April 9, 2025 • 24 mins
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has dropped a bombshell directive that's sending ripples through military fitness circles - a move toward gender-neutral physical standards for combat roles across all service branches. This isn't just a bureaucratic shuffle; it's a fundamental rethinking of how we prepare our warfighters for the battlefield.
The reasoning behind this shift cuts to the core of military effectiveness: combat situations don't differentiate between male and female soldiers, so why should fitness standards? Under this directive, any soldier in a designated combat position would need to meet identical physical requirements regardless of gender. The standards would be dictated by the actual demands of the battlefield - like carrying a 180-pound casualty out of harm's way - not by who's performing the task.
This approach presents both challenges and opportunities. For female soldiers pursuing combat roles, the bar will be set at the same height as their male counterparts, potentially leading to initial disparities in pass rates. For male soldiers, it eliminates perceptions of double standards while potentially increasing competition. The goal is to foster an environment where commanders can have complete confidence in every soldier's physical capabilities, enhancing unit cohesion and operational readiness.
Looking internationally, countries like Britain have already implemented similar standards with valuable lessons. While initial female pass rates were lower, structured training programs helped bridge the gap over time without compromising standards. This suggests that with proper conditioning and resources, physiological differences can be addressed while maintaining rigorous requirements.
The military services now have 60 days to identify combat roles before implementing these standards, with many questions still to be answered. Will this enhance military effectiveness or harm recruitment and retention? Is this an evolution in military fitness or a challenging overcorrection? What do you think about standardizing physical requirements across genders for combat positions? Share your thoughts in the comments below - I personally respond to every comment!
Thanks for listening, please download and leave a review.
Remember, you don't have to embrace the suck, if you have the right tools in your ruck!
If you have any question comments, or ideas for the show you can send them to my Gmail account: rogersarnt@gmail.com
Follow the show on Instagram, Facebook, TikTok and Discord:
Lintree: https://linktr.ee/rogersarnt
IG: https://www.instagram.com/roger_sarnt/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rogersarnt
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@rogersarnt
Discord: https://discord.gg/sA5cYD2N7b
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The military is about to shake up the fitness
standards like never before.
Gender lines might be erased.
Hexeth just dropped a memo andit's turning heads.
Let's talk about it.
Roger Sarn Alright, so welcometo the Roger Sarin Podcast, the
(00:27):
podcast where we dive into thelatest developments affecting
our Army.
I'm your host, sarin Cruz.
Today we're talking about asignificant shift in military
policy and it's the Army's moveto implement gender-neutral
fitness standards for combatroles, the directive issued by
(00:49):
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
It aims to standardizerequirements across all genders.
We'll explore what that meansand the implications for male
and female soldiers.
Also the potential impacts onmilitary effectiveness and
lessons learned from othernations.
So let's go ahead and get to it.
(01:12):
The one thing I want to saybefore we start is the memo
dropped and I had some questionsor things that I want to
clarify.
So I just compiled a few things, a few thought process or
points out of the memo and I'mgoing to talk about them.
(01:33):
Just make sure you stick aroundto the last one, okay.
So the first thing is we haveto understand gender neutral
fitness standards, right?
Because, as you heard what Isaid before, it's combat roles,
(01:54):
so I'll put the memo in thedescription on my Google Drive
so you could go ahead and readit yourself.
I'm not going to bore you withthat, but the memo, in a
nutshell, says that all servicesacross the board have 60 days
to report back to them, becausethey want to first identify what
a combat role is and thenthey're going to go from there.
(02:16):
Okay, so when it comes togender neutral fitness standards
, it it's it required for allsoldiers, right, regardless of
gender, right?
That's what gender neutral is.
So they want all genders tomeet the same criteria, or the
physical criteria, for specificroles, particularly in combat
(02:37):
positions, right?
So the approach is kind ofgrounded in the principle that
the physical demands of a jobdictates the standard, not the
gender, not the individual'sgender, which kind of makes
sense, right?
Because if there is a personthat is more of a low density,
(03:00):
that they're more ancillary orthey not combat, then maybe they
don't need to be as as fit, butthey still should be fit.
I think that's just my personal.
They should be fit, whicheveryone is, because if they're
not, then they get chaptered out, right?
Um, but defense secretary peakPete Hexeth I don't know why I
(03:21):
can't say his name.
I keep saying Hexeth, but Idon't know, but he emphasized
this in his directive.
So he's stating that themilitary has allowed standards
to slip and insisting on aphysical uniform requirement for
men and women in combat roles.
That's his thought process.
So his rationale is kind ofstraightforward, right, combat
(03:44):
situations don't differentiatebetween male and female soldiers
, so therefore the standardsshould reflect the actual
demands on the battlefield.
So I would take it that ifyou're a scout, infantry, a
tanker or something like that,you're probably gonna be a
little bit more rigorous versus,I don't know, maybe a legal
(04:08):
representative, combat camera,those individuals like that
water purification specialistwhich I haven't met, many of
those.
So an example if a combat rolelike requires a soldier to like,
let's say, uh, carry someoneelse that weighs less, maybe 180
(04:28):
pounds out of harm's weight, atthe end of the day, every
individual in that role must becapable of performing the task
irrespective of gender.
That's the thought process,right?
So historically, um, the acftincludes events, um, when they
first started off.
Hold on, yeah, so it has thedeadlift.
(04:49):
Uh, the standing power, throwthe T pushups, the sprint, drag,
carry.
I love that one.
Uh, the plank, which before itwas the leg tuck.
Personally.
Personally, I liked the legtuck the plank is like my
kryptonite, but that's just me.
And then the infamous two-milerun.
You just can't get rid of thattwo-mile run.
(05:10):
But these events in particular,they're designated to assess
the soldier's combat readiness,and the move towards, like,
(05:31):
gender neutral standards meansthat all soldiers will be
evaluated based on their abilityto perform the task, without
adjustments for gender, Right.
So the shift, ensure it kind ofit's.
It's it's geared towardsensuring that all soldiers are
equally prepared for thephysical challenges of combat,
are equally prepared for thephysical challenges of combat.
So it's geared to promotingfairness and operational
effectiveness.
(05:52):
That's my thought process onthat part.
Now, moving into the secondthing that popped into my mind
is what are the implications formale and female soldiers?
Right?
How does this affect everyone?
So, for instance, for femalesoldiers, I think this policy
(06:15):
presents both a challenge and anopportunity.
Right, let's say thatHistorically, I think, women in
the military have been, kind oflike, held to a different
physical standard, and we knowthat because we have biological,
physiological differences.
Right, we acknowledge that.
I think, however, with theuniform standard, the female
(06:39):
soldiers aiming for combat roles, what he's trying to do is make
them meet the same criteria astheir male counterparts.
So this could initially lead tolike disparities in pass rates.
So, um, which is acknowledged,right, if you make it more
rigorous, then only the strongwould survive, and I think
(07:03):
that's what he wants.
So, for example, when the ACFTwas initially introduced, the
data itself indicated that asignificant percentage of female
soldiers struggled with certainevents, right, specifically the
leg tuck, and it had a passrate of only 52% amongst female
(07:26):
soldiers.
And you compare that to the 92%for the male population, right.
So we do acknowledge thatthere's a disparity.
Um, and and and and.
Again I re, I'm going to goback.
This is aimed for combat roles.
Will it change?
Maybe later on, who knows?
But as of right now, the 60-dayreport is is about mainly
(07:53):
identifying what they are.
So, in order to address like thedisparities, the army
introduced, like um, likemodifications, like they were
allowing the plank as analternative to the leg tuck, and
then it resulted in improvedpassing rates amongst the
females.
So ultimately they made theplank a permanent event and I
(08:16):
just I can't do the plank asmuch as long as as I could do
with many leg tucks, so that'skind of like what got me, but
still plank.
I mean, don't get me wrong, butit's just I prefer to like tuck
.
But the army said this is whathas to happen, so we have to
adapt.
Speaking of adapt, so to happen, so we have to adapt.
(08:39):
Speaking of adapt, so when?
Um, this like the adaptationunder it kind of underscores the
army's commitment tomaintaining kind of like a
rigorous standards whileensuring that all soldiers have
the opportunity to, or a fairopportunity to, succeed, right?
So for the male soldiers, theimplant, the implementation of
the uh gender neutral standards,it kind of reinforces the
expectations of high physicalperformance, right?
(09:01):
Uh, it is going to eliminate,like perceptions of double
standards and it ensures thatall soldiers in combat roles are
equally capable.
However, it also meansincreased competition, so as all
soldiers are now evaluated onthe same criteria.
So I think competition isalways good.
(09:23):
And don't get me wrong, I don'tcare personally.
I'm not going to lie, I'm notgoing to sit here and be like
well, I'm for this, I'm for that.
I don't care.
You know what I mean.
Pass your ACFTft, call it a dayand and it is what it is.
Um, when it comes to the combatrole itself, I'm I'm more
worried about like because I'mmedical.
(09:44):
I'm more worried about medicalpeople taking care of that
soldier.
That that's down on the x.
That's what I overall careabout and that's why we did the
ACFT right, because we had tomake sure that everyone's combat
ready.
So let's I digress.
So I guess, overall, while thetransition poses kind of changes
(10:08):
or challenges, if you will, itstill aims to foster an
environment of fairness andoperational readiness.
It's going to be ensuring thatall soldiers are evaluated based
on their ability to performessential combat tasks.
That's the bottom line.
But I will say this, though Iwill post it on the screen so
(10:29):
you can see.
I think back in 2015,.
I think back in 2015, secretaryHegseth.
(11:00):
He specifically said and it'snot in quotations on the
Washington Post, but he saidthat women should not be allowed
in combat and criticized thatthe 2015 decision under
President Barack Obama to openall military positions to women.
So I can see where thisdirective comes from, right, so
this has always been his corebelief.
So do with that as you will.
So the next thing that came tomy mind was the impacts on
military effectiveness, right?
(11:23):
So kind of like the, the likethe adopt the adoption of, of
gender neutral fitness standards.
It's aims, it aims itself tohave like a bigger impact on
military fitness, right.
So proponents argue that theuniform standard enhances unit
cohesion, right, a uniformstandard, and it also enhances
(11:44):
operational readiness, which Ican see right, because if
everyone thinks they have a fair, like an equal playing ground,
then I guess there's nodiscrepancy and it also I can
trust those to my left or rightthat they're also equally fit as
I am.
But do we do that, though?
(12:05):
Because when we had that PTtest, apft, acft, now, if I
score 560 and someone scores a480, we're we're we're dogging
them out, right?
So are we really like we'restill going to make fun of you
regardless?
That's that's my point.
But when all soldiers, uh kindof like meet the same uh
(12:27):
physical criteria, uh commanderscan have because it's about the
command as well they can havelike confidence in each
individual, um, their ability toperform under these conditions.
That's that's.
That's kind of like anotherbottom line, um it also the, the
, the uniformity itself can leadto more effective teamwork and,
(12:48):
um, I guess, some more trustwithin the, the, the, um.
Another thing is, critics doexpress concerns about, like the
, the, the, the potentialreduction and retention and, I'm
sorry, yeah, the reduction inretention and recruitment right,
(13:09):
because, uh, especially likewe're talking about the female
population.
So I think they call themcritics.
But the people who haveconcerns, they fear that the
standards might be kind of likediscourageable to capable
individuals from pursuing orremaining staying in the
(13:32):
military as a career, right.
So it's important to balanceand understand and make sure
that we're maintaining highstandards, at the same time
ensuring that we still have adiverse and capable force.
And I know the D word is veryoff limits, but that's how I
think right now when it comes tothis, because if we had all
(13:54):
males, we wouldn't.
Well, we would still be diverse, because we have people from
different backgrounds, beliefsand cultures, but, yeah, no, we
still.
You know what I mean.
I almost talked myself into acorner on that one, I don't know
how I did that.
So, as of today, in order tokind of mitigate these concerns,
(14:15):
the Army has taken a few stepsto ensure that the standards are
both rigorous and achievable.
So, for instance, the ACFT isstill graded by gender, but also
by age groups, so it stillallows like competition within
their respective age groups,whether they're male or female,
(14:36):
right, ultimately, the goal isto create a force where All
members.
Yeah, to create a force whereall members yeah, to create a
force where all members arephysically prepared for the
demands of combat.
That's the bottom line.
So when you make sure that thatforce is prepared, you're going
(14:58):
to ultimately enhance theoverall military effectiveness.
You're going to ultimatelyenhance the overall military
effectiveness.
So, real quick, if you'refinding this video insightful,
don't forget to like, comment,share and subscribe.
Also, do me a favor drop yourthoughts in the comments.
I love to hear from you.
I'd like to hear what your takeis on this, and obviously you
(15:19):
guys already know that I answermy comments.
Let's get back to it.
So the next thing that came tomy head was like international
comparisons, right, and lessonslearned, or just international
comparisons, because we alsolook at our counterparts.
When I was in, I was stationedin Germany for 10 years and we
(15:41):
did a lot of multinationaltraining and we always look and
we ask them.
Like, even when I was a BLCinstructor at the 7th NTO Army
Academy on Grafenburg, germany,we'd at least have one student
per classroom from anothernation.
Right, there were certainthings that they couldn't see
from another nation.
Right, there were certainthings that they couldn't see.
(16:02):
However, we still.
It was our opportunity tounderstand how their army
operates right, so that'ssomething that we do.
So we also have to take a lookat what they're doing.
So, when we lookinternationally, several
countries have implementedgender neutral fitness standards
right, so it's offeringvaluable lessons for us.
(16:26):
The US Army and some of theseinternational examples highlight
, like, the importance ofsetting standards that are both
rigorous and reflective of, likereal world demands and real
world demands.
When I say that, I'm talkingabout, as I said, the word of
purification specialist is notexpected or is not a combat role
(16:48):
per se.
So, under this memo, then theywould not have the same rigor,
right, because that's not theirreal world.
They still have to be a soldier, but they're not cav, they're
not armor, they're not infantry,so that's what I mean by that.
So they also underscore thenecessity of a structured
(17:12):
training program to helpsoldiers meet these standards
without compromising readinessor fairness, because you have to
build up, or fairness, right,because you have to build up.
So, for instance, we have theBritish Army.
They revised their PT or theirphysical assessment, in 2019.
And that was to ensure that allcombat roles were open to women
(17:34):
under the same standard as men.
They did that.
So they found that, whileinitially the pass rates for
women were lower, over time withbetter training right, because
you have to build them Even anysoldier when you bring them in,
you build them right.
So they had better training andpreparation, which ultimately
(17:59):
caused performance to improvesignificantly, right?
So I guess the key takeawayhere is the proper conditioning,
resources and training canbridge a gap while maintaining
high standards, right, so wedon't have to just be like, well
, it's your standard, boom, I'mpretty sure, just like the acft
when we implemented it.
(18:20):
Um, they gave it time like agrace period.
So, as us in the US Army, as wemove forward, it seems as if
the defense secretary wants toadopt similar strategy.
The key question remains willthe US Army see the same
(18:45):
long-term benefits, or will westruggle with retention and
recruitment?
Those are our challenges.
We're already struggling.
Now Let me know what you guysthink.
The next point that came to myhead is our standards being
(19:06):
lowered, cause that's whateveryone's going to say oh,
you're just lowering standards.
Actually, before I sat down andrecorded this, I was on the
phone with a buddy of mine andshe said she said she was a, a,
a Marine back in the day shespecifically said, because I
(19:26):
told her what I was doing, shesaid so they're going to lower
their standards for men andincrease the standards for women
, because that's the only waythat you can kind of make that
happy medium.
Right?
So that kind of made sense tome because I didn't think about
it that way.
Right, because I was like, no,they're just going to make a
(19:48):
gender neutral standard.
She was like, yeah, but theonly way to do that would be is
to make it more difficult forwomen and make it easier for men
.
And that makes me think, right,but yeah, um, the last, like
the last, the last thought ofthat.
When she said that, I was like,huh, I guess that makes sense.
(20:15):
But, yeah, are the standardsbeing lowered?
Because one of the biggestconcerns about gender neutral
fitness standards is whetherthey will be leading to lower
expectations.
Expectations, right, some ofthe skeptics argue that the
adjusting the standardsaccommodate for broader
participation, inevitablyweakening force readiness.
But is that actually the case,though?
(20:37):
I guess that's my question.
The army us, the army insiststhat the new standards are based
on the actual job performanceneed, and that's what the memo
pretty much says, as I read itcombat rules.
They're not making thingseasier or harder for any
(21:00):
particular group, but they'rejust like, let's say, by
aligning like fitness test withthe physical demands of combat,
I think the army aims to ensurethat every soldier is truly
prepared for the battlefield,for their conditions, right, for
what their real world is.
(21:21):
So it's also worth noting thatother, like elite military
forces, such as the Marine CorpsSpecial Operations Units, they
already operate under gender,gender neutral standards.
So like I think, yeah, theMarine Corps, their infantry
officers, they've maintained astrict physical requirement, so
(21:44):
and it, but it did result invery few female graduates.
That's a that's another thing,right, but the standard hasn't
been compromised.
This also kind of, I guess,plays as an example of that.
Gender neutral standards don'tnecessarily mean lower
performance, but they just theydo require like a realistic
(22:06):
expectation as well as likestructured training.
Right, you have to get themthere, um, just like any person
that's going to um train tocause they want to go Ranger,
they want to go whatever it isthey want to do.
They have that train up, thatbuildup, and I think they're
going to give us a grace periodfor everyone to get to where
they got to go If they're incombat roles.
(22:28):
This is again they have toidentify what combat roles are.
Many of us won't even see thisbecause it's going to take so
long.
You know how long it took.
We're on what revision?
15.5 for the ACFT.
So they're going to roll it outand then they're going to scale
it back, then roll it out, andthey're going to scale it back,
then roll it out, and they'regoing to scale it back, then
upgrade it.
It's going to be a lot.
(22:50):
But yeah, what's the bottomline Because I just keep
rambling sometimes theeffectiveness.
I think the effectiveness of thepolicy itself is going to
depend on how well we implementit.
Right, it's not just aboutfairness, it's about ensuring
that every soldier can performwhen it matters the most, right,
that's that's, that's what itis.
(23:11):
So where does this actuallyleave us With the?
I think with the Army's movetowards the gender neutral
fitness standards is kind oflike a bold step that it
challenges traditionalperceptions.
Right At the end of the day, italso seeks to ensure that the
(23:32):
best, most capable soldiers fillcombat roles.
Some see this as an evolution inthe modern warfare maybe, I
don't know While others worryabout the unintended
consequences, like the strugglein recruitments, struggle in
(23:52):
early attrition.
I made two videos on thatalready, on both of those
subjects, so only time is goingto tell how successful this
shift is going to be.
So what do you guys think?
Should the standards be thesame across the board?
Should there be considerationsfor physiological differences?
Let's keep the conversationgoing.
(24:15):
If you like this video, then goahead and check out this video
about the retention problem thatI just spoke about, and
remember you don't have toembrace the suck if you got the
right tools in your ruck.
I'm Sarn Cruz and I'll see youin the next one.
Peace.
The military is about to shake up the fitness
standards like never before.
Gender lines might be erased.
Hexeth just dropped a memo andit's turning heads.
Let's talk about it.
Roger Sarn Alright, so welcometo the Roger Sarin Podcast, the
(00:27):
podcast where we dive into thelatest developments affecting
our Army.
I'm your host, sarin Cruz.
Today we're talking about asignificant shift in military
policy and it's the Army's moveto implement gender-neutral
fitness standards for combatroles, the directive issued by
(00:49):
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
It aims to standardizerequirements across all genders.
We'll explore what that meansand the implications for male
and female soldiers.
Also the potential impacts onmilitary effectiveness and
lessons learned from othernations.
So let's go ahead and get to it.
(01:12):
The one thing I want to saybefore we start is the memo
dropped and I had some questionsor things that I want to
clarify.
So I just compiled a few things, a few thought process or
points out of the memo and I'mgoing to talk about them.
(01:33):
Just make sure you stick aroundto the last one, okay.
So the first thing is we haveto understand gender neutral
fitness standards, right?
Because, as you heard what Isaid before, it's combat roles,
(01:54):
so I'll put the memo in thedescription on my Google Drive
so you could go ahead and readit yourself.
I'm not going to bore you withthat, but the memo, in a
nutshell, says that all servicesacross the board have 60 days
to report back to them, becausethey want to first identify what
a combat role is and thenthey're going to go from there.
(02:16):
Okay, so when it comes togender neutral fitness standards
, it it's it required for allsoldiers, right, regardless of
gender, right?
That's what gender neutral is.
So they want all genders tomeet the same criteria, or the
physical criteria, for specificroles, particularly in combat
(02:37):
positions, right?
So the approach is kind ofgrounded in the principle that
the physical demands of a jobdictates the standard, not the
gender, not the individual'sgender, which kind of makes
sense, right?
Because if there is a personthat is more of a low density,
(03:00):
that they're more ancillary orthey not combat, then maybe they
don't need to be as as fit, butthey still should be fit.
I think that's just my personal.
They should be fit, whicheveryone is, because if they're
not, then they get chaptered out, right?
Um, but defense secretary peakPete Hexeth I don't know why I
(03:21):
can't say his name.
I keep saying Hexeth, but Idon't know, but he emphasized
this in his directive.
So he's stating that themilitary has allowed standards
to slip and insisting on aphysical uniform requirement for
men and women in combat roles.
That's his thought process.
So his rationale is kind ofstraightforward, right, combat
(03:44):
situations don't differentiatebetween male and female soldiers
, so therefore the standardsshould reflect the actual
demands on the battlefield.
So I would take it that ifyou're a scout, infantry, a
tanker or something like that,you're probably gonna be a
little bit more rigorous versus,I don't know, maybe a legal
(04:08):
representative, combat camera,those individuals like that
water purification specialistwhich I haven't met, many of
those.
So an example if a combat rolelike requires a soldier to like,
let's say, uh, carry someoneelse that weighs less, maybe 180
(04:28):
pounds out of harm's weight, atthe end of the day, every
individual in that role must becapable of performing the task
irrespective of gender.
That's the thought process,right?
So historically, um, the acftincludes events, um, when they
first started off.
Hold on, yeah, so it has thedeadlift.
(04:49):
Uh, the standing power, throwthe T pushups, the sprint, drag,
carry.
I love that one.
Uh, the plank, which before itwas the leg tuck.
Personally.
Personally, I liked the legtuck the plank is like my
kryptonite, but that's just me.
And then the infamous two-milerun.
You just can't get rid of thattwo-mile run.
(05:10):
But these events in particular,they're designated to assess
the soldier's combat readiness,and the move towards, like,
(05:31):
gender neutral standards meansthat all soldiers will be
evaluated based on their abilityto perform the task, without
adjustments for gender, Right.
So the shift, ensure it kind ofit's.
It's it's geared towardsensuring that all soldiers are
equally prepared for thephysical challenges of combat,
are equally prepared for thephysical challenges of combat.
So it's geared to promotingfairness and operational
effectiveness.
(05:52):
That's my thought process onthat part.
Now, moving into the secondthing that popped into my mind
is what are the implications formale and female soldiers?
Right?
How does this affect everyone?
So, for instance, for femalesoldiers, I think this policy
(06:15):
presents both a challenge and anopportunity.
Right, let's say thatHistorically, I think, women in
the military have been, kind oflike, held to a different
physical standard, and we knowthat because we have biological,
physiological differences.
Right, we acknowledge that.
I think, however, with theuniform standard, the female
(06:39):
soldiers aiming for combat roles, what he's trying to do is make
them meet the same criteria astheir male counterparts.
So this could initially lead tolike disparities in pass rates.
So, um, which is acknowledged,right, if you make it more
rigorous, then only the strongwould survive, and I think
(07:03):
that's what he wants.
So, for example, when the ACFTwas initially introduced, the
data itself indicated that asignificant percentage of female
soldiers struggled with certainevents, right, specifically the
leg tuck, and it had a passrate of only 52% amongst female
(07:26):
soldiers.
And you compare that to the 92%for the male population, right.
So we do acknowledge thatthere's a disparity.
Um, and and and and.
Again I re, I'm going to goback.
This is aimed for combat roles.
Will it change?
Maybe later on, who knows?
But as of right now, the 60-dayreport is is about mainly
(07:53):
identifying what they are.
So, in order to address like thedisparities, the army
introduced, like um, likemodifications, like they were
allowing the plank as analternative to the leg tuck, and
then it resulted in improvedpassing rates amongst the
females.
So ultimately they made theplank a permanent event and I
(08:16):
just I can't do the plank asmuch as long as as I could do
with many leg tucks, so that'skind of like what got me, but
still plank.
I mean, don't get me wrong, butit's just I prefer to like tuck
.
But the army said this is whathas to happen, so we have to
adapt.
Speaking of adapt, so to happen, so we have to adapt.
(08:39):
Speaking of adapt, so when?
Um, this like the adaptationunder it kind of underscores the
army's commitment tomaintaining kind of like a
rigorous standards whileensuring that all soldiers have
the opportunity to, or a fairopportunity to, succeed, right?
So for the male soldiers, theimplant, the implementation of
the uh gender neutral standards,it kind of reinforces the
expectations of high physicalperformance, right?
(09:01):
Uh, it is going to eliminate,like perceptions of double
standards and it ensures thatall soldiers in combat roles are
equally capable.
However, it also meansincreased competition, so as all
soldiers are now evaluated onthe same criteria.
So I think competition isalways good.
(09:23):
And don't get me wrong, I don'tcare personally.
I'm not going to lie, I'm notgoing to sit here and be like
well, I'm for this, I'm for that.
I don't care.
You know what I mean.
Pass your ACFTft, call it a dayand and it is what it is.
Um, when it comes to the combatrole itself, I'm I'm more
worried about like because I'mmedical.
(09:44):
I'm more worried about medicalpeople taking care of that
soldier.
That that's down on the x.
That's what I overall careabout and that's why we did the
ACFT right, because we had tomake sure that everyone's combat
ready.
So let's I digress.
So I guess, overall, while thetransition poses kind of changes
(10:08):
or challenges, if you will, itstill aims to foster an
environment of fairness andoperational readiness.
It's going to be ensuring thatall soldiers are evaluated based
on their ability to performessential combat tasks.
That's the bottom line.
But I will say this, though Iwill post it on the screen so
(10:29):
you can see.
I think back in 2015,.
I think back in 2015, secretaryHegseth.
(11:00):
He specifically said and it'snot in quotations on the
Washington Post, but he saidthat women should not be allowed
in combat and criticized thatthe 2015 decision under
President Barack Obama to openall military positions to women.
So I can see where thisdirective comes from, right, so
this has always been his corebelief.
So do with that as you will.
So the next thing that came tomy mind was the impacts on
military effectiveness, right?
(11:23):
So kind of like the, the likethe adopt the adoption of, of
gender neutral fitness standards.
It's aims, it aims itself tohave like a bigger impact on
military fitness, right.
So proponents argue that theuniform standard enhances unit
cohesion, right, a uniformstandard, and it also enhances
(11:44):
operational readiness, which Ican see right, because if
everyone thinks they have a fair, like an equal playing ground,
then I guess there's nodiscrepancy and it also I can
trust those to my left or rightthat they're also equally fit as
I am.
But do we do that, though?
(12:05):
Because when we had that PTtest, apft, acft, now, if I
score 560 and someone scores a480, we're we're we're dogging
them out, right?
So are we really like we'restill going to make fun of you
regardless?
That's that's my point.
But when all soldiers, uh kindof like meet the same uh
(12:27):
physical criteria, uh commanderscan have because it's about the
command as well they can havelike confidence in each
individual, um, their ability toperform under these conditions.
That's that's.
That's kind of like anotherbottom line, um it also the, the
, the uniformity itself can leadto more effective teamwork and,
(12:48):
um, I guess, some more trustwithin the, the, the, um.
Another thing is, critics doexpress concerns about, like the
, the, the, the potentialreduction and retention and, I'm
sorry, yeah, the reduction inretention and recruitment right,
(13:09):
because, uh, especially likewe're talking about the female
population.
So I think they call themcritics.
But the people who haveconcerns, they fear that the
standards might be kind of likediscourageable to capable
individuals from pursuing orremaining staying in the
(13:32):
military as a career, right.
So it's important to balanceand understand and make sure
that we're maintaining highstandards, at the same time
ensuring that we still have adiverse and capable force.
And I know the D word is veryoff limits, but that's how I
think right now when it comes tothis, because if we had all
(13:54):
males, we wouldn't.
Well, we would still be diverse, because we have people from
different backgrounds, beliefsand cultures, but, yeah, no, we
still.
You know what I mean.
I almost talked myself into acorner on that one, I don't know
how I did that.
So, as of today, in order tokind of mitigate these concerns,
(14:15):
the Army has taken a few stepsto ensure that the standards are
both rigorous and achievable.
So, for instance, the ACFT isstill graded by gender, but also
by age groups, so it stillallows like competition within
their respective age groups,whether they're male or female,
(14:36):
right, ultimately, the goal isto create a force where All
members.
Yeah, to create a force whereall members yeah, to create a
force where all members arephysically prepared for the
demands of combat.
That's the bottom line.
So when you make sure that thatforce is prepared, you're going
(14:58):
to ultimately enhance theoverall military effectiveness.
You're going to ultimatelyenhance the overall military
effectiveness.
So, real quick, if you'refinding this video insightful,
don't forget to like, comment,share and subscribe.
Also, do me a favor drop yourthoughts in the comments.
I love to hear from you.
I'd like to hear what your takeis on this, and obviously you
(15:19):
guys already know that I answermy comments.
Let's get back to it.
So the next thing that came tomy head was like international
comparisons, right, and lessonslearned, or just international
comparisons, because we alsolook at our counterparts.
When I was in, I was stationedin Germany for 10 years and we
(15:41):
did a lot of multinationaltraining and we always look and
we ask them.
Like, even when I was a BLCinstructor at the 7th NTO Army
Academy on Grafenburg, germany,we'd at least have one student
per classroom from anothernation.
Right, there were certainthings that they couldn't see
from another nation.
Right, there were certainthings that they couldn't see.
(16:02):
However, we still.
It was our opportunity tounderstand how their army
operates right, so that'ssomething that we do.
So we also have to take a lookat what they're doing.
So, when we lookinternationally, several
countries have implementedgender neutral fitness standards
right, so it's offeringvaluable lessons for us.
(16:26):
The US Army and some of theseinternational examples highlight
, like, the importance ofsetting standards that are both
rigorous and reflective of, likereal world demands and real
world demands.
When I say that, I'm talkingabout, as I said, the word of
purification specialist is notexpected or is not a combat role
(16:48):
per se.
So, under this memo, then theywould not have the same rigor,
right, because that's not theirreal world.
They still have to be a soldier, but they're not cav, they're
not armor, they're not infantry,so that's what I mean by that.
So they also underscore thenecessity of a structured
(17:12):
training program to helpsoldiers meet these standards
without compromising readinessor fairness, because you have to
build up, or fairness, right,because you have to build up.
So, for instance, we have theBritish Army.
They revised their PT or theirphysical assessment, in 2019.
And that was to ensure that allcombat roles were open to women
(17:34):
under the same standard as men.
They did that.
So they found that, whileinitially the pass rates for
women were lower, over time withbetter training right, because
you have to build them Even anysoldier when you bring them in,
you build them right.
So they had better training andpreparation, which ultimately
(17:59):
caused performance to improvesignificantly, right?
So I guess the key takeawayhere is the proper conditioning,
resources and training canbridge a gap while maintaining
high standards, right, so wedon't have to just be like, well
, it's your standard, boom, I'mpretty sure, just like the acft
when we implemented it.
(18:20):
Um, they gave it time like agrace period.
So, as us in the US Army, as wemove forward, it seems as if
the defense secretary wants toadopt similar strategy.
The key question remains willthe US Army see the same
(18:45):
long-term benefits, or will westruggle with retention and
recruitment?
Those are our challenges.
We're already struggling.
Now Let me know what you guysthink.
The next point that came to myhead is our standards being
(19:06):
lowered, cause that's whateveryone's going to say oh,
you're just lowering standards.
Actually, before I sat down andrecorded this, I was on the
phone with a buddy of mine andshe said she said she was a, a,
a Marine back in the day shespecifically said, because I
(19:26):
told her what I was doing, shesaid so they're going to lower
their standards for men andincrease the standards for women
, because that's the only waythat you can kind of make that
happy medium.
Right?
So that kind of made sense tome because I didn't think about
it that way.
Right, because I was like, no,they're just going to make a
(19:48):
gender neutral standard.
She was like, yeah, but theonly way to do that would be is
to make it more difficult forwomen and make it easier for men
.
And that makes me think, right,but yeah, um, the last, like
the last, the last thought ofthat.
When she said that, I was like,huh, I guess that makes sense.
(20:15):
But, yeah, are the standardsbeing lowered?
Because one of the biggestconcerns about gender neutral
fitness standards is whetherthey will be leading to lower
expectations.
Expectations, right, some ofthe skeptics argue that the
adjusting the standardsaccommodate for broader
participation, inevitablyweakening force readiness.
But is that actually the case,though?
(20:37):
I guess that's my question.
The army us, the army insiststhat the new standards are based
on the actual job performanceneed, and that's what the memo
pretty much says, as I read itcombat rules.
They're not making thingseasier or harder for any
(21:00):
particular group, but they'rejust like, let's say, by
aligning like fitness test withthe physical demands of combat,
I think the army aims to ensurethat every soldier is truly
prepared for the battlefield,for their conditions, right, for
what their real world is.
(21:21):
So it's also worth noting thatother, like elite military
forces, such as the Marine CorpsSpecial Operations Units, they
already operate under gender,gender neutral standards.
So like I think, yeah, theMarine Corps, their infantry
officers, they've maintained astrict physical requirement, so
(21:44):
and it, but it did result invery few female graduates.
That's a that's another thing,right, but the standard hasn't
been compromised.
This also kind of, I guess,plays as an example of that.
Gender neutral standards don'tnecessarily mean lower
performance, but they just theydo require like a realistic
(22:06):
expectation as well as likestructured training.
Right, you have to get themthere, um, just like any person
that's going to um train tocause they want to go Ranger,
they want to go whatever it isthey want to do.
They have that train up, thatbuildup, and I think they're
going to give us a grace periodfor everyone to get to where
they got to go If they're incombat roles.
(22:28):
This is again they have toidentify what combat roles are.
Many of us won't even see thisbecause it's going to take so
long.
You know how long it took.
We're on what revision?
15.5 for the ACFT.
So they're going to roll it outand then they're going to scale
it back, then roll it out, andthey're going to scale it back,
then roll it out, and they'regoing to scale it back, then
upgrade it.
It's going to be a lot.
(22:50):
But yeah, what's the bottomline Because I just keep
rambling sometimes theeffectiveness.
I think the effectiveness of thepolicy itself is going to
depend on how well we implementit.
Right, it's not just aboutfairness, it's about ensuring
that every soldier can performwhen it matters the most, right,
that's that's, that's what itis.
(23:11):
So where does this actuallyleave us With the?
I think with the Army's movetowards the gender neutral
fitness standards is kind oflike a bold step that it
challenges traditionalperceptions.
Right At the end of the day, italso seeks to ensure that the
(23:32):
best, most capable soldiers fillcombat roles.
Some see this as an evolution inthe modern warfare maybe, I
don't know While others worryabout the unintended
consequences, like the strugglein recruitments, struggle in
(23:52):
early attrition.
I made two videos on thatalready, on both of those
subjects, so only time is goingto tell how successful this
shift is going to be.
So what do you guys think?
Should the standards be thesame across the board?
Should there be considerationsfor physiological differences?
Let's keep the conversationgoing.
(24:15):
If you like this video, then goahead and check out this video
about the retention problem thatI just spoke about, and
remember you don't have toembrace the suck if you got the
right tools in your ruck.
I'm Sarn Cruz and I'll see youin the next one.
Peace.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Intentionally Disturbing
Join me on this podcast as I navigate the murky waters of human behavior, current events, and personal anecdotes through in-depth interviews with incredible people—all served with a generous helping of sarcasm and satire. After years as a forensic and clinical psychologist, I offer a unique interview style and a low tolerance for bullshit, quickly steering conversations toward depth and darkness. I honor the seriousness while also appreciating wit. I’m your guide through the twisted labyrinth of the human psyche, armed with dark humor and biting wit.