USMC prove the point about women in GCC units.

And true to form:

Army Officer To Take On World Ironman Competition

Forces Network is getting more and more like RT every day
To be fair she's an outstanding athlete and deserves all the praise she gets.

On the other hand, I can't help wondering why, having made a big deal about ...


Captain Rye won a gold medal for the Army in the British Triathlon Relays (Picture: British Army)."

... they didn't mention that the Army men's team had also won the men's team event.

I would have thought winning the double (men's and women's) would have been something to crow about, but this seems to sum up the Army's current PR agenda.
 
So she won against other wimin?Someone has to so no big deal.
You mean like Mo Farah and Usain Bolt, or the Brownlee brothers, only win against other men as "someone has to so no big deal"?

FWIW she came 22nd overall in the Calgary 70.3 in a time of 4:25:15 while the winner came in in 4:02:53, beating several hundred men as she has done in numerous other races, and I've got no problem in acknowledging that she'd have beaten me pretty conclusively in triathlons even when I was competing.

Does that mean she'd be an asset in the infantry? Not necessarily, but I'm reasonably sure she'd be no worse and probably be a lot better than a lot of the infantrymen I knew.

Let's be honest, at least, and give credit where it's due.
 
Could not disagree, it was the style of the article I was criticising.
As was I :).

It totally ignores not only that the Army men's team also won gold but that one of the men won silver in the individual. It should have been a story about how well the Army had done, but instead it concentrated on one person and suggested, possibly deliberately possibly by mistake, at worst that she was better than she is or at best competed in (and won) a more recognised event. Although an outstanding athlete she isn't actually in the ITU rankings for elite women, where there are half a dozen Brits in the top 50, with Brits in 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th places, nor does she feature in British Triathlon's elite athletes with a dozen women, or even as an English elite triathlete.

She doesnt feature because they're for the much more popular and more widely recognised Sprint and Standard / Olympic distance events, where she hasn't done so well, while she won the far less recognised 'Middle Distance' event.

It's just badly written hype which is as unfair on her as it is on those elite tri-athletes whose achievements are played down, just as the hype over the Ice Maidens was unfair on those who crossed the Antartic with one re-supply point not two who were painted as being somehow less fit.

The Army's putting them in an invidious position, causing comparisons to be made that are unfair and unnecessary and can only detract from the outstanding achievments they've made and the credit they deserve.
 
TBH I've revised my position on this to the point where I think this whole issue of women in GCC roles is little more now than a distraction that suits nearly everyone:

  • The MoD and VSOs who are being seen to be PC and 'in touch', and who've always got an excuse if the injury rates are as bad as they inevitably will be, since they said it was to be 'trialled' and was dependent on finding a magical solution to the injuries, although that now seems to have been forgotten.
  • The serving who can say that either standards haven't changed and it's all part of the 'circle of life' ...
  • or the serving who prefer to say that women are to blame for test standards being measurably lowered by some 30%, while the reality is that little more than half have been passing the old test standard for years.
  • The 'old and bold' who want to maintain that 'the lads are as good as they've always been' when while they may well be true from all other viewpoints, from a physical robustness and physical fitness standpoint they're measurably far worse.
  • Serving women who can justify any change in standard on the grounds of it now being 'age neutral', as that happened at the same time even though it's neither necessary or justifiable.
  • Recruits whose tests are also to be 'changed', so that the slobs who are 25kgs overweight and those who are proud of posting here that they've 'shaved' 10 seconds off their 13 minute recruit selection 1.5 mile run time can get in, even if they're a liability later.
  • Women, serving or not, who can point out quite rightly that some women are just as fit and capable as some men, even if it's only a few, and just as capable of doing a GCC or DCC role without standards having to be lowered for them, and that the old argument of 'cohesion' has been shown to be no longer valid.
The only people it doesn't suit are those who think the injury rate won't justify the minimal military gains and those who want an Army that's physically fit for role. ... and, given the current state of the Army, what do they matter?
 
"BOOOOOOONG". Stand by, stand by, this is your 5 minute warning for the end of the world as we know it.

Mass head explosions inbound in 5, 4, 3, 2..... ^~
 
"BOOOOOOONG". Stand by, stand by, this is your 5 minute warning for the end of the world as we know it.

Mass head explosions inbound in 5, 4, 3, 2..... ^~
You've been a right little tease recently.
 
You've been a right little tease recently.
The cats out the bag now, so obviously all the conditions have been met in the implementation so far, seen as the decision and timeline was conditions based (honestly the IO said it was so).

Anyone care to bet what the first Battalion will be?
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
Do Lego ones count ?
 
To be fair she's an outstanding athlete and deserves all the praise she gets.

On the other hand, I can't help wondering why, having made a big deal about ...


Captain Rye won a gold medal for the Army in the British Triathlon Relays (Picture: British Army)."

... they didn't mention that the Army men's team had also won the men's team event.

I would have thought winning the double (men's and women's) would have been something to crow about, but this seems to sum up the Army's current PR agenda.
Surely now it's all one Army, they shouldn't differentiate between genders, so they should all do the same race. I wonder how that would work out?
 
Surely now it's all one Army, they shouldn't differentiate between genders, so they should all do the same race. I wonder how that would work out?
If Army cross country events are anything to go by, usually a head start with shortcuts along the route.
 


Meanwhile in Germany Atten-TION: Male Soldiers Are Growing Breasts
snip "Like armies everywhere, the German military is filled with macho, chest-thumping rituals. But one battalion has found there's a downside to all that chest-thumping: The male soldiers are growing breasts — and only on their left sides.
The Wachbataillon unit performs precision military drills at official ceremonial functions, the German Herald reports. Many of their drills involve smacking their rifles against the left side of the soldiers' chests. And all that pounding on the same spot has stimulated the production of hormones that cause man boobs to grow."
In a study of the German soldiers, published in January 2012, Krapohl and colleagues found significant differences between the guards with gynecomastia and a control group of healthy males without signs of gynecomastia. Those in the Guard Battalion in Berlin had lower testosterone levels and higher body mass indexes (BMI), or a measure of body fatness".


One wonders if this is leading to some sort of dystopian future where sexuality is turned on its head :)
 
Some seriously strange findings - and some equally strange comments.

Strangest is that the comments seem to assume "active duty" somehow means infantry, carrying weights, etc, when according to the study it clearly just means serving rather than retired so includes clerks, cooks, drivers and all the other myriad of equally important but not necessarily physically arduous or demanding jobs.

60% of the study of 799 were 'veterans or retirees' while 35% were 'active duty'. Disregarding that that seems to leave 5% unaccounted for, that seems to negate the possibility that infertility could be due to amenorrhea (absence of periods) which is not unusual among women doing a lot of repeated and prolonged physical exertion which would be the expected reason, as amenorrhea stops (and periods re-start) once exercise / calorie intake, etc are balanced normally.

Some of the stats make no sense at all: "Of the 13 percent who said they became pregnant when they didn't want to be, more than half were using birth control at the time." How can that be? Birth control somehow doesn't work for more than half of those using it in the military?

The headline that " Nearly 40 Percent of Active-Duty Women Report Fertility Problems" is also totally untrue. The survey was on-line and only reported the results of the 799 who replied, of whom only 35% or about 280 were 'active duty'. That's a sample of about one thousandth of the women on active duty in the US military and while it could be representative it could equally be totally unrepresentative and may have been replied to disproportionately by those who had 'fertility problems'.

It's meaningless, not only because it reaches no conclusions but also because any statistics it's based on are fundamentally flawed.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
R Weapons, Equipment & Rations 49
Drlligaf US 6
28th/LX1 US 2

Latest Threads

Top