You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
205

[–] weezkitty 0 points 205 points (+205|-0) ago 

Equality should mean equal standards. Even if it cuts out a lot of the potential women

0
124

[–] zquad 0 points 124 points (+124|-0) ago 

Not today apparently, today equality = equal outcomes

0
43

[–] freedumbz 0 points 43 points (+43|-0) ago 

The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.

Aristotle

0
14

[–] weezkitty 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

Equal outcome doesn't work in the real world. It just lowers overall quality

0
3

[–] kyprioth 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

The only thing I can see it where it should shoot for more equal outcomes is where there isn't equal opportunity in the first place. Schools. Maybe work. Although society is definitely overdoing it atm. It's focusing too much on race and gender and not enough on the actual things causing things.

0
0

[–] Apaster 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

equal inputs should = equal outputs. Equality should mean equality of opportunity.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 45 points (+45|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] tomlinas 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Read the study, the majority of the women did get cut. And they took a while ton of men with them due to romantic and gender based drama (one platoon lost a whole squad). As a Victor unit combat vet I am zero percent surprised...

The two that hung on are tough women to be sure.

1
2

[–] Prostar 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

It's not about "women sucking ass", it's about a smaller percentage of women can make the cut. Some argue that the cutoff should be about the same percentile in the distributions of men/women, but the mean is not the same. If you make the cutoff an absolute value, you are by definition excluding more of the female population.

0
1

[–] MamaFrankie 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I agree. A soldier should be defined by a great number of things, one being physical and martial prowess. If the bar is set, anyone who can get over it, regardless of gender, should be able to be a soldier. That's what equality would mean to me in this, as opposed to lowering the bar of what defines a soldier's physical prowess.

0
1

[–] PM_ME_YOUR_ESSENCE 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

This was obvious to me, 20 years ago, when my sister was a marine, and she was complaining about the unequal opportunities, and sexism in the service. Those are real things that needed to be knocked down. But the bottom line is the argument that women can't perform as well as men, on average - - - physically. (my sister was not in a combat role anyway). The counterargument is that there indeed exist women who can compete on par with men, physically. So why not allow THEM to have combat roles? Why not make the physical standards based on actual performance, and set those standards equal to genders, and allow the capable individuals of either gender be combat marines? I could not distinguish any sexism in this argument, yet, here we are, 20 years later, and this obvious argument is not considered, as we STILL have unequal physical standards.