Female Recruits in the Marines Failing Pullup Tests

Pull-ups aren't really lower body exercises as much as they are lower back workouts. People should know the standards going in and work on attaining those standards.

I agree that being able to do pull ups can be essential in a combat role. The biggest problem right now is you don't know when you are going to be in combat due to the amount of ambushes going on. You need to be prepared for any situation so that even if you are in a non combat role, the combat could come to you.

I think its something they will have to be informed about before going in but now you have all the present females who have been doing the hang ones on the bar and now they have to switch but i was in the Marines Corps infantry for 10 years and sad to say its guys that couldn't do 3 but it is attainable for anyone if you work at it.

What's your take? Is it a training issue or are women genetically disadvantaged in doing pull ups? Are pull ups a relevant measure of readiness for being a Marine? Should other factors like lower body strength be tested more?

There are a number of different aspects to the issue, although a health warning on all of this is that the argument about "ground combat" is specious. All trades have the potential to be involved in Troops in Contact (TIC) situations, the main thing that's being introduced is the potential for women to be engaged in deliberate operations to close with and kill the enemy.

With the resurgence of counter-insurgency we're no longer talking about the third shock army pouring through the Fulda gap when the Russian Horde would roll over the top of the forward line of troops made up of infantry and armour.

Is upper body strength significant? In many roles, yes it is but that is not the preserve of Inf and Armour. The main difference is volume, and endurance. So we need all to be able to demonstrate that upper body strength, and maintain it.

So we move on to whether a pull up is an appropriate test for that upper body strength? Many other tests are now situation appropriate, having moved away from those that weren't representative of what actually happens on a day to day basis. In that sense the examples cited aren't reasonable. The ability to complete three pull ups in the gym doesn't easily relate to getting over a wall in wet kit and wearing fighting order, a daysac and carrying a personal weapon. It also doesn't reflect the need to carry loads for protracted periods, or awkward loads. In my own trade one of the tests now is a 100m run carrying 40Kg, with a time threshold that's age based. In other trades I've seen the need to carry a "body" for a period using an appropriate posture.

Notwithstanding all of that the level of failure does reflect training. And my concern would be that this is talked about at the end of basic training. If recruits aren't passing this at the end of their training that is a failure of their directing staff.

I should probably add that a number of militaries now include women in their combat arms, without any significant issues. That said injury rates do appear higher, recovery from injury takes longer and repeat injury rates are higher. That tends to mean that productivity in role is lower, leading to a slight increase in headcount requirements. That's based on some material I've seen from the Defence Analytical and Statistical Agency.

Thank-you for your service RoadDog!!

Took me about 3 mos. of consistent effort to go from zero to 3 sets of five pull-ups.
Keep working at them.

But that would mean change... The military doesn't do change . That said it would help boost the market for retired mid seniority officers pontificating in the media.