Women still banned from combat roles after MoD review.

ISNT - yes I have - males and females, if working in the same trade (ie medics, clerks), have the same minimum requirement.

Madwoman - I believe we come at this from different perspectives - RAF and Army. I believe Army basic training standards are more physical than RAF basic training standards.

In any case - again it's not all about the fitness/strength. There are other factors - strength is only one of them.

I've heard that reason to madwomanintheattic I actually find that reason to be really offensive to men. To say that they are not professional enough to keep their eye on the job so to speak is just an absurd argument and compleatly pisses on all the hard work and self disipline they have to have in order to get through their training imo.

oh, yes. i remember the reason. the men won't be able to control themselves during combat.

lteve you haven't said why if there is a minimum standard for a job, the tests for men and women are different.

Can you see how illogical this all is?

As for "there's no need for women to do X, they can do Y or Z instead", feminism is all about women not being barred from things simply because they are women. Barring women from things just because they are women is sexist by definition.

This thread is a real eye-opener, I had no idea.

i was serving in 1995. a number of my (female) colleagues consistently outperformed the men. certainly not all of them - totally agree notyummy, not all men/ women are equal depending on what assessment criteria are used.

eve, i raise you 'there is no need not to open the remaining trades.'

why don't you want equality? for those who are equal using this particular benchmark?

Simplified again. It's also separated by trade.

Male Clerks and Female Clerks are expected to carry the same basic weight on CFT. They are Clerks, employed in a clerical role, they fight if and when they are needed to.

Male Medics and Female Medics are expected to carry the same basic weight on CFT. They are medics, employed in a medical role, they fight if and when they are needed to.

Male Infantrymen (there are no females) carry more than clerks and medics. They are the infantry - their role is to be on the front line. Their job is to fight. It is all they train for.

We did go thru a period of Gender Free Assessment - I think in about 1995. As a result some trades within the Artillery were opened to females. The rest of the combat trades were kept closed to women.

There are hundreds of trades within the military - only a very few are closed to females - there is no need to open these up when everything else is on offer.

madwomen - I agree with nearly all your points, but I actually DONT know a fair few women who would have met the RAF Regiment fitness standards and then passed the training. I can think of one or two. When we streamed people fitnesswise, using the exactly the same tests, we hardly ever got women in the top two streams.

I am not saying that those who are the exception shouldn't be given the opportunity, just that the combination of speed, stamina and upper body strength required are very unusual in a women.

eve, blimey. it's not the women's fault that they are disbarred from taking the same tests! of course not many would pass - but why on earth should the ones who could pass not be given the option?

meh.

if a woman is fit enough (and has met exactly the same entry standards, and carried out and passed, exactly the saem training as her male peers, the only reason why she is excluded from the front line is male 'instinct' (pah - the same 'instinct' that is trained into you and out of you during basic and professional/ trade training.)

there have been papers and papers on this, and it always boils down to what the men think.

i'm not going to be able to post an awful lot on this thread, as it's one of the subjects that gets me dragging my soapbox out.

i wanted to join the marines when i was 18, largely to prove a point. (i know, dumb reason, but really.) of course, they wouldn't take me, so i took a nice ground job. during basic training, the men would run one way round a course, the women would run the other (and the direction would be alternated). if i had a pound for every bloke who accused me of cheating because i was fitter and faster than he was, i'd have been able to buy all the drinks in the bar.

the unsuitable women would get dropped like a hot potato in exactly the same way that unfit/ unsuitable blokes are.

c'mon wingdad, i know the regt is the last bastion of sacred male ground in the raf, but i know a fair few women who could cope quite easily if they weren't barred because they haven't got a penis.

aaaaargh.

i spent 16 years listening to kitchen sink jokes, and seeing porn on office walls day in day out. (and that daft bloody silly mare herc pilot who fell into the gi jane trap and refused to sleep in the female accom on ops because she might get contaminated by the pen-pushers.... not all gender discrimination in the military comes from men)

and you lot bimbling on about male officers feeling the need to save female soldiers first - we have got female officers, you know. but yes, other than the rank thing, that's what it boils down to.

jeez, i was even told i wasn't allowed on the mountain rescue team ffs. not because i wasn't strong enough to carry all the kit, not because i wasn't fast enough, couldn't map read in the hills, deal with bad vis, no, no, no. i couldn't join the mountain rescue team because the team member's wives wouldn't like it.

you'll be pleased to know that little rule was bust wide open a couple of years later.

Why are there differences in the standards expected of men and women? Surely if there is a minimum requirement for a job then you need to meet it regardless of gender.

None of this is making any sense to me.

Yes there is a fitness test. A sit-ups / press-ups / running test (PFT) and a 'carrying all your kit and marching 8 miles' (CFT) test. They are timed tests that everyone completes bi-annually.

They are the basic standards. They do NOT take into account a war situation - they are the level you have to achieve in peacetime.

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.

On a CFT I carry half the weight that an RAC soldier carries.

In a war situation I would need to carry - for my survival - almost twice the weight an RAC soldier carries. The RAC soldier suffers - it would bloody kill me!

Fitness tests are a peactime baseline. the realities of war and a war setting bring different requirements on a daily basis - you cannot 'physically' train for them all - mentally maybe.

Great post dylthan.

I agree with you that it is ludicrous that mothers should be considered more important than fathers. They're all parents.

I also think your last point is excellent and it chimes with me - I really think that might well be the main reason for it.

Both me and my dh are ex forces to say it takes no physical strength to fire a rifile is wrong as wing dad stated they are moderatly heavy and the kick back when you fire them us quite strong. Saying that though there was nothing that dh did in his basic training that I wad not able (and expected) to do. I was perfectly capable of carrying my pack and rifle for long periods however what the regiment have to do and carry to pass their trainning is far more than either myself or dh had to. I know I wouldn't be able to do it but then I know pleanty of men who wouldn't be able to do it either.

To say that mothers shouldn't be on the front line but fathers should us a weird argument to me dh left the RAF when we decided to settle and start a family (I had already left at this stage) as it was hard enough when he first went to Iraq to think that I could of been a widow at 18 let alone to think later that my dc could be left without a father. I mean no disrespect to those that have familys and continue to serve in fact I respect you immensly it just wasn't a situation I would like for myself or my children. I now believe that it was the right desicion for us. It would make no diffrence to dc if it was me or dh that was lost on the front line though dc's lifes would be equally devestated.

I once asked someone who served on the front line why woman weren't allowed and he told me that civillians would feel alot diffrently to war if it was women coming home in body bags. I think thus was his personal view rather than the actual reason. I think it's a complicated issue it would certainly change to dynamic if the front line whether that would be better I'm not sure though.

lteve sakura said that she thought the majority of casualties in war were women and children and I said I had heard that too and had a quick google, I think that's a reasonable addition to the conversation.

On the strength thing - no that doesn't make sense. You say that there are women who are strong enough, so why should they be excluded on the grounds of strength? Presumably there are tests that people have to pass, if they pass them then what's the problem. The fact that few women will meet the criteria is neither here nor there.

Or are you telling me that all male soldiers are allowed to join the infantry irrespective of strength? In which case we are in a doubly sexist situation where men who are not strong enough get in because they are men, while women who are strong enough are excluded for being women. Totally illogical.

But surely there is a fitness test? If they meet that, then have passed the 'physical' barrier. There us then a seperate ussue about whether men and women operate effectively together in combat.

"You cannot discriminate between types of female. You cant say Miss X can join the Infantry but Miss Y cant - you would have to say ALL women could - and quite frankly, most cant. You cannot change a policy for a minority."

ERM yes you could. You could have "this job requires completion of X Y Z fitness tests". What a ridiculous statement!

ISNT - Not sure what that article has to do with the OP?

The physical strength issue is one of many reasons why women aren't considered for Combat Roles. It certainly is an issue - In my 20 years Service I have only met a handful of women that are able to compete alongside the men in all roles - they are few and far between.

You cannot discriminate between types of female. You cant say Miss X can join the Infantry but Miss Y cant - you would have to say ALL women could - and quite frankly, most cant. You cannot change a policy for a minority.

Isn't- I agree that the small % of women who physically can make the grade should not be excluded. I dint think there has been enough sredible evidence presented on the effects (adverse or otherwise) of women serving in combat roles on overall effectiveness. I would like to see what studies the MOD based it's decision on.

God it's just awful.

I'm with sakura.

A quick google about iraq brings this article up first, saying that the air strikes mainly kill women and children

The strength argument baffles me. To say "women are generally weaker than men and frontline soldiers have to be strong ergo women can't do it" is to overlook the women who do meet the requirements. If a woman meets the physical requirements then it makes no sense to exclude her on teh grounds that she's not strong enough

I also thought that in conflict situations the vast majority of casualties (deaths and injury) came from civilians, mainly women and children.

The strength argument baffles me. To say "women are generally weaker than men and frontline soldiers have to be strong ergo women can't do it" is to overlook the women who do meet the requirements. If a woman meets the physical requirements then it makes no sense to exclude her on teh grounds that she's not strong enough

I also thought that in conflict situations the vast majority of casualties (deaths and injury) came from civilians, mainly women and children.

Not necessarily. When you see footage of soldiers on TV in close combat (clearing compounds/running across fields in direct fire etc) then there will not usually be women there. Male officers/NCOs are not being asked to order women into fire, which evidence shows is where the decision making becomes difficult.

Women may be called out when an IED is found, or may occasionally go out with soldiers on a patrol to gather/provide int or to act as a medic. In these cirumstances they are armed, and if it came to it they could shoot to defend themelves - however their main role is not the same as the other soldiers. They are not there to close and kill the enemy - and would not be ordered to do so unless literally everyone else was dead/wounded. They are an 'addition' (as a male medic or int personnel would also be) and are not the 'fighting force'.

So doesn't the fact that they're there, trained and already working with the frontline soliders contradict the idea that it's a risk for them to be there because they might influence other's decision making processes?

TBH, this means very little. Trying to simplify it a little:

Only about 8% of the Military is female and only a couple of the career strings are not available to them. All this review is saying is that females cannot fill a Combat Role - ie Infantry, Armour, Artillery (some roles) etc.

This does not mean that women do not go 'front line'. It means that they do not go front line in a solely combat role. Their 'front line' is to deploy to the same areas as the men, but in their employed role - ie Medic, Clerk, Supplier, Driver, Chef, EOD, ATO etc etc.

There are many women in Afghanistan right now - They are not going on foot patrols - but they are their in their main job, supporting those who are going on the foot patrols. These women are trained in the same way as the men, all can return fire and protect themselves and their colleagues if needed.

They are not going in blind or unprotected - they are soldiers first, tradespeople second and female third.