Should Women Fight In The Infantry?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9823312/Army-has-dropped-fitness-standards-to-allow-more-women-to-join.html

In the continuing quest for sex equality, why should it be only men who have to put their lives at risk?

/// Major Judith Webb said "women should not be given roles in infantry units where they would be expected to “close with and kill the enemy at close quarters”. ///

/// I don’t think we should have women in infantry roles. By opening it up to women, are women shooting themselves in the foot? Because they are not going to be able to have those standards,” she said. ///

/// She argued that it still shocked people when a woman soldier died in war zone. ///

/// “The British public still do not accept women should be in such roles. ///

[emmie]

chill, i get your point about seeing women soldiers held and possibly being raped, tortured, but is that truthfully any different than knowing the men face the same possibility, and that doesn't stop them from either enlisting in the services or going into combat zones.

[joeluke]

In a word..........no

Men are soldiers

Women knit, sew, wash, iron, cook etc

[emmie]

MT, even scarecrows are men, oh how funny....

[emmie]

JL, do they, so if you were under threat of attack, had no weapon, but a woman police officer was near by who could help, you wouldn't let her, thinking it not her place..

[NOX]

Andy whilst I agree that pacifism is a great ideal, it is simply that- an ideal. There have been, and will be again at some point, instances where we have to fight as a nation for our freedom and right to exist as we wish, it is therefore only right and proper that women are afforded equal respect and allowed to participate in the armed forces in whatever way they see fit as long as they are capable of the job, it's a backward stance to think otherwise and very demeaning imho.

[ludwig]

andy-H // I don't think that women should fight in the infantry.
But then again - I don't think that men should fight in the infantry either //

Point taken, but as we DO have an infantry and always will, should women be allowed to join it, given that we allow men to join it. That's the question.
Personally I don't see why not.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, //My point is that training equipping and paying people to kill other people is fundamentally wrong, and the notion of doing so should be decreasing in a civilised society//

At the risk of you ignoring this post, I'll begin it with 'So' – although I believe I’m addressing your point. So, what is the answer when those who are hostile towards this country are not civilised? In pursuit of lofty ideals, would you rather we imperil our own hard-fought freedoms by allowing them to have their way?

To answer the question, if women are capable, I see no reason they shouldn't do whatever they want to do - but it wouldn't be my career choice primarily because I know I wouldn't be capable - and I'm a coward. ;o)

[andy-hughes]

naomi - the answer is to start addressing potential conflicts in ways other than an immediate military solution.

A good start would be not to pre-empt the notion of armed conflict by starting one from this end, and follow that up with the acceptance that although we think democracy is a wonderful concept, that does not give us the right to enforcve it on other nations with military back-up.

If we start with those two notions, we would be on our way to reducing the idea that armed conflict is a suitable solution. It's not an over-night solution, but surely we have to start somewhere.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, I can't see how we can start anywhere when the other guy's mindset is what it is. In some instances it's imperative that we pre-empt it. Anything else would be abject folly.

[naomi24]

Back to the subject. Like others, I'd hate to think of a female soldier's fate if captured by, say, the Taliban.

[Scylax]

It's not just a question of ability; it's a matter of aptitude too.

Sexual equality ? No two men are equal, no two women are equal. Women generally have qualities not possessed by men, and vice versa. Viva la difference. In war, the infantryman's role is deadly competitive; in this situation men are assisted by a tidal wave of testosterone not generally found in the fairer sex.

Horses for courses, folks. Let every man and every woman get on with that for which they are armed and engined, and quit being so Politically Correct.

[emmie]

this isn't applicable here anyway, this matter has been taken up in the US, i really can't see it happening in Britain. I do think they should fight, and that if captured won't suffer any worse fate than men, both can be raped, shot, beheaded, blown up, it isn't pleasant to think about, but that is what happens in war time.

[andy-hughes]

naomi - it is that line of thought that keeps generals in jobs, and government procurement companies making millions - which is a very good reason why nothing will change.

If you can scare someone into believing you can protect them, you have a job for life. if that someone is a Prime Minister, then you can perpetuate the evil that is armed conflict. Someone has to start somewhere or change never ever happens.

[ChillDoubt]

Unfortunately Andy, yours is a vision of Utopia that will never be.
Like it or not, man has always fought, always will.
Whether it be a case of one group fighting another for nothing more than religious hatred or combat in order to stop the spread of tyranny and pure evil,
every major country on earth will maintain a level of 'teeth arms' in order to protect themselves.

[ChillDoubt]

Apologies ladies, back to joviality:

US Defence secretary has lifted a ban allowing women to serve in a combat role.

Now I'm no military strategist, but surely all the enemy has to do now is bring a puppy?

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, //Someone has to start somewhere or change never ever happens. //

So in the current climate, who do you suggest makes a start?

[andy-hughes]

naomi - Britain ahd the US by trying far harder with diplomacy, and being a lot less keen to deploy troops in other nations' disputes.

ChillDoubt - 'utopia'? Would that be where black people ride in the front of buses, women vote, children don't work in factories, surgeons have sterile operating theatres ... and so on? All utopian dreams once, all realities now.

If people simply say "It won't happen ..." then it won't.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, it's a nice idea, but it's naive. Diplomacy is all very well when you're dealing with rational people. Unfortunately, that cannot be said of the Taliban et al, and therefore, currently we are not.

[Old_Geezer]

Ultimately the only way to sort an issue when no agreement can be reached is to fall back on forcing your requirement on the other party. Physically, violently. This means that an end to all conflict is very unlikely. To do so at the very least would mean accepting some body that has the right to decide: and what if you don't trust that boy to be fair ? Can you guarantee compliance from all regardless ? How would that be enforced save for the threat of violence against dissenters ? It's just not a feasible aim.

As for women in front line positions, I don't know why they are still presently protected from such roles, as if they were the preferred elite gender who must never be placed in danger, unlike men who clearly are considered of less value and dispensable. If capable of doing something then women should be equally eligible for the position as anyone else.

[Old_Geezer]

don't trust that BODY to be fair

>:-( >:-( >:-( >:-( >:-( >:-( >:-( >:-( >:-( >:-( >:-( >:-( >:-( >:-( >:-( >:-(