Australian Army: Women on the frontline; news article.

[WAR]

Options!!!!

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

Brett.

Well, in light humour as well as in serious mode, there can be two options:

ONE - To initiate a debate to decide as what actually is important for a woman; to breed or to opt for otherwise (by way of a profession under discussion, i.e. the active military service)

TWO - Wait till menopause in order to join Army.

Have a nice day.

 

[Cooch]

I have seen statements to the effect that of the British non-special units regarded as having the highest physical standards for the completion of basic training - the Royal Marines and the Parachute Regiment - no woman has ever successfully completed either course.

My information may be dated, but there may be people on this forum who can confirm that this is still the case.

Respectfully,,,, Peter

<edit>
Further investigation reveals that one female has completed the Royal Marines "Commando Course". While this is praiseworthy, the fact that it took the women in question three attempts to qualify might give some weight to the argument that permitting such qualifiers entry increases the number of members of the unit whose ability is marginal, whose ability to "step up" under the pressures and motivations of battle is also marginal, and hence lowers the average physical capacity of the unit by weighting it's bottom end.

Those who wish to discuss the capacity of women to commit acts of violence might consider that women are showing up as "primary aggressors" in Domestic Violence at around the same rate as men.... or even at greater rates in the recruiting ages of early adulthood. Yet women end up in hospital at a far greater rate than men. This is consistent with the argument that the average male has a greater ability to absorb punishment without sustaining significant injury,,, and a greater capacity to inflict significant injury.
I must be careful here in that I have no actual experience in combat, but I will observe that it is not the capacity for violence that is the real question, but the ability to commit acts of extreme violence in a controlled and measured way. Those familiar with COIN warfare will recognise the restraint required when fighting an enemy who moves amongst and blends in with the civilian population. Our soldiers are not required to be mindless berserkers, but , on the contrary, to excercise very fine judgement in the midst of extreme violence and emotional stress.

On the subject of hygeine, there is a considerable difference between recreational camping and operations in which soldiers are required to endure limited hygeine facilities for extended periods of time. There is evidence that women are several times more likely to be the victim of hygeine-related health issues under such conditions.

Again.......... Peter

 

[elfie_015]

what the hell? women's only purpose is to breed? Ah, I think women should be allowed to do anything men are allowed to do, provided they pass the requrements. It's supposed to be an equal world, right? Get into the twenty-first century, guys. Equal opportunity for all, I say. Everyone knows the dangers, but anything can be overcome. Personally, I believe that many men are just opposed to women being on the frontline are a little ego-sore, afraid that it'll turn into a competition and people will say 'girls are as good - and possibly better'. I think we get rid of this sexist manner and start finding some real reasons to stop women going on the frontline, eh? Grow up, guys.

 

[Cooch]

elfie....

Permit me to suggest that certain aspects of basic biology, physiology and psychology have not changed with the passage of a few years.

If we send our troops into battle, it will almost certainly be against an enemy who doesn't care in the slightest about our attitudes regarding "equality". Their only consideration will be that if we compromise the fighting ability of our armned forces in order to make them politically correct, then it makes it easier for them to defeat us.

Which means that by seeking to enforce "equality" in the armed forces, you place it at greater risk amongst the balance of the population. That is not a tradeoff that I am prepared to accept.

Peter.

 

[elfie_015]

who cares what the enemy cares about us. our ppl will fight with teh same skill and endurance as they passed the same tests and train the same way. women who get into the army wre likely to be strong, agile, etc., and any women that have the cahnce to become infantry will not be on the weak side!

 

[elfie_015]

forgot to add ... balance of the population? The army's not that big.

 

[battlensign]

what the hell? women's only purpose is to breed? Ah, I think women should be allowed to do anything men are allowed to do, provided they pass the requrements. It's supposed to be an equal world, right? Get into the twenty-first century, guys. Equal opportunity for all, I say. Everyone knows the dangers, but anything can be overcome. Personally, I believe that many men are just opposed to women being on the frontline are a little ego-sore, afraid that it'll turn into a competition and people will say 'girls are as good - and possibly better'. I think we get rid of this sexist manner and start finding some real reasons to stop women going on the frontline, eh? Grow up, guys.

Umm...that's not what I meant...........If there were a protracted war of attrition the casualties would be more difficult to replace If those in the society capable of producing children were casualities themselves.

Think of the Baby-Boomers. Many of them were the children of women who had been liberated to a certain extent by their wartime demonstration of capability and ability to seemlessly integrated into the "men's" workplaces of the economy and heavy industry. The post war populations were to a certain extent replenished by this boom. Could that have happened if many more of the casualties were women of childbearing age? As a side point, in the age of economies - population is now a strategic asset. Do you want to compromise that?

Brett.

 

[Marc 1]

Umm...that's not what I meant...........If there were a protracted war of attrition the casualties would be more difficult to replace If those in the society capable of producing children were casualities themselves.

Think of the Baby-Boomers. Many of them were the children of women who had been liberated to a certain extent by their wartime demonstration of capability and ability to seemlessly integrated into the "men's" workplaces of the economy and heavy industry. The post war populations were to a certain extent replenished by this boom. Could that have happened if many more of the casualties were women of childbearing age? As a side point, in the age of economies - population is now a strategic asset. Do you want to compromise that?

Brett.

Not just having a shot at you here Brett, but all this garbage about depleting the population of 'breeders' (pretty distasteful term, but then again when people are losing an argument they start to get nasty and personal) is just that - rubbish. My wife is in the regular army, she was 'hors de combat' for about 2 years out of her 18 years in the army having our two kids.

If everybody is so worried about this depletion of the population scenario then we are in deeper shit than just what gender we are enlisting. If it is seriously a problem, set the bar at women who have had children. Incidentally, the ABC about a week ago were talking about a report that had just been released showing that women that have had children respond far better to stress (researchers were not sure if this was something as a result of hormones being released in pregnancy or just that mothers with young children have to learn to cope with little sleep and yet still function). The corollary to that was better decisions under pressure (gee, I wonder what a modern battlefield environment is like - little sleep, stress, need for correct choices). I'll dig around and see if I can find the report.

As to comparisons in domestic violence situations, there is no real comparison. A woman with a rifle or grenade is in a very equal fight with a man equipped the same way - the same cannot be said in a domestic violence situation where odds are the woman is usually smaller and weaker or at the very least in a submissive frame of mind. The only men who hit women are cowards that ensure the odds are in their favour before 'asserting' their physical superiority. If you are going to draw comparisons with unarmed combat - I'd put it to you that many women that I worked with in the security field were far more lethal than I - the Italian army uses a 77year old Japanese woman to teach unarmed combat - and she kick the blokes butts.

So, what a surprise, only one woman has passed the RM Comando course. I'll bet that the biggest weights in the olympics were lifted by the men in the unlimited class too. Wake up people, we are not talking about whether women can meet the physical challenges to get into say the SAS or Commando's (although I'm willing to bet that there are women who would pass either first go), we are talking about the infantry. The physical requirements in the Infantry Battalions were about the same as those I experienced at RMC. Yet at least half the women at graduation were able to cope (the other half were either not trying or broken in the process). Remember, introduce barrier testing for both genders and this won't be an issue.

 

[Goknub]

Women in Combat

As I said earlier, physical strength, agility, etc is just one of a number of reasons that make women in combat units a bad idea.

While many women do pass RMC it is important to realise that the mentality of a Officer is completely different to that of an infantryman.
They are called "Grunts" for a reason and expecting them to have the same level of diplomatic "play-nice" restraint of an Officer is just not going to happen.
It is an aggressive, no-holds-barred/nothing taboo mentality that would cause huge dramas with the introduction of women.

Now, if Australia was invaded I believe women would be allowed in, but so would anyone between the ages of 16-60. Like the USSR in WW2, in a fight-to-the-death war on home soil EVERYONE would be expected to pitch in.
But for a highly professional defence force like we have now, introducing women will only have negative affects.

---------------

As for the 77-yr old Japanese woman kicking the blokes butt, I'd say thats more a reflection of the Italian Army than anything else.

 

[Marc 1]

Goknub, I wasn't a blanket counter, I spent years in the Infantry, so I've got an idea what grunts are like.

Truth be told it would be simpler and easier to exclude women (and I am a traditionalist at heart), but the reasons being put forward by some others on the forum who have probably not even been in the army gave me the irrits big time. Some women can handle the job, no question, the question is are we ready for that?

For those who were wondering about the kung fu granny:

Italian soldiers floored by 77-year-old Japanese woman

By Nick Allen
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ese-woman.html
Italian soldiers are facing the embarrassment of being beaten up daily by a 77-year-old Japanese grandmother.



Keiko Wakabayshi, nicknamed the "Samurai Granny" effortlesssly neutralises an opponent



Keiko Wakabayshi is currently training the soldiers of the Folgore brigade, at the Livorno barracks



Miss Wakabayshi trained for many years and believes she can carry on defeating brawny soldiers for years to come




Martial arts expert Keiko Wakabayshi, nicknamed the "Samurai Granny", has been hired by the country's military to train recruits in hand-to-hand combat.
Miss Wakabayshi, who stands exactly 5ft tall, looks tiny compared to her charges who are mostly over 6ft.
But the pensioner is a trained master in an array of martial arts disciplines including jujitsu, jojitso, kenjitso, judo, kendo and karate.
She wipes the floor with soldiers of the Folgore brigade at their barracks in Livorno on a daily basis.


Miss Wakabayshi was born in Japan but now lives in Northern Italy.
She tells her students to look at her and believe that nothing is impossible.
After flooring an opponent she tells them: "Don't think it's unbelievable. The physique doesn't matter."
Sparring is regarded as the most effective method of teaching martial arts and senior Italian military officers hope the experience of being humiliated by Miss Wakabayshi will toughen up their soldiers.
Miss Wakabayshi trained for many years to achieve her level of expertise and believes she can carry on defeating brawny soldiers for years to come.
The term martial arts is synonymous with the Far East, but actually derives from Mars, the Roman god of war and literally means the "arts of war".

 

[Goknub]

Women in Combat

Lol, would love to see her in action.

Btw, sorry if I sounded patronising before, not my intent
---------------------

My concern with this issue is that many seem to have little concern on how this would impact the units. I want to know how this will improve the combat units and need a better reason than "equal rights".

Ok, so some women have the physical abilities to pass. That answers that problem but there are other issues that also need to be addressed.

Units that have women in them become "gentler". Now this isn't an issue for most units and has definit advantages for some. But for combat units I can't see how introducing women will have anything but a negative impact.

 

[elfie_015]

People. There ARE women good enough out there - of course there are. and they might be 6-ft butch bitches or small less-typical army women - but there are definitely women there who are easily good enough, and want the job. they must be given the opportunity - sure, some women who apply won't make it - but then, not all men make it. And this whole thing about breeding ... aren't we in a world crisis because we have too many people on this earth? The only thing that is stopping women from the army, because all these physical and mental reasons are mostly a load of crap, is society and anti-equality people, and people who are afraid of getting their buts kicked by chicks (like that 77 yr old japanese woman). Seriously, there is no reason why a woman capable of the job should not be allowed. How would it have a negative effect? Training will get rid of any prejudice as comradeship develops. Like in any job, you get over the gender gap.

 

[gf0012-aust]

As for the 77-yr old Japanese woman kicking the blokes butt, I'd say thats more a reflection of the Italian Army than anything else.

I wouldn't rush so fast to judgement there.

About 25 years ago I used to teach full contact Tae Kwon Do (well, a freestyle version of Moo Do Kwan). I used to organise inter style demonstrations and competitions at both the National and International guest level.

I was fortunate one year to be able to use a 65 year old Aikido master for one of the demos. He was literally hobbling about as he suffered from Plantar Fasciatis.

The long and the short of it was that he repeatedly took on and floored 4 of the senior blackbelts concurrently (and these were traditional 2nd Dan students who had learnt through the Korean old school - not todays fast track belt method where people don't do the same kind of hard yards)

One of those blackbelts was a Full Contact State Champ Heavyweight Div. The first time they didn't go in hard - but I can assure you that by the 4th demo, these guys were seriously trying to break his zone and couldn't do it. He was flicking them about like a beach towel with zero effort.

I spent some 15 years learning Northern Shaolin Long Fist (after I busted my cruciates in TKD full contact). I used to be regularly decked by an uncle who was in his mid 60's and obviously was better at the art than I was - and this was with me (at that stage) having over 20 years in various styles of M-Arts.

For my senior students and for myself, both events were great lessons in learning about assumptions, humility and respect.

 

[Mr Ignorant]

Aussie women are hot; and dare I say, any digger should be grateful to have the opportunity to bathe in the light of their's women's beauty, even if she is wearing camouflage

And if I was a hostile enemy, I'll slow down, turn round and be blessed by an aussie's ladies beauty.

You aussie guys are lucky hahah

 

[old faithful]

mmm yes there are women out there that can do the job, but there are reasons why they shouldnt as well.
A female isnt permitted by law to strip search a male prisoner.

in barracks, a female would need seperate accomadation and SAL block (showers and latrines)

The Logistics of the unit would need to cater for a small number of females that are suitable.

these are just a couple of examples off the top of my head that would need addressing.

 

[kato]

in barracks, a female would need seperate accomadation and SAL block (showers and latrines)

Depends a lot on how accomodation is structured.

The Bundeswehr, which now has about 12% women, has always had relatively small, separated accomodations (6-8 men or women to a room), with multiple facility blocks per company.
In my coy, the few females got the facilities on the ground floor along with two of the six accomodation rooms there (one for recruits, one for female NCOs) - males got the rest of the building.

 

[Blackmore]

And if I was a hostile enemy, I'll slow down, turn round and be blessed by an aussie's ladies beauty.

The enemy isn't interested in the females, and if they get caputred, you can physically torture men but its alot harder to mentally do it. With women all the enemy has to do is rape, and the female soldier is gone.

You might be thinking, when was the last time a soldier captured, but remember there hasn't been a real 'war' in the last 17 years.

But remember it will happen, even those so-called 'good' nation like the US torture their PoW's.

If a fellow soldier gets killed, it will more likly hit the women harder than the men. Females generaly can't take a beating like a males anyway ( I'm not saying all, but most )

Cheers.

 

[Marc 1]

The enemy isn't interested in the females, and if they get caputred, you can physically torture men but its alot harder to mentally do it. With women all the enemy has to do is rape, and the female soldier is gone.

You might be thinking, when was the last time a soldier captured, but remember there hasn't been a real 'war' in the last 17 years.

But remember it will happen, even those so-called 'good' nation like the US torture their PoW's.

If a fellow soldier gets killed, it will more likly hit the women harder than the men. Females generaly can't take a beating like a males anyway ( I'm not saying all, but most )

Cheers.

It's not April 1 is it (someone check the date).

1. Rape can be used as a weapon against men. Both men and women suffer to varing degrees when raped.

2. Israel and Russia have used women in the front line in combat units. Neither country that I'm aware of reported that women were hit harder than men at the sight of the death of a comrade.

3. Read this article: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE2D71730F93AA15755C0A964958260. A fairly balanced article - the woman didn't have a problem with being in combat, nor did one of the blokes, the other needs to realise that this wasn't some civvy that was being carted away - it was another soldier.

4. As recently as March 2003 Women were being captured, google Shoshanna Johnson for proof.

5. Just keep ignoring the evidence that women "can't take a beating like a males anyway" (sic) - if you have ever witnessed childbirth you'd know that to be a lie.

 

[Cooch]

As to comparisons in domestic violence situations, there is no real comparison. A woman with a rifle or grenade is in a very equal fight with a man equipped the same way .

I beg your pardon, but that statement is counterfactual.

Even assuming equal size and weight, with equal levels of training, nutrition and fatigue, males are significantly more resitant to fatigue and injury, and have higher aerobic capacity, weight-bearing ability and upper-body strength.

It's not simply about pulling a trigger or grenade pin, but the ability to carry a full load of body-armour, water, rations and ammunition into battle under what are sometimes the most adverse of circumstances.
Of what use is the ability to pull a trigger if you run out of ammunition before your enemy does?

With due respect, you do not advance the argument by making inappropriate comparisons. It is irrelevant that a highly skilled females is able to defeat untrained recruits. No army can afford to assume that its soldiers will always be opposed by enemies with a lesser level of skill or equipment. We may be thankful when it happens, but to build an armed service on this assumption is courting defeat.
The only valid comparison is between people of equal skill and equipment levels..... the levels at which we propose to send them into combat.

Sending people into combat with inbuilt disadvantages is neither fair to them, or to the people who depend on them. Not when we have any other choice.

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

 

[Cooch]

2. Israel and Russia have used women in the front line in combat units. .

Context is important. As has been pointed out, at the time that this occurred, both countries were involved in wars of survival. Of greater relevance is the question as to whether either country has continued to use women in that capacity now that they have the "luxury" of making the choice. Feel free to contradict me, but I am led to believe that they have not. If that is the case, perhaps we should put some weight on their experience.

4. As recently as March 2003 Women were being captured, google Shoshanna Johnson for proof..

You may care to consider the Brit sailors captured by Iranians in 2007. The single female amongst them - Faye Turney - was seperated from her fellow captives and singled out for differential treatment on the grounds of her sex.
Regardless of how you regard the treatment of female captives, it is clear that neither her captors. nor the media of her home country regarded her sex as irrelevant. Especially when it came to using her as a propaganda tool.
While I understand that she was not subject to excessive abuse, her willingness to sign clearly dishonest propaganda documents and to allow herself to be used in such a fashion against her country does not argue strongly that she was well able to resist whatever pressures were placed upon her.
One example does not make a rule, but it does not support your argument.

5. Just keep ignoring the evidence that women "can't take a beating like a males anyway" (sic) - if you have ever witnessed childbirth you'd know that to be a lie.

Again, with respect.
(1) A woman in childbirth has the benefit of a whole cocktail of hormones that enable her to survive the experience more easily... and yet midwives state that the majority of women would "opt out" before the completion of the birthing process, were that possible.
(2) Unfortunately, it is not simply the ability to "take a beating", that wins battles..... but the ability to react aggressively and give your opponent a beating while experiencing one yourself.Therefore I suggest that the analogy does not fit.

Regards........... Peter