The hygiene problem is really overblown IMO. Give the women a years supply of the pill and they will never bleed while taking them. Just ask a women what she does when she doesn't want to bleed because she is on vacation or on a business trip. I see no reason why a woman in an infantry unit which operates for weeks and months in a jungle combat zone couldn't just keep on taking the pill and be as good to go as any man.
Reminds me of a recruit course at 2 Trg Gp many years ago - I was Pl Comd of the female platoon with (thankfully) a female staff of Cpl's and Pl Sgt. All was going well until the field phase when one of the women got her period - apparently some women exude pheremones that mean that nearly all women synchronise their menstrual cycles. As most women were not expecting their periods, most were unprepared - had to OpDem tampons and pads - made my day to see the admin WO with 22 years of regular army service in the infantry, with weapon, webbing and cammed up to the eyeballs come walking down the road with a couple of packets of tampax under his arm
Didn't have a camera - would have made a great piccie for "Say Again" in the army paper...
t68
Well-Known Member
When I was in the RACT where it was mixed this is very different from Infantry, but from my time in uniform I have seen some women just as capable if not more than some blokes and you also get the one’s that are like barbie (doll’s) don’t want to chip there nails, want to wash their hair whist away in the bush everyday and those who use being female to get out of doing some of the harder stuff in transport (its not all driving) we even had one chick on an EX when we stood too thought she was gone get raped when had a contact( she was a babe, every bloke in the Squadron wanted to jump her).But all that aside those who put their hand up for front line positions who will want to be their and will give it all their got.
I have no problems with woman serving as RAN or RAAF in combat role, but do draw the line at infantry roles. I have no doubt some woman have the physical and mental ability to fulfil those role, but this is Australia we have no direct threat to ourselves compared to others or have been in situations were they have no choice but to stand and fight, woman in the ADF still have to go bush and learn IMT whatever unit they belong to so will have a basic understanding of the infantry role. If Australia was ever invaded and placed into a battle of Stalingrad proportions woman will have no choice but participate in front line combat.
I have no problems with woman serving as RAN or RAAF in combat role, but do draw the line at infantry roles. I have no doubt some woman have the physical and mental ability to fulfil those role, but this is Australia we have no direct threat to ourselves compared to others or have been in situations were they have no choice but to stand and fight, woman in the ADF still have to go bush and learn IMT whatever unit they belong to so will have a basic understanding of the infantry role. If Australia was ever invaded and placed into a battle of Stalingrad proportions woman will have no choice but participate in front line combat.
Possibly - or it will be the rope that hangs the program as they end up breaking women who shouldn't have been there in the first place. The press get hold of the stats that show the brutes in the Infantry are breaking the cream of Australia young women (that's how it will be put forward) and the pollies will pull it in a heartbeat.
Ours was the second class through RMC with women - and we physically broke heaps of them as they were expected to carry the M60 and 30 plus kg's of gear up hill and down dale - not easy when you are 50kg's and 5 foot 2. As a result, the rules were changed that the women only had to carry the L1A2 (Automatic heavy barrel SLR) when they were gunner, and carried only 1 days rations. Most women hated that sexist policy and would seek to carry the M60 when they could - they didn't want to be treated differently. Some women hated the policy, but realised that is was physically impossible for them to be trained if they were in hospital so they wisely adopted the new policy. Other women were very happy with the new policy - they knew they were going to Ordinance or Medical as an Admin officer and were just happy not to be busted by the system.
My take on it? Overall positive. It has the ability to raise the physical standard of all arms corps people regardless of gender. I have served with blokes in Infantry Battalions who could do 20 heaves easily but would have bugger all chance of lifting x pieces of track link. These same people probably couldn't have lifted me in a fireman's carry to safety if need be either. If the person (NOTE: PERSON) can meet the physical standards required then they should be allowed to give it a shot. The number of women that have the required physical strength and endurance AND the desire to take an arms corps job will be quite small anyway.
The arguments about women being nurturing and lacking agression have clearly never had to step in a break up a scrag fight - in the limited time I did crowd control I used to dread breking up a fight between women more than a couple of blokes - women can fight very dirty.:nutkick
And the whole argument that men would be more worried about women being hurt is something that may have applied 80 years ago when gentlemen existed.
Will there be scandals involving sex in the forward trenches on exercise? Maybe - but that IMHO is less embarrassing than what the Bombadiers were caught doing with newly arrived gunners at 1Fd regiment many years ago - it involved sausages and humming the national anthem with various parts of the senior ranks anatomy in their mouths. In short there will always be incidents in any mixed gender units. Other units seem to get by without too many dramas (with the exception of the navy??!!??) -I don't see why this is going to be an additional problem..
At the end of the day it is the will of our masters. Stop complaining about it and lets see if if would work. I would have absolutely no hesitation in serving beside some of the women at Duntroon in an infantry unit. Others I would not want to see armed with anything more dangerous than a potato peeler. Come to think of it, that's the same with some of the blokes I graduated with.
My 2 cents worth. Flame suit on.
Look I know I come across as some chauvinistic dinosaur, but I do have some serious reservations about mixing men and women in close quarter combat.
There will always be women out there who through shear dogged determination and willpower will make the grade and beat some of their male counterparts, however this is the exception, not the norm. If it was the norm why do we segregate full contact sports by gender?
Also you cannot go on a six week jungle patrol carrying your own kit with a female soldier in tow unless you make specific hygiene arrangements. You go up against an enemy with quality trackers (iban for example) and they will ping your patrol through smell alone. Are you going to restrict women on their menstrual cycle because the smell attracts wild animals who could compromise you position? There is a reason why women in the field have to be extracted and allowed to shower after a set period. How are you going to get around that problem? What happens if one of the Aus Infantry Bats has to deploy to the jungles of South East Asia in very austere conditions at short notice for long periods (another Malayan Emergency, Borneo or Vietnam Campaign), laying in ambush positions for weeks not days or conducting fighting patrols in primary jungle. Are you going to extract your female infantrymen by chopper every five days to shower or reconfigure your orbat at the last minute so only males deploy?
One way round it is to do what the South Koreans do, they have an all female SF section who are nails (must be black belt TKW to apply for selection). They are used for specific roles where females could be inserted/substituted in a crisis (act as nurses or flight attendants in a CT op as part of an exchange of crew or evac of wounded).
There will always be women out there who through shear dogged determination and willpower will make the grade and beat some of their male counterparts, however this is the exception, not the norm. If it was the norm why do we segregate full contact sports by gender?
Also you cannot go on a six week jungle patrol carrying your own kit with a female soldier in tow unless you make specific hygiene arrangements. You go up against an enemy with quality trackers (iban for example) and they will ping your patrol through smell alone. Are you going to restrict women on their menstrual cycle because the smell attracts wild animals who could compromise you position? There is a reason why women in the field have to be extracted and allowed to shower after a set period. How are you going to get around that problem? What happens if one of the Aus Infantry Bats has to deploy to the jungles of South East Asia in very austere conditions at short notice for long periods (another Malayan Emergency, Borneo or Vietnam Campaign), laying in ambush positions for weeks not days or conducting fighting patrols in primary jungle. Are you going to extract your female infantrymen by chopper every five days to shower or reconfigure your orbat at the last minute so only males deploy?
One way round it is to do what the South Koreans do, they have an all female SF section who are nails (must be black belt TKW to apply for selection). They are used for specific roles where females could be inserted/substituted in a crisis (act as nurses or flight attendants in a CT op as part of an exchange of crew or evac of wounded).
justsomeaussie
Member
The key point in the "women in combat" discussion is purely capability.
Is it going to provide more or less capability to the combat element? It's that simple.
If it does then I have no dramas with it.
What I do have huge dramas with is the sex discrimination minister saying that we need to have affirmative action to put women into combat roles. That means that the government wants to put women in roles whether they reduce capability or not.
It's as Neil James says, this policy could actually involve more female deaths/injuries because they've been pushed into these roles.
The defence executive can say all they want about how there will be no loss in capability but when the government sets the standard, the ADF tows the line. The exec of the ADF won't be the ones with the bums on the line when someone can't carry their pack in a TIC.
Any loss in capability is an increase in risk and any increase in risk is a higher chance of us getting killed.
Is it going to provide more or less capability to the combat element? It's that simple.
If it does then I have no dramas with it.
What I do have huge dramas with is the sex discrimination minister saying that we need to have affirmative action to put women into combat roles. That means that the government wants to put women in roles whether they reduce capability or not.
It's as Neil James says, this policy could actually involve more female deaths/injuries because they've been pushed into these roles.
The defence executive can say all they want about how there will be no loss in capability but when the government sets the standard, the ADF tows the line. The exec of the ADF won't be the ones with the bums on the line when someone can't carry their pack in a TIC.
Any loss in capability is an increase in risk and any increase in risk is a higher chance of us getting killed.
As I said before just let them take the pill during their menstrual cycle and you won't have a problem as they don't bleed. Women all over the world do this all the time. Could be a requirement just like malaria pills.
I suggest trawling through earlier posts in this particular thread. Pretty much all you are after has already been posted. A reliable source has already stated that the K9 has the nod, just waiting for AFATDS integration.
cheers
rb
That's fine in theory, but as I'm sure you understand implementing that is not so simple. By far the biggest problem I see, is just how and when do you test if people if they can make the grade or not? The PES test might be an excellent test to see if people are able to perform that job, but it can't be used to test new recruits to see if they can hack the job or not.
For example, looking at the army, you pick your corps at recruiting before you get to Kapooka. Does that mean that budding infantry recruits are going to do the infantry PES test before getting on the bus? Of course not. The vast majority of males wouldn't pass the test before training, let alone females. Do you do the infantry PES test at Kapooka? You've been there, and as you know that isn't feasible. We currently struggle to get recruits fit enough to pass the recruit fitness assessment as it is (and that test is less challenging than the current BFA). There is simply no time to train soldiers up to a higher standard.
That means the first place that recruits are realistically going to be screened is at IETs. By then it is too late. What if the recruit fails the assessment? How many times are you going to let them retest before you tell them to pick another corps? Of course, this is a problem with male recruits already, but the problem with female recruits will simply be that much greater. For instance, the failure rate for females on the all-corps PES test is about five times that of males, with more than double the injury rate. Add in the higher standard, and what will the failure rate be then?
What I can guarantee is going to happen, is that large numbers of females, strong women with the best intentions, are going to have to complete remedial PT for weeks/months just to reach the minimum standard. They are then going to have the same problem each and every six months when they have to redo the test. Then they will actually reach a unit, have to go bush, and realise the actual job is so much harder than the test, struggle hard to keep up with the men, and break themselves. I am willing to bet a large sum of money that for the first few years that females are in combat jobs, more than half of them are on long term medical restrictions due to being broken.
That is going to be the reality for units - having to spend an inordinate amount of time on admin, remedial PT and rehabilitation to get recruits up to an unrealistic standard of personal fitness. Now this is a problem with men already, but a small one. The vast majority of men, no matter how unfit when they start, will be able to be brought up to the standard required of combat jobs. The basic truth, supported by lots of medical evidence, is that the vast majority of women will not, and they will pay the price for trying.
That is not a slight in women. I have served with many outstanding women in uniform, including on operations. There are women out there that put men to shame with their fitness. For instance, I remember putting a reserve platoon through Kapooka where the soldier that won the award for best at PT was a 47 year old mother of three, who had a daughter older than I. I was in peak shape, and I had to struggle hard to beat her during the final fitness test (I was hungover/still drunk, but still). However, when you are talking about the thousands upon thousands of soldiers in uniform, these women are few and far between, and the army/ADF is going to pay a high price for letting the remainder try to reach an unrealistic standard.
im not sure mate but you may have just shot yourself in the foot. Anti-Malarial pills to the best of my knowledge are anti biotics. some anti biotics are known to cancel the affects of "The Pill" so if your in a SEA jungle it might be a case of one or the other
I think the hygene issues are workable. I really do. You plan around them, and with more operational experience I think that will be a very minor issue.
I think the major issue is that women physically won't be suitable, no matter how fit, no matter how strong. Look at role where women do physical activity. There are no women labourers (baring traffic or pure cleaning roles). There never will be.
Looking at female PE teachers, a unique example where women are in an physically active role enmass. What is the rate of knee injury? very high.
Bodybuilding.com - Knee Injury: How Can Women Protect Against Knee Injuries?
So no matter how fit, how strong, females are going to be injured far more often. Medically, it happens. It happens to PE teachers, fitness instructors, elite athletes, basketballers, every sport females play.
Now lets add to that fixed weights in excess of 50kg a far greater percentage for females. There is no woman that can do that.
However, most male laborers would not make the cut into the adf either. Nor would most professional athletes in contact sports. So yes I do think there needs to be a bit of review of the requirements. I do think women can play a wider role in the adf. I can even see some value in allowing the rare 0.1% of female applicants (uk statistics) that make it through regular requirements into positions near the front line or on a case by case basis into the front line.
Realistically that would be maybe 5 women in the ADF. Whom will have short careers before not being able to perform that role because they will get bad knees.
So its not as if the ADF is going to become 50% women over night.
I think the major issue is that women physically won't be suitable, no matter how fit, no matter how strong. Look at role where women do physical activity. There are no women labourers (baring traffic or pure cleaning roles). There never will be.
Looking at female PE teachers, a unique example where women are in an physically active role enmass. What is the rate of knee injury? very high.
Bodybuilding.com - Knee Injury: How Can Women Protect Against Knee Injuries?
So no matter how fit, how strong, females are going to be injured far more often. Medically, it happens. It happens to PE teachers, fitness instructors, elite athletes, basketballers, every sport females play.
Now lets add to that fixed weights in excess of 50kg a far greater percentage for females. There is no woman that can do that.
However, most male laborers would not make the cut into the adf either. Nor would most professional athletes in contact sports. So yes I do think there needs to be a bit of review of the requirements. I do think women can play a wider role in the adf. I can even see some value in allowing the rare 0.1% of female applicants (uk statistics) that make it through regular requirements into positions near the front line or on a case by case basis into the front line.
Realistically that would be maybe 5 women in the ADF. Whom will have short careers before not being able to perform that role because they will get bad knees.
So its not as if the ADF is going to become 50% women over night.
Cut and paste from a Linkedin group I joined.
Defence Network Australia discussion.
Julie Green • Can we get away from the stereotype of grunts going on 3 week patrols. I served with Dutch FOs in Afghanistan who had no trouble doing their job. This legislation change allows for that - as long as they can do the job. And I'd like to think ground combat roles consist of more than lifting heavy things! It involves interaction with local population (where women soldiers are key enablers), it involves coordinating indirect fire from multiple platforms (which requires brains not brawn), it involves working in combined and joint environments (where non-confrontational communication skills are a bonus).
I'm sure there was the same resistance when women stopped wearing the lime green of the Women's Royal Army Corps, just as there was resistance to women joining engineers, and guess what - the world didn't fall over. The Army adapted (after a few bumps along the way) and the job still gets done. Women joining infantry, artillery, armour etc will change those Corps - just not necessarily in a bad way.
Defence Network Australia discussion.
Julie Green • Can we get away from the stereotype of grunts going on 3 week patrols. I served with Dutch FOs in Afghanistan who had no trouble doing their job. This legislation change allows for that - as long as they can do the job. And I'd like to think ground combat roles consist of more than lifting heavy things! It involves interaction with local population (where women soldiers are key enablers), it involves coordinating indirect fire from multiple platforms (which requires brains not brawn), it involves working in combined and joint environments (where non-confrontational communication skills are a bonus).
I'm sure there was the same resistance when women stopped wearing the lime green of the Women's Royal Army Corps, just as there was resistance to women joining engineers, and guess what - the world didn't fall over. The Army adapted (after a few bumps along the way) and the job still gets done. Women joining infantry, artillery, armour etc will change those Corps - just not necessarily in a bad way.
Para 3
New Member
Julie Greens comments have merit and I fully agree with her sentiments that women fill a niche role which men often can't do for a myriad of reasons. But the roles she comments upon could be filled by attached female assets on an ad-hoc basis to supplement an all male infantry fighting section, platoon or company.
All western armies today bring in male/female specialists to support regular troops, including multi-gender: dog handlers, intelligence personnel, medics, linguists and specialist advisors. These are separate cap-badges who are attached to all male infantry battalions. Why change something that isn't broken, women still get to serve on the front-line without having to try and compete physically on a day to day basis (load/weapons carrying, '3 week patrols' etc.) when their physical make-up is different.
Moving forward it will be interesting to see a mixed Aussie (female/male) team compete in some of the international military events such as CTC, Nijmegen March and/or Cambrian Patrol events against all-male foreign teams.
The ultimate test will be performance in kill/capture and how the puiblic will react to female combat losses.
the media may support it now, but they are a fickle beast and will make hay as soon as there is a combat loss.
the hugh whites and maj gen stretton or equiv sock puppets will be rolled out for comment.
they'll both blame the americans for influencing our foreign policy and both will trot out DOA doctrine as being something that would have stopped the loss....
:jump
justsomeaussie
Member
I think the public will react much like they reacted to a female prime minister. Ho hum and move on.
What will happen is that the Defence department will smother any possible bad new stories of women training for the combat roles. It doesn't matter if every women who attempts is crippled, they will all be quietly paid off in compo and no one will be the wiser.
This is a lose lose for everyone, because the agenda isn't about increasing capability for the ADF it's about pushing people into roles they aren't physically suited for.
We've banged on about it enough, but when women are in the scrum in rugby, then we can have women in combat roles.
Why isn't the media talking about the obvious issue of "sexism" in all professional sport where we segregate men from women?
Just look at some of these sporting stats:
DrumNet - Men vs. Women in Sports
According to this site the fastest women in the world is the equivalent to the fastest 16 1/2 yr old man. So perhaps we need to wait till 2050?
Well women do actually play Rugby.
Ohh come on! Is the infantry standard the same as world standard sport? How many RAInf diggers are on the Australian Olympic team. As for the 100m sprint can anyone in the RAInf do it in under 11 seconds? Because that’s what the best women run it in…
So men can run faster than women. Big freaking deal. The question is can some (not all or even many) women meet the physical standard required to be in the infantry? Since this change for the Australian Army is based around a gender neutral physical test they will have to if thy want to.
Women can apparently handle blood loss from injury better than men so perhaps this is a more relevant general difference between the sexes argument for the infantry than who can run 100m under 10 or 11 seconds.
The last LandWarfare Conf that you and I attended in Brissie a few years back had a DARPA briefing on medical advancements around battlefield wounds etc...
the survival and "repair" rate for women experiencing the same kinds of battlefield wounds as men was amazing. They certainly seemed to deal with massive trauma issues "better"