Posted: Nov 18, 2014 2:58 pm
by tolman
Sendraks wrote:
TMB wrote:Read it again, she definitely is not saying.


She is definitely saying that she thinks if women train hard enough they can build the necessary strength.

TMB wrote:She specifically says that because of the dual standards imposed upon women and men, women are expected and expect to perform lower. She says that if the same standards were imposed from the beginning in the marines and, it seems, in life in general, women would then meet the standard.


Yes she is saying that and this seems to be a perfectly logical conclusion to reach. She is saying that if the same standards were imposed, women might be able to reach the IFC requirements.

She is saying that she thinks some women may be able to meet the standards.

She wasn't saying that 'women as in 'all women' or 'women marines in proportion to their number compared to male marines' would be able to meet the standard.

Isn't the whole point of feminism (in the sense of egalitarianism) that women (or people in general) shouldn't be assessed as members of a group but as individuals?

As far as discrimination at the level of selection for a role is concerned, it shouldn't matter to feminists whether women are not equal in numbers with men in a particular role if selection criteria are fairly applied and are not specifically chosen to unreasonably exclude women.

An imbalance may be relevant to a wider view even if criteria do seem reasonable, since that may indicate some other factors discouraging women from wanting to fill the role, or obstacles in the way of their developing the abilities to meet the criteria.

One of the issues with some approaches to feminism is that some people view 'discrimination' as essentially a default explanation for any imbalances, (or, at least, any imbalances they consider undesirable) with proof to the contrary being required for them to think otherwise, even when proof to the contrary is essentially impossible to provide given the multitude of possible factors.