Lefty Lunacy of the Day: Water down fitness tests to get girls into close combat

Women are set to join men on the frontline even though a report has said that male colleagues are much stronger.

The study found that “women are built differently to men — higher fat mass, less muscle mass, less cardio output, which leads to greater/quicker energy deficit than men and they have to work harder to achieve the same output”.

But our right-on Army and its political bosses are not deterred. They plan to water down the fitness tests so women can be recruited for close combat.

Colonel Richard Kemp, who commanded British forces in Afghanistan, has warned that “we will have infantry soldiers who are less capable than they are today…I have spoken to people who are serving in the infantry…if women are allowed in, they will leave.”

The Conservative Woman

  • Bogbrush

    Yeah, but they’ll bring greater sensitivity and emotional intelligence to the battlefield.

    • ReefKnot

      Indeed. They will surely bayonet the other guy in the guts with sensitivity and emotional intelligence. It’s a win-win situation. The enemy gets killed, but he feels OK about it. Providing he doesn’t kill you first because he is faster, stronger and considerably more aggressive.

      • SimonToo

        Are you suggesting that the enemy might not be a gentleman?

    • Ned Costello

      They’ll “raise the whole tone of the war” in fact.

  • TheOriginalKingJulian

    If women are fit and capable to vote and run for public office, they are fit and capable to defend the nation in the wars that the government they voted in and are a part of decides to wage. I applaud the recent decisions and look forward to the day when a woman soldier who had her legs blown off with an IED, loses her compensation to her husband in a divorce – like Corporal Simon Vaughan.

    https://archive.is/65Seb

    • Little Black Censored

      “If women are fit and capable to vote and run for public office, they are fit and capable to defend the nation…”
      What a perfectly idiotic non sequitur (unless the “running” is of an extremely physical kind).

    • Anglian Reed

      “If women are fit and capable to vote and run for public office, they are fit and capable to defend the nation in the wars…”

      I agree, but only once they have proven themselves capable of passing the same tests as their male counterparts, without any special concessions.

      The article suggests that concessions are being made for female candidates.

  • Paul Jackson

    “Women are built differently to men” You know I’d always had an inkling that this was the case but I’m glad that we’ve had a study to confirm it.
    Can I suggest another study, to confirm what religion the Pope is?

    • SimonToo

      This may be a new discovery for the forces. Combat kit is not cut differently for women (nor, apparently, is body armour).

    • CRM_114

      I have a copy of ‘Defecation habits of genus Ursus in Boreal Forests’; that any use?

    • I think I’d like to conduct further studies for myself.
      “HEY SUGAR! We’ve got work to do.”

  • derek

    This will end at the first images of dead female soldiers in an overrun position followed by more of female prisoners in the hands of the usual examples of sub-humanity.
    Don’t these people realise that their puerile dogma is going to cost lives?

  • Stephen T

    Male police officers consistently say that they prefer to go to violent incidents alone rather than with women officers. This is because they can give their full attention to defending themselves and not looking out for smaller, weaker colleagues. This doesn’t mean women officers aren’t brave or excellent in other areas.

    I wonder how many soldiers will have to die protecting their female colleagues before this nonsense is stopped. Infantrymen struggle to carry the equipment required, so the standard will have to be lowered for women and in warfare less efficient means more deaths. Research has shown far more injuries for the few women who can get near the required standard. It won’t be long before they’re using this research to sue the MOD.

    • klm

      From what I have heard, during training exercises for mixed units, male soldiers often end up carrying more than their allotted load because they have to help the female soldiers carry theirs. Everyone has their own 60 lb +/- pack to carry, plus additional equipment needed by the unit, which is spread out among everyone. When there are women in the unit, they carry less and the guys carry more. I can’t imagine that this helps with unit efficiency.

      My son is about to enter the army. I will be interested to hear about his own experiences. But I will be livid if he has to put up with this kind of stuff.

  • Mez

    Some women have been soldiering for centuries. Anybody who wants can google and find all the references..masses of them, even through the second world war. Anybody who goes to war and thinks they can entirely avoid being either captured or killed, is living in cloud-cuckoo land. There are simply many different kinds of people with different ideas of how they want to live their lives, and part of a healthy society is recognising that fact, and that not all women are interested in having families or can have them if if they wanted, but still have a right to a life of their choosing, not dictated by some ‘holier than thou’ others. It’s the last thing I’d be interested in, but I wouldn’t deny somebody else, out of some faulty ‘little princess’ ideals.
    Where this situation is at odds with what is best for men, is in the idea of mixed regiments. I can’t think of a reason why there should be mixed regiments, after all it’s possible I’m sure to have women working in areas where there are a lot of women and children in the local population and it’s considered an advantage to have women involved rather than it being an issue for men to be defending them, especially if the group is all female and self reliant.

    article excerpt;
    “Newspaper reports suggested the Army is re-writing its fitness training and tests to recognise physical differences between men and women as it prepares to allow female soldiers to fight on the front line.

    The Chief of the General Staff Sir Nick Carter said.

    “I want to make it very clear that there will be no lowering of training or qualifying levels for soldiers in ground close combat roles.”

    There is expected to be an end to the ban on women joining close combat units – including infantry and armoured regiments – later this year.

    Ahead of that, the paper says it’s seen an MoD document stating that the current physical training for the army is ‘optimised for male physiology’ and that tests are based on old and incomplete science.

    Defence officials are now attempting to identify the “most effective” training methods for female infantry troops – with the main purpose of a review to match more closely a soldier’s fitness to his or her role and the demands of the battlefield”.

    http://forces.tv/87681138

    • Phil R

      Those countries that have tried this experiment and have gone to war, have changed back fairly quickly.

      • Mez

        A feature of warfare which has been in existence for a millenia or more isn’t an experiment. There always have been ‘some’ women who’ve wanted to be soldiers, so dressed as men and gone to war. Read this ..
        http://www.lothene.org/women/women.html

        The Indian National Army (INA) had an all women regiment called the Rani of Jhansi Regiment during WW2. They were involved in active combat in Burma. (info provided by Tina R. Fox – see also an interview with Doctor/Colonel Lakshmi Sahgal)

        David Truby, in “Women at War, A Deadly Species”, quotes unnamed allied POW’s repatirated in 1918 who reported seeing female soldiers in German machine gun crews toward the close of WW1.

        During the Greek Civil War (1943-1947) at least 20% of all combat troops were women.

        Elaine Mordeaux, a French Resistance commander in WW2, led a unit of two hundred guerrillas, about a third of them were women.

        Tito’s Resistance Army in Yugoslavia included more than 100,000 women (partizanka) At least 2,000 women were promoted to officer ranks The first all woman partisan unit in Yugoslavia was formed in the Serbian village of Lika on August 25, 1942, 700 women volunteered for the 110 positions available.

        • Phil R

          These are not the same thing as we are discussing. A successful professional army using women in combat role as infantry.

          BTW If the “Rani of Jhansi” regiment is the best you can come up with……

          • Mez

            What we are discussing, or at least I am, is being able to do what someone is qualified able, and wants to do. Depends on what role in infantry, if it’s a position of sniper or dealing with groups of other women and children then it seems feasible. It’s a question of whether people once enrolled have any say over their future. If women are put in positions they can’t or don’t want to to deal with, end result : no women entering the armed forces.

          • Phil R

            What you are doing is giving mostly all female regiments (often unsuccessful all female regiments from mostly WW2 ) as evidence to the to support the lunacy that our leftist Government has imposed on the services.

            The fact remains that other professional armies that have tried integrating women and men in a combat role together. The vast majority have then abandoned the experiment when the reality of war came along.

    • This is a bad idea. Not because of some “little princess” ideal…never mind that not all little princesses are soft. I’m a Southerner (U.S.) and the strength of Southern women, during wartime, is legendary with us.
      This particular aspect of combat needs to be conducted at the highest possible physical standard. The lower the standard the greater the risk. It’s as dangerous as every other attempt to deny biology…only there are bullets.

      • Mez

        The MOD say they are not reducing standards, they are changing outdated standards. Bullets are released by a gun- doesn’t require a lot of muscle to use a gun, or drive a tank. Look at some pics of female body builders, athletes, are they denying nature ? .

        • Mez

          before and after steroids- even before steroids thse women are very muscled. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvSkUvLFMiU..and this is by no means a one off…

        • Phil R

          “Look at some pics of female body builders”

          I would rather not, especially after I have eaten.

        • Raddiy

          In 1982 in the Falklands, the Royal Marines yomped (walked) 56 miles in 3 days with 80lb packs on their backs, carrying all the ammunition and food they needed after the task force lost most of its helicopters when the Atlantic Conveyor was sunk. On arrival they immediately fought intensive battles assaulting entrenched mountain defences.

          With no disrespect, few women could carry an 80lb pack on their backs for a few yards never mind 56miles across marshy ground, because they generally are not physically designed to do so, however fit they may actually be. Their presence in the Royal Marines in 1982 may well have stopped the attempt to walk to Port Stanley, as they would not have been able to carry all the supplies they needed, and the result of the conflict may well have had a different outcome.

          Always remember a military plan never survives the first shot. Any strategy to include women has to be based on the idea that one day they will have to do a Falklands type yomp if the arrangements put in place to help them to adapt are not available. It’s called the fog of war, and it doesn’t pay lip service to equality or politically correct agendas.

  • Gimme Some Fightin’ Room

    Yet another ‘feel good cause’ from the political left. This psuedo-idealism is simply madness – it’s a purely selfish act because the liberal/left want to take the moral high ground and feel good about themselves – even if it does cost soldiers their lives. It is completely dishonest of them to give the false impression that female combat soldiers can match their male counterparts on the front-line. Unfortunately, this sort of warped exaggerated thinking is skyrocketing and underlies the dysfunctional liberal-left mindset – a built-in selfishness to make themselves feel good rather than what is good for (in this case) the army – an important tool in defending our freedoms from potential aggressors.

    This feel-good selfishness is preventing us from making sound decisions and unless things change soon then this insane self-gratifying mindset (a characteristic of the left) will lead us all down a path from which we may never recover.

  • Dave S

    Not quite as stupid as it looks. The reality is that men are much stronger and argument against is pointless but this is about something else.

    The army is one of the last bastions of old Britain not yet taken over by the long march through the institutions by the cultural marxists. This is a new front in that war these people declared on society and on conservatism.

    In the coming inevitable disintegration of European society and the attendant need to control a restless population particularly here in GB the current elites will need a compliant army. The police are already thoroughly compromised .

    A weakened and demoralised army is what the elite wants. I am not surprised that the pushing for women front line soldiers comes from the politicians and ,I assume ,that dreadful bullying Cameron creature – as obvious a cultural marxist as ever I have seen.

    • JB

      I think this is correct. I think it will have a knock on effect on the quality and character of male recruits.

      One of the reason men currently join the army is to prove their manhood, both to themselves, and to society at large. As standards drop to allow women to serve, so will the perceived manliness and worth of being a soldier. Stronger men will stop enlisting and look elsewhere to prove themselves. Weaker men, who previously would have been rejected, will now be able to serve, and they may be happy to prove a lesser manliness within the new softer, feminised soldiering. Deep down they will know they are frauds, and to compensate may be more willing to follow dubious orders, that men of stronger character may reject. Like opening fire on an angry mob of their own countrymen.

  • andyrft

    I insist that this happens, the army should be 50:50, for every man a woman, by conscription, forced if need be.

    Then I will sit back and laugh as they all run away or die.

    Then we can stop this silliness.

    • Mez

      ..there cant be anything more silly than unnecessary conscription to prove a sexist agenda

      • Phil R

        The thing is that it is likely that there will be conscription at some point and your lunacy will then ensure that my daughters (who would not last 5 min, regardless of training) will be up there and placed in harms way.

  • Phil R

    The issue is that there are not enough fit young men volunteering for the army.

    Perhaps sending them off to recent wars, with a thick rule book (hands tied behind their backs) and threat of a murder charge, if you make the wrong decision in a split second, is acting as a bit of a deterrent?