We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
IMHO this is not good. First of all I cannot imagine not being able to do a leg tuck, unless of course your waist size exceeds 44. Second the story implies an equal test for all genders (gender-blind promotion boards) but states "the new ACFT 3.0 will include specific evaluation categories for men and women".
I don't mean to nitpick but the test should be gender blind. I don't understand the argument that we should hire people to protect our country BUT allow them to be physically unable to protect our country and even memorialize that stupidity with an unequal test. I assume that in war the enemy will not treat them different and give women and LGBTQ a pass if their inability prevents them from winning a battle. Sorry to be so negative but this is so stupid and I fear for our future as a viable country.
Keep in mind that this is a combat fitness test. Every infantryman (person?) should be able to pass it. But, seriously, do people with desk jobs really need to? There are a lot of desk jobs in the Army.
The problem is in a shooting war everyone in uniform is a combatant. When I was in the military even the cooks in war zones had a rifle close to their hand. Everyone will be called to fight and their ability to do what they are trained for will determine who wins. Simple as that.
It would be difficult to imagine how we could sabotage our own military intentionally than what we are doing in the name of diversity. There is zero reason for gays and trans to be in the military and their presence harms effectiveness. There is a small need for women in medical care but zero reason for women in the military other than that specialty.
In the Navy it is even a worse problem. They are a distraction onboard ship and they cannot be used effectively on shore duty. The Navy has to bend over backwards to accommodate them and it harms their readiness.
Combat is a young mans job. The physical standards for combat arms jobs should be brutal and brutally enforced. I’m 55 and work out, with no great intensity, an hour a day. I scored a 580. This is not a hard test.
I'm 63 and in decent shape; i'm pretty sure i can pass this test (and plan to try once broken rib from ski fall allows me to). It does seem pretty minimal (although no real idea how hard the sprint/drag carry thing might be to be honest).
Another point is that a 21 YO man's heart pumps blood about 2 1/2 faster than a woman in the same physical condition. And his body contains 1 to 2 pints more blood than a woman of the same weight. When it comes to hard sustained physical work these two factors are critical. Combat isn't a 15 minute test it is 24 hours, 48 hours and more of physical and mental strain. It is what it is and to make believe it is suitable for women is to not understand what it is.