Female Marines Not Required To Do 1 Pull-Up

[singlesix]

I'm heading off to the gym ... 50yo former military that went lazy civilian mode ... I can't remember that last time I did pull ups .. it'll be interesting to see how many I can do.

 

[iChokePeople]

"Oh... you can do 3 pull ups? Yep... you are combat ready!"

Kind of a silly indicator anyway if you ask me.....

There's a difference between "if you can do 3 pull ups, you're combat ready" and "if you CAN'T do 3 pull ups, you're NOT combat ready"... The two statements are not equal.

 

[ForceTA308]

The military is a bureaucracy. "Easy to administer and score" is much more important than "shows you can do your job." The standards are the same if you are a 21 year old cook hefting a spatula or a 21 year old bridge engineer hefting Bailey Bridge pieces or a medic supporting armor who needs to heft an injured soldier out of a tank hatch. They are overkill for many positions and woefully inadequate for many others. But they are easy to administer and score.

Folks will get worked up over females not having to pass the same standards as males. They will ignore that a 36 year old has different standards than an 18 year old, even if they are in the same job.

I agree with what you're saying here. In regards to the last part though, you will very very rarely (in the USMC), have a 36 year old doing the same job as someone in their early 20's. My viewpoint on this subject is assuming that you're comparing same aged males and females.

Most standards fall back on "Every Marine a Rifleman". Regardless of your MOS, you are at the most basic level a rifleman and should maintain those standards as such. Pull-ups are only one part of the overall fitness score. PFT includes pull-ups, sit-ups, and a 3mi run. Now they also have the CFT (combat fitness test) which is a 1/2mi run in boots/utes, ammo can lift, and movement to contact course.

Going with someone above, all of the scoring gets scaled back slightly with age because most of the time with age comes leadership and your age and likelihood of being the tip is most likely lesser. I'll be the first to say that at 36 I don't think I'll be at the same level I was at 21. Do I think that females should have the EXACT same requirements as men? Absolutely, because when SHTF I would be a lot more confident in that Marine next to me knowing that we have been held to the exact same standards and that they haven't had lesser standards for one reason or another. Just my .02. I don't want to write a book.

 

[gunowner930]

This is a joke. Initially they said that females in combat would be held to the same standards as males. Those of us who have seen how this works firsthand told everyone that would not be the case, and it's not. There has been a lot of outside pressure to make this happen, and it will get somebody killed if this little social experiment ever makes it to combat.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

A 36 year old in the military will not be a front line grunt but will be in some sort of leadership role and therefore not likely to be at the tip of the spear. If they aren't in some sort of leadership role they'd have been washed out. The military has an expectation of career progression.

You are a veteran and don't remember that not everyone enlists at 18? You don't remember guys who had a break in service? You don't remember 36 year old sergeants and staff sergeants who are very much going to be at the tip of the spear?

If leadership roles is the difference, why the same standards for enlisted and officers? Why does a 30 year old major need to meet the same specs as a 30 year old corporal? The major isn't going to be humping a base plate, building a Bailey, etc.

No, my point stands. PT standards don't equal job standards, and the reason they are how they are is simply bureaucratic. I'm sure there's a way to make job specific tests, but it would be significantly more complicated, and the guys who count the beans have decided its simply not worth it.

There's a difference between "if you can do 3 pull ups, you're combat ready" and "if you CAN'T do 3 pull ups, you're NOT combat ready"... The two statements are not equal.

The Army doesn't have a pull up requirement at all, yet still seems to be able to have folks be combat ready.

I agree with what you're saying here. In regards to the last part though, you will very very rarely (in the USMC), have a 36 year old doing the same job as someone in their early 20's. My viewpoint on this subject is assuming that you're comparing same aged males and females.

Rarely isn't never, but that's not my point. I'm simply saying that a certain number of pushups is not what means someone is either combat ready or able to do their job and that the PT test system exists as it does for reasons of ease of administration, record keeping, etc instead of a reliable measure of who is able to perform their assigned tasks.

 

[phylodog]

I obviously disagree but haven't the desire to argue. Let them all go into combat, who really cares anyway? When they can't hump their butts over a wall in combat gear to get out of the line of fire I guess they'll realize that the prize might not have been worth it.

 

[Trigger Time]

Kinda like pmc's allowing anyone to go to Iraq just because they were
a cop or prior service. A lot of good folks got killed because of certain companies sending unqualified people to fill quotas for contracts.

I only agree with women in combat if they can meet the same standard that's set for the soldiers or marines around them. I don't believe in equal treatment in the military because everyone is not equal.

 

[the1kidd03]

You are a veteran and don't remember that not everyone enlists at 18? You don't remember guys who had a break in service? You don't remember 36 year old sergeants and staff sergeants who are very much going to be at the tip of the spear?

If leadership roles is the difference, why the same standards for enlisted and officers? Why does a 30 year old major need to meet the same specs as a 30 year old corporal? The major isn't going to be humping a base plate, building a Bailey, etc.

No, my point stands. PT standards don't equal job standards, and the reason they are how they are is simply bureaucratic. I'm sure there's a way to make job specific tests, but it would be significantly more complicated, and the guys who count the beans have decided its simply not worth it.

Once you reach a certain level of rank/experience you are often put into billet positions. That is a leadership role outside of your primary MOS. So, a SSgt who has spent the last 7 years in the infantry, might be offered a position to do something else that he's capable of doing; such as being a combat instructor, swim instructor, an admin role, etc., etc. As you go up from there, most people are often taking on more administrative roles for their units as well and not going to see much of the front lines; or at least as much. The same is true for officers who also may take on leadership roles across MOS any time. It's not uncommon to come across a CO that was a POG who was recently put in charge of a combat arms unit. This is also a common complaint amongst grunts because they have the inexperienced leadership for their role. So, in such a situation what should be done? A leader of your unit who's maintained a lower level of standard is now somehow supposed to be in charge of guys who can run circles around him, or he's miraculously supposed to raise his ability to the higher standard? Standards are generally developed to be a minimum level of acceptability, not the highest. One should strive to go above and beyond; or at least that is the philosophy of the Corps.

The thing is that you fill positions with what you have available. You might go outside of your MOS from time to time and relatively unpredictably. Therefore, the standard is applied which everyone must meet regardless. Also, because as someone mentioned every Marine is a rifleman first. Otherwise, you would have to maintain too many standards for too many people, and they would be changing from person to person all too often.

The PT standards being discussed here are the bare minimum merely to graduate basic training. The same standard which is required to remain an active Marine. As an infantryman, you are expected to hold a much higher class of scoring. It's not "required" on paper, so to speak, but your command will certainly demand it of you. In the spirit of camaraderie, unit cohesion, and esprit de Corps you (most grunts) feel guilty for not maintaining/reaching a 1st class PFT because that's the expectation of an infantryman amongst all of your peers. Since everyone knows that's what is expected, that is what everyone strives for. Physical fitness is not merely a "standard" in the Corps, it's a way of life; it's a part of the career; it's your duty because your partner's life may rely on your physical capabilities some day.

Even beyond all that, the Corps is all about leadership, tradition, and ethics. It doesn't matter what your rank is or MOS. If you're going to be leading Marines, you can't lead from the rear. It isn't a culture of "do what I say, not what I do." It's a culture of, "Do as I say and do." You live by the idea of leading from the front. Taking charge, making decisions, and issuing orders. If you are incapable of meeting the same expectations of your subordinates, then their respect for you will dwindle; further reducing your effective leadership capability. The good senior officers, who are far older than I, could run circles around me and a lot of guys because that was the expectation of being a leader of Marines. It wasn't a "standard" that's maintained in writing, but without it your career will not be the greatest.

 

[the1kidd03]

I'm simply saying that a certain number of pushups is not what means someone is either combat ready or able to do their job and that the PT test system exists as it does for reasons of ease of administration, record keeping, etc instead of a reliable measure of who is able to perform their assigned tasks.

So we should eliminate physical requirements all together? Allow any run of the mill person into combat regardless of their physical capabilities even if they a prone to heart attack induced from a body alarm response?

No, of course not. Hence, standards are necessary. They are the minimum level of acceptability to complete the basic functions of a job. They apply that minimum across all jobs because you may at some point be called on to perform that job.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So we should eliminate physical requirements all together?

That's a pretty big leap from what I said.

PT standards =/= combat standards.
PT standards =/= bonafied job requirements.

That's what I said. What I've actually advocated is job specific PT tests if you'll go back and read this thread and other threads I've commented on. Determine what the physical requirements actually are for that job and make sure that everyone in that position, regardless of sex or age, comply.

Kinda like pmc's allowing anyone to go to Iraq just because they were
a cop or prior service. A lot of good folks got killed because of certain companies sending unqualified people to fill quotas for contracts.

Which company took casualties due to unqualified people that a PT test would have eliminated?

 

[the1kidd03]

That's a pretty big leap from what I said.

PT standards =/= combat standards.
PT standards =/= bonafied job requirements.

That's what I said. What I've actually advocated is job specific PT tests if you'll go back and read this thread and other threads I've commented on. Determine what the physical requirements actually are for that job and make sure that everyone in that position, regardless of sex or age, comply.

PT standards (at least for the Corps) were developed as being the minimum physical capability to be able to perform necessary tasks in combat. So, essentially yes PT standards == combat standards. That was even pointed out in the OP's article.

The ability to pull-up one’s own body weight over a bar shows the upper body strength that, in combat, is needed to lift fallen comrades, pull one’s self over a wall, and carry heavy munitions.

That's not to say you should not strive for better, however. It is a minimum after all.

As I stated throughout my posts, nobody in the military does JUST their job role. It is a common occurrence for people to step over the lines and take on other's duties for any amount of time or even the MOS in its entirety. Furthermore, the fundamental role of the military is to fight our nation's battles. It is not predictable if/when any or all of those in uniform may be put into a position to do the fighting. Yet, the standard level of acceptability for combat fitness should not be required of all even though any/all of them could be faced with that situation some day?

 

[fireblade]

A 36 year old in the military will not be a front line grunt but will be in some sort of leadership role and therefore not likely to be at the tip of the spear. If they aren't in some sort of leadership role they'd have been washed out. The military has an expectation of career progression.

I don't disagree with the standards being out of whack for different roles in the military, one size does not fit all as it relates to job description. The reality is combat is physically strenuous and not only for the survival of the individual. Physical strength may very well be required to preserve the life of another. If a person wants to fill that role they need to meet the requirements. This is just a continuation of the "everyone gets a ribbon" mentality which has undermined this country over the last 20 years. I have zero issues with a woman going into combat provided she is physically capable, allowing them in simply because they want to is BS.

I don't know what specifically pull ups have to do with being combat ready. I served six years on active duty with the Army but never saw combat. I'm not so arrogant as to assume that I know more about what it takes (or doesn't) to survive in that environment than the U.S. Marine Corps, logic tells me they've got just a bit more experience than I do.

lmao ...when I was 36 in the army I still was in front line combat as a platoon sergeant and still had a perfect 300 PT score 11min 30 sec 2 mile 100 sit up in 2 min. 100 push ups in 2 min.( lead by example ) and knew a lot of others in that age group who lead from the front, so I disagree with that point as for women's PT standard I do agree in combat MOS's they should meet men PT standards. I do miss the 25 mile full combat gear road march races .

 

[phylodog]

lmao ...when I was 36 in the army I still was in front line combat as a platoon sergeant and still had a perfect 300 PT score 11min 30 sec 2 mile 100 sit up in 2 min. 100 push ups in 2 min.( lead by example ) and knew a lot of others in that age group who lead from the front, so I disagree with that point as for women's PT standard I do agree in combat MOS's they should meet men PT standards. I do miss the 25 mile full combat gear road march races .

Im not taking away from what you or others did but the reality is that you were a Platoon Sergeant, not a grunt. If bullets started flying you were expected to give orders to achieve the mission rather than being the first to charge into the fight. I agree with the lead from the front mentality but in reality you maxing that PT test was not as important as the younger men who would be the first in. Your value at that point was in your leadership, experience and wisdom rather than physical prowess.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

PT standards (at least for the Corps) were developed as being the minimum physical capability to be able to perform necessary tasks in combat. So, essentially yes PT standards == combat standards. That was even pointed out in the OP's article.
The ability to pull-up one’s own body weight over a bar shows the upper body strength that, in combat, is needed to lift fallen comrades, pull one’s self over a wall, and carry heavy munitions.

BS. Its a PROXY for combat/job standards. Like I said, I saw plenty of medics who passed their PT test but couldn't lift me out of a tank hatch. Why? I'm a big guy and outweighed them by 60 lbs + gear. If you want to test someone's ability to climb a wall, carry a comrade, and carry heavy munitions...then have them climb a wall, carry a comrade, and carry heavy munitions.

Oddly enough, that's exactly what DynCorp did. I had to carry a dummy that weighed 270 lbs through a small obstacle course, show I could pick up .50 cal ammo cans over my head, etc. Actual job requirements. Not proxies. Doing a pushup won't give your gunner more ammo and doing a situp won't get your buddy to the medics.

I understand why the military uses the standards they do. Its simple, its hard to inject personal bias, its easily recorded, and it *is* a proxy for overall fitness. None of that means that someone who can't do 3 pullups can't perform well in combat or that someone who can will perform well.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Im not taking away from what you or others did but the reality is that you were a Platoon Sergeant, not a grunt. If bullets started flying you were expected to give orders to achieve the mission rather than being the first to charge into the fight.

Seriously? What was your MOS?

 

[phylodog]

Seriously? What was your MOS?

WTF does that matter? What was yours? I don't understand why it's so difficult for you to believe that there should be standards required before someone is considered fit for combat. I don't understand why you find it difficult to believe that leadership, particularly in the military holds a higher priority than physical standards for someone that's been in for a number of years. Yes, standards are decreased as one grows older and by and large those who are older aren't expected to hump a heavy machine gun into combat.

Since you've obviously out thought the military on this, what is your fix for this nightmarish system that's been in place since before you were born?

Please point out the problem with my post. Do Platoon Sergeants typically hump the heavy machine guns in combat as part of their primary job description?

 

[the1kidd03]

BS. Its a PROXY for combat/job standards. Like I said, I saw plenty of medics who passed their PT test but couldn't lift me out of a tank hatch. Why? I'm a big guy and outweighed them by 60 lbs + gear. If you want to test someone's ability to climb a wall, carry a comrade, and carry heavy munitions...then have them climb a wall, carry a comrade, and carry heavy munitions. They do (sort of). That's what the CFT is all about. Another "standard." Regardless, if you're a big guy in the extent you're depicting, isn't your point here a bit moot in that you wouldn't pass the OTHER military standards to be serving, let alone in confined spaces like a tank?

Oddly enough, that's exactly what DynCorp did. I had to carry a dummy that weighed 270 lbs through a small obstacle course, show I could pick up .50 cal ammo cans over my head, etc. Actual job requirements. Not proxies. Doing a pushup won't give your gunner more ammo and doing a situp won't get your buddy to the medics. In the CFT, Marines have to do a buddy carry and drag of a fellow Marine (one who's often chosen to be much larger than themselves) as well as max out, timed 50 cal. can lift.

I understand why the military uses the standards they do. Its simple, its hard to inject personal bias, its easily recorded, and it *is* a proxy for overall fitness. None of that means that someone who can't do 3 pullups can't perform well in combat or that someone who can will perform well.

Some replies above in BOLD

I understand your final point, but I don't agree with the idea that it has no relevance. I doubt a person, regardless of build, who is capable of scaling a wall is also incapable of performing 3 pull ups. And that's coming from an admittedly weak category pull ups guy. They were always the part of the test which I struggled most with personally.

I haven't seen as many people struggle with pushups as I have pull ups. I've seen a lot of very unhealthy/obese guys knock out pushups like nothing, and even relatively fit/healthy people struggle with pull ups. I haven't seen the reverse of this prospect though, at least not enough for me to believe it to be an acceptable comparison. I guess what I'm saying is, that IMO, if there is a reasonable standard PT test in the military to be applicable to combat endurance/overall fitness....it's the Corps'. Army is the closest thing, but with a shorter run distance and pushups in place of pull ups whereas I've already explained why I don't feel that to be an acceptable measure based on my experience.

I certainly don't mind requirements being more realistic to the job, but I whole heartedly disagree with the idea that this basic fitness standard should change across MOSes, ranks, etc. Since any of them could be forced into a fight at almost any time, they should all have to meet a general physical standard which encompasses the strengths that are likely to be necessary in combat situations. Which is what I feel the Corps' PFT standard does, especially when combined with the CFT.

 

[HistoryGuy]

I think one standard should be set for everyone, physically, mentally, and emotionally. And if you can't meet the standard, you don't make it. Am I being too unfair here? I don't think so.

 

[joliverjr]

When they can't hump their butts over a wall in combat gear to get out of the line of fire I guess they'll realize that the prize might not have been worth it.

I somewhat agree. I agree with the premise, particularly with the standards being equal. If a situation requires certain strengths, it doesn't change based on your gender. Thus, the standards shouldn't be different between genders. Climbing a wall is climbing a wall regardless of what is between your legs. That said, I don't agree that pull ups have much to do with that. My kids are perfect examples, but this is obviously purely anecdotal. My 10 year old daughter can't do a single pull-up. My 12 year old son can do 3 pull-ups. My daughter can get over a wall. My son can't. Climbing a wall has a lot more to do with core strength and balance. My daughter knows when and where to place her feet and when to apply leverage to get over an obstacle (we do parkour together). My son is awkward, but strong. When it comes down to it, I guarantee you my daughter could flee a dangerous situation much more efficiently or chase your butt more efficiently than her much stronger siblings. Think about it. When do you climb walls without using feet as the primary means of vertical force? In fact, I'd bet you I can't even lift myself over a wall without my feet and I can do 20 pull-ups in my first set (I do pull-ups every other day). It just doesn't involve the same physics.

Don't get me wrong, phylodog. I agree very much with everything you are saying otherwise. I can't help but notice that some of the threads I've read that you are involved with, you often get some know it all that talks nonsense challenging you. Frankly, I read some of your no-nonsense stuff and find myself nearly always thinking, "How the hell can you argue with that?"

 

[fireblade]

Seriously? What was your MOS?

WTF does that matter? What was yours? I don't understand why it's so difficult for you to believe that there should be standards required before someone is considered fit for combat. I don't understand why you find it difficult to believe that leadership, particularly in the military holds a higher priority than physical standards for someone that's been in for a number of years. Yes, standards are decreased as one grows older and by and large those who are older aren't expected to hump a heavy machine gun into combat.

Since you've obviously out thought the military on this, what is your fix for this nightmarish system that's been in place since before you were born?

Please point out the problem with my post. Do Platoon Sergeants typically hump the heavy machine guns in combat as part of their primary job description?

ok here is the reality on this .. example in Iraq in 2007 on north route pluto we setting up to blow a EFP . We had five Victor's (vehicles) on this patrol . My victor being the only none 50 cal. main gun on it , we had a B240 main gun which made my victor a weaker target we were low on 50 cal Q gunners at that time. While i was flipping TOC a message on blueforce tracker my victor took a hit on the gunner turrent with a RPG i see my gunner blown down left arm gone blood all over cab. Let the PL leader know we took a hit have injury's and i was dimounting. Our medic was in left rear seat putting on a tourniquet. The troop in the right rear seat had blood over face and seemed in shock. I knew at that moment are main gun was blown off which is why i was dismounting to maintain contact on engaging enemy . I took cover behind left front tire and engaged took out RPK gunner and RPG gunner who was just ready to fire again. Then there was so much fire on me i was pinned down behind the tire that's when my gunner with one arm got up though the turrent and engage with his M-4 with one hand, medic trying to pull him down i then threw two smoke for cover . That's when i see the troop who had blood on his face just walking around in total shock .



By this time i had more dismounted troops engaging enemy and the .50 cal. crew served weapons even tho i never heard (them those who have been in the **** know your brain can only process so much noice and shuts down the noice that it knows isn't important) any way i bull dog this troop to the ground he left his weapon in the victor btw i dragged him by his body armor to cover . I fell to the ground from a shot that hit my body armor got back up and engage enemy then SGT. Finly from behind my head strarted to unload M 203 rounds. I told the PL we need to get the ____ out of here . This crazy SOB gets out in the open spins his hips an hand in the air to victor 2 ( the sign to call helicopter support at that time there code name was big guns) i swear the enemy stopped firing for a couple of seconds i bet they were like wtf is this guy doing. I grab the b240 gun that was in front of the victor put it behind the brush guard . Told the PL again we need to mount up fight through this and head to the nearest FOB to hot for medvac my victor can still move. So i picked up the troop that was still in shock threw him in his seat i now hear the .50 cal. covering fire all around us. Am red on ammo at this point so am using the gunner ammo and firing from gun turrent with M-4 as we shoot are way though this complex attack . Big guns make it on to us we have air support as this time .As we head into FOB it starts to take mortar rounds for about 5 to 10 mike's until big guns took care of the problem this is one fire fight of hundreds i been in as E-7. Why this long story i was the Platoon Sergeant on that mission if i wasn't physical fit i wouldn't have been able to do some of what i did . You are so wrong about some soldiers with higher rank we see alot of combat now ranks Major's on up not so much your right there E-8 on up your prob. right there but all that has to do with job descriptions with those MOS that are combat supporting . BTW I put my gunner in for a bronze star with valor and am proud to say he got it.