The US Military has announced it will lower women’s pay, but will keep men’s pay at the same levels.
Anita Broad of the National Organization of Woman commented, “That’s fair. The Military requires women to do much less than men. And we believe is equal pay for equal work.”
Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson said, “How will the military know how to identify which soldiers are women? They are not biologists.”
I’m kidding. Sort of. For what the famed woke US Military will do is—wait for it—lower standards for women, those delicate creatures. But they won’t lower their pay.
So the women will do unequal work, less work, but still be paid the same as men. Because this is what Equality demands.
For, as we remember, Equality does not mean equal outcomes, but superior outcomes for chosen Victims.
Anyway, it is true. Women, who are not the equal of men, will be treated differently. They will be allowed to do less work. Less will be required of them militarily. Which is right and proper.
And which is not sarcasm on my part. Women should be treated differently because they are women. They cannot perform physical, let along combat, functions nearly as well as men. They should therefore be kept out of the military, far away from these dangers.
They won’t be, though. They’ll still be allowed in the military, and they’ll be allowed to do less than men, and will still be given the same numbers of promotions and other benefits. Because Equality demands superior representation.
Representation is why Equality always and necessarily leads to a reduction in standards. As I have been telling you for decades. And as we predicted for the military specifically, many times. Thus, as predicted, the military grows worse, and will continue to decline. As will any organization that seeks to DIE.
The details in the report (linked above) are of interest, and deeply revealing.
The decision follows a RAND-led study that found men were more easily passing the new, more difficult Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) compared to women and older soldiers, who were “failing at noticeably higher rates.” That six-event test developed in 2019 was an expansion from the three events — pushups, situps and a run — soldiers had done prior.
“This test is an essential part of maintaining the readiness of the Army as we transform into the Army of 2030,” Army Secretary Christine Wormuth said in a statement announcing the changes. “The revisions to the ACFT are based on data and analysis, including an independent assessment required by Congress. We will continue to assess our implementation of the test to ensure it is fair and achieves our goal of strengthening the Army’s fitness culture.”
There’s the Jacksonian “I’m not a biologist” right there. The idiot scientism, I mean. There isn’t a non-NPR listener alive anywhere that did not already know that women cannot compete with men in physical combat-like activities. It is as well known as the sun rising in the east.
Strike that: it is better known, because theories of which astronomical object revolves around the other have changed. Knowing the difference between men and women has never changed. Except in our time. But only for “highly educated” and credentialed people. Most of whom are lying.
To say sex differences, which all know, have to “proved” is the Redditification of culture. It is scientism of the first kind. It is a mark of deep stupidity masking as superior intellect. It is also RAND cashing in.
Next is Christine Wormuth, the Army Secretary. She is female, which she probably knows, and maybe even admits, even though she is not a biologist. She has reached a position over which she has no experience or intelligence, likely, in part, because she is a woman. According to Wikipedia, “Wormuth entered government service as a presidential management intern in 1995. She spent the next six and half years as a civil servant in the Defense Department. Later, she worked as a government consultant and then a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.”
She never explains how the readiness of the Army is improved by letting women slide. But she does assert it.
She also says the reduced standards for women are “fair“, and that the reduced standards “achieves our goal of strengthening the Army’s fitness culture.”
Not fitness. Fitness culture. Which isn’t fitness, but sounds pleasantly like it.
Regular readers will also recall that after standards are lowered, which eqaulitarians first promise will never happen, the standards are then pronounced by those equalitarians as superfluous. This happened here, too. RAND said physical fitness was discovered not to be correlated with “job performance.” Which, for statements, is a special kind of academic-stupid.
Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here; Or go to PayPal directly. For Zelle, use my email.
Fats, women, homos: ARMY STRONG
Douglas Adams said something similar
Military shouldn’t even get paid. Its a VOLUNTEER army. Their payment is they get to play out the power fantasies by killing Arabs in the middle east. Why do they need money?
I comment merely to point out that all this nonsense is premised upon “equity,” not “equality.” Equality requires some amount of objective quantification; “equity” merely requires that whatever white males earn, blacks and females must be given (not “earn”) just as much, regardless of the job performed or service rendered. This is supposedly designed to reparate for all the unearned privilege enjoyed by the white male soldier while bleeding and dying in all our armed conflicts throughout history, which female and black soldiers were unfairly precluded from doing in bygone days. That’s fair, right? Right?
Briggs,
A moment, please:
“There isn’t a non-NPR listener…”!
My day begins with a dose of humor, NPR-administered aurally, via the bed-side radio. What, por favor, am I missing?
The solution is easy.
All male servicemen should self-identify as women.
Problem solved.
I happen to listen to a few military analysts , which I believe are not of the “expert” variety you see on CNN (some of them are russian – foul play , I know) and basically what all are saying is, that if the US wants to win the war against Russia, which as of now is led by proxy, then the only option is to roll a dice and go nuclear. Everything else is a losing proposition, because USA plus its NATO vasalls are far behind in almost every regard.
This is a disintegration phase akin to the roman empire in the late 4th to the early 5th century
There’s no reason why women can’t function in the military in their traditional (at least since WWII) role–mainly clerical positions out of harm’s way. They could also fill maintenance and janitorial jobs. Anything that doesn’t require the superior physical strength that most men have and most women do not. This frees men to go and fulfill their traditional role–getting injured, psychologically traumatized, and killed on the battlefield, in planes, and on ships. For this, men should receive higher pay.
Thank you, Matt! A return to God’s set-up for men and for women, would be the best all around.
God bless, C-Marie
Women in the military are as apt for that job and here as successful at it as female fire (watchers) fighters:
For most women, it was impossible to pass the physical test, which included timed exercises of hanging from a pole, climbing stairs carrying a 60-pound coiled hose and pulling a 150-pound dummy (No, the dummy was not Brandon) across a room without its feet touching the floor. …
None of this make any difference because conservatives are aching to have women in the military just as much as any other political lunatic
But, what if a woman could past the test?
Who cares, let that woman play tennis like Serena Williams
“RAND said physical fitness was discovered not to be correlated with “job performance.” Which, for statements, is a special kind of academic-stupid.”
This probably true. The vast majority of work done by members of the military on a day-to-day basis is simply administration, paper-pushing and tedious daily maintenance. At any given time only a very small portion of the armed forces — a part that is overwhelmingly young, fit, White and male — is engaged in the actual fundamental business of the military: making war or undergoing training exercises for making war.
So, statistically, yes, fitness probably had little correlation to job performance. The question is, why are all those POGs considered soldiers, sailers, marines or airmen?
John T: “What, por favor, am I missing?”
If you have to have it explained to you…
Women in the military are as apt for that job and here as successful at it as female fire (watchers) fighters:
“in the military” does this mean in combat roles? Who treats the injured? Who feeds them? Who works behind the bar? Who organises the social calendar?
The physical fitness requirements for army basic grade and the RAF is
Not beyond most fairly fit individuals with minimal training. I’m fairly sure that the standards vary little between the US and the UK.
Where the level deviates is in the fitness for infantry soldiers, or certain military personnel required to carry out long haul survival type operations and the like. REAL soldiers and special forces.
Fitness for airforce is far lower than Army obviously, and similarly for the Navy.
I worked for the military as a contractor. I was successful, contracts were extended and repeated requests for my availability were made. Jobs within the military vary greatly. Just as in civilian life. So it’s really just the combat roles where physical fitness (strength, in fact) needs to be considered. Almost no women want to be involved in such combat or special forces roles.
Often, the women are naturally sportier and fitter, so don’t have so much to catch up. When it comes to musicians? Different matter. Just in all areas of life, people do as little as they can get away with. Unless fitness is their thing.
It’s true of soldiers as well.
There’s less problem with a woman in a military role than in the fire service because of the nature of the work.
Without the majority of the staff propping up the combat operatives, any military force would fall flat.
People seem to like to think that all military personnel are like Royal Marines or SAS, (many of the SAS having missing parts, they’re not only chosen for their fitness).
Joy: “Almost no women want to be involved in such combat or special forces roles.”
This is true, but women are unfortunately being ostentatiously recruited and installed into those roles as well as senior-level roles that place them in decision-making positions over such soldiers.
That’s also true, no woman, in my view, in an army or military combat position should be in the role of ordering hostile action. (Although Margaret Thatcher was able to order military to defend our Falkland Islands), she canot give ‘Micro’ orders (micro-aggressions!) but command always takes control.
Even when Churchill said, “Sink The Bismarck whatever the cost” as they sunk the Hood, Military command still has to ratify or ‘over ride’ such commands at their pleasure.
I wonder why men don’t use the same kind of argument/compliant that women libbers have used ad nauseam:
Men shouldn’t be allowed to stipulate what’s right, instinctively for them. Or reworded as appropriate.
Forgetting the ethical considerations, which usually are trumped by politics or PC arguments, One would think that just as it’s out of order for women how to ‘be’ in other scenarios. ..how to dress, how to act, and so on.
I didn’t do that justice but there’s definitely something more to be explored by men when arguing with women on that score.
Trouble is, they don’t care enough and just want to get on. Like most normal people.
“…just as it’s out of order for men to tell women…”
Pingback: Get Ready For Women Mathematicians To Win Many Awards! – William M. Briggs
Pingback: Why Science Is Broken: Hillsdale Speech Video & Transcript Now Online – William M. Briggs
Pingback: The Rot Behind “The Science” - Fatherly Advice and Rants