Notice this article. It says that “Army officials plan to complete gender-neutral standards for the Ranger course by July 2015. Army Rangers are one of the service’s special operations units, but many soldiers who go through Ranger training and wear the coveted tab on their shoulders never actually serve in the 75th Ranger Regiment. To be considered a true Ranger, soldiers must serve in the regiment.”
Such “gender neutral standards” exist now. They’re the legacy standards that apply only to men in these all male units. There is no need to make new standards; we can just apply the old standards to everyone. They’re talking about rewriting standards, even as they say standards won’t be lowered.
If you lower them across the board, you allow women and also lower qualified men to achieve a formerly prestigious position. This will happen in order to prevent a 99.9% washout rate for women, such as we’ve seen with the entry of female Marines to the Infantry Officers Course. The existing high standards that have worked for years are inherently nondiscriminatory and gender neutral, as they only applied until now in order to choose between one man and another. Any real standards will discriminate between the weak and the strong. And any real standards will have a hugely disproportionate impact on women, as their bodies, physiology, and physical strength and endurance are very different on average from men.
Lowering standards and applying them to both sexes is how police and fire departments have ruined themselves to accommodate age and sex discrimination suits. This is also how the military has allowed so many women into its ranks; in boot camp and beyond, they have much lower physical fitness requirements. This entire policy is not about military effectiveness, but about feminist fantasies derived from movies, literature, and ignorance of basic science. These people are working for an imaginary future utopia where there is physical equality of the sexes.
What is the goal here other than the destruction of military effectiveness and the male pride and competition on which it depends? It’s not like anyone can reasonably say our SF and male-only combat arms are somehow ineffective. Indeed, they, more than support units, have maintained much of their elan and effectiveness in spite of the creeping political correctness of the Pentagon. Truly, it is their higher standards that have much to do with this pride and effectiveness, and this is what is in the process of being destroyed by cowardly and treasonous leadership.
Let’s not forget, the destructiveness of this initiative is two fold, going beyond its direct impact on combat effectiveness, to include also the destruction of the leadership ranks’ self-respect and integrity, which are ground down by the conspiracy of silence promoted by the politically correct culture of today’s military.