All Roles Now Open To Females

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's based on having trained Regular Army recruits and tested them, and trained and tested others previously and subsequently in an inf bn. You've done neither...
No, I trained Territorial Army recruits and tested them, and trained and tested others previously and subsequently in an Inf Bn.

Where I might differ is that you probably relied on your NCOs to actually deliver the training. I spent six months as a recruit instructor; and taught recruits from their very first weapons training lesson, all the way through to their TOETs and APWT. Our recruit platoon had two of us from the unit shooting team teaching skill-at-arms (Hugh on SLR, me on SMG); we managed 100% pass rates at first attempt for both tests. Of the other recruit platoons training alongside us, one had decent instructors but mucked them around; got a 50% pass rate at first attempt - the other had crap instructors, it took them several extra days to achieve test passes.

Later on, I ran the unit shooting team; and when running Company training, was occasionally the "coach of last resort", e.g. trying to figure out why Pte X couldn't group inside a foot circle at 100m...
* Pte X, you know they say "put the weapon in your shoulder"? They don't mean "right on top of the shoulder joint", they mean "in that nice nook between shoulder and neck, just here...."

Ummm .... no, it ignores nothing as it's a far easier weapon to "point more accurately", far, far easier weapon to "hold just as still", and the requirement to aim off more for wind at ranges out to 400m is minimal.
Hold on - you're claiming that 5.56 isn't significantly more affected by a crosswind than 7.62? A lot of people are going to judge your competence, just based on that one statement...

who covers for them when they're injured
The same people who cover for the non-existent soldiers in all the undermanned battalions right now. So, the best case is a reduction in the need for cover, the worst case is no difference.

who pays their remedial training and medical discharge when they're close to ten times as likely to need it as men in the infantry?
The Army, of course. You've said yourself that very, very few women will apply for the infantry; so we aren't talking about huge costs here.

Meanwhile, you haven't quantified the rates of injury (is that "0.1% of blokes and 1% of women will get injured" or "10% of blokes and 100% of women will get injured"?); and I have to ask if you're comparing like with like, i.e. allowed that the likely female infantry recruit may be sturdier and better-prepared, hence less prone to injury than the average female recruit (what's the injury rate of male infantry recruits compared to male all-arms recruits?).
 
Last edited:
Only if you think the number of women who could enter the combat arms is significant enough to make the change you talk about. Even the MOD doesn't think it will be, with no more than 40 total women anticipated across the entire infantry. That's not nearly enough to move the needle in terms of getting better people through the door.
If those 40 are extra to, or better than, any of the existing men then it's a start and we all have to start somewhere. I'm sure similar arguments were made about e.g. women doctors, or women in pretty much any other role men consider 'theirs'. It's only a month or so ago that a 10 year old girl told me she wanted to command daddy's squadron, a squadron that already contains several women. You might be surprised how quickly ideas can change.
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
@Gravelbelly

Stupid boy Pike.

You had TA rifles, TA ammunition, TA ranges, TA weapon handling tests, TA shooting practices... all wildly different.

And let’s not even start on the sheer idiocy of believing fewer rounds fired but in a relaxed, coached, learning environment might achieve better results than loads of rounds just blatted off under pressure, multiple resits and Beirut unloads because the QM doesn’t want anything back.

Madness. Madness, I tell you
 

Toppet

War Hero
@Gravelbelly

Stupid boy Pike.

You had TA rifles, TA ammunition, TA ranges, TA weapon handling tests, TA shooting practices... all wildly different.

And let’s not even start on the sheer idiocy of believing fewer rounds fired but in a relaxed, coached, learning environment might achieve better results than loads of rounds just blatted off under pressure, multiple resits and Beirut unloads because the QM doesn’t want anything back.

Madness. Madness, I tell you
TA rifles are heavier than regular rifles, the bullets are fatter, the TA nudge people when they're shooting and they don't fire as fast.

It's all sounding a bit Brass eye / Gays in the navy.
 
Hold on - you're claiming that 5.56 isn't significantly more affected by a crosswind than 7.62? A lot of people are going to judge your competence, just based on that one statement...
That’s torn it, you really have opened the hurt locker now ^~
 
@Gravelbelly

Stupid boy Pike.

You had TA rifles, TA ammunition, TA ranges, TA weapon handling tests, TA shooting practices... all wildly different.

And let’s not even start on the sheer idiocy of believing fewer rounds fired but in a relaxed, coached, learning environment might achieve better results than loads of rounds just blatted off under pressure, multiple resits and Beirut unloads because the QM doesn’t want anything back.

Madness. Madness, I tell you
finally you reservists are understanding this, the regulars are the master race while the stabs offer nothing.
It explains all those industry placements in the army and the complete lack of army placements in industry.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
If those 40 are extra to, or better than, any of the existing men then it's a start and we all have to start somewhere. I'm sure similar arguments were made about e.g. women doctors, or women in pretty much any other role men consider 'theirs'.
It's not a start. That's the end state.

The same arguments may well have been made about doctors, but that's based on prejudice. The argument about only having 40 women is a (somewhat) scientific assesment based on the likely numbers passing the fitness tests.
 
It's not a start. That's the end state.

The same arguments may well have been made about doctors, but that's based on prejudice. The argument about only having 40 women is a (somewhat) scientific assessment based on the likely numbers passing the fitness tests.
Why is it the end state, 40 only for ever and ever, what sort of science that is I'll not speculate.

I don't need to know anything about you be able to safely predict that there was a time when your paternal ancestors weren't 'fit' for the officer corps. The establishment would have almost certainly claimed that the introduction of "[enter your type of tribe/class here]" would have a negative effect on military performance, when all they meant was it would make them uncomfortable and possibly challenge their views of how things should be. At some time a few of your sort of people were let in until at a later time it became normal for quite a lot your sort of people to be officers. Women in all units is just the same old argument.

I'm old enough to remember when it was gay male soldiers, but of course that was slightly different because they'd always been in, just kept their heads down, whereas we've never had women in the fighting arms before. Oh hang on..
 
finally you reservists are understanding this, the regulars are the master race while the stabs offer nothing.
It explains all those industry placements in the army and the complete lack of army placements in industry.
:rofl:
Reminds me of the old joke, what do you get when you take the uniform off.....
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Why is it the end state, 40 only for ever and ever, what sort of science that is I'll not speculate.

I don't need to know anything about you be able to safely predict that there was a time when your paternal ancestors weren't 'fit' for the officer corps. The establishment would have almost certainly claimed that the introduction of "[enter your type of tribe/class here]" would have a negative effect on military performance, when all they meant was it would make them uncomfortable and possibly challenge their views of how things should be. At some time a few of your sort of people were let in until at a later time it became normal for quite a lot your sort of people to be officers. Women in all units is just the same old argument.

I'm old enough to remember when it was gay male soldiers, but of course that was slightly different because they'd always been in, just kept their heads down, whereas we've never had women in the fighting arms before. Oh hang on..
You're conflating demonstrable normative prejudice with objections based on observable scientific fact.

Unless you're arguing that there are no material physiological or psychological differences between males and females, then it's an entirely different argument. If you are arguing that, I look forward to your TED talk whilst hoping fervently that you're not a member of the medical profession.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Why is it the end state, 40 only for ever and ever, what sort of science that is I'll not
It's an assessment of how many women will volunteer and be able to pass the fitness test, assuming a decent increase in the number of volunteers.


don't need to know anything about you be able to safely predict that there was a time when your paternal ancestors weren't 'fit' for the officer corps. The establishment would have almost certainly claimed that the introduction of "[enter your type of tribe/class here]" would have a negative effect on military performance, when all they meant was it would make them uncomfortable and possibly challenge their views of how things should be. At some time a few of your sort of people were let in until at a later time it became normal for quite a lot your sort of people to be officers. Women in all units is just the same old argument.

I'm old enough to remember when it was gay male soldiers, but of course that was slightly different because they'd always been in, just kept their heads down, whereas we've never had women in the fighting arms before. Oh hang on..
You keep going back to this as if my argument is based on pure speculation. It isn't. My belief that the combat arms are better off as an all-male environment is based on extensive experience in mixed and single sex unit, both on operations and in camp.

Arguments that run along the lines of 'but we used to think having openly gay soldiers would be a problem' therefore don't serve as any kind of counterargument. I have served, on and off operations, with soldiers from pretty much every minority going. None of them have negatively effected cohesion. Indeed, quite often I think cohesion is improved by having a diverse group as it tends to result in a better sense of humour. I have seen cohesion affected by the inclusion of women about 95% of the time.
 
You're conflating demonstrable normative prejudice with objections based on observable scientific fact.

Unless you're arguing that there are no material physiological or psychological differences between males and females, then it's an entirely different argument. If you are arguing that, I look forward to your TED talk whilst hoping fervently that you're not a member of the medical profession.
Now there's an interesting phrase because all good scientist know that there are no facts just the current best appreciation of the available data, which may change when new date becomes available. Add that to the psychology of confirmation bias and it's not difficult to point out that what you think is fact is just your biased interpretation based on selective use of data*.

What I am suggesting is that there are some females who will make better soldiers than some males, because the data for whole population groups has overlap where the best of one crosses with the worst of the other. It means we treat individuals as individuals, not as clones in a group.

Yes the mean physical strength of women is lower than the mean physical strength of men. This tells us nothing useful about recruits X's actual ability to pass the physical tests whether X is male or female.

Quantification of psychological profiles is frankly voodoo so the idea that you can draw evidence of a group type of behaviour is even more irrational than trying to do the same for physical attributes, not least because the range of behaviour is so large in any one individual.

* It's worth considering that this is one of the reasons why someones 'operational experience' is actually not worth half as much as they'd like to imagine. They will observe and remember things that fit their biases better than those that contradict them and thus come home having learnt nothing new. The classic example of this is the flammable Sherman tank, which in the eyes of the crews was all about whether the engine was petrol or diesel, but was actually about ammunition stowage.
 
You keep going back to this as if my argument is based on pure speculation. It isn't. My belief that the combat arms are better off as an all-male environment is based on extensive experience in mixed and single sex unit, both on operations and in camp.

Arguments that run along the lines of 'but we used to think having openly gay soldiers would be a problem' therefore don't serve as any kind of counterargument. I have served, on and off operations, with soldiers from pretty much every minority going. None of them have negatively effected cohesion. Indeed, quite often I think cohesion is improved by having a diverse group as it tends to result in a better sense of humour. I have seen cohesion affected by the inclusion of women about 95% of the time.
See the last bit of post 3173.
 
Now there's an interesting phrase because all good scientist know that there are no facts just the current best appreciation of the available data, which may change when new date becomes available. Add that to the psychology of confirmation bias and it's not difficult to point out that what you think is fact is just your biased interpretation based on selective use of data*.

What I am suggesting is that there are some females who will make better soldiers than some males, because the data for whole population groups has overlap where the best of one crosses with the worst of the other. It means we treat individuals as individuals, not as clones in a group.

Yes the mean physical strength of women is lower than the mean physical strength of men. This tells us nothing useful about recruits X's actual ability to pass the physical tests whether X is male or female.

Quantification of psychological profiles is frankly voodoo so the idea that you can draw evidence of a group type of behaviour is even more irrational than trying to do the same for physical attributes, not least because the range of behaviour is so large in any one individual.

* It's worth considering that this is one of the reasons why someones 'operational experience' is actually not worth half as much as they'd like to imagine. They will observe and remember things that fit their biases better than those that contradict them and thus come home having learnt nothing new. The classic example of this is the flammable Sherman tank, which in the eyes of the crews was all about whether the engine was petrol or diesel, but was actually about ammunition stowage.
What's your view on the current best appreciation of the available data produced by the USMC on their study into female combat effectiveness?
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Now there's an interesting phrase because all good scientist know that there are no facts just the current best appreciation of the available data, which may change when new date becomes available. Add that to the psychology of confirmation bias and it's not difficult to point out that what you think is fact is just your biased interpretation based on selective use of data*.

What I am suggesting is that there are some females who will make better soldiers than some males, because the data for whole population groups has overlap where the best of one crosses with the worst of the other. It means we treat individuals as individuals, not as clones in a group.

Yes the mean physical strength of women is lower than the mean physical strength of men. This tells us nothing useful about recruits X's actual ability to pass the physical tests whether X is male or female.

Quantification of psychological profiles is frankly voodoo so the idea that you can draw evidence of a group type of behaviour is even more irrational than trying to do the same for physical attributes, not least because the range of behaviour is so large in any one individual.

* It's worth considering that this is one of the reasons why someones 'operational experience' is actually not worth half as much as they'd like to imagine. They will observe and remember things that fit their biases better than those that contradict them and thus come home having learnt nothing new. The classic example of this is the flammable Sherman tank, which in the eyes of the crews was all about whether the engine was petrol or diesel, but was actually about ammunition stowage.
Have it your way about scientific fact but, at the risk of provoking you to metaphysical excess, I'm happy to bet that neither of us will be posting on Arrse in our current physical form in two hundred years' time.

Physically, yes there will be capability overlap, but only if the bar is set low enough. Further, even the women who make the standard will still have to deal with physiological realities such as bone density, muscle development and recovery and the impact of hormones.

If you believe that psychology is voodoo, that's up to you, but it's impossible to engage intelligently with anyone who believes, for example, that there's no difference between the behaviour characteristics of single-sex groups and mixed-sex groups.

As for the value of experience, it's been my experience that companies tend to pay more for individuals who know what they're doing and who've done it successfully before. Clearly these companies, like the entire psychology discipline, are hopelessly deluded.
 
What's your view on the current best appreciation of the available data produced by the USMC on their study into female combat effectiveness?
That the data presented publicly is limited and open to criticism for a lack of control of additional factors that might lead to it being inaccurate. I could, if I wished ensure, that Team A always beat Team B in any number of ways and then conclude that whatever difference I chose to highlight between the two teams was the one that mattered, red hair, religion, sex, the list is endless.

Obvious ways to influence the result: -
Team selection - You know the men in team A are better than the men in team B, so stick a woman in team B and get the result you want
Team training time - You put an established team against a newly formed one, team A have been together for years team B just got a new member
Attitude of the men in the team with women - if they don't want women in the larger group they deliberately under-perform or engage in passive non co-operation.

For an accurate experiment you need to select two teams whose members performance is individually measurably identical. In practice that's probably extremely difficult to do.
 
That the data presented publicly is limited and open to criticism for a lack of control of additional factors that might lead to it being inaccurate. I could, if I wished ensure, that Team A always beat Team B in any number of ways and then conclude that whatever difference I chose to highlight between the two teams was the one that mattered, red hair, religion, sex, the list is endless.

Obvious ways to influence the result: -
Team selection - You know the men in team A are better than the men in team B, so stick a woman in team B and get the result you want
Team training time - You put an established team against a newly formed one, team A have been together for years team B just got a new member
Attitude of the men in the team with women - if they don't want women in the larger group they deliberately under-perform or engage in passive non co-operation.

For an accurate experiment you need to select two teams whose members performance is individually measurably identical. In practice that's probably extremely difficult to do.
Perhaps they should've employed your unbiased services instead of spending millions of dollars.

I can't conceive you having any of the flaws you identify in those who delivered the wrong result.
 
Have it your way about scientific fact but, at the risk of provoking you to metaphysical excess, I'm happy to bet that neither of us will be posting on Arrse in our current physical form in two hundred years' time.
Yes and I'm happy to bet you're right, but I don't know.

Physically, yes there will be capability overlap, but only if the bar is set low enough.
Depends entirely on your definition of low enough.

If you believe that psychology is voodoo, that's up to you, but it's impossible to engage intelligently with anyone who believes, for example, that there's no difference between the behaviour characteristics of single-sex groups and mixed-sex groups.
What I said was the quantification of psychology is voodoo. Nor am I claiming that single sex and mixed sex groups behave the same. Different doesn't however have to mean better or worse it can just mean different.

As for the value of experience, it's been my experience that companies tend to pay more for individuals who know what they're doing and who've done it successfully before. Clearly these companies, like the entire psychology discipline, are hopelessly deluded.
There is a difference between showing that you know what you're doing and just having experience. If your experience is all of a negative nature you tend not to get hired in private companies.
 
If only the USMC would throw millions of dollars into a study on how women might improve combat effectiveness...
Given that the USMC has a demonstrated problem in that it has far higher rates of sexual assaults than the USN, USAF, and US Army; and appears to treat sexual assault much like the Catholic Church (ohhh, they're otherwise a good Marine, let's send them off to train recruits, Problem? What problem...), they aren't exactly a poster-child for tolerance and open-minded inclusivity.

Try reading the "US Army WTF" twitter feed. Eye-opening...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top