Woman in New Zealand SAS

[Actual]

Three main reasons for the lack of women in combat roles is

1) during an assualt if a woman goes down the blokes are more likely to stop and help here rather than carrying the attack through and allowing bemedics to follow on behind as would happen with males

2) due to female bone strucure.. the whole wide hipped thing... the amount of kit reqired by infantry units to carry would more than likly resault in massive dammage to the hips lower knees and ankles... worse than what would be seem in males

3) the chinese did a test with female infantry units they found two issues. one it took them some time to get angry enough to perform, and once they were they could not calm them down again

I'm sorry, but all of the above is stereotype! Women have served in combat for centuries.

 

[ltb]

bone structure is not stereotype it is fact hard and fast, which has been proved and evaluate by h m armed forces. as are phychological studies carried out about the effect that females have in combat situations on there male team members.

 

[Cooch]

I'm sorry, but all of the above is stereotype! Women have served in combat for centuries.

Not as a significant part of professional army units that engage in close combat they haven't.

While I'll confess that my knowledge of other cultures may be somewhat limited, in the European experience, the role of women on the battlefield over most of those "centuries" has been as camp followers, cluttering up the baggage train and looting the dead and wounded.
Hardly "combat".

One hears that those countries that have most prominently featured women in combat formations over the last century - The USSR and Israel - no longer do so.

Perhaps you can enlighten us?

Peter

 

[Stuart Mackey]

bone structure is not stereotype it is fact hard and fast, which has been proved and evaluate by h m armed forces. as are phychological studies carried out about the effect that females have in combat situations on there male team members.

And you can provide sources for this claim?
NZ armed forces allow women in combat, perhaps they know something you don't?

 

[chakos]

Im not sure if im all for women serving on any naval ships. The HMAS Tobruk gained the nickname 'the loveboat' after the amount of pregnancies caused on board (and i can imagine how many acts did not end in pregnancy).

Im all for women having equal rights but at the end of the day you put young guys and girls on a boat then stuff happens. Its quite funny until you consider that often these ships are deployed. I wonder what happens if your lookouts are making out in the persian gulf while someone launches a suicide boat run, or if they are too busy playing footsies at the radar consoles to pay attention to those inverted V thingies that may or may not be incoming silkworms.

Or just as bad, the breakdown in discipline when female sailors are having affairs with officers (as happened many times in our navy) in order to get their performance reviews passed.

Most people would have had some form of relationship with a workplace colleague at some stage. When this happens on deployment in the navy then there are some serious issues.

 

[Cooch]

The effects of testosterone on the developing human skeleton are well established. They include greater bone mass and density - which reduces the tendency to fracture on impact , a broader and deeper chest - giving greater aerobic capacity, a narrower pelvis - which according to some sources is optimal for running and jumping, and (oddly enough) a shorter upper arm - which provides greater leverage to the muscles involved in carrying and lifting.

Media articles also cite reports that women are far more likely to suffer injury at the same level of impact, are more likely to receive a medical discharge through training or service-related injury and are more susceptible to hygiene-related infections under those active service conditions which reduce access to amenities such as regular washing.

Perhaps it is illustrative of the difficulties faced in the integration of women into frontline ground combat to consider their participation in those sports which place an emphasis on strength, speed, endurance and the ability to endure physical contact. While there are some pretty tough ladies (by normal standards) in some of the all-female competitions, I know of no such sport in which women regularly compete at a high level on an equal basis with men . Can anyone enlighten me further?

Having said this, I would normally enter a caveat. I am philosophically inclined towards the position that it is the capacity of the individual to do the job which should be the basic criteria. However the cost of integrating women into an all-male combat environment - cost in combat effectiveness, morale and efficient use of resources appears to indicate that this significantly outweighs the benefits of including the relatively small number of women who are physically capable of meeting strength and fitness standards. I suggest that the welfare on the army as a whole, not to mention that of their nation, is more important than the rights of a small proportion of women recruits to what is really a small proportion of the available jobs in the military.

If there really were a great number of female recruits clamoring to join the infantry, then I suggest that it would be most appropriate to set up an all-female unit and see how it performs.

Therefore I'd be very interested to know whether the use of women such as that under discussion - in the NZSAS - is based on their full integration, or whether they are used in special roles. I can imagine that they might have some advantages in certain covert, counter-terrorism or VIP Protection roles, but I lack the experience to say for sure.

Peter

 

[mattyem]

its a world of equal opertunity.

If who ever applies m/f passes the grade, then they pass the grade. simple!

Matters such as pregnancy are just commen sense. A women in that situation wouldnt be stupid enough to jepordise herself and commrades in that situation.

Im an engineer by trade in the Navy, which is a very male dominated feild. The women I have worked with are just as good and in cases better.

 

[KiwiRob]

Blueorchid - Not on extended tours they don’t, 3-month plus without coming to the surface! Remember the UK fleet is all nuclear and can stay submerged for as long as food is available for a single deployment.

Limited showering facilities combined with the female menstrual cycle – nasty compo!

You do realise that with the pill women can and do play around with their menstral cycle and can stop it occuring for some months at a time.

 

[steve33]

And you can provide sources for this claim?
NZ armed forces allow women in combat, perhaps they know something you don't?

I believe in an equal opportunity military it is so hard to get recruits these days if someone is prepared to step up and they have the goods nothing should be put in there way.

I was on the New Zealand army website and the womans physical requirements are less than the men do you now if this applies to the infantry and artillary.?

If it does it is something i think is a mistake it is not an area where peoples physical weakness can be hidden.

 

[Waylander]

That's exactly the problem.
A lot of armed forces allow women to serve in every way they want. But often enough this comes with lower requirements for the women. And this is what causes the problems. As a male I don't think it is fair that a women is allowed to do a job with test results with which I wouldn't be allowed to get the job.
And lowering the standards is just dangerous for anyone in the armed forces especially for combat forces.

 

[Cooch]

It has been argued that "equal opportunity" must also include an equal opportunity to survive in a combat situation.

Unless you can meet all of the strength/speed/endurance/robustness norms that are required for such service, then you do not have "equal opportunity".

Just a thought............ Peter

 

[mattyem]

It has been argued that "equal opportunity" must also include an equal opportunity to survive in a combat situation.

Unless you can meet all of the strength/speed/endurance/robustness norms that are required for such service, then you do not have "equal opportunity".

Just a thought............ Peter

Do people realise that the fitness requirements in the NZARMY are different for men and women, It should be the same across both sexes to ensure "equal opportunity"

 

[LittleRigby]

Women in a Combat Roll

I Think to get equal oppurtunites especially more for the physical units, the same standards of physical and mental abilities should be equal (in both sexes) and for those who are outstanding male and female should have the right to attempt to become the elite members of their country's forces.

And so overall improving the quality of the Regiments/Squadrons

Its just a thought for now and wishfull thinking!

Becky Rigby

 

[mattyem]

totally agree, one standard across the board, regardless.

 

[old faithful]

there is probably a better argument for women to serve in SF units than infantry. special missions like infiltration,snatch ops (sorry no pun intended!) where there is a female target, overt ops, where a normal unit is manned by some SF members....

 

[mattyem]

there is probably a better argument for women to serve in SF units than infantry. special missions like infiltration,snatch ops (sorry no pun intended!) where there is a female target, overt ops, where a normal unit is manned by some SF members....

Indeed, like the days of the cold war, women played a big part in terms of intelligence collection and assisting both sides with "snatch n grab" ops

 

[riksavage]

Indeed, like the days of the cold war, women played a big part in terms of intelligence collection and assisting both sides with "snatch n grab" ops

The UK is currently reassessing a women's role in combat, every seven years under the current PC European equal opportunities laws they must do it. I expect the same result, women being prevented from joining combat arms where there's a high probability of having to kill the enemy in close quarter combat with the bayonet (infantry, marines and SF). Every time these assessments are carried out the female participants fail on load carrying and endurance. The female frame simply cannot carry the same weight as the their male counterparts.

SF units do have female attached ranks, these however are not 'badged' and tend to be on secondment from intelligence units to supplement the men when operating in environments where mixed teams are an asset (typically - covert operations). Northern Ireland was a prime example, 14-Int had women assigned to SF hit teams for surveillance duties. However I have to reiterate they where never 'badged' and none had ever successfully completed the SAS selection course.

When women start competing equally with men at the Olympics then we will see women physically capable of operating in combat arms which require strength and endurance, until then forget it.

 

[Gibbo]

Indeed, like the days of the cold war, women played a big part in terms of intelligence collection and assisting both sides with "snatch n grab" ops

Hmmm, "snatch n grab" ops sound like fun (in the right company) nfloorl:

 

[Cadredave]

I totally agree with you risksavage, why is it that some people believe that out of the three services that the Army must conform, yes the Army does have different physical requirements for men & women we also have different physical requirements for age for both sexes. I dont see these equal opportunity people jumping up & down when it comes to Usain Bolt & the 100m sprints or trying to get the All Blacks to drop there standards to allow Black Fern players in why is it then that when it comes to the Army & in particulat the Infantry or SAS that all of a sudden we have to drop our standars to let female soldiers compete equaly, the blunt truth to the matter is I can carry more further, & after 30 - 60 km over very difficult terrain still can seek out & close with the enemy, kill or capture him, seize & hold terrain, repel attack by day or night regardless of weather, season or terrain there is nothing equal about land warfare. As for the NZSAS there are no bagded females, they fulfill either the logistic or intellegence roles in the group, it the same in the Infantry once they find out the true nature of the job they move on to other trades there is a big gap between fact & fiction.

 

[Wooki]

In all honesty, don't see any impediment for women to go into combat other then lighter gear (or "kit" as some people say), which might alter tactical doctrine. And in that case make them ideal for niche capabilities like Special Operations.

The concept of women not being allowed to serve in nukes is absurd and it is well known that women by nature can handle more G and physical pain then men, so that would make them ideal candidates for pilots and endurance related tasks.

I find it odd that Australians here, who pride themselves on "mateship" and love of fellow man would balk at that same love being exhibited for a fellow soldier who is a woman.

So in the end, arguments against women in the armed services and in combat are really so much hot air.

Think about it. In the near future we will have a mature net-centric battlefield, so the ability to overwhelm the enemy's capacity to fight will be one of calculation rather then brute force.

cheers

w