RAF Regiment
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hhhhhhmmmmm, this topic has been 'interesting' to say the least. So, my input then....
Equality is absolutely the right thing to do and should be applauded... However there is a practical side that has to be looked at when employing women in certain roles such as infantry. Whilst medics in Afghanistan showed what women who are given a chance are capable of it is one side of a story. Doing this over a 20+ year career, week in, week out is another thing.
I have no doubt there are women who can carry 20 kg bergans (Commando Test) or keep up with men when tabbing over high ground (Goose Green etc) or mill with a bloke of a similar stature (Para Regt milling) etc. The long term effects for the average infanteer are lower limb injuries and back problems that plague them for their careers and in later life.
Women are more likely to be injured when subjected to the rigours of infantry training vs males(see links below). As much as this will annoy some, this is unfortunately science fact. There are ways to mitigate some injuries but the reality is that women are just built differently and suffer more through over-striding, weight bearing and different hormonal needs that cause other isues such as (relative) iron deficiency) and a body not designed to pack on muscle mass and with a (relatively) less robust skeletal system.
This all tied in with a bodymass to weight carried ratio being at a guess about 15-20% different without correcting for lean body mass, bone strength and absolute cardiovascular fitness. There are ways to limit these issues, but as the MoD lost 26 aircrew at a cost of £100's millions due to musculo-skeletal injury over a 6 year period they are unlikely (never!) to implement anything worthwhile for infantry units.
The crux of my point, from a strategic and military point of view, females will more likely get injured = time off = less manpower = less to do the fighting = less likely mission success.
From a human and moral point of view and being a father to daughters, more injuries = more pain = more chance of repeat injuries = chronic pain = lack of operational effectiveness = med discharge = life of pain and suffering.
I really would hate for numerous young women in their prime to have life changing injuries or chronic pain for the sake appeasing the bra burners and make some politician look good. The long term health effects on women have to be taken seriously if we must go down this route and planned for by using peer reviewed studies from respected academics. We cannot let political correctness cloud a potential health timebomb without fully knowing the implications.
And just to be clear, I 100% support women in all front line roles providing the entry standard is not adjusted for gender.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8331441/
http://natajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.4085/1062-6050-51.9.09?code=nata-site
https://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/for_researchers/cyber_seminars/archives/705-notes.pdf
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/26/army-stats-show-that-women-are-injured-twice-as-of/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/18849872/
http://jmvh.org/article/load-carriage-and-the-female-soldier/
Equality is absolutely the right thing to do and should be applauded... However there is a practical side that has to be looked at when employing women in certain roles such as infantry. Whilst medics in Afghanistan showed what women who are given a chance are capable of it is one side of a story. Doing this over a 20+ year career, week in, week out is another thing.
I have no doubt there are women who can carry 20 kg bergans (Commando Test) or keep up with men when tabbing over high ground (Goose Green etc) or mill with a bloke of a similar stature (Para Regt milling) etc. The long term effects for the average infanteer are lower limb injuries and back problems that plague them for their careers and in later life.
Women are more likely to be injured when subjected to the rigours of infantry training vs males(see links below). As much as this will annoy some, this is unfortunately science fact. There are ways to mitigate some injuries but the reality is that women are just built differently and suffer more through over-striding, weight bearing and different hormonal needs that cause other isues such as (relative) iron deficiency) and a body not designed to pack on muscle mass and with a (relatively) less robust skeletal system.
This all tied in with a bodymass to weight carried ratio being at a guess about 15-20% different without correcting for lean body mass, bone strength and absolute cardiovascular fitness. There are ways to limit these issues, but as the MoD lost 26 aircrew at a cost of £100's millions due to musculo-skeletal injury over a 6 year period they are unlikely (never!) to implement anything worthwhile for infantry units.
The crux of my point, from a strategic and military point of view, females will more likely get injured = time off = less manpower = less to do the fighting = less likely mission success.
From a human and moral point of view and being a father to daughters, more injuries = more pain = more chance of repeat injuries = chronic pain = lack of operational effectiveness = med discharge = life of pain and suffering.
I really would hate for numerous young women in their prime to have life changing injuries or chronic pain for the sake appeasing the bra burners and make some politician look good. The long term health effects on women have to be taken seriously if we must go down this route and planned for by using peer reviewed studies from respected academics. We cannot let political correctness cloud a potential health timebomb without fully knowing the implications.
And just to be clear, I 100% support women in all front line roles providing the entry standard is not adjusted for gender.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8331441/
http://natajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.4085/1062-6050-51.9.09?code=nata-site
https://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/for_researchers/cyber_seminars/archives/705-notes.pdf
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/26/army-stats-show-that-women-are-injured-twice-as-of/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/18849872/
http://jmvh.org/article/load-carriage-and-the-female-soldier/
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Here
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quota !
The next thing of course - why are there not enough female Sgts ? Ask the blokes who get passed over to achieve that aim - who thinks that won't happen ?
As it happens I was serving when the WRAC were armed in 1982 - most that I knew did not like it (I think that it was optional for those already serving).
They even gave them "That Gun" !
My wife who was a part-time trained killer before then was armed from the mid-Seventies (the STABs were a different Army).
For those who might consider the bayonet being only ceremonial -
Badass - Brian Wood
After all - those Harrier aircraft were wrecked by an insurgent attack on an airfield.
As it happens I was serving when the WRAC were armed in 1982 - most that I knew did not like it (I think that it was optional for those already serving).
They even gave them "That Gun" !
My wife who was a part-time trained killer before then was armed from the mid-Seventies (the STABs were a different Army).
For those who might consider the bayonet being only ceremonial -
Badass - Brian Wood
After all - those Harrier aircraft were wrecked by an insurgent attack on an airfield.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Brian 48nav (#115),
Thank you for taking up the cudgels on my behalf, but you do not need to worry: in my 95 years I've developed a pretty tough hide. You are right in that this Thread has become a bit waspish. Yet vituperation can never replace reasoned argument. It is sad if it appears here, whereas on my "home turf" ("Pilot's Brevet"): "No harsh word is to be spoken".
As to the matter in hand, I suppose it is a generational thing. To my Neandertal mind, there is a case against having women in the fighting services at all (unless, as was in 1916) the nation has simply run out of manpower.
The argument has two legs: the first is logistical: your "Penny Bun costs Twopence" - you have to double up on quarters, ablutions, uniform designs etc. (In peace there is the retention problem - young marriages ensure you do not, on average, give the same length of service). In WWII there was a gag going the rounds: "The WAAF is more of an administrative nuisance than she is an operational asset". Discuss on one side of foolscap".
The essence of the second is the ethical argument, illustrted well by Cazalet33's Israeli Major (#63), and developed by me in my (#85):
"IMHO this applies with even greater force to the female. Is it "Right" to ask a woman (the giver of human life) to do this ? What is the "Right" and the "Wrong" in this case ? I find Kant's "Categorical Imperative" ("what would happen [to the human species] if everybody did this all the time ?") gives the best answer: Clearly, you must protect your breeding stock at all costs, to secure the next generation, whereas the males are expendable".
Whether a woman can fight hand-to-hand as well as a man, whether she wishes to do so (which nowadays constitutes an automatic "right"), whether the Government has the right to ask her to do it, is quite irrelevant. She has an overriding duty (dirty word) to stay out of harm's way to produce the next crop of human beings.
Having: "Stated my case - of which I'm certain", I'll retire from this Thread. I doubt I will convince many. As I said: "It's a generational thing" - and my generation will soon be history.
"The Past is another country - they do things differently there".
Danny.
Thank you for taking up the cudgels on my behalf, but you do not need to worry: in my 95 years I've developed a pretty tough hide. You are right in that this Thread has become a bit waspish. Yet vituperation can never replace reasoned argument. It is sad if it appears here, whereas on my "home turf" ("Pilot's Brevet"): "No harsh word is to be spoken".
As to the matter in hand, I suppose it is a generational thing. To my Neandertal mind, there is a case against having women in the fighting services at all (unless, as was in 1916) the nation has simply run out of manpower.
The argument has two legs: the first is logistical: your "Penny Bun costs Twopence" - you have to double up on quarters, ablutions, uniform designs etc. (In peace there is the retention problem - young marriages ensure you do not, on average, give the same length of service). In WWII there was a gag going the rounds: "The WAAF is more of an administrative nuisance than she is an operational asset". Discuss on one side of foolscap".
The essence of the second is the ethical argument, illustrted well by Cazalet33's Israeli Major (#63), and developed by me in my (#85):
"IMHO this applies with even greater force to the female. Is it "Right" to ask a woman (the giver of human life) to do this ? What is the "Right" and the "Wrong" in this case ? I find Kant's "Categorical Imperative" ("what would happen [to the human species] if everybody did this all the time ?") gives the best answer: Clearly, you must protect your breeding stock at all costs, to secure the next generation, whereas the males are expendable".
Whether a woman can fight hand-to-hand as well as a man, whether she wishes to do so (which nowadays constitutes an automatic "right"), whether the Government has the right to ask her to do it, is quite irrelevant. She has an overriding duty (dirty word) to stay out of harm's way to produce the next crop of human beings.
Having: "Stated my case - of which I'm certain", I'll retire from this Thread. I doubt I will convince many. As I said: "It's a generational thing" - and my generation will soon be history.
"The Past is another country - they do things differently there".
Danny.
"The Past is another country - they do things differently there".
With respect, Danny, the Soviets were using women in combat to great effect 'in your time'.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches
I'm sure there were some who scoffed at the time, but I bet they weren't scoffing for long.
With respect, Danny, the Soviets were using women in combat to great effect 'in your time'.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches
I'm sure there were some who scoffed at the time, but I bet they weren't scoffing for long.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could we please give the "officer and gentleman" thing a rest. Anyone who thinks that a commission makes the holder a better person than the next man/woman, or confers any mystical status is sadly deluded.
[QUOTE=Brian 48nav;9830981]Quite frankly I don't care what you think either! You seem to be typical of the modern PC world where there is no longer freedom of speech.
And I don't care what you think nor do I care about what you think about what I think....
The whole point here is that you have no right to tell half the population what they can and cannot do!
Rosevidney1,
It takes both genders to breed you clown!
And I don't care what you think nor do I care about what you think about what I think....
The whole point here is that you have no right to tell half the population what they can and cannot do!
Rosevidney1,
It takes both genders to breed you clown!
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK
Age: 84
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you, pr00ne for your brilliantly clever remark. Without your invaluable aid I doubt if many of us would have realised what a flash of genius enabled you to come up with the answer - and pretty smartish too, I might say.
Nigerian In Law
Could we please give the "officer and gentleman" thing a rest. Anyone who thinks that a commission makes the holder a better person than the next man/woman, or confers any mystical status is sadly deluded.
NEO
Rosevidney1
You may have missed the fact that it totally repudiates YOUR remark!
You may have missed the fact that it totally repudiates YOUR remark!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It looks to me as though this thread is missing perspective.
The regular component of the RAF Regiment is no more than 2000 people. Of that number, women may in future occupy a small percentage. It is a limited-role infantry capability. That's not to say they're not at the sharp end at times, but there's no mechanised capability, no AAW weapons, just basic light infantry with a defined scope (60 miles from the airfield, IIRC).
The argument about solving manning shortfalls seems ancillary to me when there are still areas of HMF that are gender-closed. Open the gender gate, and then assess whether you still have a shortfall. Definitely putting the cart before the horse in my view.
There's no NEAF, FEAF, ATAF, RAFG or anything else anymore, and hasn't been for years. Same for the Army and RN. A few stragglers in Germany closing down. Hell, JHQ closed; I never thought I'd see that in my lifetime. The point being that the scope of the entire Service, and indeed HMF is much reduced, and while this issue might have been a flea on an elephant in the Cold War, it's more of a flea on a cow these days.
As for the "officer and gentleman" horse****, it is exactly that. There's no place in modern society for such pretend distinction between rank divisions. It is a relic of the 17th century and belongs there. I've read on here (not recently, thank the Lord) terms such as "untermensch", referring to "ORs". Those making such statements write their own career epitaph.
Good luck to the future RAF Regiment gunners; whatever their gender.
The regular component of the RAF Regiment is no more than 2000 people. Of that number, women may in future occupy a small percentage. It is a limited-role infantry capability. That's not to say they're not at the sharp end at times, but there's no mechanised capability, no AAW weapons, just basic light infantry with a defined scope (60 miles from the airfield, IIRC).
The argument about solving manning shortfalls seems ancillary to me when there are still areas of HMF that are gender-closed. Open the gender gate, and then assess whether you still have a shortfall. Definitely putting the cart before the horse in my view.
There's no NEAF, FEAF, ATAF, RAFG or anything else anymore, and hasn't been for years. Same for the Army and RN. A few stragglers in Germany closing down. Hell, JHQ closed; I never thought I'd see that in my lifetime. The point being that the scope of the entire Service, and indeed HMF is much reduced, and while this issue might have been a flea on an elephant in the Cold War, it's more of a flea on a cow these days.
As for the "officer and gentleman" horse****, it is exactly that. There's no place in modern society for such pretend distinction between rank divisions. It is a relic of the 17th century and belongs there. I've read on here (not recently, thank the Lord) terms such as "untermensch", referring to "ORs". Those making such statements write their own career epitaph.
Good luck to the future RAF Regiment gunners; whatever their gender.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Roadster, I will only comment on para 2.
While that is correct right now, the RAF Regiment, unlike most of the Army, was never a single role organisation. It is quite likely to evolve in a different direction from time to time.
While that is correct right now, the RAF Regiment, unlike most of the Army, was never a single role organisation. It is quite likely to evolve in a different direction from time to time.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is hysterical.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I remember looking at a female RAF doctor in the 60s with some surprise - formidable.
Also in another country, the NS WRAF were a breed apart too
They seemed mostly employed a batties and relished the unrationed quantities of chips and beans.
Also in another country, the NS WRAF were a breed apart too
They seemed mostly employed a batties and relished the unrationed quantities of chips and beans.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Great Britain
Age: 51
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
5 Posts
Monikers or Nom de Plumes
Brian, you need to calm down as others have said 'play the ball and not the man'. The monikers that you refer to have been and are used on PPrune by many posters. They are also used by military aircrew on spoof name badges in many a happy hour. All very immature, but I have seen some of the female aircrew wearing some of these names as well!
Examples are:
Justin Cyder-Belvoir
Welwyn Cyder-Belvoir
Helen Damnation
Willie Eckerslike
Mike Oxlong
Mike Hunt
Heywood Jablomey
Hugh Jardon
Buster Hyman
Ali Chapussy
Isaac Hunt
Sheila Vaperiod
Drew Peacock
So when put into context then the LJ moniker is no different to the above. Indeed one of them is the most prolific on the caption competition thread on PPrune - equally offensive to the female gender. They are jokes; intended to be so. I even note that LJ admitted mea culpa that it is one of the poorly chosen immature joke names, and that in hindsight he would change it if he could.
However, I also agree with many on here that some of the comments on this thread appear to be heart-felt and could be at best be described as 'outdated'. Discriminatory comments on female roles and stereotyping being the 'baby bearers' is making the news today: Advertising watchdog to get tough on gender stereotypes - BBC News
I also found some of the attitudes towards the new Dr Who hugely telling on a minority's viewpoint on gender in the UK. Yes, the posted Tardis driving jokes are probably a bit too raw at present not to be seen as more anti than funny.
Like it or not, the world is changing. I still find it staggering that women were not allowed to vote in this country some 100 years ago. Luckily I am from a different generation that finds this so very strange and deplorable.
Examples are:
Justin Cyder-Belvoir
Welwyn Cyder-Belvoir
Helen Damnation
Willie Eckerslike
Mike Oxlong
Mike Hunt
Heywood Jablomey
Hugh Jardon
Buster Hyman
Ali Chapussy
Isaac Hunt
Sheila Vaperiod
Drew Peacock
So when put into context then the LJ moniker is no different to the above. Indeed one of them is the most prolific on the caption competition thread on PPrune - equally offensive to the female gender. They are jokes; intended to be so. I even note that LJ admitted mea culpa that it is one of the poorly chosen immature joke names, and that in hindsight he would change it if he could.
However, I also agree with many on here that some of the comments on this thread appear to be heart-felt and could be at best be described as 'outdated'. Discriminatory comments on female roles and stereotyping being the 'baby bearers' is making the news today: Advertising watchdog to get tough on gender stereotypes - BBC News
I also found some of the attitudes towards the new Dr Who hugely telling on a minority's viewpoint on gender in the UK. Yes, the posted Tardis driving jokes are probably a bit too raw at present not to be seen as more anti than funny.
Like it or not, the world is changing. I still find it staggering that women were not allowed to vote in this country some 100 years ago. Luckily I am from a different generation that finds this so very strange and deplorable.