• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Women In the RLC (Serious question this time)

#1
After my bollocks post last night I’ m now sober enough to post a serious question - In the 80's we had the MARYLYN report on army manning -manpower army recruitment for the lean years of the nineties (or something like that) to get over the demographic trough of not enough boys babies being born in the 70’s.

Part of the recommendations t was to open up all the trades to Women and civilianise at lot of the logistics

With the Berlin wall coming down it went tits up and we had the first draw down and redundancies.

However trades were opened up to women and allegedly a level playing field to be introduced. Some o f the girls(I knew) at the time weren’t interested and there idea of a hard deployment was using a camp bed and a 58 pattern suitcase.( I know cos I married one)

My question is that is this now the case and we have exceptional woman across our trades- Pet Op AT/ ATO etc in Troop command Snr positions that are doing a justifiable shit hot job, and older prejudices that woman aren’t suitable, is it/ relevant or not today?

When we deploy is there a laid down ration of men to women or are the rear parties more full of the girls.

Also I am interested in what is the injury rate of a woman compared with a man, if a more exceptional woman meets the grade and gets there (good luck to her) in achieving these positions which may require a fair bit of physical -do they take more injuries than a similar man in the trade.?

Given the state of deployment today ,has this argument now gone away in the corps ?It was voiced quite vocally at the time in the Mess and bar.

Cheers
Donkey
 
#2
RagandOil25 said:
After my balls post last night I’ m now sober enough to post a serious question - In the 80's we had the MARYLYN report on army manning -manpower army recruitment for the lean years of the nineties (or something like that) to get over the demographic trough of not enough boys babies being born in the 70’s.

Part of the recommendations t was to open up all the trades to Women and civilianise at lot of the logistics

With the Berlin wall coming down it went tits up and we had the first draw down and redundancies.

However trades were opened up to women and allegedly a level playing field to be introduced. Some o f the girls(I knew) at the time weren’t interested and there idea of a hard deployment was using a camp bed and a 58 pattern suitcase.( I know cos I married one)

My question is that is this now the case and we have exceptional woman across our trades- Pet Op AT/ ATO etc in Troop command Snr positions that are doing a justifiable s*** hot job, and older prejudices that woman aren’t suitable, is it/ relevant or not today?

When we deploy is there a laid down ration of men to women or are the rear parties more full of the girls.

Also I am interested in what is the injury rate of a woman compared with a man, if a more exceptional woman meets the grade and gets there (good luck to her) in achieving these positions which may require a fair bit of physical -do they take more injuries than a similar man in the trade.?

Given the state of deployment today ,has this argument now gone away in the corps ?It was voiced quite vocally at the time in the Mess and bar.

Cheers
Donkey
A good start would be to refer to them as female soldiers and not 'DORIS' - otherwise post this in the NAAFI.

PAW
 
#3
The recent onslaught of Common wealth soldiers is more of a "hot topic" these days than female soldiers deploying.
(Putting on the hard hat in preparation for the PC Brigade) I'd much rather deploy with a female that understands my language (English) and is up to the job than somebody that struggles with English. No time for confusion in the battlefield!
 
#4
Moon_Monkey_Spunk said:
The recent onslaught of Common wealth soldiers is more of a "hot topic" these days than female soldiers deploying.
(Putting on the hard hat in preparation for the PC Brigade) I'd much rather deploy with a female that understands my language (English) and is up to the job than somebody that struggles with English. No time for confusion in the battlefield!
They're OK as long as the ambient temperature is over 25c!!!! (preparing for incoming aswell).
 
#5
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
A good start would be to refer to them as female soldiers and not 'DORIS' - otherwise post this in the NAAFI.

PAW
Seconded. You suggest that this is a serious post by you, but quite clearly it is not.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#6
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
RagandOil25 said:
After my balls post last night I’ m now sober enough to post a serious question - In the 80's we had the MARYLYN report on army manning -manpower army recruitment for the lean years of the nineties (or something like that) to get over the demographic trough of not enough boys babies being born in the 70’s.

Part of the recommendations t was to open up all the trades to Women and civilianise at lot of the logistics

With the Berlin wall coming down it went tits up and we had the first draw down and redundancies.

However trades were opened up to women and allegedly a level playing field to be introduced. Some o f the girls(I knew) at the time weren’t interested and there idea of a hard deployment was using a camp bed and a 58 pattern suitcase.( I know cos I married one)

My question is that is this now the case and we have exceptional woman across our trades- Pet Op AT/ ATO etc in Troop command Snr positions that are doing a justifiable s*** hot job, and older prejudices that woman aren’t suitable, is it/ relevant or not today?

When we deploy is there a laid down ration of men to women or are the rear parties more full of the girls.

Also I am interested in what is the injury rate of a woman compared with a man, if a more exceptional woman meets the grade and gets there (good luck to her) in achieving these positions which may require a fair bit of physical -do they take more injuries than a similar man in the trade.?

Given the state of deployment today ,has this argument now gone away in the corps ?It was voiced quite vocally at the time in the Mess and bar.

Cheers
Donkey
A good start would be to refer to them as female soldiers and not 'DORIS' - otherwise post this in the NAAFI.

PAW
And sort your grammar out as well you nugget. I believe that the plural is 'Dori'.
 
#7
Take the 'Political Incorrectness' and you may end up with a point worthy of discussion.

From a Pet Op perspective the marriage of the WRAC into the 'combatant' side of life has produced mixed results. As a General rule, women have been employable within the CEG since 1993. We are still waiting for a female to rise above the dizzy heights of lance jack. so they haven't really covered themselves in glory in the last 14 years. Female officers have been employed as PI's for a lot longer and have produced much better results than their non-com counterparts (one sat at col). To be fair the job is fcukin dirty and extremely heavy in terms of graft and although some women undoubtedly love that environment they just seem to be very few and far between so in answer to your question form a Pet Op POV - no
 
#8
Dilfor said:
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
A good start would be to refer to them as female soldiers and not 'DORIS' - otherwise post this in the NAAFI.

PAW
Seconded. You suggest that this is a serious post by you, but quite clearly it is not.
Agreed. Please change the title of this post or consider yourself O2 tagged.

Thank you.
 
#12
who ever said that there was no such thing as a stupid question?

Cannt say I claimed to be intelligent........... :?

Bottleosmoke said:
What a bone thread.

Get back in your cave you dinosaur.
TS we wake up every 10 years or so ............... Im not scared to post - u follow , if I *uck up I say sorry ,how about you posting a thread before I sleep agin next yr? :D

still working on the grammar got to ask my little girl
chin chin ................ecce signum as my gardianista brother would say............
 
#13
Yep we have achieved integration. No choice otherwise really.

Have we achieved acceptance? Depends on the person really, some people love nothing more than jumping on the band wagon and slagging off an easily identifiable group, be they women, F&C soldiers etc. Often this slagging is done by blokes who don't want their own weaknesses to be identified.

One of the best ammo storemen i have seen has been female, she knew her stuff had good C2 of her subordinates and their respect and was highly thought of by her superiors. I've also seen some awful tradeswomen and they have received the same (metaphorical) kick up the backside as the useless men.

Half of the problems and situations are caused by weak and inadequate SNCOs and Officers who would rather turn a blind eye than have to do an ounce of work.
 
#14
dingerr said:
One of the best ammo storemen i have seen has been female,

I didnt see too many women, but I agree , one of the girls I served with was shit hot (by chance a Lcpl) she killed herself keeping up with a bunch of lazy gits(physically in the depot) and stood above them in performance, - in proving her point she strained her back when her team mates should havebeen helping her out. ( as you said lack of supervision)

I know I was a bit of an arse in teh original post - but one point I did want to make was the injury level of some of the girls who do deserve to go to the top (or as far as their potential)

Any commander should recognise the strengths / wearknesses of the team as a whole and adjust provided that a min standard is there as a base line. Oh yeh nearly fergot I was embar arsed that she was pulling her weight and the others were f@ckingaround.
 
#15
Do you not think (generalising) that the great strength of women is that they can have a bad day/crisis/collapse and come back from it, because they don't have the ego and public image of themselves that a lot of blokes have? Blokes are really big on labels (coward, hero) rather than actions (cowardly, heroic), so once they have an incident that means they can't maintain their previous idea of themselves they fall apart completely.

Women can have a good blubber and then get up and get on with it.
 
#18
I think he's trying to take it down the 'female commonwealth divorced black lesbian from a one parent family and a disabled parking badge' route, there really is nothing to be gained from forcing that route with no route card.
 
#19
The situation is OK now, in many cases the females do equally challenging jobs. The obvious physical differences exist and we must all recognise that reality - but within those limitations females are able to soldier just as well as males. Should they be fully integrtaed into comabt units - no (IMHO), do they do fufil a worthwhile function in supporting arms and services yes (again IMHO).
Is there actually any real issue in this thread. No......
 

Latest Threads