Australia to let women fight on the front line, including in special forces

[Hoosier Daddy]

Source: GlobalPost

Australian women will be allowed to serve in frontline combat roles, including with special forces units in Afghanistan, provided they meet the physical and psychological requirements, the government announced Tuesday.

Australia, a close U.S. ally, will join Canada, Denmark, New Zealand and Israel to open all combat roles to female soldiers, the Independent reports. Britain and the US exclude women from dedicated infantry roles.

Australia already allows women to serve on submarines, as air force jet fighter pilots and as drone aircraft operators, but women are barred from serving as front-line infantry soldiers, navy clearance divers, mine-disposal experts and airfield guards.

Although the ban will be lifted immediately, the army has five years to implement new tests and train army doctors to operate on women, News24 reports.

Read more: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/down-under/australia-women-fight-military-SAS

---

"Train army doctors to operate on women"??? WTF?????

[Arctic Dave]

1. I would assume "lady parts".

You know, when they are blown open from a landmine or a .50 round.

[No Elephants]

17. Until relatively recently in human history, medical research was done on men, even for breast cancer

There were some exceptions, of course, but that was the general rule.

For its first fifty or so years, the famous study of heart disease in Framingham, Mass. did not include one female.

The stated reason was usually that the menstrual cycle messed up any ability to study things on women.

And, when the Russian space program ran out of money, we used federal money that had been set aside for breast cancer research funds to help them out, under the guise that we were interested in the effects of weightlessness on breast cancer or something like that.

The arc of justice moves slowly indeed.

[patrick t. cakes]

74. I have no doubt of what you say but,

can you supply references on the Russian space program for further (personal) study. That sounds interesting.

Cheers

[MADem]

2. We need to change the Selective Service laws before we can lift the combat exclusions.

Right now, our draft laws do not apply to women, and women aren't treated equally under the law in that regard. It was one of the things that doomed the ERA a few decades back--people were terribly squirrelly about women in combat, even though there are no "front lines" anymore (ask Rhonda Cornum, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/war/5.html among others).

[Riftaxe]

6. and normalize physical requirements

do that, and most of the diffidence among the armed forces will be gone.

As it is now, PT requirements for women in the armed forces are an open joke, either lower the requirements for men or raise those for women until they are at parity.

[hughee99]

16. I agree

I think you have to raise the physical requirements for women, not lower the standards for men. Those in the military, especially those in combat roles are taught how important the physical requirements are during training. Being able to do certain things physically can save their life. You can't turn around and tell them having women in combat is MORE important than that physical conditioning. Women won't gain acceptance if they have different physical requirements, or, IMHO, even if you have to lower the requirements for men.

You can get away with it in non-combat roles, but not in combat roles and especially not in special forces.

[MADem]

34. I concur that there needs to be a uniform requirement for 'front line' readiness

I also think that until we get to a point where our military is largely automated, that there should be something a bit closer to a SEAL/DELTA FORCE standard of fitness for the people doing the heavy lifting, and a "fit enough, but not a gym rat" standard for the people who make up the "tail" part of the "tooth to tail" ratio. USMC is a branch of service that puts a LOT of combat responsibility on even the skivvie stackers, but they are a small force and need to do more with less. For larger branches, I think there can be varying standards without damage to the ability of the branch to achieve their mission responsibilities. The fact of the matter is, for doctors, chaplains and others that the military "needs," physical standard exemptions are granted (quietly) all the time.

Of course, there's nothing like combat to get one fit for combat. When we're in it, we aren't terribly worried about how fast someone can complete their bi-annual run, or how many sit ups they can manage in two minutes, or whatever.

We also need to remember that physical readiness is a tool in the drawdown box that DOD likes to keep well sharpened, just in case they need it. You watch--when the economy starts to level out, and forces are brought home, you will start seeing more careful attention to physical readiness standards, and discharges as a consequence of failure to either maintain an appropriate weight or complete the PT test with sufficient vigor. You'll also see enlisted promotion tests getting harder, and selection opportunity in the officer corps shrinking. Force shaping--it comes with the (peaceful) territory.

[PavePusher]

43. The lines between "tooth" and "tail" are damn fuzzy or nearly non-existant these days.

And that "force shaping" (my ass...!) has already begun.

[MADem]

53. I concur. They are distinctions for convenience of law only.

Combat/combat support--the mortars do not make a distinction.

The USN and USAF have been under the force-shaping gun since 911; as they weren't the primary players in the War on Terra. A lot of the personnel looking at getting the axe mid-career slid over to the USA and USMC to finish out their careers in the "Blue To Green" program. That probably wasn't a helluva lot of fun for them.

As we draw down, there will be further realignment to even everything out....and shrinkage. There's always shrinkage!

[Riftaxe]

92. Mortars are very heavy, but nothing compared to ammo for them

But you have a point. A discussion of force shaping will always get tucked away into a hard area.

However; I just replying to inform you that the shrinkage comment in the context of this thread made coffee come out my nose, been years since that happened :)

There will always be physical differences, women in general excel at endurance in running, men are a bit better at speed. An intelligent Force would put that to work for them, and make sure those who are anomalous get placed in the proper spots :)

Would it be a shocker if I said sometimes regulations are just plain silly?

[MADem]

95. I have to agree--some of those regs just beg to be broken!

Glad I gave you a moment's amusement--laughter really is good medicine!

[MADem]

33. I thought that had happened during the last drawdown.

You do know--or maybe you didn't--that up until the last drawdown, women were held to an "appearance" standard, and men held to a "fitness" standard. DOD spent several years correcting that, but women were discriminated against for decades prior to that, with weight standards that had nothing to do with health and everything to do with a desire by leadership to have women who "looked hot" for lack of a better term. Turns out, their calculations were based on an ancient chart put out by, of all outfits, MET LIFE, and the guy who jinned up the charts was a sexist asshole.

[No Elephants]

18. Really.

1/ We can change the laws on combat exclusions without changing the laws about a draft we have not used in decades. I would argue that changing the combat exclusions would make changing the draft laws a lot easier, assuming anyone gives a damn about draft laws anymore to begin with.

2/ What doomed the ERA was the coalition between churches and Republicans and general looniness in both those constituencies, nothing rational.

You may as well say keeping women off the non-existent front lines was one of the things that prompted Falwell to blame women's liberation for 911.

[MADem]

32. You can't have true equality without having equality of responsibility

which is why selective service either has to be abolished or universal. Yes, there were other faux "issues," to include the grave spectre of UNISEX BATHROOMS, "gay rights," and women on men's football teams (oh, the horror), but the draft got plenty of play in the mix.

We can change combat exclusion regs, but so long as the draft laws stand as written, there is not gender equality in this nation. The Surpremes would find the law unconstitutional if we had an ERA in place.

That idiot Phyllis Schlafly was all over using the selective service exemption, and other issues, as a wedge, foaming at the mouth--here's a timeline of her "achievements" in that regard: http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1986/sept86/psrsep86.html (wear gloves when clicking).

Since the draft had wound down, it wasn't really a genuine issue for the times, but the "What if" crowd did use it to very good effect. It was the "go to" argument when their other objections got a yawn/wave-off. I remember it well, first hand.

I found their posturing disgraceful. And of course it wasn't "rational"--nothing they said was rational, but they got their way, didn't they?

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. Agree.

But the ERA has many more freakout barriers than simply draft registration.

I support it because "Equality of rights under the law (should) not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

[enlightenment]

30. Gads, yes.

Do you remember the argument that it would be dangerous for men for women to serve on the front-lines because you couldn't trust a woman with PMS in a foxhole? I can't recall who it was, but it was a congresscritter - well before Rush Limbaugh made his nasty comments - I want to say it was Newt . . .

I distinctly recall the feeling of the hair standing up on the back of my neck when I heard that - I rarely get out and out furious with political rhetoric, but I would have happily shown that moron just how dangerous a woman can be when provoked.

[MADem]

35. And MENSES in the foxhole--Ew, the HORROR!!! And... INFECTIONS!!!

It was Newtie Patootie, and here is the precise quote--get ready to laugh, or cry, or both:

"If combat means living in a ditch, females have biological problems staying in a ditch for thirty days because they get infections and they don't have upper body strength. I mean, some do, but they're relatively rare. On the other hand, men are basically little piglets, you drop them in the ditch, they roll around in it, doesn't matter, you know. These things are very real. On the other hand, if combat means being on an Aegis-class cruiser managing the computer controls for twelve ships and their rockets, a female may be again dramatically better than a male who gets very, very frustrated sitting in a chair all the time because males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes."

-- Adjunct Professor Newt Gingrich, Reinhardt College, January 7, 1995, "Renewing American Civilization."

http://www.rusbasan.com/Humor/Newt.html

[enlightenment]

47. That was it! Thanks, MADem!

Still makes the hair on the back of my neck stand on end!

[MADem]

50. Can't have them infected wimmenfolk in the foxhole--we've got giraffes to hunt!

It's horrific....but in a sick way, funny.

[Riftaxe]

93. +1000

absolutely perfect!

Heh, if that is all that bleeds on a battlefield, I think we can find some disinfectant.

[MrSlayer]

3. The Vikings did it,

And so did the Celts. I'm not sure it's a great idea but if they're willing and able then I suppose it's on them. It's bad when a male soldier gets captured, a woman being captured would be a thing of nightmares.

[blank space]

4. Why ?

Because she's a girl ?

[MrSlayer]

7. Well, yeah.

The enemy is less likely to gang rape a male soldier into incontinence than they would a female soldier. Hell, we have a problem with our own male soldiers raping the women soldiers as it is, putting them in with the grunts just seems a bad idea. I don't know, it feels wrong for some reason.

That is not to say that I think women are incapable of doing the job, I'm sure there are plenty of female soldiers that can kick ass with the best of them. In a perfectly disciplined army I'm sure they would perform at as high a level as any other soldier but I think it has been proven that we don't have that kind of strict discipline in the armed forces. Perhaps I'm not giving the men enough credit, perhaps I'm giving them the credit they deserve. I just think that the horrors of war would be made even more horrible by introducing female soldiers into combat.




Edit: typo

[Riftaxe]

9. However a female soldier

would be that much more determined not to let that happen, and so presumably would her squad mates.

While nothing in this world is perfect, I think those women who want to go for a combat unit, should be allowed to, as long as they have an understanding of the hell they might encounter.

In a volunteer army, everyone assumes risks.

[midnight]

14. War is crap, and it does seem wrong..

[Hoosier Daddy]

42. It's called "rape"

Muslim extremists, just like Jewish extremists and Christian extremists, tend to be misogynictic homophobes. Captured male soldiers are less likely to be sexually violated by such men, as they abhor the very thought of being perceibed as gay. But a female enemy soldier? I did mention that extremists are misogynistic, right?

[MADem]

51. No, captured male soldiers are less likely to talk publicly about that form of torture. NT

[Hoosier Daddy]

70. Not saying it hasn't happened. It has.

But, since we've chosen to attack misogynists, the rape of a female captive is virtually guaranteed.

[MADem]

72. Not necessarily. In some circumstances, men are more likely to be abused.

A very religious Islamic man would be less likely to molest a "woman of the book"--someone who was a devout Christian, for example. However, he might not hesitate to regard a male soldier as a warrior/infidel/enemy of Islam, regardless of the male's professed religiosity, solely because of that aggressive machismo that is a byproduct of conflict and the perception of the role and status of males in that society.

It's just not the first thing that people think to ask a returning male POW about (though it IS the first thing they'll ask a female), and men are generally too ashamed to admit to it, and often won't unless they've been physically wounded by extreme abuse.

There's actually been quite a bit of published international study on this topic, but it is still one of those things that people don't like to talk about, because it's a real paradigm buster and it makes men uncomfortable. It's all about power, and has little to do with sexuality or desire. There have been some studies conducted WRT recent conflicts (Croatia, Africa, Iran-Iraq, etc.), and they concluded that the problem is widely underreported, so the perpetrators do not get punished, and the victims don't get the help they need.

The reason for the underreporting is simply shame. Women have less of a problem speaking up about it, but men perceive themselves and others as "weak" if they acknowledge they were victims of this sort of torture.

Liberia: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14522-sexual-abuse-of-male-soldiers-common-in-liberian-war.html

Croatia/Iraq: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17456904

[No Elephants]

19. Interesting about the Vikings.

"It's bad when a male soldier gets captured, a woman being captured would be a thing of nightmares."

A woman who volunteers for military service probably understands that a lot better than most men. And, if she doesn't, a fifteen minute course could get her up to speed.

The issue is whether she gets to decide, rather than the same attitude that forbade women to vote or work in certain jobs because there might be some of problem with that.

Women in military service get raped by their fellow U.S. troops and by military contractors, and the US often either turns a blind eye or protects the rapists.

The issue is whether all people get equal rights to decide for themselves or whether we perpetuated the caveman concept that the physically stronger folks in the clan get to decide everything for themselves and everyone else.

[MADem]

36. Rhonda Cornum can give you some insight on that.

She was just a major when she gave this interview--she's a BGEN now (and a remarkable person): http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,438760,00.html

...Cornum had little patience with those who use her as an example of the horrible things that can happen to women in war. "Every 15 seconds in America, some woman is assaulted. Why are they worried about a woman getting assaulted once every 10 years in a war overseas? It's ridiculous," she said. "It's clearly it's an emotional argument they use (to argue that women should be kept away from the frontlines) because they can't think of a rational one."

Gender in the military is not much of an issue while the bullets are flying, she said. "This whole issue is being argued by people not in the military, or if in the military, they have never worked with women. I have never pulled a guy out of a wrecked helicopter and had him say, 'Would you please not do this? I'm waiting for a male.'" When she was captured by the Iraqis, no one seemed to care that she was a woman.

Conflicts such as the one in Iraq blur the distinction between the frontline and the rear, she added. "Front-line combat takes on a different meaning when you have Scuds going over all the soldiers and landing on the rear troops." Women who serve as intelligence or chemical officers may find themselves in combat situations, yet are barred by regulations from serving on the "attack staff." Cornum even found herself guarding five Iraqi soldiers at one point. "It's ironic that women can ride in a Humvee but they can't ride in a tank. Seems to me you're a lot safer in a tank," she said. "They are not worried about risk. If they were worried about risk, women wouldn't be firemen and policemen. The problem is that we've had this tradition in the military that women aren't offensive."

Cornum scoffed at the theory that women lack the animal instinct required to kill. "War is not a hormonal event. It is a profession with discipline�. We're not people who club and bludgeon people to death any more. No one objects now to women flying fighters, bombers, and attack helicopters. They seem to object to hand-to-hand combat. Personally, I've never met a woman who wanted to be in the infantry. But if they're big and strong and tall, and they want to do it, they'll end up there. Gender should not be a discriminator in combat roles."

[MrModerate]

5. Not to be too graphic, but a round to the belly of a 20-year-old female . . .

is rather a different proposition than a round to the belly of a 20-year-old male.

[Kalidurga]

8. I think the real reason for keeping women out of combat is...

because people in the US seem more horrified when female soldiers are killed and having US women in combat might reduce the blood lust of the hawks.

[Riftaxe]

10. People will get over that fairly quickly

It's not like women have had some sort of divine protection during the wars and purges of the past.

[No Elephants]

21. Well, that, and the God given superiority of men. If God had wanted women to make their own

decisions, he would have given them bigger muscles.

Instead, he gave them the ability to grow human beings and keep the species going.

[dizbukhapeter]

12. Not to be too graphic

But a .50 caliber round will tear a cantaloupe size hole through a person.

[MADem]

38. Indeed...and not give a rat's patootie about the gender of said person, either! nt

[MrModerate]

56. Hence obviating the need for battlefield surgeons for one unfortunate soldier.

Those with smaller holes in them may still prefer care.

[No Elephants]

20. That's probably why God made medical schools.

[MrModerate]

57. And I'm glad she did . . .

However, the level of expertise among combat surgeons working on those parts of the body that are determined by sex vastly favors male soldiers. A little upskilling is definitely in order. That's what the Australian military is saying, anyway.

[enlightenment]

31. Woman are more than the sum of their parts.

Plenty of men lose their reproductive capacities - hell, many of them lose their ability to engage in sexual congress altogether. I read recently that the Army tried out metal 'cups' to protect soldiers because there has been an increase in injury to that area of the body. They were not well-received, despite the good intention.

Why is it different for women? Because they carry young? Because their sense of self is tied to their reproductive organs?

[MrModerate]

58. Because their organs are somewhat different and in different places.

It's purely practical (as I interpret what the Australian military is saying), and they want their combat-support medical people adequately trained.

[MADem]

37. It's an action requiring surgery, just like it would be for a male

You know, the uterus and ovaries aren't in the belly--they're a bit lower down. A gentleman would have similar difficulties.

That said, body armor is issued for a reason.

I invite your attention to the link I provided upthread, from an Army Officer who can speak to the issues of women in combat from a personal perspective:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,438760,00.html#ixzz1ZLxW1WkW

[MrModerate]

59. Well, we could argue over the definition of "belly" . . .

Let's say "abdomen" instead, in which case my point still stands.

[MADem]

63. No, it doesn't.

Your knowledge of anatomy is wanting.

[MrModerate]

71. Given that the definition of "abdomen" is . . .

". . . the part of the body between the thorax (chest) and pelvis." I stand by my statement.

I think *you're* defining abdomen (in common parlance, "belly") too narrowly. Certainly the uterus, fallopian tubes, and ovaries can be considered to be "in the belly" (or in the abdomen) regardless of any distinction made between the abdomenal cavity and the pelvic cavity.

Hence the Australian military's concern that their surgeons be trained up to effectively treat female soldiers who would now be more likely to suffer wounds in battle.

[MADem]

73. I still don't take your point. Have a look at the representations at the link.

You tell me who's worse off if they take a bullet? Six of one, half dozen of the other. It's all in and around "the pelvis" and, frankly the current body armor does a better job protecting a female than it does a male, owing to her anatomy.

http://www.wix.com/twen2093/reproductive-system


You do know that women can go on living without their uterus or fallopian tubes or ovaries? They have them removed on occasion; the operation is called HYSTERECTOMY. They don't die from it. It's a straightforward operation and not terribly complex--surgeons learn the basics of it fairly early on in medical school and in their surgical training. It's also not something that needs to be accomplished in a "golden hour" of military medical triage in a battlefield situation.

No one gets their balls in an uproar and wants to prohibit men from the battlefield because some poor bastard might possibly get his junk blown off by a landmine or shot up by a few bullets, now, do they?

These are risks individuals take when they volunteer for uniformed service. Sexual organs are not a disqualifier for service in any way, shape or form, and US military medicine is well equipped to handle females--after all, doctors at many MMFs routinely treat not just female servicemembers, but female dependents as well. Women's anatomy is no mystery to them.

[MrModerate]

103. I think you doth protest too much.

Keep in mind that Australia has just decided to open up the infantry to qualified female soldiers, and their reasoning parallels much of yours.

And while any soldier can "go on living" with any number of body parts damaged or missing, I'd hope that the military surgeons have somewhat higher aspirations. So I don't think it's foolish, hypocritical, or sexist to include as a provision of bringing female soldiers into the infantry the upgrading of battlefield medicine. And while those medics may treat female soldiers and dependents away from the battlefield, I'd wager a guess that their experience with belly wounds in women is a hell of a lot less than their experience with belly wounds in men.

[MADem]

104. In Australia, maybe. Not so in the US military medical corps.

And, as I said, the body armor our troops wear gives more protection to a woman's reproductive organs than a man's, simply as a consequence of where the business is at.

Battlefield medicine is always a work in progress, and the only good that comes out of war are the advances made as a consequence of it that translate to our daily lives. Everything from the sanitary napkin (originally a WW1 wound dressing) to using superglue in place of tedious sewing to close wounds have all come out of the battlefield. The Golden Hour triage concept came out of war. too, as did the "Hospital in a Box" concept that can put a full bore, completely sterile, air conditioned, positive air pressure medical facility to include state of the art surgical suites anywhere in no time flat. The advances in the construction and fitting of artificial limbs is a consequence of these most recent conflicts--that technology has moved forward by leaps and bounds.

US military medicine has never been asleep at the switch. It's a corps that doesn't suffer drawdowns to the deep extent of other areas of specialization, because they have a long training pipeline and if they're needed in a hurry they have to be there, and that's helped them with not just continuity and leadership, but morale as well. They can handle a woman getting shot in the 'belly' with the same alacrity with which they'd handle her male counterpart in the same fix.

[MrModerate]

109. So hooray for the USA, and damn a world that requires such expertise . . .

That having been said, the Australian military is much smaller and less well-equipped than the US and frankly -- not being quite as aggressive as the US -- doesn't have as much on-the-ground experience.

For which Australians (at least the ones I talk to) are grateful.

[MADem]

111. Well.....USA and Australia have done a TON of mil-to-mil in the past

four or five decades. They may not talk about it much at home, but they're in each other's pockets, and have been for eons. Training, education, equipment, joint exercises--it's been going on since the end of WW2.

They're not as "hick-y" down under as you might think.

You do know USA and Australia just signed a(nother) major, far-reaching defense pact?

http://www.securitydefenceagenda.org/Contentnavigation/Library/Libraryoverview/tabid/1299/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2898/AustraliaUS-defence-agreement.aspx

15/09/2011
Australia and the US will agree on large-scale defence cooperation today. The deal is to be announced ahead of US President Obama’s visit to Australia in November. The Australian Secretary of Defence Stephen Smith described this tightening of military ties as the “single biggest change or advancement” of the Australian-US alliance in 30 years. The most important aspect will be the grant of access for US military to bases in Australia. This includes greater US access to training and test ranges and the pre-positioning of US-equipment on Australian soil.



The two governments plan on making cyber-warfare part of their agreement. This would be the first time that cyber-security appears in a bilateral US defence treaty. "It's in large measure a recognition of what I've been saying time and time again, which is that cyber is the battlefield of the future," US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said yesterday. The Pentagon aims to discuss plans for bilateral offensive operations in the digital arena. While the agreements may be seen by China as attempt to counterbalance its own military step-up, other countries in the region are likely to appreciate the extended US presence in Australia. The two governments had last year signed a defence trade treaty, giving Australia full access to US military hardware.


:hide:

[Riftaxe]

11. I would expect any surgeon in the US army to be

able to distinguish between an ovary and a kidney, it's not like there is a special army school that teaches only male anatomy.

[No Elephants]

22. Yep. And surgery is, I believe, a five year residency, after a year of internship.

[Riftaxe]

96. Fortunately we pay for that schooling

and provide the experience, and it's not like only male grunts get shot up.

[dizbukhapeter]

13. I hope they dont lower standards for SOF

If a women can make it through BUDS to become a SEAL or go two years of intense training to become a Green Beret to same standards as men; then by all means they should be allowed in the Special Forces.

[Riftaxe]

15. I expect there are a few who could physically

and psychologically be able to make it. I sure as heck would not want to mess with those women!

But the physical regimen alone would knock most out, those few (and i suspect very few) who make it would probably be more fierce then the guys who do, for certain.

[No Elephants]

24. Brute physical strength is not the only valuable quality in life, including in the military.

We are not still clubbing or punching our enemies to death as the only way of overcoming them.

After so many thousands of years of one paradigm, I realize that is not easy to open our minds to others, but we owe it to ourselves.

If we are willing for some re-thinking and paradigm shifts, we won't say things like "I'm okay with letting women into this organization or that, but only if they can so all the brute strength stuff as well as men." Rather, we will look at ways we, as a society, can benefit from ALL the skills of both genders.

For just one thing, for physiological reasons, most women tend to have greater control of the fine muscles in their hands and fingers (one reason why, as a general rule, women are superior at fine embroidering and knitting--and also at things like eye surgery.

Something like greater control of fine muscles in hands and fingers might come in danged handy in a number of ways needed by modern military, such as putting together or dismantling a delicate device or using a delicate instrument.

Long distance swimming is another task at which women excel for physiological reasons. There are some missions where that be needed a hell of a lot more than the sprint equivalent of swimming.

I am sure if we think a bit, we might come up with other things that women can typically do better than men.

Problem is. that areas in which women excel have been either denied, ignored or demeaned for so long that we cannot even imagine a modern war in which women might do better than men at some things and a unit that includes women might therefore succeed more than a unit without women.

However, we have to shift our paradigm to making the best use of everyone's greatest skills (physical or not), rather than valuing one kind of physical strength above all others and assuming that is the only thing that wins modern wars and the only thing that makes missions in modern wars (or modern life) successful.

[OnlinePoker]

25. Combat soldiers on patrol have to carry the same gear whether male of female

The average rifle platoon soldier's load is 91 pounds, 101.5 in cold weather and 88.3 pounds in warm. That's a lot of weight for anybody to carry, but it's what you do if you don't want to die.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_01-15_ch11.htm

[No Elephants]

26. A military woman can handle that, but I think you missed the point of my post.

[OnlinePoker]

27. And you missed the point of mine.

The OP is about Australia putting women in front line units. From my experience here in Canada, it's great that the option has been given to women, but there have been only a few choosing that line of work in the military and only a few making it through the training due to the physical aspect.

[Hoosier Daddy]

75. "Choosing" in the military?

That's a new one on me.

[OnlinePoker]

76. Maybe the U.S. is different...

...but in Canada, you choose a trade at the recruiting centre. Very few women choose the hard army trades of Infantry, Artillery, Armor, or Field Engineer, even though they have been open to them for almost 20 years.

[Riftaxe]

97. same here as well, hehe add that choice

to a penny, and you still have 1 cent :)

[cap]

29. why don't we simply redesign the equipment so that it is much lighter

like, Duh...

Also train everyone how to lift and use leverage. I did some volunteer instructing for the Naval Academy for their summer sailing and I could see the guys would just haul away and use brute force whereas as a gal, I used leverage and knowledge to make the boat go much faster!

You know, evolution rules!

[PavePusher]

46. They do that constantly.

And you know what the result is? Heavier loads.... because now that item A, B and C are lighter/smaller, we can now add items D and E...

You can look up the history of the average infantry load-out on-line. It has trended steadily upwards.

[OnlinePoker]

77. Basic webbing is lighter

There is ancilliary equipment such as ammunition, food, water, body armor, weapons, etc that can't be dispensed with.

[MADem]

39. This is why DOD is putting so much work into improving gear, to include

research into exoskeletons that would enable a single soldier to carry enough shit for several of his/her battle buddies.

Here's a fun article on the topic: http://science.howstuffworks.com/ffw4.htm

"Think of yourself on steroids, holding as much weight as you want for as long as you want," said Atkinson. "It will also allow a 90 pound male or female to carry a 250 pound male or female off of the battlefield and it wouldn't feel like they were carrying 250 pounds worth of person."

The exoskeleton attached to the lower body of the soldier will provide even more strength. The overall exoskeleton will provide up to 300 percent greater lifting and load-carrying capability.

"The Exoskeleton, which is in conjunction with DARPA, will give the soldier more stability," Atkinson said. "It makes the soldier become a weapons platform."


The reason we have so many wounded vets nowadays, instead of dead ones, is due to body armor.

[PavePusher]

44. "We are not still clubbing or punching our enemies to death as the only way of overcoming them."

The "only way", no. But it is very much still a primary way.

You don't control ground until someone has boots on it, and no-one is shooting at them. Guess how that is accomplished....

[PavePusher]

45. "Something like greater control of fine muscles in hands and fingers might come in danged handy..."

Which means squat if you weren't able to carry in the tools you needed for the job.

[Riftaxe]

94. Physical combat is more a mental

state then anything else, and there are many more women then people would expect, who are more than capable of dealing with it.

Is time yet to cut back on physical requirements? In my view, probably not yet for the elite forces, but i also believe there are a few women out there who can not only hack the physical requirements but have the spirit to do the rest.

Perhaps in drips we can make things a bit more even, and those few "drips" will be women of exceptional abilities.


However for the grunt behind a Howitzer, I think the time has come to make some adjustments.

[PavePusher]

106. A certain minimum of physical strength is still a requirement...

in almost all parts of the modern military.

Lets look at your example of a howitzer:

The shells are heavy (current standard M107 projectile for a 155mm gun weighs 44kg, nearly 97 lbs), and have to be loaded by hand, often for long periods of time.

Is it a towed or self-propelled gun? Towed means it will still need muscle power to transport, maintain and lay-in (digging and entrenching and bunkering are pretty physical), along with maintaining/operating the towing vehicle. S-P'd means track maintenance (VERY heavy work), other heavy mechanized mx, getting in/out of heavy hatches and doors...

I'm not saying there aren't women who can do this stuff, but they need to set a physical standard needed for the job, and hold all applicants to that standard, male or female.

[No Elephants]

23. Entertain the possibility that women might have abilities men don't have and therefore

might be valuable in different ways, other than brute strength.

And that such unique value might make some re-thinking more than worth it.

Please see also Reply 26.

[snooper2]

54. You mean like ESP or something?

[LanternWaste]

85. Precisely what relevant ways?

"might be valuable in different ways..."

Precisely what unique and relevant values are we referring to?

Or is this merely supposition based on guess-work?

[dizbukhapeter]

28. Women only combat units

The army should train up a combat unit consisting of all women and evaluate them against their male counterparts in extensive simulated combat, then we will know.

[tabasco]

40. As long as you don't have mixed units, I'm for it.

I'm all for total female infantry battalions, if that's what it takes to appease the "sexes are equal" crowd.

Then, when they get annihilated in combat, maybe opinions will change.

Mixed units would cause logistical problems, breed relationships, interfere with combat decision-making and destroy morale.

[enlightenment]

48. At least you're an honest misogynist.

Something to be said for that, I guess.

[tabasco]

49. Please provide evidence of your accusation

or I must assume you are a liar.

[enlightenment]

79. How on earth could I be a liar?

Stating my opinion of your statement isn't lying. Do look up the word, since you seem to be having a problem with the actual definition.

As to why I said it? Let's look at your statement:


"I'm all for total female infantry battalions, if that's what it takes to appease the "sexes are equal" crowd.

Then, when they get annihilated in combat, maybe opinions will change.

Mixed units would cause logistical problems, breed relationships, interfere with combat decision-making and destroy morale."


1. "Appease the "sexes are equal" crowd" - clearly, you believe that anyone who dares to think that the two human genders are inherently equal is part of some 'crowd' that must be 'appeased'. Woman are obviously not inherently equal to men.

2. "Then, when they get annihilated in combat" - clearly, you believe that women do not have the ability to successfully fight on a battlefield, even if they are segregated into female only units. They are not - and are not capable of being -inherently equal.

3. "Logistical problems . . .destroy morale" - once again, you very clearly show that you believe women are a negative influence - have no place - would do nothing but create problems, including interfering with decision-making (what do you think they're going to do; ask for a time-out before the assault?) and morale. This is quite a nasty statement, actually - showing a clear lack of respect for women as human beings.

tabasco, misogyny is a hatred or dislike of women. Even someone who claims to 'love' women can be misogynist when his (or her) opinions on the gender relegate them to a fixed status. In your mind, women serve a certain role - they are not equal to men (despite what you may argue) because you cannot conceive of them being successful at a role you consider a male-only preserve.
The moment that you relegate them to that fixed role you prefer, you begin to denigrate their abilities - by default. People who like and respect others do not make a practice of denigrating them, so I have to assume that fundamentally, you do not like women.

You may find them useful, in their place, and may even hold one or more close to your heart. But if you cannot respect them as human beings, full-fledged, capable, and worthy of total - not conditional - respect, then you are a misogynist.

Do a little thought experiment and put "African American" in place of "women". Your argument - including the segregated unit concept - is exactly what kept the armed forces segregated for so many years.

If you were to make a statement like that today, you would be called a racist and your opinion dismissed out of hand. You know that.

You don't have to agree that women should serve in front-line combat, but if you want to be heard rather than dismissed, you should come up with arguments that don't travel this particular road.

[Riftaxe]

99. Very well said!

My response to that post probably would involve 4 letter words, and in my own judgment (questionable at best) rightly so.

[Violet_Crumble]

101. +1000! n/t

[Paladin]

108. Bullseye. (n/t)

[MADem]

52. You're out of the loop, I fear. Mixed units are a de facto reality and have

been since DESERT STORM.

Do read Rhonda Cornum's biography.

[tabasco]

60. LOL. I was a company commander in Desert Storm.

Infantry. No mixed infantry line units. Or armor.

Maybe see a female LNO in the TOC but no female grunts or tankers.

[MADem]

62. Reading is fundamental. Did you see the term "de facto" in my post?

You would have if you looked.

Since you were in DS, you must know of (now BGEN) Cornum.

Your thinking does not reflect the current leadership's. You've been left behind, I'm afraid.

http://www.jcs.mil/newsarticle.aspx?id=392

[tabasco]

82. LOL. At your link, no general states support for females in combat arms.

Educate yourself and stop making shit up.

http://www.military.com/news/article/army-mulls-women-in-combat-arms-units.html

[MADem]

91. I don't know what link you're looking at, but Mike Mullen, unlike you, gets it.

I'd hardly call submarines "combat support." Maybe you would, though, since you claim to know so much!

[tabasco]

83. Flight surgeon is not a combat arms position.

What's your point?

[MADem]

90. DUH.

You're demonstrating that you don't get what "de facto" actually means. Keep up the fine work!

[tabasco]

84. De facto means "in reality or fact." What's your point?

I have made it clear to you that women did not serve in combat arms units in Desert Storm and they do not today.

[MADem]

89. Read Rhonda Cornum's bio. She served, in de facto fashion, in a combat unit.

It's how she was taken prisoner.

Of course, you ought to know this if you were there. I don't know anyone who wasn't aware of it at the time.

[boppers]

68. So, I take it you're against mixed gay/straight units then?

"Mixed units would cause logistical problems, breed relationships, interfere with combat decision-making and destroy morale."

Uhm, yeah, that line was already tested with DADT. Turns out to not be a big deal.

[LanternWaste]

86. I imagine we often imply our own prognostications and fortune-telling

"Then, when they get annihilated in combat..."

I imagine we often imply our own prognostications and fortune-telling are post-hoc facts to better validate our own biases...





"Mixed units would cause logistical problems, breed relationships, interfere with combat decision-making and destroy morale...."

Hmmm... the first, third, and the last were very popular reasons used against integration of African-Americans into the army in the late 40's. Reason #2 has been (and still is) a popular reason to argue against the inclusion of gays into the army. But I'm certain you'll rationalize that six of one is nothing like half a dozen of the other.

[Blue_Tires]

41. I'm pretty sure Holland has the same policy

I met one of their Afghanistan vets during the NATO festival...And yes, she made the men around her swoon...

[tabasco]

61. That's why a mixed female/male combat unit is a bad idea.

Too much swooning.

[boppers]

67. Bullets don't care about swooning.

...and when you're fighting for your life, a crush on somebody isn't exactly a priority in your mind.

[Fool Count]

64. In related development, Australia also decided to let women

jump off bridges, wrestle wild crocodiles and put their nuts into a vise. Only the crocs are less than thrilled by this development.

[Honeycombe8]

65. LOL! nt

[Honeycombe8]

66. Israel tried this, then dropped it. I think the problem was... the men kept trying...

to be gallant, trying to protect the women soldiers and such. Of course, that's THEIR problem, and they could've trained better to get over that. But that was years ago; maybe it wouldn't be that way now.

I can't see how that will work in Australia, which I think is a very conservative country. Extreme right.

[Fool Count]

69. Australia is not "extreme right" at all. It is not even "right".

Australia is ruled by a Labour Party government since 2008. Moreover, Australian Prime Minister is an avowed atheist never-married former-Marxist woman cohabitating
with her boyfriend.

[Violet_Crumble]

78. The current government is pretty much centre-right...

It's a minority government, and Julia Gillard was only able to form a government with three Independents. It's a government that tries to toe the exact same line as John Howard's when it comes to refugees. When it comes to Gillard, she gleefully stabbed Kevin Rudd in the back and then went on to disappoint even those of us who were initially excited about having a woman as a PM. When it comes to attitudes of the country itself, it can easily be described as right-wing. Listen to the talk back radio, watch ACA or Today Tonight, or read The Australian and it's oozing out. Racism, xenophobia, ignorance and hatred of anything that doesn't benefit them is common-place...

I noticed the article only fleetingly mentioned the reason behind this announcement by the government. It's an attempt to do damage control for the reputation of the ADF after the ADFA scandal and more and more incidents of sexual abuse coming out into the open...

[Honeycombe8]

80. Whoever their leader is....it's a conservative, I think, who was always in Bush's corner...

and is now on teh side of any rightwing government in the world, esp. the U.K. I don't know what party he belongs to, but I'm going just by his actions I've read about. Nothing I've seen indicates he's left of center.

[Fool Count]

87. I told you who our leader is. It is not he but she.

And she is not a conservative. But, by all means, teach me the truth of your wisdom, oh, our all-knowing american
master. I am sure you know better, since you heard it somewhere on American TV, and we, stupid pumpkins, just
voted for her.

[Violet_Crumble]

102. +1000

Apparently US television is running quite a few years behind, as that poster appears to think John Howard is still our PM :)

[Fool Count]

110. Even John Howard would be to the left of Barack Obama

on the American political spectrum.

[MADem]

98. He's been out for several years. They have a woman who is way to the left of that guy now.

She's struggling a bit.

[Violet_Crumble]

100. No, Julia Gillard's NOT a conservative...

1. Our leader is a she, not a he
2. Her government is centrist, but compared to the Obama administration would fall into the centre-left field.
3. She definately wasn't on the side of Bush. Not being Prime Minister back then, she was opposed to the invasion of Iraq. Mark Latham told journalists that she described her 2006 study tour of the US to him as a 'CIA re-education course'. The unwritten foreign policy of this country isn't to side with any rightwing government in the world, it's for the government to side with the US and UK, regardless of whether their governments are Left or Right-wing.

[treestar]

81. I don't think it's extreme right, and if it was it would hardly

allow women in combat.

[Fool Count]

88. "Extreme right", my ass. We have the Green Party holding

the balance of power in both houses, for God's sake. Elect a single Green Party congress person first,
and then call other countries "extreme right".

[chrisa]

105. In the US, it is not time to let women fight. It is time to stop men from fighting.

We do not need military forces overseas - anywhere - especially when we're going bankrupt. It's time to bring the troops home, slash the defense budget to <15%, and actually for once focus on defense.

It really wouldn't be as bad as the doomsday hawks think it would be.

[PavePusher]

107. Oddly, the only Presidential candidate to consistently and firmly advocate this position....

is not a Democrat, and, while running as a Republican, gets nothing but shit from them.

The Irony is lost on many....