Posted: Nov 19, 2014 12:38 pm
by tolman
TMB wrote:The author contradicts herself by saying that she was not given the chance to train with men, implying that by training with women, she is not being pushed as hard.

She's not contradicting herself at all.
She seems to fairly consistently point out that women are currently not pushed as hard as the men.

TMB wrote:This is true, however there are many examples where quantitatively women still cannot achieve the same levels. There is no doubt increased competition can lift the level, but it also discourages others, especially when they get consistently beaten, and need to return to their own group to be a winner.

Do the numerous men who try the course and don't pass 'need to return to their own group to be a winner'?

TMB wrote:A more likely scenario is that the earlier levels for fitness are set based upon eliminating a certain % of female candidates, upping the ante mot male levels might eliminate too many females, or deter them from applying in the first place. By her own admission the author states that she set no limits for herself outside the marines and did pretty much what she could.

What the fuck do you mean ''by her own admission'? She's not on trial.

There's a pretty limited connection between someone not setting themselves limits (in the sense of 'Oh, only guys can do that') and someone being physically trained to maximum strength and endurance.

In any case, she didn't say that she had always pushed herself to her physical limits - she climbed some mountains, played ice hockey with boys, and learned to fly.
The latter is seemingly mental, and being a goalkeeper in ice hockey, while it requires nerve and skill, may not be the most physical role on a team.
She said she liked challenges, not that she had spent her teenage years obsessively working out.

You seem to be pretty much saying "Oh, the poor love was already doing her best, so couldn't really expect to do any better, considering that she was a woman."