The Pentagon has eliminated lower physical fitness standards for women in combat units via an order by Defense Secretary Hegseth announced yesterday. All physical fitness requirements for combat arms positions will now be be “sex-neutral.” Well, a) GOOD!, and b) Why did anyone ever think it made sense to have it any other way?
The New York Times, being pathetic, spins like crazy to make the order sound mean and discriminatory as well as harmful. The order “is likely to significantly reduce the number of women who meet the requirements,” the paper sniffles, and is “likely to hinder the recruitment and retention of women in particularly dangerous military jobs.” So what? The military sets standards for being qualified for combat, and having different standards for different groups is the epitome of DEI idiocy. Hegseth “argued that women should not be allowed in combat units if they could not meet the same fitness standards as men,” sayeth the Times. Why would he have to argue that at all? What’s the counter-argument? I don’t see one.
I also don’t see any valid argument for not having sex-neutral physical requirements for all military positions. The Marines have a strength test for its recruits, but while men must complete three pull-ups or 34 push-ups in under two minutes, women only have to complete a single pull-up or 15 push-ups in the same time frame. That means that a male will wash out based on failing the fitness test while a woman who does no better will be deemed fit. Only in DEI Bizarro World is that fair, logical or reasonable.
The same principle of sex-neutral fitness should also be applied to fire fighters and police. If there is any persuasive theory why this shouldn’t be the case, I not only haven’t heard or read it, I can’t imagine what it would be.
Ethics Alarms 
This is sort of like have sex-neutral physical requirements for being a fire-fighter. After all, you don’t want a fire-fighter showing up at the fire from which you need rescued, only to tell you, “I can’t carry you out, so you shouldn’t have gotten yourself into this situation to begin with!”
Busted! Skimming alert! I mentioned fire-fighters in the last part of the post. But the LA fire reference is appreciated…
Ack! I’m so embarrassed! I have to admit I’m one of those people who tend to be thinking of a response while someone is speaking, which means I miss some of what they are saying. It is a failing, and I full confess my fault. Mea culpa!
You are not alone. I too am a skimmer and often fire off a response with the immediate dread that Jack already mentioned it or another commenter did.
Being the chicken that I am, I never gave a thought to enlisting in the military. You can get killed in a war. Hell, you can even get killed doing the dangerous military stuff while in training. So, I’ve always wondered why women want to go into the military. I think the answer is being in the military is considered a good way to not have to work too hard and after twenty years you can get paid full pay for the rest of your life. What’s not to like? As a result, being in the military is now deemed to be a right which must be available to one and all. Bizarre.
And of course, diversity enhances wherever it is encouraged to be. Diversity helps colleges (no one know how or why, but it does) and the workplace, so, why shouldn’t it enhance the battlefield? Diverse people will make the battlefield a more meaningful experience for combatants. And think what this does for our opposition! They won’t have just white guys to kill, they’ll have women, people of color, Pacific Islanders, transgender people and even the handicapped … TO KILL! Won’t that be great!
I believe the issue is financial: combat pay and dangerous area service increases pay and chances for promotions.
jvb
When the University of North Carolina desegregated from being a White-only university, it clearly reduced White enrollment
Was that a bad thing?
I have yet to see what these sex neutral standards are? It is possible that they lowered the stadards in general, is it not. Has any one seen the actual standards.?
When I was in basic, we had to take 4PT test. We only had to pass the last one, we got a cheat day if we passed any of the others. I missed the 3rd one by about 15 seconds on the two mile run, but the three girls behind me all passed because they had more time to take it. That still frustrates me 23 years later.
I, however, have no problem with different physical standards for different jobs/specialties.
I think the idea that every person should theoretically have access to almost every job is part of the problem. Telling people they aren’t a good fit for a particular job seems to be treated almost like someone is being mean.
When it comes to literal war, physical requirements are an essential part of the equation, kind of like being tall is essential to playing in the NBA. I will never play in the NBA, even if I were to be the fittest person in the world because I’m too short. My body eliminates me, and that biological reality is just a fact of life I have to accept. Race and sex have zero to do with anything.
In the same way, the goal of the military is national defense and ensuring human rights are respected around the world (something like that). For direct combat, the most fit and strong humans are the best candidates. If men are naturally stronger and faster, that’s an accident of nature, just like my height eliminates me from the NBA. There is no discrimination; some professions just naturally eliminate certain groups because of what the profession requires to succeed.
That used to be an accepted fact of life, but somewhere along the way, people decided they want to fight nature rather than adapt to it. There will be women who will qualify for direct combat, who can do the pushups and the pull ups, and if so, great. Let them in. If not, noncombat roles are available as well.
Society is not a giant therapy room.
As does Herr Burgermeister, “I believe the issue is financial: combat pay and dangerous area service increases pay and chances for promotions.” Which is a problem. I heard indirectly from an Air Force Major at Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson (A-10s) that guys wanting their privates cut off enlist, get the surgery at taxpayer expense, claim they are disabled because of all the meds they must take, are discharged, and then get social security disability for the rest of their lives.
Which may be apocryphal, but the problem seems to be that the military seems to have been turned into a civil service branch, which is nuts. The military is involved in the most uncivil activity imaginable: killing people and blowing shit up.
It’s possible. I don’t personally care whether someone is trans or not as long as they don’t act weird about it. If they can meet the qualifications and combat readiness, they are fine with me. Adults can do what they want.
I wouldn’t like people using the military as a way to pay for surgery though.
My daughter was considering a career in the Police Service here in Australia. She’s something of a fitness type; dancer, Krav Maga (only spared against men), running etc., but found that challenging her one-year older brother (apart from the dancing!) who worked hard and long but didn’t do any sport or exercise, would lead to an instant loss.
Even at Krav Maga, where she would come home black and blue after going all in and being successful against her sparring partner de jour! Sparring really ISN’T the same as an actual fight, even one with your brother!
When she found out how much lower the physical standards were for female officers, she dropped the idea as being unsafe for her and her male co-workers. Mind you, there are plenty of old fat male coppers! I agree with Michael West’s comment on different job’s/ specialties; but that does add a management and manpower, not to mention risk, burden in an emergent situation.
Apparently female coppers in Australia get some extra leeway on the use of Tasers and guns though!