Marines Delay Female Fitness Plan after Half Fail

[Vanoi]

http://news.yahoo.com/marines-delay-...-politics.html

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.
Although no new timetable has been set on the delayed physical requirement, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos wants training officials to "continue to gather data and ensure that female Marines are provided with the best opportunity to succeed," Capt. Maureen Krebs, a Marine spokeswoman, said Thursday.
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.
Officials felt there wasn't a medical risk to putting the new standard into effect as planned across the service, but that the risk of losing recruits and hurting retention of women already in the service was unacceptably high, she said.
Because the change is being put off, women will be able to choose which test of upper-body strength they will be graded on in their annual physical fitness test. Their choices:
—Pullups, with three the minimum. Three is also the minimum for male Marines, but they need 20 for a perfect rating.
—A flexed-arm hang. The minimum is for 15 seconds; women get a perfect score if they last for 70 seconds. Men don't do the hang in their test.
Officials said training for pullups can change a person's strength, while training for the flex-arm hang does little to adapt muscular strength needed for military tasks
The delay on the standard could be another wrinkle in the plan to begin allowing women to serve in jobs previously closed to them such as infantry, armor and artillery units.
The military services are working to figure out how to move women into newly opened jobs and have been devising updated physical standards, training, education and other programs for thousands of jobs they must open Jan. 1, 2016, said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Nathan Christensen, a Defense Department spokesman. They must open as many jobs to women as possible; if they decide to keep some closed, they must explain why.
Military brass has said repeatedly that physical standards won't be lowered to accommodate female applicants. Success for women in training for the upcoming openings has come in fits and starts.
In fall 2012, only two female Marines volunteered for the 13-week infantry officers training course at Quantico, Va., and both failed to complete it.
But the following fall, three Marines became the first women to graduate from the Corps' enlisted infantry training school in North Carolina. They completed the same test standards as the men in the course, which included a 12-mile march with an 80-pound pack and various combat fitness trials such as timed ammunition container lifts and tests that simulate running under combat fire.
Officials had added specific training for female recruits when the pullup requirement was announced in December 2012, and they came up with a workout program for women already serving.
Military testing for physical skill and stamina has changed over the decades with needs of the armed forces. Officials say the first recorded history of Marine Corps physical fitness tests, for example, was 1908 when President Theodore Roosevelt ordered that staff officers must ride horseback 90 miles and line officers walk 50 miles over a three-day period to pass. A test started in 1956 included chinups, pushups, broad jump, 50-yard duck waddle and running.
The first test for women was started in 1969: A 120-yard shuttle run, vertical jump, knee pushups, 600-yard run/walk and situps.

So more than half of the women failed the upper-body strength portion of their fitness plan and couldn't meet the minimum requirement of three pull-ups. Thats pretty bad. Male marines have the same pull up requirement to pass, but a male marine only being able to do three pull ups would get him a horrible score. Now in the article it says female marines can can either pick the pull-up test to do or the flex-arm hang. However as it state sin the article unlike pull ups, flex-arm hangs do little to adapt muscle strength needed for military tasks.

Now according to the article the Military is not going to lower requirements for female marines, but they also said its unacceptable that so many female marines failed their fitness test. Something has to give here, and i have a feel the military is going to go back on its word and lower requirements for females in the military. They may have offered the alternative flex-arm hang test, but as the article states it does not adapt muscle strength needed for military tasks. Now what happens when these females marines go into combat? They need to be at their best and need to be able to perform military tasks as needed. If they cannot they can endanger the lives of other soldiers who rely on them.

I'd really like to hear some opinions on this from former-US marines.

[Condottiere 40K]

If they're going on the frontline, they should be as fit as their male colleagues; if they're support, it matters less.

[Gaidin]

Eh, I'm pretty indifferent if they're failing the test. All I've ever said is give them the opportunity. I'm also not too shocked that there'd be a crapton of data gathering leading up to it.

[s.rwitt]

Eh, I'm pretty indifferent if they're failing the test. All I've ever said is give them the opportunity. I'm also not too shocked that there'd be a crapton of data gathering leading up to it.

Yes, well, they've had the opportunity with FET's and CAG in Afghanistan, haven't they? And, again shockingly, there were similar results. Despite doing about 1/5 of what an infantryman does in a combat zone.

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/a...d-equal?page=4

[s.rwitt]

Oh, , we were right. Shocking.

Should we talk about the absolute disaster that has been female Marines trying to complete the Infantry Officer Course?

[Gaidin]

Oh, , we were right. Shocking.

Should we talk about the absolute disaster that has been female Marines trying to complete the Infantry Officer Course?

Lol, 99% of your(plural) arguments(that were in detail) were about bone mass and it's implications for carrying the gear in all the other threads. Now there are obvious implications that were never in detail because they're frakking obvious and you don't need to go into them here(consider this a pre-concession please) given the natural upper body mass of the average female, but that doesn't mean that there's not the odd female that won't be able to obviously pass these fitness exams. Is there a reason she shouldn't be allowed in besides other arguments gone into in crazy detail you don't need to go into detail yet again? Remember, this is about the pull ups, not running.

[Slydessertfox]

Oh, , we were right. Shocking.

Should we talk about the absolute disaster that has been female Marines trying to complete the Infantry Officer Course?

So what about the other half that...you know, passed?

[s.rwitt]

So what about the other half that...you know, passed?

Hey, uh, how about you...you know, read the ing thread?

[Slydessertfox]

Hey, uh, how about you...you know, read the ing thread?

Fantastic answer.

[Gertrudius]

So what about the other half that...you know, passed?

Did you read the OP, or any of the half dozen subsequent posts that dealt with this issue? A more revealing question is what percentage of men failed the entry level minimum requirements? I don't have those numbers, but lets not pretend that just because 45% of all women passed the minimum requirement that this means a significant part of that percentage are fit for participation in infantry or close combat roles. If you had read Jin's post, he cited the MoD study conducted in the 90's that indicated that only 1% of trained and conditioned women could meet the basic requirement of an infantry role, with a huge increase in injury comparative to men. That's ignoring of course all of the other factors that go into the arguments against.

Honestly, I think women should be able to serve almost anywhere in the military, but the preponderance of evidence indicates that opening up close combat roles to women, even if standards are maintained, is a bad idea.

[justicar5]

Did you read the OP, or any of the half dozen subsequent posts that dealt with this issue? A more revealing question is what percentage of men failed the entry level minimum requirements? I don't have those numbers, but lets not pretend that just because 45% of all women passed the minimum requirement that this means a significant part of that percentage are fit for participation in infantry or close combat roles. If you had read Jin's post, he cited the MoD study conducted in the 90's that indicated that only 1% of trained and conditioned women could meet the basic requirement of an infantry role, with a huge increase in injury comparative to men. That's ignoring of course all of the other factors that go into the arguments against.

Honestly, I think women should be able to serve almost anywhere in the military, but the preponderance of evidence indicates that opening up close combat roles to women, even if standards are maintained, is a bad idea.

more importantly ofc, the women are far more likely to be raped by their fellow soldiers than injured in combat.. and the conviction rate is worse than in civilian life....oh and being found with

The photographs revealed that Lavena, a small woman, barely 5 feet tall and weighing less than 100 pounds, had been struck in the face with a blunt instrument, perhaps a weapon stock. Her nose was broken and her teeth knocked backwards. One elbow was distended. The back of her clothes had debris on them indicating she had been dragged from one location to another. The photographs of her disrobed body showed bruises, scratch marks and teeth imprints on the upper part of her body. The right side of her back as well as her right hand had been burned apparently from a flammable liquid poured on her and then lighted. The photographs of her genital area revealed massive bruising and lacerations. A corrosive liquid had been poured into her genital area, probably to destroy DNA evidence of sexual assault.

will be ruled suicide. The military wants women in their place,. naked, bleeding and on their knees....

another source for that story : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVena_Johnson

http://www.salon.com/2008/06/27/lavena_johnson/

that's one that got international attention, how many hundreds more didn't? How many thousand Afghan or Iraqi women?

[Adar]

more importantly ofc, the women are far more likely to be raped by their fellow soldiers than injured in combat.. and the conviction rate is worse than in civilian life....oh and being found with

will be ruled suicide. The military wants women in their place,. naked, bleeding and on their knees....

another source for that story : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVena_Johnson

http://www.salon.com/2008/06/27/lavena_johnson/

that's one that got international attention, how many hundreds more didn't? How many thousand Afghan or Iraqi women?

Is this supposed to be an argument in favor or against reduced fitness standards for women in the military?

[Poach]

Please do, I'm interested to hear of it.

[s.rwitt]

See second post. But actually read it this time.

But the part that you clearly missed in our (plural) arguments was where the military WILL go to a "gender neutral" standard that will just happen to be lower than the current one...lol.

[Gaidin]

Oh, that general argument. Not my question. Thanks for nothing. Good day.

[s.rwitt]

Remember, this is about the pull ups, not running.

ing pull ups. That's the important part of the story to you? Jesus...

[Gaidin]

ing pull ups. That's the important part of the story to you? Jesus...

Funny I ask about something the story in the OP is about. Shocker. This is specifically why there's a delay. Why shouldn't I specifically ask about it.

[s.rwitt]

Even funnier that you can't get beyond a headline about a physical fitness test. But, then again, you wouldn't know any better would you?

[Gaidin]

Even funnier that you can't get beyond a headline about a physical fitness test. But, then again, you wouldn't know any better would you?

More like I understand there's more than one aspect to it, but I'm asking about one aspect. I pretty much acknowledged that when I brought up one of those aspects that got discussed in detail in another thread. The human body has many systems. Some built differently from one gender to another, and genetics making them able to favor different skills from one person to another. It's a fair question, especially when I pointed out why I was specifically favoring that specific system when the story was about it, since half couldn't pass that specific test. You seem to want to throw the kitchen sink back at me instead of answering the question about the test which assesses that specific system. There is a reason these tests have multiple assessments I imagine? Or do you just get a timed run for no reason?

[s.rwitt]

More like I understand there's more than one aspect to it, but I'm asking about one aspect. I pretty much acknowledged that when I brought up one of those aspects that got discussed in detail in another thread. The human body has many systems. Some built differently from one gender to another, and genetics making them able to favor different skills from one person to another. It's a fair question, especially when I pointed out why I was specifically favoring that specific system when the story was about it, since half couldn't pass that specific test. You seem to want to throw the kitchen sink back at me instead of answering the question about the test which assesses that specific system. There is a reason these tests have multiple assessments I imagine? Or do you just get a timed run for no reason?

You do 3 pull-ups. You do 100 crunches in 2 minutes. You run 3 miles in 18 minutes.

Do you think you're physically ready for combat?

The physical fitness test is not a "pass this and you're ready for war" type of test. It just doesn't work like that, it's a bare minimum. But if you can't pass even that test then you're sure as a liability to whatever squad is unfortunate enough to have you assigned to it. And the women that do are STILL a liability because their bodies aren't built to handle the rigors of modern infantry combat when it involves carrying 75-100 lbs of weight in 130 degree weather in constant firefights. There is literally no benefit and a whole bunch of drawbacks.