They are always so quick to fixate on “women” in combat roles. But what about them specifically? Some men are smaller, weaker, less able, some men are overweight, low endurance, slow…
So what’s the actual physical criteria you are looking for? Are you willing to enforce that fairly and universally? If so, does sex even remain a core factor beyond those metrics?
It’s basically “DEI” for guys… You physical shortcomings are mostly ignored so long as you get through training, but for women there’s this additional scrutiny and you have to be an absolute badass to get taken seriously
That’s what I’ve always thought. If they can do the pushups, runs, etc, then who cares about their gender? It doesn’t matter if women are statistically less capable in those areas if every individual is going to be evaluated anyway. Their is no good reason to filter recruits based gender, 'cept sexism obviously
I think the main issue is that there is a discrepancy between what a male and female has to do in order to pass. I do agree though, if a woman is able to meet the requirements she should be able to do whatever a man can.
Conservatives are obsessed with gender and gender roles.
The tests for a given job in the military are legally required to be gender and age neutral. This silly dink is lying. As it says in the article:
The basic physical fitness tests differ across military services and are typically adjusted by age and gender.
“These are basically just to see if this person is fit to be in the military, whether they’re a heart surgeon or a Catholic chaplain or a combat person,” Manning said. “But for every single job in the military, there’s also a set of occupational standards that have to be met. And the law says that they must be gender and age neutral.”
