Women Struggled with This Combat Test; Army Now Says It Does Not 'Correctly Measure' Strength
The U.S. Army has announced changes to the Army Combat Fitness Test beginning on April 1, following a Congressionally mandated review which found that almost half of enlisted active-duty women were unable to complete the required feats of fitness necessary to pass the test.
It’s almost as though there are inherent physical differences between men and women.
The review was conducted by the Washington D.C. think tank RAND Corporation, which found that only 52 percent of women could pass the original design for the ACFT, Military.com reported, compared to 92 percent of men.
The test previously included, for example, leg tucks, which were found to be too challenging to the fairer sex’s demonstrably inferior upper body strength. Now, a plank comprises the sole core-strength event, and a 2.5-mile walk is offered as an aerobic alternative, the Army’s website noted.
“Test designers were concerned that the leg tuck doesn’t strictly measure core muscle strength but also requires that a soldier spend a lot of energy on upper-body and grip strength. Previously, the plank was introduced as an alternative event during the ACFT’s beta phase when it was discovered women were struggling with the leg tucks,” Military.com reported.
Be all you can be, right?
“This test is an essential part of maintaining the readiness of the Army as we transform into the Army of 2030,” explained Christine E. Wormuth, Secretary of the Army, according to the Army website.
“We will continue to assess our implementation of the test to ensure it is fair and achieves our goal of strengthening the Army’s fitness culture,” she also said.
Forget national security, let’s make sure the Army’s fitness culture isn’t hurting anyone’s feelings or proving that women are physically weaker than men.
“I’m really proud we’re moving forward; we’re there; we’re doing it,” said Army Sergeant Major Michael Grinston, the branch’s top-ranking enlisted officer, according to Military.com.
The outlet explained that the changes to the ACFT were first considered in 2015 when positions in the infantry and cavalry were first opened up to women.
“The force initially sought to create a gender-neutral test and attempted to juggle dueling goals of creating a more inclusive force while also creating a fitter force,” the outlet noted.
Last year, the Army Times reported that Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida grilled Grinston on the gender disparities in ACFT results, which she called “unfair” to women.
“Figures from April show 44 percent of women failed to ACFT, compared to just 7 percent of men,” Wasserman-Schultz said. “It looks like you have a problem and I hope you recognize that.”
As a woman, not to mention a taxpayer, I find this egregiously offensive.
If the point of this test is to demonstrate a certain degree of combat readiness, well, then the 44 percent to 52 percent of women who failed were simply not combat-ready.
You don’t lower the bar for these women, you allow women to progress through the ranks of the Army if they’re able to meet this standard.
Is this so hard to understand?
It doesn’t matter how insane our culture’s views on men and women get, the physical differences between men and women simply aren’t changed by postmodern social theory.
It’s frustrating that female college athletes are being disenfranchised, thanks to the undeniable differences between men and women as demonstrated by swimmer Lia Thomas, but it’s downright reckless that the Army is actually lowering the bar for women who want to fight for their country instead of pushing women to meet its common-sense fitness requirements for soldiers.
I’m not a fan of the idea of women in the military at all, to be perfectly honest, but I know there are plenty of women out there who are strong, fit and mentally tough enough to serve. If they are legitimately up for the task, good for them.
But the truth is, the vast majority of women simply aren’t suited for service, and that’s OK, too.
This isn’t the engineering department of a major university or Silicon Valley board rooms we’re talking about here. This is the military, where our nation’s ability to defend its borders and its interests abroad is at stake, not to mention the lives of the women for whom the standards are being lowered to satisfy the interests of virtue-signaling feminist congresswomen.
What’s more, this change simply screams out the harsh reality that, when it really comes down to it, men and women simply are different, as evidenced by the fact that women simply never perform the same as men when it comes to physical feats.
This is why men have historically had certain roles in society that civilized cultures never used to expect of women, such as serving in the military or law enforcement. It also is why, in this crazy day and age, it’s so important that we preserve a solid definition of the word “woman.”
Which, contrary to the confusion of Harvard-educated Supreme Court nominees, you don’t need a biology degree to attain.
A society that is more interested in pandering to women in the name of “progress” than it is in defending itself from enemies who couldn’t care less about such nonsense is a society that will destroy itself faster than anyone else could.
Let’s pray this doesn’t blow up in the Army’s face once things get real on the battlefield.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.