Women in the armed forces

I share granjura's view of recent wars, but I wouldn't feel as upset as granjura said earlier she'd feel if one of her loved ones wanted to join one of the armed services.

My grandfather's and both my parents served during WW1 and 2. They were lovely people, and I certainly didn't view my grandfather's or my father as 'trained killers'. My father was horrified by the invasion of Iraq, which he believed to be an illegal war.

None of my generation, and none of our children have joined the armed services. I wouldn't have been horrified if they had. I joined protests about Vietnam, and more recently about the invasion of Iraq. Peace

POGS I know what you are saying- of course. But I'm afraid the last few wars the UK got involved in, with 1000s killed- were not about saving lives, but about petrol and control of such, I'm afraid- and caused more damage than good overall.

I hear what is being said about the different nature of warfare now, but I think that the point that made this newsworthy was women being allowed to take part in armed combat on the ground, and there is plenty of footage of that in Afghanistan isn't there? I'm not being facetious - I don't pretend to be very knowledgable about current warfare. If there are woman who are fit enough, and have the mental attitude to deal with that kind of thing , well I suppose if that's what they CHOOSE to do , then it's OK.

Things are so different now, and I truly believe that gender should be irrelevant in the forces. Some people, regardless of gender, are unsuitable for the armed forces, others are great. True, more men than women will probably always be in the forces and fight on the front line: they have the muscular strength and the toughness. But so have some women.

My son is a Captain in the Australian Army Reserve: he has trained and served with women in East Timor and just accepts them as a normal part of it all. If they get put in full combat, which I don't think has happened here yet, he'll just take is as normal. In any case, so much of it all is technological, and both genders are equal in that.

The young ones have a totally different attitude these days. It is the same with gays - it isn't an issue to them: my lads don't fight their own prejudices - they simply aren't bothered.

I agree that warfare is likely to be more technological or chemical than person to person (or weapon to weapon), and that the gender of those in the armed forces would be irrelevant, as we would all be basically doomed.

Warfare as conducted now is a puzzle to me. We seem to interfere in conflicts that have nothing to do with us whatsoever, in cultures about which we understand little. And I hate to see young lives wasted/blighted by conflicts in which we are taking part at the bidding of misguided politicians. If we were under direct attack, then that would be different; but even the argument about war on terrorism does not hold water for me, because many of our actions simply inflame the terrorists to greater action. The critical factor is intelligence and we need as many as possible trained people in that field to provide prevention - and men and women are equally suited to that work.

Unless every country, every human being agrees to lay down arms or never use force there will be a need for a country or human being to defend itself, his/her self.

It would only be an idiot who thought otherwise.

However that is the desire of wishful thinking and the hope for us all to live in Shangri La

In the real world it is true to say that a war is maybe never 'just' but it sure as hell does not stop them taking place.

I guess it's a matter of opinion if you think having an armed force is a necessity or not. I do. I am also greatful for those who are prepared to serve in the armed forces.

Perhaps this is a subject that has and will always devide opinion.

Modern warfare is more dependent on technology than on vast number of conscripted cannon-fodder, so I am not sure that conscription is relevant to whether women should be in the armed services or not. If they make an informed decision, it is their choice as much as it is a man's choice.

If it did come to a point where it was necessary to pressgang every able-bodied citizen for the country to survive, then there would already be a lot more to worry about than the ratio of males to females in the forces.

There have been very few, and perhaps only 1, just war in the history of the world- most of the recent ones had nothing to do with protecting us as such- and with hindsight turned out to have been huge and massive wastes in 100s of ways. Look at Vietnam, and recently Irak?

Bit late, but, jack I have been to Headley Court. In fact, I was a regular visitor when DH was there after an injury sustained in the course of duty. We were in NI in the early 80s too. I have seen more than my share of the awfulness of conflict, and helped deal with the aftermath.

Nevertheless, citing Headley adds absolutely nothing to the argument that women should not serve.

janreb

She is what is old fashionedly called 'the salt of the earth'.

It is really heartening to remember there are 'youngsters' that have a desire to protect and serve the rest of us. We owe our service personnel a debt of gratitude and I for one wish her well. I hope she enjoys her time in the RAF, she certainly will experience life and hopefully good friendships.

Who can say what any of us would do, man or woman, if we were required to fight for our lives, or to protect the lives of our dear ones. Better that those who do are volunteers, properly trained, equipped and disciplined. The world is still a very violent place, unfortunately.

I should add I realise my GD wouldn't be fighting (although she is apparently a very good shot!) but some of her friends may well be, but that has to be their choice. I don't think you can pick and choose equality.

I have a granddaughter who is desperate to join the RAF as a medic. She has been in the cadets since she was 13 and works so hard at school (and cadets) all with the view to getting into the RAF. She has done so many things that not many youngsters of her age have had the opportunity to do, and most of her friends are from the cadets as not many from school have the same attitude. I say good luck to them all.

That is an excellent point, atqui. I would hope it would be a choice, but probably not. Women want equality and can't start saying, 'yes, but not that kind of equality'.

Be careful what you wish for as they say.

I'm all for equality of opportunity, but does that mean that men and women are the same? If some women want to go into the forces and be trained to kill, then that's ok, but what if there was conscription? I'm not saying that ALL men are more aggressive. by nature , but you only have to look at the statistics for violent crime to see that men on the whole are more likely to be aggressive , which is what fighting is all about .
Does anyone agree that it is more ina mans nature to fight, on the whole?
If we had conscription again, should women with no domestic responsibilities be made to be in the front line too?

Yes, Pogs!

And if people had not been trained to kill, where would we be now?
I am not saying I agree with war in the slightest, but world peace is a Utopian dream and our Forces are trained to kill for our defence and freedom.

Be thankful someone would be prepared to do it on your behalf if necessary.
I would do it to defend my DC and little DGC, although I would not choose to do it as a career.

[sigh]

Of course women should have the same opportunities as men.

I agree with Jess M's point about the need for attention to be drawn to the extent of sexual harassment, rape, intimidation of people (not just women) in the army.

Interesting thread. There was implication that Cameron was trying to engage the sympathies of female voters with this thread. I wonder if this is so?
I agree if they are going to admit women then the women need to have equal opportunities whatever career path they choose. But I would be much happier if he was taking a public stand on rape, sexual harassment and intimidation of women in the army.

Personally, I can't understand why anyone - man or woman - would want to join the army and be trained to kill people.

I don't know if any young person fully understands the implications of being on the front line until they experience it. The theory may be very different to the reality.

But that is their decision to make and it is right imo that they have the chance to make that decision.

I do agree with Mishap's post and would add that quite often joining the Forces can be the making of the young people she refers to in her 2nd paragraph.

I think young women are as capable as young men to make the decision about joining the armed forces and understanding the implications of that.
Young women who want to join the forces will be attracted to an active and physical lifestyle. I presume training would identify any recruit that would really not be suited to combatant experience - male or female.

I think one or two posts on here are quite unpleasant and offer no reasoned argument anyway, so are fairly pointless.

What is wrong with Jackthelad using the term 'girls' - after all we often refer to the men in the Forces and on the front line as 'our boys in wherever'.
I'm sure he did not mean it in a disrespectful manner, more the vernacular of an old soldier.

I am getting rather cross, best I go and make myself a

Jackthelad, I do understand your views and you are probably the only one on this thread who has direct experience of serving in the Forces. Members of my family who were in the Forces for many years are not in favour of this decision either, or of women serving in submarines.

I think this country is probably lagging behind others in this and the Government will have looked carefully at the experiences of other countries before making this decision.

Unless someone is forced to go on the front line against their will I think it is a reasonable decision. Some women will be as tough as, even more so, than some of the men they will serve alongside.
Personally, it is not something I would choose to do although I did want to join the Wrens.
I would not particularly want any of my DC to join, but would not have opposed them if that was what they wanted to do.

Granjura, if, heaven forbid, you or your family were faced with a ferocious enemy I think you would feel thankful if there was a well-trained armed soldier between you and them and that brave soldier would be someone's son or daughter, trained to kill to defend you and your liberty.

I'm all for equality of opportunity, but does that mean that men and women are the same? If some women want to go into the forces and be trained to kill, then that's ok, but what if there was conscription? I'm not saying that ALL men are more aggressive. by nature , but you only have to look at the statistics for violent crime to see that men on the whole are more likely to be aggressive , which is what fighting is all about surely?
OK Flack jacket and tin helmet at the ready!!!!
Sorry if this crosses with anybody else's post, but I've been quite slow at writing this.