Rep. Eli Crane used the derogatory phrase in describing his proposed amendment to a military bill. Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty asked that his words be stricken from the record.
Rep. Eli Crane used the derogatory phrase in describing his proposed amendment to a military bill. Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty asked that his words be stricken from the record.
Or you know, he’s talking about actually lowering the standards which is the policy being discussed. Whether or not you think it’s worth lowering admittance standards to allow more women, LGBT, POCs to join and improve diversity, at least be honest with what’s being argued.
There’s been ongoing debate on lowering standards, mostly for allowing more women into combat roles. While barring these groups entirely from certain roles is obviously wrong, changing and lowering requirements doesn’t seem right either.
No one is lowering standards. Affirmative action means that when all other things are equal, prefer the candidate who is underrepresented in the field.
How often do they get two candidates that are exactly equal? If they’re giving a benefit to people underrepresented, it needs to be worth something.
And we’ve been constantly lowering standards, unrelated to affirmative action. There was a time when being a high-school graduate meant something. Now it’s easy to get through college, and completely necessary because if you don’t people will assume you’re the sort of person who can’t even get through college.
This is not about affirmative action. There are efforts to lower standards, separate from affirmative action. Maybe not for LGBT or POC but women are held to different physical standards in the military.
Edit: For Ranger School, standards were lowered so women could graduate. For some positions who cares, but pushing people through positions they aren’t capable for in the name of equality is dangerous both for them and their fellow soldiers
When women can hold combat positions, that might matter.
Women have been allowed in combat positions since around 2015. It’s been a slow integration and there’s very few, because of the exact point I made that the physical standards and training are very difficult for most women.
So they are held to the same physical standards when it’s a combat position? I’m not seeing the problem then.
As of right now they are. There are efforts to lower standards to raise numbers, and that is what I’m saying is wrong.
If they’re held to the same standards, of course that’s not an issue.
And that is more or less what is going on. Recruitment numbers are down across the board between people not wanting to be sexually assaulted and commit crimes against humanity coupled with a general understanding that recruiters are lying sacks of shit who just need you to sign the binding contract.
Women were an easy target between general misogyny among conservatives and “Well, they are women so they are weaker”. And the long game is “okay, only people in combat roles need this level of physical fitness. Just like only people who aren’t on the front line need to know how to read”. And that is going to spread to men because “women forced us to lower our standards” all while giving the military a way to even recruit the people who are dumb enough to sign the paperwork.
It’s not necessarily a bad idea to lower their standards in general, but it seems unfair to reject a man on the basis that he’s too weak when they would have accepted a woman that’s just as strong. If strength matters, then only the few women who are strong enough should be let in. If it doesn’t matter, then men shouldn’t be rejected for not being strong enough.
My guy, the military is nothing but a bunch of people running around in body armor shooting people. The physical requirements for all genders are anachronistic at best.
I am in favor of US reducing their military apparatus a few hundred billions.
perhaps they can do more than that, even
If you find yourself agreeing with a bigot, maybe reexamine your rhetoric