Oh dear, the Armed Forces is gonna lower its standards

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/19/world/europe/uk-defense-women-combat/

Oh dear, Lykos is scared that a women can kick his ass.

I guess Lykos also hates the new announcement that Marvel has made today.

 

yonny616 wrote:

Oh dear, Lykos is scared that a women can kick his ass.

Oh there are definitely women that can kick my arse. But I'm not enlisting am I?

He's not entirely wrong. Women in the military have lower physical fitness standards.

This are the current minimum standards in the US Army.

Age Group 17-21
Male: Pushups 42, Situps 53, 2-Mile Run 15:54
Female: Pushups 19, Situps 53, 2-Mile Run 18:54
(you have 2 minutes to complete pushup and situp events)

19 fucking pushups and 3 extra minutes to run the 2 mile! And that's the minimum, if you can only do 42 pushups in an infantry unit you're seen as a lazy shitbag. You should be getting at least 70 pushups in 2 minutes.

Now I don't really care when women are in supporting roles, or even a pilot or tank commander, but they absolutely should not have lower standards in an infantry role. I know the Marine Corps tried to get women into combat roles these past couple years but failed miserably.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/01/16/two-female-officers-dropped-from-ioc/21802297/

Quote :

To date, 26 female officers have attempted the course and not one has made it to graduation.

Quote :

Fifteen male officers in the 118-member class also failed to pass the test.

Not a single women has passed the infantry officer course, and the shitty part is that most of them fail day 1 on the physical endurance test. And these weren't women who had just joined they were already officers.

There are examples of women passing infantry basic training but even then it's very small amount of women. And that's just basic training, keyword, basic. It isn't shit compared to the training you'll do with your unit. One thing people often ignore is that having women in combat roles causes logistics issues. If you have women in infantry positions, now you need separate barracks, separate bathrooms, separate showers, need to stock women's hygiene products, and of course there's the chance she could get pregnant, especially when there like 50 dudes to every chick.

Now I'm sure there's some women you would do great in infantry positions, but with such a high failure rate in training courses overall that's a fuck ton of money down the drain, and with the military budget shrinking they can't afford to risk losing money attempting to train women in infantry positions.

One last thing, notice I say "infantry" positions and not "combat" positions. Even a cook or a mechanic may see combat. Their base or convoy may be attacked, or maybe a patrol is desperately short on infantry soldiers and will take volunteers from other MOS's. Or maybe they are a helicopter pilot or tank commander which doesn't necessarily require you to be in great physical shape, so women still may see combat, but they shouldn't really primary front line fighters.

This is from the US Military perspective but I imagine it's the same with the UK's military.

@Stig Good post, longest post I've read from start to finish on G7.

In Germany we'd be so ready for more women in combat. Our bureaucracy fucked up the order for our Puma so hard for example that it has to be fit for the permanent transport of pregnant women. This and similiar failures have led to the money only getting us 350 instead of the planned 1000. Not like anything in our military is working atm. We don't give all too many fucks though. Atleast till Russia comes knocking on our door.

Source is an article I read yesterday on r/Deutschland.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/hohe-anforderungen-verzoegern-die-auslieferung-des-puma-panzers-13405087.html

>The climate inside the Puma has to be fit for the transport of heavily pregnant women even in combat< I kid you not.



Seriously though, as long as the women can perform I don't really mind who joins the military. But they shouldn't have lower standards for infantry roles since that endangers the soldiers around them. I know not many will be up for that, but I think that is just the harsh reality, that male soldiers will stay the main force till evolution decides to bring both to the same average fitness level .

Gutzahn wrote:

In Germany we'd be so ready for more women in combat. Our bureaucracy fucked up the order for our Puma so hard for example that it has to be fit for the permanent transport of pregnant women. This and similiar failures have led to the money only getting us 350 instead of the planned 1000. Not like anything in our military is working atm. We don't give all too many fucks though. Atleast till Russia comes knocking on our door.

Source is an article I read yesterday on r/Deutschland.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/hohe-anforderungen-verzoegern-die-auslieferung-des-puma-panzers-13405087.html

>The climate inside the Puma has to be fit for the transport of heavily pregnant women even in combat< I kid you not.



Seriously though, as long as the women can perform I don't really mind who joins the military. But they shouldn't have lower standards for infantry roles since that endangers the soldiers around them. I know not many will be up for that, but I think that is just the harsh reality, that male soldiers will stay the main force till evolution decides to bring both to the same average fitness level .

That's incredibly racist to the hardworking women of Germany

Stigma wrote:

He's not entirely wrong. Women in the military have lower physical fitness standards.

This are the current minimum standards in the US Army.

Age Group 17-21
Male: Pushups 42, Situps 53, 2-Mile Run 15:54
Female: Pushups 19, Situps 53, 2-Mile Run 18:54
(you have 2 minutes to complete pushup and situp events)

19 fucking pushups and 3 extra minutes to run the 2 mile! And that's the minimum, if you can only do 42 pushups in an infantry unit you're seen as a lazy shitbag. You should be getting at least 70 pushups in 2 minutes.

Now I don't really care when women are in supporting roles, or even a pilot or tank commander, but they absolutely should not have lower standards in an infantry role. I know the Marine Corps tried to get women into combat roles these past couple years but failed miserably.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/01/16/two-female-officers-dropped-from-ioc/21802297/

Quote :

To date, 26 female officers have attempted the course and not one has made it to graduation.

Quote :

Fifteen male officers in the 118-member class also failed to pass the test.

Not a single women has passed the infantry officer course, and the shitty part is that most of them fail day 1 on the physical endurance test. And these weren't women who had just joined they were already officers.

There are examples of women passing infantry basic training but even then it's very small amount of women. And that's just basic training, keyword, basic. It isn't shit compared to the training you'll do with your unit. One thing people often ignore is that having women in combat roles causes logistics issues. If you have women in infantry positions, now you need separate barracks, separate bathrooms, separate showers, need to stock women's hygiene products, and of course there's the chance she could get pregnant, especially when there like 50 dudes to every chick.

Now I'm sure there's some women you would do great in infantry positions, but with such a high failure rate in training courses overall that's a fuck ton of money down the drain, and with the military budget shrinking they can't afford to risk losing money attempting to train women in infantry positions.

One last thing, notice I say "infantry" positions and not "combat" positions. Even a cook or a mechanic may see combat. Their base or convoy may be attacked, or maybe a patrol is desperately short on infantry soldiers and will take volunteers from other MOS's. Or maybe they are a helicopter pilot or tank commander which doesn't necessarily require you to be in great physical shape, so women still may see combat, but they shouldn't really primary front line fighters.

This is from the US Military perspective but I imagine it's the same with the UK's military.

I've seen other statistics of this kind of thing, might have been British army or something. One of the requirements was I believe 3 pull-ups, held for 15 seconds and another was a trek or a run while carrying a weight on your back. Only a few women passed it whereas the majority of men usually pass it.

I mean even with the small minority that do pass, there's so many other risks and issues involved. I mean, maybe a woman could complete the simpler training by the skin of her teeth but if a 200lbs dude goes down, will she be able to perform an evac? Carry him over her shoulder? A 90lbs woman with approximately 50% less body strength than her male counterpart?

Hell what happens when men are by women in the presence of danger? Instinctively their impulse is to protect her... this isn't a solid fact but it's very possible it could be problematic- men putting themselves at greater risk because they make protecting this woman a priority. Hell think how romance could get in the way of things. The advantage of the military being all-male (at least before DOnt Ask Dont Tell was repealed) was the absence of distractions.

Maybe I'm wrong, I mean women are already in most positions of the military as you said. Maybe it could be the opposite, maybe they'd be good for morale. But still, lowering the standards and frankly trying to meet a quota (equal represantashunz) rather than trying to improve efficiency and prevent many potential fatalities, is idiotic.
I just fully agree that the resources should go to something more meaningful. Separate barracks, risking rape or pregnancy and thus more money out... it makes no sense.

If UKIP (Nigel Farage) are elected in this country, they will increase military funding significantly. Then maybe we could try experimenting. But right now it is a needless and impractical.

Oh for fuck sake, another dumb uneducated ignorant cunt falling for the populist party bandwagon. Where is our Lord and saviour Farage going to get the funding for the military? Oh let me guess, THE FAMED EU MONEY HOORAY!!!!

Orion wrote:

Oh for fuck sake, another dumb uneducated ignorant  cunt falling for the populist party bandwagon. Where is our Lord and saviour Farage going to get the funding for the military? Oh let me guess, THE FAMED EU MONEY HOORAY!!!!

lol several billion less to the EU means we can set aside a few million for the military.

Sawed-Off_Orc wrote:

Orion wrote:

Oh for fuck sake, another dumb uneducated ignorant  cunt falling for the populist party bandwagon. Where is our Lord and saviour Farage going to get the funding for the military? Oh let me guess, THE FAMED EU MONEY HOORAY!!!!

lol several billion less to the EU means we can set aside a few million for the military.

Yes I'm sure destroying the growth of our work force, economy and trade with the EU will also work wonders, but Nigel Farage is such a great quote maker with all those excellent soundbites and populist bullshit we must vote for him!

lol there are countries out the EU who still maintain good relations with the EU (including trade).

And actually unemployment is only going to rise while we remain part of the EU.

And the economy can only get better. Look how the EU fucked over Greece lol

Sawed-Off_Orc wrote:

lol there are countries out the EU who still maintain good relations with the EU (including trade).

And actually unemployment is only going to rise while we remain part of the EU.

And the economy can only get better. Look how the EU fucked over Greece lol

Are you being serious or just pretending to be retarded? Greece got fucked because they were fucking morons, they thought they could keep all their big cozy pensions without actually paying the fucking tax for it.