The army discovers there is a difference between male and female anatomy.

[FannyCann]

Looks like the army are discovering there is a difference between male and female anatomy. As so often, it will be the compensation cases that make them sit up and acknowledge the problem.

Female Army recruits suffer injuries from battle kit designed for men

mol.im/a/7464293

When can we expect compensation for injuries caused by car safety features, workplace safety gear, etc being designed for men at our expense?

So the army has already faced legal challenges due to not accomodating for female bodies?

I too am curious about when we will see car companies etc sued for not paying attention to the needs of women who (shock horror) have different bodies than men.

I suppose once they can argue that women have penises and male anatomy they will argue that they're not discriminating ......

I would imagine that the bags are full of necessary equipment/supplies and in order to do the role these need to be carried.

Surely a consideration before taking up the role is whether you can physically carry what is needed? If it were me, I wouldn't want a male accompanying me to have to carry extra so I could carry less.

Yes, women's bodies are different and they should make those small amendments, but as for the weight of the bags I can see no other way around it.

"Surely a consideration before taking up the role is whether you can physically carry what is needed?"

And surely the designers can make adjustments to the shape of the bag so that women aren't injured while carrying it, which, if you read the article, is what is being suggested.

Actually female kits can be lighter without this putting a burden on any male soldier. Female soldiers require less food and water than male ones, and certain parts of their kit (like clothes, boots, etc) are also a bit lighter as they are smaller.

But that’s beside the point as this article is about building the packs properly to center the weight where it needs to be for women (hips instead of shoulders) by making the pack shorter and some other adjustments (like where ammo is carried).

There are certainly times in early training where men have to carry some of the women’s kit despite having been walking for four days with minimal sleep and carrying their own heavy rucksack across wild country. The rule was that if one person failed, the whole team failed. A five foot, eight stone woman is never going to have the same physical strength as a six foot four lad. They need to help each other.
Whilst the extra physical burden might fall to stronger men (plenty of men struggle with the weight too) the idea is that each brings something to the team effort and the women might provide the mental stamina, the resourcefulness or have sneaked in a couple of Mars bars.

The kit is vey male but I’m not sure the women doing that level of activity will want fewer rat packs. They collect water rather than carry it.

Not all roles in the forces require huge physical strength - not sure why an dental nurse would necessarily need to carry 40kg for four days. Not sure why a GP would either.

Women and men’s spines are remarkable similar with few distinguishing features. Both should have kit that puts the weight on the strongest areas to reduce mechanical back injuries. Carrying based on shoulders is not good ergonomics for either sex; it’s not a feminist issue it’s a occupational health one.

Carrying based on shoulders is not good ergonomics for either sex; it’s not a feminist issue it’s a occupational health one

It is if the pack length means that women (shorter) have to carry on shoulders, unlike the men (taller)

It is not the difference in strength that is the issue, it is the difference in women's body shape. Height is only one factor. We aren't just short men, we are a different shape.

Sounds like they are wise to the problem, and are anxious to correct for it.

Not all women are short, not all men are tall. People of either sex come in all shapes and sizes. When you go to the high street you can go through the racks and try a selection to find the correct pack for you. The armed services tend to be more restricted on their range of accessories.

@CherryPavlova you clearly don't know any army doctors.

It's definitely a design issue, not a weight one. And I have bigger feet than many of my male soldiers. Many unhelpful assumptions and opinions just in this thread, imagine what the lived experience is...

LetsPlayDarts I agree with you.
I joined the army at 16. I was tiny, 5’4” and weighed 52kg at my smallest/fittest. My full kit (including weapon, water and ammunition) weighed around 2 thirds of my body weight. But everything I was carrying was necessary.
It hurts. It hurts a lot. But you get used to it. It’s part of the job. Yes people get injured - I was one of them. And excessive weight bearing was cited in my medical discharge paperwork as having exacerbated my injury. But again, it’s part of the job and I believe that you have to accept that possibility when you take the job on!
The army can only do so much to accommodate everyone. Adjusting essential kit requirements to lighten loads for smaller people will only result in piss-poor performance because you are inadequately equipped at best, and people dying at worst.
I’m personally more pissed off that my feet are permanently battered and broken because I went through half my training with ill-fitting boots because there wasn’t any available in my embarrassingly small shoe size

Genvonlinkerhoffen ...and that’s where you’d be wrong. I know plenty of military medics, amongst others in the forces including my son. There are big men small women but on average, women are smaller than men and can carry less.

Yet you don't know why a GP would carry a Med bergan...

What will the army do regarding kit for a transwoman? Would they be issued the female kit or the male kit?

Thymejuice there’s practically no difference in the kit issued to male/female soldiers.

And you don’t seem to realise not all GPs in the forces need to do that all the while.....Your average GP in the forces isn’t perpetually deployed in Afghanistan. The forces medic that I had supper with last night is working on a British military base in Bahrain and despite being 6’ 6” or thereabouts, he hasn’t carried a Bergen since basic training (which was a good few years ago).

I'll leave you to your opinions. You clearly work with a very different circle of military medics than the ones I'm familiar with. Note that I didn't say GPs have to carry kit "all the while", you stated you weren't sure why a GP would have to carry 40kg for 4 days from which I infer you've never heard of an STTT or the 7 pillars of deployed health care.
Anyone in the Army who hasn't carried a bergan since "basic training" would have to be medically downgraded so as to avoid their annual fitness test. I note your care to not say which service your friend is in however, an Army medic who can't carry a Med Bergan is next to useless in that trade. Anything that can be done to address the poor ergonomics of current load carriage equipment is beneficial.

I think I was interested as there may be parallels with sport where we are told there is no difference between male bodies and female.

The police have found there is a real difference when it comes to body armour. Female officers sometimes went without rather than suffer the constant pain of the smaller size, or the impracical looseness of the larger, until they finally got some tailored for them.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/emaoconnor/woman-military-doctors-female-problems-health-care

This is a "good" article.

Re. carrying stuff - the actual quantity is pretty non-negotiable, I presume (I'm an ex mountaineer, and had a similar issue - you may weigh 30% less than a bloke, you may be less strong than a bloke - but you still need a rope, climbing equipment, axes and crampons. And the "women need less water and this will make a difference to pack weight" theory is... well, laughable is the first thought that comes to my mind).

But yes, lots of room for ergonomic improvements. It's not just back length, it's pelvic girdle size in relation to back length, it's shoulder anatomy, it's a whole range of things. Mountaineering packs have come in men's and women's for decades (though personally I frequently find a man's frame suits my shape better). Also body armour is an ongoing scandal in both the armed forces and the police (stories of women officers requesting breast reductions simply because they cannot get stab vests to fit them).

A female friend of mine was in the RAF and got invalided out with stress fractures among other things. She commented "I always wondered, back when I was a cadet, why female officers were built like brick shithouses, and now I know". (Disclaimer, I also have an ex-Navy female friend who was very petite - but of the wiry whippet build with surprising strength and immense stamina).

My sympathies on the boots issue too - that's another ongoing scandal in the forces. The standard issue boots are simply not fit for purpose, they're appalling, so soldiers are having to buy decent boots out of their own money.

BarbaraStrozzi The day I was allowed to buy my own boots and return my issues death wellies, I swear I almost cried tears of joy
It was like going from wearing foot-shaped cheese graters every day, to going to work in silk slippers!