The ACFT aims to be gender neutral which is a reflection of changes both in Army's policy of allowing women to serve in direct combat roles (which used to be men-only jobs) along with transgendered members being allowed to openly serve or trans people being allowed to enlist.
The difficulty with designing this test is many. The test cannot reduce combat readiness of your forces so the minimum requirements do need to actually reflect the minimum requirements of being combat ready. Another pain point is that women on average are quite a bit weaker than men, and that gap is widened when everyone is participating in physical fitness activities. Both of these factors probably compound into making the ACFT extremely difficult to pass for the average female service member.
For the old APFT there was an army-wide standard of a minimum passing score of 180 (max 300) in 3 events, with a required minimum 60 point score in each event. The points are weighted by age and gender. Some jobs in the Army had much higher requirements than the baseline to reflect the increased physicality of the job.
If the new ACFT wants to aim for gender neutral baseline score, it'll probably have to be pretty low and the pass rate for men will probably be extremely high. Perhaps they just need to apply different requirements for different jobs to ensure that combat readiness isn't sacrificed.
Is the fitness test the biggest problem with mixed groups?
I read on Quora, that the real problem with men and women fighting together, that if both a man and the woman is caught as hostage, a man can't see a woman from his team suffering, and gives up the secrets much easier.
> The US army is considering scrapping its new gender neutral fitness test because women have been failing in much larger numbers than men.
> Research showed that the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT), which is the same for male and female soldiers, was leading to lower results for women with a knock-on effect for promotions.
> An early Pentagon study showed women were failing the ACFT at a rate of 65 per cent, compared with 10 per cent for men. Congress has halted implementation of the new test and the army has begun an independent review into whether it is fair. It has been suggested that the standard test could be evaluated differently for men and women.
Biology is a fact and for some jobs — like combat in the army — that biological difference matters and will manifest in any unbiased test.
I’m concerned by our inability to talk about facts.
This is the new norm. Men are stronger biologically so women must have an easier fitness test. Next move should be to make written tests easier for men since women are better at these than men, especially longer ones. We must all be the same and yet also be special snowflakes.
The leftist narrative is that it's only sexism if it affects women. Otherwise, thins are fine. That's why you don't see calls for having same representation in fields such as construction, firefighting, nursing, teaching, etc.
basically they accuse some left people to have been (too) tolerant with muslim people in the name of multiculturalism, leading to being laxist toward ideologies and cultural practices (such as islamic preachers in some mosques) that lead to / encourage to terrorism (a lot of the terror attacks we had came from people visiting the same mosques..).
it's not completely unfounded if you know some french left-wing poiticians
To me it sounds like the new liberalism couldn't be farther from the classical libertarian / liberal values, that's why it's sad when that word is used.
agreed, libtard/baizuo are typically anti-liberal control freaks who have undermined the classical liberal base by giving conservatives something they can (incorrectly) associate with liberalism and make simple jokes about.
English speakers have invented plenty of derogatory epithets for people who expose extreme political correctness: libtard, SJW (Social Justice Warrior), woke etc. There's probably many more, but I don't really follow that world closely.
> English speakers have invented plenty of derogatory epithets for people who expose extreme political correctness: libtard, SJW (Social Justice Warrior), woke etc. There's probably many more, but I don't really follow that world closely.
It's pretty interesting that a foreign culture would coin a term for something like that, though. I wonder if this is term that's mainly used by international students.
I think it's conceivable for well funded militaries to restructure equipment and doctrine for combat rolls to cater to lower performance standards. Reality however is infantry are carrying more than ever and performance is biasing more towards athleticism. GWOT has increased reliance for SOF units, and when millions are being sunk into each individual operator, you want to get your money's worth. Not to mention the amount of resources expended to service casualties both in field and in civilian life, for perpetuity. I'm sure some bean counter has done the actuarial accounting, and it's really up to society to decide if equality is worth the cost, which will be massive since it involves a whole of military effort considering every piece of equipment was designed for male performance curve in mind, i.e. F35 ejection seats isn't designed for pilots under 140lbs.
People do not realize that the current state of conflict is not so simple. We require to test varied skillsets for the test to be practical, and we are not only getting those skillsets in people at the absolute peak of physical performance.
The weight the PT test has in promotions should depend on how important your job physicality is.
> The test includes six events - a maximum deadlift, a standing power throw, hand-release push-ups, a sprint, drag and carry, leg tuck, and a two-mile run. Those taking it must score at least 360 points out of a possible 600, and those who achieve higher scores are more likely to be promoted.
Just a dumb RPG comment but it seems to be weighted toward STR more than DEX or END. Even a 2-mile run seems suspiciously meh compared to a max deadlift. Is this normal for Army fitness? Hopefully it wasn't a knee-jerk designed by frightened men...
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by knee-jerk design by frightened men. The army has been in the process of trying to replace the APFT for over a decade and no response in the army could be seen as a knee-jerk response; most changes in the military happen at a snail's pace.
Beyond that, if they're designing it around requirements for combat roles, of which the physicality of it isn't just a matter of kudos points but of survival, it will almost definitely result in a test that disqualifies most women.
I'm glad I'm not in the military any more. Putting my life in the hands of someone who is here because he passed the tests OR because of her gender is out of the question.
The difficulty with designing this test is many. The test cannot reduce combat readiness of your forces so the minimum requirements do need to actually reflect the minimum requirements of being combat ready. Another pain point is that women on average are quite a bit weaker than men, and that gap is widened when everyone is participating in physical fitness activities. Both of these factors probably compound into making the ACFT extremely difficult to pass for the average female service member.
For the old APFT there was an army-wide standard of a minimum passing score of 180 (max 300) in 3 events, with a required minimum 60 point score in each event. The points are weighted by age and gender. Some jobs in the Army had much higher requirements than the baseline to reflect the increased physicality of the job.
If the new ACFT wants to aim for gender neutral baseline score, it'll probably have to be pretty low and the pass rate for men will probably be extremely high. Perhaps they just need to apply different requirements for different jobs to ensure that combat readiness isn't sacrificed.