Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Feminist nonsense hit Australian military
YelliChink    4/11/2011 2:44:46 PM WOMEN will be allowed to serve in frontline combat roles after the Gillard government ordered the Australian Defence Force to bring forward the removal of bans that have stopped women from applying for the most dangerous and demanding military jobs. The historic decision by Defence Minister Stephen Smith means women who meet the tough physical standards required of their male counterparts will now be able to serve in elite special forces units such as the SAS, work as naval clearance divers and join general infantry and armoured units. The decision to fast-track women into combat roles coincided with the announcement of a raft of reviews and inquiries into the treatment of women in the defence force spurred by the Skype sex scandal. About 93 per cent of all jobs in the military are currently open to women, including serving in submarines and piloting fighter jets, with the 7 per cent of jobs closed to women mostly in the army.
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
albywan       4/11/2011 5:09:19 PM
 they'd be "safer" with frontline units than they are in the navy ;-)
Surely the Feminists who are pushing for this would be better served ensuring that woman in all roles within the defense forces are treated with a acceptable level of respect. i.e. Not filming them having sex, not running sweepstakes as to who will bag her first...
Quote    Reply

Kirkzzy       4/11/2011 6:28:07 PM
Not that I am sexist and don't think women are more capable then men, i just do not think they should serve on the "front line" as the effect it would have on their male colleagues could be devastating and could do serious harm to morale. Israel tried this and that is what they found, soldiers risking their lives for female colleagues that had been wounded.
Quote    Reply

Kirkzzy       4/11/2011 6:30:30 PM
Although I might add it will be unlikely they will be in the special forces, as I think they have this in the Netherlands. Its just too hard for women to pass the SF selection course.
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       4/12/2011 2:10:56 AM
Well we don't let our infantry undertake combat roles anymore and a woman isn't very likely to make it past the Special Forces barrier testing anyway (no disrespect, it's just unbelievably tough) so I don't see what the big deal is. 

Can a woman not dig a pit at Shoalwater Bay and fire blanks at an "enemy" just as well as a man? Probably so I don't see too many issues with letting them in...

Of course if we ever fight a real war again, things might be different, but it doesn't seem on the cards, so yeah let the feminists have their way. Remove the last bastion unavailable to them, so they can move onto whinging about something else... 

Quote    Reply

Barracuda    Women Grunts   4/12/2011 7:19:17 PM
This is not really nonsense ... it evolution of society.
If they can pass the fitness requirements and live in the field for long periods of time they should fill their boots.  But the key thing is there must be no lowering of any sort of standards to let them in. I think it could be made to work.
The reserves will be were the problems will occur, being that the various spread out units will have differient standards and agendas.
My concern is why have the ALP trotted this out in the middle of the "Skype Debarcle". They mentioned it early last term, but it got shelved, now under a bit of pressure it suddenly appears again.  You just can not the shiny bum young spin doctors that some of these pollies have got advising them. 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       4/12/2011 8:11:33 PM

Although I might add it will be unlikely they will be in the special forces, as I think they have this in the Netherlands. Its just too hard for women to pass the SF selection course.

The RUC used to have "special constables" who did wet work, they weren't seat warmers, but did actual combat against the IRA. A number died doing their job.  They were required to go through the HENV training that the SAS did.  Women got through the HENV and a fair slab of the SAS course - they lasted where quite a few men didn't.

The russians had women in combat, the israelis do etc..... 

Quote    Reply

Barracuda       4/12/2011 9:28:01 PM
I love as I read this the trailer for Sucker Punch is running ... feminist nonsense
Quote    Reply

Reactive       4/12/2011 10:45:38 PM
Three points:
1) The general public is very likely to be only partially in favour of women in frontline combat roles, the psychological/propoganda effect that might result from the Taleban (as an example) capturing and brutalising/stoning/beheading on video a female soldier are unpredictable in the extreme, potentially undermining the war effort - or forcing a reconsideration of females in combat duties.
2) I know that women have performed numerous combat roles and indeed many have died in Iraq and elsewhere doing "quasi" combat duties, and by all accounts performing them with distinction, there is a genuine concern that were these roles to be expanded to literally gender-unbiased squad formation, then there may be a lot of unknowns in terms of how that impacts the effectiveness thereof, certain studies (one poster briefly mentioned above) seem to raise a lot of questions.
3) That before making a decision on ideological principles it is better to thoroughly evaluate - principles of equality are no good if they get people killed or end up making war politically impossible, or indeed reduce support for the armed forces themselves on ideological grounds (yellichink is very upset about this and he's not likely to be alone there), not that I am saying that we should inhibit progress because of social conventions alone but that decisions such as this need to be taken a purely pragmatic, and not an ideological level - that cuts both ways, there's no reason women shouldn't serve in combat IF that doesn't cause endless unforseen negatives, at the same time, and very much like enforced positive discrimination, it does no one any good when the idealogues get in power.. whether they're rampant feminists like YC or otherwise..

Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       4/12/2011 11:24:09 PM
Simple solution. Raise an all female rifle company and attach it to one of the battalions. Measure it's performance in comparison to the existing companies once it is trained and worked up and if it can do the job. Great. If not, the Infantry Corps is closed off again, simply on performance metrics alone. No discrimination just simple performance. Nothing more nothing less. 

All the stupid arguments about "men throwing their mission away to save the women" or "men will be too busy trying to have sex with that woman to fight" and what not can be neatly avoided that way...
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       4/14/2011 5:29:47 AM
Lets face it though, there will never really be equality on these matters because the day we have to start conscripting again the feminists would scream blue murder if they think that capable young women might be forced to do these terribly "desirable" jobs...
Personally, I never had a problem with the women who I did my subject 1 for corporal with ... they were very capable at their non-combat jobs and made a great contribution. However, I don't really see anything but costs and risks associated with having women in close combat units, for no real benefits. Having an all female company like AD suggested is a case point, it would be an utter pain in the arse that would prevent efficient deployment of a battalions resources, if there were to many or not enough females to staff it. The job of winning a war really is important enough that I think that ideals of equality should be put aside in the name of military efficiency.
Quote    Reply