Australian Army: Women on the frontline; news article.

[alexsa]

However there are a number of positions in the military where a woman performs better on pure physical reasons. Including glamorous ones, such as jet pilots.
If physical attributes would be the primary issue, there wouldn't be any men remaining aboard submarines. Hell, there wouldn't even be men driving around tanks.

Care to justify this. This is not a sexist coment but ther are differnence between male an femaile atributes and in many combat roles and the girls will be better that the boys in general terms in a fair range of them. However, spacial awareness is generally one area where the male normally has an edge. This does noy suggest dominance by any stretch but make the suggestion that for roles related to tanks, subs and aircraft the male is totally outclassed ...................... which you more tha imply is the case. Actually on the average the male should have an edge in some roles in these areas noting ther is a multiplicity of roles.

 

[Aussie Digger]

However there are a number of positions in the military where a woman performs better on pure physical reasons. Including glamorous ones, such as jet pilots.
If physical attributes would be the primary issue, there wouldn't be any men remaining aboard submarines. Hell, there wouldn't even be men driving around tanks.

I was only referring to roles where physical strength and endurance IS a factor.

I am aware that pilots fare better (as an EXTREME) generality with a smaller, more compact build (in relation to tolerance to G forces etc) but this is far removed from what I was talking about which was specifically aimed at infantry and artillery roles within the Australian Army.

Both roles are physically demanding and require strength and endurance as a crucial part of fulfilling the role.

Now I have a problem with the current physical standards Army demands even of it's male soliders in these roles and women don't HAVE to meet and in my experience find it difficult to achieve even the low standard (in my opinion) which the males are CURRENTLY required to achieve.

My personal view is that a LONG absence from actual combat duties has "softened" our Army in terms of physical training requirements and and the requirements for men NOW are not overly hard. Women get it even easier.

It was a very interesting situation when units were required to "work up" for deployment to Timor, when the initial units began to be relieved in 2000. For a LONG time in the Australian Army "battle PT" (essentially - physical training in the equipment you WILL use in the operational environment) was banned within the Australian Army on "Occupational health and Safety" grounds.

Units who were deploying to ACTUAL operations were finding however that such training WAS necessary, to allow their soldiers to perform effectively on operations. The thinking seems to have been tjay such training had only ever been thought up out of thin air and had no relevance... Apparently running in proper training shoes and running gear, bears a resemblance to running in heavy boots, uniform, with webbing, a pack, equipment and a weapon...

As an actual example of my concerns, push-ups for female soldiers for example are performed with the stress point touching the ground being their knees, rather than their feet, as it is with men.

They do NOT need therefore to display an ability to support their own weight in this exercise. Male push-ups require you to stabilise your entire weight and "push" your entire body weight up and down repeatedly. On your knees, you save 30 odd kilograms in the weight you push. I'm pretty sure if you have to climb over an obstacle you have to lift your ENTIRE weight, but Army "standards" say women don't...

Pull-ups? Women do not have to do them at all. Runs? They get between 2 and 3 minutes MORE to run the SAME distance. The issues get worse in "battle PT" training environments. Not only do they have to lift all THEIR bodyweight, (as opposed to normal peacetime standards) they WILL have to lift all their kit (25kg PLUS as a minimum in ANY operational environment) too.

This may or may not be sexist thinking (depending on your POV) but IS reality. Arguing that infantry soldiers don't need the amount of strength necessary to support their own weight for a VERY short period of time, let alone longer is nonsensical and will lead directly to VERY unpleasant results, should you require such persons to serve in direct combat roles.

 

[Waylander]

However there are a number of positions in the military where a woman performs better on pure physical reasons. Including glamorous ones, such as jet pilots.
If physical attributes would be the primary issue, there wouldn't be any men remaining aboard submarines. Hell, there wouldn't even be men driving around tanks.

Just out of interest. Why tanks?
Because of height limitations? Or do woman have better situational awareness (multitasking is a big issue in a tank)?

On the other hand tank maintenance includes alot of hard work. Not that woman couldn't match the requirements.

 

[elfie_015]

shrub, you might not like it, but it is a fact that if you come up against a female, she will want to plug you just as bad as you her. wether you believe she is up to the task or not, she could be as well equiped,and trained as you.

That's so true. Yes, it is a fact that women generally are not as physically competent as men, but that is just a GENERALISATION. Of course women could plug any enemy if they needed to, if they were trained and fit enough. I personally know a lot of women who could pass the male requirements for the army; I myself could. If a woman applies to get into the army, she must meet the requirements. Of course she will be able to; she knows she must. And through training she will only get fitter and fitter. And being placed against men, she will naturally work hard to keep up to their level.
It is true that less women than men will be good enough for the military - but there will be women who are more than good enough. Why should they not have the opportunities just because other women are not up to the standards? The opportunity should be there for those that want to and are able.
As to someone who was worried about the diseases associated with menstruation - it's almost completely disease-free, because that blood is intended to protect the baby from disease.No one else can catch anything from the blood, either. unless they drink it or something stupid like that.
I return to my earlier point - there is no reason that the positions of close combat etc cannot be made available to the women, because, as I said, the women good enough will get the job, and will have earnt it. Raise the standards if you must, but if a woman (or a man) wants it enough, trains enough, is good enough - and they pass the standards - then why shouldn't the equal opportunities be given?

 

[Cooch]

Raise the standards if you must, but if a woman (or a man) wants it enough, trains enough, is good enough - and they pass the standards - then why shouldn't the equal opportunities be given?

Elfie.

There is a further issue that is not addressed by simple physical standards, and that is how the inclusion of an individual affects the efficiency and capability of the unit as a whole.

While I would normally support the inclusion or exclusion of individuals based on their personal capacity to do the job, we have to consider the consequences of the "mix" of personnel, and that requires consideration of issues way beyond mere physical capacity.

Therefore, if the inclusion of individual "X" has a deleterious effect combat effectiveness of a unit - regardless of reason - then the effect upon the safety of the group (not to mention the wider national group being defended) should trump the supposed "rights" of the individual.

In plainer English, if adding women to an all-male group under the conditions and stresses of close combat changes the way that the members of that group behave... (and there is good evidence that both sexes behave differently in mixed, rather than segregated groups) And further, if those changes mean that more people are likely to die, then the rights of the group must take precedence. In units such as front-line infantry, "Doing the job" means more than just physical capacity, but the ability to enhance morale and unit cohesion.

If there are a significant number of women both willing and physically able to undertake close combat, then the solution would be to form an all-female unit and asses their performance in combat on a direct basis..

Oh.....
And the argument about menstruation is not solely about the health penalty to other members of the group, but to the female members who either do not have access to appropriate sanitation, or require additional privileges and resources that are denied to the male soldiers..

Thoughtfully........ Peter

 

[Cooch]

shrub, you might not like it, but it is a fact that if you come up against a female, she will want to plug you just as bad as you her. wether you believe she is up to the task or not, she could be as well equiped,and trained as you.

Sir....

It isn't the women on the other side that are a worry ( some Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghraib might disagree) it is the question of whether those on our side were fully capable of supporting the people who are relying on them in combat.

But then I recall a conversation that I had with a friend of mine who is an excellent hunter and a very competent shot. Upon being asked how she would (hypothetically) deal with a situation in which a male colleague was wounded and needed carrying. She looked me in the eye, smiled, and announced straight-faced that as she'd always been taught to never leave the wounded behind......... she'd shoot me! (Yes. She is a red-head)

Respectfully............. Peter

 

[elfie_015]

Elfie.

There is a further issue that is not addressed by simple physical standards, and that is how the inclusion of an individual affects the efficiency and capability of the unit as a whole.

While I would normally support the inclusion or exclusion of individuals based on their personal capacity to do the job, we have to consider the consequences of the "mix" of personnel, and that requires consideration of issues way beyond mere physical capacity.

Therefore, if the inclusion of individual "X" has a deleterious effect combat effectiveness of a unit - regardless of reason - then the effect upon the safety of the group (not to mention the wider national group being defended) should trump the supposed "rights" of the individual.

In plainer English, if adding women to an all-male group under the conditions and stresses of close combat changes the way that the members of that group behave... (and there is good evidence that both sexes behave differently in mixed, rather than segregated groups) And further, if those changes mean that more people are likely to die, then the rights of the group must take precedence. In units such as front-line infantry, "Doing the job" means more than just physical capacity, but the ability to enhance morale and unit cohesion.

If there are a significant number of women both willing and physically able to undertake close combat, then the solution would be to form an all-female unit and asses their performance in combat on a direct basis..

Oh.....
And the argument about menstruation is not solely about the health penalty to other members of the group, but to the female members who either do not have access to appropriate sanitation, or require additional privileges and resources that are denied to the male soldiers..

Thoughtfully........ Peter

Peter.

I see what you're saying. It's possible that group behaviour will change. We must also take into consideration that the men and women will have trained together for a long time, and hopefully by then both genders will have gotten rid of their gender issues.
Theoretically, both genders should be able to work it all out, learn that each person is selected on their capabilites and that no one who is not good enough will be selected.
Also, in enhancing morale and unit cohesion ... why should the presence of females hinder this?
As to increased deaths ... That's a pretty big assumption. It's also been proven that women are many times more likely than men to kill another woman or child, which as we know, hindered our hesitating soldiers in wars such as Vietnam when our troops were baited with children. And i'm pretty sure any woman will kill an attacker just as readily as a man.
Yes, the menstruation ... there are options, of course. Women go camping all the time whilst menstruating, no problems there. Of course, battle's a bit different but with basically the same hygiene principles. And there are options that will stop menstruation, if situation calls.
All i can say, is that every hypothetical argument against allowing woman to the front-line, to direct combat roles, can be opposed; there is a way around everything. For many people, it's almost a woman-a-phobia, the discomfort with allowing a female to the frontline, or the illusion that it will be disadvantageous. In summation, there really is no rock solid reason that can reasonably affirm that women should not be allowed into direct combat roles.

Scarlett.

 

[Marc 1]

Old Faithful, having done Timor and been in the 2nd mixed class at Duntroon, from my experience women should be more than capable in combat. They are tougher than the average bloke and more level headed too. Mining companies are now preferring women to drive their machinery - their productivity is better and they are not as hard on thier equipment.

That said your average woman is physically smaller and usually not as strong as the average bloke, and I'd defy any 55kg 5 foot 2 woman to drag an unconcious me out of a burning vehicle or behind cover. To be fair though that criticism can be levelled at some of the smaller blokes too. I like the physical testing requirements idea - if you pass it you are in (both sexes).

As to all the hooey about periods and pregnancy, what damn century are you guys from 19th, 20th or 21st? Lets get over that chauvanistic rubbish eh and concentrate on debating whats actually best for our defence forces.

About the only area I see as possibly valid is the emotional aspects - despite training with women and serving closely alongside them for 18 months (then went to infantry - no chicks there then) I'm not sure how I'd react seeing women being killed and wounded around me. During an assault our training very much pushes that if someone is wounded they are to be left until after the battle is won - only then should the wounded be tended. Would I react differently if it were a woman hit rather than a bloke? Is it just me being a product of the 60's 70's and 80's? Or are there operational examples of this?

 

[Goknub]

Women in Combat

I have to disagree. Whilst there may not be one single argument against women in combat units, the number of reasons are enough that when considered together, make it a bad idea to change the existing policy.
These soldiers, especially Arms Corps units are not robots, they are men in their (usually early) 20's who are trained to be highly aggressive and cold-blooded and extended "sensitivity training" is going to do nothing but reduce their ability to conduct their jobs properly.

My experiance (including Timor & Iraq) is that adding women into these combat units forces males to become less forcused on their tasks and have their ability to concentrate impeded by the requirement to "play nice". Ultimetly, it makes our soldiers less effective. And having spent 4 days in a vehicle with a female I can tell you the stench is unbearable, God help anyone stuck out for 4 weeks.

If all the Army is expected to do is peacekeeping than then its not too much to ask but warfighting hasn't become any less violent and aggressive and introducing females into combat units will simple get more of our soldiers killed when/if we get into a real scrap (not counting SF).

 

[old faithful]

Old Faithful, having done Timor and been in the 2nd mixed class at Duntroon, from my experience women should be more than capable in combat. They are tougher than the average bloke and more level headed too. Mining companies are now preferring women to drive their machinery - their productivity is better and they are not as hard on thier equipment.

That said your average woman is physically smaller and usually not as strong as the average bloke, and I'd defy any 55kg 5 foot 2 woman to drag an unconcious me out of a burning vehicle or behind cover. To be fair though that criticism can be levelled at some of the smaller blokes too. I like the physical testing requirements idea - if you pass it you are in (both sexes).

As to all the hooey about periods and pregnancy, what damn century are you guys from 19th, 20th or 21st? Lets get over that chauvanistic rubbish eh and concentrate on debating whats actually best for our defence forces.

About the only area I see as possibly valid is the emotional aspects - despite training with women and serving closely alongside them for 18 months (then went to infantry - no chicks there then) I'm not sure how I'd react seeing women being killed and wounded around me. During an assault our training very much pushes that if someone is wounded they are to be left until after the battle is won - only then should the wounded be tended. Would I react differently if it were a woman hit rather than a bloke? Is it just me being a product of the 60's 70's and 80's? Or are there operational examples of this?

marc1, i dont see how you having done timor and being in the 2nd mixed class at duntroon has any relavence in a 60kg chick carrying a 40kg pack + mortor tube for 60 odd KM. I spent a year at RMC (TSP Pl) and saw the girls do ex Timor as well. To their credit, they did very well. I have no problem with females doing some combat roles, fighter pilots,chopper pilots tank comanders/drivers, and even some spec warfare roles. however, I still cant get my head around Infantry...sorry, just my opinion.

 

[Marc 1]

marc1, i dont see how you having done timor and being in the 2nd mixed class at duntroon has any relavence in a 60kg chick carrying a 40kg pack + mortor tube for 60 odd KM. I spent a year at RMC (TSP Pl) and saw the girls do ex Timor as well. To their credit, they did very well. I have no problem with females doing some combat roles, fighter pilots,chopper pilots tank comanders/drivers, and even some spec warfare roles. however, I still cant get my head around Infantry...sorry, just my opinion.

Which is why I suggested the physical testing of all applicants. Simple. Not many 60kg blokes could cope with that load either. Anyway its not really going to be a relevant requirement to be a pack mule anyway seeing as 3RAR is no longer dropping from the sky like birdshit either (spent some time at 5/7 RAR (Mech)).

I was in 6RAR when the then LtCol Molan had the battalion do an 80km route march with 30kg's load in a 24 hour period. After months of training only two platoons in the battalion completed the 80k's without losing a person and everybody could barely hobble the next day, so going by that I'm not all that 'convinced' that blokes are up to the task you are proposing either.

Several of the women I graduated with were under 60kg's and clearly would have been physically unsuitable to a role in the Inf, but there were other women that demonstrated to all that they were physically tough enough by doing things like carrying the gun up Stand 11 at Canungra for example. Did my languages aptitude testing and found out that I'm so poorly suited at languages that "I should consider myself lucky to speak english" to quote the tester. So, with languages I was tested and found deficient. A 55kg female with a penchant for counting blankets is not going to be suited as a grunt either. Testing will reveal who's who.

The reason I include my experience at Duntroon is that women did pretty much the same physical training, carried pretty much the same gear out bush (operating in an Inf like role), did the same tactics, mil law, admin etc as the blokes. Their scores in tactics etc had the same spread of jets and bozo's as the blokes, so based on that 18 month period I feel qualified to offer an opinion on what I saw. As you saw yourself (post 42) women can be tough cookies.

 

[old faithful]

marc1, we could argue this forever, and there would still be no out come.
i cant believe you think that there is no need for pack mules as you stated. in our neck of the woods, its very likley that pack mules would be required. think Falklands type operations in the south pacific. We have 40 helo,s, not all will be deployed, tracks are limited, and even with the new Navy assets,the tracks will be pretty thin on the ground, and limited in their use in moutainous jungle.Not every operation can be based on experience from the stan or middle east, with our region being far from stable.
for the record, the longest single stroll I ever did was 84km in 16.5 hours followed by a live fire. i cramped up so badly, that i just put my SLR on safe, and curled up into a ball of pain.:shudder

(loved the way the instructer put your lanuage aptitude! I once had a SGT tell me," Cpl, you set your self a low standard, and failed to achieve it"

I wasnt going to bring my current occupation into this, but it is relevant.Im a prison officer, and see females doing my job on a daily basis . 99% of the the tasks they do as well or better than me. Its the other1% thats a worry.

 

[Marc 1]

marc1, we could argue this forever, and there would still be no out come.
i cant believe you think that there is no need for pack mules as you stated. in our neck of the woods, its very likley that pack mules would be required. think Falklands type operations in the south pacific. We have 40 helo,s, not all will be deployed, tracks are limited, and even with the new Navy assets,the tracks will be pretty thin on the ground, and limited in their use in moutainous jungle.Not every operation can be based on experience from the stan or middle east, with our region being far from stable.
for the record, the longest single stroll I ever did was 84km in 16.5 hours followed by a live fire. i cramped up so badly, that i just put my SLR on safe, and curled up into a ball of pain.:shudder

(loved the way the instructer put your lanuage aptitude! I once had a SGT tell me," Cpl, you set your self a low standard, and failed to achieve it"

I wasnt going to bring my current occupation into this, but it is relevant.Im a prison officer, and see females doing my job on a daily basis . 99% of the the tasks they do as well or better than me. Its the other1% thats a worry.

The pack mules comment was having a shot at all you blokes from 3RAR - the old joke about you guys getting shorter and shorter with each successive jump I reckon wasn't from the actual jumps you blokes did but the loads you had to carry after the jump. Yeah, there will always be a need for grunts to be loaded with up to 40kg's (adding an 81mm mortar tube is a worry!) and taking shank's pony but women can cope too.

I agree that its probably something we will not see (grunts with bumps in their shirts), but I don't think the reason is the physical aspects - after all we screen applicants for entry into SF, why not set minimum standards for grunts too.

Geez, 84km's in that time would have allowed very little time to even take meal breaks. That's pretty hardcore. I think we worked out that with 30 odd kg's you could push along at up to 6km in 50- 55 mins, then have a 5 -10 min break. You could keep doing that for 50 plus kays, but push the speed up to say 7kph and the blisters etc would start to come on after a couple of hours. All in all it was a useful experience - at least at the end we knew how much distance we could cover with a light combat load and still be right to continue in some capacity the next day. The most stupid part of the whole experience was that the evening following our march was the battalion ball - perfect excuse to not dance.

 

[StingrayOZ]

If we exclude women you exclude half your workforce.

While there may be operational issues in a few positions, they should be studied on a case by case basis. There are always exceptions to the rules and what I think the ADF needs to do is open up and have a look at the possibilities. By allowing women to move into jobs on a case by case basis it means there is no hard limit to how far they can go. Sure they may have to work harder than the average man, but there will be a few individuals that can do that. It will mean that for a majority of women there is no instutional disadvantage due to gender in the ADF.

Really if your a chick, you know you can't really go anywhere in the ADF. You realise this and you drop it. Even if you were never going to go for any of these male only positions.

 

[Goknub]

Women in Combat

That requires treating the Combat Corps as just another job, which they are not. And from what I've heard around the traps (no stats, sorry) the arms Corps seem to be bursting with recruit applications, it is the non-arms Corp units that are having the problems.

Introducing women into the combat units will, due to physical and social reasons, have a detrimental effect on these units and no amount of
feel-good policies or eliminating "instutional disadvantage" is going to change this.

 

[battlensign]

Do we really want to kill all our breeders? Strategically this alone ought to be the end of it.

Brett.

 

[Waylander]

Ahem, you are afraid of the Australian population is slowly reduced to nothing because all the birthgiving women are in your HUGE professional army...?

 

[RubiconNZ]

That requires treating the Combat Corps as just another job, which they are not. And from what I've heard around the traps (no stats, sorry) the arms Corps seem to be bursting with recruit applications, it is the non-arms Corp units that are having the problems.

Yeah to second that I know a guy who is just about to finish at Kapooka, however all the AIT spots in Singleton are full so they are running in Battalion training programs at Darwin and Townsville, is this a common occurrence?

 

[Blackmore]

Its starting to be.
Back in 2003, the army couldn't get the numbers.
These days, most people are waiting 6 months just to go to basic.


Anyways, I agree with most of you guys, they should be alowed, but they should have to get the same PTF as men do.

Altho, I really don't see why they want to join combat forces, the type of pressure that is given with combat women cann't handle too well. ( I'm not saying women are 'weak' its more or less that men and women are better at different things).

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yeah to second that I know a guy who is just about to finish at Kapooka, however all the AIT spots in Singleton are full so they are running in Battalion training programs at Darwin and Townsville, is this a common occurrence?

Only in recent years.

1RAR was the first battalion in the RAR to run an IET course for a VERY long time...

Seems like the influx of infantry recruits is not slowing down. They'll definitely get rewarded for it these days too. The trips are unbelievable compared to my time...