Senator Mitch Fifield has advocated "Women in front line combat positions"

He adds the disclaimer 'If they meet the same requirements as the men'

which is a cop out. The REQUIREMENT should be that they go at each other until only one is left standing.

As a student of kickboxing, in a group which has around 4 girls among about 10 blokes, and having sparred with the girls as well as the guys, I remain unchanged in my view that 'females are weaker physically than males'.

Girls would stand a snowflakes chance in hell of surviving serious combat with a bloke, unless she got a lucky kick in.
I have to pull back to about 20% of my capability when sparring with a girl.

It is IRRESPONSIBLE to suggest involving women in front line positions where the outcome of a battle may (and often does) depend on hand to hand combat. That battle could be the determining one of a war, which in turn decides who is now in charge of your country and YOU.

I TOTALLY SUPPORT the full training of females in hand to hand combat, for 'last resort' operations.
After we blokes have spilled our guts on the battle field, and the enemy is still raging in, it would depend on them to make a final stand. Unless they simply want to be 'those who your right hand posseses' and become sex slaves of some invader.

We DO need to work together in defense of our lands, but in ways which promote victory, rather than defeat. Females can be of great help in many roles which do NOT involve direct hand to hand combat,
Thus freeing up more blokes for that role.

Totally agree Boaz there are other things during war/combat that females are better suited and these roles are necessary during war etc. It is ridiculous to even suggest that women should take the place of a man in the front line.

honest truth i think with the right training wemon can b just as good as men at anything oncluding combat, i have seen female blackbelts beat male blackbelts n i have beatten my up b4 and im only 1 of 2 girls out of a family of 8.

so i belive that wemon can b just as good as men BUT i really dont want them to b placed in the frount line

rizz

Probably so Rizz but I am saying that there are roles that women can play in war that are more suitable. In other words I would rather see men in the front line than nursing the wounded or cooking etc. See my point.

Yes, yes, yes ladies. Starting first with Amanda Vansfeld, Jodeen Carney and the others who should put their lithe, battle hardened, eostrogen fuelled bodies where their mouths are.

You wimmin support the War on Terror, & you want 'equality'. We know, because we listened to your eloquent & fervent speeches in Parliament, in 2003.
How patriotic! How jingoistic! How tragic!

Yep - now train em up & stick em on the front line, and see just how good it all is! Don't come squealing back when it's all too hard though - because you've asked for it! Like it or not, the ADF will have to cave in on these demands, as did they with gay troops a few years ago.
Unless some sanity prevails in the meanwhile.

Again I reiterate, the tide of opinion will turn when C130's start returning to RAAF bases with the body bags and caskets onboard.

It is emotive enough when women are caught in any conflict. We don't want, or need the 'flower' of our Australian people employed as prospective fodder in the military meat mincer.

Let's for one moment imagine the scenario of post WWI & WWII, and the loss of menfolk it occasioned. Put into this non gender specific roles, and we would arrive at a wonderful method of 'controlling' our population. Not to mention the social issues from competitive 'macho' being exhibited by the over-abundance of males.

Of course though, it's just another experiment after all.

Wow, there are a few women I'd like to see on the frontline. Too often women demand equality but only as it suits them. Notice women fill al the clean airconditioned jobs while the men still do the dity and dangerous stuff. Feminist Hypocrites.