Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Cutaway, post: 70283, member: 2708"] Prodigal, I've read your post with interest and, I must admit, a little confusion [color=darkred]With the greatest respect OldAdam, your being worried about your female colleague is entirely laudable, but should be irrelevant - it certainly shouldn't be compromising your effectiveness as a soldier. [/color] You're right Prodigal, it should be irrelevant but if he was worried about the RUC lass you've got to ask yourself why. What were her skills and performance like ? [color=darkred] If it is, deal with it. [/color] How ? Put her through remedial trg immediately prior to the patrol ? Or do you mean "Deal with it" as in the buzz word suggesting that OldAdam was the problem ? [color=darkred]There is a curious dichotomy in the attitiude of the military man to women it seems to me...................on the one hand they get the vapours when it looks like their female colleagues might get hurt, and on the other the military man is six times more likely to beat up his wife and children than his civilian counterpart...........please explain that to me. [/color] Could be that military wives are six times more likely to drive a bloke to the point of insanity, possibly due to the fact that they feel neglected as he's always being deployed to one grotty place or another around the planet. [color=darkred] There is a tendency to associate women being employed in the military with the degradation of physical performance/restrictions imposed by Health & Safety, political correctness/civil service-imposed targets/liberal, left-wing, tree hugging and general deviant softiness - and by inference, a reduction in the manliness, virility and effectiveness of our fighting men. [/color] I think rhetoric is getting in the way of joined-up thinking here. [color=darkred]Please gentlemen, let's raise the debate to something slightly higher than the very Freudian, school-boy intellectually limited argument that is currently being deployed. [/color] I don't think that the argument is actually as you describe, physiological differences have been mentioned and the psycological differences have been beaten back and forth on these boards in a number of posts. Is it that you really desire everyone to be 'equal' regardless of creed, colour, gender, religon, sexual orientation and ability ? That's all very well in theory but the big bad world is a very spiky place and if we're going to continue to win conflicts then the theory must take a second place to reality. [color=darkred] If there is a problem with the fitness of women - only recruit women that are capable of reaching the necessary fitness levels. [/color] It's hard enough to get anyone to join and remain, (male or female,) let alone looking for Demi Moore. [color=darkred]If there is a problem with men turning to jelly when their female colleagues enter anything more scary than a fight in the NAAFI, then incorporate cognitive behaviour change into basic training. [/color] Great, and if there's not time available it could replace some of the more ridiculous old fashioned subjects such as fieldcraft and section attacks. [color=darkred] If there's a manpower shortage because these measures are introduced then - there's manpower shortage.[/color] So what happens while we wait for the manpower shortage to be resolved ? Hang about Mr Hitler/Stalin/Hussein/Mugabe, we'll sort you out when we've raised another Army Group. [color=darkred]But then we won't have the unlovely spectacle of various men bleating about how untough everybody is now because there are women in their unit and it's all the womens' fault that the lads can't make it as soldiers anymore.[/color] I wouldn't say that it's the fault of females in the forces that the lads cannot hack it, if indeed they can't, so the gender question is only muddying the waters. [color=darkred] What I suspect might then become apparent is that we will find a lot of men, who are not physically capable of being soldiers, being exposed for the frauds that they are.[/color] Don't quite understand this last para. Please feel free to reply, I'd like to hear your views more clearly explained. :D [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Search

Reply to thread