Re: Women in frontline combat role

I find it hard to accept equality on the frontline as men CAN'T get pregnant, what was the Cost of sending out a team of doctors to fetch the soldier who gave birth home. Since 2003 over 200 female servicewomen have been sent home cos of pregnancy.If you wan to be on the frontline you make damned certain you don't get pregnant, at least I'd have thought so, and a pregnancy test should be compulsary, which it isn't although alsorts of other medical tests are. I didn't know this and never thought about the waste of money and training.

Re: Women in frontline combat role

Another good point....

Re: Women in frontline combat role

What an absurd argument. Defence force personnel are never sent home because they seriously injure themselves playing sport, having car accidents, skiing, falling down stairs?

You quote an average of 22 women a year having to be sent home for pregnancy. Let's have the figures for how many men were discharged for injury whether accidental or self inflicted during the same period. I can guarantee it is a damn sight more than 20 even taken on a pro rata basis.

No it is not, it is the same tired old argument like not having female toilets and all the other bulldust used against women being employed in any job.

Re: Women in frontline combat role

Pregnancy is nothing like a sports injury, you only risk an injury or death to yourself then,not a baby too, and pregnancy has certainly nothing to do with having a pee, and these men who were sent home did s special team go out to them to fetch them home. If anything is absurd I think it's your riducilous comparison. BTW I don't recall saying the woman was discharged.Would you be happy if you had to depend on a pregnant woman to help if you were wounded, and what if she'd given birth in the middle of a battle. I don't think so Bruce.

Re: Women in frontline combat role

I suppose if a woman feels she has the nature and skills to fight on the front line then I see no reason why she shouldn't do so.

But no matter what anyone may say there is a huge difference in both stature and nature of men and women, it's the design of nature. By and large nature dictates the ways of men and women but there are exceptions of course.
But if a woman chooses life on the front line of any service then she must be prepared to do what men do and no quarter given.
Equality in all things, including taking life, or saving them.

Would I want that kind of equality? No thank you.

We are more than equal to men in some respects and vice versa. Long live the difference.

Re: Women in frontline combat role

I'm pretty sure very few, if any, of the men who work for me would like to go doen either sewers or coal mines. In thinking about what tasks women and men can do is it not more helpful to agree that the strongest men are stronger than many women, but the strongest women are stronger than quite a few men? Personally I think its sad that anyone spends their career training for combat, but would defend anyone's right to do so.
When I was growing up my dad didn't lift a finger around the house - that was mum's job and he was the breadwinner. He come every night to house with welcoming lights on and a nice meal shopped for and prepared by my mum, who also made sure he had freshly ironed shirts and brought up 3 kids, whilst also doing voluntary work. I now have a job in which I work longer hours than he did, and have no-one to cook, clean, shop etc. I do it all. I also managed to work out how to use a power drill. I think my dad had it easy. When he retired he still did nothing in the house.
Of course the consequence is that since my mum died he is incapable of cooking for himself and his diet is the 3 things he's worked out how to heat up.
A friend's mum, when widowed, had never written a cheque and didn't know how her central heating worked.
Surely it makes sense for both sexes to learn how to do as much as possible?

Re: Women in frontline combat role

No, Hazel you didn't say "discharged", I did and in italics to demonstrate that other service personnel have far more serious medical matters than pregnancy that render them unfit for duty or indeed service in far greater numbers than the paltry 22 a year that you are so concerned about.

is descending into Monty Python territory and not even worthy of comment.

Re: Women in frontline combat role

MESCO - So agree with the last line of your post......

Re: Women in frontline combat role

I never actually watched Monty Python so you'll know more about that than me, incidently if it's not worthy of comment why do it. My point is not that she shouldn't have been fighting on the front line but she was stupid enough to get pregnant and continue to do it, possibly putting other lives in danger ie. should another soldier be wounded and she attempted to drag him to safety she endangered his life and the life of her unborn child, or can't you see that. As for giving birth on the battlefield why not, you don't get to choose where a baby will be born, hers was 5wks premature.So yes Bruce she could have given birth in mid battle. She could have undertaken other duties till after the birth then gone back to the frontline. My issue is not with women fighting on the fronline it's with irresponsible women doing it.