Women in Direct Combat Role by autumn 2017

Discussion in 'General Royal Marines Joining Chit Chat' started by blacky, Dec 21, 2015.

  1. 24681012

    24681012 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2017
    Posts:
    231
    App Stage:
    Parent
    I agree with some of what you say, transgender issues should not be dealt with surgically, ever. Nor do I agree with cosmetic plastic surgery, steroids for muscle building, vaginal surgery to match to some imposed ideal???? What kind of world makes people so insecure that they feel they need to, or encourages it either commercially or through the NHS?
    I think economic/ recruitment issues brought women into the workplace/ armed forces. Society can not afford not to employ 50 per cent of its workforce. Recruitment of suitable men drove infantry joining standards down. Nothing to do with women. They are still under recruiting, so they want to bring in women. The much vaunted standards for joining , whilst always high have in reality been fairly elastic over the years. Press ups, pull ups etc to the bleep I think are relatively recent. The points system recently introduced is a subtle change to the standard. A recruit passing in 1980/1990/2000 etc may have failed today. Expediency and recruitment standards go hand in hand.
    So if high 'gender neutral' standards were brought in, I'm not sure it would be the end if the world as we know it. The standards need to be high enough for the job. I don't think it is driven by the PC lefty brigade, or the caviar munching officer brigade.
    The countries that have accepted front line women most easily, are the countries where equality is most embedded in their societies and they tend to be less class ridden also. We are a long way behind them unfortunately.
    The safe space idea is a bit silly really. But people should be free to debate, exercise, work, play, anywhere without being ridiculed or subjected to abuse of any kind. Just basic common sense really. And basic respect.
     
    • Disagree. Disagree. x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  2. 24681012

    24681012 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2017
    Posts:
    231
    App Stage:
    Parent
    • Like Like x 2
  3. its_meg

    its_meg Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2017
    Posts:
    55
    App Stage:
    TMU
    I personally disagree with feminists now due to the fact that for the high majority of the time, women and men are on equal levels. There is no need for so much attention to be put on something which in fairness is almost non-existent. If anything I would agree that men are often 'discriminated' against more often as so much attention is on giving women more opportunities etc which men do not have. There are so many other much more significant issues in the world right now yet people seem to wish to focus on something which isn't really a thing anymore!

    In my opinion (it is my opinion, don't hate me for it!), many women just want to find something to complain about and just expect to be given extra opportunities. It seems to be that society has led people to believe this is the correct thing to do which I strongly disagree with. People should be given equal opportunities down to the effort they put in, that is all. If someone cannot meet the standards for the marines, suck it up or train harder, standards shouldn't be changed because of it. Just because women are physically different, they will just have to work harder to pass - determination is one of the values so if you can't try hard enough for it, you shouldn't be joining anyway.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Gen Dit Gen Dit x 1
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2017 at 5:01 PM
  4. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker Careers Adviser

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Posts:
    30,032
    I certainly agree with last sentence (quoted).

    I'm fairly sure the Royal Marines Commando recruit training has evolved over the years to reflect the lessons learned on the field of combat and to increase the odds of being not only able to fight and win, but also minimise the risk of injury or worse in the combat situation.

    The concept, to me, that anyone would be foolish enough to think it acceptable to "adjust" the pass/fail criteria elements of training in a frontline combat unit in order to accommodate any less capable recruit regardless of gender, is frankly beyond belief.
     
    • Like Like x 8
  5. Chelonian

    Chelonian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Posts:
    3,651
    Jodie Whittaker will be the next Dr Who! :eek:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. its_meg

    its_meg Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2017
    Posts:
    55
    App Stage:
    TMU
    That hurts my head...o_O
     
  7. Chelonian

    Chelonian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Posts:
    3,651
    I quite like the notion a Time Lady although I'm uncertain if any standards have been compromised.
     
    • Hoofin Hoofin x 5
    • Like Like x 2
  8. ThreadpigeonsAlpha

    ThreadpigeonsAlpha Royal Marines Commando

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    Posts:
    2,254
    That's because you don't hold a commission so are still in charge of your faculties...

    But it's not about employing "50% of its workforce." It's about employing the best for the job, regardless of gender. With the exception of close combat roles. For reasons already discussed.
    Any such legislation to come in demanding a 50% split of gender is absolutely barking mad.

    They don't want to bring women in for recruitment targets, they want to do it for "equality and diversity" to appear "progressive".
    Standards were driven down by desk jockeys who think they know better, and the financial risk of taking on recruits with previous injuries.

    And absolutely hands down no, a recruit from 1980/1990 will hands down wipe the floor with the standards today. The overall standard across the board back then was a lot higher than today.

    Gender neutral standards are never High, they are dragged down to female standards or inbetween. Take the public services, apart from the fitness standards being a joke, the "gender neutral" standards are relatively low compared to what they were to ensure a higher pass rate for females.
    Read the report and it actively says the fitness standards will be reviewed. Not reviewed for recruitment or reviewed for recruits or reviewed for combat effectivness, but reviewed for "gender neutral standards for females".

    I agree about the safe spaces. But why can't we allow a place for boys to learn basic skills, traditions, values, morals and attitudes to become men. Women would go apesh!t if they didn't have a special place to go, for all women, or if a group suddenly wanted to become male only.

    Common sense would dictate that men and women are different. They are different with sports and athletics, and they are different for combat. Pure and simple.
     
    • Like Like x 8
  9. A350-800

    A350-800 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2016
    Posts:
    188
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    Thankyou, lots to think about :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Chelonian

    Chelonian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Posts:
    3,651
    Hmm... I'm not entirely certain that all standards were higher, particularly in the 1970s. But I agree that standards were definitely different. As the saying goes, "The past is another country." :)
     
    • Like Like x 4
  11. Rossi

    Rossi Royal Marines Commando

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Posts:
    1,278
    • Like Like x 3
    • Gen Dit Gen Dit x 1
  12. 24681012

    24681012 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2017
    Posts:
    231
    App Stage:
    Parent
    Flirting with @Ninja and then this repressed desire to be a girl guide? Just saying, if you want to talk about any issues you have with your gender or sexuality, you should consider this a safe space;)
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Hoofin Hoofin x 1
  13. ThreadpigeonsAlpha

    ThreadpigeonsAlpha Royal Marines Commando

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    Posts:
    2,254
    It's not gay, if it's in combat.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Gen Dit Gen Dit x 2
  14. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker Careers Adviser

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Posts:
    30,032
    One of the things that becomes abundantly clear when reading this thread, is that most parties agree training standards need to be kept as they are to maintain the combat effectiveness of the unit, and indeed for the survivability of those within it.

    The stark truth is an enemy won't be making allowances for gender differences unlike we do in the world of sports - in which we can afford to make allowances and sub divide abilities for those less able, to win prizes. In sport the prize for first or second place is not life or death, to put it bluntly.

    The main issue, from what we can see, is whether it is genuine equality or just plain sexist to apply different standards for entry. From this perspective, whilst it is easy to see the reason for minimising risk and disproportionate cost of compensation for those in a less able category, diversity and equality legislation may well determine that compensation is also due to those discriminated against and denied entry due to their gender. With just one notable exception, it could equally be argued that for 352 years, the Royal Marines did just that previously.

    In short, a minefield.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. 24681012

    24681012 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2017
    Posts:
    231
    App Stage:
    Parent
    I agree. My point was that entry standards have been elastic and recruitment driven. You said recently that those graded c on prmc are passing now , but did not a year ago. That is not the result of women joining. The training and criteria tests should, however remain the same, gender neutral to me, meaning equal and high for the job to be done. We all agree I think.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  16. Caversham

    Caversham Former RM Commando

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Posts:
    2,004
    I firmly believe that if the standards are reduced, then the biggest critics and opponents of the system will be those who are currently serving. We can bump our gums all day long about the effects of reducing standards, but when those first recruits join a Unit after passing out the serving guys will be all over them like a rash if they believe the sprogs are not up to the same standard as themselves.

    Some will construe that as bullying, but the reality is that those who have attained a higher standard will not want, or tolerate, any perception that those joining have had an easier ride than themselves.

    Alan
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Gen Dit Gen Dit x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. 24681012

    24681012 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2017
    Posts:
    231
    App Stage:
    Parent
    For all that, as the second world war progressed , pilots were despatched with just a few hours training, ground forces were enlisted and deployed with virtually no training. There were no fitness training programmes, and the amount of ironing done was minimal. Nutrition was poor for most and rickets were common. We still won.
     
    • Disagree. Disagree. x 8
  18. Illustrious

    Illustrious Royal Marines Commando - Moderator

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,537
    At great cost to resources and more importantly, lives .
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Gen Dit Gen Dit x 2
    • Gucci Info Gucci Info x 1
  19. Chelonian

    Chelonian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Posts:
    3,651
    We won despite those and other adverse factors, not because of them.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  20. Hubb97

    Hubb97 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2012
    Posts:
    366
    App Stage:
    TMU
    Not really been following but am I correct in thinking that the argument is now 'WW2 soldiers weren't trained to high standards and they still 'won''?
    I personally don't mind females being given the opportunity to try as long as they keep to their word and do it the exact same as everyone else has done, despite me thinking that the chances of a female being able to perform as well especially during the load carrying elements isn't that high, in which case I would mind..

    But that argument is shambolic!
     
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2017 at 5:51 PM

Share This Page