Woman in New Zealand SAS

[south]

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.

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

Sorry mate, disagree. As has been shown throughout the time of combat soldiers, the lighter you make stuff, the more stuff they will jam in their packs.

WRT G, it is less to do with sex, more to do with height (and actually brain-heart seperation), blood pressure, body type, musculature - body physiology than sex.

Women generally do not have the strength or aerobic ability to hack it as frontline combat troops. There are exceptions.

I do agree however with your final comment re NCW, however this will put women in the positions they currently serve.

I suggest you read, or if you have read it, re-read the UK's report posted on page 1 of this post.

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/10B34976-75F9-47E0-B376-AED4B09FB3B3/0/women_af_summary.pdf

 

[Wooki]

Sorry mate, disagree. As has been shown throughout the time of combat soldiers, the lighter you make stuff, the more stuff they will jam in their packs.

WRT G, it is less to do with sex, more to do with height (and actually brain-heart seperation), blood pressure, body type, musculature - body physiology than sex.

Women generally do not have the strength or aerobic ability to hack it as frontline combat troops. There are exceptions.

I do agree however with your final comment re NCW, however this will put women in the positions they currently serve.

I suggest you read, or if you have read it, re-read the UK's report posted on page 1 of this post.

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/10B34976-75F9-47E0-B376-AED4B09FB3B3/0/women_af_summary.pdf

Disagree with what? Women can take more G because of less distance between the heart and brain because of their smaller stature.

Women CAN operate in combat positions if you adjust doctrine to suit. For example it takes 3 women to do the physical work of 2 men. So that would neccesitate creating a different squad structure.

At the moment this is too big a headache for Army to wrap their collective brain around. If you try and place women in the existing structure, you will fail in creating an effective fighting force.

All efforts to date have not actually looked at how to make a female unit successful, but rather how to kick them out, including the one you cite.

It's a case of figuring out how to use your brain to actually solve the problem, rather then go with what you are spoon fed and/or existing prejudices.

As to the Nuclear boat example: you can actually make bio-diesel from human waste. The argument that menstration disquailfies women is nonsense as it actually makes the sewerage better feedstock. If you can make bio diesel then you can make ammonia and ammonia can be used to power a fuel cell and re-release the Nitrogen you originally scavenged from the atmosphere.

So in actual fact having women aboard a nuke or a future all electric boat can extend it's operational range.

cheers

w

 

[south]

Disagree with what? Women can take more G because of less distance between the heart and brain because of their smaller stature.

Women CAN operate in combat positions if you adjust doctrine to suit. For example it takes 3 women to do the physical work of 2 men. So that would neccesitate creating a different squad structure.

At the moment this is too big a headache for Army to wrap their collective brain around. If you try and place women in the existing structure, you will fail in creating an effective fighting force.

All efforts to date have not actually looked at how to make a female unit successful, but rather how to kick them out, including the one you cite.

It's a case of figuring out how to use your brain to actually solve the problem, rather then go with what you are spoon fed and/or existing prejudices.

As to the Nuclear boat example: you can actually make bio-diesel from human waste. The argument that menstration disquailfies women is nonsense as it actually makes the sewerage better feedstock. If you can make bio diesel then you can make ammonia and ammonia can be used to power a fuel cell and re-release the Nitrogen you originally scavenged from the atmosphere.

So in actual fact having women aboard a nuke or a future all electric boat can extend it's operational range.

cheers

w

Changing Doctrine to suit female units is not the answer. The problem is that they in general have a lower capacity for physical work and in general are less aggressive (though agression can be trained). Changing unit numbers to suit is a flawed argument. Now you require more food, water, more rifles, more helmets, more body armour, more NVG's, more pay, more training to achieve the same effect, while at the same time you are leaving a larger footprint/signature. Like it or not, there are going to be things that the females will unfortunately not be able to do. SASR foot patrols in Afghanistan spring to mind.

WRT G, as I mentioned,yeah the shorter distance brain-heart, whatever. Please find me an airforce that deliberately recruits pilots that are 5'-10" or shorter so they have a greater G Tolerance. There are that many other differing factors in the selection and training of combat pilots that it is not a consideration.

I have no problem with females working the vast majority of roles in the Armed services. I have no problem with mixed male female units. I agree that menstruation in a nuclear sub is a non issue. I do however believe that there are very few females who can hack it in the strength department to make it as infantry soldiers and keeping them out of combat roles is better for everyone.

 

[riksavage]

Whilst in theory I do not have any objections to women being assigned to frontline units, which require a boots on the ground presence such as gunners, I am strongly against the lowering of physical standards in order that one adapts to a minimum common denominator. In this case the ability to carry a particular weight and tab a specific distance.

Take the average Para, his mission typically is to land 8-10 clicks from his objective and then speed march with enough weapons, ammo and provsions to last until an airbridge is set-up. Most infantry units in A-STAN today are carrying up to eighty pounds of equipment, and that doesn't include those assigned the additional burden of the GPMG / LMG, 51mm mortar, platoon/section radio or other extra kit specific to role and function. If you start introducing women into front line infantry units and building in the provision that they will carry a reduced burden, leaving their male counterparts to take up the slack, then you are asking for trouble and potential friction. Also what happens if the males in the section are wounded, whose going to carry their load or even worse manhandle (sorry womenhandle) them to the nearest extraction point - the lighter females? There are simply too may what if's here for the sake of political correctness

Women posted on conventional submarines maybe an option, but not SSN's or SSBN's which are required to conduct six month deployments. The last thing you want four months out is to find one of the female crew is pregnant and requiring medical attention that the boats medical orderly simply can not provide - most aren't trained gynecologists as far as I'm aware?

 

[Wooki]

WRT G, as I mentioned,yeah the shorter distance brain-heart, whatever. Please find me an airforce that deliberately recruits pilots that are 5'-10" or shorter so they have a greater G Tolerance.

That would be the Luftwaffe. They screen candidates by their ability to withstand G without any training.

cheers

w

 

[kato]

That would be the Luftwaffe. They screen candidates by their ability to withstand G without any training.

Well, women aren't necessarily advantaged though. The Luftwaffe is open to female pilots since 2001 with the first female helo pilots starting training the same year. The first woman to make it in as jet pilot was in 2004 (and now flies Tornados since 2007).

 

[south]

fftopic

That would be the Luftwaffe. They screen candidates by their ability to withstand G without any training.

cheers

w

You seem to have misunderstood. I said

"WRT G, as I mentioned,yeah the shorter distance brain-heart, whatever. Please find me an airforce that deliberately recruits pilots that are 5'-10" or shorter so they have a greater G Tolerance."

So please find me an airforce that precludes candidates based solely on height for the reason of G-tolerance.

Alternatively, we could examine this further. Now as I mentioned above G tolerance is dependent upon so many other factors (hydration, blood pressure, body physiology and musculature, personal tolerance, use of alcohol, what you had for breakfast that morning, AGSM, G-suit, How the G is applied etc) that no Airforce recruits solely based on the theory that height (affecting heart brain distance) will precludes candidates over a certain height. This in itself implies that women (who are on average shorter) do not have a significant advantage in G-tolerance as you are trying to imply. Indeed if it did create a significant advantage, this Luftwaffe test you are mentioning would mean that there should naturally be a larger percentage of women who are successful in their Luftwaffe application. I would be surprised if there is any significant difference.

To put it more simply, it is relatively insignificant.

 

[OPSSG]

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

Becky, in time, anything is possible. We have 1 female in Singapore's elite Naval Diving Unit (it's not the SAS, but it's still a tough job) - she is Major Esther Tan, Officer-in-Command (OC) of the Naval Explosives and Ordnance Disposal (EOD) team. However, Major Esther Tan is an exceptionally tough woman and is a top Singapore female triathlete. During the Australia XPD Adventure Race 2006 in Tasmania, Maj Tan completed 700km race while having only 29 hours of sleep in 10 days. Here's a little video on the NDU to give you an idea of the training she went through to qualify as a combat naval diver - she had to undergo separate EOD tech training to become the OC of the EOD team.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZEPXcu-790]Warriors of the Deep[/ame]

 

[Wooki]

fftopic



You seem to have misunderstood. I said So please find me an airforce that precludes candidates based solely on height for the reason of G-tolerance.

Alternatively, we could examine this further. Now as I mentioned above G tolerance is dependent upon so many other factors (hydration, blood pressure, body physiology and musculature, personal tolerance, use of alcohol, what you had for breakfast that morning, AGSM, G-suit, How the G is applied etc) that no Airforce recruits solely based on the theory that height (affecting heart brain distance) will precludes candidates over a certain height. This in itself implies that women (who are on average shorter) do not have a significant advantage in G-tolerance as you are trying to imply. Indeed if it did create a significant advantage, this Luftwaffe test you are mentioning would mean that there should naturally be a larger percentage of women who are successful in their Luftwaffe application. I would be surprised if there is any significant difference.

To put it more simply, it is relatively insignificant.

Dude, you can talk around and around all you like. You asked, I answered.

Men are not superior to women when it comes to G tolerance, period dot.

Now if you read back through my posts I said

"....

Women CAN operate in combat positions if you adjust doctrine to suit. For example it takes 3 women to do the physical work of 2 men. So that would neccesitate creating a different squad structure.

At the moment this is too big a headache for Army to wrap their collective brain around. If you try and place women in the existing structure, you will fail in creating an effective fighting force.

..."

I don't see anything in your posts that can argue against that.

As to changing doctrine. Of course you can. A good example of this strength vs weakness converting to capability debate is the Viet Cong. A Vietnamese guy just didn't (and still doesn't) have the brute physical strength to do what an American guy could do, but...

News Flash. They won.

If I were to be in a position to create a unit with women, SEA armies are the first place I would look to see how they operate with lower strength personnel


cheers


w

 

[south]

Dude, you can talk around and around all you like. You asked, I answered.

Men are not superior to women when it comes to G tolerance, period dot.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story eh?

G tolerances of 102 women and 139 men subjected to Standard Medical Evaluation (Medeval) G Profiles were compared. Unpaired t-tests revealed no significant difference between the women and men in either relaxed or straining G tolerance. Covariance analysis controlling for differences in tolerance due to age, height, weight, and activity status revealed the women to have marginally lower tolerance; the analysis also identified height as a factor having a strong negative influence on G tolerance, and weight as having a positive influence. When the women were matched only by height to the men in the comparison group, the women's mean G tolerances were significantly lower than the men's. On Standard Training G Profiles 88% of 24 women and 80% of 213 men completed the runs, but this difference was not significant. G tolerances of 47 women were measured on the Medeval Profiles both during and between menses, but no significant differences related to menstruation were found. No important differences between women and men in signs or symptoms of G stress were observed, except for two instances of urinary stress incontinence in women during the Training Profiles. We conclude that women should not categorically be excluded from aircrew duties for reasons of G intolerance.

Women's G tolerance. [Aviat Space Environ Med. 1986] - PubMed Result

 

[Wooki]

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story eh?

G tolerances of 102 women and 139 men subjected to Standard Medical Evaluation (Medeval) G Profiles were compared. Unpaired t-tests revealed no significant difference between the women and men in either relaxed or straining G tolerance. Covariance analysis controlling for differences in tolerance due to age, height, weight, and activity status revealed the women to have marginally lower tolerance; the analysis also identified height as a factor having a strong negative influence on G tolerance, and weight as having a positive influence. When the women were matched only by height to the men in the comparison group, the women's mean G tolerances were significantly lower than the men's. On Standard Training G Profiles 88% of 24 women and 80% of 213 men completed the runs, but this difference was not significant. G tolerances of 47 women were measured on the Medeval Profiles both during and between menses, but no significant differences related to menstruation were found. No important differences between women and men in signs or symptoms of G stress were observed, except for two instances of urinary stress incontinence in women during the Training Profiles. We conclude that women should not categorically be excluded from aircrew duties for reasons of G intolerance.

Women's G tolerance. [Aviat Space Environ Med. 1986] - PubMed Result

and?

The above just reaffirms what I said; women can handle as much G as a guy can.

If you want to argue, stop agreeing with me. This is stupid.

cheers

w

 

[south]

Hardly agreeing, demonstrating exactly my points I raised above and disproving yours.

Disagree with what? Women can take more G because of less distance between the heart and brain because of their smaller stature.

Men are not superior to women when it comes to G tolerance, period dot.

hmmm...
"When the women were matched only by height to the men in the comparison group, the women's mean G tolerances were significantly lower than the men's."

"analysis controlling for differences in tolerance due to age, height, weight, and activity status revealed the women to have marginally lower tolerance;"

This in itself implies that women (who are on average shorter) do not have a significant advantage in G-tolerance as you are trying to imply. Indeed if it did create a significant advantage, this Luftwaffe test you are mentioning would mean that there should naturally be a larger percentage of women who are successful in their Luftwaffe application. I would be surprised if there is any significant difference.

To put it more simply, it is relatively insignificant.

Unpaired t-tests revealed no significant difference between the women and men in either relaxed or straining G tolerance

This is stupid.

Agree. Maybe before argueing about everything you can and putting your foot in your mouth making black and white statements about things that are outside your area of expertise, you could slow down and try to comprehend what has actually been written.

You have chosen to refute the report by the British Army on the grounds that the Army has decide it is "too big a headache for Army to wrap their collective brain around." I choose to accept the report because it makes a well reasoned logical argument using facts to back it up.

You need to realise that your opinion and throw away lines like "women have higher G-tolerance because of this and this" are not always correct. You are greatly simplifying a complex issue, something you are again trying to do with saying changing doctrine to suit squad sizes to facilitate women is a potential answer.

Anyway, im out.

 

[Wooki]

Hardly agreeing, demonstrating exactly my points I raised above and disproving yours.



hmmm...
"When the women were matched only by height to the men in the comparison group, the women's mean G tolerances were significantly lower than the men's."

"analysis controlling for differences in tolerance due to age, height, weight, and activity status revealed the women to have marginally lower tolerance;"




Unpaired t-tests revealed no significant difference between the women and men in either relaxed or straining G tolerance


Agree. Maybe before argueing about everything you can and putting your foot in your mouth making black and white statements about things that are outside your area of expertise, you could slow down and try to comprehend what has actually been written.

You have chosen to refute the report by the British Army on the grounds that the Army has decide it is "too big a headache for Army to wrap their collective brain around." I choose to accept the report because it makes a well reasoned logical argument using facts to back it up.

You need to realise that your opinion and throw away lines like "women have higher G-tolerance because of this and this" are not always correct. You are greatly simplifying a complex issue, something you are again trying to do with saying changing doctrine to suit squad sizes to facilitate women is a potential answer.

Anyway, im out.

??My last on this:

I don't understand what your need here is South, but I have not made any "throw away lines" or "put my mouth in it" or "let the truth get in the way of a good story" or argued "outside my area of expertise". I have attempted to enlighten you and open your mind to the possibilities that are within reach.

Suffice to say I sincerely hope your thought processes are not those shared by any Air Force leadership on the planet as it will leave their service's war fighting capability compromised within a very short time frame of 15 to 20 years.

Go ahead and cite papers all you like, but to me they are a frame of reference written by peers and given the O2 buffering technologies that are being researched today (that can in turn logically be used for strength supplement) it is redundant and indeed self-destructive to think women do not have a place in combat. There are simply too many benefits for a nation (starting with a more flexible manpower pool) to ignore women in combat positions.

Re: G (your favorite topic) Low Brain to Heart distance, fitness and a capacity to take pain all point to women as being the ideal body type to take advantage of this research. it does not exclude men, but it most definitely favors women.

If you are in the industry then take this as a wake up call. If not, have a good life.

Apologies for the short reply but I am pressed for time (as always)

cheers

w

 

[sgtgunn]

My 2 cents. I've been in the US Army for almost 18 years, in which time I served both as a light infantryman and a M1 armor crewman. I have been on multiple "real world" deployments, to include a combat tour in Iraq (as an infantryman). Currently the US armed forces only exclude women from "direct ground combat" positions - i.e. armor, infantry, combat engineer, some field artillery and air defense roles, and special operations. The "ground combat" exclusion is a bit of a legal fiction, since females routinely engage in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as military police (who perform many of the same missions as the infantry - convoy security, force protection, route clearance, etc.), truck drivers, medics, etc. The fair and logical solution to the issue is IMHO a simple one - establish a gender neutral physical fitness and strength standard for combat arms positions. If you meet (and maintain) the standards, then you can serve in the position. Would this disquallify many (or possibly most) females? Yes. It would also disquallify some males as well. The bottom line is if a person can physically do the job, they should be given the opporunity. Males are normally "more agressive", but I agree with a previous poster who remarked that agression can (and is) trained. Many of the females I know in the US Army are far more "agressive" and male in thier outlooks and attitudes than thier civilian counterparts - they have adopted the predominately masculine military culture to fit in. I do think that females who deploy to combat zones should be required to recieve some kind of long term contraceptive treatment. I also think that female who is voluntarily serving in a combat arms unit should not expect the unit members to dramatically alter thier behavior to avoid offending her sensabilities. If you dont't like the swearing, drinking, and off color and/or gallows humor that has been part and parcel of combat units since before the Roman Legions, then you need to look into a different career.

Adrian

 

[old faithful]

Adrian (SgtGun) has borought forward a very good point about aggression, It is trained, and HAS to be trained....In the Australian Army, which i guess is not much different to most, aggression is "conditioned" to every soldier in basic training.
Drill, on the parade ground is a start, with the PL Sgt screaming in frustration about the useless, unco-ordinated bunch of retards he has in front of him!
And how if the Pl dosnt lift its game, "we will stay on the parade ground untill I am satisfied" etc etc....even room inspections...never good enough first time, no matter how good it is. Makes you very angry. Then later, that aggression is harnessed during bayonet training, bayonet training is not about chargeing at the enemy with a 2 foot spear (styer), its about bringing out the mongrel in the soldier. By the end of the first hour of serious bayonet training, you should want to bayonet the Sgt taking you for the lesson, you should hate him so bad, that you really want to kill him!
we had one guy in squad who lacked drive and aggression. our Platoon Sgt took his rifle from him on the 3rd lesson, and replaced it with a womens hand bag! About 1 hour later, he turned into a pycho killer, humiliation did the trick for him. (wouldnt be allowed these days....:lul)
I now work as a prison officer, and have found new respect for the fairer sex, there are two women i work with, who i no hesitation in saying would make excellent infantry men! 1 is ex aust women kick boxer champion, and the other is ex army MP. Both are stronger,fitter and have more guts than a LOT of male officers.

 

[Marc 1]

My 2 cents. I've been in the US Army for almost 18 years, in which time I served both as a light infantryman and a M1 armor crewman. I have been on multiple "real world" deployments, to include a combat tour in Iraq (as an infantryman). Currently the US armed forces only exclude women from "direct ground combat" positions - i.e. armor, infantry, combat engineer, some field artillery and air defense roles, and special operations. The "ground combat" exclusion is a bit of a legal fiction, since females routinely engage in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as military police (who perform many of the same missions as the infantry - convoy security, force protection, route clearance, etc.), truck drivers, medics, etc. The fair and logical solution to the issue is IMHO a simple one - establish a gender neutral physical fitness and strength standard for combat arms positions. If you meet (and maintain) the standards, then you can serve in the position. Would this disquallify many (or possibly most) females? Yes. It would also disquallify some males as well. The bottom line is if a person can physically do the job, they should be given the opporunity. Males are normally "more agressive", but I agree with a previous poster who remarked that agression can (and is) trained. Many of the females I know in the US Army are far more "agressive" and male in thier outlooks and attitudes than thier civilian counterparts - they have adopted the predominately masculine military culture to fit in. I do think that females who deploy to combat zones should be required to recieve some kind of long term contraceptive treatment. I also think that female who is voluntarily serving in a combat arms unit should not expect the unit members to dramatically alter thier behavior to avoid offending her sensabilities. If you dont't like the swearing, drinking, and off color and/or gallows humor that has been part and parcel of combat units since before the Roman Legions, then you need to look into a different career.

Adrian

Spot on mate. Argued the same on another thread. It's about the ability to do the job, not whether you have bumps in your shirt. The whole physical strength argument is a strawman - I know of female army PTI's who even with a pack and webbing could whip most blokes ass physically. Why are we excluding these women when we allow in the Infantry a bloke who weighs say 50kgs and stands 5 foot 4? How the hell is he going to haul a 89kg 6 foot tall bloke out of a turret?

 

[steve33]

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.

Hey cadre do you know if when they opened up the infantry to woman they made it policy for the woman to have to pass the same physical standards as the men.

 

[Cadredave]

Hey cadre do you know if when they opened up the infantry to woman they made it policy for the woman to have to pass the same physical standards as the men.

Sorry for the late reply, short answer is no, all women who join RNZIR have to meet there own physical standards for the own age group for the RFL (Required Fitness Level) & BHT (Battle handling test) currently we have two female officers in the corp, one has tried SAS selection & was RTU on day 1 the other is now in recruiting

 

[steve33]

Sorry for the late reply, short answer is no, all women who join RNZIR have to meet there own physical standards for the own age group for the RFL (Required Fitness Level) & BHT (Battle handling test) currently we have two female officers in the corp, one has tried SAS selection & was RTU on day 1 the other is now in recruiting

It,s only my opinion but i am suprised in the infantry they didn,t say you are operating right alongside the men you need to be able to keep up so we are asking you to attain the same minimum standards that the men are asked to attain.

Not being so polite i think it is a lot of B.S they have run there mouths off for years saying how great they are they want equality, respect,equal pay the whole deal.

Whats you opinion on it.?

 

[Rayna]

First of all I must say thanks, I initially came across this thread to see if there was any woman in the NZSAS, Answer: I highly Doubt it I see them maybe getting the invitation to join but them making it through the selection process which after watching the NZSAS documentary... Holy crap!! You see the dropout rate as it is. Selection is mad.

I spent most of the time looking through the thread and there is many valid points there is so much to answer to but most of all this is 3 years old.

When i was younger i was interested in joining the army and was almost interested to see that there was different physicals for men and woman now even looking at now I don't even think I could even make the entry woman fitness requirements. Being able to do a max 100 squats, 30 push ups some random number of burpees and run 5km in 31min. (hey don't laugh i am proud and quite lazy for that matter. I probably could do better if i had someone to push me).
Now i would say most defiantly, For a selection process for the SAS woman would need to exact same physicals as men. No question about it. The NZSAS is very specialized and you need that physical level for a very important reason.

But i do think the physical tests being the same for men and woman is a tricky question.
1) The type of jobs they will be doing in the military. If it’s the same job e.g territorial force then absalutley. Men and woman should have the exact same physicals. - That and as many have mentioned at the moment that there are many jobs that don't require that brute force/strength and fitness anymore with the new technology and vehicles that exist now and many more processes.
2) Are they doing this to try encrouge woman to get into the army? If so is it working? Is it of benefit? They could be getting something out of this woman that they aren’t getting out of men. If such a standard is of benefit then great but if not. Make it equal. I take it that its equal everywhere else? I am sure that for the NZ police its the same.
3) Is their proof that the peak of a woman’s fitness is lower than a males? Although they are getting everything they can out of them physically their strengths might be extremely high somewhere else.
True the female stature is traditionally smaller built compared to the males but that still doesn't mean we can’t do it I might not be able to, well scrap that wouldn’t. I am very small even for a woman being 4 foot six inches so be being in any infantry unit would put myself and perhaps others in danger but other woman even ones that have got through on a lesser physical would be another story. Woman who are serious, dedicated and there to do their job that can show a great deal of physical fitness is a different story. There is some big and freakishly fit woman out there.

But yeah i do see the point physicals should be the same, All i know is that I am out but then again after all the degrees i am going through, under grad dip, double major degree and maybe a grad dip and law degree I think my roles would be better suited as a bureaucratic/admin like role which could be an option once i graduate. That way i could always serve do my part but in a way that I could be beneficial.

One thing i find interesting in this thread is that there are some areas in some military's where woman are not allowed to serve i never knew that. I think if a woman can pass the tests (mental as well as physical) and Chooses to go into that area. It’s her choice. Legislation should have no right to limit someone. You see that's making them separate just like lower physical standards in the NZArmy.

And Yes there has been many predominant woman who have served and have been of great assets during times of war and conflict. World War 1, World war 2, Civil War and the Revolutiony war.. Many if not most were spies and transported information. The girl guides in WW1 working for MI-5 couriers secret messages, Princess Noor-Un-Nisa an extreme pacifist (hated the violence but wanted to serve and help in the war) who was a wireless operator who went back into France where she ended up the sole operator who was impossible to track until she was betrayed captured and detained before she was executed. It was a woman who developed shark repellent to stop sharks setting off underwater explosives foiling plans to destroy german U-boats.

Mostly for the reasons of woman is much less suspect. “A woman couldn’t possibly do that” We could wonder back and forth on a footpath and a man would just assume we had no sense of direction or we could stick our noses up to every nook and cranny and people would just pass it off as female curiosity. So honestly, don’t underestimate us We are innocent, helpless, cute and don’t seem to be of any trouble now you give those traits to someone who has the ambition/drive and the power to manipulate and use everything she’s got. Just you wait (please note that this last part is along the lines of a joke for those who are thinking wtf)

Well, holy crap, Nearly midnight, have assignments and readings due and got work tomorrow, so i will finish this essay.