Women still banned from combat roles after MoD review.

equal pay brought in since, fortunately. when i joined (in 1991 lol, hardly the middle ages) i had to sign a disclaimer saying that i understood i would have to leave if i got married or pregnant.

they've changed that little rule, too. (anyone remember the mid-'90s european court ruling that meant all the pg ex-servicewomen got huge payouts?) so did the women who had abortions so that they could stay in.

re sexual assaults etc. i was assaulted in the officer's mess at a station in the uk, by three serving officers. i was effectively blindfolded, so don't know to this day which of the three was actually the physical abuser. that said - those stats were probably taken from one of those sexual harassment surveys. (the military run them every few years at least) i applaud the intent behind them, but they aren't terribly valid tbh. the questions are fairly bizarre, and are at best misleading. (and i say that as someone passionate about gender discrimination in the military lol). i wouldn't base any argument at all on the outcome of those surveys. it stands to reason that statistically women in a male-dominated environment are more at risk though.

the surveys are all online somewhere i think - i found them a few years ago.

i love the spin when the report comes out too - woo hoo, amazing, 71% of serving females have not experienced sexual harassment this year! if the questionnaires produced valid results, some of the stats would be enough to make you weep. tis difficult to get any real evidence though.

I was in the forces (RAF) in 1977. The RAF used the non combat rule to justify paying me less than a man doing the same job. I think it should be up to the person whether or not they join up but if men/women do they should have the same duties, even if that is combat.

It almost certainly is true Ann. I don't know what the stats are, but if you consider that most sexual assaults are carried out by people known to the victim, and females in the military operate in a male dominated environment numbers wise, you can see how it could happen. (This is not me excusing it btw - I think it is more prevalant in the US military than in 'ordinaty life' and that is not acceptable.) I don't know the stats for the British military.

I'm a bit late to this thread, I don't know anything about being in the Forces but there's one issue that hasn't been mentioned yet.
WRT to men not being able to 'control their urges', I saw a statistic somewhere that women in the US military were more likely to be sexually assaulted by their own comrades than by the enemy.
I'm not sure what I'm trying to say really, someone else can probably articulate a better informed opionion. If the above is true, it's horrific :(

Sakura - I agree. It is also such a subjective reason that it is difficult to argue against. The only way you could prove it was bollocks is to put women and men into combat together. And even then it probably wouldn't work without anything but the entire backing of the armed forces because it would require a change in attitude and probably behaviour on behalf of the men.

I can't believe the argument that women have a rightto bear arms, to defend themselves rather than simply be the cannon fodder for men's wars has been got around by pretending it's uncomfortable for men to have to be in close proximity to women.

It reminds me of when they were trying to stop female boxing. They were coming out with all kinds of crap, such as "It's too dangerous for women's breasts" and the like. I think they quite forget that men have become brain-damaged from this sport.

I don't have any experience at all of the army, raf etc but I do have experience of high performance athletes in a power based sport.

I think the physical argument is a bit of a red herring. I am not saying that on average men aren't stronger than women just that women can be stronger than men and the strength required might be over rated.

In society at the moment (and this is a huge generalisation) women are not encouraged to be competitive, use their strength and partake in physical activity to the same extent as men. Women are therefore starting from a much lower point on the scale and so it is understandable that not many women would make the grade.

The level of expectation for women to perform is not as great as it is for men - so a lot of women will, naturally only perform to expectation as that is all that is required.

Those women who do break the mould and focus on getting to the top of their chosen sport end up being faster, stronger and more powerful than most of the men involved in their sport. I realise that this is still a small percentage but it does show that women, if encouraged can gain similar strength to normal men.

Anyway what I am trying to say is that if the tests for women were the same as for men some women would be able to pass them. In addition if women were encouraged more, from an early age to use their strength, be involved in sport etc that the numbers of women achieving those levels would increase.

In addition, I do not doubt that warfare is physical and although there are some tasks that would perhaps take a great deal of strength, stamina would probably play a bigger part. There is very little evidence that women have any less stamina than men. In fact when it comes to extreme events e.g. 100 mile runs etc, there is some evidence that women may even have more stamina than men. For those tasks involving extreme levels of strength then teamwork might be better deployed.

And whether a man or a woman's head is stuck another's crotch when you are in the middle of a battlefield is just weak. You really think that men couldn't dissassociate themselves from "their sexual urges" in that kind of situation? Whether they choose to is another argument. And how often, realistically, is that likely to happen (quite prepared to be proven wrong)? But surely it is all about teamwork and using your resources in their best positions (literally in this particular scenario).

However, on a very personal level I cannot get past the fact that everyone in a combat role is trained to kill another human being and I would rather not be the one doing the killing or the one being killed. So I would find it impossible to be part of it and perpetuate the violence that some men do.

omfg.

i can't believe it. i post about not being allowed to join the mountain rescue team because the team's wives wouldn't like it, and then i find a serving female using the exact same argument.

i knew it was a mistake to post on this thread. as the 'only lesbian on the camp' eve, did you not get fed up of everyone assuming you were a predatory female? a bit like the old argument of hetero blokes not wanting to share close quarters with homos? predatory men who couldn't control tehir urges?

fortunately, we aren't allowed to discrimate against gay and lesbian personnel any more. but i'm aghast that you think it's ok to discrimate against women. for the same reasons.

hygiene smygiene. most women on ops decide to take relevant precaustions to cease menstruating. that's an intersting discussion in itself, (back to gi jane again lol) but aaaargh.

and yes, even as a fat mother of two or three i had no problem passing the utterly utterly patronising raf fitness test for women of my age group. most women complete their test without breaking a sweat or losing their breath, and then stand around and wait for the men to finish theirs. it is a nonsense. either you are fit enough to do your job, or you aren't. it is insulting to women to lower the standards for them. lower them both if a lower standard is acceptable.

Well, because you'd then have to take into consideration the chap whose penis the female was pressed against - she might not mind, but maybe he would.....and what about his (notional) wife - she can accept that another man has his head in her husband's crotch, would she still accept it if it was another woman?

No offence taken Dylthan, none at all.

I've got to run now and pick up my DD - will come back later if there are any more comments.

Sorry eve I've already explained why I jumped to that conclusion. I don't mean to offend anyone just assumed (wrongly) that that is what you ment.

Suerly no one male or female wants to sit with there head in someone elses crotch but if it's part of the job you just have to get on with it and I'm sure that would apply to woman if they were allowed to do that job also. As I've said before I don't have to strength or fitness to do their job but if someone like madwomanintheattic earlier does and is aware of what the job entails and is still willing to do it why should she not be allowed.

Notyummy - TBH I forgot about RAF Regt (not had a lot to do with them outside a deployment in 1996!). Yes, agreed, I would expect their fitness minimum to be the same as any of the Inf Regts - they were certainly very fit then.

(Is that what Wingdad is? Sorry WingDad!)

Nothing to do with sex and I didnt say it was!

I'll give you one example based on the comment I made. In the tank my husband drove the driver sat with his head between the commander's legs and the gunner sat across them both. If they were 'locked down' (which happens quite often in a combat situation) they didnt leave the tank - at all - not to wash, not to relieve themselves. Everything was done in position.

They wet themselves if they needed to, they defecated into plastic bags. Then they cooked and ate around the waste.

A mixed crew brings more issues to the table (and quite frankly - having smelt my husband on his return, the last things I'd want would be to have my head pressed up against his penis for 2 weeks at a time!)

I've been on exercises / deployments when washing / toilet facilities are scarce. I've smelt myself, and I have had to stay in clothing after (TMI) 'flooding'. It's not nice - and I'd have been mortified if it happened in close quarters and I was the only female on a tank crew.

Eve - as an ex-RAF officer I think you are right about the different physical fitness standards. But, just like the Army, it does differ within the RAF. Most of the RAF has a fitness standard that is easy to reach (as a 38 year old now civvie mother, I am able to score 'excellent' on every element of the female fitness standards for example. Yes, I have an interest in fitness - but I don't have time to be spending hours and hours training.) The RAF Regiment is a different matter, and the standards they have for squadded runs, CFT etc I would imagine are very similar to Army combat regiments.

Is it that women have dirty periods?!

Hygeine reasons possible. Sexual reasons were the ones given by my regiment exbf years ago (he was a knobhead but that's neither here nor there) so I suppose that's the reason I think of it first.

I am a bit confussed by the hygeine argument though why would it be less hygenic for men and woman to be holed up
together rather than just men or woman on their own?

I think the being holed up for weeks in a confined space is more to do with hygiene issues rather than sexual urges.

What Dylthan said

Being holed up with a woman for any length of time is an appaling argument as I have said earlier imo. It's an argument that should of been seen as a non starter at the same time as it was finally acceptable to be gay and in the forces. People are capable of being able to control their sexual urges and those that aren't should be the ones to be unable to do the job not woman for the simple fact of being a woman.

I also don't get the saving woman first argument. Dh was a fireman he served along side a female firefighter she was respected and treated as an equal by the men all of whom were highly trained. None of them would of gone against their training to save her first if somthing had gone horribly wrong they all would of done what they were trained to do. Why would the artillery be any less capable of sticking to what they were trained to do in a combat situation?

Public perception comes into it yes, as does the 'men would save a woman first' arguement.

There are other considerations, for example in the RAC you can spend weeks at a time holed up in your tank. That could cause issues for a mixed crew.

I suppose there are a myriad of reasons, but we only see a few. Personally I believe that a few (ok quite a few) years ago I would have been ready, willing and ABLE to go into a combat role. Now I wouldn't. I have met far more women in my career that wouldn't have been able, than I have that would. But it's never really bothered me - I've always pushed the envelope, and I've always been satisfied with the avenues I've followed. There are other jobs available, like I said, so missing out on one or two - no biggie.

Especially if they are mothers saltatrix. I really do think that the earlier poster's point about the "powers that be" knowing that dead mothers would be dreadful PR for any war effort is a huge part of this.

Well attitudes will need to change and they are (slowly) it's so easy to think one thing but subsciously your actions may betray you, maybe not in a major way but a slight hesitation. This is the front-line there is no room for trial and error as it will quite literally cost lives.

Women do work with the infantry and there is always an element of risk however the infantry are the ones sent in first and are the ones who may be ordered to areas in the line of fire.

Strength and endurance is only a factor that the infantry carry much more than other trades in the military so the number of women who would attain that fitness would be few.

Public perception may also factor true not that the deaths of men are unimportant but it does seem that deaths of females in the military seem to stand out more so have a greater 'shock' effect.

That makes sense then.

I can't see that the strength argument is the one keeping women out. Logically if women pass they can do it. I think it's other reasons, to do with the army being v sexist and traditional, and about public perception as was mentioned earlier.

Sorry ISNT - I can see that now. When I said different levels I meant that for eg Medics have a level and clerks have a different level - not males and females. Apologies.

Madwoman. Wasnt meant to start a fight - just stating a fact. When I served with the RAF (as the only 'lesbian' on that particular camp) I took the RAF Bleep Test and found it much easier than the Army BFT. When I returned to a joint environment I lamented the fact that I would have to do the BFT again.

When I went on SDs in 1993 the RAF females had only 'just' been allowed to volunteer and were finding the training very hard - drop out rates were much higher.

I didnt say Wingdad's fitness was lacking. I said I believed there was a different level.

dh is army. i've spent 15 years sailing alongside that particular boat too and chatting to the women on board

if we're coming at this from those different angles though, doesn't it piss you right off that every female in the army is a lesbian?

ask wingdad if he feels his standard of fitness is somehow lacking.

Earlier on you said that men and women had different standards to meet:

"Different cap-badges have different times to attain, and different weights to carry. The infantry has to do the 8 miles faster than the others.

Males and females takes these tests and have different levels they have to attain."