Monday, September 15, 2014

Equality - It's the New Discrimination

H/T to American Mercenary who writes on the Army's move to get women into the Rangers.  As I comment there, I'm in complete agreement with AM when he says:
If they compromise the standard to let women through then shame on them.
If the standards for the job are correct, and they should be by now, then everyone who applies for that position should need to meet the same standards.

The problem is the "victim-obsessed hustlers who are currently running the Federal Government" are suing the Pennsylvania State Police for having the temerity to insist women who apply to be officers must meet the same standards as the men.  That establishes the precedent that they can force the Army to change the standards so that women who want to be Rangers will be tested to lower levels than the men.  That's very likely going to get those women, or some unfortunate people under their command, killed. 

It used to be that discrimination was requiring one class to pass tougher standards than another; in this case, the men are being discriminated against by having to meet tougher standards than women.  Changing the definition of discrimination from tougher standards to everyone meeting the same standards is a whole new ballgame.  Frankly, it warps my mind.  If having everyone meet the same standards equally isn't equality, then the world has fundamentally changed.
Despite the fact that over 70 percent of female applicants pass the test, Holder and Company have decided to sue. And why?

Well… Because those evil cops in Pennsylvania had the audacity to treat female candidates the same as their male counterparts. Don’t those out of touch, sexist, creeps who run the police department know by now that, in Holder’s America, “equality” means treating everyone differently? See, women are equal. Well, unless they’re not. In which case, we should treat them unequal in order to make them equal. But not too unequal. After all, they are equal… Unless they’re not. Are they? (Please don’t sue me.)

Welcome to our progressive Utopia: Where people get sued for not lowering their expectations.
H/T Sense of Events who posted this link on 9/1.  It has been simmering in mind since.

1 comment:

  1. The very same people who believe women should be in the military or in combat or in the special forces will also be the same ones to tell you that Ray Rice shouldn't have hit his wife because she is just a girl don'thcha know. And once you tell them that Janay Rice hit him first they will inform you that a woman can't really hurt a man so that doesn't count. So which is it? Either women can indeed fight right along with men and not only should be in combat but should be signing up for the draft or they cannot fight as well as a man and have no lace in the military except for the medical and admin field. I spent 20 years in the military from 1964 until 1984 and it was during that time that it was decided to dramatically increase the presence of women in the military. They went from about 2% overall in 1964 to about 15% today. During that period they dramatically reduced the physical standards simply because in general women cannot meet those standards. Just as Janay Rice couldn't go mano a mano with her husband women cannot, in most cases, fight in combat as effectively as a man can.
    Let me give you one simple example; The appropriate action to take if your Humvee is disabled and you are under attack is to grab the 50 cal machine gun off the turret and the ammo and run for cover. This is three pieces and the lightest piece is about 60 lbs. Women can't do it. In fact they usually take so long simply trying to dismount the gun that they would have been shot before they got it off. Men can do it and this tends to be true even if they are 5'5" weighting 130 lbs. Don't ask me why; could be as simple as greater upper body strength, or attitude or simply that they are afraid to fail in front of other guys and women are not. Bottom line is women simply cannot do most of the physical things that must be done in a combat situation. Are there exceptions? Sure, probably .5% of women could run with a full combat pack and gear of 95lbs or fight and beat a random man from her unit (a common training for men) in hand to hand combat. But make no mistake almost no women in that 15% of the military are part of that .5%. Almost all of them are the girl next door and woefully nfit for combat. Worse if you put them in combat a lot more men will be killed either trying to save their butt or because the women failed to hold up their end of the battle. It is a hge mistake, women do not belong in the military except and medical and admin.