I am going to revise some things I thought and said about the Secret Service and the East Room Visitor. There are many who postulated that it would take an intentional screw-up to allow what happened to happen, and it turns out, that with more data points, it was intentional, but not the way you might think. I was stuck the other day about the Secret Service Agent being “knocked off” the East Door by Mr. Gonzalez. What did that mean? How does that happen? Turns out that the reason that it happened was that Mr. Gonzalez was far bigger, stronger and aggressive than the agent in question (who has not been identified as far as I know). It turns out that the agent was a woman agent, and was simply unable to stop him from entering. You can read “knocked off” as “overpowered.”
Now, in general principles, there is nothing wrong or inherently dangerous about a female Secret Service Agent. Clearly in a society that values men and women equally we can have this. And women on submarines, and equal pay for equal work. The problem is, of course, that single word “equal.”
If men and women guarding the White House are fully “equal,” and if they are being paid the same amount for doing the same job, shouldn’t we expect that a female agent have the same skills and abilities as a male agent?
Now the flaw in that argument – for this particular case – is that we do not now if a male agent would have been “knocked off” the door by Mr. Gonzalez or not. But we do know this – the Secret Service, driven by the insane need to pretend that each gender is equal in every way, HAS DIFFERENT PHYSICAL STANDARDS FOR MEN AND WOMEN. In other words, the women agents are not required to be a physically strong as the male agents.
Again, this is fine IF we are assigning people to specific details based on their physical abilities and the threats posed. But we aren’t. Obviously we are (were?) assigning agents based on the mistaken belief that a small female is “equal” to a larger male in the amount of protection offered to the White House.
I realize that it is politically incorrect to say so, but having different physical standards for people doing the same job is politically correct suicide. And don’t think that that the ISIL folks and their ilk didn’t take notice. So it was intentional in the sense that we let our political correctness overrun our common sense and understanding of what is actually needed to provide the security we require.
The second example of political correct bias is the story of the 16 YEAR OLD FOOTBALL PLAYER IN A SEXUAL TRYST WITH TWO HOT FEMALE TEACHERS. Now the unvarnished truth is that most 16 year old boys – including me – would have been bragging about this and would not have considered themselves “abused” in any way, shape or form. But the situation being what it is, the two teachers have been arrested and charged in the matter. But what if it had been two male teachers and a 16 year old girl? Consensual or otherwise, do you see how our opinions on the matter shift? That is proof positive that as much as we talk about gender roles and equality, we do not actually practice it in our minds.