Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Ban Women Soldiers

Jump to new
Logique said:
Go into your nearest bank branch. How many male employees do you see. Or your nearest library, hospital, or government department, especially environment.

Include all the facts. It's not a competition, men and women are different, and vive le difference I say.
Click to expand...

Yes but that is not a result of unequal opportunity, it is a choice. Anyone can study medicine, librarianship etc those opportunities are not offered to one gender only. Women are still under represented in business, sciences etc not through lack of ability but lack of opportunity.

I totally agree vive le difference :)
 
I believe women can make a real and worthwhile contribution in the ADF and in the defence of our nation; I just don't believe that place to be on the front line.
The point has been made that the front line is a horrible place to be and totally barbaric at times of conflict. Men have been the fighting force for generations; it's an extension of the "hunter, gatherer" thing. Allowing women on the front line shouldn't be about political correctness or allowing the femminist lobby to have their day, it's about what the species has evolved to do over many years - it's DNA.
I'm all for equal rights for women in the DF, but they should be utilised where they can make a safe but real contribution.
 
The next vocation to be vacated by men 'by choice' will be teaching, and after that probably parliamentarian.

There are more subtle modes of bullying and gender bias than skyping co-workers having sex. Affirmative action and quotas are just two of the clumsier mechanisms.
 
NewOrder said:
Yes but that is not a result of unequal opportunity, it is a choice. Anyone can study medicine, librarianship etc those opportunities are not offered to one gender only. Women are still under represented in business, sciences etc not through lack of ability but lack of opportunity.

I totally agree vive le difference :)
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with your statement here. I'm female and would have thought it was fairly obvious that women are under represented in business, sciences etc not through lack of opportunity, but through lack of interest. If women really wanted jobs in those fields they would have them.
 
Penny Wong would make a good front-line soldier. She would scare the s**t out of the Taliban. She certainly scares everybody who interviews her.
 
Logique said:
The next vocation to be vacated by men 'by choice' will be teaching, and after that probably parliamentarian.

There are more subtle modes of bullying and gender bias than skyping co-workers having sex. Affirmative action and quotas are just two of the clumsier mechanisms.
Click to expand...

Thanks L

I had never thought of affirmative action and quotas as bullying, until reading your post.

It does fit much of the bully mentality,.... intrusive, imposed, unrepresentative, unwilling to consider others' views/feelings, driven by a sense of righteousness.

I do feel that when all this dies down it will rebound on the ALP.

I don't want an army of girls.

gg
 
startrader said:
I have to disagree with your statement here. I'm female and would have thought it was fairly obvious that women are under represented in business, sciences etc not through lack of opportunity, but through lack of interest. If women really wanted jobs in those fields they would have them.
Click to expand...

Exactly!! It still amazes me that feminists see the lack of women in business as oppression by the "patriarchy" rather than personal choice.
 
scanspeak said:
Exactly!! It still amazes me that feminists see the lack of women in business as oppression by the "patriarchy" rather than personal choice.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's as clear cut (to use a Kev expression) as coming down to choice versus oppression.
There's a good deal of both.

If I had to come down on one side, it would be that if women fail to achieve promotion and the roles they seek, then it's more likely they're just not good enough than that the boys' club is keeping them out.

viz Gail Kelly, Heather Ridout, just to name two examples.
 
When will the defence forces change entry requirements so both genders have same standards? When I last looked at the requirements women had easier levels to achieve. They should be the same requirements for the same job.
 
wayneL said:
Call me old fashioned, sexist, whatever, but no way I want to see women on the front line of combat.

That is not on the basis of capability either, but I still hold doors open for ladies.
Click to expand...

A bit sad wayneL, your view does seem to be ice-ageist. Starting with the fact that everyone has an equal right to be here and has an equal right to take part. You appear to be against equal rights for all.
 
noirua said:
A bit sad wayneL, your view does seem to be ice-ageist. Starting with the fact that everyone has an equal right to be here and has an equal right to take part. You appear to be against equal rights for all.
Click to expand...
It will be a sad day when women are not treated differently than men, imho.

They are not the same in many ways and have strengths and weaknesses that fully compliment mens.

Some women can perform equally as men on the battlefield now that it's not all hand to hand combat. Some are equally ruthless and can pull the trigger when required. A woman captured would not necessarily be treated any worse than a male. Males get raped as well.

However, generally, we are different beasts. The testosterone and oestrogen mix has allowed us to survive for many years and become top of the food chain in relatively short time.

It's a complex issue and we are on the cusp of a social/cultural/developmental evolution.

I bloody well hope we don't turn androgynous in the coming centuries, but it looks on the cards.

I'll keep opening doors along with WayneL.
 
noirua said:
A bit sad wayneL, your view does seem to be ice-ageist. Starting with the fact that everyone has an equal right to be here and has an equal right to take part. You appear to be against equal rights for all.
Click to expand...

Ah the off the cuff judgement. :rolleyes:

Noirua we have been on this forum together for a long time and you have plenty of opportunity to observe the totality of my views.

This being so the above comment I can only regard as childish trolling.

However I will bite.

It is nothing to do with equal rights, it is about optimum performance, both physically and psychologically. I personally could not function properly as a soldier if there were women in my unit. The reason is because I love women; my relationship with them is different than it is with men.

There is a reason there are no women in the Wallabies or the All Blacks or any top line sporting team. There is a reason for women only sport etc.

In biology, rights are not equal in many things. Men have no right to bear children for example.

Equality of opportunity in business, liberty, politics, social settings etc is a right I believe. But equality in every facet of life as some Fabian ideological end is not desirable IMO.

If that is ice-ageist, fine, then I want to live in the ice age, not some Orwellian/Fabian dystopia.
 
Julia said:
I don't think it's as clear cut (to use a Kev expression) as coming down to choice versus oppression.
There's a good deal of both.
If I had to come down on one side, it would be that if women fail to achieve promotion and the roles they seek, then it's more likely they're just not good enough than that the boys' club is keeping them out.
viz Gail Kelly, Heather Ridout, just to name two examples.
Click to expand...
Balanced comment, and would expect nothing less. ABC's Leigh Sales and Ali Moore (they'll be wrapt to be in this list), Anna Bligh, Kristina Keneally, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Mary Robinson, Petra Kelly, Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Coco Chanel, Golda Meir, Diana Princess of Wales, Boudicca,.....

In the name of balance - I hope the ADFA cadets responsible for the skyping incident receive the most gigantic boot up the derriere, if not expulsion. And ditto the ones in news this morning, reported to have created an aggressively anti-gay website. Supposed to be role models.
 
wayneL said:
It is nothing to do with equal rights, it is about optimum performance, both physically and psychologically. I personally could not function properly as a soldier if there were women in my unit. The reason is because I love women; my relationship with them is different than it is with men.

There is a reason there are no women in the Wallabies or the All Blacks or any top line sporting team. There is a reason for women only sport etc.

In biology, rights are not equal in many things. Men have no right to bear children for example.

Equality of opportunity in business, liberty, politics, social settings etc is a right I believe. But equality in every facet of life as some Fabian ideological end is not desirable IMO.

If that is ice-ageist, fine, then I want to live in the ice age, not some Orwellian/Fabian dystopia.
Click to expand...

Reasonable comments wayneL.
War is not a pretty place. When it comes down to it, hand to hand combat still occurs, when weapons or ammunition is unavailable or wasted.
Women have traditionally not been soldiers, over millenia, for a good reason, they are not physically suited to it.
I would support equal opportunity for all people, male or female, but it has to be in the context of the role.
People will look back on this debate as a culture war, similar to the Weather debate, with little relevance to the here and now, reality or the intrinsic strengths of women or men.

gg
 
Knobby22 said:
...Seriously, if you had a peacekeeping force made up of all female soldiers, wouldn't that be a help?? Especially against the Taliban.
Click to expand...
Yes I think you're onto something there. Same principle as female door security, which can work well.
 
One of my colleagues served in the military. I asked him his view.

He told me he believed that there are many who are capable of doing all the roles required. A female cadet he trained with did a ten km march with a broken ankle without a whimper.

As he stated, they are put through the exact same training and are required to lift the same amount, run just as fast and for as long, and do not get special treatment.

He also however does not want women on the front line. Only for the reason that when a man gets captured by angry disgruntled Opposing forces they may get beaten, killed, abused. But a women gets potentially all that mixed with rape.
 
D Company 6th Battalion Royal Australian Regiment were awarded last year a belated Unit Citation for Gallantry (UCG) for their gallant deeds at Long Tan, Vietnam, 18 August 1966. The Government refused to approve payment for members & families including family of deceased members to travel to Canberra to be awarded the UCG at a venue in Canberra by our esteemed Governor General.

This week the Government of Australia footed the bill to bury illegal boat people who perished on Christmas Island last year, in Sydney flying surviving family illegals to & fro, providing excellent accommodation, etc, etc, plus a bus tour of Sydney thrown in to appease these illegal survivors.

One needs to say no more.
 
Im not going to lie, War is definitely a place where women shouldn't be. But i do think that its a decision which females should make for themselves. I know for a fact that there are females who are more manly than a lot of men. so who is to say that they couldn't be better soldiers.

good topic though.
 

Similar threads

R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
sptrawler
Top