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.