Because the test is apparently too hard for most women in the military, the Army has decided to create two unequal versions – a harder one for men and an easier one for women – in order to produce equal outcomes that favor women over men.
You might call it “wokeness” on steroids because the scheme involves creating a system of unequal opportunity in order to bring about an equal end result. Just like how affirmative action benefits black people over white people, the Army’s new ACFT 3.0 will benefit women over men by giving women an unfair advantage.
While both men and women in the military will still take the same supposedly “gender-neutral” physical fitness test, the results will be evaluated separately from one another with men’s scores going into one set of percentile tiers and women’s scores going into the other. This will ensure that more women are promoted to the military’s upper ranks at the expense of men.
According to Gen. Lonnie Hibbard, the Commanding General for the U.S. Army Center for Initial Military Training, this new format “establishes an evaluation system with gender-informed performance categories that may be used now to tier the soldier’s points or score according to their gender.”
The Army plans to implement the new ACFT 3.0 format on April 1, 2022.
Should the military’s budget be cut?
For the first time perhaps ever, military-loving conservatives are so taken aback by the continued politicization of the U.S. armed forces that some of them are now calling on the military’s budget to be slashed.
If male soldiers are going to be unfairly disadvantaged and forced to the back of the line to cater to female soldiers, then perhaps the military should start holding feminist fundraisers to fund its operations. Why should the American taxpayer have to fund this type of insanity?
Women who are unable to perform at the same level as men on the ACFT do not deserve to be promoted simply because of their gender. And yet this is what will happen under these new rules, as a more qualified male soldier would be passed up for a promotion in favor of a less qualified female soldier.
We would expect this kind of sexist policy in corporate America, academia and politics, but — up until now — not the military. The armed forces were the one sector where equal opportunity, rather than equal outcome, was cherished as the standard to which everyone strove. That standard is no more, apparently.
The Army is attempting to spin these changes as still being “fair.” According to Hibbard, it “doesn’t matter if it’s Sgt. John Doe or Sgt. Jane Doe – if they score in the gold category, we know that they’re in the top 10 percent of their gender as we move forward.”
“And then these performance categories may be used to drive promotion points, like for an E4 to E5 promotion, may be used on an evaluation and [order of merit lists] as necessary.”
Hibbard’s use of the words “of their gender” is key here because it illustrates that the qualifications are different for women than they are for men. Even if a male soldier receives a higher score than a female soldier, he could still be rejected for a promotion if the female soldier ranks at a higher percentile in her gender category than he does in his gender category.
More related news about gender-regimented double standards throughout society that favor one demographic over another can be found at PoliticalCorrectness.news.
Sources for this article include: