Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

All Roles Now Open To Females

Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought the ellipsis might have been a clue.

All course there are no separate standards, not when the Army has lowered the current set to below what was the old female standard.

To solve the RAF problem all they need to do is have a "new" standard for everyone which is equal or lower than the current female standard.

Don't worry the RAF would be more than happy to go down that rd, its all about diversity you see :1:
 
Merely addressing @Kefi 's assertion that everyone in the Roman Army wore the same kit and was treated in the same (draconian) way, and that it's all been downhill since then, BAHHHH! It were all decimation round here was I was a sprog, being beaten around the head never did me any harm, it should be compulsory, if I didn't carry 200kg up the hill before breakfast my Pl Sgt would stab me to death....



:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

And then we can get on with weeding out the scrawny gits and shortarses, and limiting ourselves to the professional rugby players and heavier weight boxers who are what the infantry really needs, because only they can confidently kill any woman they meet with their bare hands (@Kefi in this post)

Setting shortarses, (who in general don't have the physiology for modern infantry warfare,) lower standards for the job is only sensible, as is paying them less because they are doing less work. Oh, hang on...
:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:


I'm not sure why you insist on playing the right on lefty dude, nothing i have said in context to the debate is incorrect ?
 
I thought the ellipsis might have been a clue.

All course there are no separate standards, not when the Army has lowered the current set to below what was the old female standard.

To solve the RAF problem all they need to do is have a "new" standard for everyone which is equal or lower than the current female standard.

Correct, That's what I said.
 
Best CO I worked for was a woman, now deservedly a Brigadier.
Very fair, good sense of humour and honest and a nice person in/out of Army life.
If you worked for her she would go the extra mile if you needed help.
 
I'm not sure why you insist on playing the right on lefty dude

As opposed to playing the left-over righty dude? ;)

All I'm saying is: set a standard. Figure out a realistic test that actually reflects the standard of the arm/service concerned[*]. Insist that everyone passes the same test, regardless of gender, colour, religion, before they leave their recruit training. Job done.

Next, accept that some people aren't best prepared at the point they enter the system; they might/might not make the standard, and we want to derisk before their long and rather expensive training. Don't go overboard, but don't miss out on potentially decent recruits by cutting your nose off to spite your face... That might be aspirant male officers with a bit of maturity still to learn (send them to RowCo!), aspirant women with a bit of muscle to add (send them to the Gym, let the PTIs build them up a bit!), all sorts with a history of "not doing well in the classroom" (send them to the Education Centre, get the schoolies to take a short look and give them a bit of help!).

[*] Presumably as follows:
  • Infantry: Leap tall building in single bound, faster than speeding bullet
  • Gunners: Leap a bungalow, faster than the NAAFI wagon that they're chasing.
  • Loggies: Leap onto the stack of blankets, faster than saying "stores is for storing"
 
All I'm saying is: set a standard. Figure out a realistic test that actually reflects the standard of the arm/service concerned[*]. Insist that everyone passes the same test, regardless of gender, colour, religion, before they leave their recruit training. Job done.

Next, accept that some people aren't best prepared at the point they enter the system; they might/might not make the standard, and we want to derisk before their long and rather expensive training. Don't go overboard, but don't miss out on potentially decent recruits by cutting your nose off to spite your face... That might be aspirant male officers with a bit of maturity still to learn (send them to RowCo!), aspirant women with a bit of muscle to add (send them to the Gym, let the PTIs build them up a bit!), all sorts with a history of "not doing well in the classroom" (send them to the Education Centre, get the schoolies to take a short look and give them a bit of help!).

Although I can follow the logic to a certain extent there is a factor you have missed, ie the required standard.

You seem to be suggesting lowering the standard to achieve 100% pass with help and assistance.

Take an imaginary cadre of 100 recruits: 50% female and 50% male.

Set a required standard say march 8 miles carrying 25 kg over rough ground in 2 hours. Fairly typical battlefield move required of pretty average light infantry.

Lets say 80% of men can achieve but only 5% of women the net result is 40 men pass test and 2 women. Nothing you can do can influence this outcome.

So the solution? Reduce distance, reduce load and increase time? Say 6 Miles, 15 kg in three hours?

Net result 100% of men (50) pass and 50% of women (25).

There we go tea and medals all around recruit pass out increased from 42 to 75 and a 75% pass on the test.

All well and good until the unit is required to hump 25 kg per head over rough ground in two hours when lives depend on it.
 
You seem to be suggesting lowering the standard to achieve 100% pass with help and assistance.

Errrr.... where? Before you start inventing strawman arguments, All I said was "set the standard". The obvious standard to set, is the existing one - or something that tests to the same level.

You go out and test the existing infantry, and existing recruits finishing Catterick, with both the new test and the old. If the same proportion pass both, congratulations - standards haven't fallen. If, however, slightly more people fail the new test than you expect, then the test is obviously trying to creep standards upwards (not necessarily a bad thing).

I'm just wary of arbitrary "tests" that don't actually measure what we need to measure. For instance, the Americans have a "tape test" and a "height/weight" test as part of their physical assessment - and while it catches the wok smugglers, it also fails the fitter/stronger lads by utterly failing to acknowledge that a thick neck might just reflect a shedload of training, not just a vanload of pies.

As you point out, it's better to stick to a functional test, based on the job - e.g. if the the job of a gunner involves lifting shells, then test gunners' ability to lift that shell. If infantry need to carry a load, then define that load and say "can carry 60kg X distance over level ground in Y time" as well as "can carry 25kg 8 miles over rough ground in two hours". As they need to drag someone to cover, add a lift or drag test. But don't complain when women pass the test, because a few will.

;) Hold on - isn't a functional assessment what the new tests are trying to do? ;)

But keep it sensible. If your 155mm gun bunnies are expected to lift and carry 40kg shells repeatedly as a pair, then make the test a repetitive 20kg lift rather than just a one-off 40kg lift. Your 70kg infanteer, however aggressive, is going to struggle to lift or drag a 130kg prop-forward wearing 40kg of kit, so demanding that "any bloke must be able to solo carry/drag every other bloke, wearing all their kit" is an unrealistic one - if the big b**tard goes down, it's probably going to take two of you.
 
Last edited:
As opposed to playing the left-over righty dude? ;)

All I'm saying is: set a standard. Figure out a realistic test that actually reflects the standard of the arm/service concerned[*]. Insist that everyone passes the same test, regardless of gender, colour, religion, before they leave their recruit training. Job done.

Next, accept that some people aren't best prepared at the point they enter the system; they might/might not make the standard, and we want to derisk before their long and rather expensive training. Don't go overboard, but don't miss out on potentially decent recruits by cutting your nose off to spite your face... That might be aspirant male officers with a bit of maturity still to learn (send them to RowCo!), aspirant women with a bit of muscle to add (send them to the Gym, let the PTIs build them up a bit!), all sorts with a history of "not doing well in the classroom" (send them to the Education Centre, get the schoolies to take a short look and give them a bit of help!).

[*] Presumably as follows:
  • Infantry: Leap tall building in single bound, faster than speeding bullet
  • Gunners: Leap a bungalow, faster than the NAAFI wagon that they're chasing.
  • Loggies: Leap onto the stack of blankets, faster than saying "stores is for storing"


You almost got me thinking like you there for a sec, but then my 23 years of regular service kicked in & i got back on track. First off i know my former unit has droped satndards to get women in so in a way your post reflects your reasoning. Lets take hard learnt lessons going way back & totally forget them, in the vain hope of atracting people who are totally unsuitable to the job of Inf. Lets also forget the X factor, the bits that fall inbetween the physical & intellectual aspects of modern soldiering, cohesion, male bonding that excludes the female variety, the ability to not have to tread on eggshells with a multitude of diversity watching your every move. The people i still have contact with in the service can;t wait to get out, its beyond a joke how things have changed, & its getting worse.
 
Last edited:
You almost got me thinking like you there for a sec, but then my 23 years of regular service kicked in & i got back on track. First off i know my former unit has droped satndards to get women in so in a way your post reflects your reasoning. Lets take hard learnt lessons going way back & totally forget them, in the vain hope of atracting people who are totally unstable for the job of Inf. Lets also forget the X factor, the bits that fall inbetween the physical & intellectual aspects of modern soldiering, cohesion, male bonding that excludes the female variety, the ability to not have to tread on eggshells with a multitude of diversity watching your every move. The people i still have contact with in the service can;t wait to get out, its beyond a joke how things have changed, & its getting worse.
So yes or no to women in the infantry?
 
My short A to the Q is why not, as long as they are treated exactly the same as the men in every way, shape & form. The reality is that it will not & canot happen, so in that case a resounding Nooooooooooooooo;)

You are right, they would never lower the standards, or would they?
BFT in boots, then BFT in trainers ?
 
You are right, they would never lower the standards, or would they?
BFT in boots, then BFT in trainers ?

Its the whole package, the evolution of the physical eliment from WW2 up to present is one thing, its how do you intergrate M & F Inf soldiers into a cohesive fighting force not farce ?
 
;) Hold on - isn't a functional assessment what the new tests are trying to do? ;)

Yes, but only while lowering the standards of the current tests and studiously avoiding the ACFT, the most appropriate functional test to simulate combat.

Personally I think the fitness thing is a red herring. I oppose women in combat arms units for reasons of cohesion. Relative fitness is broadly irrelevant in my view, other than the higher training costs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New posts

Top