84% of Women Failing Army Combat Fitness Test

[Hieronymous]

According to the numbers, a jaw-dropping 36% of soldiers overall failed the test, with 64% passing. When you break it down by gender, 70% of men passed. But here is a number should kill and bury the ACFT evermore: 84% of women failed the test. Those numbers are so absurdly biased against women.....

https://news.clearancejobs.com/2019/...-failing-acft/

Can anyone here weigh in on the relevant history of Army Fitness testing in relation to this new test? Is this a balanced test? Is it (as the author suggests), unfairly biased against women? Is this a test for everyone? Is there a different test for those in frontline combat roles?

[jetfire]

https://news.clearancejobs.com/2019/...-failing-acft/

Can anyone here weigh in on the relevant history of Army Fitness testing in relation to this new test? Is this a balanced test? Is it (as the author suggests), unfairly biased against women? Is this a test for everyone? Is there a different test for those in frontline combat roles?

According to Stars and Stripes, the new test is broken into three categories for minimum passing standards. Back office troops have the easiest time, then troops that are expected to have a certain physicality to their work like MPs are in the middle, and the toughest standards are for combat arms MOS. I don't know exactly what the standards are though, because I got a good score on the ASVAB and joined the Air Force.

[ranger]

This thread ought to get good real quick. Remember, all the restrictions were lifted so anyone can serve in any Army MOS. Then a gender neutral PT test is developed but is skewed with Combat Arms, almost Combat Arms, the no way Combat Arms categories.

[hufnagel]

Correct me if i'm wrong but the standards are there because:
You'll have to hump a pack X number of miles weighing Y in Z amount of time.
And you might need to drag/carry a disabled comrade weighing W.
If you can't, you become a liability to whatever unit you're assigned to.

[LittleLebowski]

You don’t say...

[Drang]

<==debating whether to just go ahead and put thread on ignore now...

[0ddl0t]

Is it (as the author suggests), unfairly biased against women?

Did you read the full article? The author elaborates that:

the real killer for women is the “leg tuck” portion of the ACFT, in which you assume a pull-up position and bring your hips and knees up to your elbows and back down as many times as possible in two minutes.
...
women are failing the leg tuck test by 72%

I don't see the practical use in bringing your knees to your elbows while hanging from a rod...

[blues]

[Poconnor]

When I first saw the test I thought it was going to get a lot of soldiers injured training for the test and taking the test. But when it’s time to go to war this test requires the strength and endurance needed for ground combat. This level of physical conditioning requires time. I estimate the time needed to achieve good scores without injuries is probably 18 months to 24 months. Not to mention a diet with good food. The equipment needed is ridiculous but sand kettlebell bags and sand bag duffles could be used. I have seen too many soldiers injured for life just from rigors of daily wearing a combat load on a deployment. They really need to buy lighter body armor. I don’t see this test as an attempt to get women out of the army but army leaders trying to create a test that will cut down on injuries and casualties on deployments.

[mtnbkr]

I don't see the practical use in bringing your knees to your elbows while hanging from a rod...

It's a test of core strength.

Chris