Men and women are both subject to intense training, but women are held to a lower standard than men in physical fitness assessments.
This is also ever-present in the military; over 20 years ago, we called it 'gender norming' and this was further delineated by age. The APFT (army physical fitness test) had a matrix whereby a soldier would be benchmarked against certain criteria for a certain event within the pt test - a min/max for each event given the gender with an age bracket, and you had to meet a baseline score (if one failed to meet this baseline score, they would be retested and if they failed it again, they could be separated [kicked out]). Now, back then , females were not allowed into the Combat Arms (CA) MOSs (military occupational specialty [your job]) but there was an unwritten rule that those in CA better better be maxed or get as close to max (score of 300) as they humanly could should they wish to remain in their chosen MOS (those that didn't do this would be reassigned to drive a desk - moved to S1 [admin] or S4 (driver) or they may or may not get 'motivated' by their brethren to 'pursue other opportunities' .. I only mention this because most soldiers do not hit a 300, let alone females. (consider when I was 82nd, there were just north of 14k paratroopers on Bragg, and MAYBE 10% had a badge showing they hit 300, I do not recall see any but one being a female [maybe closer to 6%])
Once we started letting females into CA positions, to include spec/ops and SF roles, the norming was already there even though the (((media))) said otherwise, and I can only imagine the actual training itself was norm'd to align with the pt reqs. I haven't yet met a woman that can carry a 65+ pound ruck plus gear for 20 miles let alone pick it up and set it - even smaller framed men had trouble with this.
Airborne school was the first militarized training I had that was coed.. i dont recall how large our company was but we had at least 8 females. all were washed out by end of the first week.
(post is archived)