Women in front line combat roles in Australian Defence Force

[strongmanmike]

Just wondering what people on this forum think of finally allowing women into real frontline combat roles within the Australian Defence Forces?

Why is it taking so long to give it the final green light?

If male personel can be readily exposed to the highest life risking roles to backup Australia's often questionable foreign policy, why not women too?

Is this not the ultimate inequality?

Thoughts?

Mike

[Suzy_A]

What's this got to do with astronomy (or science in general)?

Apart from that, the ADF is a very conservative and risk-adverse organisation. They are too scared of doing anything that might reflect badly on them by their political (and incompetent) masters.

There are no women in combat roles as they see this as the lesser evil of two politically undesirable choices - either having no women in combat roles; or having women in combat roles that might be captured (and naughty things done to them) by the enemy.

Private whats-her-face from the US Army who was captured a few years back by the Iraqis is the perfect example. She is still regularly in the news.

[leinad]

Inequality? More like moral insanity.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4187621.ece
2cents.

[CoombellKid]

She is in the news regularly not because she was captured, but because
she was used as a media football. The iraqi doctor treating her tried to
deliver her back to a local US check point in an ambulance to boot, twice!
but the US Army wouldn't except her. They wait until most of the iraqi
insurgency had left the hospital and then went in with camera crews. To
tell you the truth I felt sorry for her.

I think you also have to get off the sexist view of why we dont have
women in combat roles. If it were that simple you would of had women in
combat roles right after they threw their bras away in the 60's.

regards,CS

[jjjnettie]

If it is within a women's physical capabilities to serve on the "Front Line", why not?
But, I don't think that it should be compulsary. It should be up to the individual.
If you are serving overseas, eg Iraq, no matter what unit you're in, or what job you do in it, there is always the chance that you'll be caught up in Combat anyway. Just because you're a requisitions clerk doesn't mean the enemy doesn't want to kill you.

On the other hand though...
I've always thought that a battalion of 1200 women all with PMS could win any war before lunch time.

[renormalised]

That would be classed as a weapon of mass destruction!!!!:eyepop:

Worse than any nuclear weapon!!!:P

[ving]

lol jeanette!

why the hell not tho... meanig no disrespect at all but are they any less expendable?

[JimmyH155]

They threw their bras away in the 60's because they wanted liberation. What they ended up with was equality:D, So why not serve in the front line if they want. My son is a submariner and I spent an amazing day aboard a submarine out of Garden Island. There were several women on board - Steward, Able Seaman and a Comms person. Every body go on well and I asked my son what he thought, and he said women are perfectly acceptable - no worries. ;) My daughter-in-law, whilst not exactly in the front line was on the Bridge of the Westralia, when that terrible fire occurred. Although she was only a junior Officer, and took no part in any decision making, she witnessed the whole sad saga and did not fall apart. Women in the forces - no problems:D:P

[jjjnettie]

Remember the "Resistance Movements" of WW2?
Fought mainly by the women, children and those of the men deemed to old or infirm to soldier.
The risks they took were just as dangerous as any faced by the military.
Their bravery in the face of the enemy deserves the highest of honours.

[renormalised]

Some of them did.....Nancy Wake, for example. She's got enough medals to start her own scrap metal business!!!!.

[madtuna]

The problem is not whether women are up to the task of serving in combat roles, the problem is overcoming the inherent male thought process that says they are not

[h0ughy]

guys I think we are in the front line everyday when we go home to the missus - and dodge the spray. I would prefer no action either way, but we do not live in an ideal world.

[Starkler]

I can see a couple of reasons why not.


Suffering female casualties would be much more politically damaging. Males are more expendable.
Emotional ties in mixed gender units. Imagine under fire having to rely on a person more concerned about the safety of their lover than the person next to them

[Starkler]

But would they accept orders? :lol:

[CoombellKid]

Yup! they would just depends on how you give it.... :D

It was those guys way over there, that left the toilet seat up/down or whatever it is :whistle:

regards,CS

[CoombellKid]

I think to in a man world (as it were) pre 60's. A lot of the vets who have
been through heavy combat, probably know too well about the quiet
casulties of war... women and children. But particularly how women have
been treated. Women just like our mothers, sisters and aunties. And I
suppose if you were to view from their eyes you may well see why it has
a hard topic. Whether you think it's sexist for me to say but it's probably
more the reality. Men I suppose were good for war as like most women
say we have no emotions. Doesn't mean to say we dont quietly suffer.

regards,CS

[Starkler]

I can image the commander firing them up before battle.

"You know what the enemy are calling us? The RAR fat-ar$es".
"Go get em girls!" :rofl:

Sorry couldnt resist :P

[xelasnave]

Equality is something we can talk about but it be a difficult creature to find in your back yard.

Equality of wealth, social status, economic status or the equality of facing death is an illusion.

Dont get sucked in girls it is a load of crap ...in fact boys dont get sucked in for the same reason.

Offerring your life to support values and goals unknown to your reality and circumstance is stupid so if that is your bag demand the right to offer your life for others agendas...but dont think for one moment in so doing you are somehow now more equal.

alex

[merlin8r]

One thing to consider, and this isn't an equality issue, is how male soldiers would react seeing a female comrade fall in battle.
This isn't just how I would react personally, the Soviet forces found it to be a very real issue during WW2. Male soldiers would often linger over the bodies of their female comrades, and yes more so than another male. We can't help it, it's just programmed into us to protect the womenfolk.

[xelasnave]

Indeed we are programmed to protect the ladies.
However maybe if there were ladies at the front the many massacres of innocent civilians we are forced to endure could be minimised as hopefully a lady may have better decency than so many men have shown is absent in their waging war... maybe the rapes of those poor unfortunate females in a war zone could be reduced .... maybe maybe maybe...why have a war anyways.. All the wars I have lived thru were nonsense... the current one has nothing to do with us thank goodness we will leave it behind.
alex

[Jen]

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:2thumbs:
:poke:

[PCH]

"Up to the individual" - jeepers that's an jolly interesting idea. Presumably we're not distinguishing male from female here - are we ? So, - how many squaddies do you think would rock up at the front if it were "up to the individual"? It would be my guess that a small camper van would be able to drop them off :P

Cheers

[PCH]

Interesting point Alex. I was horrified to see that they are now asking for more front line women in the UN and Peacekeeping forces that are deployed here there and everywhere, - purely so that they can help minimise the incidence of additional horror (rape and sexual molestation) that some of the male Peacekeepers are inflicting on the female members of the already traumatised population.

What must people (who do this sort of thing) be thinking of when they do this to these people (or anybody for that matter)?

My 2c

[GrahamL]

I think thats a fair comment alex ..the girls have an inbuilt sense of humanity that us "other" folk just cant get our head around ..Nancy Wakes bio has a good example within ( read this if you havn't).its one hell of a book !!..the passage details the capture of a known informer to the gestapo .. who was responsible for the deaths of many friends in the resistance ..she denied his torture outright and said You just kill him and be done with it .

http://www.convictcreations.com/history/nancywake.htm

[PCH]

... Apart from starting it along with those other two dummies, yep we do have the luxury of it being in someone elses backyard :thumbsup:

[Ian Robinson]

If they can keep up, carry their share of the load, are as strong and quick, don't complaign when roughing it with lads (pooing in hole in the ground , getting smelly and very dirty), and don't cause conflict or divided loyalties ....

[casstony]

In the interests of promoting peace, only politicians should be allowed in the front lines.

[Bassnut]

I see a lot of politically correct tentative references to "equal pay equal work". Do females actually have the same prolonged physical strength required ?(is that what you allude too Ian? not that its the only quality required of course), im talking about right in the heat of battle.

[CoombellKid]

Now thats an excellent idea :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: just imagine Howard doing a few
rounds with Saddam or the PM of Tonga. Bush doing a few rounds with
Putin (we all know who would win that one) or that chap running Iran.
Dang! I reckon you would make just as much money out of the live feeds
than you would out of the war machine :lol:

regards,CS

[matt]

I'm with you, Rob. Throw 'em all in the ring and let 'em 'duke' it out!!!:lol:

Man...that'd be funny to watch.

[strongmanmike]

Well as I expected lots of dodging the real issue and throwbacks to tired old reasons and excuses why women aren't allowed to serve in front line combat roles sheesh are we in the 21st century or still locked in how it was during the second world war or Isreal 60 years ago? Are there really still Clark Gabbles in the modern proffessional defence forces? :screwy:

Comon ladies, stand up for your rights! Your right to better pay like the boys, more power like the boys, more capital worth like the boys and fight for your rights to really defend your countries ideals and not just "support" those that do...just like the boys!

Does anyone not think that some of the female gladiators in the TV show here in OZ wouldn't have the potential to be a great fighting soldier?? bloody oath I say!

How dare Australia say that a womans life is worth more than a mans! If you can make the grade and pass the tests why not be allowed to be part of front line combat..? It's your absolute gender equalising right :thumbsup:

Mike

[strongmanmike]

Err? John Howard...?? :shrug: he aint even a member of parliament anymore he was voted out remember? :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:Oh dear...just a sad memory of a try hard Prime Minister is all that remains I am affraid :lol:

[Bassnut]

WHAT, how sexist is that Mike, sheesh, is female equality to be dudged by how they perform in battle? is "life worth" defined by performance in war?, you are KIDDING, get real, there are far more important qualities in society generally than how hard you fight!. It seems to me evolution has endowed us all with different qualities, equaly important but not the same.

[strongmanmike]

Wha? As usual Fred you miss my point :doh:do you actually read the posts carefully that you answer Fred, or are you on that Southern Comfort again:whistle:.

Indeed many people think it is worse when a woman dies compared to a man. When was the last time you heard a news report like "20 people killed in a freak accident, including 5 men!" ? As a society we absolutely value a womans life more than a mans and I am saying that women should fight against this and make it truly equal.

There are probably quite a few male front line combat soldiers in the ADF that several of the female gladiators on TV couldn't be every bit as good as or better, at engaging an enemy in close quarters and as such shouldn't be prevented from doing so purely on the basis of their gender.

Mike

[Bassnut]

umm, yes, no and yes (possibly):D.

Its OK Mike you can be wrong ,its OK, really, dont be embarrised :).

Your dark, subliminal, metrosexual, alt-personality is plauging you it seems.

Males fight, the female role is as the "glue" in society, they provide social coheasion and mediate the male urge to knock each others block off.

The notion that the need for them to "prove" equality in battle is demeaning.

[CoombellKid]

I was kinda thinking in hindsight, Saddam isn't even walking anymore. Still
I think it would be pretty funny seeing Howard getting a belting from
Saddam, it'd be like Merv Hughs in an army suit :lol:

regards,CS

[madtuna]

There's a few tiny differences. Zoe, Bionica, Amazon and Angels opponants aren't really trying to kill them. They get mega pay and get to go home at night and sleep in comfy beds instead of a trench or the back of an APC.

Mental strength plays a greater role than physical strength when your next foot step could be your last

[jjjnettie]

:P back at ya.
As much as I'm for equality between the sexes, you've got to be realistic about this. Men are physically stronger than women.
It would not only be unfair, but dangerous to have someone who couldn't pull their weight. If you need a box of ammo NOW, you don't want to wait around till they've found someone who could help them lift it off the truck.
This is why it is up to the individual woman.
There'll be those, a minority, who I'm sure would be more than capable to perform their duties, and others, while willing to serve in this capacity, would be unsuitable for the job.


Originally Posted by xelasnave
Indeed we are programmed to protect the ladies.

Can I get a copy of that program? My husbands version doesn't seem to be working properly.:whistle:

[Bassnut]

Steve, all the better that they are at home to look after the alpha-male wankers when they get home and remind them of their pointless exploits. Unless of course our enemies are invading our actual right to exist, in which case everyone gets a gun, including the kids.

[Bassnut]

Exactly Jeanette, skills for the job, in most cases male physical strength is probably critically important at the front.

Steve, I was being unfair there, I have the utmost respect for those that choise to serve in battle, its the ultimate public duty. Its the political reason to go in the 1st place that often is questionable.

[madtuna]

No offence taken at all Fred!
I was actually commenting on the reference to the Gladiator tv show ladies most likely being good in front line combat because they could probably beat a lot of blokes in an arm wrestle.

Someone down in this thread mentioned sending female Police officers to a brawl.
Ask any male Police officer what it's like to attend a full on pub brawl with a female partner.
Frankly if they answer honestly, most hate it.
Male instinct is to protect the female, his mind is half focused on her wellbeing and his time spent on keeping her safe, taking his full concentration and energy off the job at hand.

There are thousands of females out there who are fully capable of holding thier own in any fighting force, but there are also a myriad of roles where they could serve and contribute much more and play a just as important role than at the front line in the mud with the blokes

[strongmanmike]

Was that alpha-male or H-alpha? :doh:Are you refering to mega data, narrow field image processing exploits by any chance? :rofl:

Sorry Fred, I just think that in a modern 21st century defence force with modern engagement practises and equipment/technology a woman who is capable of it should be able to, and not be "banned" on the basis of her gender alone, that's all. The gladiator reference was to the fact that there are clearly women of physical ability out there at least the equal of many soldiers currently serving in front line combat roles so with the correct training and if the desire is there then such a ban is unecessary.

I think you may be playing southern comfort stirups here..? :drink:and you haven't got to me...you swine herd, pimple nosed, poppy cock, H-alpha male, wide field woose & gladiator hater, you.....:love2:

Mike

[Miaplacidus]

A curious thread. Mike, you always seems to come up with thought provoking topics. Thanks. :rolleyes:

Interesting the way some people think soldiers would be saying "After you..." and politely standing back from the barbed wire so that the ladies can pass first into the mine field. And all that stuff about men and women fighting side be side, feeling conflicted if a soldierix copped a bullet. Would gendered battalions solve that? And is it too controversial to ask if a platoon of Sapphic warriors would be more menacing than a phalanx of hermaphrodites?

Frankly, if we must have sanctioned fights to the death, shouldn't the sole criterion be psychopathy? "Rightio, who's the most efficient killer we've got?" I, for one, could make some suggestions.

And, of course, unfortunately, events in Abu Graib and elsewhere have revealed that at least some women, alas, can be just as depraved as many man.

[Alchemy]

theres a good suggestion.

War is ugly, i dontthink anyone should kill other people, my preference is not for women in combat roles, in a perfect world we wouldnt need armies, but clearly this is not so.

i dont think in the last 200 years an armyhas ever marched into one of the Anglosaxon countries....America, england , Australia, New Zealand,..... bombed from a distance, but not truly invaded. If it happaens now a few nukes will be forthcoming and i guess thats it, no need for anyone to fight we all die.

[spacezebra]

So far - many comments by men (and two women).

My view. If we (meaning women) have signed up for the Australian Defence Force - we undertake all roles as ordered.

Cheers Petra d.

[rmcpb]

After actually spending time in a trench with all the "goodies" that go with it I would say that no-one should have to do that, male or female.

I back the pollies in a square ring with broken glass on their gloves. A lot less conflicts that way...................

[cahullian]

I guess not too many of you have done any real military training. Women are not in the special forces because the physical demands are far too tough. Men fight, thats what we do,and if you dissagree with that, so be it.

When there is a noise outside my bedroom window at night my wife has never ever said "don't worry hun I'll go and see what it is." Women don't compete in physical sports with men because whe result would be a slaughter and the outcry would be deafening.
Men and women are different and I for one love the thought that my wife is kind, loving,and nurturing and she loves the fact that I,m strong and uncompromising in the defence of my family. Our current laws hate me for these quailties but I couldn't give a monkeys what the courts say, you come in through my window at night and you are on a long road to pain my friend.The hospital bed you would be in would be recognised as a change of address by australia post because of the length of time you would be spending in it.

I don't think women should be in the front like not because they are not equal but because they are different. Men and women can never be equal as both sexes can do things the other cant and all things being equal we would need to be able to do all thing the same. It's the differences in each sex that make them attractive to each other just as much as the similarities.

Rant over

Gazz

[PCH]

Bravo ! - my thoughts exactly.:thumbsup:

[spacezebra]

Hi there

Only one final comment -

http://www.pullins.com/Books/01605WomeninWarandResis.htm

Cheers Petra d.

[strongmanmike]

Nice one Petra :thumbsup: The Russians always were ahead of the west in elevating women in male domains even if it was often just to show the west that even their women were stronger :).

Seems that so may (both men and women) in Australia and other countries think that all women are weak and physically inept :screwy:.

Of course we must also prevent men from becoming nurses, child care workers, nannies and infants teachers etc too because they must be nancy boys who would need their wives to protect them and that would make our country weak and vulnerable to invasion and intrusion by burgulars :doh: :rolleyes:

Mike

[Miaplacidus]

Ahead of the west? Don't forget that 2500 years ago Spartan women received equivalent military training and fought right alongside their men (much to the amusement of the Athenians. That is, up until they needed them to help fend off the Persians.)
Seems like this debate is a helluva lot older than originally thought...

[marki]

Just a fleeting thought, silly and obvious in fact, but don't the female gladiators only compete against the female contestants? Not that I watch much TV............:D

[ving]

send all the chjicks to war while us guys stay at home!!!! :D


/me hides...

[cahullian]

Lol Dave

Female leaders of nations don't mind sending their toops into battle. Britain,Isreal and India spring to mind and that is all in the last 50 years.

Gazz

[ving]

yup, i have been feelin weird lately... plz exuse my outburst! :P

[Jen]

:eyepop::eyepop::doh:
i can still see you Ving :lol::lol::lol:
:poke::fight:
well i can kick butt on the playstation will that count :P
:gamer:

[ving]

g'day jen :)

me vs you... gt4, right now :P

[Jen]

:DOk Ving game on cowboy :gamer:


:help2:
:lol:

[TrevorW]

They bleed just the same !!!