Should a mother join the Navy?

No one has yet pointed out the blindingly obvious thing that lots of women are injured and killed in combat - we call them civilians or even collateral damage if we are a really sick journo/politician/goldbraid.

At the risk of repeating myself I'll just say (again) that exactly the same arguments re physical/psychological competence were in the past used to stop non white men from serving and/or bearing arms that are today used in the debate over women in the front line and society got over that one (justabout).

For whatever reason either accident or design or biological inability lots of women don't have children, a phenomenon that is far from new. We saw it in the first half of the last century when a generation of men was wiped out by WW1 and we saw it towards the end of the century when the pressures of capitalism made it harder and harder for people to afford to have children.

'Experts' constantly bleat on about the fact that children need fathers quite as much as they need mothers in relation to crime statistics and teenagers but statistics - as we all know - can be made to prove anything one wants.

Bob Stewart was on the radio today pointing out that in his opinion the only difference between men and women in combat was that when women were injured that the men were often distracted from the job in hand by the question of looking after the woman in a way that wouldn't be quite the same were the injured person a man. Whilst this argument holds some water I think the recent case of the helicopter rescue of the injured soldier (in Iraq I think) rather contradicts this and I believe research has shown that men have always 'cared' for each other in combat situations (obviously in a rough tough manly sort of way :lol: ) that this cohesion is what holds together small groups of fighting wo/men and is far from new. Even he concluded though that this tendancy of men to want to 'care' for women in this way would probably disappear over time.

Any more daft reasons you want knocking on the head????? :lol:

Seriously though - I suspect that it may be just a matter of time but it will be interesting to see if the same debate is still going on in 50 years time pity I won't be around to find out.
 

dondon

MIA
rosinacarley said:
spider_monkey said:
rosinacarley said:
2. If women ruled the world there would be no wars anyway. We would all love each other and there would be pink fluffy things instead of guns.
Grow up!
Oh dear Spider_Monkey? have you not drunk from the cup of irony tonight? Or are you just a grumpy git with no sense of humour?

You tell him "rosie"
:wink:
 

Jack77

War Hero
I have known quite a few mothers in the Navy and with only one glaring exception, they all did what was expected of them and never tried to trade on motherhood for special treatment. I know one POSN and mum of 3 who went to the Gulf almost immediately after hubby got back, so the kids had effectively almost 12 months in a single parent household. Both parents accepted this a part of the job and it seems the kids had no major dramas.

Having said that, I would be reluctant to recruit any man or woman who was already a parent and in a settled relationship before joining. I think younger boys and girls and those without close personal attachments can more easily adapt to service life than others, and if they marry and have children later they know what to expect. Of course there will be exceptions but I reckon the general trend would be that those who are already parents etc. will find the going a bit tougher.
 

F169

War Hero
Reservist-Monkey said:
I am old enough to have been about; before, during and after the transition of women at sea. Whilst Jack will always try his luck with any woman anywhere, I didn't find that this had a negative effect on morale onboard. In fact women brought a positive mindset from the start.

As to no women in the front line. What do people here define as 'front-line'? I am more than happy to discuss the concept of battle space linearity in asymetic warfare if you want. I would suggest however that, as a 'starter for 10' aircrew both rotary and fast jet meet any criteria you care to down, and we brits, along with many other nations, have female WAFUs.

I am not by any means suggesting women should be in the infantry or the corp, but I challenge anyone to doubt courage and worth of those women who worked with 14 Int in the 70s and 80s.

M(R)
I thought the question was about mothers in the navy,not women in the forces. However as you have broadened it to include women at sea etc........

Interesting, I never noted the 'positive mindset from the start', had to jump on a lot of the negative mindset though and that did affect morale. Funnily enough distractions among/by the opposite sex, nay even same sex, never seemed to be an issue in an all-male ship, except when adrift and at the table.

If you are content for women to serve at sea in warships why not in the 'infantry or the corps'? - they are either equal or they are not - and evidently with ongoing discrimination, they are not.

You mention the courage and worth of women in a particular unit but equally you could say the same about policewomen working undercover, or even indeed on the beat in uniform in certain areas of the country. The fact is there are plenty of opportunities for mothers to do interesting and exciting jobs in society, whether ashore or afloat without them having to serve at sea in the RN. After all it was a woman and mother, in just such a position who handbagged the service into accepting this brave new world in the first place.

We are so often told the Service must reflect the society it serves (those of us who believe it should reflect only the highest standards of that society are a fast dying breed) yet the Times debate has only a handful of comments on this issue and about 100 on the future of McLaren as England manager. IE very few of our fellow citizens give a toss about females on the front line. If, on the other hand, what the press report and print is representative of society's views, perhaps it is time to reintroduce the WRNS.

R-M - If you could spell "asymmetric" I might believe the discussion you propose may have merit and "onboard" is two words: on board.
 
Regardless of its intend, I think this avenue of discussion is highly unhelpful at the moment. This is the time at which we should be coming together for mutual support rather than to show our divided views.
 
rosinacarley said:
In an ideal world no-one one would go to war would they? We would all sit round eating sherbert dib dabs and discussing the latest trends in home decor. However for two reasons women now have to go to war:-

1. We all know there was a shortage of personnel in the late 1980s so a decision was made to open up sea service to females. This is because blokes - and not the ones on here obviously - did not see it in their interest to serve their country. Equality my arse ... the govt was desperate.

2. If women ruled the world there would be no wars anyway. We would all love each other and there would be pink fluffy things instead of guns.
You never met my ex then.
 

Hawkeye

Lantern Swinger
rosinacarley said:
2. If women ruled the world there would be no wars anyway. We would all love each other and there would be pink fluffy things instead of guns.
Alas Rosina this is not true remember Maggie Thatcher
 
UncleAlbert said:
The hussey likes to give the impression that prior to her joining there was no wimmin sailors of any significance… whereas the truth is there have been sailergirls in the mob since day one …the difference was they didn’t serve on the front line … there’s plenty of jobs on a ship that are better suited to wimmin than poncing about on a rib…why is it the bloody navy has no CDF…the septics don`t put wimmin on the front line and neither now do the Israelis…the latter as they found that the men were overprotective towards the wimmin and therefore were not putting their minds fully on the murderin and pillage that they were being paid to do.
Any way after this sorry episode I think and hope it will be a long time before we see wimmin on the front line again….and rightly so.
If you care to look through some of the old muster lists you will see that women were often at sea and in the front line. There were quite a few at Trafalgar for example.
 

janner

MIA
Book Reviewer
Hawkeye said:
rosinacarley said:
2. If women ruled the world there would be no wars anyway. We would all love each other and there would be pink fluffy things instead of guns.
Alas Rosina this is not true remember Maggie Thatcher
Rosie, you may change your mind on this one if you go out on the streets in the early hours over any weekend. Would rather step in on two men fighting than two women anytime 8O
 

Deeps

War Hero
Well here is my input.Lets face compared to the Army and those members of the armed forces that are ''landbased'' in Iraq the RN has minimal risk. Ok 15 have been captured by the Iranians,but they are not really in any danger are they? they will be used as a political tool then realeased after the Iranians have got there use out of them. I do find it very frustrating listening to some people on here going on about ''frontlines'' ''fighting for queen and country'' etc etc when really the only fight the RN has out there is when the beer bosun forgets to collect the mess issue. The RN has an important job in the middle east ,just please spare me the [email protected] about how dangerous it is.

With ref to women / mothers out there. Well if they can do the job ,great let them. However as I have stated already its not as if its ''house to house fighting '' whilst sunbathing on the GDP.
 

Uncle_Albert

War Hero
higthepig said:
I`m confused UA whats wrong with joining up?
Well, Hig, amongst the reasons people give for not being interested are that it's a job with an uncertain future, it can entail long periods away from home (and indeed, stuck on a pusser's grey), many find the militaristic lifestyle unattractive (particularly the loss of freedom compared to civvy street), there's the chance of being put into harm's way, there's no way to guarantee what you'll be doing, you're tied to it for a specified period, promotion freezes, dwindling fleet and dwindling resources mean it'll be getting worse from day one, there's the feeling that you're as much a political pawn than a 'force for good', and the pay system is a bag of crap that no self-respecting civilian organisation would have accepted delivery of.

This is not an invitation for everyone to tell me what's ace about the RN, please!
 
Speaking personally I joined the RNR for precisely that reason as I am quite happy to fight for Queen and Country but would prefer to be taken to war by big grey taxi. Deep - I am sure your hole in the ground is all very nice, but you are welcome to it, thank you very much.

Service in the RN is not without its risks and some jobs on board have more risks attached than others. I think we have to be thankful that there are still large numbers of young and not so young people, men and women, that are prepared to take those risks rather than stay at home and kill bad guys on their playstations.
 

Deeps

War Hero
Phil-''Hole in the ground''? Thats a little bit ignorant isnt it? I did my time on an Armilla patrol in 1989 so I know the score. I do not mean any disrespect to the RN at all. Infact it is common knowledge within the army
that RN chopper pilots are the very best in the business and will do anything whatever the risk to help. My point in simple terms is,how many sailors have been killed or injured on active service in Iraq in the last 4 years?. Once again I will say that the RN has a vital role in the middle east . But from a soldiers point of view with 3 tours of Iraq under my
MK 6a kevlar helmet please spare me the ''for queen and country'' stuff.
 

Hawkeye

Lantern Swinger
Deeps said:
Well here is my input.Lets face compared to the Army and those members of the armed forces that are ''landbased'' in Iraq the RN has minimal risk. Ok 15 have been captured by the Iranians,but they are not really in any danger are they? they will be used as a political tool then realeased after the Iranians have got there use out of them. I do find it very frustrating listening to some people on here going on about ''frontlines'' ''fighting for queen and country'' etc etc when really the only fight the RN has out there is when the beer bosun forgets to collect the mess issue. The RN has an important job in the middle east ,just please spare me the [email protected] about how dangerous it is.

With ref to women / mothers out there. Well if they can do the job ,great let them. However as I have stated already its not as if its ''house to house fighting '' whilst sunbathing on the GDP.
Well a class post from you there Deeps,bloody good effort
 
I thought the question was about mothers in the navy,not women in the forces. However as you have broadened it to include women at sea etc........
How can you have a full and frank discussion on the topic without looking at other relevant examples of similar environments?


Interesting, I never noted the 'positive mindset from the start', had to jump on a lot of the negative mindset though and that did affect morale. Funnily enough distractions among/by the opposite sex, nay even same sex, never seemed to be an issue in an all-male ship, except when adrift and at the table.
Fair enough, everyone's experience at the time would have been different.


If you are content for women to serve at sea in warships why not in the 'infantry or the corps'? - they are either equal or they are not - and evidently with ongoing discrimination, they are not.
What ongoing discrimination are you talking about? Something seen on these pages? A few responses in the papers? I do not see regular discrimination against women per se in the services and I do not see the service as institutionally sexist. Maybe your experience is different.

As to why a no the Inf/Corp and yes to the RN. I think this arguement has been around a few times. Infanteers of what ever hue are required to carry heavy loads over long distances prior to engaging the enemy, often at close range. A great number of blokes aren't suited to this task. Maybe they should open up the Commando cse/P Coy etc to women and if they can do it so be it. I would suggest it's more a question of cost effectiveness (standfast one female AGC Captain - I will await incoming from out lovatt brethern).

You mention the courage and worth of women in a particular unit but equally you could say the same about policewomen working undercover, or even indeed on the beat in uniform in certain areas of the country. The fact is there are plenty of opportunities for mothers to do interesting and exciting jobs in society, whether ashore or afloat without them having to serve at sea in the RN. After all it was a woman and mother, in just such a position who handbagged the service into accepting this brave new world in the first place.
So it's OK for women to be shot from the Iranian Embassy but not to sit in the ops room during defence watches. What makes the navy special in this case. I genuinely fail to understand your reasoning. If the army will allow women to be in harms way and the RAF allow them to fly their precious aircraft, why on earth shouldn't they be on a ship?


We are so often told the Service must reflect the society it serves (those of us who believe it should reflect only the highest standards of that society are a fast dying breed) yet the Times debate has only a handful of comments on this issue and about 100 on the future of McLaren as England manager. IE very few of our fellow citizens give a toss about females on the front line. If, on the other hand, what the press report and print is representative of society's views, perhaps it is time to reintroduce the WRNS.
Having worked for the media in a previous life, I can assure you press reporting is NOT reflective of society. It is whatever will give them the most sales or airtime. I have never met a journalist, and I have worked with many, that gives a toss about anything representing society's views. They merely conform to the views of the editor.

R-M - If you could spell "asymmetric" I might believe the discussion you propose may have merit and "onboard" is two words: on board.
Oh please :!:
 

F169

War Hero
Re Deeps' post.

Can we have navy MODS on all navy forums please?

It isn't a competition to see who is most in harm's way FFS! Today's Iraq could be tomorrow's Falklands. When the Moskvits start flying Percy Pongo might well be very glad to be ashore. If I wanted to read a feed of ARRSE like that I would go to the appropriate site.
 

Deeps

War Hero
F169 I was making a post, if you dont agree with it then fine post your opinion. As for navy MODS fill your boots, ive still done more time in the Andrew than a lot of people here.Go on post your opinion instead of slagging mine.
 

josiecats

War Hero
In these times it should not matter weather male or female.....
toooo long have women shouted for equility..Yet there are those who stil wish to hide behind thier womanhood.....If a female wishes to join the services then she should be trained and deployed as any other would be.If iether of my children choose a sevice life i would be proud..
As for being a mother..well my own personel belife is why have a child then ask another to bring it up........
These days its a novelty to have both parents together......... my son wanted to know why he only had one dad and mum....

I somtimes wonder if the "Emily Pankhurst" would join up...
 

OBTaff

Badgeman
I made my choice when I became a parent - the MOD would make no concessions to ensure that one parent would be in base port at all times so one of us had to leave (hadn't really expected them too - but if you don't ask.. )
Would I have stayed in? Maybe - but it made more sense financially for OH to. I don't regret spending 10 years bring up my kids but if things could have worked out practically for us - who knows?

I admire mothers who serve & they have my utmost respect. But I also think that fathers miss out on too much and think that the question should also be asked - is it right for Fathers to serve at sea? It breaks our hearts every time they ask - where's daddy going? Why isn't he home like other daddies? Why can't daddy see my school play, x's daddy is coming?


On a side note - I hope the discrimination on board (and I experienced it first hand) has disappeared since I left!
 

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top