News1 min ago
Should Women Fight In The Infantry?
107 Answers
http://
In the continuing quest for sex equality, why should it be only men who have to put their lives at risk?
/// Major Judith Webb said "women should not be given roles in infantry units where they would be expected to “close with and kill the enemy at close quarters”. ///
/// I don’t think we should have women in infantry roles. By opening it up to women, are women shooting themselves in the foot? Because they are not going to be able to have those standards,” she said. ///
/// She argued that it still shocked people when a woman soldier died in war zone. ///
/// “The British public still do not accept women should be in such roles. ///
In the continuing quest for sex equality, why should it be only men who have to put their lives at risk?
/// Major Judith Webb said "women should not be given roles in infantry units where they would be expected to “close with and kill the enemy at close quarters”. ///
/// I don’t think we should have women in infantry roles. By opening it up to women, are women shooting themselves in the foot? Because they are not going to be able to have those standards,” she said. ///
/// She argued that it still shocked people when a woman soldier died in war zone. ///
/// “The British public still do not accept women should be in such roles. ///
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
naomi24 - our perception of The Taliban is fed to us by our national media.
National media is unlikely to confirm that The Taliban are welcomed as a sense of order and sability by the Afghan people - as they were when the Russians pulled out, leaving a similar social vauum to the sitation the allied forces will create on withdrawal.
It makes it far easier to encompass the deaths of an army's enemies if those enemies can be painted as devils incarnate, strange people who are not like us, it makes the notion of their deaths less important or regrettable than those of allied forces.
Similarly, it is easier to take as read the notion that the Taliban are beyond reason and would not debate the future with the allied forces, wheras the reality should be that given that it is their country not ours, they should be given a chance to put forward their views on its future - even if those views do not align with the allied forces remit of forcing democracy on a nation at any cost.
National media is unlikely to confirm that The Taliban are welcomed as a sense of order and sability by the Afghan people - as they were when the Russians pulled out, leaving a similar social vauum to the sitation the allied forces will create on withdrawal.
It makes it far easier to encompass the deaths of an army's enemies if those enemies can be painted as devils incarnate, strange people who are not like us, it makes the notion of their deaths less important or regrettable than those of allied forces.
Similarly, it is easier to take as read the notion that the Taliban are beyond reason and would not debate the future with the allied forces, wheras the reality should be that given that it is their country not ours, they should be given a chance to put forward their views on its future - even if those views do not align with the allied forces remit of forcing democracy on a nation at any cost.
Andy-hughes, so it’s all propaganda. If only. No, they are not like us and they are beyond reason – in fact they are madmen - which is why they have no hesitation in hacking off the heads of hostages, or murdering foreign medical personnel whose only intention is to help the people, or shooting little girls who want an education – or perhaps that’s all propaganda too? Do you really think they care what we think? They couldn’t give a damn what we think because they are not fighting the war you think they’re fighting. Your naivety astounds me.
Men have a natural inborn instinct to protect women, there are exceptions of course but in general it is true. A huge proportion of men in a combat situation could not allow a woman to face the same danger that they would allow another men to face, even subconsciously they would try to protect the woman at expense to them selves. This is nothing to do with feminism or 'equal rights' it is a fundamental instinct of mankind and indeed of other species. For this reason it will never be acceptable for women to be 'on the front line'
The protection of females is one of the most basic instincts and has been fundamental to survival for all species for 100s of millions of years, you can't suppress it entirely .
Women can be in all other roles but not front line one to one combat.
The protection of females is one of the most basic instincts and has been fundamental to survival for all species for 100s of millions of years, you can't suppress it entirely .
Women can be in all other roles but not front line one to one combat.
naomi - I am far from naive I assure you.
I understand that war causes men to behave in ways that horrify and sicken all who hear of their actions, but let's not pretend that the allies' enemies have exclusive rights to abhorrent behaviour -
"No, they are not like us and they are beyond reason – in fact they are madmen ..."
http://
In Viet Nam, as in Afghanistan, lives re lost for 'mission' which cannot succeed - and history will prove that once again.
My point is, and remains, that simply shooting people who disagree with any one side is not the way to solve these issues - and that is not naive, that is a basic human approach to life and freedom.
Violent bullies grow up from being the victims of violent bullies - that applies to individuals, and nations - it has to stop, and the change has to begin with one side deciding that armed conflict is not a workable response.
I understand that war causes men to behave in ways that horrify and sicken all who hear of their actions, but let's not pretend that the allies' enemies have exclusive rights to abhorrent behaviour -
"No, they are not like us and they are beyond reason – in fact they are madmen ..."
http://
In Viet Nam, as in Afghanistan, lives re lost for 'mission' which cannot succeed - and history will prove that once again.
My point is, and remains, that simply shooting people who disagree with any one side is not the way to solve these issues - and that is not naive, that is a basic human approach to life and freedom.
Violent bullies grow up from being the victims of violent bullies - that applies to individuals, and nations - it has to stop, and the change has to begin with one side deciding that armed conflict is not a workable response.
AH, i don't think those who report from the frontline in Afghanistan need to skew the facts on the Taliban, they are not just some freedom fighters killing western soldiers to get them out of the country, but controlling, thugs who kill their own people at any turn, men, women and children, with a backwards mentality, feudal laws apply, and anyone who isn't in step will find themselves dead.
Andy-hughes, //it has to stop, and the change has to begin with one side deciding that armed conflict is not a workable response.//
We’ve gone a full circle here. I’m not pretending anything. I’m acknowledging reality. As I said it’s a nice idea, and I wish it was possible too, but it isn’t. We have to be realistic enough to concede that unless all are in agreement, rosy ideals are unachievable. If the other side maintains its position that armed conflict is its response, where does that leave the pacifist? To put it bluntly, buggered! Unless one man is willing to kowtow to the unacceptable philosophy of the other, the only solution is to protect oneself and to fight for what you deem to be right and just. Thank goodness the powers that be didn’t take your stance at the onset of World War II! Bye bye Jews, blacks, gypsies, gays ….. et al.
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemoller
We’ve gone a full circle here. I’m not pretending anything. I’m acknowledging reality. As I said it’s a nice idea, and I wish it was possible too, but it isn’t. We have to be realistic enough to concede that unless all are in agreement, rosy ideals are unachievable. If the other side maintains its position that armed conflict is its response, where does that leave the pacifist? To put it bluntly, buggered! Unless one man is willing to kowtow to the unacceptable philosophy of the other, the only solution is to protect oneself and to fight for what you deem to be right and just. Thank goodness the powers that be didn’t take your stance at the onset of World War II! Bye bye Jews, blacks, gypsies, gays ….. et al.
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemoller
It is powerful - but let's just remember, we are not talking about an iminent military invasion of the UK by a foreign power - rather the urge of the West to prop up puppet governments in order to enforce democracy by miliaty means on a feudal society who does not begin to grasp the concept.
Just because we believe in our sense of freedom, does not mean that it equates to the concept of freedom for other cultures, far less that we are entitled to force our system on them by military invasion, and then abandon them afterwards.
Just because we believe in our sense of freedom, does not mean that it equates to the concept of freedom for other cultures, far less that we are entitled to force our system on them by military invasion, and then abandon them afterwards.
Andy-hughes, //let's just remember, we are not talking about an iminent military invasion of the UK by a foreign power - rather the urge of the West to prop up puppet governments in order to enforce democracy by miliaty means on a feudal society who does not begin to grasp the concept.//
No, we aren’t talking about any of that. We’re talking about your notion that “training equipping and paying people to kill other people is fundamentally wrong”, along with your suggestion that Britain and the US be the first to abandon arms in favour of diplomacy, thereby leaving us at the mercy of any maniac who wants to start a fight – or worse. Pacifism is all very well in theory, but in practice, unless you’re happy to forfeit your freedom, along with mine, it doesn’t work. Whether or not we’re justified in involving ourselves in the current conflicts is another issue entirely.
Em, that from Pastor Niemoller says it all. All I can say is thank Zeus we’re not all pacifists!
No, we aren’t talking about any of that. We’re talking about your notion that “training equipping and paying people to kill other people is fundamentally wrong”, along with your suggestion that Britain and the US be the first to abandon arms in favour of diplomacy, thereby leaving us at the mercy of any maniac who wants to start a fight – or worse. Pacifism is all very well in theory, but in practice, unless you’re happy to forfeit your freedom, along with mine, it doesn’t work. Whether or not we’re justified in involving ourselves in the current conflicts is another issue entirely.
Em, that from Pastor Niemoller says it all. All I can say is thank Zeus we’re not all pacifists!
had our leader Winston Churchill been a pacficist many of us wouldn't be here, as all our Jewish population would have been wiped out, not to mention all those who didn't fit in with Hitlers ideologies, ethnic cleansing, not something one should care to really contemplate, but one can't help it all the same.
-- answer removed --
naomi - I draw your attention to my initial point, whereupon we commenced our exchange of views -
naomi - the answer is to start addressing potential conflicts in ways other than an immediate military solution.
A good start would be not to pre-empt the notion of armed conflict by starting one from this end, and follow that up with the acceptance that although we think democracy is a wonderful concept, that does not give us the right to enforcve it on other nations with military back-up.
If we start with those two notions, we would be on our way to reducing the idea that armed conflict is a suitable solution. It's not an over-night solution, but surely we have to start somewhere.
i have never suggested abandoning arms for diplomacy - i simply advocate that a willingness to wind down the armed option and wind up the diplomatic solution would be a start towards avoiding armed conflicts in the future.
That does not equate with the laying down of weapons tomorrow which is what you appear to infer that is my view.
I know that the issues are vastly complex, but i also know that after every armed conflict ever throughout history, it has ended with peoiple meeting together and talking out a solution - i simply think we should start - rather than end - at that point.
naomi - the answer is to start addressing potential conflicts in ways other than an immediate military solution.
A good start would be not to pre-empt the notion of armed conflict by starting one from this end, and follow that up with the acceptance that although we think democracy is a wonderful concept, that does not give us the right to enforcve it on other nations with military back-up.
If we start with those two notions, we would be on our way to reducing the idea that armed conflict is a suitable solution. It's not an over-night solution, but surely we have to start somewhere.
i have never suggested abandoning arms for diplomacy - i simply advocate that a willingness to wind down the armed option and wind up the diplomatic solution would be a start towards avoiding armed conflicts in the future.
That does not equate with the laying down of weapons tomorrow which is what you appear to infer that is my view.
I know that the issues are vastly complex, but i also know that after every armed conflict ever throughout history, it has ended with peoiple meeting together and talking out a solution - i simply think we should start - rather than end - at that point.
-- answer removed --
em10 - for the record, so would I.
I am not so idealistic that I do not accept the world as it is - but that does not stop me from having a view of how i would like it to be.
Do i think killing another person is wrong - absolutely.
Would I kill another person to protect my family - absolutely.
Let's not confuse an abstract concept and wishful thinking for the realities that facec some people every day.
I am not so idealistic that I do not accept the world as it is - but that does not stop me from having a view of how i would like it to be.
Do i think killing another person is wrong - absolutely.
Would I kill another person to protect my family - absolutely.
Let's not confuse an abstract concept and wishful thinking for the realities that facec some people every day.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Are Labour Preparing To Dump The P M ?
News13 mins ago
News15 mins ago
News21 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.