PDA

View Full Version : Military Sexual equality


alwayzinit
8th Jul 2016, 19:48
Is it just me, but why is there the drive and now the government OK for the Gentler Sex to be in front line combat roles?

I appreciate that the WW2 Soviet Forces had female combat units, however, this latest idea appears to be for mixed units.

Just wondering how a 10 stone lass would cope carrying a 14 stone bloke should the need arise.

As far as I am aware, regardless of the "omnipotent" power of politicos, they are unable to adjust the muscular structure of a body purely by their edict!

DirtyProp
8th Jul 2016, 19:55
True, but a woman can be much, much meaner than a man.
Besides, with soldiers like these:

The Women Of The Israeli Army Are Sexy Soldiers (54 pics) (http://acidcow.com/girls/66161-the-women-of-the-israeli-army-are-sexy-soliders-54.html)

who needs a weapon?
I would surrender immediately....:E

alwayzinit
8th Jul 2016, 19:57
DP, surely you would put up some "token" resistance??:eek:

DirtyProp
8th Jul 2016, 19:59
Well, I'm certainly game for "pillow fights"....:p

cavortingcheetah
8th Jul 2016, 20:05
Interestingly enough considering where I am at the moment, these pictures are blocked by the local town censorship control as being pornographic. Perhaps that's because the local military don't want their troops speculating on how devastating a load of naked woman can be, waving their weapons about.

Curious Pax
8th Jul 2016, 20:21
Just wondering how a 10 stone lass would cope carrying a 14 stone bloke should the need arise.

As far as I am aware, regardless of the "omnipotent" power of politicos, they are unable to adjust the muscular structure of a body purely by their edict!

Forgive my ignorance of things military, but are all squaddies 14 stone? I would guess that some may be lighter (maybe less than 10 stones). Can all male squaddies carry all their colleagues?

Phalconphixer
8th Jul 2016, 20:44
Could it be that in these days of conscription free recruiting,the military having run out of gullible male cannon fodder, are having to reach out to females to keep the numbers up?

Seldomfitforpurpose
8th Jul 2016, 22:27
Forgive my ignorance of things military, but are all squaddies 14 stone? I would guess that some may be lighter (maybe less than 10 stones). Can all male squaddies carry all their colleagues?
There is a reason that golf courses have men's and ladies tees and that Venus is not playing Andy in the Wimbledon final on Sunday. That should give you enough clues.

MOSTAFA
8th Jul 2016, 22:40
You are absolutely spot on Seldom - but I think you meant Serena.

Tankertrashnav
8th Jul 2016, 23:42
Obviously in general women are lighter and not as strong as men. But there will be many women who can reach the physical standards required of an infantryman, just not as many of them as a proportion of the female population. I see no physical reason therefore why these women shouldn't be able to match men in ability to operate in a combat role.

It is probably a fact that a large proportion of young males relish the idea of a fight and jump at the chance to go to the extremes when sanctioned by the state. I do get uncomfortable with the idea that a woman would want to get involved in close combat, with all the brutality that can involve, but I suppose that is just cultural conditioning. I wouldn't want to try and argue the point philosophically, though

Re the Israeli Defence Forces - in 1965 I took part in the Nijmegen marches in Holland, with a team of fit young Rockapes. I distinctly remember that at one of the rest stops when we were lying around massaging our aching calf muscles a team of women from the Israeli Army spent their break performing national folk dances. Gorgeous - and very tough!

Flash2001
9th Jul 2016, 00:43
It might be useful to let those wonderful folks in ISIS know that a considerable percentage of the opposing infantry is female. I have been told that Muslims believe that if one is killed by a woman he goes straight to hell.

After an excellent landing etc...

Hydromet
9th Jul 2016, 01:18
Just wondering how a 10 stone lass would cope carrying a 14 stone bloke should the need arise.

As far as I am aware, regardless of the "omnipotent" power of politicos, they are unable to adjust the muscular structure of a body purely by their edict!
My daughter, considerably less than 10 stone, used to win drinks from her male kayaking friends by Indian wrestling them. I'm sure pride wouldn't have allowed them to give her an easy win. She could also do a fingertip chin-up from a door lintel. Try it some time.
Happily, she only briefly considered joining the military.

West Coast
9th Jul 2016, 03:16
Latest Woman to Try Marines' Infantry Officer Course Drops after Hike | Military.com (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/04/26/latest-woman-to-try-marines-infantry-officer-course-drops-hike.html)

A hot button issue over here. One can wish away the physical advantages males possess or you can dumb down the requirements. Bet in 5 yrs, the standards will have been eased.

fltlt
9th Jul 2016, 03:54
Latest Woman to Try Marines' Infantry Officer Course Drops after Hike | Military.com (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/04/26/latest-woman-to-try-marines-infantry-officer-course-drops-hike.html)

A hot button issue over here. One can wish away the physical advantages males possess or you can dumb down the requirements. Bet in 5 yrs, the standards will have been eased.


I offer this, from an acquaintance:

"For two years as a senior combat trainer (observer/controller) at the National Training Center and another two as the G3 of the 1st Armored Division in Germany, I was fortunate enough to be responsible for their training as around 50 Armor and Infantry branch Lieutenant Colonels lead their battalions through the most rigorous, realistic large unit training the US Army has ever offered. I conducted the formal after action review for every battle and so was very familiar with what took place and why. If the "battles" we fought had taken place with real ammo instead of lasers, artillery simulators, and subjective mine field and air attack assessments, every single one of those battalion commanders would have lost (dead, wounded, captured or destroyed) the equivalent of at least three complete battalions worth of men and equipment over the space of just two weeks. Every single one that is except Fred Dibella.

At the National Training Center, Fred's battalion soundly defeated the best "Soviet Armored Regiment" that ever strapped on tanker boots in 5 consecutive battles! And it was not even close! Lt Col Dibella understood tactical warfare and how to prepare his leaders and their men before they ever arrived on the battlefield. They came to the NTC with a mutual understanding of how every single piece of the task force affected every other piece and they understood that every leader's battle plan must support the plan of the entire task force. The manner in which Lt Col Dibella had prepared and trained his leaders and soldiers before the first shot was ever fired was the best I have ever seen. The manner in which they actually fought the NTC battles was unequaled!

My entire experience with Lt Col Fred Dibella was over the course of those two weeks. But I can tell you that he knew more about how to fight and how to train his people to fight than any other battalion commander I had the opportunity to help train. So pay attention to what he writes in the article that follows.

In a 2015 memo by the Secretary of the Army to worldwide Army Commands, the Secretary dictated that ‘Commanders and soldiers will balance lactation support and readiness.’

In response, COL (Ret) Fred Dibella, USMA Class of ’69 and former TAC of Company F2 at West Point wrote:

“Ok, I’ve had all I can stomach. I’m done.

Scroll down and read this shit right now, if you think I’m kidding, then come back to my remarks, if you haven’t puked your guts out. (USMA ‘69 forum, feel free to permanently ban me from your rolls, but I’ve had enough.)

Obama and his lackeys have now systematically laid the groundwork to accomplish what no battlefield enemy has ever done; that is, to emasculate the United States Military. I honestly don’t know how he could have done it more effectively. He’s dangerously downsized the force; he’s rooted out warriors like Stan McChrystal and Carter Ham from the General and Flag Officer ranks and installed puppets like George Casey and Martin Dempsey; he not only obliterated ‘Don’t ask, Don’t tell’; he searched long and hard to find an openly gay (and utterly unqualified) man to be Sec Army; he opened not just combat arms to women, but the absolute tips of the spear in Infantry, Armor and Artillery, and the predictable result is directives like “balance lactation support and readiness?”

Seriously? SERIOUSLY??? Balance lactation support and readiness!?

Sorry, I’m old school, but I THOUGHT READINESS WAS NEVER, EVER COMPROMISED… let alone for “lactation support”.

Have we gone completely mad?!? Do you think for a moment that the greatest fighting force the planet has ever known is immune to emasculation? That there’s nothing that Obama can do to significantly degrade its lethality? That somehow we will magically prevail, despite all this shit?

Here’s the blunt truth, and if you think this flies in the face of political correctness and/or liberal theology… congratulations.

The most important reason the US Military has been so dominant, so lethal, and so unbeatable over that last 200 years is that we subscribe to a Warrior Ethos. We’re not quite Sparta, but we ain’t been far behind. That is, until now. Up to now, we have recognized the blatantly obvious: That battles and wars are won by Alpha Males. And why is that? Uh… because men and women may well be equal in the eyes of God, but they damned sure ain’t identical in the laws of physics and psychology. Men are, by and large, bigger, stronger, faster, more aggressive, more violent, more ferocious, more intense, more powerful, more brutal, more belligerent, more destructive, AND THEREFORE MORE LETHAL than women.

You don’t buy that? Tell you what – pick 50 men at random from anywhere and 50 women. Put ‘em in a big ring and tell ‘em to fight to the death. Have a problem immediately predicting the outcome? If you do, I can’t help you. You’re an idiot or a flaming liberal who believes that “Laura Croft, Tomb Raider” is real.

Why do you think Martin Dempsey, Obama’s personal lackey in uniform, issued his famous proclamation? You know the one: “If women can’t pass the standards at Ranger school, SEAL school, and other similar training programs, then the standards will have to be justified to me”.

God help me, but am I the only one who sees through that shit? I guess the Rangers at Point du Hoc weren’t good enough, huh Martin? Neither were the SEALS at Benghazi? I guess Delta’s incredible successes are not sufficient. ‘We must reassess the standards’. Total crock of shit. Scrape away the BS, and here’s the residue: We’re gonna lower the bar ‘till the women can get over it, period. Think that’ll have any effect on lethality? BTW, how’d you like to be the Ranger School Commandant who goes to Massa Dempsey’s office to ‘splain why women aint’ makin’ it? Think he might avoid that by “adjusting” things a bit?

But it’s more than physicality. It’s about the laws of nature. That is, when young men and women are put together they respond to hormones rather than ‘good order and discipline’. 1976: Women are introduced to West Point. Regulations strictly prohibited fraternization among cadets. Hahahahahahaha. Written by some idiot, no doubt. They were bangin’ each other like rabbits. Trust me, I had a ringside seat. But that wouldn’t happen in a Ranger squad, or a SEAL team, right? If you said, “Right”, then you’re an idiot. The squad/team leader is messin’ around with a female and there’s no degradation to good order and discipline, right? The previous “Brotherhood” that formerly bonded warriors together won’t be affected, right?

So we now have a female Commandant of Cadets at West Point. See how freaking enlightened we are? We can appoint females to the leadership roles at the nations’ premier School for Warriors. That is, the nations’ FORMER premier School for Warriors. West Point is now the tip of the Political Correctness spear. We have gay marriages at the cadet chapel, we have kindness and compassion seminars, we even have Sensitivity Officers, for crissake, on cadet staffs - right next to the Operations and Logistics Officers - to ensure that Alpha Males do not behave like Alpha Males. We dumb ‘em down now. We used to understand that good warriors were a little rough around the edges. We tolerated that, because we knew ‘em for what they were… Patton comes immediately to mind. Instead, now we intentionally extract the fangs from the sheepdogs, just about the time when the wolves from Islam are stalking the flock…

Obama gave us Obamacare, which is now sinking under its own sick formula. Good thing, because the gutless Republicans couldn’t bring themselves to defund it. Obama has given us Sotomayor and Kagan, two flaming Liberals who will sit on that bench for a generation of Looney Tunes. Obama has demonstrated his racism, his socialism, his disdain for law enforcement and even his proclivity for Islam (the “peaceful” religion… what a laugh). He’s been the single most divisive and destructive POTUS in my lifetime. America, thanks to him, is at war with itself. GOP vs ‘Crats, Blacks vs Whites, Haves vs Have-nots, Women vs Men, Armed vs Unarmed, you name the category… we have two sides at war with each other.

The debt is approaching $20 Trillion. That’s such a ridiculous number that even economists can’t fathom it. More than half of it generated on Obama’s personal watch. We have no national border. None. Agents have been defanged, and the illegal aliens come across at will. The problems in Arizona and Texas are ignored by Obama. Israel has gone from being our most trusted and respected ally in the Mideast to being openly discredited, condemned and insulted by him. The nuclear deal with Iran was and is a joke. Un-vetted Syrian male “refugees”… well hell, come to America! It’s all so transparent. You elect an utterly unqualified candidate with dangerous background affiliations in his past, and this is what you get: a self-inflicted wound.

But it all pales, in my humble world, to his destruction of the American Military. These are the guardians of our way of life. These are the warriors. These are the “rough MEN who allow us to sleep soundly, because they stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm”. But go ahead, America: let this ideologue continue the systematic defanging of our fighting force. Let him feminize it. Let him drag it into the political correctness cesspool. Let him continue the social engineering and tinkering. Keep putting high heel shoes on male cadets, so they can “empathize”. Forget all our hard-fought lessons at Khe Sanh, the Chosin Resevoir, Bastogne, Belleau Wood, Gettysburg, and Bunker Hill. Let the idiots tell you that war is “push button” now, so anyone can be a warrior.

Go ahead…

Historians won’t have a difficult time analyzing this disintegration. We were just too timid to put a stop to the madness… ”

Metro man
9th Jul 2016, 06:13
The only place in the military for women is behind the lines where they free up men for service at the front. Israel is an exception as it simply does not have the population required to fill the ranks and has no choice. Very few women can meet the required physical standards anyway.

Arguments have been made that women work in the police force, correction police service, and are exposed to danger. Police officers do lose their lives in the line of duty but not in the numbers that the military are used to, over 250 soldiers, sailors and airmen were killed in six weeks during the Falklands conflict. Women police officers are often better able to diffuse a situation than male officers, but these skills aren't required in the army where the objective is to kill your opponent.

Women are a liability at the front line, the Americans have had to endanger special forces to rescue captured females as public opinion soon turns when news reports feature girls being held by the enemy.

Cazalet33
9th Jul 2016, 06:33
An old friend of mine served in the IDF on the front line in both '67 and '73. He says that having women soldiers on the front line was a disaster.

The Egytians soon learned that if they shot a female soldier, there would be a large number of her male colleagues rushing to her aid, far more than if it had been a male soldier. They would deliberately target the women soldiers using light weapons at first, hoping to wound rather than kill. They would then hose down the male soldiers would cluster round her by the dozen, using heavy calibre machine guns to scythe them down like hay.

He said that officers of his rank, Major at the time, as well as Colonels, would actively disobey their superiors and find ways to keep the women soldiers back from the front line as the cost in manpower was just too great.

Having said that, I'm given to understand that the UK's SRR has a significant proportion of women troopers and their training is about as tough as SF work gets. The whole point of having a recce regiment like that is get people as close to the front line, and perhaps beyond, as they can achieve.

I suspect that the British infantry experiment with women on the front line will last right up until the next pseudo-imperial war against some dusty nation results in British women soldiers being captured and abused by an enemy who doesn't play the game by the Marquess's rules. The red top tabloids back home will go nuts and the policy of women on the front line in hot wars will quietly be dropped.

clareprop
9th Jul 2016, 06:39
Misogyny rules. Why does the male of the species think it has sole right to decide who will and will not take part in wars?
Anyway, most of the 'point's' made in the ramble above could be applied to men as well as women. I heard some ex-blimp the BBC wheeled out yesterday asking how a 'girl would deal with hand-to-hand combat with a Russian'? Apart from being an interesting insight to military paranoia, the answer is of course, is it depends on how well she's been trained.
In the recent Chilcot report, I don't think I've read anything about women letting the side down in battle but I've read a hell of a lot about men doing so.

Seldomfitforpurpose
9th Jul 2016, 06:41
Latest Woman to Try Marines' Infantry Officer Course Drops after Hike | Military.com (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/04/26/latest-woman-to-try-marines-infantry-officer-course-drops-hike.html)

A hot button issue over here. One can wish away the physical advantages males possess or you can dumb down the requirements. Bet in 5 yrs, the standards will have been eased.
And the big problem with dumbing down the requirements to enable women to qualify is you are also now enabling guys who would never have made the grade prior to dumb down to scrape through and by doing so a very serious watering down of capability has occurred.

ExXB
9th Jul 2016, 06:54
Interestingly enough considering where I am at the moment, these pictures are blocked by the local town censorship control as being pornographic.

Nothing pornographic, a lot more tasteful than the average BTDT (British Tax Dodging Tabloid)

Seldomfitforpurpose
9th Jul 2016, 06:59
Misogyny rules. Why does the male of the species think it has sole right to decide who will and will not take part in wars?
Anyway, most of the 'point's' made in the ramble above could be applied to men as well as women. I heard some ex-blimp the BBC wheeled out yesterday asking how a 'girl would deal with hand-to-hand combat with a Russian'? Apart from being an interesting insight to military paranoia, the answer is of course, is it depends on how well she's been trained.
In the recent Chilcot report, I don't think I've read anything about women letting the side down in battle but I've read a hell of a lot about men doing so.
Misogyny, good grief how about nothing more than a simple application of common sense. Judo is about as hand to hand combat as it gets, now ask yourself why at the Olympics the girls dont fight the men? Both are trained to Olympic standard so how come there is separate a competition for men and women?

I spent all my adult life in the RAF, 25 years of that flying as aircrew and a fair bit of that delivering troops directly in to combat and I can assure you that the average girl will not even be able to lift the Bergans those guys carry let alone yomp for days carrying it. Now add the extra weight of wearing combat body armour, full webbing and carrying a personal weapon and ammo to the mix

No Sexism or misogyny in the above just a simple application of common sense.

Hydromet
9th Jul 2016, 09:53
...the average girl will not even be able to lift the Bergans those guys carry let alone yomp for days carrying it.I suspect that the average man won't be able to, either.

alwayzinit
9th Jul 2016, 10:08
Back in the 80's the best Female tennis player was Martina Navratilova, who to all intense and purposes looked like a muscly man in a mini skirt.

In her own words when asked about playing a man she said this: "I know I would lose to a man," she says. "Mike (Estep), my coach, still beats me. There's no way for me to compete. The men are quicker, stronger. I take it as a compliment that people even wonder how I would do."

It is not just the fittness levels or ability to lift their own body weight, the structure of women's muscles is different to men's. Their bones are lighter and less dense as well.

CP, Indian Wrestling? In a pub with a pretty girl wanting to tangle legs?? Well like DirtyProp I would put up a token struggle and get her to "beat me" too..................:E

Equalitists may like to think they can change nature by an edict, hmm, good luck with that!

Cazalet33
9th Jul 2016, 10:29
One wonders how many women applicants will take up the challenge and succeed in becoming front line infantry in the British army.

Ten? A hundred? Certainly not more, I think. Not enough to make a difference in our next war(s).

Mebbe twice that many will volunteer to crew a tank or an armoured vehicle, but only if Reverse gear on the vehicle is quite brisk. Then the problem will be to find enough males who would be comfortable in or around a tank being reversed by a woman, especially when there's that calendrical thing.

ExXB
9th Jul 2016, 11:48
What does 'in combat' mean? Fighter pilot? Tank driver? Torpedo shooter (or whatever)? Beer drinker?

I think women could do equally well, if not better, than men at all of the above. Well, maybe not the beer.

Checkboard
9th Jul 2016, 14:01
All this concentration on the physical standards of the soldier misunderstands the point.

The standards don't make the soldier - the soldiers you have make the standard.

clareprop
9th Jul 2016, 14:45
A trained girl soldier going up against Ivan the Terrible with bayonet, spade etc could possibly give as good as a male soldier. Rolling round on the ground throttling each other, the woman is definitely at a disadvantage - as might be many men. However, how often has this happened since say 1982? In the meantime, combat medic Chantelle Taylor effortlessly dispatched an unfortunate Terry T in Afghanistan in battle. She herself says that the rush to having women in infantry roles who are untrained is inadvisable. However, she say, well trained women can do anything the men can - snipers, JTACS etc. I heartily recommend her book The Memoir of a Combat Medic in Afghanistan. Just a couple of days there gave her more experience in battle than many of the naysayers will ever see.

Cazalet33
9th Jul 2016, 15:01
On the BBC Radio Four Today programme this morning I listened to a former(?) CDS talking about this very subject.

He mentioned that he'd talked to a room of about five hundred women soldiers and he'd asked how many wanted to become front line "mounted" soldiers (no sniggering from the back of the room, please). About four said they would like to do so. He then asked how many would like to become infantry. None.

BBC Radio 4 - Today, 09/07/2016 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07jqlvp#play) fastforward to about 01:17:00.

West Coast
9th Jul 2016, 15:01
A trained girl soldier going up against Ivan the Terrible with bayonet, spade etc could possibly give as good as a male soldier

That's one aspect of a profession where there's hundreds if not thousands of ways to kill or be killed. No timeouts calling for help if your lassie and the opposition is unarmed.

This isn't about individual females, it's about a policy that must cover all, to include males. The USMC has opened up infantry positions to females. Not a one has passed the officer course.

Cazalet33
9th Jul 2016, 15:08
Clareprop,

Kate Medina (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/work/putting-women-soldiers-like-me-on-the-front-line-is-dangerous/) speaks well on the matter in today's Telegraph.

clareprop
9th Jul 2016, 15:53
Cazalet33 - I'm sure we could keep finding examples to prove each others point however unless I'm mistaken, Ms Medina is giving her opinion, having not actually been on a battlefield. Again, I suggest you read (or look for excerpts from) Chantelle Taylor. She's been there, done it etc.

cavortingcheetah
9th Jul 2016, 16:04
It's a great shame that women, who have always been the intellectual superiors of men, should now wish to degrade themselves by demonstrating an equal capability for primordial blood lust, physical endurance, prowess and stress under great physical strain. Those women who seek and are capable of such roles on a parallel uniform platform to men demean themselves and retard their cerebral development, effectively in exchange for a kill and a few quick thrills. Were women to apply their undoubted mental superiority, instead of conniving and contriving for an equal opportunity for a glorious and gory death, their potential for creative emancipation could be the salvation of the western world and the damnation of the middle eastern male dominated one.

clareprop
9th Jul 2016, 16:35
Those women who seek and are capable of such roles on a parallel uniform platform to men demean themselves and retard their cerebral development, effectively in exchange for a kill and a few quick thrills.
Unlike men who presumably don't demean themselves and retard their cerebral development..?

Seldomfitforpurpose
9th Jul 2016, 17:16
clareprop,

No insult intended but could you please just for reference give us your personal experience with regards to battle?

I have never been into battle but have flown the whole gambit of operational troops into combat areas, from the fields of NI to desert strips in Afghan etc and it is IMHO that very few if any women would be physically capable of carrying and wearing the equipment required for front line combat ops.

clareprop
9th Jul 2016, 17:39
Seldomfitforpurpose - Of course there is an insult intended. This is Jetblast. I'm giving you my opinion. If you don't want to hear it, have the thread moved to Military Flying and you'll find I don't comment.

Danny42C
9th Jul 2016, 18:14
Google:
"Women's combat roles in Israel Defense Forces exaggerated, military ...
www.washingtontimes.com/.../womens-combat-roles-in-israel-defense-fo..."

Have not read it through, but remember reading somewhere that the Israeli army had found that, in action in 1948 (?), if a female soldier had been wounded, her male colleague had to stop fighting to attend her - he simply could not leave her bleeding and helpless until help came. So they lost two fighting units for the price of one.

Can't give a reference.

Danny42C.

Cazalet33
9th Jul 2016, 22:22
Clareprop,

Did you listen to the Chief of the Defence Staff on the subject this morning? Link in post#27.

He's the guy who signed off the proposal on behalf of the military side of Main Building.

strake
9th Jul 2016, 22:23
Doesn't seem to be a particularly 'male/female' reaction:
British soldier killed in Afghanistan disobeyed order and ran to help injured colleague - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/8284940/British-soldier-killed-in-Afghanistan-disobeyed-order-and-ran-to-help-injured-colleague.html)

SASless
9th Jul 2016, 22:29
Amazing how the US Military has morphed from being a Combat Oriented Do Battle with the Enemy organization to being Mr. Obama's social justice experimentation trials laboratory.

We have gone a full 180 turn in a very few short Years under his very wise guidance some would suggest.

Originally, merely being a Homosexual and being rumbled somehow....got you a Dishonorable Discharge, then it was fine if you were but said or did nothing to reveal your orientation, then we veered off course and being openly Gay was acceptable, to opening up all job specialities to Women of either persuasion to now all that plus accommodating Transgenders with Hormone and Sex Change treatments is to be the Norm.

I do so pity Unit Commanders and Senior NCO's in front line Combat units as their Daily Man...strike that....Daily Personnel Control must be a very muddy road pockmarked with lots of pot holes and land mines.

Of course....the Social Justice crowd will tell you that Unit Cohesion and Effectiveness has been improved as a result.

If it was not so very serious....all this could have come from a Sequel to "Catch 22"!

Cazalet33
9th Jul 2016, 22:30
Strake,

You almost get the point. What my Israeli chum tells me is that they went a dozen at a time to help a fallen female soldier, while when it was a male, not so much.

That is the point.

Cazalet33
9th Jul 2016, 22:38
SAS,

I dunno whether you can listen to the BBC programme I've mention, perhaps through a VPN.

The General makes very clear that the physical fitness standards will not be lowered to enable this change to be made. Women who fail to make the grade on Selection will be failed, just like a man.

Sexual 'orientation' is a whole 'nuther matter. I dunno whether the Army's modern BFT has a section to differentiate between shirt-lifters and pillow-biters. Perhaps in the Navee....

strake
9th Jul 2016, 22:49
Cazalet33, I have no view one way or another on women in the front line but I think the 'men running to female comrades' argument is a weak one.
I have read a number of battlefield biographies and have always been struck by the assistance rendered to fallen soldiers. I don't think it is a particularly male/female reaction, more a comrade/comrade one.
Military Cross for soldier who crawled through enemy fire in Afghanistan to help fallen comrade - Get Reading (http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/reading-berkshire-news/military-cross-soldier-who-crawled-8727041)

Seldomfitforpurpose
9th Jul 2016, 23:40
Seldomfitforpurpose - Of course there is an insult intended. This is Jetblast. I'm giving you my opinion. If you don't want to hear it, have the thread moved to Military Flying and you'll find I don't comment.
So I offer you a humble opinion based on 25 years of flying with combat soldiers and your counter is to flounce......

Could it be I have a point?

AreOut
10th Jul 2016, 09:54
@strake

I guess it's natural instinct to help the woman first, or child for that matter.

It's what animals do when protecting their herd, they'll first help the weaker ones.

Katamarino
11th Jul 2016, 01:31
Why the hell shouldn't women be offered the opportunity to meet the standards? Sure, fewer may manage to reach them based purely on biological differences, but there's no reason to deny them the attempt.

Eddie Dean
11th Jul 2016, 01:40
Well Katamarino, the answer is two fold.
Send only young men to war, that way older men are more attractive.

And secondly, in a foreseeable future war I wouldn't want our best female breeding stock put in harms way.
Survival after and all that.

West Coast
11th Jul 2016, 01:51
Kat

No issue with that, but I expect the standard will be relaxed to allow more to pass.

Training Risky
11th Jul 2016, 12:11
The Standard has already been lowered!

When the MOD allowed this woman First woman wins Marines' green beret - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1395974/First-woman-wins-Marines-green-beret.html) to attend the All-Arms Commando course, she was injured and back-coursed many times then practically lifted over the last obstacles on the assault course so that the MOD had a good press opportunity.

I was a TA infantry soldier for 2 years before becoming a Chinook pilot, then Intelligence officer. I have carried very heavy bergens, flown chaps carrying them and briefed some seriously scary steely-eyed warriors in Iraq/Afghan.

Medics/SRR/Humint...all fine, no snags. But infantry is a very important capability that requires the need to carry lots of stuff very far and then fight at the end. It is obvious that this essential standard will be lowered to get the right PR opportunity!

Now I have left Auntie Betty's flying circus, I can only look back and weep at the hollowed-out politically correct shell of an Service it used to be.

KenV
11th Jul 2016, 13:44
Misogyny rules. Why does the male of the species think it has sole right to decide who will and will not take part in wars?And why do you think only "males of the species" think that putting women in front line combat units is a bad idea? Do you actually imagine there are zero women who think that's a bad idea? REALLY?!! Or is that just political correctness running amok?

G0ULI
11th Jul 2016, 14:05
Why do I keep misreading this thread title as Military Sexual Activity?

SASless
11th Jul 2016, 20:11
What strikes me as being just a bit odd....Muffy wants the Tabs and Berets and billets amongst the Combat Arms but when the issue of Conscription comes up...they object to being required to register for that grand lottery.

I have held to the Lumber Jack Rule when it comes to Military Service.

If Muffy wants to be a Lumber Jack....she has to carry her end of the Log.

As long as they meet the same Standard and are capable of performing all of the duties involved....then Fair Dinkum.

I do not believe in Gender based Standards....one size fits all is the only way to field an effective combat fighting force. That also means the standard has to be realistic and based on actual demands of fitness to serve, and be fairly administered.

Cazalet33
19th Jul 2016, 21:59
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjD2IQiEsbk