BS: Women in the front line

Subject: BS: Women in the front line
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 07:09 AM

I would be interested to hear the panel's views on this move to bring females into a fighting position in the UK Army

It seems to make no sense, as the average female is less strong and of different physical and mental make up.

The real question of course is WHY? We are cutting our armed forces, why do we need to bring women into an aggressive fighting position?

Is it simply dangerous ideological claptrap?

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 10:17 AM

and here I thought we were in the 21st century...

if yours is a volunteer army, then I suspect that any female who wishes to enlist is free to do so... and since the career advancement path requires combat experience, then they should be afforded the opportunity for promotion....

maybe you might end up with better leadership if a gal is in charge... just saying...

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 10:29 AM

Just guessing, but I would imagine the reason given is that advancement in rank is hindered by a lack of combat experience, so keeping women out of the front lines is a way of discriminating against them.

And complicity, i.e. getting people to squeeze the trigger and actually kill for the enrichment of the already obscenely over-rich, is the best way to ensure loyalty. With women in positions of authority in the corporate world it's important to make sure they have as much reason as men to be patriotic.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 10:47 AM

I would think that based on thousands of years of written record, it is "reasonable" to assume that there will always be self serving SOBs that will start wars that they think will benefit themselves and their cronies... and the heck with anyone else.

So... if there is to be a war fought, then at least provide equal opportunity to those who are willing to fight. Hopefully, the competent will rise to the top and do their best to end the conflict with the least amount of damage to their own side. And make sure that equality is in ALL parts of society. I for one support the notion of "liberty and justice for all", even if it isn't always practiced.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 10:58 AM

Other nations have women soldiers on the front line. Is there any evidence to demonstrate that such armies have been in any way undermined by such a policy?

My personal opinion on whether it's a good idea or a bad idea, would tend to depend on what is actually known about the impact of having women on the front line.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 11:14 AM

there is a stretch of highway recently dedicated to a young servicewoman who died in "combat"... her convoy hit either mines or car bombs detonated remotely. That's part of the current way that war is being "fought"...

Anyway... females in the military often have more issues with sexual harrassment from their own "superiors" who either participate or cover up such inappropriate behavior. It seems that there are still plenty of jerks who have yet to realize that having a Y chromosome does not impart any kind of superiority to them... they are still jerks in the end.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 11:14 AM

If they can pass the same training, why not? It's not like someone being mortared and shot at is going to "take advantage" of a bunker mate who's armed with a rifle, knife, and bayonet (or more).

The problem that is going to be faced in the long run is that most women don't see any need for combat unless it's to defend themselves, their children, or others near and dear to them.

Besides, "combat" doesn't mean "infantry." It includes tankers, cannon-cockers, gunship pilors, combat engineers, and others.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 12:00 PM

since I work in a state office building, we often get notice to lower the flags... this just came a few minutes ago:

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo has directed that flags on state government buildings be flown at half-staff on Monday, Dec. 22, 2014 in honor of a Fort Hood soldier who died in Afghanistan on Friday, Dec. 12.

Sgt. Ramon S. Morris died from wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his vehicle with an improvised explosive device in Parwan Province, Afghanistan. Morris, from New York City, was assigned to the 2nd Squadron, 3rd Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.

Too many of our troops are young people who see little future in their current circumstances and find military service as a possible way out of their otherwise dead end lives... if they survive and don't lose it to PTSS. You'll not see names like Romney, Chaney or Bush on the casualty lists...

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 12:55 PM

It seems to make no sense, as the average female is less strong and of different physical and mental make up.

The average female is less strong than the average male but the overlap is such that the best females will be better, in many respects, than the average male. The average male, after all, lies somewhere between an elite fighting machine and a pot-bellied couch potato

I expect that there will always be a lot more men on the front line than women but, for those females who have the desire and measure up to the requirements, why not make use of their talents.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 12:58 PM

Who ate my cookie?

That was me above.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: GUEST,#
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 01:08 PM

Women in combat--it'll never happen, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 01:19 PM

thank you, DC for pointing out what should be the obvious & I didn't feel like bringing up myself.

that said.. when 40 years younger I knew that I was stronger & fitter than many of my male college friends... and later when I was running a riding stable, I could handle 100 pound bags of grain without breaking into a sweat... you don't need a gym membership when you physically mix 1500 pounds of feed several times a week, not to mention bales of hay or mucking out stalls.

If a person can make it through training - boot camp- they should be qualified to handle their duties. That IS the point... take civilians and turn them into military personnel.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 01:28 PM

The "average female" is unlikely to make a lifetime career of the military in the first place, and less likely to seek or need "combat experience" (which can be defined quite loosely).

Women who seek combat-unit assignments shouldn't be prevented from doing so simply because they're women. If they can meet the requirements, they can do the job.

Soviet women successfully flew combat aircraft in WWII. Right now, Kurdish women are fighting of their own free will as uniformed, gun-toting infantry against ISIS/ISIL (now to be called "Daesh," according to today's news). They seem to be quite effective.

While wars are certainly caused by greedy, ambitious SOBs, what should the people they target do about it, if not fight?

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 01:34 PM

panel view?

What a simplistic, odd notion? I doubt many people on Mudcat would wish to be associated in a view of a subject where the only alternative to equal access to career advancement is misogyny.

The original post refers to idealistic claptrap.

Meanwhile, back in the 21st century, we have equality which, in the country the original poster resides in, is supported by enabling legislation to allow such moves to go forward without reference to old fashioned views that sometimes need a nudge in order to wither and die.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 02:19 PM

""Some 7,000 volunteer soldiers have joined the Women's Protection Unit, or YPJ, which grew out of the wider Kurdish resistance movement. The group is strongly associated with the PKK, an organization fighting for the rights of Kurds in neighboring Turkey that has been designated a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department. Alongside Kurdish Peshmerga forces, the YPJ has been battling against Islamic militants who have seized large areas of Iraq and Syria and declared a cross-border caliphate.""




Kurdish women solders 

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 03:32 PM

have all female units/ships etc. reduces some of the problems. and don't worry about career advancement or not. women are already four or so star generals..and the purpose of the military is not to provide career advancement but to defend the country and subdue any enemies. where women are better employed than men, use them, where men are better, use them. problems with sexual assaults, pregnancy, disease etc. can reduce the effectiveness of a unit.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 06:11 PM

Guest MG....I was wondering about that, whether a woman in front line combat would have an adverse effect on the unit.

Also the issue of physical strength does come into it in close quarter combat.
Men and women are not "equal" in physical strength, no matter how fit or well trained they may be.
Members of infantry battalions are required to perform many arduous tasks in extreme conditions, involving the hauling of heavy gear and weapons.

Guest from Scotland.....If you wish to make this thread another personal vendetta you will be disappointed.....kindly confine yourself to the issues under discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: GUEST,#
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 06:27 PM

"It may also surprise some Canadians — and likely many Americans — that Canada has allowed women into all military trades, including combat arms, for 22 years. The only exception was submarine service, a final bastion that fell in 2001. About a dozen other countries also allow women into active ground combat roles, including Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, France, Germany, Serbia, New Zealand and Israel."



That's a paragraph from a link I posted earlier.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 06:44 PM

it would depend on whether the unit had men in it or not

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 09:03 PM

I'm quite amused by the rather sexist approaches above, which don't realise that very many women are already in the front line, and the Army's long since got past the juvenile hangups to do with it. True, they are not the heavy infantry (yet), but they are combat paramedics (right in among the infantry), and engineers (who have to go ahead of the infantry to prepare the way for them, doing things like EOD bomb disposal), and the SAS' Recce Regiment/Intelligence Corps handlers even further ahead.
And having worked alongside their officers in training, they invariably beat us in target shooting. Why, we never managed to sus - but if you need people to shoot enemy, I'd say that more than makes up for the need to grunt - questions like whether you can haul a guy out of the line are only going to arise if you don't shoot the guy who'll shoot him first. And even then they grunt with the best.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 11:25 PM

There are currently 160 women undergoing Ranger training in the US Army.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: Musket
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 02:11 AM

Volunteer army. Career soldiers.

Not quite sure what this thread is about. Misogyny maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 06:09 AM

"women in front line combat would have an adverse effect on the unit."

Why? Would the men in the unit be too busy trying to fuck them?

Just when you thought The Mariana Trench was about as low as anyone could go....

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 09:52 AM

It's like gays in the military: nobody in a hole, bullets and other things flying around, turns to the other guy and says, "Have I ever told you you have beautiful eyes?"

And nobody in attack or defense is going to say, "God, you're hot! Wanna get it on?"

Not if you want to live to see a time when you could.

Besides, battle dress is not conducive to ah, sexual attraction -- and if it is you've go bigger problems than you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 10:17 AM

What I was suggesting MG, is that the unit may be more protective towards a female member....... more than is conducive to its effectiveness?

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: bubblyrat
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 11:52 AM

It was "different" in the "Old Days" becuse women in the Armed Forces in the UK were not "regulars" like the males of the three (Army,Navy, Air Force ) services. They had their own Corps structure, disciplinary code etc, and were not subject to Courts Martial. They could say "Up yours!" and walk away from it all at any moment.Their officers were NOT entitled to a salute , although we ( in the Navy ) DID salute them out of courtesy ; paradoxically, some were actual Royal Navy officers per se ( usually doctors and dentists, wore gold braid and HAD to be saluted !!).I worked with female Radar Plotters and Air Mechanics at the Royal Naval Air Station at Yeovilton in Somereset , both with 766 Naval Air SQuadron and in the Control Tower. In the latter, there had to be a "Rest Room" for girls who experienced "personal" problems , and at night a "chaperone" on duty if both sexes were working together.Of course, facilities for males were practically non-existant or very basic , and if on duty for 72 hours on weekend "radar watch" in the Tower, I had to sleep under a plotting table in the Meteorological Office ---Chaperone not needed, but she was ALWAYS present !! Frankly , the whole issue was a rotten set-up ,and most men HATED it , but now it has all changed ( for the better ) and I wish all female servicewomen everywhere the best of luck and a happy experience !!

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 12:45 PM

Akenaton: Also the issue of physical strength does come into it in close quarter combat.
Men and women are not "equal" in physical strength, no matter how fit or well trained they may be.
Members of infantry battalions are required to perform many arduous tasks in extreme conditions, involving the hauling of heavy gear and weapons.

Many women are not equal to many men in physical strength, but SOME are, and it's ridiculous to say there's no overlap "no matter how well trained they may be".

If training standards are the same for both sexes then a woman who's passed the criteria will be as capable as a man who's passed the same criteria of performing to the requirement.

I do British Military Fitness (BMF) training several times a week with a variety of people of ages from early 20s upwards, though I'm the oldest by a number of years. Although this is civilian training, it's based on military requirements and carried out by former or serving military personnel, many of them PTIs.

There is *some* correlation between age and sex and performance in the group, but it's by no means rigid. I'm approaching my 7th decade, yet I can almost keep up with a current serving Royal Marine who joins us for workouts when he's on leave. He's far faster than me on running but I do better than him on core strength and upper body work.

Our high performance "Green Bibs" are pretty evenly spread between male and female, and all the females in "Green" will outperform all the males in "Red" (next performance level down) in both strength and speed.

For events like 10 mile cross-country runs with integral assault courses, and stretcher-carry races, teams are usually mixed and there's no concerns about evening up the sexes in them. Did a race/weight carry event this morning where I was the only male in our team of 6. No concessions to ages or sex and we managed to come in 2nd.

Women who do physical stuff and train hard are often as strong and fast as the men. If I was 40 years younger and in the forces I'd have no problems with serving in a combat role alongside most of the women I currently train with.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 01:10 PM

> Also the issue of physical strength does come into it in close quarter combat.

Which, despite the judo videos of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, almost *never* happens on the modern battlefield. Automatic rifles and grenades make movie-style hand-to-hand combat extremely rare, mainly in house-to-house fighting - and rare even then.

In such cases, women who can carry 70 pounds of equipment with no greater discomfort than men should do OK. If they meet the standard, they can do the job.

Anyway, as has been stated, infantry is hardly the only combat arm in today's world. American women have flown hi-tech combat aircraft for 25 years - that includes B-52s. They serve on warships. They can fire howitzers. Theoretically, women careerists who need "combat experience" have as many opportunities as men - at least until prejudice gets into it.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 01:29 PM

For all practical purposes I am in my seventh decade and was in the poor bloody infantry back aways and yes, I did get shot at and that sort of thing. I am not a virgin in that respect (or many others).

In combat you fight not for your country, your flag, peace, or anything intangible. You fight for several reasons, but it comes down to 1) your survival, and 2) the survival of your comrades (now known as "battle buddies). "Survival" has many faces and includes the good opinion of others and yourself about you.

Anyone who failed their comrades, male or female, would have to live with themselves (at the very least). A mistake or two might be forgiven, but not baring an equitable share is not.

As long as someone can do the job it doesn't matter who or what they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 02:28 PM

"Men and women are not "equal" in physical strength, no matter how fit or well trained they may be."

I recall similar sexist arguments being made in the past by those attempting to keep women out of the police, firefighting and other such carreers. These arguments have all been found unsound when women entered these fields, bringing their unique skills and perspectives into most traditional areas of the workforce.

When my son went through basic training in the military a few years ago, it was alongside quite a few women, who did just as well as their male counterparts. In fact, many of the "out of shape" males did not do so well.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: Musket
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 03:24 AM

Anyone actually going to agree with the original post?

Thought not.

We have had sexual orientation, race and gender. All we need now is colour and creed for the card set.

😢

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 07:02 AM

UK tv believes it already happens. We had Heather Peace as an SAS sniper specialist. As she is tall and had previously played a firefighter in London's Burning she looked credible in the part. Recent series about soldiers in Afghanistan has heroine who is first-aider but on patrol with infantry, carrying full kit. Subplot of being love interest to officer and other ranks, of course underlines one of the army's arguments against, that Navy has had to confront, as recent court martial has shown.

RtS

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 10:49 AM

I agree with the original post. Adding women to the front line will destroy their humanity. We should instead be trying to get men out of the front line.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 11:29 AM

Just done a straw poll of my young women friends, consensus seems to be that women fighting in the front line is "unacceptable", not "real women", lacking in "femininity"......many equated the wish of a female to fight , kill and maim, with women's boxing....."just weird"

Personally, I have no axe to grind, just thought it an interesting subject for discussion.......of course the usual suspects are trying to turn it into an ideological war :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: Musket
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 12:36 PM

I doubt anybody is remotely interested in "ideological war" especially with someone who's views are beyond either the pail or Joe Offer's pale.

But starting a thread saying equal access to career opportunities is a liberal plot invited ridicule. You may just have said that thinking increases a woman's brain and that isn't in their feminine interest.

Still, nice to see you aren't a one trick pony. Your views on women seem to concur with your views on gay people, so let's just leave it at that eh?

Fascinating

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 03:50 PM

Well, Ake,you have now been given a dozen or so reasons why you are up shit creek sans paddle with your original post. No-one seems to be on your wavelength. You're out of order, so why don't you just quit the ever-deeper digging and give it a bloody rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: Charmion
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 09:12 PM

As a veteran, and a female one at that, I am here to say that akenaton needs to join the 20th century (yes, I mean that) and the developed world, both.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: Musket
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 03:27 AM

It's his voice in the 21st century that offends most.... Still, 20th century would be a start, you are right.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 05:01 AM

hah! The Scottish regiments having been wearing skirts for years!

(Its alright, I can say that without being lynched. Where I live is a pleasant oasis of English ex pats and friendly natives. Mind you, there are tales you scare your children about regarding the monster round the Loch.)

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 09:07 AM

discrimination seems to come very naturally to some... in spite of all evidence to the contrary, they cling to their beliefs.

I can clearly remember my dad going on about how black men were not suitable to be soldiers... after all, he served in all white units during WWII. Black men have served in the American fighting militia since the American Revolution, but even up to WWII, many officers ( graduates of all white military academies) were still dubvious about their qualifications. Just as all white sports teams felt that blacks were too uncoordinated or smart enough to be players along with whites.

What some people will do to maintain their completely undeserved sense of superiority...

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 09:30 AM

There seems to be an odd belief, so far uncontradicted, running thru this thread, that front-line combat experience is essential to gain promotion in the armed services. Of course, this is nonsense. The office chief clerk in HQ will hold senior NCO or Warrant Officer rank, for instance, without necessarily having to go and fire a rifle or drive a tank at the enemy in the intervals of organising the junior NCOs who establish the clerks' teabreak roster. Every service has a mass of support staff performing various functions as well as actual combat duties, within any of which promotion can occur. All will have received basic combat training at first enlistment in case they might ever be thus called upon; but it is by far the minority who actually ever see combat. And even then ··· I had an elderly relative in my childhood who would relate that he served in the actual trenches in France in WWi for nearly two years without ever setting eyes on a single enemy soldier.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 09:54 AM

there is not a single line of promotion... and it not uncommon for promotion to "stall" if there is not any assignment in a combat area in your file for officers. And being passed over for promotion is a sure ticket out of the running, especially during a prolonged period of peacetime service.

I can only speak for the US and based upon my brother's experience in the first Desert Storm... and in the Vietnam war, you got higher pay just for being in a war theater, even if not in actual combat.

There are still plenty of inequities in the military and the lower ranks bear the brunt of most of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 10:27 AM

This thread, tho, actually refers to a current bit of UK news: for the first time, our servicewomen are to be trained and permitted to serve in combat zones, whereas previously they were not permitted to do so.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: Musket
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 10:36 AM

Yes, its called righting wrongs.

Whether the takeup is high or low, the principle holds.

I am not too impressed with your "you can be a Warrant Officer in charge of paper clips" argument. Sniffs of sexism to me. What about women who wish to serve as infantry, regardless of rank?

"Oh well, support is good enough for them. You can still get a decent pension."

Mudcat is full of threads about speed of evolution. Dinosaurs roam these particular threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 10:45 AM

Don't see you have contradicted my point, Musket: simply started another hare. My point is that one can achieve any rank in any arm of the service, whether infantry, cavalry [ie these days mechanised transport, not geegees!], or simply support and auxiliary arms like Corps of Transport, HQ clerical units, or whatever.

I don't think you [whichever of you] has actually served in the forces, have you? It might become you then to shut the hell up & just listen to some who have & know whereof they [we] speak.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 10:56 AM

this may have been started to discuss female roles in the UK military, but I fail to see how that excludes real world experience in the military of other countries regarding service women or how promotions work...

I accept that other members of the world community have more experience in national health care than we do here in the USA... despite the success of Medicare... and express their amazement at our backwardness.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 11:21 AM

Take your point, sciencegeek, as to the reasonableness of such international comparisons; but was simply pointing out that the immediate trigger for the thread was an absolutely current piece of UK news about changes in the hitherto applicable regulations regarding servicewomen's conditions of service.


≈M≈

Why Musket should have seen fit to obtrude his {their} usual sort of truculent irrelevance I cannot imagine.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 11:47 AM

MGM: This thread, tho, actually refers to a current bit of UK news: for the first time, our servicewomen are to be trained and permitted to serve in combat zones, whereas previously they were not permitted to do so.

Mot QUITE correct....women in UK forces have been serving in combat ZONES for years, eg as medics, engineers etc. What they haven't been permitted to do until now is serve in primary combat roles...ie as infantry.

They already serve *with* infantry. Just not (yet) *as* infantry.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: Musket
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 11:52 AM

Yes, it was about destroying attitudes of "they can get paid the same for making tea, why do they want to do what we are there for?"

What the fuck military service has to do with it is beyond me. If you are saying you need to have been in the military to be a bigoted misogynist, that'd be your opinion.

Go and ask your nurse to get the kettle on.




Incidentally, I left school and joined The RAF. Didn't stay long as the apprenticeship I started was withdrawn and I was offered a different one. I took the money and got a proper apprenticeship in industry luckily.

But that's by the by.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: Musket
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 12:23 PM

Sorry. I meant to add a few bits but Rob got there anyway.

A friend of ours was an army doc up till about three years ago. She was about as front line as you get. Being quite athletic, she was usually first responder with paramedics, out of the helicopter where the casulties lay. Fairly front line by my reckoning.

I still can't see what this thread was about? The slow exising of sexism in the workplace has been going on for ages. When I worked down the pit, The Mines and Quarries Act 1954 stated that women couldn't work underground. Together with some military exclusions, that remained after The Sex Discrimination Act 1975. What is happening now is the final righting of wrongs.

Sorry Michael, but to say you can achieve rank doing admin is about as sexist as it gets. It really is. To then say you have no opinion unless you did your national service or whatever chance of fate put you in a uniform is a bit like saying "Here's me arse, please kick it."

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 12:30 PM

For far from the first time, I have not the remotest idea what you can possibly mean: this time by

"to say you can achieve rank doing admin is about as sexist as it gets"

But please don't trouble to expound or explain, as you are clearly in one of your "wear 'em all down with boredom" veins, & I really can't be bothered to engage with you when one of these fits comes on you.

Tara

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 12:33 PM

(Tho if anyone else thinks they might know what he [they] are on about, I wouldn't mind an attempt at interpretation. But it sounds like complete drivel to me.)

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: Musket
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 02:12 PM

Here's the explanation.

Read the first post on this thread by you.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: Musket
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 02:20 PM

Just out of interest, do you have any other response other than "giggle, I don't understand what he is on about? Does anyone else?" when challenged for your more silly posts?

You do it to a few people who challenge your ahem "old fashioned" views.

A pity really. It doesn't go with the facade.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 04:21 PM

As someone mentioned earlier, not all of todays front line military roles rely more on physical strength alone. Todays military tasks, in the field and elsewhere, differs from the past. However, assessing the suitability of people for military taskings, especially among the sexes, are mired in the past-which assessed people on different physical characteristics, than required in many tasks I today's high tech field of conflict.

Linked is an interesting related background article-if you don't have time fof a full read ( its some 80 +pages) , there is a summary near the end.

Men and women, weight, body fat strength and endurance in military tasks 

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 04:24 PM

Apologies-here is the top of the US book I linked. The summary is somewhere around page 83.


Assessing Readiness in Military Women:: The Relationship of Body  

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 07:12 PM

Had a talk with a couple of writers today....one thought the equilibrium of an infantry unit in combat could be adversely affected by having a female member.
Members of these units are trained to look out for one another, if the unit contained one or two females, the males may feel it their duty to protect them from harm...a natural reaction which could have a bearing on the effectiveness of the unit.
He was a son of Sir Fitzroy McLean, war hero, author, and supposed template for James Bond.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 07:41 PM

one assumes there is an identifiable front line.

The question is not whether some women have the aptitudes needed. Of course they do. There are other questions that apply. They have to do with the safety of the women, the possibilities of assaults or romances, which could affect situations back home, privacy issues, etc. They have almost nothing to do with qualifications. It is not how does the woman perform but how does the unit perform and is the enemy more or less subdued.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 08:27 PM

I talked to a couple of guys outside the John today, whike they were waiting to take a pee. They all agreed that women are just as fit for the military as guys are. One said his friends sister was "string, like a bull". I submit that this reliable and unbiased survey is good enough to hang anyone's hat on.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: Musket
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 03:39 AM

I had a chat with a couple of decent normal people with no misogynist hang ups yesterday. I suggest the worm does likewise.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 05:59 AM

MG....I respect your knowledge of the subject, I think we are agree tat the EFFECTIVENESS of the unit is of paramount importance in this instance, not the "rights" any particular group.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:32 AM

women are ineffective now...

This gets better (worse)

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 08:29 AM

"the males may feel it their duty to protect them from harm...a natural reaction which could have a bearing on the effectiveness of the unit."

in combat, a bond forms with your "buddy"... and your unit... until losses become so great, you don't even bother to learn the new guy's name. Read Audy Murphy's "To Hell and Back".

and if females are so "precious"... why are they subject to murder, rape, etc. by invading soldiers?

It makes as much sense as dragging the silverware over the ice by the Franklin expedition... an unthinking response to conditioning... well conditioning is a two way street.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: GUEST,Charmion's brother Andrew
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 05:00 PM

I have served with women in the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery since the early 1990s. These women are among the best Canada can muster. They meet high standards and are driven to not just succeed, but exceed. They yomp with the rest of us. When they are killed in action, as happened with Captain Nicola Goddard in 2006 in Kandahar, their troops carry on and complete the mission. The guy who took her place found she left big boots to fill, but the forward observation officer's party she had led was solid.

Armoured corps crews are similar. You need to worry about, as Bruce Coburn put it, "the brain behind the gun."

Think of a brain that has been that challenged as the leader of engineers. The booby traps--we'll take the tit jokes as read, thank you--are likely going to be nothing of which you had ever thought.

Infantry is another thing, since part of the stock-in-trade of a grunt is physical menace. Few men and even fewer women can bring it off. They are, however, out there in both flavours. Watch out.

Subject: RE: BS: Women in the front line
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 02:40 AM

IMO if a woman enlists to join the Army she is just as prepared to sacrifice herself in action as her male counterparts as a few have already. I am sure that individual strengths and training would be taken into consideration as it would be if it was a man before being let loose on a battlefield.