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?

My last post was to answer raising, sorry.

Melonade I am totally with you. Our armed forces should benefit from women like these who are willing and able to serve.

I agree, just because not many women are fit enough/inclined to do a job, doesn't mean no woman can do it.

In a lot of fields where women have made inroads in recent years (like engineering where I work), the perception of what might happen turned out to be very different when they became a normal part of the scenery. In the early days it was all catcalls on site, now everyone is used to seeing females in various roles. I don't notice I get any special treatment when I'm traipsing around site. But you don't see girlie calendars around the portakabins any more either - the environment has changed.

I can't see that any of these worries about females in these frontline roles will improve until there are some women actually doing them, doing them well, proving they can do it AND the men can work normally alongside them without the sky falling down. Whether the men can cope with that is another matter.

OK let's see
"Men would be more inclined to stop and help an injured woman, thus putting themselves at risk". If this is a bad thing, why is "conspicuous gallantry" so lauded? If you crawl across no man's land with one arm blown off under heavy fire to rescue somebody else, at great risk of you both dying instead of just them dying, you are practically guaranteed to get a medal, even (or especially) posthumously. I'm reading "The Recollections Of Rifleman Bowlby" at the moment and they went back into enemy territory at night to collect the bodies of fallen comrades. I think historically the American marines took pride in risking their lives to retrieve bodies.
"They might get captured" Didn't stop the SOE sending Violette Szabo to France, did it? Let's see who has been captured in recent times:

• those two who wrote "Tornado Down" - women can fly fighter jets
• one or two of the "Black Hawk Down" heli crew - women can do this
• the poor Military police who got mobbed and killed (think women can be in the MP?) So to avoid any females being captured, you would have to ban them from these roles too. Oh, and any female journalists and civilian humanitarian workers in conflict zones like the poor lady who was beheaded.

"They might get captured and raped" which is bad, but not as bad as being beheaded or killed by a mob, which could happen to either sex

"They might get raped by their own colleagues" - bit more likely this, but no more reason to ban them than you would ban any woman walking the streets of the UK after dark alone. Yes a frontline situation puts people under more pressure, but if a man lost the plot and raped a colleague because of pressure then he's not mentally fit to be in a fighting unit.

"They might get killed and women getting killed is worse than men getting killed" Why? When Channing Day was killed, the local media did not say it was especially sad because she was female. It was especially sad because she was kind, fun, energetic and most of all a brilliant medic who had saved fellow soldiers.
"They're physically not up to it" people used to say this about women riding astride. Mary King - our top equestrian Olympian - has competed in top level events whilst pregnant. Nina Carberry and Katie Walsh ride in the Grand National. Women do the Marathon des Sables, Ironman triathlons, free climb precipices, swim the Channel, win Olympic Gold in the Skeleton (so dangerous you cannot legally compete aged under 18)

"They might get pregnant" - yep and back to Blighty and somebody else joins the unit. It happens occasionally, I don't think it happens wholesale.

Good points noddingoff. I think they would be best to ban men from the Army altogether, on safety grounds. Because no man ever died, got injured, rescued by colleagues, quit, captured, got raped, etc..

Most of the reasons against sound like the usual reasons in the past against women doing things that are perfectly standard now. Its beginning to sound ridiculously old fashioned. It sounds more like some desperately clung-onto official line that would upset too many dinosaurs to abandon just yet.

I think that's some of it melonade, but a lot of it is political - nobody wants to be the person who ok'd women in front line combat roles when the body bags come home in great numbers, and the media are whipping up a storm amongst the electorate.

Raisingsteam is right though, it will only become normal when it finally happens, and the male soldiers do fight alongside with no problem (and I do believe the actual soldiers will be fine), but the general public opinion is the big sticking point imo.

It would probably be too distressing for the male soldiers see them get hurt (not that it's not already distressing enough to see other combat soldiers of the same sex get hurt either).

At my fittest, which I'm certainly not now, I still would not have been able to complete the Infantry Combat Fitness Test, nor the regular CFT carrying Infantry or RAC weight. I know very few women that could - and most of those are heavier built or 'overweight' because of the muscle tone and body shape.

I've known women that could piss on the men at running, but it's not about running. Running (in shorts and T shirts wearing trainers) is of no use on the battlefield. You have to be able to wear a helmet, carry a rifle, wear boots and have up to 32Kg on your back and then trog for 8 miles in less than 2 hours. The Inf test is longer and faster.

The weight by you carry is trade specific, not sex, so women compete equally with the men in the same job as them.

Neither is it all about the battlefield.

Imagine sitting in an OP (observation point). You could be there for a number of days. You have dug a shell scrape to a depth of about 4 inches and are either inside a bivvy bag (like a gortex sleeping bag) or have a waterproof camouflage cover pegged over you.

You lie there, unmoving for 24/48/72 hours. You have your binoculars trained on a certain point, and cannot miss a minute of what is going on. You can't have a crap because you can't move. You eat cold boil in the bag rations because you can't cook.

You need a pee. Men stay in position, stick their penis into an empty coke bottle and relieve themselves whilst still in position, still watching, still holding the binos. You can't wet youself - for one if you are in a bivvy bag the urine will stay inside sloshing around you, for two it will alert animals to your presence that could give you away.

That one simple thing is harder for women. It has nothing to do with strength, or stamina or the will to do it. It's a design fault .

I could come up with a number of other scenarios, real ones, ones I have come across myself and ones I have had to overcome myself.

It's not all about the fitness, or the strength, or the bravery/gallantry, or the hearts and minds. It's the whole package and until we/they overcome every last issue then it's academic. Sure there are women that could do it (btw the standards have changed a lot since Kelly Holmes day), but they are very few and far between.

If she was captured for example she'd probably be more likely to be raped than a male soldier.

Nope, male soldiers are just as likely to be raped. Also you are more likely to be captured ejecting from a fighter plane than in hand to hand combat.

LtEveDallas

Fairly sure I could pee in a coke bottle, I can do it with a specimen bottle. Or you could do what the astronauts do and use a nappy, or a she pee or, well, it is easier to put a urinary catheter in a woman.

There is a current problem within infantry units with 'weight on the man' men who are infantry soldiers are currently finding it harder and harder to carry all the equipment needed in combat missions.

Women would struggle even more - do those who think women should be able to serve in frontline infantry units think women should carry less then the men they are serving with? Surely this would compromise the whole unit if not everyone was carrying what they required. Do you think the woman should carry less ammunition? Less armour? Less water?

I know lots of women in the armed forces and I am married to an infantry man. There are lots of women who may be fitter and stronger than men serving in the Corps (RMAC, RLC, RMP etc) but just do not have the physical strength and stamina to serve in front line infantry roles. If you were to ask them - they also don't want to serve in those units.

One handed lying down sashh? I can't even use a she-wee one handed, let alone a coke bottle . Like I said, that's just one example, but it's an idea of a small problem that would need to be overcome.

Slongette, agreed. All the serving women I know are very happy with their no less important roles, the roles they chose and can do as well as or better than their colleagues, male and female. I don't know any serving female soldier that wants to be an Infanteer. It's the civilians outside that think we should want it. It's also embarrassing when a small minority of women make a big thing about being able to do something as well as the men - and then fail. Most of us just want to get on with our jobs

When I was a teenager I wanted to be a fighter pilot. The RAF chap explained that women couldn't do that.

I understand what LtEve is saying about the infantry, but surely there are no similar physical barriers to aerial combat (except maybe my spelling).

There are female fighter pilots

There are female apache pilots in the army air corp

They have acquired flight hours in combat situations - what is your point sublteplansarehereagain?

For those worried about periods in the trenches/submarines etc, why does this bother you more than poo and wee in the same places? Seems to me that you're buying into the idea that menstruation is somehow more shameful/distasteful than other bodily functions, which is IMO a rather misogynistic pov.

About the idea of women not being keen enough on killing... apparently the vast majority of men are extremely reluctant as well.

There was a channel 4 documentary a few years ago called "The Truth About Killing" about how armed forces had learned over the course of the 20th century that most men were extremely unwilling to kill and needed training to over come that reluctance.

If I remember rightly, the scale of the problem was identified after WW2 when it was found that more than half of returning infantry soldiers said they could not kill an enemy soldier "in cold blood." Most could only shoot directly at someone in the heat of battle or to defend themselves.

All figures from memory, so may be wrong, but I think with training "willingness to kill" rose from 20% (WW1) to 50% (WW2) to 70% (Vietnam) to 90% (Falklands.)

Documentary showed US marines training at clearing out buildings and explained how they were being conditioned to fire automatically in response to certain situations.

Periods are optional. You can take medication to avoid having them if necessary, for example in a battle situation, or you can have a Mirena coil fitted that more or less gets rid of them as well. And if your body fat is low they are comparatively light anyway. Too much fuss is made about this.

On my pain management course, the only real difference between men and women in terms of physical activities is that men have greater upper body strength, whereas in women the front thigh muscle is significantly stronger than in men (very useful for shoving wardrobes and cars and things, I find, and a good party piece to impress the blokes). I wouldn't to be surprised if women had greater stamina and were less prone to fainting/heatstroke as well, but I don't know if there is any evidence.

Then there is the issue of marching, which is just about discipline and looking pretty, frankly, so a different step length would be appropriate for women in this instance. I understand there was a court case where a woman had suffered pelvic strain as a result of being forced to march in a way that was inappropriate for her leg length.

Finally there is the question of rape in war. I wonder whether that is exclusively confined to women. That's something people have to be mentally prepared for, I suppose, just as they have to be prepared to be killed.

A friend's daughter is a Combat Medic - she goes with units into battle in Afghanistan.

was just reading about the women in the US marine corps infantry (13 enlisted, no officers) and how their earlier training is segregated and men are better prepared for the tests

here

The tests to be capable of fighting on the front lines are hard - you have to be able to carry a certain weight for long periods of time, run for bloody ages, shoot with accuracy etc.

Maybe 1 in 20 men can pass (totally pulling statistics out of my arse here) and because women are not naturally as strong only 1 in 30 women can pass.

Just because the proportion of women who can pass the test is lower than the proportion of men doesn't mean that we should block those capable women from doing the job. And the whole gallantry argument is a load of twaddle - soldiers will fight and protect one another, there have been many times when soldiers have been honoured for going back and saving their fellow soldiers at great personal risk - does it really make a difference if the fellow soldiers they save are men or women?

My ex squaddie dh maintains that its because of the men not the women.

That men would unreasonably put their lives at risk to save a woman.

I think women should be not just allowed to be combatants, but expected to be, in line with the men -and take on a job with more of a support role (ie clerk) if they don't want to see action if they can avoid it.

LteEveDallas talk about making a problem out of nothing
you just pee in a sports drinks bottle. Made of plastic. Wtf would you be doing with a glass coke bottle in lengthy camouflaged OP anyway? Or you could take the top off a coke can. Sports bottle best though as you can put the top on to hold the liquid in.

I actually did the SAS If You Think You're Tough Enough recruitment day in Wales, and I managed to run between OPs with the weighted rucksack to make the times. I nearly got through - I didn't weight train for it though as I was in 10k running shape. Iona Robertson did, and she went on to win the series in Borneo, beating all the men. Do you think that didn't happen? It was on tv every week.

If men cant cope with the thought of injured colleagues ina combat situation, train them to do so. I realise the calibre of army recruit us not high physically but that's what trainings for.

And not all women lack upper body strength - someone like Christine Ohorugo certainly shows its possible. Jessica Ennis is far stronger than she looks, and Iona Robertson was smaller than her.

" It's also embarrassing when a small minority of women make a big thing about being able to do something as well as the men - and then fail. "
Wow i'd love to work alongside you, your name suggests your an officer, surely you should be setting an example and encouraging your female soldiers not slagging them off for trying .

Also myself and a team of other fenales were capable of carrying a 45lb Bergen for 40 miles in just under 10 hours. None of us are heavy built or overweight? Maybe your just a little jealous of female soldiers who are more capable than yourself. That's how I'm seeing it.

Then there is the issue of marching, which is just about discipline and looking pretty, frankly,

No, a squadded march is an essential part of dismounted battlefield discipline and has bollocks all to do with 'looking pretty'.

I think women should be not just allowed to be combatants, but expected to be

All women ARE combatant - even the clerks . Women were non-combatant until 1992, but have been combatant and front line prepared ever since.

I am annoyed at the amount of money that is going to be wasted on this review when we are already seriously undermanned, waiting for essential items of equipment in unacceptable timeframes, waiting (and at times never getting) non-essential items of clothing and equipment. Using and having to wear unsuitable items of clothing and equipment. Living in condemmed accommodation, families living in cramped and unsuitable houses waiting for repairs that cannot be afforded. Soldiers choosing to live in their own accn, paid for by themselves, thus destroying the closeness and camaraderie of the messes/blocks.

How about we sort out those issues first, rather than waste money on something that the majority of females soldiers don't want, can't do and couldn't give a toss about?

Yes much better to send the thousands of troops to war troops with undiagnosed mental health issues than issues that have been treated and are in some cases historic.

Also do you know how many young people are referred to CAMHS every year by teachers etc where the referral is totally inappropriate?