Should Female Soldiers be Allowed to Fight on the Frontline?

Because they will ultimately fail. They will pass the basic tests, and then be incapable of being placed in "any" role in an infantry battalion. Essentially, jobs will have to be cherry-picked for them on the basis of what they are capable of. All that will have happened is that women will do exactly the same jobs they do now, but with an infantry badge on their heads.

And this is relevant how?

Oh my, only a few people in a group want to join the army and will be fit to do so according to you, let's just not let them in. I guess you propose we also ban asexual men called Frederick too by the same logic, few of them will want to and be fit to.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Why would women deemed capable be humiliated? You aren't making sense mate. I'm asking why the tiny amount of women deemed capable should still not be allowed in your eyes.

What are you basing that on? Your sexism? How...logical.

Sadly, anybody who has served in the military will. Especially teeth arms.

The Israelis have tried it and found that it actually reduces combat effectiveness, but they don't about too much about it.

You're not understanding. Asexual men called Fred might on the whole be physically capable of the standard. Female soldiers have been demonstrated to be incapable.

What possible benefit is there to a small number of women in infantry battalions, constantly on the sick, looking for the first opportunity to sue the MoD?

The tiny number of women that pass the training will still be incapable of functioning in the battalion.

There are two fallacies here.

The first is "top shelf syndrome" or redefining a job in terms of what a woman cannot do.

The second is the infinite supply of perfect male workers.

Both of them were highly prevalent in civilian employment before the Sex Discrimination Act and most objections to an increased role for women in the services comes down to them.

Top shelf syndrome says that because a woman in a warehouse cannot reach the top shelf, she cannot to the job. She might be the best staff member at stock control or accounting or any of the other jobs in the warehouse but that doesn't matter. She can't reach the top shelf and so she can't do the job. Of course it matters not to someone raising this point that the top shelf can be reached because all of the men in the warehouse can reach it. If the woman cannot reach it, then she isn't fit to work in the warehouse.

This week the argument of choice has been about clearing a trench with bayonets. It has been 32 years since a line infantry battalion cleared a trench with fixed bayonets and unless the Indonesians dug any trenches in Borneo in 1965, it was 28 years before that in Korea when a line infantry battalion had previously done so.

The question really is not whether women have the skills of male soldiers who pass out but whether they are better soldiers all round than the men who will be rejected. That doesn't just mean who can carry a Bergen with the most weight, but who can do all of the tasks of the modern soldier. The chances are that any women who get into the infantry will be more intelligent, better educated and better able to communicate than the male applicants rejected. That is the judgement call for the army.

It will work against ISIS, they will retreat at the sight of female soldiers.

You're basing your opinion wholly upon ignorance, unless you have any first hand experience of training women in the Army.

What are you basing that on? Give some psychological explanations pls. Because all I am seeing now is the typical human weakness of giving in to their prejudice beliefs.

I'm in the armed forces and I personally don't think its a good idea.

Though of course female medics already work in a front line role.

It has nothing to do with psychology.

Of the tiny number of women that might pass infantry training (as an indicator, in the past 20 years, only 2 women have passed All-Arms Commando training) they would then have to be able to potentially take any role in the battalion. This isn't realistic. There is no way they will be put in the "heavy" jobs. This is already apparent from Artillery and Engineer units where women already serve - they go into comparitively light roles.

Ummm since when has first hand experience been sufficient in arriving at conclusions regarding a group of people? First hand experience is as bad as someone using anecdotal observations in the same context as scientific evidence.

So I'd like some psychological evidence for your unfounded belief pls.

So even though they pass the physical tests they still won't be physically capable?

I'm in the armed forces and I personally don't think its a good idea.

Though of course female medics already work in a front line role.

For about the tenth time, no.

It won't do anything except provide confirmation that women are physically inferior to men, and that's not something that anyone wants.

Ever served Nulli?

You're not understanding. Asexual men called Fred might on the whole be physically capable of the standard. Female soldiers have been demonstrated to be incapable.

What possible benefit is there to a small number of women in infantry battalions, constantly on the sick, looking for the first opportunity to sue the MoD?

The tiny number of women that pass the training will still be incapable of functioning in the battalion.