Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Women serving on the front line-woman on radio 5

127 replies

PenelopePitstops · 19/12/2014 08:48

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 Shock

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.

OP posts:
OmnipotentQueenOfTheUniverse · 19/12/2014 20:22

Sounds good to me as well :)

I do think that in general the armed forces need to keep up with the nature of modern situations don't they.

LightningOnlyStrikesOnce · 20/12/2014 13:10

I do agree with XmasEveDallas, it is an absolute bloody disgrace that we are sending men and women out to die (in various terrible ways) in aforementioned foreign entanglements without giving them adequate kit or even sometimes, from what I remember hearing, food.

That doesn't make what I said about the principle of equality being wrong though. I'm rather surprised a few of our chaps on the board haven't turned up to say the same thing. You get this same problem in Britain time after time, principle has -apparently- to be sacrificed to keep the status quo.

I still say that if you accept male protection then you have to accept male privilege (with thanks to Marion Zimmer Bradley and the Darkover Amazons)

rale124 · 23/12/2014 23:10

My other half is a serving infantryman and I think he's rather unimpressed with the decision. He says while women do work on the frontline it is usually in a support role (medic, military police etc) and they are kept to the back during patrols. He says most of the medics are ok as they train to be attached to the infantry blokes and expect the rough of living out in a patrol base with no support, no luxuries, no contact with home but other women embedded in his platoon are a pain and cause problems (usually with the accommodation, washing arrangements, culture). Been in a infantry role is very different from the rest of the army. You have to be able to live and fight anywhere, burn your own sh!t etc. Many women aren't keen on that and find out been on the frontline isn't as glamerous as they first thought.

Said on his last tour he wasn't confident his medic would be able to pull him and 80 pounds of kit plus rifle out of a firefight god forbid he was injured if she was on her own (even though he said she was a very capable medic just small) but luckily it wasn't too much of a problem as she was usually surrounded by infantry lads.

I'm all for equality but it has to be practical. I don't want my husband or any of his mates coming home dead for it anyway. A war isn't exactly the place to be PC imho. Would there be a surge of women recruits looking to spend 6 months in the desert burning their own waste, washing in commual showers, sleeping on sand and dirt while insurgents try maim and kill you? Or is it just scoring points for feminism while risking lives of men that try protect us.

PuffinsAreFictitious · 23/12/2014 23:43

Would there be a surge of women recruits looking to spend 6 months in the desert burning their own waste, washing in commual showers, sleeping on sand and dirt while insurgents try maim and kill you?

There already are women who do that on tour.

I find your comments about female soldiers pretty bloody rude as well. I've never met a single one who acted as you described. Women have been on the frontline for years. The only difference now is that they will be able to join the infantry and Cav.

PuffinsAreFictitious · 24/12/2014 00:00

Oh, and welcome to MN

scallopsrgreat · 24/12/2014 10:43

"A war isn't exactly the place to be PC imho." War isn't PC full stop. It is created by men, for men, about men. It is racist, misogynistic, homophobic, classist, ableist. You name it.

It goes back to the point TheCowThatLaughs made upthread about whether this is a leap forward for feminism. I can see that point of view, totally. Forgive me if I'm not putting out the bunting on this one. But that is not because I don't think women are capable (Of course they are. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest otherwise. It has been seen in many parts of the world where women do get this opportunity. Women are incredibly capable anyway, in situations of war - something that seems to get forgotten).

I can also see the point of view that all areas of life should be accessible for women.

InMyDay78 · 29/12/2014 16:11

Ladies (& I think gentlemen), I came across this thread from a link on another site discussing the same issue. I have no wish to offend anyone but I felt compelled to join in order to post as I am astounded by the myopic and biased nature of some of the comments being posted. it is obvious that many have no idea of what Infantry combat entails, the rigours of training to get to an Operational standard or the teamwork required to maintain the edge needed to be successful in combat (i.e. to close with and kill the enemy and send him home in a bag rather than your oppo). I would suggest those that are actually interested in the role of the Armed forces take a look at the links below.

One poster seems to believe that Infantrymen (and Royal Marines by proxy) have some psychopathic desire to kill; none of them want to kill but it is the ultimate result of YOUR governments policies. Another considered the Armed Forces beneath her position apparently. Yet another comments on the simple issue of length of stride; suggesting it is unimportant and should be changed. Well who has snapped at, scowled or otherwise shown disapproval at their child kicking their heels, not walking straight ahead, suddenly veering to a side, etc? Now imagine its cold, wet and you've been living in the field for 5 days. You and the 30 people around you are carrying 20-27 kgs and have to cover 6 miles in an hour but unfortunately the person in front or behind you can't keep the pace (step). Oh how we laugh and say it's ok, the step doesn't matter...

I don't believe that this is an issue of equality but rather it is about the Operational Capability of the teeth arms. There are women that can (and will if it is brought in) pass Infantry training, several women have already passed the Commando Cse but none serve(d) in "infantry" roles. (although the Surg Lt RN was MO at 40 Cdo RM). However the very nature of the Inf/RM will be required to change to accommodate them rather than them fitting into the existing structure eg. listen careful to what SofS Fallon had to say about training. Additionally, medical research clearly states females are more prone to lower limb injuries that are common enough amongst infantrymen. They do not repair and replace bone material in the same manner and their hip girdles are weaker than mens. All of key importance in initial training and later in their careers. IIRC a USMC study stated that they are more at risk of disabling injuries earlier in life than men (where there's blame there's a claim!). In barracks it is normal practice that men serving on the same section/platoon/troop would live together. Females require separate accommodation under current regs. This immediately put any Section/Troop/Platoon with a female member at a disadvantage as an integral part of the ethos of any good fighting unit is team cohesion which is partly fostered by socialising in barracks. (Or is the suggestion that the lone female must live amongst 10 or 20 young men with all that entails). Again if you are truly interested read the Exeter Uni study into RM Ethos. As to combat, there are many examples of brave or altruistic acts by women from NI special duties to MA Kate Nesbitt MC in Afghanistan. The latter took place during combat but did not actually involve her taking lethal action against the enemy.
I have no axe to grind as I have now left the services and would ask that anyone that wishes to see women pick up a rifle and attack the enemy's trench does so on the basis of informed choice rather than under a banner of "ism" Again I mean no offence but this is more important than "women v men".

IMD

www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-defence/about
www.facebook.com/armyjobs/posts/411617808868963

PuffinsAreFictitious · 29/12/2014 17:26

Good grief, is that ARRSE thread still going?

scallopsrgreat · 29/12/2014 22:55

"Females require separate accommodation under current regs." Perhaps you should have a think as to why that is?

I think you are right this is wider than women vs men. (although you are the only one saying it is women vs men). It is all about male violence. How about addressing that and then there might be no need for the infantry?

InMyDay78 · 30/12/2014 13:27

Yes, although the one I saw has only been going since the 19th. Amazing how many times the same points can be repeated in so short a time!

IMD

PuffinsAreFictitious · 30/12/2014 13:58

It is ever this on ARRSE Grin

InMyDay78 · 30/12/2014 14:31

Scallopsrgreat, obviously I failed to make myself clear (although I think you have taken my comment out of context). "Men V women", let me expand. As a middle aged male, with 28 years military service, who happened upon this thread from Arrse; I read posts such as " 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 straws?" or this "War isn't PC full stop. It is created by men, for men, about men. It is racist, misogynistic, homophobic, classist, ableist. You name it." and it strongly suggests to me that these are not reasoned arguments based on analysis of the discussion but rather they are merely affirming the valid position that women must be given equal opportunity to do anything (even if the poster doesn't actually understand what is involved in doing "anything") or in the case of the latter stereotyping all men in the services.
You allude to your training experience and suggest by virtue of your posts that military training is somehow deficient. Are you aware of the 20 year development and modernisation that has taken place since the mid-90s, are you aware of the Defence Systems Approach to Training, Operation Task Analysis, DIF analysis, internal and external validation, etc? The crux here is that the role of the Combat Infantryman and RM Rifleman have been minutely dissected by both the customer, the training providers and of course the accountants. The training has been designed and is conducted to meet that OTA (and importantly that is exactly how it is funded), it is a living thing that is regularly reviewed and changed when validation shows a need. The simplification of the physical differences serves to obfuscate a real issue; proportionately more women will suffer injury undergoing training than men due to the natural differences such as bone density, pelvic girdle construction linked also to ACL issues and muscle mass. I happy enough with that but would not expect to see a rash of claims suggesting that the MoD has neglected its duty of care.
As an aside CTCRM has one of the most advanced rehab facilities in the UK, it has only cut training wastage by around 4-5%.

Finally you make, I think, an important point about sexual violence within the services. I understand that allegation of rape run at approx 25 per year. Obviously 25 to many but it's right to put that in context of the UK as a whole and that means it is approximately 15% of the level in the general population. More does need to be done particularly at Unit level and above. Again if women want to join then let them but it should be on an equal footing with a full understanding what they are getting into and not at the expense of 100s of years of history, an ethos that works and standards that are just that - standard.

IMD

ifyourehoppyandyouknowit · 30/12/2014 15:52

That's 25 allegations a year. Add in all the women who don't say anything to anyone because they know what will happen to them if they do.

PuffinsAreFictitious · 30/12/2014 18:41

Oh come on IMD, you know (if you were in the forces) that rape and sexual assault runs at a much higher rate than 25 per year, and you will also know why those women who don't report, don't report.

PuffinsAreFictitious · 30/12/2014 18:47

Oh, and IMD, apologies if that came out too snippy, but 25? Then I know exactly which unit every single one of them happens in every year... I'll let people know not to accept the AO Grin

OmnipotentQueenOfTheUniverse · 30/12/2014 20:54

I am just seething at the likening of female soldiers marching to toddlers to even take in any of the rest of that poorly formatted post.

FFS how do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say shit like that. "Veering off to the side" WTAF.

Just slips like that in amongst the desperate "reasonable" justification is an underlying belief that women cannot do it.

OmnipotentQueenOfTheUniverse · 30/12/2014 20:57

God I'm really annoyed. Trying to get toddlers up the road drives me demented - they are utterly irrational, random and impossible to control - and to compare the women in the UK armed forces to that is just really out of order isn't it.

scallopsrgreat · 30/12/2014 22:31

IMD war is racist, homophobic, misoginistic, classist and ableist. That is why there is war. If those didn't exist then there wouldn't be war. That is just a fact. War is created by men. Another fact. I am surprised as a military man the basic understanding of the dynamics involved seem to have passed you by.

And thanks for the lesson in physiology. I honestly didn't know that Hmm. Precisely why I was considering different training options or even different testing for women rather than men. But hey ho. The army seem to have that covered.

And yy Omnipotent at being likened to a toddler. True colours and all.

scallopsrgreat · 30/12/2014 22:36

And if there isn't a problem with sexual violence why do men and women need separate accommodation (presumably not whilst living in the field for 5 days though)?

GraysAnalogy · 30/12/2014 22:44

I know the thread has moved on somewhat but this:

Not what feminism is about for me. I would be quite happy for us not to achieve "equality" in this area

is something I have a problem with. We either want equality full stop or we don't. Giving women the same opportunities if they chose to means equality.

Anyhow..

Really don't see why in this day and age women aren't see fit for front line. I've read about men soldiers apparently being worried they'd have to fall back and help the women more out of obligation - well thats not their problem its the men's for feeling that way, although sort of admirable.

scallopsrgreat · 30/12/2014 22:56

Do we want to be 'equal' to men as society stands at the moment? To be as violent as them? To operate under still patriarchal values like them? Is that a goal of feminism?

I took TheCowThatLaughs post as saying No to that. And I agree with her.

GraysAnalogy · 30/12/2014 23:04

We don't want to be equal to men. We want to be equal members of society. Which means we should be able to go frontline if we chose to do so.

We can't just pick and chose when we want to be equal members of society.

GraysAnalogy · 30/12/2014 23:06

It's an opportunity some women want. We shouldn't deny them that opportunity because that version of equal doesn't fit in to what you want.

scallopsrgreat · 30/12/2014 23:12

I'm not denying them an opportunity Hmm. And neither was TheCowThatLaughs with her post.

But equal membership in what kind of society? I think it's a question worth asking.

GraysAnalogy · 30/12/2014 23:14

In a society that needs people on the frontline.

You're not denying them because you haven't the power to do so, but you argue against a choice a woman should have.