Happy New Year.
The inclusion of women will happen and; if you had read what I'd written; there are women capable of passing both combat infantry and the Commando courses.
The right for them to join the teeth arms and Royal Marines is not what I have the issue with. My concerns as stated are that supporting the proposition solely from a position of equality (Quote "The actual tests etc are rather beside the point") rather than knowledge of what the roles actually involve leads to a dismissal of pertinent information (as sexism or misogyny apparently!).
I will stick to the training regime at CTCRM which I know best.
PAF supports the idea that it may be acceptable for women to undergo physical training separately and have different testing criteria. I reject that absolutely, ( & as an aside, PAF I am not attacking you, I am challenging your viewpoint as is normal in any debate). It also goes against the very ethos of Commando training which is in part designed to bond recruits (& subsequently fellow Marines) based on common shared experience; good or bad; and achievement.
Additionally there may only be one or 2 females in any recruit troop, any odd number makes some tasks impossible if conducted seperately. I would hope that those reading that have trained to a high level; completed marathons, triathlons, etc; would agree that a training partner or group training can be a great boost at moments of weakness.
I fully understand that different training methodologies can produce the same result; and given an extended period of time could also in PT. That time is not available if men are to be treated equally.
Three of the criteria tests that must be passed by all are the 30 foot rope climb, the 6 ft wall (as part of a longer test) and the 9-mile speed march wearing equipment and weapon. All are passable by women as has been stated and demonstrated. However none of the women that passed them undertook separate physical training, nor was the difficulty of the tests ameliorated for gender.
The first 2 require significant upper body strength that can only be achieved by targeted PT and the latter requires lower body/core strength and mental endurance. Knees down press-up don't produce the same effect as the military press nor does running produce the same effect as speed marching (average 10 minute miles, on all terrain, carrying weight and wearing boots not training shoes. By its very nature this carries a risk of lower limb stress fractures or shin splints). The weight carried on these tests simulates combat loading and is not adjustable other than by a change within Doctrine.
I think the stated position refers only to initial training. Is it seriously viable for an female Royal Marine to conduct PT and other physical activities separately throughout her 20 plus year career? What about when she is promoted and has to lead her troop on PT?
In terms of the "homogenous group", the intent is not to dismiss the ability of a female but rather to illustrate that her male colleagues must have faith that she is as strong, focussed and capable as they are and I don't see how a separate PT standard can demonstrate this (see above).
As said by PG entry standards (and the subsequent training methodology) at CTCRM have changed by virtue of Validation and I alluded to this above. Over the years the testing regime has also changed but significantly the testing required by the customer have not. To repeat myself, nor has the budget changed and therefore time allocated to complete training (to any great extent).
It isn't an issue here and won't influence the decision made by politicians but implementing this will cost millions of pounds. As a taxpayer I'm interested to know whether that will come from the already overstretched MoD budget or from Health, Education or elsewhere.
As my final comment. I am not arguing against the proposition but caution those that suggest equality means unequal treatment from the start of their careers perhaps alienating the very people with whom they want to serve.
IMD (its my name!)