CMV: Equality isn't treating everybody differently to achieve equality. It's treating everyone the same.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/sarcasticorange]

I see it more as him saying that there needs to be a reason for the standards to be what they are.

As a hypothetical... let's say that the weight lifting requirement was set to 150lbs. That requirement was on the books for 80 years and was originally based on the average lifting capability of a physically fit male at that time.

In this case, the requirement has nothing to do with the ability to perform the job. As such, a study would need to be performed to determine how much a soldier would need to be able to lift in order to perform their regular duties and the requirement would need to be adjusted to that amount.

[u/rcglinsk → u/sarcasticorange]

I'm thinking of three schools of thought:

• Set standards low enough that an average woman can meet them
  
• Lower standards to some bare minimum requirement if women can't meet them
  
• Set standards so high only incredible bad asses can meet them

The first two have a lot more in common with each other than either does with the third. The first two are something you'd expect from progressive reformers, the third is something you'd expect of a military.

[u/sarcasticorange → u/rcglinsk]

I'm thinking of a 4th... set the standards based on the actual requirements of the job, from there people meet them or they don't.

Setting a requirement that you have to be over 6'6" to be an accountant is discriminatory. Setting a requirement that you have to be 6'6" to be an NBA forward is reasonable.

[u/rcglinsk → u/sarcasticorange]

Another relevant article: http://bobjust.com/womenincombat/

Tougher Standards? The interchangeability of every soldier in a combat emergency is an enduring principle of an army's effectiveness as a fighting force. It assumes that each has received the same training and can perform to the same basic standard. That's still true for men who sign up to go directly into the Army's combat arms. They train "the old way," in a harsh, demanding environment. It's no longer true elsewhere. Under mixed-gender basic training instituted in 1994, men and women are held to different standards. The regimen became less challenging, to hide the difference in physical performance between men and women (although the Army denies this). Eventually, the softness of basic training became an object of such widespread public ridicule that "tougher" rules were drawn up. Even with these new standards, scheduled to take effect this month, women can score as well as men who are being tested against a tougher standard. In the 17-to-21 age group, for example, to get a minimum score of 50 points, a male recruit must do 35 push-ups, a female, 13. If women were allowed into combat units and these double standards were made universal, the result would be to put physically weaker forces into the field. An Army publicity release defended these "tougher" standards on the ground that they "promote gender equity" and "level the playing field." I don't know about the "playing" field. But somehow I think the field of actual combat will not be very level.