All roles in armed forces now open to women.

[Ihaventgottimeforthis]

It’s not something I would ever choose to do, in fact I’d err on the side of pacifism and feel very uncomfortable with many of our military campaigns past and present (and probably future too tbh) and think our defence spending is a moral & ethical disgrace, but all that aside (!) this is a big step for equality?

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/25/all-roles-in-uk-military-to-be-open-to-women-williamson-announces

This is a fascinating thread, still wondering why has it taken the uk (and the us) so long to catch up with other countries?

I never claimed to be smarter. I asked a bloody question. Seems as you're in higher up command you should know how to deliver information in a clear and easy to udnerstand manner without judging and belittling others.

Wrt physical standards - not sure about army, but the fit-test standards are sex & age adjusted in the RAF - I assume it's the same in army.

This is fine for 'normal' roles; however, I would want/expect the fitness & endurance levels for infantry roles to be a set standard regardless of sex. That is: if you need to cover x amount of distance in x amount of time, or carry x amount of weight - then it should be identical regardless of sex.

@Daisy. Thats what i was asking, because ive seen before that the timings for runs and number of press ups etc are different for sex.

So i was wondering is this still the same?
Because especially with special forces you would expect everyone there to meet the same standards

I'm not sure tbh Defrack, I've been out for 3 yrs now & haven't kept up with any changes.
I only knew the RAF standards anyway tbh.

The sex adjusted levels were always a stick used to beat the women whilst I was in - a lot of the blokes I worked with couldn't seem to grasp that there are inherent differences between the sexes physiologically & were massive twats about it 🙄

That said, I do think that for a very few roles, it is more important that you reach a set standard regardless of sex/age (ie the roles recently opened up to women).

Someone has an agenda.

*Whether women will ever command a combat unit remains to be seen and will be a whole merit based decision."

I think this is a very important point, and sadly I think it's going to come down to more than merit, it's going to come down to stability of the world and a pinch of luck.

Let's look at the commissioned rank structure.

So 2019 woman passes Sandhurst and joins infantry regiment. She is now a 2nd Lt, after 1 year as per commissioned rank structure becomes Lt, holds this position for 2 years on average. Next jump is Captain, that's plausible so now after let's say in the space of 3-4 years she's manage to get to Captain (yeah sure). Which is bloody amazing if she could but as you say selection for moving up rank is based on merit and experience, so how likely is she to get to Major?

Many infantry units have not been "used in a combat operational role" for many a year. So you probably have some Afghan experienced officers still knocking about who will always jump ahead of her.

So she would need operational experience, well now we need to deploy mass infantry regiments to war. Which I don't think is likely to happen any day soon, after the Iraq inquest the withdrawal from Afghanistan I don't think any government is jumping to deploy boots on the ground. Especially when they can all play a game of cloaks and daggers with SF ops teams and drones.

I think in the army everyone seems to have stalled when it comes to being made up, and this goes for NCO and CO, and it's mainly because of the experience needed to qualify, people are simply not getting the experiences. So is the answer change the qualification criteria for progression? Possibly?

Sign off and retention rates are absolutely shocking, so perhaps they are hoping for a small surge of recruitment from this but sign off rates after year 4 and 7-11 for officers I think will still remain high.

There is no good pension now, no retention bonuses, no deployment bonuses in most regiments. Rumours of slashing LSA is rife.

Sorry I've digressed massively there anyway in short, I don't see any woman in a combat role getting to a high rank any time soon sadly due to lack of opportunity (but then again the lack of opportunity is no wars, which is good globally) it's a mess.

That’s really interesting about the need for combat experience for progression, and the lack of opportunities. I’d never looked at it that way.
I’ve got friends & relatives in various branches of armed forces and it seems that money & moral are two major areas of concern. When my BIL was in RN (ten years ago admittedly) over 1/3 of the personnel on his boat were working out their notice 😯

Posters seem to have forgotten that we have already had "Britain's first female front line infantry soldier" in Chloe (previously Ben) Allen

Oh to be twenty years younger.
I’m a retired old gimmer now, but they’ve taken their time. I tried to join the marines in 1990 and had to settle.
I’m going to have a G&T and drink to the younger women. We got there in the end.
(And yeah - women in SF roles forever...)

Must be more than 20 years ago a friend of mine did the equivalent of "selection" in a scandi country. The force wanted to prove it wasn't a viable option - both women passed but turned down the role. No further women were invited to try. My friend said she did it because she was infuriates by the insinuation that she couldn't!

There was a woman 10+ years ago killed in Afghanistan who was working alongside SF - possibly as a translator? Unfortunately I forget her name.

Reminds me of an old joke.

A woman goes for selection and is put to the final test. She's taken to a room and her husband is sat at a table. She is handed a gun and told she must kill him. 10 minutes later the officers open the door and to their surprise the husband is dead.
"What happened?".
"There wasn't a fucking bullet in the gun so I had to beat the cunt to death with a table leg!"

Interesting thread, thank you to those with insight.

Yes Hannah Winterbourne is another TW in the army. I remember Miranda Yardley pointing out that HW had been photographed in front of racks of their high heels for an FT interview. As all women wanting to be taken seriously in the army would

BigotedWoman - it's daft, isn't it, but I do wonder if the person in question had much choice in the matter tbh.

One of my friends was the 'first woman to do' a certain role in the forces a few years ago (this decade - and the reasons women were banned were farcical).

When she passed the course she was plastered all over various media in a stupid, staged shot that made her look like a dick - she was mortified, and was mocked relentlessly for it (some quite nasty piss-taking from some online service-related forums).
It was shit, because she just wanted to get on with her job.

I've also spoken in the past to someone who was one of the 'first gay' poster-boys - he was opened up to a world of shit too (again, didn't want to do it, but was heavily coerced)

I'd imagine the 'first trans to do xyz' felt/feel the same too - they just want to get their head down & get on with it in my experience but there's a lot of pressure put on them to be visible for PR.

You really cannot underestimate how much autonomy you don't have in the armed forces.

Thanks for the info Daisy, yes I can imagine you don't have much choice in it. Though you'd expect it more of the Mail than the FT.

Did you enjoy your time in the army? It sounds like a battle just to be there, never mind be respected etc.

I was RAF, not army 😊
I loved my time in - did 20 yrs in the end - no regrets at all, but really glad to be out now.

I was in a v v male dominated job, and was often the only female; it was a great laugh, and most of my workmates were awesome to be fair but there were the odd few wankers who just hate the idea of women being equal to (or better than) them...
The atmosphere changed a lot in my time in - as the dinosaurs left it got far better.

It's still weird to think that it was so recent that you were not sacked for being a mother (1994 iirc) & were allowed to join as a gay person (think that was around 2001-ish).
There were a few lesbians on my basic training who had to keep their sexuality secret & were in fear of being outed - it was awful.

Daily Mail September 2016

'Debate over female frontline fighters takes new turn as transgender soldier born a man becomes first woman able to fight at close quarters for British Army'

Chloe Allen has become the first woman to be able to fight on the frontline
She joined the British Army four years ago as a man named Ben Allen
Ms Allen, 24, from Cumbria, will continue to serve as an infantryman'

(extract)
The debate over whether women should fight on the frontline for the British Army has taken a surprising new twist after it emerged a female is already able to do so.

Chloe Allen, 24, has made history after becoming the first woman allowed to fight in combat roles as an infantryman.

The transgender soldier currently serves as a Guardsman in the 1st Battalion, Scots Guards, and signed up to the force in 2012 as a man called Ben.

The announcement comes just two months after former Prime Minister David Cameron said women should be allowed to fight on the frontline.

The rules regarding whether women can do so changed in July - and Ms Allen is officially the first female to be able to do so, reports The Sun.

Ms Allen, from Cumbria, was first spotted wearing women's clothes by a colleague just as she was about to guard a royal palace." (continues)

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3793702/Debate-female-frontline-fighters-takes-new-turn-transgender-soldier-born-man-woman-able-fight-close-quarters-British-army.html

Here’s a bit of news about the first female direct entry troop commander!
twitter.com/dickstrawbridge/status/1056214815541260288?s=21

I understand where Defrack was coming from.

A few years ago I took my Guides on a tour of a Royal Marine base, they got a great tour from a woman in what appeared to be a combat uniform. She told them all the cool things that Marines did, and when they asked how they could become marines they were told they couldn’t- women weren’t allowed and wouldn’t have the physical strength to do so, nor the correct knees / hips to cope with the activities. (Turns our the woman was in an administrative role, but still wore uniform).

So if the decision was actually based on the physical differences then presumably even now they’re technically allowed, no women would pass the tests required?

So until it was answered further up the thread, I was also wondering was it a load of rubbish and women would be capable of passing the physical tests, or whether the tests would have to be made easier to allow for it?

Don‘t get me wrong, I am all for women having the same opportunities as men. But considering that the military service depends on people who in the neoliberal economy have no other chance for an equally good career, and given the elites rarely send their children to be cannon fodder in the wars they profit from, I cannot really celebrate this.

My interpretation is that they can‘t find enough men who are fit for the job and willing to enlist. A bit like when women only get the top jobs when TSHTF and failure is virtually certain, no matter what.

Pretty sure that joining with two masters degrees, I have a chance for an equally good career in or out of the army.

Many of my soldiers had great jobs before they joined, a few join with no qualifications but saying they have "no other chance" is quite offensive.

Yeah, maybe I am wrong, but I rarely see the upper class or even upper middle class join the army.

Yeah... pretty wrong.

Sure. I forgot all those brave posh boys who fell in Iraq, making their oil investing ‚class mates‘ a fortune.