The Student Room Group

Women and the Armed Forces

Do you folks believe that the physical requirements of the armed forces should be lowered in order to allow for more women to be able to become a member of the military?

For example, fewer pressups or a shorter distance to achieve.

Note that it can and does result in a reduced combat efficiency.

Scroll to see replies

No I don't think so. The armed forces have clear physical requirements that're necessary for the job.

The imperative thing is getting the right people for the right role and women can perform the same as men or better.




no no no.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 3
Original post by DarthRoar
Do you folks believe that the physical requirements of the armed forces should be lowered in order to allow for more women to be able to become a member of the military?

For example, fewer pressups or a shorter distance to achieve.

Note that it can and does result in a reduced combat efficiency.


NB: for every role other than front line infantry, the fitness requirements are already lower for women. In no other role is this a problem.
Absolutely not.
Reply 5
ITT: lots of people who think the only job in the military is infantry soldier, and therefore have an opinion worth precisely zero.
Original post by DarthRoar
Do you folks believe that the physical requirements of the armed forces should be lowered in order to allow for more women to be able to become a member of the military?

For example, fewer pressups or a shorter distance to achieve.

Note that it can and does result in a reduced combat efficiency.


"Physical requirements" covers two distinct issues, which the Armed Forces already understands and operates quite comfortably with. It seems only civilians, and journalists in particular, struggle with the concepts.

There are specific roles that have specific physical requirements, such as for RAF aircrew there are certain physical dimensions you must fit, not to large and not too small, in order to safely operate an aircraft. There are eyesight requirements, weight carrying and lifting requirements etc. These are valid requirements to do the job and so they are universal, not gender specific.

Then there are general fitness requirements. These are based on the basis of a scale of 0 fitness up to 100% fitness (neither of which are absolute measurables, but that's not the point). Then the Armed Forces decide on a standard that serving personnel must meet, say the 70% figure. This is 70% of the figure relative to both age and gender. This fitness is not based on the ability to complete a specific task or role, but on attaining and sustaining a basic level of fitness that will enable a person to endure the standard rigours of military service (none of your civilian rules about working hours, holidays, pleasant office working conditions etc). It is no more 'fair' to expect every 50 year old man to meet the fitness levels of a 20 year old man than it is a 20 year old woman to meet the fitness levels of a 20 year old man. Everyone is expected to meet the level set for their age and gender.
Reply 7
Original post by threeportdrift
"Physical requirements" covers two distinct issues, which the Armed Forces already understands and operates quite comfortably with. It seems only civilians, and journalists in particular, struggle with the concepts.

There are specific roles that have specific physical requirements, such as for RAF aircrew there are certain physical dimensions you must fit, not to large and not too small, in order to safely operate an aircraft. There are eyesight requirements, weight carrying and lifting requirements etc. These are valid requirements to do the job and so they are universal, not gender specific.

Then there are general fitness requirements. These are based on the basis of a scale of 0 fitness up to 100% fitness (neither of which are absolute measurables, but that's not the point). Then the Armed Forces decide on a standard that serving personnel must meet, say the 70% figure. This is 70% of the figure relative to both age and gender. This fitness is not based on the ability to complete a specific task or role, but on attaining and sustaining a basic level of fitness that will enable a person to endure the standard rigours of military service (none of your civilian rules about working hours, holidays, pleasant office working conditions etc). It is no more 'fair' to expect every 50 year old man to meet the fitness levels of a 20 year old man than it is a 20 year old woman to meet the fitness levels of a 20 year old man. Everyone is expected to meet the level set for their age and gender.


You of all people should know better than to bring logic and reality to a thread like this...
If you are a man you need to pass the Standard test,
If you are woman you need to pass the standard test,
If you are gay/trans/whatnot you need to past the standard test.
No matter what you are you need to pass the test.


If the test is physical or mental everyone should have to pass the needed tests.

We want the best people fighting for us the people that can preform their duty just as well as the other men serving.
Original post by DarthRoar
Do you folks believe that the physical requirements of the armed forces should be lowered in order to allow for more women to be able to become a member of the military?

For example, fewer pressups or a shorter distance to achieve.

Note that it can and does result in a reduced combat efficiency.


The requirements were established to achieve a particular combat efficiency. Any decrease, will result in worse combat efficiency, so obviously, they should be equal to everybody and stay high.

However, physical strenght is not the only important soldier's quality.
Israel has removed female soldiers from first line actions, because they proved to be mentally unreliable in combat.
Reply 10
Original post by Drewski
ITT: lots of people who think the only job in the military is infantry soldier, and therefore have an opinion worth precisely zero.


Obviously there are many roles, but especially with the army you're a soldier first and a specialist second.
Original post by DarthRoar
Obviously there are many roles, but especially with the army you're a soldier first and a specialist second.


Except in reality they're not, not really.

The Army nurse doesn't carry a rifle. The Army vet doesn't.

For the overwhelming number of roles across the entirety of the Armed Forces (why ignore the RAF, RN and RM?) it simply isn't an issue. Women serve alongside men in every role going, aside from infantry.
No,both of them should be equal.
Original post by DarthRoar
Do you folks believe that the physical requirements of the armed forces should be lowered in order to allow for more women to be able to become a member of the military?

For example, fewer pressups or a shorter distance to achieve.

Note that it can and does result in a reduced combat efficiency.


Speaking from an army perspective, this is already the case.

For all non-combat roles the physical requirements for women are lower than they are for men. Reason being that outside of combat roles there simply isn't as high a demand on the individual performing that role and having a woman who is less physically capable than a man isn't going to put anybody in a situation where their safety is compromised by that fact.

For combat roles on the other hand women are already required to pass the same physical tests that men do because in a combat role people can genuinely be put in great danger if the person next to them is not physically capable of performing the role.
Original post by Drewski
ITT: lots of people who think the only job in the military is infantry soldier, and therefore have an opinion worth precisely zero.


The OP isn't asking whether women should be allowed in the military. He's asking if physical requirements should be lowered. In which case, I'd say the answer is no.
Original post by KingBradly
The OP isn't asking whether women should be allowed in the military. He's asking if physical requirements should be lowered. In which case, I'd say the answer is no.


Except that he stated that it "can and does result in a reduced combat efficiency" which, in every branch or trade outside of infantry, is utter balls.
Original post by Drewski
Except that he stated that it "can and does result in a reduced combat efficiency" which, in every branch or trade outside of infantry, is utter balls.


Well, in the branches that require certain physical requirements it almost certainly will result in reduced combat efficiency if those requirements are lowered.
Original post by KingBradly
Well, in the branches that require certain physical requirements it almost certainly will result in reduced combat efficiency if those requirements are lowered.


Perhaps. But that's not what the OP asked, and that's not what a lot of people think when they see the OP's question.

And those roles that are directly affected by physical requirements (as in, teeth combat roles) are ridiculously low in number. I believe I'm right in saying there are zero in the RN, 1 in the RAF, 1 or 2 in both the Army and the RM.

OP is **** stirring from a position of ignorance.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Drewski
Perhaps. But that's not what the OP asked, and that's not what a lot of people think when they see the OP's question.

And those roles that are directly affected by physical requirements are ridiculously low in number. I believe I'm right in saying there are zero in the RN, 1 in the RAF, 1 or 2 in both the Army and the RM.

OP is **** stirring from a position of ignorance.


Well, actually that is what the topic is about. Roles that don't require physical requirements of such calibre that women may struggle to pass them aren't really relevant, so I don't get why you are bringing them.
Original post by Drewski
Perhaps. But that's not what the OP asked, and that's not what a lot of people think when they see the OP's question.

And those roles that are directly affected by physical requirements are ridiculously low in number. I believe I'm right in saying there are zero in the RN, 1 in the RAF, 1 or 2 in both the Army and the RM.

OP is **** stirring from a position of ignorance.


Surely there's more than 1 in the RAF and at least 1 in the Navy...? Pilots, helicopter crew....
(edited 7 years ago)

Quick Reply