Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Political correctness is putting the president in danger

Political correctness is putting the president in danger:

  • The recent scaling of the White House fence and penetration of the White House itself laid bare the PC nonsense of gender-based physical standards
  • Diana Furchtgott-Roth says such standards have endangered Presidents and are discriminatory towards men
  • Tough jobs are tough jobs but lesser physical standards for women actually put them in greater danger 
The Obama administration’s – and Democrats’ – uber-liberalism is becoming a major liability for their anointed president, as evidenced recently by the scaling of the White House fence by one Omar Gonzalez. When he burst through the front door of the president’s residence, there was a female Secret Service agent standing guard, but she was unable to tackle him. Stating the problem quite plainly, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of Economics 21, said, “[W]hen it comes to matters of security, President Obama and the public deserve the best. That means political correctness – appointing less-qualified women for the sake of diversity – should take a back seat to ability.”

She’s right, of course. All presidents – regardless of their political ideology – must be the best-protected public servant on the planet.

“Feminists like to pretend that men and women are the same. But when it comes to tackling an intruder racing through the White House with a knife, men have biological characteristics that make them more suited for the job,” she wrote in a recent column.

She goes onto point out a fact that most Americans are not aware of: That for the Secret Service, as well as the U.S. military, most public service jobs in Fire, Police and EMS, and other professions, physical standards are different for men and women.

“Standards should be truly gender-neutral, focusing on the needs of the job, without dumbing down physical standards,” she writes.

But they aren’t. For the basic screening physical exam for the Secret Service, the test is gender neutral; the Applicant Physical Abilities Test consists of push-ups, sit-ups a short distance agility run and a 1.5-mile run. But the Secret Service Physical Fitness Evaluation is more challenging – in some respects. These are quarterly physical tests for Secret Service officers who carry weapons, like those assigned to guard the White House complex and the president. And this test has different standards for men and women, as Furchtgott-Roth notes:

To attain a “good” score in the 30 to 39 age group, men have to perform 41 to 49 push-ups in 60 seconds, and women have to perform 25 to 29. Men must do eight or nine chin-ups, and women have to do three. Men have to complete 39 to 42 sit-ups, and women have to do 29 to 34. Men have up to 12 minutes and 20 seconds to do a 1.5-mile run, and women have over 15 minutes.
“If women cannot meet men’s standards, they should be employed in other positions,” writes Furchtgott-Roth.

Put another way, a 30-year-old woman who runs a mile-and-a-half in 13 minutes, 42 seconds would be rated “excellent” by Secret Service evaluation standards. A man the same age running the same time, however, would be rated as “poor.” Also, woman are being admitted into the service with the same physical characteristics as men who are summarily declined. It is, in every sense, reverse discrimination against men.

The same is true for the Marine Corps, Navy, the Air Force and the Army.

“Although our military needs to be operating at maximum efficiency to deal with global terrorist threats, our services are working to place more women in combat roles, rather than fewer,” she writes.

California Democrat Loretta Sanchez, a leading proponent of women on the front lines, has said, “At the end of the day, the only question that matters is whether a man or a woman can meet the gender-neutral standards.” But you can’t know that because the standards are not gender neutral.

A non-gender-neutral set of standards are certainly political correctness run amok. And they might make some women feel better about themselves (such standards certainly make liberals feel better). But these disparities are not only a disservice to women, they are an insult to common sense. Tough jobs don’t get any easier just because a woman is doing them, yet lowering female standards can give women a false sense of security and accomplishment. And it could lead to, Heaven forbid, harm to a president.

“Differing standards were instituted to result in more women in the forces, not to lead to a more capable force,” Furchtgott-Roth says. “By definition, they are leading to a less-capable, but more politically correct, force, with men being turned away for standards that are acceptable for women. The same standards should apply to all. After all, don’t feminists say that men and women are equal?”

Do you think there should be equal physical standards for men and women doing the same job? Or are you okay with lowering the physical standards for women who are competing with men for the same positions? TELL us!

The post Political correctness is putting the president in danger appeared first on Absolute Rights.