Women in the Infantry.......

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Nice_Guy_Eddie, May 24, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Woman's front line role reveiwed

    Ministers are to consider changing the rules limiting women's combat roles in the armed forces, the BBC has learned.

    A review will be launched to examine whether female soldiers should be included in units whose key role is to seek out and kill the enemy.

    The review is partly due to EU rules on equality which require reassessment of the issue every eight years.

    The Ministry of Defence said it has an open mind, but one former Army chief said integration would harm operations.

    To date there have been seven women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, which equates to 2% of the total fatalities.

    There are few roles in the military which remain off-limits to female personnel. They are engaged in highly-dangerous tasks such as flying attack helicopters, driving in military convoys and are often part of foot patrols.

    But they are still forbidden from serving in what is known as "close combat". That is fighting with units - mainly in the infantry - whose key role is to seek out, engage with and kill enemy forces.

    In an exclusive interview with the BBC's Politics Show, Brig Richard Nugee, the Army's director of manning who is leading the review, said any decision to change the rules will be taken for military reasons, rather than for political correctness.

    In 2002, the Ministry of Defence decided there was not enough evidence to prove women could be integrated into the tightly-knit units which engage in the most extreme type of warfare.

    Former head of the Army, General Sir Mike Jackson, told The Politics Show he believed any change could lead to "concerns that operational effectiveness, particularly in the infantry, could be and probably would be, jeopardised".

    According to the latest MoD figures, there are 187,060 members of the British armed forces, and 9.4% of them - some 17,620 - are female.

    Of those women, 3,760 are officers.

    In the RAF, 96% of all jobs are open to women, in the Royal Navy, the figure is 71% and in the Army, it is 67%

    The MoD is unable to say exactly how many women are currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    But some reports suggest about a fifth of military personnel in Afghanistan are female, even though they make up just a tenth of total military numbers.

    The US Army also bars women from serving as infantry or in Special Forces roles. They are permitted to serve on combat ships and aircraft in war zones.

    Israel is the only nation to conscript women to national service. Some drafted women are assigned to infantry combatant roles, potentially placing them on the front line of any conflict.

    Does anyone else find this concerning? The old argument about women not being allowed to serve in the infantry, while tired, is still relevant. Its just a nightmare waiting to happen. Hopefully the army top brass are just going throught the legal motions of this issue and will come to the same sensible conclusion they came to in 2002. Women + Infantry = Drama!
  2. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    Your title is misleading. To that remark - simple - ain't going to happen.

    Pointless thread done so many times before.

  3. Fair point. Just wondered what people thought.
  4. Not much: just the MoD going through the motions as they are legally required to do.

    Although I would point out that women already serve with Special Forces; the SRR.
  5. What jobs are females not allowed do?
    Army - Infantry, Armour?
    RAF - Regiment ?
    RN - subs, SBS, Marines ?
  6. The way the BBC were covering this on the radio this morning it sounded like they were trying to start a national debate, so while some folks may want to put it on the back burner I suspect that it might come to the fore anyway.
  7. seaweed

    seaweed LE Book Reviewer

    It's been debated over and over and scarce MoD money will now have to be frittered away on yet another 'study'.

    Qn really is who signed over to the EU our sovereign right to decide on the content of our armed forces?

    On a lighter note: shortly before women went to sea, the CO of HMS Invincible remarked to me 'We used to get the typists. Now we'll get the welders.'
  8. Yep, I've lost count how many times this sh*te has been wheeled out now.

    It's becoming as predictable as f*cking Christmas :sleepy: .
  9. It would never work even if it was put through.Not just because men would choose to help a female with less injuries first or they are physically weak.It is because women would hesitate to kill it a simple fact thus getting alot of people killed or injured.Women dont like war or killing do a survey you'll find this out easily.
  10. I think it’s a great idea. :?

    Why waste a perfectly good man when you could use women as cannon fodder. :D :twisted: :wink:

    Now duck and ensure ear defenders are in place.
  11. You Sir, have obviously not met my wife. :D

    My bold

    Seriously though, it is only your opinion and not fact, until you are able to cite a reference.
  12. mmmmmmmm........ Just how much combat have you seen in order to substantiate that claim? I know of at least one other on here who could rip that particular argument to threads; even if it would annoy him.

    Go on give me a clue as to what you do in the army?
  13. My female work colleagues,mum and girlfriend all tell me its not worth it and im mad for wanting to go infantry.Quite frankly females are brought up to be barbie girls these days.They say we can do any job a man can and give us equal opportunities.But put them on the front line that will disappear and they will break like a twig.
  14. My first bold; wow, what a representative sample of the female population there.

    My second bold; some gender confusion going on here, is there? Or have you lost your quotemark key?

    I happen to think that the status quo does not require changing and any change would be detrimental to the army. You are not doing a good job of arguing that though.