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?

Loving your work here, pontification

I agree the levels are too low. I have no problem with the male in that scenario getting kicked out. Training is provided and it shows a poor attitude towards fitness and his career. The point is that it a dual standard that is unfair that has been put in the name of equality. I think it's a bad policy were goals are altered to cater for differing physiology rather than operationall need.

I get that you are very fit and perfectly meeting the standard. I get that there are other too. But to say that this is the same for the majority of females in the AF is false. Where the test are max effort often females are not pushing to male standards. On the MODs review of extending the close combat roles to women it found that 4.5% of women would be fit enough for the Infantry. They belive that 10 women a year will be fit enough to join the infanty. The RAF Regiment predict 6 women could pass out annually. Based on the number of male candidates that fall out during training (which tend to be lower than female rates), this would result in about 60 women serving in the Infantry and 150 in the RAC after 24 years (the length of a full career). From personal experience I have a rarely seen female met the same standard as men on max effort fitness test (all though you could say where's the incentive if you don't have to).

Now things are proportional of course. There are far more men in the AF than women. Granted many men are not upto Infantry but the percentage is much higher.

Also we do need to take into account that from resarch and experience from other armed forces that currently have female troops there is a far increased vulnerability to injuries. I don't think that should in anyway excuse females. But it's something that could have an affect on the way things are done in terms of legal liability and duty of care.

But I do understand the point it could be damaging to women to say these things. But this resarch and evidence is real. I believe this is the realities of the situation. To what extent do we not say something that it well proven because it is an uncomfortable reality?

I think we agree that it should be the same for all genders and a high standard. I think we agree that the roles should be open to all. But we don't agree on the general fitness capabilities that most females can achieve.

So basically what you are saying is that women just aren't good enough, 1DAD?

Women have been told the world over that they aren't good enough to able to do things. They've been told they aren't physiologically suited to doing certain things. Their 'lady brains' getting in the way etc. They have always proved them wrong. It is always assumed men are good enough coz men innit.

Can you understand how insulting it is for a man to come on here pontificating about how women will never be up to scratch coz of some injuries or some bloody fitness test (bleep tests prove very little btw but hang on to that for grim death why don't you). Especially when that type of stuff is only a matter of training. And yes training plans may need to be altered to avoid injuries. That's what generally always happens in the sporting world. Women are over half the population why is the male half taken as the default for the way things should be done.

What do men do when they aren't strong enough to do something - or are getting too many injuries from it - they invent tools and equipment to help them. Why should it be any different for women? It's not as if those tools and equipment wouldn't help men too.

Women should be part of the equation. We shouldn't be an afterthought or an inconvenience.

Well said scallops

Yes, very eloquently put scallops

Agree with scallops

Scallopsrgreat I am not saying that women can not be good enough. I have never said that. What I am saying is that women are placed a considerable disadvantage when it comes to the most extremely physically demanding jobs. I can see how this could be a bit of a fly in the ointment but it is there. I don’t think we can put the tones of research and evidence down to some kind of conspiracy of the patriarchy. Its something we see in every day life. It would be false to say that differing physiologies between men and women have nothing to do with staggering difference in performance between male and female athletes. This is a matter of biology that unfortunately does not conform to how we would like the world to be. So yes men may be physiologically better suited to the task it by no means should mean women are excluded if they make the grade.

By the way I agree the bleep test is a bag of shit. Its the one used by the RAF and I merely used it as an example of the sex based double standards being used to some extent across all of the forces. I don’t quite know where you getting the notion that I am hanging on to that for grim death?

I see you have raised the idea of technology aiding the accommodation of women into the most demanding jobs. That would open doors for more men and women I agree. But unfortunately we are not at the age of half bionic supper troopers yet.

I agree with you that we should look at enhanced training to meet standards and/or alter the plan to accommodate female troops who wish to go for infantry. I think every good employer has a responsibility to inspire and encourage their staff to reach their full potential. I say that with the caveat that these extra measures and changes do not weaken current operational output or result in changing standards. I do believe some men and women will be opposed to what your saying as it could be view as special treatment.

I also understand what you are saying that in the sporting world things have been changed to accommodate differing physiology. And rightfully so. Sport should be as accessible and enjoyable for all. Its sport at the end of the day to be enjoyed as injury free as possible. I believe this is the approach to life in general. A world as accessible as possible to all. But we are talking about the RL world of warfare. If making accommodation is lower standards or capability this scenario is dangerous in context to the battlefield.

Women shouldnt be left out of the equation and they have sadly for too long. All I am saying is that physiology is a huge challenge to women serving in the infantry. It is something we need to address to make the infantry as open as possible to women without lowering standards or operational capability. Also lots of research and evidence from around the world show there is a severely heightened risk of injury within in women. So of course we need to work out best how we can mitigate these risks and provide support.

Your language is disingenuous, 1DAD. All this talk of mitigation and support is utter misogyny designed to question whether we would be harming the poor ickle women. It's bollocks. The women who want to, and can, will. In exactly the same way that those men who want to, and can, will. To continue to highlight that some women are not strong or fit enough, and to ignore that some men are not strong or fit enough is all I need to hear. Plenty of dudes bail because they can't meet the standard. So what? Plenty of dudes get injured. So what? Are you suggesting mitigation and support for these men who aren't fit and strong enough? Of course not.
Treat the women in the same way. If a woman isn't fit or strong enough and bails, so what? She just gets added to the long long list of men - she doesn't need to get held up as an example of Why Allowing Women To Do This Is a Reeally Bad Idea.
Of course, we all know that the military are quite capable enough of fucking up decisions, and are likely to muller this one as well, but you are aiding and abetting, and your unnecessary handwringing is helping their cause. It is EXACTLY the rhetoric that causes differentiated standards. Be a love and do women a favour and change your tune. We need more male military personnel who say 'fuck that - of course women should be able to x, y z' not suck their teeth and fret with faux concern over any injuries we might pick up in the process. You don't need to protect us, 1DAD. You need to believe in equality.
I'm retired. There is nothing in this for me. At 19 I tried to get the Marines to take me. I was told I couldn't join the Mountain Rescue team because their wives and girlfriends wouldn't like it. I have half a lifetime of being treated as lesser. The chip on my shoulder is practically fossilized.
I do not want the next generation to be told that the men are protecting them as they are weaker, more likely to injure themselves, and not as fit or strong. And to do so in fatherly terms that are meant to signify concern for their wellbeing.
Fuck that. Really, fuck that. Grow up and treat your female colleagues as equal peers, instead of suffering their presence under imposed terms of faux-equality. If you are talking like this at work, you are compounding the problem. Delete this stuff from your lexicon. Just say 'yes of course - why would you prevent anyone from the chance to prove themselves?' Your mindset is poisonous, and yet you believe you are helping out the poor little women who need someone on their side. Just no. We really don't need YOU on our side until you treat us as equals.

Completely agree. YES women should be given the chance to prove them self. No question of that and I have not said otherwise. Give everyone the same crack of the whip. Men fail all the time too. The US marine corps introduce a new fitness test for combat roles at the same level for all regardless of gender. It weeded out both men and women. Totally the right attitude. Between the start of the year and June it have a 85% failure rate for women and a 2.6% failure rate for the men that did it. The end result a group of men and women who rightfully passed and earned their place. But the huge disparity between the male and female failure rate shows the huge challenge this faces to women.

I can see the point of forgetting the sex and saying those who pass great regardless. That would be perfect. But the world and politics rarely sees things this way sadly. Such disparity often causes political embarrassing and urge to alter the playing field to manipulate results. I don't think many will except the level of disparity. Say we us the British Army's prediction that only 4.5% will make the grade for close combat role, of which they predict many of them wont chose to do that role anyway. Maybe 3% of women go into the close combat role. Will this be generally excepted or cause an issue of representation within the political arena?

Plus I do think that extra support is not a bad thing to help people achieve their potential. But I can see your point about no special treatment.

pontificationcentral by the way no wonder you have a chip on your shoulder. That is a whole catalogue of shit. I mean the 'their wives and girlfriends wouldn't like it', how's that your problem? What's that got to do with your ability to do the job? I would be livid at that shit.

That sort of shit happens every day. It takes a lot of energy to be livid at every instance. You're just adding to that sort of shit.

Why would it cause an issue of representation within the public arena? We have plenty of roles within the military where women are by far in the minority. Why would this be any different? Other than to be held up as further examples of why it is a bad idea to allow women to do x,y,z? Women have been in these male dominated roles for many many years, doing their jobs, and there has been no giant political drama about how few of them there are.
As a some time social researcher I also take issue with mindless quotation of statistics without any interest into causative factors . How were the female candidates for these programs selected? How were the male candidates selected? How much notice of the selection process did they each get? How many of them were there in each group? During the first few cycles of allowing women to test, it would seem fairly normal for there to be a higher drop out rate (unfamiliarity with the specific skills required, a first rush at the opportunity by women keen to prove themselves without enough time to prepare - unlike the men who have probably always assumed they will apply and have been working towards this during their career).
Add this on to the experiences of secondary school phys ed, and cultural expectations, and you can see that women are largely starting from a lower point - not physically determined, but societally determined. Try passing selection when you haven't been allowed to break sweat for ten years and are scared to run in public because dudes wank at you from the bushes or men holler out of passing cars. That said, now that women know this is an option, these numbers will settle down so that the percentages of women who pass do rise. (I am only talking about the percentage of women passing out of those who apply, not percentages across the board). Not so much of a 'huge challenge' really, just a fairly straightforward outcome for a new opportunity.
There will never be a statistical parity between male and female in these sorts of roles. The role of women in this society is so deeply ingrained that there would be no appetite at all for that to happen (in or outside of the military). You only have to look at the media reaction when a woman gets repatriated in a body bag, and the general disgust that life givers are involved in life taking. It's a man's job to be the protector - any woman that steps into that role is regarded as unnatural. Shouldn't she want to be at home with her babies? So a statistical imbalance will never 'just' be based on women's physical ability to do the role, it will be tied up in society's attitudes to the transgressors who go for it.
there will be no political appetite for parity. there hasn't been any for any other role. To attempt to use lack of numerical parity as something problematic now just smacks of putting up another argument for the sake of it in an attempt to look as though you are concerned about promoting sex equality, without actually understanding the current dynamic. How many military jobs have you worked in where you have equal numbers of women and men working alongside each other? Unless you are a pen pusher or a blanket stacker, I'm going to go with none. And even then it would be a tough call.
I lived 16 years of that shit. On one occasion I was offered positive sex discrimination (a Wg Cdr role where they wanted to be able trumpet a 'first woman', not as a result of my ability to do the job - which was not in doubt, but that wasn't why they wanted me). Having experienced 16 years of sex discrimination up to that point, I wasn't going to gussy up so they could prove how right-on they were. So they offered the job to my black mate instead. He took the job, knowing full well what they were doing, but as he had already been used as a PR bunny throughout his career, he had resolved his concerns.
The 'wives and girlfriends' thing is the tip of the iceberg, my friend. You have no idea how often this shit goes down. Open your ears. And eyes.

Having done P Company, I think that some women would be able to pass it at one point. But the danger is the lowering of the standards to allow women to pass more often. This would go against the grain of Airborne Brotherhood ( yep). That feeling that anyone who has passed the tests and earned their wings is somebody you can trust your life with. The Stretcher race a case in point.

When the enemy takes prisoners, I wonder how they would treat woman soldiers that have just killed some of their comrades? I wonder how the Taliban would treat Western Women Soldiers?

In fact. Why have separate men and women sports ? What is the point? On the one hand you are saying that the most hardest and gruesome activities of Mankind that of soldiering is an activity that should be equal but general sports should not?

This is more a case of social engineering, yet history is littered with cases of Women Warriors being very successful the case of the Dahomey Kingdom in the 19th Century being an example or in the Soviet Union or Partisans.

Perhaps in an asymmetrical warfare rather than conventional warfare?

Personally I don't think the way women would be treated differently in capture should a consideration or argument to prevent women. At the end of the day you take your choices when you sign up to these things. The risk of abduction by hostile groups is huge anyway for all personal at the moment, whether your a Para or a blanket stacker. As pontificationcentral pointed out we would have a political outrage if a women was taken. There is far more outrage and concern when something bad happens to female personnel. Unfortunately we still do not have equality between men and women. Men are seen as more disposable to violence of war in our society. Like violence is the preserve of men. Although its not nice to live in a violent world it would be good if a there was a more women taking a role in the violence that their government is participating in their name. So from a theoretical stand point is sad to see a society where women are not expected to chip in more and men are expected to carry the burden. So I get that view point.

pontificationcentral as always has stated a good case. Definitely an exceptional charater and so pationate on this point. I agree that society is trapped in such deep seated gender roles and attitudes that its hard to ever see us living in a world that doesn't see the gender. The two way sexism in our society is something that affects both sexes. I think these deep seated attitudes will always have an affect on women's view of close combat roles being for them? And thus affect the numbers volunteering.

I can not see the argument that men and women are born with equal physical capacity. The weight of evidence massively rules this out. Sorry but its just not true that men and women's physiology is the same. Unfortunately biology is sexist. I get the point about socialisation. The way society has viewed physical activity and attitudes towards sport differently between genders. This has compounded this natural disparity between sexes. But we see the difference in every day. Not wider is this seen than in sport. The science tells the story and I don't believe you can put the tones of biological research in to our the physical difference down to some kind of sinister patriarchy master plot.

As to the studies and statistics of course these are good questions to ask. Obviously as you pointed out there is always a lower number of female applicants due to the lack of women who seek this type of role. Simply most don't want to do this role. From what I can see most candidates are women who are extremely fit and determined to pass. Women who have worked so hard (often harder than some of their male counterparts) because they are desperate to make the grade. I would say in general the real cream of the female physical crop. Because as pontificationcentral has pointed out there are some women in the forces that don't just duck out once they meet the standards set for females. There are some that work bloody hard so they can meet or even excel past the standard of their male counterparts. These are often the women who volunteer for this training. I think as time goes on we will see a slight increase in women who make the grade as more women dedicate them self's to physical challenges to be over come.

I think the best place to look at the challenges faces by the biological differences is to look where women have been used in a close combat role for sometime. And as I have stated before the Israel Armed Forces is a good place to look. They have experienced many issues with the physical robustness and strength of their female personnel. The proof is in the pudding. It does not stop them, neither should it. But we can not escape the difference is there and it does cause other issues to get around.

I don't agree that there is no political will. You your self have seen positive discrimination. Sadly we do not live in a world where people see the individual not the sex. It would be nice to live in a world where people could compete on a level field and know one give fuck what sex they are. Let people solely compete base on their own ability and merit. But that's not the case. Out of a misguided (IMO) sense of fairness we often alter the standards for both sexes. The levels of men v women in a job seems to be becoming more and more a political issues. It would be great if all sport was mixed sex and we would all be ok with far more men being at the top due to their physical advantage in sport. But generally we do have sexual segregation in sport because most would not be able to stomach the concept. We make a huge thing out of sex and that's a shame. Our gender shouldn't define us. Unfortunately we can escape mother natures sexism when it comes to physiology. I don't know why we can be ok with that and just let people do the best with what they got?

Budd, thank you for making my points perfectly. The male view is that women on an equal footing with the men is just problematic. What about the Taliban? What about when they get captured? What about the poor mountain rescue team whose wives will be cross and nag them? What about the men who want to let it all hang out and smoke cigars and play rugby after dinner? What about the men who want to hang out in the red light district after a hard day's work? What about the brotherhood?
It is nothing at all about the ability of the woman to do the job. And this is what we face. Every. Single. Day.
And I'm afraid I'm not going to dignify your ridiculous sports mention with a discussion. We don't give a gold medal to everyone who meets a certain base level standard in sports. It's a maximal competition at any given point. At no point have I, or anyone else, said that all women are equal to all men in a physiological sense, just that women's strength and fitness has often been compromised by year's of cultural conforming as men tell us we are supposed to waft and look pretty, and take it really very badly indeed when we have the temerity to sweat, heavy lift, and prove how strong we are. And that men refuse to believe that there are women who are stronger, faster, and more capable than they are, on a very personal basis (not on a general level across the board).
Sport is not a life or death situation, and is not comparable. Of course physiology is different. noone gives a toss about that - just that if you meet the military standard, have at it.
Anyway, having spent way too many years being frustrated by male military attitudes to female colleagues, I'm probably out of this discussion now.
The top brass will continue to bugger up equality, of that I have no doubt. But you don't have to support them. You can use your voice to be the one in the bar saying 'fuck that - if the women can make the grade, let 'em in'. Not reinforcing the narrative that your female colleagues need male protection and enjoying mutual pseudo-intellectual masturbation with the boys about how physiology will just make this problematic and enjoying the thrill of potential political will insisting on equal representation and how terrible that would be. Declining standards. Harrumph. If they make the grade, get on with it. Otherwise you are just not as right on as you like to think you are.

Agree with pontification

My dad always said that you couldn't have women on the battlefield as the men would always be trying to help/rescue them

I never understood as a child why that was a fault laid at the womens door when in effect it was then men not doing their job properly

And as far as i can see solidiers keep helping/rescuing each other......... Whatever they have in their pants