h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Surprised that this isn't being actively discussed here.

In the light of recent events, how do people feel about women in the forces? The old guideline about "not in the front line" seems rather irrelevant given that every RN ship is in effect, it's own front line. In Iraq, facing a counter insurgency threat, there are no lines of battle at all.

It also appears that the RN woman was singled out because of her sex and (effectively) used to help pressurise her colleagues.

The Iranians made much of "Look how the West treats women" - a line that was dismissed out of hand, but is there actually a kernel of truth in it?

I think the tabloids were as bad as the Iranians when singling out the RN woman, referring to her "special circumstances" as a mother more than once. Does that mean that it's worse for a mother to be captured than a father?

She was used to increase the internal pressure of her colleagues?

I am of the belief that equality can't be half done, either women are in or out. I do however believe that physical limitations should be taken into effect and that some natural functions can be debilitating.

No-one is forced to join the armed forces. If they're effective enough to get the job (the services' decision), then its their choice to be in or out.

<<"The Iranians made much of "Look how the West treats women" - a line that was dismissed out of hand, but is there actually a kernel of truth in it?">>

Why is it acceptable for men to do dangerous jobs, but not women?

Let's imagine a situation where conscription was necessary - the question: are women included? Equal rights mean equal responsibilities, no?

Absolutely. With a volunteer army there is just as much responsibility for true equality. The problem always seems to hang on the duality that women have in general regard. Nurturing mother figure with generally weaker physique or equal partner in all?

it is a question that i have faced often. When I was in the Army it was different back then, but we still had to face the possibility that we would end up in combat somehow.

It's not the women themselves that are the "problem" with the "looking after the women in the frontline" situation. It is the attitude of the men. And until they can be convinced that women can do their jobs, and be allowed to do them, it will not and can not be solved.

Using the lady sailor to put pressure on the men is something that was inevitable. If she hadn't been there they would have used the youngest or found another way. There is always a way to put pressure on captured military, whatever the Geneva conventions may say.

(GI Jane, anyone?)

I think that gets to the crux of the problem Sho. It's not primarily the women per se that is the difficulty, but the effect they have on their male colleagues - (63 service personnel had their tours cut short in Iraq last year due to pregnancy. Obviously they were appreciated by their male colleagues in a positive way )

I read an account from an Israeli infantry captain where he described what happened when his unit suffered its first female casualty. Bear in mind that this was an experienced unit who had killed and seen their colleagues die many times. To paraphrase: "Her limbs had been blown off by the blast and her tunic was steeped in blood. The sight stopped us cold. For about ten minutes we could not function. The radios went unanswered, our tactical security was non-existent. We just stood, unable to accept what we were seeing. Some cried, including myself"

Yes, many women are perfectly capable of combat.
Yes, to prevent volunteers from serving because of their gender is discrimination.
Yes, the men should not react any differently to a woman's death.

But they do. And this is something that no amount of training or awareness courses will ever change. It is a basic human reaction. The day I stop regarding women as being special is the day I stop being a man.

What this comes down to is a question of what you want your armed forces to do.

Do you want them to reflect accurately the ethnic, cultural and gender balance of the society from which they are drawn?

OR, do you want them to be effective in combat?

If it's the latter, it is absolutely vital that you accept a few hard truths. First - the average frontline combat infantry soldier has, when doing his job, about as much time for political correctness as he does for pondering the philosophical implications of quantum theory. Second - the difference in reaction of that soldier to the death of a woman is hardwired and something no amount of training will change. Third - that reaction WILL compromise the combat effectiveness of any unit.

By all means put women on the front line. But if you do that, you might just as well dress our infantry in bright red uniforms, equip them with short swords and have them march in straight lines towards the enemy chanting "Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough".

I'm all for gender equality of rights AND responsibilities, right up to the point where such luxuries may impact directly upon the ability of the armed forces to protect me. We pay these people to be effective killers. We spend a LOT of money, training and equipping them to be effective killers. I pay my taxes with a song in my heart if it means they get better equipment and training to make me safer. I do not expect them to have to put up with politically correct garbage that will prevent them from doing their jobs properly.

The army is NOT like any other employer, and it should not be treated like one, particularly not at the whim of people who've not served in it for at least ten years.

SoRB

I agree entirely. The forces are no place for yet more social experiments.

When women started going to sea in the RN, one unpublicised consequence was the effect it had on married personnel. Divorces rose rapidly and experienced hands started leaving the navy in significant numbers. No matter what the men thought about it, their wives had strong views about them serving alongside women.

The Royal Navy is a weaker force as a result.

Got any evidence to support that SWL?

well, that's one thing that I could believe even without supporting evidence.

The simple fact is that marriages in the military are often short-lived - Navy marriages (from what I hear from friends) is the worst affected.

However... when the (Army) unit I was with started (having*) to take women out on exercise, some of the wives were totally stupid. Jealous...

One guy, the fattest, ugliest, smelliest guy it was my misfortune to meet (and by default thought he was a babe magnet of course) was very un-PC but we could live with that. The attitude of his wife was unbelievably . We got back from 6 weeks in the field (opportunities for bathing, changing socks & underwear extremely limited) and basically accused the two women in a 10 man crew of having slept with him. Because, her logic (probably based on his attitude) was "how can they resist him".

Having said that: I knew (coming from a military family) exactly what I was getting into and could cope. Some women couldn't (wives and soldiers) and it lead to some awful confrontations.

I firmly believe that women can and do make a fantastic contribution to the military, and as long as they do their job properly and professionally (as do/should the men) everything is hunky dory.

But there is still that thing that SWL mentioned: men seem hardwired to react differently when women are killed, injured or captured. And we can't change that. Nor should we.

FB, I can't be arsed looking for something I know from experience. Six years in the RN and countless arguments with girlfriends over the subject. I saw friends divorce over it and others leave.

Funny that wives and girlfriends get upset about their partners spending months cooped up on a ship with other women .

And believe you me, WRENS are not held in high regard for their ability to keep their legs together.

What I mean is I know quite a few matlows. Pals of mine.

Truth is irrespective of wrens on board if women are the jelous type and their men are away at sea then the truth is most will assume their men are unfaithfull and just on the basis of my pals most of them are probably right.

What I am saying is are instances of this any worse than before? I dunno, I reckon it is just possible that the pressures of men away for long periods of time causes loads of stress anyway. If the argument wasn't about the wrens it owuld have been about the women in other ports. Spesh when their fellas come back sporting strange rashes.

>>And believe you me, WRENS are not held in high regard for their ability to keep their legs together.<<

I don't want to start something here, but I can't let it go...

I heard this so many times about WRAC WRAF and WRENS... I never ever met a soldier/sailor/airforce chappie who kept his willy in his trousers either...

Sex is fun, we all do it. The singling out of women for being promiscuous for doing this makes me

And if you don't "open your legs" you're "obviously a lezzer"


because all military men look like either Johnny Depp, George Clooney, Vin Diesel or a combination of all three

My father (Lt. Cmdr. RN, ret.) told me on more than one occasion before he passed that the only things banned in conversation at mess were Women, Politics and Religion (his voice provided the caps). I've often thought it was a d@mn good idea since everyone has strong feelings about those three subjects, often immoveable object type of feelings.

I wonder if homosexual relationships cause as much (potential) conflict within the military as heterosexual ones? I would guess not, for the simple reason that the female is still viewed as the nurturing part of growing up. I see the nurturing aspect in many grown relationships as well, mother or not and perhaps that's why us males have such emotion invested in females.

Fair point Sho . Probably many indulge in the making of the beast with two backs in order to be "one of the boys". Certainly doesn't endear them to the wives though. And that's the point FB. It's a certain kind of woman who joins the forces - independent, strong-willed and as willing as the men to treat sex as good sport. Wives and girlfriends are right to be worried. Not for nothing are they known as "field mattresses".

*smacks SWL for the last sentence*

Well, we were as different in our attitudes to things as the guys were - sex was one passtime, but there are plenty of others. Frankly speaking I joined because I wanted to be a spy and drive tanks.

Gay men (in my day) got a lot more stick than anyone else for anything ever. But then, since it was against Queen's Regs (as were a lot of other things: senior NCOs sleeping with other ranks for example) it wasn't often that they came out so it was impossible to control it.

I put up with an awful lot of sexist behaviour from men - and when I got my way because I used feminine wiles (and I did) I pointed this out to anyone who complained to me (such as: when we did guard duty it was always my job - as a private - to make the tea, the guys never did when I was there. But then, when the OC came to my detatchment during a very cold winter exercise to take 3 of us back to camp in the relative comfort of a landrover, I played the "girly" card like a shot. Give and take )

So, swings and roundabouts and I'm not complainig - I had a whale of a time. Others who were a bit more uptight about being treated like a girly, or not being treated like a girly, or worried because they broke a finger nail, or who couldn't cope with being called a "lumpy jumper" and worse... they didn't have such a good time.

Wives and girlfriends, unless in the job, have/had no idea what it is like most of the time. And while I admit that the behaviour of a few female military is more than questionable, the wives & girlfriends just have to accept that girls do that job too.

"First - the average frontline combat infantry soldier has, when doing his job, about as much time for political correctness as he does for pondering the philosophical implications of quantum theory."

How do you explain the fact that the theory of blackholes (OK, Relativity, not quantum) was developped by a grunt soldier on the fronts lines of World War I ?

<>

No doubt all that sitting around in the trenches with nothing better to do than contemplate black holes. I believe some of them even had time to write poetry.

*...sitting around in the trenches with nothing better to do than contemplate black holes.*

Why does that sound so odd?

AA- where did that quote come from?