Political correctness gone mad???

[Whowhere]

After reading and hearing about certain stories for a few days I have decided that political correctness has been taken to new heights.

My main point is about equality. Everyone loves equality, it is essentially a good thing. But having equality for everyone in the workplace and in normal life isnt good enough for the politicians. For some bizarre reason they have decided to extend it to the military. Im not against homosexuals or ethnic minorities being in the army, I am not a racist. What I am concerned about is their bizarre desision to allow disabled people to "join up" and take jobs as cooks and medics and other "light duties". What the politicians fail to understand is that in a war zone ALL miliatary personnel may be called upon to fight, that includes cooks and medics. A disabled person would not be able to fight effectively and would be a hinderance to their colleagues. The politicans have forgotten that an army needs to be an efficient fighting force, not tied down by obligations to political correctness and human rights. What use is a sentry who is deaf or is missing a limb? He is putting his own life and the life of his comrades in jeopardy. The government needs to wake up and realise that an army is no place for people who cannot or will not fight for a cause and realise that upon entering, individuals must give up some human rights upon entry or the whole force will simply break down. Politicians who have never even seen a rifle, let alone used one should be forbidden from making stupid decisions that jeopardise our national security for the sake of "political correctness".

[Monkey_Boy]

or you could just change the rules, i mean it's pretty stupid sending a cook or a medic into battle, they will only have basic defensive training and will most likely be required to keep an army alive.

Are you sure that they get sent into the field?

[Whowhere]

They get sent into the field only if necessary. Every soldier regardless of trade must be able to defend his/her homeland. If the camp they are cooking in gets attacked then they have to pick up a rifle with everybody else and help. If i was a frontline soldier I'd be pretty pissed off if I saw one of the troops pissing off at the worst time to go and cook my dinner, wouldn't you be? I'd be even more pissed off if that person didnt do any fighting at all because of a disability

[Monkey_Boy]

I don't think you're quite grasping what my point was, obviously they wouldn't just carry on cooking in the middle of battle, but medics and cooks are necessary people to have afterwards, they keep the wounded alive, but what's the point in having medics if they all get blown up?

[Turtle]

The thought is amusing Monkey Boy. In a sick twisted way that only I understand <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">

What you're saying is right - it takes a lot more than just the troops to have an army. There are always the support staff. I understand what you're saying Whowhere, but only as a last ditch effort would they call upon the support staff to fight.

Saying that disabled people should be allowed in teh army needs a bit more defining. I'm colour blind, and thus cannot join the airforce - i'm not sure about the army. My eyesight is also quite miserable, so I prob wouldn't get in to any defence force. By this definition I am disabled as far as getting into the defence forces is concerned. Going with teh tradition sense of disabled - I doubt they will let in ppl with serious physical disabilities (missing limbs etc) or serious mental disabilities. But there are many people out there that have minor disablities, and as such would still be able to play a role as a part of the support staff that the army so heavily relies on.
------------------
I didn't lose my mind, it was mine to give away.

[This message has been edited by Turtle (edited 22-12-2000).]

[MacKenZie]

Some minor 'disabilities' are permitted. For example, I have a friend who's desperate to be a RAF fast jet pilot. Unfortunately, he has a 1% notch in his hearing at one particular frequency, which rules him out of pilot / navigator roles. He could still do a ground trade, or some air roles e.g. air electronics, air loadmaster etc. These aren't what you or I would call disabilities - more like non-perfect scores.

Regards having disabled people in rear-echelon support roles, some commentators seem to be missing the point that several have raised on this board: *any* serviceman *might* be called on to fight hand-to-hand. Basic GDT (Ground Defence Training) is required by all 3 services. So, second-liners like cooks, docs and nurses *do* need to be able to fight effectively. The people safe at HQ are not exempt from this - to have people with no combat experience giving orders to servicemen in the heat of battle would be the height of idiocy.

Finally, let me state that Lord Nelson, Douglas Bader etc. were permitted to *continue* to serve, and did not enlist in their one-eyed/no-legged state. Furthermore, they had proven themselves to be superb defenders of the Realm, and were valuable officers in which the Crown had invested much time and money. Thus, retaining them was the logical thing to do, particularly in the case of Bader, since the RAF was desperate for pilots at the time.

The military have a nasty job: killing. leave them to it, giving them the best people and equipment possible, or else they will get slaughtered in battle, and the civilian population they are duty-bound to protect will be the next to bear the brunt of our politically correct naivete.

Mac

[Girl-From-Mars]

i have a perverse desire to laugh at this post, sorry about that! mainly at the image of people missing arms and/or legs waving guns about in the middle of battle and cooks just sitting there cooking and serving up meals where all around them bombs are going off!

sorry about that, i tend to laugh at inopportune moments, like if someone informs me someone has cancer or someone's dead. terrible.

p.s. my dad met douglas bader. irrelevant.

[Whowhere]

Originally posted by Girl-From-Mars:
i have a perverse desire to laugh at this post, sorry about that! mainly at the image of people missing arms and/or legs waving guns about in the middle of battle and cooks just sitting there cooking and serving up meals where all around them bombs are going off!

sorry about that, i tend to laugh at inopportune moments, like if someone informs me someone has cancer or someone's dead. terrible.

p.s. my dad met douglas bader. irrelevant.


I must point out that the government is seriously considering allowing people with MAJOR disabilities into the Army and RAF. Not people who are colour blind or slightly deaf, but people with serious disabilities, people in wheel chairs or people who are deaf/blind.

[Monkey_Boy]

It may surprise you all to learn that cooks can be viscious buggers, when i worked in my local pub as a cook, the head guy once threw a fish at me *smack* right in the damn face...but i got my own back, i filled one of his sandwiches with Bonjella Gum Ointment hehehe

the poor sod had a numb mouth for hours

[j9j9]

Originally posted by Girl-From-Mars:
i have a perverse desire to laugh at this post, sorry about that! mainly at the image of people missing arms and/or legs waving guns about in the middle of battle and cooks just sitting there cooking and serving up meals where all around them bombs are going off!

sorry about that, i tend to laugh at inopportune moments, like if someone informs me someone has cancer or someone's dead. terrible.

p.s. my dad met douglas bader. irrelevant.

It's just a flesh wound (Monty Python).

lol

I understand GFM <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">

j9

[MacKenZie]

Ni!

Ni! Ni! Ni!

(Sorry, non-Pythonists just won't get that one.)

[Girl-From-Mars]

i am a "non-pythonist", but i know abotu the knights of Ni!! my friend used to tell me about them many years ago... i think! or i may have had a wav file sent from when i used to use chat rooms. who knows?

i laughed at one of my friends when she told me her nan had cancer the other day.. god that was awful, my other friend did it too!! she just said it in such a weird way it was almost as if it wasnt real.

------------------
It's better to regret things you've done than things you haven't.

[Monkey_Boy]

well i AM a pythonist and therefore i remember all the bloody dialogue off by heart (through no fault of my own, i just have a really good memory)

And the most annoying thing i can possibly imagine is mis-quotes arrrrrrrrgh, like the taunting french knights, can people please get that right?!?! <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/mad.gif">

*deep breaths*
*deep breaths*

ahhh, much better <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/tongue.gif">

[j9j9]

Originally posted by Monkey_Boy:
well i AM a pythonist and therefore i remember all the bloody dialogue off by heart (through no fault of my own, i just have a really good memory)

And the most annoying thing i can possibly imagine is mis-quotes arrrrrrrrgh, like the taunting french knights, can people please get that right?!?! <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/mad.gif">

*deep breaths*
*deep breaths*

ahhh, much better <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/tongue.gif">

Trouble is MB, there are sketches which have different versions!!! Like the Four Yorkshiremen, we used to dream of living in a corridor.
<IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
j9

[Monkey_Boy]

that's a pure classic,

...of course we had it tough,
every day we'd have to get up half an hour before we went to bed, work 25 hours a day down the mills and when we came our father would chop us in half with a big knife and dance on our graves

if we were LUCKY!

lol!

[j9j9]

Originally posted by Monkey_Boy:
that's a pure classic,

...of course we had it tough,
every day we'd have to get up half an hour before we went to bed, work 25 hours a day down the mills and when we came our father would chop us in half with a big knife and dance on our graves

if we were LUCKY!

lol!

Now you see, on my record (I think, Matching Tie & Hankerchief) it says something more along the lines of -

we used t ave t get up, half an hour before we went to bed & lick road clean wit tung, then we used t work 24 hours down t'mill, and pay t'mill owner for permission to come to work, then when we got home our dad would kill us and dance about on our graves singing alleluia. (or was it thrash us with broken bottles...... if we were lucky)

You try telling the kids that t'day, they won't believe ya.

<IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/biggrin.gif">

j9

ps, don't quote me though lol



[This message has been edited by j9j9 (edited 25-12-2000).]

[Girl-From-Mars]

i want to watch monty python now! sounds like one of those things that are really funny and everyone who doesnt watch it looks at you really oddly for liking it, until they like it and become obsessed with the brilliance of it all!

sorry im off on one again.

------------------
It's better to regret things you've done than things you haven't.

[Monkey_Boy]

well j9, shame-faced as i am, i'm going to have to admit that i probably totally misquoted that, i was going by the one they did in the hollywood bowl (bowel?) but i probably still got it wrong, ah well

it's was still pretty gosh darn funny

[j9j9]

Originally posted by Monkey_Boy:
well j9, shame-faced as i am, i'm going to have to admit that i probably totally misquoted that, i was going by the one they did in the hollywood bowl (bowel?) but i probably still got it wrong, ah well

it's was still pretty gosh darn funny

Python will always be funny however it's quoted <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
j9

[MacKenZie]

Does anyone know where I can find the Parrot Sketch? Like, I think, everyone else, I know the "It is an ex-parrot; it has ceased to be," bit, but I've never seen it in its entirety. Help, anyone?

Mac

[Turtle]

You can download it from Napster (just search for "Monty Python" and it should come up, or if you want I can email it to you?

------------------
I didn't lose my mind, it was mine to give away.

[Whowhere]

COULD WE PLZ GET BACK TO THE TOPIC???

[Daze]

erm nope <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/tongue.gif">

[Carriage Return]

we allow women in the forces, but don't send them into battle.

Me, I think anyone capable of killing someone is disabled.

[Turtle]

Interesting opinion CR. Now qualify it, back it - this is an argumentitive thread. You can't just make a statement with not facts behind it.

------------------
I didn't lose my mind, it was mine to give away.

[Whowhere]

Originally posted by Carriage Return:
we allow women in the forces, but don't send them into battle.

Me, I think anyone capable of killing someone is disabled.

When it boils down to it, some people have to kill. If lets say Russian soldiers invaded the UK and were systematically going through every town and raping the women then burning the town afterwards, would you not think "those bastards are destroying our homes"? Would you not want to fight for your country?
As for women not fighting in the front lines this is because of the risk. Not to them, but to the men. It has been proven in a study of soldiers that if a male soldier saw a female comrade fall in battle he would be more likely to go back and help than if it was a male comrade. If every male soldier did that we'd have a problem. Your point about people who kill being disabled is another aspect, women are far more reluctant to take life than men, they value life far more than we do, as you have proven with your statement. This isnt meant to sound sexist as it is grounded in fact. I know there are exceptions to the rule, but not enough to make a force on the battlefield.

[MacKenZie]

The reasons for keeping women and homosexuals out of the forces (or at least the front lines) are basically the same. It's very desirable that comrades-in-arms develop deep, non-sexual relationships. That kind of deep, binding loyalty (what the Greeks might have called 'agape' &lt;AH-GAH-PAY&gt; ) to others and the cause is what wins battles. The moment the relationship steps out of the Platonic arena (into 'eros'), judgement becomes clouded, which is precisely what we *don't* want.

As for the ability to kill being a disablity - I personally would consider myself disabled if I *weren't* capable of killing to protect someone or something I loved.

[Carriage Return]

Originally posted by Whowhere:
When it boils down to it, some people have to kill. If lets say Russian soldiers invaded the UK and were systematically going through every town and raping the women then burning the town afterwards, would you not think "those bastards are destroying our homes"? Would you not want to fight for your country?

most wars are not fought like this, so this highly emotive situation is not a valid one for the topic.
but to answer it, I would expect men, women and children, disabled and able bodied, to do what they could to resist such an invasion, but I hope I would not be prepared to endager anyones life but my own.
I would also expect people to cooperate with the invaders to protect their own position, families or possessions.

As for women not fighting in the front lines this is because of the risk. Not to them, but to the men. It has been proven in a study of soldiers that if a male soldier saw a female comrade fall in battle he would be more likely to go back and help than if it was a male comrade. If every male soldier did that we'd have a problem.

"proven in a study" is a poor debating point. It makes the accompanying point difficult to argue against as it makes the arguer appear to be denying facts.
1) A study is fairly pointless.
2) Studies don't prove anything - but can show a tendancy.
Without further information on the study in question, I can't comment on likely bias, methodological problems, or the peer review it has been through.

However, other countries have no difficulty putting women on the front line in mixed squads.

Your point about people who kill being disabled is another aspect, women are far more reluctant to take life than men, they value life far more than we do,

the female of the species is far deadlier than the male
but perhaps is much harder to mold into an unquestioning killing machine
This isnt meant to sound sexist as it is grounded in fact. I know there are exceptions to the rule, but not enough to make a force on the battlefield.

are you sure of these grounding "facts"?
I'll certainly cede that the English consider it to be uncivilised for women to fight, as they are the graceful sex & all that.

[JB]

Originally posted by Carriage Return:

are you sure of these grounding "facts"?
I'll certainly cede that the English consider it to be uncivilised for women to fight, as they are the graceful sex & all that.


Yup, never heard of the 'amazons' (yeah ok, not quite fair). It's a cultural thing that says women don't fight, although obviously encouraged by the fact that women aren't as physically strong in general (no longer anywhere near as important) and bear children (fairly easily avoided nowadays if desired).

I can't be bothered to argue this really, I think CR is doing well enough already. We could start a seperate topic about the European Rapid Reaction Force or whatever it's called... that's quite interesting.

[JB]

Originally posted by Whowhere:
Politicians who have never even seen a rifle, let alone used one should be forbidden from making stupid decisions that jeopardise our national security for the sake of "political correctness".

???? Military junket man speaks <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">. Assuming that wasn't a joke or sarcastic remark: Democratically elected politicians have to run the military. It has to be democratically accountable, and controlled. This might occasionally stop the military being 100% efficient, but it also stops the military being able to do whatever they like, and makes them justify their acts. You can't easily break some control off to other areas - boundaries are hard to define, and would make for a confused control structure, which could possibly introduce more inefficencies.

[Whowhere]

Originally posted by JB:
???? Military junket man speaks <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">. Assuming that wasn't a joke or sarcastic remark: Democratically elected politicians have to run the military. It has to be democratically accountable, and controlled. This might occasionally stop the military being 100% efficient, but it also stops the military being able to do whatever they like, and makes them justify their acts. You can't easily break some control off to other areas - boundaries are hard to define, and would make for a confused control structure, which could possibly introduce more inefficencies.

Im not debating whether or not the politicians should run the military, of course they should. Im concerned that they are running it in a terrbily inefficient way and in a way that shows no consideration whatsoever to the jobs the military has to undertake. It is all well and good sending troops in the name of peacekeeping to far away countries that the average person has never even heard of or in sending thousands of troops to join the "rapid reaction force" but the politicians think that they can do this on the tiniest possible budget with outdated equipment, they speak highly of the military but do not back it up with adequate funding. The SA-80 rifle and Clansman radio being 2 examples. If the money is diverted to another cause that will have something to show for it in the end, like developing vaccines for diseases, then fine. But the government hasn't even done this, it has squandered the money on projects with no recognisable outcome that improves our lives.
The British army is classed as the most highly trained and effective in the world, we haven't lost a war in over 2 centuries, what other country can boast that? But without funds or adequate equipment how can we keep this achievement?
As for women in the military, it isnt anything to do with "women being the gentler sex". It is basic pyschology. A man is far more likely to risk his own life and the lives of his comrades to protect a woman, this is human nature. In most cases if a man sees a woman in danger he will instinctively help. This could be disasterous on the battlefield, in battle soldiers are trained to leave their fallen comrades behind if it will jeopardise the lives of the squad or unit as a whole. How well will the training last against instinct?

[JB]

Originally posted by Whowhere:
It is all well and good sending troops in the name of peacekeeping to far away countries that the average person has never even heard of or in sending thousands of troops to join the "rapid reaction force"


Sorry, maybe you'd like to elucidate on why either of these two things are wrong, and how the military should be better used (Threats faced by Britain are more closely matched with those to Europe than with any other political entity, and Sierra Leone is a highly morally contentious issue, and one where Britain has made a very real and positive difference). I don't think these two facts are really related to the argument.


... but the politicians think that they can do this on the tiniest possible budget with outdated equipment, they speak highly of the military but do not back it up with adequate funding.
...
If the money is diverted to another cause that will have something to show for it in the end, like developing vaccines for diseases, then fine. But the government hasn't even done this, it has squandered the money on projects with no recognisable outcome that improves our lives.


I say bollocks to that (sorry admins <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif"> ). That shows IMO a lack of understanding of the problems facing any government in administrating and improving our society, and of the wishes of the majority of the people in this country. What are these projects you speak of? Occasionally money is wasted - hard to avoid - but the sums wasted are generally inconsequential compared to the amount spent. The Dome is the only folly which you could really aim at, one perpetrated by the entire political establishment (more or less) and one where the admittedly large cost was spread over 6 (?) years, making it have rather less effect on budgets than people might suppose. Assuming 900 million and 6 years (approx 150 million a year) this is an appalling waste of money but one that will not effect things in the medium or long term.

You could also argue that it has sustained and encouraged other positive effects. After all, what else would half the media have moaned about for the last few years. That's a joke btw. But if it _had_ worked (not impossible) and had inspired the nation we wouldn't be saying this I think. They got it wrong... I believe the odd mistake should be forgiven.

Apart from that money is spent along the lines that society does want, to tackle the massive problems of healthcare, employment and social deprivation. Compared with spending on subsidising, developing and supporting the arms export industry, which happened massively under Thatcher compared to nowadays, current spending is _very_ moral. This spending still goes to some extent I believe - surely this should be a target for extra funds.


The British army is classed as the most highly trained and effective in the world, we haven't lost a war in over 2 centuries, what other country can boast that? But without funds or adequate equipment how can we keep this achievement?


I remember something called Suez... but I would hardly say there have been many great military victories attributable directly to Britain either, and shames too - the Boer war for example. Go back a little further and there is a certain war of independence: but that is being a little unfair and irrelevant.


As for women in the military, it isnt anything to do with "women being the gentler sex". It is basic pyschology. A man is far more likely to risk his own life and the lives of his comrades to protect a woman, this is human nature. In most cases if a man sees a woman in danger he will instinctively help. This could be disasterous on the battlefield, in battle soldiers are trained to leave their fallen comrades behind if it will jeopardise the lives of the squad or unit as a whole. How well will the training last against instinct?

I think that is a fiction invented by a glamorised image of war and humanity in your head. Husbands/Lovers might go back to die with their wives. I think soldiers would feel no more compulsion than for their squad-mates - on one hand it is argued that they must bond more closely by excluding those who are different, on the other it is argued that they would act in a more highly bonded way towards the women - there are contradictions in these arguments.

As for an instinctive male response to protect women, this is a load of rubbish except where it is imbued occasionally by our culture and traditions around the 'softer sex'. Get out into our society. See the battered wives and children, the weak and drunk men and the cowards. See the young men mistreating and raping women. Never mind refuting your argument, there are much bigger problems we face than a slightly understrength military, caused by issues such as the media and their portrayals of the world, of market forces creating massive gaps in wealth and divisions in society resulting in fragmented communities. The list goes on.

I would also be interested to know what you think Britain needs to be able to defend itself against currently. France, Germany? I don't think so. Russia or China? Highly unlikely and in the latter case, if it fully militarised, we would only be one small part of a much bigger conflict. That scenario is not one to prepare for, but one to avoid, and a bigger British military will not help matters in either direction. It is worth pointing out that the situations where a bigger British military could make a difference to the world are in places such as Sierra Leone and Kosovo - situations you seem to believe should be avoided.

[Whowhere]

erm...I concede defeat. At last I have finally met someone I can have a decent political discussion with!

Im ashamed to admit I find myself agreeing with most of your points, but you have made a few minor errors.
The war of independence was over 200 years ago, which is the war i was reffering to when I said "hasn't lost a war in over 2 centuries".
As for suez, with the help of the French (uggh) it is still European compannies that control the Suez canal, and I was under the impression that we won the Boer war???
I am not opposed to our army helping in places such as Kosovo or sierra leone. My point was that it is wrong for the government to overstretch the army, by expecting the ends without providing the means.
In the last part of your post you refer to society's views of women being the softer sex. I agree with this, and this is why women should not fight. Because aren't soldiers part of society? If soldiers believe that women are a weaker more vunerable sex then they will try and protect them, soldiers are still people who have been brought up with society's views instilled into them, from like you said the media and from their peers, it is this belief that would jeopardise the army's effectiveness. My other point is that men find it a lot easier to take life, this is undeniable. It is men who start wars, it is men who create the weapons of war. This is why I ask "can women take life as effectively as men?" As the whole point of a military is to protect your ideology, your citizens and your beliefs by destroying another country's ideology, citizens and beliefs, why does America hate communist countries? Because they conflict with their Ideology. As for rapists, they are just sick individuals on a power trip.

[JB]

Originally posted by Whowhere:

Im ashamed to admit I find myself agreeing with most of your points, but you have made a few minor errors.
The war of independence was over 200 years ago, which is the war i was reffering to when I said "hasn't lost a war in over 2 centuries".
As for suez, with the help of the French (uggh) it is still European compannies that control the Suez canal, and I was under the impression that we won the Boer war???
I am not opposed to our army helping in places such as Kosovo or sierra leone.


I did say that the war of independence reference wasn't fair for that very reason I believe, or I meant to do so if I didn't. Suez was a bit of a debacle and the Boer war was shameful due to massive human rights issues and violations, including the scorched earth policy and the invention of the concentration camp.


My point was that it is wrong for the government to overstretch the army, by expecting the ends without providing the means.


Yeah, I know, I realised when I reread it but couldn't be bothered to lengthen it further. BUT: I hardly think the demands placed on it have overstretched it. Sierra Leone hardly involved that much of a strain, and troops both in Bosnia and Sierra Leone could be withdrawn if there was a bigger more immediate threat, which is very unlikely. It's true that multiple conflicts of this nature could not easily be fought while defending Britain as well, but we are not and should have no wish to be a military superpower ala America.


In the last part of your post you refer to society's views of women being the softer sex. I agree with this, and this is why women should not fight. Because aren't soldiers part of society? If soldiers believe that women are a weaker more vunerable sex then they will try and protect them, soldiers are still people who have been brought up with society's views instilled into them, from like you said the media and from their peers, it is this belief that would jeopardise the army's effectiveness. My other point is that men find it a lot easier to take life, this is undeniable. It is men who start wars, it is men who create the weapons of war. This is why I ask "can women take life as effectively as men?" As the whole point of a military is to protect your ideology, your citizens and your beliefs by destroying another country's ideology, citizens and beliefs, why does America hate communist countries? Because they conflict with their Ideology. As for rapists, they are just sick individuals on a power trip.

You're missing the point a little, and mixing up several different issues into one. The softer sex thing is a tradition, no longer adhered to by a much more diverse society than the Victorian middle classes. You might still hold this belief, but I believe you are the exception not the rule. And as I was trying to portray, men do not treat women in real life (and have for the most part never done so) as well as you would like to think.

As for the next point, it is true that men are more aggressive, and hence start more fights, start more wars. This is not related to the ability to kill, but to the ability to lose control and to kill in anger. Women are just as able to kill IMO, but lose control less through aggression. This is a plus point! Also, women I believe generally have higher pain thresholds.

You then confuse ideological conflicts with male aggression. American women hated and hate communism every bit as much as the men, although in a mostly male dominated society the men were and are more visible. America hates and fears Communism because it is the antithesis of capitalism and hence in their eyes of the fabled 'American way of life'. They hate and fear the difference - closer to racism and nationalism than aggression.

The rapists bit, while a partially true statement, misses the point of what I was trying to say, and ignores the more common problem of simple violence in the home and in relationships, almost always towards women. Rape is also not simply the oft held view of physical force to rape, but includes emotional blackmail (inc. husbands forcing themselves on wives) and other forms of male control of women, though these are normally backed by some form of physical intimidation. So again you appear to have missed the point I was trying to make, the deconstruction of the myth of the 'protective male instinct towards women' (as opposed to husbands/wives or very close friends or lovers).

[Whowhere]

Good points.
However an army being overstretched is not always due to manpower but can be something like a temporary shortage of ammunition. In this case the unreliable equipment the army is expected to use. The rebels and loyalists in Sierra Leone use the old British semi automatic rifle (i cant remember the exact name) but many people I have spoken to, both in and out of the military believe this to be a superior weapon, for the reason it was over 20 years old and was improved as it was ever going to be. There were very few incidences of this weapon jamming or failing in combat. This is a problem that the paratroopers in Sierra Leone have reported but is something they should never have to report. I have used an SA-80, the weapon is overly complicated, and even the smaller L-98 version that isnt fully automatic is prone to jamming.

I agree with your point about the protection of women, but in ways I still disagree. I still believe that men still view women as a weaker sex, maybe not concsiously, but sub-conciously. Some men do treat women like bags of shit, which is wrong. But this means they also view them as a weaker sex. Meaning the men who dont abuse women are more likely to have a protective instinct. Ask any man if he would physically protect his gf/fiance/wife/sister/mother from attack chances are he would say yes. Replace those people with males and he may still say yes but chances are he would be a lot more hesitant. It is this hesitance and self-preservation instinct which is invaluable on the battlefield. If this s-p instinct is overrided by the desire to protect others at a risk to your own life then it cant be good in that sort of situation. That is why, despite the equality or woman beating in today's society men are still more protective of women than men. It isnt a society based thing, this is something that has been around for thousands of years. Men have always looked out for women, yes they have beaten them which is terrible, but they have always done their best to protect them (women and children first). Because without women society cannot evolve, and population cannot increase, which is the underlying motivation of the human mind, to procreate. Without women this is impossible, and the men, sub-consciously realise this. this is why women shouldnt fight.

[Carriage Return]

Originally posted by Whowhere:
Men have always looked out for women, yes they have beaten them which is terrible, but they have always done their best to protect them (women and children first).
Women and children first is an intellectual response - it has to be said to persuade men to protect the women, because they are the weaker sex. If it were instinctive, or subconcious, nobody would need to say it.
That it was as successful as it was on the Titanic says a lot about the society of the time and the relatively sedate nature of the sinking.(see gas chambers for evidence of instinctive behavior)
Because without women society cannot evolve, and population cannot increase, which is the underlying motivation of the human mind, to procreate. Without women this is impossible, and the men, sub-consciously realise this. this is why women shouldnt fight.

Rot.
one man can have hundreds of children, a woman gives out after around 10.

We don't want soldiers, but we still need them. we do our best to reduce our reliance on them by making real killing machines, but we still dehumanize working class men to the point that they become an effective fighting unit. That we don't use women is a reflection of our society not our nature - or are you going to claim the Israel army is the hight of PC?