Posted: Nov 19, 2014 12:08 pm
by Sendraks
Nicko wrote: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.

Well good luck to her. I was under the impression that they didn't allow people to retake the test though?

Nicko wrote: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.


I concur. I don't think the lower standards are discriminatory. At the same time, for the higher standards which exist for select services like the IFC, there should be equal opportunity in training for all military personnel to train to meet that grade, if they want to.

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


Which again is one of the quirks of equality. You can treat people as equals by recognising they are different, but making accommodations so they are not treated differently or also by making sure that they are not treated differently. There isn't a hard and fast way of delivering equality.

Nicko wrote: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?

Hard to say from the article. I get the impression that such a thing is not encouraged or advertised, as opposed to being proactively deterred.