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?

Historically I think it was because nation-states could not risk losing too many mothers of the next generation of cannon-fodder.

If a woman can achieve the same test results as a man, she should have the same job irrespective of what that role is.

i am sure there are as many women suited to combat roles as there are men unsuited to them.

I was told it was purely physical differences between women and men.
Men on the whole are stronger than women.
I suppose if you have a troop of soldiers you want them all to be the strongest and have the ability to sustain long periods of activity.
Women can't do this or else they'd do 5 rounds at Wimbledon instead of 3. Something like this anyway.

It is relatively easy not to have periods, you can take the pill continuously. Not suitable for everyone, and can't do it for a long time but no reason to have period on pill if you don't want one.

Women can go to all units, and can go to the front line with them. I have served with the Infantry, Cavalry, Engineers and Artillery.

I know I'm not physically able to perform as an Infanteer. I could (Hypothetically) be a Recce soldier - but wouldn't want to be (holed up in a tank for days on end with 2 other stinking squaddies - no thanks). There are a lot of jobs out there for men and women. They are doing those jobs very well and tbh I don't see the need to change.

There have been many changes already, mostly for the better. Gender Free Assessment took place in the early 90's and turned traditional women's roles on their heads - that was a good thing, but for me, and I would say for a good 90% of the women I work with, it was enough.

There is very little left that we are not 'allowed' to do, and hundreds of things that we are. There just aren't enough women in the Army to make a huge difference in those sorts of roles. It's all well and good talking about it, but maybe they should be actually asking those on the ground what they want to do.

Yes or a Mirena but obvs they can't be forced and they don't pg test them first (before sea anyway).

it's not about being as 'good as men', it's just that traditionally the roles, and more importantly the equipment, have been developed around male strengths and physiques

Think 9% of Army and Navy are women and 14% RAF.

" then you can be as good as the average man, with training"

I don't think this is the right comaprison. Neither collagues, nor - critically - the opponent - are the 'average' man. They have had all that training too, and as a result are stronger and with greater stamina. Even though the military will do a certain amount of remedial physical training for new recruits, nearly all are much fitter and stronger than "average"

Standard infantry kit is stunningly heavy, it's simply not designed for a woman to carry.

By coincidence , my Niece did the Army physical assessment today at Aintree, she was accepted (pending GP report) others, including Males, didn't pass.

There is a level of physical strength and stamina needed, that women can achieve, or men, via lifestyle or genetics can't.

I agree that whoever passes the test, should be able to fulfil the same role.

Women around the world, in times gone by, have dug ditches and fought etc side by side with Men.

Corus, your issues are personal to you, they might still be present even if you were homosexual.

I wasn't suggesting at all they had to go on the pill, just pointing out if they themselves don't want to have periods during active service, there are some options.

nocomet nor was it designed for your average man, this is why so many fail basic training

When I was a teen I nearly joined the armed forces. One of the things that peed me off was that despite the same training I was not able to join the front line with the men.
I never joined up.
Now I am older I feel that that decision was the right one. There are a number of front line jobs that put you at risk of being taken prisoner and not all countries are signed up to the Geneva convention.
I do not want to see a female soldier battered, bruised, potentially raped being paraded on tv in the way that male soldiers have been.
Do we want a female pow being returned heavily pregnant and not knowing who the father is?
Yes this is an extreme situation however the potential will be there.

corus I've always thought of it like living with a bear - might seem nice and you love them but at any moment they could turn and kill you.

I've been in the ta and done infantry training I could out perform some men that could get in but not all by a long shot.

Meditrina, my post was to Corus, who described Women as compromised, when compared to Men.

It depends on what you want to achieve.

There are still big issues with the general attitude to females, which I think limits what Women do in the Army and how long they serve.

Yes I realise that sorry.

The problem seems to be with the men at the top not likingb the thought that a women could kill with a bayonet.

IMO.

I'm straight btw

in some forces you are probably more at risk from your colleagues than the enemy littledrummergirl