Had no idea they couldn’t already. Seems perfectly logical to me. No reason not to allow them, is there?
I genuinely don’t see how any rational human being could possibly oppose this? Or am I missing something obvious?
I doubt it. If someone is defending me I don't care if its a man or woman, black or white. As long as they are competent and can do that job that's all I care about
All I’m saying is a lot of people will be opposed,and a lot will be for,it will be interesting just to see the comments .
I’m opposed. We don’t want women working down pits. And we don’t want women killing people. It’s bad enough men having to do these horrible things. Plus a man will naturally go out of his way to protect a woman - which might make combat more complicated. Plus men are generally physically stronger - which makes combat easier for them. And there’s always the concern of rape. When men and women fight side by side in armies the woman can be subjected to rape.
Provided the training standards and requirements are not compromised to meet a quota then I don't see a problem with it. In respect of joining special forces, it isn't just a case of applying. Firstly they need to be in the Army to begin with and they need to be seen as exceptional within their units to be able to apply. Once they apply if they can pass the toughest selection course anywhere in the world then they will be in the SAS on merit. I don't have a problem with it as long as they are tested exactly the same as a man and meet the exact same standards as a man.
When men and men fight side by side men can be raped too. Women have to pass these ame fitness test as men Women who choose to go in the special forces I would guess aren't scared of doing what's needed otherwise they would have applied for a job at flowers by distinction instead.
They've already said that the tests will not be changed as the current test isn't for men, it's for applicants so doesn't need changing
Nudger I can tell you that as an ex soldier this is true but a soldier would also go out of his way to protect a male colleague.
Like I said I am fully behind women being able to join provided this is strictly applied and isn't compromised for any reason.
One of the most "successful" soldiers in WWII in terms of enemies killed was a *female* Russian sniper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko) with 309 attributed kills. There is a theory that women make more ruthless soldiers as they are more protective...
Shocker. It's not 1920, nobody HAS to do anything. Why should women not be afforded the same choices as men? I would go out of my way to protect anyone, man, woman child or anywhere in between. I don't see why there has to be a difference. Obviously, I'd do anything to protect my mrs, but if I was gay, I'm sure I'd do the same for a male partner. This is just a bad argument. Id they can pass the initiation tests, they should be allowed to join. Tell women like Ronda Rousey or Holly Holm that they're physically weaker than you as a man and watch them beat you from here to Australia. You're right. We can't possibly stop men from raping women. Best to just not let women join, eh?
No I don't either, nor do I like to see them fighting (boxing) but it is not my right to stop them from doing something that they want to do.