Calls for UK to allow women in combat

[Ratko Gavrilovic]

You're still living in the first half of the 20th century?

You just need to test one's abilities, not just judge by the gender.

You need to be psychologically tough. Most women can't handle life in war for several years.
Google shell shock and see what war has done with men. You think women who are proven to be mentally weaker can handle that?

I think you are missing the point of this topic. We are saying that women are just as capable in combat as men. Not all men and not all women are capable of fighting in war. The ones that should be on the front lines are the ones capable. The others should be staying home to run the things you mentioned. Judging them purely on gender is pointless, as every single person is different in this world.

Same as above.

[Batta]

You need to be psychologically tough. Most women can't handle life in war for several years.
Google shell shock and see what war has done with men. You think women who are proven to be mentally weaker can handle that?

Never said all women should be allowed to. I said that just who passes tests go, without watching the gender.

Obviously it will come out for many reasons that most of them will be men. This is still not a reason not to allow women.

[SugarD]

You think women who are proven to be mentally weaker can handle that?

Women have never been proven to be mentally weaker.

[JackWhite]

Women have never been proven to be mentally weaker.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-562627/Are-women-really-weaker-sex-The-intriguing-medical-facts-settle-oldest-argument-all.html

[SugarD]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-562627/Are-women-really-weaker-sex-The-intriguing-medical-facts-settle-oldest-argument-all.html

All of which can also depend on the person themselves, as the article says.

[Mikal]

Besides, woman + period + gun =

Why don't FBI have females then sir?

At the end of the day it's a bad idea, women are proven to be the physicly weaker sex which is why they are not in combat roles today, yes women can be just as strong as men but as I've said they need to work at it more which would only cost the government more money getting them up to the physical standard that's required for the British armed forces. Theres just no point anyway, look how many men in the UK wan't to join the army but can't because of government cuts.

[Salvatore_Zambino]

Statistically, women are much more flexible than men. Therefore, they can do epic high kicks, making them effective fighters in the cop force 8), go women!

[KhornateMonkey]

Statistically, women are much more flexible than men. Therefore, they can do epic high kicks, making them effective fighters in the cop force 8), go women!

Whoo, epic high kicks against the Taliban

[Dolfagr]

What if the women are married and have kids. I am against women joining COMBAT at the present point. There are numerous ways they can assist such as logistics, medicine, transport, but plain combat sounds too hasty. Though I would love to see them fight these: Iran's female ninjas in training

[Mikal]

Whoo, epic high kicks against the Taliban

Yeh because fly kicks always come in handy against someone with a gun.

[~Legend~]

Have nothing against this. People, no matter of gender or any other norm quality, should be able to take the role that they aspire to and are suitable for on a personal level.

It's good that the military in the UK doesn't have such restrictions on all areas and this is only a partial thing.

If we were going on the "who's stronger" argument, well physically looking at it from a biological level males tend to have greater muscle growth. However, the pain thresholds of females are higher. In the same way, different physical skills and areas of mental aptitude could be scaled.

Just make the best use of resources...

In sports teams they very rarely mix up genders or let opposing genders compete. This is largely a device to ensure fairness on a competitive playing field, but the opportunities are there.

Thankfully we are breaking out of certain social (and possibly cultural) moulds that really constrained us some time back.

[Kirgiz]

Wrong. There is a lot more female dominance in nature than people realize. Matriarchies exist all over in the animal kingdom.

What does matriarchy has to do with it? Just so you know, matriarchy was also with tribal people back at prehistoric time, how does that prove that women back then were stronger than men?

[SugarD]

What if the women are married and have kids.

Many of the men in combat have kids and are married.

What does matriarchy has to do with it? Just so you know, matriarchy was also with tribal people back at prehistoric time, how does that prove that women back then were stronger than men?

They had to keep control and lead. They had to overpower anyone who defied them. They had to lead their people into war and battle. They had to make the same decisions and take the same actions as men in leadership positions.

[[WS]Jacob]

Many of the men in combat have kids and are married.

But I think that kids get more attached to their mums rather than their dads. It's just a psychological thing and if they were to loose their mum at the age that some of these kids are then that will impact on the rest of their lives. I'm not saying that the death of a father would not hurt the kids but a mum, I think would be a lot worse.

[~Legend~]

I think the argument leans heavily on tradition, social views and science among other things... maybe there just isn't a right answer, but the UK's meant to uphold an open democracy. If this became a significant enough issue, it could be pitched to the public and the public vote would reflect well on what the nation thinks.