cods wrote on Jan 27
th, 2016 at 5:44pm:
President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 27
th, 2016 at 5:21pm:
strewth...
this just goes to show how farcical the Australian of the Year is becoming..
make me Australian of the year.. I'm black
make me Australian of the year.. I'm a woman
make me Australian of the year.. I cut off me doodle
for crying out loud..
boo hoo ya stupid tranny...
gillard started it off... no bigger platform than the houses of parliament after all..
women are now obliged to hit back... OH GOD NOT ANOTHER MAN...
women are feeling like TOKENs
oh well its time we picked one for this job...
we are losing our identity....thats the way i see it?..
instead of being better we are trying to be the same..look at the language women use today... and then we pretend to be shocked when kids use it.....
In todays paper Miranda Devine is the same...I am shocked he isnt worthy.....
if men were
not talking about domestic violence and or equality for women..
then what???????????
I doubt he would have been my choice.. but thats not the point ....he has done a huge service to women especially those that are in the services..
and I for one believe the defence force has a serious problem with women in the forces... a very serious problem...and hes addressing it..
if some of our invited asylum seekers were found guilty of what has gone on at Duntroon.. they would be screaming for them to be sent back wither they came.....
yet this guy isnt the right guy to be involved what the hell does he know?... ..go figure...
it makes sense to some..
The problem with women in the services - if indeed there is any problem - is that they are judged purely on their capabilities.
I've met Naval officer women, my next door neighbour is a retired woman Army officer, there are countless women officers and non-commissioned ranks who do an excellent job. The ONLY problem - if it could be called that - arises when women are considered for the nitty-gritty combat postings - postings that require specific levels of physical and mental acuity and ability..... most fall at the first hurdle in the physical stakes.
This is not discrimination, and is thus not a 'problem' - it is simple reality. Nobody wants to go out in the boonies with someone at his/her back who simply put, cannot carry the load.
Living, as we do, in a relatively peaceful time, with the modern day equivalent of military actions against tribal groups - very much the situation in the nineteenth century - and with the advent of massive technology - we have grown accustomed to the idea that exceptional physical ability is not the yardstick by which to judge combat troops.
Nothing could be further from the truth. It is emphatically not a Direct Combat Role to sit at a computer board and order Predator strikes..... or to sit in a CCC in a warship and direct missiles and guns.... although these are Combat Roles and carry risks.
The US Army was forced to differentiate between Combat and Direct Combat Roles - to date no woman has qualified for a Direct Combat Role, though there have been women caught up in meeting engagements and who have operated very well as medics etc in combat.
The difference is that a Combat Role can be anything from making coffee for the General of the 101st to going out in the field and interrogating prisoners or even being a guard at Abu Ghraib. A Direct Combat Role involves trading hot lead at ten paces.. as an example... and establishing physical and fire superiority over an enemy in direct contact.
Rather different.... hence the need for a re-definition of roles.
Forum
Pages: 
