Following a bit of a debate I seem to have unsuccessfully initiated on one of the other threads, I thought I'd make my own to avoid scribbling all over the other one.
OK, the question is - In today's tempo of operations, is there any justification for keeping the fitness standards the way they are, bearing in mind at any point anyone, whether female, infantry roled, logistics, desk-driver etc could find themselves in a situation where they need the peak of fitness.
On a seperate note, Theo has a very valid point. If you argue I should meet the same skill level as you on the off-chance I may need to perform your role do I take it you plan to cover the admin training, in case you need to complete some paperwork, or engineering training in case something breaksdown and you need to sort it? Of course not - that's why we are a team, made up of people with a range of qualities, attributes and skills, who have received training specific to our assigned roles. In addition to this, because our jobs all have a common element of 'warfighter first' we all have a basic, current knowledge in weapons handling, in fieldcraft, in handling ourselves in patrols and risky situations and we all have a basic fitness standard to reach.
Right, forgive me if I post your comment in here, I thought I'd start me own thread to carry on my argument.
Sorry, but that's not a very valid point. If we are in a situation where something breaks down, or I need paperwork filling in, it is unlikely to be as serious as a situation where you need to be able to carry me to safety if I'm hit, or tab out of an ambush area when our vehicles are unserviceable. I'm still mystified by the school of thinking that seems to be 'since we're not infantry roled, we don't need to be as fit' sorry, but that's crap. It doesn't take much more effort/work to be as fit, instead of doing a tab with 15kgs for example, do it with 25. That's not taking any more out of your valuable paper-filling in/blanket-stacking/grease monkey time, nor is running a bit faster on the 1.5 mile.
I will accept that you don't need the advanced weapon training/patrolling skills, but in my mind there's no excuse when it comes to fitness.
OK, FiveFiveSix it's all got a bit complicated and I'll try and cover all your points. I will stress that I am not going to get into a full blown argument with you, just put my points across as you have so eloquently done.
Firstly; Banter. I know what Banter is, I've been on the recieving end of some Banter which has skated a very fine line between Banter and being offensive and not complained. I personally find it offensive that you say a time of over 11 minutes is dire for a female. If it was dire I'm SURE that the RAF PTIs would have told me so and given me a negative note of action.
Secondly, effort. I am NOT advocating that it's OK to scrape through with the bare minimum of 14 minutes or whatever it is for my age group. Following an injury for which I am now being discharged, I managed a time of 11 minutes 25. I was proud of that and put the effort in to do better than the minimum. I could do 70 press-ups in 2 minutes for cripes sake, I know what effort is.
Do the same amount of research on VO2 max that I have and then get back to me on how easy it is for the average female to re able to run as fast as the average male
Again, I beg your indulgence for bringing your post in here, but I didn't want to take the other topic even further from where it had already been dragged!
Right.
Banter. Yes, banter's great - the gallows humour and ability to carry on regardless, and laugh about it has always been a strength of the Forces. If it offends you, deal with it. If I'm being racist, threatening, or anything that crosses the line between humour and REAL offensive behaviour (not just 'haha fatty, I can run faster than you') report it. I wouldn't stand for it, and I don't expect you to. You find it offensive I think 11 mins is a crap time? Come up with a comeback... I dunno, like, I'm infantry and therefore must have spelt my name wrong on my GCSE exam papers, or something original like that
Secondly - Good, we're singing off the same song sheet to a certain extent. I will agree that 11 mins is a fantastic time to achieve if your benchmark is 14 mins, but I'm sorry, that doesn't mean I agree with the benchmark. The 70 pressups is very impressive, and certainly more than I've ever managed to do, nice one.
Thirdly - I'm intrigued, and I'll get round to it at some point. I'm supposed to be revising at the mo, so should I need to really do that instead of arguing on here, but I will read it, thanks.
Lastly, I am truly sorry to hear of your injury/pending discharge, and I wish you all the best for the future, and hope it doesn't prove problematic.
We've been over this time after time, do a search.
If someone had told me that about 3 pages ago on the other thread, I wouldn't have bothered . But it's here now, so add something constructive, or foxtrot oscar. What are your opinions on the subject then?
556, I appreciate your comments on my injury. However I got sick of the sympathy back about 6 months ago (yes I lapped it up for a while but I'm only human ), so there's not need for it. But thanks.
I'm not going to fire banter back at something I find offensive, it's not something I do to people in person so I won't do it on an anonymous forum. I don't think I'm the only one by a long shot who didn't like that comment. Don't worry I have a sense of humour - I take the p*ss out of my condition like you wouldn't believe - I figure if I do it, other people don't get a chance. I got told off a lot for calling RAD flight at Cranwell 'biff flight' and you need a sense of humour to be able to do that. I took so many, arguably, derogatory comments in good humour on IOT and didn't go wingeing to the equal ops officer.
I do draw the time that you offend a friend of mine by saying that her run time that she's worked VERY hard to achieve is dire. Without considering the whole scenario.
Oh, the link I've provided you isn't the one I thought. I'd written a post with a well resoned argument about Men, Women, VO2 max etc but it appears to be one I've deleted. (I deleted hundreds of posts when I was advised to stop writing on this forum by my employer!) However, a well reasoned argument about why most women don't have the same potential as men isn't actually going to change your view point and doesn't really answer your question.
So, your argument. Well, I have to say, you're right to an extent. A 5'4" small person like me couldn't carry you out of the line of fire like a 6'4" rugby player. End of story.
But the armed forces are employers and have to allow equal opportunities as far as possible. They do take your opinion in a lot of ways as not all roles are open to women. The thing is women and men have different strengths and complement each other in the work place (all that stuff about women being able to multi task and men not allowing their emotions to get in the way of making a decision - the stuff that not everyone agrees with most of the time!).
Now, I don't know aout the army or navy, but the RAF has had a combat fitness test on the cards for some time, a test that measures ability to do the job and men and women have to acheive the same standard. Would that make you happier to know that it was being used? The RAF fitness test, in my opinion, is little more than a test of health, making sure you're not a couch potato. The VO2 max required to get the minimum males standard is that of an average sedentary male, the VO2 max required for the female minimum is actually higher than that of the average sedentary woman.
556, I appreciate your comments on my injury. However I got sick of the sympathy back about 6 months ago (yes I lapped it up for a while but I'm only human ), so there's not need for it. But thanks.
I'm not going to fire banter back at something I find offensive, it's not something I do to people in person so I won't do it on an anonymous forum. I don't think I'm the only one by a long shot who didn't like that comment. Don't worry I have a sense of humour - I take the p*ss out of my condition like you wouldn't believe - I figure if I do it, other people don't get a chance. I got told off a lot for calling RAD flight at Cranwell 'biff flight' and you need a sense of humour to be able to do that. I took so many, arguably, derogatory comments in good humour on IOT and didn't go wingeing to the equal ops officer.
I do draw the time that you offend a friend of mine by saying that her run time that she's worked VERY hard to achieve is dire. Without considering the whole scenario.
Be sick of it all you want - know that you're better than 100% of people on the streets who'd never have the guts to attempt what you did. They're my feelings on the matter, however I will put away my tiny violin if you ask nicely
Like I said, I'm genuinely sorry if anyone was offended by my comments... I was simply expecting a '**** off, FiveFiveSix, everyone knows you were sweating like a Para in a maths test on that last run' or something similar. I hadn't realised quite how seriously the RAF type people take insults to their fitness levels. I guess it's just different attitudes. If someone said I had a crap time, I'd agree with them (it is shocking and needs much work!) but I'd find a character flaw, or make one up, in the sense of good humour. I've lost count of the times I've been told I'm a useless/worthless/idle/generally crap soldier by training staff.
For example, you mentioned you didn't go whinging to the equal ops orrifice, that's admirable, but please enlighten me, what would you have said, or what would someone with a run time like yours (uninjured) said? 'Sir, they're taking the mickey out of me because I'm injured (unlikely, people aren't like that)/fat (and?)/unfit (what, they want equal rights for unfit ******** now?). In all seriousness, laughing, joking, humour, banter etc aside... I'm curious?
And as for your friend, yeah, fair one. Me and my big mouth - I should have either read the situation first, or not spouted off. But I did, and that's life, I'm sorry, and I hope we can move on?
I'm just genuinely mystified about the whole standards thing, I can just about understand why the bloke stacking blankets in the stores, or the chap cooking my dinner doesn't HAVE to be as fit as me, but if he has the time (which they do), why does he not feel the need to? It seems to me there is far too much 'well, it's not my job, therefore I don't want any part of it' attitude prevailing in certain quarters. We pride ourselves on being better than the yanks because whereas they specialise, we diversify. I've already re-roled once already in my military career, and now I'm looking at transferring regiments to something a little more... sky godlike... Why not be the best you can be, the peak of your physical fitness and training if you have the opportunity?
Right, first, i've attempted to make a comment on your first post in the thread my extending my last post. Please feel free to comment on my thoughts.
Originally Posted by FiveFiveSix
For example, you mentioned you didn't go whinging to the equal ops orrifice, that's admirable, but please enlighten me, what would you have said, or what would someone with a run time like yours (uninjured) said? 'Sir, they're taking the mickey out of me because I'm injured (unlikely, people aren't like that)/fat (and?)/unfit (what, they want equal rights for unfit ******** now?). In all seriousness, laughing, joking, humour, banter etc aside... I'm curious?
I'll be more than happy to answer your question but I can't quite make out what it is!!! Going to try and answer what I think it is: well, I could have gone in there and quite blatantly said "the other cadets are making me feel cr*p by saying that I shouldn't be allowed to graduate with them due to the fact my 11:25 run time isn't good enough for them and I'm always on a medical chit these days and that I can't keep up with the blokes in the field when I've got a third of my body weight on my back and they admitted they were going as fast as they could". But, I didn't, I buckled down as tried as hard as d*mm*t to get off said chit.
Oh, the link I've provided you isn't the one I thought. I'd written a post with a well resoned argument about Men, Women, VO2 max etc but it appears to be one I've deleted. (I deleted hundreds of posts when I was advised to stop writing on this forum by my employer!) However, a well reasoned argument about why most women don't have the same potential as men isn't actually going to change your view point and doesn't really answer your question.
So, your argument. Well, I have to say, you're right to an extent. A 5'4" small person like me couldn't carry you out of the line of fire like a 6'4" rugby player. End of story.
But the armed forces are employers and have to allow equal opportunities as far as possible. They do take your opinion in a lot of ways as not all roles are open to women. The thing is women and men have different strengths and complement each other in the work place (all that stuff about women being able to multi task and men not allowing their emotions to get in the way of making a decision - the stuff that not everyone agrees with most of the time!).
Now, I don't know aout the army or navy, but the RAF has had a combat fitness test on the cards for some time, a test that measures ability to do the job and men and women have to acheive the same standard. Would that make you happier to know that it was being used? The RAF fitness test, in my opinion, is little more than a test of health, making sure you're not a couch potato. The VO2 max required to get the minimum males standard is that of an average sedentary male, the VO2 max required for the female minimum is actually higher than that of the average sedentary woman.
Yeah, I looked through it and was beginning to wonder
I was speaking to a female medic on this issue once, and she made a comment, this isn't verbatim, but it was along the lines of 'I may not be physically able to carry you off to safety, but I'm as physically fit as you, so if needs be, I'll ****** well drag you!' Which I thought was very astute.
As to the Army taking my opinion - I don't believe women should be barred from combat roles, PROVIDING they can do exactly the same job as the men, and the standards aren't lowered for them (as has unfortunately been seen with incidents like the first woman to earn the green beret, but that's another topic entirely) Mind you, I'm not gender biased - I don't want anyone serving beside me that's not up to the job, male or female. (Thing is, half the blokes I serve with would have difficulty carrying me away, but I know that they'd do it, because they have the stamina and mental toughness that pushing yourself that extra mile bring) I'm perfectly happy to serve beside whoever is capable of doing the job, and watching my back. Just because no woman has yet been allowed to pass Infantry training doesn't mean there aren't those out there who could, and would want the opportunity. I can see it happening at some point in my career.
The combat fitness test being a squadded march in boots with weight? Yes, we've had something like that for a while. I think it's currently 8 miles with 25kgs, but less for women - wrong in my opinion. It would make me vastly happier if something like that (I was unaware there wasn't one!) is implemented in the other services, as long as the standards are the same - that doesn't mean however it should be made easier for the 'benefit' of the females!
I'm afraid I haven't got a clue by what you mean by VO2, it's not a term I've come across. This will be my last post for a while, because I REALLY need to do some revision, but I'll look it up at some point, and feel free to abuse me while I'm not here!
Take care, and thanks for having a reasoned debate with me, rather than just assuming I'm just another woman-hating squaddie
Right, first, i've attempted to make a comment on your first post in the thread my extending my last post. Please feel free to comment on my thoughts.
I'll be more than happy to answer your question but I can't quite make out what it is!!! Going to try and answer what I think it is: well, I could have gone in there and quite blatantly said "the other cadets are making me feel cr*p by saying that I shouldn't be allowed to graduate with them due to the fact my 11:25 run time isn't good enough for them and I'm always on a medical chit these days and that I can't keep up with the blokes in the field when I've got a third of my body weight on my back and they admitted they were going as fast as they could". But, I didn't, I buckled down as tried as hard as d*mm*t to get off said chit.
Can't you tell I'm ranting, just a little bit
Ah, right, I understand now. Sorry my question was so badly phrased!
I know you're sick of it, but you do have my respect, and best wishes.
Armed forces discussion.
Useful Resources:
Fitness Standards
. But it's here now, so add something constructive, or foxtrot oscar. What are your opinions on the subject then?
