Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why are ads for the royal navy, army and air force targeting women? Watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I won't be able to post for a while so I urge no one to go crazy while I'm gone.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Also for the last time, I never said the poster was below average!!! I also never disrespected her service or experience. Now I can't keep replying every minute so it may be a while when I reply to any of your other posts.
    No, you didn't explicitly say it. But it was the implication of what you said and makes you come across as a complete twonk.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Again, there isn't a large enough sample to reach a conclusion fro the RAF, however, there is no doubt that women have less strength and endurance. Why would the MarineCorp no be a valid source especially since it's a 2011-2012 study. Stating that I'm cherry picking my sources isn't really a counter argument.

    Also for the last time, I never said the poster was below average!!! I also never disrespected her service or experience. Now I can't keep replying every minute so it may be a while when I reply to any of your other posts.
    There is no doubt that a woman is statistically less likely to have as much strength and endurance than a man. That is an accurate statement, what you've stated is a huge generalisation.

    Accusations of cherry picking is a valid response when the rest of academia say there isn't enough evidence, and the source you give is hugely specific to a particular role of a particular subset of the armed forces that you're implying should be extrapolated to the whole of the armed forces.

    You didn't directly state she was below average, you indirectly stated it though saying the average was above her.

    Given from posts it appears you are thinking of being a lawyer you really need to learn the minutiae of language.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwilym101)
    statistically
    This is the key word that OP needs to focus on.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    First, I never said that women can't do all the roles in the military. Also you state all of what is in bold, without any shred of evidence backing your claim. Could you also explain why women meet lower physical standards while your at it.
    Are you contending that women cannot perform any of the roles I mentioned as well as a man can? How does being shorter, less heavy or physically weaker affect performance in any of them?

    It appears to me that you have realised that women are weaker and less aggressive in general, that this could affect performance in combat and then drawn an invalid wide conclusion about their effectiveness in all roles.

    Perhaps, though, you are just a misogynist?
    • CV Helper
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Here. A gift for you.

    You have no concept or understanding of that which you are attempting to discuss. You have no experience of that which you are making claims. Those issues would be enough for any sensible person to back down and perhaps go away and try to learn a little more.

    Unfortunately, your arrogant belief in yourself is tripping you up. Your logical fallacies are your worst enemy.

    For you
    http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

    You might be able to form a better argument if you can stop tripping yourself up so much. Might be.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hezzlington)
    This is the key word that OP needs to focus on.
    The key word that also applies to the military, I didn't say all women weren't capable of effective combat but the vast majority are not.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ProStacker)
    Here. A gift for you.

    You have no concept or understanding of that which you are attempting to discuss. You have no experience of that which you are making claims. Those issues would be enough for any sensible person to back down and perhaps go away and try to learn a little more.

    Unfortunately, your arrogant belief in yourself is tripping you up. Your logical fallacies are your worst enemy.

    For you
    http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

    You might be able to form a better argument if you can stop tripping yourself up so much. Might be.
    I know you served in the military and may get easily offended by my comments. This isn't my aim, I'm not here trying to offend you or anyone who has military experience.

    The purpose of this thread is to understand why the military which is male dominated is all of sudden specifically targeting women for jobs. In the past the military was never this desperate to fill vacancies, that's why I believe that we're in a phase of decline. In addition to this, the fact that we have a lower budget and no longer produce domestic fighter jets also supports my point.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Are you contending that women cannot perform any of the roles I mentioned as well as a man can? How does being shorter, less heavy or physically weaker affect performance in any of them?

    It appears to me that you have realised that women are weaker and less aggressive in general, that this could affect performance in combat and then drawn an invalid wide conclusion about their effectiveness in all roles.

    Perhaps, though, you are just a misogynist?
    I never said women can't perform military roles, When did I even imply this? I stated that because women have a lot less strength and endurance they are less effective in combat and most of military roles which these physical characteristics are essential. My conclusions are supported by scientific studies, military studies aswell as most of human history in combat. There's a reason why the vast majority of wars(all wars) were lead and fought by men throughout history.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwilym101)
    There is no doubt that a woman is statistically less likely to have as much strength and endurance than a man. That is an accurate statement, what you've stated is a huge generalisation.

    Accusations of cherry picking is a valid response when the rest of academia say there isn't enough evidence, and the source you give is hugely specific to a particular role of a particular subset of the armed forces that you're implying should be extrapolated to the whole of the armed forces.

    You didn't directly state she was below average, you indirectly stated it though saying the average was above her.

    Given from posts it appears you are thinking of being a lawyer you really need to learn the minutiae of language.
    Cherry picking isn't a valid counter argument to a military study. The 2009 study was older than the Marinecorps study which was conducted in 2011-2012. Even you admit the obvious fact that women have a lot let strength and endurance than men.

    Unfortunately, the military isn't targeting the most physically strong females for service and have lower physical standards for women. The 2002 British military study stated that only the top 1% of females in the military could match the average male soldier in strength, endurance and overall quality.

    We need to recruit the best females for service and not lower standards in order to give females special treatment. In fact, if physical standards for females were as high as males, less females would be interested in joining the military.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    What, as a percentage!? I don't believe that for a second...
    Some people go too far for beasting... it happens
    • CV Helper
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    The purpose of this thread is to understand why the military which is male dominated is all of sudden specifically targeting women for jobs. In the past the military was never this desperate to fill vacancies, that's why I believe that we're in a phase of decline. In addition to this, the fact that we have a lower budget and no longer produce domestic fighter jets also supports my point.
    Your 'point' is wrong. Your subsequent assumptions are wrong that you have derived from your 'point' and the 'evidence' that you are reliant upon.

    Firstly - have you looked at ALL of the adverts used by the Armed Forces in the last 12 months? (hint. If you haven't and are using only those that fit your bias, your 'point' is wrong).
    Secondly - women are just as good, if not better, at many of the roles in the Armed Forces. Do you know there are roles other than 'infantry' in the Armed Forces? (just so you know - your 'references' talk about a minority of roles and your continued use is subjectivity). Appealing to an under-represented segment of the population - who are more than capable enough to do many roles - is a smart move.
    Thirdly - the Armed Forces has always had cycles of recruitment - feast and famine if you will. (hint - saying 'military was never this desperate to fill vacancies' without a reference or data is only your opinion and to be discounted)

    Define 'decline'. (hint - your assertions over capability being directly tied to numbers and nothing else is ludicrous). What would be the point in having a military so big it crippled the economy? What would all these tough men do?

    Lower budget? We as a nation spend more GDP than most on military capability (hint - look that up and do some sums as to how much a nation can afford to spend on military capability as well as everything else).

    You base military capability on sovereign ability to build a fighter jet? You really need to look at the military industry in the UK and think on that one.

    Here's some links to the role-finding parts of the RN, Army & RAF careers websites. You'd do well to educate yourself as to the roles undertaken by the Armed Forces and note which ones need not be undertaken by one of your 'men'. That list might be longer than you currently think.

    http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/careers/role-finder

    https://www.army.mod.uk/rolefinder

    https://www.raf.mod.uk/recruitment/roles/
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    .The purpose of this thread is to understand why the military is all of sudden specifically targeting women for jobs.
    It isn't.

    In the past the military was never this desperate to fill vacancies,
    There have been plenty of occasions where they have been more drastically undermanned.

    that's why I believe that we're in a phase of decline.
    You're wrong.

    In addition to this, the fact that we have a lower budget
    You're wrong.

    and no longer produce domestic fighter jets also supports my point.
    You're wrong.


    Really. Stop it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    It isn't.



    There have been plenty of occasions where they have been more drastically undermanned.



    You're wrong.



    You're wrong.



    You're wrong.


    Really. Stop it.
    Stating 'You're wrong' repeatedly isn't really a great counter argument. Could you at least state in detail why you think my assertions are wrong. Especially since the budget and the number of military personnel is lower since WWII. In addition to this the fact we no longer produce fighter jets while countries like France and Turkey(with help from Britain) are planning to build there own 5th generation fighter jets.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Stating 'You're wrong' repeatedly isn't really a great counter argument. Could you at least state in detail why you think my assertions are wrong. Especially since the budget and the number of military personnel is lower since WWII. In addition to this the fact we no longer produce fighter jets while countries like France and Turkey(with help from Britain) are planning to build there own 5th generation fighter jets.
    I could, yes.
    But since every other time people have done that in this thread you've completely ignored the facts it's rather a waste of my time.

    The notion that you think comparing a period of total war between a number of nations which involved tens of millions of uniformed personnel at the expense of almost every other government function to now is realistic and a fair comparison is utterly laughable. It's beyond moronic.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    I could, yes.
    But since every other time people have done that in this thread you've completely ignored the facts it's rather a waste of my time.

    The notion that you think comparing a period of total war between a number of nations which involved tens of millions of uniformed personnel at the expense of almost every other government function to now is realistic and a fair comparison is utterly laughable. It's beyond moronic.
    Therefore, according to you number of military personnel, the defense budget and our domestic military industry shouldn't be considered important measures of our military capabilities?

    We've become reliant on the United States to privide our fighter jets and equipment because we can't produce our own. In addition to this, we're not ordering enough fighter jets to the extent that Turkey would end up with a higher number of modern fighter jets than the Royal Air Force.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    We've become reliant on the United States to privide our fighter jets and equipment because we can't produce our own. In addition to this, we're not ordering enough fighter jets to the extent that Turkey would end up with a higher number of modern fighter jets than the Royal Air Force.
    Aside from the F35 (which, btw, is 50% built in this country), which front line combat aircraft have we bought from the Americans in the last 30 years?

    Define 'enough'? What are you basing that on?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    There's a reason why the vast majority of wars(all wars) were lead and fought by men throughout history.
    There is. Until about 1990 those wars all involved a major component of front line combat for which men were better suited. However, modern warfare involves only a small amount of front line combat that cannot sensibly be performed by women just as well as men. Women can use tanks, missiles, aeroplanes, drones and ships just as well as men can. We could probably have a perfectly capable military force that was composed of 60-75% women.


    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Especially since the budget and the number of military personnel is lower since WWII.
    Of course it is. Britain's entire economy and national effort was devoited, to the exclusion of literally everything else, was devoted to fighting WW" (as well as WW1, and the Napoleonic Wars of course). The defence budget is always lower than a period of total war.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    There is. Until about 1990 those wars all involved a major component of front line combat for which men were better suited. However, modern warfare involves only a small amount of front line combat that cannot sensibly be performed by women just as well as men. Women can use tanks, missiles, aeroplanes, drones and ships just as well as men can. We could probably have a perfectly capable military force that was composed of 60-75% women.




    Of course it is. Britain's entire economy and national effort was devoited, to the exclusion of literally everything else, was devoted to fighting WW" (as well as WW1, and the Napoleonic Wars of course). The defence budget is always lower than a period of total war.
    You're more delusional than I thought if you truly believe what you've written in bold, not to say women can't perform those roles but if you believe they are as good as or better you're living in another planet. Second, our military budget is decreasing every year even with our involvement in Syria and Iraq. This isn't a time when we should reduce our military capabilities. Infact, the government should increase spending on defence.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Aside from the F35 (which, btw, is 50% built in this country), which front line combat aircraft have we bought from the Americans in the last 30 years?

    Define 'enough'? What are you basing that on?

    50% built here doesn't make it a domestic fighter jet since the us gives us the blueprint and the essential parts. I also stated that we have now become reliant on the united states I'm talking about the present time.

    'Enough' would be when we have more potential fighter jets than France or atleast Turkey.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.