Discussion
Now let us get this straight from the start. I am in favour of equality and support it. I believe that any form of discrimination on any grounds other than flat out ability to do the job in hand is 100% out of order. I open doors for people walking through them with me because I would like to think that they would do that same for me, not because they have lady bits.
Now I happen to believe that women should be allowed to fulfil all roles in the military that they can. Many women might not be as suited to a particular role as most men might be but there will be women who are every bit the equal if not more in almost every role. About the only role I can see a reasonable argument for remaining single gender is on the subs due to the environment, yet I would have as little problem with an all female sub as I do an all male one.
Then we see an article like this:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15009261
The entire article almost screams ‘women are not suited to this role’ and yet the ‘feeling’ I get when reading it is – so, you signed up for it, deal with it or get help just as if you were a bloke with PTSD. Just because you have lady bits does not mean you should be subject to or benefit from discrimination.
What are others thoughts?
Bit of a discrepancy in the US military. Both the navy and air force have women in front line combat roles. There are women fighter pilots in both and the marines have women attack helicopter pilots. Don't see why women shouldn't fulfill any role a man does as long as they are qualified. Plenty of women fought in WWII on the eastern front and were very successful. IIRC one of the best Russian snipers was a woman.
plasticpig said:
IIRC one of the best Russian snipers was a woman.
and so were many of the best spies.Don't forget that it took a woman to sort out the V1 rockets for the other team as well.
It just seems to me to be such a conflicted (no irony or pun intended) view of the whole thing. On the one hand it is said women want full equality and that it is working, on the other you have a number of ex forces females saying that it's full of macho BS and that they have nightmares over the dead bodies. Newsflash, this s
t affects bloke as well and they either don't join up, MTFU, or suffer just the same as the ladies. Personally i am in the camp of if you can do the job and live with the nasty side then great, if not you are not getting any special treatment.
Emotive, may be, but I don't think that anyone should be under any illusion as to what will happen to any female POW and if they are worried about a few gropes here and there then perhaps they have made the wrong career choice. Just as any bloke joining up has to expect that he's likely to get a kick in the nuts from time to time and not go running to teacher. I am not saying that it is in any way right or excusable, but this is a lean, mean, f
king and fighting machine you are part of, not a sewing circle.Rude-boy said:
Now let us get this straight from the start. I am in favour of equality and support it. I believe that any form of discrimination on any grounds other than flat out ability to do the job in hand is 100% out of order. I open doors for people walking through them with me because I would like to think that they would do that same for me, not because they have lady bits.
Now I happen to believe that women should be allowed to fulfil all roles in the military that they can. Many women might not be as suited to a particular role as most men might be but there will be women who are every bit the equal if not more in almost every role. About the only role I can see a reasonable argument for remaining single gender is on the subs due to the environment, yet I would have as little problem with an all female sub as I do an all male one.
Then we see an article like this:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15009261
The entire article almost screams ‘women are not suited to this role’ and yet the ‘feeling’ I get when reading it is – so, you signed up for it, deal with it or get help just as if you were a bloke with PTSD. Just because you have lady bits does not mean you should be subject to or benefit from discrimination.
What are others thoughts?
Speaking as a female, I fail to see how those situations are any more traumatic for a woman than a man. I find members of my own gender puzzling at times. I come from a generation where we genuinely didn't have equality - but we didn't achieve equality by asking to be treated the same as men and then bleating on about it when we were. I work in a field which 30 years ago was predominantly occupied by men, now we are probably about half and half. No-one in my profession gets a leg up the ladder because of their sex. We all, male and female, succeed by being good at what we do. I have a considerably younger colleague, who constantly beats the drum about equality, and what a rough deal we women have, etc. Except of course that it's balls. She hasn't achieved as much as she thinks she should have achieved because, frankly, she's just not that good. Now I happen to believe that women should be allowed to fulfil all roles in the military that they can. Many women might not be as suited to a particular role as most men might be but there will be women who are every bit the equal if not more in almost every role. About the only role I can see a reasonable argument for remaining single gender is on the subs due to the environment, yet I would have as little problem with an all female sub as I do an all male one.
Then we see an article like this:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15009261
The entire article almost screams ‘women are not suited to this role’ and yet the ‘feeling’ I get when reading it is – so, you signed up for it, deal with it or get help just as if you were a bloke with PTSD. Just because you have lady bits does not mean you should be subject to or benefit from discrimination.
What are others thoughts?
Are we talking women in a war zone?if so,treat them just the same.Or a front line battle,infantry fire fight,paras,commandos etc?I can not see that happening.There are so many jobs that women do as well if not better than men.Just think of the sights a nurse looking after IED victims has to endure.I bet though, those lads would rather have a bed bath with a pretty women than a hairy bloke.My son served in the Army for 11yrs,he found some women were as tough as old boots and could do more than a lot of blokes, while most women were just ?? birds.During the 1st Gulf War he was living rough with just two others out in the Iraqi wilderness for months.If one was female it would have been difficult.I saw one report, cant remember where,that on the battlefield a man would be more likely to stop fighting,(putting himself and others at risk ), to help an injured female.If it was a male he would just call medic and carry on.As for combat stress and mental issues,its the same for both male and female.With good training and preparation they have to deal with it,they new what was coming when they joined up.
TheSnitch said:
Rude-boy said:
Now let us get this straight from the start. I am in favour of equality and support it. I believe that any form of discrimination on any grounds other than flat out ability to do the job in hand is 100% out of order. I open doors for people walking through them with me because I would like to think that they would do that same for me, not because they have lady bits.
Now I happen to believe that women should be allowed to fulfil all roles in the military that they can. Many women might not be as suited to a particular role as most men might be but there will be women who are every bit the equal if not more in almost every role. About the only role I can see a reasonable argument for remaining single gender is on the subs due to the environment, yet I would have as little problem with an all female sub as I do an all male one.
Then we see an article like this:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15009261
The entire article almost screams ‘women are not suited to this role’ and yet the ‘feeling’ I get when reading it is – so, you signed up for it, deal with it or get help just as if you were a bloke with PTSD. Just because you have lady bits does not mean you should be subject to or benefit from discrimination.
What are others thoughts?
Speaking as a female, I fail to see how those situations are any more traumatic for a woman than a man. I find members of my own gender puzzling at times. I come from a generation where we genuinely didn't have equality - but we didn't achieve equality by asking to be treated the same as men and then bleating on about it when we were. I work in a field which 30 years ago was predominantly occupied by men, now we are probably about half and half. No-one in my profession gets a leg up the ladder because of their sex. We all, male and female, succeed by being good at what we do. I have a considerably younger colleague, who constantly beats the drum about equality, and what a rough deal we women have, etc. Except of course that it's balls. She hasn't achieved as much as she thinks she should have achieved because, frankly, she's just not that good. Now I happen to believe that women should be allowed to fulfil all roles in the military that they can. Many women might not be as suited to a particular role as most men might be but there will be women who are every bit the equal if not more in almost every role. About the only role I can see a reasonable argument for remaining single gender is on the subs due to the environment, yet I would have as little problem with an all female sub as I do an all male one.
Then we see an article like this:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15009261
The entire article almost screams ‘women are not suited to this role’ and yet the ‘feeling’ I get when reading it is – so, you signed up for it, deal with it or get help just as if you were a bloke with PTSD. Just because you have lady bits does not mean you should be subject to or benefit from discrimination.
What are others thoughts?
the_bear said:
It's blatant feminist agenda. Although I'm surprised they manage to write that article without any anti-American sentiment , or relate it in some way to MMGW
How is saying that women suffer from PTSD or similar a feminist agenda? If anything I read it as saying that women are not suited to some roles.Having spent the best part of 20 years in the RAF, this sort of whiney B/S makes me seethe. We went from a situation of zero gender equality (women barred from combat roles and paid only 75% of male income for the same job) to almost full gender equality (bar the RAF Regt) and full pay equality. Articles like this play into the hands of the Misogynists and threaten to send us back to the bad old days.
Having said that, the Article seems to thrust along the lines that women coming home from Theatre are expected to be able to switch off the 'soldier' and switch on the 'mother figure' because our society expects all women to be nurturing, which, of course, is utter cac. This (again) merely highlights the lack of understanding for veterans (along similar lines is the idea that male veterans should be able to slot back into society because they are men and automatically should be able to MTFU) and the lack of support for them whether male OR female.
Oh and male rape of POWs (albeit less common) occurs too.
However, " a few gropes here and there" by one's colleagues is TOTALLY unacceptable; it's effectively a form of bullying that seems more prevalent in the US Forces than in the UK Forces. Certainly, as a Flt Cdr, if I found such things happening, the perpetrators would get stomped on from a very great height (by the same token whiney bhes, whether male or female, would also get hammered).
ANYONE can suffer PTSD. I read it as a piece of crap by a bunch of lightweights trying to advance their own stupid, selfish, agenda which itself sets the case for Servicewomen being capable of serving in combat roles back because it buys in to some outdated male ideas about female capability.
- **NEWSFLASH** As a Serviceman/woman you ARE expected to serve in some bloody nasty situations. If you can't accept that, then don't join up in the first place!
Having said that, the Article seems to thrust along the lines that women coming home from Theatre are expected to be able to switch off the 'soldier' and switch on the 'mother figure' because our society expects all women to be nurturing, which, of course, is utter cac. This (again) merely highlights the lack of understanding for veterans (along similar lines is the idea that male veterans should be able to slot back into society because they are men and automatically should be able to MTFU) and the lack of support for them whether male OR female.
Rude-boy said:
Emotive, may be, but I don't think that anyone should be under any illusion as to what will happen to any female POW and if they are worried about a few gropes here and there then perhaps they have made the wrong career choice. Just as any bloke joining up has to expect that he's likely to get a kick in the nuts from time to time and not go running to teacher. I am not saying that it is in any way right or excusable, but this is a lean, mean, fking and fighting machine you are part of, not a sewing circle.
One of the things you accept (or should) as a Servicewoman is the chance of being raped as a POW. It's not a nice thought, but it's something you accept can happen (and try not to think about). Again, if you can't deal with that possibility, don't join up.king and fighting machine you are part of, not a sewing circle.Oh and male rape of POWs (albeit less common) occurs too.
However, " a few gropes here and there" by one's colleagues is TOTALLY unacceptable; it's effectively a form of bullying that seems more prevalent in the US Forces than in the UK Forces. Certainly, as a Flt Cdr, if I found such things happening, the perpetrators would get stomped on from a very great height (by the same token whiney b
hes, whether male or female, would also get hammered).TheSnitch said:
Speaking as a female, I fail to see how those situations are any more traumatic for a woman than a man. I find members of my own gender puzzling at times. I come from a generation where we genuinely didn't have equality - but we didn't achieve equality by asking to be treated the same as men and then bleating on about it when we were.
Well said, I agree totally!Old Merc said:
I saw one report, cant remember where,that on the battlefield a man would be more likely to stop fighting,(putting himself and others at risk ), to help an injured female.If it was a male he would just call medic and carry on.
That's an old Urban Myth oft trotted out as a 'reason' for denying women combat roles. The original 'report' pertained to the IDF and why women were unsuitable. It has been utterly debunked – it was never a problem for the IDF, nor was it a problem for the Soviets in WWII.ExChrispy Porker said:
the_bear said:
It's blatant feminist agenda. Although I'm surprised they manage to write that article without any anti-American sentiment , or relate it in some way to MMGW
How is saying that women suffer from PTSD or similar a feminist agenda? If anything I read it as saying that women are not suited to some roles.Regiment said:
As long as a woman can pass the same mental and physical tests as a man, she has a right to be on the frontline fighting alongside the men.
Here,here!Our daughter is currently 'in theatre' out in Afghanistan, serving as a Medic with the Royal Marines, if anyone has any doubt as to whether or not females should serve along side male soldiers then maybe they should read this before spouting ill-informed bias
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2014671/Im...
ExChrispy Porker said:
How is saying that women suffer from PTSD or similar a feminist agenda? If anything I read it as saying that women are not suited to some roles.
Well, the article said "oooh, women suffer from PTSD and have trouble readjusting to civilian life". Big whoop. That's been the way for members of the armed service since there have been armed services. By spending 75% of the article going on about it, the author really did ruin the discussion of the actual problem, sexual harassment and rape, which shouldn't be part of any workplace.turbobloke said:
Welcome to PH, I'd say that's a damn fine first post but you might think it was a condescending remark, anyway risk taking was always OK with me so, that was a damn fine first post. Agreed, btw. Apparently some blokes find members of your gender puzzling at times
Not condescending at all - many thanks for the welcome and the compliment. Glad to be here. Not surprised you find them baffling, btw. I have a friend who can talk about shoes for two hours without drawing breath. What the hell is all that about?That article really was a disjointed pile of st.
If I may ignore it for now, my views on this subject have changed quite a bit over the years, but some underlying feelings are had to shift.
First off: That thing about a male will stop fighting quicker for a female casualty. I really can't see it. On my first operational tour (GW1), before it all kicked off properly, three US soldier, one of whom was a woman, were captured by the Iraqis. I remember seeing a Daily Mail headline stating "Every Man There Wishes It Was Him Instead" or words vey close to that. I remember thinking "No I don't".
On a different note, for quite a large part of my career I witnessesd women being treated favourably in the army compared to men of equal ability. Quite the reverse of what they were complaining about at the time. Often the general complaint was of not being treated the same as the men. Until something hard came along and the it was often "but we're girls". You'll note I use the word 'often' as there were women who genuinely did earn respect, but I do believe that, back then, they were heavily outnumbered.
In recent years I think things have changed a bit. What I said in the above paragraph can still hold true but we have found ourselves in conflicts with no front lines (actually thats not new at all). I've seen women command logistic convoys that drive down route that get an IED strike at least once a day. I've known women to get up and run to a casualty under fire (a young female medic recently got an MC for this). We have female bomb disposal operators - one was killed earlier this year. There is a very attractive Army Air Corps Apache pilot who is known as 'the angel of death' for the amount of Taliban she has brassed up.So women can and do play their part - and more.
However, I still believe that the infantry is no place for a woman. I could write several paragraphs on this but I won't. Just ask any infantryman.
t.If I may ignore it for now, my views on this subject have changed quite a bit over the years, but some underlying feelings are had to shift.
First off: That thing about a male will stop fighting quicker for a female casualty. I really can't see it. On my first operational tour (GW1), before it all kicked off properly, three US soldier, one of whom was a woman, were captured by the Iraqis. I remember seeing a Daily Mail headline stating "Every Man There Wishes It Was Him Instead" or words vey close to that. I remember thinking "No I don't".
On a different note, for quite a large part of my career I witnessesd women being treated favourably in the army compared to men of equal ability. Quite the reverse of what they were complaining about at the time. Often the general complaint was of not being treated the same as the men. Until something hard came along and the it was often "but we're girls". You'll note I use the word 'often' as there were women who genuinely did earn respect, but I do believe that, back then, they were heavily outnumbered.
In recent years I think things have changed a bit. What I said in the above paragraph can still hold true but we have found ourselves in conflicts with no front lines (actually thats not new at all). I've seen women command logistic convoys that drive down route that get an IED strike at least once a day. I've known women to get up and run to a casualty under fire (a young female medic recently got an MC for this). We have female bomb disposal operators - one was killed earlier this year. There is a very attractive Army Air Corps Apache pilot who is known as 'the angel of death' for the amount of Taliban she has brassed up.So women can and do play their part - and more.
However, I still believe that the infantry is no place for a woman. I could write several paragraphs on this but I won't. Just ask any infantryman.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff