Greater equality or papering over the cracks?
 

BBC News - Women could join British infantry by 2016


Personally, while I do think there should be a greater role for women in the services and this is one of them, at the back of my mind this just smacks to me as Government speak for trying to fill in the cracks in front line capability, and nothing to do with the former.

What do you think?

It does make you wonder if this is the reasoning behind it, now you mention it. I certainly don't have any problem with the proposal, as quite a few of our young servicewomen have proved their worth in no end of roles, many of whom now wearing gallantry medal ribbons for services they have rendered while being shot at.

From last month
Convicted drug users and thieves will be allowed to join police | Daily Mail Online

Whereas the Army have recruited convicted drug users and thieves for over a decade.

Crackheads to fill cracks...makes a kind of sense, I suppose.....

My God, are they letting women in now? ;)

Ahem

http://http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/552639-what-waste-what-fool.html

Not just an Army problem, it seems.

Suckback 4!:ok::p

Apparently the RN are "borrowing" marine engineers from the US Coast Guard to keep our miserable 19 ship navy running due to retention issues

What will happen when they need to crew the two carriers???

The question of manning affects all branches of the Services - the Army especially is always moving people from unit to unit to keep them at operational strength

This has a faint whiff of pandering to those who wish for greater "equality."

If there are those that wish ladies are also given the same opportunity to die in combat with men, then let it be.

I for one don't care a jot. As long as standards are maintained. You can either pass an Infantry Combat Fitness test (and the multitude of other physically demanding tasks) or you can't. The standards are set because they reflect the toughness of modern soldiering, carrying lots of equipment.

Equality means doing exactly the same as everyone else. Regardless of sex, if you can do it, you're good enough.

RN is 'borrowing' personnel from the US- didn't something like this set off the War of 1812! I guess we've come a long way....:D

Only some women would be capable of meeting the requirements for front line combat. If promotion is predicted on such combat roles will this disadvantage all other females?

Quite so. Perhaps when the government will pay salaries appropriate to the role, AND the X-factor on top, and get shot of the historical baggage (crap accommodation, class distinction, training deficiencies etc) it will attract enough people to fill the roles it retains.

You shouldn't get a pay rise when you leave the services for doing a similar job. You should lose the X-factor and then be at parity. As long as that doesn't happen, then how can the MOD hope to recruit and retain the right people in the right jobs?

Equality in a physical role. Hmmmm, so how come the RAFFT sets a hugely different standard for men and women? How does this fit with VFM?

OAP

I made the very point at yet another E and D briefing ; the reaction from a (female) equality briefer was that the fitness test was gender fair. OK said I but war isn't!
There was no counter that .

I read somewhere that the squaddies in the Falklands War were carrying up to 120lb over very rough ground in appalling weather for nearly 20 miles. Then then fought some pretty vicious battles.
Are we to believe that some slip of a girl is going to carry her fair share of the load...literally? Because if she doesn't some other poor sod will have to make up for it. All to satisfy some communistic vision of "equality."

This country if totally ******.

If standards are maintained, what's the problem?


There are male soldiers in the Army who might not be able to keep up with infantry basic and continuation training...

As long as the ladies are fit...

...they can do any job they please.



I think I've expressed that as intended...

Answer the point about carrying up to 120lbs over long distances in bad weather, then fighting a battle. I believe the Soviet Union (communism) were pretty hot on this politically motivated BS.
Comrade (gay marriage) Dave, must be right behind this one.

I can't see this working. Perhaps a few illustrations would help me visualise the future.:E

Stendec 5 you are on the money- I don't think anyone female will ever actually beat the standard set by the class of 82 who did that march and then fought it out to win the battles in the FI.
Does the country honestly want young women to do that sort of role anyway? I think not (they have a bad enough time accepting the present loss of young men in combat).
I wish someone would publicly stand up and say that to do the nations fighting like that it is best left to young hard men, and also tell them yes be prepared to look the other way while your using them, because the people who do the gutter fighting, the bloody infantry fighting aren't angels and you would not really wish to keep one as a pet.Simple as that.
This country is up its own arse at times.


Been reading Max Hastings "Armageddon" again recently and he covers a lot about the Soviet Unions fighting forces in closing stages of WW2. The Russians employed women extensively, but seemingly even they shied off from using them in outright close combat roles. Think a lot may have been as mechanics, radio operators, NKVD even. This despite massive losses of men in combat roles.
Why was this?
And I have to finish with this. Without doubt two of the crappest officers I ever worked for onboard a front line deployed vessel were both women RN lieutenants. They seemed to be both on a massive ego trip about being in charge of a group of men. They were a bloody awful pair, pretty unapproachable, too young, too inexperienced, very arrogant and very bad at trying to lead and bond a team together. Neither of them were a good reflection on the output of BRNC Dartmouth. I've never forgotten it or them and would cross the road to avoid either of them if I was as ever unfortunate to meet them again.
When you get men and women like you get a minor sex war going on anyway, does not lead to good unit cohesion in my most honest recentish experience.
I'm afraid there is a place for women in the military, but I'm sorry it isn't at the nasty, dirty, oily, spewy pointy end for the majority.

Amen, Hanger...

I remember from Catch 22 "What does a sane man do in an insane world?"

Well HS,

The best immediate boss I ever had was a female S/L.

The worst immediate boss I ever had was a(nother) female S/L.

So, sex made no difference, in my experience.

Errm, not that I tried.


Oh sh1tty hell, that's coming out wrong.

As the actress said to the bishop.

One of the engineering officers on the line at Brize was female, though she was on the other shift so I never worked under her personally, but by all accounts from her team she was very good.

Females in front line infantry should be allowed when sport of all types and at all levels are gender free.


A mixed gender Calcutta Cup match should be the clincher.

I think the title of thread could have been worded better :E There are roles when gender is immaterial but infantry is not one of them

Perhaps the same rules should apply, Oberon. In future we'll have to organise separate men's and women's league battles. Then decide the overall winner with a points system.

My bet is that in 5 years we'll wonder what all the fuss was about............

I was listening to a radio debate about this yesterday, and while some very good points were made, there were also some very silly things put forward to 'demonstrate' why ladies are the equal of men (in an infantry role)

While any of us can think of pros and cons to fit the for or against scenarios it seems that some vary obvious points are being avoided by the government or pro campaigners.

I heard during the debate that women have to pass the SAME tests as men but that they carry less weight during the tests!

It was repeatedly mentioned that women have done superbly in theatres such as Afghanistan, and while this is very true, it's also been nothing like all out war and so the women involved haven't had to do the full on stuff for weeks at a time. An infantry unit needs to be effective in all its roles and not just some of them. Of course it has to be said that lots of males wouldn't hack full on infantry life in combat either.

It seems the government want to keep the tests just as hard, but want to make them easier for women to pass IMHO. They say more appropriate for both sexes, but the men are already passing the tests. One situation was that instead of carrying injured soldiers as part of a test they may be able to drag them as it is fairer for women. I know the Americans like this idea, but I'm not sure that dragging someone over rocky ground, through a river, through a window or over a wall is really a good idea.

The UK is also broke so I'm not sure how much extra it will cost to house a four man squad if one happened to be a female and two four man rooms needed to be paid for and heated instead of one for a small detachment.

I also wonder at what point a woman would be: removed from combat, unable to carry a heavy load, fire weapons etc once pregnant. This is more relevant in an infantry role than a support role. Medics, clerks, signallers etc can all be replaced but it would be a bit odd for a female para to be trained in a specialist role for several months only to not be able to lead her section/company on an op due to being pregnant. It would be coverable but may mean that another person is needed as a stand in just in case. This is a bit different to a normal injury IMHO as the loss of the person would be predictable in advance, but would be on a time frame.

Those are just a few things floating around in my mind and I really don't know how succesful women in the infantry would be for effectiveness. What I do know is that the fact they have been very succesful in recent conflict has no bearing at all on full on combat or a Falklands type situation with very little support or logistics.

http://www.aftenposten.no/migration_...80/1254232.jpg

Ingerid Gjerde, worked her way up from squad leader to Bn commander. She has worked as both infantry platoon Lt in Lebanon and infantry company commander in Bosnia.

She commanded the guards Bn before going to Afghanistan as Norwegian contingent commander.


Plenty of girls in the infantry in Norway, and they served in Afganistan.....

So... for many years, despite legal equality laws and regulations, the UK Military has supported a case to exclude females (and males who do not make the, mostly physical, grade) from some combat roles. What has changed? Could it be desperate recruitment stats?;)
I can see that male infantry would have a good case to demand a lower physical standard for themselves if the ladies work to a lower standard!
No, for goodness sake, keep fighting troops as tough as possible!:ok:

OAP

In 2013, Col Ingrid Gjerde visited the Pentagon to be quizzed on her experiences and Norwegian policy on this matter. Here is a subsequent session she had at the US Center for Strategic & International Studies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFXJiV6pOYs

The questions which never, or rarely, get asked is; why have women never routinely filled the ranks of the Armed Forces frontline posts before the last 30 or so years?
If arguments over gender equality were neither here nor there, would the Army be going out of their way to recruit women into the Infantry/Armoured untis etc?
Further, if physical strength and ruggedness are plain and simply not of any true concern, why do we not see women playing alongside men in professional sports teams? Why aren't they mixed? or is that just far too important an endeavour to risk the out come of?

The latter point touches on Courtney's comment, also an observation made many years ago by my Brother in Law, if you take two equal size intakes in to the Marines say, one entirely male the other entirely female and train both to the same standard using the same training syllabus, exactly so, without let or hinderence, what would the outcome be and how would they fair if pitted against one another?

FB:)

Ingerid Gjerde, worked her way up from squad leader to Bn commander. She has worked as both infantry platoon Lt in Lebanon and infantry company commander in Bosnia.

She commanded the guards Bn before going to Afghanistan as Norwegian contingent commander.


Plenty of girls in the infantry in Norway, and they served in Afganistan.....

...none of which was fighting as Infantry in conventional warfare...it was all COIN.

Or did you miss that bit?

gijoe,

To be fair, COIN in Afghanistan, as we have seen, involves a fair amount of conventional infantry warfare against an albeit limited opposition, but lethal just the same. That said, I've only ever gained the impression that U.K. and U.S. military and perhaps the Australians have been directly engaged in firefights against insurgents and Taliban. I'm not sure how many women soldiers and to what level i.e. proportion have been at the thick of it so to speak, nor how involved those units from other countries have gotten, but the argument is now getting down to the limit as to whether women are equally an asset on the Battlefield or not. My only questions, which have no concise answer so far, are those in my immediate previous post?

FB:)

As usual, the bluff old traditionalists wheel themselves out for a thread about women. If it isn't you lot drooling over women, it's the same Daily Mail-ruffling Cold War Warriors complaining that things are not hard enough any more. Harking back to the Good Old Days of the FI in 82 is utterly pointless.

If you haven't noticed, the British Armed Forces have been fighting - really fighting - for over a decade. If you've been utterly ignorant of who has been doing what and where (which it appears from these posts that you have been), women ARE on the front line, women ARE bringing much-needed capabilities and women ARE fighting in both offensive and defensive positions. To intimate that the ability to yomp / tab across the FI is a showstopper is to ignore everything from Afghanistan and Iraq. Women are serving with the infantry and, for those who wish to do so, we should let them attempt the same entry criteria.
I appreciate that many of you find the concept of women straying too far from the matrimonial kitchen sink as somewhat alarming, but things can and do change. A few of you may even be surprised to learn that 'they' have the vote these days.

If you take two equal size intakes in to the Marines say, one entirely male the other entirely female and train both to the same standard using the same training syllabus, exactly so, without let or hinderence, what would the outcome be and how would they fair if pitted against one another?

And the same applies to contact sports.

It is easy to label the sceptics as stick-in-the-mud, Cold War warriors. I spent my military career as an infantry officer. The thought of going to war, as opposed to asymmetric operations, with a load of women in my infantry platoons, fills me with horror. Women DO have a role on the battlefield, but NOT in an infantry unit unless you really want to degrade your war fighting capability. Would you field a team of females against the All Blacks, except as a gimmic?

Genstabler,

It's quite revealing that it is indeed Infantry Officers, albeit usually retired, but only recently so, the last 20 years, who ask the same constructive questions. I can appreciate the level of combat that coalition infantry and support units have been engaged in over in Afghanistan and Iraq before.

But all is relative, if, as seems to be the desire of the West's leadership to get involved in a more comparable shoot out with say Russia, we might find out just what a hell hole we'll have gotten ourselves into.

Mr C Hinecap,

At which point did anyone draw any comparison with the Falkland Islands campaign, or FI, as you put it. I would be far more easily persuaded if you had a stab at answering my questions!?

FB:)

Mr C. Love your rant (not!). Weird :bored:

OAP

FB in fairness there is mention of the Falklands Campaign overleaf. Equally, the author of said post does have a point, personally I have no problem with the concept of letting women apply for the infantry roles but the overwhelming consideration must be that of the standard required. What we must not do is move the goal posts for political reasons, the level required must remain absolute. Having said all that how many women are likely to apply?

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme this morning, Major Webb, who retired in 1986, said: ‘We had a maximum of four women in my squadron and it was perfectly natural and normal for the guys would do all the heavy jobs and those jobs that were physically demanding while women would do the slightly less physical it was just the normal course of events.
‘When we are talking about an infantry section of eight guys and you’ve got one person who is not actually as physically strong or as physically capable as the other seven over possibly an extended period of time, which is what has not been tested, that could create an effect on our combat effectiveness,’ added major Webb, who was the first woman to command an all-male field force squadron in the British Army.

Vascodegama,

I take your point, another of my questions I also noticed was asked earlier by Oberon. However, I joined the debate quite a way on and to my discredit didn't take sufficent time to read all of the previous posts before ending up paraphrasing.:O

But my points still hold, and yes indeed, should nothing else change then, all is fair in love and war as they say. But of course, the overriding aim here is personal opportunity, which if proved not to be a handicap is not a problem, simply that operational effectiveness has never been the first consideration.

FB:)

Personally I think that the problem in front line combat would not be totally down to what the female soldier can do, but more down to the rest of the squad looking out for her, and Gawd knows what will happen if one of the team falls into a relationship with her, you would be better with all female squads to counteract that.