It's been less than three years since the Australian military decided to open up combat roles to women (for my protest see here).
It was never the case that the Australian military would stay the same but with female troops. Once the decision was made to fill the ranks with women, then fundamental changes would come about.
I was reminded of this by a recruitment advertisement that ran on Australian TV tonight. The advert has images of both young men and women in the military, though the women seem to feature more than the men. But what was most interesting were the graphics on display. As we saw the images of the soldiers, the first graphic said "warriors" but it was soon followed by another which said "nurturers".
Maybe someone thought that the first word "warriors" might not appeal to women as much as men, so the second word "nurturers" was added.
But is trying to recruit nurturing types to the army really such a good idea? If you are under fire, do you really want the person next to you to have nurturing qualities or fighting qualities?
Shouldn't the army stick to recruiting warriors?