I got really excited yesterday b/c I scored a 284 on my PT test and earned my PT patch (90+ in each event). I called my husband, who is also active duty, and his response was, "Well that's easy to do on the female scale." He proceeded to tell me how ridiculous it was that females had a different standard, and that if they want to be in the Army, they need to do the male's PT test.
These are my thoughts:
1. In Appendix B of FM 21-20, the physiological differences between males and females are outlined. Even in the olympics, males and females to do not compete against one another b/c our bodies are not the same and cannot be compared.
2. In AIT, I passed the PT test on the male scale; I did 50-something push ups, 97 sit ups, and ran a 15:11. I was still not as strong as the males and could not lift the things that they could or perform at their level in some areas. This proves that even if we were held to the same PT standards, we would not be the equal (physically) of some males.
What are your thoughts on this?
Posts: 755 | Location: Fort Carson, CO | Registered: 12 March 2010
Wow, he didn't sound very supportive when you told him the good news, haha. If you are in decent shape it it not hard to post high scores on the males PT scale either. There are different standards because males and females are built differently, plain and simple. This is the reason why men and women do not compete against each other in athletic events, just like you stated yourself.
Posts: 258 | Location: Japan | Registered: 04 December 2007
Originally posted by KingofMinot2: And that's your loving supporting husband?
Yeah he certainly didn't win any "good husband" points with that. I think he's upset b/c his run time has gotten pretty slow where it used to be 12's/13's (now it's 15's) and my run time has actually come down over a minute since the PCS. We are kind of competitive I guess, it makes it hard to be happy when we achieve things though; he got his SPC first b/c he came in Active and I switched from NG, but I got my P first and we were in the same unit when they gave me CPL so he felt like I got picked over him. It's always a battle w/us, but just once it would be nice to have one of us just be happy for the other. I wonder if other dual military couples have this issue??
Posts: 755 | Location: Fort Carson, CO | Registered: 12 March 2010
To answer this you must first ask what is the purpose of the APFT? To see if we are physically able to perform the duties required of us? Perhaps. Some may disagree. It does bother me sometimes that female standards (particularly on the run) aren't an accurate reflection of who is actually a better runner. Usually I just brush it off because the facts are there, my time was faster. But when certain females try to boast that they are better than me when I beat them hands down in every event...that gets really irritating. Isn't it funny how you'll get the same females who preach equality amongst the military, yet only do so when it benefits them? When I max my run I'm damn near throwing up all over, but when most of the females I see max their run (usually about 3 minutes after I finished), they just skip across that finish line. Exaggeration? Maybe. But I can tell they aren't pushing as hard as I have to. I understand there is a physiological difference between males and females but I still firmly believe the current standards are flawed and do not portray the actual difference in ability.
Besides, in combat if we get ambushed and we have to run for cover, the enemy isn't going to differentiate between male and female when he locks his iron sights. And the NBA no matter how bad I want to compete is not going to lower their standards so I can have an opportunity to play. Shows how much this country is focused on being politically correct rather than being an effective fighting force (not saying we aren't already). And before everyone comes at me with stories of females they know that could smoke males in the run and fireman carry their entire sqaud at one time to cover...save it. I know there are capable females but statistics people...not every female is strong and not every female is weak.
No I don't think that it's fair, SpecialK said it when/if we are in combat together there is no difference between male and female. Logic would say that as long as I'm as fast as the female next to me then I should be good if we are being shot at. But being politically correct and saying that there are gender differences, or age differences and thats why there is a difference in the amount of run time a 18 year old male has apposed a 18year old female and a 30 year old male. I see reverse age and gender descrimination. If i'm an 18 year old male and make my run in 1630 I fail the test, but I pass everyone else's standard, I'm still going to get flagged, possibly lose my job, awards, and opertunity for advancement. I will always say there needs to be one standard across the board. Doesn't matter to me if we change to female standards, or change the female standard to the 18 year old male standards, or to the 26 year old male standard. Then it will be fair across the board.
I know, I know... suck it up..boo hoo boo hoo Hopefully the New PRT program and eventually test will address these issues as well.
In my humble opinion, I feel the standards for females on the 2-mile run are skewed. After a little research and a little more math I have concluded the following. For comparison purposes only, I sampled the 2-mile run standard for both males and females in the 17-21 age bracket, for a 60% passing score. They are as follows:
Male: 15:54 / Female: 18:54
This is a 3 minute difference which is also equivalent here to a 18.9% difference in standard. Below you will find a world record of every running event from the 100 m sprint, to the 1 mile run, to the marathon, and even 100k run. The first number is the percentage difference between the two times; first time being the male time and second being the female time. The average of all 17 events is 11.3%. So how is it that the Army standard allows for almost twice that? The simple fact is that majority of the females are far more capable of meeting male standards for the run than some would like to admit. Numbers don't lie. There are physiological differences between the two sexes but not as drastic as the current PT scale would reflect. Anyone care to refute my argument?
* 9.50% in 100 m: 9.58 (U. Bolt, 2009) vs. 10.49 (F. Griffith-Joyner, 1988)
* 11.20% in 200 m: 19.19 (U. Bolt, 2009) vs. 21.34 (F. Griffith-Joyner, 1988)
* 10.24% in 400 m: 43.18 (M. Johnson, 1999) vs. 47.60 (M. Koch, 1985)
* 12.04% in 800 m: 1:41.11 (W. Kipketer, 1997) vs. 1:53.28 (J. Kratochvilova, 1983)
* 11.87% in 1500 m: 3:26.00 (H. El Guerroujm 1998) vs. 3:50.46 (Y. Qu, 1993)
* 13.19% in 1 mile: 3:43.13 (H. El Guerrouj, 1999) vs. 4:12.56 (S. Masterkova, 1996)
* 10.31% in 3000 m: 7:20.67 (D. Komen, 1996) vs. 8:06.11 (J. Wang, 1993)
* 12.39% in 5000 m: 12:37.35 (K. Bekele, 2004) vs. 14:11.15 (T. Dibaba, 2008)
* 12.31% in 10,000 m: 26:17.53 (K. Bekele, 2005) vs. 29:31.78 (J. Wang, 1993)
* 12.34% in 10K: 27:01 (M.K. Kogo, 2009) vs. 30:21 (P. Radcliffe, 2003)
* 12.01% in 15K: 41:29 (F. Limo, 2001) vs. 46.28 (T. Dibaba, 2009)
* 13.73% in 20K: 55:21 (Z. Tadese, 2010) vs. 1:02.57 (L. Kiplagat, 2007)
* 13.76% in Half Marathon: 58:23 (Z. Tadese, 2010) vs. 1:06:25 (L. Kiplagat, 2007)
* 11.21% in 25K: 1:11:50 (S.K. Kosgei, 2010) vs. 1:19.53 (M.J. Keitany, 2010)
* 12.53% in 30K: 1:27:49 (H. Gebrselassie, 2009) vs. 1:38.49 (M. Noguchi, 2005)
* 9.22% in Marathon: 2:03:59 (H. Gebrselassie, 2008) vs. 2:15:25 (P. Radcliffe, 2003)
* 5.26% in 100K: 6:13:33 (T. Sunada, 1998) vs. 6:33:11 (T. Abe, 2000)
I think the pt system is just flawed in general. Probably why they've been talking about changing it for years now. We will see if it ever happens. Next, I know that Girls don't have the same build as males but come on. Like K said, Seems way easier for females to Pass as well as score high on their PT Test. I don't really agree that the standard should be the exact same cause as sated in before girls are just differntly built, with that being said, I think the numbers are way to low for females. I suggest just raising their min and Max. I mean come on, if Girls can do the same amount of situps, yet their is an over 30 rep gap in the min and max of push ups
From Sideline TO Game Winner!
Posts: 142 | Location: Earth | Registered: 13 June 2009
haha. you're telling me. In fact under the same lines, if we were to make the Army standard reflective of the average percentage difference portrayed from those studies by the IAAF (International Association of Athletics Federations), we would either have to raise the male minimum to approximately 16:58 or make the female minimum 17:42. (For the 17-21 age bracket).
The standards are far too different. They should be different, but it's ridiculous what females have to pass, especially on the run. Furthermore, not just the standard for the push up, but the way females are graded on the push up event is generally bogus as well. Not only are they basically only expected to hit our minimum to MAX, but their pushups are generally TERRIBLE in form and they get away with it. And just for reference, I am a VERY "easy" PT test grader, and yet it still amazes me the crap form most females are allowed to get away with.
If raising standards means less females could join the Army, then so be it. Now more than ever females have just as much of a chance to get hit with fires than in any other conflict in our history, and the standards are just a complete joke. Body fat standards too.
RECORDS are much different than "averages" or what the Service needs each Soldier to perform.
I agree that the disparity is excessive, but just comparing world records doesn't mean much- those are exceptional athletes who train in nothing but thos particular events.
Are you kidding me? Of course it is saying something. Obviously these world records are set by professional athletes, but the point wasn't to place soldiers on the same scale as the pros but rather illustrate the abilities of males and females in general, noting the physiological differences between the two. Those were exceptional MALE athletes and exceptional FEMALE athletes setting those records. Most people joining the military are everyday MALES and everyday FEMALES. The relation is there whether you choose to recognize it or not.