Female Front Line Infantry Soldiers and Feminism

[1DAD2KIDS]

The MOD are now opening up front line post to women including combat Infantry roles. After lots of study and viewing women on the front line they can see no reason why providing they take a reasonable duty of care towards genrally weaker physical form. It found women to be more prone to injuries and must therefore try and mitigate these added risks as much as fesably possible without diluting combat effectiveness. I for one welcome this news. I don't think anyone should be held back from achieving their potential in their chosen career if they are capable of the job. But I do have a few questions on the feminist point of view.

For a feminist perspective is it right for women to enter into a job that role is to be at the blunt end of killing fellow human beings. Is being a professional trained killer in conflicts caused by a patriarchal world something to be encouraged? Is this a positive or negative profession for women?

I do believe that this is a role where gender differences will have a big impact. I don't think anyone will dispute that male and female physiology is different. Men are naturally more physically stronger than women so the nature of how violent and physical combat is naturally suits males over females. Plus differing hormone levels. If we are to say men are more violent and aggressive then the Infantry is more suited to men. Hopefully we agree on that. Now personally I welcome any woman who is up to the job. But I doubt we will see the ranks of the Infantry hugely bolstered with females over night. I suspect most will simply not want to be Infantry. I think all should be done to say to women this is a job open to you and encourage them to do it. But is there turns out to be a low percentage of women in the ranks of the Infantry would this be seen as frustrating from a feminist view point? Sould the mix be nearer 50/50?

If you'll understand I have every respect for you and anyone making the grade regardless of sex. That's what it's about. If you'll read my posts I am fully behind the Infantry being open to all. I think it would be a disservice to alter grades. It's great to have an Armed forces were all job are open to all. But yes I do have a concern that the standards will be different depending on sex as it is already in other parts of the armed forces. Personally I believe it should be the same for all and I belive you do too? Not that the media is the most reliable source but there is talk of it. The MOD is still working out the in and outs. But in RL I really not see how anyone can deny all the medical research about the differences in physical sex and their relationship to physical preformance.

Differences are in average populations, I.e. The 'average' man is stronger than the 'average' woman - except averages don't actually exist. There will be more men in the population who can meet the standards than women, but that doesn't mean that any individual woman is weaker than any particular man. If you meet the standards, you meet the standards.

There are plenty of woman soldiers in the Israeli army. Women there have to do compulsory military service. There are women serving in their equivalent to the SAS and the first female fighter pilot started 15 years ago. I remember hearing that they found women made better snipers than men, because of being better at staying motionless and keeping steady, as I recall. However I can't instantly find a link and I must dash out so can't linger. But I did find lots about a Ukrainian woman who was one of the top 10 recorded snipers of all time. She was active against the Nazis, so effective women in military roles go back a long way.

I don't think standards should be lowered for women, but I would also say many men wouldn't meet the required standards. Plus not many people of either sex want a career that is likely to mean they kill other people.

I have heard it said that, while in some arenas close combat is still likely, most war these days is carried out from a great distance away. Advances in robotic body armour may soon lead to a situation in which soldiers from wealthy nations are so extensively protected that the most they will be able to do is yell insults.at each other. We're already seeing situations where drones are killing people hundreds of miles away. War, like so much else, is being revolutionized by technology.

Correct if you meet the standard you meet the standard and so you should not be inhibereted as an individual. I totally agree. Many medical studies show the differences in physiology. The MODs own research shows that the female sex is more prone to injuries two fold. It foolish not to recognise the implications.

Sorry - what is it you're actually concerned about?

Yes Prawn, great points.

800,000 women served in the red army during WWII.

There were 2,000 active women snippers at one time, including Lyudmila Pavlichenko who is considered one of the top military snippers of all time, with 309 kills.

There were three all women soviet aviation regiments; a dive bomber regiment, a night bomber regiment (nicked named 'the night witches'). And a fighter regiment, that included the flying aces Lydia Litvyak and Yekaterina Budanova.

There were also some women tank drivers and machine gunners. The soviet government tried to conceal the extent to which women participated in combat roles in WWII. Because they wanted to preserve the inequality between the sexes, that is present in all patriarchal societies. If it was revealed that women could contribute just as the men had done, then it would undermine the sex roles, and no patriarchal system wants that (looks like the guy who started this feels the same way).

There are many books that detail this such as; Heroines of the Soviet Union by Henry Sakaida, and Wings, Women and War: Soviet Airwomen in World War II Combat by Reina Pennington.

Thanks, out, you put my point about small proprotions of the population (which I illustrated with 5 and 1%) much better.

Suppose, owing to small differences ib bone density, Caucasian men break legs mire easily than Asian men (this is hypothetical, in case that's not obvious, I've no idea if such studies have been done but there are some race-relatedbiologixal differences), do you suggest the army ceases to recruit Caucasians, op? I doibt it.

Which is why your agenda is showing, along with your faux concern on patriarchal wars.

Women operate in a patriarchy abd we need to make a living. There are Feminist arguments againt capitalism; I'm still in a well paying job

Bad typos new phone

If we are to say men are more violent and aggressive then the Infantry is more suited to men.

If we are to say mena re more violent and aggressive, which actually is the case in society as is, then we FUCKING SHOULD KEEP THEM AWAY FROM WOMEN; FIRST AND FOREMOST. END THEIR VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN! END THEIR RAPING! END THEIR MURDERING!

Why is it that everyone denies men's violence and aggression when we want it ended, but happily confirms and applauds it when it comes to prestigious jobs that allegedly require it?

I do not think women whould be forced to die in the wars patriarchies wage against one another.

I will volunteer for frontline combat, or any other kind of combat, if and when I have to defend my own country and safety, and the government does its duty in keeping me safe from the rapists in my own country.

Women getting injured by enemy fire in war is not the problem. Men raping their own fellow soldiers is the problem, and due to this, I find any law that forces women to be anywhere close to male soldiers hugely oppressive, and as feminist, oppose it.

HOWEVER, women need the right to be part of the army of any country in which women live. And the governments have a duty to ensure that the female soldiers are safe from the male soldiers' violence.
Because an army can be used for hostile takeover of a country - which is why all sensible countries have armies that consist of people from that country, and the French Foreign Legion may never enter France.
It takes no genius to figure out what an army only consisting of men could be used for.

Female troops have severed with distinction and bravery throughout history. Sadly sexism has prevented them often from these roles except for times of war necessity. Modern example would be the fighters of the YPJ fighting ISIS. It is promising to see the MOD open all doors and of course will not benefit from a wider pool to select troops from.

We cannot escape that unlike many job roles in terms of the infantry women are hugely disadvantaged. We should yes everyone is entitled to the opportunity to server in this role providing they are up to the standard. But I don't think we should be surprised (based on evidence) if the percentage of females that fail is proportionally far higher than their male counterparts. Neither should we be surprised if putting female physiology through such extreme training and workload results in a far higher onset of chronic injuries than their male counterparts. I have no problem with accepting fundamental biological differences and their impact on the numbers making the grade. My concern however is political. What happens when people start asking why there are not more female infantry troop? Why are so few making the grade? That when I fear there will be political pressure to alter the goal posts. Something that I think will weaken our capability and do a massive disservice to women. For example pontificationcentral has stated the terrible sexist attitudes she has faced even though she is fitter than many of her male counterparts. To set lower standards for women just fuels this sexism and lowers cohesion because it sets a lower goal for females.
Currently many of the fitness tests across the MOD are sexist (or not if you take the MODs point of view). They have lower levels of fitness standards for female than males. My view is the enemy and the battlefield environment doesn’t adjust for sex so why should the fitness criteria? The MODs view is to alter the goal post to reflect the general physical disadvantages women face. In their view this is about being fair not equal. Now I understand that fairness and equality is not necessarily the same thing. But surely in a military environment everyone should meet the same standard regardless of gender? There is already consideration to changing standards for female close combat troops and things are still being worked out. So you can understand my concern that standards will be altered as it is already a two tier in other parts of the MOD, which I believe is wrong.
Now in terms of the differences, there has been a lot of study into this. I think some people are vastly underplaying the differences.

Physical capability – Females in strength and aebolic are disadvantaged 20-40%.
Strength – In terms of upper body strength. A female’s upper body strength is between 25% to 55% of a male’s. In terms of lower body strength, men and women are closer to being equal. Women have between 70% and 75% of the lower body strength that men do.
Injuries – MOD research found that in the Army’s current predominantly single sex initial military training, women have a twofold higher risk of musculoskeletal (MSK) injury. The roles that require individuals to carry weight for prolonged periods are likely to be the most damaging. Let’s look at the Israel Defense Force (IDF) as a good case study for the disadvantages faced by female troops. As it has been pointed out by Prawnofthepatriarchy female troops have been active for some time and good to see the disadvantages long term. The IDF its self has admitted much. In an IDF study 2012-13 the IDF found that 46% of females were injured during initial training as opposed to 25% of men. One third of the females were injured more than one. It found that females drop out of combat track due to injury at a rate of 2 to 5 times or their male counterparts. Less than 3% of the IDF close quarter combat troops are female yet they represent 15% of compensation law suits against the IDF for injuries suffered on operations.

HillaryFTW If there were significant differences in physical difference in regards to race (that likewise I don’t think there is) my answer would be the same. All roles should be open to all who make the grade. But in this (hypothetical scenario) we should not change the grade to account for race. We should however be pragmatic and recognise the differences to support those troops in their role as long as it does not affect combat output and cohesion. HillaryFTW would we not agree on this?

Prawnofthepatriarchy we are not there yet in terms of lowering physical standards in terms of warfare. I think it is great when technology when it opens access to a career for a wider proportion of the population. I do not however believe that it has removed to the need for close combat infantry or the standard of fitness required. Modern battle experience has showed this. Strength and fitness saves lives. Neither can we always look at a battlefield where we superior numbers, equipment and technological advantage. The is growing concern in NATO circles about Russia, hence many recent deployments of NATO troops to Baltic state. Let all hope nothing comes of it but be need to be able to fight against every legitimate threat. That is very much a scenario where we would not have the advantages we enjoy in other battlefields. Also but the nature of insurgency warfare (like that of Afghanistan) the enemy is always looking to engage us where we have not got the benefit of technological advantage and hit our soft spots. It is the art of Guerrilla warfare. So yes this type of close quarter combat does still happen. We are not yet at a stage where the robots take over so physical standards are still very important.

Pontificationcentral sounds like an excellent solider and there are many other out there. No one capable should be held back. But IMO we can’t ignore issues that have implications that differing physiology has in terms of females in the most extreme of physical environments. It would be very dangerous to do otherwise. Hopefully the MOD will not alter standards like it has in other areas but it is a concern. Hopefully we will have female soldiers who have full and successful careers in the infantry know they have met every standard expected of their male counterpart.

VestalVirgin I agree that an army should be open to all to who it represents (with the caveat all meet the same grade IMO). Would you say in this example of the British Army it is a force for good in the world or not? Is it contributing to the violence of a patricidal world? And if so can any feminist in the Army reconcile their believes with their participation in this violence?

"We cannot escape that unlike many job roles in terms of the infantry women are hugely disadvantaged." Yet other nations manage this fine.

Why do you want our opinions on this? You seem to have reached your own conclusions quite happily without us. You've got all the stats and the "science". I'm sure the Army will be very pleased with you.

How about men stop being violent and then this will a non-problem?

It's like you are testing us and then you can go 'hahaha you're wrong' because of x, y, z stats/studies/anecdata.

Here I am to share my manly wisdom with you .

" the French Foreign Legion may never enter France."- really? You sure on that Vestal?

You do also seem to be quite in a tizz about a potential future situation regarding lowering of standards, yet there appears no suggestion that anyone wants that.

"HillaryFTW would we not agree on this?"

That's the second time you've posted as if your "listeners" must agree with you. As a,working assumption, for your future reference, assume I don't.

And you wonder why you aren't getting a welcome mat and a glass of wine.

HillaryFTW sorry I need stop making assumptions. So in your hypothetical scenario you would suggest differing standards based on ethnicity?

It's just a rule of thumb, but the only men I know, serving and ex who speak like this about women serving in the infantry, are the ones who are shit scared that women will outstrip them at this as well.

Women serve on the front line now, because the front line is blurred. Women from support arms have been embedded and gone on various operations with the infantry for ages. There have been some problems, but not whether they can pass a CFT! It's mostly been around a certain element of the men who think that the women embedded with them are fair game. So, the chivalry argument doesn't wash either.

Well said xenophile. The asymmetric nature of modern warfare and fighting insurgencies have seen the front lines blurred. And has enabled us to see lots of the old myths about women and cohesion are nonscence. This is why not only do I think the standards should be the same for both sexes in all areas of the MOD not just the Infantry. This is wrong in my book, equal grade for all based on role.

By that I mean a grade based on role. I.e. a chef not needing the same standard of an Infantry soldier. But that the pass mark is the same for all sexes within that role

Although I don't agree that not being able to pass CFT is not a problem.

The whole MOD? I thought we were talking about the army. Would be quite fun to watch all those civil serpents trying to do a BPFA/PFA or whatever they're calling it this week down Whitehall.

The CFT has been the same for years for both sexes. It's just the times on the general fitness test that are different, and any PTI worth the effort will tell you that that counts for shit when it comes to operational fitness. The IFT is different again. Men embedded with the infantry don't have to pass the IFT, because they aren't wearing the cap badge.

So, your point is moot.

1DAD - you've misunderstood - she said that them not being able to pass their CFT wasn't one of the problems - ie. they could pass.

xenophile somewhat out of date there. We have the PFA, AFT and 6 OFTs. Some gender based some job based and some which are one size fits all

Ha. I have images of civil servants in suits now changing down a muddy field track trying not to spill their starbucks. Just for clarity when I say MOD I was referring to the Armed forces. Trying to save typing, maybe I can use AF instead.

Just to clarify my position as it seems to be misunderstood? I am for all having the oppertunities to serve in all areas providing standards stay high and the same for all. I am not saying female should not be in the Infantry. Just highlighting factors that may affect things and concerns of how these factors will be delt with.

Currently in many areas of AF there are dual standards for males and females. I do have a problem with that. To put in the context. To use the RAF as an example, SAC Blogs is 23 years old and gets level 8 on the bleep test every test for 3 years running. Now here's the difference:

SAC Blogs is a female and has been praised for passing their fitness test (7.02 and above for a female pass) 3 years on the trot. It has been noted on their annual assessments and has been their continued passing is helping with their promotion prospects.

SAC Blogs is male. He has continued to fail his fitness test (9.10 is the pass rate for males of his age). His continued failure has been noted on his annual appraisal and has had a negative affect on his promotion prospects and career. Because he can still not make the grade he is being kicked out. Therefore losing his job and future pension earnings.

So I don't think this sex based system is fair but differing standards for differing sexes are currently used across the AF in many tests. So you can see my concerns that there will be mixed standards introduced at say IFT level too. As it is a policy that is more the norm than the exception. I believe high standards for all is the best policy.

It's still faux concern. We were running MSFT as a maximal test alongside other indicators. There were women (as well as myself) scoring 14s and 15s during a battery when other tests were being run back to back.
It is not women's problem if the powers that be decide to run the MSFT to the minimum level and then make you stop.
And frankly, if you can't pass a 7 at 23 you should be flying a civilian desk anyway. Soldiers, airmen, or otherwise are given remedial fitness training over months, and retested (no idea what the current rule is but it used be 3 mos to up your fitness). These minimum levels are ridiculously low. I can't believe you are whining about ANYONE that gets kicked out for failing multiple fitness test retakes with free fitness training provided. You'd think if they were that worried about losing their job they might, you know, put a bit of effort in and jog the level they are supposed to.
While we are all boohooing about the poor dude that drinks too much beer and smokes too much that he can't walk a 7, I'll just suggest that all of the levels are way too low, and that actually differentiating does the women more of a disservice, as you always get hairy old dudes whining that the women's levels are lower. And then the PTIs who won't allow the women to carry on and run maximal tests compound the issue. It makes the women's job far harder, because we then have to put up with accusations that we aren't as fit, and it's not faaaaiiiiir, and our male colleagues assume that we are not good enough, when we haven't actually been allowed to prove ourselves.
You have no idea how damaging your arguments are to women, 1DAD. The military are actively preventing women from demonstrating their fitness. And you are using that decision as an excuse about lowering standards. Shame. Point your concern in another direction.
I do hope you're not one of these beer gutted men waddling their over 40 level and whining about the fit chick running next to them. They are usually the most vociferous about MSFT minimums.