All roles in armed forces now open to women.

[Ihaventgottimeforthis]

It’s not something I would ever choose to do, in fact I’d err on the side of pacifism and feel very uncomfortable with many of our military campaigns past and present (and probably future too tbh) and think our defence spending is a moral & ethical disgrace, but all that aside (!) this is a big step for equality?

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/25/all-roles-in-uk-military-to-be-open-to-women-williamson-announces

If you read what women got up to in the second world war, I would argue that women not being told no is always a good thing.
You might not want to be asked to kill people, but there are obviously women who don’t have such qualms.
As one of the women said, she has been told it is not possible and her reaction has been to say ‘I’ll prove to you that it can be’.

Great, as long as the physical standards are the same then i have no problems with it.

Defrack I imagine the bar will be set at ‘can this individual do the job to the required standard’ rather than setting identical PT performance requirements etc?

@defrack you understand the physical standards aren’t the same for all men right?

GemmeFatale - loads of people do not understand how the military actually works in the present day. It's never really stoppeptessing an inn though.

And of course you are right - The PT standards are a basic level which everyone should achieve. It needs to be net at recruitment, and if periodically rechecked via fitness tests - these are scaled by sex and age.

There may be additional requirements for different roles, just as there are different health requirements (eg the bar on colourblindness does not apply to all roles)

Great, as long as the physical standards are the same then i have no problems with it.

Your words betray you.

defrack not cool.

New fitness tests start next year. Employment based standard, age & sex free. In my unit, more men are downgraded than women & more men fail basic standards.

Men in the army hate women, it's depressing to hear first hand & read about on social media.

Uninformed civvies weighing in about standards does nothing for us. It encourages the misogynists and makes them feel their Hatred is justified.

The backlash I, as a relatively senior officer, am facing over this announcement is making me want to leave. So defrack educate yourself or keep quiet please.

Also not something i would like to do but its been a long time coming

As gen said its depressing that men in the army have these attitudes

I think it varies from organisation to organisation, navy, RAF etc but i coukd be wrong in that

I didnt mean offence. What im saying is, will the ohysical tests for the special forces be the same for women?

If so then i think theyve every right to try, but if the tests are at different levels then thats unfair.

I honestly dont see how ive caused an issue tbh.

I think all roles shouod be open to women as long as the physical test requirements are the same which you say they're.
Are the physical standards women need to meet the same as men?

That's already been answered upthread.
Why dont you go and demand the Army answer to you, instead of people discussing the new ruling on an open forum?

Article in The Times today

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/women-win-final-battle-and-break-into-the-special-forces-05gp7tjv7?shareToken=52e32ad2e176b423009bab435acb54dd

Re women now being able to join SAS and SBS:

'The gruelling selection processes will not be altered for them'

Couldn't be clearer.

I couldn't kill people either, but no reason why other women shouldn't.
i suppose there are female murderers as well as male.

Presumably any physical tests will weed out people who won't be able to perform at the required standard to perform the role.

Defracks comment reminds me of those real men who post on FB with things like “as long the bird can carry a million kilos on their back during a 200 mile hike and get back in time to get my dinner on I don’t care what she does”

@defrack which standards? The ones applied to 20 year old men or those applied the the 45 year olds? They are different. The ones for the RAF, Army, or Navy? Again all administer slightly different testing. Running or bike option? Your medical team determine which you have to do, so which are we talking about. Basic intake test, basic training fitness monitoring test or annual fitness test? They are different. Field fitness test? Awesome which military branch? They’re all different.

They’re all different.

But not altered depending on sex, according to The Times (which IME checks facts)

Good. Quite frankly when you consider set the changes that warfare has undergone in the past 30 years there is argument that the importance of be hysical fitnessis waning big time anyway. The idea that women aren’t capable fighters is just nonsense. Women have proved to be excellent soldiers in recent yeaare and while I would never join the armed torc a I am very glad to hear that you those who do won’t be held back from pursuing their careers as they see fit. Good for them (and good for the whole country given really).

Again i didnt mean to cause offence.

I just wnated to know would the tests stay the same and someone finally answered my question thank you to them.

If you think im some stuck uo army wanna be or whatever then fine, i was just curious

You’re not telling me that Women haven’t secretly or unofficially been in UK special forces forever. There were Women in the SOE for heavens sake.
There are some circumstances where a Woman would infiltrate somewhere with far more ease than a Man.
Tbh, seeing that Female Tankie on the news just made me sad, unless there are going to be all Female tank crews, how many Women would want to urinate/defacate in a bag, with no privacy, in front of Male colleagues. Let alone deal with periods.

It's great, but as warfare has now changed I think opening up infantry roles to women who will never be used is why they have done it.

Except for 1,2 and 3 para recently no infantry units have been used in theatre recently since the formal withdraw of Afghan, and they are unlikely to return.

Trench warfare has ended, mass infantry warfare has ended. I mean why send a man/woman when you can pilot a drone from Berkshire over Syrian airspace and kill people?

Women have always been able to join SRR (which is a branch of the special forces) it has now been opened up to SAS and SBS, I can tell you know I don't expect any woman to be selected.

Selection for the special forces is unlike anything else, you could pass ever physical and mental test and they have the right to turn round and say "no, thank you". You also only get 2 attempts at selection so basically they say no twice your done for. They also do not have to give a reason, we have had friends that have just been told "your not the right fit".

The hill stage I can see women passing, the jungle phase I can see woman passing it's escape and evade which will fail most, then followed by directing staff saying no.

It is what it is. Warfare has changed, no woman has ever passed P company (selection for paratroopers) they have however passed for the Royal Marines. I think you'll end up with a small number of women as RM but I doubt they would then get put forward for a SFSG (special forces support group) role, they could however opt to do SBS selection, but I fear the same would happen DS (directing staff) will fail them.

Personally I think opening up the general army/Navy/RAF roles is great but those women and men aren't being used. RAF, SFSG and SF are the busiest operational roles at present, and 90% of those roles already accepted women.

how many Women would want to urinate/defacate in a bag, with no privacy,

How many of the men want to do it? They don’t, but they want to do the job and accept that as a necessary part of it. Women who want to do the job enough will accept it.

As for periods, lots of women take contraceptives that prevent periods.

Thanks for the share Everard. In the comments, someone (possibly male) has commented that Gavin Williamson should have said sex, not gender. Well done MNers!!

Warfare has changed, no woman has ever passed P company (selection for paratroopers) they have however passed for the Royal Marines.

I don't think any woman has yet assed the full 42 week Royal Marines course yet, CoachBombay (though I'm happy to stand corrected if you have a link that says otherwise.) I know some women have passed the 'all arms commando course' (open to soldiers from the army, etc), but this is different from the 42 week RM course which must be passed for a person to become a Royal Marine. This article from August this year indicates that no woman has yet passed the full course to join the RM Commandos:

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/royal-marines-women-physical-tests-female-ban-lifted-a8508871.html

There was a discussion of this on LBC last night.

It was majority male callers (even though DJ said their phone lines were jammed) with one of two opinions:

1. A whole diatribe of ifs and only whens about women's ability, that they'd never say about male candidates.
2. No, women are made of sugar and spice and we need to keep their eyes averted while THE MEN do the nasty. And a couple of overtly nasty misogynists.

Then a couple of women - one from Israel (where they have mandatory military service) who said women and men do whatever roles they are best suited for; and a woman who called to say she'd tried to join the Marines some years back and was rejected because she was female, and if she had her time again, she'd be leaping at the chance.