Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lowering Standards - ‘Gender-neutral’ standards typically mean lower standards
Washington Free Beacon ^ | January 28, 2013 | Ryan Willard

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. We’re 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 Thursday’s press conference that he was “not talking about reducing the qualifications for the job—if 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 Thursday’s 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, that’s one thing,” Owens said. “But no one is talking about that.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: infantrywomen

1 posted on 01/30/2013 5:34:44 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It never takes long.


2 posted on 01/30/2013 5:37:00 PM PST by RWB Patriot ("My ability is a value that must be purchased and I don't recognize anyone's need as a claim on me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Liberals believe it unfair we have a strong military, and are working to correct this perceived problem.


3 posted on 01/30/2013 5:40:44 PM PST by The_Media_never_lie (Actually, they lie when it suits them! The crooked MS media must be defeated any way it can be done!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
From the Rush Limbaugh show:

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.

Emphasis added.

4 posted on 01/30/2013 5:45:46 PM PST by Former Fetus (Saved by grace through faith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The only reason to have standards is to discriminate against the incompetent and unqualified.

That's racist! And sexist!

5 posted on 01/30/2013 5:52:23 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (TYRANNY: When the people fear the politicians. LIBERTY: When the politicians fear the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“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.’

Obviously.

Freegards


6 posted on 01/30/2013 5:53:03 PM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The Left simply lives and breaths treason.


7 posted on 01/30/2013 6:26:44 PM PST by Psycho_Bunny (Thought Puzzle: Describe Islam without using the phrase "mental disorder" more than four times.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy; Joe Brower; Cannoneer No. 4; Criminal Number 18F; Dan from Michigan; Eaker; Jeff Head; ...
Mark Levin: Obama Not Destroying GOP, Republican Establishment Is

MILLER: The cop-killer bullet myth - Politicians go after ammunition as a sneaky way to get your gun

Cruz to Rahm: Don’t mess with Texas

Shooting Range Bans Police Department In Protest Of City Council Gun Bill

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

8 posted on 01/30/2013 7:15:12 PM PST by neverdem ( Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
- ‘Gender-neutral’ standards typically ALWAYS mean lower standards

there fixed it...

9 posted on 01/30/2013 7:22:31 PM PST by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed
Well I guess that makes sense........same exertion while doing less work = same faster promotions and pay. Makes perfect sense for a military force.
10 posted on 01/30/2013 7:46:48 PM PST by Repeat Offender (What good are conservative principles if we don't stand by them?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Thanks for the ping!


11 posted on 01/30/2013 8:20:16 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Tagline.


12 posted on 01/30/2013 8:52:26 PM PST by QT3.14 (Political Correctness: Intellectual AIDS - It sickens and kills everything it touches ~ Wm. Lind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

bump

of course that is what it means


13 posted on 01/30/2013 8:53:16 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed
do they make allowances for guys who weigh differently? A 120 lb guy should carry the same as a 220 lb guy, right?

Or how about two guys of the same weight but one is heavily muscled?

14 posted on 01/31/2013 3:17:04 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

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.


15 posted on 01/31/2013 5:25:56 AM PST by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

“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.’

Freegards


16 posted on 01/31/2013 5:53:13 AM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: All

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.


17 posted on 01/31/2013 7:21:14 AM PST by SpitfyrAce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SpitfyrAce

I believe the solution of the Navy to this was basically to make their PT test a huge continuum.


18 posted on 01/31/2013 8:04:23 AM PST by MSF BU (n)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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.


19 posted on 01/31/2013 8:39:10 AM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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.


20 posted on 01/31/2013 9:45:05 AM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Female truck drivers who can’t change a tire because its too heavy.


21 posted on 01/31/2013 10:11:44 AM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson