Women still banned from combat roles after Ministry of Defence review

[Axiom]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/29/women-combat-ban-remains

It said that there was no question that some women would be able to meet the standard required to perform close combat roles, both physically and psychologically. But the key issue was the potential impact of having both men and women in small teams, according to a review of the existing ban. "Under the conditions of high-intensity close-quarter battle, team cohesion becomes of much greater importance," it adds.

Officials made clear that the concern was male soldiers paying more – perhaps too much – attention to a wounded female soldier than others at a risk to his own life.

Though female soldiers are regularly deployed to Afghanistan, they do not take part in foot patrols and are not assigned to forward bases, the ministry said.

I was talking about this with my gf, she agress with it. Basically saying that it is easier to bring the primal aspect out of a male than a female. And more so that male and female officers will without a doubt have sex, and a the primal protective issue could come into effect during combat. So in essence a male will lookout for a femal more so than other male officers.

Im not a solider but Ive heard they train soliders into justifying killing their enemies by associating those enemies as people that would harm the soliders family and friends. That those people would kill rape ect family members of the solider, and by killing those enemies the solider is protecting their family and friends as well as their country.


... makes sense to me. I suppose. Obviously only one aspect of how soliders jusitfy their actions. I just found it interesting on the ban of females. I would have thought that the unit and objective were the most important aspects in any mission, all other concerns are secondary or insignificant. When I see a solider, I don't see the sex. I suppose it's different when you know your unit personally. .. I donno. Would be nice to hear from a solider on this one.

 

[Issaccs]

Dead women looks worse in the papers than males.
I seem to recall a media shitstorm when that female soldier got captured in the opening days of the Iraq war.
That said, I'm inclined to agree with the theorys on unit cohesion, its not worth the risk for a soldier who is in all likelihood one of the they could have sent out just to make some claim of gender equality.

 

[Axiom]

Yeah a female soldier brings in alot of newer elements. If a unit is captured, and there is a female attached to the unit, the captors could use and rape her infront of the other male soliders to try and get them to release information in return for leaving her alone. ect ect Though, I think any solider being tortured infront of fellow soliders will induce the same sensations.

I donno, a dead female soldier to me is just as horrible as a dead male soldier. I just see a person whose signed up to defend their society. I guess society looks at it differently.

I agree the probability of issues is there, especially when there are, mentally immature/ill prepared people involved in the unit(s). But, you would think as a soldier entering into situations where these possibilities are a reality, you would be prepared for these eventualities and act accordingly, regardless of the personal feelings involved.


.. it's just text on a forum though. Theory to practiability are different I suppose. Perhaps I have this dillusional perception on the mental discipline of our soldiers.


*edit*

Women broke the gender barrier in the Canadian army in 1906, when nurses were admitted into the regular forces, but it wasn't until 1979 that military colleges opened their doors to females. In 1989, Private Heather Erxleben became Canada's first regular-force infantry soldier, and in May, 2006, Captain Nichola Goddard, killed in a battle against the Taliban, became the first female combat soldier to die on the front lines.

For infantry Master Corporal Trishann Cox, of the Royal Canadian Regiment in Petawawa, Ont., wartime death is an occupational hazard properly shared by men and women alike.

"Ultimately, when a soldier dies, a soldier dies," said Master Cpl. Cox, who regularly patrols in areas rife with insurgents. "It doesn't matter if they're male or female. We're here to do the same job."

As of January, 2007, more than 18,000 women were serving in the Canadian Forces, about 17% of the total number of soldiers.

Source - http://www.nationalpost.com/Female+soldiers+front+lines+today+Forces/944783/story.html

ok so it's just the UK/US then on this issue?

 

[cult logic]

There is no real reason to allow woman in combat roles as long as there is still males to be fighting instead. 9 out of 10 times a male soldier is going to be superior to a female one, and the rare exception or "gender equality" are not reason enough to change it in my opinion.

It seems almost just a matter of efficiency, and allowing woman to serve active combat roles is little more than a drawback on it, so why go through the trouble of setting up the military to accommodate those who would contribute nothing that is not already present?

 

[Axiom]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military Some info from around the world.

 

[Zurkhardo]

Nearly every female soldier I know, at least here in the US, agrees with these combat limitations from a practical perspective.

In addition to the psychological issues, one must consider that the physiology of a female restricts them from being out on the field for too long, since hygiene is far more crucial.

 

[Axiom]

Interesting... What sort of positions do they hold in the military?

 

[Mikeintx]

Nearly every female soldier I know, at least here in the US, agrees with these combat limitations from a practical perspective.

In addition to the psychological issues, one must consider that the physiology of a female restricts them from being out on the field for too long, since hygiene is far more crucial.

Plus they attract bears!!!!!@!!!!!!!!!!!!@!#!@!!

 

[Underground]

Mind my opinion on this, and this is probably due to the fact I wanted to join the infantry myself and have many family serving in the Forces myself, but as a female: I think the reasons are mostly bullshit and are heavily based upon traditionalism and 'gender roles'. All these other reasons about a man wanting to protect a woman are all mainly based on theory and not practice. If women don't have the physical strength, then why are they dealing with heavy artillery in the British Army?

Rape is just ONE method of torture. There are so many other brutal forms of torture, and rape is not even gender specific. As long as men have asses, then they can be raped too. The whole idea of a man going out of his way to save a wounded woman and fucking up combat effectiveness would be the fault of the man who cannot maintain his professionalism and cool over his instinct, which by the way is true with his male colleagues as well, especially if the colleague was a best mate. I do however agree about hygeine and sleeping accomodations for when they're out on the field. But then again if there were enough women in, they can be made separate with not much sweat.

My stance on this whole issue is: If someone is fit enough, and can pass the physical, mental, etc. tests and prove they are capable of doing a job, then there is none to little reason to discriminate. Don't lower standards, keep them as they are, hell even raise them for women, but give them a chance. The fact that Canada and a few other countries let females in their infantry and have not reported anything wrong, mean we're just making an issue when there isn't one. In fact I was talking to a girl that had just completed infantry training from Canada on YouTube a year ago or so, and she said that she was held to the same standard as her male counterparts, and had ran into no sexism or any other problems with them. If the male soldiers want to throw a hissy fit over it, then it's their own problem. Just like people who didn't want that Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy repealed in the U.S. I'm sure if you are homophobic and full of yourself, you won't like the idea of a man attracted to another men next to you, but that doesn't mean he is attracted to you.. and plus if he is, who cares? If you're confident in your own self enough, then there is no problem.

k. end rant/

 

[nolonger]

I don't know what it's like with the Aussie army. We had a couple of guys from the forces come and talk to us about it and I can't remember if they said anything about women participating in 'front line' situations.

But I wouldn't be surprised if they let women do the same things as men in our defence force. We've never had any gay discrimination problems like the US has with their military(that I know of), so I'd expect the same for gender equality etc.

On the don't ask/don't tell thing: it's good that obama has repealed it. It's a pitty they need a fucking Pentagon report to tell them that having gays in the military won't affect them negatively. I mean it's not like they're suddenly gonna start fucking the nearest guy? If someone was to think that way then why aren't straight men shagging the nearest chick they see on the battleground? lol.

Anyway, if the person passes all the necessary tests, and is fit both mentally and physically then I don't see why they can't choose to join the army.

 

[Issaccs]

They CAN join the army.
They will just be driving trucks, doing maintenance and blah blah blah.
They wont be dismounting from a Viking and running two miles in 40 degree heat too join a firefight.

 

[KittyGirl]

I guess I agree with it... I know that I don't *disagree*, anyways~

 

[bhawk]

i dont agree with banning women from battle in principle but my instincts kick in and im a bloke, blokes are supposed to protect women, its bred into me.
If my brother was fighting a war i wouldn't bat an eyelid, if my sister however was sent over there i'd be inclined to go over and fight just to make sure she was alright.

 

[Underground]

If I'm honest, that whole "instinct" thing sounds more nurture than nature, because it isn't all like that in other species. For example lads and men who have been raised in traditional households and taught unwritten rules like "don't hit girls" "ladies first" "respect women" etc etc are more protective of women than those who haven't. If it was purely instinct, then things like domestic abuse would be non-existent, when the fact is, it's happening all the time. All over the world. In some cultures, it's actually 100% okay to beat your wife for things like being dishonourable. It's just like so many people feel protective of "cute fuzzy" animals like puppies, kittens, bunnies

As a young woman myself, and I can speak for many other women too, we are not welcoming of 'protective macho' guys who feel the need to wrap us in cotton candy and pink tape and try to mask us from the reality of the world. The fact that it is an ugly and violent place. You might feel the need to be protective and you may even feel it's your instinct, but that is where mind over heart comes in. Rationale over emotion. Women asked for equality, but we don't just mean on the good things in life (votes, rights, etc), but bad things too (military service, hardships). Just set a damn equal standard, and we're all good, yeah? No. I'm not under any delusions that women in general are as physically strong or robust as men, but seeing as women are allowed to join the Army anyway and become things like police officers, at a fixed/set standard to do the job, then the same should go for combat roles.

Going back to the women in combat thing, if I can mention this, women are actually fighting alongside men and even children in some conflicts around the world as part of resistant movements and militias, as well. Protecting your home isn't just the job of the man, it's the job of the woman as well. No, I don't advocate letting children join obviously, that's going too far. But any able bodied adult on the other hand..

 

[bhawk]

If I'm honest, that whole "instinct" thing sounds more nurture than nature, because it isn't all like that in other species. For example lads and men who have been raised in traditional households and taught unwritten rules like "don't hit girls" "ladies first" "respect women" etc etc are more protective of women than those who haven't. If it was purely instinct, then things like domestic abuse would be non-existent, when the fact is, it's happening all the time. All over the world. In some cultures, it's actually 100% okay to beat your wife for things like being dishonourable. It's just like so many people feel protective of "cute fuzzy" animals like puppies, kittens, bunnies

As a young woman myself, and I can speak for many other women too, we are not welcoming of 'protective macho' guys who feel the need to wrap us in cotton candy and pink tape and try to mask us from the reality of the world. The fact that it is an ugly and violent place. You might feel the need to be protective and you may even feel it's your instinct, but that is where mind over heart comes in. Rationale over emotion. Women asked for equality, but we don't just mean on the good things in life (votes, rights, etc), but bad things too (military service, hardships). Just set a damn equal standard, and we're all good, yeah? No. I'm not under any delusions that women in general are as physically strong or robust as men, but seeing as women are allowed to join the Army anyway and become things like police officers, at a fixed/set standard to do the job, then the same should go for combat roles.

Going back to the women in combat thing, if I can mention this, women are actually fighting alongside men and even children in some conflicts around the world as part of resistant movements and militias, as well. Protecting your home isn't just the job of the man, it's the job of the woman as well. No, I don't advocate letting children join obviously, that's going too far. But any able bodied adult on the other hand..

y'know what love, i like you!
Good points made

 

[Prinnctopher's Belt]

I agree with keeping women out of combat. Lord knows what would happen if one needed to change her tampon in a foxhole and the enemy is standing closeby. The very smell of a mense could reveal their position, instantly killed. Not to mention the whole moral/social dilemma of sending fertile women to die for men. There's just too much shit involved. Leave it to the men, imo.

 

[Axiom]

Finally, some women who understand. This whole sexist opinon of women in the military is so backwards. It's not about the sex, it's about the mental/physical performance standards. If someone can meet them, then why can't they defend their nation?

Oh right women need to be cooking cleaning breed cows. Best to give them paper jobs in the military to create an illusion of equalitiy.
Disgusting mentality. The worst is when women agree that they shouldnt be allowed. You shouldnt be allowed?? No offense, but break outta that box. No one has the right to tell you what you can and cannot do in such a general sense.

 

[Prinnctopher's Belt]

^ Women can't meet the performance standards unless they're all sterilized or severely genetically modified to build more muscle than fat. I don't know about you, but the thought that ALL human beings in a certain age range can be drafted into war, AND into combat, is an awfully frightening prospect that I'd like to remain exclusive to men. There's just some shit women can't do and it has nothing to do with sexism; it's about respecting the balance nature has created. Sure it doesn't take much muscle to pull a trigger, but putting women in the line of fire is a blatant expression that a society has no regard for their women.

What people don't understand is that if this is legalized, it could also become mandatory, and once this feminazi "equality" standard applies, women are NOT going to have the option to opt-out, just as men don't. That's the down side of complete equality that no one wants to acknowledge.

 

[Prinnctopher's Belt]

Oh and maybe you don't know but women do a WHOLE lot more than fucking paper work in the military. They're doctors, nurses, surgeons, engineers, intelligence workers, translators, JAGs, the shit behind the combat scenes that makes shit function efficiently. It's YOUR own mentality that puts women in a subordinate position by saying all they hypothetically do is paper work to create an illusion of equality. That is no illusion of equality, there is just a respect for the natural differences between men and women, not putting one above or behind the other.

 

[Axiom]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Yeah.. Im sure my post was specifically written out to the extent of all elements that females play in the military.
Strange opinon on natures ways. Break it down to milita and rebelious groups and there's no real difference between a male and female. Just brains and determination. But hey, less power to you and your country. Glad I'm from a country where women have the opportunity to do what they want(if they are able) instead of being handicapped by people using nature as a wall, and respect for our species procreation side, aka females, to the point where youre cacooned by your sex organs.
If there was a draft, Id want able females participating. But that's me. Empahsis on ABLE.