- Mobile site
- E-Newsletters
-
- News feed
- Find us on Twitter
@yorkpress
Follow us on Twitter
- Find us on Facebook
The Press, York
Like us on Facebook
The wrong role (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
The wrong role
8:00am Saturday 2nd February 2013 in Letters By Reader's letter
IS THE idea to permit women to be deployed as frontline soldiers more to do with the Government bowing to the equality lobby rather than looking at the logistics?
Please don’t misunderstand my unease. I am an ardent supporter of women. I believe women can do virtually any job men can do, with few exceptions.
We have women flying the big jets, fighter aircraft, helicopters, driving 44-ton “artics”, running massive corporations and commanding Royal and Merchant Navy ships. The list is virtually endless.
None of these jobs entails brute strength. It’s only when hard, physical- work, such as heavy digging, is carried out, that the male of the species would have to be used, rather than women.
However, I don’t think letting women fight would be right.
Action situations would have to be taken into account and in a situation of grave danger the men would, instinctively, do their best to protect the women in their unit, which could hamper their ability to fight the enemy.
Then there would be the “decency” facet. There would have to be separate toilet facilities, which would be difficult to set up.
Frontline fighting is not the place for women.
Philip Roe, Roman Avenue South, Stamford Bridge, York.
Comments(3)
ColdAsChristmas
says...
7:32pm Sat 2 Feb 13
However, the standard could always be lowered to allow for a wider participation. Not a good idea.
Under battle conditions the Commander would always be first to receive medical treatment in combat for sound reasons but if a female were injured, natural instinct might mean that she received treatment first, possibly risking the operation and the lives of the unit.
This isn't a good idea and one might have thought our politicians had far more important issues to deal with like people in this country going hungry for a start.
If we have equality in all things then why is the adult female alcohol tolerance much less than that of an adult male?
Incidentally, we don't have female jet fighter pilots for the same reason they don't drive formula 1 cars. The G forces make them infertile.
Matt_S
says...
10:12pm Sat 2 Feb 13
ColdAsChristmas wrote:If they can't pass it, then don't let them in. If they can, let them. There's no problem here.
I doubt there would be many if any females who could pass the Battle efficiency test set for male soldiers.
However, the standard could always be lowered to allow for a wider participation. Not a good idea.
Under battle conditions the Commander would always be first to receive medical treatment in combat for sound reasons but if a female were injured, natural instinct might mean that she received treatment first, possibly risking the operation and the lives of the unit.
This isn't a good idea and one might have thought our politicians had far more important issues to deal with like people in this country going hungry for a start.
If we have equality in all things then why is the adult female alcohol tolerance much less than that of an adult male?
Incidentally, we don't have female jet fighter pilots for the same reason they don't drive formula 1 cars. The G forces make them infertile.
If 'natural instinct' takes over, then such individuals probably aren't suited to being in the army in the first place. Doesn't army training attempt to eradicte many 'natural instincts', anyway?
Matt_S says...
4:46pm Sat 2 Feb 13
If fighting on the front-line requires a certain level of strength, then test whether a person has that strength, not whether they have a penis or vagina. Yes, women are generally physically weaker than men, but those who are capable of doing it should be allowed to.