this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2026
217 points (98.2% liked)

politics

31155 readers
1671 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
217
Hegseth's toughened 'standards' meant to thin women's ranks backfire on him: report (www.rawstory.com)
submitted 3 days ago by velma@sh.itjust.works to c/politics@lemmy.world
56 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Last year, Hegseth introduced new sex-neutral fitness standards that sought to eliminate sex-based grading for combat soldiers on the military's physical fitness exam. That exam includes a 3-mile run, push-ups or pull-ups, and an abdominal plank. When the standards were announced, some analysts worried it could lead to fewer women enlisting.

But a new report from The War Horse, a nonprofit newsroom, suggests that Hegseth's new standards were not making the military more masculine, as he seemed to hope. The report found that 90% of female Marines in combat roles who took the fitness test passed or exceeded expectations.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nouvellalia@lemmy.world 120 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

Because the women applying know they will be held to a much higher standard than the men, as always. So they are prepared.

Bonus points to: knowing that they will have to fight off their fellow, extra rapey, enlisted counterparts.

Edit: before I get the colic boys giving wojak tears

On average, during the war in Afghanistan, 24% of active duty women and 1.9% of active duty men experienced sexual assault

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2024/08/19/military-sexual-assault-rate-higher-than-dod-estimates-report-finds/

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

This is why in any field I tend to have more confidence in anyone that goes against the stereotype, because it is more likely they really wanted to do it and likely worked harder to get there.

If someone likely were told every five minutes "you should be a doctor" becomes a doctor they are potentially there just because they are "supposed to". If conversely they get told they should consider a different career every step of the way and still gets to be a doctor, now that person had some drive.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 59 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You're exactly right:

Women in the Army Are More Likely to Be Killed by Fellow Soldiers Than Enemy Combatants

A first-of-its-kind analysis by The Intercept found that in the Army, women are more likely to be killed by their fellow service members than by enemy combatants, in a reversal of the threat soldiers are trained to face. Between 2011 and August 2025, at least 41 women died by homicide in the Army — more than half of them at the hands of other service members or veterans. Using Defense Department manpower data to calculate per capita death rates, The Intercept found that active-duty Army women face a higher risk of homicide than male soldiers, the opposite of national and global trends.

In many cases, women in the Army are killed by current or former romantic partners. Over 70 percent of victims had an intimate relationship with the perpetrator at one point, and the rate of homicides among women soldiers from intimate partner violence is at least three times higher than the national average.

[–] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 days ago

I do wonder how that compares to the DV rates for Law Enforcement. I would tend to assume it's a bit worse among LEOs actually. Armed forces tend to draw from a slightly wider pool, with the more... enthusiastic ending up in law enforcement after discharge.

[–] PlantJam@lemmy.world 18 points 3 days ago (1 children)

24% seems low. The Invisible War goes into some horrific details about this issue.

[–] Nouvellalia@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I'm certain it is. The military self-selects for a specific type of person.