To wonder why women are not allowed into combat?

[Weathergames]

The main reason being they don't have the "upper body strength" but Olympians have disproved this.

If you want to join the forces male or female
surely you should be able to perform all roles required (however grim/unethical etc).

Former head of the Army, Lord Dannatt, said keeping women out of combat roles was a "point of principle".

"To be in a unit that is given orders to attack a hill, to attack a town, to attack a village, that is a role not for women," he said.

Am not sure about this - OH is a submariner and they have allowed women on board (they must be NUTS to want to go).

Surely it's pretty sexist?

In my limited experience compared to yours, I couldn't face many mornings on exercise dealing with my long thick hair.
But I couldn't face having to shave either....!

LtEve, shall I pop over and re-tailor it all for you??

Re: hair, I would have mine cut really short if I was a soldier. Save faffing about. I had it like that at boarding school.

Wouldn't women be considered a greater hostage threat? international media and politial response is different when the captive is female.

The Russians had about 6,000 women serve in women only Battalions during WW1.

You would think this would be a non-issue by now.

Yes, there have been "women only" units with limited duties on and off over the years in various countries.

Then the question becomes whether it is better to be fully integrated (as applies to most roles already) or whether to be classified as "other" within a larger formation.

I prefer the concept of full integration, rather than special exemptions and/or limited deployability.

The US marine corps is experimenting with female infanteers. Only 14 qualified to begin the training (of about 250 per intake, no idea of number of applicants, but as this was first time permitted I'd expect the number from women to be higher than it settles back to) and of those three completed it.

They will now go onto limited duties for 2 years with further continuous assessment to see how far they can indeed be integrated.

If there are not enough women in the forces to number even 10% in total, in all the jobs currently available, with an atrocious retention rate, then I cannot see that there will be sufficient numbers to create a female only anything tbh.

We should focus on retaining the women that are currently serving, who are leaving in their droves imo.

Anecdotally rugby teams have found having women in the physio teams very effective. A slightly injured player will want to carry on rather than let himself down in front of a women but at the same time a more seriously injured player will allow himself to be taken out of the game by a female physio rather than feeling the need to tough it out.

I wonder whether you would get a similar effect in army units. They may be more effective overall but less willing to take insane risks.

Yes but you're forgetting women have completely different bodies to men. Men can't have body fat to do certain things such as arctic tours. Women have natural body fat so would be harder for them, it's hardly equal when men and women have different bodies in terms of one has natural body fat and the other can have 0 body fat and not be seriously ill.