- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
My squabble with him was more about his overall view of women in general...
I'll state it one last time and be done with it:
"level the physical fitness standards - no more differentia between the sexes." (this is what I oppose)
"Those who qualify - are in - regardless of sex"
No more unbalanced standards.
As it stands I feel that having unequal standards puts individuals in danger and weakens the overall capability of the force. . . you do seem to agree on that. . . so, those who are in are UNQUESTIONABLY ABLE. And then they would qualify without the differentia and they're in. Yes?
Yes.
Very good then . . . What's so hard about that? That's my view - that's where I stand.
The single most annoying thing to me is this: "I want to be in - but I can't perform like everyone else is expected to - so I want you to lower the standards for me. . . " which is bs.
In some areas it just doesn't matter, tech, provisional, oversight and supply, etc - but in other areas it's a huge issue.
Gender norming will never go away and even if it did menstrual cycles and the accompanying hygene issues will not.