I guess my big problem with AA and diversity policies, is it often lowers the bar in many areas. Instead of encouraging various ethnicities and peoples to improve themselves and their conditions, we instead lower standards and wave requirements just so they can have 'more equal' proportions of 'success'. When success is redefined by race, I find that racist. When 'requirements' are altered by gender, I find that sexist.
When I was in the Army, I spent 6 years in all-male units; then I was posted to my first co-ed unit. The first thing that got my attention (aside from the one cute girl in PT) was that their physical training standards were lower than ours, but their job requirements were the same. SO while it was OK to say that any soldier wanting to be a mechanic, for example, had to lift a certain amount of weight, the army also saw it as OK to say that women required less strength training than men, and had lower standards to 'pass the test' than men did. Now, I accept that men and women have fundamental physiological differences, but if the job requires lifting 200 lbs, why shouldn't the PT standards also require the same pushups for both genders?
The next thing was when we went to the field. Our usual policy was, once in the field, you stayed. One day, one month, it was all the same - you can't 'take a break' from war, after all. But the females were shipped back every other day for showers, rest, etc. Clearly sexist. Now, I understand certain hygeine problems exist for women - but equal treatment should still be equal treatment - we should have ALL been brought back.
Then there was the barracks situation. Now, I will agree that some segregation of male and female is necessary - and having a guard posted near the female barracks also makes a small amount of sense. But the female barracks were soon decorated (with company funds), their showers had curtains (ours did not), they received extra washers and dryers of their own (OK, I can see why, but still!)...
Whether it makes sense or not due to natural inequalities for women, shouldn't the same luxuries have been applied across the board, in the interest of equality and non-sexism?
Sadly, this form of dichotomy will probably continue for a very, VERY long time.
Recently, a black fella was trying to explain to me why colleges should drop entrance requirements for minorities. He explained that kids raised in black neighborhoods were often abused for achieving in school, and therefore, should be allowed free entrance to colleges, understanding that their culture denies them basic education. Does this make sense to anyone else? It made no sense to me.
