General Discussion > Women of the Fire Industry

Women in Combat

(1/6) > >>

PF_:
Yeah I know its not firefighting but can be related back to it.

Did anyone listen top Triple J on Monday afternoon about if women should be given combat roles within the army.  They talked to army people asking if they agree'd with it, most didnt and talked to women as well who disagreed with it.

Some reaosns put forward were

-The men would be concerned for the womens welfare instead of fighting the fight.

-Up close and dirty fighting with fists and knives against a man would virtually ensure a casualty.

-They didnt trust the strength of a woman to be able to drag male casualties out of the fighting zone.

-Physical strength and mental wellbeing, you see a lot of nasty stuff in war and have to be able to handle it mentally.


What are peoples thought on this?

Mike:
All goes back to the perception of the person making the comment. Cant agree with what there saying though.... What a load of bull.

PF_:
Some of those views were p[ut forward by both men and women though.  Some does seem like a load of bull but can see the point in others.  Was interesting to listen too hiow some were dead against it others thought it was an alright idea.  However no one was dead for it though.   

I missed the first 5-10minutes of it so maybe there was appologies if I missed that.

Mike:
every arguement has good reasoning, but its also old school stereo typical. Everyone deserves to be given a chance to achieve their goals.

bittenyakka:
It is sometimes painfully obvious that women arn't "usally" an in sometimes they are as strong as men.

But that women cant take the mental side. That is the individual. They are just as tough and guys and many are more caperble.
 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page