Fuzzball wrote on Jan 6
th, 2019 at 3:17pm:
Unfortunately when the military is persecuted for doing their job, recently in Afghanistan, Iraq and in the NI conflict, and other theatres, recruitment can't be expected to break any records. Likewise with the police service in GB..........
Dropping standards, also allowing women to join SF (if they pass selection) to resolve the situation, is NOT the answer. Selection and actual front line combat are entirely different. Passing 'Selection' is just the first step.
Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Women have proved, throughout history, that they are the equals of men in combat. Are you willing to claim that the women who fought in SOE in WWII were not as brave, if not braver, than many men? What about the women of the NLF in Vietnam? In Algeria, in Eritrea, in Ugunda? There have been numerous conflicts in the 20th century alone where women have proved their worth fighting.
The real problem is that you believe in stereotypes. Not all men qualify for military service should be ban them all from serving? Some men are smaller than most, some are weaker, some are near-sighted, long-sighted, cross-eyed, etc. Does that preclude them automatically from serving? Of course bloody not, so why should having your genitals outside your body make you more qualified to fight for your country?
Bloody sexist idiots. I've served with women in the Australian Army. I'd stake my life on their ability to fight - indeed, in theory I did. Time you grew up and actually got out of your mother's basement.