British Female Soldiers recieve £100,000 compensation each for .....

Mick Savage

Being made march "like men".

This is absurd. Apparently the soldiers were placed in the middle of the group of men and they were saying that they were struggling to keep up with the men and the length that they had to stretch their legs to stride did them damage. I mean c'mon ???

Firstly, you can't expect to get into the army under reduced requirements and then bitch and moan and expect compensation when you are made do arduous work. It'd be like me cheatnig on an entrancee exam for a University or getting special treatment and then compaining when I can't cope with the work.

They were also suggesting that women in the army should be placed at the front of the row so they can dictate the pace. I mean have we really lost our minds with compo-culture and gone crazy altogether??

Link posted in OP. Moderators, please edit link as appropriate if it infringes on boards in any way. Cheers. Mick

If these women were on peace-keeping missions or in war zone ( I know they are currently not allowed on front line), but if they were in hostile territory, do you really think the enemy is going to say "ahh here lads, hold yizzer fire, there's ladies present" .. NO, they're gonna open fire anyway. Call me sexist if you will, but I genuinely think that the entry requirements should be the same for both sexes. Even if the women did pull a muscle or something, they knew what they were getting into when they signed up.

The compensation they received is more than a man would receive if he were gravely injured in battle.

These women are also in full employment elsewhere, fresh as a daisy. Which makes me think that this whole compensation is just a gravy train.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2512412/Female-RAF-recruits-100-000-compensation--march-like-men.html

snubbleste

Another triumph for equality of the sexes

tin79

Quality of daily mail news is crap.

Bannasidhe

Mick Savage wrote: »

Being made march "like men".

This is absurd. Apparently the soldiers were placed in the middle of the group of men and they were saying that they were struggling to keep up with the men and the length that they had to stretch their legs to stride did them damage. I mean c'mon ???

Firstly, you can't expect to get into the army under reduced requirements and then bitch and moan and expect compensation when you are made do arduous work. It'd be like me cheatnig on an entrancee exam for a University or getting special treatment and then compaining when I can't cope with the work.

They were also suggesting that women in the army should be placed at the front of the row so they can dictate the pace. I mean have we really lost our minds with compo-culture and gone crazy altogether??

Link posted in OP. Moderators, please edit link as appropriate if it infringes on boards in any way. Cheers. Mick

Please no references to Daily Mail or their quality of news. PLEASE

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2512412/Female-RAF-recruits-100-000-compensation--march-like-men.html

By 'reduced' requirements do you mean 'requirements' that take into account the fact that women and men tend to have a few physical differences and this is taken into account?

If so - why can't the fact that women tend to be shorter/have a smaller stride also be taken into account?

Could you clarify if you have an issue with women serving in the military? Or if you think in order for women to serve in the military they have to be exactly like men in every way?

In response to your edit - 3 British female military personnel died in Afghanistan - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15188729. As of 2011 28 female US military personnel died in Afghanistan and 111 in Iraq - the majority in 'hostile' situations -http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/world/asia/22afghanistan.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

Your comment re: 'ahh here lads, hold yizzer fire, there's ladies present" .. NO, they're gonna open fire anyway' is in very poor taste.

who the fug

When you get to the nub of the story you find out that the training wallas where not following the guidelines set down which resulted in the injury and hence the compensation.

Banjo String

That's savage. Mick.

Mick Savage

Bannasidhe wrote: »

By 'reduced' requirements do you mean 'requirements' that take into account the fact that women and men tend to have a few physical differences and this is taken into account?

If so - why can't the fact that women tend to be shorter/have a smaller stride also be taken into account?

Could you clarify if you have an issue with women serving in the military? Or if you think in order for women to serve in the military they have to be exactly like men in every way?

That's not what I am saying. The requirements should be the rewquirements. UK is NOT a neutral country so pandering to whims should not be happening. The enemy will not care who is a token cadet or who got in under reduced requirements. that's simple.

If a woman is almost 2 metres tall and 100 kg and can run 3 km without stopping and can bench her own body weight over her head then she should be hired ahead of a man who is only 1.7 metres and 55kg with lesser body strength and fitness. I never once said a man should automatically be hired ahead of a woman. Please feel free to quote me if you believe I said that, or even implied it.

Women 5'4 in fcuking annoying tight skirts (going by that image) trying to keep up with guys who are 6' or so? Yeah, that should be allowed for
Especially if they got injured and the guidelines weren't being observed

'When I started getting pains in my groin I was told to march through it, even when I was carrying a heavy pack which was almost the size of me.

‘I trusted the medics to know better than me so I carried on marching. But eventually I couldn’t take any more and burst into tears. An X-Ray found four separate pelvic fractures.

'I was put on crutches and sent home on sick leave. My fractures didn’t recover sufficiently for me to complete basic training and in 2008 I was medically discharged.’

Bit of a non story wha

Fukuyama

Bannasidhe wrote: »

By 'reduced' requirements do you mean 'requirements' that take into account the fact that women and men tend to have a few physical differences and this is taken into account?

If so - why can't the fact that women tend to be shorter/have a smaller stride also be taken into account?

Could you clarify if you have an issue with women serving in the military? Or if you think in order for women to serve in the military they have to be exactly like men in every way?

Women don't have to do anything as a whole. Just like men as a whole don't.

However, if a man or woman wants to serve in the army, then they should all be fit and able bodied enough to march.

Alone with long-distance patrols, parachuting, hand to hand combat, lifting strength.

These women make the physically strong and capable women who do serve come under this kind of unwarranted scrutiny.

Females have lower entrance requirements into the armed forces, yet must do the same work (ie. Be able to lift a 30kg pack, get their heads blown off, etc etc). Lower entry requirements assume females weakness which is wrong.

The Royal Marines 37 week training program has around a 33% pass rate, and most of the all male recruits will be in bits by the end many with foot injuries, broken bones etc... I don't see them suing.

Thoie

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If so - why can't the fact that women tend to be shorter/have a smaller stride also be taken into account?

It is taken into account, and the guidelines say everyone's stride should be shortened, and women put to the front. The guidelines were ignored, even after complaints of injury were made, and one of the women (at least) suffered pelvic fractures.

The compensation for loss of limb etc is on top of pensions and other payments, whereas this compensation was instead of the lost payments, so it's a silly argument to say that they got more than someone losing an eye.

MRnotlob606

they were invited to join the army,they came on their own accord.Femminists want to women to be treated just like men,but this rediculous

Bannasidhe

Mick Savage wrote: »

That's not what I am saying. The requirements should be the rewquirements. UK is NOT a neutral country so pandering to whims should not be happening. The enemy will not care who is a token cadet or who got in under reduced requirements. that's simple.

If a woman is almost 2 metres tall and 100 kg and can run 3 km without stopping and can bench her own body weight over her head then she should be hired ahead of a man who is only 1.7 metres and 55kg with lesser body strength and fitness. I never once said a man should automatically be hired ahead of a woman. Please feel free to quote me if you believe I said that, or even implied it.

So it's ok as long as the women in question are 6' 5" inches tall, weight nearly 16 stone and are muscle bound enough to 'outperform' a 5' 5", 8 stone man?

Sooo - you do want women to be exactly like Paul O'Connell???

Where did I say that you said man should be hired before women???

You do realise that there is a lot more to the military then being a muscle bound grunt?

Mick Savage

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In response to your edit - 3 British female military personnel died in Afghanistan - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15188729. As of 2011 28 female US military personnel died in Afghanistan and 111 in Iraq - the

and how many men??

Xeyn

There is certainly more to this story than the sensationalist headline, but if claims rank chart is to believed the whole scheme is ridiculous. They got 2 1/2 times those with facial burns and three times the amount of someone losing a thumb?

goose2005

who the fug wrote: »

When you get to the nub of the story you find out that the training wallas where not following the guidelines set down which resulted in the injury and hence the compensation.

But if you wanted the nub of the story you would consult a proper newspaper. If you want your prejudices pandered to, read the Mail.

Mick Savage

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So it's ok as long as the women in question are 6' 5" inches tall, weight nearly 16 stone and are muscle bound enough to 'outperform' a 5' 5", 8 stone man?

Sooo - you do want women to be exactly like Paul O'Connell???

Where did I say that you said man should be hired before women???

You do realise that there is a lot more to the military then being a muscle bound grunt?

Did I say ALL women should be like that ?? NO, I said IF a woman of such a calibre applied against a smaller man then she should be recreuited. You are twisting m words. I said that the entry requirements are too lax and the bar should be raised across the board.

A question for the people who agree with reduced entry requirements for women.. What if a certain college had reduced entry requirements for men, because, traditionally, men did poorer in these areas than women, would you be ok with that?

Shenshen

They shouldn't have received any compensation at all

Mick Savage wrote: »

That's not what I am saying. The requirements should be the rewquirements. UK is NOT a neutral country so pandering to whims should not be happening. The enemy will not care who is a token cadet or who got in under reduced requirements. that's simple.

If a woman is almost 2 metres tall and 100 kg and can run 3 km without stopping and can bench her own body weight over her head then she should be hired ahead of a man who is only 1.7 metres and 55kg with lesser body strength and fitness. I never once said a man should automatically be hired ahead of a woman. Please feel free to quote me if you believe I said that, or even implied it.

I can't help wondering how parading in step is so utterly essential in defeating an enemy...

From what I can tell, it's a sadly ludicrous tradition with no specific purpose whatsoever. Yet that was when the ladies in question were injured....

Jonny7

Well both sides of this story are stupid - the women being made to march the same stride length as men (30 inches longer) and the fact that they have to be compensated.. MoD needs to stop living in WW2 and come into the 21st century

Mick Savage

Shenshen wrote: »

I can't help wondering how parading in step is so utterly essential in defeating an enemy...

From what I can tell, it's a sadly ludicrous tradition with no specific purpose whatsoever. Yet that was when the ladies in question were injured....

Jonny7 wrote: »

Well both sides of this story are stupid - the women being made to march the same stride length as men (30 inches longer) and the fact that they have to be compensated.. MoD needs to stop living in WW2 and come into the 21st century

Women, not ladies. Lady is title you earn, not automatic.

Marching promotes discipline.

If you can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitcen.

Mick Savage

A question for the people who agree with reduced entry requirements for women.. What if a certain college had reduced entry requirements for men, because, traditionally, men did poorer in a particular area of education than women and they wanted to gve them a headstart against other women applications, would you be ok with that?

Shenshen

They shouldn't have received any compensation at all

Mick Savage wrote: »

A question for the people who agree with reduced entry requirements for women.. What if a certain college had reduced entry requirements for men, because, traditionally, men did poorer in a particular area of education than women and they wanted to gve them a headstart against other women applications, would you be ok with that?

Why not? I understand colleges do that for people of different backgrounds, so why not for men if there's a requirement?

Bannasidhe

Mick Savage wrote: »

and how many men??

Resorting to whataboutry?

The point being that women do get killed in combat zones and to say that female military personal are of the opinion that it should be 'don't shoot we is wimminz' as you suggest is grossly insulting to those women and their male comrades.

May I ask - since you seem so worked up about modern military tweaking the requirements to accommodate the fact that women can and do serve - have you ever been in combat or passed any military training course?

Would you prefer to be challenged by my 6' 5", built like a brick sh*t house Sargent in Communications who rarely gets his arse off a chair 49 year old brother-in-law or my 33 year old 5' 9" female cousin who is a Sargent in the Infantry who runs a minimum of 10 km a day with a 30 kg pack just to keep fit?

Mick Savage

Mick Savage wrote: »

Women, not ladies. Lady is title you earn, not automatic.

Marching promotes discipline.

If you can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitcen.

Mod

Seeing as you are a "new" poster I will give you the benefit of doubt.

Read the After Hours charter. Do not post in this forum again until you have done so.

Shenshen

They shouldn't have received any compensation at all

Mick Savage wrote: »

Women, not ladies. Lady is title you earn, not automatic.

Marching promotes discipline.

If you can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitcen.

Forcing someone to physically damage themselves promotes discipline?

What kind of discipline are we talking about here?

Bannasidhe

Mick Savage wrote: »

Women, not ladies. Lady is title you earn, not automatic.

.

Ohh - you are one of those kind of men.

jimgoose

SQUAD! Camp it UPP!!!!

Jonny7

Mick Savage wrote: »

Marching promotes discipline.

If you can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitcen.

Four pelvic fractures doesn't change that?

wp_rathead

Dean0088 wrote: »

Females have lower entrance requirements into the armed forces, yet must do the same work (ie. Be able to lift a 30kg pack, get their heads blown off, etc etc). Lower entry requirements assume females weakness which is wrong.
.

is that part of the training? :eek:

pablomakaveli

The compensation was too little

Shenshen wrote: »

Forcing someone to physically damage themselves promotes discipline?

What kind of discipline are we talking about here?

Drill is **** but it does help improve discipline as it requires a lot focus and mental discipline to do it right. And it is very important to more ceremonial purposes particularly to regiments like the guard regiments in London.

It might seem bizarre to someone outside the military but it does serve a purpose within the military.

Shenshen

They shouldn't have received any compensation at all

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Drill is **** but it does help improve discipline as it requires a lot focus and mental discipline to do it right. And it is very important to more ceremonial purposes particularly to regiments like the guard regiments in London.

It might seem bizarre to someone outside the military but it does serve a purpose within the military.

To the point where people are expected to cripple themselves over it?

Seems a little wasteful to me, to be honest.

pablomakaveli

The compensation was too little

Shenshen wrote: »

To the point where people are expected to cripple themselves over it?

Seems a little wasteful to me, to be honest.

It can physically hard but these women are more of an exception than the rule. I've never heard of anyone suffering long term damage from doing drill.

Bannasidhe

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Drill is **** but it does help improve discipline as it requires a lot focus and mental discipline to do it right. And it is very important to more ceremonial purposes particularly to regiments like the guard regiments in London.

It might seem bizarre to someone outside the military but it does serve a purpose within the military.

However - membership of the Irish guards for example is not open to women (http://www.army.mod.uk/rolefinder/role/73/guardsman/). Neither is the Coldstream Guards (http://www.army.mod.uk/rolefinder/role/73/guardsman/)

Indeed there are quite a few regiments/units that are closed to women such as The Household Cavalry, the Royal Armoured Corps and the Infantry http://www.army.mod.uk/join/20145.aspx.

It seems as if this incident occurred in a unit that is open to women - therefore unlikely to be one of the regiments used for 'ceremonial' purposes - but the drill Sargent/ powers that be were unwilling to accept any tweaking to take that into account even though military orders stated this was to be done.

It wasn't the existence of women that caused the problem it is the continued existence of certain people in positions of power that do not want women in the military unless they are 'men' when it comes to physical stature.

Christy42

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Resorting to whataboutry?

The point being that women do get killed in combat zones and to say that female military personal are of the opinion that it should be 'don't shoot we is wimminz' as you suggest is grossly insulting to those women and their male comrades.

May I ask - since you seem so worked up about modern military tweaking the requirements to accommodate the fact that women can and do serve - have you ever been in combat or passed any military training course?

Would you prefer to be challenged by my 6' 5", built like a brick sh*t house Sargent in Communications who rarely gets his arse off a chair 49 year old brother-in-law or my 33 year old 5' 9" female cousin who is a Sargent in the Infantry who runs a minimum of 10 km a day with a 30 kg pack just to keep fit?

Things like marches though shouldn't injure people and everyone who is taken in should have their needs taken into account. Is there a reason a 5' 9" male who runs 10km a day with a 30kg pack shouldn't be in the army (presuming a model soldier in other respects too). Honest question as I have never been in combat nor have I attempted any military training course.

April O Neill II

They shouldn't have received any compensation at all

Mick Savage wrote: »

Women, not ladies. Lady is title you earn, not automatic.

:pac:

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It wasn't the existence of women that caused the problem it is the continued existence of certain people in positions of power that do not want women in the military unless they are 'men' when it comes to physical stature.

If guidelines were being ignored that put the women soldiers health at risk, then it's being used as a form of constructive dismissal by people invested in maintaining the status quo.

Make it harder for the women (or insert race/minority here) to compete, then call them whingers looking for special treatment when they call us out on it. It's a tactic thats been used by bigots for as long as bigotry has existed. Quite a long time.

pablomakaveli

The compensation was too little

Bannasidhe wrote: »

However - membership of the Irish guards for example is not open to women (http://www.army.mod.uk/rolefinder/role/73/guardsman/). Neither is the Coldstream Guards (http://www.army.mod.uk/rolefinder/role/73/guardsman/)

Indeed there are quite a few regiments/units that are closed to women such as The Household Cavalry, the Royal Armoured Corps and the Infantry http://www.army.mod.uk/join/20145.aspx.

It seems as if this incident occurred in a unit that is open to women - therefore unlikely to be one of the regiments used for 'ceremonial' purposes - but the drill Sargent/ powers that be were unwilling to accept any tweaking to take that into account even though military orders stated this was to be done.

It wasn't the existence of women that caused the problem it is the continued existence of certain people in positions of power that do not want women in the military unless they are 'men' when it comes to physical stature.

The point your missing here is that some members of the guards can still be shorter than others meaning they encounter the same problem as these women.

Also any unit in the armed forces may be required for ceremonial purposes. It's part of the job simply put.

Thoie

pablomakaveli wrote: »

It can physically hard but these women are more of an exception than the rule. I've never heard of anyone suffering long term damage from doing drill.

Possibly because most drills are carried out within the guidelines? They didn't just hand out money to any women who happened to be in the armed forces - they compensated specific women who had suffered specific injuries that were preventable.

Drill could be just as disciplined, just as useful, if everyone was taking slightly shorter steps. A 30" stride is not the important thing - the important thing presumably is that everyone is marching in time and obeying directions promptly. They could achieve something similar by playing little steps, giant steps, or statues, except they're adults and might feel silly.

Beruthiel

Mick Savage wrote:

Women, not ladies. Lady is title you earn, not automatic.

LOL
This isn't the 1800's MS.
The time, when women lived under the whim's and expectations of men.
We don't concern ourselves with the outdated notion of earning the imposed title 'lady' in 2013.

Sleepy

Without getting into the specifics of the case I see no reason for entry requirements such as height, fitness, strength to be any different for men or women. If a woman who's 5'6" can serve, I don't see why a man of the same height couldn't serve, likewise, if a man is expected to be able to carry a 30kg pack on a forced march over a given distance, I don't think you can expect less from a woman in the same role.

BTW Mick Savage, I'm pretty sure most women who attain the title "Lady" inherit it or gain it through marriage rather than earn it (unless being married to a member of the British aristocracy is considered such an onerous task as to have deemed the title "earned" )

Bannasidhe

pablomakaveli wrote: »

The point your missing here is that some members of the guards can still be shorter than others meaning they encounter the same problem as these women.

Also any unit in the armed forces may be required for ceremonial purposes. It's part of the job simply put.

Open to correction as it may have been changed since the people I knew in the Irish guards have retired - but doesn't it have a height requirement?

It certainly used to have one...

I doubt if the Guards would have a 5' 10" guardsman in a ceremonial role standing attention between a 6' 1 and a 6' 5" guardsman.

Also interesting that the injuries were pelvic - quite a difference in the pelvic structure of a male and a female so men are unlikely to suffer a similar type injury from being ordered to parade at a stride outside their natural one.

Fukuyama

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Open to correction as it may have been changed since the people I knew in the Irish guards have retired - but doesn't it have a height requirement?

It certainly used to have one...

I doubt if the Guards would have a 5' 10" guardsman in a ceremonial role standing attention between a 6' 1 and a 6' 5" guardsman.

Also interesting that the injuries were pelvic - quite a difference in the pelvic structure of a male and a female so men are unlikely to suffer a similar type injury from being ordered to parade at a stride outside their natural one.

There's a documentary about them on 4 OD.

There was a bloke in it who was 6 foot 7 inches (or something REALLY tall like that). He wasn't allowed participate in public ceremonies / guard the palace etc... The reason given to him by the drill sergeant (?) was that he looked stupid surrounded by a bunch of 5 foot 10 blokes.

He was disappointed but still got to go into combat when they went overseas so just got on with the job.

pablomakaveli

The compensation was too little

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Open to correction as it may have been changed since the people I knew in the Irish guards have retired - but doesn't it have a height requirement?

It certainly used to have one...

I doubt if the Guards would have a 5' 10" guardsman in a ceremonial role standing attention between a 6' 1 and a 6' 5" guardsman.

Also interesting that the injuries were pelvic - quite a difference in the pelvic structure of a male and a female so men are unlikely to suffer a similar type injury from being ordered to parade at a stride outside their natural one.

I believe that used to be the height requirement but it was removed. I know lads who joined the Irish guards who are about the same height and even shorter then me and im only 5' 7.

The different configuration of the pelvis could be a factor but given there are lots of women in armed forces throughout the world who have to perform drill we'd be seeing this problem on a regular basis.

Pat Mustard

So three women are compensated for stress fractures. Three.

What really needs to be done is to ban AH threads based on Daily Mail ballyhoo.

kowloon

Mick Savage wrote: »

They were also suggesting that women in the army should be placed at the front of the row so they can dictate the pace. I mean have we really lost our minds with compo-culture and gone crazy altogether??

Ladies, today you will be leading the men in Operation Human Shield.

darkpagandeath

My 2c if this is such and issue then why not setup women only units ? Then they can all run at the same pace. I'm guessing they wont as some people will say equality so lets have a group that is less physically able to do something set the pace for a fighting force ? So would this not weaken the whole force as a whole as the men would get used to doing lighter work ?

Kev.OC

Candie wrote: »

If guidelines were being ignored that put the women soldiers health at risk, then it's being used as a form of constructive dismissal by people invested in maintaining the status quo.

Make it harder for the women (or insert race/minority here) to compete, then call them whingers looking for special treatment when they call us out on it. It's a tactic thats been used by bigots for as long as bigotry has existed. Quite a long time.

I have an issue with this second paragraph. Making one set of entry requirements for the military is not "making it harder for the women to compete".

Lets look at firefighters. One of the things you need to be able to do is carry a certain amount of weight on your shoulders for a set period of time. For arguments sake let's assume 80kg dead weight. Let's assume they decide to make it 60kg for women. Using these completely made up figures in my hypothetical argument a female firefighter wouldn't be able to carry me to safety.

For jobs that require a physical element, where the lives of others may depend on you being able to perform certain physical feats, I am completely against different standards for different sexes.


I will say though that I understand more people need to be accommodated to make the military more accessible, and I see no downsides in going from a 30" stride to a 27" one.

KwackerJack

A Soldier is a Soldier....Simple

mikeym

A hundred grand compo for the ladies and the men who lose legs and arms in Afghan get nothing.

looking_around

darkpagandeath wrote: »

My 2c if this is such and issue then why not setup women only units ? Then they can all run at the same pace. I'm guessing they wont as some people will say equality so lets have a group that is less physically able to do something set the pace for a fighting force ? So would this not weaken the whole force as a whole as the men would get used to doing lighter work ?

i actually think that would be a good idea. It'd be easier to manage drills and training.

they can be joined then for transport, medics etc.. but for drills, split them.
_-
but then again, a slight change in drill pace won't weaken the army either.

pablomakaveli

The compensation was too little

looking_around wrote: »

i actually think that would be a good idea. It'd be easier to manage drills and training.

they can be joined than for transport, medics etc.. but for drills, split them.
_-
but then again, a slight change in drill pace won't weaken the army either.

They do this in basic training for the army. I know its the RAF in this case but i would have always assumed it was the same for them.

clairefontaine

If you want to join the military then you have to compete with men and meet them at their standards. You are training to prepare for war.

Seriously, this is just pathetic. Don't join the military if you can't do it.

Feminists want the same choices as men but don't want to compete at the same level.

Plus if you get special exemptions because you are a woman, no one will respect you. and then 100k on top of that.