Australian Army: Women on the frontline; news article.

[elfie_015]

OLD FAITHFUL - not a personal attack on you - but it seems like a very stupid law that women can not strip-search men, when I'm pretty sure men can strip search women. Men are more likely to take advantange of the situation and possibly rape, reather than women, generally speaking.

BLACKMORE - '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'. Where are the facts for this statement? No offence, but it seems like something someone has just made up in their head to take up paper. Why would it hit women more than men? More likely they'll go and plug the dude who killed their mate. Women may be more emotional - but the hardships of war effect everyone, and isn't there that saying 'battle hardened'? That is an unfair statement on your behalf. There is no reason to suggest that a woman, tough enough to get into the situation of war in the first place, would be incapable - or less capable - of dealing with the event of a fatality.

COOCH - About the whole birthing thing ... 'cocktail of hormones'? Most women actually refuse any drugs or hormones, preferring to do it the natural way. And that pain would have to be one of the worst pains imaginable - such intense pain - imagine squeezing a four kilo mass out of a much smaller hole (don't mean to be so graphic). And, um, you can't exactly 'opt out' halfway through the birthing process. Except for dying. Then you get out of it. Which suggests that probably one hundred percent of women did not 'opt out' of the process.
And the whole thing about 'taking a beating'. Women can get pretty pissed off, too. When it comes to hand-to-hand combat, it's less about physical strength and weight, and more about the accuracy of the blows, and where they are placed.

Many of these reasons against women being in Infantry, etc., seem to be mostly society's opinion. Based on assumptions. Less than solid in fact. The objections to women are merely social, not reasons grounded in absolute fact. I've yet to see some real debating.

 

[kato]

I'm pretty sure men can strip search women.

... no.

 

[battlensign]

... no.

As a law student, Agreed.

Brett.

 

[Marc 1]

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.

All taken care of in medical, transport, roaches etc. If it can be 'fixed' for those corps why not arms corps? Incidentally, a crusty old infantry WO2 didn't bat an eyelid when I "opdem'd" pads for a female section out bush when they all started 'cycling' together during a recruit course.

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

No, quite factual, its a very even fight between a man and a woman armed with loaded rifles. Comes down to who is better trained in marksmanship and weapon handling skills, these thing do not require superhuman strength or endurance. As I have repeatedly pointed out it's not the average woman I would look at employing in arms corps, it is someone who can meet minimum physical standards.

With respect Peter, where is your proof that men are significantly more resistant to fatigue and injury?

Additionally, I wasn't the one trying to use domestic violence as an example of why women are not suited to combat. That I believe is a far more unsuitable comparison.

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

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.


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

In the case of the Israeli's the battles they fought were short and sharp, far too fast to raise a force, women were part of their combat forces from the year dot. You could argue that it was necessary due to the strength of their neighbours and the comparitively small size of their own country, but that does not diminish the fact that the women fought well. Same with the russian women.

People thought women were not suited to working manual construction tasks during WWII either, yet the factories that churned out the tanks, aircraft and munitions would have ground to a halt without the 'gentler sex' leaving their kitchens and going to work.

As I recall all of the male british sailors were similarly paraded by the Iranians in the incident you mention. The only reason they singled out the lone woman was because they knew that it would get to some people. It didn't particularly bother me - she signed on and she knew the risks. The sooner the population see women in uniform as soldiers and not women then our enemies will not single women out for special treatment because they know that it will not affect us.

Peter, your last paragraph part (2) does not do a man of your obvious intellect justice. Women can be cold calculating nasty individuals too when they need to be. Additionally, just like men, women can be trained to focus that agression when needed and required. They also seem to suffer less from the rush of testosterone that young men seem to show and do plainly stupid things. Witness the death rate among young blokes in cars etc - women tend to think through their actions more which make them more predictable and less likely to do something that will risk the lives of their mates (on and off the battlefield). Controlled agression is what you are looking for.

When I was working in a security role in a nightclub many years ago, the general consensus among security was that you had less chance of getting hurt breaking up a few blokes having a punch up than a few women having a fight.

At the end of the day we could continue this argument ad infinitum and I suspect we would never reach consensus. Suffice it to say I believe many here are underestimating women, both their physical and emotional strength.

 

[Cooch]

COOCH - About the whole birthing thing ... 'cocktail of hormones'? Most women actually refuse any drugs or hormones, preferring to do it the natural way. And that pain would have to be one of the worst pains imaginable - such intense pain - imagine squeezing a four kilo mass out of a much smaller hole (don't mean to be so graphic). And, um, you can't exactly 'opt out' halfway through the birthing process. Except for dying. Then you get out of it. Which suggests that probably one hundred percent of women did not 'opt out' of the process. .

Elfie.

The hormones referred to are natural ones that are produced within the body - just as hormones of a different type are produced in conflict situations.
Whether giving birth is the worst pain imaginable, depends upon your experience. I can also reference two women of my acquaintance who - with 9 children between them - rate giving birth as a "two aspirin" experience. Pain is very subjective.
My comment was to the effect that most women would opt out during the birth process if they had the ability to do so. They cannot, but during battle or under interrogation, they do have that option.

The obvious conclusion is that the experience of giving birth is not comparable with that of combat, and cannot be reasonably used as a justification for placing women in infantry roles.

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

 

[Cooch]

No, quite factual, its a very even fight between a man and a woman armed with loaded rifles. Comes down to who is better trained in marksmanship and weapon handling skills, these thing do not require superhuman strength or endurance.

Pardon, but combat does not resemble a stand-up duel between two individuals with identical weapons. Infantry combat freequently requires deployment on foot, carrying heavy loads of personal equipment, weapons and ammunition. Soldiers who are less able to carry those loads without becoming excessively fatigued suffer a degredation in speed, reaction time and accuracy..... and they run out of ammunition sooner.

With respect Peter, where is your proof that men are significantly more resistant to fatigue and injury?

Without - at this time of night - chasing up a bunch of cites, my reading indicates the following.
- Pound for pound, women have a lower power-weight ratio over-all, and a very significantly lower upper body power-weight ratio.
- Pound for pound, women have less robust bones, and are approximately four times more likely to suiffer significant injury from a given level of impact.
- Pound for pound, women have a lower lung capacity and - at identical fitness levels - have a lower aerobic capacity.
- Pound for pound, women carry more tissue mass that does not contribute to strength, mobility or endurance.

If you doubt the reality of this in real life, then I suggest you consider that women are unable to directly compete with men in the vast majority of those sports that place an emphasis on physical strength, speed or endurance. Particularly at the first-grade or elite levels.

Additionally, I wasn't the one trying to use domestic violence as an example of why women are not suited to combat. That I believe is a far more unsuitable comparison.

I used the DV situtaion to answer one specific argument, and that only..... which is that while women are demonstrably capable of aggression, when levels of physical training are apporoximately equal, they lose.

In the case of the Israeli's the battles they fought were short and sharp, far too fast to raise a force, women were part of their combat forces from the year dot. You could argue that it was necessary due to the strength of their neighbours and the comparitively small size of their own country, but that does not diminish the fact that the women fought well. Same with the russian women.

In reality, they did not fight as well as myth and legend would have us believe..... which is probably why neither country reportedly has maintaioned the practice of fully integrating their infantry.

As to manual work, I live and work in an environment (agriculture) that maintains many of the physical challenges that pertained to 1940s manual labour. Regardless of the fact that many of the jobs involved can be done by women, it is a simple and observable fact that when it comes to work that requires strength and endurance, men are demonstrably better than women of equivalent age and fitness. It's not (mostly) a case of can/can't, but of better/worse.


I'm not sure how you can admit that an enemy singles out women capotives for differential treatment because "it will get to some people", and then dismiss this fact as irrellevant. You and I both know that wars have been lost entirely due to the issue of morale amongst the supporting civil population. If our choice of soldiers leads to an increased adverse affect upon the attitude of that civil population when those soldiers are made casualties or prisoners, then we place ourselves at a disadvantage.
While it may be theoretically possible to reduce the emotional distinction between men and women both in the serving armed forces and the civil population, this has its own penalties ..... including increased DV.
There is no free lunch.

I further find it interesting that you quote your experience in security as evidence that women are more likely to be involved in uncontrolled violence against non-target individuals, ,,, and then agree with me that soldiers require controlled and carefully targetted aggression. Perhaps you would like to rephrase that argument, but at the moment you appear to be contradicting yourself.


Please bear in mind that I have always admitted that there are specific individual women who are capable of doing almost any specific task ... at least to a certain degree.

What I am arguing is that there is a cost to integrating the relatively small number of such women into our front-line infantry (in particular). A cost which far outweighs the benefits.

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

 

[Stryker001]

Put them on the future subs, that is also the front line. Angels of Death

 

[Cooch]

Put them on the future subs, that is also the front line. Angels of Death

Are you arguing for integrated crews, or all-female crews?


I would accept - for the sake of the argument - the possibility of all-female crews or combat units, and let the results demonstrate the success or otherwise of such a tactic.

However submarines are such expensive items of kit that I would argue against using them to test such a hypothesis, and attempting to select an entire crew from a very limited pool of applicants is unlikely to maximise performance.


Regards........ Peter

 

[Marc 1]

Pardon, but combat does not resemble a stand-up duel between two individuals with identical weapons. Infantry combat freequently requires deployment on foot, carrying heavy loads of personal equipment, weapons and ammunition. Soldiers who are less able to carry those loads without becoming excessively fatigued suffer a degredation in speed, reaction time and accuracy..... and they run out of ammunition sooner.





Without - at this time of night - chasing up a bunch of cites, my reading indicates the following.
- Pound for pound, women have a lower power-weight ratio over-all, and a very significantly lower upper body power-weight ratio.
- Pound for pound, women have less robust bones, and are approximately four times more likely to suiffer significant injury from a given level of impact.
- Pound for pound, women have a lower lung capacity and - at identical fitness levels - have a lower aerobic capacity.
- Pound for pound, women carry more tissue mass that does not contribute to strength, mobility or endurance.

If you doubt the reality of this in real life, then I suggest you consider that women are unable to directly compete with men in the vast majority of those sports that place an emphasis on physical strength, speed or endurance. Particularly at the first-grade or elite levels.



I used the DV situtaion to answer one specific argument, and that only..... which is that while women are demonstrably capable of aggression, when levels of physical training are apporoximately equal, they lose.






In reality, they did not fight as well as myth and legend would have us believe..... which is probably why neither country reportedly has maintaioned the practice of fully integrating their infantry.

As to manual work, I live and work in an environment (agriculture) that maintains many of the physical challenges that pertained to 1940s manual labour. Regardless of the fact that many of the jobs involved can be done by women, it is a simple and observable fact that when it comes to work that requires strength and endurance, men are demonstrably better than women of equivalent age and fitness. It's not (mostly) a case of can/can't, but of better/worse.


I'm not sure how you can admit that an enemy singles out women capotives for differential treatment because "it will get to some people", and then dismiss this fact as irrellevant. You and I both know that wars have been lost entirely due to the issue of morale amongst the supporting civil population. If our choice of soldiers leads to an increased adverse affect upon the attitude of that civil population when those soldiers are made casualties or prisoners, then we place ourselves at a disadvantage.
While it may be theoretically possible to reduce the emotional distinction between men and women both in the serving armed forces and the civil population, this has its own penalties ..... including increased DV.
There is no free lunch.

I further find it interesting that you quote your experience in security as evidence that women are more likely to be involved in uncontrolled violence against non-target individuals, ,,, and then agree with me that soldiers require controlled and carefully targetted aggression. Perhaps you would like to rephrase that argument, but at the moment you appear to be contradicting yourself.


Please bear in mind that I have always admitted that there are specific individual women who are capable of doing almost any specific task ... at least to a certain degree.

What I am arguing is that there is a cost to integrating the relatively small number of such women into our front-line infantry (in particular). A cost which far outweighs the benefits.

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

Peter, I do not know how to separate the quotes, so bare with me as I sequentially answer your points:

1. You argue again that women in general are not as physically capable as me - a point which I have agreed on many occasions. That is why I have stipiulated that IF this plan is to be put into action, women would need to be tested to ensure they can meet a minimum standard. A fit healthy 180cm woman should be as strong and capable as a 160cm scrawny male - I've served in Infantry with blokes that meet that exact description.

2. No stats Peter? Yet you claim that women are 4 times more likely to suffer from injury at a given level of impact? A figure like that would only apply to an old woman with osteoporosis (incidentally a condition that men can suffer from too). If women were 4 times more likely to be injured I think you'd find that hospital admission rates would reflect a significant difference from say MVA's. Just asked my cousin who works in triage at one of Australia's major trauma hospitals and that doesn't seem to be the case.

3. This quote: "If you doubt the reality of this in real life, then I suggest you consider that women are unable to directly compete with men in the vast majority of those sports that place an emphasis on physical strength, speed or endurance. Particularly at the first-grade or elite levels.

I have been beaten in speed, and endurance events by women in the pool, on the running track and on a bicycle, geez, how did I ever survive in Infantry? Is in your opinion that to be in Infantry a man should be faster and have better endurance than every single women? If so we are going to war with very few people. Your argument would hold water if it were a fact that even the best trained woman couldn't beat an average bloke but clearly that's not the case, so it doesn't.

4. And my point about the DV issue was that women who are beaten and bullied are only hit by boys larger than them or are the submissive ones in the relationship. It's about power, not physical or emotional strength - we don't want women like these (or the boys that hit them) and they wouldn't pass testing to be arms corps anyway. So moot point. A strong confident woman is not going to be hit by one of these bullies to start with (that's not how bullies work) and even if she has, she has probably given back as much of a beating as she may have received. The only reason we don't know that this happens is that the bloke won't be too keen on telling anyone he was beaten up by his wife (instead he walked into a door).

5. Final point is women fighting - this is what I had written: When I was working in a security role in a nightclub many years ago, the general consensus among security was that you had less chance of getting hurt breaking up a few blokes having a punch up than a few women having a fight.

Which doesn't seem to fit with what you wrote: I further find it interesting that you quote your experience in security as evidence that women are more likely to be involved in uncontrolled violence against non-target individuals,

I never said that women were more likely to be involved in uncontrolled violence against non-target individuals - I was trying to point out that most of the time a fight between women was more dangerous to break up because blokes generally just throw punches (usually poorly aimed punches that they telegraph about half an hour before delivering it - too much grog), whereas women will scratch, gouge, kick, twist, bite, basically do whaever it takes. In short, nasty, and more difficult to break up with a better chance of being hurt yourself. If you don't believe me ask most security guys - they'll give you a similar story.

 

[Marc 1]

Pardon, but combat does not resemble a stand-up duel between two individuals with identical weapons. Infantry combat freequently requires deployment on foot, carrying heavy loads of personal equipment, weapons and ammunition. Soldiers who are less able to carry those loads without becoming excessively fatigued suffer a degredation in speed, reaction time and accuracy..... and they run out of ammunition sooner.





Without - at this time of night - chasing up a bunch of cites, my reading indicates the following.
- Pound for pound, women have a lower power-weight ratio over-all, and a very significantly lower upper body power-weight ratio.
- Pound for pound, women have less robust bones, and are approximately four times more likely to suiffer significant injury from a given level of impact.
- Pound for pound, women have a lower lung capacity and - at identical fitness levels - have a lower aerobic capacity.
- Pound for pound, women carry more tissue mass that does not contribute to strength, mobility or endurance.

If you doubt the reality of this in real life, then I suggest you consider that women are unable to directly compete with men in the vast majority of those sports that place an emphasis on physical strength, speed or endurance. Particularly at the first-grade or elite levels.



I used the DV situtaion to answer one specific argument, and that only..... which is that while women are demonstrably capable of aggression, when levels of physical training are apporoximately equal, they lose.






In reality, they did not fight as well as myth and legend would have us believe..... which is probably why neither country reportedly has maintaioned the practice of fully integrating their infantry.

As to manual work, I live and work in an environment (agriculture) that maintains many of the physical challenges that pertained to 1940s manual labour. Regardless of the fact that many of the jobs involved can be done by women, it is a simple and observable fact that when it comes to work that requires strength and endurance, men are demonstrably better than women of equivalent age and fitness. It's not (mostly) a case of can/can't, but of better/worse.


I'm not sure how you can admit that an enemy singles out women capotives for differential treatment because "it will get to some people", and then dismiss this fact as irrellevant. You and I both know that wars have been lost entirely due to the issue of morale amongst the supporting civil population. If our choice of soldiers leads to an increased adverse affect upon the attitude of that civil population when those soldiers are made casualties or prisoners, then we place ourselves at a disadvantage.
While it may be theoretically possible to reduce the emotional distinction between men and women both in the serving armed forces and the civil population, this has its own penalties ..... including increased DV.
There is no free lunch.

I further find it interesting that you quote your experience in security as evidence that women are more likely to be involved in uncontrolled violence against non-target individuals, ,,, and then agree with me that soldiers require controlled and carefully targetted aggression. Perhaps you would like to rephrase that argument, but at the moment you appear to be contradicting yourself.


Please bear in mind that I have always admitted that there are specific individual women who are capable of doing almost any specific task ... at least to a certain degree.

What I am arguing is that there is a cost to integrating the relatively small number of such women into our front-line infantry (in particular). A cost which far outweighs the benefits.

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

Peter, I do not know how to separate the quotes, so bare with me as I sequentially answer your points:

1. You argue again that women in general are not as physically capable as me - a point which I have agreed on many occasions. That is why I have stipiulated that IF this plan is to be put into action, women would need to be tested to ensure they can meet a minimum standard. A fit healthy 180cm woman should be as strong and capable as a 160cm scrawny male - I've served in Infantry with blokes that meet that exact description.

2. No stats Peter? Yet you claim that women are 4 times more likely to suffer from injury at a given level of impact? A figure like that would only apply to an old woman with osteoporosis (incidentally a condition that men can suffer from too). If women were 4 times more likely to be injured I think you'd find that hospital admission rates would reflect a significant difference from say MVA's. Just asked my cousin who works in triage at one of Australia's major trauma hospitals and that doesn't seem to be the case.

3. This quote: "If you doubt the reality of this in real life, then I suggest you consider that women are unable to directly compete with men in the vast majority of those sports that place an emphasis on physical strength, speed or endurance. Particularly at the first-grade or elite levels.

I have been beaten in speed, and endurance events by women in the pool, on the running track and on a bicycle, geez, how did I ever survive in Infantry? Is in your opinion that to be in Infantry a man should be faster and have better endurance than every single women? If so we are going to war with very few people. Your argument would hold water if it were a fact that even the best trained woman couldn't beat an average bloke but clearly that's not the case, so it doesn't.

4. And my point about the DV issue was that women who are beaten and bullied are only hit by boys larger than them or are the submissive ones in the relationship. It's about power, not physical or emotional strength - we don't want women like these (or the boys that hit them) and they wouldn't pass testing to be arms corps anyway. So moot point. A strong confident woman is not going to be hit by one of these bullies to start with (that's not how bullies work) and even if she has, she has probably given back as much of a beating as she may have received. The only reason we don't know that this happens is that the bloke won't be too keen on telling anyone he was beaten up by his wife (instead he walked into a door).

5. Final point is women fighting - this is what I had written: When I was working in a security role in a nightclub many years ago, the general consensus among security was that you had less chance of getting hurt breaking up a few blokes having a punch up than a few women having a fight.

Which doesn't seem to fit with what you wrote: I further find it interesting that you quote your experience in security as evidence that women are more likely to be involved in uncontrolled violence against non-target individuals,

I never said that women were more likely to be involved in uncontrolled violence against non-target individuals - I was trying to point out that most of the time a fight between women was more dangerous to break up because blokes generally just throw punches (usually poorly aimed punches that they telegraph about half an hour before delivering it - too much grog), whereas women will scratch, gouge, kick, twist, bite, basically do whaever it takes. In short, nasty, and more difficult to break up with a better chance of being hurt yourself. If you don't believe me ask most security guys - they'll give you a similar story.