Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Female Front Line Infantry Soldiers and Feminism

66 replies

1DAD2KIDS · 16/10/2016 22:39

The MOD are now opening up front line post to women including combat Infantry roles. After lots of study and viewing women on the front line they can see no reason why providing they take a reasonable duty of care towards genrally weaker physical form. It found women to be more prone to injuries and must therefore try and mitigate these added risks as much as fesably possible without diluting combat effectiveness. I for one welcome this news. I don't think anyone should be held back from achieving their potential in their chosen career if they are capable of the job. But I do have a few questions on the feminist point of view.

For a feminist perspective is it right for women to enter into a job that role is to be at the blunt end of killing fellow human beings. Is being a professional trained killer in conflicts caused by a patriarchal world something to be encouraged? Is this a positive or negative profession for women?

I do believe that this is a role where gender differences will have a big impact. I don't think anyone will dispute that male and female physiology is different. Men are naturally more physically stronger than women so the nature of how violent and physical combat is naturally suits males over females. Plus differing hormone levels. If we are to say men are more violent and aggressive then the Infantry is more suited to men. Hopefully we agree on that. Now personally I welcome any woman who is up to the job. But I doubt we will see the ranks of the Infantry hugely bolstered with females over night. I suspect most will simply not want to be Infantry. I think all should be done to say to women this is a job open to you and encourage them to do it. But is there turns out to be a low percentage of women in the ranks of the Infantry would this be seen as frustrating from a feminist view point? Sould the mix be nearer 50/50?

OP posts:
Original poster
1DAD2KIDS · 20/10/2016 19:27

HillaryFTW sorry I need stop making assumptions. So in your hypothetical scenario you would suggest differing standards based on ethnicity?

OP posts:
HillaryFTW · 20/10/2016 18:33

"HillaryFTW would we not agree on this?"

That's the second time you've posted as if your "listeners" must agree with you. As a,working assumption, for your future reference, assume I don't.

And you wonder why you aren't getting a welcome mat and a glass of wine.

OutDamnedWind · 20/10/2016 18:00

You do also seem to be quite in a tizz about a potential future situation regarding lowering of standards, yet there appears no suggestion that anyone wants that.

funnyandwittyusername · 20/10/2016 16:42

" the French Foreign Legion may never enter France."- really? You sure on that Vestal?

scallopsrgreat · 20/10/2016 16:25

It's like you are testing us and then you can go 'hahaha you're wrong' because of x, y, z stats/studies/anecdata.

Here I am to share my manly wisdom with you Hmm.

scallopsrgreat · 20/10/2016 16:22

"We cannot escape that unlike many job roles in terms of the infantry women are hugely disadvantaged." Yet other nations manage this fine.

Why do you want our opinions on this? You seem to have reached your own conclusions quite happily without us. You've got all the stats and the "science". I'm sure the Army will be very pleased with you.

How about men stop being violent and then this will a non-problem?

Original poster
1DAD2KIDS · 20/10/2016 13:50

Female troops have severed with distinction and bravery throughout history. Sadly sexism has prevented them often from these roles except for times of war necessity. Modern example would be the fighters of the YPJ fighting ISIS. It is promising to see the MOD open all doors and of course will not benefit from a wider pool to select troops from.

We cannot escape that unlike many job roles in terms of the infantry women are hugely disadvantaged. We should yes everyone is entitled to the opportunity to server in this role providing they are up to the standard. But I don't think we should be surprised (based on evidence) if the percentage of females that fail is proportionally far higher than their male counterparts. Neither should we be surprised if putting female physiology through such extreme training and workload results in a far higher onset of chronic injuries than their male counterparts. I have no problem with accepting fundamental biological differences and their impact on the numbers making the grade. My concern however is political. What happens when people start asking why there are not more female infantry troop? Why are so few making the grade? That when I fear there will be political pressure to alter the goal posts. Something that I think will weaken our capability and do a massive disservice to women. For example pontificationcentral has stated the terrible sexist attitudes she has faced even though she is fitter than many of her male counterparts. To set lower standards for women just fuels this sexism and lowers cohesion because it sets a lower goal for females.
Currently many of the fitness tests across the MOD are sexist (or not if you take the MODs point of view). They have lower levels of fitness standards for female than males. My view is the enemy and the battlefield environment doesn’t adjust for sex so why should the fitness criteria? The MODs view is to alter the goal post to reflect the general physical disadvantages women face. In their view this is about being fair not equal. Now I understand that fairness and equality is not necessarily the same thing. But surely in a military environment everyone should meet the same standard regardless of gender? There is already consideration to changing standards for female close combat troops and things are still being worked out. So you can understand my concern that standards will be altered as it is already a two tier in other parts of the MOD, which I believe is wrong.
Now in terms of the differences, there has been a lot of study into this. I think some people are vastly underplaying the differences.

Physical capability – Females in strength and aebolic are disadvantaged 20-40%.
Strength – In terms of upper body strength. A female’s upper body strength is between 25% to 55% of a male’s. In terms of lower body strength, men and women are closer to being equal. Women have between 70% and 75% of the lower body strength that men do.
Injuries – MOD research found that in the Army’s current predominantly single sex initial military training, women have a twofold higher risk of musculoskeletal (MSK) injury. The roles that require individuals to carry weight for prolonged periods are likely to be the most damaging. Let’s look at the Israel Defense Force (IDF) as a good case study for the disadvantages faced by female troops. As it has been pointed out by Prawnofthepatriarchy female troops have been active for some time and good to see the disadvantages long term. The IDF its self has admitted much. In an IDF study 2012-13 the IDF found that 46% of females were injured during initial training as opposed to 25% of men. One third of the females were injured more than one. It found that females drop out of combat track due to injury at a rate of 2 to 5 times or their male counterparts. Less than 3% of the IDF close quarter combat troops are female yet they represent 15% of compensation law suits against the IDF for injuries suffered on operations.

HillaryFTW If there were significant differences in physical difference in regards to race (that likewise I don’t think there is) my answer would be the same. All roles should be open to all who make the grade. But in this (hypothetical scenario) we should not change the grade to account for race. We should however be pragmatic and recognise the differences to support those troops in their role as long as it does not affect combat output and cohesion. HillaryFTW would we not agree on this?

Prawnofthepatriarchy we are not there yet in terms of lowering physical standards in terms of warfare. I think it is great when technology when it opens access to a career for a wider proportion of the population. I do not however believe that it has removed to the need for close combat infantry or the standard of fitness required. Modern battle experience has showed this. Strength and fitness saves lives. Neither can we always look at a battlefield where we superior numbers, equipment and technological advantage. The is growing concern in NATO circles about Russia, hence many recent deployments of NATO troops to Baltic state. Let all hope nothing comes of it but be need to be able to fight against every legitimate threat. That is very much a scenario where we would not have the advantages we enjoy in other battlefields. Also but the nature of insurgency warfare (like that of Afghanistan) the enemy is always looking to engage us where we have not got the benefit of technological advantage and hit our soft spots. It is the art of Guerrilla warfare. So yes this type of close quarter combat does still happen. We are not yet at a stage where the robots take over so physical standards are still very important.

Pontificationcentral sounds like an excellent solider and there are many other out there. No one capable should be held back. But IMO we can’t ignore issues that have implications that differing physiology has in terms of females in the most extreme of physical environments. It would be very dangerous to do otherwise. Hopefully the MOD will not alter standards like it has in other areas but it is a concern. Hopefully we will have female soldiers who have full and successful careers in the infantry know they have met every standard expected of their male counterpart.

VestalVirgin I agree that an army should be open to all to who it represents (with the caveat all meet the same grade IMO). Would you say in this example of the British Army it is a force for good in the world or not? Is it contributing to the violence of a patricidal world? And if so can any feminist in the Army reconcile their believes with their participation in this violence?

OP posts:
VestalVirgin · 20/10/2016 10:54

If we are to say men are more violent and aggressive then the Infantry is more suited to men.

If we are to say mena re more violent and aggressive, which actually is the case in society as is, then we FUCKING SHOULD KEEP THEM AWAY FROM WOMEN; FIRST AND FOREMOST. END THEIR VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN! END THEIR RAPING! END THEIR MURDERING!

Why is it that everyone denies men's violence and aggression when we want it ended, but happily confirms and applauds it when it comes to prestigious jobs that allegedly require it?

I do not think women whould be forced to die in the wars patriarchies wage against one another.

I will volunteer for frontline combat, or any other kind of combat, if and when I have to defend my own country and safety, and the government does its duty in keeping me safe from the rapists in my own country.

Women getting injured by enemy fire in war is not the problem. Men raping their own fellow soldiers is the problem, and due to this, I find any law that forces women to be anywhere close to male soldiers hugely oppressive, and as feminist, oppose it.

HOWEVER, women need the right to be part of the army of any country in which women live. And the governments have a duty to ensure that the female soldiers are safe from the male soldiers' violence.
Because an army can be used for hostile takeover of a country - which is why all sensible countries have armies that consist of people from that country, and the French Foreign Legion may never enter France.
It takes no genius to figure out what an army only consisting of men could be used for.

HillaryFTW · 20/10/2016 09:34

Bad typos new phone

HillaryFTW · 20/10/2016 09:33

Thanks, out, you put my point about small proprotions of the population (which I illustrated with 5 and 1%) much better.

Suppose, owing to small differences ib bone density, Caucasian men break legs mire easily than Asian men (this is hypothetical, in case that's not obvious, I've no idea if such studies have been done but there are some race-relatedbiologixal differences), do you suggest the army ceases to recruit Caucasians, op? I doibt it.

Which is why your agenda is showing, along with your faux concern on patriarchal wars.

Women operate in a patriarchy abd we need to make a living. There are Feminist arguments againt capitalism; I'm still in a well paying job

WitchingHour666 · 20/10/2016 09:20

Yes Prawn, great points.

800,000 women served in the red army during WWII.

There were 2,000 active women snippers at one time, including Lyudmila Pavlichenko who is considered one of the top military snippers of all time, with 309 kills.

There were three all women soviet aviation regiments; a dive bomber regiment, a night bomber regiment (nicked named 'the night witches'). And a fighter regiment, that included the flying aces Lydia Litvyak and Yekaterina Budanova.

There were also some women tank drivers and machine gunners. The soviet government tried to conceal the extent to which women participated in combat roles in WWII. Because they wanted to preserve the inequality between the sexes, that is present in all patriarchal societies. If it was revealed that women could contribute just as the men had done, then it would undermine the sex roles, and no patriarchal system wants that (looks like the guy who started this feels the same way).

There are many books that detail this such as; Heroines of the Soviet Union by Henry Sakaida, and Wings, Women and War: Soviet Airwomen in World War II Combat by Reina Pennington.

OutDamnedWind · 19/10/2016 20:28

Sorry - what is it you're actually concerned about?

Original poster
1DAD2KIDS · 19/10/2016 20:23

Correct if you meet the standard you meet the standard and so you should not be inhibereted as an individual. I totally agree. Many medical studies show the differences in physiology. The MODs own research shows that the female sex is more prone to injuries two fold. It foolish not to recognise the implications.

OP posts:
Prawnofthepatriarchy · 19/10/2016 20:18

There are plenty of woman soldiers in the Israeli army. Women there have to do compulsory military service. There are women serving in their equivalent to the SAS and the first female fighter pilot started 15 years ago. I remember hearing that they found women made better snipers than men, because of being better at staying motionless and keeping steady, as I recall. However I can't instantly find a link and I must dash out so can't linger. But I did find lots about a Ukrainian woman who was one of the top 10 recorded snipers of all time. She was active against the Nazis, so effective women in military roles go back a long way.

I don't think standards should be lowered for women, but I would also say many men wouldn't meet the required standards. Plus not many people of either sex want a career that is likely to mean they kill other people.

I have heard it said that, while in some arenas close combat is still likely, most war these days is carried out from a great distance away. Advances in robotic body armour may soon lead to a situation in which soldiers from wealthy nations are so extensively protected that the most they will be able to do is yell insults.at each other. We're already seeing situations where drones are killing people hundreds of miles away. War, like so much else, is being revolutionized by technology.

OutDamnedWind · 19/10/2016 20:15

Differences are in average populations, I.e. The 'average' man is stronger than the 'average' woman - except averages don't actually exist. There will be more men in the population who can meet the standards than women, but that doesn't mean that any individual woman is weaker than any particular man. If you meet the standards, you meet the standards.

Original poster
1DAD2KIDS · 19/10/2016 20:03

If you'll understand I have every respect for you and anyone making the grade regardless of sex. That's what it's about. If you'll read my posts I am fully behind the Infantry being open to all. I think it would be a disservice to alter grades. It's great to have an Armed forces were all job are open to all. But yes I do have a concern that the standards will be different depending on sex as it is already in other parts of the armed forces. Personally I believe it should be the same for all and I belive you do too? Not that the media is the most reliable source but there is talk of it. The MOD is still working out the in and outs. But in RL I really not see how anyone can deny all the medical research about the differences in physical sex and their relationship to physical preformance.

OP posts:
pontificationcentral · 19/10/2016 19:35

1DAD I am appalled by your disingenuity. You are being a bit of an arse, but it's not entirely surprising - I served with a lot of dudes like you who have been socialized into believing that you are superior and that opening the doors to women will automatically mean standards will slide. It's misogyny dressed up as concern.
When I was beating my male peers in timed runs they accused me of cheating. I was told I could not do x,y or z because I was a woman (not because I did not meet the standards - I did).
I'm afraid I'm not going to sit around and listen to you blow smoke up your own arse about the superiority of men. Plenty of women can make the cut. Those who want to do so will. I have not experienced women suffering more injuries - certainly during my time it may have looked as though we had more women injured, but that was generally because the men who picked up injuries left with their tail between their legs (LMF) and didn't have the tenacity to fight through, regain fitness and carry on. I'd rather have the women at my back than any of the glory boys.
Why on earth would anyone want to legislate a 50/50 split? Let anyone into the jobs who makes the grade. And stop pushing a shoddy agenda to keep women out. No one is arguing for different standards. It's the same old scare tactic the men have always used. There are some women who can do the job, in the same way that there are some men who can do the job. No lectures on strength or standards required, thanks. I'm just finally glad that they are recognizing that it is the 21st century and banning women from careers based on sex is no longer appropriate.
You do know we have plenty of serving women on mn, right? You must have missed all the other threads about trans military personnel as well.

Original poster
1DAD2KIDS · 17/10/2016 23:19

To be fair I was talking in terms of tests where differing standards are set for differing biological standards. I assume the postion on this is to go with the identified gender. Which I belive is correct as we identify people in line with their gender not their biology. That party why I think all tests should not be biological sex specific. The same hi standards for all.

The MOD is great by the way. We have a post op transgender Flight Sargent at our training school. The MOD where fully supportive of her physical change.

OP posts:
EmpressKnowsWhereHerTowelIs · 17/10/2016 23:09

I don't know where the MOD stand for those who identify as a gender other than their biological sex.

This is where they stand on it, apparently. Hence the relevance of knowing whether you were talking about just women or also about anyone who "identifies as a woman", regardless of their biology.

www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/17/transgender-soldier-is-first-female-to-serve-on-the-front-line

Original poster
1DAD2KIDS · 17/10/2016 23:09

I think the navy have it about right. Where it's a matter of safety and combat need tests should be the level required to do it effectively for ALL.

The Infantry is massively pyshicaly demanding. I don't belive standards should be dropped for any one in this role because the real world combat doesn't distinguish between pyshical ability

OP posts:
EBearhug · 17/10/2016 23:05

Plenty of women use Mirena or implants these days, which mean they just don't experience periods. I know plenty of other women have big problems with hormonal contraceptives, but not everyone does.

Periods aren't always a problem. I haven't been in the military, but I have spent months travelling/camping in remote parts of Africa and Asia. I had periods during that time, but I have no memory of them being a problem or anything; in fact I have no memory of them at all, which suggests I didn't have any flooding or anything like that. They seem to be lighter in hot countries. (I could check back in my travel diaries, which were quite detailed - but not at this time of night.)

I would guess that if you do have problematic periods, that would count against you, not just in military service, but in other jobs. Now I'm in my mid-40s, I do appreciate having a desk job where I can work from home when I need to, including heaviest period days. It would be more problematic on floody days in other jobs - even something like teaching, if you can't get to the loo every hour as I have needed to on bad days.

Original poster
1DAD2KIDS · 17/10/2016 23:04

HillaryFTW what's the agenda, prey tell? And surely this is a place to challenge views. Not to just chin it off when it conflicts with your understanding or perception of my "agenda"

The male sex is more far more suitable for the high physical standard and less prone to injuries. That is just science. The percentage differences are a very different proportion.

OP posts:
MoreKopparbergthanKrug · 17/10/2016 23:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
1DAD2KIDS · 17/10/2016 22:57

I don't think so. It is just an additional bodily function to male sex. Remember the female sex already serve on the front line in Afghanistan etc overcome this problem. Although someone serious period effects could cause a problem. But is the same for any health condition that effects combat effectiveness male sex or female sex.

OP posts:
HillaryFTW · 17/10/2016 22:53

I meant 5% of the male population and 1% of the female. They were example numbers, as per my "or whatever" phrase.

Never mind. Your agenda is clear. Ta ra.

Swipe left for the next trending thread