You are right of course Killarney, but I am sure far more women wouldn't consider the option of hand to hand combat than men would.

From what I have seen on news reports, there does seem to be quite a few ground patrols of heavily weighted down men and women in the main conflict Australia is involved with at present...Afganistan ?

I realize there would be many women who could carry the same amount of gear with them as the men, but for the life of me, I can't imagine why they would want to!

Babette Francis provided an entertaining take on "The myth of gender interchangeability" (5 April 2013), discussing women in combat roles, starting with Henry V: "Once more unto the breach, dear friends ...".

In reality, most of those involved in defence have sit down jobs, operating computer consoles, in offices, ships, aircraft and vehicles. These personnel are a mix of civilian contractors, public servants and military. The "front line" in modern war is not clear and civilian personnel are routinely deployed in combat zones. As a result the gender of the personnel is largely irrelevant: they are chosen based on ability to do the job.

When working as a public servant for the Australian Department of Defence I put on a camouflage uniform to go on exercise with the US Navy in the Coral Sea. Around me were the US Navy and US Marines, Australian Army, Navy and Air Force, along with civilian personnel. The enemy would not be able to distinguish between us, when attacking the warship we were on: http://www.tomw.net.au/nt/tt97.html

Killarney has made a strong case for the abandonment of women's events in sport. Totally unnecessary and obvious discrimination!

That is good because it also means that there is no need for that affirmative action and nagging by feminists for there to be equal prize money and equal time on The Box for women's sports. Let the market rule because women are big enough and mean enough to do it on their own.

Come to think of it, Killarney makes a convincing case to do away with all of those wasteful publicly funded quangos spruiking for women and why not for those other presumed victim groups too.

Just to check one little point though, is killarney sure she is representing women, or is she taking her lead from those cussing, hard-partying, would-be truckie radical feminist womyn?

Hmmm, that gives rise to another question, if a butch lesbian wars to protect her femme, is that an instance of feminist despised patriarchal chivalry?

No matter, here's looking forward to equity in the returning body bags.

There really is a bit of re-writing of History going on within these comments... yes yes , I know.. It's a socialist weakness.

I can remember a couple..

Cheryl, . If your brother was 21 , your Mother had no worries. Our Marbles were selected for our 20th Birthdays.. not 21 st.

The Falklands War.. What mad Dictators/ Generals.?

Well it was the Argentinean Ones who invaded ...... Derrr !

Women have not had the Vote long enough in Australia to ever have voted for war ( or warlike activities ) ?

Women voted in the majority for the Conscription Votes in WW1... the votes were lost because the AIF in Europe and the Middle East , about 300,000 of them , very strongly voted against Conscription .

No white Feathers from the Troops !

Other than drivel like this, good comments, but please, if you don't know your History, don't make it up !

Suseonline,

I appreciate from where you are coming, and I feel exactly the same.

However, women can be just a warmongering and lethal as men. I would hazzard a guess, that women in power would make similar decisions about embarking on war as men do. In fact, I don't doubt it.

The people elect their leaders depending upon how they perceive their strength and that of the relevant parties. If a woman is a leader and her party's position is ...

Suseonline,

Who sent troops to the Falklands? A conflict that was actually pointless, even capricious, and cost lives.