US law change for female combat troops.

but the US has had women in combat/on the frontline during the period of the ban, are they there unofficially? Especially aerial combat, eg that pilot who was shot down and survived (minus some limbs).

Any women wanting front line service would probably be a small self-selecting group with high strength, stamina and resiliance anyway. I do not see why they could not try for qualification

yy!

^Any women wanting front line service would probably be a small self-selecting group with high strength, stamina and resiliance anyway. I do not see why they could not try for qualification

I would agree with that. IME those women are few and far between, but they do exist and should be given the same opportunities as the men.

Well all the main objections to women serving on the front line seem surmountable to me. The most common ones are

1. Women are not physically capable of the heavy load carrying & hand to hand combat.

When we survey physical characteristics such as strength, we find that men in general are stronger than women. However, there is an overlap & some women are stronger than a lot of men & some men physically weaker than a lot of women. If a job needs superior physical strength or endurance, surely it is sensible to test these attributes, rather than the sex of the person. If a woman is strong enough, then why exclude her? Also a man who is not strong enough should be excluded. Using this criteria you would probably still find the vast majority of inclusions would be men, but exclusion would be based on ability rather than sex.

2. Women are likely to be raped & abused if captured.

I am sure this happens to male captives also.

3. A male soldier is more likely to risk himself to aid a fallen female comrade

With the strong bond that exists between fellow soldiers it is likely that a soldier would be equally distressed by the fall of a male comrade.

In modern warfare in any case you cannot avoid the front line in any role. With suicide bombers, guerrila tactics and long range missiles, any deployment can become front line.

Any women wanting front line service would probably be a small self-selecting group with high strength, stamina and resiliance anyway. I do not see why they could not try for qualification

Yes kim I thought that was a good point too.

I am

No problem,

I am as I did not know the character, and was a bit concerned at first by your name and that you might be in the armed forces!

Apologies FeministeFatale, I assumed you were talking about the British Army, and I shouldn't of - I tend to forget this is a very international site! My username is a book character BTW

That should be 50% obviously, I haven't learned math from the Xfactor.

Also when women are 500 percent of the combat force won't these idea die out? That women need extra help or can't do the same job as men? If we just accept them for what they are the views will never change

I have heard the argument about soldiers being more likely to try and save a female soldier, but I wonder how we know that to be true with so few women having been in those positions in our armies, and two in a military situation where a woman has proven herself enough to be in the army in the first place will she still be seen as "damsel in distress" and if she is seen that way should she be held back by someone elses misguided ideas? Is that not victim blaming?

As for being raped by other soldiers if she is a hostage, I think it is patronizing for the government to decide that she shouldn't be let out because other people are rapists. The woman has enough understanding of risks, let her be the one to decide where she goes the way men who also get tortured do. We wouldn't tell our daughters to not go out at night because they could be raped.

short article by Danish army officer the problem with women in combat

The British Army does put women onto the front line. So the risks of fraternisation, or following capture etc are already being managed.

But they are not badged infanteers.

The problem that the British Army have in having female front line troops is that male soldiers are more likely to risk death to save an injured female comrade instead of fighting on. They are also concerned about the fact that captured female troops are almost certainly likely to be raped and abused by hostile forces. Added to which only a few female troops have the physical strength necessary to clear battlefield obstacles, storm trenches and bayonet enemy soldiers to death - particularly in view of the extremely heavy loads infantry troops are now expected to carry. The key issue for many army commanders is the potential impact of having both men and women in small units. In a battlefield situation team cohesion is vital, and failure can have potentially far reaching and grave effects. So whilst I would agree that women have every right to equal careers with men, it seems clear to me that certain areas are not physically suitable for women. I have absolutely no problem with women in the army - but I would not agree with women on the frontline as I think there would be the potential to compromise the safety of the men. Perhaps I should add that I have a degree in military history and come from an army family, so I'm not completely unbiased, I suppose.

Channel 4 did an investigation in 2010 on rape and UK Armed Forces. In the two years before that, there were 76 complaints of rape. The conviction rate was 2.6%.

There was no comment on whether the victims were male or female.

I didn't know about the russians using female troops, seems strange though, didn't they have the view that women were a spoil of war?

i would think with modern tech and lightweight materials the armed forces could seriously reduce any equipment weight issues.

And its my understanding that women have been flying fighter jets and other aircraft for a while now.

The numbers pf women sexually assaulted in the US military is horrifying. Its been in the news a lot over here. And while the military has generally been at the forefront of integration, it really highlights how women are perceived to be some how less than men that the perpetrators get off so easily.

It sounds like the setup is probably much more difficult to report compared to civilian rapes too, and much more difficult to get an accurate number of how many women are abused. And much more likely to be swept under the carpet

True about the Red Army having women soldiers. The Nazis were stunned.

oh and look at this story. Her dad is upset by how it affected him...

Aw bless him

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2207607/Fathers-fury-soldier-daughter-Lynette-Pearce-gave-birth-Afghanistan-frontline.html

The USAF estimates 1 in 5 female recruits will be sexually abused. 800 rapes were reported last year. It was admitted that this is probably a vast under-reporting and that the actual number of rapes was much higher.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19657646