4 ms·

Seems actually pretty fair. Instead of sexist rules, its the same rules for everyone. "We don't care what's between your legs. Pass these tests and you qualify

• throw93933i8 2y ago
  [flagged]
• Wowfunhappy 2y ago
  ...I think I'm inclined to agree. They should decide what is necessary to do the job, and make that the standard. It may the case that the standards are higher than necessary and should be lowered—but then why wouldn't you lower them for both men and women? Put another way, I am wondering... if there weren't previously any problems, why wouldn't you use the old women's cutoff as the new baseline for both men and women, instead of using the men's cutoff?
  • votepaunchy 2y ago
    > Put another way, I am wondering... if there weren't previously any problems, why wouldn't you use the old women's cutoff as the new baseline for both men and women, instead of using the men's cutoff? Because women are a small minority (< 20%) of the US military. You might be able to argue for a lowering of the new common standard to somewhere in between the old standards.
    • 7bit 2y ago
      Men are genetically stronger. That's a sober fact. But if it's alright to have women in the army, then why is then there a higher standard for men? Minority is a bad excuse, because in the army, people die. So does the army accept lower baselines for women, because they don't care when they die in the conflict? Or is it more that the higher standard applied to men is indeed too high as a baseline?