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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.