Marines Delay Female Fitness Plan After Half Fail

[happyslug]

130. One of the problem with women is they are NOT men, and most women do NOT have the training of men

I had two sisters in the Navy, after their basic they went to their advanced training. At the advance training there was two towns in the area, one about a mile from the Training Camp, the other about 10 miles away. The 10 mile away was larger, so after a few weeks that is where they ended up going.

Now, they had NO access to any automobile, thus had to walk. My family has a long history of walking long distances (and I mean miles not feet) even as toddlers. Thus walking ten miles to town was no big deal to anyone in my family, we always did it. My sisters always joked about the Marine who decided to go with them one day, and their proceeded to out walk him, because they had always done it, and he only had done long walks in basic. My sisters reputation for those long walks were so bad, that by the time of the end of their training the gate guards had standing orders that no WAVE was to exit the gate and turn in the direction of the larger town. My sister out walked the Marine not only because they were WOMEN, but because they had done long walks, measured in miles, all of their lives.

Prior to the passage of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, most collages and High Schools barely had sports for women. With Title IX, school had to spend as much on male sports as on female sports (Through "Revenue" sports, Football and Basketball tend to be exempted, through only partially). This has helped a lot of women, who previously could NOT get training in High School, to get that training. This corresponded with the movement of women into collages and the reversal of the 1890-1960 decline in the age when one first married (Men returned to the age they first married in 1896 about 1982, women about 1995, we had no data for years before 1896).

Thus starting in the 1960s, women had at least a chance of equal support as men in sports in their High School and Collages. This permitted more and more women to go into sports, including running and other endurance sports. Furthermore, given the prejudice against such sports in a lot of high schools, a lot of collages make a real effort to get the better female athletes, thus the Academies and enlisting in the enlisted ranks are NOT as appealing to women with athletic backgrounds as it is to men with athletic backgrounds (i.e. the women the most physically fit have better and more options then the military).

Thus women in sports to the extent men have been in sports since the late 1800s is restricted to the post 1960s period. Yes, you had women athletes prior to 1960, but you also had male athletes prior to 1860, but no one really cared about them except for local events (and thus the records were spotty and low in numbers until you had people competing against people with similar abilities, but that require a pool of people to pull from and that did not occur with men till after the Railroad became common, i.e, the 1860s, and for women the 1960s).

Since the 1960s, women have constantly improved athletically, and reduced the difference between themselves and men in the endurance sports. In the 1990s it was predicted that women would surpass men in the marathon sometime in the 21st century. More recent reports state women had "peaked" but then point out men have NOT, but the differences in times is still getting smaller:

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/women-faster.htm
http://www.active.com/swimming/articles/men-vs-women-in-endurance-sports
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420999/Women-day-faster-long-distance-running-men-predict-experts.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon_world_record_progression

In 2003 there was a movement to remove a woman's marathon record, for she ran a marathon where men and women ran together and the international society governing marathons said that "artificially" increased women's time by the fact they try to beat out the men instead of just the women:

http://jezebel.com/5846525/women-who-marathon-alongside-men-no-longer-allowed-to-set-world-records

There is a debate on why women appear to do better in marathons then men. Woman's higher fat content is given as the main reason (but one study said that was NOT the case), another said women being smaller had greater surface area so they could get rid of heat better then men in long distance situations:

http://www.nyrr.org/newsroom/nyrr-today-blog/women-are-better-marathon-pacers-than-men-study-suggests-1

I suspect it is fat. Men burn calories and then get a "Second wind" when their bodies switch to burning fat. Women do NOT get a second wind, for they are burning fat from the moment they start to run. Thus a female marathoner at the end of the race, can talk to other people and have a rapid drop off in performance. Men, on the other hand, need to walk off the long distance run. They have to switch back from burning fat. Now, some people have said women have hit a "Wall" as to their times, but if that is true, why have men not improved as much?

http://www.netplaces.com/running/girls-women-just-want-to-have-fun/comparing-men-and-women-runners.htm
http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20131011/SPORTS10/310110032/Are-women-closing-marathon-gap-

Now, as to woman generally, there should be trained differently then men, because they are different from men. Women should be trained less on issue of physical strength and more on endurance.

Thus, in long endurance races (more then a Marathon), women tend to win nowadays, but Marathon times for men are still faster then for women. This came up recently when a woman beat two men to the South Pole by Bicycle. Now she used a Tricycle recumbent, but left after the two men on a different route (but she went a longer distance):

http://www.icetrikes.co/community/ice-blog

As to 4.2 inch mortars, 105mm and 155 mm rounds. I have my problem with women manhandling them. When I was with the Field Artillery I was in the Service Battery, who had to get the rounds and disburse them to the firing batteries. It was a pain to move those boxes. The 105mm rounds came two to a box, while the 155 came in one to a box (thus about the same weight). 100 pounds is about the limit men can man handle on a constant basis, thus my original objections to women in the Field Artillery. The 4.2 round also came two to a box. If you looked at the 4.2 and the 105mm round, they were the same EXCEPT for the base. The 4.2 had a stem to hold the "cheeses" while the 105 was flat to load into the brass or aluminum case it came with. Both, as individual rounds, are at the limit men can load for any length of time. I doubt women can do so. On the other hand, if you are looking at pre loaded rounds in a self loading cannon, not a problem for men or women. It may take women longer to load the magazine but that is a minor concern for you will have people doing other duties while any self loading cannon is in use (and why the US Army has failed to replace the M109 Howitzer, the French 155 howitzer weigh 60% MORE then the M109. The M109 is in many ways TO LARGE, the French 155 is even larger.