<OT> - Women in the front line...you views.

[Conscript]

Being an intellectually minded teenager (Read: Sad:E), I picked up my dad's copy of the Daily Telegraph today, and read about the news concernaing allowing women to join men in the front line fighting.

It seems many are against this new move. Myself, Im all for it...in this day in age, there is no room for sexism and I believe that women should be allowed to fight alongside their male counterparts in the field. Im sure that with training, any women can fire a gun, follow orders and respond quickly to a changing hostile situation, and with the right physical training, meet the same standards of fitness as other soldiers. Other countries already have women in their forces, namely the USA.

I know that the British Army is meant to be one of the best infantry units in the world, so what do you lot think about it? A huge leap forward or a giant falling-down of the furture of the British armed forces?

Gentlemen(And ladies:)): Start your flaming...

[AeroBob]

/me takes up his position as 'Intellectually minded liberal teenager (read: Even sadder :dork: and also read: 'Actually buys The Guardian every day'...).

Women being allowed into front line service is absolutely brilliant news. Granted, biologically the female body isn't generally as adept at physical activity at the male one, but one - Physical training means that this problem is quickly overcome and made irrelevant. A woman who is in front line army service could almost certainly beat the stuffing out of any bloke in here, and two - Physical strength isn't the only aspect of being a good soldier.

The army has opened itself up to a new source of dedicated and proficient troops, overcoming this sexism which, until recently, appeared intrinsic within the armed forces.

Huzzah!

[Mini Me33]

If there as good as there male counterparts in every way then why not, but if there is doubt about them then no, not only would they get thereselves killed but they would get there fellow soldiers killed too.

[Conscript]

Nice post Aero, some nice views.

Originally posted by AeroBob
/me takes up his position as 'Intellectually minded liberal teenager (read: Even sadder :dork: and also read: 'Actually buys The Guardian every day'...).


LoL!! :laugh:

[AeroBob]

Mini Me33 - that's kinda the point. Women have been excluded from front line military service under the pretence of physical inability, when this is quite blatantly wrong. Granted, if you took an average male body and an average female one, the male one would be stronger. However, training can quite easily raise a female body to the required standards (note - the average male body would similarly have to be trained in order to permit it to be suitable - this isn't saying 'Oh, women need training but men don't'). Look at the female contingent of an athletics meeting (on any level of competition) - I'm sure any one of 'em could kick my ass, so it's quite apparent that the point about physical ability is void. And, unless someone's dumb enough to make the comment "Being a soldier is a man's job - women wouldn't be able to handle it,." (Which I really hope this community is above doing), then there ain't a lot else to say.

[ThePants999]

Personally I am in favour of women in the front-line. However, I can most certainly understand the viewpoint of those who are not.

As an administrator to an organisation such as the British Army, there are far more considerations than merely sexism. You have to consider the effect of female soliders on existing front-line troops. Many of those with the necessary information to make these decisions (and I would add that most of us do not fall into this category) have stated that overall effectiveness would be reduced, despite the fact that allowing women to serve would bring new abilities into the force.

Before you flame me, please re-read my first sentence.

[AeroBob]

Point taken, Pants. Obviously, having women in front line service will have an effect on male troops. However, it's extremely hard to justify not permitting women the same opportunities as men for that reason. Realistically, it isn't something to be put up with - it's something to change. It isn't fair to deny women the chance to choose this as their career just because it'll hack of sexist men who are presently serving, and by saying that women can't do so is perpetuating the problem and avoiding the issue.

(This post may sound a bit like I'm having a go at Pants. Don't worry, I'm not suggesting that you're 'perpetuating the problem and avoiding the issue' - that was to the people who would use the idea that men in service would be disrupted as a reason to forbid this career as an option to women, something which Pants obviously doesn't agree with ('cause he said that he was in favour of women in the front line), so - yeah. 'Tis all groovy).

[ThePants999]

Heheheheh :D

Of course, it's not just sexist male soldiers they're worried about. It's also ones who are perhaps a little too much in favour of women fighting alongside them...

[AeroBob]

Again, it isn't fair to block the advancement of women in the armed forces on account of horny men. Obviously, there are gonna be teething troubles with this kinda thing - there always are when a somewhat bigoted convention gets broken and a large ammount of people begin to feel threatened by a group of people (women, in this case) who have just been given the chance to prove themselves, but these will be worked out and the armed forces will be a better place for having done that.

(NB - The Guardian 0\/\/n5 a11 j00 0th3r |\|3wzp@p3rz!!!11!)

[Edited by AeroBob on 27-01-2001 at 03:15 PM]

[Conscript]

if those men can allow themselves to be pressurised by the presence of women in the forces, they are obvioulsy too old fashioned and sexist to be on the froce themselves.

<Whacks Aero around the head with a rolled up Daily Telegraph>

Guardian 5Ux0R! :E

[ThePants999]

I'm with Conscript here - I just read it in the Telegraph :D

As you know, I am in favour of women fighting in the front line. However, to continue in my role of devil's advocate, here are some more points:

Countries such as Canada have implemented this some time ago and discovered that very few women can pass the fitness tests required.
Countries that conscripted women to fight in the front line during major conflicts discontinued the practice afterwards. Does this not suggest they encountered problems?
70% of armed forces positions in this country are already open to women, so it is difficult to say their advancement is being blocked.

The summarising point, of course, is one of whether many women will fight in the front line anyway, with their previous failures at the fitness tests required.

[AeroBob]

Right - the army isn't going to let any people into the army who can't pass the required fitness tests, yes? Which means that any women in the army will be suitably physically able to perform their duties. So that point is nullified because if a woman is in the army then she will have proved that she can do this, and as such there will be no detrimental effect on the army in this manner.

Regarding the discontinuation of this practice - I don't know enough about that to be able to comment.

And yes, I know that the majority of positions in the armed forces are open to women, but as long as their are places which cannot be filled by suitable able-bodied people just because of their gender, an injustice is being done. And if a woman wants to advance her career into a position within that 30% then she is having her career jeopardised because of her sex.

[Marky B]

The cracking 'its not fair' arguement rears its head again :)

[AeroBob]

Care to expand on that comment?

If by that you mean that the idea of this not being fair is more of a whine than an actual argument then...

Describe why a woman who is capable of doing a job should be prohibited from doing so because of her gender. Go on - convince us. We've established that if a woman is accepted into the army then she will be fit enough, so don't bother starting up with that.

[Pol]

I'm sure a trained female soldier could kick any of our arses any day of the week. However I don't believe that most of these women would be able to hold their own in a physical arena against similarly trained men.
The simple fact is that men are bigger and stronger than women. This is not discrimination - this is a biological fact. I have no doubt that some women could be eg Infantrymen(Infantrypeople? Yuck!)but they would probably be a minority.
However, I see no reason why women couldn't be eg fighter pilots.
Their generally smaller stature could be an advantage. I also seem to remember something about some research which indicated that women may have higher gee-tolerances than men - a definite advantage for a fighter pilot in modern aircraft.
Most other posts could be filled by women or men, but anything which involves major physical exertion is probably going to be largely male dominated.

[Coog]

Well I think if woman can go through the training and pass to get into the infantry role then they should fight.

But no one really knows what war is like, well only soldiers that have been know.

Its got to be 3-4 times worse than the training to get into being a infantry man.

I know a couple of my friends who used to go to Cadets with me who joined the army about 3-4 years ago. They went to cosavo etc and said it was a real test to how much u could take.

Dont get me wrong they enjoyed it but said it was alot harder than anything they have done in there life.

If woman can stick it then let them fight. They derserve a chance at least.

[AeroBob]

(When I started writing this post, Cooger hadn't yet posted his. Hence the edit).
To Pol -
Generally, yes. That's the case - it's a biological fact that a man will, generally, be stronger than a woman. However, the point that really should be made is that this is not always the case. It's ridiculous to say that a woman can't be strong enough to join the army, so want we want to see is...

People judged on their abilities, not their gender. If a woman wants to be, say, a green beret but isn't physically able enough, then of course she shouldn't be allowed in. However - this should be said because she isn't strong enough, not because she's female. If a woman who is strong enough applies, then she should (all other factors permitting) be accepted. Granted, this will most likely mean that there will always be fewer women in front line service, but at least they won't have been turned down solely because of their gender.

---
(Edited bit)
Regarding Coog's post - that's spot on. If a woman is tough enough to get in to the army then she should be allowed to do so. Because of the biological aspects, there obviously won't be so many females who are of the physical standard required for the army, but still - there are many who are suitable for positions that they're not presently allowed into, and there's no reason why they shouldn't be given the opportunity to take up these jobs.

[Edited by AeroBob on 27-01-2001 at 04:20 PM]

[PAZZI]

Women have got just as much right as men to go and get their brains blown out, I say let them.

[Sgt H0MER]

Personally I think society in Britain should change first.

Granted if a woman is able to perform the tasks of a man with regards to soldiering then there is no reason to prevent the woman from being a soldier, therefore going to war.
But, society will treat her different. There is always a romantic view of women in uniform. I'm not being patronising, what I mean is this:

In the police force, women are assumed to be there, in the main, though not exlusively, for helping young children and women victims of crime. Think of an armed reponse unit, you thinking of a man or woman with a gun? Think of a TV crime series, how many women detectives have guns? How many women detectives have to rely on their 'charms' in sticky situations?

Now in war time a woman soldier goes down injured, would there be heroics by her male comrades to assist her or would they obey their superiors to leave the casualty if it were deemed necessary. Trouble is the first female casualty in any action would make frontpage headlines, no doubt followed by calls for women to serve [i]behind[/b] the men!

Personally I think there is a place for women, up alongside their male counterparts. Take a leaf out of the Chinese/Russian military. They fight with the same fervour, but there are no G.I. Janes.

That make sense? :rolleyes:

[AeroBob]

I think the whole 'Helpless Female' scenario is one that's been perpetuated in society the media, generally. Yes, as Sgt. Homer says - if you ever see a female heroine in a film in a situation, more often than not she'll use her 'femenine ways' to charm her way out of the situation.

However, it is of paramount importance to realise that this is not applicable to the real world. If a woman joined the army then I'm sure she would expect to be treated no different than the men. Yes, no doubt the tabloids would spurt on about 'Our women getting killed in war', but fundamentally, that's crap. A woman who joined the army would be aware of the risks as a man would be, and not expect (or indeed, not want) to be treated differently.

[Dark Dave]

Nothing is fair in War, people shouldn`t be in the armied services just to prove a point. You suggest there is a 'little' difference between men and women, I`d say maybe this is right for untrained Men/Women but if a man is full trained he would be a LOT stronger/fitter.
Might seem like an odd example, but try looking at the WWF ie wrestling to see the difference, sure the women wrestlers are as big and stronger than the average Man but they certainly aren`t stronger than the trained up Men, there is a massive difference. And yes I know it`s all fake but the size difference is real.

Sure if they passed the exact same tests that the men do atm it`s fine, but how long is it before they start being watered down to make it more 'fair' ?

[Mini Me33]

Originally posted by Coog
They went to cosavo etc and said it was a real test to how much u could take.


Wheres that?, it near Kosavo?
;)
My cousins there atm.

[AeroBob]

Originally posted by Dark Dave
Sure if they passed the exact same tests that the men do atm it`s fine, but how long is it before they start being watered down to make it more 'fair' ?

Dave, this is kinda the point we're making here. We're saying that both genders should be judged solely on their physical ability - If a woman can do the job, then let her do it. As I've said (repeatedly) this will most likely result in their being fewer women than men in the front lines of the armed forces due to the physical ability factor, but still - if a woman is strong enough to do the job (as many women undoubtedly are) then let them.

The idea that tests will be watered down is ridiculous, and no-one here is advocating that. The point that we're making is that both men and women should be treated equally and both given the same opportunity to join the front line troops. If they are not fit enough - for whatever reason - then they shouldn't be allowed to, but this should be an assesment of their physical ability, not their gender.

[ThePants999]

At least, since we all have basically the same opinion, there won't be any flaming :D

[AeroBob]

No flaming? Oh, I'm sure we can manage somehow :E.

[Dark Dave]

Aero: I`m not disagreeing that those capable should be allowed, but I don`t think many (less than 1%) would be capable when compared to a man serving in the equivalent role.
Only talking about Foot soldiers Grunts etc.

[Samson]

Originally posted by AeroBob
The idea that tests will be watered down is ridiculous, and no-one here is advocating that.

You're probably right that noone here is advocating this, however, I know of at least one case where standards were 'lowered' so that a woman could pass and she knew it, can't remember the exact details but it came from someone I know who trains recruits, who was told in no uncertain terms that this person was to pass as all costs. I'll try to weedle the story out of him again, but it took a fair few pints last time to get the story ;)

In the armed forces clamour to jump on the PC bandwagon, standards will be lowered - if only to keep the PC activists happy.

Personally I have no problem with women or disabled people in the armed forces - as long as standards are not dropped in regards to the job they're required to do. Unfortunately the pressures of society today on such organisations as the armed forces means that they probably will, sad but true.

[Conscript]

Spot on Samson...we dont want the army to make it any easier for a women to join the armed forces, but to be able to in the first place, if you see what I mean...not to encouage them to join, but to simply give them the choice.

Also, what someone said about particualar qualities of women (I cant remeber who, sorry :)) is true. Women do have qualities that male soldiers do not have...Women might be better medics, or even better thinkers than the average male soldier. Surely the Armed Forces should take advantage of this?

Also, they mentioned that women would be better suitd to other jobs, fighter piltos being the example...not only are women better suited to high G Forces, but their general smaller stature means that they can fit more comfortably and move more freely in the cramped confines of a fighter plane.

The point Im trying to get across has already been proved by much more able people and with better wording...DO NOT lower standards to suit female soldier's requirements, but instead simply make the choice open for women to become front line soldiers. I read in the Telegraph that in Canada, out of large number of women who applied to join the forces, the only one who did pass the physical tests was a lumberjack...but it shows that some women are still capable of the challenge.

Yes, it has been proven not to work in other countries...but can it hurt just to try over here in Britain?

[Dark Dave]

Yeah, well the Disabled arguements are pretty stupid because there is soo many different type of disabled, it`s too broad a classification.

[Edited by Dark Dave on 27-01-2001 at 08:16 PM]

[AeroBob]

Agreed. I think that 'disabled' applicants should be viewed on a case by case system. It's too much of a 'blanket term' to work in this situation.

[Sgt H0MER]

Lest we forget the women who were thrust into the front line in our hour of need during the dark years of WWII.

The British SOE sent many women into occupied France in the war, many were to die. The women were expected to carry out tasks the same as the men, some would have held arms.

Many of the women had little training in covert ops and some were even mothers/wifes with a French (or Canadian/French) background.

[FlyinBrick]

I don't care if they can/want to/ capable of fighting alongside infantrymen, as long as they don't get paid £200,00 when they get pregnant, but have to pay the Army compensation for the wasted training!

[Urban]

What were talking about here is women fighting and dying, in the front-line...

I had this discussion with various people 17 years ago in the R.A.F, and again 6 years later in the Terratorial Army.

The methods by which wars are waged has changed over the years since the massacres of WW1 and 2, but the nature of war has remained the same for thousands of years; to inflict damage upon an enemy to a point where they surrender because continued resistance is pointless, and any chance of victory has vanished.

In the Falklands War the British had to physically re-occupy the islands, with great danger to all forces involved, before that aim was achieved. In Iraq a sustained air campaign followed by a swift land assault achieved the same results.

In modern Western Warfare, for want of a better name, the battles are rarely fought by one country acting alone. Both military and political alliances usually mean a combination of military forces coming down on one advesary like the proverbial ton of bricks.

The politics involved in keeping those alliances together can mean, Iraq being a case in point, that the various governments involved do not need to see people of any sex dying on the frontline for fear of popular support evaporating at home; even after thousands of years populations are all up for war in a good cause...up until the bodies start coming home.

Frontline service for most Western armed forces now means extensive battlefield training in advance of a swift engagement, while the air naval forces involved almost bomb the enemy into submission. The only soldiers to fire in anger during the opening weeks of Desert Storm were the MLRS Operators...miles away from any enemy and firing at a Grid Reference. And before anyone starts dribbling at the mouth about various Special Forces a) we're talking generalisations here, and b) read the rest :E

The Balkan War and Kosovo were very different for the Allied Forces involved; there weren't any. We were not there to fight, only to watch under the banner of the UN and record what happened.

This is all background for the main point; frontline service does not mean what it used to mean in 1942 or even 1982. If the British Military decide to allow women to apply to become troops that would fight on the frontline in a battle of whatever nature then fine...as long as it's based on logic and furthers the chance of our forces winning any given conflict; not because some lefty tw*t or womens libber thinks it's all about equality.

Equality, in all it's forms, has about as much use in war as plastic explosives do in heart surgery. When war breaks out both sides want to flatten the enemy waas quickly as possible with minimum casualties for themselves. There was nothing 'equal' in Iraq invading Kuwait, or in the response they received from the Allied Forces.

War today is about winning by any means necessary within given political constraints, which more often than not create major headaches for the commanders on the ground. By the same token no politician in his right mind would ever put forward the idea of creating even more headaches for the military by saying "Let's send the women and see how they do...it's only fair after all."

I could go on to talkabout how relationships are formed in mixed sex, non-frontline units...and how it affects moral when a couple split up, or how men compete amoungst themselves to impress the hottest women, or how men respond differently when a male comrade is wounded compared with a woman they have feelings for. I could pull out the old chesnut everyone else has ignored about 'that time of the month', about how their latrine habits are physically different to ours, about the cost of completely redesigning some of the equipment to make it work well with the female physique, about how the cases of sexual harrasment would swallow the military budget if women were placed in what is, and has to be by it's very nature a macho, male environment.

And for those that have read this far to catch the Special Forces gem from above think about this; anybody operating in the Special Forces behind enemy lines stands a fair chance of being killed or captured. Women might actually work in Special Forces if it wasn't for the problems outlined above...cause I don't know any woman with a gun that wouldn't fight like a b*stard and die, rather than be captured and gang raped constantly until release, or death, by every enemy soldier within striking distance for a chance to extract the secrets she knows, or they think she knows.

Urban

[Pol]

Well, if women can be soldiers, I want to have a baby!
Fair's fair.

BTW I was just playing Action Man with my son - are we going to have Action Woman?
:E

[Feathers]

Originally posted by Conscript
I know that the British Army is meant to be one of the best infantry units in the world, so what do you lot think about it?

I think you mean Military Organisaions, not 'infantry units' m8.

Originally posted by Coog
Well I think if woman can go through the training and pass to get into the infantry role then they should fight.

But no one really knows what war is like, well only soldiers that have been know.

Its got to be 3-4 times worse than the training to get into being a infantry man.

I know a couple of my friends who used to go to Cadets with me who joined the army about 3-4 years ago. They went to cosavo etc and said it was a real test to how much u could take.

Dont get me wrong they enjoyed it but said it was alot harder than anything they have done in there life.

If woman can stick it then let them fight. They derserve a chance at least.

Thats fair enough, if women can do exactly the same as men in a front line unit then hats off to them, but its not quite as simple as that...

Originally posted by FlyinBrick
I don't care if they can/want to/ capable of fighting alongside infantrymen, as long as they don't get paid £200,00 when they get pregnant, but have to pay the Army compensation for the wasted training!

.....and FB strikes the nail on the head! If you think it doesnt happen, well what about the RAF's first female Tornado pilot, correct me if I'm wrong but she went on 'maternity leave' after the RAF payed £2 - 3 million pounds to train her! I mean come on, what a feckin waste of already overstretched budgets. I can see this happenning again and again.

Originally posted by Urban
What were talking about here is women fighting and dying, in the front-line...

The Balkan War and Kosovo were very different for the Allied Forces involved; there weren't any. We were not there to fight, only to watch under the banner of the UN and record what happened.

This is all background for the main point; frontline service does not mean what it used to mean in 1942 or even 1982. If the British Military decide to allow women to apply to become troops that would fight on the frontline in a battle of whatever nature then fine...as long as it's based on logic and furthers the chance of our forces winning any given conflict; not because some lefty tw*t or womens libber thinks it's all about equality.

Equality, in all it's forms, has about as much use in war as plastic explosives do in heart surgery. When war breaks out both sides want to flatten the enemy waas quickly as possible with minimum casualties for themselves. There was nothing 'equal' in Iraq invading Kuwait, or in the response they received from the Allied Forces.

War today is about winning by any means necessary within given political constraints, which more often than not create major headaches for the commanders on the ground. By the same token no politician in his right mind would ever put forward the idea of creating even more headaches for the military by saying "Let's send the women and see how they do...it's only fair after all."

I could go on to talkabout how relationships are formed in mixed sex, non-frontline units...and how it affects moral when a couple split up, or how men compete amoungst themselves to impress the hottest women, or how men respond differently when a male comrade is wounded compared with a woman they have feelings for. I could pull out the old chesnut everyone else has ignored about 'that time of the month', about how their latrine habits are physically different to ours, about the cost of completely redesigning some of the equipment to make it work well with the female physique, about how the cases of sexual harrasment would swallow the military budget if women were placed in what is, and has to be by it's very nature a macho, male environment.

And for those that have read this far to catch the Special Forces gem from above think about this; anybody operating in the Special Forces behind enemy lines stands a fair chance of being killed or captured. Women might actually work in Special Forces if it wasn't for the problems outlined above...cause I don't know any woman with a gun that wouldn't fight like a b*stard and die, rather than be captured and gang raped constantly until release, or death, by every enemy soldier within striking distance for a chance to extract the secrets she knows, or they think she knows.

Urban

Imho Urbs is really quite right here, it would be a logistical nightmare with all the equipment and facilities needed to cater for the physical differences between males and females.

I know I'll probably get a flamin for sayin this, but war is hell, war is ugly, and from my personnel point of view, I cant bear to think about the idea of the fairer sex (after all, us blokes really are damn ugly :) ) getting involved on a front line basis. It quite frankly makes me feel ill. I think that a woman in a front line unit would cause to many distrations due to our natural instincts. I for one would feel obliged to protect them rather than fight along side the. I know it sounds silly but thats how I feel....

[Conscript]

Originally posted by Feathers

I think you mean Military Organisaions, not 'infantry units' m8.

You pedantic git :E

['Johnnie' Johnson]

Originally posted by Feathers

.....and FB strikes the nail on the head! If you think it doesnt happen, well what about the RAF's first female Tornado pilot, correct me if I'm wrong but she went on 'maternity leave' after the RAF payed £2 - 3 million pounds to train her! I mean come on, what a feckin waste of already overstretched budgets. I can see this happenning again and again.




Are you thinking on the basis that once a woman has a baby she gives up work? My boss didn't, so I can't see why somebody as highly motivated as a pilot is going to chuck it all in.

['Johnnie' Johnson]

Originally posted by Sgt H0MER
Personally I think society in Britain should change first.

Granted if a woman is able to perform the tasks of a man with regards to soldiering then there is no reason to prevent the woman from being a soldier, therefore going to war.
But, society will treat her different. There is always a romantic view of women in uniform. I'm not being patronising, what I mean is this:

In the police force, women are assumed to be there, in the main, though not exlusively, for helping young children and women victims of crime. Think of an armed reponse unit, you thinking of a man or woman with a gun? Think of a TV crime series, how many women detectives have guns? How many women detectives have to rely on their 'charms' in sticky situations?



It's changing already. My sis-in-law should be starting her handgun training fairly soon. I don't know if she's helped any young children, but I do know one of her first patrols involved breaking up a brawl - and they patrol solo in her neck of the woods.

[FlyinBrick]

No JJ we're not talking about the dedicated soldiers whether they be male or female..we're talking about the females who see the military as a mealticket for life at the taxpayers expense!

Yeah your boss went back to work after having a baby, good!
but what are we going to do in a war situation?

Do you honestly believe that a 3 month pregnant soldier is going to be allowed in a frontline combat situation?

If not, then whats the point of her being there in the first place?

Nope, I have no doubt that your military knowledge far outweighs mine, but c'mon, would you be prepared to see your pregnant daughter with a machine gun in her hand fighting a war?

I have two daughters, and I will fight tooth and nail to give them every chance at being what they want to be, but there comes a time when you have to accept that women are just not built neither physically, nor mentally to be a "killing machine". Nor would I want my daughters to be one!

[Dark Dave]

Originally posted by 'Johnnie' Johnson
Are you thinking on the basis that once a woman has a baby she gives up work? My boss didn't, so I can't see why somebody as highly motivated as a pilot is going to chuck it all in.


Ahem, give up work no, it`s more a change in the line of duty, ie to bring up child rather than serve on frontline.
Next thing you`ll be suggesting Males should do the Breast feeding lol.

My Dad says about this equality arguments is that they like to think Men and Women are the same, but the problem is they are Not the same.
Maybe this will change one day when we`re all genetically modified but will that be a better world ?

['Johnnie' Johnson]

it`s more a change in the line of duty, ie to bring up child rather than serve on frontline.


You've lost me there. Plenty of women don't bring up their children 100% of the time, but have nannies, childminders etc. so they can carry on working. I don't see why a jet jockey would be any different.

And no, I won't be saying men should do the breast feeding. I think you must be confusing me with someone who doesn't give serious thought to these matters.

FB - if I had a daughter and she was old enough to join the Army, then I think she'd be old enough to make her own decisions about whether she's a killing machine. I'd be no more happy about a daughter putting herself in harm's way than a son. As for being in combat whilst pregnant, I certainly agree that would be an issue. I think some informed comment from a serving infantryman on the nature of their duties would help here. I'm thinking in terms of what percentage of a unit go into action when called on - how many are normally left at home etc.

['Johnnie' Johnson]

<dashes off to work and finishes off from there>

Let me expand on that last point.

My knowledge of this aspect is somewhat out of date. During the Great War (a manpower intensive conflict if ever there was one) it was the usual practice in the British Army for a Regiment to leave a battalion at home when posted to France. The reason was to provide a home cadre so that training and induction of new recruits could continue, and also to act as a new regimental core in case it needed rebuilding should the rest of the regiment be wiped out. This allowed some degree of continuuity within the regiment.

If this is still the way the Army operates then they are never in a position of having to put all eligible soldiers into the front-line at any given time. This could be a solution to the pregnancy issue.

Somebody earlier on made a comment about getting pregnant and sueing the Army, and treating it as a gravy train. IIRC the cases where women have taken the Armed Forces to court have been because they were thrown out for being pregnant, and therefore unfairly dismissed. As it presumably isn't the case that all women in the Army get dismissed for pregnancy you can see that this would give a good chance of winning such a claim.

[zhardoum]

The problem as I see it is that it is the Male soldiers who are not ready for it.

you see, it is one thing to have a fully trained killing machine of a woman, but it is another to have a male soldier watch that person be killed whilst on duty that is the worrying part.

For if the male soldiers are to totally block their minds and concentrate on the sole goal of objectives and missions, then the distractions of a female soldier may be his downfall.-

I believe the film GI Jane covered it very well.

Our soldiers male or female are expected to givc their lives as and where necessary, now if the introduction of women increases our fighting chance, then I am for it, however, if the result is a decrease (even if it is because the men are not performing) then I am against it.

[tinvek]

Originally posted by ThePants999

70% of armed forces positions in this country are already open to women, so it is difficult to say their advancement is being blocked



there has to be a smutty joke about the kama sutra in here somewhere

[Dark Dave]

Originally posted by 'Johnnie' Johnson
You've lost me there. Plenty of women don't bring up their children 100% of the time, but have nannies, childminders etc. so they can carry on working. I don't see why a jet jockey would be any different.

Not any different ?, surely a member of the Armed services has to be ready to be posted anywhere in the world with only a few days notice, hardly suitible situation for the primary carer is it ?

Yes, maybe it`s different if the woman has slightly older kids, but we were talking about someone who just got pregnant.

['Johnnie' Johnson]

ie to bring up child rather than serve on frontline.


but we were talking about someone who just got pregnant.


No, you were talking about somebody who has a child, not somebody who's a couple of weeks pregnant.

As for the dashing off at a few days notice, what about the Navy? They already have women serving at sea. If they've managed to resolve this aspect then it's not an issue.

[Dark Dave]

I said someone who was pregnant doesn`t give up work but simply changes jobs, ie when the kid is born ofcourse. I also mentioned breast feeding so 'clearly' I was talking about very young child.

[Feathers]

Originally posted by 'Johnnie' Johnson
Originally posted by Feathers

.....and FB strikes the nail on the head! If you think it doesnt happen, well what about the RAF's first female Tornado pilot, correct me if I'm wrong but she went on 'maternity leave' after the RAF payed £2 - 3 million pounds to train her! I mean come on, what a feckin waste of already overstretched budgets. I can see this happenning again and again.




Are you thinking on the basis that once a woman has a baby she gives up work? My boss didn't, so I can't see why somebody as highly motivated as a pilot is going to chuck it all in.


No m8 I'm refering to the fact that after 2 - 3 million pounds worth of training, she has maybe 9 months off, fully paid as a pilot to have a child, remember, a fast jet pilots not exactly a job for all ages, thats why the RAf are after fighter pilots at 18 after their a levels, after uni at 22 is deemed 'over the hill' these days....

[paulfitzs]

I found this site by accident and remembered this thread.

http://www.gendergap.com/military/Warriors.HTM

It does appear to be relevant.