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?

Let women do what they want in the forces, but don't lower the standards to do so. If a woman can do everything one of the most adept male soldiers can, there's no reason to discriminate on gender. But you can't have affirmative action in war.

Dingalong, I am pure civilian but I was amazed in my gym's paintball team how unobservant the TA blokes were, compared to the little self-elected platoon of women who actually applied some principles of military strategy to the whole thing, and were happy to watch wait and listen, covered in leaves and fox shit, so the other side got taken out and the field was clear for us to move in and get the flag. Is this typical of TA blokes, or did we have a duff lot in our team, do you think?

Frankly after that experience I was amazed they allow men in the army

I think it's fair to have affirmative action with kit. It's ridiculous to pretend wearing boys' clothes helps someone be a better soldier, and if they don't fit women should just suck it up. If there isn't sufficient economy of scale to supply proper women shaped kit, then the army should bloody well let them have it made specially. Particularly boots. Anything else is just pointless, ridiculous discrimination.

It doesn't help either that the forces are so stretched - there are so many deployments, and not enough people, so people are going far too frequently for up to 6 months at a time (I think police might be 9 months now). This is not conducive to happy families at all, and with both parents serving, they are constantly flip-flopping deployments and duties.

I do think that a 'non deployable' role for a finite period following childbirth should be an option for serving couples (say 3 years post mat leave), either parent could take it and they could relinquish x factor pay for that period - this would take away the deployment juggling fear that drives many women to leave.

Dingalong, you're totally right re sexism and change being hard to overcome - I can imagine the 'boardroom' is similar. With no female representation, how can females be truly represented and stood up for? No retention means the tide of change is sloooow.

There are women getting up there, Eve is one of them - the women that have battled their way up are now being 'seen' by the younger girls, so they are seeing it as more achievable, and so hopefully the cycle will continue and the numbers will increase.

Can I just add to that something about knee replacements? Apparently failure rates have historically been high for women, and then someone realised all the artificial knees on the market, every single one, was based on a male leg. They started making women's sizes and guess what? The failure rate is now the same as for men. This only happened something like 5 or 10 years ago.

This is an example of how pointless and sexist procurement can be, and we see it in the army. We should go into business together and develop female kit. I am sure we could supply the world and make our fortunes

Boffinmum, I love paintballing!

We did it once with work and at the start with thousands of free paintballs it was a total free for all - once the ammunition started to run low it was a completely different game, and everyone went tactical. It was awesome!

Boffin

I wish someone would BoffinMum, but the MOD won't pay for it. Whilst only 9% of the whole Army is female, it doesn't make 'business sense' to pay for a second design when the first can be used.

From my toes to my head (using poetic licence and amalgamating my friends issues with mine)

Size 2 boots - took 14 months to procure because male sizes start at size 6.
Combat trousers - to fit my arse they have to be too big in the waist and too long in the leg. My crotch is about 3 inches lower than it should be.
Combat shirt - to fit my 38GG's they have to be too long in the body and the arm. Which means the pockets of the upper arm sit on my elbows.
Combat Jacket - same issue as above, but even bigger because they are designed big on the men so you can get body armour under. My jacket almost reaches my knees.

Helmet - woman have to have their long hair in a bun or French plait tucked up. Helmet doesn't fit with either so hair has to be worn in a plait twisted up when helmets are not worn and quickly let down when worn..A delay in a scud type situation. A respirator has the same issue.

Then I've said before about the issues with body armour, webbing, bergans etc.

It does piss me off, but I've put up with it for 24 years. All the above can be 'put up with' in supporting roles but put me at the front of a firefight and the issues intensify.

dingaling Similarity why 'must hair be tied up when your helmet is not on ? Unless it's over your eyes it's not going to affect anything?

Long hair can get trapped in things, stood on and yanked. Best to have it short or keep it in a bun at all times.

I don't think the clothes sizing sounds that bad really. But then I fit in DH's clothes quite well. Trousers are a bit long in the leg though. But I'm sure there are also men it doesn't fit well too?

When I've encountered the TAs BoffinMum (barracks next to my house) they have been pretty feeble. The Marines are a different piece of cake. Quite a lot of them do multisport events for fitness and often to quite a high level, with one or two placing in the top ten sometimes I've noticed. Also a much better attitude.

To be fair though LtEve the men have to have their hair off their collar.
It's a pita to mess with long hair, but there is a choice to chop it off.And there can be sound reasons for your hair not being all over the place.

X post Melonade !

You need your hair out of the way for a respirator to seal too.

So do we ThatBloodyWoman. The official line is "Females. The hair is to be neat and worn above the collar. Combs, grips etc., if worn, are to be plain and similar in colour to the hair. Style and colour (if not natural) is not to be of an exaggerated nature"

I had my hair cut bloke short when I went to Iraq in 2003 because I knew it would be dangerous to have it longer and have to put it up all the time when using a respirator was going to be a regular occurrence. It just looks shit, that's all.

That's what I'm saying LtEve.

It's not that women are being asked to do something that men aren't iyswim.

I do sympathise, don't get me wrong!

Oh yeah, don't worry, I get that

I think it's just the irritation factor and that women would have to change (ie have short haircuts, against the 'norm') if they were to join the infantry for example - because who could be faffing about with hair if you about to go into a section attack.

It's all the silly reasons building up on top of everything else.