The Secret Service is lowering its standards to be 30% female.

You have to be pretty stupid to not grasp how this works.

As I pointed out last Sunday, the reason AP photographer Evan Vucci was able to get his Shot of the Century

was because the lady Secret Service agent directly in front of Trump was so much shorter than the candidate that she wasn’t blocking his face from another bullet with her head the way a strapping ex-college jock, like the agent on Trump’s left, would have.

This is not say that the Secret Service should employ no women agents. For example, I would guess than when out at a restaurant, our Vice President prefers, transphobic as it may be, to be accompanied to the lady’s room by a woman agent.

Still, when the bullets start flying, it’s helpful if a nearby Secret Service agent can manhandle the target into the limo, like Jerry Parr did with Ronald Reagan in 1981. Reagan was a big man, maybe 6’1” and 185 pounds, but Parr appears to have been around 6’3” and 200:

Moreover, what percentage of women really want to be a Secret Service bodyguard?

In contrast, as a 9 year old boy, Parr was galvanized by repeatedly watching Reagan star as Brass Bancroft in The Code of the Secret Service. (Reagan called the flick “the worst picture I ever made.")

So by any objective standard, it’s nuts that the current female head of the Secret Service has a goal of 30% women agents. How can this be rationally justified?

It can’t, of course, other than on Right Wing Pounces grounds. From the New York Times news section:

After Trump Assassination Attempt, Right Points Finger at Female Agents

The rush by conservatives to pin blame for the shooting on women in the protective detail reflects a broader opposition among Republicans to diversity efforts in hiring.

By Catie Edmondson

Reporting from Washington

July 16, 2024

In the hours after the attempted assassination of former President Donald J. Trump, a sexist theory explaining how the Secret Service could have allowed such a grave security failure emerged in right-wing circles: It was the fault of incompetent women in his security detail. …

No evidence has surfaced that the response of any female agent in Mr. Trump’s detail — whose members shielded his body with their own after shots were fired — caused or contributed to the security breakdown.

Personally, I would have written: “whose female members shielded his 6’3” body with their own much shorter bodies to the best of their inherent ability.”

But the fixation on the few who surrounded Mr. Trump at Saturday’s rally reflects a larger grievance among some conservatives, who have argued that policies that promote diversity in hiring are inherently unfair and destructive — and, particularly when it comes to organizations like the military and law enforcement — even dangerous.

Diversity is our strength, so it can’t possibly have a single downside. Trust The Science!

Among the suggestions made by those who blamed female Secret Service agents for Saturday’s attack: that they were too short; that the agency lowered its testing standards for them; and that women should not be able to serve in the agency at all. …

Ms. Cheatle has spoken openly about her efforts to recruit more women into the service, in part to help combat recruitment and retention issues.

“I’m very conscious, as I sit in this chair now, of making sure that we need to attract diverse candidates and ensure that we are developing and giving opportunities to everybody in our work force, and particularly women,” Ms. Cheatle said in her first interview after being tapped to lead the agency, with CBS News.

The news report said the agency’s goal was to have women make up 30 percent of recruits by 2030. They currently make up just under a quarter of the Secret Service’s work force, according to its website. …

Kym Craven, the executive director of the National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives, said that discussions around whether women should serve on a protective detail were a diversion from the important security issues raised by the assassination attempt… that conversation just should not be happening at all.”

Ms. Craven said women who serve in law enforcement agencies are held to the same physical agility and fitness standards men must meet.

“There’s not a woman leader that I know of in this profession that’s asking for standards to be lowered or exceptions to be made for women in the field,” she said.

Either there are different physical standards for the sexes or the standards for selection for elite agencies like the Secret Service are too low if close to 30% of agents are women. There aren’t any possible alternatives.

There appear to be two different Secret Service physical fitness tests: the quarterly Secret Service Physical Fitness Evaluation test has highly different norms by sex.

For example, an Excellent score for those under age 30 is at least 55 push-ups in one minute for men and 40 for women. A Good score for men 40-49 demands at least 28 push-ups vs. 12 for women of the same age.

Sit-ups are closer: an Excellent score is 47 for men under 30 vs. 44 for women.

Chin-ups are radically different: Excellent for young men is 11, for young women is 4.

For the 1.5 mile run, Excellent men are expected to more than lap Excellent women: running six laps on a quarter mile track in 10 minutes and 16 seconds vs. 12 minutes and 50 seconds.

On the other hand, the Applicant Physical Abilities Test is much less rigorous. It requires a minimum score of 20 out of 40 on its four tests, for a minimum average of five per test. Three of its four tests are the same as on the above Physical Fitness Evaluation Test above.

To score 5 on its push-up test requires 27, while 37 would score Very Poor for a man age 20-29.

To score 5 on its sit-up test requires 37, which would be Poor for a young man.

To score 5 on its 1.5 mile run would require a 14:42 time, which would be Very Poor for a young man.

In reality, it appears that the Secret Service has set their hiring standards for physical fitness ridiculously low.