Should Women serve in submarines and tanks?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.timesonlin...uk/article6974050.ece

If military laws are altered to accommodate females, then surely these women should forgo the luxury of privacy, instead of all necessary special provisions and expensive design alterations being carried out to cater for their needs

[LoftyLottie]

Another new year and nothing changes. Same old AOG.

Happy New Year anyway x.

[123everton]

It's a reasonable supposition, they could be billetted together in a submarine at one end as for a tank it is a frontline weapon so wouldn't apply, they could have women only crews.
Women soldiers are nothing new China and Russia use them with great success, I wouldn't like to be in front of a woman with P.M.T during a bayonet charge.

[Sqad]

///////Should Women Serve In Submarines And Tanks?////

Of course....serve the Officers breakfast in their quarters, tea at 11.am and then of course lunch and dinner.

Can't see the problem

Happy New Year AOG

[buildersmate]

Under the Equal Opportunities legislation, MOD has been vigorously engaged in designing modifications to the Trident fleet to construct a 'pod' just afore the conning tower (That's the bit of the sub that's sticks uppermost, lest you didn't know). This pod will allow the ladies of the boat the luxury of their own loos, washing and showering facilities, thus avoiding any potential embarrassment to either sex.
Unfortunately the use of scarse resources on this important and prestiguous project has taken away some resources that could have been to supply extra helicopters to Afghanistan, but it was felt important to comply to legislation and just take the extra loss of life on the chin.

[123everton]

Don't see why they can't share the showers and just lock them?

[fredpuli47]

"forgo the luxury of privacy" Steady on AOG, women being openly viewed,without privacy, sounds like some old boy's private fantasy. Do we understand that you're against women serving with men in submarines etc? It would be simpler if you said so instead of complaining about providing for modesty and decency (or 'the luxury of privacy'). What serious objection do you have to women serving in these circumstances ? Is it the threat that women present to testosterone fuelled submariners with consequent bad behaviour and breakdown of discipline? Or is that they'll be a risk near weaponry once a month?

[craft1948]

No I don't think they should serve on submarines if it means precious resources being spent adapting existing vessels. However, if this was thought through when designing new subs I don't see any problem.

[Philtaz]

I'll probably get pilloried for this, but here goes........

I'm an ex Serviceman. I carried out my service in the 80's/early 90's. I was an infantry soldier initially and subsequently a Royal Military Policeman. During service (particularly in Northern Ireland) there were extremes of circumstance and extremes of accommodation (16 men living in a room 26ft x 14ft. It was the accommodation block in Crossmaglen and was known as 'The Subs' because there were 4 rows of bunks) that would have meant any female Servicewoman present would have felt either embarrassed, threatened, awkward ro just plainly wished she'd been in another place. There were also times when any Servicewoman present would have been detrimental to morale/cohesion within the unit.

Any female in a combat situation, REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT SHE CAN PERFORM HER ROLE will cause jealousy, resentment, over-protection or any gamut of emotions between male personnel in certain circumstances. It's a fact of life.

The ONLY gripe I ever had against female Service colleagues (by the way, the best Sgt Major I ever had during my service was female) was whenever a b0II0cking was being dished out. I'd get the rough end of the Sgt Major's/Staff Sgt's vehemence and have to stand there and literally take it like a man, whilst my female colleagues would 'become tired and emotional', shed a tear or two and have a comforting arm placed around them! AND THAT'S EQUALITY!!!

Unless you've served in such circumstances you can't really comment on such a matter with any authority.

[buildersmate]

Phil, you must be new here.
Us old-timers know that AOG's questions aren't serious, so all you have to do is to compete for the most outlandish answer. That keeps his ego satisfied and avoids any tendency to get upset over the old codger's ridiculous musings.

[Sqad]

Buildersmate....unfair....totally unfair. AOG does indeed go for the contentious issues in order to promote opinions and alternate views.I did think, although I am not so sure, that AB was all about views, theories and facts, but as debates proceed they tend to get more personal.

In CB debates are virtually no existent, News being the only forum, so please let AOG or whoever,post contentious issues.

[buildersmate]

Fair comment, but there's need to get one's views underpinned by reasonable evidence of facts. For fear of appearing to get personal again, I would merely comment 'I rest my case'.
Unfortunately I take the time and trouble to understand rather more of the evidence (on both sides) that can reasonably be gleaned from the popular press regarding policies of both the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office (and their Agencies) - key targets of comment on here.
Next up for 'critical re-examination' on here will probably be the Mk2 Chinook that slammed without deviation into the Mull of Kintyre whilst flying flat and low in fog. BBC are making a meal of that story today.

[Sqad]

buildersmate ;-)

[LoftyLottie]

Builders mate. Philtaz has been on AB since at least 2005! Probably since the inception of AB. He does keep a lower profile nowadays though.

[Sweep2k]

I don't see why women neeed privacy any more than male servicemen. The suggestion that they are more likely to stir up sexual feelings or jealousy isn't borne out by the facts.

A confidential study of sexuality among British servicemen in 2008 found that 39% were homosexual or bisexual. Among naval personnel it was 43%.

So they're almost as likely to be tempted by male colleagues as female.

[youngmafbog]

So why havn't homosexuals got separate facilities? - Seriously

[buildersmate]

Which is probably why organisations such as the MOD anguished for so long before being pushed into opening up policies that enabled gays to openly co-exist as part of Service Personnel. It doesn't fit very comfortably with some of the 'tight' personnel arrangements under which HM Forces have to operate under. Fortunately the requirement for active personnl assigned to the boats is tiny (compared active RN personnel on ships) - and the whole Navy is now down to around 35k personnel - including personnel who go nowhere near ships or boats. So the issue is manageable.