Women in the Marines.

Status
Not open for further replies.

RedCoat

Active Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2017
Posts
54
Reaction score
11
Not quite sure where to put this. Im sure its been asked many of times but, honestly what does everybody think about women being able to join in 2018?

In my opinion is that im to happy with this as what will eventually happen is standards will be lowered just to accommodate women getting in. The truth is the training is just too difficult for women. Most adult males wouldn’t even attempt to do it. When you think of the Royal Marines you think of the elite soldiers. You think of people who go through hell everyday. This is because of the extremely high standards the Royal Marines have set. I believe once women come in this will all change. As the marines will have to change everything in order for women to make the selection.

The truth is the genetics of women means that doing everything the comando does will be twice as difficult for women. I have no problem with women doing other roles. And there are plenty of others. But this seems to that this is anothering thing the government is trying to shove at us with all this political correctness nonsense.
I dunno thats my opinion,would actually like to see what others think about this out of interest. Thanks!
 

Cuzza22297

Valuable Contributor
Joined
Feb 19, 2017
Posts
274
Reaction score
154
You have to be a certain kind of person to become a royal marine and earn that green beret, and that type of person isn't exclusively male. However, there is no denying that woman's bodies are less suited to training and the chances of injury are considerably higher. For a start, I believe the minimum weight of 65kg is there to prevent lighter individuals carrying bergens that are too heavy for their frame. This has already been reduced for females, so will they be carrying less kit? Or will they just have to make do? The weight of 65kg was chosen for a reason, gender should have nothing to do with it.
Of course there will be some woman who pass out of training as Royal Marines, but are the 2/3 a year (obviously guesstimating) who do worth the cost of converting CTCRM into a place where females can live aswell (female sleeping areas and toilets for example).

If the selection process and training remains unchanged then I'd have no problem serving with a woman, however is it worth it for the small minority that would earn the green beret? Personally, I think not.
 

JWJ

Venerated Contributor
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Posts
793
Reaction score
383
This horse really is getting flogged into the afterlife..

what will eventually happen is standards will be lowered just to accommodate women getting in.
Speculation and assumption.

The truth is the training is just too difficult for women.
There are undoubtedly some biological women who are capable both mentally and physically of achieving the standards and passing out of training.

The truth is the genetics of women means that doing everything the comando does will be twice as difficult for women.
What genetics would that be, exactly?

converting CTCRM into a place where females can live aswell (female sleeping areas and toilets for example).
Only conversion I'm aware of is adding female showers. All other aspects will be shared.

My personal view is if the woman can pass the same tests, criteria and program as the male applicant, and preform to the same standard expected of a male recruit/Marine, then as long as it doesn't completely erode unit cohesion and professionalism and cause a increased risk to the individuals, then I'd support it.

However, as I'm sure TPA will point out, criteria has already changed. Women already come with a significantly higher risk of future injury than a male - past the point where the male would be made PMU due to this risk.

I believe we're approaching it the wrong way and should of instead conducted a study into the idea of allowing women into frontline direct combat roles, and properly reviewing it - govt scrutinise the procurement of live-saving and needed kit to the penny; why not this?
 

Rover

Moderator
Joined
Oct 23, 2008
Posts
3,815
Reaction score
5,904
Devastating for morale - and a threat to life: COLONEL RICHARD KEMP on the allegations submarine officers were having affairs

By Colonel Richard Kemp For The Daily Mail

Published: 01:09, 9 October 2017 | Updated: 01:15, 9 October 2017

The news that officers aboard a British nuclear submarine on active patrol threatened to resign, because both the captain and his second-in-command were alleged to be having affairs with female crew members, is terrifying – but not surprising.

It is impossible to imagine a more serious setting for a crisis in morale than HMS Vigilant, one of the four Vanguard subs that form our country’s round-the-clock Trident nuclear deterrent at sea.

But it was sadly inevitable, given the Government’s insistence that men and women must serve alongside each other wherever our Armed Forces are on duty – on battleships, on the front line, from the first day of training, and even in submarines.

I am quite certain we’re hearing this story only because of the seniority of the ranks involved. Commander Stuart Armstrong and his executive officer [XO], the boat’s No 2, have both been removed from their posts. It is unprecedented for both the commander and the XO of a nuclear sub to be suspended simultaneously. But affairs between lower ranks are commonplace, and they can have equally catastrophic effects on morale and unit cohesion.

The situation is so bad that, in the two years up to last December, 36 Army recruits became pregnant during basic training. So did 15 RAF and ten Navy recruits. That’s about one young woman per fortnight.

It is not a new problem. More than 100 servicewomen were evacuated from Iraq during the years following the overthrow of Saddam because they were pregnant: Military rules forbid expectant mothers from active duty in a war zone. It was a similar story in Afghanistan – though in September 2012, quite unbelievably, a Lance Bombardier gave birth at Camp Bastion in Helmand province. Four days earlier, the Army base had repelled a Taliban attack.

Every pregnant soldier is a loss to her unit, in an Army already undermanned and compromised by defence cuts. But the effect on morale is incalculable. Soldiers have to be able to trust each other with their lives. The camaraderie of an active unit is crucial – and it can be ripped to shreds by the petty jealousies that simmer when two of the squad embark on a relationship together.

There is no more certain way to damage a tight-knit team than with sex. But put men and women together, especially in the pressure cooker situations of a combat zone or a submarine on active duty, and sex will be the result.

Politicians obsessed with political correctness are desperate to impose gender equality everywhere, including the Armed Forces. They ignore the fact that the Army, Navy and Air Force are like no other employer. There is nothing comparable to being a combat soldier.

There is a pretence in government that men are the same as women, and that all soldiers are machines that can control their desires. Neither is true. Men and women are different, physically and emotionally. And if there’s one force of nature that is even stronger than the best military discipline, it’s the human sexual urge. As a senior Army officer, before I retired from active service in 2006, I dealt with numerous cases of sexual misconduct between troops.

I lost count of the number of men who told me they ‘couldn’t help it’ and the Army was unfairly placing temptation in front of them. I didn’t condone their behaviour, but I did sympathise. The cost to morale was horrendous, not just in the unit but back at home. How many wives are now tortured by the fear not only that their husbands might be killed, but that they could be unfaithful?

And if senior officers also ‘can’t help it’ and give in to their sexual instincts, how can they possibly exert the self-control to treat their lovers as ordinary crew members? A commander must show no favouritism, or his men will never be able to trust him. The moment a senior officer begins an affair with a junior, that trust is breached.

It is too late to reverse the MOD’s politically-correct decision that forces men and women to serve beside each other everywhere. But as long as this continues, there will be sexual affairs – and the consequences will sometimes be fatal.

Colonel Richard Kemp commanded British forces in Afghanistan, and is a former member of the Joint Intelligence Committee and COBRA.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4961286/COLONEL-RICHARD-KEMP-allegations-officers-affairs.html#ixzz4uzjBOqQu
 

ThreadpigeonsAlpha

Royal Marines Commando
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Posts
5,051
Reaction score
7,689
A bit tired of this topic, been flogged to death.

And this is why maybe the old threads need reinstated and locked to prevent reply? Every single avenue and argument was covered and debated.

In short @RedCoat and @Cuzza22297 this topic has been covered at least twice before. Majority are unhappy with it, stating that different standards appear in other branchs. But politics wins out.

It's a politically charged social experiment that has been rushed, not fully thought through and panders to the regressive left and political correctness.
 

Ninja_Stoker

Admin
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Posts
35,358
Reaction score
17,485
A bit tired of this topic, been flogged to death.

And this is why maybe the old threads need reinstated and locked to prevent reply? Every single avenue and argument was covered and debated.

In short @RedCoat and @Cuzza22297 this topic has been covered at least twice before. Majority are unhappy with it, stating that different standards appear in other branchs. But politics wins out.
Fully concur.

An emotive topic but in the name of true equality, in the assumption standards will not be changed (yeah, I know, I know...), previous attempts to discuss the topic have revealed a dedicated thread singling-out BAME-related topics are counter-productive.

In other words, a female query is no different to a male query in the furtherance of true equality, hence no female-specific threads.
 

Cuzza22297

Valuable Contributor
Joined
Feb 19, 2017
Posts
274
Reaction score
154
Apologies, I was not particularly active on the forum during the other discussions.
 

RedCoat

Active Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2017
Posts
54
Reaction score
11
This horse really is getting flogged into the afterlife..


Speculation and assumption.


There are undoubtedly some biological women who are capable both mentally and physically of achieving the standards and passing out of training.


What genetics would that be, exactly?


Only conversion I'm aware of is adding female showers. All other aspects will be shared.

My personal view is if the woman can pass the same tests, criteria and program as the male applicant, and preform to the same standard expected of a male recruit/Marine, then as long as it doesn't completely erode unit cohesion and professionalism and cause a increased risk to the individuals, then I'd support it.

However, as I'm sure TPA will point out, criteria has already changed. Women already come with a significantly higher risk of future injury than a male - past the point where the male would be made PMU due to this risk.

I believe we're approaching it the wrong way and should of instead conducted a study into the idea of allowing women into frontline direct combat roles, and properly reviewing it - govt scrutinise the procurement of live-saving and needed kit to the penny; why not this?

Female bodys are almost completely different to mens. Like there tissue with higher fat and less muscle, women will also have to carry less and mosy likely eat more with all the high exercises. There is no doubt a few women will be able to do it but the majority will not pass. We have seen standards being lowered in all different types of branches of the military. I personally dont think there is any point in allowing women to do think that are more difficult for them to do. This can put them in danger and everyone else for that matter.
 

JWJ

Venerated Contributor
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Posts
793
Reaction score
383
There is no doubt a few women will be able to do it but the majority will not pass.
This statement is true regardless of gender.

Don't take me as not agreeing with your view, I'm merely trying to point out holes in your argument for the sake of an arguement ;)
 

its_meg

Valuable Contributor
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Posts
239
Reaction score
340
I personally dont think there is any point in allowing women to do think that are more difficult for them to do.
Just because it may be more difficult that means they shouldn't be allowed to do it? Surely it proves something to you that they will do whatever it takes and put in the graft for it?
 

drgraphics

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2017
Posts
25
Reaction score
7
Just because it may be more difficult that means they shouldn't be allowed to do it? Surely it proves something to you that they will do whatever it takes and put in the graft for it?
Exactly. If you have that 'state of mind' and are determined enough, the efforts will be there and proven. No requirements should be changed and everyone should be equal. The marines aren't about the 30miles and whatnot, it's about having that state of mind to push through the pain barrier and prove you are strong mentally and physically. I see no reason why female's shouldn't be allowed to do it, but at the end of the day I understand everyone has mixed views on the topic.

My opinion isn't anything really, just believe the standards shouldn't change and if they want it enough they'll be prepared for anything and have that certain state of mind to just get on with it.
 

ivywavexxi

Active Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2017
Posts
61
Reaction score
44
I came across this thread on the army forum:
https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/proposed-training-changes-post-army-2020.267612/

“The draft white paper proposes to concentrate infantry training on two sites within the UK, these would be a single ATR for tri-service infantry phase 1 and phase 2 training. This super ATR would effectively run like a Corps Depot for Army infantry, RAF Regiment and Royal Marines on a common training syllabus. After phase 2 successful soldiers would be asked to specialise and would then be posted to a battalion. The exception for this would be those going for Royal Marines or Parachute Regiment service.

Specialist infantry would attend 3 months at a combined training centre on a course based upon the All Arms Commando Course. This would likely remain at Lympstone. Also joining this course would be those non-infantry soldiers volunteering for Commando or Airborne units. A shortened Army Reserve course would also be introduced. Those who complete the course would be able to select Parachute Regiment or Royal Marines subject to available posts in their chosen unit.”

Looks like potentially there will be a massive shake up in training across the services; which will be much bigger than just women joining combat roles.
 

Banshee

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Posts
1,515
Reaction score
683
Just because it may be more difficult that means they shouldn't be allowed to do it? Surely it proves something to you that they will do whatever it takes and put in the graft for it?
I came across this thread on the army forum:
https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/proposed-training-changes-post-army-2020.267612/

“The draft white paper proposes to concentrate infantry training on two sites within the UK, these would be a single ATR for tri-service infantry phase 1 and phase 2 training. This super ATR would effectively run like a Corps Depot for Army infantry, RAF Regiment and Royal Marines on a common training syllabus. After phase 2 successful soldiers would be asked to specialise and would then be posted to a battalion. The exception for this would be those going for Royal Marines or Parachute Regiment service.

Specialist infantry would attend 3 months at a combined training centre on a course based upon the All Arms Commando Course. This would likely remain at Lympstone. Also joining this course would be those non-infantry soldiers volunteering for Commando or Airborne units. A shortened Army Reserve course would also be introduced. Those who complete the course would be able to select Parachute Regiment or Royal Marines subject to available posts in their chosen unit.”

Looks like potentially there will be a massive shake up in training across the services; which will be much bigger than just women joining combat roles.
-yawn--yawn--yawn--yawn--yawn--yawn-
 

Banshee

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Posts
1,515
Reaction score
683
Just because it may be more difficult that means they shouldn't be allowed to do it? Surely it proves something to you that they will do whatever it takes and put in the graft for it?
You’ve got paper thin legs in your picture good luck
 

Cuzza22297

Valuable Contributor
Joined
Feb 19, 2017
Posts
274
Reaction score
154
I came across this thread on the army forum:
https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/proposed-training-changes-post-army-2020.267612/

“The draft white paper proposes to concentrate infantry training on two sites within the UK, these would be a single ATR for tri-service infantry phase 1 and phase 2 training. This super ATR would effectively run like a Corps Depot for Army infantry, RAF Regiment and Royal Marines on a common training syllabus. After phase 2 successful soldiers would be asked to specialise and would then be posted to a battalion. The exception for this would be those going for Royal Marines or Parachute Regiment service.

Specialist infantry would attend 3 months at a combined training centre on a course based upon the All Arms Commando Course. This would likely remain at Lympstone. Also joining this course would be those non-infantry soldiers volunteering for Commando or Airborne units. A shortened Army Reserve course would also be introduced. Those who complete the course would be able to select Parachute Regiment or Royal Marines subject to available posts in their chosen unit.”

Looks like potentially there will be a massive shake up in training across the services; which will be much bigger than just women joining combat roles.

I would be very, VERY surprised (and horrified) if that happened. Finers crossed those making the decisions see sense.

As the saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
 

ThreadpigeonsAlpha

Royal Marines Commando
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Posts
5,051
Reaction score
7,689
I came across this thread on the army forum:
https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/proposed-training-changes-post-army-2020.267612/

“The draft white paper proposes to concentrate infantry training on two sites within the UK, these would be a single ATR for tri-service infantry phase 1 and phase 2 training. This super ATR would effectively run like a Corps Depot for Army infantry, RAF Regiment and Royal Marines on a common training syllabus. After phase 2 successful soldiers would be asked to specialise and would then be posted to a battalion. The exception for this would be those going for Royal Marines or Parachute Regiment service.

Specialist infantry would attend 3 months at a combined training centre on a course based upon the All Arms Commando Course. This would likely remain at Lympstone. Also joining this course would be those non-infantry soldiers volunteering for Commando or Airborne units. A shortened Army Reserve course would also be introduced. Those who complete the course would be able to select Parachute Regiment or Royal Marines subject to available posts in their chosen unit.”

Looks like potentially there will be a massive shake up in training across the services; which will be much bigger than just women joining combat roles.

It's nothing new. The pen pushing, bright idea fairies that fly desks have been pushing that idea for ages. And so far it's been punted. Because it's literally the most sh!t idea ever envisaged.

Look at when they tried to do it with Canada. Not only is it a massive failure of an idea, it's also a big slap in the face to the men and women that have laid down their lives. Just to be shat on by short sighted accountants, politicians and the regressive left.

And it still won't change the degradation of combat units with the inclusion of females, it will just see he degradation of the entire British Military.

The Canadians tried it and failed. And who have we helping advice our military right now? Ah yes. The Canadians. We don't need espirit de corps lads. We just need one big Regiment that we can all hug and eat granola and be nice to each other. I have said it all along. Along with that toilet Juncker gobbing off about an EU Army. The arseh0le.

Get in and get your green lid now lads. While it still means something. If that tri-service bollocks happens, I will gladly send my beret and medals back and the heirarchy and the politicians can ram them.
 

RedCoat

Active Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2017
Posts
54
Reaction score
11
It's nothing new. The pen pushing, bright idea fairies that fly desks have been pushing that idea for ages. And so far it's been punted. Because it's literally the most sh!t idea ever envisaged.

Look at when they tried to do it with Canada. Not only is it a massive failure of an idea, it's also a big slap in the face to the men and women that have laid down their lives. Just to be shat on by short sighted accountants, politicians and the regressive left.

And it still won't change the degradation of combat units with the inclusion of females, it will just see he degradation of the entire British Military.

The Canadians tried it and failed. And who have we helping advice our military right now? Ah yes. The Canadians. We don't need espirit de corps lads. We just need one big Regiment that we can all hug and eat granola and be nice to each other. I have said it all along. Along with that toilet Juncker gobbing off about an EU Army. The arseh0le.

Get in and get your green lid now lads. While it still means something. If that tri-service bollocks happens, I will gladly send my beret and medals back and the heirarchy and the politicians can ram them.

Spot on. What it seems to me is the government is trying to take away our military little bits at a time, to push for this EU ARMY. Bloody stupid if you ask me. arent 1000 royal marines supposed to be losing there jobs, Plus the 2 landing ships?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Threads

Top