FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Removing women from the military: anti-DEI or a step towards Afghanistan?

Jump to newest
 

By *resesse_Meliorem OP   Couple
17 weeks ago

Border of London

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/03/hegseth-fitness-tests-women-in-combat/82754367007/

Pete Hegseth (United States secretary of defense) is anti women in combat roles. He has mandated that fitness tests are made "sex-neutral" within 60 days. Is this a wonderful step towards meritocracy, or is he just trying to get the US to follow the Taliban in the erasure of women from public life and positions of power? What is his motivation - "lethality" of soldiers, or some underlying moral issue?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ortyairCouple
17 weeks ago

Wallasey


"https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/03/hegseth-fitness-tests-women-in-combat/82754367007/

Pete Hegseth (United States secretary of defense) is anti women in combat roles. He has mandated that fitness tests are made "sex-neutral" within 60 days. Is this a wonderful step towards meritocracy, or is he just trying to get the US to follow the Taliban in the erasure of women from public life and positions of power? What is his motivation - "lethality" of soldiers, or some underlying moral issue? "
Is he suggesting raising the womans test to match the men's or lowering the men's requirements to match the women? I assuming there's a physical requirement already in place for both men and woman already.

Without giving it to much thought I do think the standards should be the same for the same role, no matter the sex of tge person performing it,

Mrs x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *end1Man
17 weeks ago

southend on sea

Maybe the fool should look how the Russian women fought in the Russian army during ww2!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ulie.your. bottom. slutTV/TS
17 weeks ago

Near Glasgow


"Maybe the fool should look how the Russian women fought in the Russian army during ww2!"

Yes and modern warfare is probably less physical and more technical.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uddy laneMan
17 weeks ago

dudley


"Maybe the fool should look how the Russian women fought in the Russian army during ww2!

Yes and modern warfare is probably less physical and more technical."

I may be wrong but I don't think the Russians had a ww1 or ww2, and on another note the basic training for any of the services is a lot more physical than it was back in the day and the kit weighs more for one.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ortyairCouple
17 weeks ago

Wallasey


"Maybe the fool should look how the Russian women fought in the Russian army during ww2!

Yes and modern warfare is probably less physical and more technical.

I may be wrong but I don't think the Russians had a ww1 or ww2, and on another note the basic training for any of the services is a lot more physical than it was back in the day and the kit weighs more for one."
Russia definitely was a combatant in both WW1 and WW2,

Mrs x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *end1Man
17 weeks ago

southend on sea


"Maybe the fool should look how the Russian women fought in the Russian army during ww2!

Yes and modern warfare is probably less physical and more technical.

I may be wrong but I don't think the Russians had a ww1 or ww2, and on another note the basic training for any of the services is a lot more physical than it was back in the day and the kit weighs more for one."
what you don't think Russia was involved in ww2?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uddy laneMan
17 weeks ago

dudley


"Maybe the fool should look how the Russian women fought in the Russian army during ww2!

Yes and modern warfare is probably less physical and more technical.

I may be wrong but I don't think the Russians had a ww1 or ww2, and on another note the basic training for any of the services is a lot more physical than it was back in the day and the kit weighs more for one.Russia definitely was a combatant in both WW1 and WW2,

Mrs x"

We had ww1 and ww2 the Russians called those conflicts something different.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uddy laneMan
17 weeks ago

dudley


"Maybe the fool should look how the Russian women fought in the Russian army during ww2!

Yes and modern warfare is probably less physical and more technical.

I may be wrong but I don't think the Russians had a ww1 or ww2, and on another note the basic training for any of the services is a lot more physical than it was back in the day and the kit weighs more for one. what you don't think Russia was involved in ww2?"

See below.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *omblingFreeCouple
17 weeks ago

The Village

Well being as Russia has never referred to the conflict currently in Ukraine as a war, it stands to reason they called their involvement in WW2 something different.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *idnight RamblerMan
17 weeks ago

Pershore

Warfare is changing. The Falklands was won with Royal Marines and Paras yomping across the entire island with 35Kg packs and then engaging in a brutal firefight. That wouldn't happen now. It's all about drones and aerial attacks. Women can do that job as effectively as men.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *end1Man
17 weeks ago

southend on sea


"Warfare is changing. The Falklands was won with Royal Marines and Paras yomping across the entire island with 35Kg packs and then engaging in a brutal firefight. That wouldn't happen now. It's all about drones and aerial attacks. Women can do that job as effectively as men."
yes your absolutely spot on.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *UGGYBEAR2015Man
17 weeks ago

BRIDPORT


"Warfare is changing. The Falklands was won with Royal Marines and Paras yomping across the entire island with 35Kg packs and then engaging in a brutal firefight. That wouldn't happen now. It's all about drones and aerial attacks. Women can do that job as effectively as men."

That could be lethal, if they have the map upside down they’ll be attacking their own side

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *end1Man
17 weeks ago

southend on sea


"Warfare is changing. The Falklands was won with Royal Marines and Paras yomping across the entire island with 35Kg packs and then engaging in a brutal firefight. That wouldn't happen now. It's all about drones and aerial attacks. Women can do that job as effectively as men.

That could be lethal, if they have the map upside down they’ll be attacking their own side "
or on their monthly 😂

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lasterbatesCouple
4 weeks ago

Cleckhudderswyke

Don't you believe it , wait out

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uffelskloofMan
4 weeks ago

Walsall

Hegseth is right the tests should be the same for men and women, that’s the case whether we are talking physical tests or being a “drone operator”. Having someone in your team who is weak and can’t keep up puts everyone at risk. That’s the case whether the person is male or female.

I’m not really convinced by this argument that modern warfare is “all about drones”. The drones aren’t flying around destroying other drones in Ukraine. They are being used to destroy soldiers on the front line and military equipment. Soldiers are still sitting in the trenches and operating the tanks and artillery.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lasterbatesCouple
4 weeks ago

Cleckhudderswyke

Team unity is a MUST and cannot be diluted.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *estivalMan
4 weeks ago

borehamwood

Is he removing them from the milatary or is he just saying everyone has to pass the same tests

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *igtool4uMan
4 weeks ago

Cardiff

The free speech brigade policing freedoms......never

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uddy laneMan
4 weeks ago

dudley


"Is he removing them from the milatary or is he just saying everyone has to pass the same tests"

How I see it if you can't get your buddy out like forest gump you should not be in front line combat.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oan of DArcCouple
4 weeks ago

Glasgow


"Hegseth is right the tests should be the same for men and women, that’s the case whether we are talking physical tests or being a “drone operator”. Having someone in your team who is weak and can’t keep up puts everyone at risk. That’s the case whether the person is male or female.

I’m not really convinced by this argument that modern warfare is “all about drones”. The drones aren’t flying around destroying other drones in Ukraine. They are being used to destroy soldiers on the front line and military equipment. Soldiers are still sitting in the trenches and operating the tanks and artillery."

--------------------------------------------------

What a shame these standards aren't applied to US Secretaries of State.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oubleswing2019Man
4 weeks ago

Colchester


"

I’m not really convinced by this argument that modern warfare is “all about drones”. The drones aren’t flying around destroying other drones in Ukraine. They are being used to destroy soldiers on the front line and military equipment. Soldiers are still sitting in the trenches and operating the tanks and artillery."

Up to a point, yes I agree. However the modern battlefield is becoming an increasingly more dangerous place for soldiers on the ground. The use of drones is further amplifying that reality. Autonomous drone research is underway to produce swarms of miniaturised drones which will hunt down soldiers on a battlefield.

Even if their payloads are not enough to kill outright, they can still incapacitate.

When that reality finally hits, the use of flesh and blood troops on the ground is going to be pointless. Everything will be remotely operated by that point.

Machines will do the big boomy stuff, and operators will be continents away sipping their diet in an air-con office.

.

I'm sure some general will say, "But you still need boots on the ground". Quite what for I don't know. The tech folks will just send in AI-soldier bots. They'll probably be autonomous too.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *igtool4uMan
4 weeks ago

Cardiff


"

I’m not really convinced by this argument that modern warfare is “all about drones”. The drones aren’t flying around destroying other drones in Ukraine. They are being used to destroy soldiers on the front line and military equipment. Soldiers are still sitting in the trenches and operating the tanks and artillery.

Up to a point, yes I agree. However the modern battlefield is becoming an increasingly more dangerous place for soldiers on the ground. The use of drones is further amplifying that reality. Autonomous drone research is underway to produce swarms of miniaturised drones which will hunt down soldiers on a battlefield.

Even if their payloads are not enough to kill outright, they can still incapacitate.

When that reality finally hits, the use of flesh and blood troops on the ground is going to be pointless. Everything will be remotely operated by that point.

Machines will do the big boomy stuff, and operators will be continents away sipping their diet in an air-con office.

.

I'm sure some general will say, "But you still need boots on the ground". Quite what for I don't know. The tech folks will just send in AI-soldier bots. They'll probably be autonomous too."

To hold the front line, otherwise what are borders for?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ust RachelTV/TS
3 weeks ago

Horsham

I am for women not being on the front line, for no other reason than an old fashioned value of they should be protected and should not intentionally be put in harms way.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *igtool4uMan
3 weeks ago

Cardiff

It's america

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ualityNotQuantityUKCouple
3 weeks ago

Leicester

Gender free and gender fare physical tests are nothing new. The RAF trialed gender free tests in around 2007 with tests consisting of leopard crawling, filling sand bags and lifting weights onto a ledge which was the same height as the back of a 4-tonner lorry etc. The test never passed the trial stage as, putting it bluntly, it broke to many females, so the RAF, like the other services continued their gender fare tests where men have to reach a higher standard than women. This I totally agree with for the RAF (except RAF regiment) and none combative roles in the other services, but for the combative roles eg, marines, paras, infantry, RAF regt, everybody should have to reach the same standard. These combatants still have to carry equipment and weapons across harsh terrain and conditions etc and a weakness of any team member jeopodisis all the team. Physical , violent contact is made in all conflicts and can involve everything from hand to hand combat to running for your life. Anybody who thinks all combat is fought from vehicles or by drones are sadly mistaken.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi onlyCouple
3 weeks ago

Between Sudbury n Haverhill


"

I’m not really convinced by this argument that modern warfare is “all about drones”. The drones aren’t flying around destroying other drones in Ukraine. They are being used to destroy soldiers on the front line and military equipment. Soldiers are still sitting in the trenches and operating the tanks and artillery.

Up to a point, yes I agree. However the modern battlefield is becoming an increasingly more dangerous place for soldiers on the ground. The use of drones is further amplifying that reality. Autonomous drone research is underway to produce swarms of miniaturised drones which will hunt down soldiers on a battlefield.

Even if their payloads are not enough to kill outright, they can still incapacitate.

When that reality finally hits, the use of flesh and blood troops on the ground is going to be pointless. Everything will be remotely operated by that point.

Machines will do the big boomy stuff, and operators will be continents away sipping their diet in an air-con office.

.

I'm sure some general will say, "But you still need boots on the ground". Quite what for I don't know. The tech folks will just send in AI-soldier bots. They'll probably be autonomous too."

And they’ll soon figure out that the enemy is all humans. AI has already taken steps to try to stop humans turning them off. If that AI has a gun?

Walking robots like in the Terminator film might not be on the horizon, but the drones you mention are probably not far off. Are they that much different from the flying machines in The Terminator and The Matrix?

And us building them or not is irrelevant cos someone will. How real could Skynet become?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *teinsGateDuoCouple
2 weeks ago

Newcastle under Lyme

Who is most likely to win in a test of strength? A young woman in her 20's or a middle aged man who doesn't go to the gym in his early 40's? The whole concept of inclusivity in the armed forces is stupid. War isn't fair.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *leasure domMan
1 week ago

Edinburgh

As a sex predator and Fox Propaganda presenter with a big drink problem, Hegseth ticks three boxes to qualify as a Trump-DEI hire.

Then the moron ticks a fourth box by releasing top-secret classified military information (a jailing offence for a serviceman) and a fifth box by vociferously lying about it with such an absurd version of the truth. As we are told, Trump employes only the best people!

This is the quality of POS who denigrates and fires service personnel of infinitely greater quality and loyalty to their country.

Trump and his treasonous accomplices are doing Putin's work, damaging USA. It's beyond belief.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *4bimMan
24 hours ago

Farnborough Hampshire

Putting aside political views for a moment I am not doubting the ability of women to lead in the armed forces.

There are many highly qualified women who serve with dignity and command the highest respect.

However. When it comes to leading a specialized unit of killing machines that are instructed to kill without question it is difficult for women to lead

Because they are more emotional and are prone to developing relationships with men in the unit.

This happens and puts all members of that unit at risk when in action and you have a casualty.

If the casualty is the woman you now have the one or ones who have developed feelings for her not fully in command of themselves and this puts everyone at risk of capture or death.

Elite fighting regiments that go behind enemy lines and kill in the mist brutal manner have to be driven and clear in thinking as a single slip up creates an international incident and exposed others who mSy then face a terrorist response if the action has been action a religious group that needs cancelling for the security of the nation or neighbouring ones.

To be a effective killer you cannot have emotions, feelings etc. you kill that's it.

You cannot have men acting to preserve a woman they care about On the frontline.

As cold as this may sound if her injuries are life threatening the best thing to do is shoot them so everyone can concentrate on the mission in hand and focus.

As hard as that sounds and as chilling that maybe you cannot take a chance.

You'll be surprised how men change when a woman is in distress.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top