Australian Army: Women on the frontline; news article.
- Thread starter Dryotriorchis
- Start date
gday all! im a new member here,and i find this site an excellent sorce of info. id like to add to this women in combat forum. Im an ex grunt 3RAR. I also spent a year in TSP at RMC Duntroon. (Training support platoon). One phase of officer cadet training is called ex Timor. This is a VERY demanding ex as any Aust O who has been through would it varify. During this ex, cadets are deprived of sleep,and food whilst carrying out physiclly demanding tasks,such as carring artillery ammo cases full of rocks over stuipidlly difficult terain. I was impressed by a section of 9 sheilas doing it tough,just like the blokes,one difference was their morale. There was little or no whinging amongst the girls,they were hungry,so i ate a mars bar in front of them,and they just ignored it,ive had blokes nearly tear me apart for the same act(or beg).Near the end of the ex,the male cadets were given a live chicken between them,which they promptly killed and ate, the girls were given a fluffy white bunny wabbit(complete with pink ribbon), which they....promptly killed and ate!I guess the point im tring to make is that women are capable of carring out the tasks of combat,really anyone is.The VC recruited children. Training and conditioning are the keys.
Super Nimrod
New Member
Interesting points being made here. One that was discussed at length on a radio programme in the uk a few months ago, was that very few women actually want to go into combat units anyway. The recruiter being interviewed reckoned that once they knew what was involved it was about iirc about 5% and of them 2/3 would not make the fitness standard for infantry so you are down to approx 1%.
Re the point re artillery, can someone remember what the minimum physical requirement is for Gunners in the UK Royal artillery ? From what I recall the test is you have to load a large number 40kg boxes by hand onto a truck in a set time and even though I am 6'2" and 240lb I remember thinking that it was immensely challenging. This job is open to women in the UK (I don't think they have reduced requirements as you will have to do this for real) , and I would be interested to know if any women have actually passed the test. I had for a while a 5'10" tall girlfriend who was pretty strong but I know she would have really struggled with 40kg.
Re the point re artillery, can someone remember what the minimum physical requirement is for Gunners in the UK Royal artillery ? From what I recall the test is you have to load a large number 40kg boxes by hand onto a truck in a set time and even though I am 6'2" and 240lb I remember thinking that it was immensely challenging. This job is open to women in the UK (I don't think they have reduced requirements as you will have to do this for real) , and I would be interested to know if any women have actually passed the test. I had for a while a 5'10" tall girlfriend who was pretty strong but I know she would have really struggled with 40kg.
women should be in the front line, they have that right but i dont agree that they shouldnt have to have the same physical standards as the men
if these women r not physically up 2 it then they should not be aloud near the front line
sending them there would just be a big mistake
so all women wishing 2 serve on the front line should be made yo have the same physical standards as the men
if these women r not physically up 2 it then they should not be aloud near the front line
sending them there would just be a big mistake
so all women wishing 2 serve on the front line should be made yo have the same physical standards as the men
i am sick of all these women who think equality is easy
ive seen so many women who thought that wat the men were doing was easy
mnys the woman ive seen who said that wat men could do women could do better but ended going home in tears because they didnt realise how hard it is to be male and were just not up 2 it
ive seen so many women who thought that wat the men were doing was easy
mnys the woman ive seen who said that wat men could do women could do better but ended going home in tears because they didnt realise how hard it is to be male and were just not up 2 itsorry if ive offended any1 by this im not actually as sexist as these comments make me out b im just telling it how i see itshrub said:i am sick of all these women who think equality is easy
ive seen so many women who thought that wat the men were doing was easy
shrub, you might not like it, but it is a fact that if you come up against a female, she will want to plug you just as bad as you her. wether you believe she is up to the task or not, she could be as well equiped,and trained as you.
i agree that women should be on the front line, ive noticed that the only people who think that women should not be on the frontline shoulder to shoulder with the men are those people who have never experienced what women are actually capable of. about 5 years ago when i was still a sgt(AAC) when i was still in the AAC i went on a biv to the wide bay training area were we conduted a short pack march to our harbour site. even though the pack march was realtivley short, 8 of the 10 people in the section i was with at the time dropped their packs and due to the fact they could not hack it with the weight. the 2 people(1 l/cpl and an acting cpl) left picked up their packs(and as recruits dont know the meaning of "pack light" this was no easy task") and the cdt's themselves and carried them the remaining 6km's. oh and theres a twist, they were both chicks.
Talk about reviving a dormant thread but the new Defence Minister is keen to get women serving in combat roles to improve promotion prospects.
To quote: 'The spokesman ruled out women serving in the infantry: "You're not going to have women in the infantry - that's foot soldiers".
But other combat roles such as ground defence officers, combat engineers and airfield defence guards were a possibility.'
So there you go. Like to hear others thoughts (and the Infantry's reactions to the ADGies being a bunch of girls)
To quote: 'The spokesman ruled out women serving in the infantry: "You're not going to have women in the infantry - that's foot soldiers".
But other combat roles such as ground defence officers, combat engineers and airfield defence guards were a possibility.'
So there you go. Like to hear others thoughts (and the Infantry's reactions to the ADGies being a bunch of girls
)All roles in the military should be open to woman but when it comes to Special forces,infantry,artillary there should be no allowences made for being female if the woman want in the front line they should have to attain the same standards as the men.
They have talked the talk saying they are as good as men and they want equality in all areas well they should be made to back it up.
If they can attain the same minimum standards as the men they are in if they can,t they are out.
Simple as that.
They have talked the talk saying they are as good as men and they want equality in all areas well they should be made to back it up.
If they can attain the same minimum standards as the men they are in if they can,t they are out.
Simple as that.
steve33, Can I ask your military experience and why you say this?
I very much agree.
Being in the military is not so much about your personal rights, as about the safety of your country, your unit, and those who go into combat with you.
If you do not have the full physical capacity normally expected of your fellow soldiers, and that which is required by the work, then you don't (IMHO) have the right to demand that you are offered a position in that capacity.
Peter
Stryker001
Banned Member
There is no need to have women on the frontline, wait for the redone doctrine to come out of the findings of the whitepaper into Australia's defense needs.
Not getting political but if you want to weaken Australia defense capabilities, just elected a certain party and the rest takes care of itself.
Not getting political but if you want to weaken Australia defense capabilities, just elected a certain party and the rest takes care of itself.
Lets not get political, but ouch
Women and men are equal - why not in the military?
This is one of the most sexist comments I have ever heard. Glamour? Like that's everything. Shame on you ...
Women must be given exactly the same rights as men regarding the military - and, indeed, everything.
Why not?
Because they are not as 'physically strong' as men? As long as they pass the minimum requirements, there is no reason for that argument.
Menstruation? Don't tell me that the men are afraid of a little bit of blood. Periods do not hinder women at all. They've been living with them since the average age of 12, I think we would know how to deal with menstruation by the coming of age.
Rape? Women know what could happen, and if they still choose to risk the danger for their country, their comrades adn their beliefs, dont you (the military or anyone) dare say that rape is a reason for not allowing women to apply for combat roles.
Death? Hello, women know they are risking death. If that doesn't stop them, this must not be a reason to keep women from the front line.
And people must not argue that if women want to be on the front line, they have to prove they do with the numbers of women that apply and agree. Of course not every woman wants to fight in the front line, just as with men. Women should be given exactly the same opportunities for men.
Australia is a free country. Or so we say. Australia is an advanced nation, just like the rest of the western world. So how can we call ourselves those two above things if we can't even recognise that girls and boys are all equal? We must all share the same opportunities, and those that want to take them will.
Girls. Boys. Same thing. We both have strengths and weaknesses. Together - imagine what could be accomplished.
This is one of the most sexist comments I have ever heard. Glamour? Like that's everything. Shame on you ...
Women must be given exactly the same rights as men regarding the military - and, indeed, everything.
Why not?
Because they are not as 'physically strong' as men? As long as they pass the minimum requirements, there is no reason for that argument.
Menstruation? Don't tell me that the men are afraid of a little bit of blood. Periods do not hinder women at all. They've been living with them since the average age of 12, I think we would know how to deal with menstruation by the coming of age.
Rape? Women know what could happen, and if they still choose to risk the danger for their country, their comrades adn their beliefs, dont you (the military or anyone) dare say that rape is a reason for not allowing women to apply for combat roles.
Death? Hello, women know they are risking death. If that doesn't stop them, this must not be a reason to keep women from the front line.
And people must not argue that if women want to be on the front line, they have to prove they do with the numbers of women that apply and agree. Of course not every woman wants to fight in the front line, just as with men. Women should be given exactly the same opportunities for men.
Australia is a free country. Or so we say. Australia is an advanced nation, just like the rest of the western world. So how can we call ourselves those two above things if we can't even recognise that girls and boys are all equal? We must all share the same opportunities, and those that want to take them will.
Girls. Boys. Same thing. We both have strengths and weaknesses. Together - imagine what could be accomplished.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
You must have missed this comment of mine:
What I have a problem with is apologists like you who think that people have some sort of "right" to something that they are currently denied. Women can NOT do "everything that a man can do" no matter how much you might wish this to be so and this is the basis for my opposition (in general) to women in roles where the differences in physical performance WILL be an issue.
This is not sexist thinking in my opinion, nor is it a "military" non-freedom loving mindset. I don't personally think anyone should be allowed to perform a role in the military they are incapable of performing. In the military people WILL die if incompetent persons are allowed to perform roles, they can't competently perform.
If you think men and women are equally physically capable, then I suggest you watch the upcoming Bejing Olympics and take note of the times, weights etc.
I have no issues with ANY of those other "things" you raised (rape, menstruation etc) in the military. Everyone in the military is aware of the risks they face. Or should be.
What I have an issue with is the lowering of physical standards to allow for a "disenfranchised" group to meet them. Being an infantry or artillery or special forces soldier is a tough job and the standards required to be able to successfully perform that role should be high and equal for all persons.
I would be in favour of RAINF/RAA introducing a "barrier" type test along the lines the Special Forces use, for prospective soldiers. If women can pass it and want to serve in an infantry/artillery unit, no problems, off you go to the relevent unit.
Both male and female persons should undertake it to further show that it is fair. Both get the same basic standard to meet. I don't think anything could be fairer than that.
If one can't meet it, well perhaps something else might be the best option...
Any personal inability to perform at the required level will only drag down the capability of the units they are trying for, regardless of the sex of the failed applicant.
If that's sexist, tough. I don't really care. I'd rather have that on my conscience than have to tell somebodies family that they are no longer with us, because their comrades were allowed to serve in a role they weren't capable of performing.
battlensign
New Member
I can understand where you are comming from and cannot proclaim to be an expert, by any measure, on the subject, but just some thoughts on the topic:
1) Torture forms on humans in general are usually bad, however, an inclination towards certain types may be more prevalent when there is a gender difference.
2) On menstruation - is there any potential for health issues to arise as a direct result of 'battlefield' conditions (infections etc?)? I honestly do not know and would be interested to hear if anyone does - we could probably put that one rightfully to rest if generally not possible.
3) Perhaps there may be affects on unit and individual psychology as a result of the presence/injury of women with the potential to alter behaviour and actions (not necessarily for the better)...
4) Whilst the passing of general fitness requirements may indicate a high level of capacity to undetake most activities required of the combat arms, a female may still be at odds in the actual conduct of close combat. As a corrollary to that, incircumstances where we are desperate for people in the ADF opening options to women just makes sense. However, what about leaner economic times when authorised personnel strengths are limited in comparison to the numbers of eligible people applying (possibly as a result of higher unemployment) - should it then be the case of the "who meets the minimum requirements" or should it be the best person irrespective of gender considerations - would such a policy skew the ADF gender profile numbers, if on average, males are more likely than females to be that person? (would that matter?) Is a level of social activism acceptable of the ADF (or forces generally) or is the best ADF required?
All very interesting.
Brett.
1) Torture forms on humans in general are usually bad, however, an inclination towards certain types may be more prevalent when there is a gender difference.
2) On menstruation - is there any potential for health issues to arise as a direct result of 'battlefield' conditions (infections etc?)? I honestly do not know and would be interested to hear if anyone does - we could probably put that one rightfully to rest if generally not possible.
3) Perhaps there may be affects on unit and individual psychology as a result of the presence/injury of women with the potential to alter behaviour and actions (not necessarily for the better)...
4) Whilst the passing of general fitness requirements may indicate a high level of capacity to undetake most activities required of the combat arms, a female may still be at odds in the actual conduct of close combat. As a corrollary to that, incircumstances where we are desperate for people in the ADF opening options to women just makes sense. However, what about leaner economic times when authorised personnel strengths are limited in comparison to the numbers of eligible people applying (possibly as a result of higher unemployment) - should it then be the case of the "who meets the minimum requirements" or should it be the best person irrespective of gender considerations - would such a policy skew the ADF gender profile numbers, if on average, males are more likely than females to be that person? (would that matter?) Is a level of social activism acceptable of the ADF (or forces generally) or is the best ADF required?
All very interesting.
Brett.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I can think of only two reasons for the above comment. Either the poster had/has an inordinately large chip on their shoulder about something, or they took AD's comment entirely out of context.
There are certain roles and positions in the ADF (and other militaries) that are more glamourous, more highly regarded, than others. Lets face it someone who was an airplane driver in the RAAF, or a specwarrie in the SASR, will have more bragging rights at the local watering hole than someone who did a tour in the 9th Force Support Battalion. That just has to do with the natures of the roles (what they are) and how they are perceived.
If a new recruit was to be given a choice of which unit to serve in, 4 RAR or the above mentioned 9th Force Support Battalion, how many would consider the opportunity to serve in the latter unit a "draw" to service? I would think most people, if they knew they would be driving trucks and shipping supplies around, would rather do that in the mining industry for significant pay as opposed to the ADF pay rates.
Not that I am saying the unit is not needed, given the logistical tail modern forces require for support. It is just that recruits would generally rather be in a "glamourous" or in other words, exciting position or unit. Nothing sexist in that.
-Cheers
However there are a number of positions in the military where a woman performs better on pure physical reasons. Including glamorous ones, such as jet pilots.
If physical attributes would be the primary issue, there wouldn't be any men remaining aboard submarines. Hell, there wouldn't even be men driving around tanks.