GENDER POLICY THAT LED TO SEX IN A SUBMARINE

A GROUP of off-duty Marines were downing drinks in a bar when one of them became increasingly loquacious about female colleagues. These ‘slags’, he exclaimed, slamming his beer on the counter, were causing huge problems.

He was referring to a scandal on board the nuclear submarine HMS Vigilant in October 2017, which led to the captain being stripped of his duties after forming an ‘inappropriate relationship’ with a female crew member and allowing her to walk around wearing his cap and uniform.

Just over 10 per cent of the Armed Forces are women, but it wasn’t their ability to fight with which the disgruntled Marine took issue. It was allowing men and women to train and fight together. ‘It’s when you try to integrate them, that’s the problem,’ he declared.

The rest of the group did not demur. Speaking with a frankness they would never risk in a formal setting, they poured scorn on the rationale for opening all roles to women simply because it was the enlightened 21st-century thing to do.

The Marines were drunk and letting off steam, so perhaps not too much should be read into this ugly exchange. However, their hostility towards female personnel points to a wider unease among some in the Armed Forces over the way the (rightful) desire to increase the representation of women is being handled by politicians and top brass.

Few question the ability of women to serve in all roles, except perhaps Special Forces, where the exceptional physical requirements could be prohibitive. It is the indiscriminate integration of men and women in highly challenging operational environments that is causing concern.

It was in July 2016 that Prime Minister David Cameron lifted the ban on women serving on the front line in ground closecombat roles, endorsed enthusiastically by his Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon.

‘There are women flying fighter-bombers at the moment over Iraq,’ Fallon said, ‘and I don’t think it is right now to exclude women from considering any role they want to apply for. It has been done already in the front line for police, for example, where women are serving in firearms units and smashing down doors.’

Defence chiefs were fully behind the reform, declaring that ‘by allowing women to serve in all roles, we will truly help to maximise the talent available to the Army and make the Armed Forces a modern employer’.

In the ranks, however, there was a degree of scepticism about the sudden conversion of top brass to the equality cause. To some observers, the sex scandal on HMS Vigilant hammered home the operational risks associated

with a dogmatic insistence on equal opportunities.

One asked: ‘What did they think would happen by throwing a small number of young men and women together in extremely confined and pressurised conditions such as those on board a submarine?’

‘I don’t think anyone would suggest there aren’t women who are better than men. The issue is the mix,’ says one young Afghanistan veteran.

The Afghan experience, in which women soldiers worked as bomb disposal experts, medics and radio operators, and lived and died alongside combat infantrymen, did much to promote a sense of equality on the battlefield. However, many soldiers question the time and effort being devoted to planning for a future generation of female combat soldiers that might never materialise.

While commanders busy themselves reorganising training courses, planning new barracks and educating instructors in how to deal with female recruits, women are not rushing to sign up for combat roles.

‘So far it seems only a handful of women want to be infantry soldiers — is this really the most important problem facing the Army?’ queries an army officer involved in the project.

‘Everyone will look really silly if we roll out the red carpet for the women and no one shows up.’