http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8065604.stm

Tough one, isn't it?

Just a few random observations from myself:

I don't know about the other blokes on here, but my first instinct would be to protect the woman in question, which is almost certainly wrong, but it is my first instinct.

A lot of blokes in the services (police, army, whatever) can't keep it in their trousers I'm sad to say, and some of the women are just as bad! That'll only become a nightmare in a unit that strictly depends on each other.

Can a woman physically do everything a man would be expected to on the battlefield? I ask out of ignorance.

Do we think a woman would hesitate more (in general) in killing someone? Or would the training knock that out anyway (if it ever existed in the first place)?

I'd be interested to find out more about women's participation in the Israeli armed forces and any affect it has, negative or positive...

Lastly, is it just me or does this sound really out of touch:





Thoughts?

Women are permitted on "combat" ships and aircraft over here too. There are women pilots in the RAF etc.

As for the battlefield, I'm sorry but no. Mostly for the reason that woman just aren't as strong as men and can't endure as much.

I know, it's the use of the word 'permitted' I'm wary off, as if women should somehow have to doff their cap (bonnet? ).

Women weren't physically designed to fight, otherwise they would be as strong as men.

But I don't think that should preclude them from fighting on the front line. If there was a unit of female soldiers, then it'd probably be okay.

Otherwise I think it should be just as important to want to fight for your country as well as be able to fight for it.

Interesting one.

Sexual equality says definitely yes.

The fact that, I believe, the guys would go to protect a woman first, I think would cause problems.

The risks to them if they are captured are fundamentally higher.

There have been several horror stories of sexual harassment in the field from British female troops in the last couple of years.

My gut feeling is NO.

I'm not soldier material, so quite frankly my opinion doesn't matter. However, there are plenty of butch women who could kick my sorry behind. Personally, if they want to fight to protect my liberty than I'll say "thank you" and not argue with them.

Forgetting physical strength, the arguments are similar to that on homosexual men serving in the forces. I find it interesting that in Greek times, it was considered a good thing for soldiers to fight to the death with all their heart to defend their lovers.

I think saying women aren't strong enought is extremely sexist, in general maybe, but that's not to say they can't be as strong as most men in the army currently. There are plenty of strong women out there, and I think they could endure a lot and they certainly have stamina.

Women can be more emotional, and men can lust. I think those two things could be difficult to overcome.

It may be sexist to say women arent strong enough but it is true. The infantry stamina test has been changed due to the excessive injuries female soldiers were experiances.
On average a woman is not as strong. That is simple physiology, thats not to preclude that some women will be as strong as men but they will be the extreme end of the "strength" distribution.
Saying that I have no problems letting women go to the frontline and experience combat. Though they will have to understand that if caught in a combat zone they will almost certainly be raped. Especially as we seem no longer to be involved in "clean warfare" but dirty, insurgency type stuff.

"clean war" is a very rare ideal. From Viking times and earlier, to Vietnam and beyond, raping and pillaging has been "normal".

Yes.

If a woman is a better soldier than a man – i.e. ratified by tests to measure ability in key soldiering categories – then that is who should be on the front line. Now of course, in general, male soldiers will exceed females in physical tests (e.g. strength, endurance, etc etc) but that fact in itself does not negate the fact that women should be allowed to fight, it only hinders their ability to perform their job.

If a woman is not as strong, quick, smart, or have a greater level of endurance and marksmanship etc etc than a man – be that allied or hostile – probability that she will perform her job as well, if not better, is stacked against her. Therefore she will be beaten to the front line by a superior male or killed by a superior enemy. This situation of course could be reversed, with an inferior male being put on the front line because of his gender, over a superior female. Although this statistically is far less probable.

Therefore the only question that matters is: who would do the better job?

That said. I think this entire argument is moot, as war in western nations is no longer effected or determined by traditional soldiers, with advanced technology making them redundant. Now only small, elite groups of individuals (e.g. SAS) can have any sway.

I have one view on this.

We wanted equality. We moan when we can't have it.

Women are no better than men, and men are no better than women.

It's time people need to learn that both sexes are equal.

Put a woman on the frontline. Put a man in a beauty salon. End of.

Thing is that women do not get equality in the armed forces.

Women have a lower expectation of physical strength, fitness, etc...

A woman might be as strong as a man but if they were both to train in the same disciplines the man would eventually become stronger (fitter, etc...) than the woman.

Look at the olympics, men and women do not compete together because the men would win. The marathon, men finish before women. (Please note that I am not saying that if you pick a woman and a man at random the man will win. I know there are a lot of women who are a hell of a lot fitter and stronger than I am. That is not the point though).

If men and women were given the SAME assessments on fitness, strength, endurance, etc... then, yes, they should be allowed to serve.

Definitely not. Ive no concerns as to a womans endurance but rather how a woman
will affect the squads fighting strategy, even on a subconscious level. Would men be
prepared to let a women into the same dangerous situation that's the would let a male
colleague? Say taking point when clearing buildings of enemy? I tend to think that the
men would 'look after' their female members to the detriment of the squad as a whole.

Ditto, it's rather straight forward really.

Provided they meet the criteria, and there isn't a modified fitness target designed for women.

I know it's not a PC thing to say, but if a woman was fighting along side me with a fixed bayonet in a bloody violent confrontation, I'd prefer a butch dyke who enjoyed killing men and was good at it.

Anyone know what the rules are for fire fighters? It's a profession which also has physical demands which mean life and death. I did hear that the lung capacity requirements were lower for women; but perhaps that makes sense because it's more about stamina.