...I think I'm inclined to agree. They should decide what is necessary to do the job, and make that the standard.
It may the case that the standards are higher than necessary and should be lowered—but then why wouldn't you lower them for both men and women?
Put another way, I am wondering... if there weren't previously any problems, why wouldn't you use the old women's cutoff as the new baseline for both men and women, instead of using the men's cutoff?
> Put another way, I am wondering... if there weren't previously any problems, why wouldn't you use the old women's cutoff as the new baseline for both men and women, instead of using the men's cutoff?
Because women are a small minority (< 20%) of the US military. You might be able to argue for a lowering of the new common standard to somewhere in between the old standards.
Men are genetically stronger. That's a sober fact. But if it's alright to have women in the army, then why is then there a higher standard for men? Minority is a bad excuse, because in the army, people die. So does the army accept lower baselines for women, because they don't care when they die in the conflict? Or is it more that the higher standard applied to men is indeed too high as a baseline?
It may the case that the standards are higher than necessary and should be lowered—but then why wouldn't you lower them for both men and women?
Put another way, I am wondering... if there weren't previously any problems, why wouldn't you use the old women's cutoff as the new baseline for both men and women, instead of using the men's cutoff?