The tests were to accommodate for physical differences between men and women, not to make it easier for women.
And if you are wondering who was pushing this, here...
"Addressing "Gender Equity":
In the past, some advocated for reduced standards for women to ensure they could pass fitness tests and access combat roles, as discussed by The Heritage Foundation. "
From Google AI
Great answer from "Quora" -
"Adam Wu
·
Follow
Lives in Saskatoon, SK8mo
The military is not in the business of being fair. The military is in the business of winning wars.
No one sensible denies that there are physical differences between men and women. Asking female recruits to pass the exact same physical fitness tests is like asking a fish to climb a tree.
And that for the military would be fine, if all wars were fought in forests.
But what if that was not always the case? What if some wars end up being fought in rivers? If so, wouldn’t it help to have a few fish in your ranks rather than rejecting them all because they failed your tree climb test in basic training?
How much physical prowess does it take to operate a drone? Aim a sniper rifle? Fly a jet?
But let us even suppose that this is not the case, that at least among humans fighting human wars, a soldier who passed all the male physical requirements will always be a superior soldier than one who cannot. Let us grant this hypothetically.
So given a choice between a male candidate who can pass all the male requirements and a female who cannot, you’d always choose the male, right?
But what it that was not the choice? What if the choice is between a female candidate, and no one?
Sure an army of 1500 men beats an army of 1000 men and 500 women, all else being equal, but what if you can’t get 1500 men? How does a 1000 man army fare against an army of 1000 men AND 500 women?
By not requiring women to pass the same traditional physical requirements as men, the army expands its available recruit pool. This allows for the creation of a bigger army, with more soldiers.
And therefore, all else being equal, a more effective army. Even if individually every female soldier was a less capable soldier than every male soldier, and there were NO military tasks and roles that women can do just as well or better than men, on average.
So the real question that needs to be asked is whether the traditional physical requirements for men shouldn’t be carefully reviewed to determine if it is really necessary for them to be as demanding as they are, or if all they are actually doing is excluding potentially useful soldiers of all genders.
The fate of the ancient Spartans is instructive here. Their stringent military requirements and harsh training regimens were legendary, and their soldiers became famous for their badassery.
But what happened to them in the end?
Their numbers fell and fell. Their army of 10,000 became an army of 5000, then 3000, then 1000.
And then they got their asses kicked by 50,000 average Thebans."
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-they-say-women-are-just-the-same-as-men-and-equal-to-enter-the-military-but-they-then-give-them-far-easier-physical-fitness-standards-in-nearly-ever-way-Why-dont-they-just-fix-this-issue-by-making-women-go
= new reply since forum marked as read