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?

Boffinmum - comparing painting a bathroom to being in active combat is absolutely ludicrous.

Contrary to some of the posts here, front line combat is not a triathlon in camouflage.

It's not a case of what our future hand grenades might be like. It's dealing with every sort of grenade that the enemy be making to use against you and which you need to chuck far away enough to prevent yourself and everyone near you being maimed or killed.

And the phrase isn't just "kill" the enemy, it's also "close with" the enemy, and that's the bit where bodily capability matters more.

"How the hell do you think you make it between observation points if you don't know what a fucking observation point is?"

I think there's a misunderstanding here. One poster is describing recce patrol covert OPs (where discovery means death/capture), and the other a form of course-marking that is intended to be seen.

I still don't think that's justification for banning women though.

You decide what the necessary physical requirements are (e.g. throwing an enemy's hand grenade away from you and your colleagues) and then let anyone through who meets those standards. Yes, the intake will probably be overwhelmingly male, but a woman who passes is capable of doing that job. Therefore not allowing her to is purely because she is female and not because her female attributes prevent her from doing that job. IOW unfair discrimination.

Yes LtEve. The SAS explained them to me when I successfully completed the exercise above. Can you read? How the hell do you think you make it between observation points if you don't know what a fucking observation point is

OK - That shows me that you don't understand Melonade. You don't go between OPs. You are extracted from them when you have gained the information you were put there to get, and extractions usually involve heavy fire power to provide cover.

We aren't talking about the same thing at all.

Body armour is a good illustration of that. It can be uncomfortable for women with larger breasts
...and hips.

and 'webbing' which holds your immediate use kit (ammo, respirator, 24 hr rations, water etc) is horribly designed. Every CFT I've ever done I have returned with bruised hips and bleeding and bruised nipples. I have one permanently scarred and misshaped nipple from multiple injuries when I was serving at a 'front line' unit that expected the women to be fully integrated.

The money that would need to be spent to change these essential items would (imo) be better spent elsewhere. Throwing money that don't have at something the majority don't want is a waste(although I'd welcome changes to body armour - but for everyone not just the women).

The required stopping power for a bullet is rather different from the force behind a fencing thrust.

Yes, there will probably be developments in materials science that will lead to curved plates one day having the same stopping power (and ricochet implications) as flatter ones. But it's a major project.

I think that there are certain things an average woman is less likely to do well, as compared to an average man.Yes, upper body strength is one of them.Some of the equipment you are expected to lug in combat engineering is extremely heavy.Some of the weapons,also, when you're running for extended periods.

But there are supremely fit men, and less fit men. There are some very mentally determined men, and some less so.

None are superhuman -all have strengths and weaknesses.
Upper body strength can be developed.As can speed and stamina.

I think its the mental ability that's most vital -and that isn't specific to either gender.

All the combat uniform is designed for the male physique. As Lt Eve said, webbing and body armour are particularly uncomfortable to wear if you have hips or a larger chest, even a backpack is awful as it is too long and sits on your bum, rather than over (as with a man).

Female recruits and serving personnel train and serve alongside their male counterparts and do exactly the same training and jobs now. Only a very small number of roles are prohibited, I am all for them opening it up to women, but the pass markers (mental and physical) must be completely equal for those specific roles, and if the women fail, they fail.

I suspect very few would apply, and of those that did I would not expect a high pass rate if I'm honest.

Women are already frontline in many roles as has already been mentioned.

From the Telegraph Article that Idealist posted: Yes, very few women still get through in Canada – but relatively few even try out. After 20 years of the ban being lifted, women still only make up about 2.5 per cent – that’s just one in 40 – of the Canadian Army’s combat arms

Like I said, I'd rather the Army used the money it is going to spend on this review (like the money it spent on the 2010 'inconclusive' review) in areas that it is needed. I need them to lift the MOD Civil Servant recruiting ban... Or give me soldiers to replace them...Or take less than 14 months to supply a pair of size 2 boots... Or pay for the larger computer screens we've been waiting for since 2009... Or make JPA compatible with HTS (computer again)... Or employ a nurse trained to give smears, insert coils, remove and insert implants rather than making the women drive 20 miles to the nearest civilian FPC willing to provide them... Or pay to make the personal rifle compatible with left handers rather than telling them to learn to fire it the 'right' way... Or not disband a Regiment we need paying out thousands in Redundancy... Or employ more Dentists instead expecting one dentist to travel between 9 units over a distance of 400 miles and having to pay for either his travel or the travel of the soldier having to find him and get to him for emergency treatment.

...and that is in one, really small, NOT front line unit.

If after 20 years there is only a 2.5% uptake (and that's only in the combat arms, not the Canadian Army as a whole, so even lower over all) is it really worth it when we need the above NOW?

We have that problem in construction that virtually all hi vis clothing is designed for the male physique, and TBH it often it fits them badly too. It's a vicious cycle of companies not bothering to ask for better fitting stuff, so no perceived demand, so nothing available. If it was men entering a female dominated profession (like nursing) nobody ever saw them wearing the female uniform! I wouldn't wear a man's suit to a client meeting but I have to flounder about on site in a huge jacket and baggy trousers. My company has a stupid procurement policy of one (useless) approved supplier, I expect the Army have it 100 times worse.

In every other arena of life involving protective clothing (sailing for example) there seems to be no problem making mens and womens versions of waterproofs and boots and climbing harnesses .

There is definitely a long way to go between a point of principle, and the practicality of actually implementing it, I see your point LtEveDallas.

Incidentally has this discussion come about because there are actually some women who are asking to apply to these roles because they think they can do them? Or is it a case of lifting the restriction and seeing if anyone comes forward?

Raising, as far as I am aware it is reviewed every 8 years - it has only been 5 years I think since the last one, but due to women proving themselves in Afghan, and the imminent drawdown they have pulled the review early.

interesting thanks!

The eight years is dictated by the EU anti-discrimination laws.

Yeah, they did one in 2010 but the results were inconclusive (still cost thousands though). They were scheduled to do one in 2017/18 but they've bought it forward.

(As an aside, I've just realised that MelonadeAgain was talking about Control Points or Way Points, used in orienteering, not Observation Points. Just a mix-up of abbreviations in the end )

I heard an argument that if a woman were captured then they suffer a worse fate than men (rape and sexual violence I think they meant)

Dingalong, you mentioned senior female officers and lack of earlier - I don't know about army, but I do about the raf.

The rules re staying in following having children changed around 1994 iirc, up until this point females had to choose career or children. Most left on pregnancy, few stayed in - since 1994 you could keep your job, but the realities of juggling a fully deployable career and children is tough, especially when your co-parent is also serving (which is the case with most serving mothers). As such, many leave at their earliest departure point following children - a few carry on, but if you think that a very small percentage of raf are female anyway, the percentage of those moving up through the ranks is tiny in the grand scheme of things. This is the reason there are so very few female senior officers, and senior non commissioned ranks.

We would be better placed in terms of addressing sexism and having greater numbers of females in the services if more effort was made on improving retention rates amongst those already serving imo.

We would be better placed in terms of addressing sexism and having greater numbers of females in the services if more effort was made on improving retention rates amongst those already serving imo

I couldn't agree more. I am 'unusual' in that I have served a full career, as did my DH. It only worked though because he completed his 22 the year DD was born. If he hadn't then tbh I expect I would have left 10 years ago, when I wasn't 'pension trapped' and could have found a civilan job easier.

The women I work with that are pension trapped are all married to civilians, or childless. I know a number of women that felt it was too hard to leave their children, and of course the 'everyday sexism' that looks at single fathers/SAHDs as 'weird' doesn't help. DH feels looked down on for supporting me, and I get asked how I can leave my child (with one of those patronising head tilts) on a regular basis - the men I work with don't get asked.

As ever childcare is expensive and doesn't allow for 24 hour duties, call outs in the middle of the night, exercises and ops. The only answer is an Au Pair/Nanny but the jobs aren't exactly coveted when you realise the accn is often dire and in the middle of nowhere.

One of my friends is currently in a job where she deploys for 3 months at a time, every 3 months, for 3 years. If she had a child and a serving DH that would be a nightmare. A single parent (of either sex) would be screwed. None of the men she works with have military spouses and in the last year alone 3 have separated from their wives.

Somewhere else where I'd prefer the money was spent.

Eve, I have 3 years left until my 22 and I can't wait. I have permanent med board later this year following crohn's diagnosis and bowel surgery, both my Achilles are nadged due to years of shit boots and inadequate post maternity/cesaerian/spd back to fitness care and my mind finally gave up and broke last year.

There is virtually no retention of women in the services past a certain point and out of around 30 that joined at the same time as me, only 2 of us are still serving.

There are no female wo in my trade so far.

That's terrible Scarlett, but I hear what you are saying. I'm the only one left from my Pl intake of 70 (according to the WRAC reunion!) and I'd say over half of those went went within 5 years, the rest around the 12 year point. I've got a leg full of metal, but thankfully was able to retrain and get more of a desk job to suit my needs.