By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Women are not fit for front line combat!

Tagged games:

 

Why can't women be on the front line?

They're physically not fit. 62 32.29%
 
They can do it if trained properly. 102 53.13%
 
That's not women's duty. 12 6.25%
 
I'm weak so I can't fat... 16 8.33%
 
Total:192

 

Female front line soldiers 'will put lives at risk', says ex-army chief

Image copyright MOD

Allowing female soldiers to fight on the front line would be a "foolish move" that would be "paid for in blood", an ex-army chief has said.

Former Colonel Richard Kemp said women would be a "weak link" and claimed many soldiers would quit if the "social engineering experiment" went ahead.

The government is currently reviewing the ban on women serving in close combat roles.

The Ministry of Defence declined to comment on Col Kemp's remarks.

Women can currently serve on the front line, but not where the primary aim is to "close with and kill the enemy" - ruling them out of serving in the infantry or armoured corps.

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has said he hopes to "open up combat roles to women" in 2016, saying roles "should be determined by ability and not gender".

The government's review, due to report back this year, is looking at the training procedures and physical demands of fighting to ensure any change can be made without damaging female soldiers' health.

'Extremely dangerous'

Writing in the Telegraph, Col Kemp, who led the British forces in Afghanistan in 2003, argued: "This foolish move will reduce the capability of the infantry, undermine our national defences and put lives in danger."

He claimed only "a very small number" of women wanted to join the infantry, and that only "a fraction" of those would have the physical capability to do so.

But the move was being pushed by "politicians desperate to be seen as 'progressive', feminist zealots and ideologues hell-bent on equality of opportunity without exception", he said.

Col Kemp said it would be "extremely dangerous" to change fitness tests - as has been reported - to take account of differences between men and women, saying physical fitness was paramount to infantry soldiers.

Other key standards for example services
Army serviceJobStatic liftJerry can carry
Infantry Para senior 40kg 120m
Infantry Para junior 40kg 120m
Infantry Para reservist 40kg 120m
Infantry All, minus paras 40kg 120m
Combat support Royal Engineers 35kg 120m
Combat service support Royal Logistics Corps 20-40kg 30-120m
Junior entry All juniors, minus paras 40kg 120m

Fitness standards: full MoD list.

"Through no fault of their own, women will often become the weak link in an infantry team. The men will have to take up the slack and this will engender resentment and reduce the cohesion that is so vital for effective infantry combat," Col Kemp wrote.

He added: "Every infantryman knows that the price for this social engineering experiment will be paid in blood."

However, Chief of Staff General Sir Nick Carter has told the Sunday Times there would be "no lowering of training or qualifying levels for soldiers in ground close combat roles".

Col Kemp has previously argued that women lack the "killer instinct" necessary to fight in close combat.

Armed forces minister Penny Mordaunt - the first woman to hold the post - has insisted that women "can make the grade".

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35976113

Those are some bold statements. 

 



Around the Network

Lack of killer instinct ,tell that to the women soldiers fighting in the middle east.



Research shows Video games  help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot

Clearly haven't seen Sharkeisha



Yeah, this kind of talk was always there when a group previously forbidden to do something was suddenly allowed to do it.

When slaves were given freedom, many "experts" believed they were not good enough without the slavers feeding them. They were wrong.
When women were given the right to vote, many "experts" believed women couldn't understand anything and make good decisions because they were too busy menstruating and changing diapers. They were wrong.
When gay people were given the right to adopt children, many "experts" believed the kids would be bullied and depressed and suicidal and whatnot. They were wrong.

How about we skip it this time and just give them a f***ing chance? If women prove not to be capable enough, we can revisit the issue in 30 years.



No one should ever be passed for combat if there is any risk whatsoever that they will be a weak link. It's not about their lives alone but the lives of everyone around them. However, if a woman meets and exceeds the same exact criteria as a man, then I don't see a problem.

I guess the fear is that there will be pressure to push women through in order to showcase change--and that's probably a valid concern. Politicians want their policy changes to be clear successes in the eyes of the media. I hope no one gives in to that kind of pressure.



Around the Network
Psychotic said:

Yeah, this kind of talk was always there when a group previously forbidden to do something was suddenly allowed to do it.

When slaves were given freedom, many "experts" believed they were not good enough without the slavers feeding them. They were wrong.
When women were given the right to vote, many "experts" believed women couldn't understand anything and make good decisions because they were too busy menstruating and changing diapers. They were wrong.
When gay people were given the right to adopt children, many "experts" believed the kids would be bullied and depressed and suicidal and whatnot. They were wrong.

How about we skip it this time and just give them a f***ing chance? If women prove not to be capable enough, we can revisit the issue in 30 years.

We'll revisit the issue in 30 years when multiple lives have already been lost?

Your analogy is so bad. A certain level of fitness is required for the job. You are lowering that level for women but not for men?



Psychotic said:

Yeah, this kind of talk was always there when a group previously forbidden to do something was suddenly allowed to do it.

When slaves were given freedom, many "experts" believed they were not good enough without the slavers feeding them. They were wrong.
When women were given the right to vote, many "experts" believed women couldn't understand anything and make good decisions because they were too busy menstruating and changing diapers. They were wrong.
When gay people were given the right to adopt children, many "experts" believed the kids would be bullied and depressed and suicidal and whatnot. They were wrong.

How about we skip it this time and just give them a f***ing chance? If women prove not to be capable enough, we can revisit the issue in 30 years.

There's something called sexual dimorphism...



In other news grass is green.



Own:Nes,Snes,N64,Gamecube,Wii,WiiU,Gameboy Pocket,Gameboy Advance SP,DS,DSi,3DS XL,Sega Genesis,Sega Dreamcast,PS1,PS2,PS3,PSP,PSVita and Xbox 360.

Looking to get: Original Xbox 

A significant portion of my soul died with the first "SMT X FE" footage reveal.

Add me on PSN: afnanthekooltrex 

Check out my YouTube channel:  

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzZ6P0251NWOf7WUTsHmw_Q

Lawlight said:
Psychotic said:

Yeah, this kind of talk was always there when a group previously forbidden to do something was suddenly allowed to do it.

When slaves were given freedom, many "experts" believed they were not good enough without the slavers feeding them. They were wrong.
When women were given the right to vote, many "experts" believed women couldn't understand anything and make good decisions because they were too busy menstruating and changing diapers. They were wrong.
When gay people were given the right to adopt children, many "experts" believed the kids would be bullied and depressed and suicidal and whatnot. They were wrong.

How about we skip it this time and just give them a f***ing chance? If women prove not to be capable enough, we can revisit the issue in 30 years.

We'll revisit the issue in 30 years when multiple lives have already been lost?

Your analogy is so bad. A certain level of fitness is required for the job. You are lowering that level for women but not for men?

You realize that there are already females passing Ranger school right? The school where everyone in the army strives to go.



All male squads outperform all other combinations, so obviously something happens when you put women in with men (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/10/marine-study-finds-all-male-infantry-units-outperformed-teams-women/71971416/).

The article mentions the obvious, like men are quicker across the ground and are generally more accurate with weapons. What I have also read elsewhere though is that men take more risks when women are in their squads and in danger, which of course puts everyone in the team in greater danger also.

So while I think women should absolutely be on the frontlines (as long as they have passed the same bar as the men, and it hasn't been lowered as it apparently has in some cases), I am not so sure about mixed units.