https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 01371.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


What the chuff!

What's wrong, babe?

They will just do what they did when they allowed women to serve in the field force. The entry standards will be lowered because (and I generalise here) women cannot physically achieve the same as men. P company and the all arms booty course will be waaaaaaay too hard for the above average fitness woman. No amount of PC ******** is going to change that.

SAS selection? I have known some absolute beasts from my time in the army who have been and attempted it, and come back having failed. If they keep the standards as they are now, I think it will be a long time - if ever - we see a woman wearing the winged dagger. There will undoubtedly be women somewhere who could pass it as it is now, but to find one in the forces who can will be extremely difficult. Diluting the course to accommodate females in the name of PC would be a mistake.

"Per Mare, Per Terram"

I'm sure they will do just that just to demonstrate 'equality'. I see the Troll is lurking on the board too.

If female applicants achieve the same levels of fitness/arms ability etc as the men why not?
I see from the article ......"The Ministry of Defence said that all infantry roles and frontline units will be subject to the same fitness standards, regardless of gender. "

That's fair enough so long as (as Bobinho suspects) the standards aren't lowered to accommodate for this move. I can't see many women making it as bootnecks- as already mentioned, there are some big, strong, physical, determined guys who cant make it.

What woman in her right mind would WANT to be a marine or an SAS Soldier.

Jordan Peterson has it right on these sort of things...

Blackrod wrote:I'm sure they will do just that just to demonstrate 'equality'. I see the Troll is lurking on the board too.

Whose the troll

Standards not being lowered as it stands. All have to reach them.

box_of_frogs wrote:Standards not being lowered as it stands. All have to reach them.

And rightly so. You can’t carry anyone at that level of the military, male or female.

bobinho wrote:They will just do what they did when they allowed women to serve in the field force. The entry standards will be lowered ...

Were entry standard lowered to allow women to serve? When?

Inchy wrote:Whose the troll

Anyone who values evidence, facts, science and reality, i think.

The daft racist

Imploding Turtle wrote:Were entry standard lowered to allow women to serve? When?

Women don’t have to reach the same level of fitness as men. In fact, a 17 year old girl only needs to achieve 1 shuttle more on the bleep test than a 50+ year old man.

Poster #2

Something undeniably hot about a woman who could beat seven shades of **** out of you.

Or is that just me?

Carry on.....

ZizkovClaret wrote:Something undeniably hot about a woman who could beat seven shades of **** out of you.

Or is that just me?

Carry on.....

It’s all GI Jane until you realise she’s got arms like a gorilla, a voice like Barry white, rugger shirt and doc martins. And then you realise she’s called Keith and has a penis

Pearcey wrote:Women don’t have to reach the same level of fitness as men. In fact, a 17 year old girl only needs to achieve 1 shuttle more on the bleep test than a 50+ year old man.

Interesting. So we'll allow lower standards for older men because they're less physically capable, and no one has a problem with that. But when we do it for women...

bobinho wrote:They will just do what they did when they allowed women to serve in the field force. The entry standards will be lowered because (and I generalise here) women cannot physically achieve the same as men. P company and the all arms booty course will be waaaaaaay too hard for the above average fitness woman. No amount of PC ******** is going to change that.

SAS selection? I have known some absolute beasts from my time in the army who have been and attempted it, and come back having failed. If they keep the standards as they are now, I think it will be a long time - if ever - we see a woman wearing the winged dagger. There will undoubtedly be women somewhere who could pass it as it is now, but to find one in the forces who can will be extremely difficult. Diluting the course to accommodate females in the name of PC would be a mistake.

I agree with much of this however when you see women cage fighting and some of the super fit women cross fitters ......... It's a possibility.

If anyone has the time or inclination, if you dig into Royal Marine history I think you'll find that they've had a female on active service before.

One thing's for sure, a load of red-faced, wheezing men who are the polar opposite of being SAS-fit will be opining about this all day with their chubby little fingers on social media.

Have'nt they lowered the BFT basic fitness test from 3 mile down to just 1.5 mile for the armed forces and they run it in trainers not as was boots. It used to be first 1.5 miles in 13 - 15 mins then individual best over the last 1.5 in under 11 mins.

Pearcey wrote:Women don’t have to reach the same level of fitness as men. In fact, a 17 year old girl only needs to achieve 1 shuttle more on the bleep test than a 50+ year old man.

Unless they want to serve in a Dismounted Close Combat role, in which case they need to meet the male standard for their age.

peter_nobles_fringe wrote:Have'nt they lowered the BFT basic fitness test from 3 mile down to just 1.5 mile for the armed forces and they run it in trainers not as was boots. It used to be first 1.5 miles in 13 - 15 mins then individual best over the last 1.5 in under 11 mins.

I left in 1995 and the BFT was changed to training shoes around 1985/86. It was the same format of 3 miles split as 1.5 miles in 14 minutes followed by a best effort 1.5 miles. The cut off time was 10mins 30 for 29 year old and under. I can't remember if it was 30 seconds extra from 30 - 34 and then the same for 35 -39, or if it was an extra minute.

In reality there was little difference between boots and trainers but certainly less injuries.

Then there were the two Combat fitness tests, 3 miler and 8 miler, both good fun

Edit
I have just looked this up and everything has changed, there is no longer a single standard for all. Infantry soldier and clerical worker or driver used to have to achieve the same basic standard but that is no longer the case. It is definitely towards hell in a hand cart.

When you see some of those women that appear in documentaries about binge drinking and the fights that break out in various town up and down the country I'm sure they'd be more than a match for your average Islamic terrorist!

JohnMac wrote:I left in 1995 and the BFT was changed to training shoes around 1985/86. It was the same format of 3 miles split as 1.5 miles in 14 minutes followed by a best effort 1.5 miles. The cut off time was 10mins 30 for 29 year old and under. I can't remember if it was 30 seconds extra from 30 - 34 and then the same for 35 -39, or if it was an extra minute.

In reality there was little difference between boots and trainers but certainly less injuries.

Then there were the two Combat fitness tests, 3 miler and 8 miler, both good fun

Ah remember the 8 mile combat fitness tests what fun.....used to do the BFT second 1.5 mile in just under 10 mins

Islamic State directive: Catch'em if you can! Whatever next?

They even have their own motto...
“Who Darns Wins”

Tampons of the battlefield, crouching behind bushes to **** on the trek.

peter_nobles_fringe wrote:Ah remember the 8 mile combat fitness tests what fun.....used to do the BFT second 1.5 mile in just under 10 mins

I did it in 10 min 31 secs with a fractured leg at the end of my AFS. I was last.

peter_nobles_fringe wrote:Ah remember the 8 mile combat fitness tests what fun.....used to do the BFT second 1.5 mile in just under 10 mins

I could still knock out a 9.30 when I was in my thirties.

Normal plan though was to jog at the back and finish around 10.30 in boots and all the lads had to be in front or they would be on remedial pt

I can't run for a bus now, I have COPD

My first Unit was 42 out at Bickleigh, happy days. Later I had the misfortune to be onboard when a RAS (resupply at sea) had WRNS excused due to the heavy nature of the Ships Stores coming onboard (sacks of spuds etc). Nobody was ever excused this most important task of restocking your floating hotel until we had WRNS onboard. I was less than impressed, however if there is a guarantee of no lowering of standards and no reduction in battle effectiveness and no reduction in the Troops morale! Give it a try. Norway 1983, 45 Cdo RM, 4 WRNS + 750 Royal Marines what could possibly go wrong?!

When I was in the RAF there were very few fit WAAFs. The best of the rest had legs like a billiard table and the rest had them put on upside down in the factory. In civvy street the air stupidesses in my company were known as Monsters Inc. Happy days.

The All Arms Commando course has already been passed by a woman a Female Logistics Officer I think. i’m sure it was around 2010/ 2011 I remember seeing her on an exercise in Germany before I left in 2013. For what it’s worth there is nothing wrong with all roles being made available to Women as long as they are able to do the exact same as the men do. Some roles you can understanably have different standards for fitness due to the natural shape/ physique of women, in the infantry recee type roles you definately can’t have differing standards though so hopefully they never will lower them to meet quotas etc.