First Pull-Ups, Then Combat, Marines Say

That has nothing to do with my quote or response. MemberLG was trying to argue that for "COMBAT", the marines are saying that MEN and WOMEN have the same standard, yet he was complaining that a perfect score for pullups for a woman was 8 and a male was 20, and therefor that WASN'T the same standard. My point is, that is WAS THE SAME STANDARD. "For FITNESS".

For Combat, the standard is the same. BOTH NEED TO DO 3.

You, MemberLG, or anyone else can argue/debate fitness, capabilities, combat ready, etc... But you can't mix and match and pretend that they mean the same thing. They don't. A woman maxing pullup scores by doing 8 and a man maxing pullup scores by doing 20, have absolutely nothing to do with capability or combat ready. It's simply a score to demonstrate physical fitness. Which is totally different. I would not expect a 25 year old woman, or 7 year old male child, who are both 100% physically FIT, to be able to do the same amount of pullups as a 25 year old male. Even a 25 year old male who WASN'T 100% physically fit.

But if a combat roll such as Para-Rescue requires than an individual can carry over their shoulder, a 175 lb person, to carry them to a helicopter 100 feet away; then THAT is the standard. It shouldn't be less for a woman. It doesn't matter if it's a male, female, gay, straight, 5'2", 6'6", etc... If a person in that combat job "NEEDS" to carry "X" amount of weight; run a certain speed; swim a certain distance and speed; etc.... to be "COMBAT READY" in that job; then THAT is/should be the standard for ALL individuals wanting to do that job. This is NOT open for debate or discussion. What is however, is that there are/could be some "Arbitrary" standards that are set for certain combat jobs. If the standard truly is needed and can be justified, then that should be the standard. If a standard can't be justified and there's really no reason for having it, then that standard should be addressed.

I'm with you on this one.

The problem here is that there really needs to be standard for certain jobs that is based specifically on what that particular job is likely to encounter. Not too many jobs require you to do pull-ups to kill your enemy. You may have to climb over a wall to get to the enemy, which does require a similar set of muscles. Yeah, if you can't do more than 3 pull-ups in your PT uniform, you are going to have a problem scaling that wall with all your gear on, no matter how much adrenaline you have pumping through your veins.

To this end, the PT test might be used as a pre-qualifier (270+ with the same scoring system for all members for Infantry duty, regardless of sex) so we don't waste too many people's time, but beyond that any job that requires field-measurable capabilities, should have a field-measurable test. And if the 5'10 Amazon can scale the wall with all the equipment on and the 5'3 guy cannot, who do you think is more qualified? I don't care if the 5'3 guy can do 50 pull-ups and the Amazon can only do 18.

My point here is that there are plenty of workout wonders who look great in the gym, but not so effective in the field. Happens in sports too. That is why the NFL combine has both weight room/track events as well as throwing, catching, etc.
 
The PFT/APFT/CFA/etc... are designed to see if you are "Physically Fit". In other words; ARE YOU HEALTHY!!! Totally different purpose that to determine if you are CAPABLE.

A physical determines if you are healthy; what is the point of having a fitness test if that measure of fitness is irrelvevant to job performance?
 
A physical determines if you are healthy; what is the point of having a fitness test if that measure of fitness is irrelvevant to job performance?

WOW!!!

I'm speechless. And for those here who know me; that's a miracle. You're on your own.
 
A physical determines if you are healthy; what is the point of having a fitness test if that measure of fitness is irrelvevant to job performance?

That's an incredibly valid point. The military approach to fitness testing has been wrong-headed for years for that very reason. There is certainly a need to assess general health and fitness, but an equally pressing need to assess physical capacity.
 
A physical determines if you are healthy; what is the point of having a fitness test if that measure of fitness is irrelvevant to job performance?

What part of that makes you speechless?

Because the fitness test is given to EVERYONE; doesn't matter what your job is. Whether you're a cook, vehicle maintenance, admin, supply, electronic radio technician, IT technician, tank driver, pilot, etc... The physical fitness test is the "Minimum Standards" required to be in the military.

Are there scores that can be achieved that demonstrates how you compare to others; that you are more fit or less fit than others? Yes. And maybe some branches of the military put too much emphasis on this "Fitness Test" as a pre-screener for "OTHER DUTIES". But a fitness test is different than going through seal training, PJ training, Beret training, etc... that requires "ABOVE AND BEYOND CAPABILITIES".

If during normal fitness test, a 5'10" 175 lb man and a 5'2" 120 lb female had EXACTLY the same results; same pushups, same situps, same pullups, same speed running, etc.... SAME EXACT SCORE. That would show, from a "FITNESS" perspective, 2 totally different results. Depending on what those exact scores were, you might have a GUY who isn't all that fit. Or maybe, you have a female that is MORE FIT than any other female in the military.

But obviously, certain jobs require certain capabilities. Some physical and some mental/emotional. There is a totally different meaning and purpose between fitness and capabilities. Neither is more important in the military, because they are totally different. That's like saying an apache helicopter is more important than a Chinook. It depends on what you're going to do with it. What you're measuring.

I've already said that maybe the military is using the "Fitness" exams and scores as a pre-screening and putting TOO MUCH EMPHASIS on their scores, towards what they say you qualify to "APPLY FOR". I.e. If you don't get at least a "X" score on your fitness test, you're NOT ALLOWED to apply for "Ranger School". There could be some validity to that. It could mean that while a woman doing 5 pullups would be considered in GREAT SHAPE and a man doing 10 pullups would be considered also in EQUALLY GREAT SHAPE, Ranger Training may require certain "CAPABILITIES" such as lifting or carrying, that the military has decided equates to being "CAPABLE OF DOING 8 PULLUPS". So in THAT REGARD, they could be using the "Fitness" test as a pre-screen for weeding out individuals who are applying for other jobs. This way they don't have to waste time, money, etc... on interviewing and testing thousands of interested people instead of hundreds.

But this is a totally different subject. Now we are getting back to: "Is the military towering their STANDARDS to allow women into certain jobs"? My original comment, which I still stand by, and what I was trying to get some to understand, is that "FITNESS" and "CAPABILITIES" are 2 totally different things. They are measured DIFFERENTLY. Their results MEAN DIFFERENT THINGS. And you can't compare the two directly. A 6'10" academy grad, athlete, basketball player, can be in the TOP-1% of being Physically Fit. But he might not be CAPABLE of flying a jet or doing certain other jobs because of physical or mental restraints. But that doesn't mean he's not totally physically fit. Same with the 5'1" 110 lb female. She too can be 100% physically fit, has the very BEST Fitness test scores in the ENTIRE MILITARY. That doesn't mean she is "CAPABLE" of performing certain tasks. Then again, maybe she can perform those tasks. That's why they are measured differently.
 
Marines delay female fitness plan after half fail

WASHINGTON (AP) — More than half of female Marines in boot camp can't do three pullups, the minimum standard that was supposed to take effect with the new year, prompting the Marine Corps to delay the requirement, part of the process of equalizing physical standards to integrate women into combat jobs.

The delay rekindled sharp debate in the military on the question of whether women have the physical strength for some military jobs, as service branches move toward opening thousands of combat roles to them in 2016.

Starting with the new year, all female Marines were supposed to be able to do at least three pullups on their annual physical fitness test and eight for a perfect score. The requirement was tested in 2013 on female recruits at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C., but only 45 percent of women met the minimum, Krebs said.

The Marines had hoped to institute the pullups on the belief that pullups require the muscular strength necessary to perform common military tasks such as scaling a wall, climbing up a rope or lifting and carrying heavy munitions.
 
This is unfortunate! Are they delaying the entry of women into combat roles? Or will those serving in combat have to wonder about the fitness and possibly the capabilities in certain physical situations of those serving along side them?
 
This is unfortunate! Are they delaying the entry of women into combat roles? Or will those serving in combat have to wonder about the fitness and possibly the capabilities in certain physical situations of those serving along side them?

Where women are already allowed in combat roles this will not make a difference. Currently no women are allowed to go Infantry in the Corps and only several have successfully completed the Infantry Course. I don't think any women have successfully completed the Infantry Officer course. It remains to be seen what this might mean in this regard, but I doubt any women who cannot do a pullup will be allowed to go Infantry. Whether that is right or wrong is a separate debate (which I prefer we don't start again here... but who the hell am I anyway?)
 
Sigh, I'll keep my mouth shut about this one. But I will say that the outcome of this "Women in the Infantry" debate will have a big impact on whether or not I try to branch Infantry in the future.
 
Sigh, I'll keep my mouth shut about this one. But I will say that the outcome of this "Women in the Infantry" debate will have a big impact on whether or not I try to branch Infantry in the future.

There will be an abundance of things that will impact whether or not you get the opportunity to branch Infantry, "Women in the Infantry" should be the least of your concerns.
 
There will be an abundance of things that will impact whether or not you get the opportunity to branch Infantry, "Women in the Infantry" should be the least of your concerns.

I can tell you if I thought my own safety or the safety of my platoon would be compromised due to politics like this, it seems perfectly logical for me to avoid that branch. If you were tell me, "Lieutenant S&H, half your Infantry platoon will not be able to do one pull up", I would think of that as a safety concern!

If women were held to the EXACT same physical standards as men, then I would be fine with them in combat arms to an extent. But that will never be the case, because let's face it: the genders are biologically different. Heavy lifting and ruck marches tend to be better suited for males.

And even then there's the problems associated with having females out in the field for FTXs for days or weeks at a time with males, which a young 2LT like myself would have to deal with as well. Not trying to restart a debate, just telling you my personal reasons for not wanting to branch Infantry if this were to occur. If you're fine with it, good, someone will have to be.
 
Last edited:
If you were tell me, "Lieutenant S&H, half your Infantry platoon will not be able to do one pull up", I would think of that as a safety concern!

If women were held to the EXACT same physical standards as men, then I would be fine with them in combat arms to an extent.

You do realize that their are no pull ups in the Army OSUT (Infantry Training) APFT required.

You would be surprised at the dismal APFT scores at BCT and OSUT. There are women now that can score higher, even on the men's scale then some of the male soldiers. So what would you tell a male soldier that scores less then a female under the same standards, would you allow them to join the Infantry since they meet the minimum standards.

Sorry Kinnem, I swallowed the bait.
 
... If you were tell me, "Lieutenant S&H, half your Infantry platoon will not be able to do one pull up", I would think of that as a safety concern!
...

If you were to tell me that, I would know what we would work on at PT in the morning. Embrace the challenge!
 
I can tell you if I thought my own safety or the safety of my platoon would be compromised due to politics like this, it seems perfectly logical for me to avoid that branch. If you were tell me, "Lieutenant S&H, half your Infantry platoon will not be able to do one pull up", I would think of that as a safety concern!

If women were held to the EXACT same physical standards as men, then I would be fine with them in combat arms to an extent. But that will never be the case, because let's face it: the genders are biologically different. Heavy lifting and ruck marches tend to be better suited for males.

And even then there's the problems associated with having females out in the field for FTXs for days or weeks at a time with males, which a young 2LT like myself would have to deal with as well. Not trying to restart a debate, just telling you my personal reasons for not wanting to branch Infantry if this were to occur. If you're fine with it, good, someone will have to be.

As an infantry officer I will wait with bated breath, hoping that the correct policy choices will be made by the Joint Chiefs so that "Lieutenant S&H" will not be lost to the infantry! :wink:
 
Back
Top