Our army is too macho...
Discussion
Ok since it's quiet here's an o/t post -
[link]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2725253.stm[/link]
Apparently our army is too macho, too mannish and full of sexists - which according to some is utterly unacceptable - wimmin are getting put off joining and staying in while they are discriminated against by the men who think women are a disruption.
Well fook me but why oh why did we pay £40k
to hear this utter t0ss - our army's primary purpose is to be able to complete the operational missions given it by its political masters - not waste time trying to kowtow it to the PC brigade. Also aggression is arguably a predominantly male trait and aggression is a big part of what an army needs...shurely?
[link]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2725253.stm[/link]
Apparently our army is too macho, too mannish and full of sexists - which according to some is utterly unacceptable - wimmin are getting put off joining and staying in while they are discriminated against by the men who think women are a disruption.
Well fook me but why oh why did we pay £40k
to hear this utter t0ss - our army's primary purpose is to be able to complete the operational missions given it by its political masters - not waste time trying to kowtow it to the PC brigade. Also aggression is arguably a predominantly male trait and aggression is a big part of what an army needs...shurely?
oh dear.. it is sad.. I don't know where to begin with this..
i) Yep - military is by nature agressive
ii) A military that is not agressive is called an aerobics class
iii) Most women aren't capable of fulfilling certain front line roles in infantry, marines etc..
iv) Positive discrimination again.. oh boy ..
How can a woman get pregnant whilst in the forces, and then get a £150,000 payout when she is discharged?
Did Simon Weston get a payout when he was medically discharged after the Falklands?? did he fook.. he got a paltry military pension entitlement and that's all.
I'd heard that they were having a drive to push promotion of women in the police force for the reasons above and thought that was another stupid example of quotas, positive discrimination and political correctness. Applying the same principle to the military, however, is sheer madness for reason that stare us in the face.
Can the PC burocrats see that? Can they bollocks.
No wonder british forces are only to provide rear guard and logistical support in the Middle East - that's gonna be all we're good for.
i) Yep - military is by nature agressive
ii) A military that is not agressive is called an aerobics class
iii) Most women aren't capable of fulfilling certain front line roles in infantry, marines etc..
iv) Positive discrimination again.. oh boy ..
How can a woman get pregnant whilst in the forces, and then get a £150,000 payout when she is discharged?
Did Simon Weston get a payout when he was medically discharged after the Falklands?? did he fook.. he got a paltry military pension entitlement and that's all.
I'd heard that they were having a drive to push promotion of women in the police force for the reasons above and thought that was another stupid example of quotas, positive discrimination and political correctness. Applying the same principle to the military, however, is sheer madness for reason that stare us in the face.
Can the PC burocrats see that? Can they bollocks.
No wonder british forces are only to provide rear guard and logistical support in the Middle East - that's gonna be all we're good for.
News paper articles like this are so crap, they are deliberately written to provoke, no doubt by some wannabe "got-to-get-a-big-story-under-my-belt" tw*t.
The truth is that YES, the army does dissuade many women from joining, but it also dissuades many men also, due to the lifestyle and aggressive disciplinarian nature. Not every one's cup of tea you see.
And so it should do, can you imagine the British Army turned into something like the italian army. All fancy sexy uniforms but fook all else.
I think the only problem the army (and the nation as a whole) may have is to view/treat women with the old style politeness ie the whole open doors etc attitude.
Fcuk that then. No more giving your seat, or opening doors or lending a hand.
Blollocks, give me a traditional British Army squaddy male or female over any other nations troops, anyday.
The events in Sierra Leone compared to the US in Somalia tell all that needs to be said.
>> Edited by swilly on Wednesday 5th February 13:02
The truth is that YES, the army does dissuade many women from joining, but it also dissuades many men also, due to the lifestyle and aggressive disciplinarian nature. Not every one's cup of tea you see.
And so it should do, can you imagine the British Army turned into something like the italian army. All fancy sexy uniforms but fook all else.
I think the only problem the army (and the nation as a whole) may have is to view/treat women with the old style politeness ie the whole open doors etc attitude.
Fcuk that then. No more giving your seat, or opening doors or lending a hand.
Blollocks, give me a traditional British Army squaddy male or female over any other nations troops, anyday.
The events in Sierra Leone compared to the US in Somalia tell all that needs to be said.
>> Edited by swilly on Wednesday 5th February 13:02
I spent 12 years in the Army serving with the Intelligence Corps which has always been a mixed organisation (about 30% are female). The majority of the females are more than capable of doing the same job as a male. The only thing that the females have a problem with is the physical aspects of being deployed on active duty - having to carry the same equipment loads (60K is the norm for battle) which is hard enough for most males, but more so for the females. There are some females which can and do cope with this, but they are a tiny minority of the serving female members.
The majority of the females currently serving in the forces, tend to be employed in support roles which they are more suited to and are generally happier to fulfil they role, very few would like to serve in front line combat units anyway. If they wish to serve in these units/roles they should be allowed too, but they MUST be prepared to have no special treatment given as this would be positive discrimination of the male soldiers. They would have to put up with the same abolution provisions and carry out the same duties as their male couterparts.
This includes not having children if single and staying in single accomodation, rather than being given a married quarter and being able to claim that they can't do the extra duties due to not having child care available. This type of thing causes huge amounts of resentment in the male soldiers as they see a 19 year old female single mother, living in a married quarter off barracks, when you have a 34 year old male single soldier, living in single accomodation and being treated like a 19 year old.
The military needs to sort out the basic problems before they introduce female soldiers to front line combat units.
The majority of the females currently serving in the forces, tend to be employed in support roles which they are more suited to and are generally happier to fulfil they role, very few would like to serve in front line combat units anyway. If they wish to serve in these units/roles they should be allowed too, but they MUST be prepared to have no special treatment given as this would be positive discrimination of the male soldiers. They would have to put up with the same abolution provisions and carry out the same duties as their male couterparts.
This includes not having children if single and staying in single accomodation, rather than being given a married quarter and being able to claim that they can't do the extra duties due to not having child care available. This type of thing causes huge amounts of resentment in the male soldiers as they see a 19 year old female single mother, living in a married quarter off barracks, when you have a 34 year old male single soldier, living in single accomodation and being treated like a 19 year old.
The military needs to sort out the basic problems before they introduce female soldiers to front line combat units.
Agree with everyone so far - the press are not interested in our forces for what they do most of the time but always latch onto these stories - which in turn raises fears amongst politicians, civil servants and perhaps senior officers that this is bad press that needs to be dealt with - the problem being that gradually, due to god knows whose agenda, making the forces less of an exception in our society to its rules and laws is an aim that I think completely distracts them from concentrating on effectiveness issues. Time may alter attitudes to women but large parts of the forces as a whole will remain male-dominated and natural machismo will always prevail. The trouble is the rot has set in and the press won't be happy until serious damage has been done. They just don't seem to realise that despite the advances of technology, the sharp end in battle is and will always be a very very inhospitable place which demands physical and mental resilience - traits which the Army only really knows how to instil in men and needs to keep getting that right for everyone's safety - and not trying to battle nature even more by fartarsing around trying to make warriors out of women as well.
One of my colleagues was a UK trooper for several years post school and was only this very morn, bemoaning aspects of our much conceived as 'invincible' fighting forces.
Apparently, the army sends new recruits their boots some time before basic training begins so as to spare their tiny pinkies.
Said chap described the beasting his intake took and how it didn't do them any harm!
The abandonment of Spartan methodology in favour of more 'inclusive' regimes does seem a little limp of wrist.
I wonder what 'Mac' would make of this issue?
Apparently, the army sends new recruits their boots some time before basic training begins so as to spare their tiny pinkies.
Said chap described the beasting his intake took and how it didn't do them any harm!
The abandonment of Spartan methodology in favour of more 'inclusive' regimes does seem a little limp of wrist.
I wonder what 'Mac' would make of this issue?
derestrictor said: One of my colleagues was a UK trooper for several years post school and was only this very morn, bemoaning aspects of our much conceived as 'invincible' fighting forces.
Apparently, the army sends new recruits their boots some time before basic training begins so as to spare their tiny pinkies.
Said chap described the beasting his intake took and how it didn't do them any harm!
The abandonment of Spartan methodology in favour of more 'inclusive' regimes does seem a little limp of wrist.
I wonder what 'Mac' would make of this issue?
As I am (hopefully) going to be doing my IOT at somepoint this year (RAF) I am quite looking forward to being able to train in and wear in my boots before the regiment get their hands on me - I will be more prepared for the rigourous training schedule and more effective I feel.
Just my take on it of course (big softy? Maybe!!)
sadoksevoli said: Time may alter attitudes to women but large parts of the forces as a whole will remain male-dominated and natural machismo will always prevail. The trouble is the rot has set in and the press won't be happy until serious damage has been done. They just don't seem to realise that despite the advances of technology, the sharp end in battle is and will always be a very very inhospitable place which demands physical and mental resilience - traits which the Army only really knows how to instil in men and needs to keep getting that right for everyone's safety - and not trying to battle nature even more by fartarsing around trying to make warriors out of women as well.
How many women would be williing to plunge a bayonet into an enemy soldier? The basic rule of battle is to kill before you get killed - this means doing whatever you need to do in order to keep yourself alive, which isn't something that most females would be able to cope with after the fact. It's hard enough for a male to cope being put in this situation without having to worry if a female is going to cover his back or crack up under the pressure.
How many women would have coped with what the troops had to deal with in the Falklands? Sub-zero temperatures, long forced marches carrying huge amounts of equipment, food and ammunition all while being shot at and bombed.
Females should not be employed in front line units as when deployed on 6 month tours, the sexual tension becomes unbearable - Female troops in the Royal Logistic Corps based in Al Jubil (during the Gulf War) were kicked out the Army for selling their wares to the troops coming back from the front line and giving them loads more than they bargined for in the process. In the same vain, a female clerk employed in the HQ in Riyhad caused a fight in the main operation room, between two very senior officers who were asking her to accompany them to an Embassy function.
There are roles for females in the forces, but they should not be deployed on operational duty.
derestrictor said: One of my colleagues was a UK trooper for several years post school and was only this very morn, bemoaning aspects of our much conceived as 'invincible' fighting forces.
Apparently, the army sends new recruits their boots some time before basic training begins so as to spare their tiny pinkies.
Said chap described the beasting his intake took and how it didn't do them any harm!
The abandonment of Spartan methodology in favour of more 'inclusive' regimes does seem a little limp of wrist.
I wonder what 'Mac' would make of this issue?
I think that you may have the wrong end of the stick with "Spartan methodology" and "a little limp of wrist". The Spartans were noted for their homosexual practices.
The current methods of training in the forces has been weakened over the last few years, but this has been in reponse to the physical quality of recruits not being able to cope wearing boots (most have only ever worn trainers and their bones and joints have not developed enough to cope with the extra stresses of wearing boots and not having the shock-absorbancy they are used to). As for the other methods that used to be used as part of the basic training, somethings had to change, but they have now gone too far. It should be toughened up again.
Once heard some old duffer of a colonel giving reasons why women could not take a full role in the military... it was genius:
- they are unable to urinate tactically
- If they have big breasts they might get in the way (the breasts that is)
sorry for the puerile contribution.
>> Edited by loudpedal on Wednesday 5th February 14:51
- they are unable to urinate tactically
- If they have big breasts they might get in the way (the breasts that is)
sorry for the puerile contribution.
>> Edited by loudpedal on Wednesday 5th February 14:51
sybaseian said:
I think that you may have the wrong end of the stick with "Spartan methodology" and "a little limp of wrist". The Spartans were noted for their homosexual practices.
I recant the above statement, Sir. You are quite correct and I, quite self-contradictory.
Then again, I hardly think some of Sandringham's outpouring could be accused of being pro active in the 'hubba-hubba-she's a honey' department...a propos the above piccie, possibly?
sybaseian said:
The current methods of training in the forces has been weakened over the last few years, but this has been in reponse to the physical quality of recruits not being able to cope wearing boots (most have only ever worn trainers and their bones and joints have not developed enough to cope with the extra stresses of wearing boots and not having the shock-absorbancy they are used to). As for the other methods that used to be used as part of the basic training, somethings had to change, but they have now gone too far. It should be toughened up again.
[Colonel Humph mode on]
Too true, short back and sides, 23.5 hour days, inspections at 4am, give the littleers something to think about. The average intake should have at least a 50% fail rate with the present bunch of weak-kneed lily-livered socialist brought-up junkies (junkfood, drugs, nintendo playing, long-haired, limp wristed queers) who apply. At least with a decent roughing-up during basic training the forces will make something of them, even if it is in some cases only cannon fodder
[/Colonel Humph mode orff]
But true, if they want to survive they've got to be able to take it and if they're not fit enough, physically or mentally, they shouldn't be there.....
Remember wolves and lambs from somewhere???
JMGS4 said:
[Colonel Humph mode on]
Too true, short back and sides, 23.5 hour days, inspections at 4am, give the little
[/Colonel Humph mode orff]
John; please allow me to propose your immediate elevation to the upper chamber! Hurrah!
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff