ADF: give us girls a go

Sadhbh says:

11:49am | 10/09/09

I think putting women on the front line is an excellent idea. I mean, all we need a quick boobie flash and all those poor dear Neanderthals on the other side will be forgetting their guns and going to get their wallets out to buy the ladies drinks in a moment.

Not to mention that we won’t even need training for the camo green make-up.

But will they make army boots with heels?

http://www.sadhbh.blogspot.com/

Jake the Muss says:

11:55am | 10/09/09

I have been a passionate advocate for removing this arbitrary rule for a number of years now.

My first reaction after reading this article was to rethink my position.  Completely irrational I know, but I cannot tell a lie.  I thought it was so vacuous an argument in favour of something I have advocated for, that I temporarily went bonkers.

Stuart Roberts MP should have a good hard look at the ladies of the IDF.  He will soon realise that if the Israeli boys can control themselves around those absolute stunners, I’m sure our boys will be just fine.

http://www.pimpinforfreedom.wordpress.com

Michael says:

11:58am | 10/09/09

The next big war won’t allow us any choice, Women are in our military and the military is fair game in war, women have and will continue to fight on the front lines because front lines move. Yes there going to be men who go nuts when a woman gets shot, but really is that any different from when a man sees his best mate die next to him on the field?

Women belong in the military along side men, both sexes need each others strengths,  “Behind every great man there’s a great woman” I think one day we should change that to read “Beside every great man there’s a great woman”

barb says:

11:57am | 10/09/09

Sounds ok in theory, but as soon as a female combat soldier is captured, raped and tortured by an enemy that doesn’t believe in gender equality, women won’t be so keen to join the frontlines. And it’s likely the torture will be posted on the internet as well. Time for a reality check sisters.

Tim says:

11:57am | 10/09/09

Women already have easier physical standards than men in the military.
Would you agree then that these standards for females should be lifted so that they are truly equal with their male colleagues?
I have no problems with females on the front line as long as they have to pass the same physical requirements as men.

Michael says:

12:02pm | 10/09/09

yeah the boots have already got heels mate, GP boots add something like an inch to a soldiers normal height.

Chance says:

12:02pm | 10/09/09

I looked into joining the army a couple of years ago, and all the interesting roles were ones women weren’t allowed to do. The reason the recruitment officers gave me for why women weren’t allowed on the front lines- that if a woman falls in combat then every man around her will stop to help her, meanwhile they’ll ignore other men. It was the best laugh I’ve had in years.

RobJ says:

12:16pm | 10/09/09

“that if a woman falls in combat then every man around her will stop to help her, meanwhile they’ll ignore other men.”

So the recruitment officer was basically saying that our soldiers aren’t very professional? Hmmmm

Rob says:

12:20pm | 10/09/09

Best caption to a photo I’ve ever seen. Gold.

Sally says:

12:20pm | 10/09/09

I’m not so sure I agree with this. From a young age we drill it into to little boys that it is ‘wrong’ to hit a girl. We are publicly outraged when a drunk footballer glasses or punches his girlfriend. And yet, if this follows through women will have to be beaten (by their male colleagues) in training for the Special Services. How can we have one standard for mainstream society and a different one for the Army??

Matt says:

12:31pm | 10/09/09

One of the toughest soldiers I ever served with was a woman. She had to do infantry training because as an officer, everyone needs to be able to lead in a fight.
She had one of the best infantry minds on the course, and it’s a shame she could never have served in a line unit, because she was much better than at least 50 per cent of the men I ever served with, or led, in the infantry.
She was a great example of the ethos that if you’re good enough, your gender doesn’t matter.
She’s still in the army - and is now a Major and second-in-command of a unit training young officers.
I reckon she’s still setting a good example.

DG says:

12:31pm | 10/09/09

AMEN - in all seriousness, if a person wants to take a bullet for their country, they chromosomes shouldn’t deny them that opportunity. While I agree that chivalry demands that a man should protect a lady with his life - any one that choose to be on the front line in battle has waived their right to be treated chivalrously, it’s kill or be killed - gender is left in the barracks and it’s a free for all.

@Barb: Do you think that the military forces have taken male soldiers and tortured them? Why should women be treated differently to males when they are captured? They know the risks, if they choose to go on the front line, go for it. Your argument appears to be one of self preservation - I must admit that’s pretty much my reason for allowing women on the front line (the more women the less need for men to get shot), but just because you want to stay well clear of the rape and torture doesn’t mean that you should prohibit other women from putting themselves in harms way.

I think that you’ll find that this long standing division was based on 2 things, men are generally stronger than women, and men are expendable. It only takes one man to cause many women to fall pregnant at any given time- where as a woman can only fall pregnant to one man at a time, if ensuring the continuation of your society is the key, which would you risk? I simply don’t think that this consideration is applicable any longer.

Daniel says:

01:07pm | 10/09/09

@Chance: I have to agree with the recruitment officers. Its not the being unprofessional, like others have suggested (and women would so love to believe). Being unprofessional would be acting negligent and thinking of yourself in the middle of a battlefield.

If I was laying wounded 200 meters away from an equally injured woman, I wouldn’t like my chances of getting attended to in a timely manner. Women will have priority in war.

And you can’t blame men, it is hard wired into us. To tell us just to “stop it” would be like men telling you to stop wanting to attend to your baby every time it cries.

Its easy to argue your point when you’re the one reaping the benefits.

Murray says:

01:10pm | 10/09/09

I didn’t realise femists drove Subarus.

eno says:

01:21pm | 10/09/09

The reason we don’t let women in the front lines is the same we never allowed women to take part in the pugilistic arts. There is a certain class and style to men fronting up for a few rounds - nothing like those women with their hair pulling and scratching.. (getting off high horse) ..basically I think we’re scared how high the body count will go if we let the women play too!

H says:

01:55pm | 10/09/09

Think your butt looks big in jeans? Wait till you see it in camouflage combat pants topped off with a flak jacket!

On the serious side, I don’t think the average Australian male will be comfortable going about his daily routine, with the knowledge that our women are risking all on the front. It just doesn’t sit with the Anzac spirit for mine.

Steven H. says:

02:00pm | 10/09/09

Oh so witty, Oh so funny.

Of course, lucky we aren’t talking about anything serious here, like death and injury.

Yes, being first at the supermarket line has so much in common to kicking down the door of a house filled with people who intend to spread your internal organs all over your mate.  And surviving the pain of childbirth is fantastic, it means you’ll deal with the pain of the IED blowing your leg off, but perhaps not the pain of leaving the child you gave birth without a mother.

So, by all means, treat it as a step forward for equal opportunity, or a progression of Australian society.

But don’t treat it lightly, military service, despite it’s modern camouflage as a ‘career’, is about giving and receiving of death “as a continuation of state policy by other means”.

Lets not forget that dirty business while we’re laughing and cheering.

RobJ says:

02:00pm | 10/09/09

“How can we have one standard for mainstream society and a different one for the Army?? “

Because soldiers need to be able to kill people? Because the Army isn’t main steam society? Because (controlled) aggression is a good trait for a soldier to have?

“And you can’t blame men, it is hard wired into us.”

As mentioned at another blog this excuse was once used by dinosaurs to whinge about women leaving the kitchen and joining the workforce.

“is the same we never allowed women to take part in the pugilistic arts.”

What on earth are you talking about? Women participate in all manner of pugilism, some of them professionally. You can’t just make things up to support your argument!

“- nothing like those women with their hair pulling and scratching.”

eno, no doubt there would be plenty of women boxers/martial artists that would kick your butt from here to christmas.

Scott says:

02:04pm | 10/09/09

Are you being serious? I can’t tell if your statements are an attempt to be funny, just mocking the issue of female soldiers or you actually believe the crazy dribble in this article. Honestly men are scared of themselves? Comparing Checkout ques and Childbirth to armed combat? Do you honestly believe that ‘Spirit’ is the sole requirement in frontline troops? I agree Women should be able to receive frontline infantry jobs but they should still have to adhere to the physical strength and stamina expected of any other solder regardless of race or sex. It not a matter of sexism but more doing the job they are there for. I am sure many women are capable but just as many men fail to meet the strict standards it has to be expected that women are equally capable to fit the roles.

wolf says:

02:20pm | 10/09/09

Judging by how well a lot of footy players girlfriends can take a punch/glass and bounce back to stand by their man the next day I would say that women are probably tough enough for the job, as long as the physical test is the same for the role.

Peter Newpiper says:

02:25pm | 10/09/09

Non sequitur much? This whole article is premised on a misinterpretation of what the minister said.

Rooster says:

02:48pm | 10/09/09

I love the way this argument is being driven by people who have never served, and have no desire to serve, in the army. After ten years service myself, I am yet to meet a female soldier who would want to join an arms corps, and I have worked with a lot of female soldiers. Even if all roles were opened up to women, there would only be at best a handful of girls who would take up the offer. And that’s before they have to pass a male Basic Fitness Assessment. As for Special Forces, well…

Kel says:

03:01pm | 10/09/09

Women in specific combat roles
Idealogical clap trap -
What strategic advantage to you achieve for the purpsoes of some intellectual w**k dreamt up by the looney left.
The proponents of this muck wouldnt even make it through basic grunt training on the grounds that its a little too hard for them.My current RSM would have them all for breakfast - and yes he is an ugly piece of work.
My experience is those that yell the loudest for this style of change are often very far from the frontline when the firefight goes down.OK for your sons and daughters - but sorry we are too busy with stroking our idealogical prurple crystals.
If girls are going to be included which could be a good thing - stick them all in there own regiment - I for one - dont want to be carrying their sorry fat arses around.

Betty French says:

03:05pm | 10/09/09

It actually bothers me that women would want to be on the front line. That women would want to kill. I could not do it. I could not think that even if it was an enemy I was killing someones elses child, brother, father. I think that if women start killing the way men do, there will no longer be any compassion or balance in the world.
As as woman I don’t want to be the same as a man in every respect. Sure I can do things men can do. But killing, no I couldn’t and wouldn’t want to do that.
And anyway look at how screwed up the men are that come back from combat, if the men are having trouble psychologically how would the women fare?

Chris says:

03:09pm | 10/09/09

I’m sorry Kayley that the the MP never told you the reason western nations don’t have females on the front line.

It has nothing to do with capability, it’s actually more for the benefit of male soldiers. Studies have concluded that males will not be able to cope with seeing females hurt. It’s that simple.

Seeing the bloody remains of a female will incite problems and cause physiological damage to male soldiers. I’m not sure if it is because the link they establish with their mother’s etc, but the conclusion is that it will be detrimental. Lets face it, men will always form the majority of an armed force and to have them incapacitated in any way is unacceptable.

I’m sorry but the girls will just have to be kept safe for the guy’s sake.

May says:

03:21pm | 10/09/09

Having both male and female friends in the forces, as well as growing up in an Army house, it scares me that this might go ahead.

Sure, women can do what men can do etc etc… but if you had any idea what women are subjected to in the forces at the moment. then you wouldn’t be so keen to jump on this bandwagon.

Did you know, for example, how many women are sexually assaulted in the armed forces - by their own side? And that’s only onshore - once on a posting it is much more prevalent. Whether it’s a result of misread signals or just plain desperation, it happens and quite frequently at that. Women are subjected to this on a daily basis, and they feel that speaking up would not only lose them the respect of their fellow soldiers but make them a target.

Do a little research, however I know that I for one will not support this until there is more protection for those brave few (men AND women) who speak up about the atrocities that our own troops perpetrate.

Al says:

03:27pm | 10/09/09

Most of the people posting here do not seem to understand what it takes to be a professional infantryman (I can’t speak for the other corps).

Standards aside few women are as strong or weigh as much as men - “doesn’t matter” you say - well it matters if you get down to hand to hand combat. There are few women who will survive hand to hand combat with a man.

It is also far more difficult for women to keep-up the pace over, for example, a long distance route march with men. To carry the same amount of kit they need a far higher power to weight ratio than men because they are smaller and lighter. Particularly when carrying extras like radio’s or mortar baseplates/ammo.

Lack of privacy - happy to have a squat in front of the boys in hostile territory ladies?

Men are also naturally protective of women - critics can ridicule this as much as they like but do you want a member in your team who is going to reduce the effectiveness of that team? Particularly when it could result in your death? All the glib comments in the world won’t change this.

Finally, infantry soldering is a demanding and dirty profession with no room for softness or consideration of hurt feelings. It requires aggression and brutality to deliberately seek out, close with and kill the enemy - I am not sure how many women are psychologically ready for this.

RobJ says:

03:30pm | 10/09/09

For all the nay sayers and those who “love the way people have never served”....(what, aren’t they entitled to an opinion?????)’ are you aware that the IDF has frontline combat women, they’d have to be the most battle hardened soldiers in the western world???

Dani says:

03:44pm | 10/09/09

I think women should be allowed on the front line when and if they can pass every single fitness, strength and capability test equal to men.
Who fights on the frontline is not a matter of discrimination, its a matter of skill and the best equiped should take that place - whichever gender that turns out to be.

Formersnag says:

03:48pm | 10/09/09

Fairly typical to hear the loony, left, feminist, politicians, bureaucrats, and journalists rabbiting on about this, as usual, but has anybody tried the bleeding obvious, and asked the female military personnel, what they want?

How hard would it be to ask/survey, all serving female military personnel, in both full time or reserves, if they would like the opportunity, to serve on the front lines? Perhaps while they are at it, they could also poll the male personnel, as well, to see how popular front line combat is, with men, and compare the 2 figures, before, making a decision, or even talking about it?

Or am i, just another dumb male?

Al says:

03:49pm | 10/09/09

RobJ - People who have never served are entitled to an opinion - they just aren’t entitled to be taken seriously considering they don’t have the expertise to make an informed comment.

BTW the IDF only allows women in one of its infantry battalions; the one that patrols the Southern Boarder. They are little more than a police force trying to catch smugglers etc. They go nowhere near the troublesome Northern Boarder with Lebanon (where the real combat is.

Neil says:

03:49pm | 10/09/09

Women are in the police force, why not the armed forces?

AliG says:

03:53pm | 10/09/09

I’m a woman and normally think of myself as an ‘equalist’ but sometimes there are things that most women can’t do as well as men just like there are some things men can’t do as well as women.
The argument about male soldiers being distracted by or giving preference to women is rubbish.  And yes women may be raped and tortured in different ways to male soldiers but women civilians have always been attacked like this during wars so what is the difference?
My biggest issue is something quite simple.  Unless the technology has been developed to help women pee without removing their pants and putting down their weapon, they shouldn’t be on the front line.  It’s a dangerous place where two seconds can mean the difference between life and death.

Dave says:

03:58pm | 10/09/09

Barb hit the nail on the head.  Are we really ready to see images of our women being raped and tortured on the internet?  And what about 9 months or so after they are released?

Mark says:

04:06pm | 10/09/09

Unlike other occupations equal opportunity has nothing to do with this. Our biology means that men cant think rationally when women are in danger, it may be some throwback to primevil times but the biology of the brain has not changed to keep up with civilisation and thats the way it is. Men will always be stronger and have thicker skin too, just the way it is.
If women really do want to find out what an automatic weapon will do to someone from close range, and mince paste is not a bad description, there must be all female units so they can do the job properly without distraction to themsleves or to men in other units. Then be prepared for these units to be targets for capture, recreation and motivation for the enemy.

KarlJ says:

04:16pm | 10/09/09

Picture a female and a male soldier wrestling with bayonets to the death in a frontline foxhole. The outcome of this contest is a near certainty. When it comes to frontline infantry, commandos and SAS, physical strength….does….matter. There will not be the opportunity to ask for a “fair go”.

From this writers experience in combat training, female soldiers relative to their male peers are less robust to physical stress and temperature extremes, and have the requirement of showers every four days in the field in order to avoid gynaecological issues. Even the basic combat requirement of throwing a grenade the safe distance of 30m is a concerning task when you “throw like a girl.”

Redefining physical standards to accommodate inferior soldiers does not accrete combat effectiveness. This is an ill conceived idea formulated by naive idealists unfamiliar with the practicalities of professional killing on the frontlines.

Matt Worthington says:

04:17pm | 10/09/09

As i said in a related post;

If there are women out there that can pass the SAS tests, that is incredable feat and I will bow before them. However I would love to see it happen.

I also have the utmost respect for the blokes that can pass those tests. They are simply the best of the best.

On another note everyone seems to carry on about men not coping when women are hurt. Well exactly what point does a males life become any less sacred than a females? Once he reaches puberty?
What’s the general consensus?

I will support the induction of females in combat roles until its proven to be a mistake. I dont think giving birth, getting waxed or whatever the article was saying will make the slightest bit of difference in a combat situation.
However good luck to those who want to try.

I dont care if other women want to go to war, just as long the women in my life dont have to see any forms of danger.
I would die before I see any of my princesses subjected to the horrors of war.

JG says:

04:29pm | 10/09/09

this made me laugh.

Ive been in the army 6 years and my last posting was an instructor at kapooka.

While women have a place in the army and they are strong willed and they do make good soldiers. Some of the best commanders i have worked with have been females. So please dont confuse this with an antiwoman rant.

But the reality is that ARMS Corps are no place for a women for one main reason:

putting women in a male dominated environment = chaos. a few guys will put the moves on and before you know it you have a platoon full of diggers who dont get on. TRUST ME, been there and done that. THe most critical component of a infantry platoon is teamwork. and in my experience, this goes out the window when you have mixed gender environments.

David says:

04:34pm | 10/09/09

That women will distract men or that men cannot think rationally when women are around because of biological reasons is absolute rubbish, not to mention a complete male-centric view of the world..

And to those suggesting we’re not ready to see women killed, tortured or assaulted, are you implying we’re ready and accustomed to see men subjected to the same atrocities? War is war. It’s horrible to see atrocities committed against ADF personnel and ADF personnel whether they be male or female.

If women can pass the same physical criteria as men in order to perform particular duties in the ADF, there is no reason as to why women cannot participate in those same duties as men.

Ben says:

04:39pm | 10/09/09

I see no reason that women should not be allowed to fight on the front line.

However, the fitness and strength standards for females must be exactly the same as for men. Their colleagues lives may depend on it one day.

Steve says:

04:53pm | 10/09/09

It’s a sad state of affairs when we are fighting that many wars, that we need to consider women in the frontline.

Stefano says:

04:55pm | 10/09/09

@ Al

Totally agree with you. Your view is simply realistic while much here is simplistic nonsense.

Chris says:

04:58pm | 10/09/09

As an ex-serving member of the ADF I have absolutely no problem with women in combat roles as I came to realise that the kind of women who were joining the Army were usually tough enough (physically and mentally) to handle the crap we went through. To be completely fair, some of the best soldiers I ever met and trained with (on field exercise and on the sparring mat) were women. The Israeli military has had women serve in all combat related roles for decades so i don’t see what the problem is - if they are tough enough to get into the green machine into front line roles then FFS give them the right to fight beside us:)

Chard Core says:

04:59pm | 10/09/09

Anyone dumb enough to want to be in the military should be allowed on the front line to defend the heroin flowing out of Afghanistan to fund black ops around the world…

Rob says:

05:02pm | 10/09/09

What about women POWs ??? has anyone considered what will happen.  Doesnt create good thoughts.

David says:

05:03pm | 10/09/09

Frontline soldiering is very hard yakka, there would be very few women who would be physically up to it and in many cases if they were not they would be a liability and a risk for the rest of the team.
I spent six years in a field force unit and most of these people who are advocating giving women an opportunity to do be in infantry or other pointy end units are completely ignorant of what is really like being in an army unit on the sharp end. Try humping a heavy pack and weapons through the bush for days and then getting into firefight, then you can make an informed comment based upon real experience.

Chase Stevens says:

05:27pm | 10/09/09

I don’t believe there is any legitimate reason why women shouldn’t be allowed to serve in any combat roll. If the men get distracted by the women then they have no discipline. The only reason men may feel inclined to help a woman more than a male is because society is indoctrined into believing ‘women and children first’.  What is the difference between a woman being raped and someone being beheaded? Or any form of torture? There is none.  However in order to make the law equal women should have to pass the same standards as their male counter parts, otherwise the law is not equal there are merely special laws.  Women on the front lines is inevitable.

Female Advocate says:

05:30pm | 10/09/09

I am a female wishing to join, and will be joining in 12 months time.  I am all for equality in the Army, of course, providing women are able to fulfil the same roles, to the same ability as the men.  I’d love to be able to.  But this article undoes so much that women have done fighting for the right to join their brothers in arms on the frontline.  This is the ultimate insult to all the soldiers that have fought so bravely in foreign countries and lost their lives, or witnessed others losing their lives in the worst ways imaginable.  Kayley Harris, you are a disgrace to the name Anzac and do not even think for one second that your article will sway readers to follow your thoughts.  I can’t believe that you would be so stupid as to think that supermarkets are anything like battlefields.

Paul says:

05:44pm | 10/09/09

still a couple of pretty valid reasons for having the rule in there.  I get the whole you want to do it you should be allowed thing.  Having said that, women in a war zone have it a lot worse than men should they be captured, or caught up in a melee.

As you said, you dont have the upper body strength, you have spirit, and thats bloody wonderful but its not going to help with a 6’4” man who weighs 300lb grabbing you and pounding your head in really is it.

Then of course war can turn people into animals, and unfortunely I believe captured female soldiers are much less likely to be treated with the proper respect, if you get my jist.

Perhaps rather than a sexual line, it should be a physical one.  Apart from the second point I raised, I cant really see the difference from a tiny man in combat to a tiny lady.

Someone please correct me if you dont believe the above two points are valid.

JJ of SC says:

05:49pm | 10/09/09

Who said the law has to be equal? If we go for this piece of social engineering and it doesn’t work, more people will get killed than need be. It is very difficult to form a sub-unit that will hold together under the intense, numbing pants wetting and soiling close combat such as Long Tan. Long Tans don’t happen very often, but when they do we need to ensure we win or we will loose many more than we did. We have, over many years, developed a formula that is successful. Lets be careful changing that formula. And let us put a real effort into understanding what it is we are talking about.
JJ

Razor says:

05:51pm | 10/09/09

There are so many valid arguments as to why females shouldn’t be in mixed gender combat units that I’m not going to fill up apost on it.

However - combat roles for soldiers can be equated to collision sports - AFL, NRL and the ARU.  Once society readily accepts as common place that females compete at the highe tost professional levels in those sports, then I will happily accept females in combat roles.

I have no problem with females in combat support roles and serving in combat units in those roles, but I draw the line at them being admitted to RAAC, RAInf, RAA or the SF.  They are already allowed in RAE units I beleive but don’t support this.

Allan says:

05:55pm | 10/09/09

If a person meets the required competencies for the task that they wish to perform let them go for it.
Not all front line tasks are slogging it around the bush with a pack.
Artillery, aviation, armor are all about controlling machines in an aggressive manner.
But the sooner that the front line forces are mixed with a blend of all societal types the better.
Soldiers are there to fight for our society so it should be of our society.

zhuk says:

06:05pm | 10/09/09

Well said, Al, David & others who have served. If you can’t pick up & carry a wounded 90kg comrade out of danger, what use its that? Heaving an 80kg pack for miles?

And don’t even mention SF. Please. Equality is one thing…practicality entirely another.

Don says:

06:09pm | 10/09/09

Somebody has been watching too much TV

Joel says:

06:18pm | 10/09/09

This article is a joke. This is not about equality, this about the feminist movement. There are just some things in life women aren’t made for, and likewise - there are things in life that men weren’t designed for. Yes, I believe in equality and fair go for all, but if you were in the military you might actually get an idea about what it takes to be on the front line. And as with the above comments, women would only be a liability on the front line. With suggestions like this we’ll soon be getting people saying that primary school children should be able to enlist in the armed forces.

JJ says:

07:27pm | 10/09/09

As someone who was in the defence force and trained female recruits at Kapooka (Army) and as prospective NCO’s I feel I can offer a view. Their physical fittness standards are lower than men, I’m not saying that females can’t reach the same standard as men its just a fact of life that they are not expected to by the powers that be. If they want to be employed in the physically challenging corps such as infantry then they will need to meet the same standards as men. Some females I trained could certainly do that, most wouldn’t want to.
The best section at weapons handling was a female section and overall I think they had a higher standard than males, once they built up the arm and shoulder strength to handle them easily.
As for distracting men, well you get used to being around women soldiers just as they get used to you. At the start of every platoon they shut their doors ect and by the end I could walk down the hallway and totally ignore all the white pointers and maps of tassie, just as they could ignore me. Nudity etc is only an issue if you make it one.
Could women fit into an infantry unit, in a combat role? Some could and once they prove themselves, as all new soldiers entering a unit have to, I don’t think there would be a problem. It wouldn’t be for everyone but I believe they should have the opportunity to try.

Brian says:

07:51pm | 10/09/09

So long as the fitness and strength standards are the same bring it on, after 10 years in the Australian Infantry I have little doubt that almost no woman would make it through the SAME training and MEET the same standards as the men.

Major says:

08:48pm | 10/09/09

Here are the facts:

1. In 24 years in the Army I have never meet a female soldier or officer who actually wants to be in an Arms corp. Why! Because all those serving women know what it would be like and don’t want to be there. Feminists please listen to you serving sisters.

2. Not 1 of the 52 comments I have read says they are a female who wants to join an Arms corps. The majority of comments are either ill informed or feminists having a rant (but would not actually want to serve in the Army themselves).

3.  Israel tried having mixed infantry units and it failed and they went back to male only. Presently the only mixed battalion is the ‘Caracal ’ (33rd) Battailon who only job is border control. If they could not make it work we have no chance.  The feminist lobby in Israel learnt the hard way, lets be smart and learn from others mistakes…for a change.

If your a 6ft 2” Amazon, who wants to be a trained killer, likes going without a wash for weeks on end and is happy to walk only 4 paces away from the rest of us to go to the toilet whist keeping eye contact with me,  please comment about the article. I would be interested in the view of women who could actually do the job.

Red says:

10:03pm | 10/09/09

“if a woman falls in combat then every man around her will stop to help her, meanwhile they’ll ignore other men. It was the best laugh I’ve had in years. “

Oh well, the Israeli Army did studies and found that it was true. But keep laughing.
Kayley do you want to be an infantry soldier? If not, why are you arguing so much FOR this? It’s easy to argue something that is purely theoretical, i that you will never have to have any part in. To say “it’s sexist” ignores the fact that this issue is about people’s lives, not some political theory debate.

suze says:

10:05pm | 10/09/09

Women fought in the front lines during the Spanish Civil War. As for pain threshold or psychological readiness? Consider childbirth or even Rape, women are very resilient and can be put through overwhelming trauma and survive through it.  Suicide rate is higher among males which says something about the psychological strength of women. Better women be trained then to be victims.  Women should have the same opportunity but i can’t imagine too many succeeding. I think the exact same requirements should be made to women as the men. It would be one job where there could be no flexibility or special treatment.
If a War broke out in Australia, I guarantee women would not be scared to pick up a gun and defend their family.
On the front line with special forces well i think they must be crazy to want to do it.  I wouldn’t, i find war abhorrent and would rather be gardening. 
It’s the ultimate sacrifice, you may die or be maimed or witness the death of your friends and will have to kill people.
I do think it would actually be harder for women on the front line, not the physical and mental demands of being a soldier but the pressure, doubt and scrutiny from fellow soldiers. It’s too much of a risk but if we were invaded i think its every man, woman, child, cat and dog for themselves.

Jocelyn says:

12:16am | 11/09/09

At present, male and female recruits undergo different fitness tests.  What about one test based on the requirements of both front line and patrols? Next, why should women soldiers be allowed to drop their packs off to be carried by truck when their male equivalents have to carry theirs personally?  Next problem, although women now say they are willing to take the appropriate pill to prevent their periods and assert that not showering for weeks on exercise is fine by them, there are always women being airlifted out of exercises because of menstruation or infection problems.

chook says:

01:47am | 11/09/09

There should be the same physical entry requirement tests for men and women (otherwise because of equal opportunity, guys should then be allowed in using women’s entry standards). As a result, there will be a tiny number of women gaining entry, resulting in huge costs to upgrade barracks to have seperate male and female facilities for a small fraction of the combat force.
The reason women aren’t allowed on subs is because of the waste in space of having seperate male/female facilities.

Gazza021 says:

05:39am | 11/09/09

Um, just a small point Chook…. Australia actually allows women to serve on our submarines…. the subs themselves are another conversation entirely…

Thomas Collins says:

07:54am | 11/09/09

So what happens when these tough women soldier get captured, say by the Taliban?

Gurmesh says:

07:55am | 11/09/09

This is such a lazily argued article. Childbirth? Women can handle more pain? Really? I hate the childbirth argument because it seems all women do is whinge about how painful it is. (I’m not denying it’s more painful than what most men experience in life - it is)

Having women around men introduces a sexual dynamic to the group in a very, very high pressure situation. Soldiers need to be disciplined and thinking clearly at all times - not thinking about a girl, or trying to impress a girl etc.

The only way this could work was as if they has an all girl team. I agree with Suze’s comment that women are far tougher and more resilient mentally than men. Having an all women team or brigade will at least allow them to take a small step towards full integration.

Matthew D says:

08:19am | 11/09/09

Women are ALREADY serving on the front lines!

In the Australian Defence Forces, Women are on the front line as Pilots, Submariners, Naval Officers, and as Medics. While it can be argued that Pilots and Submariners / Navy aren’t truly “Front line” roles (even though submarines are EXTREMELY cramped places to put both men and women for long periods of time) the Medic role requires women to go out on foot patrol in war zones (Afghanistan and Iraq) with the Steyr assault rifle in their hands, and the possibility of being shot at or killed / captured.

Now tell me, why, if a woman is allowed in a medic role that will expose her to the same dangers as an infantry soldier, that she shouldn’t be allowed to serve in the infantry?

All the excuses to keep them from the combat roles are gone:
Lack of Hygiene problems - they seem to do it quite well as the medics on those patrols.
Strength - if they have the same physical standards as the guys and can pass…
Risk of capture / rape - They’re already on the front line in non combat roles exposed to those risks.
Guys not being able to cope - They do with the medics.

Let the women into combat roles. If they can pull their weight, why not let them serve.

David says:

08:28am | 11/09/09

JJ, excellent comment, the best one here.  Very much in line with my 12 years both ARA and SAS (that’s Saturdays and Sundays).

Chook, I take it you don’t actually know any current submariners or even bothered to watch the SBS doco series?  Maybe do the latter before bothering to waste your time commenting here.

ihmn says:

09:03am | 11/09/09

Actually Formersnag;

“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.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/09/2680516.htm?section=australia

“Or am i, just another dumb male?”
Not at all, but that was some excellent baiting. I think its a good question you posed, but I agree Ms Volz, if they are physically able and want to do it who are we to deny them?

AJAX wife says:

09:20am | 11/09/09

There is some fantastic responses from ex or current serving members here - a dose of reality.

The arms corps are no place for women, I cannot ever imagine it actually happening thank god because it is a ridiculous idea.

As the OH to a current serving officer, I couldn’t imagine any women, no matter how strong, tough or fit you are working in that environment.

Are women prepared to be out field for weeks without showering for the whole time? Three weeks worth of stink is not unusual when he comes home, it’s foul!

I can’t get his field pack on my back, let alone walk for hours with it, sleep on the ground, get up in the morning and do it again. Women are just not built the same way, my partner is 120kgs and 6’4 and is incredibly strong, women just do not come in those proportions.

I suggest any politician even considering this absurdity get one of the books out there on the market about the guys in the SAS, particularly read the chapters on selection, if any women can last the first week, let alone the three weeks then perhaps I will change my mind.

LAZ says:

09:37am | 11/09/09

these women have really lost their way in the world…

Nathan H says:

09:42am | 11/09/09

Girls are weak, chuck them in the creek. Boys are strong, like King Kong.

This debate is now over.

Kristina says:

09:42am | 11/09/09

OMG! I don’t think woman are not allowed on the front line for many reasons and i support that. Being a woman myself, also one who’s sister is in the army.
Its not safe! They are being sent to countries to fight where woman have NO rights at all! Can you imagine what would happen to them if they got captured?? It makes me shiver to think.
I am all for equality of both sexes, you would say i am quite a big female chauvinist, but this is one thing i don’t agree on.
Its putting the safety of our woman out there who are larger targets then men because of what can be done to them.

Liz says:

09:45am | 11/09/09

Let them go,compete on equal grounds and do the same work.just let them question why they want to go to war and kill people.

maddy says:

09:50am | 11/09/09

Ms Harris; (the blogger) if the only qualifications you can come up with for women being on the frontline are supermarket scenarios and battles at the Gym…

YOU ARE NOT DOING THIS CAUSE ANY FAVOURS…

I’m seriously disgusted by these comments.  Comparing childbirth yes but SHOPPING and THE GYM?  Come on… 

There are SERIOULSY TALENTED defence force personel who are capable of standing shoulder to shoulder with their male counterparts, and YOU trivialise this issue by comparing front line combat with “QUICK!  GET TO THE CHECKOUT!!!”

As a woman with family members in the defence forces, I think you’re so called support is DISRESPECT. 

All our boys and girls in the forces should be held in high regard - regardless of what action they’ve seen.  the fact of the matter is they’ve stepped up and said “You know what.  I could die - but people need my help and I’m going to protect them”

Each soldier should have to undergo a vigourous series of tests to be on the front line irrespective of gender.  it’s as simple as that.  If you can’t make it.  TOUGH.  If you can - well - good luck to you. 

You may want to think about that next time you write an article on “equality”.

fehowarth says:

10:13am | 11/09/09

The arguments that most of you present, indicates that any man under 6’ 4” should not be on the front line as well as women.  I am sure a 5’6” man would find himself in the same position as a woman of equal size and strength.  Do not men get raped as well as women.  The arguments are the same as been used for the last 50 years against women entering fields that were preserved for men.  Non of the dire projections of the time held true.  Women did not do a bad job during WWW11 in Europe as secret agents.  Yes some paid the price, as did men who were caught.  This does not detract from the bravery they showed.  Most of the arguments put forwarded are problems of men, not women.  Men need to grow up and enter the modern age.  Personally I do not believe in war and feel that we lost the so called war against terrorism when we entered Iraq.

Rophuine Usiah says:

10:47am | 11/09/09

Some women are up to the physical and mental tasks, I agree. Not all women, but then not all men are either. But I asked a mate (who’s served in the front lines several times, including Timor) and his first response was the hygiene issue. Women have a higher hygiene requirement than men to avoid infection and other health problems, due to their physiology, and he regularly went 2-4 weeks without a chance to wash. He and his mates suffered enough problems from the lack of hygiene; it would be more of a problem for women, and one the army can’t afford to deal with in a war.

I think we need to realise that women are more than up to the task, but that it’s still not a practical idea.

Oh, and trivializing what soldiers go through by comparing it to getting to a checkout at the store? Show some respect to the horrors people have gone through to keep this country safe. People (both men and women) have lost lives, limbs, mental stability, comrades in arms, and so much more to keep this nation safe and preserve the freedom of others. They give up their personal life, spend months at a time in hellish conditions, face constant threat of death and capture. I hope you print an apology to this disrespectful column: not because you call for gender equality, which is fine, but because you trivialized the sacrifice so many people make.

Sam says:

10:58am | 11/09/09

Isn’t putting women in front line supporting “violence against women”?  Society generally treats women differently because it is assumed women are less able to defend themselves.  It is sending a mixed message to say that women can defend themselves in the military but not in civillian life.  Rudd turns up at a white ribbon campaign one day then says women should serve on the front line on the next.  He also sends our troops to places in the world where civilian women may be harmed by our forces.

zhuk says:

11:15am | 11/09/09

<Don says:
06:09pm | 10/09/09
Somebody has been watching too much TV>

If that was directed at my comment Don, well no. One of my friends is a Green Beret and that’s what he told me.

Ivy says:

11:27am | 11/09/09

I’m all for equality but this is a terrible article! If this is an attempt at satire, Ms Harris, I fail to see the funny side and if you are serious about wanting women on the frontline you need better examples than women in supermarkets and having hissy fits over gym equipment. If these are the prime female candidates you are serving up as hardcore frontliners then God help us! As it stands, men think we’re silly enough already, making glib remarks like that demean women even more than not being able to serve at the frontlines.

Max Power says:

11:29am | 11/09/09

I guess we will start seeing women playing in the NRL, AFL and Rugby Union teams, not likely. Women would get slaughtered on the football field and would get slaughtered on the battlefield. The simple fact of nature is, Males are stronger, faster and have greater endurance. These 3 qualities are what Infantry soldiers require and women simply don’t possess them to the same level as men. The equality loonies can rant as much as they want, but men and women ar not equal. The same women crapping on about how women are equal to men and how women could perform the role of an Infantry soldier as good as man would be the same women who would be up in arms if a man hits a woman. If women truly are equal to men and if women truly want to be treated as equals with men, then don’t whinge if men hit women, after all we are equal right? I seriously doubt women could pass the physical fitness/strength tests without the standards being lowered to accommodate them. Currently women have lower standards on the physical fitness tests. Men and Women are not created equal, and women who crap on that we are, are full of sh#t, that is why we have gender based sport as women cannot physically compete with men. If women can serve in the Infantry, then there should be no gender separated sports. Women should compete in the NRL, AFL, Union, Olympics, tennis, golf, swimming, boxing, wrestling, martial arts, etc, etc against men. Never happen as women would be slaughtered.

Old Clive says:

11:40am | 11/09/09

Are they going to do it standing up or squatting, or are they just not going to be normal women. Don’t try and tell me that some adjustments have not been taken for the present situation, and don’t try and tell me that men are going to treat them like men. Clothes maketh a man but they don’t beget a sex change.

Sigh. says:

11:43am | 11/09/09

Been beaten at things by a girl a few too many times? hey max not so powerful?
This whole thing is silly to me. Leave the relevant tests in place by people in the army who know what they’re doing. If women pass the same tests as men - exactly the same - then they should be free to serve in the frontline. If they don’t, well then they shouldn’t. case closed. end of.

jimbo richo says:

11:45am | 11/09/09

Women should be allowed in the front line so long as they NEVER ask for any different rules or more privacy.  For example, to pass the Qld Police Force physical you need to simulate carrying your partner over your shoulder for 50 metres, extricating them from under fire when they’re wounded.  Except women.  Most of them can’t do it, so it’s deemed sexist.  Which sucks if you’re a cop, your partner’s a woman and you’re wounded and in the line of fire…  I think army leaders are worried that if women get the opportunity to serve on the front line then some of them will complain about it being unfairly biased towards men, and force unwelcome changes that weaken the service.

J says:

12:07pm | 11/09/09

Ok, being ex-military a frontline pack weighs 40-50kg, plus webbing which is in and around 6-10kg. You’re eating ration packs for days on end, there’s no place to wash or do your sanitary needs, it could be a week or so between, you sleep on the ground with a light mat and have a suspended plastic sheet protecting you from the elements. There’s the girls that can do this and I’ve worked with them, they’re great and I have had nothing but respect for them. Yes, Israel and a few other countries have women in their frontline troops. We already do to an extent but more in support. But I personally don’t support this push to go further than we are already have, just so that we can say that the girls can mix it with the boys and that they have the same rights as men even in elite units. This is beyond that and I don’t look forward to the day when a young woman arrives back on Australian soil in a box with a flag draped over the top. I’ve done selection courses, sleep dep and been bastardised but its part and parcel with what you do. Maybe, we have a look at the reality, it’s pretty on paper but in reality there are some things that need to be addressed. I agree, if you want to go and show that women can do what men can do then let’s not water down the requirements for what’s required both physically and in skill of a male soldier and that of a female, everyone’s on the same playing field when the time comes, there’s no quarter based on your sex.

Andrew says:

12:49pm | 11/09/09

This whole “women in the frontline” issue needs to be first road tested in Australian society through the medium of sport. As Jeff Kennett recently suggested, there should be women playing in AFL premiership teams… but first, we should take baby steps and start with a sport where people are already matched by their physical attributes, thus minimising the impact of gender differences. I am, of course, talking about boxing.

lobi says:

01:27pm | 11/09/09

I know our soldiers are professional but I wonder, would the men in a mixed unit die defending the women making the set objectives secondary importance?.

Max Power says:

02:03pm | 11/09/09

Sigh, Have I been beaten by a woman too many times, no I have not, as I have yet to come across a woman who is my equal physically. I am just realist who knows with certainty that women are not cut out for the role of the Infantry. I know with certainty that this decision will be paid for in blood, the blood of men who’s life will be placed at greater risk because women are not physically capable of performing the role to the same standards. If women want to crap on about equality, then it should be equality without exception. If men and women are equal, why is sport broken down into gender? Common sense and science says men are physically stronger then women, and if women can’t compete equally against men on the sporting field why would it be any different on the battlefield. On the sporting field women would get injured, on the battlefield they will be killed and will get their male mates killed. Sometimes, just sometimes, common sense, science and the real world should take precedence over equality for equality’s sake and the feminazis desire to prove anything men can do, women can do to attitude.

Lucy says:

02:21pm | 11/09/09

Ms Harris, If there are better reasons for women to fight along thier male counterparts in frontline combat, let it be for the equal desire to serve our country and not about some petty politically correct battle about the sexes. Feminist pull the sexist card at every opportunity. Men denying women the right to fight on the front lines is sexist? So to be equal.  I have to prove that I am as physically fit as a man, do everything to deny my own womanly traits (i.e take a pill to stop my menstrual cycle) and show that I am unconcerened about my own hygiene and nudity while taking a piss right infront of male soldiers. I don’t think this makes me an equal at all. I’m just like a parrot, mindlessy parroting’ hello Polly’ because by imitating human speech I am somehow equal to humans. Women have to find ways to be equal to men on thier own terms and for the longest time women and feminist have been doing it all wrong.

Gaz says:

04:18pm | 11/09/09

You can’t seriously think women can actually fill the role of being infantry soldiers because physically and mentally they will not be up for it. When you think about Australia’s most elite branch of its armed forces, the SASR (Aus. Special Air Services Regiment), they knock back at least 90% of those who apply who have similiar physical attributes that that of elite athletes. The SASR produce and have the finest soldiers in the world and women cannot fulfil the tasks they may have to complete. They are special forces for godsake

chook says:

04:28pm | 11/09/09

Re David and Gazza021. ‘Twas the case about 10 years ago that women weren’t allowed on subs in Australia. Still the case in USN for the reason stated.

Mark H says:

05:44pm | 11/09/09

Look 92% of defence jobs are open to females. The last 8% are a little more difficult than the un-initiated may think. I remember when years ago as a young soldier as an Forward Observers Assistant with 8/9 RAR, we used to have to complete an 80km route march each year as a test not to mention the miles we used to stomp in and out of exercises. The battle weight (standard weight) was in excess of around 40kgs. Depending how much ammo / food / water / radio batteries / lasers / radio you as an individual had to carry. The unit SOP could be alot more. Usually we needed to be self sustainable for around 4 days. we didnt wash at all..I remember being in the same uniform for about 2 weeks hahaha…hmm. As a gun number on a medium gun the rounds themselves weigh around 42 to 53kg if I remember correctly.

Look I can appreciate that it sounds a bit strange but that soldiering. I loved it, I miss it. However, the fitness standards in defence in itself are discriminating towards males as it is right now. women regardless of fitness dont 1. Do as many push ups 2. run 2.4 km in the same times 3. do the same amount of situps.

I truly believe that this govt is looking for point scoring. I pity the poor female that attempts the entrance test to any Arms corp. She will more than likely be injured and discharged before she even passes the training school.

I think people really should ask before they start thinking of equality as sometimes it just isn’t viable.

Mark H says:

05:57pm | 11/09/09

P.S. Ladies are you prepard to got to the toilet infront of males in the middle of the position? No, there are no toilets or privacy and chances are you will need to use bags and carry it out as we dont like leaving thing behind to allow the other side to know where we have been. So you might want to get over that first.

James says:

08:30pm | 11/09/09

“But to ban women from front line combat is just sexist. If a woman can pass all the necessary requirements, she should be allowed to achieve her full potential.”

I returned from Afghanistan about 4 months ago. I promise you, coming out with a sentence like that, you have not even a shadow of an idea of what war involves.

Mark H says:

11:19pm | 11/09/09

James I couldnt disagree with you more. Afghanistan or not mate. We havent done any real war fighting as an Army nor will we. We dont do any real heavy lifting there. We are know as non swimmers. The ADF has been over the last 10yrs has been a political football. Generals will fall over themselves to get a female into Infantry. So in the end youll be lucky. You will never have to see Aust Soldiers executed by insurgents like what happens to Americans. Because seeing a woman killed would sway public opinion like nothing else. The ADF has turned into a employment org so the govt can keep the unemployment figures down.

The way the Army trains now is not even shadow of itself 20yrs ago. Its not a war fighting organisation. Hasnt been for 15yrs or more.

Bron says:

01:40pm | 12/09/09

The bit that amuses me most about these calls for equal opportunity in the ADF is that they seem to be loudest coming from those who will NEVER have to deal with the consequences of getting their way. Front line roles don’t just discriminate (& this is positive discrimination) against women, but also against men that aren’t physically or mentally capable of doing the job-as they should because to be ineffective at your job means death. If a woman can meet the physical & mental requirements, then she should be given the opportunity BUT the requirements can’t be downgraded to make these roles more accessible to meet some equal-opportunity quota. I did ten years in the Army & I can guarantee you that the amount of women who would have the physical and mental ability to be effective in roles like the infantry under the current standards and would want to take on these roles would be exceedingly small. The only way I can see the government making up a supposed ADF recruiting shortfall with placing women in these positions would be to reduce the standards-how many people’s deaths is equality worth?

Brian says:

09:38pm | 12/09/09

Mark H,,,No war fighting, Go down to the boozer and tell that to the RAR blokes who have been in many many contacts over in Afghanistan, or maybe you would like to say the same at the 4 RAR boozer who have lost quite a few blokes, but I would expect such a comment from a drop short, and I guess when you have never deployed its easy to say such things. Keep the females out of RAR.

Mark H says:

10:22pm | 14/09/09

Brian do really support what the Aust govt has done in providing support to our lads there? Its got nothing to do with the units involved whose members I know rather well so no need for the history lesson lad. Deployments…which defence force? How many and where? Keep your shirt on your sounding silly and uneducated.

Kayleys Son [John] says:

08:52pm | 15/09/09

mum i love your article and I totally agree with you. if women are prepared enough and think they’re ready let them go frontline

Kyle says:

12:55pm | 29/10/09

@ suze,  quite a few comments up you posted this

“Consider childbirth or even Rape, women are very resilient and can be put through overwhelming trauma and survive through it.  Suicide rate is higher among males which says something about the psychological strength of women.”

Just the slightest bit of research into this and you would KNOW why the suicide rates are higher for men. WE are digging our coal and gold, sweeping our streets, growing the food and raising the cattle, running the fortune 500 and running your local fish and chips. WE are plumbing your houses and treating the crap that comes from it, and we build your houses and skyscrapers and trains and roads.Most of all we are heading to war, or coing back, or weve been back for a LONG time, but the memories still haunt us, were missing our wives and our legs and our minds, we do the most menial work and the most meaningful work, and ALL for the same pay as yous for fetching our coffee and doing our taxes.

DONT misunderstand this,  What i wrote above isnt to say men are the only ones capable of it, or that should only do it, but for better or for worse these jobs are over repped by men. THAT is why male suicide rates are higher, not because were all feeble-minded dropnuts. As for the oft-championed “hardest job in the world”, being a single mother, Ive done at least one of these jobs ( raising our cattle) AND raised a child on a seperate occasion, and i KNOW which one is harder.

What does everyone think of that,? ill check back often to find out.

(P.S. sorry for the spiel, but i think yous can all understand why )