All Roles Now Open To Females

Status
Not open for further replies.
Full marks to the lady in question for stepping into the ring and full marks to the USMC for not being too scared to hold everyone to their word. She doesn't belong in a rifle section, but I suspect that her stock will have risen generally and she was a mighty, if slightly wiser, contributor to overall unit capability going forward.
She had nothing to lose, the marine had everything to lose and took the sensible option.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
could you explain that please. At what level above meeting the standard should someone be allowed to do job. I know some people who scraped PPS when I did it. Should they have failed? Should the standard be higher? What then to the people who scrape over the line?
Reductio ad absurdum:

I am President for Life and decree that anyone who knows the alphabet is a qualified brain surgeon. As someone needing brain surgery, you might dissent from my wise pronouncement.
 
It will be also unpleasant when women come back in body bags at the same rate as the men
do in time of war, but that's equality
And if that happens, the same liberals who scream for equality, will scream louder about the morally bankrupt British Army that puts women in the front line.
 

Kefi

Old-Salt
If you actually believe that then your ignorance is so great that to disabuse you would be playing pigeon chess
A fit & healthy male who has undergone Inf training would take down any professional female fighter regardless of her sport if it was a no holds barred,unless she got lucky.

Is this where you get your belief system ?

 
Reductio ad absurdum:

I am President for Life and decree that anyone who knows the alphabet is a qualified brain surgeon. As someone needing brain surgery, you might dissent from my wise pronouncement.
How so? you said “ if they've passed the course' argument is intellectual cowardice and intellectual cowardice undermines our moral component.”

so at what level above the standard is the acceptable standard?
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
How so? you said “ if they've passed the course' argument is intellectual cowardice and intellectual cowardice undermines our moral component.”

so at what level above the standard is the acceptable standard?
There isn't one. There's an overlap between the top tier of females and the bottom tier of males but that segment simply makes up the numbers and is not the standard we should recruit for. Capability isn't enhanced and command and cohesion are made more complicated.
 
Last edited:
There isn't one. There's an overlap between the top tier of females and the bottom tier of males but that segment simply makes up the numbers and is not the standard we should recruit for. Capability isn't enhanced and command and cohesion are made more complicated.
That's a very valid point, IMHO there's probably more bottom tier males than you'd think, which will blur early opinion/analysis and I'd put £10 inn the majority of women bouncing into the Corps after a couple of years.
 
Do you always have problems reading basic English? That's not even close to what I said.

The army could improve in any number of ways. However, the best possible result from the specific change we're discussing -introducing women into the combat arms- is that combat effectiveness doesn't drop.
I clearly have fewer problems reading than you do connecting logical thought. The only way that the best possible result is that something doesn't go down is that it is currently at maximum. So whatever situation you care to salami slice it into you're claiming we're perfect, we can get no better; or we aren't which can lead to only two conclusions. I don't like getting into personal criticism because it usually detracts from the argument, but in this case I'm afraid it needs spelling out. If we aren't perfect and you can't see how adding women might lead to improvement then that is a failing in your ability to think constructively, or it is the product of an inherent mental bias probably stemming from an irrational sense of superiority, or a bit of both.
 
WTF has @Stacker venture into civvie St got to do with this conversation ?
But that said you do raise the point that many in service are looking at ways to make HMF even more civvie orientated than it is already.
As has been pointed out before, if the services are seen as some sort of insular, white/male/right wing/heterosexual (add others terms as desired) clique [don't kid yourself this means an elite] then they will [are already] fail[ing] to attract recruits.

It is a convenient conceit that the regular army is something special, and should stay that way. It isn't and it's historical performance doesn't justify any claim that it should be. If HMF aren't seen by the population in general as a part of 'us' then they will fail to attract both recruits and funding from politicians and slowly wither to become an irrelevant rump of no consequence. At present the army looks to be leading the way and providing just the example the RN and RAF need to encourage them to keep modernising. So if I can't provide any better motivation, think about how it's screwing us in every spending round against the folks in blue.
 

Kefi

Old-Salt
As has been pointed out before, if the services are seen as some sort of insular, white/male/right wing/heterosexual (add others terms as desired) clique [don't kid yourself this means an elite] then they will [are already] fail[ing] to attract recruits.

It is a convenient conceit that the regular army is something special, and should stay that way. It isn't and it's historical performance doesn't justify any claim that it should be. If HMF aren't seen by the population in general as a part of 'us' then they will fail to attract both recruits and funding from politicians and slowly wither to become an irrelevant rump of no consequence. At present the army looks to be leading the way and providing just the example the RN and RAF need to encourage them to keep modernising. So if I can't provide any better motivation, think about how it's screwing us in every spending round against the folks in blue.
For to long the armed forces have been held up as some sort of uniformed barometer that must show total diversity to be of any use to the defence of the nation. I'm not going to give my personal opinion on why i don't think HMF are atracting the amount of diversity you & others feel nessesery, but all we need to know is are we combat effective?

The military machine must never be compromised in the name of diversity, it has its own methods of levelling the playing field by treating everyone the same & judging people on their ability not their diversity. Going way back in time people have gone through the ranks to the very top long before the diversity ideoligy came into play. I will finish by saying that if you & others think that a militery unit that has a group of divers people trying to operate together under the worst case scenario conditions, where each group has specific needs & wants then you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
 
Ah so you're no longer telling it like it is, you're just another old fart reliving old , in your case, gripes like me.
I still work with British soldiers. But apart from that do you think that all of a sudden the Army has snapped it's fingers and all the problems have disappeared or do you think they are highlighting a very small minority and pretending it's army wide?
 
For to long the armed forces have been held up as some sort of uniformed barometer that must show total diversity to be of any use to the defence of the nation. I'm not going to give my personal opinion on why i don't think HMF are atracting the amount of diversity you & others feel nessesery, but all we need to know is are we combat effective?

The military machine must never be compromised in the name of diversity, it has its own methods of levelling the playing field by treating everyone the same & judging people on their ability not their diversity. Going way back in time people have gone through the ranks to the very top long before the diversity ideoligy came into play. I will finish by saying that if you & others think that a militery unit that has a group of divers people trying to operate together under the worst case scenario conditions, where each group has specific needs & wants then you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
I wouldn't get too upset about it. There'sgoing to be some noise over the next couple of years, a load of whataboutery, some very rapid promotions away from front line activities, most likely culminating in flute all women in the infantry. Noting that R Signals isn't particularly arduous, and our female numbers have dropped by 30%, this artificial burst will wither away to nothing.
 
As has been pointed out before, if the services are seen as some sort of insular, white/male/right wing/heterosexual (add others terms as desired) clique [don't kid yourself this means an elite] then they will [are already] fail[ing] to attract recruits.

It is a convenient conceit that the regular army is something special, and should stay that way. It isn't and it's historical performance doesn't justify any claim that it should be. If HMF aren't seen by the population in general as a part of 'us' then they will fail to attract both recruits and funding from politicians and slowly wither to become an irrelevant rump of no consequence. At present the army looks to be leading the way and providing just the example the RN and RAF need to encourage them to keep modernising. So if I can't provide any better motivation, think about how it's screwing us in every spending round against the folks in blue.
You really are a left wing penis aren't you? I like the way you mention white (so get the race card in there) also heterosexual (so play the homophobic card as well) just because people are pointing out the problems with diversity involving females.
You and Maple would get on great together. anyone who didn't agree with him was a Nazi.
 
I wouldn't get too upset about it. There'sgoing to be some noise over the next couple of years, a load of whataboutery, some very rapid promotions away from front line activities, most likely culminating in flute all women in the infantry. Noting that R Signals isn't particularly arduous, and our female numbers have dropped by 30%, this artificial burst will wither away to nothing.
Now there is an official target to get 15% females.
If those in charge of the various capbadge can't manage that then it's all their fault. Who wants to take the blame.
 
Now there is an official target to get 15% females.
If those in charge of the various capbadge can't manage that then it's all their fault. Who wants to take the blame.
Got a quote on the 15%?
It might be achievable, but not sustainable. I'm not sure how the Loggie numbers look but ours went from 14 to 9%. All of our trade courses are easier and less physical than ever, yet numbers are low.
I don't think anyone will get blamed, I think we'll come up with a comparative false statistic eg we're doing better than the bin men/French/fire brigade etc..
 
Got a quote on the 15%?
It might be achievable, but not sustainable. I'm not sure how the Loggie numbers look but ours went from 14 to 9%. All of our trade courses are easier and less physical than ever, yet numbers are low.
I don't think anyone will get blamed, I think we'll come up with a comparative false statistic eg we're doing better than the bin men/French/fire brigade etc..
I can't get the link to work on my phone but Google "army target 15% females 2020" and it should be the first hit.
Of course someone will be blamed unless they are seen to be doing something about it.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
I wouldn't get too upset about it. There'sgoing to be some noise over the next couple of years, a load of whataboutery, some very rapid promotions away from front line activities, most likely culminating in flute all women in the infantry. Noting that R Signals isn't particularly arduous, and our female numbers have dropped by 30%, this artificial burst will wither away to nothing.
Unfortunately though, people risking their lives need to have confidence that military decisions are made for broadly military reasons. This sort of nonsense simply destroys trust; the CoC will be horribly complicit and its credibility will suffer.

It won't help either that, whatever careerist specimens might say when they're in public, there's unlikely to be any GCC officer anywhere enthusiastically advocating this policy in private, particularly when talking to those with actual experience of what they're talking about.
 
Unfortunately though, people risking their lives need to have confidence that military decisions are made for broadly military reasons. This sort of nonsense simply destroys trust; the CoC will be horribly complicit and its credibility will suffer.

It won't help either that, whatever careerist specimens might say when they're in public, there's unlikely to be any GCC officer anywhere enthusiastically advocating this policy in private, particularly when talking to those with actual experience of what they're talking about.
They must be dinosaurs.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
The only way that the best possible result is that something doesn't go down is that it is currently at maximum.
This isn't logically true. Even if a system isn't perfect, the best possible result for a given change can be that there's no drop.

If I have a car that has a top speed of 100mph and I decide that I want to add a large metal roof rack, the best possible result in terms of speed is that there's no drop even though other changes might make the car go much faster. The roof rack may increase carrying capacity but nobody, except someone who doesn't understand physics, thinks that the speed might increase.

So it is with women in ground close combat. There are many ways of improving the combat effectiveness of our combat arms, but the best possible change to combat effectivness that can result from introducing women is that there's no drop. The key benefit is diversity. It's a question of whether the this improvement is worth the risk of a drop in combat effectiveness; when we're dealing with life or death situations I think it's not.

I don't like getting into personal criticism
This is also untrue.

If we aren't perfect and you can't see how adding women might lead to improvement then that is a failing in your ability to think constructively, or it is the product of an inherent mental bias probably stemming from an irrational sense of superiority, or a bit of both
My comments are based off extensive operational experience in both single sex and mixed sex teams. Given that you aren't basing your comments off operational experience, and clearly don't understand logic either, maybe you should think twice before blaming my opinion on an 'irrational sense of superiority'. I'm not even sure what that's meant to mean given that my opposition to women in the combat arms has nothing to do with the relative capabilities of men and women. If someone in this conversation isn't able to think constructively and is displaying bias, I'm pretty confident it's not me...

But go on, as you've said the problem is a lack of constructive thinking, why don't you use your vast experience in the yeomanry to tell us how adding women might improve combat effectiveness? Given that the MOD's own study into this identified no benefit, I'm fascinated to find out what you know that they don't.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Threads

Top