Strong, Empowered Women Warriors

If you were wondering what preoccupies the awesome American military, now you have an answer. It’s gender equity. For reasons that no one understands strong empowered women warriors are not doing so well on the military’s combat fitness tests. In fact, they are failing the test at an alarming rate.

Apparently, endlessly intoning the words strong and empowered does not make women stronger or more powerful. Who knew?

The bad news comes to us from Military.com, via Maggie’s Farm:

More than seven months after the official launch of the Army Combat Fitness Test, or ACFT, nearly half of female soldiers are still falling short, with enlisted women struggling the most, Military.com has learned. The data again raises questions about whether the Army's attempt to create a fitter force is creating more barriers to success for women.

Internal Army figures from April show 44% of women failed the ACFT, compared to 7% of men since Oct. 1. "Female soldiers continue to lag male soldier scores in all events," according to a United States Army Forces Command briefing obtained by Military.com.

Now you also know, that in our woke military, the solution to the problem is changing the test. If equity does not prevail, then something is wrong with the test. It is not showing how strong and empowered women really are. Besides, the new test was devised during the Trump administration, so we need to replace it with a more feministically correct test.

You can immediately what is wrong with the fitness tests. Far more men than women achieve the highest scores:

While the majority of women are passing the test, very few of them can get perfect scores. Only 66 female soldiers scored 500 points or higher, compared to 31,978 males. A score of 600 is the max.

Congress has always doubted the new test. It has believed that the fitness test contains an inherent bias. Thus, it wants the military to stop using it as a way to decide who does or does not belong in the combat infantry:

The ACFT's impact on women has caught the attention of lawmakers. Last year, Congress passed a measure halting the implementation of the test until an assessment independent of the Pentagon is complete on its impact on recruiting and retention.

Because, only diversity counts. 

The Daily Mail reports on recent efforts by the Biden military to reduce gender inequities:

That new option is just one of the changes Army leaders are making in their struggle to create a fitness test that is gender- and age-neutral, but that also doesn’t end up disadvantaging female or older soldiers who simply aren’t as strong as their younger male counterparts. 

In a sweeping nod to gender differences, Army leaders said they are also going to create a new tiered system that will mask some of the fitness score differences between men and women when it comes to promotions or other job selections.

In the new testing system, men and women would not be judged by the same scoring system. Men would be compared with men and women would be compared with women. This would make some sense if combat units were to be comprised of members of only one sex. If men and women are fighting side by side, it makes far less sense.

But, consider the following. The paper also reports on a Washington Post interview with Capt. Kristen Griest, one of the two women to make it through the army’s Ranger training program.

Griest strongly opposes reduced fitness standards for women. And she offers some good reasons for her view. Though, to be fair, she believes that women can do better than they have been doing. 

The Daily Mail reports on Capt. Griest’s views:

'As the Army’s first female infantry officer, I have long awaited the elimination of a gender-based fitness test. The drastically lower female standards of the old Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) not only jeopardized mission readiness in combat units but also reinforced the false notion that women are categorically incapable of performing the same job as men,' Griest wrote.  

'To not require women to meet equal standards in combat arms will not only undermine their credibility, but also place those women, their teammates, and the mission at risk,' she wrote.

Equal standards … what a quaint notion.

She continues:

First, reverting to gender-based scoring could drastically reduce the performance and effectiveness of combat arms units….

She added: 'Reverting to gender-based scoring and reducing the minimum standard for combat arms will also hurt the women in those branches. Under a gender-based system, women in combat arms have to fight every day to dispel the notion that their presence inherently weakens these previously all-male units. 

'Lower female standards also reinforce the belief that women cannot perform the same job as men, therefore making it difficult for women to earn the trust and confidence of their teammates.' 

The last points deserve emphasis. When the military uses a gender based system, this creates the impression that women add weakness to units. This perception persists, to the point where women have to prove themselves every day.

And when women are held to lower standards, they do not command respect from their teammates-- and this compromises their ability to lead.

Different standards for differently gendered individuals compromises teamwork. You do not need me to tell you how important teamwork is in the military, and in most other professions.

One remarks that the same critique can easily be applied to any diversity program. Two decades ago Shelby Steele made a similar point in referring to affirmative action programs in college admissions. The point is still valid and it shows why the cure for failed inequity is less, not more diversity quotas. Dare I say, this is not going to happen any time soon.