Women still banned from combat roles after MoD review.

[winnybella]

here

Seems to me that it's the men who might not be able to deal with this but it's women's careers that will suffer.

What do you think?

Great post dylthan.

I agree with you that it is ludicrous that mothers should be considered more important than fathers. They're all parents.

I also think your last point is excellent and it chimes with me - I really think that might well be the main reason for it.

Yes there is a fitness test. A sit-ups / press-ups / running test (PFT) and a 'carrying all your kit and marching 8 miles' (CFT) test. They are timed tests that everyone completes bi-annually.

They are the basic standards. They do NOT take into account a war situation - they are the level you have to achieve in peacetime.

Different cap-badges have different times to attain, and different weights to carry. The infantry has to do the 8 miles faster than the others.

Males and females takes these tests and have different levels they have to attain.

On a CFT I carry half the weight that an RAC soldier carries.

In a war situation I would need to carry - for my survival - almost twice the weight an RAC soldier carries. The RAC soldier suffers - it would bloody kill me!

Fitness tests are a peactime baseline. the realities of war and a war setting bring different requirements on a daily basis - you cannot 'physically' train for them all - mentally maybe.

Why are there differences in the standards expected of men and women? Surely if there is a minimum requirement for a job then you need to meet it regardless of gender.

None of this is making any sense to me.

meh.

if a woman is fit enough (and has met exactly the same entry standards, and carried out and passed, exactly the saem training as her male peers, the only reason why she is excluded from the front line is male 'instinct' (pah - the same 'instinct' that is trained into you and out of you during basic and professional/ trade training.)

there have been papers and papers on this, and it always boils down to what the men think.

i'm not going to be able to post an awful lot on this thread, as it's one of the subjects that gets me dragging my soapbox out.

i wanted to join the marines when i was 18, largely to prove a point. (i know, dumb reason, but really.) of course, they wouldn't take me, so i took a nice ground job. during basic training, the men would run one way round a course, the women would run the other (and the direction would be alternated). if i had a pound for every bloke who accused me of cheating because i was fitter and faster than he was, i'd have been able to buy all the drinks in the bar.

the unsuitable women would get dropped like a hot potato in exactly the same way that unfit/ unsuitable blokes are.

c'mon wingdad, i know the regt is the last bastion of sacred male ground in the raf, but i know a fair few women who could cope quite easily if they weren't barred because they haven't got a penis.

aaaaargh.

i spent 16 years listening to kitchen sink jokes, and seeing porn on office walls day in day out. (and that daft bloody silly mare herc pilot who fell into the gi jane trap and refused to sleep in the female accom on ops because she might get contaminated by the pen-pushers.... not all gender discrimination in the military comes from men)

and you lot bimbling on about male officers feeling the need to save female soldiers first - we have got female officers, you know. but yes, other than the rank thing, that's what it boils down to.

jeez, i was even told i wasn't allowed on the mountain rescue team ffs. not because i wasn't strong enough to carry all the kit, not because i wasn't fast enough, couldn't map read in the hills, deal with bad vis, no, no, no. i couldn't join the mountain rescue team because the team member's wives wouldn't like it.

you'll be pleased to know that little rule was bust wide open a couple of years later.

eve, blimey. it's not the women's fault that they are disbarred from taking the same tests! of course not many would pass - but why on earth should the ones who could pass not be given the option?

madwomen - I agree with nearly all your points, but I actually DONT know a fair few women who would have met the RAF Regiment fitness standards and then passed the training. I can think of one or two. When we streamed people fitnesswise, using the exactly the same tests, we hardly ever got women in the top two streams.

I am not saying that those who are the exception shouldn't be given the opportunity, just that the combination of speed, stamina and upper body strength required are very unusual in a women.

Simplified again. It's also separated by trade.

Male Clerks and Female Clerks are expected to carry the same basic weight on CFT. They are Clerks, employed in a clerical role, they fight if and when they are needed to.

Male Medics and Female Medics are expected to carry the same basic weight on CFT. They are medics, employed in a medical role, they fight if and when they are needed to.

Male Infantrymen (there are no females) carry more than clerks and medics. They are the infantry - their role is to be on the front line. Their job is to fight. It is all they train for.

We did go thru a period of Gender Free Assessment - I think in about 1995. As a result some trades within the Artillery were opened to females. The rest of the combat trades were kept closed to women.

There are hundreds of trades within the military - only a very few are closed to females - there is no need to open these up when everything else is on offer.

i was serving in 1995. a number of my (female) colleagues consistently outperformed the men. certainly not all of them - totally agree notyummy, not all men/ women are equal depending on what assessment criteria are used.

eve, i raise you 'there is no need not to open the remaining trades.'

why don't you want equality? for those who are equal using this particular benchmark?

lteve you haven't said why if there is a minimum standard for a job, the tests for men and women are different.

Can you see how illogical this all is?

As for "there's no need for women to do X, they can do Y or Z instead", feminism is all about women not being barred from things simply because they are women. Barring women from things just because they are women is sexist by definition.

This thread is a real eye-opener, I had no idea.

oh, yes. i remember the reason. the men won't be able to control themselves during combat.

I've heard that reason to madwomanintheattic I actually find that reason to be really offensive to men. To say that they are not professional enough to keep their eye on the job so to speak is just an absurd argument and compleatly pisses on all the hard work and self disipline they have to have in order to get through their training imo.

ISNT - yes I have - males and females, if working in the same trade (ie medics, clerks), have the same minimum requirement.

Madwoman - I believe we come at this from different perspectives - RAF and Army. I believe Army basic training standards are more physical than RAF basic training standards.

In any case - again it's not all about the fitness/strength. There are other factors - strength is only one of them.

Earlier on you said that men and women had different standards to meet:

"Different cap-badges have different times to attain, and different weights to carry. The infantry has to do the 8 miles faster than the others.

Males and females takes these tests and have different levels they have to attain."

dh is army. i've spent 15 years sailing alongside that particular boat too and chatting to the women on board

if we're coming at this from those different angles though, doesn't it piss you right off that every female in the army is a lesbian?

ask wingdad if he feels his standard of fitness is somehow lacking.

Sorry ISNT - I can see that now. When I said different levels I meant that for eg Medics have a level and clerks have a different level - not males and females. Apologies.

Madwoman. Wasnt meant to start a fight - just stating a fact. When I served with the RAF (as the only 'lesbian' on that particular camp) I took the RAF Bleep Test and found it much easier than the Army BFT. When I returned to a joint environment I lamented the fact that I would have to do the BFT again.

When I went on SDs in 1993 the RAF females had only 'just' been allowed to volunteer and were finding the training very hard - drop out rates were much higher.

I didnt say Wingdad's fitness was lacking. I said I believed there was a different level.

That makes sense then.

I can't see that the strength argument is the one keeping women out. Logically if women pass they can do it. I think it's other reasons, to do with the army being v sexist and traditional, and about public perception as was mentioned earlier.

Well attitudes will need to change and they are (slowly) it's so easy to think one thing but subsciously your actions may betray you, maybe not in a major way but a slight hesitation. This is the front-line there is no room for trial and error as it will quite literally cost lives.

Women do work with the infantry and there is always an element of risk however the infantry are the ones sent in first and are the ones who may be ordered to areas in the line of fire.

Strength and endurance is only a factor that the infantry carry much more than other trades in the military so the number of women who would attain that fitness would be few.

Public perception may also factor true not that the deaths of men are unimportant but it does seem that deaths of females in the military seem to stand out more so have a greater 'shock' effect.

Especially if they are mothers saltatrix. I really do think that the earlier poster's point about the "powers that be" knowing that dead mothers would be dreadful PR for any war effort is a huge part of this.

Public perception comes into it yes, as does the 'men would save a woman first' arguement.

There are other considerations, for example in the RAC you can spend weeks at a time holed up in your tank. That could cause issues for a mixed crew.

I suppose there are a myriad of reasons, but we only see a few. Personally I believe that a few (ok quite a few) years ago I would have been ready, willing and ABLE to go into a combat role. Now I wouldn't. I have met far more women in my career that wouldn't have been able, than I have that would. But it's never really bothered me - I've always pushed the envelope, and I've always been satisfied with the avenues I've followed. There are other jobs available, like I said, so missing out on one or two - no biggie.

Being holed up with a woman for any length of time is an appaling argument as I have said earlier imo. It's an argument that should of been seen as a non starter at the same time as it was finally acceptable to be gay and in the forces. People are capable of being able to control their sexual urges and those that aren't should be the ones to be unable to do the job not woman for the simple fact of being a woman.

I also don't get the saving woman first argument. Dh was a fireman he served along side a female firefighter she was respected and treated as an equal by the men all of whom were highly trained. None of them would of gone against their training to save her first if somthing had gone horribly wrong they all would of done what they were trained to do. Why would the artillery be any less capable of sticking to what they were trained to do in a combat situation?

What Dylthan said

I think the being holed up for weeks in a confined space is more to do with hygiene issues rather than sexual urges.

Hygeine reasons possible. Sexual reasons were the ones given by my regiment exbf years ago (he was a knobhead but that's neither here nor there) so I suppose that's the reason I think of it first.

I am a bit confussed by the hygeine argument though why would it be less hygenic for men and woman to be holed up
together rather than just men or woman on their own?

Is it that women have dirty periods?!

Eve - as an ex-RAF officer I think you are right about the different physical fitness standards. But, just like the Army, it does differ within the RAF. Most of the RAF has a fitness standard that is easy to reach (as a 38 year old now civvie mother, I am able to score 'excellent' on every element of the female fitness standards for example. Yes, I have an interest in fitness - but I don't have time to be spending hours and hours training.) The RAF Regiment is a different matter, and the standards they have for squadded runs, CFT etc I would imagine are very similar to Army combat regiments.