Women who served in the US military are pushing back against Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth’s announcement that the requirements for combat roles will “return to the highest male standard”, saying the standards have always been the same for men and women.
“None of us have ever asked for special treatment,” Elisa Cardnell, who served in the US Navy for eleven years, told the BBC.
Speaking to hundreds of generals on Tuesday, Hegseth reiterated his beliefs that the military had lowered standards to accommodate women and put service members at risk. His new directives would bring them back to a higher level, he said.
“If it means no women qualify for combat jobs, then so be it,” he said.
The only difference is in respect to biological limitations of women. For example, very few women almost none will ever be able to do a pull-up. So having a pull up quota to pass the PT will disbar nearly all women and drive up the cost of recruiting enough soldiers significantly. It’s not necessary in any type of way. There are certain roles women aren’t suited for. Ones that require physical strength. Everything else they are perfectly suited for, many tasks they are more suited for. Roles which require understanding people, adjudicating power, anything aesthetic, jobs which require a higher average intelligence but not unusually high intelligence. Right now I think women make up nearly 20% of the U.S military. Pete’s effective ban on women will drive up the cost of soldiers by some amount, I would assume by a similar amount to women being disbarred, leading to a situation in which all soldiers will have to be paid more in order to compensate or using conscription which will greatly lower the effectiveness of the army to the extent that you will likely need 2-3 times the soldiers at a discount to get the same combat effectiveness, and will destroy the officer culture of the military, by making the U.S more like Russia. A military which is highly corrupt and political and staffed by career bureaucrats.