The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The myth of gender interchangeability > Comments

The myth of gender interchangeability : Comments

By Babette Francis, published 5/4/2013

To make the weight-lifting requirement for combat assignments gender neutral, how many pounds will be taken off the test?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All
If you were really genuine about this 'band of brothers' concept, Babette, you would be arguing for the return to its real origin – the Sacred Band of Thebes, the one where the elite troop of fighters consisted of 150 pairs of male lovers.

Would make for an interesting change in modern military force recruitment tests…

No reason for a willingness to fight and die to be other than gender neutral – as opposed to gender inclusive or interchangeable – so long as it's not compulsory on any individual.

Besides, if you doubt the abilities of females in combat, just try kicking a dykes-on-bikes' ride out from under her.
Posted by WmTrevor, Friday, 5 April 2013 8:54:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can't see why anyone would want to engage in combat, but if anyone DOES want to then I don't see that their gender is a reason to exclude them. Since the modern military already spends billions of dollars on weapons systems that don't require physical strength to deploy and use, it would surely be hypocritical to turn around bar anyone from using them because they didn't have that strength.

As for the 'band of brothers' argument -- really? in this day and age? What's next? Should we try and ban women from combat because there are no female toilets in the Afghan desert?
Posted by Jon J, Friday, 5 April 2013 9:09:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a fairly standard test for front-line grunt. Which may include a very long run in full battle gear, followed by picking up a comrade and their gear; and running a hundred metres or so with them.
Then jump over a 2 metre wide ditch, climb a 4 metre wall, run along a 20 metre narrow beam, climb over a 6 metre cargo net, run through a couple of dozen tyres, work your way on on your gut under/over a wet muddy obstacle course, perhaps with a few live rounds cracking overhead, then shinny up a long rope and finish with some live fire at simulated moving targets.
Necessary, given a front-line soldier, operating in the field, may have to undertake a forced march of up to a hundred kilometres, at the drop of a hat, carrying all essential equipment with him or her, over rough terrain no vehicle can negotiate.
The only requirement, is they be strong enough and fast enough, naturally robust enough, and fit enough to complete a forced tactical withdrawal, under battlefield conditions, without compromising their ability or that of a platoon, to efficiently engage the enemy.
Moreover, they should never become a source of distraction, above what might be considered normal, minus any gender issues; but particularly, when on patrol or operating behind enemy lines!
The job statement for a soldier, boils down to kill or be killed, and look after your mates!
Therefore, every soldier, needs must be also emotionality strong, tough, uncompromising, clinically engaged and able to follow lawful orders professionally!
They cannot lose their resolve or their bottle, just because the leader is swearing or shouting orders!
They must never faint at the first sight of blood or human entrails, etc/etc.
Battlefields are often or routinely full of such sights and the often almost unendurable sounds and smells, that accompany them!
Aside from all that, gender or gender bias should never ever be an issue!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 5 April 2013 11:00:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My son doesn't like "girls" on navy ships. He also hates stupidity.

During an overhaul period he was assigned 2 female stokers, [engineer types]. He soon found that at least one of them was in the way where ever he went.

To get rid of one for a while, he told one to take a cylinder head out of the engine room, & load it onto a truck, wharf side. She informed him it was heavier than regulations permitted her to lift. Beauty he thought, & sent the other to help.

Naval ships are not easy things to get around, particularly with 2 people carrying one thing. For these young ladies, just getting through a water tight door required 5 applications of a chain block, [lifting equipment], & about 2 hours. There were many of these, & 4 decks to traverse.

Two days later, when the other 11 heads were off, he assigned 2 male ratings to load all of them on the truck. When they had finished, they went back & helped the ladies complete loading theirs.

Moral, don't assignee girls to a man’s job, don't assignee them to men who expect people to work, not watch, & for god’s sake, don't go to fight with girls in the way.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 5 April 2013 1:03:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gee's I'm getting sick and tired of this business where some women wish to be involved in combat roles ? Not just being close to the 'wire', being outside the bloody thing !

You and your section go forth for a 7 day patrol 'outside the wire' there are no niceties for a female, everyone does what he does. The bloke on the M60 carries several hundred rds of belt 7.62, around his neck, his offsider carries the bulk of the belted stuff. It's so hot you can barely breathe, sweat makes every bit of your material black with perspiration and you stink. You take a leak where and when you can, and most of us had severe rashes in our groins, our arse area, under our scrotums, our packs are so damn heavy that rashes appear where the straps grind with friction against skin.

You defecate when possible, oh yeah diarrhoea is fun too, and not being able to wipe yourself properly after, is a real barrel of laughs also ! Particularly with these bloody rashes you get. The part that I loved best was the monsoon. Cooling, but bloody hot and steamy after the rains.

So imagine for a moment ladies, trying to maintain your own personal hygiene measures every month, as well as your daily needs, coupled with EVERYTHING above...? WELL ALL THAT'S THE GOOD PART !

The bad part is the 'contacts', the 'ambushes', working with the 'ginger beers' setting up our friendly 'Claymores' ? Not a very nice way to spend you day I'd like you to know ?

OK, if the ladies want to try 'working outside the wire' ? Well let them.
Posted by o sung wu, Friday, 5 April 2013 2:31:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
any one interested in truth only needs to see the diaster and joke of having young females on the beat in Sydney and Melbourne. Talk about downgrading and disrespecting the role of policing.
Posted by runner, Friday, 5 April 2013 6:36:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am happy for women to be in the front line. They can carry their packs in the APCs, as long as they get there with rifle in hand.

Fact is that women voted overwhelming for Chicken Hawk Menzies' plan to send young men like me, who were excluded from the vote, to Vietnam.

Maybe when an equal number of women come back in body bags women voters will be less inclined to send soldiers to wars that Australia should never have been involved in.
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 5 April 2013 6:41:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Onthebeach
<Fact is that women voted overwhelming for Chicken Hawk Menzies' plan to send young men like me,
who were excluded from the vote, to Vietnam.>

I don’t doubt what you say about Menzies winning the vote, but I do know that
my husband’s( who was then 21years, and old enough for the conscription} mother, said, “I didn’t raise a son for 21years
to have him sent to war and killed”. She was not at all happy about him being conscripted.
So maybe it was the women who weren’t mothers and older men who voted for Menzies at that time.
Posted by CHERFUL, Friday, 5 April 2013 7:11:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I totally agree with this article. That women can't match
the sheer physical and evolutionary warrior skills of men in
times of war. It's just woolly, Pollyanna thinking.

However, the rich at the top, only keep us
peasants around and feed us as a protective shield around them
in times of attack. So when the chips are down, they will take
men, women and even lower the fighting age to include children
as young as 14years if the war is going badly. Anything to
win and save themselves. We are only gun fodder for the elites who control armies. We are their shield.
Posted by CHERFUL, Friday, 5 April 2013 7:23:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good evening ONTHEBEACH...

I wasn't aware you're also a veteran ? When were you there, and what unit did you serve with ? Golly it was so long ago, I'm over 70 now but remember vividly some of the events that occurred there.

I'm not sure of your view, but these people pushing for women to serve in combat environments, obviously have never served in a rifle platoon ? I have no doubt some women would be capable, but it's simply NOT appropriate for them to serve as a grunt !

Sure as a pilot, or Intel, or in some other combat related support capacity, OK. But not in an Infantry Platoon, 'drop shorts' (Artillery), Combat Engineers, etc.

I will readily admit, I'm old fashioned, but I'll say again, it's simply NOT appropriate for women to serve 'outside the wire'.
Posted by o sung wu, Friday, 5 April 2013 8:09:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A few points:
Firstly I don't credit the "sisterhood" with much influence in this matter, they've jumped on board because, as with the vote it's now reached a point where putting women in combat units isn't going to cost them anything, I'll explain why.
The bulk of the frontline warfighting these days is done by commando and spec ops units, no woman could ever pass the SAS, Delta Force,Foreign Legion or Paratrooper requirements so the likelihood of women going hand to hand or even exchanging small arms fire with an enemy is remote.
Secondly women are simply not going to be able to keep up with the men in the field and will be left behind or quickly removed from combat teams. Has anyone watched that program on TV about the British mine clearance teams in Afghanistan? The Brits actually do have women in those roles and one episode followed a young woman on her first deployment, she fared badly. Even though she was a large, young and fit girl she was assigned to carry a 20+ kilo electronic warfare system, the device that jams incoming radio and phone signals while the defuse bombs in addition to her weapon, armour and bandoliers.
Basically she need the full time assistance of two other team members just to do her job and in one particularly hairy operation she became stuck in a bog, nearly wrecking the jammer and had to be rescued.
Talk to a soldier about what happens to their feet, about shin splints, torn ligaments and cracked bones from carrying your own body weight in gear up hill and down dale, talk to an old veteran about what kind of shape their bodies were in when they came back from New Guinea or Borneo.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Friday, 5 April 2013 8:53:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The feminists are just plain thick about the unintended negative consequences of their very flawed beliefs and they are prone to throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Not surprising for a movement that is based on a lie and is captive of and serves the few, the educated middle class elite who worship shoes, restaurants and Beamers. Middle class materialism. Egocentrism. Me, me, me. All obvious in the self concern of their articles.

An example is walking women into a higher qualifying age for the pension. That only affects the herd and not feminists. The middle class careerists get golden handshakes and super. They will never need the age pension. Will Julia Gillard or her Emily's List feminist mates ever need an age pension? Not bloody likely!

Another easy example is their truly dumb-ass arrogance and spite towards women who want to raise children themselves and horror of horrors, breastfeed them.

Feminists can only imagine getting senior officer positions. They have no concept of what it takes to get there, or the requirement for such leaders to have field experience. Nor do they care. But anyhow it is enough to make outlandish demands for women to be 'equal' and show up in SAS officer numbers. The sensationalism is worth it to revive a flagging and tired movement that is showing its cracks (in more ways than one).

Now, the Walking Haircut, the Defence Minister says women are discriminated against by not being equally represented in the SAS. There have been umpteen reviews of Defence, which Julia's uncharitable 'misognyists' (sic) say were intended to divert attention away from her mistakes and to cover the Walking Haircut's lack of decisions. The big slugger for feminists and certified victims for the guvvy gravy train, HREOC, says women should get shot as often as men. So there you go, it must be right.

But I don't mind because if equality means anything at all it is that a life is a life and a wonderful womyn's life is only equal to a man's. A glimmer of truth, unintended.
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 6 April 2013 8:06:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Compare and contrast

http://www.news.com.au/business/worklife/feminists-urge-women-to-demand-better-from-work-and-home-life/story-e6frfm9r-1226613514759

"Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick warned women not to rely on male partners for money.

''A man is not a financial plan,'' she told News Limited.

''Women need their own economic security.

''We can't have women saying, 'Now I have a child I'm leaving the labor market''."

and

"''The Federal Government's director of Workplace Gender Equality, Helen Conway, said some women were ''lackadaisical'' about feminism.

''The battle is far from won and they need to maintain the rage,'' she said.

''Men are still paid more and a lower percentage of women are in leadership positions.

''Women can't just throw their hands up and say it's all too hard.''"

with

http://www.news.com.au/national-news/todays-woman-survey-finds-australian-women-want-friends-family-and-financial-security/story-fncynjr2-1226613522190

"What women want most is the ''three Fs'' - family, friends and financial security.

Today's Woman survey of 6253 Australian women by NewsLifeMedia and parenting website kidspot.com.au reveals they are trading in their careers for the role of wife, mother and friend."

Perhaps it's time for the two very well-paid bureaucrats and advocates in the first story to start looking for new jobs. They seem to be offering services that nobody needs or wants.
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 6 April 2013 8:36:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
O sung,
The effectiveness of women in combat is contingent upon everything going right and all the gear working all the time, as a veteran what would you say are the chances of every operation running like clockwork?
What if all the men in the squad are hit at once and only the women are left? This is a video of what happened to elite troops, the U.S 101st on a "routine" mission in Afghnaistan with all the best gear available today, (warning it's pretty nasty), do we really want our daughters involved in this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTb_zoA4pNA
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Saturday, 6 April 2013 8:59:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jay, I wouldn't want my daughters OR my sons involved in that, or any war.
Mothers are the least likely advocates of war in most cases.

I admit to being a bit old fashioned on this issue.

It's old men in parliament with 'shoot 'em up if they don't agree with us' issues that decide to create wars in the first place.
I say we let the men go to these wars if we have to have them, to fight wars that men created...
Posted by Suseonline, Saturday, 6 April 2013 11:38:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah1zEK68HFE

They disembarked in '45
And no one spoke and no one smiled
There were too many spaces in the line

Gathered at the cenotaph
All agreed with hands on heart
To sheath the sacrificial knives

(but now)
She stands upon Southampton dock
With her handkerchief and her summer frock
Clings to her wet body in the rain

In quiet desperation, knuckles white upon the slippery reins
She bravely waves the boys good bye again

Still the dark stain spreads between
Their shoulder blades
A mute reminder of the poppy fields and graves
When the fight was over
We spent what they had made

but
In the bottom of our hearts
We felt the final cut

Would you have been happy to send your children off to that one, Susy? After all, it was started by a woman. Over a couple of islands thousands of miles away, for no more reason than wanting to appear "strong", "she bravely waved the boys goodbye again".

A bit like the posturing of our own "strong" woman - bravely ready to sacrifice everything that somebody else owns to save her political skin for just one more day.
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 6 April 2013 12:42:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I said, Antiseptic, I wouldn't want to send my kids off to ANY war.
I want peace in the world, but you have to agree that it is men who predominantly start and participate in wars?

I am not saying that there weren't wars that we had to have, in order to bring about peace, because of several mad dictators in the past.

I have looked after men with terrible post traumatic stress syndrome after wars, and the pain they experience is awful.
I don't want to see men or women at war at all.
Posted by Suseonline, Saturday, 6 April 2013 2:38:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suse do you think the boys who were "bravely waved goodbye" wanted to go off to kill and be killed?

Which "mad dictator" was suppressed in the Falklands?

Men go to war because they are given no choice. Women have often been part of the reason they feel that way. The White Feather movement that started in the first world war and continued into the second was an example. My own mother was scathing of my father well into the 70s because he had not fought in the second world war due to being in a protected occupation. She had a fiance who had killed himself in Wewak at the age of 21 - it was recorded as an accident, of course - and he was buried in the war cemetery in Lae where I grew up, where Mum used to visit his grave regularly. When Mum was in her cups Dad wore all her resentment at the world for having taken the love of her young life away, but of course to her he had been a hero and Dad as a non-combatant had to be cast as a coward. He never responded, but it cut him (and me) deeply.

If a few butch lesbians feel the need to prove how manly they are to their girlfriends I say give them rifles and let them do it. A few men might be spared and all of us will be better off.
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 6 April 2013 3:27:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suseonline, "Mothers are the least likely advocates of war in most cases. ...It's old men in parliament with 'shoot 'em up if they don't agree with us' issues that decide to create wars in the first place"

Those stereotypes of women and of your despised 'old men' suit your world view. But they could be no further from the truth as demonstrated by the voting patterns of women for PMs like ChickenHawk Menzies who proposed a war that the US didn't invite us to, ie Vietnam.

Contrary to your world view and prejudices, 'men' are not inclined to be warlike or vote for war. Also contrary to your world view, neither women nor women who are mothers are inclined to vote against war. Quite the opposite in fact, although some who might be affected immediately may be opposed to war.

There can be a number of explanations for the voting behaviour of women. It is surmised that women are more inclined to vote for war through women's concern for security and desire for continued predictability in their lives. That translates into an emotional need, reaction and priority to protect their status quo. "Send them" is easy. But sending the last born and watching the body bags come home over years is not.

For interest, women voters also strongly supported Joh Bjelke Peterson, who allowed police and police cadets to remove identifying numbers and names to beat up male and female students whose only offence was a quiet, sit down in Roma street after a legal march to oppose the Vietnam War.

We need to move away from the tiresome and irrelevant gender politics to challenge those who support war. Speaking of which, why Julia Gillard is involving herself in North Korea is anyone's guess, but I suppose she wants to look strong and willing (even if not needed), which is the way we have entered other conflicts.
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 6 April 2013 3:28:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't know where you get your ideas from onthebeach, but women in this country have only been able to vote since early in the 20th century, and I wasn't aware that there was ever a time in Australia where women could 'vote' for war?

Are you talking about America? I'm not.
Were there actually many people at all in Australia who supported the Vietnam War?
I assumed it was the all-male parliament at the time who agreed for our men and women to go to Vietnam?

My grandparents talked about the Second World War too onthebeach, and they mentioned the white feathers, of which were also given to local farmers who had to stay home from the war ... but they were given to them by the old men of their towns, not the women. And it certainly wasn't the women who beat up some of these men.

It depends on who you talk to I guess.
Posted by Suseonline, Saturday, 6 April 2013 6:19:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather

It may depend on who you talk to as to whether you hear the truth, perhaps.

Feminism has had a long tradition of preparedness to sacrifice men to the benefit of women.

I'd be happy for the Army to accept as many feminists as exist, whether they want to join or not.

Turn-about is fair play.
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 6 April 2013 6:33:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suseonline,

I thought I was clear enough in saying that they voted strongly for leaders like Menzies and Joh Bjelke Peterson.
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 6 April 2013 6:34:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suse let's talk about the Nazis LOL.
Let's cut to the chase, your side sees the NSDAP as the benchmark for macho warmongering, so without further ado:
Who voted for the Nazis?
(electoral history of the National Socialist German Workers Party)
http://www.johndclare.net/Weimar6_Geary.htm
According to that article women were just as likely as men to vote for the NSDAP or social democrats but there were stark gender differences in the Leftist and Communist vote, men were far more likely to vote left or to change their vote from National Socialist or Conservative to Communist or Socialist than were women.
So given the choice German women preferred the right to the left, conservative over progressive, I wonder if we had an equivalent mix of viewpoints in this day and age whether the breakdown would look any different? It's well and good for you to make your previous statements, you're probably right but Australia in 2013 is not a democracy in the sense that the Weimar Republic was, we don't have the same range of tendencies on the hustings, we really only have centrist liberal and social democratic parties to choose from.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Saturday, 6 April 2013 6:36:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well luckily Antiseptic, the Army accepts far more anti-feminists than they do feminists.
I remain old fashioned when I say I believe the actual fighting of wars is a man's occupation.

I was going to join once as a Nursing Officer, but someone told me it was very much a mans world, so I didn't, thank goodness...
Posted by Suseonline, Saturday, 6 April 2013 7:33:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Women have a role to play in combat just as much as men – if combat is your thing. The ability to carry large and heavy weaponry and other clunky stuff, and to pee standing up, does not a superior fighter make.

Nimble, armour-challenged Monguls on horses easily defeated European knights weighed down by their silly suits of armour. Even the Roman’s found there was a limit to how far they could lug their huge, cumbersome armies and weaponry, before being picked off by nimble Germanics and Celts. And look at how the tenacious Vietcong (who had a strong female presence) defeated the most heavy weapons-dominant, superior military machine on earth.

Also, given the chance, many women are just as willing as men are to take up arms, or whatever comes to hand, to fight for what they believe in – whether it be through a standard army or through a paramilitary organisation or by engaging in civil disobedience. But the operative words are: ‘given the chance’. History has actively excluded women from combat, either through royal or papal decree as in the early middle ages, or because they have been thoroughly conditioned to believe war is a man’s job, or simply because they were always stuck with the kids.

I’m anti-war myself, but a lot of women are not. If wars are here to stay, then women who want to fight them have every right to do so
Posted by Killarney, Saturday, 6 April 2013 8:59:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Killarney,
The guys in Afghanistan regularly carry about 50kg, and that's just a basic load,some have to carry mortars, missile launchers,machine guns, radios,ladders, anti materiel guns and so forth.If a person can't carry 50 to 120 kilos of weight all day every day in any weather over any terrain they can't be an infantry soldier, end of story.
Again, you and the other backers of this silly idea are living in the "land of should" not the "land of is", shall we all watch another video this showing what modern soldiering is about? No honest person could pretend that a woman would be anything but a liability in this situation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cclbmO5poz4
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Sunday, 7 April 2013 12:14:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jay

Well, all that stuff they have to carry hasn’t brought them much success, has it?

After ten years in Afghanistan and Iraq, traipsing all over the desert carrying heavy backpacks and beepy things, those muscle-bound, manly soldiers have SFA to show for their trouble and even less to do now but go home – leaving a country in shambles and full of war rubble and limbless people.

The only supposed military ‘success’ of recent times – i.e. Libya – was only achieved by NATO carpet bombing of towns full of civilians, with about 10,000 sorties from 30,000 feet, leaving bombed out craters that were once thriving cities.

Where is the ‘manliness’ in all of that?
Posted by Killarney, Sunday, 7 April 2013 5:04:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It was a mistake disbanding the WRAACS.

Women really do need women to manage them. The women officers do not take *bleep*.

Women football referees of women's sports are the same (and doesn't everyone wish that the penalty pleaders of men's soccer could be handled likewise to rid the game of the theatrics and BS!).

Technology has created large numbers of defence jobs with good career structures that could be staffed by WRAACS. Trucks, aircraft maintenance and the roles provided by ARAACS in wartime remain.

With poseur ministers like the Walking Haircut, who really do need to move often so their own publicity is never matched with their performance, facts, logic and good sense will never see light of day in defence policy.
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 7 April 2013 7:07:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Killareny, you're just being silly now, if those soldiers weren't carrying all that weight they'd die since it's all designed to protect them, did you watch the other video of the soldier taking a bullet in the head and surviving? That helmet weighs three kilos, his vest weighs about 14, then there's his other accoutrements, so even in the vehicle he has to manage nearly twenty kilos of gear. Did you see him struggling to lift the box of grenades before he was shot? He was a fit, strong young man and he still needed help but what if all the other men in the truck were wounded or dead and he still had to operate the grenade launcher to protect the convoy? Again, a woman would fail in that situation, she'd get people killed because she wouldn't be strong enough to do the job.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Sunday, 7 April 2013 8:15:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
? The myth of gender interchangeability ?

...Rule by the “Alpha Bitch” Is no myth; neither a new phenomenon
Posted by diver dan, Sunday, 7 April 2013 1:27:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've seen a few women, who could outperform their male counterparts, in almost any test.
Strength is never related to muscle size, just the natural fat content or marbling.
Likewise, athletic speed is related to the amount of fast twitch fibre.
And one will find some women who routinely outperform most men!
If women want to fight on the front line or in special forces?
All that ought to be required is they pass a full physical.
Run the required distance carrying all their own gear, and still be able to perform combat roles at the end of it!
One of which could include carrying 2 metre, 120 kilo comrade, in a fireman's carry, over a hundred metres.
Given rape is also part of warfare, and indeed, some co-ed military colleges?
Women will always serve at some disadvantage? Moreover, men can't fall pregnant!
Some of the most courageous heroes in recorded history, were women serving various roles behind enemy lines, and or resisting the Gestapo, or their equivalent.
Most women have a higher pain threshold than most men. So it is never a question of courage, just raw natural ability and strength!
However, I have yet to see even a world beating female athlete, run a full marathon in under 2 hours 10 minutes.
Men and women are not only made different, but are wired differently as well!
They generally have very different priorities?
Men seem to be naturally able to see the big picture, whereas, women seem better able to multi-task, and see the detail?
That ends the argument, given most women simply cannot match men in the grunt department.
Those that can, should find no impediment, given it's their personal choice!?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Sunday, 7 April 2013 2:07:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As has been demonstrated by writers here and also through common sense, it is ludicrous that women serve in combat.

However ... if they insist ... let them have contingents of their own sex ... and get on with it.
Posted by Danielle, Sunday, 7 April 2013 3:40:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here's a point I'd overlooked thus far.
PMC's and "security contractors" operate all over the "war on terror" theatres, there's no legal or bureaucratic impediment to their hiring women for high risk duties, their duties are also much lighter from the point of view of physical exertion and load carrying capacity.
They do hire women, I've seen documentaries following their operators around Baghdad and Kabul and noticed a few female Aussie accents in the briefing rooms and offices, but not out on the convoys.
Why would that be?
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Sunday, 7 April 2013 5:09:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JayofMelbourne,

There would be a rationale to allotting duties based on ability. Possibly these women take on those assignments which release men for more physically demanding duties.
Posted by Danielle, Sunday, 7 April 2013 5:43:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No, Jay, I'm not 'just being silly now'. Modern warfare is no longer won by heavily armed dudes carting around the equivalent of a munitions warehouse on their backs and heads. Western combat machinery and the Western combat soldier are dinosaur relics doomed for extinction.

Due to its over-reliance on redundant, heavy and cumbersome weaponry, the West (aka the US and its imperial minions) has lost every combat war it's fought in the last 50 years. Its only superiority now lies in its ability to carpet bomb and surgically strike from the air - a task that is not only devoid of all morality, courage or honour, it's also non-gender specific.

The irony is that, because men have gone to such lengths to make combat as hyper-masculine as possible, they have rendered it ineffectual. The only fighting forces that win conflicts on the ground anymore are those that carry very little, remain lightly armed and can appear and disappear very quickly - something women can do just as well, even better than, men.
Posted by Killarney, Sunday, 7 April 2013 8:55:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[This got left out of my previous comment, due to technical problems in posting.]

A lot of writers here seem to think that men go straight from normal life and slap-bang into a warzone – as if extensive combat training and selection processes never happen. As with men, the sort of women who would excel in combat are those with strong athletic builds and a strong war ethic, who undergo extensive physical and mental training to equip them for life in a warzone. Just as many men are not suited to combat (undoubtedly, the most tragic outcome of conscription), a lot of women ARE suited to it.
Posted by Killarney, Sunday, 7 April 2013 9:32:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are right of course Killarney, but I am sure far more women wouldn't consider the option of hand to hand combat than men would.

From what I have seen on news reports, there does seem to be quite a few ground patrols of heavily weighted down men and women in the main conflict Australia is involved with at present...Afganistan ?

I realize there would be many women who could carry the same amount of gear with them as the men, but for the life of me, I can't imagine why they would want to!
Posted by Suseonline, Monday, 8 April 2013 12:43:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Babette Francis provided an entertaining take on "The myth of gender interchangeability" (5 April 2013), discussing women in combat roles, starting with Henry V: "Once more unto the breach, dear friends ...".

In reality, most of those involved in defence have sit down jobs, operating computer consoles, in offices, ships, aircraft and vehicles. These personnel are a mix of civilian contractors, public servants and military. The "front line" in modern war is not clear and civilian personnel are routinely deployed in combat zones. As a result the gender of the personnel is largely irrelevant: they are chosen based on ability to do the job.

When working as a public servant for the Australian Department of Defence I put on a camouflage uniform to go on exercise with the US Navy in the Coral Sea. Around me were the US Navy and US Marines, Australian Army, Navy and Air Force, along with civilian personnel. The enemy would not be able to distinguish between us, when attacking the warship we were on: http://www.tomw.net.au/nt/tt97.html
Posted by tomw, Monday, 8 April 2013 10:30:29 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Killarney has made a strong case for the abandonment of women's events in sport. Totally unnecessary and obvious discrimination!

That is good because it also means that there is no need for that affirmative action and nagging by feminists for there to be equal prize money and equal time on The Box for women's sports. Let the market rule because women are big enough and mean enough to do it on their own.

Come to think of it, Killarney makes a convincing case to do away with all of those wasteful publicly funded quangos spruiking for women and why not for those other presumed victim groups too.

Just to check one little point though, is killarney sure she is representing women, or is she taking her lead from those cussing, hard-partying, would-be truckie radical feminist womyn?

Hmmm, that gives rise to another question, if a butch lesbian wars to protect her femme, is that an instance of feminist despised patriarchal chivalry?

No matter, here's looking forward to equity in the returning body bags.
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 8 April 2013 11:15:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There really is a bit of re-writing of History going on within these comments... yes yes , I know.. It's a socialist weakness.

I can remember a couple..

Cheryl, . If your brother was 21 , your Mother had no worries. Our Marbles were selected for our 20th Birthdays.. not 21 st.

The Falklands War.. What mad Dictators/ Generals.?

Well it was the Argentinean Ones who invaded ...... Derrr !

Women have not had the Vote long enough in Australia to ever have voted for war ( or warlike activities ) ?

Women voted in the majority for the Conscription Votes in WW1... the votes were lost because the AIF in Europe and the Middle East , about 300,000 of them , very strongly voted against Conscription .

No white Feathers from the Troops !

Other than drivel like this, good comments, but please, if you don't know your History, don't make it up !
Posted by Aspley, Monday, 8 April 2013 2:07:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suseonline,

I appreciate from where you are coming, and I feel exactly the same.

However, women can be just a warmongering and lethal as men. I would hazzard a guess, that women in power would make similar decisions about embarking on war as men do. In fact, I don't doubt it.

The people elect their leaders depending upon how they perceive their strength and that of the relevant parties. If a woman is a leader and her party's position is ...
Posted by Danielle, Monday, 8 April 2013 2:26:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suseonline,

Who sent troops to the Falklands? A conflict that was actually pointless, even capricious, and cost lives.
Posted by Danielle, Monday, 8 April 2013 2:35:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Danielle...Falklands.

Are you saying that it's OK for Dictators to invade their Neighbors ?
Posted by Aspley, Monday, 8 April 2013 3:18:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Feminists like Suseonline win on the swings and the roundabout. They see war as men's role. That gets them out of going themselves. They also get to denounce men later for being warlike. Men's wars they say. They even get to claim that women are always the victims.

Women's behaviour in voting for governments who send men to war -and in Australia, ChickenHawks like Menzies relied on a strong women's vote to keep them on the government benches- women demonstrate beyond all doubt that they have no hesitation in voting for young men to put their lives on the line in ventures overseas. While women may not have voted in a referendum for war, they did the same by supporting appalling Chickenhawks like Menzies who pleaded with the US to send young conscripted men to Vietnam.

Where male voters are concerned, there is always great reluctance to agree with the Australian volunteer army being used for anything else than the actual DEFENCE of Australia. Men are highly rational in resisting governments who would like to use a volunteer army (as opposed to the professional, career army) for overseas ventures, where the defence of Australia is suspect or non-existent. Some might understand that history from the two armies that Australia had in WW2.
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 8 April 2013 4:53:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aspley, Galtieri "invaded" the Falklands, 'tis true, but given that Argentina had an historical claim at least as strong as Britain's, a geographical one that is much stronger and that they have neither strategic, resource or any other significance to Britain, Thatcher was arguably the real aggressor. Did Galtieri exhibit any genuine expansionism and threat to his neighbours? Not 'ardly.

Thatcher's response was that of the gamekeeper who shoots a poacher for having taken a pigeon in the swamp on the estate next door that the Laird only has title to because nobody else wants it.

Not sure what women's suffrage has to do with the White Feather (or the modern equivalent, the White Ribbon) campaign? Care to expand, or are you satisfied with your "drivel"?

And just for the record, women have had Federal suffrage in Australia since 1902. That would be approximately 12 years before the beginning of WW1, but don't let facts confuse you...
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 8 April 2013 4:59:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aspley,

When you put it like that ... you are right ...

However,

The population on the Falklands is less than 3,000. They could have been evacuated whilst talks proceeded.

“… most recently, new archival papers released in the UK revealed that members of the Thatcher government were divided over how to respond to the Argentine invasion of April 1982. For all the talk of an ‘Iron Lady’ and dispatching a ‘task force’ to recover the Islands, there was clearly the possibility at one stage or another of a deal being done.”

http://en.mercopress.com/2013/04/08/what-do-the-falkland-islands-continue-to-tell-us-about-territorial-world-views

Losses

During the war, Britain suffered 258 killed and 777 wounded. In addition, 2 destroyers, 2 frigates, and 2 auxiliary vessels were sunk. For Argentina, the Falklands War cost 649 killed, 1,068 wounded, and 11,313 captured. In addition, the Argentine Navy lost a submarine, a light cruiser, and 75 fixed-wing aircraft.

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/battleswars1900s/p/falklands.htm
Posted by Danielle, Monday, 8 April 2013 5:08:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So many of the arguments here are based on stereotypical myths about womanhood, not women's capacity for combat roles, i.e.:

(1) that women are put on this earth primarily to give birth, and to nurture and support their children and menfolk, so war and combat are at odds with their inherent natures

(2) that women want and need strong, decisive (read 'warmongering') men as leaders of the country and of the household

(3) that women are too scatty and fussy to fight at the front line and would fall apart at the first sign of discomfort (damn, just broke a nail!)

(4) that because women as a group are not as physically strong as men as a group, then ALL women are physically too weak to do ANY job requiring physical strength.

These arguments, and variations on them, have been put forward to exclude women from virtually every field of activity at one time or another. Even office work was once deemed too strenuous for a woman and an education was deemed unnatural to women’s nurturing instincts.

Gradually, the admission of women to predominantly male domains has broken down these stereotypes. Combat is one of the last bastions of the patriarchy and there will be lots more myth-mongering thrown at women before they ever get even a shoe-in, let alone any form of equality.

(Disclaimer: I'd much rather see FEWER MEN in combat than more women.)
Posted by Killarney, Monday, 8 April 2013 6:51:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Killarney,

I don't care for any of those myths invented by feminists either. I just want the best person for the job and lets face it, not many women are interested in certain roles either. Biology is relevant.

You don't see many women clamoring to be well paid tradespersons and educated middle class feminists do not demand such jobs for women. Why not?

Feminists are like PETA, continually creating sensationalism in order to justify their role and income, while others get on as usual providing the subject services as they always have done.

Whether you like to admit it or not, the priority shouldn't always be to redesign jobs to fit women, because that can have unexpected negative consequences. With firemen, the physical fitness bar ensured that all can do all roles. That matters to the victims of emergencies. That cops can grapple with offenders matters too. Otherwise the .40 automatic has to be used more often. Or the steel clubs, sprays or volts - lethal too.

It is now usual for delays and doubling up of ambulances where there is any awkwardness in moving a patient. So there needs to be two woman and man teams attending. One team gets there, finds some difficulty because of patient size, steps or whatever and another ambulance must be called to support. Great for feminism, but wretched for the patient. On site treatment and transport policies had to be changed. Unreasonable feminist equality of outcomes creates insurmountable problems.

As far as the front line is concerned, I have a right not to have my risks increased through any concessions to meet affirmative action targets. But of course women should serve in war, their lives are no more valuable than men. Women should shoulder their citizen's duties equally.

All that anyone is raising are the practical limitations and consequences. That and asking it is horses for courses or the other way around?
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 8 April 2013 7:47:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Killarney, there's an old saying that it's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt. I recommend it to your study.
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 8 April 2013 8:41:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Killarney and Danielle, one thing I have noticed on this forum, when gender issues are discussed, is that several posters obviously feel that if some female posters don't agree with their 'intelligent' take on issues, they must be terrible, man-hating feminists.

When the posts start degenerating in this manner, then there is no point going on, because there is just no telling some people!

See you all on another thread : )
Posted by Suseonline, Tuesday, 9 April 2013 1:04:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suse, a couple of things.

First, Danielle is not taking a stereotypical feminist position. She is presenting a reasoned argument that tends to contrdict the jingoistic offerings of yourself and the rather rabid Killarney.

Second, Killarney's post is all strawmen; nobody has put forward any of the arguments she purports to be answering, neither has anybody suggested that "ALL women" are anything at all, that is simply a silly effort at "reductio ad absurdum" based entirely on her own strawman and says a lot more about her own nature than about anything from anybody else. Her whole post is meaninglessly circular argument essentially, like so much of the stuff informed by feminist advocates, sadly.

Third, may I ask why you felt the need to say anything at all in your last post? You didn;t actually argue anything, simply had a little snipe and run. What was the point? I'm not being flippant, I'd really like to try to understand why this sort of thing is such a common final post from a couple of the women on here. It reduces the discussion to "us against them" at best, which is hardly constructive.
Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 9 April 2013 10:08:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Anti...nice to see you contributing again.

One thing though, why are you critiquing Suze's last post as a "little snipe and run", when your penultimate post was couched in exactly similar terms?
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 9 April 2013 10:19:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I disagree Poirot, my post at the top of the page was specifically directed at Killarney's post and I have not run anywhere.

In fact, if she takes my point on board, her posts might improve and then we can have a decent discussion. She's obviously not unintelligent and it's from intelligent disagreement that good discussions arise.

The last post from Suse was essentially simply a spray because she felt the conversation wasn't going her way, it seems to me. There was nothing constructive able to be taken from it. That's a shame, because she's obviously not a stupid woman either.
Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 9 April 2013 11:59:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Too true, Anti, you haven't run...but pray tell, what is "constructive" about a post like that?

I'll just add that women taking on roles in the frontline of combat, appears to me a backward step for the gender.

Also on the subject of women supporting war to gee-up the population, a good book on the subject of the Great War is "The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy" wherein the author writes of this war being an opportunity for the upper-classes to once again stamp their aptitude as the knights of the realm, born to leadership - and of the practical support they received from their women in mobilizing the general population in support of the war..(I might add that this class lost one fifth of their able bodied men and heirs during this conflict)
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 9 April 2013 12:51:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

This was the reason d'etre for having an aristocracy/nobility - to raise an army of soldiers from their estates and to fight for the king.
Posted by Danielle, Tuesday, 9 April 2013 1:09:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, Danielle, I realise that.

My point being that with the influence of the aristocratic class slipping after the Industrial Revolution and with the rise of the Middle-Class, that the Great War presented an opportunity for upper-class to reassert its role as leaders of men and knights of the realm.

That it ended in disaster for that class and failed to stymy emerging middle-class dominance, is the stuff of history.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 9 April 2013 1:19:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, "I'll just add that women taking on roles in the frontline of combat, appears to me a backward step for the gender"

It is a forward step. Why should women escape their civic responsibilities?

There will be equality for women when they are on the trenches and men are relegated to performing home duties, including bonking the occupying servicewomen of the occupying allied army. Just like the Aussie women and US servicemen in WW2.

Men taking on roles in the front line of combat is definitely a backward step for the gender. Men need to stoke the home fires! Those US servicewomen are cute in their uniforms and there is the prospect of gifts. Wild Turkey bourbon from the canteen as a getting to know you gift for some rumpo....Yummmmmmy.

Gillard makes a fine ChickenHawk: she has ogled Obama, fondled his bum and talked dirty with him on US bases. Next war (Julia is working on it) hand the rifles to Wonderful Womyn. Those who say otherwise are misogynists.
Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 9 April 2013 2:56:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Onzebeach,

Would you say that British women escaped their "civic responsibilities" during WWII?

There's more than one way to support a war effort.

Here's an excerpt from that book I mentioned, wherein the "Grande Dames" from the aristocratic class assisted by providing "hospitals" to patch up the men from the frontlines:

"Nevertheless, when war was formally declared, it was greeted with rapturous enthusiasm, and the greatest anxiety of most patricians was that they might not get to the front in time to enjoy the fun....During these early days of the war, the grande dames were as much enthused and excited as the grandees. The Duchess of Westminster established a Red Cross hospital at Le Touquet, Lady Dudley set up an Australian Hospital nearby, and the dowager Duchess of Sutherland organised her own ambulance unit to serve in Belgium...In London, Lady Lowther organised the production of food and clothing parcels for Belgian prisoners in Germany, Mrs Alfred Lyttelton surpervised the reception of Belgian refugess (and for that, Poirot is grateful:)....Lady Curzon helped run a night canteen at Waterloo Station, and Jennie Churchill prompted butlers to join up by publicly expressing her preference for housemaids....'

...and many many more.

During war, women it seems are indispensable... and not necessarily in the limited way which onthebeach expresses.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 9 April 2013 3:26:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

It would be polite and respectful to get other posters' names right.

Men can take up those other ways of supporting the war effort, while at least an equal number of women confront the enemy.

Who cares how women perform their role on the front? As truckies, engineers driving dozers making airstrips, as snipers, pilots, submariners, whatever, as long as they are encouraged and required to take up their civic responsibility to serve their country, laying down their lives if required. If Vietnamese women can do it without support and concessions, and without weaseling out so can you.
Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 9 April 2013 7:20:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic

At least I write about ideas and concepts. All you seem to have written here are nasty, personalised insults, or sob stories about how badly your mummy treated your daddie.

You prefer to retreat into assuming an absence of intelligence in those who don't view the world from the lofty heights of perception you have assumed for yourself.

And as for the supposed 'straw' arguments you attributed to me, you either haven't read the comments here or you only read them long enough to decide whether they agreed with your worldview or not and then hurriedly moved onto someone who did.

You want to have it both ways, Antsy. You argue that 'Feminism has had a long tradition of preparedness to sacrifice men to the benefit of women' (shades of your earlier mummy rage anecdote), yet you slam me for arguing the case not only for the right of women to fight in combat, but also for shining some light on the reasons why they are prevented from doing so.
Posted by Killarney, Tuesday, 9 April 2013 7:28:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suse

'When the posts start degenerating in this manner, then there is no point going on, because there is just no telling some people!'

(If you're still lurking) Thoroughly agree. All the OLO gender threads reach this point sooner or later, until the feminist and female-sympathetic readers leave, and then the commentary descends into a mutual high-fiving boys club (+ Poirot).

I've found it's best to just state your case in a few comments, withstand the slings and arrows of the irate anti-feminism league of gentlemen and quietly exit stage left. See you on another thread.
Posted by Killarney, Tuesday, 9 April 2013 7:34:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Women can serve in war, and have done so.

Like many men, their abilities were utilized. Remember Nancy Wake, the white mouse. She was in charge of a region of the underground; she fought alongside men, and was a lethal as any man.

If women have both the physical and mental strength and stamina to fight alongside men, then why not. But this is a big 'if'. In general, women do not have the physical traits. Any person, male or female, who is unable to function similarly to their comrades in battle is a serious liability and risk, not only to themselves, but also others. This is the bottom line. The raw battle field is no place for affirmative action. Having stated this, women do serve in officer positions.

There are definitely places for women in war. It comes down to abilities. Any person, male or female, who wished to fight in war surely would want to serve the best way they could.
Posted by Danielle, Tuesday, 9 April 2013 8:31:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for that Killarney, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but I know I needn't bother in future.

Poirot, pointing out that someone is acting foolishly is quite constructive. At least, it can be if that person is able to recognise the advice and act on it sensibly. In some cases, of course, it's obviously a waste of effort.

Your point about aristocracy and warfare is an interesting one, although somewhat romanticised and oversimplified. WW1 was the death of the idea of war as a game of chess, but it was by no means a "reassertion" of the idea of nobility as leaders, since that had never been challenged up to that point. The British Raj, Crimea, the Napoleonic wars, the American War of Independence, etc, etc, were all based on the idea of the Great General. The British and other European military was based on the officer class being of the aristocracy - largely second sons of aristocratic families that might have little claim to an inheritance but had a strong sense of duty to the crown instilled from a very young age. The transition to a professional, highly trained officer corps was a German invention during the interwar period, then copied by others. It was, to a large extent, responsible for the success of the German campaign in the early part of WW2.

Anyway, that's all a bit of a digression. The class division still exists. In today's world most soldiers are drawn from the working class. Officers are more middle class, in the main. Very few sons of the seriously wealthy choose a military career.

None of that has much to do with the article, except that I can't see too many feminists championing the right of working class women to carry rifles in battle, nor can I see too many middle-class women being interested in a military career.

The few women who might be interested are a tiny subset
Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 9 April 2013 9:09:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Danielle,

I agree with your post.

Just to develop one point about officers, the strength of our military relies on leaders having successful experience in the unit and in the field.

Where affirmative action targets have applied in the public services in particular, management roles have been given to generalists without expertise and often without particular interest (job used as stepping stones) in the particular field. That has led to unfortunate decisions and is corrosive to the systems concerned.

An example could be water management where in the past engineers have quite rightly dominated management positions. The gelding of the selection criteria to suit affirmative action priorities has seen a procession of generalists. The impact on the quality of advice and decisions is obvious.

Where people put their lives on the line they must have full confidence in those who lead them. That isn't something you might disagree with but it is worth saying where a Defence minister puts politics first.
Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 9 April 2013 9:56:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Further to onthebeach's comments, a very significant consequence of the gender-based affirmative action hiring policies in the APS and presumably in other public bureaucracies has been a vast increase, from a base of almost zero, in compensation claims involving mental distress of some form, which are now the largest contributor to claims on Comcare and are around 90% made by female claimants.

The average cost of these claims is in excess of $140,000 per claim and they are the reason that Comcare is now facing significant unfunded liabilities - for the first time ever the scheme is not in the black. Part of the reason the cost is so high is that the claims are essentially untestable, meaning that it is possible for a claimant to remain on compensation leave for a very long time. The claims are essentially subjective.

In contrast, compensation for physical injury claims are nearly exclusively a male preserve and the average cost is much lower - around $10000 or less, depending on the class of injury. These claims are objectively assessable, meaning that once the injury is healed, there is no reason a claimant cannot return to work.

The portion of mental health claims made by male claimants is largely confined to claimants over 50, who are often being encouraged to leave to make room for female aspirants.

The APS is now approximately 70% female and the average age at grade for females is >10 years younger than their male peers.

Whilst the ADF is a fish of a different stripe to the APS as a whole, it would be foolish to ignore the larger example. he disparity between the feminist push to create a feminised workforce and the basic interests of the population, both male and female, (as discussed above) is what is driving this "silent protest" and while it may be perfectly fine for Ms Broderick or Ms Conway to have 20% of their staff on "stress leave"(who would notice, after all), it would be disastrous for a military command.
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 10 April 2013 6:42:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic,

Just briefly, because it's off the main track.

Just wanted to say that the aristocratic class also absorbed the upper-middles for the officer class of the military.

When I was researching my biological antecedents, I came across a couple of branches of the family who were upper-middles in Scotland. One branch were mainly notaries and doctors, and the other was military. In that branch, pertaining to the British military of the 1800's, I came across, amongst many in the forces, a couple of colonels (Indian Army) and a Vice Admiral (Crimean). Also a doctor in the British Army who did Napoleon's autopsy.

This lot were definitely upper-middle and not of the aristocracy (although there were probably some faint connections in that direction). David Cannadine made that point in "The Rise and Fall of the British Aristocracy" that for the purposes of tallying military losses in the Great War, that upper-middles were included amongst the aristocracy.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 10 April 2013 10:49:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, as you point out, a military career was a way for an aspirant bourgeois family to rise to higher social rank. Lengthy loyal service was often rewarded with some form of rank honour, even up a Dukedom in some cases (Arthur Wellesley/the Duke of Wellington being a notable example).

To return to the topic though, in today's Australian milieu such advancement through meritorious service is a little different. Few military careers lead to high public office outside the military. Even someone like Peter Cosgrove, for all his accolades as a military leader, has largely found his opportunities limited to functional roles, such as coordinating natural disaster relief efforts.

On the other hand, a career bureaucrat, because of the opportunity to make lots of useful contacts and to hand out patronage while in office, is often rewarded with a significant public position after they retire from the bureaucratic ranks.

Some recent examples include Penny Wensley and of course Quentin Bryce, both of whom were careerist public servants/political opportunists before being given their public relations/public office role. The diplomatic corps and the judiciary are the surest ways to enter such company, although a few soldiers do manage it, including Major General Michael Jeffreys.

Because of the military merit-based promotional system, it takes a long while to make a significant military career. By contrast, a public service career can reach glittering heights in just a few years thanks to patronage and affirmative action. It seems unlikely that ambitious feminists will be much interested in the more arduous and less certain path, when the alternative is a broad, gilded highway.

I can't see how reducing standards to attract such people would be of benefit to anyone.
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 10 April 2013 2:36:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti,

Just quickly. You are right.

The Vice Admiral I referred to earlier married the daughter of this Vice Admiral.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Saumarez,_1st_Baron_de_Saumarez

Naval or military service was certainly a way to distinguish oneself and get ahead if you had the aptitude for it.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 10 April 2013 3:44:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Isn't it interesting how things have changed and yet stayed the same? Patronage is still the best way to get ahead in "society", but the rise of the Civil service has largely eclipsed Military service as the way to achieve such patronage.

The upper echelons are still very incestuously intertwined, often linked by a marriage bond somewhere that is frequently unknown to the rest of us. The famous linkage of Quentin Bryce to Bill Shorten via marriage to her daughter is just a tiny example. Politicians and journalists are a very common pairing, as are public service "power couples", or politicians with such public servants.

At least in the old days there was an overt pride in such familial connections and they were recorded assiduously. Today the links are very often actively covered up by those in the know. The power is still constrained within a fairly narrow subset, but it's exercised more covertly. I'm not sure that's a great advance for society.

It's not just confined to marital links either, ideological connections have come to trump the idea of "the greater good" and personal sacrifice for the national interest and the types of ideological adherence have changed. Being seen to espouse feminism is now de rigeur for any aspiring careerist civil servant or academic or unionist. Failure to do so sufficiently fulsomely will be looked at askance and dissent will not be tolerated.

We have become a nation ruled, as ever, by a narrow class who have all been to the "right" schools and done the "right" courses at uni and plotted a cautious politically tuned course through their career. The genuine thinkers and achievers are nowhere to be seen - they're too risky to have around. It doesn't matter which side of politics you vote for, the class that is in power remains there whoever is incumbent and they are far removed from you and I in every respect.

Feminism's great triumph has been in harnessing the enormous social power of women. Its great failure has been in doing nothing worthwhile with it.
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 11 April 2013 8:34:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy