Christ, does anyone iron socks? :ooh:

I think I can safely infer from the previous posts that this is a divisive issue for the military!
As is the emotive subject of ironing socks. Surely you chaps don't wear wrinkly socks? You'll be saying you don't wear suspenders next. (Cue for Beags to repost THAT photo)!

Ironing socks compresses the fibre which reduces the ability of the garment to wisk moisture away from the foot and to retain air, thereby reducing conducted heat loss. I am horrified that there are possibly people out there ironing socks in ignorance of the devastation they are wreaking on their bodies.

Some good posts but some are unsavoury. Cool it guys. Just calm it down please. It IS starting to get out of hand. Some are exercising a good debating sense, and good for them.

"Ironing socks compresses the fibre which reduces the ability of the garment to wisk moisture away from the foot and to retain air, thereby reducing conducted heat loss. I am horrified that there are possibly people out there ironing socks in ignorance of the devastation they are wreaking on their bodies."

You DO realise that Mrs. Martian might just see this sometime before she next hits the ironing basket, don't you? And after all these years of training. Thanks Al.
:sad:

Further to my post #22, I do not think that, without a compromise to present standards, the majority of woman will be able to undertake this role.


This one size fits all outlook has already caused problems with basic training. You can't get more basic than marching and in the days when males and females were in separate services, the ppm was the same but men marched at a 30 in. pace length whereas for women it was a pace length of 27 ins. Put both sexes in a common service and what happened ? MOD had to pay claims from women who had suffered pelvic injury when subjected to an extra 3 ins.


I could have worded that better but true none the less.

The Oberon, that reminds me of a recruiting ad for the Metropolitan Police back in the 1970s. In those days, before it was deemed 'discriminatory', male recruits had to be at least 5'10" tall, whereas female recruits only had to be taller than 5'4"......

Or, as the advert stated: I'm sure that they could have expressed that rather better.....:uhoh:

Genstabler, steady, I used to wear a pair of suspenders and our cousins still wear suspenders.

Wolsey socks were woolen and not self-supporting. You needed suspenders.

History did imply that the "Amazons" were not to be trifled with!! If you have the will, the ability to be selected, and pass non-sexist and common training then I think that, whatever your sex, you should have the opportunity to serve in the role that you desire. (Taking cover!!)

Yes I agree, there are female troops the world over that are excellent.


My point was, is this announcement simply a cost saving exercise to bolster the front line capability by utilising women in the role due to the poor uptake to the reserves and the many cuts they Army has had to suffer.


I.E a penny pinching wallpaper job, done on a cost cutting basis to try to appear on paper that the front line strength has not reduced by the numbers people think, and therefore allowing them to both save money by not recruiting replacements and allowing the numbers to further degrade.

The Amazons were light cavalry, skilled in lightning attacks on horseback using bows and arrows, and in that role they were very effective. They were small, fast, agile. They did not engage in fixed close-quarter battles of attrition.

The females we would need to be generally effective in an infantry platoon would be 6 foot, 12 stone monsters.

I doubt it. This topic has surfaced every few years for as long as I can remember and those arguing against it have less and less valid points each time. It was the same argument that stopped women becoming Aircrew and serving on ships and, amazingly, the world keeps on turning.

As far as I am aware, none of the equipment in service requires a specific set of genitals with which to operate it.

Nutty,
As a former Infantryman, having served 7 years in the '60s & '70s, I've paid attention to the views expressed on this thread.

Your observation, apropos the thread title, is correct - IMHO.
This PC pressure for 'equality' in all things, though, conveniently ignores the realities of deadly, often face-to-face, combat.

Thanks for your input too, Danny42C.

It would be interesting to see how many males in this forum could march 20 miles with 120 lbs on their back.

There would be some that couldn't manage it ever in their lifetime, so they chose a different career.

Clockwork mouse, what utter rubbish. Go back to the stone ages.

There have been plenty of men who have served in the infantry of short stature and light body weight.....but they had a desire and strength of character to strive and succeed.

Look at the Viet Cong...they were **** soldiers because they were small, not!

Nutloose,

Bang on.

This thread typifies the unique nature of a modern service like the RAF. We think that every solution can be reduced to the abstract and resolved by committee thinking and rational problem solving. It can't. We seem to think that every aspect of military ops is an item of kit you pick off the shelf that you can reduce to a box ticking exercise and rattle off some learning objectives (infanteering isn't like flying a jet).

We are conditioned to be solution seekers and problem solvers (pine poles!) when sometimes, there is no solution that you can say "Sorted!". We want to say "Well, if she can run the same as a bloke, she can do a bloke's job.. surely?" because that reflects solely on our ability to think and act as managers and leaders. Sometimes, there isn't a solution because it's beyond our comprehension.

The RAF has brilliant units like TCW, TSW etc, but apart from the Regiment, how much teeth arm experience does it have? Quite. Yet it holds an expert's view. My points haven't been answered because there is not the experience, the motivation or the ability to answer them. The feedback on ARRSE might not be eloquent and the debating not as rarified but it is at least, informed. So, once more, and keeping as many physiological aspects out if it as possible.. here is a handy box ticking guide for the infantry experts to address.

1. Would the RAF want its jets serviced by someone who could pass a screwdriver turning tick test, but who had cognitive skills when it came to understanding the servicing manual or putting together complex engineering solutions?
2. Have you considered the additional ingrained decision making pressures on local commanders when working out their combat appreciations, if women were also factored in and involved? Please evidence either way.
3. Have you considered the impact on our men when coerced as prisoners, faced with the threat of mutilating or beheading a female prisoner if they failed to co-operate? Once again, please evidence.
4. How will you address the emotional dynamic of the team set up deployed and ensure that the undeniably carnal desires of young, fit people don't upset the apple cart.

Or shall we keep saying "Pine poles!!! Erm, if she can run.. why not?".

Added.

Ralph, it isn't about comparing short men to short women or looking back at a conflict like Vietnam. Even in my pomp there would have been some women who could tab better than me :( ! An infantry section is greater than the sum of its parts. It isn't about allowing people to "be the best they can be" or facilitating any high minded best thinking which reflects a modern society's values (or any of that guff).

Clockwork Mouse is absolutely correct. Compare the modern infanteer with one of even 30 years ago, The stature is significantly different.

It's about putting our young people into harm's way to do a job and not to have the vanity to pander to our perceived abilities as masterful decision makers. It's about ensuring we have taken all things into account and having ironed out as many of the imponderables as possible.. we can get them all back again. If we subordinate that core principle, we are letting them down again through ignorance as much as anything.

Well said Al R.

I was formerly of the opinion that if a woman could reach the same standard of fitness as a bloke, then crack on. However since working in a unit containing both males and females I have become aware of the dramas and BS caused by the inevitable "inappropriate relations" between various members of that unit.
While the effects of this may be an acceptable with other units, I can't see the benefits that females in infantry units may bring outweighing the damage to morale and unit cohesion that would be caused in an infantry unit.

Just my 2 cents.

Are the people worried about personal relationships undermining the team ethos also worried about homosexual relationships doing the same?

If one allows homosexuals to serve in all areas of the military, ooh-err missus, by any decision making process one must allow females to do the same.

I should also note that I am well aware of cases where (hetrosexual) personal relationships have undermined the cohesiveness of a team. However, should an entire unit be held to task because a small number of individuals are incapable of keeping it inside their pants? In my opinion the fault lies within the individual not the system, although from observation the system itself is far from perfect at dealing with personal issues.

Providing they can pass all the required aptitude tests to the same standards required of male candidates.

Presumably such aptitude test won't be the equivalent of a "screwdriver turning tick test", and would indeed be an infantry versionof recognising "who had cognitive skills when it came to understanding the servicing manual or putting together complex engineering solutions?".

I was wrong about the homosexuality aspect, I said so earlier in this thread. Is there a direct and meaningful parallel? No, I don't think so. Setting that to one side for the moment, and the running issue, what are your thoughts on the more practical aspects of the questions I posed? Out of interest, do you think you would be faced with additional pressures if a female's life was at stake compared with 'just' another man's?

Just seen your edit.

Apart from placing 80lbs on a woman's back and hips and maintaining existing physical standards, what do you suggest? My point is that engineering isn't just about turning a screwdriver, just as infanteering isn't just about running. An engineer must be able to act and think in logical sequences, she/he must be able to reason through complex problems - and in that role, there is less difference in gender ability. The case for gender equality in infanteering isn't as black and white as being able to engineer.

Re. the 'life at stake' situation.

For a very long time, from the dawn of warfare I suppose, the infantry has been seen and treated as a killing machine. Go out there with a weapon, kill, come home. It has suited both the military and society to maintain this point of view. Yet we have seen, certainly from WW1 onwards, that close combat certainly does affect the human mind, whether females are there or not. I'd opine that although a male may admit to being more affected, likely to 'break', if a female colleague is threatened, the same psycological scars will be present should a male colleague be in a similar position. It might be easier for the individual to accept, justify even, but the symptoms of mental trauma will be there and will eventually surface. If you have been part of a close knit team of males, training, living, fighting together, with common beliefs and for a common goal, would you honestly say that just because your brother in arms were a male you would accept his torture and murder? So, no, ultimately I don't think it will make a long term difference.

Just a thought before we open Pandora's box and instigate something we will find difficult if not impossible to undo later down the line.

The studies have been conducted and the jury is out making it's deliberations. Before taking the final step, let's have a trial period, say 2 years, where all the fitness tests are absolutely identical for both male and female. No adjustments to make them gender fair. Everybody achieves the standard required for a set age bracket regardless of gender. That should give us ample evidence as to whether females really are capable of meeting the physical standards rather than simply quoting studies and psychologists. Last fitness test I did before I deployed saw a RN female trudging up and down the gym alongside me. I had to get to 9-something IIRC to pass and was still at a light jog when she dropped out at level 4 in a wheezing slobbering lump.

I'm sure she isn't representative of the whole female cadre, but you get my point. Equality means just that. Equal in everything. So let's start with fitness tests to give us a decent cohort size to allow females to demonstrate that they can meet a set standard without gender bias. Last time I checked, the weight of a rifle + 120 rounds was the same regardless of sex. Conducting a practical experiment across the Forces should also leave a bit of wriggle room should the policy types have got it wrong and need to u-turn. Not that they would get it wrong or make a decision for the wrong reason.