Greater equality or papering over the cracks?
MoD's two major infantry programmes over the last 20 years have both had at their core the requirement to increase tempo, which is universally agreed to reduce casualties.
Both proved very difficult and neither has delivered to even the worst case scenario when endorsed.
The unspoken agenda behind one of the programmes was, ultimately, this question of female close combat troops. As many have said, the single biggest issue was seen to be "load carried". The primary aim of one of these programmes was to reduce this to 27kg per man. (Has this been achieved?) That included everything worn, carried, used and consumed. Which is a lot less than the 120lbs carried by the RM in 1982, which at the time was measured excluding anything normally worn which, when wet, is a lot.
Many in MoD naturally ignored the whole issue on sociological and cultural grounds. But this ignores the political correctness that has seeped into Government.
It is a complex argument but the above programme made a valiant effort to reduce it to a simple test. There are (or were) 17 Infantry Vignettes. (e.g. Section Attack, Half Section in Defence etc). These were run, year after year, throughout the 90s/00s in carefully controlled trials that ensured like for like comparisons could be made. The headline data was the reduction in casualties, always as a result of increased tempo. But again, behind the scenes, senior staffs were asking (as someone pointed out above) "What if one or more of the section (the basic Infantry weapon system) was female?" It isn't a simple calculation, because a typical section has few who can cope with, say, 50kgs on a prolonged basis (defined as 72 hours if I recall). In practice, the load carried is shared depending on capability. Their formation is tailored so, for example, you may tend to get a brute of a man on the machine gun and he and his #2 carry huge loads of ammunition; but everyone is expected to fill in and achieve lesser, but still acceptable, standard. If you are told to accommodate a female then the odds begin to stack against you because the overall load carried tends to drop, and the section's tempo is only as good as the weakest point.
Another side of the argument is equally valid. For example, it is accepted by MoD that in a typical section there are 2 leaders (not necessarily the Section Leader and his 2i/c), 4 followers and two who don't want to be there. Head doctors predict that the last 2, especially, will tend to hang around and do something more useful if a female is there. Most would agree there is something in this. Unfortunately, to prove the point (or otherwise) you have to try it out. Only Tony Blair would organise a war to satisfy such personal curiosity.
I wonder what has prompted this debate again? I think it may have been raised for the wrong reason. To compensate for over zealous cuts and overstretch. What I do know is that 10 years ago MoD was quite happy to release reports discussing this. Now, they don't; not even the older reports they used to release. (How the hell do you manage that in a FOI sense?) To me, that means it isn't just a "slow news day" item. Something is up.
Both proved very difficult and neither has delivered to even the worst case scenario when endorsed.
The unspoken agenda behind one of the programmes was, ultimately, this question of female close combat troops. As many have said, the single biggest issue was seen to be "load carried". The primary aim of one of these programmes was to reduce this to 27kg per man. (Has this been achieved?) That included everything worn, carried, used and consumed. Which is a lot less than the 120lbs carried by the RM in 1982, which at the time was measured excluding anything normally worn which, when wet, is a lot.
Many in MoD naturally ignored the whole issue on sociological and cultural grounds. But this ignores the political correctness that has seeped into Government.
It is a complex argument but the above programme made a valiant effort to reduce it to a simple test. There are (or were) 17 Infantry Vignettes. (e.g. Section Attack, Half Section in Defence etc). These were run, year after year, throughout the 90s/00s in carefully controlled trials that ensured like for like comparisons could be made. The headline data was the reduction in casualties, always as a result of increased tempo. But again, behind the scenes, senior staffs were asking (as someone pointed out above) "What if one or more of the section (the basic Infantry weapon system) was female?" It isn't a simple calculation, because a typical section has few who can cope with, say, 50kgs on a prolonged basis (defined as 72 hours if I recall). In practice, the load carried is shared depending on capability. Their formation is tailored so, for example, you may tend to get a brute of a man on the machine gun and he and his #2 carry huge loads of ammunition; but everyone is expected to fill in and achieve lesser, but still acceptable, standard. If you are told to accommodate a female then the odds begin to stack against you because the overall load carried tends to drop, and the section's tempo is only as good as the weakest point.
Another side of the argument is equally valid. For example, it is accepted by MoD that in a typical section there are 2 leaders (not necessarily the Section Leader and his 2i/c), 4 followers and two who don't want to be there. Head doctors predict that the last 2, especially, will tend to hang around and do something more useful if a female is there. Most would agree there is something in this. Unfortunately, to prove the point (or otherwise) you have to try it out. Only Tony Blair would organise a war to satisfy such personal curiosity.
I wonder what has prompted this debate again? I think it may have been raised for the wrong reason. To compensate for over zealous cuts and overstretch. What I do know is that 10 years ago MoD was quite happy to release reports discussing this. Now, they don't; not even the older reports they used to release. (How the hell do you manage that in a FOI sense?) To me, that means it isn't just a "slow news day" item. Something is up.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fully understand Mr C Hinecaps view earlier up the thread, and it indeed can be argued that anyone who puts their head above the parapet about this and rejects the view that female infantry will be as good as male infantry is a misogynist.
I am not a misogynist.
Worked alongside many women in differing places and roles and generally didn't have a problem (apart from where I mentioned earlier, and they were both pretty horrible, and ever after made me think about this issue a little more deeply).
Sec of State for Defence (Fallon isn't it?) says in interview in Saturdays Telegraph we must have the armed forces that reflects UK society today in the 21st century. Again he lost me at that early point, and I disagree fundamentally with it.
I think we need a different, better number of individuals to make up the UK AF than what I see as the average UK individual.
Over time, progress of a sort and technology we have increasingly detached ourselves from actually seeing the blood of war.
But not for the infantry, seems to remain for them just as horrible as 100 years ago.
As a male civvy these days, I am not happy to allow young females to do the gory horrible fighting and killing in the countries name (if that's what our side are actually doing these days). It make's me deeply uncomfortable to think about, kind of in the same way (but to a lesser degree) as when I see women boxing for t.v. sport, if that makes sense.
But concede in this very savage, money grabbing world I am now well in the minority.
I am not a misogynist.
Worked alongside many women in differing places and roles and generally didn't have a problem (apart from where I mentioned earlier, and they were both pretty horrible, and ever after made me think about this issue a little more deeply).
Sec of State for Defence (Fallon isn't it?) says in interview in Saturdays Telegraph we must have the armed forces that reflects UK society today in the 21st century. Again he lost me at that early point, and I disagree fundamentally with it.
I think we need a different, better number of individuals to make up the UK AF than what I see as the average UK individual.
Over time, progress of a sort and technology we have increasingly detached ourselves from actually seeing the blood of war.
But not for the infantry, seems to remain for them just as horrible as 100 years ago.
As a male civvy these days, I am not happy to allow young females to do the gory horrible fighting and killing in the countries name (if that's what our side are actually doing these days). It make's me deeply uncomfortable to think about, kind of in the same way (but to a lesser degree) as when I see women boxing for t.v. sport, if that makes sense.
But concede in this very savage, money grabbing world I am now well in the minority.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Fallon said that, someone should remind him that defence of our realm is too important a principle to sacrifice on the alter of political correctness.
I would not want to be the section commander who will, instinctively, whether in defence, a section attack or fighting out of a killing ground, pause for even a second wonder and risk tainting a combat appreciation to take into account the death of a female subordinate. Similarly, the dynamic of the section will be affected by gender diversity. I saw it in Bosnia, Africa, Arctic etc, if a young Tom takes a fancy to the new section member what is the effect going to be, when subsequently in contact? Similarly, who gets treated first when wounded? I defy any male to not at least think twice when faced with a male or female injured similarly.
I was wrong about homosexuals serving within a tight knit team like an infantry unit (I thought it would never work) but this is different. This is more than social prejudice (which I guess I was guilty of) and we can't overturn thousands of years of evolution because of a political imperitive. Similarly, what would be the impact on a male prisoner if he was confronted with the threat of either co-operating with an enemy, or being responsible for a female soldier who he is responsible for, being decapitated infront of him? Nicky Moffat, a retired Brigadier was on C4 news the other evening, and suggested that we somehow 're-aligned' the tests. You can't re-align the weight of an unconscious/injured male soldier you need to sling over your shoulder.
Just the other night, a Northern Ireland politician was quick to mention that a female soldier had been targeted in an UV device attack. We, as a society, DO look on females differently. Yes, I know IDF employs females but that confines itself to domestic COIN and IS roles. And we are different to Israel.. I also wonder how the IDF would acquit itself in a wider variety of taskings. This is far more intricate a problem than simply having to identify females who can tab alongside a man. Do we have any option though? Not as long as our decision makers need to pander to opinion in order to keep their jobs, or we don't have sufficient men to fill slots. And that is the reality.
I would not want to be the section commander who will, instinctively, whether in defence, a section attack or fighting out of a killing ground, pause for even a second wonder and risk tainting a combat appreciation to take into account the death of a female subordinate. Similarly, the dynamic of the section will be affected by gender diversity. I saw it in Bosnia, Africa, Arctic etc, if a young Tom takes a fancy to the new section member what is the effect going to be, when subsequently in contact? Similarly, who gets treated first when wounded? I defy any male to not at least think twice when faced with a male or female injured similarly.
I was wrong about homosexuals serving within a tight knit team like an infantry unit (I thought it would never work) but this is different. This is more than social prejudice (which I guess I was guilty of) and we can't overturn thousands of years of evolution because of a political imperitive. Similarly, what would be the impact on a male prisoner if he was confronted with the threat of either co-operating with an enemy, or being responsible for a female soldier who he is responsible for, being decapitated infront of him? Nicky Moffat, a retired Brigadier was on C4 news the other evening, and suggested that we somehow 're-aligned' the tests. You can't re-align the weight of an unconscious/injured male soldier you need to sling over your shoulder.
Just the other night, a Northern Ireland politician was quick to mention that a female soldier had been targeted in an UV device attack. We, as a society, DO look on females differently. Yes, I know IDF employs females but that confines itself to domestic COIN and IS roles. And we are different to Israel.. I also wonder how the IDF would acquit itself in a wider variety of taskings. This is far more intricate a problem than simply having to identify females who can tab alongside a man. Do we have any option though? Not as long as our decision makers need to pander to opinion in order to keep their jobs, or we don't have sufficient men to fill slots. And that is the reality.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'To be fair, COIN in Afghanistan, as we have seen, involves a fair amount of conventional infantry warfare against an albeit limited opposition, but lethal just the same.'
To be fair, no it hasn't.
There have been FOBs Ops, raids, etc against a murky enemy...but not after 3 weeks in the field, armed only with the contents of your green handbag, with a 70km advance to contact, carrying, as said above, the evenly allocated ammo allocation of the sect. There has been a total envelopment into COIN and everyone thinks that is all.
Nicky Moffat can say what she wants - it has always been, and for ever will be, those that it is not going to affect that fight hardest for the cause.
To be fair, no it hasn't.
There have been FOBs Ops, raids, etc against a murky enemy...but not after 3 weeks in the field, armed only with the contents of your green handbag, with a 70km advance to contact, carrying, as said above, the evenly allocated ammo allocation of the sect. There has been a total envelopment into COIN and everyone thinks that is all.
Nicky Moffat can say what she wants - it has always been, and for ever will be, those that it is not going to affect that fight hardest for the cause.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's talk about the tab / yomp across the FI shall we? Undertaken by the elite of the British infantry forces at the time. Not every infantryman could undertake that sort of effort and be successful, so that isn't really the benchmark some would claim it to be.
I stated that most of with a negative view are not referencing the most recent operations, where females have served on the front line along with their male colleagues in medical, comms, driver, interpreter and a plethora of other roles. Due to the asymmetric nature of current ops, these women have faced the enemy in firefights and have held their own. Those bold knights posting in defense of the fairer women seem to blank this factual aspect from their own minds. Women are already there.
I stated that most of with a negative view are not referencing the most recent operations, where females have served on the front line along with their male colleagues in medical, comms, driver, interpreter and a plethora of other roles. Due to the asymmetric nature of current ops, these women have faced the enemy in firefights and have held their own. Those bold knights posting in defense of the fairer women seem to blank this factual aspect from their own minds. Women are already there.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Grimsby
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr C. You seem to follow the usual lefty-loony pattern, ie anyone who questions the concept of mass immigration, for example, is an outright NAZI on a par with Dr Mengele.
And doubtless, anyone who questions UK membership of the so-called "EU" is a slobbering hate-filled xenophobe. Likewise, any questioning whether a five-foot, nine stone little girl, could lug a massive weight over a great distance in appalling weather and then fight a life or death battle (as has been the case for generations) is presumably a "sexist" or some other (marxist) appelation that you pick of the shelf. So convenient. Why don't you actually ARGUE your case without recourse to insults and insinuation.
The infantry is a serious life or death situation. The selection procedure for these units must remain absolute with zero concession to ANY consideration other than the ability to do the job. NO political correctness.
If this lunacy goes ahead (for nothing more than to satisfy left-wing bigotry) it will be a seriously backward move which Britain will tragically regret.
"Whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make MAD."
And doubtless, anyone who questions UK membership of the so-called "EU" is a slobbering hate-filled xenophobe. Likewise, any questioning whether a five-foot, nine stone little girl, could lug a massive weight over a great distance in appalling weather and then fight a life or death battle (as has been the case for generations) is presumably a "sexist" or some other (marxist) appelation that you pick of the shelf. So convenient. Why don't you actually ARGUE your case without recourse to insults and insinuation.
The infantry is a serious life or death situation. The selection procedure for these units must remain absolute with zero concession to ANY consideration other than the ability to do the job. NO political correctness.
If this lunacy goes ahead (for nothing more than to satisfy left-wing bigotry) it will be a seriously backward move which Britain will tragically regret.
"Whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make MAD."
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a woman can pass the same tests that are required of a man to join the infantry then she should be allowed to do so.
Remarks about 9 stone little girls are UTTERLY irrelevant. The same as they would be for 9 stone little boys.
Pass the test: do the job.
And I am not a politically correct left wing c0ck-sucker. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Possession of breasts and a vigina instead of a penis is no indication of physical or mental ability.
Remarks about 9 stone little girls are UTTERLY irrelevant. The same as they would be for 9 stone little boys.
Pass the test: do the job.
And I am not a politically correct left wing c0ck-sucker. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Possession of breasts and a vigina instead of a penis is no indication of physical or mental ability.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,050
Received 2,920 Likes
on
1,249 Posts
And I am not a politically correct left wing c0ck-sucker. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Agreed, if they can pass the test, then fair do's to them.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C Hinecap
1. Ok, let's. Not every male unit could do it. Maj. General Jeremy Moore was given 5 Brigade because, as much as anything, of red tab interference which wanted the woodentops to be involved. He decided not to commit the Welsh Guards to the tab because, some suggest, they were not physically able to endure the march across the islands after an extended period of London garrison/Public Duties. The consequences are well catalogued.
2. Serving on the frontline and returning fire when one's FOB is being attacked or when a supply convoy is being ambushed, isn't the same as joining a unit with the express task of ramping up to destroy an enemy day after day, month after month. It's easy to suggest that anyone who doesn't "get it" is a patronising Col Blimp. But the military should be able to rise above the more immediate characteristics of a debate which would otherwise distract a less informed perspective or shape a more superficial agenda.
Teeth arm ops are not just about passing physical tick tests. Just as engineers need to have an academic bias to get through the door, the finest engineer I know can't even read as well as most. He wouldn't get in the RAF as a gunner, yet he still managed to rebuild a 27 litre RR Meteor engine from scratch. Should the RAF allow him to service Typhoon? Maybe some just underestimate the role and demands on, and of the infantry.
Let's talk about the tab / yomp across the FI shall we? Undertaken by the elite of the British infantry forces at the time. Not every infantryman could undertake that sort of effort and be successful, so that isn't really the benchmark some would claim it to be.
I stated that most of with a negative view are not referencing the most recent operations, where females have served on the front line along with their male colleagues in medical, comms, driver, interpreter and a plethora of other roles. Due to the asymmetric nature of current ops, these women have faced the enemy in firefights and have held their own. Those bold knights posting in defense of the fairer women seem to blank this factual aspect from their own minds. Women are already there.
I stated that most of with a negative view are not referencing the most recent operations, where females have served on the front line along with their male colleagues in medical, comms, driver, interpreter and a plethora of other roles. Due to the asymmetric nature of current ops, these women have faced the enemy in firefights and have held their own. Those bold knights posting in defense of the fairer women seem to blank this factual aspect from their own minds. Women are already there.
2. Serving on the frontline and returning fire when one's FOB is being attacked or when a supply convoy is being ambushed, isn't the same as joining a unit with the express task of ramping up to destroy an enemy day after day, month after month. It's easy to suggest that anyone who doesn't "get it" is a patronising Col Blimp. But the military should be able to rise above the more immediate characteristics of a debate which would otherwise distract a less informed perspective or shape a more superficial agenda.
Teeth arm ops are not just about passing physical tick tests. Just as engineers need to have an academic bias to get through the door, the finest engineer I know can't even read as well as most. He wouldn't get in the RAF as a gunner, yet he still managed to rebuild a 27 litre RR Meteor engine from scratch. Should the RAF allow him to service Typhoon? Maybe some just underestimate the role and demands on, and of the infantry.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Grimsby
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willard Whyte.
Remarks about 9st little girls are EXACTLY the point. Exactly the point that you and your ilk are missing. I am not prejudice against women (much to your chagrin, no doubt) The point is THIS. If a 9st "little boy" wasn't up to the task then he would be binned from the selection process and rightly so...and there the matter would end.
However, if a 9st little girl were similarly binned...for the same reason...then this would, in your twisted lexicon, be "sexism" or "chauvinism." This would doubtless result in a court case followed by six-figure sum of "compensation" for "hurt feelings." All coming out of a rapidly shrinking military budget.
Do you have any sense of honour? Do you not see anything wrong with women getting mutilated in the front line?
You're one sick bastard.
Remarks about 9st little girls are EXACTLY the point. Exactly the point that you and your ilk are missing. I am not prejudice against women (much to your chagrin, no doubt) The point is THIS. If a 9st "little boy" wasn't up to the task then he would be binned from the selection process and rightly so...and there the matter would end.
However, if a 9st little girl were similarly binned...for the same reason...then this would, in your twisted lexicon, be "sexism" or "chauvinism." This would doubtless result in a court case followed by six-figure sum of "compensation" for "hurt feelings." All coming out of a rapidly shrinking military budget.
Do you have any sense of honour? Do you not see anything wrong with women getting mutilated in the front line?
You're one sick bastard.
Oh Mr C...
If only you would realise that just because some girls have done well as loggies and medics in afghanistan, that narrow COIN example cannot be applied to conventional warfare.
I like the point made above about mixed sports teams. If it is such a progressive idea for society, why are there still gender segregated events in the olympics? Or (to choose a more relevant example) why doesn't the rugby world cup have mixed teams?
Answers on a postcard please...
If only you would realise that just because some girls have done well as loggies and medics in afghanistan, that narrow COIN example cannot be applied to conventional warfare.
I like the point made above about mixed sports teams. If it is such a progressive idea for society, why are there still gender segregated events in the olympics? Or (to choose a more relevant example) why doesn't the rugby world cup have mixed teams?
Answers on a postcard please...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you have any sense of honour? Do you not see anything wrong with women getting mutilated in the front line?
You're one sick bastard.
You're one sick bastard.
I've never said that women should be put into the infantry. I believe that, if they can pass the requisite tests and training, then they should be allowed to serve. Surely the selection and training is the gateway as it is now?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fools rush in.....but I'll have a go !
Had three years i/c of a bunch (70-odd) of Teeside irregulars (well, W.R.Aux.A.F.) whom we were training as Radar Operators and Fighter Plotters for the next conflict. Fortunately I had as my W..F. 'G'. a very capable (and very nice) Flight Lieutenant Penny 'O' (married to the Aux. Engineering Officer of 608, so it worked out fine for them. No relation to the Banking Secretarial chap of the same name I had).
Penny had been a Cpl MT driver in the last lot. Tough and hard as nails, backed by an Officer Cadet, an ex-war sergeant and a couple of ex-war Cpls (all W), they kept my crowd in order. Which was a Good Thing, for "I do not know what effect my lot would have on the Enemy - but by God they frightened me".
Having established my small right to a hearing in these matters, (and in later years as a pedagogue at the ATC School and in my five last years ATC at Leeming, life was made more pleasant by the introduction (in the mid-sixties) of well-brought-up, nice young ladies who (mostly) were the professional equals of the pleasant young gentlemen who came in with them and would soon take over from us Old Hairies left over from the war.
My summary of the WRAF ?: "When they were good, they were very, very good and when they were bad they were horrid" (and there were very few of those). Of course ours didn't have to "yomp" across the Falklands in winter with an 80lb (120 lb ?) pack on their backs (but then, neither did I). So were they the Crown's Hard Bargains or not ?
In the close-combat rôle, I've read somewhere that the Israeli army tried it, and found that when one woman was wounded, they lost two soldiers - as a man had to stay to look after her until help arrived. It wasn't ecomomic. Apart from that, can you imagine what it's really like to have to stick six inches of cold steel into another human's guts, and drag them out ? Could you do it ? Could I do it ? I often think that those of us who volunteered for "technical" arms like RAF aircrew or the Navy had this subconscious, ulterior motive - we were quite ready to die ourselves, but preferred to do our slaughter at a distance, where we didn't have to see the grim results or hear the screams of the dying. Put bluntly, there's something inherently wrong with asking a woman (however much of an Amazon she may be) to do this. And a nation which needs to ask it is not much of a nation in my book. Fuddy-duddy I may be, but that's the way I see it.
D.
Had three years i/c of a bunch (70-odd) of Teeside irregulars (well, W.R.Aux.A.F.) whom we were training as Radar Operators and Fighter Plotters for the next conflict. Fortunately I had as my W..F. 'G'. a very capable (and very nice) Flight Lieutenant Penny 'O' (married to the Aux. Engineering Officer of 608, so it worked out fine for them. No relation to the Banking Secretarial chap of the same name I had).
Penny had been a Cpl MT driver in the last lot. Tough and hard as nails, backed by an Officer Cadet, an ex-war sergeant and a couple of ex-war Cpls (all W), they kept my crowd in order. Which was a Good Thing, for "I do not know what effect my lot would have on the Enemy - but by God they frightened me".
Having established my small right to a hearing in these matters, (and in later years as a pedagogue at the ATC School and in my five last years ATC at Leeming, life was made more pleasant by the introduction (in the mid-sixties) of well-brought-up, nice young ladies who (mostly) were the professional equals of the pleasant young gentlemen who came in with them and would soon take over from us Old Hairies left over from the war.
My summary of the WRAF ?: "When they were good, they were very, very good and when they were bad they were horrid" (and there were very few of those). Of course ours didn't have to "yomp" across the Falklands in winter with an 80lb (120 lb ?) pack on their backs (but then, neither did I). So were they the Crown's Hard Bargains or not ?
In the close-combat rôle, I've read somewhere that the Israeli army tried it, and found that when one woman was wounded, they lost two soldiers - as a man had to stay to look after her until help arrived. It wasn't ecomomic. Apart from that, can you imagine what it's really like to have to stick six inches of cold steel into another human's guts, and drag them out ? Could you do it ? Could I do it ? I often think that those of us who volunteered for "technical" arms like RAF aircrew or the Navy had this subconscious, ulterior motive - we were quite ready to die ourselves, but preferred to do our slaughter at a distance, where we didn't have to see the grim results or hear the screams of the dying. Put bluntly, there's something inherently wrong with asking a woman (however much of an Amazon she may be) to do this. And a nation which needs to ask it is not much of a nation in my book. Fuddy-duddy I may be, but that's the way I see it.
D.
Gentleman Aviator
what will happen if one of the team falls into a relationship with her, you would be better with all female squads to counteract that.
Or you haven't met some of the female soldiers that I have .....
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willard Whyte.
Remarks about 9st little girls are EXACTLY the point. Exactly the point that you and your ilk are missing. I am not prejudice against women (much to your chagrin, no doubt) The point is THIS. If a 9st "little boy" wasn't up to the task then he would be binned from the selection process and rightly so...and there the matter would end.
However, if a 9st little girl were similarly binned...for the same reason...then this would, in your twisted lexicon, be "sexism" or "chauvinism." This would doubtless result in a court case followed by six-figure sum of "compensation" for "hurt feelings." All coming out of a rapidly shrinking military budget.
Do you have any sense of honour? Do you not see anything wrong with women getting mutilated in the front line?
You're one sick bastard.
Remarks about 9st little girls are EXACTLY the point. Exactly the point that you and your ilk are missing. I am not prejudice against women (much to your chagrin, no doubt) The point is THIS. If a 9st "little boy" wasn't up to the task then he would be binned from the selection process and rightly so...and there the matter would end.
However, if a 9st little girl were similarly binned...for the same reason...then this would, in your twisted lexicon, be "sexism" or "chauvinism." This would doubtless result in a court case followed by six-figure sum of "compensation" for "hurt feelings." All coming out of a rapidly shrinking military budget.
Do you have any sense of honour? Do you not see anything wrong with women getting mutilated in the front line?
You're one sick bastard.
Where did I say that if a 9 stone man were binned for failing the test(s) and a likewise a 9 stone woman, then binning woman would be sexism? I didn't. What I said was that if a man or woman can pass the tests then they should be allowed to do the job. Their gender is utterly irrelevant.
I see no honour in either sex getting mutilated. Where did I say this? That YOU choose to opine that it is worse for a woman to be mutilated shows that you are indeed sexist.
Go back to your G&T and continue harrumphing over the state of the nation whilst your little woman irons your socks.
Mr C Said -
This thread started to be about just that. Women in the Infantry, performing combat infantry roles.
Of course there are women on the front line, in all three services. Most if not all have been outstanding. Some have even gone on patrol with the Infantry in Afghanistan as interpreters and dog handlers. When the **** hits the fan though, its the infantry that carry the ammunition, personal weapons and Platoon heavy weapons in the attack. The women do not.
Again, this is about women in the infantry. There are physical standards that must be met and maintained such as the Infantry Combat Fitness Test. If a woman or a 9 stone man can't maintain these standards, then both or either do not join or stay in the Infantry.
If they can, then crack on.
It is interesting though the point that Danny made, regarding the Israeli study. Two men staying behind for every one female casualty. For an enemy force, it most certainly would be a force multiplier to target female infantry.
I've never said that women should be put into the infantry.
Of course there are women on the front line, in all three services. Most if not all have been outstanding. Some have even gone on patrol with the Infantry in Afghanistan as interpreters and dog handlers. When the **** hits the fan though, its the infantry that carry the ammunition, personal weapons and Platoon heavy weapons in the attack. The women do not.
Again, this is about women in the infantry. There are physical standards that must be met and maintained such as the Infantry Combat Fitness Test. If a woman or a 9 stone man can't maintain these standards, then both or either do not join or stay in the Infantry.
If they can, then crack on.
It is interesting though the point that Danny made, regarding the Israeli study. Two men staying behind for every one female casualty. For an enemy force, it most certainly would be a force multiplier to target female infantry.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The IDF had data, years ago, from junior commanders which related not just to casualty handling either, although that particular point is well documented. The section commanders did pause for thought about how to deploy their troops whilst under effective enemy fire, specifically taking into account, gender. That in itself, places an extra and unfair pressure on junior commanders and could compromise the integrity of decision making whilst in contact.