Women on the front line.

Discussion in 'Law, Order and Defence' started by Welsh dragon, Nov 27, 2017.

  1. Welsh dragon

    Welsh dragon Senior Member Staff Member

    Whatever your feelings or thoughts about the military, up until now women have taken a back seat, but it looks like more and more women will be able to be front line troops.

    More and more previously closed sections of the armed forces will be opened up to women. Personally a good thing i feel, and it it means another male top heavy and unequal corner of the employement sector is finally opening up.
     
  2. Big Andy

    Big Andy Senior Member Staff Member

    Yes I would say it's a god thing too. The selection process should be exactly the same for all and there should only be one question when it comes to selecting someone for a particular armed forces role and the selection process.

    Who best fulfills the requirements of the role?
     
    Jezza likes this.
  3. OP
    OP
    Welsh dragon

    Welsh dragon Senior Member Staff Member

    Agreed, although i do think there will be some die hard old fashioned men who will say no and will say that the male soldiers will be put at more risk because they will try to protect the women.

    If the women themselves feel they are up to the job, then i am all for it.
     
  4. Big Andy

    Big Andy Senior Member Staff Member

    The old die hards move along eventually.
     
    Welsh dragon likes this.
  5. Jezza

    Jezza Regular Member

    +1
    All military roles should be open to all military personnel.
     
  6. IIP

    IIP Guest

    this isn't about the capability of women in combat, they are and would be more than ccapable, the problem is changing the ingrained notion that men have to protect women, its thousands of years of ingrained notion aganist lets say 50 years of women being able to fill any role they see fit to do.
    its easy to train a woman to become the best soldier possible but how do you train the majority of male soldiers to stop the nurturing instinct to protect rather than to recognise them as an equal on the battlefield.
    .
    nurturing: not sure if thats the right word but I couldn't think of another word.
     
  7. OP
    OP
    Welsh dragon

    Welsh dragon Senior Member Staff Member

    You are right in that women can play just as important a role as men and can serve on the frontline also just as well as the men, but regardless of whether they should be treated exactly like the men or not, if a man sees a woman in danger, it is their instinct to automatically protect any woman and that is the problem.

    And that protection could result in unessessary injury if one soldier tries instinctivley to protect a colleague. I honestly don't think you can train soldiers to ignore that part of their almost genetic makeup if you like. I can see the problem from both sides. I am all for women soldiers on the frontline if that is what they want, but i can also see a problem.
     
  8. Big Andy

    Big Andy Senior Member Staff Member

    You both raise a very good point.
    Im not sure it would be that easy or even possible to unlearn that instict.
     
  9. TheBand

    TheBand Member

    Men also protect other men in battle, not just women.

    If the playing field is equal then fine, but you have to remember that when Pippa Tattersall passed the Commando course it wasn't in the same way her male colleagues did.

    The last thing you want in any fighting unit is a weak link, if the female is not the weak link then absolutely they should be there alongside the men. If they are they shouldn't be, and to be clear nor should any male weak links.
     
  10. OP
    OP
    Welsh dragon

    Welsh dragon Senior Member Staff Member


    I am not advocating that at all, but if women want to serve in the armed forces, on the front line knowing the possible consequences then so be it. Women from other countries in the armed forces also serve on the front line like in Israel.

    Police women serve the same role as men in the UK as well, and have died in thd line of duty just as men have. Should they not be allowed to have the same role as men?
     
    classic33 and Big Andy like this.
  11. OP
    OP
    Welsh dragon

    Welsh dragon Senior Member Staff Member

    I think you have missed what the story is about. It isn't about the arguement of who kills who, but whether women should have the same role in the armed service as the men. Soldiers can and are also used in peacekeeping roles with the UN.

    There may well be men in the armed services who will always want to protect the women and this could possibly cause problems in intself, but that is yet another arguement.

    The fact is, women have been fighting for equality for 100 years. Women in the police force have exactly the same role as men do. They are not held back because it may be dangerous for them and since 1995 i think 8 or 9 women have died in the line of duty. No one has said that women police officers should be kept in the office.

    If you would like to start a thread about who kills who, then by all means do so.
     
  12. classic33

    classic33 Senior Member

    Pc Sharon Beshenivsky, shot in a an armed robbery in Bradford. Never thought twice about answering the call to the shop.

    I think the reason they don't serve in front line military posistions in the UK armed forces is down to the fact that no-one wants to say "there goes the mother of......" or see them come home, carried off the plane. As has happened so often in the past with the armed forces.

    Women, interestingly, can outperform men in aircraft. They can handle higher G-loads than their male counterparts.
     
  13. classic33

    classic33 Senior Member

    I'd check the role of women during both World Wars. They took on the jobs in the munition factorties and the engineering in both. In the second they also manned the anti aircraft guns, were the backbone of the RAF ferry service. Even Amy Johnson was in it. America had female pilots & crew transporting planes across the Atlantic. One step short of Front Line Service, when you check the numbers lost.
     
  14. Big Andy

    Big Andy Senior Member Staff Member

    You are indeed correct it's not about any of those things, neither is it about, national service, conscription (which wasn't proposed by any major party in the UK by the way) neither is it about corruption, whether its alleged Westminster or Holyrood corruption, it's not even about feminism.

    Its about getting the best possible people for roles in the armed forces and if the roles are "frontline" should women be considered for them?

    Personally it's a very easy one to answer. Pick the best person for the role, gender shouldn't come in to it.
     
    classic33 likes this.
  15. Big Andy

    Big Andy Senior Member Staff Member

    Thank you for your judgement on my humanity. I hope you wont mind if I give your judgement the consideration it deserves. Especially as this thread is nothing to do with humanity.
    You seem to think anyone who disagrees with you is some sort of inhuman warmonger. It would be great if we could say there was an end to conflict and we no longer needed armed forces. Until we get to that point I really cant see how wanting the most capable individuals, whatever their gender, reflects on anyones humanity. Its a nonsesnse argument.
     
    classic33 likes this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice