Anyone else see the army idiot on BBC Breakfast this morning?

I read an article he wrote in the Times and he came across just as ignorantly there. The cohesion argument has been made against including mixed race regiments, mixed religion regiments and allowing homosexual soldiers into the army in the past, so now it's time to take a pot at women.

Incidentally, for someone who seems to be quite "up" on the situation in the ME, he doesn't seem to realise that a third of the Kurdish YPG in Syria are female and are considered the most dedicated and therefore best fighters.

prashad, go read that article I linked will you? It demolishes most of what you're saying.

In other words, men won't work with women, so women should stay away.

Gosh, I have heard an even worse explanation than this - I have seen in a new program here, a military man say that the men would spend all their time chasing women, and it would cause fights between the men and thus division . Or is this just a reflection of the highly sexist/misogynistic society I live in?

They're all meant to be fighting for the same cause?

I agree with this - although I don't know the specifics, surely in any military team, each individual would have differing roles, and you train people to stick to those roles no matter what. Are these military people saying that they can't over-ride the social conditioning [or whatever] that men have, and get the team to play out their assigned roles when there are women on the team? What happens in other mixed groups, like orchestras? As far as I know, there is no more/less pandemonium in an orchestra that has men and women, vs those made up of just men or just women. What odd reasoning these people have!

Sorry Snow? I have no clue what you're talking about.

PuffinsAreFicticious

I'd really never heard of it before. Just had a quick google to find out and have seen the noen/adjective thing. I've always just viewed them as interchangeable, and absolutely not as something negative.

No-one is doubting that women can fight.

But women only units are not the answer. Unless you want to have women essentially sidelined, for you are not comparing super-fit women against the general population of men, up you are comparing them to similarly super-fit men and they will come second. So they will not get the more challenging tasking - not from prejudice, but from physical performance. And that will feed reputation and over time become a whole new stereotype.

Most parts of the armed forces are fully integrated. And in such units, women (who are now expected to be seen anywhere, even in certain infantry roles) are going to find that acceptance is much more likely to be merit, not sex, based.

meditrina - I agree, it's not a good idea, but it does negate the comments and (hopefully) make people think a little more. Which was DS's point.

meditrina, I posted my last post before I had seen yours.

In my opinion, you should have mixed-gender units. I think they would operate just fine.

All I'm saying is that IF the military leaders think that the reason for not doing so is 'evidence' that units before less well when mixed gender due to the behaviours that male soldiers have... then that's not much of a reason because it does not serve as a argument for women being in front line combat roles per se.

There are numerous examples in history of successful all-women units.

The Russian 1077th Anti-Aircraft Regiment that fought off a Panzer advance at Stalingrad during world war 2. Panzer divisions at the time were the most feared things in the whole war.

In fact, most of the examples I can think of were from Russia. It's unfortunately that it takes a war weary nation faced with imminent invasion and defeat by the nazis before the top brass consider using women in front line combat roles.

"You could have all-women units."

I think that would be an immensely bad idea. It makes women "other" again, thus reversing everything that has been achieved (in nigh on everything except infantry, artillery, tanks and submarines) since the abolition of WRAC and WREN.

haven't read the whole thread, but 12yo DS heard 30 seconds of that guy this morning and said "OK, so even if that is true, why not have all women units then?"

proud mother moment.

Nope, nope, not going to rise.

I'm channelling Buffy and being super reasonable and restrained and I want a badge.

A lot of good points being made. It would seem likely that training (particularly with the strictness of the military services) would overcome any disadvantages. Plus completely ignoring any differences that would be a benefit.

"This drives me batshit. I've never come across anyone who says 'males' and 'females' instead of 'men' and 'women' who wasn't a huge stinking misogynist. You're not talking about biological specimens, you're talking about people FFS!"

As an aside, what is the reason viewing those terms differently? I'd never heard of this before?

I can appreciate the argument of all-male cohesion/bonding, and the evidence that men act differently/worse in high stress combat situations where there are women present... but,

• You could have all-women units.
• Women already serve alongside men in high stress combat situations. A woman I know is an army medic who has treated dying infantry men mid gunfight. Med evac called in, but the heli couldn't take off because they were ambushed.

What I would like to see an end of though, is the different fitness standards for men and women in the military. Women can currently get into the military with a level of fitness that would see equal men rejected. The consequence is that a lot of people (particularly military leaders) automatically see women as less physically able and this is a barrier to accepting them in the hardest combat roles. It's interesting to note that New Zealand allows women to serve in Special Forces but no woman has ever qualified.

I do believe other countries admit women into combat roles, though, and alongside men too (I think)... so you've gotta question the evidence that the group will perform less well mixed gender than gender segregated. Norway and Sweden come to mind (no surprise).

I meant "make sense" as "is coherent with his other points", not "I agree with him", if that wasn't clear.

I agree it's basically a training issue, although the other side's guns add a certain immediacy to not screwing it up. I guess the question for the army is this: think of the worst infantryman you know. Are you really saying you'd be worse off replacing him with the best woman you can imagine?

or last section of the article rather !

He was spouting the usual british bullshit then. It's an excuse imo.

I draw your attention to the existence of Captain Ashley Collette www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10363980/Meet-the-female-soldiers-proving-the-case-for-women-on-the-front-line.html

The last paragraph in that article says it all.

Probably, that problem only gets overcome by having mixed groups, though.

And I daresay at one point it applied to groups of different racial background too.

If you've trained for years together then I imagine knowing Sergeant X runs fast and corporal Y has sharp eyes end up outweighing other factors...

Is it possible you mis-heard "mixed gender", cailin? That would make more sense, if you assume he doesn't know the difference between gender and sex.

Oops sorry wrong thread!

I havent seen the clip but if the OP is correct, the guy is a twat and I hope one of the interviewers pulled him up for it.

Glad to hear a major football team (albeit Liverpool) is doing the right thing. Its a bit like hearing that Hearts FC in Scotland is the first to introduce a living wage to all employees. On a more optimistic note, I think things are going in the right direction.

Wasn't it a Liverpool game where Andy Grey and Richard Keyes had insulted a Liverpool lineswoman? Maybe this provided the impetus to start changing their attitudes. However, they also showed OTT support of Suarez even though he was found guilty of racism. One step forward two steps back.