Female infantry may be allowed in the British Army by 2016 - Govt review paper

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Ah, you only have a US perspective, that's OK, the British Army has high standards for the infantry and many men fail to reach it, while even more females fail. Which bit of that do you disagree with?

a reply to: grainofsand

I just checked your standards. They aren't that much worse than US Army standards. They certainly aren't "highest percentile".

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Are you just here to argue?
The current standards are male based, very few females reach it.
Which bit of that are you disagreeing with?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

We have female medics attached to us on patrol. These are the ones that I refer to.

As for the older males having reduced standards, this is true. However as a middle aged man I still have to complete my PFT faster and do more press ups than an 18 year old female. These are the most BASIC requirements. They are a minimum, not a target. Yet there is a disproportionately high percentage of female's who fail to meet even these standards.

I agree that there are some very fit women out there. However I feel that the tests being applied in the current trial are not fit for purpose. They merely test the soldiers ability to last the duration of a single tour.

a reply to: PaddyInf
All I want is the fittest hardest people defending the UK.
If the standard for that is mostly blokes then I'm happy. Any females who can reach the standard then great.
...just don't lower the standard to accomodate females.

*Edit*
Do you disagree, and if so why?
I've already stated I'm happy for females to serve if they can reach the bar.
I want the highest bar set for whoever is apparently fighting to protect me, and right now it is male...or perhaps you disagree?

*Edit Again* ...my question in the last edit was aimed at krazysh0t not you, but please feel free to contribute your thoughts

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: grainofsand

My argument is that the "reasons" people usually use to keep women from serving on the front lines are all HUGELY flawed.

And nobody is saying women shoyld not.

Only argumenf here is that they pass the same tests. Whats wrong with that?

Its not even your army anyway,

originally posted by: crazyewok
Only argument here is that they pass the same tests. Whats wrong with that?

I'm interested in the answer to that question as well.
Maybe the US has easier tests for females who wish to join their infantry so some members assume that is standard and normal?

There's a lot of 'if they can pass the tests they can get in' talk. This completely misses the point. In an infantry unit the tests are a minimum standard. They are a start point, not a goal. We don't train to pass the tests, we train to smash them. The AFT and PFA are a joke. The OFTs are a bit more strenuous, but not particularly realistic.

If it is demonstrated that females can complete and pass all required entry tests followed by a trial at an infantry unit on build up training for a deployment followed by a tour as part of a rifle section then fair enough. The current trial is only testing their ability to perform on a simulated 6 month op tour. This isn't enough to identify real issues.

All well and good untill females become part of a tank crew, the Israelis tried that, a female crew member got injured, all the male crew got out of the tank to help, all fussing over her, perfectly operational tank became inoperable, no crew in it!

Because that is how we are genetically formed. That is why. Reversing gender roles makes for an unhealthy and degenerative society easily conquered by those who don't mix it up.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Asynchrony

Why? I think it is sexist to not let a woman stand side by side with a man defending the same beliefs that the man is defending. Though you appear to be stuck in 1950's males have to protect the females at all times sexism.