USMC prove the point about women in GCC units.

#1
The USMC has conducted an in depth research project to test women in the Ground Close Combat role.
The question is will the results be listened to by the groups who want to put them there.




 
#2
Oh dear now the excrement is going to hit the revolving ventilator. IMHO the changes will be forced through regardless of the results, the equality lobby is too strong, possibly with a lowering of the threshold for women to 'level' the playing field.
I wonder what the effect of these tests will be over here?
 
#3
Anyone would think that combat effectiveness is a consideration here.
 
#4
Obviously it's not as important as inclusiveness.
 
#5
Oh dear now the excrement is going to hit the revolving ventilator. IMHO the changes will be forced through regardless of the results, the equality lobby is too strong, possibly with a lowering of the threshold for women to 'level' the playing field.
I wonder what the effect of these tests will be over here?
There was a thread put up the other day about fitness tests in the British army being "reviewed".
 

ehwhat

Old-Salt
Book Reviewer
#6
"Anyone would think that combat effectiveness is a consideration here."

I'm assuming that you have the sarcasm switch on, right?
We are talking about politicians making decisions.
Panetta was an intelligence LT and received a Commendation Medal. Everything afterwards has been as part of a political machine. To his credit he did use weasel words about placing women in combat positions, but I rather doubt that will change the outcome.
 
#9
Oh dear now the excrement is going to hit the revolving ventilator. IMHO the changes will be forced through regardless of the results, the equality lobby is too strong, possibly with a lowering of the threshold for women to 'level' the playing field.
I wonder what the effect of these tests will be over here?
Dead soldiers if it's adopted.
 
#11
Having been on the permanent staff at Brecon when the last attempt to get women in the infantry was kicked into touch 15 years ago, this article touches a chord. There was a lot of pressure for the go ahead to be given, but the trial was honestly run and proved incontrovertibly that women were not physically equivalent to men. I can only hope that the next British Army "trial" is given a similar reality check.
 
#12
I guess as long as the standard (does not change) and those who apply pass the standard, they deserve the role or place.. The problem is the standard is constantly been lowered and excuses for acceptance like "the unit will bring them up to speed, or we need to fill the % for diversity etc" will always have a negative impact
 
#13
Having been on the permanent staff at Brecon when the last attempt to get women in the infantry was kicked into touch 15 years ago, this article touches a chord. There was a lot of pressure for the go ahead to be given, but the trial was honestly run and proved incontrovertibly that women were not physically equivalent to men. I can only hope that the next British Army "trial" is given a similar reality check.
What, by wasting untold amounts of taxpayers money to prove something we've known since man first picked up a sharpened stick?
 
#15
I guess as long as the standard (does not change) and those who apply pass the standard, they deserve the role or place.. The problem is the standard is constantly been lowered and excuses for acceptance like "the unit will bring them up to speed, or we need to fill the % for diversity etc" will always have a negative impact
The other problem is that the standard isn't achievable. It's all well and good pointing to one woman (usually an Olympian) and saying "Oh well, she can do that one thing better!" but no one has ever found a woman who can do the lot. There aren't even any that can do more than a few.

If you can find a woman who can run as fast, carry as much, fight as hard, recover as quickly, be as coordinated, react and cope as well, be as physically and mentally robust as a man then chances are it's not a woman.

Even if you drag the standard down low enough, what's the point? You had plenty of people who were capable of beating the previous requirement and had made excellent combat soldiers for thousands of years. They were called men.
 
#17
Even if you drag the standard down low enough, what's the point?
You tick a diversity box and thats what gets people promoted.
 
#18
What, by wasting untold amounts of taxpayers money to prove something we've known since man first picked up a sharpened stick?
Pretty much, yes.
 
#19
The problem is the standard is constantly been lowered and excuses for acceptance like "the unit will bring them up to speed, or we need to fill the % for diversity etc" will always have a negative impact
Which is precisely what has happened in other male dominated job roles infected by the diversity agenda, and has been alluded to with many examples on the other long running thread on here.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top