Women serving on the front line-woman on radio 5

[PenelopePitstops]

Listening to the radio this morning and they are discussing women fighting on the front line. A woman is on there arguing that women shouldn't be allowed to serve

Otoh a fabulous man is arguing against her very well saying that women are equal and why on earth can't they do the same job.

An interesting debate.

That last sentence should say who is capabale of joining the infantry.

No, the tests have to be the same if the roles are the same imo - same with any job.

TheCowThatLaughs, the point there is that if we want women to be truly equal with men we have to fight for equality in all areas. It is no good cherry-picking and backing down at the difficult ones saying "oh but we don't really want to be that equal". Because that is the message we would be sending out and you can hardly think men would not pick up on it.

I don't like war either, and I don't like the foreign entanglements Britain has which could result in our daughters sent to some tin-pot country noone's ever heard of, much less got a quarrel with, and being blown to bits on a politician's whim. As our sons could be. I have every sympathy.

But if we want equal responsibility then we take equal responsibility.

Btw once again (I have done this before on similar threads) may I introduce you to Captain Ashley Collette, a front-line serving infantrywoman. It's quite a good article actually, covers most of the issues. www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24622762

Fair enough. But there is nothing to say that the current tests are the ones that have to be met.

John Humphrys seemed very invested in women not being allowed to work in close combat roles. I know he's always an argumentative bugger, but he really went above and beyond this morning.

I think what Polyethyl is saying is that the standards in the army basic fitness test are different for women than for men. I'm not sure that is such a great idea either from an equality point of view or from the point of view of army operations. Surely if all soldiers are expected to carry the same amount of gear they should all be expected to meet the same standards of physical strength and endurance regardless of gender.

Most of the problem in the uk is that the front-line armed forces are the last bastion of all-male solidarity. It is difficult to change culture, as we should all very well know.

Actually I think it's more the Telegraphs article I was thinking of www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10363980/Meet-the-female-soldiers-proving-the-case-for-women-on-the-front-line.html

If I remember correctly it shows that these two women pass every test required of the men soldiers (Telegraph won't let me view any more articles this month without paying so it's from memory. I'm so tight-fisted).

If both genders are going to fight in combat roles then the tests for both should be exactly the same otherwise it would be discriminatory against men.

I remember when women were allowed to serve on board naval ships as full members of the crew - and I also remember there was much gnashing of teeth about that, including naval wives who felt that these harlots would be more interested in seducing their men who, after months of being away from home, would turn to their female colleagues for relief and the ships would become floating brothels. Or words to that effect.

I reckon the government hasn't been able to employ their quota of reservists and so have decided to use probably half the woman already in the army and future femalerecruits on the front line infantry instead thereby the government recruitment quota will stay on target.

How about front-line quotas?

The army's basic fitness test (female) is easier than the army's basic fitness test (male). Not equal.

But if it was made equal then presumably you'd have no problem with women being given the same rights as men - as they already have in other countries?

Problem is, your now open up for women to sue who are not good enough, as proved here www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25078544

And

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2561467/Firearms-officer-wins-sex-discrimination-case-against-police-chiefs-gun-big-small-hands.html

Just going to waste tax payers money on compensation because women couldnt keep up

And "the MoD said the RAF had now reviewed its recruit training practices to reduce the risk"

I would imagine that this will be taken into account when the army allows women into front-line infantry roles - as already happens elsewhere.

Yes, by reducing the standards. Fantastic

Why do you think it would result in a reduction of standards? Why is what is in place at the moment the gold standard?

Woman should absolutely be able to join the infantry, it would be absolutely physically exhausting I'm sure, but it's also firearm use, why would a man be better at shooting than a women?

If they have to wear the same clobber, carry the same backpack, run the same distance, carry the same gun, and fight the same people the test should be the same and the fittest and strongest pass the test regardless of their sex.

My sister is extremely strong and competed nationally for the shot put, she would beat most people in an arm wrestle would be able to lift more than my husband easily, and is the one person I need when moving house. She wouldn't be able to join the infantry if she wanted to because she isn't as strong as a man? What garbage!

Why makes you think a review = reductions in standards? Reviews usually have the opposite effect.

There are many other combat roles currently open to women, if that's what your DSis wants to do, diamonds.

The fitness standards of infanteers are not however thise of the average man in the street. That are more akin those who train at high level in sport or have physically intensive jobs (such as firefighter). But even then it's not quite the same, as it is all round fitness, and the ability to carry heavy loads for protracted times and distances. Unless there are alterations in standards (and ai don't think here should be), the bottom line is that very few women would meet entry standards and even fewer would pass out.

And as pointed out above, the research into the effects of years of working at such a level on the female frame simply has not been done. Now not knowing whether there are any genuine biological differences arising from that, is not a reason to disbar. But it is an area of uncertainty that needs to be noted.

It doesn't matter how many might pass out - what matters is that those who can are afforded the opportunity. It's been shown to be possible in other countries, if I've understood correctly.

Don't forget that it wasn't that long ago that women weren't seen as being capable of voting, or WOHM and combining 'motherhood', or any number of other things that we find inconceivable.

When it comes to risking peoples lifes, I do not care about being PC

The RAF was sued because it was to hard, so they had to make changes to accommodate women.

Imagine firefighters being next? There standards being reduced. Imagine being unconsious while a building burnt around you, but the firewoman can't carry you out because she passed an easier exam. But I guess your in favor of this so dying wouldnt matter aslong as it was politically correct.

so they had to make changes to accommodate women

What changes did they make, and how did this result in a lowering of standards to the extent that lives are put at risk?

They changed the required maximum stride length.

It would look pants on parade, but RAF don't really do drill anyhow.

As women are not currently admitted to RAF Regiment, it does not give any indication of suitability for infanteers nor for standards required by infantry.