Woman who failed frontline infantry fitness test given a ‘pass’ by the Army until furious male soldiers who HAD completed course staged rebellion

A female soldier was allowed to continue on an Army selection course even though she failed a vital fitness test – triggering a rebellion among male troops who had passed. Corporal Daisy Dougherty was hoping to become one of the Army’s first female infantry instructors following the landmark decision last year to let women join combat units and Special Forces. The first stage in the selection process required her to prove her fitness by completing an eight-mile march in under two hours over arduous terrain while carrying a heavy pack and a rifle.

Despite being a qualified personal fitness trainer and a member of the Army’s athletics squad, the 29-year-old took too long to finish the challenge. Under course rules, she should have been immediately ejected and sent back to her unit. But Cpl Dougherty – the only woman on the course – and 14 others who also failed were told they could carry on, sparking a furious backlash among the 75 soldiers who passed the test.

The soldiers rounded on commanders at the Infantry Battle School in Brecon, Mid-Wales, accusing them of lowering standards to suit women. When top brass refused to back down, troops contacted The Mail on Sunday to expose what they claimed was ‘positive discrimination’.

Fearing a public backlash if they allowed her result to stand, commanders backed down and asked Cpl Dougherty and the other soldiers who failed the march to leave.

Last night, a soldier on the course said: ‘The blokes were livid because it is written in black and white in the course handbook that if you fail the march, you’re pulled off the PSBC [Platoon Sergeants’ Battle Course] immediately. There is no review.

‘Commanders wanted to get Cpl Dougherty through the course, almost at any cost, even if she wasn’t fit enough and even if that meant leniency being shown to weaker male soldiers who also failed the march. We couldn’t believe they were still on the base and attending classes. It took a revolt among the troops and some people going to the Press to get this stopped.’


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6585341/Woman-failed-infant-test-given-pass-Army-furious-male-soldiers-staged-rebellion.html

Thor wrote:A female soldier was allowed to continue on an Army selection course even though she failed a vital fitness test – triggering a rebellion among male troops who had passed. Corporal Daisy Dougherty was hoping to become one of the Army’s first female infantry instructors following the landmark decision last year to let women join combat units and Special Forces. The first stage in the selection process required her to prove her fitness by completing an eight-mile march in under two hours over arduous terrain while carrying a heavy pack and a rifle.

Despite being a qualified personal fitness trainer and a member of the Army’s athletics squad, the 29-year-old took too long to finish the challenge. Under course rules, she should have been immediately ejected and sent back to her unit. But Cpl Dougherty – the only woman on the course – and 14 others who also failed were told they could carry on, sparking a furious backlash among the 75 soldiers who passed the test.

The soldiers rounded on commanders at the Infantry Battle School in Brecon, Mid-Wales, accusing them of lowering standards to suit women. When top brass refused to back down, troops contacted The Mail on Sunday to expose what they claimed was ‘positive discrimination’.

Fearing a public backlash if they allowed her result to stand, commanders backed down and asked Cpl Dougherty and the other soldiers who failed the march to leave.

Last night, a soldier on the course said: ‘The blokes were livid because it is written in black and white in the course handbook that if you fail the march, you’re pulled off the PSBC [Platoon Sergeants’ Battle Course] immediately. There is no review.

‘Commanders wanted to get Cpl Dougherty through the course, almost at any cost, even if she wasn’t fit enough and even if that meant leniency being shown to weaker male soldiers who also failed the march. We couldn’t believe they were still on the base and attending classes. It took a revolt among the troops and some people going to the Press to get this stopped.’


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6585341/Woman-failed-infant-test-given-pass-Army-furious-male-soldiers-staged-rebellion.html

There are certain life or death jobs where physical ability can't be overlooked to insure diversity. The military is one of those places.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:A female soldier was allowed to continue on an Army selection course even though she failed a vital fitness test – triggering a rebellion among male troops who had passed. Corporal Daisy Dougherty was hoping to become one of the Army’s first female infantry instructors following the landmark decision last year to let women join combat units and Special Forces. The first stage in the selection process required her to prove her fitness by completing an eight-mile march in under two hours over arduous terrain while carrying a heavy pack and a rifle.

Despite being a qualified personal fitness trainer and a member of the Army’s athletics squad, the 29-year-old took too long to finish the challenge. Under course rules, she should have been immediately ejected and sent back to her unit. But Cpl Dougherty – the only woman on the course – and 14 others who also failed were told they could carry on, sparking a furious backlash among the 75 soldiers who passed the test.

The soldiers rounded on commanders at the Infantry Battle School in Brecon, Mid-Wales, accusing them of lowering standards to suit women. When top brass refused to back down, troops contacted The Mail on Sunday to expose what they claimed was ‘positive discrimination’.

Fearing a public backlash if they allowed her result to stand, commanders backed down and asked Cpl Dougherty and the other soldiers who failed the march to leave.

Last night, a soldier on the course said: ‘The blokes were livid because it is written in black and white in the course handbook that if you fail the march, you’re pulled off the PSBC [Platoon Sergeants’ Battle Course] immediately. There is no review.

‘Commanders wanted to get Cpl Dougherty through the course, almost at any cost, even if she wasn’t fit enough and even if that meant leniency being shown to weaker male soldiers who also failed the march. We couldn’t believe they were still on the base and attending classes. It took a revolt among the troops and some people going to the Press to get this stopped.’


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6585341/Woman-failed-infant-test-given-pass-Army-furious-male-soldiers-staged-rebellion.html

There are certain life or death jobs where physical ability can't be overlooked to insure diversity. The military is one of those places.

I completely agree, but women in history have been in combat units. Just look at the Soviet Union in WW2 and women in the IDF Israeli forces. I have always said though the creteria for entry, should never be diluted based on a gender bases. Glad to this was reversed, as she should have never been pased, when she failed the test.

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:


There are certain life or death jobs where physical ability can't be overlooked to insure diversity. The military is one of those places.

I completely agree, but women in history have been in combat units. Just look at the Soviet Union in WW2 and women in the IDF Israeli forces. I have always said though the creteria for entry, should never be diluted based on a gender bases. Glad to this was reversed, as she should have never been pased, when she failed the test.

Most of the current and former military folks I know, dont care what gender or sexuality the person next to them is, as long as they can carry the weight.  But they dont want to come home in a box because of social engineering.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

I completely agree, but women in history have been in combat units. Just look at the Soviet Union in WW2 and women in the IDF Israeli forces. I have always said though the creteria for entry, should never be diluted based on a gender bases. Glad to this was reversed, as she should have never been pased, when she failed the test.

Most of the current and former military folks I know, dont care what gender or sexuality the person next to them is, as long as they can carry the weight.  But they dont want to come home in a box because of social engineering.

I completely agree with that Maddog

No woman should be in a front line combat situation while under fire !

nicko wrote:No woman should be in a front line combat situation while under fire !  

Sorry buddy, its not your place to decide and many women have been in the front line and fought in combat in history

I mean did you know in Roman times there was Gladiator women?

Some of the best special forces and spies in WW2 were women

If they have what it takes, then no sentimental value or view you have grown up with on women. Should ever deny them the ability to do what men do as soldiers.

Women have many strenghs and its about time we allowed them to show this.

Its not going to matter how good a woman is at soldering if carrying a certain weight over a certain distance in a certain time is a pass or fail situation, its not physically possible even for most really fit women. Even in marathon running there's about 10/15 mins difference, although the gap is narrowing somewhat. I understand in something like the paras in the Falklands its no good half of the group turning up 15 mins after the other half, although that could have some sort of tactical advantage.
Women used to hunt, its only when they get pregnant that they tend to have to stay behind or go with the hunting group to dress whatever is caught and carry it back but not take an active part in the chase etc.
Women also carried the bulk of the groups stuff when moving to a new camp leaving the men free to guard the group, no mean feat in its self. Woman are usually good at endurance and seem to make good guerrilla fighters, probably because they aren't hampered by burgans.
Why are those things so heavy anyway, food packs, extra ammo, dry clothes, sleeping bag, poncho? How much ammo would you normally carry? There has to be a way to have women in these rolls without lessening operational capability. One of the competitors on the programme was a plant, she had been in Special Forces as a full operative for 10 years, think it was Denmark, Norway has the first all female special forces.

Vintage wrote:Its not going to matter how good a woman is at soldering if carrying a certain weight over a certain distance in a certain time is a pass or fail situation, its not physically possible even for most really fit women. Even in marathon running there's about 10/15 mins difference, although the gap is narrowing somewhat. I understand in something like the paras in the Falklands its no good half of the group turning up 15 mins after the other half, although that could  have some sort of tactical advantage.
Women used to hunt, its only when they get pregnant that they tend to have to stay behind or go with the hunting group to dress whatever is caught and carry it back but not take an active part in the chase etc.
Women also carried the bulk of the groups stuff when moving to a new camp leaving the men free to guard the group, no mean feat in its self. Woman are usually good at endurance and seem to make good guerrilla fighters, probably because they aren't hampered by burgans.
Why are those things so heavy anyway, food packs, extra ammo, dry clothes, sleeping bag, poncho? How much ammo would you normally carry? There has to be a way to have women in these rolls without lessening operational capability. One of the competitors on the programme was a plant, she had been in Special Forces as a full operative for 10 years, think it was Denmark, Norway has the first all female special forces.

To me Vintage, there has been many a time in histiry that women have been warriors
What matters on these tests is if they are able to perform the same tasks that men can here and be able to kill

On both we know they can based on history

I get Nicko's view to be skeptical and its based on emotions around seeing how both men and women  would react to this in combat

Nobody can predict this though, until it happens

I believe that with training there's little difference the real problem is physical strength, which I'm sure with a biyt of application can be surmounted. I worked with a woman years ago, she had been in the services during WW2, she was part of an anti aircraft gun crew in one of the London parks, the team were all women except for one man, the women tracked and aimed the gun and maintained it but only the man was allowed to fire it, although she said they were all quite prepared to do the job. On one occasion a gun caught by the blast of a nearby bomb and once daylight arrived her crew had to go and clear the bodies or what was left of them from the area, she told me seeing that she was even more determined to fire her gun but was never allowed to do so. The best sniper in the Soviet union during WW2 was a woman.
There are many instances of women serving in the army and navy historically, they were disguised as men of course. I think there were quite a number of female pirates including some famous ones Ann Bonny and Mary Read come to mind.

Maddog wrote:
There are certain life or death jobs where physical ability can't be overlooked to insure diversity. The military is one of those places.

Bullshit!  How much masculinity does it take to drive a truck, type an order, or pull a trigger?

A Soldier in Nam shot and killed a Sniper who was hiding in a tree, when we went to examine the Body, it was a young Woman no older than 16/17. A pocket in her Blouse contained a photo of her with a Baby. Took months for him to get over it !

nicko wrote:A Soldier in Nam shot and killed a Sniper who was hiding in a tree,  when we went to examine the Body,  it was a young Woman no older than 16/17. A pocket in her Blouse contained a photo of her with a Baby.  Took months for him to get over it !

And?

So you think that should be reason to stop women want to fight as combat unites?

Tell that to women in the IDF that do so daily

You'v never seen a Woman mangled by Machine gun fire, I don't want to see ANY Woman from WHATEVER country Fighting for WHATEVER cause looking like a Slaughter house reject ! Sorry but it's a pet hate of mine .

nicko wrote:You'v never seen a Woman mangled by Machine gun fire, I don't want to see ANY Woman from WHATEVER country Fighting for WHATEVER cause looking like a Slaughter house reject !  Sorry but it's a pet hate of mine .

Well I have seen people mashed and splattered when they committed suicide when they threw themselves out in front of a train

I used to work on the trains my first job

Being as dead as they come when they committed suicide

I have seen drivers never drive again because of this on the trains

Does this mean by your argument men should never drive trains again?

Do you see how utterly and completely stupid your point is?

Women in history have countless times stood up and fought and you are fucking mocking their memory, where they died for this and other allied countiries

nicko wrote:You'v never seen a Woman mangled by Machine gun fire, I don't want to see ANY Woman from WHATEVER country Fighting for WHATEVER cause looking like a Slaughter house reject !  Sorry but it's a pet hate of mine .

Nor a man. But, truth be told, in Iraq they were killing babies.

CBS News wrote:5 Soliders Named In Iraq Rape Case
BY ANDREW BRIDGMAN

Two sergeants are among five American soldiers charged in the alleged rape-murder of a young Iraqi woman and the killing of three of her relatives, the U.S. military said Monday in releasing the identities of the suspects.
It had announced Sunday that charges were filed against five soldiers after an investigation into allegations that men from the 101st Airborne Division raped and killed the woman, then fatally shot her father, mother and sister at their home in Mahmoudiya, south of Baghdad.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/5-soliders-named-in-iraq-rape-case/

That goes to show what happens to women who are supposed to be non combatants in war, they still die or get hurt by bombs, guns or other physical violence. Rape is part of waging war in many places as is maiming a woman to impair her having babies or feeding those she has, men and children non combatants get limbs hacked off. I sometimes wonder how much difference there is between fighting and being a helpless civilian in a lot of cases.

Thor wrote:

nicko wrote:You'v never seen a Woman mangled by Machine gun fire, I don't want to see ANY Woman from WHATEVER country Fighting for WHATEVER cause looking like a Slaughter house reject !  Sorry but it's a pet hate of mine .

Well I have seen people mashed and splattered when they committed suicide when they threw themselves out in front of a train

I used to work on the trains my first job

Being as dead as they come when they committed suicide

I have seen drivers never drive again because of this on the trains

Does this mean by your argument men should never drive trains again?

Do you see how utterly and completely stupid your point is?

Women in history have countless times stood up and fought and you are fucking mocking their memory, where they died for this and other allied countiries

Don't call his point stupid. Just disagree without the abuse. Honestly - you really a nasty piece of work.

I wont argue with you Dodge, I told you that !

nicko wrote:I wont argue with you Dodge,   I told you that !

No worries mate

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

Well I have seen people mashed and splattered when they committed suicide when they threw themselves out in front of a train

I used to work on the trains my first job

Being as dead as they come when they committed suicide

I have seen drivers never drive again because of this on the trains

Does this mean by your argument men should never drive trains again?

Do you see how utterly and completely stupid your point is?

Women in history have countless times stood up and fought and you are fucking mocking their memory, where they died for this and other allied countiries

Don't call his point stupid. Just disagree without the abuse. Honestly - you really a nasty piece of work.

Oh grow a back bone you silly little snowflake  

I have every right to think a point or opinion is stupid

And you think that makes someone vile and nasty?



That is not abuse, you fragile little cupcake  

I have great respect for Nicko, who unlike you clearly did not take offense

Vintage wrote:That goes to show what happens to women who are supposed to be non combatants in war, they still die or get hurt by bombs, guns or other physical violence. Rape is part of waging war in many places as is maiming a woman to impair her having babies or feeding those she has, men and children non combatants get limbs hacked off. I sometimes wonder how much difference there is between fighting and being a helpless civilian in a lot of cases.

Interesting points. I have read many accounts about the Russian front and in the last months of the war in Germany what happened to many women on both sides Vintage. In fact some women simple could bare the thought of this and took their own lives

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:
There are certain life or death jobs where physical ability can't be overlooked to insure diversity. The military is one of those places.

Bullshit!  How much masculinity does it take to drive a truck, type an order, or pull a trigger?

None. My daughters can do all of that. But none of them could get through Ranger school. I'm not saying women can't serve.  My daughter has numerous female friends that serve.  But there are certain jobs in the military that require a great deal of physical ability.  If a woman has it, great.  If she doesn't, she can serve in a different capacity. You mentioned pulling a trigger.  Women make excellent snipers. But almost none would make a very good SEAL.

nicko wrote:I wont argue with you Dodge,   I told you that !

I don't blame you, he'd only get abusive. Your point of view is perfectly valid.

I once took a Marine Commando's test, one of the tests was to carry a mate 100 yards with full kit. No Woman has ever done it AS FAR AS I KNOW, I failed !

This is the problem though isn't it, the tests are for the fittest males so considering the muscle difference between average males and average females its unlikely any woman will get through, however good she is, It doesn't negate the fact that you may very well have an efficient fighting unit in a female. The first world war many of the soldiers enlisting were malnourished and in a poor state of health, they had to be fed and doctored as well as trained before being shipped off to fight. The second world war wasn't too different everybody was required and few were excempt.
With the current strength requirements I can't see any female making it but there's more to it than just strength these days.
I certainly don't want standards lowered but maybe recognition of 'different strengths'.
The ex special forces female mole in the SAS programme was in the Swedish Special Forces for ten years, she found it hard not because of what she had to do but because she always had to prove herself.
Norway has an all female special forces, its the same story though women in a traditionally man's world have to be even better than their counterparts to get there.
A female colleague and myself have moved an 18 stone 6ft body down the stairs and out to the ambulance, not easy, we've regularly moved people in such circumstances with both male and female partners, no kit of course and the conditions are different, does that count though.
I do understand Nicko's points though.