Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Dilmah G on April 11, 2011, 03:32:43 am
-
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/cadet-scandal-defence-culture-faces-review-as-academy-chief-takes-leave/story-e6frg8yo-1226037279244
...Defence was already assessing the physical requirements of all military roles in a $2.5 million study as a precursor to removing gender bars on combat roles.
Mr Smith said the Chief of the Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, would bring forward the opening up of all roles, including combat roles, subject to physical and intellectual ability.
“When it comes to women in the ADF, including in combat roles, an opportunity for women should be determined on the basis of physical and intellectual capacity, not on gender,” Mr Smith said in Canberra.
“So the Chief of the Defence Force will bring forward that matter as a matter of priority.”
Air Chief Marshal Houston said it was imperative that women were able to apply for all positions on offer in the ADF.
“What we're looking at here is the last seven per cent (of roles) which are all combat-related and mainly in the Australian army,” he said.
“We are all one hundred per cent unanimous that this has to happen if we are to be a truly women-friendly organisation. We should have all positions open to women.”
The gender equality part of me thinks this is a good move, but from what I remember from the last study conducted on this by the Royal Navy, this kind of introduction was deemed to be counterproductive at the time because of the loss in unit cohesion slated to occur when units that function in such close quarters become mixed gender. If anything, I think it'll end up a little like when the ADF opened the door to homosexuals serving openly - a whole lot of 'OH**** THE SKY'S GOING TO FALL' followed by everything running just the way it always did.
-
You guys are doing it wrong! When you remove all those preconceptions, someone might get the impression that you guys are actually running your military rationally! That is Not American!
-
This is a bad idea for just one reason: drill instructors calling recruits "ladies" is so going to lose it's kick now :P
-
If anything, I think it'll end up a little like when the ADF opened the door to homosexuals serving openly - a whole lot of 'OH**** THE SKY'S GOING TO FALL' followed by everything running just the way it always did.
Or about the time when people made those types of predictions when Truman integrated the US military.
-
Or the time the military tried to do anything mildly different. :P
-
Not as fun as it seems, especially if the Australian army will (continue to) use DU ammunition. Still, for those that want to go into war (and experience all it has to offer..) it's of course welcome for them. Just as long as it doesn't become mandatory or part of the draft. Which, it very well may become.
-
Right.
The Draft.
Last I checked, the Ozzie armed forces are made up of volunteers only. I hardly doubt that, unless a really big war breaks out, they need to reinstate a draft policy.
With that in mind, please find and present evidence for this assertion:
...it's of course welcome for them. Just as long as it doesn't become mandatory or part of the draft. Which, it very well may become.
-
Well, it's true being Australia, but it doesn't seem too impossible given all the world events of late. I just mean that by, allowing people something, you can later force that group of people into it.
-
If things are going so bad that Australia needs to bolster its armed forces personnel by drafting from the general population then they have more pressing concerns than people wanting to protect women from having to serve on the frontline.
Let me ask you this, what would be so bad about drafting women into the armed forces if the situation has already deteriorated that far? Also, what makes it OK to draft men, but not women?
-
Well to be fair, we did have conscription during the Vietnam War, but...yeah. Our current doctrine emphasizes being a small, professional force and we're able to achieve that with our current recruiting figures, so much so that we've actually stopped recruiting infantry for the time being.
On the issue of forcing women into direct combat roles, the current figures state that 1% or thereabouts of women in the defence force who are otherwise eligible for infantry are physically capable of hacking it. And that's women who are already held to a fitness standard, it may well be lower for the wider population.
I understand also that the projected rate of injury for women in Infantry training at Singleton, the ARA's School of Infantry would be higher than it currently is for men, because of their physical makeup. It would be seriously counterproductive for the Army to force all women under a national service scheme to be streamed to Infantry. The primary focus of this current review is valuing that people who are intellectually and physically qualified are able to pursue roles that reflect their respective levels of the two qualities. Only men and women who are capable of hacking being in an Infantry Unit will be posted there.
-
This is a great move as long as they keep their standards up and don't start letting underqualified women slip through. Things are going to be rough for female candidates for a while though.
-
Yeah, I was thinking of mentioning girls like Revlon who had to tough it out under similar circumstances.
-
Considering the kind of place Austraila is, I don't think that their armed forces will lose any part of their badassery by including women. :)
-
Let me ask you this, what would be so bad about drafting women into the armed forces if the situation has already deteriorated that far? Also, what makes it OK to draft men, but not women?
It's from back in the day when it was simply accepted that women just didn't DO those kinds of things.
Today? Not quite the case.
-
But...but...men will do nothing but think with their penises now
our armed forces are DOOMED
DOOMED I TELL YOU ifevenalittlebitsexiernow
-
Australian Army women would just get chest hair (in the shape of Australia, no less), handlebar moustaches and large muscles (those who don't have them already, that is). :)
The Army will become twice as badass as it is now.
-
But...but...men will do nothing but think with their penises now
our armed forces are DOOMED
DOOMED I TELL YOU ifevenalittlebitsexiernow
Soldiers won't start 'thinking with their penises', but those who are leaving advanced cognitive functions to their genitalia, certainly won't stop doing so.
Of course I don't claim it's good enough reason to block women from direct combat roles, but it certainly will be an issue.
-
If you pay attention to nuclear1's past posts and general opinion on this topic, expressed in past threads, it will be apparent that he is being sarcastic.
-
Australian Army women would just get chest hair (in the shape of Australia, no less), handlebar moustaches and large muscles (those who don't have them already, that is). :)
The Army will become twice as badass as it is now.
An entire army of Saxton Hales...glorious.
-
Trying to decide if the timing of this is a little suss, or just mildly unfortunate. (For those not following Australian current affairs, google 'ADFA Skype scandal').
-
Canada has women in all direct combat roles. No issues here. I think it'll be fine.
-
Israel is not to be trifled with, and to my knowledge has had no real gender restrictions on combat roles. That said, once a nation sufficiently removes traditional gender roles from the base doctrine which forms the ethos of the armed force in question, this sort of thing should no longer become a shock to anyone.
-
Israel is not to be trifled with, and to my knowledge has had no real gender restrictions on combat roles. That said, once a nation sufficiently removes traditional gender roles from the base doctrine which forms the ethos of the armed force in question, this sort of thing should no longer become a shock to anyone.
Oooh, man. Female Israeli soldiers. There's just something about a woman with a gun that says... corrupt me...
I'll be in my bunk.
-
Trying to decide if the timing of this is a little suss, or just mildly unfortunate. (For those not following Australian current affairs, google 'ADFA Skype scandal').
Yeah, this seemed a little knee-jerk to me as well.
-
If you pay attention to nuclear1's past posts and general opinion on this topic, expressed in past threads, it will be apparent that he is being sarcastic.
Well, I've noticed that he's making fun of people seeing this change as a problem. And I think that they might have a point, even if blown out of proportion.
-
Oh yeah, I don't think it's a perfect fit either at the moment, and for the vast majority of women, it isn't. But the reasons that hold validity aren't really the 'but what if blokes start covering the girls and not the boys?' arguments IMO, rather, cultural factors within the Army and the difference in physical makeup between men and women causing problems. Who knows, maybe they might find women being better suited to being section medics because of their higher extroversion on average or something?
From memory, current policy dictates that on exercises, women are required to have access to shower facilities and all the rest of it every 72 hours (menstrual cycle being the primary reason, I believe), whereas the blokes are still expected to go weeks without a nice hot one. Obviously, this is going to have to go if women are integrated into Infantry units, but this, as well as things like the difference in fitness standards between genders are some of the larger reasons the culture isn't so conducive to women being in these roles, IMO. They don't exactly foster equality between the genders when there's some groundwork to be done on that front. The first step to attaining actual gender equality within the defence force is to actually make things gender equal, although I believe something like close to half the women in the ADF would fail the basic fitness assessment if they had to perform the male assessment.
-
Oh yeah, I don't think it's a perfect fit either at the moment, and for the vast majority of women, it isn't. But the reasons that hold validity aren't really the 'but what if blokes start covering the girls and not the boys?' arguments IMO, rather, cultural factors within the Army and the difference in physical makeup between men and women causing problems. Who knows, maybe they might find women being better suited to being section medics because of their higher extroversion on average or something?
In one way since females are usually shorter and have slighter builds that lends some advantages in urban infrantry combat. Dodging bullets is much easier if there is less of you to hit.
-
I've never been in urban combat, but I'm fairly sure that urban combat is more 'fix enemy position and break a half-section for the flanking route' than matrix-style dodging of bullets. :P
-
I've never been in urban combat, but I'm fairly sure that urban combat is more 'fix enemy position and break a half-section for the flanking route' than matrix-style dodging of bullets. :P
Nah man we can totally train women to be Grammaton Clerics.
-
If a woman can't do all the things a man is required to do, physically and mentally, she doesn't belong there.
And female infantrymen should probably get their periods suppressed.
-
I'm surprised that doesn't already happen within the ADF, I've read about it happening in the CDF before. Or it may be happening and I haven't read about it yet.
-
"And today girls, we're going to learn how to make a Molotov cocktail out of a Sherry bottle...." ;)
-
And female infantrymen should probably get their periods suppressed.
You kidding?
Woman on period + gun = Osama ****s himself
-
They call her Bloody Mary...