All Roles Now Open To Females

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
If you've left you're still just another old fart. I'm sure the armies problems haven't all disappeared [they still have to deal with you apparently] and I'm sure you'll continue to highlight your perception of the problems of the very small minority of soldiers you have to deal with.
 
If you've left you're still just another old fart. I'm sure the armies problems haven't all disappeared [they still have to deal with you apparently] and I'm sure you'll continue to highlight your perception of the problems of the very small minority of soldiers you have to deal with.
You would say anything to justify left wing, PC shite wouldnt you? The Army has had decades to treat women equally and yet it doesnt (in their favour) and now they can join the infantry you just want to pretend that its only a small minority of soldiers I had to deal with. Even when I was in Afghanistan with an infantry regiment, the portaloos had to be marked "Women only". Thats how ******* pathetic the Army can be. But just ignore that mate, because you want pretend there are no major problems, its cool to be diverse. :roll:
 
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.
According to your perception women can only be a drag, but that's your perception, unless of course your perception is always right.



This is also untrue.
Another example of your arrogance, you have no idea whether I like begin abusive, sometimes sadly I feel it's the only way to get through the carapace of arrogance of certain people, but you presumably have an inner line to the working of my mind and know better.



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.
Simple first line, it might provide people with a more flexible mind set than those who can't see any advantages. It might provide people who don't assume that because they have 'extensive operational experience' they always have the right answer compared with someone from the Yeomanry.

From your bold, then what is it based on, because a claim about cohesion suggests to me that you believe that the relative capability of men to work in mixed teams without impacting combat effectiveness is inferior to their capability to work in single sex ones.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
According to your perception women can only be a drag, but that's your perception, unless of course your perception is always right.

Another example of your arrogance, you have no idea whether I like begin abusive, sometimes sadly I feel it's the only way to get through the carapace of arrogance of certain people, but you presumably have an inner line to the working of my mind and know better.

Simple first line, it might provide people with a more flexible mind set than those who can't see any advantages. It might provide people who don't assume that because they have 'extensive operational experience' they always have the right answer compared with someone from the Yeomanry.

From your bold, then what is it based on, because a claim about cohesion suggests to me that you believe that the relative capability of men to work in mixed teams without impacting combat effectiveness is inferior to their capability to work in single sex ones.
Why don't you articulate what you believe the benefits to actually be (practical plusses rather than platitudes about diversity based on feminist mysticism) and why they outweigh the negatives?

The two major examples of using women in GCC roles for high intensity warfare, the Soviet Union and Israel, both abandoned the expedient whilst fighting wars of national survival. Rather than abusing Caecilius and dismissing the practical experience of others, it might be more constructive if you asked yourself why.
 
Last edited:
Why don't you articulate what you believe to be the benefits to actually be (practical plusses rather than platitudes about diversity based on feminist mysticism) and why they outweigh the negatives?

The two major examples of using women in GCC roles for high intensity warfare, the Soviet Union and Israel, both abandoned the expedient whilst fighting wars of national survival. Rather than abusing Caecilius and dismissing the practical experience of others, it might be more constructive if you asked yourself why.
Diversity rules, OK?
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
According to your perception women can only be a drag, but that's your perception, unless of course your perception is always right.
.

Well yes, the arguments I make on here are just my perception. That's how an internet discussion forum works. Multiple people talk about their opinions on an issue, some will agree and some will disagree. If you think I'm wrong, maybe have a crack at a counterargument rather than just accusing me of arrogance for having the temerity to disagree with you.

If I'm so wrong then you'd have thought a counterargument would be easy to muster; it's instructive that you haven't managed to do that yet.

Another example of your arrogance, you have no idea whether I like begin abusive, sometimes sadly I feel it's the only way to get through the carapace of arrogance of certain people, but you presumably have an inner line to the working of my mind and know better.
I can read your posts and they routinely begin abusive to lots of people. I'm not sure how reading what you've written makes me arrogant, but there we are.

From your bold, then what is it based on, because a claim about cohesion suggests to me that you believe that the relative capability of men to work in mixed teams without impacting combat effectiveness is inferior to their capability to work in single sex ones.
This is broadly my view, but that's not a question of the relative capability of men and women. It's the relative capability of men in different environments. That also has nothing to do with 'an irrational sense of superiority' which was your previous accusation (still unexplained).


Simple first line, it might provide people with a more flexible mind set than those who can't see any advantages. It might provide people who don't assume that because they have 'extensive operational experience' they always have the right answer compared with someone from the Yeomanry.
So no answer then?

I don't assume I have the right answer any more than you do. We have differing opinions. The key distinctions between mine and yours are that I have articulated the reasoning behind my opinion while you haven't, and my opinion actually has operational experience in mixed sex units behind it while yours doesn't.

Let's try again and see if you have the maturity to do it without insults this time: how do you think adding women to combat arms could improve combat effectiveness?
 
Last edited:
.

Well yes, the arguments I make on here are just my perception. That's how an internet discussion forum works. Multiple people talk about their opinions on an issue, some will agree and some will disagree. If you think I'm wrong, maybe have a crack at a counterargument rather than just accusing me of arrogance for having the temerity to disagree with you.

If I'm so wrong then you'd have thought a counterargument would be easy to muster; it's instructive that you haven't managed to do that yet.



I can read your posts and they routinely begin abusive to lots of people. I'm not sure how reading what you've written makes me arrogant, but there we are.



This is broadly correct, but that's not a question of the relative capability of men and women. It's the relative capability of men in different environments. That also has nothing to do with 'a sense of superiority' which was your previous accusation.




So no answer then?

I don't assume I have the right answer any more than you do. We have differing opinions. The key distinctions between mine and yours are that I have articulated the reasoning behind my opinion while you haven't, and my opinion actually has operational experience in mixed sex units behind it while yours doesn't.

Let's try again and see if you have the maturity to do it without insults this time: how do you think adding women to combat arms could improve combat effectiveness?
You Nazi, white supremacist, homophobic, Islamophobic, sexist dinosaur.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
The two major examples of using women in GCC roles for high intensity warfare, the Soviet Union and Israel, both abandoned the expedient whilst fighting wars of national survival. Rather than abusing Caecilius and dismissing the practical experience of others, it might be more constructive if you asked yourself why
I posted about that in response to him earlier in the thread. He chose not to reply, and instead switched to insults. I think that probably tells us what we need to know.
 
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.
Out of curiosity, why do you think that the Israelis have introduced women into their combat arms? This post applies (link), but basically they're putting women into tanks. Their compromise is that (possibly because the IDF Chief Rabbi is concerned that mixed crews will result in pregnancies and other immorality) they're going to be all-female tank crews, and they're not sending them into the occupied territories.

If it turns out that their all-female tank crews are able to maintain, and to fight their wagon as well as the all-male crews, what would it take to change your opinion?
 
Out of curiosity, why do you think that the Israelis have introduced women into their combat arms? This post applies (link), but basically they're putting women into tanks. Their compromise is that (possibly because the IDF Chief Rabbi is concerned that mixed crews will result in pregnancies and other immorality) they're going to be all-female tank crews, and they're not sending them into the occupied territories.

If it turns out that their all-female tank crews are able to maintain, and to fight their wagon as well as the all-male crews, what would it take to change your opinion?
If they arent sending them outside of their borders, its not much of a comparison.
 
If they arent sending them outside of their borders, its not much of a comparison.
Perhaps. It would be like us deploying Greenfinches on Op BANNER, or QRA tasks with the RAF.

But for them, "border" includes the Lebanese, Gaza, and West Bank borders, all of which have involved direct fire exchanges at times - AFAICT, it's a "everywhere except the West Bank" deal.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Out of curiosity, why do you think that the Israelis have introduced women into their combat arms? This post applies (link), but basically they're putting women into tanks. Their compromise is that (possibly because the IDF Chief Rabbi is concerned that mixed crews will result in pregnancies and other immorality) they're going to be all-female tank crews, and they're not sending them into the occupied territories.

If it turns out that their all-female tank crews are able to maintain, and to fight their wagon as well as the all-male crews, what would it take to change your opinion?
A fair challenge. There's a lot in here so I'll try to pick out all the points to address them separately.

I think the Israelis have some of the same pressures as us in terms of diversity, with the heightened problem that they face an existential threat if they can't man their army appropriately.

I would, in broad terms, support female-only tank crews in the UK as well because I think that addresses most of the issues I have with cohesion. There would still be problems at a troop level, but for AFVs the key cohesion issue is at the vehicle level so I think the troop-level problems would be manageable. It also alleviates the issues of being closed down for 24hrs+ with someone of the opposite sex.

The issues would arise when trying to actually produce all female crews - firstly you need the number of women to be divisible by 3 or 4 (depending on vehicle) and you need to find women with the upper body strength to handle the loader's job. Neither of those is insurmountable; they would take effort, but the cost is probably worth the diversity gains in my view.

I don't think women being able to maintain and fight their tanks would change my opinion, because I would already support something along those lines in the UK. Unfortunately that isn't the policy change that's being pursued, and instead we're putting women into infantry sections and vehicles alongside men which is rather a different prospect.

Edited to add: I would also, in theory, support all-female infantry platoons but I think this would be impossible to achieve in reality for a number of reasons.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps. It would be like us deploying Greenfinches on Op BANNER, or QRA tasks with the RAF.

But for them, "border" includes the Lebanese, Gaza, and West Bank borders, all of which have involved direct fire exchanges at times - AFAICT, it's a "everywhere except the West Bank" deal.

Not really the same as deploying to Iraq (or some other shithole) for a six month stretch though.
 
SNIP/

If it turns out that their all-female tank crews are able to maintain, and to fight their wagon as well as the all-male crews, what would it take to change your opinion?
If it turns out that they can't maintain and fight their wagon as well as the all-male crews, what would it take to change your opinion?
 
Out of curiosity, why do you think that the Israelis have introduced women into their combat arms? This post applies (link), but basically they're putting women into tanks. Their compromise is that (possibly because the IDF Chief Rabbi is concerned that mixed crews will result in pregnancies and other immorality) they're going to be all-female tank crews, and they're not sending them into the occupied territories.

If it turns out that their all-female tank crews are able to maintain, and to fight their wagon as well as the all-male crews, what would it take to change your opinion?
There might be demographic issues at stake here though.
The neighbours are out breeding them, and you don't get drafted if youre the only son.
There are units like the Caracal which are predominately female. Not sure how geared they are for "hard" ops .
 
If it turns out that they can't maintain and fight their wagon as well as the all-male crews, what would it take to change your opinion?
If there were a reasonable number of crews in a reasonable trial [*], given a reasonable chance of success - neither "it was made easy so they'd look good", nor set up to fail in a "we had this one lass, 5'6" and nine stone, gave her a couple of days in the turret but she couldn't load HESH, so obviously women can't manage it". If none of the crews could hack it, then I'd be wrong, and I'd change my mind. How about you?

Even if any such trial succeeded, there'd be an analogy with L85A2, I suppose. Lots of old squaddies with hands-on experience of early-production crap out of Enfield, convinced that it was a heap of poo that would never work, the confirmatory trials were a setup, anyone defending its reliability was a yes-man... changing opinions was a slow, slow process.

Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong. I try to to be open-minded, and remind myself that I might be wrong - don't always succeed, mind you!

[*] Just a suggestion - why not go to those armies with mixed AFV crews, ask if we can observe / learn from them? Israelis, Swedes, Danes? God forbid, even the Royal Artillery/Royal Engineers and Warrior OPV/Titan/Trojan/Terrier? Even (whispers) REME and CRARRV?
 
You said:
If the Army employed people in the same ratios that they exist in the public.
But you actually meant something else.
Scene setting, hence the "if".
The media don't give a ****. Did they care about gays being banned? Where was the big media campaign to get women in the infantry?
Sexual equality doesn't make as good a story as sexual inequality. Your "gays being banned" assertion doesn't mean anything.
 
Here's a balanced article which will no doubt drive the fragile male egos on this thread to apoplexy :)

Comment: Why Is There Only One Woman Training To Become A Royal Marine?

All I can add is it is really great that the Royal Armoured Corps are leading the way in integrating women into their GCC units, but for balance it must be said that their entry standards are both lower and easier than the Cdo Course or the CIC.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Here's a balanced article which will no doubt drive the fragile male egos on this thread to apoplexy :)

Comment: Why Is There Only One Woman Training To Become A Royal Marine?

All I can add is it is really great that the Royal Armoured Corps are leading the way in integrating women into their GCC units, but for balance it must be said that their entry standards are both lower and easier than the Cdo Course or the CIC.
If you say so:

"There were also arguments about whether women would affect unit cohesiveness if relationships formed.
The Royal Navy has successfully had females on warships for nearly 30 years now and this has not proved to be the case."



Truly there are none so blind...
 
If you say so:

"There were also arguments about whether women would affect unit cohesiveness if relationships formed.
The Royal Navy has successfully had females on warships for nearly 30 years now and this has not proved to be the case."



Truly there are none so blind...
Did you receive special training to be so stupid or is it just a consequence of your chromosome count?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top