Rachel Bronwyn wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

Thommo wrote:Do you actually want them? There are loads.

Well the ideal would be for TMB to post them. He's the expert after all.

He's already given us the "Wimminz work less (and are paid less for the work they do and, as a result, are dependent on the voluntary generosity of men. Such privilege, being a dependent.)

Rachel, earlier in the thread where you explained that your contribution was equal to your partners because despite you earning the lower wage, you had to work longer hours than he to get your lower wage, because you contributed the SAME % of the lower wage, this was equal contribution?! Then because not only was your partner a better breadwinner in less time, but he used his extra time to do more chores, and you put the whole scenario forward as equitable.

After an argument like yours, you sure have a nerve throwing stones at me.

Sendraks wrote:

tolman wrote: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?

Yes I agree and that is consistent with what I recognise (from a policy professional perspective) equality policy to be about.

The difficulty with an ideal like this is the measurement. How do you assess and individual except against a standard based upon a group. In this case, the standard is based upon only passing the elite, and setting the standard so you get enough people, but not too many. The standards ae based upon the assessment of men and/or women to meet a specific quantity and to get the best. So they don't insist the candidates can fly or do magic, they are assessed on what is known to be possible but so difficult that very few will pass. In this case the standard is so high no women pass, just as the qualifying times for Olympic men's event are set to get just enough men, and at that standard it would eliminate all women. So they set a woman's standard, and each individual must be assesses against the group standard.

Sendraks wrote:

tolman wrote: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.

Again I agree. I don't believe the article gives the impression that anyone thinks the IFC criteria unreasonably exclude woman. The issue being raised that woman are not trained, through the earlier military careers, in such a way that would build the necessary physical fitness to pass the bar set for entry the IFC. Of course we've no way of knowing that is true until such time as a suitable sample size of women have gone through whatever the necessary levels of training are in there earlier careers, to see whether they can pass the bar or not.

Or the standards have been set in the same way as they are for men, to limit how many women make the grade. 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. 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. For women it is possible to get an advantage by training with men, and competing with women. This is a common practice for elite women in many sports as it offers competition not always provided by the women they compete with.

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. However she notes that she can do 16 pull ups/chins and other women might do better. A visit to my local gym has males doing in the thirties and they are not marines. Looking at the world records for this event, this is one of the weakest events for women, the difference gets close to 100% for the 12 and 24 hour records. It's also interesting to see that one woman holds most of the records while there is a range of males at different times. It looks like the woman is an exceptional outlier, and probably also that most women don't seek out to excel at something like this because it's not a big status thing, but it's one of the better indicators of upper body strength and that's why they include it.

TMB wrote:The difficulty with an ideal like this is the measurement.

In broad terms of equality and how it applies in a myriad of ways to all sorts of different groups, you can't. At least not easily.
However, given we're talking in the specifics of the IFC example...

TMB wrote:How do you assess and individual except against a standard based upon a group. In this case, the standard is based upon only passing the elite, and setting the standard so you get enough people, but not too many. The standards ae based upon the assessment of men and/or women to meet a specific quantity and to get the best. So they don't insist the candidates can fly or do magic, they are assessed on what is known to be possible but so difficult that very few will pass.

I think we can both agree that the IFC set a necessary high standard.

TMB wrote: In this case the standard is so high no women pass,

Incorrect.
The standard is set so high that no women has passed.
There is no evidence to suggest that no women could ever pass it. Perhaps with the correct training, one could.
If you want my views as to whether I think that is likely, then my view is that it is unlikely.
But not impossible.

TMB wrote: Or the standards have been set in the same way as they are for men, to limit how many women make the grade.

I think that is unlikely. Or at least the foolishly optimistic part of my mind thinks that whoever set the standards wasn't thinking of gender, only what constituted an acceptable determination of individual physical fitness.

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. This is true,

I'm not sure how this is a contradiction and seems to be a fairly well reasoned statement of fact.
However, if all women were forced to train (comparatively) harder than the men in order to reach a similar level of fitness, I could imagine a few might claim that this was unfair especially if they were not aspiring to apply for the IFC or similar.

TMB wrote: 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.

We're not talking about competition here, we're talking about training for a role.

TMB wrote: For women it is possible to get an advantage by training with men, and competing with women.

This isn't about training with men, this is about having a harder training regimen. This is far easier to achieve in elite sports, where an individual can set their own training regimen, than it is when you're part of a much larger group such as being in the military.

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.

This strikes me as an unlikely scenario. I don't think anyone devising the IFC criteria needs to have given any thought to eliminating women from applying.

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?

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.

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."

Sendraks wrote:

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.

Sendraks wrote:

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.

So she was pretty much in the same boat as the male applicants to the IFC: kept in the dark as to the particulars of the course, knowing only that she needed to be pretty fucking awesome to pass and that it was up to her (just as it was up to a male applicant) to become fucking awesome on her own time.

My point was that information as to the various grades of performance in the USMC is not exactly classified (I don't think, anyway). Santangelo would have been fully aware of what the standards were for the top group in PT. She would have been fully aware that not all of the men in this top group would be able to pass the IFC. If she could not have inferred from this that she needed to be performing at least in the range of that top group, I would venture to suggest that she does not deserve to have the lives of other Marines placed in her care.

To reiterate though: it is not clear to me that there were any actual barriers placed between Santangelo and the training she clearly required to raise herself to the required standard. If the only barrier that exists is that no one actually told her she could start running (etc.) with the guys, then she hasn't got a leg to stand on. If, on the other hand, it's actually forbidden for a female Marine to train with higher-performing male Marines then I think she's got a point.

Nicko wrote:So she was pretty much in the same boat as the male applicants to the IFC: kept in the dark as to the particulars of the course, knowing only that she needed to be pretty fucking awesome to pass and that it was up to her (just as it was up to a male applicant) to become fucking awesome on her own time.

I think her suggestion is that the training women receive, in the course of their daily duties, places them at a marked disadvantage compared to men who receive more rigorous training. Clearly there is still a degree of additional effort required on the part of potential male applicants, but the additional effort for women is much greater because of the shortfall in their training.

I guess that the amount of additional training she felt was required would've impacted on her ability to perform her own duties. Which is understandable. I'm not entirely sure how she's circumventing that problem for the purposes of retaking the test. And indeed if she isn't circumventing any sort of problem, because there isn't one, then I'm not sure what the problem is.

Nicko wrote:To reiterate though: it is not clear to me that there were any actual barriers placed between Santangelo and the training she clearly required to raise herself to the required standard. If the only barrier that exists is that no one actually told her she could start running (etc.) with the guys, then she hasn't got a leg to stand on. If, on the other hand, it's actually forbidden for a female Marine to train with higher-performing male Marines then I think she's got a point.

I agree, it is not clear.
As you say, if she's just not bothered to enquire as to whether she could train with the guys, well there isn't an issue.
If she was discouraged (actively or indirectly_ or forbidden from pursuing such training, then clearly there is an issue.
However, I didn't get the impression from the article that she was pursuing this matter as some sort of discrimination claim, just that she felt the issue was resolvable in same way by a simple enough change of military training practices.

She did suggest that possibly not enough time was allowed in training before taking the extra tests.

Certainly, if the harder tests are being faced at a point where recruits are still meaningfully improving in physical capabilities, that would tend to skew the tests to some extent in favour of people who by some combination of nature and prior appropriate training were in a position to pass the tests at an early stage in their Marine training.

tolman wrote:Certainly, if the harder tests are being faced at a point where recruits are still meaningfully improving in physical capabilities, that would tend to skew the tests to some extent in favour of people who by some combination of nature and prior appropriate training were in a position to pass the tests at an early stage in their Marine training.

For the purposes of the IFC, having troops who can pass the tests earlier in their career is probably advantageous in terms of having people who will be in their physical prime for longer maybe?