More than half of females in bootcamp cannot do 3 pull ups

This brings up an interesting topic and that is-are men and women really equal when it come to physical strength?

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.

Does the inability to complete three pull ups suggest that a woman may not be suitable for combat?

What if the role was changed where a male could not do three pull ups. Would the members on ATS feel comfortable with a male going into combat if he couldn't do five pushups let alone three pull ups?

Does strength even matter in today's military? I would argue that judging someone's ability to deal in high stress environments would be more important for both men and women?

Special forces is another area all together and rigorous training should apply to both sexes. This elite category should not be watered down as a result of gender.

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.

YAHOO LINK

if someone can't do 3 pullups, how can they be expected to carry your wounded ass off the battlefield?

thishereguy
if someone can't do 3 pullups, how can they be expected to carry your wounded ass off the battlefield?

Improvisation.
"I cant mix concrete but I can eat it"

reply to post by thishereguy


It's an interesting issue to say the least...one could make the same argument for women in the fire department. It is my understanding that they are given lighter dummies when it comes to dragging them x amount of feet to pass their physical fitness portion of the exam. Does that make them a ineffective fireman/women? What if the men were given the same weight as the women do for this part of the challenge. Would people be ok with that?

Adrenaline is a big boost when it comes to saving someone...we see people picking up cars and saving loved ones...maybe it takes a certain situation to bolster that strength needed to do the job...

So they can't do three pull ups, how sad.....but give the ones who can't a frying pan and see the enemy run.

Men have their weaknesses too...they can only do one fart at a time.

More than half of soldiers can't give birth, so, since they can't give life, how can we expect them to take life?



Yup.

Strength training can mitigate this and anyone that can't do 3 pull-ups can work at it and eventually be able to do 10, 20, 30, or however many is required as per how it is with situps, pushups, or any exercise.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


I guess what it comes down to is how low the standards should be to make it through boot camp...how long does it take for anyone to go from three pull ups to thirty....for some it can take a year or more...

Are you suggesting that there is no minimum standard set within the realm of physical fitness requirements?

You could make the same argument that if someone does not pass a particular test they should pass with the expectation that they will gather the necessary knowledge there after with hard work?

This is part of the PFT, the Physical Fitness Test, they now have the CFT, Combat Fitness test. So why are we comparing the physical test to combat, when the reason they came out with the cft is because the PFT does not measure combat ready fitness.... Those two shouldn't be compared. And the CFT test has no differences between male and female expect how they score the times and the females will use a female partner for one part of the test

thishereguy
if someone can't do 3 pullups, how can they be expected to carry your wounded ass off the battlefield?

I understand your point, but that's not the best example considering the two activities use entirely different muscle groups.

That said, I think this is a difficult area. Women shouldn't get a free pass to bypass any expectations for physical performance, but there is a biological difference that must be accounted for. We simply aren't going to match the brute upper body strength of a male who has reached his peak ability.

I don't think 3 pull-ups is too much to ask though. One of my friends in the Navy served in a technical non-combat field, and she could still do 4 or 5. I know I can reach 3 (but probably not much more) and I don't even exercise my arms all that much. The fact that so many people aren't meeting these standards is really sad. I know the Marines has higher standards than other branches, but even in the Navy where the standards were pathetically low, many people (of both genders) struggled significantly to meet them.

If you could maintain a slow jog for a whole mile and a half, you were already faster than 60% of the competition...

reply to post by chrismarco


Boot camp WILL get you above 3 pull ups. male or female, most in the teens with ease at the finish of boot camp.

reply to post by Sremmos80


Good catch....bottom line should someone regardless of the PFT or CFT be able to perform three pull ups?

It's all about equality... it doesn't matter what it costs apparently, as long as we can say we have it.

I am a female, and the sexes are not equal in every way. Pure common sense says there are some things men can do that women can't and the opposite of that holds true as well. The job requirements of ANY job should not be lessened for any gender...ever. If the job requires you to carry a 200 lb. body down 2 flights of stairs, then that is what it should require regardless of whether you sit or stand to relieve yourself IMO.

Now I do mow the yard, I can work on cars, I can roof, and I can even do some electrical work so I am all for not having the stereotypical man/woman roles of kitchen/garage. The idea of that is ridiculous and dying faster by the day thank goodness, but no matter how much you scream equality... it just in realistic in every aspect of life. And who would want it to be? We are made differently for many reasons.

We shouldn't consider sacrificing lives by allowing women or men to hold jobs they are not able to do just to say we have them doing those specific jobs. If they can't pass the tests required (men and women) they should move along to another line of work that fits their physical capabilities more accurately.

reply to post by thishereguy


No where near the same muscle group, you can firemans carry much more weight then you can dead lift pull up

reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe


That's a tough one...If a woman wants to serve her country and possibly give her life should we lower the standards?

reply to post by Sremmos80


That is very impressive!

reply to post by chrismarco


Yes they should but are you talking at the end or during boot camp? Cause you are not a solider/marine till the END, at which point they would have to complete 3 pull ups to graduate.

I bet 99% of ATS members can't do 3 pull ups.

reply to post by CallYourBluff


I'm happy to be part of that 1%

If they are serving I hope they can...if not who cares?

Women shouldn't be on the battlefield, period. This isn't an argument at all. This is simply fact.

The shedding of blood is a man's sport fueled by testosterone and our base animal nature. We are not nurturers by biological design. We are seeders, protectors, and killers. Women are protectors and nurtures by biological design.

It is not safe to have beings on a battlefield that are impaired, incapable, or ill equipped. Sexual dimorphism exists, and if we respect it nowhere else then we should at least give it its credence on the field of death, chaos, and animalistic insanity. Unless there is a reason for women to exist on the battlefield i.e. necessity, they shouldn't exist on the battlefield. Desire to serve one's country or nation, as backwards as the idea is to me, is quite fine. A desire to serve one's nation or country by forcibly demanding that your presence is known in an arena of brute strength and blood when your biology does not meet the basic standards is insanity.

Human killing human is horrible enough. Demanding the right to be in the arena to assist in the killing humans when one's biology hasn't evolved to do such a thing without considerable strain, is incomprehensible.

Third Wave feminism has gone too far in breaking down the binary. I respect the rights and equality of women in education, intellect, compensation, social status, and common decency. I support the second wave. I do not support equality in the sense of our physical biology. Sure, people will claim that races are heavily divergent in intelligence and physicality, but that's negligible to nonexistent. What is real and apparent is the macro and micro differences between the male and female being. Different chemical, hormonal, musculature, and bone structures are in place. It affects everything from physicality to psychology.

Women are my equals in society, in academia, and in the work field. They are not my equal in strength. It's just basic biology. Sorry.