Former British Army commander says having women in the army 'will cost lives on the battlefield' - Polidicks

[b]Former British Army commander says having women in the army 'will cost lives on the battlefield'[/b] Via [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-soliders-front-line-infantry-british-army-commander-tim-collins-no-place-for-woman-a7129271.html]Independent[/url] _________________________ [quote][img]http://i.imgur.com/9Ek8gwD.jpg[/img] [i]In wars, such as those fought in Iraq, women have not been allowed on the frontline[/i] - - - Lifting the ban on women in combat roles will "drag our infantry to far below the required standard" and put people at greater risk of dying, according to a former SAS commander. "The infantry is no place for a woman, and to permit them to serve in close combat roles is a pure politically correct extravagance," Colonel Tim Collins has said, following David Cameron's announcement on Friday that women will be allowed to perform combat roles in the army. He added: "No one pretends that allowing women onto the front line enhances the army’s capabilities." Citing a report by the US Marine Corps from 2015, he added that having women in the armed forces would be more likely "cost lives on the battlefield". But Hannah Bryce, from the Royal Institute of International Affairs, has said having women in the roles would make the army “more operationally effective", as well as more reflective of society. "Wars are not just fought by men, and do not just affect men,” she told the BBC, “the battleground has already moved from the remote frontlines of 20th Century warfare to a more urban environment and as a result is influenced by all society and not just military personnel.[/quote] Well, he's not wrong. The USMC study he cites ([url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/280017557/Marine-Corps-gender-integration-research-executive-summary]summary here[/url]) is quite interesting.

if they retain the same standards for men as they do women then i don't see how it will reduce efficacy. the problems come up if they reduce standards so more women are able to serve in combat roles

Anyone who calls this guy a misogynist clearly doesn't understand this.

[QUOTE]Lifting the ban on women in combat roles will "drag our infantry to far below the required standard" [/QUOTE] uh [QUOTE]"The infantry is no place for a woman,[/QUOTE] uhh [QUOTE]"No one pretends that allowing women onto the front line enhances the army’s capabilities."[/QUOTE] no of course it won't enhance shit, but to tell women that "sorry you can't be apart of this bc its too manly" to me is just sexist af if someone wants to serve for their country, regardless of gender they should be able to sign up and enrol [editline]11th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50688296]Anyone who calls this guy a misogynist clearly doesn't understand this.[/QUOTE] all im reading here "sorry, the army is for men"

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;50688297]all im reading here "sorry, the army is for men"[/QUOTE] Yes, but if anything it's because studies have been made that support this and he believes it's for the better. He's not stereotyping, he has a reason.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;50688297]no of course it won't enhance shit, but to tell women that "sorry you can't be apart of this bc its too manly" to me is just sexist af if someone wants to serve for their country, regardless of gender they should be able to sign up and enrol [editline]11th July 2016[/editline] all im reading here "sorry, the army is for men"[/QUOTE] I'm all for people who voluntarily want to be front-line fodder, regardless of gender - and I strongly emphasize this. You wanna be "all you can be", then go for it. But if studies conclude that they just don't perform as well as men, then there's no reason to suggest that he's a sexist twat. Another way to say it is "sorry girls, but studies X, Y and Z have shown that you're not up to the task." There's nothing inherently sexist about it.

Do they have to be the cannon-fodder riflemen? What's wrong with them operating crew-manned weapons and crewing vehicles or being weapons specialists

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50688308]Yes, but if anything it's because studies have been made that support this and he believes it's for the better. He's not stereotyping, he has a reason.[/QUOTE] Do you know how long the Canadian Army has allowed women in combat roles? It's since at least the 70s. We're still one of the most effective armed forces in the world given what we've got, and allowing women into combat roles hasn't hurt us in the slightest.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;50688378]Do you know how long the Canadian Army has allowed women in combat roles? It's since at least the 70s. We're still one of the most effective armed forces in the world given what we've got, and allowing women into combat roles hasn't hurt us in the slightest.[/QUOTE] No idea what to say, even if the Canadian army is still effective, the USMC tests beg to differ. How many woman are in the Canadian Army anyways? There's a chance men may be doing more.

[QUOTE]Lifting the ban on women in combat roles will "drag our infantry to far below the required standard" and put people at greater risk of dying, according to a former SAS commander.[/QUOTE] ...But they have to be able to perform to the same standards as men to get in in the first place? Hence, by definition, there won't be any dragging down below any standard. This guy's an idiot.

Fucking hell, its always the same round of argument. People [U]always[/U] cite the studies made by the USMC but they were made with [U]segregated fitness requirements[/U]. Of fucking course in that case the women would perform worse. I haven't seen studies done with units in which the women had to pass the same fitness requirements as the males. If no women are able to pass the same fitness requirements as everyone else then it's no different as if a male had failed them and the system is working as intended. I'm sure though that at least a handful will be able to pass, even if it's just 1% of the women who applied.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;50688378]Do you know how long the Canadian Army has allowed women in combat roles? It's since at least the 70s. We're still one of the most effective armed forces in the world given what we've got, and allowing women into combat roles hasn't hurt us in the slightest.[/QUOTE] Can you provide more insight as to how well they perform in combat, and what kind of fitness qualifications do they require?

[QUOTE=Dr.C;50688334]Do they have to be the cannon-fodder riflemen? What's wrong with them operating crew-manned weapons and crewing vehicles or being weapons specialists[/QUOTE] Introducing crew served weapons and specialist roles only makes the performance deficit bigger.

Maybe Canadian women are just stronger and more fit than American women, I dunno. -Gah broken merge-

[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;50688408]Fucking hell, its always the same round of argument. People [U]always[/U] cite the studies made by the USMC but they were made with [U]segregated fitness requirements[/U]. Of fucking course in that case the women would perform worse. I haven't seen studies done with units in which the women had to pass the same fitness requirements as the males. If no women are able to pass the same fitness requirements as everyone else then it's no different as if a male had failed them and the system is working as intended. I'm sure though that at least a handful will be able to pass, even if it's just 1% of the women who applied.[/QUOTE] Indeed, as far as I am concerned everyone takes the same test to get in the army. You failed? Fuck off. You're a woman and you failed? Also fuck off, no special treatment. The army needs good soldiers, not feel-good soldiers.

[QUOTE=thisguy123;50688429]Indeed, as far as I am concerned everyone takes the same test to get in the army. You failed? Fuck off. You're a woman and you failed? Also fuck off, no special treatment. The army needs good soldiers, not feel-good soldiers.[/QUOTE] Precisely. They want equal treatment [I]but lighter standards[/I]. That's not how it works.

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50688416]Can you provide more insight as to how well they perform in combat, and what kind of fitness qualifications do they require?[/QUOTE] We burned the White House down after eating all the food, we held Vimy Ridge in WW1, we were known as the "StormTroopers" in WW2 because we did not back down, and Canadian Snipers hold the longest confirmed kill. Not entirely sure of requirements, but I don't think it's light. We do have women in the military under various roles.

Even if they lifted the ban, the Army will still choose men, every single time. If during the "culling" men happen to outperform women in every way, then there's nothing else to argue really. A girl can't be "all she can be" if she can't prove she can carry a 2m, 110kg dude quickly out of danger.

[QUOTE=Daemon White;50688465]We burned the White House down after eating all the food, we held Vimy Ridge in WW1, we were known as the "StormTroopers" in WW2 because we did not back down, and Canadian Snipers hold the longest confirmed kill. We do have women in the military under various roles.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure hes talking about what standard your soldiers are held at today, not things they did 100 years ago.

[QUOTE=duckmaster;50688476]I'm pretty sure hes talking about what standard your soldiers are held at today, not things they did 100 years ago.[/QUOTE] I was meaning more about the previous accomplishments in terms of performance, but I don't think the requirements are considered light. I also don't know if we have women on the frontlines as ground units either. Maybe those that pass a training / test do, but I don't know the percentage. The Canadian Army isn't in the news that much.

[QUOTE=Daemon White;50688465]We burned the White House down after eating all the food, we held Vimy Ridge in WW1, we were known as the "StormTroopers" in WW2 because we did not back down, and Canadian Snipers hold the longest confirmed kill. Not entirely sure of requirements, but I don't think it's light.[/QUOTE] he's talking about female canadian soldiers

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50688270][b]Former British Army commander says having women in the army 'will cost lives on the battlefield'[/b] Via [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-soliders-front-line-infantry-british-army-commander-tim-collins-no-place-for-woman-a7129271.html]Independent[/url] _________________________ Well, he's not wrong. The USMC study he cites ([url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/280017557/Marine-Corps-gender-integration-research-executive-summary]summary here[/url]) is quite interesting.[/QUOTE] That's funny, didn't we already rip apart your argument in the other thread? [editline]11th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50688447]Precisely. They want equal treatment [I]but lighter standards[/I]. That's not how it works.[/QUOTE] Nice strawman. That isn't what is going to happen.

[QUOTE=ksenior;50688508]Nice strawman. That isn't what is going to happen.[/QUOTE] But it already is happening?

[QUOTE=sgman91;50688527]But it already is happening?[/QUOTE] The USMC (for some reason I need to point out [I]aren't British[/I]) chose to use lower standards while "proving" women shouldn't be in combat. That is not "proof" that standards will be lowered when e[I]very other Western nation[/I] that is allowing women in combat positions [I]has not[/I]. All of these facts were pointed out to Pretiacruento in the last "women in the British Army" thread but he chose not to respond.

How many of you are actually in the military? Women have been a GRACIOUS amount of special treatment when it comes to serving in combat roles or joining the infantry, did you guys know that? Let alone the reason PFT standards for females is different because it was designed for them to succeed on their own biological limitations. Have I seen chick out do me in PT, yeah it's not something to be ashamed of, let alone if they can adhere to the male standard and WANT to actually serve in a combat roll, by all means. But they better be able to work just as well as your average male. You know the Marine Infantry Officer course has never been passed by a female, ever? So they made a version for females Marines, with females Marines helping set the test up for them. They still failed because they couldn't met the physical limitations. [editline]10th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=ksenior;50688536]The USMC (for some reason I need to point out [I]aren't British[/I]) chose to use lower standards while "proving" women shouldn't be in combat. That is not "proof" that standards will be lowered when e[I]very other Western nation[/I] that is allowing women in combat positions [I]has not[/I].[/QUOTE] We have a high standard for anyone serving in combat roles, it's fucking vital whether or not the Marine to your left or right dies.

Well, There's a reason why women aren't on the front lines; Rape.

[QUOTE=RG4ORDR;50688538]How many of you are actually in the military? Women have been a GRACIOUS amount of special treatment when it comes to serving in combat roles or joining the infantry, did you guys know that? Let alone the reason PFT standards for females is different because it was designed for them to succeed on their own biological limitations. Have I seen chick out do me in PT, yeah it's not something to be ashamed of, let alone if they can adhere to the male standard and WANT to actually serve in a combat roll, by all means. But they better be able to work just as well as your average male. You know the Marine Infantry Officer course has never been passed by a female, ever? So they made a version for females Marines, with females Marines helping set the test up for them. They still failed because they couldn't met the physical limitations. [editline]10th July 2016[/editline] We have a high standard for anyone serving in combat roles, it's fucking vital whether or not the Marine to your left or right dies.[/QUOTE] So basically, you're arguing that because the USMC uses a different physical standards test for women, women who do pass the proper test shouldn't be allowed into combat roles because they've already had too much "special treatment"? Because that's what it sounds like to me.

[QUOTE=Sims_doc;50688557]Well, There's a reason why women aren't on the front lines; Rape.[/QUOTE] That's retarded, but at the same time a valid point. There's also an issue on the basis that if a male sees a female go down in combat, you're going to have a natural reaction to actual try and save her. Then he goes down, which results in a cycle of causalities because of a protective instinct within us to keep the women safe. [editline]10th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=ksenior;50688560]So basically, you're arguing that because the USMC uses a different physical standards test for women, women who do pass the proper test shouldn't be allowed into combat roles because they've already had too much "special treatment"? Because that's what it sounds like to me.[/QUOTE] Maybe you should re-read it because I clearly state: [quote=RG4ORDR] let alone if they can adhere to the male standard and WANT to actually serve in a combat roll, by all means. But they better be able to work just as well as your average male.[/quote]

[QUOTE=RG4ORDR;50688567]That's retarded, but at the same time a valid point. There's also an issue on the basis that if a male sees a female go down in combat, you're going to have a natural reaction to actual try and save her. Then he goes down, which results in a cycle of causalities because of a protective instinct within us to keep the women safe.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah, because when his buddy goes down it's totally not his first instinct to save him :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=ksenior;50688536]The USMC (for some reason I need to point out [I]aren't British[/I]) chose to use lower standards while "proving" women shouldn't be in combat. That is not "proof" that standards will be lowered when e[I]very other Western nation[/I] that is allowing women in combat positions [I]has not[/I]. All of these facts were pointed out to Pretiacruento in the last "women in the British Army" thread but he chose not to respond.[/QUOTE] So, we know that the Army already has lower standards and we know that the marines have set the precedent for lower standards. Why would it make more sense to assume that they won't continue with that precedent?