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

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50689499]As far as I can tell, Norway doesn't have different fitness standards for men and women. Yes, on average, the women will be less strong than the men. But the ones who pass, will, on average, compare to the bottom percentile of men who pass. Why should men who just barely pass be considered capable for combat roles, but women that pass with higher scores than those men be excluded? There hasn't been a reasonable counterpoint that hasn't cited a flawed study based on two entirely different fitness standards. Nobody's saying women will be [I]more[/I] physically capable than the strongest men. There are absolutely biological differences that determine raw strength capacity. But let's say that in education, if a passing grade on a test was 85, and the average passing male score was a 95, why should a woman who gets an 88 be excluded while a man who makes an 86 be permitted to serve in a combat role? Wanting 50/50 gender makeup isn't even a part of this - it's about excluding perfectly capable women from roles where they score as good as or better than other men who are permitted to serve in those roles.[/QUOTE] After boot camp, soldiers better fit for a certain role would be transferred anyway just for the sake of maintaining a 50% split between males and females.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50689499]As far as I can tell, Norway doesn't have different fitness standards for men and women. Yes, on average, the women will be less strong than the men. But the ones who pass, will, on average, compare to the bottom percentile of men who pass. Why should men who just barely pass be considered capable for combat roles, but women that pass with higher scores than those men be excluded? There hasn't been a reasonable counterpoint that hasn't cited a flawed study based on two entirely different fitness standards. Nobody's saying women will be [I]more[/I] physically capable than the strongest men. There are absolutely biological differences that determine raw strength capacity. But let's say that in education, if a passing grade on a test was 85, and the average passing male score was a 95, why should a woman who gets an 88 be excluded while a man who makes an 86 be permitted to serve in a combat role? Wanting 50/50 gender makeup isn't even a part of this - it's about excluding perfectly capable women from roles where they score as good as or better than other men who are permitted to serve in those roles.[/QUOTE] Norway absolutely have different fitness standards for men and women, the required fitness levels for passing the female test would have you fail and flunk out in the mens fitness test. [editline]11th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Trebgarta;50689597]It is said that Britain will NOT give special treatment. Why do people keep parroting this?[/QUOTE] because every military to trial women in combat roles has said that. In the end women end up having tests ususally around 30-35 % less than men,because its a political failure for the people who pushed for women in combat roles when 0 of them manage to pass the tests.

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50689257]They are six times more prone to injuries than men, that'd be one of the reasons why. 4th page in the USMC study reads: So there you have it. There's no real reason why they'd allow infantry women that are 6 times more prone to injuries (thus becoming a dead weight) and at best perform just like the bottom-of-the-barrel percentile of men. Where is the real, tangible benefit?[/QUOTE] I have to wonder if you're being deliberately asinine at this point given you keep coming back to that study. The problems with that study have already been addressed.

[QUOTE=ksenior;50689639]I have to wonder if you're being deliberately asinine at this point given you keep coming back to that study. The problems with that study have already been addressed.[/QUOTE] actually the women in the study were 6 times more injury prone than men while being held to an already lower standard iirc. If that's the case then they will be even more injury prone while being held to the same standards as men.

[QUOTE=moffe;50689717]actually the women in the study were 6 times more injury prone than men while being held to an already lower standard iirc. If that's the case then they will be even more injury prone while being held to the same standards as men.[/QUOTE] I think you misunderstood how the study worked. They pulled men and women from marine units and set them against each other in identical tests. The women, who had entered the military at a lower standard, had a higher injury rate.

Another important note is that women lose muscle tone quicker. There are reasons they under perform, but if those reasons can be addressed and filter out only performing, able bodied soldiers, I see no problem.

Seems to work okay in conscription, since the requirements for that are to simply not be terrible.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50689281]And that's from the USMC study. Are they more likely to be injured because they're held to less stringent standards than men, or is it just because they're women?[/QUOTE] If you bothered to read my previous post carefully, you'd read that it's because they're women. Here: [quote](...) evidence of higher injury rates for females when compared to males [u]performing the same tactical tasks[/u] was noted.[/quote] Even if they were used to do 13 pull-ups instead of 42 like regular soldiers, a tactical task would be something like running 10mi wearing full gear. So, same task for all of them. And women got injured more. [QUOTE=.Isak.;50689281]If the anaerobic power of the top 25% of women overlaps with the bottom 25% of men, then clearly the women who fall into that overlap have enough anaerobic strength to qualify just as the men in the bottom 25th could qualify.[/QUOTE] No, you completely misunderstood. That means that the "cream of the crop" of the women perform like below-average men - as in, the guys who would fail all the tests and be outright rejected by the army, and that's a bad thing. It simply means "not good enough". So no, having inferior soldiers around would be completely unfair for the soldiers who are physically more capable and passed comfortably the required tests, specially because they'd consider the weaker ones a liability for everyone. I quote the '92 study, the previous one before the '15 study: [quote]“A military unit at maximum combat effectiveness is a military unit least likely to suffer casualties. Winning in war is often only a matter of inches, and unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy. Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong.”[/quote] [QUOTE=.Isak.;50689281]The USMC study is flawed in relation to the UK's military [i]because the women weren't held to the same standards as the men[/i]. You can't say "women are more likely to be injured" when you have this enormous independent variable that wasn't controlled for at all. If they were held to the same standards, what would the differences be? If you control that variable, do these differences still exist?[/QUOTE] Again, wrong. You didn't read the study. This former SAS commander quoted the study, because the USMC created a special infantry research group for it, the GCE ITF. What you're wondering is covered in the study. Read: [quote](...) Since the programs of instruction at these formal learning centers necessarily focus on basic individual tasks, this research alone was unable to answer the broader questions: “What does it actually take to do the job in the operating forces within these MOSs?” and, “What is the impact, if any, of female integration in ground combat arms units on collective task performance under conditions that most closely approximate combat?” Because formal congressional notification requirements precluded simply introducing female Marines into previously closed ground combat units to answer the above broader questions, it was necessary to build a unit designed specifically to conduct such research – the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force (GCEITF).[/quote] Assuming they wouldn't take such things into account is stupid or even worse, it could imply that they're just given some leeway, so that eventually they can be cannon fodder, when it's not. More on this: [quote]the primary consideration throughout has been to understand any impact on the [u][b]combat effectiveness[/u][/b] of Marine ground combat units. Based on the unique role the Marine Corps fulfills within the Joint Force and in the security of the nation, the benchmark of achieving the “most combat effective” force has remained the unwavering focus. With this primary consideration, the Marine Corps has analyzed factors such as speed and tempo, lethality, readiness, survivability, and cohesion – critical components to fighting and winning in direct ground combat.[/quote] [quote]A second consideration in assessing research results has been the [u][b]health and welfare of the individual Marine[/u][/b]. The Marine Corps recognizes the extreme and, in some cases, increasing physical demands of direct ground combat as well as the unchanging differences in human physiology between males and females as an essential element of its responsible approach to gender integration.[/quote] [quote]Tied directly to the previous considerations is the imperative of [u][b]managing the talents of the force[/u][/b] – today and into the future. The importance of leveraging the talents of each individual Marine to the fullest extent possible within our Marine Air Ground Task Forces cannot be overstated – assigning the right Marine to the right job with the appropriate skills and qualifications. The Marine Corps fights as units; therefore developing and maintaining the most combat effective units must always be at the forefront of any contemplated institutional change.[/quote] Those are the considerations that were taken into account for their research, using the GCEITF. [QUOTE=.Isak.;50689281]The benefit is not having gender segregation in the military and instead having it be purely meritocratic. Can you pass the fitness standards? Good, you're in. That is the absolute definition of egalitarian, even if less than 5% of women qualify.[/QUOTE] The Army can't be bothered to appeal to trendy narratives -- actually, they have. That's what their latest study is for, and it wasn't cheap, so you should read it (but by the looks of it, it's not like you'll read it anyways). Their approach was quite pragmatic. No matter how loud you yell "but gender doesn't affect capabilities!", their study shows otherwise. [QUOTE=ksenior;50689639]I have to wonder if you're being deliberately asinine at this point given you keep coming back to that study. The problems with that study have already been addressed.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=ksenior;50689755]I think you misunderstood how the study worked. They pulled men and women from marine units and set them against each other in identical tests. The women, who had entered the military at a lower standard, had a higher injury rate.[/QUOTE] You, too, are wrong. You haven't read the study. Keyword: GCEITF. Read some of my responses above. Stop spamming the same misinformation and *read* the summary.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50689597]It is said that Britain will NOT give special treatment. Why do people keep parroting this?[/QUOTE] Because this is actually the case in Norway. Good friends and soldiers were transfered just because of a qouta that dictates that 50% should be women.

[QUOTE=Petrussen;50690108]Because this is actually the case in Norway. Good friends and soldiers were transfered just because of a qouta that dictates that 50% should be women.[/QUOTE] thats sexist, why would they do that, how can Norway have a political platform that supports that.

He's have a point if they started lowering the bar to accept them, but as long as they hold them to the same standard as men I don't really see the issue. Just sounds like an old man who wants the army to stay as an all boys club.

just let the radical feminists fight on the frontline, it'd be great!

Having men in the army also costs lives. It's a fucking warzone. Perhaps assholes up top wouldn't be so likely to start meaningless wars if there's a chance their wife gets sent to shoot at people.

[QUOTE=SweetTea;50690133]just let the radical feminists fight on the frontline, it'd be great![/QUOTE] They're too busy making trendy hashtags on Twitter. Whining about lack of female SWAT agents, Navy SEALs and Rangers is at the very bottom of their list. [editline]11th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=nikomo;50690163]Having men in the army also costs lives. It's a fucking warzone. Perhaps assholes up top wouldn't be so likely to start meaningless wars if there's a chance their wife gets sent to shoot at people.[/QUOTE] Thing is, we're in peacetime now. Imagine how things would change, if WWIII started tomorrow.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50690128]He's have a point if they started lowering the bar to accept them, but as long as they hold them to the same standard as men I don't really see the issue. Just sounds like an old man who wants the army to stay as an all boys club.[/QUOTE] I was told the same thing by a corporal, it seems to hold some merit that if instinctual or cultural you seem to prioritise women first.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;50689138]remember, if someone ignores all logic and common sense and blindly rushes into danger to save a woman: it's the woman's fault[/QUOTE] Who here claimed that? Are you actively trying to poison the debate?

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50690070]No, you completely misunderstood. That means that the "cream of the crop" of the women perform like below-average men - as in, the guys who would fail all the tests and be outright rejected by the army, and that's a bad thing. It simply means "not good enough". So no, having inferior soldiers around would be completely unfair for the soldiers who are physically more capable and passed comfortably the required tests, specially because they'd consider the weaker ones a liability for everyone. I quote the '92 study, the previous one before the '15 study: [/QUOTE] Do you honestly believe that the strongest and fittest women only perform as well as men who fail to measure up? Despite the fact that places like Canada and other countries have had women serving in their armed forces with no issue? It's already been proven that your USMC study is irrelevant for using soldiers not held up to the same standards. If I train two people, but push one half as hard as the other, would it then be scientific to trial them and make conclusions about their other differences while ignoring the fact that I didn't prepare them equally? I expect you'll either ignore this post or just tell me to "read the study!!" but frankly I wonder if you've even met properly fit women, since you seem to think that the very strongest woman would still pale in comparison to the average man. [editline]11th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Blizzerd;50690288]Who here claimed that? Are you actively trying to poison the debate?[/QUOTE] You've misread his argument. He's saying that if a soldier forgoes his training because his buddy has a vag, that's a problem with the soldier, not with the other's gender. Maybe we shouldn't let soldiers get attached to one another either if they can't stop themselves from jeopardising the whole squad to save their friends.

[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] Right but not allowing any women at all is totally arbitrary. If you apply the exact same standards as you do to men joining the army, there'll still be plenty of women fully capable of serving on the front line. Just not as many as there will be men. [editline]11th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Petrussen;50690108]Because this is actually the case in Norway. Good friends and soldiers were transfered just because of a qouta that dictates that 50% should be women.[/QUOTE] Yeh now that's just dumb and i'd never advocate for that.

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50688660]I left that thread, after providing valid arguments and sources as to why they weaken an army, just like this former SAS commander is suggesting. You didn't rip apart any argument, IIRC.[/QUOTE] What were the arguments he used against your point? [editline]11th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Menien Goneld;50690305] You've misread his argument. He's saying that if a soldier forgoes his training because his buddy has a vag, that's a problem with the soldier, not with the other's gender. Maybe we shouldn't let soldiers get attached to one another either if they can't stop themselves from jeopardising the whole squad to save their friends.[/QUOTE] I didnt misread, or well.. unless he seriously thinks its the womens fault. Who here claimed its the womens fault? heck if for some reason women lower the effectiveness of a military its not their fault its the fault of whoever chose to let them in... Same genders vice versa

[QUOTE=archival;50689524]Imagine the sensationalist news/political backlash when some women get captured by the enemy.[/QUOTE] so fucking what? what's the fucking big deal if a WOMAN happens to be captured

Didn't we go through this exact thing last year....

[QUOTE=Saturn V;50690663]so fucking what? what's the fucking big deal if a WOMAN happens to be captured[/QUOTE] Because we can't let our precious little weak women get hurt can we?

Oh come on if they meet the psychical requirements then what's the problem? When I was in bootcamp during our basic first aid course one of my instructors whas a chick and she could benchpress a fucking tank. She threw me up on her shoulders like it was nothing and carried me up a steep hill without breaking a sweat, with combat gear and all. I think she served two tours in Afghanistan as a combat medic. She also wore pink panties but that's another story.

I can totally see where he is coming from. Not only do women have lower standards, but they are also treated very differently in the military and I've seen it first hand. Women get very large amount of special treatment and there's usually nothing we can do about it. It hurts the morale of others and makes the military into what it isnt. What happens is this lack of trust in one another and it's especially worse if there is ever any feelings between the females and males as it affects everyone. I'm not against females in the military at all and I don't think they should be held back, yet performance wise it's difficult to support that they should be allowed in more strenuous positions in isolated areas such any special ops or otherwise.

Not all women can meet the standards. Not all men can, either. Anyone who can should be allowed to serve. Full stop.

In the USMC it's kinda old news because women are still able to serve in Combat-centric roles now, regardless of whatever study that was provided months ago. My unit is rumored to have some of the first few female "infantry marines" (they also renamed a bunch of MOS's to drop "man" from the title to make it gender neutral) to come to the fleet within the next year or so. I don't know what to think but I could care less, I EAS'd last week. I feel like it's something that we'll just have to see, for better or worse. I feel like there will also be a lot of "told you so". Depending on whichever way this will go.

[QUOTE=Saturn V;50690663]so fucking what? what's the fucking big deal if a WOMAN happens to be captured[/QUOTE] I'll give you a hint.. The word rhymes with grape?

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50690288]Who here claimed that? Are you actively trying to poison the debate?[/QUOTE] it was a tongue in cheek jab at the dude in the first page, who said men will be more naturally inclined to put themselves in danger to save women, and counted this as a reason against women in the military

[QUOTE=srobins;50691138]I'll give you a hint.. The word rhymes with grape?[/QUOTE] And?

[QUOTE=srobins;50691138]I'll give you a hint.. The word rhymes with grape?[/QUOTE] It happens to men too. That's the nature of war, unfortunately. Denying people who are willing and able to fight for their country only weakens its military. If a person can handle a weapon, can follow or issue orders, and is able to perform physically up to par, who cares about their gender, race, sexual preferences, etc.? I am fit and fully qualified to serve. I don't really want to and currently there's no dire call for me to do so, so I'm not enlisting. There are plenty of women who can kick my ass, out-shoot me, follow orders better than I ever could and are actually interested in doing it. You're telling me those women aren't capable of serving. I'm telling you that's bullshit.