# 84% of female soldiers are failing the US Army's new gender-neutral physical fitness test (ACFT) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 8, 2019, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/84-of-female-soldiers-are-failing-the-us-armys-new-gender-neutral-physical-fitness-test-acft/841487 "2019-10-08T18:10:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2019, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/84-of-female-soldiers-are-failing-the-us-armys-new-gender-neutral-physical-fitness-test-acft/841487/41 "2019-10-09T08:44:35Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > So you admit that when things get to the point of actually needing a lot of people to use this stuff, the military will be accepting people regardless of ability. > > Note that I didn’t say “lowered standards”, I said “read the freaking cite and see that standards were in goddamned freefall” which, incidentally, makes an absolute mockery of this thread. Ignoring the rest of the post.:rolleyes: And the Vietnam era US Army isn’t a standard anyone should want to meet. ---
**Author:** ![Kimera757](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kimera757/32/3765_2.png) [@Kimera757](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimera757)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2019, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/84-of-female-soldiers-are-failing-the-us-armys-new-gender-neutral-physical-fitness-test-acft/841487/42 "2019-10-09T10:52:26Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > [source](https://news.clearancejobs.com/2019/10/05/army-combat-fitness-test-fiasco-slides-reveal-84-of-women-failing-acft/) > > What should the Army do about this? Should they go back to different standards for (realizing I might be stepping into a quagmire with this next word, but unsure how else to phrase it) each gender? Should the test be changed? The event the women seem to be struggling the most with is the “leg tuck”. [The Army’s website describes it like this](https://www.army.mil/acft/#event5): > > Are things like “the strength of the Soldiers grip, arm, shoulder and trunk muscles” rightfully important to the Army and this is just a bad way of measuring them? Is there a way to measure “the strength of the Soldiers grip, arm, shoulder and trunk muscles” that would be more favorable to female soldiers? Or should the Army be working on ways to fight a war that don’t involve soldiers carrying loads and / or injuring their backs? I see no need to change the test. The objective is equality of opportunity. I would expect fewer female police officers, firefighters and other jobs where physical upper body strength is important as well. I wouldn’t expect _none_. (There seems to be fewer female firefighters than expected, even with fair tests, which makes me think there’s still a lot of sexism there.) I am surprised the “leg tuck” is what is causing the problems, but I am noting that the statistics are not currently reliable. Soldiers are always carrying too much weight, but I don’t think that’s a gender issue. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2019, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/84-of-female-soldiers-are-failing-the-us-armys-new-gender-neutral-physical-fitness-test-acft/841487/43 "2019-10-09T13:48:57Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > A dumb man once said you fight a war with the army you have, not the army you need or might want. If I were fighting a war, I’d rather have a few doughy infantrymen than have an Army that’s hot shit at exercising across all career fields but I lost 20% of my best people in everything _but_ infantry. That wasn’t what I was getting at; my point was that infantrymen generally have to be in excellent shape just to do their jobs well. I don’t know, but I’d be willing to bet that the pass rate on the ACFT was highest among enlisted infantrymen, just by virtue of their jobs. The issue is whether some Spec-4 clerk at battalion level needs to be that level of fit or not. Apparently the Army thinks they do. I’m guessing because of a combination of experience in Iraq/Afghanistan where lots of troops were doing foot patrols despite not actually being infantrymen and they probably identified some kind of fitness deficiencies that caused problems. It may be as simple as less fit troops became casualties more often, or it may be more complicated than that. And seriously… have you read the tests and the criteria? ANY twenty-something person who is in good shape ought to be able to handle passing that test without a problem, or should be able to get in that kind of shape without too much issue. I wonder if there are age-related or injury-related dispensations; some of those things might not be hard for a 22 year old former high school athlete, but they might be pretty tough for a 55 year old Master Sergeant, or a 35 year old Major who busted up his knee. That would be my concern- that they’re going to penalize the older soldiers and potentially lose that experience because of aging or service-related injuries. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2019, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/84-of-female-soldiers-are-failing-the-us-armys-new-gender-neutral-physical-fitness-test-acft/841487/44 "2019-10-09T14:06:42Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > No, men are more efficient _for the particular skillset measured_. No, in general. Men are much more likely to be able to pass the fitness test without special training than women, and therefore have more of their limited training time available to be devoted to learning any other skillset. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2019, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/84-of-female-soldiers-are-failing-the-us-armys-new-gender-neutral-physical-fitness-test-acft/841487/45 "2019-10-09T14:12:47Z")
duplicate post. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2019, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/84-of-female-soldiers-are-failing-the-us-armys-new-gender-neutral-physical-fitness-test-acft/841487/46 "2019-10-09T14:56:41Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, in general. Men are much more likely to be able to pass the fitness test without special training than women, and therefore have more of their limited training time available to be devoted to learning any other skillset. > > Regards, > Shodan If this particular skillset is not particularly valuable, however, or does not adequately encompass what the modern army needs, then the time spent in preparation, for both sexes, is time wasted. If the test isn’t useful, then “We are going to compel women to spend more time preparing for a useless exercise” is not an argument in favor of male efficiency. ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2019, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/84-of-female-soldiers-are-failing-the-us-armys-new-gender-neutral-physical-fitness-test-acft/841487/47 "2019-10-09T15:36:00Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, in general. Men are much more likely to be able to pass the fitness test without special training than women, and therefore have more of their limited training time available to be devoted to learning any other skillset. There’s no way to tell from the results of one specific test (let alone, apparently, from results primarily from one part of that test, the leg tuck) whether men, on average, take less training time overall than women before they’re fit to be assigned to duty. We’d need statistics as to overall length of time required for training, broken down by gender, to answer that; and to have the information needed to consider whether any difference that might exist (in whichever direction) would be great enough to overcome the large disadvantages of removing half the population from the potential pool of recruits. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2019, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/84-of-female-soldiers-are-failing-the-us-armys-new-gender-neutral-physical-fitness-test-acft/841487/48 "2019-10-09T15:41:00Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > If this particular skillset is not particularly valuable, however, or does not adequately encompass what the modern army needs, then the time spent in preparation, for both sexes, is time wasted. If the test isn’t useful, then “We are going to compel women to spend more time preparing for a useless exercise” is not an argument in favor of male efficiency. The single organization on the whole planet best-equipped to decide if this particular skillset is valuable or not is the US Army, and they say it is valuable. ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2019, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/84-of-female-soldiers-are-failing-the-us-armys-new-gender-neutral-physical-fitness-test-acft/841487/49 "2019-10-09T15:50:49Z")
And yet the military services make bad decisions about their personnel readiness programs all the time. That the organization that ought to know best has decided so does not make it so. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2019, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/84-of-female-soldiers-are-failing-the-us-armys-new-gender-neutral-physical-fitness-test-acft/841487/50 "2019-10-09T16:50:21Z")
Out of curiosity, how does the ACFT compare to say… the USMC fitness standards? Is it notably tougher? If not, I would question why there’s such an outcry about the Army initiating such a test when the USMC already has similar standards. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2019, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/84-of-female-soldiers-are-failing-the-us-armys-new-gender-neutral-physical-fitness-test-acft/841487/51 "2019-10-09T17:04:16Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Out of curiosity, how does the ACFT compare to say… the USMC fitness standards? Is it notably tougher? If not, I would question why there’s such an outcry about the Army initiating such a test when the USMC already has similar standards. Well the USMC has gender-based requirements still, so… the ACFT is remarkably different. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2019, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/84-of-female-soldiers-are-failing-the-us-armys-new-gender-neutral-physical-fitness-test-acft/841487/52 "2019-10-09T17:04:37Z")
> [@ASL\_v2.0](#): > > And yet the military services make bad decisions about their personnel readiness programs all the time. That the organization that ought to know best has decided so does not make it so. We would hope that militaries would be efficient and effective organizations but they tend very much not to be. Their specificity, insularity and understandable secrecy doesn’t help them either. There isn’t much reason to think that the military is better at figuring out personnel requirements than it is at materiel requirements and history, especially since the second industrial revolution, is full of militaries having the wrong ideas about what was required to achieve the highest level of overall effectiveness in fighting wars. I’ll talk the ear off anyone who asks for illustrations but if not, the Youtube channel Forgotten Weapons is a fount of examples of ill-conceived military requirements. Throwing out people over some of these tests may be the equivalent of throwing out an otherwise good infantryman because he sucks at bayonet fighting. Is it possible that it will become important in some extreme situation? Yes. It’s most likely not worth chucking out that infantryman over it, though. As Thorny Locust suggests, we have to think about the risks of including some people but also what we would deprive the organization, and society, and the people involved, of by summarily dismissing them over possibly tradition-bound or poorly-thought-through conceptions of what makes a good candidate. I have a vague memory of the SEALs coming up with requirements that relaxed some elements while stressing others. Maybe something as closely-tailored could be done for REMFs, especially personnel who, in the civilian world, would come under the heading of knowledge workers, because they’re going to be among those who contribute the most in modern warfare. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2019, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/84-of-female-soldiers-are-failing-the-us-armys-new-gender-neutral-physical-fitness-test-acft/841487/53 "2019-10-09T17:05:41Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The single organization on the whole planet best-equipped to decide if this particular skillset is valuable or not is the US Army, and they say it is valuable. ThE aRmY mAkEs GoOd DeCiSiOnS aBoUt ItS pEoPlE. Sometimes you’re so far out of your element you should just step back and listen instead of interjecting whenever you think you have a point to make. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2019, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/84-of-female-soldiers-are-failing-the-us-armys-new-gender-neutral-physical-fitness-test-acft/841487/54 "2019-10-09T17:13:07Z")
What should happen is that the Army decides just what a soldier needs to be able to do, devises a test that accurately reflects those needed abilities, applies that test in a gender-blind way, and accepts anyone (of either gender) who passes the test. If physical strength is something that a soldier actually needs, then this process is likely to accept a higher proportion of men than women. Is this what actually happened? I’m not in a position to know. But if what the Army did is worthy of criticism (note the “if”), then it should be on the grounds that the test doesn’t accurately reflect what a soldier actually needs. It shouldn’t be criticized based on the outcomes. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2019, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/84-of-female-soldiers-are-failing-the-us-armys-new-gender-neutral-physical-fitness-test-acft/841487/55 "2019-10-09T17:21:54Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > ThE aRmY mAkEs GoOd DeCiSiOnS aBoUt ItS pEoPlE. > > Sometimes you’re so far out of your element you should just step back and listen instead of interjecting whenever you think you have a point to make. That’s enough steronz. Do not tell other posters what they can or can’t post. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2019, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/84-of-female-soldiers-are-failing-the-us-armys-new-gender-neutral-physical-fitness-test-acft/841487/56 "2019-10-09T17:22:03Z")
> [@ASL\_v2.0](#): > > And yet the military services make bad decisions about their personnel readiness programs all the time. That the organization that ought to know best has decided so does not make it so. And so you think we should substitute their judgement for … what? A bunch of random posters on an internet message board? A gaggle of university professors? A bunch of congressmen? Who else should be making that decision if not the Army itself? ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2019, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/84-of-female-soldiers-are-failing-the-us-armys-new-gender-neutral-physical-fitness-test-acft/841487/57 "2019-10-09T17:26:21Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > What should happen is that the Army decides just what a soldier needs to be able to do, devises a test that accurately reflects those needed abilities, applies that test in a gender-blind way, and accepts anyone (of either gender) who passes the test. If physical strength is something that a soldier actually needs, then this process is likely to accept a higher proportion of men than women. > > Is this what actually happened? I’m not in a position to know. But if what the Army did is worthy of criticism (note the “if”), then it should be on the grounds that the test doesn’t accurately reflect what a soldier actually needs. It shouldn’t be criticized based on the outcomes. You won’t find this written anywhere, but the real reason behind all current fitness tests is to make sure the service isn’t filled up with a bunch of overweight fleabags who get winded doing basic tasks, like a lot of police departments are. Army leadership wants Joe and Jane Soldier to look decent in a uniform, generally take care of their bodies, and stay healthy. This is, of course, a subjective standard, and prior to fitness tests it was handled at the lowest level possible – Private Pyle wasn’t being harassed about his weight by some nameless test, remember. Any attempt to codify those mushy requirements is bound to make some people unhappy, and others will still argue that they should be _allowed_ to be doughy fleabags if they’re in a non-combat role. But what you’re describing excludes this goal entirely. It’s perfectly reasonable to expect people to meet some arbitrary definition of “fit” while not expecting 40 year old women to be as strong as 20 year old men. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2019, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/84-of-female-soldiers-are-failing-the-us-armys-new-gender-neutral-physical-fitness-test-acft/841487/58 "2019-10-09T17:27:47Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The single organization on the whole planet best-equipped to decide if this particular skillset is valuable or not is the US Army, and they say it is valuable. Well, let’s look at the skill sets and how the genders did, the numbers are percent fails: Deadlift M 2% F 4% Power Throw M 9% F 7% Push Up M 4% F 4% Sprint Drag Carry M 5% F 3% 2 Mile Run M 11% F 6% Leg Tuck M 14% **F 72%** It seems blindingly clear that the issue, the entirety of the issue, is the leg tuck. Outside of this one skill, the females are actually outperforming the males. If the failures occurred across all skills, I could chalk it it up to men being generally more athletically inclined, and women just not athletic enough to pass the tougher ACFT but that isn’t what’s happening. It’s one skill driving the whole difference. That just screams to me that something other than general fitness is coming into play. If that’s the case, you better be damn sure that this exact skill done this exact way is what you really truly need. Because, if it’s just a proxy for climbing skills, and women who fail the Leg Tuck can climb just fine, it’s a bad proxy for a useful skill ---
**Author:** ![Dale\_Sams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/779978/32.png) [@Dale\_Sams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dale_Sams)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2019, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/84-of-female-soldiers-are-failing-the-us-armys-new-gender-neutral-physical-fitness-test-acft/841487/59 "2019-10-09T17:31:44Z")
Who cares??? We have no natural enemies and if Fatty McFattison wants to die of a heart attack in Afghanistan…go right ahead. I don’t care if our army is 100,00 elite “Starship Troopers” with 130 IQ each or 10,000,000 schlubs. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2019, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/84-of-female-soldiers-are-failing-the-us-armys-new-gender-neutral-physical-fitness-test-acft/841487/60 "2019-10-09T17:34:08Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > And so you think we should substitute their judgement for … what? A bunch of random posters on an internet message board? Well, a bunch of random posters on an internet message board is you’re asking right now in this thread you started. Note that posters in this thread have on a few occasions mentioned the need for empirical data, analysis and experimentation as opposed to just spouting off what they think the requirements should be. Any of those elements would benefit from, couldn’t do without really, what people in uniform have to say and on many issues where practical experience is paramount. Others wouldn’t be in a good position to tell them they’re wrong and would take what they say as the best data available. > [@Dale\_Sams](#): > > Who cares??? We have no natural enemies and if Fatty McFattison wants to die of a heart attack in Afghanistan…go right ahead. I don’t care if our army is 100,00 elite “Starship Troopers” with 130 IQ each or 10,000,000 schlubs. People who fight wars care very much. If you want to see an example of a military of 100 000 Starship Troopers with 130 IQ vs 10,000,000 schlubs looks like when they have it out for real, look at the Six Day War. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/84-of-female-soldiers-are-failing-the-us-armys-new-gender-neutral-physical-fitness-test-acft/841487.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/84-of-female-soldiers-are-failing-the-us-armys-new-gender-neutral-physical-fitness-test-acft/841487.md?page=4)