The British Army tests the physical ability of its soldiers differently depending on soldier’s sex. This is both arbitrary and dangerous. It certainly goes against any feminist view that men and women ought to be treated equally.
The reason for this discrimination is the clear difference between physical ability and the capacity to improve this ability of an average man and average woman. It is thought that physical tests may be made fairer by setting the standard to be achieved by women lower than the standard to be achieved by men. This seemingly creates relatively the same difficulty level. This method tests for relatively the same level of effort from the test subjects at the expense of testing absolute physical ability. For example it is thought that if an average woman can run slower than an average man she has to put in more effort than the man to achieve the man’s ability to run. But if the required standard for the woman is lowered by the difference between average man and average woman, the female test subject will be tested for the same amount of effort. The woman no longer has to achieve same absolute level of fitness, but only a relative level of fitness.
This is entirely arbitrary. There are women who are taller than certain men. This gives a certain advantage to the taller women in relative tests. The taller women need to show less effort than the shorter man to pass the tests. But the tests look for a certain level of effort as explained earlier. This implies that one should take the height of test subjects into account and also discriminate by height. However this creates problems. All individuals are different in most aspects. To truly create a fair test that tests the effort of an individual one must create a different test specifically tailored for everyone. This is impossible. It is entirely impractical. The main reason however is that effort is not really quantifiable and thus subjective rather than objective. One cannot measure the absolute level of effort or the relative effort in relation to other test subjects. Thus it seems that to try to test effort will always remain arbitrary, a matter of an opinion not based on any fact. This is not fair to all involved because in the pursuit of trying to test everyone to the same standard of effort all end up being tested to different, somewhat random, standards. The only way to test objectively is to hold everyone to the same easily measurable standard and thus test everyone in the same test with the same requirements for passing the test. This of course will test the absolute level of fitness not the effort someone puts into their fitness training or the effort put in on the day of the tests. But this is better.
The nature of the job of a soldier stays the same irrespective of the sex. All rifles, grenades and ammunition weigh the same. When a female soldier picks up a rifle that rifle does not readjust its mass accordingly. The nature of war dictates that absolutes like the absolute ability to carry a weight or run or fight determines the winner or loser. By testing sexes differently the British Army denies this nature. Different pass criteria in physical tests seem to imply that the enemy will fight female soldiers differently from men. This is self evidently not true.
I do recognise that in certain situations a female soldier is required. An example of this may be to help another female rape victim, who clearly will be feeling particularly uncomfortable around male soldiers. Another example is that in certain cultures women were brought up not to interact with males and thus will be only willing to communicate with female soldiers. My argument does not concern these responsibilities however. I am only talking about pure combat troops.
To really be fair and not arbitrary the British Army should have equal test for everyone. This will also help to test for the absolute readiness of a soldier to fight. An enemy soldier will try his best to kill British soldiers all the same irrespective of sex of that British soldier. The army should not think in terms of women or men. It ought to think in terms of soldiers. If that soldier passes the single absolute physical test the soldier is fit for duty, if not than soldier is not fit for duty. Of course this will result is less women passing physical tests and thus having less women on the battlefield fighting. But this is irrelevant, whoever can do the fighting better should do the fighting. This may be a woman or a man if she or achieved certain levels of ability.
The reason for this discrimination is the clear difference between physical ability and the capacity to improve this ability of an average man and average woman. It is thought that physical tests may be made fairer by setting the standard to be achieved by women lower than the standard to be achieved by men. This seemingly creates relatively the same difficulty level. This method tests for relatively the same level of effort from the test subjects at the expense of testing absolute physical ability. For example it is thought that if an average woman can run slower than an average man she has to put in more effort than the man to achieve the man’s ability to run. But if the required standard for the woman is lowered by the difference between average man and average woman, the female test subject will be tested for the same amount of effort. The woman no longer has to achieve same absolute level of fitness, but only a relative level of fitness.
This is entirely arbitrary. There are women who are taller than certain men. This gives a certain advantage to the taller women in relative tests. The taller women need to show less effort than the shorter man to pass the tests. But the tests look for a certain level of effort as explained earlier. This implies that one should take the height of test subjects into account and also discriminate by height. However this creates problems. All individuals are different in most aspects. To truly create a fair test that tests the effort of an individual one must create a different test specifically tailored for everyone. This is impossible. It is entirely impractical. The main reason however is that effort is not really quantifiable and thus subjective rather than objective. One cannot measure the absolute level of effort or the relative effort in relation to other test subjects. Thus it seems that to try to test effort will always remain arbitrary, a matter of an opinion not based on any fact. This is not fair to all involved because in the pursuit of trying to test everyone to the same standard of effort all end up being tested to different, somewhat random, standards. The only way to test objectively is to hold everyone to the same easily measurable standard and thus test everyone in the same test with the same requirements for passing the test. This of course will test the absolute level of fitness not the effort someone puts into their fitness training or the effort put in on the day of the tests. But this is better.
The nature of the job of a soldier stays the same irrespective of the sex. All rifles, grenades and ammunition weigh the same. When a female soldier picks up a rifle that rifle does not readjust its mass accordingly. The nature of war dictates that absolutes like the absolute ability to carry a weight or run or fight determines the winner or loser. By testing sexes differently the British Army denies this nature. Different pass criteria in physical tests seem to imply that the enemy will fight female soldiers differently from men. This is self evidently not true.
I do recognise that in certain situations a female soldier is required. An example of this may be to help another female rape victim, who clearly will be feeling particularly uncomfortable around male soldiers. Another example is that in certain cultures women were brought up not to interact with males and thus will be only willing to communicate with female soldiers. My argument does not concern these responsibilities however. I am only talking about pure combat troops.
To really be fair and not arbitrary the British Army should have equal test for everyone. This will also help to test for the absolute readiness of a soldier to fight. An enemy soldier will try his best to kill British soldiers all the same irrespective of sex of that British soldier. The army should not think in terms of women or men. It ought to think in terms of soldiers. If that soldier passes the single absolute physical test the soldier is fit for duty, if not than soldier is not fit for duty. Of course this will result is less women passing physical tests and thus having less women on the battlefield fighting. But this is irrelevant, whoever can do the fighting better should do the fighting. This may be a woman or a man if she or achieved certain levels of ability.
1 comment:
Very insightful, and absolutely true. Accommodations such as this inhibit the free market system as well. Consider equal opportunity employment. If I am a business owner I want the best PERSON for the job. I don't care about anything except their ability to do what I require of them. Since it is s free market, if what I think is important really isn't then the person or my enterprise will fail. Such as if I hire my brother who sucks at doing what I hired him for, then I will raise my cost of business.
Post a Comment