All Roles Now Open To Females

Other than to highlight their PC credentials, I wonder if those who set such targets can name one really tangible advantage of achieving them. The usual answer is” Well, we’ll better reflect the society we serve”. Usually delivered with a self righteous, patronising inflection whilst studiously avoiding answering the part about, actual, physical advantages.
I wanted to Join the Irish Guards and follow my uncle, however, I was too small being only 5’ 7”. If I was joining now I would be absolutely fine.

Have any of the modern generation of Guards performed less well in Iraq and Afghanistan or even on PD due to this lack of height or was it just an outdated rule.

The politicians set the targets, however, why should individuals who are perfectly capable of doing a job be disqualified because they don’t have the same dangly bits as the person next to them?
 
They arent offensive to half of society, they might be offensive to a small number of females in their presence, much like a group of civvie men might be in their free time.
ok, how does being offensive to and unable to work with a small group of society increase combat effectiveness. Equally, swap females with homosexuals, BAME etc.
 
Last edited:
I wanted to Join the Irish Guards and follow my uncle, however, I was too small being only 5’ 7”. If I was joining now I would be absolutely fine.

Have any of the modern generation of Guards performed less well in Iraq and Afghanistan or even on PD due to this lack of height or was it just an outdated rule.

The politicians set the targets, however, why should individuals who are perfectly capable of doing a job be disqualified because they don’t have the same dangly bits as the person next to them?
That’s not the point I was trying to make. I’m not on about some archaic height rule which only ever existed for ceremonial reasons, I’m on about displaying tangible advantages for those percentage figures. Will the increased percentages of underrepresented minorities increase run times or range scores? Will the army be a better war fighting force for having them?
 
This post has gotten to the core problem of political interference, & the gradual wearing down of the leadership to a point where fear of being branded for not being on message is greater than taking on an enemy :eek:
Alternately it sounds like the arguments in my school in the early 80’s about why the girls couldn't do woodwork and metalwork or wear trousers.

Funnily enough the majority of the demographic arguing against females in GGC were probably the adults who wanted to keep them doing home economics and needle work :)

Note: AT NO STAGE HAVE I MENTIONED 5HE WORD DINOSAUR (until just now) ^~
 
That’s not the point I was trying to make. I’m not on about some archaic height rule which only ever existed for ceremonial reasons, I’m on about displaying tangible advantages for those percentage figures. Will the increased percentages of underrepresented minorities increase run times or range scores? Will the army be a better war fighting force for having them?
In my time in the Army, we have gone from The WRAC to females in CSS - which was wrong.

We have gone from females in CSS to CS - Which was wrong.

We have female fighter pilots and AH pilots - Which was wrong

We changed height restrictions in certain Arms - Which was wrong

We lifted the ban on gays - Which was wrong

Yet at a tactical level, on Ops, I have yet to see our troops from all Arms, Male, female, straight, gay or animal not perform.

If we get 20 females a year who meet the standards, that is 20 females who are able to deploy and enhance operational capability.

That’s good enough for me.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
I'm willing to sack those who can't follow orders. It's a fundamental part of being in the Armed Forces.
Stop being pompous:

During the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, a Prussian officer defended himself from reprimand by arguing that he was simply following orders. His commander, Prince Frederick Charles, replied: “His Majesty made you a Major because he believed you would know when not to obey his orders".
Quoted "Fighting the Somme"

Not to mention that Nelson would be ashamed of you.
 
In my time in the Army, we have gone from The WRAC to females in CSS - which was wrong.

We have gone from females in CSS to CS - Which was wrong.

We have female fighter pilots and AH pilots - Which was wrong

We changed height restrictions in certain Arms - Which was wrong

We lifted the ban on gays - Which was wrong

Yet at a tactical level, on Ops, I have yet to see our troops from all Arms, Male, female, straight, gay or animal not perform.

If we get 20 females a year who meet the standards, that is 20 females who are able to deploy and enhance operational capability.

That’s good enough for me.
Thats fine, however it still doesn’t make the case about having the need for forced percentages and any advantages therein.
 

anglo

LE
The question has implied major differences between the two. I am trying to get you to articulate what those differences are against the reality of the modern day infantry.

because they are not all 6 foot UFC fighters. Nor are plenty of soldiers at Hereford.
What is the,
"the reality of the modern day infantry."
"because they are not all 6 foot UFC fighters. Nor are plenty of soldiers at Hereford."
What the freck are you on about, I asked a simple question

"What would you have under your command,
1]full complement of 100% men or 2] full complement of 100% women, if you had to make that choice"
1 or 2 then ?
 
Thats fine, however it still doesn’t make the case about having the need for forced percentages and any advantages therein.
I completely, utterly and totally agree. People either want or don’t want to do something.

If only 0.000001% of females want to be in the Army, we should accept that as fact. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t allow that 0.000001% of females the opportunity to do or be whatever they want if they meet the criteria.
 
What is the,
"the reality of the modern day infantry."
"because they are not all 6 foot UFC fighters. Nor are plenty of soldiers at Hereford."
What the freck are you on about, I asked a simple question

"What would you have under your command,
1]full complement of 100% men or 2] full complement of 100% women, if you had to make that choice"
1 or 2 then ?
But mate, to be honest, it is an utterly bone question.

It’s one of those party questions that are unanswerable. Would you rather have a million pounds with no arms or legs or 12” cock with no libido :)
 
What is the,
"the reality of the modern day infantry."
"because they are not all 6 foot UFC fighters. Nor are plenty of soldiers at Hereford."
What the freck are you on about, I asked a simple question

"What would you have under your command,
1]full complement of 100% men or 2] full complement of 100% women, if you had to make that choice"
1 or 2 then ?
Is the only difference between the two teams their reproductive organs?
 

anglo

LE
But mate, to be honest, it is an utterly bone question.

It’s one of those party questions that are unanswerable. Would you rather have a million pounds with no arms or legs or 12” cock with no libido :)
No, it's a simple question
 
ok, how does being offensive to and unable to work with a small group of society increase combat effectiveness. Equally, swap females with homosexuals, BAME etc.
Morale, just because some people take offence at sexist remarks doesn't mean blokes don't make them.
You can swap a female for a homo if you want, you ******* weirdo, but don't ask me to indulge in your fantasies.
 
In my time in the Army, we have gone from The WRAC to females in CSS - which was wrong.

We have gone from females in CSS to CS - Which was wrong.

We have female fighter pilots and AH pilots - Which was wrong

We changed height restrictions in certain Arms - Which was wrong

We lifted the ban on gays - Which was wrong

Yet at a tactical level, on Ops, I have yet to see our troops from all Arms, Male, female, straight, gay or animal not perform.

If we get 20 females a year who meet the standards, that is 20 females who are able to deploy and enhance operational capability.

That’s good enough for me.
I can't remember to many people saying those things were wrong for operational reasons, people just didn't like poofs or short arses.
A quick dit about the WRAC, the ones I knew were very much annoyed at that fact they were now expected to do a CFT, that wasn't what they were promised when they spoke about equality. In my early years I can remember a lot of exceptions for females froms doing heaves while sat on their arse to the blokes carrying the weight on COs PT. It certainly wasn't seamless transition. Almost 30 years after the WRAC disbanded large sections of the Army still make exceptions for females.
 
Last edited:
No, it's a simple question
Not even close, I would like 100% capable, but sadly, in reality, that’s not happening whether I get 100% blokes or females.

We can all play in hypothetical scenarios, hence my response, which by the way, you didn’t answer ^~
 
Is that so, why do women not play against men in most sports? If there's no difference between them,
I never said there was no difference other than reproductive organs. I asked you to articulate the hidden differences in the hypothetical situation you describe.
 
Morale, just because some people take offence at sexist remarks doesn't mean blokes don't make them.
You can swap a female for a homo if you want, you ******* weirdo, but don't ask me to indulge in your fantasies.
and just because people take offence at homophobic and racist remarks doesn’t mean blokes don’t make them.

And it does not make it any more acceptable.
 
and just because people take offence at homophobic and racist remarks doesn’t mean blokes don’t make them.

And it does not make it any more acceptable.
Blokes dont normally about black people or gays, young male soldiers (those dinosaurs) frequently talk about women. Just like young civvie blokes.
 
Not even close, I would like 100% capable, but sadly, in reality, that’s not happening whether I get 100% blokes or females.
You have said in the past that you are happy to take a biff, so its partly your own fault that you dont have 100% capable.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top