If ANYONE cannot pass the requisite fitness tests, cannot meet the required technical standards, does not display the necessary courage and fortitude of a soldier....................then they should not be drawing pay that comes from our collective taxes.
There are women in the Army - get over it.
The traditional qualities required of a trained fighter have traditionally been sought amongst the male half of the population. It now appears that some of you believe that those qualities now only exist exclusively amongst the male half of the population - not so gentlemen.
If some individual women are not up to standard, those individual women should not have been selected and should not continue to be trained. If women are asking for special treatment, don't give it to them. If they become over emotional, ignore them.
For f**ks sake guys, stop acting like complete pussies and get a grip of someone who is obviously taking the p**s out of you.
100% agree The AAC was introducing the first female Airtroopers into the Corps just prior to me leaving.
Amongst them were some very capable soldiers, also some useless oxygen thieves, but as a cross section no different from the blokes.
My only grievance came when the powers that be should fast track one of them to become the 'the first female door gunner' Ok fair enough, good recruitment campaign etc..the big but was that she couldn't cock the gimpy..Granted not her fault but she's not upto the job.
She remained a door gunner until deployed on operations when the concern was raised.
Otherwise I'm all for trouts in uniform, especially when you're too tired or lazy to 'knock one out'
Ooooooooooooohhhhhhhh!!! MDN!! I forgot how pleasurable it is to be abused by you......mmmmmmmmmmmm..........
We are making the same point!! I bet you a pound to a pinch of s**t that the same AAC snr offrs who made that stupid decision are the same ones who would be the first to complain that women don't cut the mustard and should not be in the Army..........
MDN, you are just too good to me....... : Is 10 minutes all I get?!
There are women capable of passing all the male fitness tests ( I did, including the CFT, and I wouldn't even say I was the fittest female I knew - there were plenty of others who could have doine it, they just chose not to) - it's those who should be recruited, and only those.
And I'm sure you're not going to disagree with the assertion that you need a lot more than just muscles to make a soldier.
........ooooohh Gunny, you wait until I come up for the Mardi Gras and park my car next to yours...........
A ride on the Donut love stick is more addictive than Crack, theres only so much to go around.........unless yer any good then you can have a back to back shift.......don't forget Iam making concessions for that barnett
Back on thread, absolutely if a girly or any other creature for that matter can pass the required entry and continuous aptitude tests then give them a go.
There are plenty of fellas out there that struggle with the tests, give them the boot too....or weeks of remedial PT
Not really surprising that the army is over 90% male, how many years of history are women trying to overturn?
That said, far too much reliance on stereotypes in that article. Any female worth her salt would not compromise combat effectiveness just for the sake of equality. But not all women would compromise combat effectiveness by just their presence.
I can pass all the basic (TA) fitness tests, however I realise that is not really the definition of combat fitness. However I was the only female (one of the last) on the TA CIC I attended and was not by far the worst recruit there (fitness tests included).
Although every female knows we have to be twice as good to be considered half as good (not that I always achieve that)
Although even if lowering standards helps recruiting, if theyre not up to it (doing the job not just training) does/should the army want them?