# Ban Women Soldiers



## Garpal Gumnut (10 April 2011)

The latest problems at ADFA make it a nobrainer that women should not serve in the ADF, unless in suitable corps, such as Nursing or Transport.

This politically correct claptrap places young women in danger, in the ballsy world of soldiering. More "scandals" will emerge when young men and women are billeted together in a highly charged situation such as cadet training.

I do wish our politicians could see the error of their ways in this regard.

gg


----------



## explod (10 April 2011)

As usual, great new thread GG.   

But sorry big dissagree on this one.

Make the armies of the world all girls.   Will be less pregnancies so reduced population growth; and,  

men will not get the blame anymore.

Make men totally redundant so they can join GG on the upper sunshine state bending bananas whilst sobering up.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 April 2011)

It never ceases to amaze me how we place such stresses on women, expecting them to perform at the same level in soldiering, a profession both brutal and mechanistic, as their male counterparts.

War is ugly, and our soldiers are professionally trained, however, it is unfair to expect women to behave in critical situations with the same vigour as male members of the Defence Force.

gg


----------



## Gringotts Bank (10 April 2011)

I've seen some female cricket players who could do the job!


----------



## tothemax6 (10 April 2011)

Ah forget it gg, the world doesn't think like that anymore.
Nowadays people have no sense of direction, and no idea how to think or behave. They are all big bags of noise and cognitive dissonance. 

The idea of a nation putting its women on the front line of wars is so bizarre and masochist to the logical man, that it's occurrence really is a sign of the times.

But if I must state reasons:
- In simplified terms, the purpose of a soldier is to kill other people to maintain the existence of his nation. That's the ugly truth.
- Men are suited to this job, and women are not, for *every possible reason under the sun*, from physiology to psychology.
- As additional effect, placing women amongst men, and I'm sure there are lunatics who will debate this, substantially reduces a mans concentration on the 'job at hand'. It also adds new concerns which reduce his ability to fight properly - e.g. a man will for moral reasons worry more about what the enemy soldiers will do to his women than his men. 

In short, when a nation takes the position that its women should be on the front line, its probably on the way out anyway.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 April 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> Ah forget it gg, the world doesn't think like that anymore.
> Nowadays people have no sense of direction, and no idea how to think or behave. They are all big bags of noise and cognitive dissonance.
> 
> The idea of a nation putting its women on the front line of wars is so bizarre and masochist to the logical man, that it's occurrence really is a sign of the times.




We are a young strong nation, and should not be held hostage to basket weavers and opportunists who push a social agenda on our armed forces.

While I respect a woman's right to achieve, the Army or Navy is no place for a woman.

gg


----------



## pixel (10 April 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It never ceases to amaze me how we place such stresses on women, expecting them to perform at the same level in soldiering, a profession both brutal and mechanistic, as their male counterparts.
> gg



 Tell that the male members of the DF, gg. Without their attempts to "make a gal" and boasting about it on facebook, the soldiers would be under a lot less stress - regardless whether they're setters or pointers.

But one aspect seems to get lost in the entire discussion about gender equality in the Armed Forces: War being such a brutal, inhumane business, it will attract mostly people with a particular disposition; among that group, actions are driven by testosterone rather than respect for another's delicate psychology.
If we train our soldiers to "kill them before they kill you", yet expect at the same time sensitivity and respect, we're raising a bunch of schizophrenics.

IMHO the Defense Forces need a complete overhaul, rethinking their role from the ground up, with recruitment targets to suit: 
Either build a killing machine of brutes that "do unto them before they can do unto us".
Or set up an outfit that brings welfare to our neighbours by building schools, roads and aid depots in case of disasters.
But don't try and tell young people to do both equally well. The few that might be capable of reconciling both attitudes will find far better-paying jobs in Politics and Industry.

PS: The last couple of comtributions - posted while I was typing - seem to prove that my aspect had NOT been lost. I fully agree with tothemax' and your replies.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 April 2011)

pixel said:


> Tell that the male members of the DF, gg. Without their attempts to "make a gal" and boasting about it on facebook, the soldiers would be under a lot less stress - regardless whether they're setters or pointers.
> 
> But one aspect seems to get lost in the entire discussion about gender equality in the Armed Forces: War being such a brutal, inhumane business, it will attract mostly people with a particular disposition; among that group, actions are driven by testosterone rather than respect for another's delicate psychology.
> If we train our soldiers to "kill them before they kill you", yet expect at the same time sensitivity and respect, we're raising a bunch of schizophrenics.
> ...






> TOMMY
> 
> by Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)
> 
> ...




A soldiers life is not a happy one.

Leave it to blokes to kill and maim and live to old age with the guilt. 

It is no place for women. 

gg


----------



## NewOrder (10 April 2011)

I am not sure if the OP is serious or taking the piss. Surely in 2011 men are not so backward to think that women are not capable of being in the ADF. The latest problem while shocking had nothing to do with the perils or hardships of war or fighting, it was to do with the unevolved male beings that participated.

What about we have higher expectations of men instead of lower expectations of women.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (10 April 2011)

... or we could search the ranks of the womens' AFL!  :  Dang, there'd be some big, mean, red-headed Irish women in that lot!


----------



## Happy (10 April 2011)

Women and men are not equal and I would hate to be left behind wounded, just because female companion could not carry that much weight.

Of course EQUALITY seems to have taken over common sense, logic and we have to live with it.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 April 2011)

Happy said:


> Women and men are not equal and I would hate to be left behind wounded, just because female companion could not carry that much weight.
> 
> Of course EQUALITY seems to have taken over common sense, logic and we have to live with it.




We can still protest about it.

I know of nobody in line, in the ADF who supports this policy of placing women in recruit or officer training with men.

Nobody.

Except the slack pigeon chested gits looking for promotion from half colonel.

gg


----------



## Julia (10 April 2011)

NewOrder said:


> I am not sure if the OP is serious or taking the piss. Surely in 2011 men are not so backward to think that women are not capable of being in the ADF. The latest problem while shocking had nothing to do with the perils or hardships of war or fighting, it was to do with the unevolved male beings that participated.
> 
> What about we have higher expectations of men instead of lower expectations of women.



Agree entirely.  Just considering this single post from White Goodman:


white_goodman said:


> sluts, they are everywhere



  it seems some ignorant people are happy to blame the victim.
I hope you, white goodman, do not have daughters.  Or a female partner for that matter.   They would inevitably be damaged by your disgusting attitude.



Happy said:


> Women and men are not equal and I would hate to be left behind wounded, just because female companion could not carry that much weight.
> 
> Of course EQUALITY seems to have taken over common sense, logic and we have to live with it.




I agree with gg's basic premise on physical and probably even emotional grounds.
As Happy says, they are simply not equal.
Plenty of better places for women to realise their full potential.

That, however, in no way excuses the appalling behaviour by the ADF in this case.  Good for Stephen Smith.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 April 2011)

Julia, 

Give me one good reason why our Armed Forces should flout millenia of military tradition and have women soldiers.

gg


----------



## Julia (10 April 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Julia,
> 
> Give me one good reason why our Armed Forces should flout millenia of military tradition and have women soldiers.
> 
> gg



Why would you ask me to do this?
I just agreed with your premise.

However, if women are employed by the ADF, they should not expect to be treated with disrespect and abuse.

The two issues are quite separate, I would have thought.
i.e. whether women should be part of a fighting force,
and    if they are, why should they expect to be abused which is what seems currently to be the case.
For a young woman to be raped and then told to 'suck it up' is utterly abhorrent.


----------



## NewOrder (10 April 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Julia,
> 
> Give me one good reason why our Armed Forces should flout millenia of military tradition and have women soldiers.
> 
> gg




Women are intelligent, able, tactical people, they are good leaders and good followers. Women as a generalisation may not be as physically strong as _some _men but they are mentally as strong and it ain't always brawn (sp) that wins out.
Isn't peace keeping a big part of the ADF? If so then surely women win that one hands down. 

Millenia of outdated traditions should always be challenged, unless of course you wish to live in complete stagnation *yawn* There are some pretty foul thought patterns going on in this thread, well outdated viewpoints actually and they need to be challenged. 

I am a pacifist by nature and would never join the ADF, not because as a woman I don't think I am capable but because it goes against my core beliefs. I would happily support other women who choose to join.


----------



## the phantom (10 April 2011)

If women can pass the same physical demanding tasks as men in 'training till graduation' they should be able to serve.

Posting behaviour which would be considered 'private' but x-rated or severely embarrassing due to a personal but normal nature, between either sex, should be considered a criminal breach, and the offender jailed, as the victim has severe damage to their potential life-long career.

I also hope, that those in the forces can respect women not only in their own company, but when they serve overseas ... it is about having morals, if you can not respect the women you serve with, what about other women they deal with.


----------



## Neutral (10 April 2011)

I don't have a problem with women serving in the ADF. They are & rightfully so precluded from some military roles because of their physical inadequacies amongst other things. ie combat roles etc. But they do play an important role in diplomacy. The pen is mightier than the sword.

The story that has been uncovered by the woman at the centre of the controversy was not played out under any combat nor stressful conditions.

Men & women in the ADF need to co-exist. because that is how the world needs to operate.

That aside, a few questions:

I thought these people were meant to be our future defence leaders in the making and are held up to higher standards than GE's?

Is it an offence to have sexual relations with a colleague in the ADF?

Has the male who posted the video & images been reprimanded for bringing the defence force into disrepute? I thought the military's foundations are that of discipline?

What did the woman at the centre of the controvesy do wrong other than go public with the story as a consequence of no support by the ADF?



Julia said:


> For a young woman to be raped and then told to 'suck it up' is utterly abhorrent.



BTW she was not raped. She consented to sex, just not to being filmed and distributed.


----------



## Liar's Poker (10 April 2011)

Julia said:


> However, if women are employed by the ADF, they should not expect to be treated with disrespect and abuse.




Thought I'd give a different slant to this topic:

Firstly, I don't condone this behavior at all, but what if this is the working conditions for everyone. As in, women being treated with disrespect and abuse is being treated equally in the ADF.

I'm interested to know if this kind of behavior has only been brought to light because it happened to a female and was given greater weight accordingly. 

I wonder how many male ADF employees have been abused and haven't been heard because they are men.

Anyone who thinks they should be treated equally in an organisation which relies on bureaucracy and ranks to operate is kidding themselves. 

Like GG has mentioned above, war is not a place for rational behavior. 

-Liar-


----------



## Neutral (11 April 2011)

Liar's Poker said:


> I'm interested to know if this kind of behavior has only been brought to light because it happened to a female and was given greater weight accordingly.
> 
> I wonder how many male ADF employees have been abused and haven't been heard because they are men.
> 
> -Liar-




http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...hile-in-the-navy/story-e6frfku0-1226035564804

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ells-of-adf-rape/story-e6freuzr-1226036238200


----------



## builder2818 (11 April 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The latest problems at ADFA make it a nobrainer that women should not serve in the ADF, unless in suitable corps, such as Nursing or Transport.
> 
> This politically correct claptrap places young women in danger, in the ballsy world of soldiering. More "scandals" will emerge when young men and women are billeted together in a highly charged situation such as cadet training.
> 
> ...




Thats all they do in the ADF - support roles such as nursing and transport and logistics.

I was in the army, it is no special elite club to be a male serving in the defence force. You're just the same as the person your playing cards next to everyday because you have nothing to but sit around pretendng to be defending the country. Regardless of your gender.


----------



## Liar's Poker (11 April 2011)

Neutral said:


> http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...hile-in-the-navy/story-e6frfku0-1226035564804
> 
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ells-of-adf-rape/story-e6freuzr-1226036238200




You beat me to replying to my own post... Just logged on to post the same. 

Well found.


----------



## Julia (11 April 2011)

Neutral said:


> BTW she was not raped. She consented to sex, just not to being filmed and distributed.



Sorry, I should have been more clear.  The rape issue was not about this particular girl, but a previous instance where allegedly another young woman cadet was gang raped (admitted to hospital as a result of her injuries), and subsequently told to 'suck it up' by the person to whom she complained.

This came to light when her aunt phoned the media after hearing about the current situation.


----------



## Glen48 (11 April 2011)

There must be some thing in having women in the services after all the woman charging those serving army men in Afghanistan for doing their job is a brigadier and about 20 yeras years old..

Any one who joins the services is Bloody Idiot

Look at the treatment you get when your use by date is up or injured as per the sailors on the Melbourne etc.

 My service number was A119106 by the way.

Credo nos in fluctu eodem esse


----------



## Calliope (11 April 2011)

Glen48 said:


> Any one who joins the services is Bloody Idiot
> 
> Look at the treatment you get when your use by date is up or injured as per the sailors on the Melbourne etc.




:topic There were no sailors injured on the _Melbourne_ unless you count the opportunistic claims for post-traumatic stress.

GG, I think there is a role for bull dykes in the services.


----------



## tothemax6 (11 April 2011)

NewOrder said:


> Surely in 2011 men are not so backward to think that women are not capable of being in the ADF.
> What about we have higher expectations of men instead of lower expectations of women.



Backwards, yes, to a time when men had morals.
Interestingly, I have very high expectations of women and low expectations of men .


Julia said:


> For a young woman to be raped and then told to 'suck it up' is utterly abhorrent.



If this is regarding the recent incident, I must point out that in actual fact - she was (crudely speaking) a 'willing recipient', not a rapee. In which case, her being told to suck it up... ah never mind .


NewOrder said:


> Women are intelligent, able, tactical people, they are good leaders and good followers. Women as a generalisation may not be as physically strong as _some _men but they are mentally as strong and it ain't always brawn (sp) that wins out.
> Isn't peace keeping a big part of the ADF? If so then surely women win that one hands down.



Peacekeeping is a funny concept, since it generally means 'kill them until they are peaceful'. 


NewOrder said:


> Millenia of outdated traditions should always be challenged, unless of course you wish to live in complete stagnation *yawn* There are some pretty foul thought patterns going on in this thread, well outdated viewpoints actually and they need to be challenged.



Yes yes, leftist, you are the enlightened, forward-thinking moral compass, and we are all troglodytes.
In reality of course, you probably think any form of regressive change to be 'progress', and our challenges are merely pointing out that your ideas are ----.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 April 2011)

The comment below attributed to Minister Smith details the real agenda behind the response to the sexual impropriety of ADFA cadets.

This is an attempt to impose inappropriate cultural mores on our Defence force.

Women in combat roles, what a ridiculous concept. I find it difficult to find words to adequately argue against it, it is such a cotton wool - in gob statement.

Next he will be advocating women in NRL or AFL teams, " as long as they can physically do the job, and should be picked on merit. "

Our enemies will be waiting with baited breath. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/11/3188096.htm



> Mr Smith says the inquiry will be the first step in bringing about cultural change at ADFA.
> 
> "The time has come for external review," he said.
> 
> ...




gg


----------



## Julia (11 April 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> If this is regarding the recent incident, I must point out that in actual fact - she was (crudely speaking) a 'willing recipient', not a rapee. In which case, her being told to suck it up... ah never mind :



tothemax, how about reading the thread properly before you make the above criticism.  I have already clarified this as under:



Julia said:


> Sorry, I should have been more clear.  The rape issue was not about this particular girl, but a previous instance where allegedly another young woman cadet was gang raped (admitted to hospital as a result of her injuries), and subsequently told to 'suck it up' by the person to whom she complained.
> 
> This came to light when her aunt phoned the media after hearing about the current situation.




Do you actually think the abused young woman in this alleged case should have been told, after she was released from having her injuries incurred in the rape treated in hospital, that she should just 'suck it up'?
If so, it says a lot more about you than it does about her.  I just can't believe some of the attitudes in this thread.



> Yes yes, leftist, you are the enlightened, forward-thinking moral compass, and we are all troglodytes.
> In reality of course, you probably think any form of regressive change to be 'progress', and our challenges are merely pointing out that your ideas are ----.



Is this sarcasm really necessary?  If you disagree with the point being made, why not just say so in a reasonable fashion and explain why.


----------



## Julia (11 April 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The comment below attributed to Minister Smith details the real agenda behind the response to the sexual impropriety of ADFA cadets.
> 
> This is an attempt to impose inappropriate cultural mores on our Defence force.



What?   As always with your remarks, I don't know whether you genuinely hold this belief or whether you are once again just stirring.

If the latter, I'd suggest you find a less important issue with which to have fun.

If the former, then I can't believe you could be serious in what you have said above.

It has nothing to do with women in combat roles.
Why is that issue muddying the waters about the lack of respect for women in the ADF?


----------



## Glen48 (11 April 2011)

I hope this post doesn't lead to war or we could find out if women are needed in combat.


----------



## todster (11 April 2011)

I think some think women should not be on forums


----------



## NewOrder (11 April 2011)

todster said:


> I think some think women should not be on forums



 PMSL women on forums, who would of thunk it that we would be allowed out of the kitchen.

This sure is an interesting insight into the other side. I have never encountered such horrid thinking, ever. Do you guys who think that women have no rights, treat the women in your lives with such disdain?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 April 2011)

Julia said:


> What?   As always with your remarks, I don't know whether you genuinely hold this belief or whether you are once again just stirring.
> 
> If the latter, I'd suggest you find a less important issue with which to have fun.
> 
> ...




I merely restate that the agenda has moved, from the inappropriate behaviour of a few men to the placing of women in combat roles.

I do not agree with the inappropriate behaviour nor women in combat roles. Minister Smith seems to see a link.

gg


----------



## white_crane (11 April 2011)

I have to agree with NewOrder on this.  And yes, there are some pretty disgusting attitudes on display here.

Consensual sex - fine.  Filming and displaying it to the public without permission is not, irrespective of your employer.

And no, there is NO excuse for raping a woman and NO excuse for covering it up. Ever.


GG, you have stated variously:
ban women soldiers
the army and navy is no place for a woman
women should only be in nursing or transport roles
women should not be in combat roles

What exactly is your position?


----------



## scanspeak (12 April 2011)

Possession of a vagina should not exempt a person from being a soldier provided she can pass the exact same physical and mental tests as her male counterpart. 

Lowering standards to get more women in must not be allowed as it will endanger everyone.

Women in the army may have the benefit of making societies less likely to go to war.


----------



## todster (12 April 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I merely restate that the agenda has moved, from the inappropriate behaviour of a few men to the placing of women in combat roles.
> 
> I do not agree with the inappropriate behaviour nor women in combat roles. Minister Smith seems to see a link.
> 
> gg




When was the Navy last in combat?
Christmas Island?
Cruising the Gulf finding a Dhow with 2 cartons of Marlboros and a coupla dodgy Rolexs


----------



## Logique (12 April 2011)

If of the female persuasion, I'd be high-5'ing the other women if the ADF excused me from frontline fighting or SAS.

They train the men to ignore the screams of wounded women, because sometimes you can't crawl out there to no mans land and drag them back. And what about when they're taken prisoner.

By all means focus on the ADF culture. But not as a trojan horse for nonsensical gender posturing. 

Clean the place up, yes. But don't white-ant it, which will be the result if you shoehorn inappropriate personnel into frontline roles. If this happens, lots of good male soldiers will bail, you wait and see.  

Elizabeth Broderick is a bad appointment.


----------



## NewOrder (12 April 2011)

scanspeak said:


> Possession of a vagina should not exempt a person from being a soldier provided she can pass the exact same physical and mental tests as her male counterpart.
> 
> *Lowering standards to get more women in must not be allowed as it will endanger everyone.*
> Women in the army may have the benefit of making societies less likely to go to war.




That is not the case anyway is it? I am all for equal opportunity but agreed it cannot come about by lowering standards. The reality is that women are not going to be flocking to join in combat roles as they (in general) are not as physically strong as men.

Equal opportunity is a valid agenda regardless of some people's insistance otherwise, but if someone (man or woman) cannot do the job then they don't qualify. Let's not forget though that women still don't have equal opportunity in many career sectors which do not involve physical strength, not surprising really after reading the archaic opinions expressed here.

At least the markets are equal opportunity


----------



## Logique (12 April 2011)

NewOrder said:


> ...Let's not forget though that women still don't have equal opportunity in many career sectors which do not involve physical strength, not surprising really after reading the archaic opinions expressed here..



Go into your nearest bank branch. How many male employees do you see. Or your nearest library, hospital, or government department, especially environment.

Include all the facts. It's not a competition, men and women are different, and _vive le difference_ I say.


----------



## wayneL (12 April 2011)

Call me old fashioned, sexist, whatever, but no way I want to see women on the front line of combat.

That is not on the basis of capability either, but I still hold doors open for ladies.


----------



## NewOrder (12 April 2011)

Logique said:


> Go into your nearest bank branch. How many male employees do you see. Or your nearest library, hospital, or government department, especially environment.
> 
> Include all the facts. It's not a competition, men and women are different, and _vive le difference_ I say.




Yes but that is not a result of unequal opportunity, it is a choice. Anyone can study medicine, librarianship etc those opportunities are not offered to one gender only. Women are still under represented in business, sciences etc not through lack of ability but lack of opportunity.

I totally agree _vive le difference_


----------



## Greg (12 April 2011)

I believe women can make a real and worthwhile contribution in the ADF and in the defence of our nation; I just don't believe that place to be on the front line. 
The point has been made that the front line is a horrible place to be and totally barbaric at times of conflict. Men have been the fighting force for generations; it's an extension of the "hunter, gatherer" thing. Allowing women on the front line shouldn't be about political correctness or allowing the femminist lobby to have their day, it's about what the species has evolved to do over many years - it's DNA.
I'm all for equal rights for women in the DF, but they should be utilised where they can make a safe but real contribution.


----------



## Logique (12 April 2011)

The next vocation to be vacated by men 'by choice' will be teaching, and after that probably parliamentarian. 

There are more subtle modes of bullying and gender bias than skyping co-workers having sex. Affirmative action and quotas are just two of the clumsier mechanisms.


----------



## startrader (12 April 2011)

NewOrder said:


> Yes but that is not a result of unequal opportunity, it is a choice. Anyone can study medicine, librarianship etc those opportunities are not offered to one gender only. Women are still under represented in business, sciences etc not through lack of ability but lack of opportunity.
> 
> I totally agree _vive le difference_




I have to disagree with your statement here. I'm female and would have thought it was fairly obvious that women are under represented in business, sciences etc not through lack of opportunity, but through lack of interest. If women really wanted jobs in those fields they would have them.


----------



## Calliope (12 April 2011)

Penny Wong would make a good front-line soldier. She would scare the s**t out of the Taliban. She certainly scares everybody who interviews her.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 April 2011)

Logique said:


> The next vocation to be vacated by men 'by choice' will be teaching, and after that probably parliamentarian.
> 
> There are more subtle modes of bullying and gender bias than skyping co-workers having sex. Affirmative action and quotas are just two of the clumsier mechanisms.




Thanks L

I had never thought of affirmative action and quotas as bullying, until reading your post.

It does fit much of the bully mentality,.... intrusive, imposed, unrepresentative, unwilling to consider others' views/feelings, driven by a sense of righteousness.

I do feel that when all this dies down it will rebound on the ALP.

I don't want an army of girls. 

gg


----------



## scanspeak (12 April 2011)

startrader said:


> I have to disagree with your statement here. I'm female and would have thought it was fairly obvious that women are under represented in business, sciences etc not through lack of opportunity, but through lack of interest. If women really wanted jobs in those fields they would have them.




Exactly!! It still amazes me that feminists see the lack of women in business as oppression by the "patriarchy" rather than personal choice.


----------



## Julia (12 April 2011)

scanspeak said:


> Exactly!! It still amazes me that feminists see the lack of women in business as oppression by the "patriarchy" rather than personal choice.



I don't think it's as clear cut (to use a Kev expression) as coming down to choice versus oppression.  
There's a good deal of both.

If I had to come down on one side, it would be that if women fail to achieve promotion and the roles they seek, then it's more likely they're just not good enough than that the boys' club is keeping them out.

viz Gail Kelly, Heather Ridout, just to name two examples.


----------



## boofhead (12 April 2011)

When will the defence forces change entry requirements so both genders have same standards? When I last looked at the requirements women had easier levels to achieve. They should be the same requirements for the same job.


----------



## nulla nulla (12 April 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Thanks L
> 
> I don't want an army of girls.
> 
> gg




Speak for yourself, GG. lol


----------



## noirua (13 April 2011)

wayneL said:


> Call me old fashioned, sexist, whatever, but no way I want to see women on the front line of combat.
> 
> That is not on the basis of capability either, but I still hold doors open for ladies.




A bit sad wayneL, your view does seem to be ice-ageist. Starting with the fact that everyone has an equal right to be here and has an equal right to take part. You appear to be against equal rights for all.


----------



## Sean K (13 April 2011)

noirua said:


> A bit sad wayneL, your view does seem to be ice-ageist. Starting with the fact that everyone has an equal right to be here and has an equal right to take part. You appear to be against equal rights for all.



It will be a sad day when women are not treated differently than men, imho.

They are not the same in many ways and have strengths and weaknesses that fully compliment mens.

Some women can perform equally as men on the battlefield now that it's not all hand to hand combat. Some are equally ruthless and can pull the trigger when required. A woman captured would not necessarily be treated any worse than a male. Males get raped as well. 

However, generally, we are different beasts. The testosterone and oestrogen mix has allowed us to survive for many years and become top of the food chain in relatively short time. 

It's a complex issue and we are on the cusp of a social/cultural/developmental evolution. 

I bloody well hope we don't turn androgynous in the coming centuries, but it looks on the cards.

I'll keep opening doors along with WayneL.


----------



## wayneL (13 April 2011)

noirua said:


> A bit sad wayneL, your view does seem to be ice-ageist. Starting with the fact that everyone has an equal right to be here and has an equal right to take part. You appear to be against equal rights for all.




Ah the off the cuff judgement. 

Noirua we have been on this forum together for a long time and you have plenty of opportunity to observe the totality of my views. 

This being so the above comment I can only regard as childish trolling.

However I will bite.

It is nothing to do with equal rights, it is about optimum performance, both physically and psychologically. I personally could not function properly as a soldier if there were women in my unit. The reason is because I love women; my relationship with them is different than it is with men.

There is a reason there are no women in the Wallabies or the All Blacks or any top line sporting team. There is a reason for women only sport etc.

In biology, rights are not equal in many things. Men have no right to bear children for example.

Equality of opportunity in business, liberty, politics, social settings etc is a right I believe. But equality in every facet of life as some Fabian ideological end is not desirable IMO.

If that is ice-ageist, fine, then I want to live in the ice age, not some Orwellian/Fabian dystopia.


----------



## Logique (13 April 2011)

Julia said:


> I don't think it's as clear cut (to use a Kev expression) as coming down to choice versus oppression.
> There's a good deal of both.
> If I had to come down on one side, it would be that if women fail to achieve promotion and the roles they seek, then it's more likely they're just not good enough than that the boys' club is keeping them out.
> viz Gail Kelly, Heather Ridout, just to name two examples.



Balanced comment, and would  expect nothing less. ABC's Leigh Sales and Ali Moore (they'll be wrapt to be in this list), Anna Bligh, Kristina Keneally, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Mary Robinson, Petra Kelly, Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi,  Coco Chanel, Golda Meir,  Diana Princess of Wales, Boudicca,.....

In the name of balance - I hope the ADFA cadets responsible for the skyping incident receive the most gigantic boot up the derriere, if not expulsion. And ditto the ones in news this morning, reported to have created an aggressively anti-gay website. Supposed to be role models.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 April 2011)

wayneL said:


> It is nothing to do with equal rights, it is about optimum performance, both physically and psychologically. I personally could not function properly as a soldier if there were women in my unit. The reason is because I love women; my relationship with them is different than it is with men.
> 
> There is a reason there are no women in the Wallabies or the All Blacks or any top line sporting team. There is a reason for women only sport etc.
> 
> ...




Reasonable comments wayneL.
War is not a pretty place. When it comes down to it, hand to hand combat still occurs, when weapons or ammunition is unavailable or wasted.
Women have traditionally not been soldiers, over millenia, for a good reason, they are not physically suited to it.
I would support equal opportunity for all people, male or female, but it has to be in the context of the role.
People will look back on this debate as a culture war, similar to the Weather debate, with little relevance to the here and now, reality or the intrinsic strengths of women or men.

gg


----------



## Knobby22 (13 April 2011)

The following link shows female soldiers from around the world.

I wouldn't to be fighting the New Zealand ones, they look tough.

http://thewondrous.com/48-killer-female-soldiers-from-various-countries/

Seriously, if you had a peacekeeping force made up of all female soldiers, wouldn't that be a help?? Especially against the Taliban.


----------



## Logique (13 April 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> ...Seriously, if you had a peacekeeping force made up of all female soldiers, wouldn't that be a help?? Especially against the Taliban.



Yes I think you're onto something there. Same principle as female door security, which can work well.


----------



## inq (13 April 2011)

One of my colleagues served in the military. I asked him his view.

He told me he believed that there are many who are capable of doing all the roles required. A female cadet he trained with did a ten km march with a broken ankle without a whimper. 

As he stated, they are put through the exact same training and are required to lift the same amount, run just as fast and for as long, and do not get special treatment.

He also however does not want women on the front line. Only for the reason that when a man gets captured by angry disgruntled Opposing forces they may get beaten, killed, abused. But a women gets potentially all that mixed with rape.


----------



## Glen48 (13 April 2011)

D Company 6th Battalion Royal Australian Regiment were awarded last year a belated Unit Citation for Gallantry (UCG)  for their gallant deeds at Long Tan, Vietnam, 18 August 1966. The Government refused to approve payment for members & families including family of deceased members to travel to Canberra to be awarded the UCG at a venue in Canberra by our esteemed Governor General.

This week the Government of Australia footed the bill to bury illegal boat people who perished on Christmas Island last year, in Sydney flying surviving family illegals to & fro, providing excellent accommodation, etc, etc, plus a bus tour of Sydney thrown in to appease these illegal survivors.

One needs to say no more.


----------



## Jhenry (13 April 2011)

Im not going to lie, War is definitely a place where women shouldn't be. But i do think that its a decision which females should make for themselves. I know for a fact that there are females who are more manly than a lot of men. so who is to say that they couldn't be better soldiers. 

good topic though.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 April 2011)

Glen48 said:


> D Company 6th Battalion Royal Australian Regiment were awarded last year a belated Unit Citation for Gallantry (UCG)  for their gallant deeds at Long Tan, Vietnam, 18 August 1966. The Government refused to approve payment for members & families including family of deceased members to travel to Canberra to be awarded the UCG at a venue in Canberra by our esteemed Governor General.
> 
> This week the Government of Australia footed the bill to bury illegal boat people who perished on Christmas Island last year, in Sydney flying surviving family illegals to & fro, providing excellent accommodation, etc, etc, plus a bus tour of Sydney thrown in to appease these illegal survivors.
> 
> One needs to say no more.




I wasn't aware of this.

I saw a very good video of the Long Tan engagement many years ago. It was a gallant miraculous escape for our men, aided admirably from memory by a Kiwi from Artillery Corps.

What cretins for denying their kin to celebrate their sacrifice.

Where was Smith and Wong?

gg


----------



## Glen48 (13 April 2011)

Will women be called baby killers if the ****e hits the device over there??
or it only some thing men do?


----------



## noirua (14 April 2011)

wayneL, just a thought: If a women was the leader of the unit you were in and she ordered you, together with other men and women, to attack a position; what would you do?

kennas, last year when I injured my knee and used a walking stick I found a lot of women holding the door open for me. One even gave me a lift on one occasion. On several occasions when I was particularly slow some men lost patience but never a women.
So, on balance the strengths and weaknesses put both men and women equal. There would be an equal number of men and women killed leaving less as widows.


----------



## wayneL (14 April 2011)

noirua said:


> wayneL, just a thought: If a women was the leader of the unit you were in and she ordered you, together with other men and women, to attack a position; what would you do?




I have no problem with female leadership... my wife orders me around all the time. :

As I said Noirua, you should be aware of my views by now.


----------



## Pancakes (14 April 2011)

If a woman can meet the same physical and mental requirements expected of male soldiers I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t be allowed on the front line.

Female soldiers do face some risks that male soldiers probably don't, for example rape. But if a woman is willing to risk that to protect our country I think that is incredibly admirable. I’m sure female soldiers understand the risks and in the end it is their choice to take that on.

If the men of the front line are "distracted" when working with female soldiers or feel as though they owe female soldiers some kind of extra protection then they probably don’t have the mental strength and will power required of a soldier. Soldiers witness awful violence against women and children during war and they need to be tough enough that it doesn’t negatively influence their work.


----------



## tothemax6 (14 April 2011)

Maybe it has been overlooked in this thread, so I'll throw this in too:

One of the issues that immediately occurs following a feminist action like this is changes to intake requirements. It _starts_ as 'women should not be excluded', but ends up as 'the lack of women in the ranks is sexism'. This lack of women is of course caused by average differences between men and women, with both groups passing through the same intake filter, leading to differences in intake numbers. However, the left will not, and does not accept this - and there is evidence of this all over, in racial and gender quotas.

There _will_ be requirement softening.

I always find it sad that there is never any bias towards right or wrong in the minds of men today. People think, say and do, *anything*. There is no consistency whatsoever. One cannot take for granted that people will simply observe what is or is not correct, and state that. As I like to put it: 'nothing can ever be so wrong as to prevent it being believed to be true'. 2+2=4? No, not always. 'Moon revolves around the earth'. No, I have a differing opinion.

Some people would think that if we simply 'tested' this, by say creating several 'test battles', 100 men vs 50 men 50 women etc, we could put an issue like this to rest. The saddest thing, however, is that it would have *zero* effect (and history has proven this for many political positions). Even if the 100 men army won 10 times out of 10, there would be infinite reasons as to why this 'wasn't a valid or conclusive test'.


----------



## Logique (15 April 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> ..One of the issues that immediately occurs following a feminist action like this is changes to intake requirements. It _starts_ as 'women should not be excluded', but ends up as 'the lack of women in the ranks is sexism'....there is evidence of this all over, in racial and gender quotas.



Indeed. It's called affirmative action. Or, discrimination is good..when it suits. You don't have to look far to see why quotas are counterproductive.


----------



## IFocus (16 April 2011)

Mike Carlton worth a read

The truth behind sex, lies and Skype 



> You only ever get two stories written about the Australian Defence Force. It's heroes or villains.






> You can't have it both ways, although we try very hard to. Media coverage of the Skype scandal at the Australian Defence Force Academy has been story two stuff. A lot was just plain wrong. Shock horror from 30 years ago was reheated. Lurid exaggerations were whipped up by ''commentators'' who have never heard a shot fired in anger.







> Bizarrely, those bellowing most loudly about brutal treatment of women in the ADF were the same blowhards who were savaging Brigadier Lyn McDade, the director of military prosecutions, for her girlie decision last year to charge three commandos for misconduct in Afghanistan. ''This woman,'' as Alan Jones constantly called her. ''No one knows how she became a brigadier.''






> Kate, the RAAF cadet, was no doe-eyed innocent. She had already been charged with being AWOL and drinking offences, and she knew sex between students was forbidden.




http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie...behind-sex-lies-and-skype-20110415-1dhpx.html


----------



## Calliope (16 April 2011)

Wilkie's holier-than-thou image is slipping.


----------



## Julia (16 April 2011)

> Kate, the RAAF cadet, was no doe-eyed innocent. She had already been charged with being AWOL and drinking offences, and she knew sex between students was forbidden.




That is not the point and does not legitimise the filming and distributing of what she believed was a private occasion.


----------



## Logique (17 April 2011)

IFocus said:


> Mike Carlton worth a read. The truth behind sex, lies and Skype
> http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie...behind-sex-lies-and-skype-20110415-1dhpx.html



IF, it won't surprise you that Carlton isn't one  of my favourite columnists, but this is one of his more balanced pieces. He stuck up for academy commandant, Commodore Bruce Kafer, so good on him for doing that.



> A family man with two sons, Kafer is seen in the navy as a good bloke and highly competent, a straight arrow officer. He has commanded international naval task forces in the Persian Gulf and been awarded a medal in the Order of Australia and the Conspicuous Service Cross, which is not handed out lightly. I am told he is also highly regarded at the academy by the cadets and staff. He deserved better than the scapegoating he got.




Also, "..bellowing most loudly about brutal treatment of women in the ADF were the same blowhards who were savaging Brigadier Lyn McDade.." - fair enough to note that irony.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 April 2011)

Logique said:


> IF, it won't surprise you that Carlton isn't one  of my favourite columnists, but this is one of his more balanced pieces. He stuck up for academy commandant, Commodore Bruce Kafer, so good on him for doing that.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, "..bellowing most loudly about brutal treatment of women in the ADF were the same blowhards who were savaging Brigadier Lyn McDade.." - fair enough to note that irony.




Excellent points L.

Having associations with politicians and ADF personnel, both at high levels, the calibre of our defence leaders, I must say, is far above that of our "leaders".

Comparing Bruce Kafer to the likes of Smith, Arbib, Hanson or Pyne, makes one wonder whether the separation of command and policy is all that wise.

Osama bin Laden, does not operate as our DF does.

Although he does agree with Australia having women soldiers.

gg


----------



## Sean K (17 April 2011)

Calliope said:


> Wilkie's holier-than-thou image is slipping.



Having gone through Duntroon, not half of what has been reported actually occurs. However, it's for a very good purpose that I thoroughly support. There is a balance, but in total war, what do you want of a military leader? Do we want officers who squeal at every set back? Who collapse under pressure? Who do not follow higher commands intent? Wilkie sounds like he was just your standard 1st class cadet, giving it to the 3rd class as he should have.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (17 April 2011)

If a woman wants to be a soldier she has every right.  She'd have to be as strong and tough as a man.  Some women are built that way.  If they are weak in mind and body then they don't get chosen, simple.

Why this need to control what women do and don't do?  Let them do what they want!!  In reality, few women would choose to be a soldier, and those that do choose it, probably have what it takes.


----------

