Correct, the standards were lowered for everyone, but the standards were indeed lowered when the lawsuits started coming which claimed that the standards were discriminatory and the basis upon which this was proven was disparate outcome. The dummy that the firefighters had to prove they could carry was lighter. Departments added pulleys to the ladders so that they weren't as heavy and changed the procedures so that 3 people carried the ladder where only two had done so before. I agree that such things make it easier for men as well as easier for women, but they weren't done until a way had to be found to get more women onto the force. That is simply a reality archer. Not saying it is bad, or that it puts a less effective force in place, I'm simply saying that standards were reworked when it became necessary to ensure that more women graduated from the various academies and became part of the police and fire departments all around the Union.
"A separate Congressional Research Service (CRS) report 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 separate Congressional Research Service (CRS) report 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.
Now that's government "logic" for ya. Maybe we can make some new laws for the private sector... worker A isn't as smart as worker B and therefore less productive. But since worker A puts in the same amount of time and effort as worker B, both should get the same pay.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
So what does it mean for our GI's? Jack can pull your limp body out of the free fire zone. Jane can pull 70% of your body out of the free fire zone.
My brother is a firefighter and he still has issues that some of his female coworkers simply don't have the strength to get him out of a burning building if he is incapacitated.
I wonder if segregation of combat units has been considered? Probably wouldn't fly, seperate but equal doesn't work anymore. Update: per Drudge the Marines may still keep women out of combat.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
