In todays news

I think what a lot of people don't realise about s.f. personel is its not so much about the physical side of things its more a mental attitude. I've worked with quite a few regiment people, para's and commandos and they're not all 6'4" built like a brickshithouse supermen its about a 60/40 mindset where a "normal" squaddie would doss down and brew up, s.f. would be head down and carry on tabbing

 

And? You're always posting about issues of race, immigration, gender equality etc yet rarely make your own opinions clear. You hint at them but lack the conviction to say what you really think. At least that's my perception. I don't read all your posts.

 

The application process for the fire service and Police recruitment as been vastly watered down over the last 20yr to accommodate the ladies ST..

 

Bigger soldiers make bigger targets and can't always physically fit into smaller places.

 

totally agree. And why not . There would be areas that they can & would be able to infiltrate/deal with far better than men could. Gets my total agreement.

 

So... should we have a female judge? After all.. some of the horror cases they must have to witness. And female police officers, seeing and having to deal with awful crimes. And, well, nurses and doctors.... all that blood and gore....that must be terrible to have to see. And we couldn't have female butchers. Those big heavy bloody carcasses and organs... and... and.. and.

If you continue the sequence, should you have female MP's? Having to decide on bloody wars they apparently shouldn't be allowed to take part in. And a female Prime Minister..... well, that's an absolute no isn't it? And well, if women aren't represented in parliament or do these messy dirty heavy lifting jobs... well, no need for a vote is there? That suffrage movement, well, that's all history now and really doesn't reflect the country, does it?

Maybe a woman should just stay at home, iron (without making the iron too hot and heavy), cook, clean and raise children.

Though in all seriousness.... the direction of travel we're currently having, its all a bit Dickensian, so maybe that will be the next stage once the right wing tories find their next project once they've cleaned their hands of this current mess they are making.

 

I get the impression Nudger would rather burn to death than suffer the indignity of being rescued by a woman

 

Totally agree.
And as such there are areas that men are more suited for.

 

All what you have said here is completely different to what this debate is about.
We are talking about women being placed in the front line - e.g. a women running across piles of rubble on a battlefield to supply more ammunition to the front line.
Or a women crawling through mud with a knife to attack a machine gun post.
In my view that type of work is for men.

 

Those can’t surely be your genuine beliefs? The entirety of that post is beyond belief. It’s 2018, for goodness sake.

 

And in 1918.

 

Thankfully you’re not the one making the rules and this has already been approved.

So following Thursday, I’m afraid women will be protecting you in the special forces. So I suggest you get used to it, because it’s never going away.

 

Just stating of the bigger news stories that crossed my path in the early hours which did what was expected and created debate.

Id have joined in earlier but work called.

Im all for both genders having the same oppourtinites as men regardless of the job role be it armed forces thru to midwiffery and everything inbetween.

With the caveate that the same standards to qualify in that career are not diminished and standards are maintained.

Soon as you start lowering the standards to be more 'inclusive' then you might as well chalk **** on them as anyone who qualifies eg selection gets dumbed down so its easier for women its no longer something youve earnt through hard work dedication and perseverance but tokenism and box ticking.

Not only that it becomes a direct insult to those whove struggled to pass the test previously its a direct insult to colleagues you now have to work with who know you cant work to the same level/standard.

 

An interesting point you put there. because there is a difference between a cultural perception and the reality. And its the lag between the two that causes friction.

A few years ago I was working on a project at a big steel fabrication company. The workshop had a high proportion of "skilled" ageing white males. The company were trying to bring more diversity to its workforce and encourage more female engineers and also in the workshop. The perception of the existing male workforce was that they could do it better, they had more experience, they had more skill etc etc. A new person started, female, and essentially they hounded her out of the role. From seeing the various people involved, she was more articulate, more open to change, more eager to work, and did longer hours. This jarred with the unionised militant not a minute more than the shift length mentality of the old guard.

Of course, I fully agree standards shouldn't be dumbed down. But opportunity should be allowed, and if that means changing environments to allow that to happen, then so be it.

As a country we have terrible productivity. The more diverse our working structures become and the less old school we are, I fully expect productivity to increase... though not necessarily employment or underemployment over the next 1-10 years.

 

It’s not just men that have that old guard mindset. Women do exactly the same in respective environments...

It’s a two way street this diversity thing, by all means encourage more ladies into traditional male roles be it getting blow up or being able to handle a lathe but the favour should be returned the other way, men should be offered the same level of encouragement to enter traditional female roles.

 

I agree 100%

Genuine question, because I can't think of anything, but have you got an example of a traditionally female role that men are not legally allowed to take?

 

Fitness instructor in a women only gym.

 

I never mentioned legallities but off the top of my head certain counsolling roles are female only.

Or they were when i worked in that industry.

 

Women are already serving alongside Special Forces in some capacity. This is just a formality to allow it to be official, providing they can complete the training.
Also, not all Special Forces tasks involve going to kill bad people.

 

I’m pretty sure that’s not illegal, just that it would make no sense for the gym to advertise itself as for females and then have male instructors. You can also have male instructors doing the exact same job in other gyms so it’s not a career choice that is closed to them.