Poirot,

This was the reason d'etre for having an aristocracy/nobility - to raise an army of soldiers from their estates and to fight for the king.

Yes, Danielle, I realise that.

My point being that with the influence of the aristocratic class slipping after the Industrial Revolution and with the rise of the Middle-Class, that the Great War presented an opportunity for upper-class to reassert its role as leaders of men and knights of the realm.

That it ended in disaster for that class and failed to stymy emerging middle-class dominance, is the stuff of history.

Poirot, "I'll just add that women taking on roles in the frontline of combat, appears to me a backward step for the gender"

It is a forward step. Why should women escape their civic responsibilities?

There will be equality for women when they are on the trenches and men are relegated to performing home duties, including bonking the occupying servicewomen of the occupying allied army. Just like the Aussie women and US servicemen in WW2.

Men taking on roles in the front line of combat is definitely a backward step for the gender. Men need to stoke the home fires! Those US servicewomen are cute in their uniforms and there is the prospect of gifts. Wild Turkey bourbon from the canteen as a getting to know you gift for some rumpo....Yummmmmmy.

Gillard makes a fine ChickenHawk: she has ogled Obama, fondled his bum and talked dirty with him on US bases. Next war (Julia is working on it) hand the rifles to Wonderful Womyn. Those who say otherwise are misogynists.

Onzebeach,

Would you say that British women escaped their "civic responsibilities" during WWII?

There's more than one way to support a war effort.

Here's an excerpt from that book I mentioned, wherein the "Grande Dames" from the aristocratic class assisted by providing "hospitals" to patch up the men from the frontlines:

"Nevertheless, when war was formally declared, it was greeted with rapturous enthusiasm, and the greatest anxiety of most patricians was that they might not get to the front in time to enjoy the fun....During these early days of the war, the grande dames were as much enthused and excited as the grandees. The Duchess of Westminster established a Red Cross hospital at Le Touquet, Lady Dudley set up an Australian Hospital nearby, and the dowager Duchess of Sutherland organised her own ambulance unit to serve in Belgium...In London, Lady Lowther organised the production of food and clothing parcels for Belgian prisoners in Germany, Mrs Alfred Lyttelton surpervised the reception of Belgian refugess (and for that, Poirot is grateful:)....Lady Curzon helped run a night canteen at Waterloo Station, and Jennie Churchill prompted butlers to join up by publicly expressing her preference for housemaids....'

...and many many more.

During war, women it seems are indispensable... and not necessarily in the limited way which onthebeach expresses.

Poirot,

It would be polite and respectful to get other posters' names right.

Men can take up those other ways of supporting the war effort, while at least an equal number of women confront the enemy.

Who cares how women perform their role on the front? As truckies, engineers driving dozers making airstrips, as snipers, pilots, submariners, whatever, as long as they are encouraged and required to take up their civic responsibility to serve their country, laying down their lives if required. If Vietnamese women can do it without support and concessions, and without weaseling out so can you.

Antiseptic

At least I write about ideas and concepts. All you seem to have written here are nasty, personalised insults, or sob stories about how badly your mummy treated your daddie.

You prefer to retreat into assuming an absence of intelligence in those who don't view the world from the lofty heights of perception you have assumed for yourself.

And as for the supposed 'straw' arguments you attributed to me, you either haven't read the comments here or you only read them long enough to decide whether they agreed with your worldview or not and then hurriedly moved onto someone who did.

You want to have it both ways, Antsy. You argue that 'Feminism has had a long tradition of preparedness to sacrifice men to the benefit of women' (shades of your earlier mummy rage anecdote), yet you slam me for arguing the case not only for the right of women to fight in combat, but also for shining some light on the reasons why they are prevented from doing so.