I often think that those of us who volunteered for "technical" arms like RAF aircrew or the Navy had this subconscious, ulterior motive - we were quite ready to die ourselves, but preferred to do our slaughter at a distance, where we didn't have to see the grim results or hear the screams of the dying. Put bluntly, there's something inherently wrong with asking a woman (however much of an Amazon she may be) to do this. And a nation which needs to ask it is not much of a nation in my book. Fuddy-duddy I may be, but that's the way I see it. - Danny

I am on exactly the same wavelength as Danny, to whom along with the many other sterling contributors to this wonderful thread, I wish a very happy Christmas and an even better New Year.:ok:

Jack

" there's something inherently wrong with asking a woman (however much of an Amazon she may be) to do this."

that is a judgement YOU are making without asking the lady (or ladies) if they agree

I'd give you credit and say you were being gallant but some of the ladies would definitely say you were being sexist, misogynist and patronising

Placing the female sex on a pedestal is very Victorian but the world has moved on - they are capable of making up their own minds and deciding what they want to do - this is the 21st Century not the 19th.....

Any talk of equal opportunities in support of this proposal is criminally misguided. Serving in the Armed Forces is not a commercial employment. The Armed Forces exist to secure our national interests through the threat and, when required, delivery of state violence. Proportionality is necessary for reasons of finance, social acceptability and economy of resources. However, the aim is to defeat any threat. Any dilution of capability puts that aim, and those trying to achieve it, at risk.
Though emotionally I find the idea of a female killing in close quarter combat repulsive, I will concede that this may be an old fashioned and now socially irrelevant view.
If our nation wishes to permit our females the opportunity to serve in infantry and other combat arms, so be it. HOWEVER, any downgrading of physical and mental standards to permit them to do so is criminally irresponsible. Set the standards required for a soldier. Only anyone who can meet those standards is acceptable.

Nicely put Genstabler, in order to maintain the current ban on women serving in infantry units the Armed Forces must show that there would be a degredation of operational capability. Some of the points made elsewhere in this thread are subjective but the fitness test is absolute, therefore must be gender neutral- no ifs or buts and no change to allow more women to pass. If they want to join the infantry then they do exactly what the men do, if they can't crack it they get removed just like a man would.

Melchett good idea about the current test but why not remove the age difference as well?

According to Arrse, the IDF tried femail infantry some years ago and collected data on all aspects of their findings, maybe someone ought to take a look at what they found.

What are you on about? The Armed Forces sets it's entry requirements for each Trade and Branch, then tests and trains accordingly. I don't care what gender anyone is if they can pass the requisite tests. We're not talking about allowing simians to serve, we're talking about human beings. I'd not want an infanteer fixing a jet but that has nothing to do with anything.

They have been doing this for the last decade in Iraq and Afghanistan and those local commanders have coped with both girls and boys. If you want to discuss pressures upon local commanders, then look at the complexity of non-integrated systems and sensors and their effect upon decision-making. THEN you might begin to understand the context and how low down the thought process gender is.


No difference whether it would be male or female. Formed units are cohesive because of the camaraderie. Your rather disturbing female mutilation scenario would be equally distressing it it were your best mate.



Don't judge all people by your standards. All other mixed gender teams in the Forces cope with such 'desires' and they get along. You do know that women serve in the RAF these days don't you? We don't deploy the WRAF to a nearby base then ship the ladies in under the supervision of a matronly WRAF WO so they can work near 'the boys'.

Actually they often get along too well.

I know from experience that the pressures when people are thrown together in close proximity for months at a time can create bonds and break up marriages.

You mentioned "your best mate" such friendship will not usually cause the break up of a marriage back home. If that best mate is of the opposite sex, and succeed in keeping the relationship platonic, will the spouses left at home see it that way?

Once again, you are ignoring all the other military units that deploy. Aircraft squadrons have female aircrew, engineers, admin. 90SU have women, RLC have female drivers, medical teams etc etc. Somehow, these units manage to get along, they are mixed gender and I doubt they have divorce rates any worse than an average infantry unit.

On the subject of sexual tension etc: UNISEX ROOMS MADE GENDER INSIGNIFICANT

M609, interesting. Back in the. 80s, on the premise as exercise as you would in war, our stn cdr decreed that dormitories in the HPS would be unisex with toilets used on a programmed basis. It worked even if only for a few days until the queen bee declared that "her" gels had to be accommodated separately.

'Once again, you are ignoring all the other military units that deploy. Aircraft squadrons have female aircrew, engineers, admin. 90SU have women, RLC have female drivers, medical teams etc etc. Somehow, these units manage to get along, they are mixed gender and I doubt they have divorce rates any worse than an average infantry unit.'

...none of which had the job of closing and engaging with the enemy.

This debate has had some excellent points made in it - none from Chinstrap.

Mr CH, apologies, I see your point now, divorce rates would be the same between reactive duty and proactive duty personnel.

I suspect the close quarter stress levels might result in even greater for infantry.

I believe Fallon recently said something to the effect that the ..Armed Forces should reflect the society they serve....

On that basis one can only presume that the profile of the UK Armed Forces will in future be recruited/trained to achieve:

16% of personnel (rising to 32% by 2050) to be over 65.
64% of personnel (rising to ??? by ???) to be overweight.
23% of personnel (rising to ??? by ???) to be obese.

How about an aspiration that the Armed Forces of the UK should represent the very best of the society they serve....?

Don't be so silly Biggus. Such an idea would never be permitted - smacks of elitism and goes wholly against the concepts of mediocrity we now strive for in order to be fully inclusive.

Melchett,
Please don't try to talk our 'inclusive' society up.

Try - "Lowest Common Denominator".

"HOWEVER, any downgrading of physical and mental standards to permit them to do so is criminally irresponsible."

I have a funny feeling women might come low on the physical tests but outperform the blokes on the mental tests.................

in which case presumably they'd be the officers and the blokes could continue as the PBI

Careful Harry! You are letting your chip show again.

gijoe:
The point you are replying to was about divorce rates in mixed units. Nothing specifically to do with "the job of closing and engaging with the enemy".

It is if the bloke next to you in the PB is too busy thinking about his failing marriage to concentrate on his job.

Regrettably the current all-male infantry has no immunity to failing marriage.