The Big Question: Should women in the armed forces be allowed to serve on the front line?

Why are we asking this question now?

The television images from Iran of Leading Seaman Faye Turney, the only female among the British Marines and sailors arrested in the Gulf, downcast and apparently confessing to having invaded Iranian waters, has focused attention on the role of women in the armed forces, and especially when they are in a risky front-line position.

What roles are open to women in the three services?

At present, 67 per cent of the posts in the Army are open to women, compared to 71 per cent in the Royal Navy and 96 per cent in the RAF. Women are not allowed to serve as Royal Marines, in the Household Cavalry, or any of the infantry regiments, including the RAF Regiment, submarines, mine clearance and Navy divers. It was recently announced, however, that the Gurkhas would start recruiting women in the future.

What is the view of the military hierarchy towards women on the front line?

As the new Chief of Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce said in 2001 that he had no problems with women in the armed forces "being killed on the battlefield, shot down or being mutilated", and neither did the wider public. His views were a departure from those of his predecessor, General Sir Charles Guthrie, who had stated: "We are not ready yet for women on the front line and maybe we will never be ready."

Admiral Boyce's view was that as long as female soldiers met the establishment criteria for combat, without any "lowering of the bar", they should be able to fight alongside men". But he was prepared to wait for the results of an MoD review of women on the front line before making his recommendation to the then Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon.

So what did the review conclude?

In May 2002, the review judged that the case for lifting existing restrictions on women serving in close combat roles had not yet been made, and that women should continue to be excluded from duties "that are required deliberately to close with and kill the enemy face to face".

What reasons were given for the exclusions?

The review found that only 0.1 per cent of female applicants and 1 per cent of trained female soldiers could reach the standard of physical fitness required for direct combat situations in which, for instance, a woman may have to carry an injured comrade to safety. It also concluded that the "capacity for aggression... was generally lower for women, who required more provocation and were more likely to fear consequences of aggressive behaviour". The survey also maintained that "the inclusion of small numbers of women adds to the difficulty of creating the necessary degree of cohesion" in a combat unit. "The attitude of group members, particularly positive and negative attitude to gender and gender stereotypes, could affect group dynamics and, ultimately, group effectiveness."

What is the legal position of women in the armed forces?

The Sex Discrimination Act (1975) allows the armed forces to exclude women from those posts where the military judgement is that the employment of women from these posts would "degrade combat effectiveness". This policy was upheld by the European Court of Justice in October 1999.

A survey conducted by the Equal Opportunities Commission published last year stated that two-thirds of women in the armed forces had been sexually harassed in the previous year, and that one-quarter of them said they had considered quitting the job. Only one victim in 20 bothered to make a formal complaint.

No less than 99 per cent of servicewomen said they had witnessed "sexualised behaviour", including sexist jokes or language, inappropriate touching or more serious sexual assaults.

What happens in other countries?

Women served extensively on front lines alongside men in Soviet forces in the Second World War, and also in the Israeli army in the 1948 conflict, and, less extensively, in the 1956 war. Since then, both countries have allowed women entry to such roles, but have not usually used them in combat. North Vietnamese forces, however, had women on the front line against the Americans in Indo-China.

Women have, of course, fought extensively in guerrilla conflicts across the globe. The use of female child soldiers is particularly prevalent in Africa.

Are servicewomen more vulnerable as prisoners than their male counterparts?

Significantly, Al-Alam TV, which has close ties with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, decided to concentrate on the 26-year-old LS Turney, the mother of a three-year-old girl, rather than the other captured Britons.

In her interview, the servicewoman "confessed" to trespassing on Iranian territorial waters, and said in a letter to her family that she had "apologised" to the Iranian people for what she had done. MoD officials stressed Leading Seaman Turney must have been put under immense pressure, but no one, so far, has said publicly that she was more pliable to her captors because of her gender.

There had been instances in various conflicts where women PoWs are said to have been victims of sexual assault. But claims that an American soldier, Jessica Lynch, had been raped while being detained by Iraqis during the last Gulf war have been stringently disputed.

The allegations were made in her biography, which was widely disseminated to the media before publication. They were said to be based on "intelligence reports" gathered after US troops carried out a highly publicised rescue. Iraqi doctors who had looked after her vehemently denied the claims, and Ms Lynch stated she had no memory of a sexual assault

Should exceptions be made for mothers and pregnant women?

Women in the armed forces broadly have the same legal protections as those in civilian life. Pregnant women are entitled to "maternity uniforms". There is some private criticism among senior male officers about female pilots, who have been costly to train, leaving when they become pregnant.

But the larger issue has to do with society's belief that mothers have a special bond with their young children, which should not be put under stress by their serving in dangerous occupations. But a women's right to choose what work she will do has taken priority over socially conservative attitudes.

Is it right for women to be exposed to the dangers of battle?

Yes...

* If a woman wishes to risk her life for her country, no one has the right to deny her free choice

* Women have sought the opportunities previously restricted to men, so they should take on the duties as well

* If a woman has the ability to serve on the front lines, the military should not deny itself her valuable service

No...

* Children need their mothers, and should not be exposed to fears for their safety in battle and when taken prisoner

* Men are naturally more aggressive than women and thus more suited to the martial virtues

* Women in the military have complained of sexual harassment and this would be worse in the close conditions of battle

Interesting? Click here to explore further