>> If war is the ultimate in insanity, then why would any women demand a right to participate? <<

Another article is determined to reveal the aggressive side of women, that they are at least equal to if not more violent than men: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12153

Fact is the majority of humans (that is male AND female) do not want to kill each other or commit crimes of abuse. Yet here we have two articles attempting to label women as either the pillars of peace or the most heinous harridans.

Both articles written by men with very fixed views on what it is to be female.

Frankly, if women want to join men in the trenches and pass the same rigorous training as men, who is to tell them otherwise?

Both articles display extreme views of women and are to be deplored for such polarity.

Rewrite your story as if the so called "Skype Affair" was between two homosexual Men.

As for your attitude towards women, well your just a bit behind the times. The world has moved on most of us try to judge people on their merit, not on their skin colour, sex, or who their parents were. If they are capable of doing the job then there is no reason why we shouldn't allow them to do it.

'Both articles display extreme views of women and are to be deplored for such polarity.'

Well, one article. What is extreme about criticising the total denial by a politician of woman *ever* abusing the court system? What is extreme about producing proof that a certain proportion of women abuse their children, just as a certain proportion of men do.

It seems to me you are the one with the 'polarity'. You want equal rights for women to be seen as aggressive in the front lines, but yet totally incapable of violence, and totally incapable of lying.

So, assuredly this author puts them on a pedestal, and you are unhappy with that, but you are upset of them being knocked off the very same pedestal in the other article.

'Both articles written by men with very fixed views on what it is to be female.'

And how many articles are written by feminist women with very fixed views on what it is to be male? Can men and women not comment on one another?

'Frankly, if women want to join men in the trenches and pass the same rigorous training as men, who is to tell them otherwise?'

I Agree wholeheartedly. There should be physical requirements not gender requirements. I didn't bother to read this article as I cant see how there could possibly be an argument for women not being allowed to serve.

Women with bayonets! Now gender equality becomes madness

The one good thing that may eventually come out of this is, that more and more people will realise the madness and insanity of war as a means setlling a dispute; legalising the killing of one person by another over philosophical differences. Killings, not because our lives are threatened, not because our livelyhood is in danger, no, just because the other person may think different to us and has a different lifestyle. culture or religion.
War never really solves the problem it is initially started for. Once started war usually creates its own momentum of hate and revenge. The best justification for war is the war itself. Once the killing starts reason no longer matters.
My solution to societies love affair with going to war is simple: make making war a crime. A declaration of war is a criminal act as it encourages killing other human beings. There must be a Court of Justice somewhere where these perpetrators can be tried. Any person killing another person is a war criminal, not a hero, not a good mate.
War brings out the worst side of humanity in soldiers, men and women. Would any sane person use a bayonet against another human being? We should not celebrate the killing and maiming of other human beings. There can be no war heros any more.
One day in the future, Remembrance Days will remembered for the shortsightedness of backward governments becoming involved in uncivilised practices, for lacking in the basic understanding of human needs of health and happiness. The idea that any belief, or a religion, or other motivating force can be stopped by killing the person or persons, is foolish. That has been proven over and over again, right back to the birth of Christianity.
It is time for us to grow up and, rather that train our women to become efficient fighting machines, look towards and end to this abominable practice of legalised slaughter.

DON'T TAKE WOMAN ON THE FRONT LINE TOO SERIOUSLY

The Defence spin doctors (at the uniformed HQ and the Defence Minister's Office) appear to have re-dredged "woman on the front line?" as an attempt to attract attention away from ADFA's (not Duntroon's) Skype Affair.

"woman on the front line?" was a temporary device - and has been dropped from the MSM and from genuine bureaucratic interest as far as I can see.

Australian woman serving at large bases in Afghanistan is possible but I don't think they will displace (male) diggers who compete for special forces place on the true patrolling "front-line". There being no actual front-line in Afghanistan anyway.

Pete

There is another side to this problem.

Too many young ladies are graduating from the defence college. There are not enough "ladies" jobs for these newly graduated ladies.

There is a much lower percentage of female other ranks to female officers, than men to male officers. Most men in the defence force are not shy retiring "SNAG" types, & don't want to play tin soldier for these ladies.

After a bad experience or too many male other ranks are refusing to serve under these female officers. Many are refusing to serve along side females of lower rank. More than a few a are taking their bat & ball & going home, that is resigning.

Don't ask the authorities, but ask the navy senior ratings why half our ships are tied very firmly to a wharf somewhere, then duck. You'll get a strong answer. They are so sick of our lady navy that most those worth having have gone mining. There are very few left who can run a ship, certainly not enough to crew the existing fleet, let alone the new ones coming in.

Our lefty & academic feminists have got what they wanted. Lots of good jobs, with authority as well. Great in the current as close to peace time as it gets these days. However, god help us if we ever have to defend ourselves.

Come on.Stop playing pathetic games here.
Women want to have equal rights. They should be happy to have equal rights to insecurity, danger and lethal consequences. The Israelis have long had brigades of women in the armed forces and have been used in wars agaisnt the Egyptians and insurgents without any whimpering from unwanted male affectionados. It comes with the territory.
What's so wrong about that. That is what they want,too.
Why should it be any more acceptable for men to be placed in lethal positions?

socratease

That is extremely sexist Hasbeen. What 'they' wanted - you make it sound like a conspiracy. So what if some women have authority? What about men who have authority, is that a bad thing too?

What 'they' wanted was equal access to jobs. What is wrong with women working in jobs traditionally held by men and vice versa?

Suitability is the key. I must admit my gut reaction is averse to women fighting in the trenches (so to speak) but I know this is wrong - it is probably an age/generation thing but it is not about you or I think, but about who is suitable for the job.

Before women were given the right to vote there were those who doubted the wisdom of doing so ..they used the same rationalisation...it's not about giving women voting rights; it's all about the suitability of giving women who traditionally have been suitabler as seed carriers and domestics such powers. Can women vote as sensibly as men could...these were the usual outpourings. You have only to dig into the history of feminist movements to get the evidence i am alluding to.

socratease

And in Saudi Arabia, women are having to fight just to drive cars:

"Saudi women plan to take to the streets in vehicles to protest the ban on June 17th."

http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/03/saudi-women-to-mrs-clinton-support-our-right-to-drive/

Australia has not fallen into the abyss since women were given (by men) the vote, the right to drive, nominal equal pay for equal work and some are capable of fighting in armed combat - not many women, but then not many men are capable of the abilities required to be a soldier either. We don't stop men from becoming nurses.

Ironic given that on issues of DV a regular group of men are arguing that women are more violent. Fine, send 'em to the battle front.

...I believe acceptance of women on the front line of combat duty does for femininity, what tattoos contribute to female beauty; nothing.

Hasbeen,

If that is indeed happening, it is normal business practise. People who have skills and talent are often kept where they are vital and needed, and those who 'manage' are the ones who are promoted out of harms way.

I must admit I only really respect managers who have at one stage performed my job and have skills at least an equal to myself. I think this is natural, but a particularly open minded boss or an easily malleable one that can be trained by me often suffices.
Managers the world over are arse-coverers and glorified messenger boys.

I take it that in the military, it would be hard to have respect for a higher rank who hasn't seen as much live action as the grunts. This is a legitimate problem and not a gender/sexist idea as pelican states.

Unless of course the women who are promoted have indeed earned their stripes as much as the men but are just more ambitious, and it's your assumptions that are sexist.

Women are more inclined for what ever biological reason to look after themselves and their family [ie.get them and themselves out of harm's way ].

They can kill when it suits them, but appear not to relish the idea .

It would be very interesting to see however ,if they reacted better to combat including the killing and maiming of their opposition and civilians ,with less Post Traumatic Stress, which is a huge burden that must be accepted and treated.