Women Soldiers Facing Frontline Ban

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Gash_Handlin, Mar 30, 2002.

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. From Ceefax this morning,

    "Women Soldiers "Facing Frontline Ban"

    Female soldiers will not be allowed to serve in frontline combat zones alongside men, according to reports.

    Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, Will reportedly announce the decision in two weeks following a two-year study.

    The Independent said the study had concluded that the vast majority of servicewomen were not physically capable of taking part in close combat.

    The Ministry of Defence said no final decision had been taken."

    No $hit sherlock  ::)

    But I wonder whether it actually means what it says in the first paragraph or if it is just the press over simplifying? Surely women will still serve in "frontline combat zones" they just wont serve in Inf/Cav regiments as is the case now?
     
  2. Well I for one will wait and see the official word.

    I think most people who have worked with women in the army will agree that the handfull that are good are really good... the rest? Well just making up the numbers really?

    The Russians tried it and they tried it in Israel. Both respected armies and both have gone back to the way it was.

    Mind you, no matter what you do, you are going to be slated for either being sexist or putting women in dangerous situations. Then if you let them do everything they start to shout that they can't get on because the tests are too hard and it's unfair.

    Gender free tests? Bo**ocks, why does a 40 year old man have to be fitter than an 18 year old woman?
     
  3. The careful observer will note that the quote from the MoD wasn't the  lack of physical ability but the main reason given was that the British Public were not ready for images of women in hand to hand combat.

    Just for once, for whatever reason, common sense has prevailed.   Now, if we could just get a new personal weapon....
     
  4. The MoD and the application of "common sense"  - that is quite novel.
     
  5. This subject is agin to walking into the lion's den but here goes. . . . . the edict is no women in the Teeth Arms which I have to say I agree with. It has been accepted by all Western Armies now and those who have agreed to them in the past are working hard to revoke it. The odd exception is fine re the examples you quote but for a high intensity war with few boundaries . . . . . then no.
     
  6. woopert

    woopert LE Moderator

    I've made this comment before and I make it again, any nation that sends women into the front line as infantry is morally bankrupt. We have to take a view that women are not physically suited to the task, nor should they be subjected to it. Forget whether women want to go into the infantry as infanteers, there are some tasks that we should not ask women to undertake, and this is one of them.

    When there is the slightest possibility of sexual jealousy or tension in an INf unit, or where chivalry takes over common sense the outcome can only be demoralising.
     
  7. Unfortunately though Woopert you will now probably face abuse from people calling you 'sexist' over your comment.
     
  8. Bad CO

    Bad CO LE Admin Reviews Editor Gallery Guru

    Posted on behalf of Prodigal who is having problems getting new ARRSE and her PC to communicate!

    It's for the Women on the Front Line:


    but Special Ops is OK?



    Agree - ergo, if they are physically suited, they should.


    Weakness or fear play their parts as well.

    Do you fellas think women are just one amorphous pink mass? Does it not occur to you that there are individuals within that pink cloud you see before you who are more than capable of what is required? You might believe that even capable women should not be allowed to serve in these units - I would argue it is my right to fight for what I believe in. not yours to take that from me.

    If you are going to remove women from the Front Line then at least have the guts to admit it's not just becuse the system has chosen women unsuited to the task, but because most men seem to weak to overcome their instincts - of any kind.[/quote]
     
  9. gordon bennett, what technical shennanigans does a girl have to go through to have a fight round here??!!!!!

    OK men, pick up the gauntlet...........

    Ramilles, I am particularly interested in hearing your rationale.

    Please give me a reasoned and rationale case for why a fit, strong, fierce, competent and well respected woman should not be allowed on the front line but it's fine for an inept, overweight, colourless man with the moral fibre of a plastic cup to be there. I realise you don't want him there any more than an inept, overweight, clolourless woman - but that's not what we are talking about, are we? Because he CAN be there - just because he's man!!

    (And if all your women are not like that you're recruiting the wrong women!!)
     
  10. P,

    I knew I was stepping into the fire with this one ! :D

    Apart from the physical side which is obvious to all, one of the main reasons why the decision was taken was the effect of having women in a group of men during a highly dangerous, physically demanding and life threatening scenario. At sect or pl level, men bond easily and get on with whatever they are faced with. Add a woman or two and this bond whether we like it or not, does start to break down even if the woman does nothing at all to assist.

    Picture the scenario; front line position, in trenches, cold wet and tired and the pl have been taking sporadic casulaties all day. Volunteers are requested for a dangerous task, woman puts her name forward and it will be refused on the principle of wanting to protect or shield the weaker sex which the male naturally tries to protect. Petty jealousies will start as to whether she or should not have gone, who is to blame if she is injured or killed and that she is or is not being treated differently. Men start to emphathise with women in highly charged and dangerous scenarios with their loved ones from home whether we like it or not. In a tight male bonded group this additional factor or source of irritation / distrust is not conducive to enhancing the effectiveness of the group. If anything - it starts to break up as men take sides.

    So in summary, it is the effect of the woman in the male group that breaks up the cohesiveness irrespective of what the woman does.
     
  11. I'm with Woopert & Ramillies on this one. There are some things that no matter what "logic" you apply are still plain wrong.
     
  12. >sigh<

    as I suspected.......


    so, now this has been acknowledged, can we stop dumping on women's 'weakness' the blame for this ludicrous situation?

    Can we also now start considering how we actively manage the phenomena of men seeing women as representatives of some kind of halycon domestic heaven? I will acknowledge I am being a little harsh with that last remark - when cold, wet, tired and probably not a little scared, it's probably quite a fundamental need that men have to look for some source of normality and human connection.

    However, this needs to be factored into the psychological conditioning which takes place during recruitment and training - for both sexes. I acknowledge that women are just as ready to play the 'role' as men want them to assume it. There is also a place for what is usually termed 'female' qualities, ie, intuition, empathy, listening skills etc etc - but these should be seen as qualities that are needed to bear on situations that need them - by either gender - not as some kind of weakness.

    We are not going to get away from women and men serving alongside each other, in situations that will be dangerous, stressful, hostile, where they are armed.........(and I still think the definition of 'front line' and 'combat' is becoming too fluid to allocate strict boundaries....but that's another thread!)..........so can somebody start looking at this in a non-political, non-subjective, non-macho way and provide a proper solution? A blanket ban on all women in whatever the 'front line' is, is NOT the solution, IMHO.
     
  13. testing :?:
     
  14. P,

    I am sorry this cannot be done. We are what we are. Nature cannot be tampered with.