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

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50691396]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.[/QUOTE] It's not just the physicality part, but the psychological part and that is way more damaging than someone not being physically strong. I'm not really accepting of the idea, but I think that there very could possibly be an issue with women in combat zones. Not because of their performance, but very much just them being women. It can be not their fault at all that they have this affect in those areas and our military is trying really really hard to make everyone act a certain way towards our female soldiers, but it is not rare at all for the morale of all the peers affected to dramatically change to a negative sense. I hate to say it, but it's a distraction and that is a much bigger reason why not to risk everyones performance and unity in those dangerous areas.

[QUOTE=choco cookie;50690981]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.[/QUOTE] If we never integrate the women who are physically fit to pass the tests because of "worries" of special treatment, people's habits and behavior regarding them will never change so it's a fucking catch-22.

[QUOTE=choco cookie;50691494]It's not just the physicality part, but the psychological part and that is way more damaging than someone not being physically strong. I'm not really accepting of the idea, but I think that there very could possibly be an issue with women in combat zones. Not because of their performance, but very much just them being women. It can be not their fault at all that they have this affect in those areas and our military is trying really really hard to make everyone act a certain way towards our female soldiers, but it is not rare at all for the morale of all the peers affected to dramatically change to a negative sense. I hate to say it, but it's a distraction and that is a much bigger reason why not to risk everyones performance and unity in those dangerous areas.[/QUOTE] So its the womans fault for men being distracted.

[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;50691538]If we never integrate the women who are physically fit to pass the tests because of "worries" of special treatment, people's habits and behavior regarding them will never change so it's a fucking catch-22.[/QUOTE] It really is. I think it's going to take some time for the military to adapt to this change for it to be fitting enough for females, but as of right now it's going to take some serious time while all the people who have been in for some time to retire. At the same time these changes have brought a real problem of making the military softer to a degree causing a substantial amount of good military members to leave, not because of females, but the policies being put in place changing the whole atmosphere of the military with the resemblance of a corporate workplace. [QUOTE=duckmaster;50691563]So its the womans fault for men being distracted.[/QUOTE] I didn't say that, but if your line of thinking has brought you to that conclusion then I apologize. I said I think it's just how things are when there is a environment of males and females. I've seen it multiple times and like I said I dislike coming to that conclusion.

[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] Just because he has a reason doesn't make it right.

[QUOTE=choco cookie;50691494]It's not just the physicality part, but the psychological part and that is way more damaging than someone not being physically strong. I'm not really accepting of the idea, but I think that there very could possibly be an issue with women in combat zones. Not because of their performance, but very much just them being women. It can be not their fault at all that they have this affect in those areas and our military is trying really really hard to make everyone act a certain way towards our female soldiers, but it is not rare at all for the morale of all the peers affected to dramatically change to a negative sense. I hate to say it, but it's a distraction and that is a much bigger reason why not to risk everyones performance and unity in those dangerous areas.[/QUOTE] You could say the same thing about mixed-gender schools, mixed-race bathrooms, and many many more.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50691696]You could say the same thing about mixed-gender schools, mixed-race bathrooms, and many many more.[/QUOTE] Difference is that this is the military we are talking about. People don't go to war to kill other people in those locations. This is very specific.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50689229]The USMC holds women to different, lower standards than men. The British military's decision to allow women in the military [i]holds them to the exact same current standard as men[/i] and only 5% of women are expected to be physically capable of passing. If a woman can pass [i]the same physical fitness tests as men[/i], why shouldn't they be allowed to serve in the military in combat roles? What reasons are there?[/QUOTE] Maybe if you the read the study you would know that the women were required to pass the minimum standard for men. Or you can keep flailing your arms saying the study was flawed when it has literally been proven women make worse soldiers.

[QUOTE=wystan;50692145]Maybe if you the read the study you would know that the women were required to pass the minimum standard for men. Or you can keep flailing your arms saying the study was flawed when it has literally been proven women make worse soldiers.[/QUOTE] The average woman has been steered through less physically demanding walks of life than the average man. That's society for you. But that doesn't reflect every woman's ability. It doesn't mean all women are inherently incapable of combat roles. A woman who is able to meet the standards should be allowed to do the job.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50691396]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.[/QUOTE] I never said women aren't capable of serving, I pointed out earlier I think women should be able to serve if they can perform effectively. I was just answering Saturn's question. [editline]11th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Headhumpy;50691696]You could say the same thing about mixed-gender schools, mixed-race bathrooms, and many many more.[/QUOTE] But none of those situations result in people being killed.

Something a lot of people are missing is that the significantly higher failure rate for women compared to men results in a huge amount of money wasted. Training a soldier is EXPENSIVE, and that goes to waste if they drop out due to being unable to meet the standards. If you only have 10% or so of people making it through the training from a certain demographic it is pretty illogical to continue to admit them into the training programs just for the sake of equality.

Why cant we just let robots do the fighting and skip all this gender crap eh?

[QUOTE=Shirt.;50692715]Why cant we just let robots do the fighting and skip all this gender crap eh?[/QUOTE] Not developed enough, traditionalism, etc etc

[QUOTE=chaz13;50692701]Something a lot of people are missing is that the significantly higher failure rate for women compared to men results in a huge amount of money wasted. Training a soldier is EXPENSIVE, and that goes to waste if they drop out due to being unable to meet the standards. If you only have 10% or so of people making it through the training from a certain demographic it is pretty illogical to continue to admit them into the training programs just for the sake of equality.[/QUOTE] No thats not illogical, whats illogical is denying people the freedom to fight for their country just because 90% of people the same sex as you do not pass the test.

Isn't war bad enough without seeing fellow female soldiers being killed.

[QUOTE=Saturn V;50690663]so fucking what? what's the fucking big deal if a WOMAN happens to be captured[/QUOTE] I honestly believe that for most western nations, the political and morale fallout from such an event happening to one female soldier is equivalent to such an event happening to at least 10-20 male soldiers.

Okay so reading through some of the comments. I see that the USMC lowered the standards? In what way? Made it easier? Then if that's the case, doesn't that prove even more they can't perform if they don't meet those lowered standards? I'm guessing it was they met those standards, but the USMC was like fuck you? Ya, they tend to do that. Now as far as the biology of a man saving a woman whose gone down in combat, over his fellow man, isn't untrue. You guys are both right, we are and we aren't slaves to biology, but even if you're not a slave, doesn't mean the man/woman next to you isn't a slave to his human-ways. You can't take that risk in combat. The military isn't a 5-9 job, where if a mistake happens you can attempt to correct it. I feel as though people are forgetting the military isn't just front line combat zone, guns going off, taliban hunting shit. There are so many other roles that need/should be field in the military.

Oh boy, here we go again. [QUOTE=Menien Goneld;50690305]Do you honestly believe that the strongest and fittest women only perform as well as men who fail to measure up?[/QUOTE] It's not a matter of belief, the data is right there. Whether you dismiss it or not because it doesn't fit your narrative, that's entirely on you. [QUOTE=Menien Goneld;50690305]Despite the fact that places like Canada and other countries have had women serving in their armed forces with no issue?[/QUOTE] And yet again, the same unfounded lies. *sigh* Can you provide sources on that? Because all I can find is that women in combat suffer more. [url=http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/198853]The Israeli IDF admits it[/url]: [quote]the IDF is admitting that women suffer injuries at a much higher rate than men during combat training – despite the fact that training requirements for women in combat are considerably less demanding than for men.[/quote] [quote]According to a report in the IDF's Bamahane magazine, a large scale study was conducted among female combat soldiers in the Karakal infantry unit, the Artillery Corps and the Field Intelligence Corps, between the years 2012-13.[/quote] [quote]The study indicated that a full 46% of the female soldiers suffered injuries during their initial period of training, as opposed to 25% among the men. One third of the women in the study were injured more than once.[/quote] [quote]The injuries included torn ligaments, sprains, knee pain, back pain and stress fractures. The latter were much more common in women, afflicting only 2% of men but 8% of the women. “Most stress fractures appear in weeks 4-6 of the training period, and mainly in the field and warfare weeks,” an officer explained to Bamahane.[/quote] [url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/25/womens-combat-roles-in-israel-defense-forces-exagg/]Another source[/url]: [quote]As the U.S. military prepares to open most, if not all, infantry, armor and special operations units to women, activists often point to the IDF as an illustration of a military in which women are thriving in ground combat units. But a closer look shows Israeli women are not in direct combat special operations such as the Green Berets. Nor are they in front-line combat brigades mobilized to engage in direct heavy combat.[/quote] [quote]In the infantry, virtually all of Israel’s female combat soldiers are confined to two light battalions — the Caracal and the Lions of Jordan — which are assigned to guard the borders with Egypt and Jordan, the only Arab countries that have peace treaties with Israel.[/quote] [url=http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/181604#.VvfOpuIrKUk]Another source[/url]: [quote]A new book sums up 13 years of research on female participation in IDF combat units and declares the feminist experiment in the Israeli military a failure. “Lochamot Betzahal” by Col. (res.) Raza Sagi, a former infantry regiment commander, points to high rates of serious injury among women serving in combat units, and to involvement of radical political groups behind the scenes of the campaign for combat service by women.[/quote] [quote]"The study found that a particularly high percentage of women who served in combat roles suffered physical harm during their service and will suffer for the rest of their lives from ruptured discs, stress fractures in the pelvis, uterine prolapse and more,” Sagi told Maariv/NRG.[/quote] [quote]While men also suffer injuries during their military service, he said, studies prove that the female rate of injury is much higher and that the seriousness of the average injury is greater, with entire platoons sometimes unable to function because of the physical state of the female soldiers. The injuries referred to are incurred in training and routine deployment – not actual combat.[/quote] [u]13 (thirteen) years of research[/u]. Go ahead and dismiss the USMC study as much as you want, but you just can't dismiss this one. I could say it carries 13x more weight than the USMC study, and it's just as conclusive, if not more. And saying stuff like "b-but Canadian armed forces! Norwegian armed forces!". They're not side to side with infantrymen, performing just like them on the frontlines like any other soldier, and you know it. [QUOTE=Menien Goneld;50690305]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.[/QUOTE] When people keeps on spamming the same misinformation and lies (borderline shitposting), then *yes*, you bet. *Yes*, you didn't read the USMC summary, and you can't be arsed to even do 5' of googling to get the answers to your questions, but instead, you keep on regurgitating the same lies, as everyone else does. I have met plenty of fit women, but they're just that, fit women. They're strong women, but [u]they're not stronger (or as strong as) than a man[/u], which is what the Army needs. They need fit and capable soldiers, and men just happen to be better. But you don't realize that there's a lot more that goes into letting women in the army. We've seen already how [url=http://www.npr.org/2013/12/27/257363943/marines-most-female-recruits-dont-meet-new-pullup-standard]they keep having a high failure rate in basic training[/url], [i]even with their lowered standards[/i]. But that's not all - training soldiers costs money, a lot of money, and they're spending a ton of money to train what are ultimately inferior soldiers. There's no purpose on having women doing menial things that, when in reality, they could just train soldiers for menial things that can perform in combat orders of magnitude better than they ever could, if need be. So you should stop posting uninformed assumptions, specially without looking at the bigger picture. Like I said a few pages earlier, I honestly don't have a problem with people wanting to be army material, go on, be "all you can be", I don't care what's between your legs. But if they have ultimately decided that *women aren't fit and capable enough*, then they have a plethora of reasons to believe that. And neither you or anyone else's fee fees matters.

[QUOTE=duckmaster;50693089]No thats not illogical, whats illogical is denying people the freedom to fight for their country just because 90% of people the same sex as you do not pass the test.[/QUOTE] That's not illogical, it's actually extremely logical. Throwing away training money for 90% of candidates just to preserve people's feelings is a lot more illogical.

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50693409] [url=http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/181604#.VvfOpuIrKUk]Another source[/url]: [u]13 (thirteen) years of research[/u]. Go ahead and dismiss the USMC study as much as you want, but you just can't dismiss this one. I could say it carries 13x more weight than the USMC study, and it's just as conclusive, if not more.[/QUOTE] but your source says they use lower standards for women obviously there are physical differences between men and women, but if you set lower standards for a group they're obviously going to perform below average, women or not

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;50693702]but your source says they use lower standards for women obviously there are physical differences between men and women, but if you set lower standards for a group they're obviously going to perform below average, women or not[/QUOTE] The point is, they couldn't handle having lower standards. So, switching to higher standards would be even worse.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50693757]The point is, they couldn't handle having lower standards. So, switching to higher standards would be even worse.[/QUOTE] Women aren't a monolithic entity. Stop pretending that because some couldn't pass, all can't pass.

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50693409] And saying stuff like "b-but Canadian armed forces! Norwegian armed forces!". They're not side to side with infantrymen, performing just like them on the frontlines like any other soldier, and you know it.[/QUOTE] Except, yes, they are.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50693757]The point is, they couldn't handle having lower standards. So, switching to higher standards would be even worse.[/QUOTE] Which is what the USMC study covered, by creating a specific research group, the GCEITF I've mentioned in another post. It's a highly focused infantry group focused on particular tasks, not individual abilities. It's as apples-to-apples as it gets. With so much research done on the matter (both the extensive Israeli research and the USMC research studies), there's just no other excuse to dismiss the studies, other than because it doesn't fit a narrative. [QUOTE=chunkymonkey;50693816]Except, yes, they are.[/QUOTE] [Citation needed]

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50693818] [Citation needed][/QUOTE] Oh please, spare us the witty [Citation needed] bullshit.

Show me the following: -Canadian armed forces injury levels, broken down into men and female soldiers, covering both their basic training and their physical resilience to injuries in combat, and how the injury gap is non-existant on their armed forces. -Canadian armed forces combat effectiveness, broken down into male and female, and how there's no effectiveness gap between both genders, thus disproving that they can't be *as combat effective* as a regular infantryman. All of which would ultimately lead to the conclusion that Canadian infantrywomen are, pound for pound, *as effective* as a regular infantryman, thus disproving both the Israeli and the USMC studies. Show me the apples-to-apples results. [QUOTE=chunkymonkey;50693831]Oh please, spare us the witty [Citation needed] bullshit.[/QUOTE] Ah, so you can't disprove anything. Then shut up.

[QUOTE=ksenior;50693790]Women aren't a monolithic entity. Stop pretending that because some couldn't pass, all can't pass.[/QUOTE] The fact is, this is for their safety. Nobody wants to gamble on someone statistically more likely to be injured in training (that was tuned-down from the standard) getting injured in training.

But you won't concede either, so you might as well stop polluting the thread with lies and FUD. -Gah, merge-

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50693842]But you won't concede either, so you might as well stop polluting the thread with lies and FUD. -Gah, merge-[/QUOTE] Actually, I can dismiss your IDF source out of hand because the news network in question doesn't provide a link to the study they're discussing and openly admits they have a fundamentalist Zionist stance. [editline]12th July 2016[/editline] As for Canada it was literally psoted on the previous page but it seems you suddenly had a case of blindness [QUOTE=Sumap;50689148]Canada had the [URL="https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/831/items/1.0096352"]SWINTER[/URL] trials in the late 70's to see how much of an impact introducing women would have and it was found it had very little effect due to those admitted wanting to 'prove themselves' but got burnt out due to not feeling included in the force. I'm not sure how close the Physical test it is to America but Canada uses the same physical test for men and women and [URL="http://cradpdf.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/PDFS/zbb73/p510984.pdf"]women were 1% more likely to fail that portion of the aplication[/URL].[/QUOTE] [editline]12th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50693841]The fact is, this is for their safety. Nobody wants to gamble on someone statistically more likely to be injured in training (that was tuned-down from the standard) getting injured in training.[/QUOTE] Your stupidity is astounding. It has been explained to you multiple times. [I]The entry requirements are designed to weed out those unfit for training.[/I] Of course if you lower that barrier more people are going to get injured.

[QUOTE=srobins;50691138]I'll give you a hint.. The word rhymes with grape?[/QUOTE] And men dont get raped? just to be clear by some inclusionary definitions men get raped more then women in today’s society oh, you only care if its a women... right...