Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Men are too rough to train with, Army tells women
The Daily Mail (UK) ^ | November 6, 2005 | Andrew Wilks

Posted on 11/06/2005 5:53:18 PM PST by Plainsman

The Army is abandoning mixed-sex training units because too many female recruits are getting injured trying to keep up with their male counterparts.

From next April, women will be placed in their own platoons and although the training regime will remain the same, it will be conducted at a pace 'sustainable and commensurate with their physical profile'.

Army chiefs hope the changes will greatly reduce drop-out rates among women after research showed female recruits are up to nine times more likely than men to be discharged through a training-related injury.

Dr James Bilzon, the Army Training and Recruitment Agency's senior scientific adviser, found that women are getting hurt as they try to match men in arduous drills and marches wearing full combat gear.

His research showed that, in general, women are less able to cope with the sudden introduction to the exhausting exercise regime demanded by the Army.

The most common complaints are stress fractures to the shin and thigh bones, and pelvic injuries caused by attempting to keep up with the longer stride patterns of men.

'Men are stronger and more robust and it's silly to pretend otherwise'

Dr Bilzon said: "There is a high incidence of training-induced overuse injuries and associated medical discharges among trainees with lower levels of aerobic fitness, particularly females."

He added: "Female recruits are three-to-four times more likely than males to be medically discharged with a training injury, a figure which may be as high as nine times in some training units."

The changes will end a decade of mixed platoons and are a rebuff to modernisers who insisted women soldiers should be treated equally.

Confirming the move away from mixed-sex training, Colonel David Eccles, Chief of Staff at the Army Training and Recruitment Agency, said: "From spring 2006 all initial training for the British Army will be organised along the lines of single-sex platoons at the Army Training Regiment at Pirbright."

Colonel Bob Stewart, who was awarded the Distinguished Service Order for his service in Bosnia in the early Nineties, said it was "hardly surprising" the Army could not train men and women together.

"Men are stronger and more robust and it's silly to pretend otherwise. It seems that at last the Army has woken up to the fact that women are different - something blatantly obvious to anyone," he added.

The Adult Learning Inspectorate, which assesses training standards for youngsters, had urged a rethink of the Army's 'gender-free' policy.

It found that shin bone fractures in women had risen from 12.6 per 10,000 personnel to 231.2 since the introduction of mixed-sex training, while all injuries among women rose from 467 to 1,113 per 10,000. Women currently serve alongside men in all aspects of Army life apart from infantry and tank units and last year 815 women enlisted.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: chicks; era; militaryreadiness; militarywomen; training; womenincombat; womeninmilitary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last

1 posted on 11/06/2005 5:53:19 PM PST by Plainsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Plainsman

Well just...Duh.


2 posted on 11/06/2005 5:59:54 PM PST by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Plainsman

This has always been the main problem with a mixed military IMO. If you train men and women together, one group will suffer. The real worry for me was that the men would have to dilute their training regimine so as not to make it impossible for women to train with them.

I wanted the men to be the best prepared they could possibly be, physically. This stands for the women too, but men and women are different and training different groups with differing abilities was problematic.

I should state that I have not been involved with the military and would appreciate the views of those who have been, with regard to whether my concerns were valid or not.


3 posted on 11/06/2005 6:00:25 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Plainsman

Something the Marines realized from the beginning. Good to see the Army is finally facing reality.


4 posted on 11/06/2005 6:00:29 PM PST by SubMareener (Become a monthly donor! Free FreeRepublic.com from Quarterly FReepathons!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Plainsman
Now wait just a minute. Didn't these people watch G.I. Jane. That woman could do everything that the men could do. Now that's a fact - cuz I saw it in a movie.
5 posted on 11/06/2005 6:01:36 PM PST by Mulch (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Plainsman

Maybe the armed forces should be like golf courses and have ladies rules for combat. Even better, have a ladies winner in warfare like they do in marathons.


6 posted on 11/06/2005 6:02:50 PM PST by satchmodog9 ( Seventy million spent on the lefts Christmas present and all they got was a Scooter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Plainsman
We wont have any of that. No sir. Equal treatment.

New name..."This ladies army"....Hehehehehe

7 posted on 11/06/2005 6:03:27 PM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Plainsman
'sustainable and commensurate with their physical profile'.

No kiddin' there's a different physical profile? What morons!

8 posted on 11/06/2005 6:04:33 PM PST by jimfree (Freep and Ye shall find.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Plainsman
Once more, in bold.

'Men are stronger and more robust and it's silly to pretend otherwise'

9 posted on 11/06/2005 6:04:41 PM PST by ShadowDancer (I think I may have the Asian Bird Fru. I mean Flu. (Damn, it's starting already))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: Plainsman

Cool! Step 2 is to get an agreement from our enemies to go easier on the women.


11 posted on 11/06/2005 6:06:42 PM PST by strategofr (The secret of happiness is freedom. And the secret of freedom is courage.---Thucydities)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SubMareener
Something the Marines realized from the beginning. Good to see the Army is finally facing reality.

Well, actually, it's the British Army that's finally facing reality.


12 posted on 11/06/2005 6:09:40 PM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SubMareener

"Something the Marines realized from the beginning. Good to see the Army is finally facing reality"

Unfortuneately, it's not our Army that is making this change, it't the Brits.


13 posted on 11/06/2005 6:11:33 PM PST by SAMS (Nobody loves a soldier until the enemy is at the gate; Army Wife & Marine Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SubMareener

Good to see political correctness being thrown out the window. Zut Alors! You mean women have different bodies than men do?

You betcha. Men need 20 mile hikes with packs on to strengthen legs, ankles, hips. Women are naturally stronger from the top of the hips down. They need to work on upper body conditioning and strength if they are gonna be warriors.

Ask Olga from Michigan!


14 posted on 11/06/2005 6:19:44 PM PST by Candor7 (Into Liberal Flatulence Goes the Hope of the West)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: Polybius
Well, actually, it's the British Army that's finally facing reality.

This is the way I read the story as well. Yet I suspect the statistics apply anywhere some planner comes up with the same training regimen for both sexes unless the regimen is designed strictly for the lasses.

16 posted on 11/06/2005 6:31:00 PM PST by stevem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

This can't be true! A woman can do anything a man can do.
I know this because that's what the media has told me for the last 30 years! And, you know, everything reported in the newspaper and on television is correct.They can't lie
it's against the law. yeah right


17 posted on 11/06/2005 6:31:22 PM PST by SonnyBubba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Plainsman

Will the enemy only send other women to fight there women?


18 posted on 11/06/2005 6:32:55 PM PST by Iwentsouth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Plainsman
I've always had problems with homosexuals & women in the military. But I've resolved that by realizing that if we are ever invaded, I wont care what the gender or sexual preference is of the person next to me, firing at the enemy.

The military simply needs to figure out what women do better than men. Yes, I know that may sound heretical to some, but isn't it obvious that if men are better at some things than women, then women must be better at some things than men.

War is serious business, & I want the right people in the right jobs. Just as the guy with bottle thick glasses may not be the best sniper, a person with small, delicate hands may be the best bomb disposal person on the base.
19 posted on 11/06/2005 6:35:40 PM PST by Mister Da (Nuke 'em til they glow!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Plainsman

Marine Corps to Army: We told you so.


20 posted on 11/06/2005 6:37:47 PM PST by DocH (Gun-grabbers, you can HAVE my guns... lead first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson