Posted: Nov 19, 2014 12:02 pm
by Nicko
Sendraks wrote:t is being suggested that there may be discrimination in military training prior to that point which disadvantages women in being optimally trained for undergoing selection for the IFC. This may be one of those scenarios where woman (in the military) are not treated different from men and consequently this actually puts them at a disadvantage later on if they want to apply for things like the IFC, because they need a harder training regimen.

Apparently she is going to take another run at it. Now that she has first-hand experience of what the course entails, she hopefully has a better idea of what she needs to aim at.

I'd stop at agreeing with Santangelo's suggestion that the lower standards for physical strength/endurance/speed applied to women in basic training constitutes discrimination. There are plenty of jobs in the military that don't require extraordinary levels of these attributes. Administrative roles, for example, can often be functionally indistinguishable from an office job in "civvy street". To hold female recruits to the same level of - for example - raw strength as male recruits would unfairly discriminate against them.

That is the - dare I use the word - lesser physical standard to which women are held exists to prevent discrimination.

As to the solution, one of the reasons I posted the article was that I'm unclear on that.

Is PT in the USMC actually segregated to the extent Santangelo has characterised it? I mean, I know that there are separate women's groups for PT, but would she have actually been prevented from training with the guys?