Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35526853)

The practical reasons why women where not allowed to serve in front line combat have not disappeared though so i don't really understand the sudden change except to pacify feminist groups

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35526853)

The practical reasons why women where not allowed to serve in front line combat have not disappeared though so i don't really understand the sudden change except to pacify feminist groups

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35526858)

Nah they developed smudge proof make-up and unbreakable mirrors years ago matey. :D

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35526863)

If that was the issue then no problem but camouflaging those handbags can be a bugger ;)

Seriously though ,the very practical reasons why women should not be allowed on the front line are still there and will never go away ,a lot more thought needs to go into this by the US generals

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35526849)

It'll be interesting to see how many take up the challenge.

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit (Post 35526862)

there is only the period and it only takes a few seconds to pop a new one in. Women also would make great front line troops specially the week before aforementioned period when they will happily kill anyone. But I guess as long as the military add chocolate to the rations it can be moderated lol

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit (Post 35526862)

there is only the period and it only takes a few seconds to pop a new one in. Women also would make great front line troops specially the week before aforementioned period when they will happily kill anyone. But I guess as long as the military add chocolate to the rations it can be moderated lol

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35526870)

Totally wrong .Women are not allowed on front line combat duties for a variety of very good reasons .What happens if the woman is in the early stages of pregnancy and doesn't realise it ,what happens if infantry men/women are in a relationship and front line decisions end up being based on what's good for the boyfriend/girlfriend instead of the platoon .These are just some of the more important important reasons why women should never be allowed on front line duties

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35526871)

There is chocolate in the rations

---------- Post added at 10:42 ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 ----------

One reason we were given when i was in the army was the natural reaction of a man is to aid an injured women, this could raise issues in a combat situation where taking out the enemy comes first before medical help.

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit (Post 35526877)

well it's now 2013 what if 2 of the squaddies were in a relationship? pretty much nulls out your reasoning there does it not?

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit (Post 35526887)

same as I would if my boyfriend was shot and I was gay

yes I did tell me where I am wrong

the army would have to be pretty stupid to team up partners anyway.Also you seem to be inferring our soldiers are not very professional

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35526870)

Totally wrong .Women are not allowed on front line combat duties for a variety of very good reasons .What happens if the woman is in the early stages of pregnancy and doesn't realise it ,what happens if infantry men/women are in a relationship and front line decisions end up being based on what's good for the boyfriend/girlfriend instead of the platoon .These are just some of the more important important reasons why women should never be allowed on front line duties

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35526908)

They can do medical tests before being deployed and then the sensible thing would be not to have unprotected sex whilst on tour. The rest of it they'll just have to get over. Don't form a relationship with someone you're deployed with and if they do break that rule then deal with it that way. I mean the same arguments could be made if the soldiers are gay.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35526913)

Kind of closing the door after the horse has bolted though isn't it .Plenty of women get pregnant even though they use contraceptives .How do people not form a relationship ?even having feelings for someone is dangerous hence the controversy about letting Gay men in the forces

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35526913)

Kind of closing the door after the horse has bolted though isn't it .Plenty of women get pregnant even though they use contraceptives .How do people not form a relationship ?even having feelings for someone is dangerous hence the controversy about letting Gay men in the forces

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit (Post 35526906)

same thing can be said about a man and a man though so again you are wasting your time following that track with me. What about best friend or brother? Sexist mate ;) your saying a man can't love a man the same as a man loves a woman ;)

Then the British Army is sexist everything can be sorted as far as pregnancy is concerned and checking before deployment is not hard to do.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35526919)

I'm saying nothing of the sort and sexism has nothing to with it .Frontline combat is a serious thing ,there is no room for equality in the sexes .A soldier does not need or want to have to have one eye on the enemy and one eye on the bird he fancies .Realism not sexism .

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35526914)

It would be a problem and it should be strongly discouraged. If it happens then there should be a disciplinary process that results in one or both parties being moved out of their position. It should be treated as a serious matter.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35526920)

Sexism is involved here. You're saying it's a serious thing and thus there is no room for equality. This implication here is that woman are less able to do this 'serious thing'. It is a serious thing but women are more than capable of doing it. If a soldier cannot control themselves in battle then they have no business being a soldier, it is they and not the object of their affection (i.e 'the bird') who is at fault.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35526870)

Totally wrong .Women are not allowed on front line combat duties for a variety of very good reasons .What happens if the woman is in the early stages of pregnancy and doesn't realise it

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35526919)

I'm saying nothing of the sort and sexism has nothing to with it .Frontline combat is a serious thing ,there is no room for equality in the sexes .A soldier does not need or want to have to have one eye on the enemy and one eye on the bird he fancies .Realism not sexism .




The only way to guarantee there is no chance of a pregnant woman getting killed on the frontline is to sterilize them ,you fancy supporting that ?.
More to the point why should a woman who has signed up for active service be excused because she may be pregnant leaving her fellow soldiers in the lurch .How do you propose that the army should make sure that there is no chance of pregnancy ,no sex 4-6 weeks before deployment? ,how do they enforce that ?

Equality in the forces does not and can never work

Originally Posted by Anonymouse (Post 35527041)

I recall reading somewhere - damned if I can remermber where - that there is at least one practical reason for not having women soldiers. It has nothing to do with pregnancy issues, PMT, periods or - oh, please - makeup.

It is, rather, a purely physical issue. No, not upper body strength; women are just as capable of acquiring that. No, it's a hip issue - I read that a study had been done on the effects of long marches (surely a soldier's stock in trade) while carrying heavy equipment (again, it goes with the territory). Specifically, it tends to wear womens' hip bones away because of the way they're built. I submit that a soldier with deteriorating hips is a danger to herself and her comrades in combat.

On the other hand, I also read somewhere that when women and men were fed and trained together, as in ancient Sparta, archaeologists find it very difficult to distinguish male from female skeletons, so maybe the study (I can't even remember who conducted it, or where - very sloppy of me, I know...) was wrong. :p:

So I'm in two minds on the issue.