Brit Army to rewrite physical standards to accommodate more females
Andy 11M sends a link to the UK’s Daily Mail which reports that the British Army intends to write new physical standards that discriminate between male and female soldiers so that more women can qualify for more rigorous occupational specialties, specifically, combat arms;
Physical differences between men and women will be recognised in the tests as Defence Secretary Michael Fallon prepares to sign off on plans to allow women into the most dangerous roles for the first time.
Female soldiers are expected to be allowed to join close combat units, including the infantry and armoured regiments, for the first time from this summer.
The reforms will come alongside changes to the Army’s physical training which is currently ‘optimised for male physiology’, the Sunday Times reported.
[…]
And analysis of recent Army recruits suggests only 30 women a year would pass the current physical standards for joining the front line units.
The study found: ‘We know that women are built differently to men — higher fat mass, less muscle mass, less cardio output, which leads to greater/quicker energy deficit than men and they have to work harder to achieve the same output.’
The excuse is that the lower standards will result in fewer injuries among the female candidates for those jobs. In short – most women can’t compete directly with men. No surprises here, it’s called nature.
The Pentagon’s social justice warriors are probably salivating at the thought of an opportunity to use this as an excuse to lower physical standards for our own military. “Well, the British did it”.
Category: Military issues
This makes no sense whatsoever, save for paying homage to the PC Goddess. If being able to do the job–whatever the job may be–is the standard by which candidates for the job are measured, then gender-based separate standards could not be more wrong. What good is ensuring that X can be lifted and carried or Y miles can be humped under a full load in a given time if male troops can meet the standard and females can’t? If a particular physical task is an element of the job, then different standards will assuredly cost lives and limbs. “Everybody slow up! Sally and Fat Jack are falling behind.”
No worries. The Pentagon has already said that they will not change standards merely to accommodate females in combat arms roles. Something like this can’t possibly happen in DoD.
Yes, the above was indeed sarcasm.
And queue Lars in 3 . 2 . 1.
Now if they can just mandate that the ruck, body armor, ammo, and food magically become lighter.
Or water. Never going to make water lighter.
They could just start packing canned, evaporated water.
Just add water and you instantly have a gallon of refreshing Dihydrogen Monoxide
I heard there was a petition and Change.org to ban dihydrogen monoxide. Its in literally everything.
The concept that in an entire year of effort a whopping 30 female troops might be found who could meet the current standard appears to be an unbearable reality for someone in authority in Britain and they must work to correct the reality of that simple fact to a more appropriately politically correct fact. Lowered standards for some…
Because lowering the standards for some won’t have an adverse effect on the perception of females in those front line units…right?
Because the woman next to me isn’t as fast or as strong and gets injured more often, as does every other female in the unit, the other troopers and I won’t consider them less than equal because we’re being told by our betters that they’re the same even though the evidence will continue to prove they aren’t.
What’s the term the Brits like to use? Oh yes Brilliant!
This kind of ties into the “Women not interested in combat jobs” article of a few days ago
I was a Cross Border Training Liaison with the Canadian Forces from O6-08.
I was at a conference in Canada when this topic came up over dinner and drinks one night with a few of my Canadian Forces counterparts
Canada hasn’t had restrictions or female exclusion for years
At the time of that conference (it was March 07 if I remember correctly) the Canadian Army had a grand total of 3…yes 3..female Infantrymen
Two enlisted females and one officer
I suspect you’ll see the same thing happen here once the initial hype dies down and the back breaking, crushing reality that Infantry is kicks in.
I’m presuming that the Canucks kept the same high performance based standards, and didn’t lower them to meet some female SJW PC BS?
Precisely. If standards are maintained, very very few women will make the cut. But we know better, don’t we? If only a handful of women survive the training, then of course those standards are the sexistest!!1! and unfairly prohibit womyn from their dreams of serving in the infantry. Standards must be adjusted to allow the maximum number of womyn infantrypeople possible, because that’s what the Marine Corps and the Army is all about, right?
I can already hear the refrain from Parris Island of the future: What’s the mission of the Marine rifle squad? “Sir, the mission of the Marine rifle squad is to locate, close with, and DESTROY the enemy by fire and maneuver, or repel the enemy assault by fire and close combat, and to ensure that the hopes and dreams of every female Marine is fulfilled, SIR!”
It’s more of a case that women just aren’t interested in it
We might find that the Canadians were way ahead on this issue. They opened everything up, but they did it early enough that there wasn’t the SJW pressure to lower standards.
Likewise the Brits have permitted women to attend the commando course for a decade and a half. After the first woman made in through, interest dropped precipitously.
The article states: “A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: ‘The MOD is undertaking a review to establish the physical standards required for ground close combat, which is due to complete in 2019.
‘It will be based upon the principle that any standards will be related to the required role rather than individual characteristics.”
This is exactly the stance taken by US Congress and top US Executive Officers both elected and commissioned. Flag officers are foremost unelected politicians beholden to those who gave them a military commission at that rank and grade and not the troops well being and fitness in win the fight.
“The study found: ‘We know that women are built differently to men — ” and even though it was left unsaid, there is that GREAT . . BIG. . . “BUT” hanging out there as justification for lowering the combat arms standards.
ANd how long will it be, when the females who attempt, or are coerced into, working the combat arms, start coming home with permanent injuries and in body bags – how long before someone reacts?
-Families wailing about “my poor baby”.
-SJWs wailing about “we need to make ONE MORE ADJUSTMENT”
-military leadership looking at lower enlistment and readiness rates.
Or will all this be a moot point because the-country-formerly-known-as-Great-Britain will soon be under Shari’a “law”?
I believe that body bags/permanent injuries stuff was settled last week, wasn’t it? It’s been happening for a while. Or do you pay no attention to what happened prior to this?
I would propose a simple field evaluation exercise to test the suitability of males and females to the rigors of combat.
35 days in pup tents in the Georgia summer heat, no air conditioning, 2 MREs per day plus a combat breakfast ( remember those green eggs that came out of the cans?) 8 to 10 miles running each morning in full gear with weapons, and somewhere between 700 to 1000 rounds fired on the target range per day too.
Add to this all of the bugs, spiders, and ants. Not to mention the snakes.
Oh yeah, got to remember safety!!! 25% fire watch patrolling the perimeter of the “camp”, so the longest stretch of sleep you get at any one time is about 3 hours.
Always remember to keep your body and equipment camouflaged using the old-school sticks of face paint.
The only potable water comes from Lister bags that always taste strongly of mildew and are about body temperature.
You get a steel-pot ( I know, this dates me to the 80’s) of water a day for personal hygiene…got to shave every day so you look presentable…put that cammo back on ASAP or the Drill Sergeant will provide some remedial training.
If you can hack this, you might make it.
I agree with you Cake-14N. Reminds me of the late 60’s at Fort Polk. All you said though is still just the training. The rubber meets the road when that “training” is met with real incoming, real wounds, and real deaths. If it can separate the men from the boys it will damn sure separate the males from the females.
Mmmmmm, good! Green and gray eggs if I recall correctly. But that’s why God invented Tabasco sauce. For those of us who can remember C-Rations, it was an even more special day if one of your C-Rat meals was “Ham and Eggs, Chopped”.
“You get a steel-pot…of water a day for personal hygiene”
My, aren’t you extravagant. We had a new lieutenant once who wanted to use a bit of the platoon water ration for personal hygiene. In fact, he was rather insistent. The Platoon Sgt. had to explain the facts of life to him. Several times. He showed great restraint, I thought.
No, rain water (if any) and surface water should be more than adequate. You really ain’t dirty until your uniform starts to rot.
Don’t forget the MILES gear at all times. And smoke sessions on the spot for uniform and SOP violations.
Same whines and moans coming from you guys every time this is brought up.
You conveniently forget that women in combat zones are coming home missing parts or dead, not just in the distant past but recently, since 2001.
Besides that, I don’t see a huge lot of women scrambling to fill those combat slots here or in the UK.
We went over this last week, didn’t we?
Are you having short-term memory loss so early in life that senility is already setting in?
No one is forgetting that part and no one is suggesting that women don’t face terribly dangerous risks in the performance of their current MOS in combat theaters.
No one is disrespecting any of those women or any of the women currently serving in dangerous combat areas throughout the world. We are grateful and respectful of their service as we are of any soldier/sailor/marine/airman.
For me what I’m saying is simple. Why change the rules to allow a smaller weaker soldier to make it into an MOS where being smaller and weaker is a liability? What force multiplier comes into play with a candidate currently unfit for service being allowed to pass in the future by lowering the requirements? That sounds like a fractional multiplier instead of a integer multiplier to me.
Those 30 women a year that could pass according to the Brits should be the only 30 allowed in, and might be the only 30 who want in…lowering the standards won’t make numbers 31-whatever the equals of those first 30 it will just make all them weaker and less efficient. No different than allowing weak ass males who currently fail to suddenly pass and join…it’s of zero benefit to the force as it stands.
And western civilization slips further down the suicide hole.
Pretty shocking that for such highly limited positions western government are going to intentionally discriminate in order to reduce their military capabilities. Liberalism is a mental disorder.
It’s a win-win for the left. The Marxist narrative that undergirds the whole movement says that “the West” are the global oppressors, so any defeat suffered by those forces is justified. Besides, the great edifice of Western Civilization is “problematic” in moving towards their desired utopian ends; once it is destroyed they can build their desired paradise.
You know, they’re hopelessly deluded lunatics, but they are scrupulously consistent in the deluded lunacy.
[…] Privilege The Quinton Report: Voter Registration Drives Violates Federal Law This Ain’t Hell: Brit Army To Rewrite Physical Standards To Accommodate More Women Weasel Zippers: Congress Investigating Obama Regime Deception On Iran Nuke Deal Megan McArdle: The […]
One physical standard: The one required to do the job, complete the mission, and WIN.
Anything else is bullshit.
And I’m fully supportive of that for any gender.
Don’t meet the standard? Sorry, you can’t have this job.