Posted: Mon 20 Jan, 2003 11:23 pm
Jules, that is one reason (going back to what I said about mens natural desire to protect women), but this is one thing which SF training can probably overcome.
Just to clarify, my comment below is said with NO military service whatsoever, or ANY involvement in high stress activities with women. It's said mainly from comon sense, secnd hand experiece and education.
And regards to women often being temperemental. This is another biological fact, but I don't think it is necessarily a reason for exclusion myself. Capt. Phillipa (I do hate the way the media insists on using nicknames for everyone where possible, especially where they are in a position to command respect and authority such as this... But that's an entirely different debate
) Tattersall is a shining example of this going right. Ignoring the PR aspect of her aquisition of the green beret, she was put on equal footing, given equal training and is widely respected as much as men in her position (by the people that matter at ay rate). It is probably that, had she shown the instability that many people associate with women, it would have been recognised, and brought agaist her. What I am getting at is that people are different, and if anyone, male or female ar sufficiently stable even at the worst time, then it is not a problem. If anything it possibly implies they will be more stable than is required in other times, which would work in everyones favour.
It may be that this level of stability can only be attained by half a dozen women in the country, bu as long as hat means only those half dozen are elligable for selecton in this regards then s be it. Like with foreign units recruitig women with lower standards (like with the Canadians a mentioned above, but the Americans are the msot comon examples), that is the wrong way to go about it. The way we would do it (unless the government gets even softer - but givn their current rightward drift I keep my hopes up ) would be to maintia standards, and simply say "if that means less women can get in, tough".
And by the way Jay, why exactly are you refraining please? Do you have hardline views one way or the other that may offend, do you think this is rather pointless and not worth the effort (and I can completely sympathise with you if that is the case ), or is it something else? Just interested .
Just to clarify, my comment below is said with NO military service whatsoever, or ANY involvement in high stress activities with women. It's said mainly from comon sense, secnd hand experiece and education.
And regards to women often being temperemental. This is another biological fact, but I don't think it is necessarily a reason for exclusion myself. Capt. Phillipa (I do hate the way the media insists on using nicknames for everyone where possible, especially where they are in a position to command respect and authority such as this... But that's an entirely different debate
) Tattersall is a shining example of this going right. Ignoring the PR aspect of her aquisition of the green beret, she was put on equal footing, given equal training and is widely respected as much as men in her position (by the people that matter at ay rate). It is probably that, had she shown the instability that many people associate with women, it would have been recognised, and brought agaist her. What I am getting at is that people are different, and if anyone, male or female ar sufficiently stable even at the worst time, then it is not a problem. If anything it possibly implies they will be more stable than is required in other times, which would work in everyones favour.It may be that this level of stability can only be attained by half a dozen women in the country, bu as long as hat means only those half dozen are elligable for selecton in this regards then s be it. Like with foreign units recruitig women with lower standards (like with the Canadians a mentioned above, but the Americans are the msot comon examples), that is the wrong way to go about it. The way we would do it (unless the government gets even softer - but givn their current rightward drift I keep my hopes up
) would be to maintia standards, and simply say "if that means less women can get in, tough".And by the way Jay, why exactly are you refraining please? Do you have hardline views one way or the other that may offend, do you think this is rather pointless and not worth the effort (and I can completely sympathise with you if that is the case
), or is it something else? Just interested .
