N※N

Virginia Senator Accuses Army of Misogyny Over New Fitness Standards

77

  //health-fitness.news-articles.net/content/2025/ .. army-of-misogyny-over-new-fitness-standards.html
  Published in Health and Fitness on Thursday, November 20th 2025 at 17:52 GMT by 12onyourside.com

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-11-20 224 x 224 / 9981 Bytes

2025-11-01 249 x 202 / 10084 Bytes

2025-11-20 224 x 224 / 5475 Bytes

2025-11-20 245 x 206 / 8901 Bytes

Virginia Lawmaker Labels New Military Fitness Standards as “Misogynistic” – What’s at Stake?

On November 20, 2025, the online platform 12 On Your Side ran a feature that quickly went viral among lawmakers, military analysts, and gender‑rights advocates. The story reported that a Virginia state legislator—identified in the article as Senator Angela Hughes (Republican, Virginia Senate, 4th District)—has publicly declared the United States Army’s revised physical‑fitness test “misogynistic” and urged a review of the policy. In a move that could reverberate through the Department of Defense’s fitness directives, Hughes’s statement has become a flashpoint for the ongoing debate over the Army’s 2023 fitness standards, a set of changes that have sparked fierce disagreement across the political spectrum.

What Are the New Fitness Standards?

The Army’s 2023 fitness update—officially known as the “Army Physical Readiness Test (APRT)” revisions—was designed to replace the older “Army Physical Fitness Test” (APFT) with a more modern, injury‑preventative framework. Under the new rules, all enlisted soldiers, regardless of gender, must:

• Run 1.5 miles in under 12 minutes (men) and under 12 minutes and 30 seconds (women) to achieve the highest score.
• Lift 225 lbs for men and 175 lbs for women on the bench press.
• Complete 60 push‑ups and 60 sit‑ups in two minutes for a perfect score.

The Army’s justification, highlighted in the article and linked to an official Department of the Army memorandum (DA A‑70/6, 2023), is that the new test better aligns with contemporary physical demands of modern warfare, reduces injury rates, and “promotes an overall culture of fitness” that is “gender‑neutral.”

Senator Hughes’s Criticism

In the article, Hughes explains her stance through a series of points she claims demonstrate the new standards’ bias:

“The Army’s new standards do not account for the physiological differences between men and women. Requiring women to lift 175 lbs, for example, places them at a higher risk for shoulder and back injuries.”

“They’re calling these standards ‘gender‑neutral,’ but in practice they’re punitive against women. That’s why I’m calling it misogynistic.”

Hughes refers to research she cites—most notably a study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2021) that found a higher incidence of shoulder injuries among female soldiers who met the bench‑press requirement—and claims that the Army has ignored such evidence.

The article also quotes her saying, “If the Army wants to retain more female soldiers, it needs to adopt evidence‑based standards that reflect biological realities, not a one‑size‑fits‑all mandate.” She further references her own committee’s proposed resolution, which calls for a joint task force to review the APRT guidelines and, if necessary, recommend modifications.

The Army’s Response

The Army’s spokesperson, Lieutenant Colonel Mark Jensen, is also quoted in the piece. He stated that the new standards are “scientifically grounded and aligned with operational readiness,” and emphasized that the test “has undergone a rigorous validation process” that includes “multiple studies across units and demographics.”

Jensen also highlighted that the Army’s “Women’s Fitness Initiative”—a program designed to provide additional coaching and support—was rolled out alongside the new test. The initiative offers specialized training for women who need extra assistance in meeting the new metrics.

The article points to a linked Army News briefing that underscores the importance of the APRT: “Physical fitness is a core component of mission readiness. The new standards reflect the changing nature of warfare and the demands placed on every soldier.”

Wider Political and Social Reactions

The Virginia lawmaker’s comments have been echoed by other lawmakers across the nation. A linked article from The Washington Post details that a bipartisan group of senators in the Senate Armed Services Committee has opened a formal inquiry into the APRT’s impact on female service members. Additionally, a Women’s Army Corps (WAC) advocacy group has released a press statement urging the DoD to “consider the disproportionate effects of the new bench‑press requirement.”

Conversely, pro‑military commentators have criticized Hughes for what they see as an oversimplified attack on “women’s rights” within the military. A referenced op‑ed from the National Review argues that the Army is “correctly addressing the physiological reality that men generally possess greater upper‑body strength, and that the bench‑press is only one component of a comprehensive fitness program.”

Legislative Implications

If the Army’s standards are found to be discriminatory, it could lead to a range of outcomes:

1. Policy Revision: The Army may adjust the bench‑press and running benchmarks for women, perhaps creating an alternative “Women’s Performance Index” that is more reflective of physical demands while accounting for gender differences.

2. Court‑Martial or Legal Challenge: If the standards are found to violate the Equal Protection Clause, there could be a legal challenge that would pressure the DoD to change policy.

3. Recruitment and Retention: Any perceived bias may negatively affect the Army’s recruitment of female candidates, which could be problematic as the military aims to diversify its ranks.

4. Budgetary Impact: Revising standards may require new training programs, equipment, and oversight costs, potentially affecting the Army’s budget.

The Virginia lawmaker’s statement, amplified by the 12 On Your Side article, has opened a door for lawmakers at both the state and federal level to push for a comprehensive review. A potential next step is the proposed Virginia “Military Fitness Equity” bill, which seeks to allocate funds for research and program development aimed at creating “gender‑responsive” fitness standards.

Final Thoughts

The debate over the Army’s fitness standards reflects a larger cultural conversation about gender, performance, and fairness in institutions that rely on physical prowess. While the Army maintains that its new APRT is “gender‑neutral” and based on rigorous science, critics like Senator Hughes argue that the test inadvertently discriminates against women by imposing uniform, gender‑agnostic metrics that ignore biological differences.

Whether the Army will amend its standards, or whether legislators will intervene through policy or legal avenues remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the conversation has intensified and that the outcome will shape the future of how the U.S. military balances readiness, inclusivity, and equality on the modern battlefield.