Well, yes, obviously, who didn’t know this?

Army chiefs have launched a probe into whether tough military training is leaving thousands of female soldiers infertile.
They fear gruelling drills could be damaging the reproductive systems of young recruits, after evidence from the sports world showed one in four young female athletes struggles to conceive due to tough training schedules.
Now concerns are rife among leading medical experts in the British Armed Forces that many of the 16,000 serving women soldiers could also be affected.

Women who do gruelling training regimes tend to stop menstruating as their body fat drops.

And?

It’s temporary.

And, umm, isn’t this what we actually want? People who are front line troops don’t take 2 years off now and again?

42 comments on “Well, yes, obviously, who didn’t know this?

  1. The purported female World football champions got hammered 5-2 by a bunch of 15-year-olds the other day. But apparently putting women in the front line is a brilliant idea.

  2. Really, Tim?

    You can’t see that maybe it’s important we’re not doing this unintentionally, to those who have not given informed consent?

  3. Nope, what we want are Armed Forces that are fit for light peacekeeping, provided they don’t have to exert themselves too much 🙁

  4. “what we want are Armed Forces that are fit for light peacekeeping, provided they don’t have to exert themselves too much ”

    And that can go home early to look after their poorly child whenever they like.

  5. “You don’t “consent” to reality. It happens anyway”

    Excellent point, much hated by the left. They prefer to lower the bar for those struggling with reality so that all cnn succeed. Unfortunately those lowered bar success stories are utterly unfit for purpose whenever unalloyed reality applies (as in war).

  6. Women are on average pretty badly disadvantaged compared to men when it comes to fighting, killing and being at war. This is just a fact, not a policical statement. There are a few tough women who might make it so let them try if they want to. But don’t change anything to make it easier.

    The next logical step to lowering entry standards for women in the army is s blind fighter pilots, wheelchair bound marines, diabetic SAS. It’s all fucking stupid and people need to say so frequently because we no longer live in a world where physical disadvantage is as starkly noticable as it one was.

  7. So some female ‘soldier’ will soon sue the MoD on the grounds that the training allegedly made her infertile. And all because of two stupid dogmas: that all occupations must be open to both sexes, and that all public service providers must be representative of the population they serve.

  8. They are rather putting the infant in infantry.

    I don’t mind some women in the military as discussed before – they can be useful. But I am getting close to thinking we should call their bluff and create an all female combat unit and send them out to bat somewhere.

  9. But I am getting close to thinking we should call their bluff and create an all female combat unit and send them out to bat somewhere.

    The US Navy tried this in, iIrc, the Military Sealift Command. It worked as well as anybody who has ever watched any all or largely female organisation would have expected.

  10. Women are on average pretty badly disadvantaged compared to men when it comes to fighting, killing

    Except for the married ones.

  11. “Jim
    April 9, 2017 at 10:46 am
    And that can go home early to look after their poorly child whenever they like.”

    Ugh, now you’re giving me flashbacks. BM1, I need to take the day off, my kid has a medical appointment. Why can’t your wife take him? Because she has to work. So do you.

    “The US Navy tried this in, iIrc, the Military Sealift Command. It worked as well as anybody who has ever watched any all or largely female organisation would have expected.”

    I’m sorry, but the MSC was never an all-female unit and was never stood up to be one. It did have a large percentage of women in it – but it was never ‘largely’ women – because in the 1980’s/90’s those were one of the few seagoing billets women were allowed to take.

    And after having served alongside, under, and over women for almost 2 decades I can tell you they work just fine in the Navy. Physically, I fully agree that the average woman is woefully under-strength to serve in an infantry unit. Very little of the military (in any service, in any combatant unit, even the Army) is infantry.

  12. @Agammamon

    I’ve often got into discussions with SMFS re women in the British army – I think they have a place in eg intelligence when fighting in places where talking to women alone can be very useful but can also cause almost more trouble than it’s worth.

    Re Navy roles do you not have situations where you train up a radar operator and then lose them to motherhood just as they are starting to know what they’re doing?

  13. When we did Wrens at Sea (before I escaped to sludgemarines), the one structural thing they had to do is to replace all the Ops Room chairs with wider ones.

    The Ops Room stations were the only ones with integral fitted chairs. I presume a number of the other chairs had to be “arse enhanced” too.

  14. “having served alongside, under, and over women for almost 2 decades I can tell you they work just fine in the Navy”

    Thing is women have never been exposed to proper sustained combat in any arm of the services, so we will never know what their reaction will be until they are. I don’t know if you’re talking about the Royal or US Navy, but neither have been in serious all out combat situations in the last 2 decades where the other guys aren’t a bunch of towel heads waving AK47s somewhere a long way away. Operating ‘just fine’ when there’s no incoming is one thing, operating efficiently when all hell is breaking loose is another. We know men can hack that, we have no idea if women can. Hopefully we won’t have to find out the hard way that they can’t.

  15. I can tell you they work just fine in the Navy.

    As mentioned above, that’s fine so long as you consider ‘The Navy’ to be just a way to cruise around the world to exotic destinations at taxpayers’ expense.

    But what happens in real combat, when the ship is hit, it’s on fire, and there’s a wounded 200lb man who needs to be carried up to the deck for evacuation?

    If I remember correctly, the US Navy tested that scenario with female recruits, then promptly forgot about it because the results were so bad.

  16. “It worked as well as anybody who has ever watched any all or largely female organisation would have expected.”

    When The Apprentice first started and was reasonably serious I knew a couple of accomplished women who were appalled by the way the women’s teams operated in the early stages. Sadly that has been my experience of all women groups.

    “Operating ‘just fine’ when there’s no incoming is one thing, operating efficiently when all hell is breaking loose is another. We know men can hack that, we have no idea if women can. Hopefully we won’t have to find out the hard way that they can’t.”

    Its extremes of the bell curve but one of our team in the Falklands War had a nervous breakdown just after it finished and had been struggling since we left Ascension. I also had to remind more than one you soldier in Germany and Cyprus that mutilation and death were occupational hazards as they thought they were in it for a jolly during recessions.

    Even the men got lax during the 70’s and 80’s where the only risks were in NI.

  17. Women are much more prone to anxiety than men and they cope less well with pressure. They have no place in military combat.

  18. Jim

    “Thing is women have never been exposed to proper sustained combat in any arm of the services, so we will never know what their reaction will be until they are.”

    We do actually know, not a large amount of data, but there has been enough information to know that women, largely, give up fighting very rapidly.

  19. So look at services where women have served in combat arms.
    The women tend to be OK except when lots of physical strength is called for. The males serving with them tend to have some issues.
    But that is for the males to sort out, not the females.

    As for an all female unit as Interested suggested, that would be an interesting budgetary issue. Every unit around them would be out on training exercises on a regular basis. Think of it – women who live together often find their periods start to sync. Can you imagine a combat unit with PMS?

    A training course at some place 50 miles away that week – and 50 applicants per place!

  20. Edward M. Grant,

    The US Navy and Royal Navy both have the same experience from their (rather realistic) training at places like HMS Excellent, on the Sea Survival Course, as well as from damage in places like the Falklands and the Gulf: when a 200lb sailor needs to be hauled out, it’s a two-person lift. When AB Mongo tries to lift them out and up a ladder solo, you get two casualties for the price of one. (And this is why the RN Fitness Test has an age- and gender-independent strength element, to simulate – among other things – carrying one end of a stretcher, or half a Godiva pump, or two canisters of AFFF)

    An acquaintance who used to run the Sea Survival Course was involved in a test; unsurprisingly, all-male teams beat all-female teams, simply because some jobs benefited from AB Mongo and the female teams were less likely to include one. However, an 80/20 male/female mix – typical higher-end female mix – outperformed both single-sex teams, with Thom’s opinion being that the men were peacocking while the women were determined not to be the weak links; for whatever reason, it worked.

    What does matter, and what is quietly but firmly in place, is that SSC failures of either gender don’t go to sea. When I went through, on the abbreviated Embarked Forces course, one Royal Marine was knocked back because he couldn’t make himself go down the ladder into a dark compartment that was on fire (not sure if it was claustrophobia or fear of the flames). He’d have had another chance before being binned, but until he could pass EFSSC he wasn’t getting on ship for more than a day cruise.

  21. We do know, not a lot of data, but enough to know that around 2,000 Soviet women served as snipers in WWII and 1500 of them died fighting before they gave up. Their top sniper had over 300 confirmed kills. Elsewhere in the same war soviet women formed all women bomber squadrons and flew thousands of missions, often multiple missions in the same night. I guess the Germans must have been relieved as these women all probably gave up fighting rapidly. After killing thousands of Germans.

    I concede that these actual happenings may not outweigh vague unattributed anecdotes but there you go.

  22. “Jim

    Thing is women have never been exposed to proper sustained combat in any arm of the services, so we will never know what their reaction will be until they are”

    Yes they have. Soviet women fought as snipers, bomber crews, tank crews and anti-aircraft artillery crews. Did they all give up fighting rapidly? Seemingly not.

    In the UK, women flew as delivery pilots meaning flying unarmed fighters from factory to squadron airfields and as pilot only in bombers, often with zero hours training on the particular plane they were flying. Many died, because they got lost and crashed or flew into bad weather and crashed, or their engines failed and they crashed or their planes fell apart in mid air. So when they took off they knew they were risking their lives but as far as I am aware none of them gave up.

    Elsewhere, throughout history women have risked their lives in resistance armies and as spies. Many thousands dying as a result.

    Did some of them give up and start crying? Undoubtedly but so did many men. In fact in 1917 virtually the entire French army said “fuck this for a lark, we’re not getting out of our trenches any more”. In WWII the US army reckoned 6 weeks was about as much as the average bloke could take in the front line before going ga-ga.

    But so what to all this? I doubt the average bloke would make a good soldier. The fact that the average woman isn’t as physically strong as the average man matters only if war is fought as an arm wrestle between average people.

    Anyone who thinks there aren’t enough women who are mentally strong enough to kill and physically strong enough to perform plenty of roles in the armed forces can’t have met many women.

  23. AndrewC – “We do know, not a lot of data, but enough to know that around 2,000 Soviet women served as snipers in WWII and 1500 of them died fighting before they gave up.”

    No we do not. What we do know is that the Soviet regime – which lied about everything – was ideologically committed to proving women could do anything a man could do and lied extensively about their war effort. That is all we know.

    Well that and the fact that millions of Soviet women served as “Campaign Wives” so that the soldiers could have some sex.

    “I concede that these actual happenings may not outweigh vague unattributed anecdotes but there you go.”

    These are not actual happenings. They are propaganda claims.

    Andrew C – “Yes they have. Soviet women fought as snipers, bomber crews, tank crews and anti-aircraft artillery crews. Did they all give up fighting rapidly? Seemingly not.”

    The question ought to be Did they fight at all? Did the Soviets simply make it all up?

    “In the UK, women flew as delivery pilots meaning flying unarmed fighters from factory to squadron airfields and as pilot only in bombers, often with zero hours training on the particular plane they were flying. Many died, because they got lost and crashed or flew into bad weather and crashed, or their engines failed and they crashed or their planes fell apart in mid air.”

    So they did not fight. They flew in safe areas. And many did not die. Because the UK did not lose many soldiers in World War Two much less pilots much less female pilots. But I am sure many of those that did die, died because they were not particularly good pilots. Like Amelia Earhart.

    “So when they took off they knew they were risking their lives but as far as I am aware none of them gave up.”

    As far as you are aware.

    “Elsewhere, throughout history women have risked their lives in resistance armies and as spies. Many thousands dying as a result.”

    No they have not. Throughout history women have served one function in the military – in the supine position. Nothing much else. WW2 is a little bit of an exception but not by much.

    “In fact in 1917 virtually the entire French army said “fuck this for a lark, we’re not getting out of our trenches any more”.”

    After a tenth of the male population of the country had died.

    In every war America has fought since Panama a female soldier has refused orders to do something dangerous. None of them have been charged.

    “The fact that the average woman isn’t as physically strong as the average man matters only if war is fought as an arm wrestle between average people.”

    And yet war continues to demand everything that a soldier can offer – including all his physical strength. As British soldiers found when their female deadweights refused to dig fox holes – or throw grenades. Strength matters.

    “Anyone who thinks there aren’t enough women who are mentally strong enough to kill and physically strong enough to perform plenty of roles in the armed forces can’t have met many women.”

    B0ll0cks. Women lack the ability to kill. Which is why rape is such a physically safe pass time. Rapists are almost never killed by women – even when their victims are armed.

  24. Jason Lynch – “The US Navy and Royal Navy both have the same experience from their (rather realistic) training at places like HMS Excellent, on the Sea Survival Course, as well as from damage in places like the Falklands and the Gulf: when a 200lb sailor needs to be hauled out, it’s a two-person lift.”

    Or a four person lift if they are women. The US and Royal Navies have dumbed down their standards until women can pass. They have not had good results. They have lied about what women can do. There is no gender-neutral strength test.

    Although I did like the female sailor who sued the RN for demanding she turn out on parade when asked to – and won.

  25. “Re Navy roles do you not have situations where you train up a radar operator and then lose them to motherhood just as they are starting to know what they’re doing?”

    Sure. There have even been women who’ve deliberately gotten pregnant just to get out of a (6 month) deployment. But, frankly, those people were of the ‘warm body filling the billet’ variety at best and, at worst, you’re *glad* they’re gone for a while because they were negative-work generators (ie, the created more work than they accomplished – a net drain on the division).

    And let’s not forget paternity leave also – its not like dudes don’t disappear for a couple months when the baby pops either.

    But neither of those was the norm. And, this is the military. If anyone is unreplacable (even the CO) at a moment’s notice then the unit’s leadership is incompetent.

  26. “Surreptitious Evil
    April 9, 2017 at 5:26 pm

    MSC was never an all-female unit

    Never said it was. But, again iirc, they did do cat ships. Single units crewed entirely by splits.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Sealift_Command

    Gives a good overview. MSC is a *naval auxiliary* organization. The Navy owns the ships but the ships crewed by civilians with naval detachments onboard to handle navy specific functions (underway/vertical replenishment, communications, medical).

    Those civilian crews are/were mixed but predominately male. A lot of the naval detachments were majorly female at the lower ranks but, as a customer of theirs for years, I can say that the quality of service was as good as anything from the combatant side of the fleet.

    There may have been all-female detachments but that would have been a matter of randomness in assignment rather than a deliberate decision. OTOH, my personal knowledge only covers the 1990+ timeframe. What they might have been doing in 1950 is too far in the past for me.

    As a personal aside – calling female sailors/soldiers ‘splits’ seems unnecessarily insulting.

  27. “Edward M. Grant
    April 9, 2017 at 8:05 pm

    I can tell you they work just fine in the Navy.

    As mentioned above, that’s fine so long as you consider ‘The Navy’ to be just a way to cruise around the world to exotic destinations at taxpayers’ expense.

    But what happens in real combat, when the ship is hit, it’s on fire, and there’s a wounded 200lb man who needs to be carried up to the deck for evacuation?

    If I remember correctly, the US Navy tested that scenario with female recruits, then promptly forgot about it because the results were so bad.”

    That’s what we train for. And he’s not 200 pounds. He’s 200 pounds plus another 75 of firefighting gear. And the compartment is filled with smoke, and the lights are off. And you have to stuff him through an 18 in diameter scuttle.

    That’s why we train as teams as there are very few guys who could move that dude by themselves.

  28. In fact in 1917 virtually the entire French army said “fuck this for a lark, we’re not getting out of our trenches any more”.

    Eh? Verdun?

  29. “But neither of those was the norm. And, this is the military. If anyone is unreplacable (even the CO) at a moment’s notice then the unit’s leadership is incompetent.”

    Yep, the graveyards are full of indispensable people. We used to train in Germany with some officers and SNCOs removed, especially when crashing out for a simulated USSR preemptive strike.

  30. “Eh? Verdun?”
    Verdun was most of 1916. After Verdun and the dashed hopes of the Nivelle offensive in 1917, then the French Army mutinied. But the Germans didn’t really catch on, and the French were back to normal by Spring 1918.

  31. There was a funny YouTube video of a mixed group of S.American police learning to throw grenades. Yes, she does throw the grenade backwards.

  32. History has lessons to teach us.

    Women in the Services should be assigned to serve only in special units – as camp followers in a horizontal position.

  33. Too many of you are saying “all” or “nothing” – there have always been a few women who were stronger and/or fitter than the average man. When I was seriously running in my 40s/50s, I expected to be beaten by at least one woman [more than 3 (except in the thousand-runner races such as the London Marathon), or one my own age, was worrying].

    If I had to carry a 200lb guy I should spend all my time trying to keep my balance but a *fit* sailor weighing 200 lb in a ship with narrow ladders? When I was 15 I could (and did) carry a second-row forward who was 2 metres tall.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.