Skip to comments.Lowering Standards - ‘Gender-neutral’ standards typically mean lower standards
Posted on 01/30/2013 5:34:40 PM PST by neverdem
The Department of Defense released a report in February 2012 raising significant concerns to Congress about integrating women into combat units, an issue receiving renewed attention given outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s recent announcement that women would be allowed in combat roles.
The report(PDF) raised five serious practical barriers, which if not approached in a deliberate manner, could adversely impact the health of our service members and degrade mission accomplishment.
The largest difficulty yet to be overcome are the physically demanding tasks that the Department of Defense used to exclude the vast majority of women in combat roles.
The elimination of gender-restricted assignment policies requires deliberate action, the report says. Its proposed solution is the creation of gender neutral-physical standards.
If we go forward with this, you are going to see serious physical injury increase, said Mackubin Thomas Owens, a professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College. People in Afghanistan are carrying huge loads. Were sending our troops places where they can only walk.
A separate Congressional Research Service (CRS) report(PDF) in December 2012 outlining the debate and history of women in combat roles elaborated on the term gender-neutral.
The use of the term gender-neutral physical standards raises questions depending on how it is defined. A plain reading of the term suggests that men and women would be required to meet the same physical standards in order to be similarly assigned. However, in the past, the Services have used this and similar terms to suggest that men and women must exert the same amount of energy in a particular task, regardless of the work that is actually accomplished by either. Hypothetically speaking, if a female soldier carries 70 pounds of equipment five miles and exerts the same effort as a male carrying 100 pounds of equipment the same distance, the differing standards could be viewed as gender-neutral because both exerted the same amount of effort, with differing loads.
A source from the Department of Defense confirmed to the Washington Free Beacon that the definition in the CRS report is accurate, and that the the services are currently working on gender-neutral standards for certain things.
Notably absent in this language is any mention of the effects on military readiness such changes may produce, according to the CRS report(PDF).
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta assured the public during Thursdays press conference that he was not talking about reducing the qualifications for the jobif they can meet the qualifications for the job, then they should have the right to serve, regardless of creed or color or gender or sexual orientation.
The Department of Defense will continue to assess, develop and validate gender neutral standards so that we can start assigning personnel to previously closed occupations, Gen. Martin Dempsey said during Thursdays press conference.
Changes to military policy cannot be implemented until the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) reviews the changes.
At the end of the day, none of this will be understood until 2016, said an aide for Sen. James Inhofe (R. Okla.), a member of the SASC. The Pentagon advises the committee of its changes, and gives the committee time to pass legislation. The committee has not been informed of any specific changes yet.
Inhofe raised concerns in a press release.
If necessary, we [the SASC] will be able to introduce legislation to stop any changes we believe to be detrimental to our fighting forces and their capabilities, Inhofe said. I suspect there will be cases where legislation becomes necessary.
A Department of Defense source chose not to comment when asked about concerns SASC members may have about gender-neutral standards described in the February report.
If you make the argument that it will make the Army better, thats one thing, Owens said. But no one is talking about that.
It never takes long.
Liberals believe it unfair we have a strong military, and are working to correct this perceived problem.
We know that women who live together, or who are housed together -- in dormitories, for example, in sororities -- after a certain passage of time... This is one of the marvels of creation. No one can explain it, but it happens.
Menstrual cycles happen to synchronize.
You can get mad at me all you want for saying it, but it happens to be true. It's not a put-down, and it's not taking away from the individuality of any women or woman. It just happens. So what we do is we create a force. We call it the All-American First Cavalry Amazon Battalion, and we segregate women enough in various bases and barracks so that you have synchronized menstrual cycles.
They're timed in such a way that on any day of the year, you are guaranteed to have a fighting female force all in PMS, all during premenstrual syndrome.
That's racist! And sexist!
“Hypothetically speaking, if a female soldier carries 70 pounds of equipment five miles and exerts the same effort as a male carrying 100 pounds of equipment the same distance, the differing standards could be viewed as gender-neutral because both exerted the same amount of effort, with differing loads.”
Yeah, I suppose they could be viewed as ‘gender nuetral.’
Likewise, a horse carrying 200 lbs 5 miles and a chipmunk carrying an acorn 5 miles could be called something like ‘species neutral.’
The Left simply lives and breaths treason.
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
there fixed it...
Thanks for the ping!
of course that is what it means
Or how about two guys of the same weight but one is heavily muscled?
Two guys the same age have to do the same amount of pushups, situps and have the same amount of time allowed for the run on a PT test no matter how they are built. Women can pass physical fitness tests doing half the pushups, less sit ups and running much slower than a guy the same age. For example a 17 - 21 year old male needs to do 42 pushups to pass, a 17 - 21 year old female needs to do 19. The standards for women are a lot lower than for men.
“do they make allowances for guys who weigh differently? A 120 lb guy should carry the same as a 220 lb guy, right?”
It would be called ‘weight neutral’ standards.
How come time doesn’t enter into the equation? Like one soldier carries 70lbs 5 miles, and takes two hours. Another carries 100lbs and takes three hours. This would be ‘time neutral.’
17 - 21 year old males in the US Army are required to do a MINIMUM of 42 pushups to pass their annual fitness test.
Females of the same age group must do 19 to pass their test.
Men must run two miles in 15:54 while women can pass with an 18:54 run.
There must be one standard that is the current male standard. Unfortunately that is going to wash out of the Army the vast majority of women. Too bad, so sad.
I believe the solution of the Navy to this was basically to make their PT test a huge continuum.
They are leaving out the fact that women have menstrual cycles which means they have to pack feminine products which will take away pack space. They are having this issue now where women have to be airlifted out for hygienic reasons.
All a guy needs is a roll of crap paper and we are G to G.
Lowering Standards - Gender-neutral standards typically mean lower standards >>
that’s for sure, look at female cops and firefighters, the female cops are always getting beat up one in NJ recently had a convict over power her in the holding cell and the fire”men” can’t turn on fire hydrants and can’t turn the nozzles on the fire hoses, never mind trying to carry someone out of a building.
Female truck drivers who can’t change a tire because its too heavy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.