Arming the women in blue

Kyt · May 30, 2008

BBC NEWS | UK | Arming the British women in blue

In 2008, women's vital role in the British armed forces is rarely questioned.

They serve, and are killed, alongside men in conflict zones in Afghanistan and Iraq, and perform crucial tasks while on active service.

Although still excluded from some jobs, such as land combat posts, they are trained in the use of firearms and carry weapons when required.

But it has not always been so.

As recently as 1979, military chiefs in the RAF were still debating whether or not women should carry weapons, and if so, when and where.

Documents released by the National Archives show air force bosses, in the wake of the Sexual Equality Act of 1975, were keen to allow women to play armed self-defence roles, seeing the advantages in creating a more flexible workforce.

But there were concerns about women's "physical and psychological ability to cope with realistic ground defence" and fears the 1970s British public was not yet ready to see women with guns.

Some in the RAF believed it would be impossible for women to take part in ceremonial duties bearing arms for fear of inflaming public opinion, the papers showed.

And in speaking notes made on 9 November 1978, the RAF recognised "there may be dangers in moving too fast in this area".

Christina Hughes, professor of women and gender at University of Warwick, said these fears were not surprising at that time when feminist equality campaigners were still regarded as "bra-burning lesbians".

Although more women were going into the workforce and the equal opportunities movement was at its height, females were still widely regarded as "nurturers and carers", she said.

"In the 1970s it was a fairly radical thing to be doing," she added.

'Good quality females'

However, RAF bosses appeared to value the practical advantages over concerns of a public backlash, hoping that allowing women to play more roles would help solve problems caused by a drop in the number of men joining the service.

"At present, station commanders use fewer women than they could in non-combatant posts because many of those posts require arms to be borne," the speaking notes said, adding that "good quality female recruits" were easier to come by in some areas than males.

Most male colleagues were reported to be in favour of the move, the papers showed, with one document from an RAF radar station pointing out that women already gave orders to fire on the enemy.

"There appears to be little moral difference between giving any order to kill and carrying out the killing," the report said.

In a draft proposal to be put before the secretary of state, RAF chiefs argued that if more posts were to be made available to women to ease manning problems "then the present restriction on the carriage of arms by servicewomen would have to be abolished".

However, military bosses placed limits on their role, saying there were no plans for them to "take on a primary combat role".

Nor, they added, would women serve armed in Northern Ireland because terrorists might consider them legitimate targets.

The RAF was leading the way with the move, with the papers revealing the Army had "not yet given any serious thought to the matter", while the Royal Navy had not considered the issue because its personnel were not often in a position where small arms were needed.

'Greater flexibility'

Defence press briefing notes from 1979 show how the service was planning to deflect difficult questions from the media.

The RAF aimed to sell the idea of arming women by saying it would "increase the effectiveness of the RAF as a whole", create "greater flexibility" and enable women to fulfil roles previously closed to them.

Those responding to queries were directed to deny the move was to relieve manning deficits, but instead promote the idea that it would help with the "more efficient use of manpower resources".

The briefing document explained how women would be armed only in the roles of station defence, self defence and weapons training and that most RAF women "seemed to want change".

It noted armed training was given to women in Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Norway and the US.

However, one practical sticking point foreseen by RAF bosses was so-called "x-factor" payments - extra money used to compensate members of the armed services for exposure to danger and uncomfortable conditions.

In the late 1970s, women received 5% and men 10%. Military leaders recognised this would have to change if women were being placed in positions of equal risk to their male colleagues.

An RAF chief raised another worry which may bring a smile to those serving females who now carry much heavier weaponry.

"I suspect that standard 9mm self-loading pistols may be too large and heavy for use by most airwomen and the introduction of a smaller lighter weapon would have to be studied," he said.
Click to expand...

morse1001 · May 30, 2008

very interesting! But given that in many cases giving weapons to ordinary members of the RAF, was a bit of gamble, as weapons traing was not taken really seriously. In fact, I remember speaking to a Regt Sgt, who said that airfield defenfse people should be given shotguns rather than SLRs to on safety grounds!

As for the Navy! We had to go down and use the range at Roysth Dockyerd on one occassion and when the Regt Cpl picked up the keys, he was given a War time issue pamphlet on Infantry Training!

Log in or Sign up

Arming the women in blue

Kyt Άρης

morse1001 Guest

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Arming the women in blue

Thread Tools

Kyt Άρης

morse1001 Guest

Share This Page

Useful Searches