Will the female soldier always have to 'fight' to be accepted in combat roles within the British army?

PERSONAL STUDY PAGE 1 MICHELLE GREENFIELD

WILL THE FEMALE SOLDIER ALWAYS HAVE TO “FIGHT” TO BE ACCEPTED IN COMBAT ROLES WITHIN THE BRITISH ARMY?

INTRODUCTION:

“Man should be trained for war and woman for the recreation of the warrior: all else is folly” (Friedrich Nietzsche, 1883).

For my personal study I have chosen to look at the role of women in the British army, I have chosen this subject as I think it is relevant to today’s “gender conscious” society, as so many irrational attitudes are struck and enforced, by law or fist, on the proper role of the human female. In conducting my research, I will be incorporating a great level of secondary data integrated from various sources such as newspapers, interviews, media, books and the Internet. Using these methods for my research will enable me to give a clearer view on military, political and public opinion relating to the role (if any) of women in today’s modern British army.

It seems that for decades there has been an endless debate as to whether or not the male species is superior to the female species; better known as “the battle of the sexes”. Further investigated, this debate can focus on the many differences found amongst men and women. The constant competition between men and women has been continually evolving as society becomes more curious as to the relevant differences amongst men and women, especially in the armed forces. Perhaps inevitably, inclusion remains very much on male terms. Overtly feminine service women are dismissed as “Combat Barbie’s”, and in order to fit in, women tend to act like one of the boys. The British army is a huge institution built on many years of strong ideas about gendered identities, but all that is being challenged. Throughout history, the business of war has generally been the preserve of men until fairly recently.

Israel is far ahead of Britain – and most other countries – in allowing women to serve in frontline units. It is also about the only country in the world where women are likely to see active combat. National service is compulsory for everyone in Israel, both male and female. Britain in comparison does not make use of national service on either sex. But we do send our troops, both male and female, into active service all over the world; despite this most women are employed in areas like intelligence, driving and secretarial work. The argument is not about whether women should serve on the frontline (they already do – Royal Engineers often precede the infantry) but whether they should be there to fight – and will the British public accept the fact that their service women are coming home from conflict in body bags! The other argument is that women are neither strong enough nor aggressive enough for the front line, qualities that are required for a combat unit.

I hypothesis that the public’s reaction will be “media induced” and that the military and government’s reaction is to be seen to be acting positively to appear “politically correct” – but in reality wants the “glass ceiling” to remain intact. But, despite the reactions of the public/military /politicians, I feel that women

Soldiers are here to stay in the British army and they have a variety of roles to offer and play in this game called “Army Life”.

THE WOMAN SOLDIER - PAST, PRESENT & FUTURE:

Past:

The motivations of female soldiers to serve are important to consider. These women crave adventure, just as female highwaymen and pirates did. Women also share the same desire as men for revenge that is common to so many Partisans and guerrillas. Just as some male soldiers are driven by patriotism, or even blood lust, some of their female counterparts also exhibited the same callings. As long ago as AD69, Britain’s first female soldier, Boudicca of the Iceni tribe led the ultimately doomed revolt against the Roman invaders. Throughout history there are many accounts of women who have served in the British Army disguised as men in front line combat.

The First Aid Nursing Yeomanry (FANY) was created in 1907 as a link between frontline fighting units and the field hospitals. Then there was the Voluntary Aid Detachments (VADs) of nurses formed in 1909 to provide medical assistance in times of war. By the summer of 1914 there were over 2,500 VADs in Britain. With heavy losses on the Western Front in 1916, the reduced number of fighting soldiers concerned the British Army. The Government after massive debate decided to use women to replace men in doing certain administrative jobs in Britain and France. These men could then be sent to fight at the front. In 1917, the Government announced the establishment of a new voluntary service, the Woman’s Auxiliary Army Corps (WAAC). The plan was for these women to serve as clerks, telephonists, waitresses, cooks and instructors in the use of gas masks; they were also employed in many roles that exposed them to extreme danger. Between January 1917 and the Armistice over 57,000 women served in the WAAC. In September 1938, the Auxiliary Territorial Service (ATS) was established and were particularly active during the Second World War were they served in Anti-Aircraft Command in mixed AA regiments.

Britain started sending armed and combat-trained women into enemy territory to fight behind the lines in the Second World War. The women showed the appropriate courageous qualities and won various medals for bravery, including the George Cross. It was only after the war that their role was made public – they were members of the Special Operations Executive (SOE), which worked with the resistance sabotaging the German hold on occupied territory. Women made ideal secret agents because they attracted slight attention to themselves; they had no particular military experience, but relied on nerve and instinct.

WWI and WWII proved ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

WWI and WWII proved that given the chance, the physical and mental fighting qualities needed in the army could be developed equally well through training by women as well as by men. After the war in February 1949, it was recognised that women continued to have an important role to play within the Armed Forces, and the Women’s Services were permantly established. The ATS changes it’s name to the Women’s Royal Army Corps (WRAC), but remained unaltered, as WRAC units were always attached as sub-units of particular units or establishments. In 1980 the possibility of army female soldiers being armed, specifically for their own self-defence, came to light in a MOD White paper; this was successful.

In 1991, female soldiers were successfully deployed in the 1st Gulf War, some in trenches alongside marines (although true, this has been denied by the British Government). In April 1992 the WRAC was disbanded and its female soldiers were dispersed throughout the army, many into newly formed mixed-sex regiments, such as the Adjutant Generals’ Corps (AGC). This was significant in that all the previous barriers that prevented male and female soldiers from doing the same jobs and being treated equally were no longer in place. Yet again our female soldiers were deployed in the Balkans (Bosnia) in 1993 to actively take part with their male colleagues.

Present:

Since the 20th Century, the role of women in the Armed Forces began a process of transformation – this set precedence for our future female soldiers. In Britain’s 21st Century women can fly fighter jets, command warships and serve in certain Special Forces units, but they still cannot fight alongside male compatriots in frontline ground combat. And without such combat experience, no woman can ever achieve the highest rank of General. About 8% of the British Army is female. Women represent 9.5% of officers and 6.8% of other ranks, since 1999 the Army has appointed three female Brigadiers. Yet, these are still relatively minor role models for the 8% of the females in the Army.

Today female soldiers serve in military intelligence units; in dangerous counter-terrorist operations like Northern Ireland, which requires tough selection processes and rigorous training in close combat and interrogation. As well as serving in war torn locations all over the world, in the line of fire, in places such as the Middle East, Kosovo, Somalia and Afganistan.

The females along with the male soldiers must conduct various fitness assessments throughout each year. They are required be able to do the Basic Personal Fitness Assessment (BPFA). To qualify for the lowest possible pass, soldiers under 30 must be able to do 44 press-ups and 50 sit-ups in two minutes and then run a mile and a half in 10 minutes and 30 seconds. Another Test is Combat Fitness Test (CFT), where a soldier under 30 must carry kit-weighing 25kg along with their rifle and must complete a march of eight miles in two hours. There are also other annual tests such as Gas Chamber Drills and Weapon Training.

An army advertisement in the late 1990s showed a woman cowering in a corner of a bombed building. The caption read, “She’s just been raped by soldiers. The same soldiers murdered her husband. The last thing she wants to see is another soldier. Unless that soldier is a woman”. The British Army is keen to add to its women personnel and to stress its role as a peacekeeper. Now people are beginning to look at women’s importance in conflict situations. There is logic in this, fewer than 2% of UN peacekeeping forces have been female – but in almost all current conflicts 80% of refugees are women and children. The UN hopes for the day when women soldiers aren’t trained like men, but are given a real opportunity to use their peaceful, peace-making skills. The United Nations has highlighted the following:

Women are better able to control violent tendencies
Women are seen as less of a threat, so are less likely to provoke violence.
Women seem to be more willing to look for reconciliation in disagreements, rather than use force.
Male soldiers are more likely to control aggression if women are present.
Women seem to calm stressful situations (this has been observed world-wide in police forces).

Future:

The Government is committed to promoting equality of opportunity. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Armed Forces continue to work closely with the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) and share with them the results of further work to examine the wider issues raised in the 2002 Study conducted by the MOD on Women in the Armed Forces. A better understanding will be sought of the impact of team cohesion in the roles of man and women soldiers working together. Terms of service will be examined that offer greater flexibility of employment, but without jeopardising overall levels of operational effectiveness.

I personally feel that female British soldiers will fight along side their male counterparts, as times change so will people’s view points. This may happen in 10 years time, 100 years time or more – but it is inevitable.

RESEARCH:

There has long been speculation, within the Armed Forces about the integration of women into the Forces. This is a reasonable consequence of a slow but sure extension of women’s roles across all social spheres. Unfortunately, for some people, the increased participation of women is seen as awkward. This topic, one of immense political sensitivity, has been identified as one of the most serious personnel issues facing the Armed Forces today. It is also a topic, which has provoked high levels of public and media interest that has often been dominated by a sensationalist agenda. This research takes an impartial look at the process of integration, focussing in particular on the role of military culture in determining women’s inclusion in the British army. Military sociologists have long recognised the significance of culture in shaping military life.

Two main data sources are used in this study. The first is policy documentation in the public domain, from the Army, MOD and other interested bodies, dealing with women’s participation in the Armed Forces. The second source is interviews with Army personnel (these interviews are confidential to protect the interviewee’s), some with the responsibilities for the development and implementation of policies dealing with women’s participation in the Army.

Report on Women in the Armed Forces:

A Report on “Women in the Armed Forces” was conducted by SPPOL – MOD and published in May 2002, after a two-year review. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) announced on 22 May 2002 that, following an extensive two-year study of the employment of women in the Armed Forces, with specific reference to certain close-quarter combat roles, it had concluded that it would not be operationally effective to open up these particular roles to women. From it’s findings, it concluded that at present, women will continue to be barred from close combat roles in the army because it would be too risky to find out how their presence would affect operations. This is resulting on a report on women in the forces, referring to women’s lower physical capacity and psychological differences than men, including a “gap in the capacity for aggression”. However, these were not conclusive findings in the report; a report in the Sunday Herald springs to mind. A servicewoman stationed in Saudi, during the first Gulf conflict, a mechanic, was fixing her vehicle in the desert heat while wearing military issue shorts. Because she was wearing shorts, a passing religious policeman whipped her on the legs. Her feminine response was to kick him to the ground, put a pistol to his head and threaten to blow his brains out. Not perhaps the most diplomatic way to deal with religious differences, but when talking about provocation and aggression surely it illustrates that neither can be predicted on sex alone, but on an individual basis (some of the male soldiers wouldn’t have had the balls to do this)!

The crucial factor was the potential threat to the combat effectiveness and structure of member teams required “to close with and kill the enemy face to face”. Differences between women and men in their capacity to develop muscle strength and aerobic fitness were such that only about 1% of women could equal the performance of the average man, said the report. When exposed to the same physical workload, women had to work up to 80% harder than men to achieve the same results. It said there was no way of knowing whether mixed gender teams of combat troops could cope as well as all male ones in extreme danger, confusion and exhaustion - but to find out would be unethical.

The decision was criticised by the equal opportunities commission, who believe that “automatically excluding women from armed combat posts is not the right approach and that mixed units would not have a negative impact on operational effectiveness” (Jenny Watson, Deputy Chairwoman, EOC). The EOC also felt that each individual should be judged on the basis of their ability to carry out the job, using relevant tests. Relatively few women would make it, but that it not a good enough reason for denying all women the opportunity to apply. No post should be closed to either sex provided they can meet the physical and mental requirements of the task.

Defence officials insisted that “old arguments about chivalry” played no part in the report’s outcome and that women had had a “civilising effect” on the armed forces. But their main concern was that women infantry soldiers, wounded or killed in battle, would affect their male colleagues in a way that would disrupt military operations. The report’s authors believe that the decision to keep some infantry and armoured corps positions closed to women was a “political one” and not based on scientific evidence. The MOD said that the forces’ right to exclude women from frontline roles had been upheld by the European Court of Justice.

Interviews – Servicewoman’s viewpoint:

“Sometimes individual women want so much to be part of the team they try to damp down their feminine side; and that’s a shame. We should be first-rate women, not second-rate men”.

(Tricia, Sergeant, former servicewoman).

“I think there is a place for women in a war. It may not be on the front line at the end of the day – although I would shoot if someone pointed a gun at me – because in the infantry physical strength ins out, but I don’t see why tanks should always be closed to us” (Lieutenant Smart, former servicewoman).

“When in the first Gulf conflict, the men had low expectations of the women’s courage. They thought that in a war situation that we would sit around crying and cuddling each other, saying “I want my Mummy”. In the end the lads were coming to us with their problems and treating us like big sisters. There are some things that they can’t discuss with other men. But although they would mostly try to treat us as equal, they would never stop reminding us, somehow, that5 we were women”.

(Corporal Dargie, former servicewoman).

“I think some women are capable of combat, but you need emotional stability, and there are a lot of men who can’t handle it. It’s not the dream of every woman to have a marriage and all that. Some women have different dreams”.

(Sergeant Kopina, serving soldier).

“Women always have to prove themselves, but if we want equal opportunities we have to push ourselves to the limit. A lot of men refuse to accept women in the army, saying women aren’t physically strong enough. But as with all jobs, it’s about teamwork. We can ask for help. That’s what men do”.

(Julie, Corporal, serving soldier).

“Unfortunately, women are still a minority group in the Armed Forces and therefore, like any other minority group, are viewed with more scrutiny than white men are, which means they have to work hard at proving their abilities. In my experience, discrimination is usually apparent in the rear/support elements of the Forces, i.e. in transport/logistics/maintenance units, as opposed to the more specialised units. Perhaps the reason for this is that women serving in specialist units have to be trained to exactly the same standard as their colleagues in order to be employed in their units. Therefore, the men they are working with generally appreciate that they have earned their positions and respect them for it. I used to have a phrase: ‘I don’t have a problem with women serving in the Armed Forces any more than I have a problem with men serving in them’. What I meant by that was that I would treat everyone in the same manner unless they proved to me that they are not worthy of my respect. I expected the same rule to be applied to the way in which my male colleagues treated me. Unfortunately, I did find that some girls would ‘play on’ their sex – an act, which I absolutely would not tolerate – this gave the hard working girls an even tougher time at convincing the white men that they were fully able and committed. I believe that I earned respect and I believe that was because I acted in the same manner as my male colleagues when I was working, i.e. taking the rough with the smooth and only allowing my emotions to emerge in the privacy of my home. The Forces are, in my opinion, not institutions for people whose lives are controlled by personal dilemmas – people like this should remain in everyday jobs, where their emotions will not necessarily be tested.” “In relation to serving in combat roles, I feel that everyone, regardless of sex or creed should have the same choices. It’s not about whether they can or can’t conduct combat roles; its whether they are allowed to choose to ‘give them a go’. If a woman feels that she is capable, then I believe she should be given the choice of trying her best at applying her skills and doing what she wants do, just as a male can. One thing, which does concern me, is whether women who decide to push themselves to their physical limits early on in life may find that some of the tasks they have undertaken cause them health problems later on. For example, I am concerned that carrying heavy bergens as a young woman may have serious health repercussions, which may result in these women not being able to carry children if they decide that they want to do so at a later date”.

(Staff Sergeant Collins, former servicewoman).

“I think if you talk to the women who are professionals in the military, we see our selves as soldiers. We don’t really see it as man versus woman”.

(Major Rossi, serving officer).

“Muslim countries and those which prefer women ‘barefoot and pregnant’ are far more dangerous for women prisoners-of-war. They look upon women soldiers as sluts and whores, and they might treat them accordingly. They run a higher risk of being tortured than men, because the enemy believes they shouldn’t be there in the first place”.

(Private Benson, serving soldier).

Interviews – Serviceman’s viewpoint:

“The Army knows it could not function without its females. They are not just there as an add-on, they are terribly important”.

(Charles Heyman, former Officer & editor of Jane’s World Armies).

Private A Weinstein comments on working along side female soldiers, “I do not think it matters, we treat them as soldiers. She is fighting alongside me. She is protecting me and I am protecting her. We are soldiers”.

(Guardian, 12-02-01).

“As far as women in the military are concerned, I think its part of the military way of life. Generally they take feminine type jobs within the military, medical and clerical. But I think that you get some women that think they are capable of more than the stereotypical jobs and want to prove that they can do the more physical aspects of the military just as well as the men, if not better in some cases. I work in a physically demanding job, mostly with male soldiers but there are a few women in the trade. In some cases I would rather work alongside some of the women rather than the men because I know from past experiences with them that they are grafters and aren’t afraid of getting dirty and sweaty. In my eyes they’re just one of the lads – they muck in. As for women in a combat role, the same applies, if they are capable of the physical and mental fatigue that comes with such a job, then why not. If I knew that the female soldier next to me was capable of doing exactly the same things as me – what reason would I have to say ‘no’ she shouldn’t be here”.

(Lance Corporal, serving soldier).

“The military’s got a job to do and if you leave it alone things work out. There’s a lot of overprotecting of females in the outside world. It’s better just to let them get on with it”.

(Sergeant Smith, serving soldier).

EVALUATION:

I feel that my methods used for carrying out this personal study were very effective and that I successfully gleaned a lot of information from varying sources. If I had the opportunity I would have liked to survey more service personnel, both past and present, in order to achieve a better range of results for my study. This was of course impossible to achieve because the majority of our British soldiers are at war, either in Afghanistan or Iraq.

I believe that despite their macho image, male soldiers are so used to accepting orders that they will obey a senior female soldier with far less reluctance than many civilian men (I can’t see this happening in the House of Lords)!

Granted, many women won’t be strong enough to cope with the exhausting, physical demands of infantry combat or driving a tank. But neither will many men, who may be equally or more queasy and disorientated in the reality of battle.

CONCLUSION:

I still believe in my hypothesis given in the introduction. While there are certainly reasons to be positive, the army still has a long way to go. Harassment and discrimination still exist, and for those female soldiers ambitious to move to the top, female role models remain sparse. There are no female generals yet and close to no female brigadiers. Whilst some regiments have adopted an open-minded approach to women’s recruitment, there are others (combat units in particular) that remain stubborn bastions of testosterone-charged narrow-mindedness. Change takes time, to date we have come a long way since the 20th Century, but we still have a long way to go too. Younger officers and soldiers, male and female are much more open-minded than previous (old school hierarchy) service personnel serving twenty years ago this is ever present and will be an on going situation.