Women and the Armed Forces

Taks must be accomplished, no matter by who. Standards must be adjusted to tasks, not age or something else.

You're just fulfilling your own edict. You say it's a false assumption, but then you provide feck all evidence to support that. And again, you said it: "soldier". Why not airman? Why not sailor? Why do you assume the only people in the military are in the Army?

And do you think the myriad of Army medics, lots of whom are female, who work directly on the front line with patrols shouldn't be there? Because even though they are strong and fit, they're not quite as fit as some guys? Fine, but you can tell her yourself.

This system has worked for decades.

Why do you think it'll suddenly stop working?

I didn't know that airmen are not soldiers.


Read again my previous post please. I said, that standards must be adjusted to tasks. If women can accomplish particular task, then I don't see any problem.



I shall repeat it again: a task must be accomplished. If this requires particular skills, physical strenght or mental strenght, everyone who are intended to execute this particular task, ought to fulfill particular requirements.

Don't tell me if the system works, because we don't know it. It turns out at war.

I get the feeling that you don't really know what you're talking about.

I have read description of the system made by threeportdrift. There is nothing difficult to understand.

Certain organization exists to fulfill certain task. If it can it's fine, just remember that in case of army some parts of the organization cannot be tested when not at war. Not to mention that war period puts additional stress on entire organization, and edges of performance may be required from everyone.

It's with bearing in mind that when you're talking to 3pd you're talking to someone with considerable experience of being in the armed forces. In a discussion of this kind it's worth shutting up and agreeing with her because otherwise you'll wind up looking like an idiot.

Who is an idiot.

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

Either you think different physical requirements are OK or not. You can't think they're both good and bad.

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

The question was, I believe, should physical requirements be lowered for women. The answer must be no. Requirements should be adjusted to tasks that are to be performed and it doesn't matter who passes. What matters is can intended tasks be accomplished by any person who fulfills requirements.

To support the previous statement, I take it that you do understand the language:
http://www.tvn24.pl/wiadomosci-ze-swiata,2/raport-izraelskiej-armii-kobiety-nie-nadaja-sie-do-czolgow,543430.html

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

Therein lies the issue. You are supporting equal testing without taking into account the differences between people.

Women already serving in the armed forces have a 'lower' standard to meet, but one that is proportional to their abilities.

If you think this is the case, then you need to inform the MoD. I ran policy for certain aspects of conduct after capture/resistance to interrogation training and I can tell you from first hand experience that this is most certainly NOT the case. In fact, the least resilient 'broad category' of people who crack first are highly successful WASP men (eg fast jet aircrew, SAS etc), for various reasons you might be able to work out.

You are eliding the ideas of statistics of a population level versus selected characteristics. There are all sorts of population averages (like the one I indicate above), that you can avoid if you go through a rigorous selection process. And it is worth going through that selection process for a number of reasons, but mostly because you need numbers of people, with a relatively rare selection of skills and aptitudes, and you can have tolerances such that, once a threshold of ability has been reached, (eg fit enough for combat) then you can leave the rest to luck.

Even all male teams there will be better thinkers than physical doers, there will be better planners than executers, there will be better medics than linguists, there will be better snipers, better endurance runners, better load carriers etc etc etc. But loyalty, determination, ability to endure pain etc - be careful presuming these are held to a higher level in men - the evidence does not bear that out in current MoD evidence. Being male or female just adds an extra dimension to this, but with a highly rigorous selection process, which the Armed Forces have had ever since conscription ended, gender just isn't an issue.

How many times am I to repeat that TASK matters, not the one who does it!

The question was, I believe, should physical requirements be lowered for women. The answer must be no.

There are no separate fitness requirements other than the basic standards in the RN for aircrew.

So then you admit that what you wrote below is incorrect?

A nonsense conclusion. Requirements ought to be at level which guarantees that intended tasks will be accomplished, not at level which guarantees that there will be more women/men/LGBT/snowmen/unicorns in armed forces. Sex is completely irrelevant and none of requirements should be adjusted to it. If I'm too weak to drive a tank, I should not be allowed to do it. If I'm strong enough to do something else in the army, I should pass a test for this something, because the task requires lower strenght, but sex, age or gender have nothing to with it.

No matter what you say at this point, you're disagreeing with yourself in one way or another.

Like it or not age and sex do have an effect on people, which is why the scores required in physical tests (nb and only physical tests) reflect that.

Look it up for yourself, the British armed forces requires a different pass mark for their fitness tests if you are older and/or if you are female. An 18 year old man needs one score, a 40 year old man another score and a 20 year old woman another score (which is actually quite close to the 40 year old man's score).

That is the case. That will remain the case. It has been the case through wars. It works.

So why are you saying it doesn't?

There are no separate fitness requirements other than the basic standards in the RN for aircrew.

Surprising. Do you think there should be?

Where did I say so?