Carryfast:
Yes and we also started WW1 and WW2 with a volunteer professional army.Don’t see anything in the article which states that women would be exempt from any potential future draft.Nor does it refer to only special forces.
Why is it any fairer to conscript a man who doesn’t want to join, instead of a woman?
I didn’t say it was only Special Forces, but merely pointed out that the Special Forces were also volunteers. The OP’s article made a big point of this change would in theory allow women to join the special forces.
As I said I’d guess that most men still have some protective instincts towards women.My reasoning is no different to the rule women and children first off a sinking ship and an abhorrence of violence directed towards women in that regard.Violence not getting much more violent than all of the potential scenarios involved in military combat.
As for the article it’s what it doesn’t say in the form of exemption of women from potential future conscription which provides the clue to the sinister motivation behind all this.Just as retirement age equality was all about saving pension costs.
i cant realy imagine the scenario when a sas wifey is in her camoflaged l.u.p ,rolling over and peeing into a plastic bag every 5 mins.
anytime ive watched a woman peeing its been similar to a came pishing through a ripped tennis ball.
or have i just been watching the wrong movies?
Carryfast:
Yes and we also started WW1 and WW2 with a volunteer professional army.Don’t see anything in the article which states that women would be exempt from any potential future draft.Nor does it refer to only special forces.
Why is it any fairer to conscript a man who doesn’t want to join, instead of a woman?
I didn’t say it was only Special Forces, but merely pointed out that the Special Forces were also volunteers. The OP’s article made a big point of this change would in theory allow women to join the special forces.
As I said I’d guess that most men still have some protective instincts towards women.
As opposed to a protective instinct towards all people, regardless of gender?
Considering a lad I know was awarded a CGC for running into open ground in a fire fight to try and save his mate who’d been wounded and this type of selfless action doesn’t seem overly unusual throughout the history of wars, sometimes even to save the life of an enemy soldier.
it would seem many soldiers, especially those who have the bond that can only be forged in combat, have a protective instinct towards those they serve alongside regardless of gender.
muckles:
As opposed to a protective instinct towards all people, regardless of gender?
Considering a lad I know was awarded a CGC for running into open ground in a fire fight to try and save his mate who’d been wounded and this type of selfless action doesn’t seem overly unusual throughout the history of wars, sometimes even to save the life of an enemy soldier.
it would seem many soldiers, especially those who have the bond that can only be forged in combat, have a protective instinct towards those they serve alongside regardless of gender.
More like the analogy of the de Caprio scene in the film Titanic where he stays in the water to provide Rose with a chance on the floating piece of wreckage.IE after the fact but still the recognition that a man should be the one to face death rather than a woman wherever possible.
In addition to the scenario of a man staying on a fast sinking ship to provide a woman with a place in or time to board a lifeboat.IE prevention still based on the idea of male protective instincts towards women.
On that note are you saying that this scenario would be no more horrific if it was a woman ( someone’s daughter/wife/sister/mother ) having been fatally wounded.If so I find that an inconceivably offensive inhuman view.While also showing the ridiculous contradiction in feminists moaning about violence towards women on one hand while being happy for them to face the violence of military combat on the other.
muckles:
As opposed to a protective instinct towards all people, regardless of gender?
Considering a lad I know was awarded a CGC for running into open ground in a fire fight to try and save his mate who’d been wounded and this type of selfless action doesn’t seem overly unusual throughout the history of wars, sometimes even to save the life of an enemy soldier.
it would seem many soldiers, especially those who have the bond that can only be forged in combat, have a protective instinct towards those they serve alongside regardless of gender.
In addition to the scenario of a man staying on a fast sinking ship to provide a woman with a place in or time to board a lifeboat.IE prevention still based on the idea of male protective instincts towards women.
On that note are you saying that this scenario would be no more horrific if it was a woman ( someone’s daughter/wife/sister/mother ) having been fatally wounded.If so I find that an inconceivably offensive inhuman view.While also showing the ridiculous contradiction in feminists moaning about violence towards women on one hand while being happy for them to face the violence of military combat on the other.
I don’t think there is a difference man or woman, it is horrific, I’ve worked with wounded soldiers from recent conflicts, and it’s quite obvious that what happened to them was horrific and that doesn’t include the ones affect just by what they saw, I can’t even begin to imagine what they saw, heard and had to deal with and often many of them were barely out of school.
And in modern warfare, injuries are not just restricted to combatants, WWII we had civilians (young, old, men, women and children) getting bombed and in the occupied countries they were tortured and killed merely on the suspension of working for the resistance and then getting caught up in the fighting for the liberation of Europe. In recent times there have been no boundaries as to who gets caught in an act of terrorism suffering horrendous injuries or who dies in the war zones.
As for feminists, well if they want equality, that means they should also accept equal risks as men have to accept.
Carryfast:
While also showing the ridiculous contradiction in feminists moaning about violence towards women on one hand while being happy for them to face the violence of military combat on the other.
I’m not seeing the contradiction in moaning about violence to anyone, regardless of gender, and choosing to join the armed services.
I did rather moan about the man who held a knife to my throat when he robbed the petty cash tin at work, that was because that was not voluntary. If I were to volunteer to be a soldier, then that is different, one is a choice, one isn’t.
People, any gender, vary wildly. Having someone say that women can’t do something they can do, because someone of the opposite gender believes them to have certain attributes, is not going to fly with me. Maybe someone out there believes women shouldn’t run a haulage company because they are .
There are people who still think women should stay at home and have babies. Just kill me if that were to happen.
Yesterday, I had to watch the live streaming of a funeral from America, where a woman friend of my partner was being buried after being killed in an act of ‘domestic violence’. There are 3 such deaths a day in the UK, apparently. Nine out of 10 of the women murdered in the UK in 2017 knew their killer.
So staying at home isn’t a risk-free option either.
I suspect what troubles some here isn’t the idea of a woman being killed, but killing.
WW2 Britain…women worked on AA Gun sites in London, Bristol etc…just as exposed to risk as men. They were allowed to do everything except actually fire the gun. Setting the fuse, loading, calculating the aiming trajectory, etc, fine…pulling the firing lanyard…no.
muckles:
I don’t think there is a difference man or woman, it is horrific, I’ve worked with wounded soldiers from recent conflicts, and it’s quite obvious that what happened to them was horrific and that doesn’t include the ones affect just by what they saw, I can’t even begin to imagine what they saw, heard and had to deal with and often many of them were barely out of school.
And in modern warfare, injuries are not just restricted to combatants, WWII we had civilians (young, old, men, women and children) getting bombed and in the occupied countries they were tortured and killed merely on the suspension of working for the resistance and then getting caught up in the fighting for the liberation of Europe. In recent times there have been no boundaries as to who gets caught in an act of terrorism suffering horrendous injuries or who dies in the war zones.
As for feminists, well if they want equality, that means they should also accept equal risks as men have to accept.
A random civilian casualty caught up in total war/terrorism isn’t really the same thing as conscription of women to face a soldier’s death in a deliberate act of war.Unless of course the government makes the clear statement that women will not be considered for conscription,for front line war service,in any potential future state of emergency requiring the imposition of it.
Which leaves the obvious question related to the sinking ship scenario.Would you stand back to provide a woman with the time to board a life boat on a fast sinking ship thereby probably removing your own chance or would you view that situation as equal rights and survival of the strongest ?.Or the de Caprio scenario of the giving up your place on the floating wreckage on the basis of a similar instinctive protective view of women.While I obviously see keeping women out of the military combat environment as being no different.
I’ll put you on the list to drive the lead tank in the first wave of the attack to take back Crimea.Look on the bright side the government are going for cheaper and lighter over heavy and expensive in that regard.A bit like a StuG III.What could possibly go wrong.
GasGas:
Yesterday, I had to watch the live streaming of a funeral from America, where a woman friend of my partner was being buried after being killed in an act of ‘domestic violence’. There are 3 such deaths a day in the UK, apparently. Nine out of 10 of the women murdered in the UK in 2017 knew their killer.
So staying at home isn’t a risk-free option either.
I suspect what troubles some here isn’t the idea of a woman being killed, but killing.
WW2 Britain…women worked on AA Gun sites in London, Bristol etc…just as exposed to risk as men. They were allowed to do everything except actually fire the gun. Setting the fuse, loading, calculating the aiming trajectory, etc, fine…pulling the firing lanyard…no.
Weird, isn’t it?
The difference is that domestic violence against women is rightly considered as a crime and socially unacceptable.Obviously unlike sending a woman to her death in military combat.
As for the AA gun orderly not quite the same thing as sitting waiting for an unseen 88 mm anti tank gun or someone armed with a Panzer Faust to really mess up your day while you wait for a horrible end like a sitting duck in a Sherman.Nor the poor 18 year old kid working as part of the ‘recovery team’ who then has to clear up the shocking mess of the aftermath time and time again day after shocking day.
if I remember correctly[from what I have read from ex SAS blokes who have written books]don’t you have to be selected by the SAS,ie they send people along if a recruit shows promise in his/her regiment,if they like what they see then they are invited to join selection,thats how I have always known it to be or am I wrong,anyway as far as i’m aware women have always been in special forces,in the intelligence sections of the SAS or am I wrong again,i say being wrong cos i’m no expert on these matters.
truckman020:
if I remember correctly[from what I have read from ex SAS blokes who have written books]don’t you have to be selected by the SAS,ie they send people along if a recruit shows promise in his/her regiment,if they like what they see then they are invited to join selection,thats how I have always known it to be or am I wrong,anyway as far as i’m aware women have always been in special forces,in the intelligence sections of the SAS or am I wrong again,i say being wrong cos i’m no expert on these matters.
Not true anyone can volunteer who is in a regular unit, however you only have to look at the figures of how many have dropped out after 3 weeks on selection to see that there are plenty whose capabilities are nowhere near their ambitions. Women have always served in intelligence roles however mostly covert and not in uniform.
truckman020:
if I remember correctly[from what I have read from ex SAS blokes who have written books]don’t you have to be selected by the SAS,ie they send people along if a recruit shows promise in his/her regiment,if they like what they see then they are invited to join selection,thats how I have always known it to be or am I wrong,anyway as far as i’m aware women have always been in special forces,in the intelligence sections of the SAS or am I wrong again,i say being wrong cos i’m no expert on these matters.
Not true anyone can volunteer who is in a regular unit, however you only have to look at the figures of how many have dropped out after 3 weeks on selection to see that there are plenty whose capabilities are nowhere near their ambitions. Women have always served in intelligence roles however mostly covert and not in uniform.
Nearly there, mate.
You can join the civvy T.A regt. 21 or 23 SAS, as a civilian. Although I THINK one of those has been discontinued now.
From there you can apply to join the regular unit 22.
That’s how Chris Ryan ended up in 22.
Just a quick note, I have never served in any type of special forces, ever, and am not trying to imply that I have.
As we approach the [emoji817] years, it is wise to remember that Tommy worked in the local butchers bakers greengrocers and market gardens.
The officers at the back wore nice suits and worked in the bank or insurance office. There were far fewer professional soldiers with any structured training.
In 2018 the technology support and training is far superior, when I grew up my school mates worked on farms, there were 10 or 12 blokes employed, now there are maybe 2 on arable farms.
I hope the girls can reach the standards required for the SBS SAS or Regiment.
My mum was in logistics in WW2, before the word was invented, her sister typed up reports from the officers and sent copies out.
Wheel Nut:
As we approach the [emoji817] years, it is wise to remember that Tommy worked in the local butchers bakers greengrocers and market gardens.
The officers at the back wore nice suits and worked in the bank or insurance office. There were far fewer professional soldiers with any structured training.
In 2018 the technology support and training is far superior, when I grew up my school mates worked on farms, there were 10 or 12 blokes employed, now there are maybe 2 on arable farms.
I hope the girls can reach the standards required for the SBS SAS or Regiment.
My mum was in logistics in WW2, before the word was invented, her sister typed up reports from the officers and sent copies out.
Who did your auntie send the copies to?
Did she marry a foreign national after the war??
Should George Smiley be called in■■?
Wheel Nut:
As we approach the [emoji817] years, it is wise to remember that Tommy worked in the local butchers bakers greengrocers and market gardens.
The officers at the back wore nice suits and worked in the bank or insurance office. There were far fewer professional soldiers with any structured training.
The Military Service Act is probably the key turning point in that regard.Especially if/when it comes to sending someone’s daughter/sister/mother to die at the front as cannon fodder.When even the Georgian press gangs left women alone.
How difficult can it be for the government to make a clear statement that equality,regarding women placed in front line combat service,would not apply in the case of conscription.In the absence of such a statement the issue of equality being applied to front line combat troop recruitment is a can of worms.Just as feminists calling for retirement age ‘equality’ predictably turned out to be.
Wheel Nut:
As we approach the [emoji817] years, it is wise to remember that Tommy worked in the local butchers bakers greengrocers and market gardens.
The officers at the back wore nice suits and worked in the bank or insurance office. There were far fewer professional soldiers with any structured training.
The Military Service Act is probably the key turning point in that regard.Especially if/when it comes to sending someone’s daughter/sister/mother to die at the front as cannon fodder.When even the Georgian press gangs left women alone.
How difficult can it be for the government to make a clear statement that equality,regarding women placed in front line combat service,would not apply in the case of conscription.In the absence of such a statement the issue of equality being applied to front line combat troop recruitment is a can of worms.Just as feminists calling for retirement age ‘equality’ predictably turned out to be.
Nothing wrong with pension age parity between the sexes, sir.
I would have liked to see my qualifing age dropped by 5 years!
My putting on a blonde wig and stilettos, to go on protest marches, to achieve equity, didn’t have the desired effect however.
Wheel Nut:
As we approach the [emoji817] years, it is wise to remember that Tommy worked in the local butchers bakers greengrocers and market gardens.
The officers at the back wore nice suits and worked in the bank or insurance office. There were far fewer professional soldiers with any structured training.
In 2018 the technology support and training is far superior, when I grew up my school mates worked on farms, there were 10 or 12 blokes employed, now there are maybe 2 on arable farms.
I hope the girls can reach the standards required for the SBS SAS or Regiment.
My mum was in logistics in WW2, before the word was invented, her sister typed up reports from the officers and sent copies out.
Who did your auntie send the copies to?
Did she marry a foreign national after the war??
Should George Smiley be called in■■?
Sent from my SM-G361F using Tapatalk
I think it was all above board, she worked in The War Office, I presume Winston got to read them. She ended up as a personal secretary in Xerox and GCHQ [emoji14]
More like the analogy of the de Caprio scene in the film Titanic where he stays in the water to provide Rose with a chance on the floating piece of wreckage.IE after the fact but still the recognition that a man should be the one to face death rather than a woman wherever possible.
In addition to the scenario of a man staying on a fast sinking ship to provide a woman with a place in or time to board a lifeboat.IE prevention still based on the idea of male protective instincts towards women.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
if i was on a cruise and i heard the tannoy shouting abandon ship,then on way or another id be coming out of the cabin with all bases covered.
