what is it good for? Arms companies, that's who.
anyway, inspired by this poll: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2008/jun/19/afghanistan.military?gusrc=rss&feed=commentisfree
should women be on the front line in war? i'd say yes: if you're bothered enough to want to defend your country, you should be allowed to do it in whatever way you want, regardless of gender, sexuality et al.
hmmh? you disagree? i'll fight you, and so will my mum.
yes, exactly what you said.
if you want to join the army, actively fight for your country, of course you should be allowed - as long as you're capable. yep.
http://www.acefancydress.co.uk/images/images_big/4423A.jpg
You mean in infantry/armoured roles?
There are a number of problems with that which no army in the world has been able to resolve. The Israelis tried and failed a while back.
There are women in the Royal Artillery/Intelligence Corps in addition to Army Air Corps pilots and combat medics, they're already on the frontline, just not in direct combat roles.
what are the problems?
are they physical burden of armour / guns etc. / stamina issues etc.
Or personnel related?
Physical issues.........
If you're part of a Challenger tank crew you'll have to be able to lift the rounds, change tracks, maintain the tank, etc All of which is seriously heavy duty work that a lot of men wouldn't be physically capable of doing.
The physical requirements of the job would
render almost every single female applicant unsuitable for the task.
Ergo for every other other role in a 'teeth arm'. Doubtless there are some women who would be capable of this, but they would be so few in number. Would you want to be one of 3 or 4 women in a 700 strong infantry battalion?
Additionally, it doesn't matter how right-on we are in the West, our enemies won't be. The first female Brit to get captured in Iraq/Afghanistan will be used as a powerful propaganda tool against us, but likely not before she is repeatedly raped, possibly on camera.
It's not very nice, but it's exactly what will happen.
Pics plz
I'm likely to descend into mangled ranting if i try and reply sensibly
Ladies?
At least you stopped short of saying women would be useless one week out of four due to PMT.
Which aspect are you objecting to?
both, really
I think it's incredibly condescending to generalise that 'women aren't physically capable', albeit with your proviso 'that some would be able to but who would want to?'. That;s why the army has physical tests - to ensure you're capable of the task. To preclude people from taking part purely due to gender is discrimination.
re capture and rape: OK – you have a point with propaganda for the first instance - if it happens. But there will always be a first, and anyone in that position knows the risks - male or female. Again, why deny someone the choice.
Oh, get a grip!
Read what i said again.
It's an intensely physically demanding job that a large proportion of men would be incapable of. The fact is that very few women would be capable of it.
I'm sorry of that offends your liberal sensibilities, but it doesn't detract from
the fact that men in general are physically stronger than women.
The only way that large volumes of women could enter the teeth arms would be if standards of entry were drastically reduced.
The effect of this would be twofold:
1) Combat effectiveness would be reduced
2) Lives (both male and female) would be lost.
In any battle between academic debates on gender equality and the operational needs of the army, the army must always have priority.
There is too much at stake.
ok
I thought the use of men was a typo - apologies. Also, i'm not advocating 'large volumes' - just that there should be the opportunity for people who ARE capable of a job to be able to do it regardless of gender.
The female fitness test may be lower at present - but surely that's predicated on the fact that the roles are currently unequal.
liberal sensibilities be fucked. IMO, the arguments against don't stack up.
As far as I'm concerned...........
any women who wishes to attempt selection should be entitled to on the condition that present standards are in no way reduced or adjusted.
However, I am certain that the number of women that would reach the required standard (physical, not mental) would be so small as to be negligible in the grand scheme of things.
The women in combat debate ha been driven principally by the feminist movement. The perversity is almost without exception those who advocate this most staunchly would never dream of joining the armed forces themselves, indeed more often than not they will be opposed to their very existence.
They have no interest whatsoever in the ultimate effect on the army, were their arguments to win the debate.
There's no place for ideological point scoring when it comes to national defence.
I'm backing him^
Additionally, re: the British Army's Basic Fitness Test
The standard for women (NO, not the standard OF the women, but the target they must reach in order to pass said test) is significantly lower than the standard that men must attain.
there is that too tho
what are these problems?
im intrigued? and feeling a bit sexy
that's what i mean
also please expand on 'problems'?
I'm all for it, buuuut
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ef5iz1WAt_E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCg56p0pq00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lzM_TImRVk&feature=related
I say yes
It means less chance of me having to do so in the event of getting called up for world war 3. Although all that would involve is sitting around until a nuclear bomb falls on me and frankly I could do that from home.
I can't stop singing 'War' at my desk now.
me neither
what army division did gary glitter join?
the infantry
whos garry glitter?
Not mine
?
a famous paedo!
hence infantry
as if you havent heard of gary glitter
seriously
The women here in the office
are always claiming they are the equal (or better) of any man. Now's the time to prove yourself soldier.
Simple answer, as i'm revising:
Yes.
In 99% of cases no.
Not because they are women, but because of the physical demands of the job.