At last a woman Royal Marine.
Ian
"Anthony Armstrong Blair" < nom...@spamfree.life.com> wrote in message
news:ad8ldm$1r2$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
>
> >> However, it's good that there's at least one woman who knows that
> >> 99.9999999% of women will never compete successfully with men in a
> >> fight, because perhaps feminists will listen to her that defence is
> >> not a social experiment.
> >
> >Basic combat fitness is easily reachable for _many_ women, this is
> >special forces level training.
>
> The Royal Marines are not special forces, they are a part of the Royal
> Navy. Don't be confused by the green beret.
>
> Britain's only special forces is the Special Air Service. The SAS has
> no female members.
What about the SBS?
>
> BTW, the female who finally won a green beret from the Royal Marines
> did so on her third attempt and carried "normalised" weights. The word
> "normalised" is Ministry of Defence speak for "lighter".
>
> You may draw your own conclusions about whether or not the fact that
> she is an army officer and is related to senior officers had any
> bearing on her being allowed to pass after two failures.
L.B.
>> BTW, the female who finally won a green beret from the Royal Marines
>> did so on her third attempt and carried "normalised" weights. The word
>> "normalised" is Ministry of Defence speak for "lighter".
>>
>> You may draw your own conclusions about whether or not the fact that
>> she is an army officer and is related to senior officers had any
>> bearing on her being allowed to pass after two failures.
Britain just recently lost a world empire. Now we know why.
If women in the British armed services are forbidden to participate
directly in combat, why waste the British taxpayers pounds allowing
this moron to become a Royal Marine? A complete stupid waste!
Parg2000
>From: L.B. zulutan...@sowhat.com
>Date: 6/9/02 3:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <qel7gusblgttc2a4i...@4ax.com>
>
>On Sun, 9 Jun 2002 23:18:32 +0100, "Ian" <dra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> BTW, the female who finally won a green beret from the Royal Marines
>>> did so on her third attempt and carried "normalised" weights. The word
>>> "normalised" is Ministry of Defence speak for "lighter".
>>>
>>> You may draw your own conclusions about whether or not the fact that
>>> she is an army officer and is related to senior officers had any
>>> bearing on her being allowed to pass after two failures.
{Parg} I don't draw any more conclusions about that than I would about any
other military nepotism. As to the "normalization" of weight, that makes
sense to me. It may mean that women need not BE men to be equal.
>
>Britain just recently lost a world empire. Now we know why.
{Parg} "Recently"? <G>
>
>If women in the British armed services are forbidden to participate>directly
in combat, why waste the British taxpayers pounds allowing this moron to become
a Royal Marine? A complete stupid waste!
>
{Parg} Considering that Marines spend 99.9% of their work time at peace
rather than at war, why do you think it's a waste?
<G>
>
>
>
>
>
>
L.B.
>>If women in the British armed services are forbidden to participate>directly
>in combat, why waste the British taxpayers pounds allowing this moron to become
>a Royal Marine? A complete stupid waste!
>>
>{Parg} Considering that Marines spend 99.9% of their work time at peace
>rather than at war, why do you think it's a waste?
><G>
Well, dipstick!
I have a high confidence level that when the unexpected crisis erupts
the male Royal Marines will be capable of handling the job. They are
touted to be the best in the world due to their highly selective
recruiting process and training standards. If this political bitch was
a male she would have washed out long ago and would not have been
given another chance.
Also, fireMEN spend most of their duty time setting around in the
firehouse watching tv, sleeping, training, taking care of the
equipment, playing checkers, etc. Very little time in a fireMAN'S
career is actually spent fighting fires.
But when your house is burning and you are trapped inside you can
reasonably expect the fireMEN to be strong and capable enough to
rescue you and put out the fire in short order. Even though they are
not constantly fighting fires, one can have a high confidence level
that today's fireMAN'S professionalism and ability will be there when
needed. However, with affirmative action hiring of female firePERSON'S
with 'normalized' physical standards for the female physique, that
confidence level is compromised significantly.
Parg2000
>Message-id: <t2a8gukfb59v73r1n...@4ax.com>
>
>On 10 Jun 2002 01:54:28 GMT, parg...@cs.com (Parg2000) wrote:
>
>>>If women in the British armed services are forbidden to
>participate>directly
>>in combat, why waste the British taxpayers pounds allowing this moron to
>become
>>a Royal Marine? A complete stupid waste!
>>>
>>{Parg} Considering that Marines spend 99.9% of their work time at peace
>>rather than at war, why do you think it's a waste?
>><G>
>
>Well, dipstick!
>
>I have a high confidence level that when the unexpected crisis erupts the male
Royal Marines will be capable of handling the job.
{Parg} Indeed. And while I object to keeping women out of the frey, the
military should not keep women out from their misogynistic tendencies. The
Brits have recognized that by making sure women are included, eh?
They are>touted to be the best in the world due to their highly selective
>recruiting process and training standards. If this political bitch was
>a male she would have washed out long ago and would not have been
>given another chance.
>
{Parg} Ho hum....doing my nails.....Dickwads like you are no longer in charge,
hon. This man's army is getting integrated, like it or not.
>Also, fireMEN spend most of their duty time setting around in the
>firehouse watching tv, sleeping, training, taking care of the>equipment,
playing checkers, etc. Very little time in a fireMAN'S
>career is actually spent fighting fires.
>
{Parg} Indeed. Women are there as well, dear. In fact, there's even a
webcite or so dedicated to female fire fighters.
>But when your house is burning and you are trapped inside you can>reasonably
expect the fireMEN to be strong and capable enough to
>rescue you and put out the fire in short order. Even though they are
>not constantly fighting fires, one can have a high confidence level
>that today's fireMAN'S professionalism and ability will be there when
>needed. However, with affirmative action hiring of female firePERSON'S
>with 'normalized' physical standards for the female physique, that
>confidence level is compromised significantly.
>
{Parg} Actually, I witnessed a fire where the female ff was handling the hose,
but a male Phillipino fire fighter needed help from a comrade. Hmmmmm. I
guess one male ff may differ from another in terms of strength. Maybe we
should just hire TREK to fight fires. <G>
>
>
>
>
>
>
WhiteDragon®
"Parg2000" <parg...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20020610102521...@mb-ma.news.cs.com...
> >Subject: Re: At last a woman Royal Marine.
> >From: L.B. zulutan...@sowhat.com
> >Date: 6/9/2002 9:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <t2a8gukfb59v73r1n...@4ax.com>
> >
> >On 10 Jun 2002 01:54:28 GMT, parg...@cs.com (Parg2000) wrote:
> >
> >>>If women in the British armed services are forbidden to
> >participate>directly
> >>in combat, why waste the British taxpayers pounds allowing this moron to
> >become
> >>a Royal Marine? A complete stupid waste!
> >>>
> >>{Parg} Considering that Marines spend 99.9% of their work time at
peace
> >>rather than at war, why do you think it's a waste?
> >><G>
> >
> >Well, dipstick!
> >
> >I have a high confidence level that when the unexpected crisis erupts the
male
> Royal Marines will be capable of handling the job.
>
> {Parg} Indeed. And while I object to keeping women out of the frey, the
> military should not keep women out from their misogynistic tendencies.
The
> Brits have recognized that by making sure women are included, eh?
ohhhh ok. Although you may object,
Women can be kept out of the frey,and as long as they still can get the same
uniform, pay
and status(with out doing equal work for it)you are ok with that.
I am glad for women like Jen.
She believes if women are going to wear the combat elite uniforms,
they should share equally in the hazzards and frey <G>
Or they dont want the job.
Huge difference.
>
> They are>touted to be the best in the world due to their highly selective
> >recruiting process and training standards. If this political bitch was
> >a male she would have washed out long ago and would not have been
> >given another chance.
> >
> {Parg} Ho hum....doing my nails.....Dickwads like you are no longer in
charge,
> hon. This man's army is getting integrated, like it or not.
Nails?? LOL
Ok, i have suspected this for a few weeks, but now i am convienced.
This is NOT the same Parg i have come to love arguing with.
Did you get struck in the head with lightning or something?
One funny thing about the rights we all enjoy.
The government can take them away at any time with the stroke
of a pen. So yes, women may be integrated into this mans army,
but if conditions were to warrent it, the women would be out on
their bums in a heart beat.
doing your nails, lol -- you tickle me pargie
~wd
Sky King
@cs.com says...
> >Subject: Re: At last a woman Royal Marine.
> >From: L.B. zulutan...@sowhat.com
> >Date: 6/9/2002 9:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <t2a8gukfb59v73r1n...@4ax.com>
> >
> >On 10 Jun 2002 01:54:28 GMT, parg...@cs.com (Parg2000) wrote:
> >
> >>>If women in the British armed services are forbidden to
> >participate>directly
> >>in combat, why waste the British taxpayers pounds allowing this moron to
> >become
> >>a Royal Marine? A complete stupid waste!
> >>>
> >>{Parg} Considering that Marines spend 99.9% of their work time at peace
> >>rather than at war, why do you think it's a waste?
> >><G>
> >
> >Well, dipstick!
> >
> >I have a high confidence level that when the unexpected crisis erupts the male
> Royal Marines will be capable of handling the job.
>
> {Parg} Indeed. And while I object to keeping women out of the frey, the
> military should not keep women out from their misogynistic tendencies. The
> Brits have recognized that by making sure women are included, eh?
You think so dumb bitch then read this.
Gee then you have apparently not seen this.
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/article/0,,9003-2002042998,00.html
FYI
Sunday Times
27 January 2002
Women troops to be kept off front line
James Clark, Defence Correspondent
Wowmn will not be allowed to fight with frontline units in the British
military, Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, will announce next month.
The hell you say.........chuckle
sky
The saga over whether women should be allowed to join units such as the
Parachute Regiment, SAS, marines and armoured regiments has been running
since Labour took office in 1997.
A report on the issue, known as the Combat Effectiveness Gender Study
(CEGS) and written by the army on behalf of all three services, was
handed
into the chiefs of staff, Britain's most senior military figures, last
summer. It showed that while some exceptional female candidates could
manage frontline roles, most are not physically up to the job.
They just can't hang. Tsk. Tsk. sky
Hoon will announce that women will continue to be barred from "direct-
fire
close combat" roles or roles where close-quarter fighting with the enemy
is
likely.
Gee, why am I not surprised. Its what I have been saying all along.
sky
The move is sure to cause ructions among Labour backbenchers, many of
whom
regard the army's bar on women as sexism. However, it will please Iain
Duncan Smith, the Tory leader who, as shadow defence secretary under
William Hague, backed the status quo.
So if women are given a chance and they can't do the job its sexism.?
sky
Alice Mahon, Labour MP, said: "I suspect that many of these tests were
flawed. If women compete physically with men, then obviously most will
fail. The truth is that most fighting these days is done from 20,000ft.
I
will be disappointed with the announcement."
Oh and now the "flawed" test strategy. By flawed they mean to hard for
the little women. Note how she predicts that women and men will no
longer have to fight anyway. They are starting to sound like the
feminist in the US. They predict no more pack carrying, no long
marches, They will have little thingies to help them with everything.
If a woman cannot do it the job requires a bot. chuckle
sky
However, Claire Ward, another MP, disagreed. She spent a year alongside
the
Royal Marines as part of a parliamentary armed forces scheme, in which
MPs
experience military life. "I arrived with the view that women should
have
the right to do this and told them so," said Ward. "But after a year I
had
my mind changed.
At least one that had actually been there tells the truth. sky
"I don't think women are physically built for it, and I also think that
while the lads I knew were mature and calm, they are trained to be very
aggressive and, let's be frank, to kill, often with bare hands. I
believe
firmly in equality, but men and women are different."
So men and women are different. They wasted a lot of money to find out
what most of us already knew. sky
At present 73% of navy jobs are open to women, with the marines, the
Special Boat Squadron and submarines exempted. In the army, the figure
is
70% with infantry, armour and SAS exempted. In the RAF, 96% of jobs are
available to women, including piloting fighter jets.
Women can still serve in war zones, with a number currently in
Afghanistan,
but they are excluded from units whose role it is to engage with the
enemy.
Note that they can serve in war ZONES but are excluded from units whose
role it is to engage with the enemy. Even the Brits know the difference
between a combat zone and COMBAT. sky
As well as gathering data from across the world, especially from
America,
Israel and Scandinavia where women are used in some frontline roles, the
CEGS authors carried out a host of physical tests on groups of male and
female soldiers in the Brecon Beacons in Wales.
It was thought that the most serious problems might emerge in the way
the
soldiers interacted. However, while the cohesion of mixed-sex units
suffered slightly, the report found stark differences in performance.
Tests
also showed that the injury rate among women was double that of male
soldiers.
Double the rate of men. Again I am not surprised. sky
The army went out of its way to compile an "open-minded and scientific"
report, said a senior Ministry of Defence figure: "This is a report full
of
scientific data, not opinions. It had to be done fairly and it has
been."
I bet they went out of their way to TRY and make sure these women could
pass and it still didn't work. Its back to support roles for them.
sky
While the announcement will delight traditionalists, the ministry is
preparing for a legal challenge. Lawyers have advised that a case could
be
brought under the European convention on human rights if an applicant
claimed she was denied a job on grounds of gender.
LOL. They are not admitted because they cannot perform. sky
Last year opponents of the ban had a potential champion in Philippa
Tattersall, 26, an army captain who attempted the arduous all-arms
commando
course one of the world's toughest. Somewhat unfairly, she became a
talisman for women's groups after failing on the last part, having
outperformed most of the male applicants.
Poor baby. chuckle
sky
Sky King
> >From: L.B. zulutan...@sowhat.com
> >Date: 6/9/2002 9:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <t2a8gukfb59v73r1n...@4ax.com>
> >
> >On 10 Jun 2002 01:54:28 GMT, parg...@cs.com (Parg2000) wrote:
> >
> >>>If women in the British armed services are forbidden to
> >participate>directly
> >>in combat, why waste the British taxpayers pounds allowing this moron to
> >become
> >>a Royal Marine? A complete stupid waste!
> >>>
> >>{Parg} Considering that Marines spend 99.9% of their work time at peace
> >>rather than at war, why do you think it's a waste?
> >><G>
> >
> >Well, dipstick!
> >
> >I have a high confidence level that when the unexpected crisis erupts the male
> Royal Marines will be capable of handling the job.
>
> {Parg} Indeed. And while I object to keeping women out of the frey, the
> military should not keep women out from their misogynistic tendencies. The
> Brits have recognized that by making sure women are included, eh?
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/article/0,,9003-2002042998,00.html
FYI
Poor baby. chuckle
sky
>
>
>
Parg2000
>Date: 6/16/2002 8:40 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <MPG.17767b90d...@news3.news.adelphia.net>
{Parg} I DO say....that women will be accorded equal opportunity even tho men
will squawk and shuffle. What is it about inclusion you don't understand
carpet munch?