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.

The argument about unknown effects of female body smells like bullshit to me. Are there any grounds for thinking it might be very different to men, parallels from other fields for ex? Do female weight lifters/athletes suffer more in later life than male? Or is itjust clutching at strawss?

Unimpressed with BBC coverage - no water held by "traditional" arguments against? "Traditional"? Surely they meant "sexist". Wouldn't hear "traditional" used as synonym for "racist", would you.

And I don't understand why using equipment that is too big for them is seen as 'women couldn't keep up'.

Just suppose all guns were made to fit women's hands. I know! That would take such a massive leap of imagination. But just suppose. Would it be unreasonable for men to want to use equipment that fitted them?

As Lightening says the armed forces are a bastion of male hood. Designed by men, for men. And these bloody women are having the temerity to say: We are half the population. We want to be able to defend ourselves and our families and our way of life just as much as men. But that is actually going to require some changes .

This is not unreasonable. Unless of course you don't want women in the armed forces.

And firefighters have reviewed their practices to accommodate women. And lo! What have we here? The country is still standing. Hallelujah! Hyperbolic I know. But come on! What you are saying is that women can't do the jobs as well as men isn't it?

Women are already all over the place in the Armed Forces, including in frontline combat roles.

This isn't about whether women should be in those sorts of roles. They already are.

It's about the specific demands of the infantry.

I agree the test should be exactly the same, and very few women would meet the entry standards is different to not being given the chance.

There are many weak men and many strong women. If 80% of people that passed the fitness test were men and only 20% were women that's fine. At least they are given the chance. In fact if 99% were men and 1% were women that would be fine too! But we should be given the chance to do whatever we want! Not be told we can't, by someone who believes women are all weak.

Would she be as strong as a firefighter? Would she be able to run with a gun? Would all the men around her be stronger just because they are men?

What are the specific demands of the infantry? Do you work in the armed forces? As I would actually like to know and a google search says, combat on foot, in places military vehicles can't reach. High mortality rate and teamwork essential etc, but I'm not seeing anything specifically men would be better at?

How can we possibly know how someone would perform on military fitness tests from a photo?

Body-builder type bodies aren't specifically trained for, and are not particuarly representative of what is required.

Though of course many men in the infantry have highly developed musculature too.

Exactly diamonds. Even if it means that a tiny percentage of women make it into the Infantry then so be - numbers are irrelevant. What is relevant is that this workplace should be equal in terms of opportunities for both men and women who have the abilities, skills and aptitudes.

I agree with both of you.

Tbh this isn't about fitness level or strength tests. This is about men not wanting to give up their space to women. If strength/fitness tests weren't a barrier then another barrier would be in its place e.g. female sexuality or the fact they may need different guns or women are more likely to have long hair & blue eyes or periods blah blah blah.

That image isn't trying to say body builders would make good infantry, of course they won't have had the same training, it is supposed to show what women are capable of. Strength and men being stronger than women is old fashioned, women can be strong, she has more muscle than ANY man I know in real life.

Men can be weak and women can be strong, if they pass the test they should be able to do whatever they want. I think a 'female' or 'easier' tests would be very unfair.

The only job description we cannot fulfil is 'sperm producer', and likewise for men 'egg producer'.

Saying women can't be on the front line is as old fashioned as saying men can't be midwives or nannies. We should be able to do whatever we want.

Women are, of course, already on the front line and in combat roles in the British military.

Oh well that's ok then, as long as they have 'some' roles available to them, then women should keep quiet.

Why the puzzled face? (Especially as I can't see any posters suggesting women should be quiet).

It is a basic fact about how the British military is organised that being in the front line in a combat role is not/not a synonym for being in the infantry.

And one is already well accepted. The other is new and is about to happen.

Here's an article from The Telegraph which points out how many women are failing even the lower standards for US Marine Corps (3 pull ups rather than 20 required of men) even though they are the first wave of recruits and had a year in which to train to reach the standard.

Have any of the first wave of infantry recruits in US forces (originally to be ready for deployment by 2016) reached the standard to pass out? (the Telegraph article is nearly a year old).

I spent 24 years in the Army. 9 of those year were with front line regiments (Cavalry and Infantry), 5 with 'front line but supporting' Regiments (Engineers and Signals). In all my years I would say I have met 3 women that I think could pass and fulfil an Infantry roll.

It's not just the shooting (I'm a combat marksman and can blow most others off the range). It's not just the running (in my early years I could pass the male BFT with ease). The CFT is a killer (a forced march with a varying degree of weight dependant on trade), the uniform is not designed for women (I have a scarred and misshapen nipple from the straps of my 'webbing' sitting directly across my ample breasts), the larger and heavier weapons are too much for me to be able to hold and sight correctly)

Gender Free Assessment that took place in the 90s opened up many more career paths for women, and was a good thing. However it did not recommend Inf being opened up and I cannot see that anything has changed since then. I also cannot see much call for this - amongst my colleagues there is a distinct lack of interest. On the ground, in the barracks, the very people that this is aimed at don't see the point.

There will no doubt be another study/assessment, that will cost 100's of 1000's. I'd rather they spent that money on sorting out the very real issues, the ones we are suffering right now, than a pipe dream that may never come to fruition. My last unit is suffering 66% undermanning. I waited 5 years for specialised boots - that never came. MOD civilians are into their 5th year of a recruiting ban and more people are leaving - at rates that is making units unsafe. Jobs are being disestablished and passed to civilian contractors for twice the cost because the MOD cannot pay.

Let's sort out the Army we've got before we waste money on something hardly anyone wants.

I don't understand how linking that piece about shorter women getting injured by having to stride the same length as 6ft plus people shows in any way that women are in some way incapable.

All it shows is that the "standards" are designed by men for a certain type of man.

Clearly a woman who is shorter with a shorter stride isn't incapable of doing loads of stuff, it just means that she is going to get injured if she tries to walk in an abnormal manner while carrying weight. This is obvious isn't it? Why shouldn't a shorter person be allowed to walk with a stride that suits them better while carrying the weight? Plus the shorter people may well be nippier which is not wihtout benefits in all sorts of situations.

Strange link to use to show why women shouldn't be allowed in, IMO. Shows to me that the standards need to be changed. That's not a reduction in standards, it's just different.

Agree with things that actually need to be done then women need to meet the same standards as men. If few can, well then few can. But they need to be allowed the opportunity.

Oh and yy the idea that the need to check women's physiologies won't be "damaged" by exercise or whatever the fuck totally reminds me of the idea that women shouldn't run marathons because it would mess up their reproductive systems or whatever reason they gave until the 80s or whenever it was (really recent) that it was allowed.

Doesn't make sense there sorry will try again!

IMO standards which are a bit random eg you have to stride this length - totally reasonable to adjust them.

Standards which are not a bit random eg you need to be able to run with this weight for this distance or swim for x miles with a weight attached to your head or whatever they are - they should stay and be the same.

I do think that scallops has a point though. There may be things that women could do that the men couldn't do (endurance things probably) but the tests have all been designed with men in mind, and possibly not looked at for years?

They should step back and see what the genuine requirements are for modern warfare and what is useful in the context that actually they have a wider pool of people available than just 6ft+ men. Would it be useful to have someone who can shimmy through a small space for eg or hide and do sniping in a small inconspicuous way.... Don't know anything about this just "we need tall blokes with long strides who can carry heavy weights a long way" sounds like it hasn't been updated since the Romans.

sorry for multiple posts

I do think that scallops has a point though. There may be things that women could do that the men couldn't do (endurance things probably) but the tests have all been designed with men in mind, and possibly not looked at for years?

The tests were upgraded in the 90s, again in 2000, again in 2003 and again in 2010. There was a review into gender based roles in 1993, 2003 and 2010 - but they were 'inconclusive'

That's good

What sort of changes were made, do you know?

The inconclusive over 3 whole reviews seems weird though!

Oh God, lots. Too many to list really but eg in the 90s the only tests were running 1.5 miles in a set time (BFT) and men only doing a forced march of 8 miles with full kit in 1 hr 50 mins.

In 1993 women had to do CFT as well. Women also became 'combatant' and lost the red teardrop behind cap after signifying non-combatant status. The WRAC was disbanded and female soldiers joined regular previously male only corps.

in 2000 BPFA (BFT stopped) was introduced that added sit-ups and press-ups to the run. Women were also posted to front line infantry units (in trade roles)

in 2003 the weights to be carried on CFT were changed in line with trades so men and women in the same trades carried the same kit and weights.

Changes like that.

So real progress then. Long may it continue, so that future generations are able to benefit from the changes.