Typical moronic statement! Go bareback then mate - just don't complain when things go wrong - I guess you can't help being stupid! :hugesmile:

so its alrite 4 birds 2 lie bout there pill? or is it all us big bad lads fault again?

No of course it's not alright for a woman to lie about being on the pill - but any man that takes her at her word (when not in a long-term relationship) is as stupid as her - and deserves what he gets! The only one that deserves any sympathy in that situation - is the poor innocent child that results!

Women definitely play the victim more for their own gain. And use the power that the original feminists got them to satisfy their own needs.

Wear a condom!

Correction - some women! Just as some men try to play the superiority card and abuse their physical strength!

Why is it always men on domestic abuse adverts? And even child abuse adverts, do you not think they should show the womens side too?

Very true on both sides.

I guess because it is more common with men!

Maybe because the domestic abuse system is geared for women victims.

It does tend to ignore situations where the perpertrator is female. And why not, long term it undermines the woman in the victim role.

Maybe its about the same percentage throughout society, maybe men feel under pressure not to report it for fear of being laughed at, ignored or simply told that doesnt happen.

So, with bad mothers ect, would you think sometimes they might let it slip? Think it couldn't possibly be the woman? It's not good if we don't know the signs when the woman is doing the abuse.

Indeed that could be a reason, for being laughed at and that.

In my case, I was told it wasnt in the public interest to pursue charges against the wife, the female victim support officer told me at the time "the system isnt geared for this sort of thing" although they were quite aware of lots of situations were it was occuring, when I asked her what would happen if I was the perpertrator, she smiled and said "we would charge you, arrest and hold you and it would be pursued"

Undoubtedly some women do abuse - which of course is just as bad - but it is clearly more apparent in men! Either should be dealt with appropriately!

Like say a man abuses his wife constantly over many many years, and one day she snaps and kills him, it would be like 'Ohh the poor woman, look what she went through, no wonder she did it'. But the other way round it would be, 'look at the brutal wife killer, only knows violence ect ect'

The only boundary i have drawn is between a Policewoman who is clearly not up to the job of Policing a Rowdy bunch of lowts, and Women who are descriminated against in their chosen careers. And i am certainly not trying to tell anybody where they stand with me.

I'll make an assumption that, you thought my words we're relating to the original post, when in fact it related to the Police Officer in the picture above the words. I'll be more careful with my phrasing in future.

If my assumption is wrong, you'll have to add detail to your enquiry.

In a lot of cases the small policewoman has better skills to defuse any trouble a rowdy bunch of louts could create, simply by her presence, most of the louts wouldnt hit her but do as she says. If you swapped her for a beefy 6 foot male said bunch of rowdy louts would then tend to spout off or even kick off worse feeling their machismo under threat from big male rival.

Totally agree with that!

So, the Police have compromised affective Policing when it gets violent, for affectiveness in preventing a violent situation occuring.

Well i'm not really capable of doing the maths on that one to show we are better off for the compromise. But it's a valid point, Soft Policing Vs Zero Tolerance can be a very good thing. And i have learned something their.

Their is a skill that non threatening Females can bring to the job of Policing that i had not thought of. Is their any such advantages to having a Female in the front line of the Armed Forces though? Or would that be a compromise without benefit? or even the Fireservice

Exclamation marks!

! - ! - !

This women and front line thing - doesn't make a lot of sense. Maybe it would if this were the first/second world wars where hand to hand combat was likely - but with today's modern weapons and warfare - involving no physical contact/combat - I don't really see how physical strength (or lack of it) is an effective argument against women! Enlighten me please!

Lets get this one in perspective, current Armed Forces thinking is people are best employed where their abilities are able to be better utilised. Women are not allowed on "the front line" where they could be expected to close and kill an enemy.

They are however allowed on the ground in places like Afghanistan for combat support roles. Medic, Police, Artillery, Intelligence etc, they are not allowed to be infantry. There a few reasons for this.

The load on a soldiers body require him to have upper body strength (due to the weight of the weapon, ammunition and equipment he has to carry on prolonged operations). Although a very small percentage of woman can carry such loads not many women can pass the required fitness test. There are also physical limitations on women being able to urinate while wearing full kit without having to disrobe, This is particularly important when fighting in an NBC environment(Nuclear Chemical and Biological - where urination for women would be carried out in the same way as defectation. Bearing in mind on field operations the composite rations(compo) issued to troops bungs people up for a good few days on end. A defecation drill carried out correctly using the relevant equipment takes about 25 minutes. )

In some peoples eyes it is morally repugnant to put women into a combat situation where she may be expected to engage an enemy at close quarters with bullet and bayonet. Also she may be a right terrier in the naafi after a few beers and can carry quite heavy loads, but can she close with and kill an enemy silently(just joking)

They arent allowed to fly modern high speed high performance combat aircraft for two reasons, in combat the aircraft would be flown to its maximum performance envelope, this puts great strain on a body and its possible in high 'G' conditions for the uterus to prolapse - pop out. Also the design of modern aircraft and using average bodily measurments its impossible for most women to operate all the controls and be able to use all of the 3 ejector seat controls, they could easily use two out of the three however the third (overhead) can only be used by most women by arching their back and extending their legs forward, when the seat cartridges fired and forced the seat out of the aircraft they would lose their legs.

They are allowed in fighting ships of the line because its unlikely they would have to engage in hand to hand combat, the ship is effectively totally sealed in an NBC environment and they dont need to carry out the full drill for urination unless the integrity of the NBC system is greatly reduced.

Sure Wombai,

Most war is still conducted by Infantry, Soldiers walking with heavy back packs in order to clear ground or capture territory. When the fighting begins, there will be lots of running between points on the front line to re-enforce those points. Carrying injured Soldiers, pushing forward on foot is best done as fast as possible to avoid being targeted.

The ideal soldier will be able to carry their packs, weapon, and still be able to run a long distance. Which means Strength and endurance is not something you would want to compromise on, given your life and that of your teams life is at stake.