All Roles Now Open To Females

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...
The USMC paid for the trial and provided the Marines to take part in it. It was run by people from the University of Pittsburgh.
 
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.
As doctors and infantry soldiers training are miles apart is that yet another stupid example from you?
 
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...
The British Army allows convicted nonces to continue to serve so best not point fingers.
 
As doctors and infantry soldiers training are miles apart is that yet another stupid example from you?
That depends entirely on whether you've actually read and thought about the point or not.
 
This may add some spice to the debate

Well judging by what's written the renegotiation is down to the issue of Kathmandu not being involved any more. The possibility of female Gurkhas will probably scare every biff British squaddie stiff so expect some even dafter than average reasons why they can't be allowed in.
Worth remembering that your average Gurkha [male or female] is quite a small person too.
 
That depends entirely on whether you've actually read and thought about the point or not.
You don't have a point. Being a doctor doesn't require much physical strength. It's a crap example.
 
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..
Wow some stories from hundreds of years ago when standards were none existent and no one gave a shit if the Army broke you.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Well judging by what's written the renegotiation is down to the issue of Kathmandu not being involved any more. The possibility of female Gurkhas will probably scare every biff British squaddie stiff so expect some even dafter than average reasons why they can't be allowed in.
Worth remembering that your average Gurkha [male or female] is quite a small person too.
I suspect the issue is Kathmandu looking to limit the possible impacts if fluffy first world ultra-Liberalism is unleashed on a paternalistic and deeply conservative society in the Himalayan foothills, where the role of women is very strictly defined and DV is endemic.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
* 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.
This is an extremely weak attempt to dismiss evidence on the side of the argument that actually has some, vs your side of the argument that has none and is relying solely on conjecture.

"Your extensive experience really doesn't count for anything" is a truly awful counter argument given that I'm arguing that women cause a non-zero negativeeffect on cohesion and that I want to get rid of that effect. I've seen a huge effect on a number of occasions, which isn't accounted for by confirmation bias, so your claim that my experience is worthless simply doesn't stand up.


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.
This is also completely false. Nobody said anything about quantification. While quantification of qualitative data is always tricky, that doesn't mean there's no observable qualitative difference between different populations. This doesn't have a significant impact on my argument, but you seem to be getting the science wrong both in terms of established opinion and the underpinning philosophy.

I'm not sure how often you're going to make arguments based on misunderstandings of basic logic and bad philosophy of science, but it's instructive to see how often you're getting these basics wrong.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
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.
This is also wrong.

You simply need to select the teams blind, or semi-blind*, and then run the experiment multiple times. Once you get enough results you can then analyse those statistically to identify the probability that the results are due to an interaction between the variables rather than the observed interaction being random chance (p-value) . Some element of control is useful but you can easily construct a valid experiment without one.

Again, I don't think Philosophy of Science, or even A-level experimental design, is particularly comfortable territory for you.


*You can construct your teams to get approximately equal attributes by selecting blind but using clear advance criteria eg. PFA scores.
 
Last edited:
No, I trained Territorial Army recruits and tested them, and trained and tested others previously and subsequently in an Inf Bn.
Exactly. You've never "trained Regular Army recruits and tested them, and trained and tested others previously and subsequently in an inf bn."

You've done it with TA recruits in a TA bn. Very different, with very different raw material to a very different syllabus. Pretending they're the same is simply mind-blowing.

Edit: I'm also not arguing about relative experience being the important factor, but the easily verifiable facts. You're the one who suggested you knew rather more about it than me, which is rather ironic given the subsequent inevitably inane comments from such as the Duke.
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...
Whoopee ... my hero ..... oh, and "Hugh" must be a hero, too.
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...
Only if they read what you wrote rather than what I actually wrote, which wouldn't be unusual here. What I'm "claiming" is that "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." Totally different. What I'm saying is that the requirement to aim off is minimal at ranges out to 400m for an APWT, etc; the chances of crosswinds that you need to aim off more for at ranges out to 400m given wind speeds and target size are minimal, so the requirement's minimal. Nothing to do with what your interpretation at all.
 
Last edited:
And who covers for them when they're injured, which they're four to ten times as likely to be as men in the infantry?
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.
But they don't.

If the unit is under strength then that is (or should be) factored in to deployments and tasking. If it's simply got a lot of people that aren't capable of being deployed or who are limited in what they can do, that isn't given the same consideration. All you're doing is adding to the numbers on paper, with far less available in practice.

You're also, inevitably, totally ignoring my point that as units are undermanned so the Army should be re-structured accordingly. No surprises there.
And 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.
"Of course". We're talking about a four to tenfold cost increase for a woman over a man. How "huge" do you want the extra cost to be?
 
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"?);
Actually I have, but it depends on the training and op requirement trained for which varies enormously (airborne, light inf, mech, etc).
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
There is no "like" to compare with "like".

I haven't "allowed" for the possibility that "likely female infantry recruit may be sturdier and better-prepared .... than the average female recruit," because there's no way of testing if they're any "sturdier". There are no tests available that can do that. None. No such tests exist. The only way of testing is to test to destruction in each case. If there was such a test, great, it would solve the problem. But there isn't.

As for being "better-prepared" that should not only be unnecessary as that's the whole point of having a graduated training programme but it's inherently more dangerous as it means that there's not only less room for improvement but that they're likely to be more prone to injury, not less, as they will be that much closer to their respective injury threshold. The worst possible outcome and the complete reverse of your deduction.
(what's the injury rate of male infantry recruits compared to male all-arms recruits?).
Breakdowns of injury rates are readily available, including for British Army recruits, but if you're suggesting that male infantry recruits are somehow "sturdier and better prepared" than their non-infantry counterparts so that would apply to women you're fantasising as there's nothing to suggest that - very few male non-inf recruits (4%) are below inf standard.

The whole problem is that inf training creates not only more but different injuries that are unavoidable by the nature of the training that's needed to maintain a standard. You can minimise that in basic trg by making the training more progressive, etc, so reducing all injuries, but you simply can't do that in a Fd Army unit where the standard needs to be maintained.

You're sticking your head in the sand, yet again, and ignoring this completely although it's a proven and undeniable fact.
 
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.
Like GB, you're ignoring the unavoidable problems of injuries. Much easier just to keep on ignoring them, I suppose, since there's no solution .....
 
.... finally you reservists are understanding this, the regulars are the master race while the stabs offer nothing.
Not quite (or even remotely) what's been said. It does, though, go some way to explaining your total ignorance of some of the most basic aspects of the Army and some of your absurd claims, such as that all adjutants now do the same "generic" job.

Fine, as long as you completely ignore their job operationally and on deployment when the jobs are radically different. But, of course, as long as they never do their job operationally or get deployed then what possible difference could that make?

..... except it begs the question that if they don't need to know their job operationally and aren't going to be deployed then what the fหck's the point of having an Army at all?

FWIW I have no problem at all with anyone basing their views on women in GCC roles on their own experience even if that experience is neither Reg Army nor inf. In many cases their broader experience may make them better informed than those who are.

Where I have a problem is when they make otherwise unsupported and totally incorrect claims about the Reg Army in general and inf in particular based solely on their non-existent relevant experience, and your tripe is a prime case in point.

GB's another, with his comments about the level of skill required to train an inf sldr to be a competent battle shot at APWT (as was) level. It's got nothing to do with being a marksman, or training someone to be one, so there's no reason for their trainers to be one (minor example).

Possibly worst is Kefi, with his ranting about his "alpha" time in the RAF Regt likening it to an inf bn which it isn't. Nothing against the RAF Regt per se, but they're not an inf unit but the RAF's force protection. No more, no less.

As such, any and all of the valid and even questionable arguments against women in GCC apply:
  • Their role doesn't need them to carry heavy weights long (or even short) distances, unlike inf or lt cav (basically inf) and so they're not likely to suffer the same type or rate of injuries as inf. It's actually far less physically demanding than many non-GCC roles, from gunners to sappers and signallers. Even, possibly, loggies.
  • It doesn't need them to be closed down in a vehicle for extended periods, unlike cav or even some gunners or sappers, so the arguments over confined proximity, etc, don't apply.
  • Ditto for issues like track-bashing ability - no more (or less) than many gunners, sappers and others.
Consequently, RAF Regt would be the ideal place for women who want a "halfway house" to a GCC role ... except very few seem interested.
 
Last edited:
GB's another, with his comments about the level of skill required to train an inf sldr to be a competent battle shot at APWT (as was) level. It's got nothing to do with being a marksman, or training someone to be one, so there's no reason for their trainers to be one (minor example).
Out of curiosity... you'd be happy to have PTIs that were unfit, and can only just pass BFT / ACFT? Map reading instructors who kept getting lost on exercise? Language instructors who aren't fluent? Ski instructors who can only snowplough?

Passing as "Marksman" isn't difficult, it just takes a bit of extra training, and requires you to understand and demonstrate the fundamental principles of the activity that you are attempting to teach. The pass mark at APWT is what you demand of a new recruit at the end of their introductory training, not what you expect of a professional JNCO with a few years under their belt. In what other areas do we say "nahhhh, you don't need to improve at all, the most basic pass mark is fine for the rest of your career"?

Of course, if you're an incompetent biff with a weapon, embarrassed to admit it, and unwilling to improve your personal skill - then it's easier to insist that skill-at-arms is about passing WHT and not having NDs. Then you just need to sound plausible as you spout useless bollocks while running a range; scrape a pass each year, preferably well out of sight of the Jocks, or with excuses that "it was windy" or "but I'm expert with a MILAN". Pardon me for suggesting that it was about actually teaching soldiers to hit what they aim at.
 
Last edited:
Out of curiosity... you'd be happy to have PTIs that were unfit? Map reading instructors who kept getting lost on exercise? Language instructors who aren't fluent? Ski instructors who can only snowplough?

Passing as "Marksman" isn't difficult, it just takes a bit of extra training, and requires you to understand and demonstrate the fundamental principles of the activity that you are attempting to teach. The pass mark at APWT is what you demand of a new recruit at the end of their introductory training, not what you expect of a professional JNCO with a few years under their belt. In what other areas do we say "nahhhh, you don't need to improve at all, the most basic pass mark is fine for the rest of your career"?

Of course, if you're an incompetent biff with a weapon, embarrassed to admit it, and unwilling to improve your personal skill - then it's easier to insist that skill-at-arms is about passing WHT and not having NDs. Then you just need to sound plausible as you spout useless bollocks while running a range; scrape a pass each year, preferably well out of sight of the Jocks, or with excuses that "it was windy" or "but I'm expert with a MILAN". Pardon me for suggesting that it was about actually teaching soldiers to hit what they aim at.
look, until you can understand that learning to shoot on a Saturday is completely different to learning to shoot on a Monday you will not be able to comprehend the point.

Just as I, a serving inf officer who has been an Adjt and done the courses know nothing.
 
look, until you can understand that learning to shoot on a Saturday is completely different to learning to shoot on a Monday you will not be able to comprehend the point.

Just as I, a serving inf officer who has been an Adjt and done the courses can not fathom how most staff appointments are definitely not pretty generic.
 
look, until you can understand that learning to shoot on a Saturday is completely different to learning to shoot on a Monday you will not be able to comprehend the point.

Just as I, a serving inf officer who has been an Adjt and done the courses know nothing.
I take it you are up to date and your experience is recent in respect of SA and being an Adjt, oh I just noticed you are still serving ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top