That’s not true at all. Altho, yes, Women do have less upper body strength, this test doesnt pass the upper 50% or anything, it just sets a standard.
You could have a test for upper body strength that 95% of females would pass.
Yes, it sets a standard. The standard is one that most women can’t meet, and most men can. Because far more men are in the upper 50% of upper body strength for human beings. Because men, on average, have far more upper body strength.
And you could certainly devise a test for upper body strength that 95% of women could pass. 99+% of men would pass it, and you would still have gender disparity. Besides, it misses the point.
The purpose is not to devise a test that women can pass. The purpose of the test is to find out who has enough upper body strength to meet the standard to be an effective soldier. Biology indicates that far more men than women are going to meet that standard.
Regards,
Shodan
Terrible test. Way too many subjective judgments. “Must remain relatively vertical” “a minimum of swinging or kipping” (whatever that means)
There is no way for a commanding officer to judge the performance without bias creeping in. Even if the test was gender neutral, the subjective nature makes it impossible to know.
I’ve got news for you folks: leg tucks are just a way of sneaking in pull-ups, and women generally have a harder time doing pull-ups than men do. But hold on before saying women therefore lack upper-body strength forever-and-ever-amen. With proper training, women CAN and DO crush pull-ups and leg tucks.
The stats supposedly leaked are NOT VALID because they were mere preliminary tests. The army is still devising the training needed so the AFPT functions as a true fitness test and not the equivalent of pulling people off the bleachers and challenging them to do leg-tucks. Without training, most of you guys couldn’t do a leg-tuck, either.
So again: **WAIT UNTIL THE TRAINING IS ESTABLISHED AND DONE **before having this frickin’ debate!
As a practical matter, this is irrelevant even if accurate. What’s the conclusion we’re supposed to draw, that women don’t belong in the military? Roughly 14% of the military are women, and that’s not something the pentagon is going to give up. A solution will be found because the alternative is both politically and practically unacceptable.
That’s really interesting. Thanks, Cheesesteak.
I wonder whether the issue with the leg tuck might have to do with hip structure. Maybe the (as Sterling Archer says) subjective impression of what’s “too much” swinging is affected by gender differences in hip structure? Women’s legs are going to angle differently from men’s, in most cases.
And if women are doing as well or better at deadlift, power throw, sprint drag carry, and 2 mile run: is the leg tuck actually measuring anything useful? I can see why lifting, throwing, rapidly moving heavy things/people, and running significant distances could matter. I can see why lifting oneself could matter. I don’t know why the amount that one’s legs swing while lifting oneself would matter, though it’s possible I’m just missing something.
I think the old Army APFT was just fine as it was.
The problem is (as I saw it) was that there was a lot of complaining from people who misunderstood to be an ability test - (i.e. I need 42 pushups to pass, but the women only need 12, boo hoo, so unfair).
What the Army should have done, instead of attempting to make it gender neutral, was to explain that it was not an ability test, it was a fitness test. It reflects the effort that you invest to maximize physical conditioning, with the side effect of reflecting motivation and pride.
With that understanding, it’s perfectly fine to have gender disparities in fitness standards. Whenever there are real, consequential differences in objective ability, various skill qualifications and training courses should take care of that. i.e. Ranger school is not about doing pushups, it’s about doing complicated tasks and walking around a lot with very little food or sleep for a few months.
As a point of comparison, what percentage of the IDF’s combat soldiers are female? (Short of time; can’t do Google research at the moment.)
Agreed – the baseline of the general test should be about the troops maintaining high fitness, which is not necessarily identical-looking for any two human bodies even of the same gender. Then you move on to testing for what are the requirements for task performance. The rub, of course, is that in an organization like the Army you *have *to have some sort of standardized test and doing standardized testing right is a pain and sometimes it just can’t be fine-tuned enough.
*
Women have taken part in Israel’s military before and since the founding of the state in 1948,[5][6] with women comprising over 20% of Israeli forces in 1948, and 33% of all IDF soldiers and 51% of its officers, in 2011,[7] fulfilling various roles within the Ground, Navy and Air Forces. The 2000 Equality amendment to the Military Service law states that “The right of women to serve in any role in the IDF is equal to the right of men.”[3] As of now, 88% to 92%[8] of all roles in the IDF are open to female candidates, while women can be found in 69% of all positions.[1]
Up until 2001 women conscripts served in the Women’s Corps, commonly known by its Hebrew acronym, CHEN. After a five-week period of basic training they served as clerks, drivers, welfare workers, nurses, radio operators, flight controllers, ordnance personnel, and course instructors.[9] As of 2011, 88% to 92% of all roles in the IDF are open to female candidates, while women can be found in 69% of all positions.[10][11]
In 2014, the IDF said that fewer than 4 percent of women are in combat positions such as infantry, tank crews, artillery guns service, fighter pilots, etc. Rather, they are concentrated in “combat-support”.[12]*
Yes, that’s exactly what happened. They’ve spent several years developing this test and refining the scoring criteria.
Also, it’s important to point out to everyone talking about infantry vs. office staff, etc. that the passing scores are different for different jobs.
So, while the test is the same, an infantryman is required to score higher in each event in order to pass. They’ve done away with age and gender based scoring standards and have changed to standards based solely on occupational specialty.
Not Leg Tucks. Leg Tuck. Singular! It’s worth mentioning that the minimum passing score for non-combat, service/support soldiers is one leg tuck. ONE! That’s it. These soldiers who failed, did so because they could not do a single leg tuck.
The minimum passing score for the heaviest hitters is five. Five…
Look, if you don’t want to participate, that’s fine, but there’s no reason the rest of us can’t discuss the preliminary results. It certainly would seem that waiting until it becomes the test of record and a whole bunch of women potentially have their military careers damaged for failing the test would be waiting too long.
It might not be clear from the terminology, but a “permanent profile” is something that a permanently injured soldier receives from a medical doctor. They are only issued to personnel who have injuries which limit a specific activity, but not necessarily prevent them from doing their job. The profile lists specific physical limitations for the soldier, and will explicitly state which exercises of the APFT or ACFT they are exempt from. For these events, an alternate event is authorized.
And yet, they could pass the deadlift, the power throw, the pushup, and the sprint drag carry. (And the two mile run, though that wouldn’t test upper body strength.)
Again, what actual necessary skill is the leg tuck testing for that is not tested by any of the deadlift, power throw, pushup, sprint drag carry, or two mile run? And if it’s the ability to climb, what does the amount of leg swinging have to do with it?
(And where do you see that one/five requirement? All I can find in the links is 20 leg tucks to max out. I may have missed something.)
https://www.army.mil/e2/downloads/rv7/acft/fy20_standards.pdf seems to have the answer.
BN is an currently serving officer, so I’m guessing he has seen it somewhere in his Official Army Paperwork.
To try to answer some of your questions here, the leg tuck test isn’t testing for a “skill” exactly (such as climbing); it’s something the Army has determined is indicative of an appropriate level of physical conditioning / health / strength. Their FAQ says “The LTK assesses the strength of the Soldiers grip, arm, shoulder and trunk muscles. These muscles assist Soldiers in load carriage and in avoiding injuries to the back.” Swinging one’s legs excessively uses momentum to reduce the effort required to complete the task. That might be considered a savvy, energy-saving move in a lot of competitions, but in this case it undermines the purpose of the test, which is to “assess the strength of the Soldiers …”.
Thanks for link and info.
Do the deadlift and the drag carry not also require strength in grip, arm, shoulder, and trunk muscles? Why the huge discrepancy between the results in those and in the leg tuck?
Yes, at least to some extent.
This is just speculation on my part, but I would guess that it has to do with the fact that the leg tuck involves holding / lifting your entire body weight by your hands / arms. It’s an event quite focused on upper-body strength (and dependent on one’s weight) in a way that the deadlift and drag carry do not.