Danielle...Falklands.

Are you saying that it's OK for Dictators to invade their Neighbors ?

Feminists like Suseonline win on the swings and the roundabout. They see war as men's role. That gets them out of going themselves. They also get to denounce men later for being warlike. Men's wars they say. They even get to claim that women are always the victims.

Women's behaviour in voting for governments who send men to war -and in Australia, ChickenHawks like Menzies relied on a strong women's vote to keep them on the government benches- women demonstrate beyond all doubt that they have no hesitation in voting for young men to put their lives on the line in ventures overseas. While women may not have voted in a referendum for war, they did the same by supporting appalling Chickenhawks like Menzies who pleaded with the US to send young conscripted men to Vietnam.

Where male voters are concerned, there is always great reluctance to agree with the Australian volunteer army being used for anything else than the actual DEFENCE of Australia. Men are highly rational in resisting governments who would like to use a volunteer army (as opposed to the professional, career army) for overseas ventures, where the defence of Australia is suspect or non-existent. Some might understand that history from the two armies that Australia had in WW2.

Aspley, Galtieri "invaded" the Falklands, 'tis true, but given that Argentina had an historical claim at least as strong as Britain's, a geographical one that is much stronger and that they have neither strategic, resource or any other significance to Britain, Thatcher was arguably the real aggressor. Did Galtieri exhibit any genuine expansionism and threat to his neighbours? Not 'ardly.

Thatcher's response was that of the gamekeeper who shoots a poacher for having taken a pigeon in the swamp on the estate next door that the Laird only has title to because nobody else wants it.

Not sure what women's suffrage has to do with the White Feather (or the modern equivalent, the White Ribbon) campaign? Care to expand, or are you satisfied with your "drivel"?

And just for the record, women have had Federal suffrage in Australia since 1902. That would be approximately 12 years before the beginning of WW1, but don't let facts confuse you...

Aspley,

When you put it like that ... you are right ...

However,

The population on the Falklands is less than 3,000. They could have been evacuated whilst talks proceeded.

“… most recently, new archival papers released in the UK revealed that members of the Thatcher government were divided over how to respond to the Argentine invasion of April 1982. For all the talk of an ‘Iron Lady’ and dispatching a ‘task force’ to recover the Islands, there was clearly the possibility at one stage or another of a deal being done.”

http://en.mercopress.com/2013/04/08/what-do-the-falkland-islands-continue-to-tell-us-about-territorial-world-views

Losses

During the war, Britain suffered 258 killed and 777 wounded. In addition, 2 destroyers, 2 frigates, and 2 auxiliary vessels were sunk. For Argentina, the Falklands War cost 649 killed, 1,068 wounded, and 11,313 captured. In addition, the Argentine Navy lost a submarine, a light cruiser, and 75 fixed-wing aircraft.

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/battleswars1900s/p/falklands.htm

So many of the arguments here are based on stereotypical myths about womanhood, not women's capacity for combat roles, i.e.:

(1) that women are put on this earth primarily to give birth, and to nurture and support their children and menfolk, so war and combat are at odds with their inherent natures

(2) that women want and need strong, decisive (read 'warmongering') men as leaders of the country and of the household

(3) that women are too scatty and fussy to fight at the front line and would fall apart at the first sign of discomfort (damn, just broke a nail!)

(4) that because women as a group are not as physically strong as men as a group, then ALL women are physically too weak to do ANY job requiring physical strength.

These arguments, and variations on them, have been put forward to exclude women from virtually every field of activity at one time or another. Even office work was once deemed too strenuous for a woman and an education was deemed unnatural to women’s nurturing instincts.

Gradually, the admission of women to predominantly male domains has broken down these stereotypes. Combat is one of the last bastions of the patriarchy and there will be lots more myth-mongering thrown at women before they ever get even a shoe-in, let alone any form of equality.

(Disclaimer: I'd much rather see FEWER MEN in combat than more women.)

Killarney,

I don't care for any of those myths invented by feminists either. I just want the best person for the job and lets face it, not many women are interested in certain roles either. Biology is relevant.

You don't see many women clamoring to be well paid tradespersons and educated middle class feminists do not demand such jobs for women. Why not?

Feminists are like PETA, continually creating sensationalism in order to justify their role and income, while others get on as usual providing the subject services as they always have done.

Whether you like to admit it or not, the priority shouldn't always be to redesign jobs to fit women, because that can have unexpected negative consequences. With firemen, the physical fitness bar ensured that all can do all roles. That matters to the victims of emergencies. That cops can grapple with offenders matters too. Otherwise the .40 automatic has to be used more often. Or the steel clubs, sprays or volts - lethal too.

It is now usual for delays and doubling up of ambulances where there is any awkwardness in moving a patient. So there needs to be two woman and man teams attending. One team gets there, finds some difficulty because of patient size, steps or whatever and another ambulance must be called to support. Great for feminism, but wretched for the patient. On site treatment and transport policies had to be changed. Unreasonable feminist equality of outcomes creates insurmountable problems.

As far as the front line is concerned, I have a right not to have my risks increased through any concessions to meet affirmative action targets. But of course women should serve in war, their lives are no more valuable than men. Women should shoulder their citizen's duties equally.

All that anyone is raising are the practical limitations and consequences. That and asking it is horses for courses or the other way around?