Women still banned from combat roles after MoD review.

As ex military I 100% dont think women should be on the front line.

Sakura - you are making some sweeping statements there! I am not sure that the Army regiments/Royal Marines/RAF Regiment currently fighting in Afghanistan would recognise your description of the lack of physicality that war involves.

There are two main aspects to barring women in combat roles. One is physical. In jobs where you may be required to cover a lot of ground in the searing heat/freezing cold, carrying HUGE amounts of kit, and then close and fight with the enemy, you need to be very fit and strong. It is indisputable that women, even after as much (and more) physical training as men, are rarely as physically strong. This is because we do not build muscle in the same way. Studies show that women have much higher injury rates in even attempting to reach the same fitness standards as men in these situations. There are of course exceptions - women who are awesomely fit and can maintain the same standards as men, but they are quite rare.

The second aspect is the issue of how men in combat behave when they have women fighting with them. There is some (limited) evidence here, mainly from the Israeli forces, that shows that it has a clear detrimental effect on decision making and behaviour. Now there is an argument to say that men should just 'get over' this arcane behaviour, however how many deaths will occur whilst people gradually adapt?

To be honest, I would like women to have full equality of opportunity in the Armed Forces - I served for 7 years and didn't feel discriminated against. There are women already serving in roles which put them almost in that role already (female pilots/Int officers at the front/EOD officers/medics.) They are all under fire, and most of them will probably be involved in the return of fire. Perhaps it will potentially come to pass - who knows....but it isn't a black and white issue.

It sounds a little bit like you're arguing that men are too stupid to adjust to working with women on the frontline. I'm sure that's not actually what you're saying. But the idea you can't learn to control subconscious instincts once you're aware of them seems a strange one...

Sakura that is untrue the majority of war casualties are actually adult men.

And strength really does matter still otherwise why would military training involve improving strength, endurance etc. Not all aspects of war can be fought through the push of a button the people over in Irag are not sitting comfortably pushing buttons they actually go on patrols and actively engage with their enemy on a direct basis.

And there are some things more important like it or not than being equal in everything even if the fault is on the male soldiers part. The fact is that they are believed to have a subconsciousness 'save the female in their team' reflex which can not only end up with them dead but their entire group.

"Flying planes and helicopters (as women did in WW2), pressing a button, or a trigger on a gun takes little physical strength."

Mostly correct, yes (just about the planes part, if it were a fighter jet then you need to be very fit!). However, when you're serving on the frontline, you're carrying a lot of kit around with you, up to 45kg sometimes. On top of that, you're expected to run when needed and accurately fire a moderately heavy rifle also when needed, also in sweltering heat in our current overseas commitments. I wouldn't want to try that if I was unfit and/or weak!

I can't comment on the specifics of having a female under my command because I serve in a 100% male infantry unit and it's difficult to visualise the situation.

Women are the majority of casualties in war and men are the aggressors. Women and children first, indeed...

In wars, physical strength matters very little anymore. Flying planes and helicopters (as women did in WW2), pressing a button, or a trigger on a gun takes little physical strength. Sleep deprivation, that sort of thing is something women are better at than men. so it has nothing to do with physicalities.

It makes no logical sense to say that women should not be allowed to bear arms on the basis of the prejudices of an officer who would feel uncomfortable. It is all about keeping this a man's game. UNfortunately, the more it remains a man's game, the more female civillians will be raped and killed wiht impunity.

I have heard men in the military say that if they were on the front line with a woman they would instinctively try to save her above other soldiers, which wouldn't necessarily be the right thing. I don't know. I have no strong desire to fight in a war which could be why I'm not exactly up in arms about this. I also don't feel I know enough about life in the forces to say what's right.

It's all to do with the whole "women and children first" business. In many combat situations, you're forced to make a decision which may endanger the people in your unit. People claim that if a man was in a command role and had a female in his ranks, he would be subconsciously "sympathetic" towards her, which could cloud judgement. Life or death decisions under fire have to be made in a matter of seconds; you want to eliminate as many factors that could slow your course of action.

There's other reasons for it too, such as the typical female build compared to that of a man. I carry a hell of a lot of stuff for long periods of time, of course there will be many females around who could carry more than me I'm sure, but a woman's body isn't usually stronger.

but yes , my idea of hell would be compulsory drafting for women

I don'T think women should be soldiers because I don't think they should be complicit in the destruction war metes out onto civillians.
OTOH, I can't abide the notion that the MoD clearly believes that women's role in war is to be killed, not to do the killing. Women should be given arms to protect themselves the same way men are.

I think it makes sense.
It's bad enough that our young men are out there being blown up, there would be a huge outcry if a woman soldier who was also a mother was killed and it would destroy morale amongst the troops much more than the death of a male colleague.
In the USA there have been a few cases when a military mother and father have been on active service in a war zone at the same time, that is utter madness.

It's not a case that women aren't up to the job, more that when they are motheres, they shouldn't be exposed to that level of danger - I also think it's very wrong that teenage boys just out of training are put in combat situations too.

My DH was in theatre during the 1st gulf war, it was bad enough that he was out there when we had a 6 month old baby - for a woman to be in that situation is unthinkable.