We can argue about this back at school Sam...but, here's the answer, in my opinion anyway, men and women are biologically different. That means, we are weaker and stronger in different areas. Men are typically stronger in the upper-body and women are stronger in their abdominals. That's why the situp standards are the same. If we changed the standards so that all the men only had to reach the female standard, it would be a lot easier for them. Conversely, if all women had to reach the male standard, it would be much harder. This isn't equal at all, just unfair on both sides.
What I think they should do is have set minimums for each event (by gender!), instead of working off of a point system. No more, "max, max, relax!"
You state that women are stronger than men in abdominal fitness and therefore, the sit-up requirement is the same. You go on to indicate that men have greater upper body strength and therefore, the male standard is higher than the female with respect to testing that element of fitness. By your logic, shouldn't the women's abdominal testing require a higher score than what men have to achieve? They are, as you say, advantaged over men in that area. That would gender-norm it, no?
I went to VMI when it was all guys. I was also there during the first two years of coeducation. VMI isn't the military, I know, but the premise in requiring the admission of women was that there are some women who are up to the challenge the school provides. VMI's admissions policy was essentially found to be paternalistic, and noncompliant with the EP Clause of the 14th Amendment. Ginsburg's majority opinion clearly stated that there are some women who are capable of meeting the standard, and they shouldn't be prohibited from trying to do so at a State institution. Fair enough.
So....VMI required the same fitness test scores from women as it did from men. Five pull-ups, 60 sit-ups in a minute, and a 1.5 run in under 12 minutes to pass. Well, that's how it was for a few years at any rate. All the sudden "too many" women were not passing the test (plenty of men fail it too). Nonetheless, that test has now been gender-normed, and of course there has been no change in the male standards. To me, that goes against Ginsburg's premise. She said that some women are up to VMI's challenge. I accept that, so why did the standard have to change? It made me angry as an alum that this is the case; however, in the grand scheme of things, it's less important to me with regard to a fitness test required for PE class. I can get over a gender-normed PT test required to graduate from a college (especially if the lack of such a test would reflect negatively on the school). I have similar feelings about general fitness testing in the military branches. For people in jobs that would only incidentally involve a significant expenditure of physical strength, gender-normed tests don't bug me. I understand that in the modern war environment, anyone may be exposed to combat; however, one must agree that the chances of it increase greatly if you are in a "combat arms" (or whatever the kids call it now) MOS.
Thus, Scout's point is a good one. He is talking about serving in units where upper body strength has a much greater chance of determining life or death. In those cases, I would want whatever the physical standard is regarding the ability to perform those duties to be uniformally enforced across both genders. It doesn't mean women can't perform those roles, but they shouldn't get a pass from meeting whatever standard is deemed necessary for this task. That is, if male infantrymen have to pull a sled X feet, so should a potential woman infantryman. This will mean more men than women in that branch, absolutelty, but it gives women a chance to perform in that capacity (which, as of yet, they have not had).
As I understand it, there is no additional fitness requirement for people based on their MOS. I think if we are serious about wanting women in "combat arms" (again, sorry I don't know the current nomenclature), that should change, and it will only benefit the service and the servicemembers. No one will ***** about a female soldier in an infantry unit if she is held to the same standard as the guys. Well, some people may *****, but it would be sour grapes.
It won't happen, but that's how I see it.
). I bet she has never heard an opposing view to her oh-so-comfortable-and-cool world view, simply because she has never met a person in the military, and doesn't want to in the slightest.
