Posted: Nov 18, 2014 11:42 am
by TMB
Nicko wrote:
DarthHelmet86 wrote:And once again the intro physical tests are only to judge base fitness, once you are in the military you must pass the same tests and women are able to do that.

It's a distinction that many don't understand. The initial standards are only to establish that everything is in working order: a basic, somewhat-higher-than-average level of fitness. This just means different things for men and women, so of course there are separate standards. When it comes to specific assignments, the standards are objective and job-specific.

There is of course the question of whether more needs to be done to help women meet the higher objective standards required by combat positions. Here's 2nd Lt. Sage Santangelo's account of her attempt to pass the USMC's Infantry Officer Course.

That was an interesting article. She notes hat despite the fact she did not pass the physical test, just as the other women have not, she still considers that it might be due to lack of adequate training, and with the right training they might be able to match men. This has no basis in fact, depending upon where you set the standard around physical tests or capability of this type, men will perform better than women. Culture does reinforce the biological propensity and this was noted when the performance gap between men and women in athletics lessened a few decades ago. However then the gap stabilised and has remained constant. There appear to be enough women with the interest and training to perform as close to their potential as the men do. If they dropped the standard of the officers course, some women will pass. It's possible that sme women will make the grade anyway, however the standards have been set to get the best of the best, and at this stage these are all men. Just as the Olympics selects the very best athletes, in a gender neutral scenario these would all be men.