Lowering the bar doesn’t lift women up



For years, Americans have been told a comforting lie: Anyone can do anything, be anything, and succeed at anything, regardless of limits or differences. But ideological fantasies collapse on the battlefield, where physics, endurance, and human limits matter more than slogans.

After years of social experimentation, the military is rediscovering a basic truth: Equality of opportunity makes the force stronger, while equality of outcome weakens it. The return to gender-neutral standards announced last month by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth marks a long-overdue step toward restoring merit, discipline, and respect across the ranks.

Pretending that men and women have identical physical capabilities doesn’t empower women; it endangers them.

For most of our history, the armed forces held one clear principle: Anyone, male or female, could serve in any position if they met the same standard. The promise was simple and fair — the uniform didn’t care about sex or gender, only performance.

That began to change in 2015, when the Army opened all-male combat units to women. At the time, the Pentagon promised no dilution of standards. But in 2018, when the new gender-neutral Army Combat Fitness Test was introduced, 84% of female soldiers failed. Instead of maintaining expectations, the Army rewrote them.

By 2022, the ACFT 4.0 came with gender-based scoring — a quiet admission that standards had become negotiable. The result: Combat units staffed with soldiers unable to meet the physical requirements of their jobs. That puts missions, morale, and lives at risk.

Worse, it undermines respect for women who do meet the standard. When the bar moves, doubt replaces trust. Hardworking female soldiers — the ones who earned their places — are forced to prove themselves twice: once in training and again in the eyes of their peers.

Diversity by design, weakness by consequence

In 2021, U.S. Special Operations Command declared that “diversity is an operational imperative.” But this new “imperative” wasn’t about the real diversity already found across the military — people from every background, race, and income level serving side by side. It was about engineering statistical parity, even in elite combat units where performance alone must decide who stays and who goes.

That mindset has consequences. Combat units can’t afford ideological experiments. The job is to close with and destroy the enemy — not to serve as laboratories for social theory. Lowering standards in the name of inclusion doesn’t just weaken readiness; it puts soldiers in unnecessary danger.

And no woman who trains to fight wants pity disguised as progress. The women who seek out elite units don’t ask for special treatment — they ask for the same chance to prove themselves by the same rules. When standards drop, those women lose too.

Strength in truth

Gender-neutral standards don’t discriminate. They recognize that men and women are different and that most people — men included — simply can’t meet the demands of combat. That’s not “oppression.” It’s just reality.

Women who pass those standards have demonstrated extraordinary strength, skill, and resolve. They deserve admiration, not suspicion. And those who don’t — along with the vast majority of men who don’t — can still serve honorably in the hundreds of vital roles that keep America’s military functioning.

RELATED: How America lost its warrior spirit when it feminized its academies

Photo by Kevin Carter

A sex-neutral standard is an act of fairness, not exclusion. It’s a recognition that excellence demands truth, not ideology — that merit, not identity, keeps soldiers alive and wins wars.

Restoring purpose

The military’s duty is national defense, not social engineering. Pretending that men and women have identical physical capabilities doesn’t empower women; it endangers them.

Reaffirming one standard for all isn’t an attack on women — it’s a defense of every soldier’s dignity. It calls each person to rise to the challenge, to serve according to one’s God-given abilities, and to be judged by results.

If we want a stronger force — and a stronger nation — we must stop confusing fairness with fantasy. Let’s demand standards worthy of the uniform, and let every soldier, male or female, earn respect the same way: by meeting them.

Franklin & Marshall College said it was looking for a new 'gender-neutral' mascot — and got absolutely torched



Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, is looking for a new mascot.

The private school's Mascot Working Group page in September read that "our goal is to give it a form that is fun, gender-neutral, and full of personality ..."

'In a time where we are surrounded by so much racism and sexism, it makes sense why we would want a break from old white guys from the 18th century.'

The headline of a WHP-TV story published last week said as much: "Franklin & Marshall College embarks on search for gender-neutral mascot."

As you might expect, Facebook users who commented on the WHP story — as well as the accompanying question, "What do you think Franklin & Marshall College's new mascot should be?" — blasted the school's woke criteria. To wit:

  • "The Franklin and Marshall Snowflakes has a nice ring to it," one commenter opined.
  • "How about a sheep," another user offered.
  • "That’s the least of their problems," another commenter said. "Maybe The Cucks or The Laughables?"
  • Good grief!!!!!!!" another user exclaimed.
  • "A worm?" another commenter suggested.
  • "Please explain why?" another user wondered. "This is what’s wrong with everything. What are they trying to prove by doing this?"

RELATED: 'Inseminated person': Wisconsin Gov. Evers tries to erase mothers with gender-neutral language overhaul

Photo by John Greim/LightRocket via Getty Images

As it happens, as of Tuesday the "gender-neutral" reference was no longer on F&M's Mascot Working Group page.

Blaze News on Tuesday reached out to Franklin & Marshall College to inquire why "gender-neutral" was gone from the Mascot Working Group page, as well as why folks costumed as founding father Benjamin Franklin and U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall — the school's namesakes — no longer are appropriate or suitable mascots.

Franklin & Marshall sent the following reply to Blaze News on Tuesday afternoon:

Franklin & Marshall College regrets any misunderstanding or mischaracterization regarding criteria guidelines for mascot idea submissions, which has since been clarified on our website. The guidance shared with the F&M community, then and now, encourages mascot recommendations that take the form of creatures, animals, and figures, which is very typical of mascots for universities and sports teams.

The college’s prior mascots, “Ben” and “John,” were retired several years ago. A student-led initiative to develop a dynamic new mascot began during the 2024-25 academic year. At the same time, other campus constituents collectively expressed a desire for a new mascot that would bring renewed energy and enthusiasm to campus and athletic events.

Our intention has always been to identify a mascot that reflects the public leadership and spirit of Ben Franklin and John Marshall as our namesakes and to be inspired by our mascot, the Diplomat. The decision to create a new physical form for the mascot is an opportunity to represent our community spirit in a way that will champion F&M on campus, on the athletic field, and beyond.

Others at Franklin & Marshall have expressed rather pointed opinions about the "Ben" and "John" mascots.

Take an op-ed from F&M's student newspaper penned by one of its editors just a year ago titled, "Ben and John, It’s Time to Say Goodbye." In it, the author refers to the Ben Franklin and John Marshall mascots as "cartoonish, old white guys" who look "a little creepy."

The author also acknowledges that after three years she's never actually seen the "Ben and John [mascots] in the flesh. Why? It turns out, these mascots are taking some time off and have not been spotted in years. Rumor has it they might be replaced, too."

The op-ed also states:

In a time where we are surrounded by so much racism and sexism, it makes sense why we would want a break from old white guys from the 18th century. John Marshall was racist and fought to keep slavery in the United States, and while Benjamin Franklin was well known for being an abolitionist, he once owned slaves and held racist views, too. As more people become aware of their racist histories, now seems like the right time for a mascot change. Franklin and Marshall founded our college, but our wonderful community can be represented by so much more than just their names. We are Diplomats, after all, and you don’t have to be the ghost of a white man to be a diplomat.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'Inseminated person': Wisconsin Gov. Evers tries to erase mothers with gender-neutral language overhaul



Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers (D) backed a budget recommendation that would have replaced the word "mother" with "inseminated person."

On Tuesday, the state Senate's Joint Committee on Finance introduced a bill that contained Evers' budget recommendations for the 2025 through 2027 fiscal period.

'This is beyond parody.'

It directed a gender-neutral overhaul of several terms, including changing "wife" and "husband" to "spouse," "father" to "parent," and "mother" to "inseminated person" or "parent who gave birth to the child."

The changes were introduced on page 1,766 of a more than 1,900-page bill.

Elon Musk called Evers' proposed law "messed up."

Former competitive swimmer Riley Gaines stated that the language changes were "ridiculously offensive" to women.

WISN-TV radio host Dan O'Donnell responded, "This is beyond parody."

The Republican Governors Association's executive director, Sara Craig, issued a statement replying to Evers' proposal.

"Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers' latest left-wing push isn't just out of touch, it's offensive to mothers. Being a mother is the greatest privilege I will have in my lifetime, and every mother I know feels the same. If Tony Evers can reduce motherhood to an 'inseminated person,' then our society is lost," Craig stated.

Scarlett Johnson, a Wisconsin Moms for Liberty Activist, accused the governor of attempting to "erase mothers."

Fox News Digital reported that Evers did not mention the language changes when introducing the bill. Instead, he touted other aspects of the budget, including the elimination of tax on tips and a freeze on property tax increases.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order, "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government," on his first day in office "to recognize two sexes, male and female." It noted that the two sexes are "not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality."

Evers' office did not respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

MSNBC May Be Canceling Joy Reid, But Leftists Just Can’t Quit Crazy

Reid’s exit follows years of cringe-packed rants and reports of ever-declining ratings.

Massachusetts Bill Would Eliminate ‘Mother’ And ‘Father’ From Birth Certificates

Bill H.4750, described as "An Act to ensure legal parentage equality," changes language concerning paternity, children born out of wedlock, as well as mothers and fathers.

Sen. Tom Cotton Grills Pentagon Over Using Nonsense Word ‘Themself’ On Military Award Citations

Tom Cotton is demanding answers from Defense Secretary Austin on why the DOD is using so-called 'gender-neutral language' in military awards.

New 'Barbie' movie is TOXIC feminism to a T – 'Ken is just a great accessory'



When Lauren Chen first heard about Warner Bros.’ new “Barbie” movie, she couldn’t hide her excitement. Like many girls who grew up in the '90s, Chen loved playing with Barbie dolls as a child.

That excitement only escalated when she discovered that Amy Schumer, who was originally rumored to play Barbie, dropped out of the film because it wasn’t “feminist” enough for her taste.

“Amy Schumer thinking a movie is not feminist enough … is a seal of approval,” Chen says.

However, her enthusiasm quickly dissipated when comedian Kate McKinnon, who also plays in the movie, said that “Barbie” is “about how gender roles deny people half their humanity.”

“Red flags everywhere,” Chen responds, adding, “Even if you don’t fit into a gender role, trust me, we are open enough as a society where your humanity will not be denied.”

Further, “Why is the discussion of gender roles happening in my Barbie movie?” she scolds. “I just want to see Barbie … wearing different outfits and looking cute, maybe driving around in a pink convertible. Is that too much to ask?”

Unfortunately, humanity-denying gender roles aren't the only woke concept pushed in the movie. Men, or “the Kens,” are portrayed as no more than accessories.

Issa Rae, another actress in the film, is quoted saying, “I think a Ken is just a great accessory. That’s what I loved about Greta’s imagining of Barbie … the Kens are just supplemental characters to these Barbies; while Barbies can do everything, Kens are there to kind of support and don’t necessarily have their own story.”

Reduce men to accessories, thus driving home the idea that gender roles deny humanity? That makes a lot of sense …

“I love it when male characters are just poorly written in two dimensions; that’s just the backbone of a great movie, obviously,” Chen retorts.

But that’s only the beginning of “Barbie’s” wokeism.

“There are actually more warning signs about this movie, more indicators that say ‘you should not go see it,”’ Chen says, unless you want to pay to hear “Hollywood weirdos lecture [you] about their fringe, elitist political views.”

To hear more about how the “Barbie” movie is just another example of Hollywood’s malicious, woke agenda, watch the full clip below.


Want more from Lauren Chen?

To enjoy more of Lauren’s pro-liberty, pro-logic and pro-market commentary on social and political issues, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Why It Matters That I’m A Mother, Not A Generic ‘Parent’ Or ‘Grown-Up’

While activists with a political ax to grind continue their efforts to erase mothers, the nature of a mother’s role is irreplaceable.

Male blood donor, 66, required to state on form if he's pregnant — part of new, woke UK policy. He's turned away from clinic when he refuses to answer.



A 66-year-old man in the United Kingdom who's been donating blood for nearly 50 years was turned away from a clinic last week because he wouldn't answer an apparently new question on a form that asks if the prospective blood donor is pregnant, the Daily Mail reported.

The director of the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service told the outlet that the agency has a "duty to promote inclusiveness — therefore all donors are now asked the same questions."

What are the details?

Leslie Sinclair — who has donated 125 pints of blood in his life — was told he had to answer a part of the form that asks if he's expecting a child or has been pregnant in the past six months, the Daily Mail said, adding that pregnant women must wait six months after giving birth to donate blood.

After he argued that as a man — and as a person age 66 years — the question doesn't apply to him and that he shouldn't have to answer it, Sinclair said clinic staffers replied that they couldn't accept his blood, the outlet said.

With that, Sinclair walked away over the "nonsensical" policy, the Daily Mail reported.

"I am angry because I have been giving blood since I was 18 and have regularly gone along," the father of two from Stirling in central Scotland told the outlet. "I'm very happy to do so without any problem."

Sinclair added the following to the Daily Mail:

There is always a form to fill in and that's fine — they tend to ask about medical conditions or diseases — and clearly that's because the blood needs to be safe. This time around, there was a question I hadn't seen before: "Are you pregnant, or have you been in the last six months?" which required a yes or no answer. I pointed out to the staff that it was impossible for me to be in that position, but I was told that I would need to answer, otherwise I couldn't give blood. I told them that was stupid, and that if I had to leave, I wouldn't be back, and that was it. I got on my bike and cycled away. It is nonsensical, and it makes me angry because there are vulnerable people waiting for blood, including children, and in desperate need of help. But they've been denied my blood because of the obligation to answer a question that can't possibly be answered.

Sinclair added to the outlet that his wife, Margaret, 59, also was appalled: "She just can't understand it, either."

What did a health official have to say?

Professor Marc Turner, director of SNBTS, last week told the Daily Mail about the new policy.

"We appreciate the support of each and every one of our donor community and thank Mr. Sinclair for his commitment over a long number of years," Turner told the outlet. "Whilst pregnancy is only a relevant question to those whose biological sex or sex assigned at birth is female, sex assigned at birth is not always visually clear to staff. As a public body we take cognizance of changes in society around how such questions may be asked without discrimination and have a duty to promote inclusiveness — therefore all donors are now asked the same questions."

Anything else?

The National Health Service in England launched a campaign last week to recruit a million more blood donors over the next five years due to falling numbers during the pandemic, the outlet said, adding that the SNBTS began a drive earlier in June to find 16,000 new donors in the coming year.