Should women soldiers be allowed to engage in close combat?

You’ve got a point Mick but you’re forgetting that strength isn’t the only thing that can win a fight. I’m 5’11 and slim to average build but I am completely confident that there are very few people will ever get the better of me in a physical confrontation. I have studied and practised hard to ensure that I will never be hit if I can see it coming and if anyone does hit me they’d better make sure I’m not getting up again quickly. It’s not about size or strength, it’s about understanding the way the human body is balanced, watching the energy used by someone about to strike and seeing where their weight is travelling and ultimately knowing the easiest way to incapacitate your opponents.

Besides if we’re talking front line war situation then surely the smaller your troops, the less likely they are to be shot.

Although men are physically superior to women, women are mentally superior to men. Both would be useful in any conflict. I do think that the men would be more inclined to protect the women which could casue problems, but apart from that I see know reason why women shouldn't be on the front line.

I say wait until she has "The painters in" put a gun in her hand & send her off to the front lines. Also tell her that her cheating scum ex boyfriend is fighting for the enemy. You can't loose!

I love the way you started with talk of equality then ended with good old fashioned misogynist joke

Joke? What joke?

ahem, nothing

Tytonidae wrote:How can this be ok Snookerballs - standards ought not to be compromised in the name of political correctness. The sharp end fire service, should be manned by men only, imo.

But surely Ty, if a women can pass training and prove herself to be able to perform at the same standard as her male counter-parts then she should be treated in the same way?

Snookerballs wrote:When you have 10 people (2 are women) lined up for a recruiting drive and one is required to recruit 20 % women, do you pick and choose for a standard?

Yeah that’s where the problem lies, you cannot positively discriminate! It’s just as bad as negatively discriminating in fact worse when you’re talking about hiring someone to save lives. I see no reason why a women shouldn’t be doing the job but ONLY if they can prove that they are just as capable. Any other reason is just foolish surely!

I’m of a slightly belligerent sort of nature and I like to think that faced with the same dilemma I may have hired the people that were best suited for the job and had the argument with the powers that be at a later date. As long as you can get the media to back you (which shouldn’t be too hard) then I’d like to see them try and take that case to court.

Q. Why didn’t you hire the 20% of women as per your quota?
A. Because they weren’t as capable as the men and would have cost lives

Case dismissed

Snookerballs wrote:Q. You havent hired 20% quota of women Why? is this because of Sexual Discrimination?
A. Because they werent as capable !!
A. That could be construed as sexual discrimination then !!!!

When it comes to legislation there is no real answer.

I know i'm living in a dream world but that's how i'd like to see the conversation pan out.

It’s a typical example of decisions being made far away from the place where they will be implemented. Legislating that your work force has a certain number of ethnic workers and a certain number of female workers only inhibits the employers ability to get the job done. In fact I would say that it does more damage in the long run as it creates bad feeling toward those minority groups. What was wrong with when people hired the people they wanted/needed for a job?

If they were doing the job better than everyone else then what's the problem with that?

Don't worry ladies, I'll protect you

Tuscany wrote:This may not be politically correct, but my answer would be no, as the potential to mistreat them as prisoners of war, has worse implications than for men.

Not really, men are capable of being raped & it could be said that this would affect a man more than it would affect a woman....... In which way do you think it would have worse implications for a woman?

I personally say that if a woman wants to do it & is capable of doing it then let her do it, as long as she meets the same basic requirements which would be expected of a man.

True, the same requirements could be a problem. But expected requirements should always be based on the Job one is required to do rather than which sex they happen to be......