get worried when employers start adding job requirements as a way to screen out a gender when the requirement really has nothing to do with the job.

undercurrents

Man so I’m shocked about the amount of people that aren’t veterans or if they were that aren’t/weren’t combat arms saying how it should be. First off people aren’t getting kicked out. You don’t meet the standard for those combat arms mos’ then you reclass. Still serving. Not thrown out. We do/did the same to guys that didn’t have what it took. No one has complained that the rangers have been doing this at rangers school for years. Shocker women have passed that test. Also another big shocker many men have failed it also. Now they are implementing that same standard to certain mos’. Not all of them. Just some. Cavalry, infantry, artillery.

maui_rugby_guy

Crazy that any standards were ever lower in the first place.

Redditruinsjobs

Can't believe I'm agreeing with one of Hegseth's moves.  Bout damn time the combat standards were the same across the board.

SigmaK78

I hate this dude. But holding men and women to the same standards for combat roles seems right. Been a long time since I've been in. I think woman are more than capable on the front lines but that's the reason they do fitness tests. The state side PT pencil pusher doesn't need to have fitness standards as much.

jokersvoid

I think it’s BS. First can anyone name a current example of this? 

I can only speak for Navy and it doesn’t happen. SEALS, SWCC, Navy EOD, Navv Divers have one standard and it’s been that way since these programs were started. 

We’ve been an all-volunteer force since 1973. We fought two wars simultaneously with one being 20 years. All volunteer force. Women have contributed significantly.

ALEdding2019

iwantanapppp

So is taking out different grading for different ages next? Those old guys should be able to do the same as the young guys or they should be forced to reclass or get out.

Internal-Grocery-244

Don’t see the issue at all as long as they start failing the men who can’t pass it.

gunsforevery1

The standards will be raised just high enough to eliminate most women from combat roles with no actual thought about whether or not that raised standard is needed to do the job.
People think the combat arms is an Olympic sport, and it fucking ain't. An honest evaluation of what work tasks are should be done and the testing measured against it.

But I doubt that's the point of this. I've seen how openly misogynistic the infantry can be: women are sl*ts and b*tches you either bang or complain about. We don’t want them in here ruining everything.

What's ignored here is the need for someone dedicated, trustworthy, smart, resourceful and willing to suffer through some horrid shit. I've seen women in uniform embody that even though they couldn't quite run that minute mile, while seeing plenty of men who prided themselves on their Athletics that were real bags of shit who could not be trusted to babysit a cat.

Alot of good troops will be tossed because of this.

kilekaldar

Agree this was always stupid. Though I could see an argument for exception for non combat roles.

CaptainxPirate

If they can hump the same load, I say, let her in.

Scared_Pineapple4131

What standards does his brother possess that qualifies him to be a senior advisor in the Pentagon? 

This guy's always talking shit but never actually applies it to himself or anything he does

MichiganMafia

He's been wanting to push women out of combat for a awhile now. 

Lots of you are applauding this, I wouldn't. 
This is the first step in eliminating women from the military which is whisky Pete's goal. 

This isn't about the standards.

Just like the no more shave profiles is his attempt to start to rid himself of black soldiers

raistan77

How can a physical test be "sex neutral" when it's a biological fact that women have more lower body strength than men while men have more upper body strength? It's pretty clear that this is just another way to bar women from military service.

Vegetable-Diamond-16

If women were in the roles successfully, shouldn’t the fitness standard be set at the women’s level rather than the men’s? 🤔

almostdonotcare

Finally, something I agree with. I guess even a drunken clock is right twice a day.

EDIT: Not saying I like him, at all. I do imagine he's got a team of incel lackeys combing through records looking for mishaps involving female service members and compiling it on a list for him to use when there's a big enough incident for him to demand that female prospects in the military be reduced back to the 1950s.

Happily-Non-Partisan

I thought it was interesting that the defense secretary’s decision today to review military standards on combat and physical fitness and appearance included the order that the ACFT will be renamed renamed to the occupationally neutral Sextathalon- a six event physical assessment that approaches fitness with a Warrior-Athlete mindset and mildly sexual undertones.

WarMurals

Well, most women can’t do very many pull-ups. Even very fit women. 

There are rare exceptions, of course

whatevers_cleaver_

Anything Hegseth does should be dismissed. Everything a bad person does should be discounted. Stop wasting time debating the action. An a$$hole is only doing something for an a$$hole reason. “Sex-neutral” for a troglodyte like Hegseth only means it’s going to impact women negatively. He’s a trash bigot.

almostaarp

Funny how i busted ass on my try outs for SRT  and passed every  hurtle but was told the opening was already on hold for a guy coming in from another duty station,  who didn't even try out. I eventually got on a SRT doing above what i had to do to prove myself because Im a woman. Guys don't understand that we have to walk a higher standard every min because we're  always under a good ole boys microscope.  Politics are always watching us. I served in the 80/90s

curiousamoebas

Now if he could just live up to the standards that keep people safe? 🤔

Illustrious_Eye9981

Since physical fitness standards are used for promotion points I would go as far as saying it should be one standard based on your job. Even for non-combat arms. 

Why should a man who deadlifts 260 score lower than a woman that deadlifts 260? In terms of physical fitness they are at the same level. They should get the same amount of promotion points.

Leather-Toe-2449

ABOBrickShow

makes sense.  and no, i'm not a sexist nor even MAGA.  i've seen what the double standard did to lower quality in areas like lifeguards and firefighters.  there's no reason to believe that the military somehow managed to have it all work out OK.  there are no double standards for small men, or weak men, or old men.  consistency is good.

nogooduse

I remember when I was in an Combat Arms Battalion. and we got females assigned to us. First of all -NONE OF THEM wanted to be there. Every single one of them were being pushed by the leadership to go Combat Arms. All of the leaders above me wanted to say they were the first combat arms to get integrated. All of them complained about this and I remember one crying in my office. I signed their paper work to release them. The one girl that stayed used the BN as her dating pool. She's an Officer BTW - but I started hearing rumors about her sleeping with NCOs. Turns out it was true. Total distraction for the Soldiers. Senior leaders spent more time worried about what she was doing than focusing on their job. I was told to sign a Leadership award for her. Was she a good leader?  She was OK  - but some of the other LTs would have been great too. Anyways - she's doing pretty good in her career now. We also got female enlisted assigned to us. They could not lift anything heavy. Final thing - at the time it was an APFT. I used to score over 300. I would have some female say that she scored higher than me with the score even though she did way less than me with the raw score. Used to piss me off. 

  
Still - I dont know how i feel about this.

Objective_Comment_38

Nah, I'm not a soldier but I think that owmen should be allowed to fight with men, but just exact same standards to get only the qualifying women so they don't weakn the team

afatcatthatsfunny

The minimum standard is not that hard to pass.

yeezee93

Eric_The_Jewish_Bear

3/10. That will certainly help with the military’s struggle to get enough applicants.  Not like women were the fastest growing sub-section of people joining the military or anything.

Chrispy8534

The DUI hire should just resign already. A female general would've done better than him.

Downtown-Leather4047

EmmettLaine

This guy talking about eroding standards is hilarious.

dainthomas

Fitness standards like that in a time when war is bombs, cyber, and drones is just stupid

Steelcitysuccubus

This is not good for anything or anyone besides America's enemies.

olyfrijole

Good. Those women can go work with the men who don’t qualify.

tommysticks87

Yes, tests are adjusted by gender, but combat roles have the same standards for all. It doesn’t lower ability, just accounts for biological differences

The majority of positions in the military are not dependent on physical strength more than any other type of job. If you’re referring to combat focused roles, there is only one fitness standard for both genders. Women have been successfully fulfilling the majority of positions in the military for decades now, so I’m a little confused why you’re asking this question in 2025.

Annethraxxx

In field medicine training a 5ft woman was able to fireman carry me (6'2" 220lb) and drag me for 50ft several times. Yes standards are different and there is a spectrum of ability among both men and women, in my 22 years of service women have performed at and above the level expected, those who didn't were separated (before the rules changed) if they couldn't get back into standards (both men and women).

braillenotincluded

I won’t say lower standards but the tests are adjusted to account for anatomical differences. The standard is still high for average person.

And strength isn’t everything in the modern world. Guns, drones, tanks don’t need much strength and instead require skills like coordination, teamwork etc.

Positive-Lab2417

British military have the same standards for men and women in combat roles at least for the royal marines commandos. The job requires collecting casualties, running ammo supplies etc standards should not be different based on gender

FibroDad91

Women have adjusted fitness standards due to natural differences, but must still meet key requirements. Strength matters, but teamwork and skills matters too. Standard aren’t lowered just for inclusion

The physical fitness test is adjusted for age and gender because it's a general fitness test. It's 'no fatties or weaklings allowed' even if your job doesn't necessarily require it. A generally fit and healthy 32 year  female and a generally fit and healthy 22 year old male are not going to have the same 1.5mile time. 

Combat readiness tests are not adjusted, because you need to meet the standard regardless of your biology.

SloanDaddy

I believe they still go through the same training but will still get in based on gender

Eastern_Natural8398

Something that people usually miss out when speaking of physical standards for things like firefighting or the military is that they are not testing for "minimum flat requirements to do the job", they are testing for "minimum relative fitness". They are not testing if you can lift a 80kg rock, they are testing if you are overall healthy and fit for your age and sex groups. That means different standards for men and women because "overall healthy and fit" have different measurements in men and women.

fourmesinatrenchcoat

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's controversial announcement regarding military fitness standards reignites debates surrounding gender equality in the armed forces.

Military Fitness Standards and Gender Equality

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want