MCP wrote:
> http://women.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17909-1536288,00.html
>
>             By Michael Evans, Defence Editor

>
>             YOUNG female recruits to the Armed Forces are not tough
enough
> to be treated on a par with their male colleagues, a report claimed
> yesterday.
>             Too many young women were being injured in training, the
> independent Adult Learning Inspectorate said, and called for a
rethink of
> the "gender-free" policy. The previous
"gender-fair" policy, which
took
> account of the "weaker sex", was reckoned to be contrary to equal
> opportunities legislation.
>
>[That stands to reason;  women's bodies are not the same as men's
bodies; a fit woman need not be defined on a man's terms. ]
>
> In a report that criticised much of the culture behind Armed Forces'
> training, the inspectorate, which carried out checks on all the
training
> establishments, said that the military's interpretation was to treat
> everyone the same. In the case of female recruits, the gender-free
approach
> had led to record levels of injuries.

[That's unfortunate, and the types of fitness for women should, perhaps
be reevaluated.]

> It recommended reverting to gender-fair training. The injuries had
also
> coincided with the fact that recruits often joined the Armed Forces
"unfit,
> overweight or poorly nourished".
>

[I'm not sure that women recruits are any more overweight or poorly
nourished than men, but the level to be fit is certainly different.]

> In women, fractures of the tibia (shin bone) had risen over a
five-year
> period from 12.6 per 10,000 personnel to 231.2. Stress fractures of
the feet
> also increased significantly among female recruits.
>
[Women generally have smaller feet and bones.  So if the same degree of
stress is applied, it might not be equitable to apply the same standard
of strees as men receive.]

>> > >



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/30/05 12:47:52 PM ---