It makes perfect sense because that's the idiotic do-loop that is caused by trying to force a square peg in a round hole. In many case they can't meet the freaking standard, but the leaders turn back and say make it work because they don't want to deal with the politics. Consequently standards are lowered until the protesting ceases. The men will always get the higher standard to meet than the women, which most men don't mind until the paycheck comes in and the women get the same. That doesn't mean that women don't have areas in which they are superior, but we're talking about the military, we're talking about combat, being testosterone aggressive. Hold women to the exact same standards and assure me you'll find enough women to include that will satsify the equal rights groups that you are fair and have a high enough quota to make them happy. Lowering the standards so more women can get in is more or less a "Yes Dear" move by the military. I'm assuming we're speaking about those positions where there is any question of equal ability, not the supply clerk with the clipboard or high skilled desk jobs.
Still doesn't make any sense.
This isn't about lowering the standards. Removing an arbitrary chromosomal qualification doesn't lower the standards. Right now, all women are excluded from front-line and submarine service for one reason: they have no Y chromosome.
That has caused equal rights groups to protest this arbitrary disqualification. This political pressure you speak of
already exists.
Removing the Y chromosome qualification does nothing to lower the standards for performance, because there is no military situation in which a Y chromosome is required to perform the task.
Removing this particular requirement, which is arbitrary, removes the "it's an arbitrary standard" argument from the protesters that
currently exist.
So the only difference between the status quo and the proposed change is that the arbitrary Y qualification is removed.
There is no reason to lower the other standards in order to achieve equal rights because any person, regardless of their chromosomal structure, who meets the standards, will be accepted into the role.
Thus, equal rights are achieved.
If the protests
continue after equal rights have been established, they are not seeking equal rights, but a lowering of non-arbitrary standards.
Being equal in rights does not mean being equal in ability.
The way to offset the political pressure is to remove the unequal rights, and allow unequal ability to be the discriminator.
Will there be discrimination? Of course. The whole point of having standards is to discriminate.
Will these standards be based on gender? No, they will be based
solely on ability.
The reason your argument makes no sense is because it calls for discrimination based on something
other than ability. It presumes that the peg is always square based on arbitrary, non-ability related measures.
That's exactly the reason
why the feared protesters have a legitimate case. In essence, you
empower their cause by continuing to use arbitrary non-merit based disqualifications.
That's why they are not only present, but they are actually
justified in their cause.
The standard you are supporting is a
lack of equal rights, and as such, it means that they are correct to oppose your views.
If no women can achieve the standards, it won't be because they don't have the right to achieve them. In this scenario, it means that the protesters may be present, but they are
unjustified in their cause.
It seems that if your biggest fear is protesters, the best way to counteract them logically speaking is to remove the justification for their argument. In this case, it means removing the Y chromosome requirement.