Women and the Armed Forces

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.

Surely there's more than 1 in the RAF and at least 1 in the Navy...? Pilots, helicopter crew....

Because it is relevant. There are already different standards for the same job.

Let's take the infantry as an example then. The fitness standards for an 18 yr old guy are one thing. The fitness standards for a 45 year old guy - who is expected to serve in exactly the same places and in exactly the same way as the 18 year old - are lower. Of course they are, someone's fitness decreases over the years.

The standards that 45 year old has to meet are the same standards that an 18 year old female would have to reach. So why is it that the male can serve but the female can't?

And I dispute that that is what the OP meant. The words are too general to only be referring to the "teeth" roles.



RAF Reg is the only single sex branch / trade in the RAF.
There are plenty of female pilots in the RN, it used to be that subs were male only, but that's no longer the case.

A female can serve, what are you talking about?

That's the point.

They do serve despite meeting lower requirements. So why do people think they have to meet higher ones? Clearly it's unnecessary. The standards we've got are suitable.

Why do you think the standards shouldn't be adjusted for the different capabilities of different people, despite the fact the system has worked perfectly well for 30-odd years?

I don't people think they should be heightened, I just think they don't think they should be lowered.

Because it is relevant. There are already different standards for the same job.

Let's take the infantry as an example then. The fitness standards for an 18 yr old guy are one thing. The fitness standards for a 45 year old guy - who is expected to serve in exactly the same places and in exactly the same way as the 18 year old - are lower. Of course they are, someone's fitness decreases over the years.

The standards that 45 year old has to meet are the same standards that an 18 year old female would have to reach. So why is it that the male can serve but the female can't?

And I dispute that that is what the OP meant. The words are too general to only be referring to the "teeth" roles.



RAF Reg is the only single sex branch / trade in the RAF.
There are plenty of female pilots in the RN, it used to be that subs were male only, but that's no longer the case.

Who said anything about heightening?

But why not?

I imagine you accept that a 40 year old guy has to meet different standards to an 18 year old guy because they have different capabilities despite doing the same job, so why can't a female have different standards?

Why do you think the standards should be adjusted, despite the fact the system has worked perfectly well for 30-odd years?

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

Why do you think the standards shouldn't be adjusted for the different capabilities of different people, despite the fact the system has worked perfectly well for 30-odd years?

And for how many years in combat?
Women usually prove mentally unreliable in combat, then why army performance would be worsened even more by lowering physical requirements?

In terms of female pilots, they've been involved in combat since 1995 with no issues despite a system that requires them to pass with 'lower' fitness test requirements than the men.

So what's the argument?

Any role in the military requires more than mere physical strength to get in, its just one hurdle of many.

Would you want to be a soldier in the infantry with a woman alongside you who is not capable of moving your bodyweight if you are wounded? The delay for somebody else who has the strength to perform the task could be the difference between life and death...

So would you also advocate banning older male soldiers from the front line?

I would advocate banning any soldier who is not capable of fulfilling the physical requirements necessary to be effective in a combat role from serving in a combat role.

Doesn't matter if you're an 18 year old bloke or a 35 year old bloke, an 18 year old woman or a 35 year old woman, if you are able to pass all of the required training including a standard physical assessment then you should be allowed to serve in combat roles, if you can't pass the required training and a standard physical assessment then you should not be allowed to serve in combat roles.

So what's the argument?

Israel's infantry.

You have to better define what you mean by "in combat".

You think "military" = infantry.
You think "combat" = hand to hand fighting.

That's not the case anymore. Plenty of women have been involved in combat and performed perfectly adequately, have been neither a risk nor a hindrance, despite having to pass a 'lower' fitness requirement than somebody else.

For example under suppresive fire.

False assumption.

Soldfier ought to fulfill conditions which are necessary to execute particular task that he or she is intended to do. If a soldier has to walk around with 40kg heavy equipment, the one should be able to do it. If a soldier has to withstand a dogfight in a jet, the one should be able to do it. If a soldier has to drive a vehicle or I don't know, fly a plane from factory to airfield, the one should be able to it. I fail to see why sex or age would make any difference. Taks must be accomplished, no matter by who. Standards must be adjusted to tasks, not age or something else.