Women still banned from combat roles after MoD review.

george dubbya wanted a crusade against the muslims. He actually used the word crucade, as in "Christians with a cross, against Muslims" but as ISNT said, what he really wanted was cheap oil to bolster the lifestyle of the people in the west.

And lets not forget that it was the U.S who installed Saddam Hussain in the first place. They were bezzie mates for a while.

And lets not forget who installed the Taliban in Afghanistan. The U.S poured lots of money into supporting the Taliban against the Socialist party in Afghanistan in the 1970s. THe socialist party was pro-women's rights, but the U.S didn't care because it just wanted to support anyone who was against RUssia.

I tend to agree with sakura. The wars we are fighting now have nothing to do with protecting our women and children. We are in afghanistan and iraq because we are friends with the US. We are there as far as I can see, in one case because teh US wanted to blow someone up after they got blown up (9/11) and the other because george dubbya wanted to "get" saddam hussein. Both conflicts have had a huge number of civilian casualties, had war crimes comitted, resulted in increasing danger to the "west" ie been counterproductive, and ruined life for the people who live there. One of teh wars we went into on the basis of a lie. In both cases lucrative reconstruction projects have been given to american companies rather than local ones. And of course Iraq has all that lovely oil...

Nope I'm with sakura. Out there to protect us my arse.

I also find it sexist that men should be called up and not women. Frankly, I can't think of anything worse than having to go to war. But neither can most men.

"Men go to war not to protect women but for: oil, power, money, dick-swinging, and kicks. It has bugger all to do with protecting women."

Sigh...

Sakura if you'd read my post properly you'd see it wasn't what I was saying, but I do think it's important to take into account the views of others - I quoted a comment taken from the Guardian comments about the article which this thread is about.

I really appreciate hearing the different points of view from saltatrix and pogleswood

I agree with War being a difficult area to know who has it worst off - and can think of many many women over the ages who would have given anything to have the opportunity to fight for the people they loved and the freedoms they believed in. I agree pogleswood that the idea that men are more expendable than women on a survival of the human race level, so maybe this whole issue is doubly ridiculous because it seems to be sexist towards both men and women.

I think we are back to cognitive dissonance.The whole idea of women and children first,and the repugnance with which many people view the idea of women fighting and dying in war just like men sits alongside the levels of domestic violence and rape that exist in our society.

War is an area where I think it is very hard/impossible to see who has it better. "Men" as a political group may have the right to press the nuclear button,but on an individual level the effects of fighting fall on the men.Men(the group) may have gone to war for oil, power, money, dick-swinging, and kicks (which of those would you put WW2 in,sakura?)but individual men have fought because they had to,or because as Saltatrix says,they felt they needed to to protect the things they cared about.And that is often at a big cost to them.
I think it does come down to men being seen as expendable,if you want to grow your community at the most basic level you need plenty of women and a few men biologically,so you preserve the women and children because they are the future.

Now,I think if women are capable of meeting the required standards they should be allowed to serve on the front line,and stopping them from doing so is sexist.But historically looking at conscription and WW1 for example I think you could argue that it was men who were being disadvantaged.

Throughout history where is often one side that goes to war in order to 'take' but there is just as often a side who have gone to war to protect their land, families their freedom and their very way of life. Yes there are men who kill for fickle things but there are men who die trying to protect all they hold dear.

I really don't think men are valued more men are seen as more expendable in a way. You get hostage situations etc and it is often women and children who are negotiated for first. True the domestic violence statistic is terrible and greater steps need to be made but out of those murdered male figures are almost double that of females, males are are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than women. Bizarrely however despite being more likely to be the victim of crime, men are less worried than women about most types of crime.

Society is set up in a very weird manner there is sexism without doubt but there is so many problems intertwined that nothing is quite so clear cut.

I really disagree with your statement on men being the most safest people in a war zone. No one is safe and men tend to be prime targets for torture and death because they are male therefore seen as a threat by default. War is devastating and it affects everyone though women often physically survive, they still experience a social death. As their history, culture, relationships and way of life are gone.

Men go to war not to protect women but for: oil, power, money, dick-swinging, and kicks. It has bugger all to do with protecting women.

my anorexia point meant: anorexia is a female disease. Many many young women die from it. I personally believe if there was an similar epedemic among intelligent, middle class boys , causing them to die like girls do, then government would take it seriously and address it.

Out of all the things I've ever read.... Women matter more .... I'm speechless

Girlwiththemouseyhair
There are so many parts of your post I disagree with that I found it hard to reach the end.
WOmen are not valued more, which is why 2 women a week in the UK are murdered by their souse AND THE STATS DON'T EVEN GET REPORTED IN THE NEWS.
Women in the UK are dropping like flies, at the hands of men. You can bet if two men were murdered a week there would be an overhaul of the system.
Anorexia, violent porn, mutilation in the name of beauty... all tie in with the current ideology that men matter more

WOmen are not allowed to fight because of sexism, pure and simple, and of men wanting to have the right to push nuclear buttons with their index fingers, while at the same time stopping women from having the power to do so themselves, and simultaneously stopping women from having the power to stop their wars.

The truth is, it is not for the MoD to decide whether women can bear arms, when it is women and children who suffer most during wars. Men, especially soldiers, are the safest people in a war-zone.

I know scallops, not a good subject to exaggerate on, I apologise.

The comments following the article are interesting actually - what does everyone make of the below? I've edited out sections which I massively disagree with (women being put first when it comes to furthering life expectancy etc) but it's an interesting new angle to the debate, which I think also addresses sexism:

"The idea that women cannot fight on the front line because men will protect them is very very weird.

If we assume that it is 100% true then we can win all wars simply by ensuring that ALL soldiers are female. Seriously we could not lose...the enemy men would be protective of the women and be so traumatised by every victim that each loss we had would result in a psychological loss for them!

The truth is that women are VALUED more by society than men.

What we should absolutely NOT have is a situation where men can be called up but women cannot or where the pay for men and women in very different relative positions of risk is equalised or where men (ONLY) are perceived to be cowards for refusing a call-up to a position of high risk...especially in the context that the women in vastly relatively low risk positions seem to demand "respect" for their sacrifices.

This element of respect and reward for women in low risk, but stigma for men who refuse high risk is the true indicator of inequality. The armed forces is acutely aware that if women are "permitted" on the front line, it will be unable to call up men without women in time of war and since call-ups only occur during high casualty wars it will lead to widespread civil disobedience in time of war.

I conclude therefore that they have chosen this sexist compromise for one reason only...to protect women at the expense of men. If their view was anything else then they would simply choose to have single gender units."

i'd love to hear what they are calling female officers now, gwtmh - the least discriminatory version i ever heard was 'lumpy jumpers' and that's decades old.

ah, banter. 'can't take a joke, shouldn't have joined'. i've actually used that, too.

To be fair, it really isn't just the military that is a bastion of sexist behaviour. My friend who was a senior sales manager for a high end car dealer (one of the very, very few female ones) was subjected to some disgusting behaviour and was never able to feel comfortable on any of the staff/Christmas nights out....because they ALWAYS involved a strip club, and generally a few 'pros' taking the boys outside for some 'extras....' I never saw anything like what she experienced in my years in the service, but perhaps the RAF is inching towards a slightly less sexisr approach because of its demographic make-up and role.

GirlWithTheMouseyHair - Sakura didn't say that all male soldiers rape all female civilians at all! She said as long as it's a man's game then the raping and killing of civilian women will continue. That is very different and unfortunately probably true.

If women are going to get the right to bear arms then as Saltarix said it is going to have to come from the top. It is institutional wide attitude and behaviour change that is required. However, from what you have said about your DB, GirlWithTheMouseyHair, it doesn't look like the "new blood" is any different.

I totally agree with your comments about insitutionalism Madwoman, my DB is at Sandhurst at the moment and the number of massive arguments we've already had (he's coming to finishing Inters) about what is acceptable behaviour and language since he got there - things 3 months ago he'd have railed against, including names for women officers, foreign cadets etc - all in the name of "army banter"

The earlier comments by sakura I was going to argue against, namely that all male soldiers rape all female civilians and the general rape of women by men in the army, but feel it's not my place to add to this at all having heard madwoman's story - so sad and disgusted for you. I work in a male dominated industry but have never (and know no other woman) who has been subjected to harrassment or otherwise, it's appalling and I'm angrily disappointed.

Going back to the original basis of the article in question though, this is clearly something the officer cadets have drummed into them when they first arrive at Sandhurst - my brother spouted these ideas at me about men feeling so sorry for the poor feeble women under their command they'd take leave of all sense and put her as they're major priority. I don't understand why men don't see how this is derogatory towards THEM?! As someone earlier said, I'm pretty sure most serving soldiers would be focused a bit more on the task in hand. Also considering the neccessary emphasi placed on bonding and trusting your fellow soldiers, wouldn't most people feel a sense of putting their best mate first in that kind of situation - male or female?

I've realised I've sounded quite anit-military, I'm very very grateful for the women and men who fight and die to protect me and my rights and my family, I just wish it wasn't neccessary (and also terrified of what happens in a year to my little brother)

saltatrix, i'd love to think that as the 'young blood' reaches the top that policy will change, but have seen absolutely nothing different in the attitudes of the 'young blood' to the attitudes of the 'decision makers'. in fact, if anything, the young blood is a bit more vociferous in their anti-whatever stance lol. as long as they aren't caught.

institutionalisation is a powerful thing. women in the military are all fine and dandy as long as they stay in their place. (and that might indeed be getting promoted to prove how fine and upstanding the system really is. honest.) actually, i may be being a bitter old hag (not sure why i'm bitter - the system worked pretty well for me) and there has been a lot of improvement. just not enough.

it doesn't matter how much take-up there is tbh, (there aren't that many male primary school teachers or nurses in comparison with women, but men are allowed to do the job, they just choose not to).

Saltatrix, agreed the decision will have come from the top, although the arguements would have come from across the board (I remember being asked when the last Cbt Review took place) and the QMSI at my place took part this time.

My only surprise with this review is that people are surprised! TBH I don't see a day when this will ever change, not even when today's OCdts are serving as CGS/CDS. I don't think the UK in general will ever be accepting of a female Infantryman. I also don't think there would be that much take-up if the role was open to all....look at the disaster that was our 'first marine'

No one is saying women can't withstand horrific events of course there are women who can but not every woman and certainly not every man can it is not based on gender that's for sure more to do with their personality, both genders receive their own brand of violence which occurs more often to them than the other.

The decision after doing their review would have come from the top of the military and well the people in those positions tend to be older men and most likely their personal views would affect their decision just going to have to wait for younger blood to filter through over time.

I hate the attitude, still prevalent, from some men of "there, there, dear" when deciding whether women should be ALLOWED certain things. Whether it be equal pay, the right to fight alongside their male colleagues or the right not to be thought of as a walking recepticle for any man's cock.

sorry, to be clear about women being able to withstand horrific events, look at journalist Anna Politkovskaya, who was murdered a few years ago. Her work was based on witnessing and recording the atrocities that the Russian forces systematically commited against Chechen civillians.
Catherine Mackinnon was a lawyer who created a new human rights law to say that rape was a war-crime. Reading her work on Serbia makes you wonder whether there are any devils left in hell, or whether they are all on this earth with us.
I think women are born with an ability to tolerate real life horror

lol TechLovingDad!

WingDAd I was quite reassure to hear that you don't have a strong opinion one way or another. I think that's quite a healthy attitude for a man to have towards women taking their right to bear arms in combat.

Having said that, I don't think men bear up better at seeing horrific things than women. THink about it, it's often women who are on the receiving end of horrific events ( read the stoicism with which madwomanintheattic 's describes the horrific assault she endured, for example). There is certain evidence to show that women bend better than men when it comes to mental strain (my DUncle had a nervous breakdown after coming back from Iraq)

Many women would choose not to fight in combat, because they wouldn't want to be complicit in men's war-mongering.
However, it is not for the MoD to make that decision on women's behalf under the guise of paternalism (i.e glorified sexism)

LteEveDallas, surely if you're "locked down" in a tank for days your main concern is not getting blown up, not whether you have a blokes cock in your ear?
In those situations, I'd assume the training takes over and there wouldn't be much of "ooooh she's near my winkie, ooooh....oh, I'm dead".

I have to admit, females have had it hard in the past with the forces; it's something which should never have happened and very luckily has now been addressed.

I don't really hold a strong opinion on women serving on the frontline. If it happens, it happens, and I'll do my best to accommodate for the change; but if it stays as it is, OK, it's not for me to decide who can or can't fight on the front-line. Of course you see and do some often sick and horrifying things when fighting, which requires to have a very strong frame of mind to not let it get to you; generally men are better at doing this, but I have no doubt that many, many women will be able to do so as well as men, and there will be some men who can't keep it together. Sometimes you get a few of those latter men, and the results aren't really amicable when the proverbial hits the fan (although I'll add it doesn't make you less of a man....anyway I'm drifting off topic and rambling horrendously).

And yes, I'm a Rockape. Insults on a postcard please, I've heard them all before!

no. i retreated to my room for about a week, doing the classic 'omg, what signals was i giving off to make them think that was ok/ what i wanted?' of course, nothing. i just happened to be drinking in the same bar. that said, they (or at least one of them) was fully aware they had overstepped the mark, as i found a gift/ peace offering on my doorstep a day or two after the incident. as if that would make it ok...

it actually did occur to me to call the police - i can't remember why i didn't. and yet, now, when i see thread titles like 'would you report x,y,z', my automatic response is 'yes!' and yet i didn't. older and wiser now, i suppose. it was a long time ago.

Madwomanintheattic, that's fucking awful :(

Did you report it?