Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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.

If women want to be on the front line then they should be, the presumption that men can't control themselves isn't a good enough reasons to stop it.

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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

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

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 martyh

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

closing the door after that horse is bolted? testing for pregnancy after the sperm has shot? dude your argument on this is transparently thin. If she tests pregnant she does not deploy simples same as if the squaddie was to test positive for something dodgy. A sensible army would give a full health screen before sending troops to the front line anyway surely? I am sure they would catch the 1 in 100 who's condom split or whatever or the foolish who chooses to go BB

Soldiers develop relationships with fellow troops without there being love involved and they see them die. They should be trained and at the very least honest so if a relationship does develop on the line they fess up and work separate any squaddie who does not do this should not be in the army anyway surely?

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

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.

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 .

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

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 martyh

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 .

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 Damien

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.

I agree ,but that is reactive not preventative.There are already sound preventative measures in place that have served just about every armed service in the world so why change ? .Simply saying that men should be equal to women does not wash .The fact is that men and women are not equal in many respects and can never be

---------- Post added at 12:08 ---------- Previous post was at 12:03 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

I'm not saying that woman are not capable of pulling the trigger as good as men ,i am saying that human nature is not governed by rules and regulations .Rules and regulations are there to deal with human nature when it takes over and causes problems for others

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by martyh

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

A valid point. But would I expect be a very rare occurance.

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

Professional soldiers, male or female, should not let influence them.

These are just some of the more important important reasons

well two actually, and not ones that I would expect to occur

why women should never be allowed on front line duties

NEVER? never is a very strong word. I a woman want to pick up a gun and face the Taliban, good luck to her, cos I don't.

Originally Posted by martyh

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

I disagree with you as strongly as you disagree with me

Any hoo got to go to london now so will rejoin this debate later

[Taf]

A team of crack female troops... all suffering P.M.T.


Would you get in their way?

[Jimmy-J]

Are they really that desperate for cannon fodder?

[Anonymouse]

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.

So I'm in two minds on the issue.

Originally Posted by Anonymouse

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.

So I'm in two minds on the issue.

the Sparta thing. They were trained from a very early age so the similarities makes sense