Our thanks to Nigel for this. He writes:
“The Army’s drive to have a higher percentage of women means reducing its effectiveness as a fighting force. As with the Police, Fire Services and RAF our safety and security is compromised by the application of “DEI”.
“One infantry PTI, who didn’t wish to be named, told the Express.co.uk: “Fitness standards are horrendous, the army is not prepared to fight. It is actually a joke.”
And why is our Army acting in this way to reduce its effectiveness? Well, until 2019 it had higher standards for men than women, but this is in fact unlawful and so it had to adopt a general standard. “Standards have become standardised regardless of gender but current tests require troops to run 400m less whilst being given an increased amount of time to do it within” and the tests changed to an “assessment” that in practice isn’t enforced. No doubt achieving the goal of recruiting and retaining more women. But at the cost of our safety as our Army becomes less fit.
The fiction that women and men are equally physically capable resulting in the reality that our Armed services are less effective.”
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Our YouTube channel is here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
How this happens goes like this. The Employer decides to up the % of women but finds “too few” women meet physical standards (height, strength, fitness) because of natural sex differences. This is “indirect discrimination against women” so to correct this indirect discrimination they institute lower standards for women. However by Equality law they can’t do this without it being “direct discrimination” against men because they have to meet higher standards just because they are men. So to keep the lower standards that favour women and not directly discriminate against men they have to say the lower standards are in fact those required for the job. End result standards are lowered for all applicants and over time this affects the whole workforce. Usually the first things to go are height requirements, then fitness tests and strength. Now of course they may get really lucky and the male applicants well exceed the new lower standards and reach the old “male” standards but they can’t exclude men who only meet the new lower standards. The next stage, which is where the RAF got to, is that having lowered standards you have actually increased the pool of male applicants who will “pass” because so many man who were short or less fit or not as strong now can meet the standards that are “required” by the job. So you still have vastly more male candidates than female. To solve this the RAF simply “paused” or aborted recruitments that had too many male applicants until they had one with the required % of females, contributing to their inability to fill vacancies.
Usually each stage is initiated by successful tribunial legal challenges from disgruntled applicants/candidates. This process is observable in the Police (early adopters in the late 80s onwards) Fire services (mid 90s and into the 2000s) and the forces, the Navy taking the lead, in this century.
LikeLike