Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
"Gender neutral" - conveniently written in a way that emphasizes the athletic feats that men have an advantage in, while downplaying those that women have an advantage in. This will be "gender neutral" in the way that most unisex shirts are. (Ie, just declaring the male as default.) If you wanted to, you could write a "gender neutral" fitness standard that women would pass at ten times the rate men do.
Hell, the US military learned the flaw of relying on averages back during the 1950s.
This is especially wild when you consider that some of the sports / feats women are often if not usually better at include shooting, distance / endurance events, and withstanding high g-forces without losing consciousness, which are way more useful in a modern military than the high jump or javelin throwing.
Being born with the appendage designed for peeing standing up is significantly more important than all that other stuff you mentioned. Simply having a uterus makes women 10x worse, duh.
Well, yeah. Any uterus on the battlefield is one that isn't back home gestating the next generation of cannon fodder.
(It's despicable, but I'm pretty sure that's how these shit stains actually think.)
Now I'm wondering if there's a notable combat advantage for having a built in piss tube or not.
He'll, if the requirements were gender neutral, then every astronaut would be a woman based on weight alone.
Even biologically, men are woman if the anti-muellerian hormone is not surpressed during the fetal development.(Usually happens if the gene in males is missing or suppressed that)
Reminder that every country that oppresses half of its population and prevents them from having the same access and rights tend to... fail on every societal level. But, they are also the most religious countries, so if that's what we're going for over things like infrastructure, jobs and ~~"safe drinking water"~~ then we're definitely on the right track.*
*I've been informed that the term "safe drinking water" has been banned.
Also it doesn't take much to pull a trigger or to push a button.
This is already a fucking thing. Female soldiers in combat roles meet the same standards as their male counterparts. Most of these women would whoop your ass.
We obviously needs a test that is biased toward males so we can clearly see and point toward female deficiencies.
Men can helicopter penis
If it's long enough
And if it is, and he can, that’s a natural born leader right there if I ever saw one. Promote ahead of peers (who can’t helicopter penis). Meritocracy.
Duh!
I want to see him pick a female soldier at random, go 1-on-1 with her in melee combat, get his ass kicked, and repeat until he gets the message.
This dude is a straight up misogynist, even his mama knows that.
He should go hand to hand with a female soldier. I'd pay to see her give him a beating.
I think this is reasonable. I met and exceeded the male standards and I’m not particularly big. There’s lots of jobs in the military fitness should be determined by job. I don’t think a file clerk needs to have infrantry levels of fitness. I’m pro gender neutral in military fitness standards but then again I also think women should be drafted.
I agree that any soldier must meet the demands of "war". And in any field unit I was ever in (Norwegian Army) you did not share equally in squad/unit tasks. I was above average strong and could carry the MG3 or the Carl Gustav for a longer period than a less strong solider on long marches.
Then again some units like special forces who have a high demand on physical skills might benefit from also having female operators attached for missions that demand a female. Let's say when operating in cultures where male-female interactions are very socially regulated.
I agree that weapon system technicians on F35 might not need the same level of physical prowess of foot recon soldiers operating deep behind enemy lines.
Was with you till the draft comment. I didn't think anyone should be drafted. If the people don't willingly enlist, either your cause is shit, or your benefits don't offset the risks.
I approve the weakening of the US armed forces. That way when you fuck heads start invading Greenland, Panama, Mexico or Canada at least some of your morale and effectiveness will have been sucked away.
Probably motivated by the idea that separate standards for men and women is also "woke DEI". Don't imagine for a second that their actions are made with good intentions
The intent is to make military service even less appealing to women.
Step 1: Dramatically restrict who is allowed to volunteer for our volunteer miitary.
Step 2: Bemoan that the US no longer has a standing military large enough to support its interests.
Step 3: Here comes the draft again.
Step 4: Wait a bit and all your undesirables age out or are driven out of the military.
Step 5: Well I'm not sure about this one, but you've got a big army full of the only people you really want to have any power, personal autonomy, or decent standard of living anyway; I'm sure you can find something to do with it.
I don't like to comment to much on the military since its what I've done most of my adult life and I've seen a lot of changes in the last 25 years. The ACFT took almost 20 years to develop so unless they just go back to the APFT or the Marine Corps fitness test and only use the men's criteria the test won't be ready before he's gone.
Based on what we've seen so far, I really think they'll just use the men's criteria.
Ironically, when I was in I thought it was really unfair that the women could openly grow long hair and just tuck it under their cover and the men could not.
I'm ashamed to say that back then I took it as an example of women wanting special treatment, when I'm sure in retrospect that it was nothing of the sort.
I feel like it's less about putting people in power (although it may do that to a certain extent) and more about reinforcing the role of poor and minority men as disposable tools. War is a means for the rich and powerful to squabble over resources, but it's also a way for them to exert their control over a large population of men. One of my bigger feminist sticking points on the topic of how patriarchy hurts men is that its not just about controlling women, its also about creating a class of men who are disposable by convincing them that it's either for the benefit of women and / or to help them control women too (which it does a little, it's just that most of that power is still going to a small subset of men).
It also partially eliminates potential uprising from men, if they are all used as cannon fodder.
That's a great point and much better thought out than my own! 💯
Well, and this what men are getting to when they get upset about men's rights and bring up the draft right? It's genuinely something they should be mad about they're just misdirecting their anger.
I've thought about this one a lot; there's several fanfics I've written that touch on this; one is an alternate of historical fictions and the other involves the Drow from the forgotten realms. There's this tendency (especially in erotic media) for matriarchal societies to have women act more masculine and sexually aggressive and have men crawling around on the floor in excrement and it always bugs me. There's so many existing negative stereotypes of men and positive stereotypes of women that could just be inversely accentuated to create that kind of society. I could talk for days about that one, LOL.
I'm one step ahead by being too out of shape to be drafted
Checkmate
Than it already is, the SA that get swept under the rug, because it might hurt a officers chance of staying in the service is already a detterant
Military service is already pretty unappealing to any empathetic human being imo
Rico didn't know what he had laid before him. Too smitten on "Tiger blood's" ex.
So just for the record, a trans woman is too strong for "women's" sports teams, but if she exceeds the new physical standards she still can't enlist? Sounds like DEI for cis people to me.
Ok, so this guy is a known misogynist, and is likely to twist this into something that gives women an objective disadvantage. With that said, I want to ask what makes people opposed to the idea of actually gender-neutral physical requirements for military positions.
Personally, I served in the Norwegian army alongside a bunch of very capable women. I think women in the army bring a big positive contribution. There's even research suggesting that women are better suited than men for certain combat roles. With that established, is it not fair to require that a woman in the infantry is capable of carrying the same kit, or wounded partner, as her male counterparts? I've done my fair share of ammo runs, and the women in my platoon carried just as heavy shells as the men. If they hadn't been capable of that, I would say they simply weren't qualified for the job.
I don't know what current requirements are in the US military. What I'm questioning is why so many people here seem opposed to the idea that anyone in a physically demanding role meets the same base criteria?
Mostly because there are many different roles that apply to "front line troops." The traits that work great for running ammo boxes all day are different from the traits to carry a 200 pound dude a few hundred feet. The traits to shoot accurately are different from the traits to assemble and deploy explosives. The traits to drive a tank are different from the traits to work the comms.
More importantly, though, is that this isn't JUST choosing one set of standards. This will absolutely be "choosing one set of standards with very high bars in certain categories." There are things women just do not do as well as men, and we all know those will be areas that are emphasized and with difficult to reach goals. There are things women do better than men, and we all know those areas will be de-emphasized with very easy to reach goals.
I agree with the sentiment that different roles have different specific requirements- a tank driver doesn't need to be as strong or fast as an infantryman. However, there are some base requirements that apply to all front-line troops. No matter your role, if you are expected to see combat, you need to be at a certain level with regards to weapons handling, but also physical strength and endurance. Even a tank driver, medic or radio operator may need to fire a gun, carry wounded, or help push a jeep upright.
Still, I agree that there are different requirements for different specialities, and definitely think it is a good idea to have different requirements for these in the selection process. However, I can't see a compelling argument saying that the base requirements for male and female tank drivers, medics, infantry, etc. should be different. I think the tank crew is an especially good example here, because research on Norwegian soldiers has indicated that women are (on average) better suited to this role, because they are often better at handling high cognitive load while exhausted. Putting the same requirements for everyone, with requirements tuned to the specialisation, could very well lead to more women in certain roles.
Of course, for your second point, I think that falls under the category of "everything is bad if poorly implemented". I definitely agree that it's a bad idea to place very hard baseline physical requirements for all roles. That means the military will lose out on highly capable medics, tank crews, radio operators, etc. both male and female. But as you say, more of the capable people lost will be women, simply because of biology. However, I think that's more a question about how requirements for the military should be implemented, and not really a question of "should we place the same requirements on men and women in the same role?" to which I think, on general grounds, the answer should be yes.
To be clear - I have no doubts that the people pushing this in the current administration intend to leverage it to push highly capable women out of roles they are more than capable of filling, and that's an unambiguously bad thing.
Why are they so concerned with gender?
How can anything be gender neutral in the 2 sex states of america?
Isn't anything gender neutral against the decreed dei laws of emperor king god trump all mighty?
Can we verify hegseth is a man?
Does PICKLED PETE pee sitting down in a gender neutral way?
Does PICKLED PETE and his pickled pecker use a gender neutral bathroom?
Why does PICKLED PETE pick a pack of Pabst to pound in private?
I feel like this would be more practical for something like police and firemen. I'd imagine that military has use for pretty much anyone willing to help but when I'm in a burning building or being attacked by robber I don't want the person coming to save me to have gotten to that position due to lowered standards. Unconcious person laying in a burning building has a gender-netural weight.
What a great way to improve enrollment! Make it so half the population can't hit the standard.