Women on the front line

Asguard

Kiss my dark side
Valued Senior Member
Combet savaged over combat women

ABC News
Posted 11 hours 28 minutes ago
Updated 4 hours 51 minutes ago


Defence Personnel Minister Greg Combet has found himself in the firing line over a new drive which could see Australian women serving in frontline combat missions in countries like Afghanistan.

The Government wants to attract more women to the Australian Defence Force by removing blanket restrictions which stop women from joining frontline infantry units, including the commandos and the SAS, as well as taking on certain roles in the Navy and Air Force.

He says the Federal Government wants to break down gender barriers in the ADF by reviewing who does what based on physical capabilities, rather than gender.

But Mr Combet says the Government will not make any decision until the new physical standards are finalised, which he says could be several years away.

"At this stage no decisions have been taken in relation to that and it's important to note that women are already undertaking a significant number of very important roles within the ADF," he said.

Mr Combet says 92 per cent of jobs within the ADF are already available to women and several have served in deployments in Afghanistan, Iraq and East Timor. Women now make up around 13 per cent of ADF personnel but the Government would like that number to be much higher.

But Liberal backbencher and former infantry officer Stuart Robert has branded Mr Combet's push to have women on the frontline as "outrageous", saying he needs to "think before he opens his mouth".

The Member for Fadden had a 12-year career in the military and served in a peacekeeping force in Bougainville after its civil war.

He has urged the Government to think "long and hard" before it allows women on the frontline.

"My concern is that really only Israel and a handful of countries whose very existence is threatened have gone down this path - the rest of the Western world hasn't," he said.

"[Mr Combet] has never parachuted at night in the rain, he's never carried a mortar baseplate for 50 kilometres in a route march.

"For him to stand there and give his opinion and push the Government into something is simply outrageous."

A high-ranking Australian Army officer has backed Mr Combet's move.

Speaking from Darwin's Robertson Barracks, 1st Brigade Commander Brigadier Michael Krause says it has been an "enormous generalisation" that women are not strong enough for the job.

"It's not gender-based that they're doing this, they're doing this based on the requirements of the task, and the task is not going to change," he said.

"All they're really saying is ... that if you're fit enough, and you're strong enough to do the job, you can do the job - whether you're female or male."

New South Wales Labor MP Lynda Volz, who was in the Army until 1993, also lent her support.

"You talk to any men who do triathlon and marathon running and ask them if there are not a few women out there that are freaks of nature that beat them home every time," she said.

"There are some very physically and mentally strong women and if they are capable of doing the course physically they should be allowed to."


'Leave it to the military'

But Opposition Defence personnel spokesman Bob Baldwin says there is no public clamour for women to be given more combat roles.

"Whether women should be on the frontline ... is a question that is yet to be resolved, [but] I don't think that public opinion in Australia is ready to support that at this stage, and neither is the Coalition."

Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull says there is room for a discussion, but any decisions on the matter should only be made by those with first-hand knowledge of military demands.

"The primary objective has to be the safety and the effectiveness of our armed forces, that's something that I'm sure we'll have an informed discussion on, and it should be led by those with real knowledge, real frontline experience in the field," he said.


Who's strongest?

The long-standing logic in the ADF is that men are stronger than women, so women cannot do everything men can.

"It is perfectly valid to argue that all categories should be open to women, the only exceptions should be where the physical demands cannot be met regardless of gender according to criteria that are determined on the basis of scientific analysis rather than cultural assumptions," Mr Combet said.

Mr Combet has told Parliament that the Defence Science and Technology Organisation will develop a new set of physical employment standards, which will determine who is fit to do what.

"The development of these new standards will also help inform the Government on the appropriateness of the possible expansion of the roles that women can play in the ADF," he said.

"A priority of the Government is to improve the recruitment and retention of women in the ADF."

But the executive director of the Australia Defence Association, Neil James, has serious doubts about the minister's plan.

"Physical employment standards are already the prime criteria, you'd have to wonder who's been briefing him," he said.

"Some of his reported comments just don't seem correct - they don't reflect what reality is.

"The whole idea that the current policy is discriminatory [is false], I mean it's not discriminatory in a gender-equity sense at all."


'Laws of physics''

Mr James says the ban on women performing certain roles in the military is for good reasons.

"I don't think the people of Australia would like to see their daughters, sisters, wives or female friends killed in disproportionate numbers to male service personnel," he said.

"It's a simple physicality thing. On the battlefield, academic gender equity theory doesn't apply. The laws of physics and biomechanics apply."

Mr James says there is also evidence that male soldiers are overly protective of women in the battlefield, which is a distraction from the task.

Eva Cox from the Women's Electoral Lobby says that is an outdated argument.

"Grow up, I mean get over it, because that's something that comes out of some very ancient views about women and chivalry," she said.

"I don't think most men, most young men these days, are particularly aware of it.

"Modern younger men don't share those sorts of views and I think they'll learn how to take care of their companions regardless of whether they're male or female in a way that's most appropriate.

"Being told that you can't do something, that you're not allowed to do something, that you're inadequate in some way to do it, or that you're going to be just so distracting that nobody else is going to be able to do their job properly, I think it undermines the whole way that the culture or organisations work."


Viewed 09/09/09 at 19:17

This is about a move by the Federal gov to increase ADF numbers and provide gender and age equality but this thread is mainly about the comment in Bold. when i first herd it it was on TV and it was frazed slightly differently (i dont know wether that was because he said it multiple times or because of editing or a mestake in this artical). What he said was "I don't think the people of Australia would like to see their daughters, sisters, wives or female friends killed on the front line". Now specifically aimed at women here who are married or with male children but anyone else as well,

How many of you are happy to see your sons, brothers, husbands or male friends killed on the front line?

I thought this sort of bigotry went out years ago but aparently not from the liberal party. NO ONE should be dying on the front line unless its apsolutly nessary and no one should expect there sons to go where they wouldnt expect there daughters to as well.
 
What a pile of puke.

I agree with you Asguard.

I'm sick of hearing how women are poor delicate child-like beings who can't be allowed to do dangerous work. If a female soldier is physically fit and strong enough to be on the front line she should be on the damn front line.

What is this logic that says even if a woman is strong she's still automatically weak because she's a woman? Bullshit.
 
It has nothing to do with their fitness, but with their ability to make babies. If there was a really serious war, the lack of males would not be a problem, but the lack of females would be a threat to a society's very existence.
 
It has nothing to do with their fitness, but with their ability to make babies. If there was a really serious war, the lack of males would not be a problem, but the lack of females would be a threat to a society's very existence.

Yeah, but since when do we have the right to decide for individual females what they can and can't choose to do with their lives?

I know if someone told me I can't do a certain job that I've always wanted to do and am sufficiently qualified to do because it would get in the way of my baby-making career, I'd tell them to go walk off a tall building.

How far do you take that? Do you prevent women doing anything dangerous, because they're needed for baby-making? Or do you mean ONLY in the context of a possible war?

Also, we're talking about specific units. The SAS/commandos/whatever alone would not make much of a dent in a nation as a whole.
 
It has nothing to do with their fitness, but with their ability to make babies. If there was a really serious war, the lack of males would not be a problem, but the lack of females would be a threat to a society's very existence.


umm, if the war was that bad that it wiped out significate portions of population then gender balance is going to be rather unimportant concidering that maybe 5%? of the population is millatry. There for the whole country must have been wiped out or at least most of it and in that senario you think women are going to a) stay out of it and b) be unefected by the distruction of the whole country?

What a pile of puke.

I agree with you Asguard.

I'm sick of hearing how women are poor delicate child-like beings who can't be allowed to do dangerous work. If a female soldier is physically fit and strong enough to be on the front line she should be on the damn front line.

What is this logic that says even if a woman is strong she's still automatically weak because she's a woman? Bullshit.

I find this whole thing stupid, the TV artical went on to talk about the rape of women POW's. I was left wondering wether this guy knew anything about the changy railway at all. Firstly men can be rape just as easerly and with equal or aguably more phsycological and physical injuries (depending on the cirumstances). Before i get shot the reason i state this is that as a general rule women have been strong enough to come forward, seek surport and go through court proccesses to see the perpitrators brought to justice. This isnt the case for men who have been raped in general. Its a very rarly reported crime because of the stigma. Anyway thats for another topic

Secondly the general conditions of POWs have never been a picknick and simply adding or subtracting rape from the abuses they have sustained is not going to improve or deteriate them at all. Torture, mutilation, summery executions ect are no less horific than rape
 
...I find this whole thing stupid, the TV artical went on to talk about the rape of women POW's. I was left wondering wether this guy knew anything about the changy railway at all. Firstly men can be rape just as easerly and with equal or aguably more phsycological and physical injuries (depending on the cirumstances). ...

what is a changy railway?

And women prisoners get raped far more often than males do. And I really can't believe you think its more traumatic for a man to be sodomized than a woman.
 
you have never herd what the japanise did to the POWs in WW2?

Of course it has to be more traumatic for a women doesnt it?:rolleyes:
i mean women are MUCH more likly to report a rape, to get counciling for a rape, to be empathised for a rape where as a man who is raped is more likly to have issues with there own sexuality, to hide the fact they were raped, to be ridiculed if people DO find out about it or not to be belived ect ect.
 
http://www.abc.net.au/changi/history/burma.htm

The name Changi is synonymous with the suffering of Australian prisoners of the Japanese during the Second World War. This is ironic, since for most of the war in the Pacific Changi was in reality one of the most benign of the Japanese prisoner-of-war camps; its privations were relatively minor compared to those of others, particularly those on the Burma–Thailand railway.

For much of its existence Changi was not one camp but rather a collection of up to seven prisoner-of-war (POW) and internee camps, occupying an area of approximately 25 square kilometres. Its name came from the peninsula on which it stood, at the east end of Singapore Island. Prior to the war, the Changi Peninsula had been the British Army's principal base area in Singapore. As a result the site boasted an extensive and well-constructed military infrastructure, including three major barracks – Selarang, Roberts, and Kitchener – as well as many other smaller camps. Singapore 's civilian prison, Changi Gaol, was also on the peninsula.

Most of the Australians captured in Singapore were moved into Changi on 17 February 1942. They occupied Selarang Barracks, which remained the AIF Camp at Changi until June 1944. For many, Selarang was just a transit stop as before long working parties were being dispatched to other camps in Singapore and Malaya. Initially, prisoners at Changi were free to roam throughout the area, but in early March 1942 fences were constructed around the individual camps and movement between them was restricted. In August, all officers above the rank of colonel were moved to Formosa (present-day Taiwan), leaving the Australians in Changi under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Frederick "Black Jack" Galleghan.

Security was further tightened following the arrival of dedicated Japanese POW staff at the end of August 1942. The new Japanese commandant requested that all prisoners sign a statement declaring that they would not attempt escape. The prisoners refused en masse, and on 2 September all 15,400 Australian and British prisoners in the Changi area were confined in the Selarang Barracks area. After three days, a compromise was reached: the Japanese ordered the declaration be signed, thus making it clear that the prisoners were acting under duress, and the prisoners were returned to their original areas.

Throughout the war, the prisoners in Changi remained largely responsible for their own day-to-day administration. The main contact with the Japanese was at senior-officer level, or on work parties outside the camps. Extensive gardens were established, concert parties mounted regular productions, and a reasonably well-equipped camp hospital operated in Roberts Barracks. Damaged infrastructure was progressively restored and both running water and electric lighting were common throughout the Changi area by mid-1943. Camp rations and supplies were supplemented by the opportunities which work parties provided for both theft and trade. For a time a university was operated inside the AIF camp but, like most prisoner projects in Changi, it suffered after May 1942 when large work parties began to be sent out of Changi to work on projects including the Burma-Thailand railway. In February 1942 there were around 15,000 Australians in Changi; by mid-1943 less than 2,500 remained.

In May 1944 all the Allied prisoners in Changi, now including 5,000 Australians, were concentrated in the immediate environs of Changi Gaol, which up until this time had been used to detain civilian internees. In this area 11,700 prisoners were crammed into less than a quarter of a square kilometre, and this period underlies Changi's place in popular memory. Rations were cut, camp life was increasingly restricted, and in July the authority of Allied senior officers over their troops was revoked. Changi was liberated by troops of the 5th Indian Division on 5 September, and within a week troops were being repatriated.

After the war, Changi Gaol once again became a civilian prison, while the Changi military area was repaired and redeveloped for use by the British garrison. Following the withdrawal of British troops in 1971, the area was taken over by the Singapore Armed Forces and still has one of the main concentrations of military facilities on the island. Roberts Barracks remains in use, but the original buildings at Selarang were demolished in the 1980s. Changi Gaol was scheduled for demolition in the second half of 2004, although the original entrance gate and a section of the outer wall was preserved as a memorial. A museum and replica of one of the chapels built by Allied prisoners in the Changi area have been opened on the road between Changi Gaol and Selarang Barracks. In 1988 one of the original prisoner-of-war chapels was transported to Australia, re-erected in the grounds of the Royal Military College, Duntroon, and dedicated as the national memorial to Australian prisoners of war.

http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/pow/changi.asp
 
you have never herd what the japanise did to the POWs in WW2?

Of course it has to be more traumatic for a women doesnt it?:rolleyes:
i mean women are MUCH more likly to report a rape, to get counciling for a rape, to be empathised for a rape where as a man who is raped is more likly to have issues with there own sexuality, to hide the fact they were raped, to be ridiculed if people DO find out about it or not to be belived ect ect.

I never said it was MORE traumatic for women. I think it is equally traumatic. You said "aguably more phsycological and physical injuries" for men. What crap. :mad:

Hell, there are still countries where it is legal to rape your wife or a woman out past curfew. Its "understandable" to rape a woman dressed provocatively. Or if a woman is raped, she can save her family's honour by marrying her rapist. So don't give me blather about how men treat other men when it comes to rape.

And you are trying to bring up 60+ year old data on male POW rape victims? Again, what crap. :rolleyes: What does that have to do with women on the front lines in today's military?
 
This is about a move by the Federal gov to increase ADF numbers and provide gender and age equality but this thread is mainly about the comment in Bold. when i first herd it it was on TV and it was frazed slightly differently (i dont know wether that was because he said it multiple times or because of editing or a mestake in this artical). What he said was "I don't think the people of Australia would like to see their daughters, sisters, wives or female friends killed on the front line". Now specifically aimed at women here who are married or with male children but anyone else as well,

How many of you are happy to see your sons, brothers, husbands or male friends killed on the front line?

I thought this sort of bigotry went out years ago but aparently not from the liberal party. NO ONE should be dying on the front line unless its apsolutly nessary and no one should expect there sons to go where they wouldnt expect there daughters to as well.
The point he was making was that females, due to their physical weakness, would be killed in far greater numbers than males.

Personally, I don't support having females in the military. But, if they're going to be in it, they should be all in. That means yes, they should be in combat and they should have to meet the exact same physical standards as the men.

I believe that most women couldn't meet the same standards as the men and that the number that could is so small that it's not worth the trouble a co-ed military engenders. But again, if we're going to have females in the military, and the purpose of a military is to fight wars, then any women in the military should be ready, willing, and able to fulfill that function.
 
The point he was making was that females, due to their physical weakness, would be killed in far greater numbers than males.

Personally, I don't support having females in the military. But, if they're going to be in it, they should be all in. That means yes, they should be in combat and they should have to meet the exact same physical standards as the men.

I believe that most women couldn't meet the same standards as the men and that the number that could is so small that it's not worth the trouble a co-ed military engenders. But again, if we're going to have females in the military, and the purpose of a military is to fight wars, then any women in the military should be ready, willing, and able to fulfill that function.

I actually agree with this, but I support having females in the military.
 
The point he was making was that females, due to their physical weakness, would be killed in far greater numbers than males.

Personally, I don't support having females in the military. But, if they're going to be in it, they should be all in. That means yes, they should be in combat and they should have to meet the exact same physical standards as the men.

I believe that most women couldn't meet the same standards as the men and that the number that could is so small that it's not worth the trouble a co-ed military engenders. But again, if we're going to have females in the military, and the purpose of a military is to fight wars, then any women in the military should be ready, willing, and able to fulfill that function.

If the US forced women out of the military right now, critical jobs that are dominated by or supported greatly by them (medical, logistics, clerical, personnel, etc) would cause horrific ripple effects on the military as a whole. Women on the front lines, carrying guns and fighting in the trenches, I'm not sure. If it's gonna' happen then there should be a "blind" physical endurance test open to anybody, no "norming", no special uniform or hair cut. Exactly the same. But that's only for physical jobs (there's no getting around the fact that the vast majority of women have 1/3 less muscle mass and physical endurance). As far as commanding warships, there's no discernible difference between the way a woman orders the launch of fighter jets and firing of torpedoes.

Note: Commanding combat ships is already open to women in the USA. The first female CO of an American warship died in 2002.

~String
 
In all honesty here it is not that women aren;t as capable as men or somehow more fragile. It is that the male psyche has a harder time dealing with a female comrades death then a fellow man's. Kill an infantryman's bestbud and he'll fight three times as hard against you. Kill a woman and all of a suddenl he's doing his damndest to try to ressuscitate her when it is already hopeless. It the men that are the problem, not the women.
 
What a pile of puke.

I agree with you Asguard.

I'm sick of hearing how women are poor delicate child-like beings who can't be allowed to do dangerous work. If a female soldier is physically fit and strong enough to be on the front line she should be on the damn front line.

What is this logic that says even if a woman is strong she's still automatically weak because she's a woman? Bullshit.
To me the issue is not about whether she can do the job but rather how likely it is she will be raped if captured. Of course men could be raped though this is much less likely. Men could be tortured or mistreated. But the liklihood of rape seems higher to me. That armies that would in general treat prisoners with minimal ethics would end up raping women soldiers and regularly. Especially if they thought these women had killed their buddies.
 
To me the issue is not about whether she can do the job but rather how likely it is she will be raped if captured. Of course men could be raped though this is much less likely. Men could be tortured or mistreated. But the liklihood of rape seems higher to me. That armies that would in general treat prisoners with minimal ethics would end up raping women soldiers and regularly. Especially if they thought these women had killed their buddies.

Why does it matter so much which type of danger they're facing?

Why nitpick over whether they're more likely to be raped or have their eyelids removed?

Personally, I don't support having females in the military. But, if they're going to be in it, they should be all in. That means yes, they should be in combat and they should have to meet the exact same physical standards as the men.

I believe that most women couldn't meet the same standards as the men and that the number that could is so small that it's not worth the trouble a co-ed military engenders. But again, if we're going to have females in the military, and the purpose of a military is to fight wars, then any women in the military should be ready, willing, and able to fulfill that function.

I agree with the bold part.

A competent soldier is a competent soldier whether they have a penis or a vagina.
 
I actually agree with this, but I support having females in the military.

Ditto. It still bugs me though. I just can't get used to the idea of women being exposed to dangerous situations like that. It just isn't...right.

Pillory away.
 
Back
Top