Turn on thread page Beta

B331 - Gender Equality In The Armed Forces Bill watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    B331 - Gender Equality In The Armed Forces Bill, Socialist, xXedixXx
    Preamble:

    Currently Women are excluded from joining the "Royal Marines General Service" as "Commandos", and cannot take on combat roles in the "Household Cavalry", "Royal Armoured Corps", "Infantry" and the "Royal Air Force Regiment". However, they are allowed to join these units but can only play administrative and support roles.

    This is fundamentally unfair and is in no way progressive. Women should be allowed to join these units taking on combat roles if they so choose. They should not be excluded just because of their gender.

    To ensure the safety and effectiveness of The British Armed Forces this Bill also takes into account and acknowledges the concern that physically women do not tend to be as strong as men.

    Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7463636.stm

    "BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-"

    1. Royal Air Force
    (1) Women can join and serve in combat roles in the "Royal Air Force Regiment".

    2. Royal Navy
    (1) Women can join and serve in the "Royal Marines General Service" as "Commandos".

    3. British Army
    (1) Women can join and serve in combat roles in the "Infantry", "Household Cavalry" and "Royal Armoured Corps".

    4. Conditions
    (1) Women must meet the exact same physical standards that are demanded of men to join the respective units.

    5. Commencement, short title and extent
    (1) This Act may be cited as the Gender Equality In The Armed Forces Act 2010.

    (2) The Secretary of State will be granted the power to make further exemptions to this Act as he/she finds necessary by Order.

    (3) This bill shall extend to the whole of the UK.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    5.2 should be a separate clause in an exemptions section and not included in the commitment, short title and extent. Other than that, no major problems with this Bill.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There are reasons far more deep set and important than mere 'physical attributes' as to why women are not allowed to join frontline/infantry roles in the main, it is rumoured there are some exceptions in intelligence regiments but not on a large scale. If this bill goes through it could cause many inadequiecies and deaths in the conflicts and reduce combat effectiveness.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by i0smokey0i)
    There are reasons far more deep set and important than mere 'physical attributes' as to why women are not allowed to join frontline/infantry roles in the main, it is rumoured there are some exceptions in intelligence regiments but not on a large scale. If this bill goes through it could cause many inadequiecies and deaths in the conflicts and reduce combat effectiveness.
    Sorry to quote some classical text here, but you are taking a view which is quite like that found in Xenophon's Oeconomicus


    “But whereas both of these, the indoor and the outdoor occupations alike, demand new toil and new attention, to meet the case,” I added, “God made provision from the first by shaping, as it seems to me, the woman’s nature for indoor and the man’s for outdoor occupations. Man’s body and soul He furnished with a greater capacity for enduring heat and cold, wayfaring and military marches; or, to repeat, He laid upon his shoulders the outdoor works.

    “While in creating the body of woman with less capacity for these things,” I continued, “God would seem to have imposed on her the indoor works; and knowing that He had implanted in the woman and imposed upon her the nurture of new-born babies, He endowed her with a larger share of affection for the new-born child than He bestowed upon man
    It is a dialogue between Ischomachus and Socrates as told by Xenophon. Ischomachus is talking here about how he is teaching his wife how to behave properly.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    This is an issue where i'm torn.

    Both arguments tend to hold equal weight with me.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    As Cambo211 says this is a very difficult argument. Clause 4 is absolutely essential. Just for reference only 1 in 100 female army recruits meets or exceeds the mean male performance. Sorry I cannot currently provide a source for that but I will try to dig it up.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    there are a few issue, places like Saudi Arabia, where they don't view women equal or wouldn't be told what to do by one, no matter what gun she is holding

    other issue are that to put it, women hygiene if your in the field for a number off days, weeks, behind enemy lines, you need to carry lite and fast, a issue there if you need to stop every 5 minutes:p:, as well as tracking, its not the must cleanest place in the world

    no doubt there are women who can do a better job then men, there are still a few issue, plus women body bags are even worst to see, and bad on public moral, when kids are involved as well never good


    its a hard one to call
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm caught in a similar dilemma to everyone else. I think both practically and morally this is a difficult one to call.

    Considering females are able to serve in many other military regiments I don't really feel this bill is necessary, when one considers the other issues that other honorable members have raised.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    no doubt there are women who can do a better job then men, there are still a few issue, plus women body bags are even worst to see, and bad on public moral, when kids are involved as well never good
    Women are allowed on the front line, they are just not allowed to take part combat roles. There are many women currently risking their lives as these two articles indicate:

    Michelle Norris

    Sarah Bushbye
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The problem is not at all to do with physical fitness. Women have completed the commando course and have proven themselves (by the by no woman has ever completed the parachute regiment course because they are not allowed to attempt it due to the nature of the backpacks and tests it oddly enough can make them infertile ?!). The problem is the confusion of a mans duty to protect a woman; if he is fighting along side one it could confuse the matter. Furthermore women and men are not allowed to share rooms etc.. making it harder for the comradery required of a military force fighting on tough frontline conditions to develop. In addition to this imagine if relationships were to start; likely when on tour away from home; medical treatment etc.. could end up being poorly distributed among the soldiers since they have more empathy for the females. There are whole papers written on the subject and theres more to this; you will probably pick holes in individual things ive said but the jist should make sense.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by js374)
    Women are allowed on the front line, they are just not allowed to take part combat roles. There are many women currently risking their lives as these two articles indicate:

    Michelle Norris

    Sarah Bushbye
    well there we go I stand wrong, i understood that in some rolls there where allowed frontline, but other rolls on the front line are more risky than others and keep people away from camp

    there has been issue where the men around them feel as if they need to protect women, i don't know if that is true or not
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    well there we go I stand wrong, i understood that in some rolls there where allowed frontline, but other rolls on the front line are more risky than others and keep people away from camp

    there has been issue where the men around them feel as if they need to protect women, i don't know if that is true or not
    I agree with you about the women in body bags issues. I don't know if you remember Cpl Sarah Bryant (Wiki) who was killed along with four others (rumoured SAS) in a Snatch 2 in 2008. Despite many previous deaths in Snatch 2's it was hers that lead to much media coverage of their poor protection and caused enough of a storm that they were phased out very soon after.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I have no objections to them being admitted to these regiments on principle. It's simply more a matter of the fact that a sizeable portion of our front line engagements deal with avowedly sexist groups, or groups with very different ideas on modesty to what British women may regard acceptable in uniform.

    Upon reflection I've decided that I will support this bill if women from these regiments can either be moved back from the front line for tactical reasons at the decision of a high enough ranking officer, (my opinion would be that whatever rank is making the core planning of an operation, which would probably vary) can decide to block women from being involved in operations where problems are created by their presence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Metrobeans)
    B331 - Gender Equality In The Armed Forces Bill, Socialist, xXedixXx
    Preamble:

    Currently Women are excluded from joining the "Royal Marines General Service" as "Commandos", and cannot take on combat roles in the "Household Cavalry", "Royal Armoured Corps", "Infantry" and the "Royal Air Force Regiment". However, they are allowed to join these units but can only play administrative and support roles.

    This is fundamentally unfair and is in no way progressive. Women should be allowed to join these units taking on combat roles if they so choose. They should not be excluded just because of their gender.

    To ensure the safety and effectiveness of The British Armed Forces this Bill also takes into account and acknowledges the concern that physically women do not tend to be as strong as men.

    Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7463636.stm

    "BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-"

    1. Royal Air Force
    (1) Women can join and serve in combat roles in the "Royal Air Force Regiment".

    2. Royal Navy
    (1) Women can join and serve in the "Royal Marines General Service" as "Commandos".

    3. British Army
    (1) Women can join and serve in combat roles in the "Infantry", "Household Cavalry" and "Royal Armoured Corps".

    4. Conditions
    (1) Women must meet the exact same physical standards that are demanded of men to join the respective units.

    5. Commencement, short title and extent
    (1) This Act may be cited as the Gender Equality In The Armed Forces Act 2010.

    (2) The Secretary of State will be granted the power to make further exemptions to this Act as he/she finds necessary by Order.

    (3) This bill shall extend to the whole of the UK.
    They dont use women in the RAF Reg because of combat effectivness i agree women wouldnt be as effective
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ooo and another thing when women get captured the insurgents have a ****ing field day, women being tortured etc... is more poignant.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by js374)
    I agree with you about the women in body bags issues. I don't know if you remember Cpl Sarah Bryant (Wiki) who was killed along with four others (rumoured SAS) in a Snatch 2 in 2008. Despite many previous deaths in Snatch 2's it was hers that lead to much media coverage of their poor protection and caused enough of a storm that they were phased out very soon after.
    SAS not a chance
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i0smokey0i)
    Ooo and another thing when women get captured the insurgents have a ****ing field day, women being tortured etc... is more poignant.
    If I recall correctly Iran captured a female Seaman in 2007 (and 14 others). They tortured them by taking away their iPods if memory serves correctly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If i correctly remember Iran doesnt have an insurgent uprising and we are not at war with them douche.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by js374)
    I agree with you about the women in body bags issues. I don't know if you remember Cpl Sarah Bryant (Wiki) who was killed along with four others (rumoured SAS) in a Snatch 2 in 2008. Despite many previous deaths in Snatch 2's it was hers that lead to much media coverage of their poor protection and caused enough of a storm that they were phased out very soon after.
    she was the first women, always going to lead to the media going mad
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    In Norway women can join the military and aren't really restricted. I was called in when I turned 18, all girls are. And now girls are forced to attend a military session when they turn 18. But I had the option to say no, and I did.. I think it's unfair that they force a lot of boys. Only those who want to should join. They don't need everybody.

    Norway has been voted one of the most gender equal countries in the world though. After Sweden I think.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 22, 2010
The home of Results and Clearing

2,842

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.