We haven’t had a defence-related thread for a while, so it’s worth rounding up some of the more interesting stories.
Brendan Nelson, in his extended “I was right about everything” valedictory speech, included the much-debated Super Hornet purchase in the collection of things he was right about. Frankly, I remain unconvinced. If it was such a good piece of planning, why didn’t we make sure that the legacy Hornet and the Super Hornets fire the same missiles? That said, the cruise missile we are intending to fit to the legacy Hornets is suffering severe reliability problems, and some reports claiming that the missile might be cancelled (though it’s hard to know how credible those are).
But the big story doing the rounds at the moment is Greg Combet’s announcement of a plan to conduct a new study of performance requirements for various roles in the armed forces, with a view to removing outright gender bans and placing restrictions based on the physical demands of the role:
Mr Combet, a former ACTU national secretary, told parliament yesterday the Defence Science and Technology Organisation would develop a new set of physical employment standards for the army that would accurately measure a person’s ability to perform the broad variety of jobs in the modern defence force. “A priority of the government is to improve the recruitment and retention of women in the ADF,” he said. “My own view is that all categories should be open to women. The only exceptions should be where the physical demands cannot be met according to criteria that are determined on the basis of scientific analysis, rather than assumptions about gender.”
If you have the stomach for it, you can read this excreable piece opposing any possibility of women in “combat roles” by Greg Sheridan. Apart from anything else, I can’t recall the last time I read a column containing more examples of argument by assertion. Guy Rundle responds, arguing that women will be more reluctant to sign up for wars of choice.
Personally, I think it’s got less to do with the sensibilities of the soldiers themselves, and more the sensibilities of those at home, a point Rundle makes in the context of his critique of the Afghanistan war in his final paragraph. The real issue is that female soldiers, particularly mothers, coming home in body bags is likely to harm public support for war more than male soldiers coming home in body bags, something that the likes of Sheridan, who seemingly has never met a war he didn’t like, simply couldn’t cope with.
Whether this is true in an empirical sense or not, I find the logic behind it pretty troubling. If we’re not collectively prepared to send women off to die in a war of choice, we shouldn’t be prepared to send men off to do so.
UPDATE: Deborah has some fun with Sheridan’s logic.
Agreed. It’s not for me, but if someone wants to be out there firing a gun and getting fired upon, etc. I don’t really care if they have knockers or not – hardly seems a requirement of the job.
Here’s one very obvious example which refutes Sheridan’s argument:
Remember, too, that this was on arguably the toughtest and certainly the most important front of World War II.
Women have been in the armed services fro ages, and they should receive exactly the same combat training as men. You never know what situation they might find themselves dumped in.
However, it wouldn’t be smart to plan for women in front-line combat. Combat is as much an athletic feat as anything else. See the Semenya thread for why women are at a disadvantage.
As women in non-combat roles, in the wars we’ve lately been sending them to, seem to face as high risk of violent death as so-called combat roles, it seems to me the argument’s rather academic. It’s not as if the Taliban (or whoever it is we’re fighting in Afghanistan) discriminate between combat and support troops.
Sheridan’s living in the past, but hey, he’s happy there.
Sure, statistically they’re at a disadvantage. So, as Sheridan so boneheadedly fails to apprehend, before ordering any recruit to do anything, you train them in it. If they can’t do it in training, then they don’t get to do it in real life.
The last sentence is the kicker. I keep seeing this meme in the news comments sections that declares that its a tragedy for women to die in combat and that men are supposed to do the dying, usually because “its their job” or something. And its being posted by folks who appear largely to be conservative males. The degree of self-hatred (plus exceptionalism, of course) is just bizarre. They really seem to hate men.
Women should be free to take on any occupation they so desire, including being on the frontline. But given the type of war Australia regularly participates in, isn’t it the duty of the Left to encourage them not to sign up, just like their male counterparts?
I’m a bit torn on this. One the one side I’m pro equal rights. On the other I remeber Wendy Harmer’s twenty years ago when she said she was against women soldiers saying something like “a woman doesn’t really look her best when tripping over her own entrails.”
I’ve heard all the arguments against employing women as front-line soldiers before, in a number of different contexts.
When I joined the Army in 1977, all female soldiers were members of the Women’s Royal Australian Army Corps. My recollection is that they got paid less than men doing the same jobs.
In the Survey Corps, women weren’t posted to the field squadrons (for reasons too tedious to go into at length, but it was basically misogyny), and the common cant used to justify their lower pay was, “Well, they don’t do field work, and they aren’t strong enough to. Equal pay for equal work!” I think I made myself unpopular (or at least regarded as eccentric) by calling bullshit.
The thing is, there were (and certainly still are) women who are stronger, fitter and more tough-minded than I am who’d fit in well in a grunt battallion – I know for a fact I wouldn’t have lasted for 10 minutes.
At the risk of turning this into a chicks-with-guns thread, here’s one for you, Chav.
When Australia allows females to play collision sports (AFL,NRL,ARU) and combat sports (boxing, karate etc) at the highest professional levels against males – then we will be ready for females in the combat arms and special forces.
I don’t think they can’t do it, nor do I think they should not do it, but I strongly oppose mixed sex units for combat arms soldiers.
There is a strange assumption by some people that women on the frontline would be slight 5 feet nothing people in high heels, pink chiffon backless dresses worrying about their makeup while having to wrestle body to body with an enemy built like Andre the Giant or Stone Cold Steve Austin whilst trying to maintain a choking hold and get out Mr Socko.
It’s a bloody long time since frontline work in war or peacekeeping has been about hand to hand combat skilz.
The Survey Corps was an Arm, Razor, and it worked fine. Eventually.
Oh, and the Engineers were thrilled with the swag of female WO1s they scored when Survey was disbanded.
fxh – I am not arguing that they can’t do it. I am arguing that culturally we aren’t ready for it. The ADF is not the place to be doing social engineering experiments.
Females don’t compete directly in non-collision sports and non-contact sports. Until society sees females v male competition on the sporting field as acceptable then society isn’t ready for females in combat arms.
Most civilians really don’t understand the physical effort required of arms corps soldiers. Nor do they understand the working and living arrangements in the field. Subsequently they have no idea of the impact of interpersonal relationships in small group environments.
Interesting that women aren’t rushing to comment on this. I imagine that’s because most of us would prefer that no one was going to war and participating in hand to hand fighting or armed combat of any kind. Even the idea of participating in planning and logistics for a military offensive at desk level makes me shudder. What’s the difference, after all? It’s all about killing other people; men, women and children.
My pacifistic leanings aside, I thought we had a professional defence force these days with no conscription and that promotion therein was achieved by merit and suitability of self selected candidates for any given role. If Amazon women could remove their right breasts to improve their combat skills all those thousands of years ago why should we doubt the capacity of modern women in the military?
As for Greg Sheridan’s sense of his “obligation to protect women”, I wonder why we get this sort of vehement, hand on heart avowal as part of an argument against equality of opportunity for women, rather than seeing it out there in the day to day world defending women and girls against abuse of every kind.
The one good thing that I can see coming out of normalising the idea of women as combat troops is that it tells women and girls that they are just as capable of defending their country and themselves as any man. Combet’s press conference in itself was an affirmation that it’s okay for any woman to be as strong, and sometimes stronger than any man.
Nice having a good government, isn’t it?
If they can carry the standard load the acceptable distance in regulation time, shoot straight, intelligently carry out orders and accept the risks, I don’t see why women can’t serve.
Common objections:
* Strength and athleticism. Soldiers have to carry a lot of kit. But some women are fit and strong enough to carry the load. Why not? It’s not as though personal hand-to-hand combat is all that common, and in any case, weapons and training beat brute strength any day.
* Rape of POWs. A real risk, but women can decide for themselves whether it’s worth risking. And it’s not as though men are magically immune to rape.
* Distractions on the frontline — relationships etc. Again, it’s not as though men can’t form deep attachments. Indeed the elite infantry force of ancient greek city-state Thebes was exclusively composed of homosexual couples, the reasoning that they’d fight harder if their lover’s life was on the line.
* Sexual harassment. Oh noes, the AJs might have to act like adults!
“Women are special”. That’s an argument Sheridan is actually using! If women want to do it and pass all the relevants tests, what possible reason could there be stopping them?
I’ve had a go at Sheridan’s piece over on my own blog. I could cross-post it here too… but it’s not nearly as measured as Robert’s post. You can tell that by the title of the post.
Look out! Incoming brain-fart!!
David, I just gotta say that based on your posts here, your prior membership of the defense force seems so incongruous! You must have been as popular as the plague. Perhaps I’m being uncharitable to the armed forces, but my limited experience has been that there’s not many like you in uniform.
Razor, a lot of people don’t think gay or indigenous people are as capable as white males, too. Should we shy away from experimenting with those assumptions?
All respect to your experience, however your objection essentially comes to do “I feel it in me waters.” Why don’t we try it, and address any problems if they arise? I would add, it posits a combat force that is wholly without problems as it currently exists, which seems kinda optimistic to me.
Paul’s example of women in the Red Army serves to put paid to any idea that women can’t serve in combat. One can go back futher to Caeser’s Gallic Wars to see that in Celtic societies (and others) women made quite fierce warriors. However there’s undoubtedly a natural division of labour here as well. It’s obvious that men are more equipped and predisposed to physical violence.
.
So it boils down to ‘how one feels’ about that. Many men in particular will be threatened. This is partly surfeit of role displacement and partially because, amongst ethical men, over the ages protecting women’s been pretty hard-wired. Together this sensibility produces a good part of machismo. For example, Graeme Bird’s having a go at me over the US missile pull-out in Middle Europe because of the bloody foreigners gettin’ our sheilas.
.
If we’re not collectively prepared to send women off to die in a war of choice, we shouldn’t be prepared to send men off to do so.
.
Well said. I tend to think that true gender equality can only be accomplished if women are also soldiers. There’s an inherent ande ancient prestige involved. Of course one wonders why the same prestige doesn’t obtain in an even more fundamental political job.
The Survey Corps was a different world, patrickg.
However, very few soldiers are actually a particularly good fit with the stereotype. (That said, I’m probably an outlier.)
“women are pacifists”, Patricia, isn’t a particularly clever statement to make. I oppose all claims that I’m a special snowflake because of my ladyparts. My vagoo doesn’t give me any great insight into conflict resolution.
Good point about the chivalry handwaving, though. That stuff is spectacularly silly when held up against the still-endemic abuse of women and children in the home. I can’t help but spot a lurking fear and loathing of the prospect of a society where a significant proportion of women are both mentally and physically capable of fighting back – and of a culture that supports such. The horror, etc.
Deborah, please, either crosspost or at the very least we should add a link to your piece. Brightened my day greatly!
“Until society sees females v male competition on the sporting field as acceptable then society isn’t ready for females in combat arms.”
I knew it! Footy is training for war!
And hasn’t the argument that we must protect (presumably middle class!) wimmenz from teh horroz of war also been historically deployed to protect them from teh horrorz of earning their own wage, or interacting with the working class?
@ Robert:
Will cross-post. Consider it light entertainment for a Friday afternoon.
I reckon Serena Williams would make a fine soldier. She’s got the physical strength, the take-no-prisoners-eat-’em-alive killer mindset; the whole box and dice.
Venus, not so much.
Grumphy! what a ridiculous comment (23) on a statement I certainly did not make! My first para was a reasonable enough observation about women (possibly men too, though they are not the issue here) not being too keen on the idea of killing people. I have pacifistic leanings as I said, and no more. I am well aware of the need for a healthy defence force. I just don’t want to serve in it. Please do not put quotation marks around anything – word, phrase or paragraph – without checking the accuracy of your quote.
You are forgiven though because of your second para which says exactly what I was groping for but couldn’t quite pin down.
Pax! I’m pretty good at conflict resolution, by way.
And hasn’t the argument that we must protect (presumably middle class!) wimmenz from teh horroz of war also been historically deployed to protect them from teh horrorz of earning their own wage, or interacting with the working class?
.
Um yes but remember war is actually horrible. Earning your own wage is only mostly horrible.
Missy H @ 30 – Earning one’s living is only “horrible” if you haven’t had the opportunity to do work you enjoy.
Even so, money of your own, earned in however humdrum a job, is hugely empowering.
I think women should stay where they belong. In the cockpit.
I love the bit about “enemy troops hearing singing as the silent aircraft passed overhead.”
These days it would be a F-15E pilot or WSO listening to Pearl Jam on her iPod.
As an ex infantry soldier in the 1990′s I don’t have an issue with women serving in combat roles, many could, Serena Williams is a good example. However standards must not be able to slip. I always get concerned when govts start talking about changing testing rules especially when they preface it with comments about “improve the recruitment and retention of women in the ADF”
When I was in, women had lower physical testing requirements they had to meet and my brother who is currently in tells me that physical standards have been changed to allow more women to complete them.
Jacques – your comments about soldiers in general shows your ignorance, just as all left wing latte sippers don’t fit into net little boxes neither do soldiers
As a separate point, if we are going for equality of the sexes in the military, why would we still allow women and men only sporting events/clubs/toilets…shouldn’t it all be unisex?
We should probably get rid of those pesky weight divisions in boxing, too.
sorry Jacques that should be ‘neat little boxes’ not ‘net’
TigTog – I recognise your sarcasm but that would be a logical conclusion. However I was talking about equality of the sexes not equality of weight
Patricia – Earning one’s living is only “horrible” if you haven’t had the opportunity to do work you enjoy.
.
Which was my point. Why I used ‘mostly’.
.
Even so, money of your own, earned in however humdrum a job, is hugely empowering.
.
Indeed being at the behest of the ‘wage earner’ is a kind of slavery. But that was a glib joke. I simply meant that the argument against women serving in combat would make use of the fact that war is always horrible and therefore said argument would carry more weight than that against working.
Tropsmurf, my point was that there can still be a great deal of general equality in a pursuit that recognises differences in physical capacity and assigns roles accordingly. The military has a great many roles to fill, and not everybody in combat positions has to be an infantry grunt. As has been acknowledged for a long time in the airforce, they used to select the smallest blokes who passed all the other tests to train as test pilots and combat pilots, because they took up less room in the cockpit, so when women started passing all those other tests they were a natural choice for these positions. Beyond the airforce, people with smaller hands tend to make better technicians purely through manual dexterity, and not every technician role is behind the front lines.
I think Tropsmurf’s point about changing the criteria for qualification in furtherance of gender equality in the forces a good one. After all there’s a role to be played there that has ruthless penalties for failure. Also the experience of the early Clinton administration might be illustrative.
Adrien, surely there’s more points to take into account in the stated intention to review physical standards for various military roles/units than just whether the strength/endurance tests are going to be made easier for the women (which is not exactly what any of the proponents have actually said)?
Warfare has changed a great deal over the last decade or two, especially with the emphasis on urban “peacekeeping”. Physical aspects that once were crucial are now simply not part of how the vast majority of personnel in our armies operate, and other physical aspects that never used to be considered may be far more important when using state-of-the-art military equipment. Perhaps today’s soldier needs far more in the way of agility and flexibility than simply strength and endurance, at least in a great many roles. The minority of women built along Serena Williams’ lines who can pass all the tests to be infantry grunts can do that, while other men and women who can’t pass those tests but do pass the tests for other frontline positions can perform in those roles. Drivers, radio operators, artillery operators, snipers, medics, interpreters – these are all crucial frontline positions as well.
All your points are apt Tictog. I don’t disagree with you.
.
I’m just saying that to be an effective soldier certain things are required and it wouldn’t be wise to disregard them in the pursuit of social progress. I don’t think women will prove unable to be soldiers. To add another example: Israel. The evidence is compelling that women can serve effectively.
.
The strength and endurance issue itself might soon be somewhat sidelined because of technology.
.
Well actually it already is. It’s called a gun.
tigtog @ 38 has reminded me of something that’s apposite.
I joined the Army not long after they replaced the Centurion tanks with Leopards. That meant that the desired physical type for Armoured Corps went from brawny 6′-plus blokes who could wrestle with the Centurion controls to little blokes who only just made the height requirements (because the bigger blokes wouldn’t even fit into the Leopards). One of my instructors at Kapooka was a tanky who’d had to embrace a career change for that reason.
I think y’all are missing the point here. It’s teh Economy stupid!
The essentialist arguments about ‘women’ or ‘men’ don’t fly anymore and the ADF Association knows that. The problem is womens’ ‘biomechanical’ compatibility with defence technologies, or to put it another way, the frontline defense tech apparatus (design, testing, assumptions) is based on a man’s body. It’d be too expensive and time consuming to accomodate a woman’s body.
Of course, to admit that much would be ‘disastrous’ for the ADF budget. Just think of the tradeoff: a new tank (possibly) or gender specific frontline technologies?
@Adrien
I don’t disagree with you, I just don’t think that anyone other than a particular type of armchair soldier has suggested that essential requirements are about to be disregarded.
It seems there is some agreement over the fact that physical requirements for the job should not be reduced in order to allow women in combat roles. TigTog has valid points about the changing role of the military and the use of technology. Being ex RAR I wouldn’t care what the sex of the person next to me was as long as they could do the job.
I read Greg Sheridan’s article and was a little embarrassed for him over some of his reasoning. I’m sure the average grunt could keep it in his pants, we can’t be any worse than the Navy…although those trenches do get a little confined!!
David Irving – you managed to to bring memories flooding back to me at the mere mention of ‘Kapooka’, the good old days of Heartbreak Hill and exaggerated marching styles.
@43
LOL! Has the IDF adopted any gender specific technologies that anyone knows of? The only thing I can think of would be slightly different pee tubes for pilots. I don’t think that is going to break the bank. Unless the standard kit is going to be issued in pink sparkles with a faux fur trim, that could cost a packet.
2 points on 42/43:
I am 6’1″ and had no problems in the leopard. Used to flick up the Commander’s seat foot plate and stand on the computer. There were many blokes bigger than me in them – both height and girth.
The Leopard has been replaced and the new tank has no height restrictions that I am aware of.
razor@15 treating women equally in a sensible way isn’t “social engineering”
tigtog – as an anti sport person – i’ve only ever competed and won plastic trophies -in shooting and boxing – i’d say weight matched (and possibly reach) women box as well as men. I’ve just finished reading Mischa Merz http://www.mischamerz.com/
Melb Boxer – you can see her in some good bouts on youtube
This is Mischa in only an exhibition bout but you can see they are real boxers not brawlers.
When my brother joined the RAAF I recall that a friend of his was immediately disqualified for consideration as a pilot because his height meant that he would have suffered a below knee amputation if he ever needed to eject. I think that qualifies as a biomechanical barrier to a specific kind of combat service, but no one would have said that he could not serve in combat roles, only that he could not be a pilot. His service was restricted only by his physical capacity, not his gender. There is no reason why the same rule cannot apply to women.
Just taking the objection raised in relation to women’s higher rate of knee injuries – women, like men, vary greatly in their body types and while a woman with a relatively wide pelvis may indeed have a higher risk of certain kinds of knee injuries (because of the angles of forces involved), other women are not so constrained. In my family, where wide pelvises are the norm, it is my two brothers who have required surgery for knee injuries, because they have both lead quite physically demanding lives, whereas my sister and I, who have avoided pounding the pavement in favour of swimming etc, have not needed knee repair surgery.
su -geez i’ve never even pondered if “wide pelvises were the norm” in our fambly. we all tend to be a bit snake hipped tho.
Yeah, and I see a lot of women with really narrow hips, I think there is a lot of variability that goes unnoticed because we have this idea that men look like y and women look like x, and any departure from this is seen as aberration, not as a point on a spectrum of variability. I’m sure that my brother’s knee problems would never have been ascribed to his body morphology even though it is pretty clear to me that we are 4 of a kind in that regard. Certainly no one would have suggested that he could never serve in a combat capacity.
Incidentally, my sister in law saw active service in Somalia, though that was quite a different situation to that which active service troops see now in Afghanistan.
Nabakov – “These days it would be a F-15E pilot or WSO listening to Pearl Jam on her iPod.”
I don’t think women who listen to Pearl Jam should be allowed in the military. Although kudos to Vedder, he worked out if you look like a bogan you can get away with being emo.
I come from Darwin. The “AJ” is a sterotype, but not a completely made up one in my experience. I had a close friend who married a bloke whose main topics of conversation were the criminal enterprises of his extended family and “Fights My Army Mates And I Have Caused And/Or Participated In Volumes I-XXVII”.
Righto.
Generally I would prefer that women were not involved in war. I would equally prefer that there were no wars. The idea of a fight is of men protecting the peace of their home ground and defining territory, and such displays should be short and symbolic.
The future, however, will be defined be fights, as populations intensify and resources deplete, over greed. Not that greed based battles are new, but there will be many more of them, and they will be ever more nasty. A good example of the wolves circling is the battle on the internet. The insidious battle to steal identity and money is targeted at every one, and each person must protect themselves. Warefare in Africa is a style that the west is not familiar with, where brutalisation of women and children is a tactic of first resort. In this “new” world, knowledge of self protection will be an important resource for maintaining some form of normal life.
In Australia, today, we live a privileged life. How long will it remain that way?
If women were permitted to perform combat roles then they’d spread girl-cooties all over some perfectly good wars.
Then proper boys wouldn’t want to have anything to do with them.
… oh, wait…
In light of the fact that the vast majority of Australian military deployments serve political as opposed to military purposes, the major consideration in the minds of any Australian government on the issue of permitting women into combat roles is whether the occasional military funeral for a woman soldier is better or worse electoral box-office than the occasional military funerals for men only.
Those arguing against women in combat always offer us a paradox: “Girls can’t fight, and they shouldn’t.” But if they can’t do something, it doesn’t matter what they should do. If they genuinely can’t do it, let them try, fail and then that’ll be the end of the argument.
The only reason to prohibit something is because it’s possible. There is no law preventing an illiterate who never finished primary school from applying to be Dean of the Faculty of Arts at Monash. Those who are genuinely incapable will apply and be rejected. Simple.
Recruitment into the armed forces and the various positions within them should be based entirely on objective requirements.
That is, someone who is going to be an infantry soldier probably needs to be able to do 30 pushups – dropping to the ground on contact then getting up and charging forward a few metres before dropping again, all with pack, webbing and rifle, this takes some upper body strength – and run 5km in under 25 minutes, that sort of thing.
Someone who is going to be a clerk in an Army office probably does not need to be able to do 30 pushups and run 5km in under 25 minutes.
At the moment, the standards for male and female recruits are different, and for older recruits. So if you’re going to be a 20 year old male clerk you’re required to be fitter and stronger than a 35 year female clerk. Why? You’ll be shuffling the same papers.
Look at the actual requirements of the job, set the standards, then let people try out for them, regardless of being male or female, black or white, 50 years old or 20 years old, missing limbs or retarded or whatever. Don’t adjust the requirements to suit the number of recruits you need that year (raise to cut them down, lower to bring more in), don’t come up with bullshit requirements to exclude certain parts of the population, etc. Just look at what the particular job actually requires.
The only reason to prohibit them from even trying is because we’re worried they’ll succeed. Someone upthread commented that conservative males always oppose women in combat. It’s more accurate to say that rich conservative males oppose it. They also oppose rich people fighting, this is why they are so fond of a volunteer army. Conscription might accidentally grab a few rich kids (though it is usually designed to let them off).
What Greg Sheridan and others want is to ensure that the only people fighting in wars are poor and working class young men. No women, no middle-classed or rich people, no-one they know.
Sheridan and others are quite fond of speaking in praise of various wars. It’s a lot easier to do that when you’ve never felt the weight of a pack, seen someone die close up, or hear someone’s grief at the loss of the life or limb of a loved one.
“When Australia allows females to play collision sports (AFL,NRL,ARU) and combat sports (boxing, karate etc) at the highest professional levels against males – then we will be ready for females in the combat arms and special forces.”
Football, football, football, fighting a war. One of these things is not like the others…
Agreed Rebekka
Anyway, it was a silly straw argument. Women already play “collision” sports. I played in the women’s AFL for 5 years, hampered only by not being a Victoria. There’s a professional women’s league in Melbourne with several divisions. Many of the women I played with had played other contact sports. Some of them are in the armed forces.
59 – not against males – why not?
If they actually do what Combet is saying they’re going to do, and also listen to experienced soldiers as to what standards are necessary, I’m in favour of it.
However: I was in combat support when they opened that up to female solders. They grabbed a fairly large swathe of “slight 5 feet nothing”, soft curvy young women out of Kapooka, gave them their corps training and posted them to combat support units. Most then failed their fitness tests. The rule was that if you failed those without a temporary medical excuse, you were posted out to non-field units. A big deal had been made of this in the couple of years before hand; there had been a bit of a “fat soldiers” scandal. The posting orders were started as usual. An order came down from on high that these were “on hold”. Then they lowered the fitness standards.
So yeah, as long as they actually put the horse before the cart it’s fair and good.
Sean, I wouldn’t have thought they’d even get out of Kapooka without being able to pass the fitness test.
Fat soldier scandals, otoh, are a dime a dozen, or were in my day. (Just check out older sergeants and warrant officers … )
Razor said
“59 – not against males – why not?”
Can’t speak for Angharad, but an acquaintance who coaches several junior sporting teams & tried to get one of his girls teams into a boys contest was told by the organiser of that contest that it wasn’t going to happen because of the debilitating shame that would befall boys who got beaten by girls.
I coached an all male under 18 basketball team that played in a competition that fielded mixed teams.
One game one of my players fended off an opponent with his hand. He looked shocked. At the next time-out he asked me if I thought that his opponent may have been a girl.
I think that fend-off may have been a life-changing event for the young fellah.
I got absolutely flattened by a woman playing mixed indoor soccer last Friday. She was more than capable of standing up to any man present physically, and attitudinally the most aggressive on the court by a country mile.
David, as you know there are different fitness tests. The test & passing grade that was then required of women at Kapooka wasn’t the same as the extra one for the field army. I’m sure you’ll remember there was the one in PT gear and the other one in your boots & webbing.
And of course there used to be another one on top of that for infantry battalions, which is what we’re talking about here. I seem to remember being told this last is already a bit easier than back in the day, in line with yer modern combat and so on, but I am usually drunk when in the presence of the colonels so don’t take that as gospel.
FDB, it doesn’t surprise me in the least that soccer players aren’t as tough as girls
Suppose I walked into that one.
I’m arriving late to this… I think Robert got it exactly right: the desire to avoid public opinion turning against military action is the real issue. That’s why these silly arguments about men bonding with each other are brought out. Anything to avoid mothers in body bags.
Speaking as someone who supports our action in Afghanistan, I affirm what is obviously true: women who are both willing and able should be allowed to serve in combat roles. If that results in a public backlash and Australia pulls out of Afghanistan, then so be it. Anyone who supports military action should not be under any illusions regarding what is being asked of our soldiers, whether male or female.
Sorry Sean, I’d forgotten about the 16km forced march and all the rest of it. Jesus, I was glad when we no longer had to climb the rope and carry another soldier 100m at a quick trot.
Apropos the rope climb, we had a US exchange officer (a Major from their Corps of Engineers) at the regiment who, when informed he needed to climb a rope, said “Bullshit! If I ever need to climb a rope I’ll find a Marine to do it for me.” Excellent come-back I thought.
Tictog – I just don’t think that anyone other than a particular type of armchair soldier has suggested that essential requirements are about to be disregarded.,/i>
.
Hopw you don’t think I’m an armchair soldier. I don’t even watch footy.
The rope climb could be seen as a bit artificial, though there was a fair bit of upper body work in 2nd line logistics in those days. The reason for the fireman’s carry is more obvious and it speaks volumes that they did away with it.
My relief was purely self-interested, Sean, as I have a poor head for heights, and was getting a bit old and fat to carry anyone, particularly of my own weight.
I agree with the importance of both tests, however.
Now, about military training, I wonder if the dialogue would have to change.
There is a whole range of reasons why females will not make it in long term combat duties without ceasure and all you have to do is look at the health ,strength, courage and many other multi tasking and general knowledge and ability requirements that males can show well and truly by 18 years of age and of course higher, I just leave you all clever people with this gynaelogical fact piece pointed out to me by a reservist navy Gyno after the Timor occupation of 1999 He said –’Most men such as yourselves and commanding officers and managers don;t understand the miriad of instant health problems that present immediately for females when they cannot get to clean ablutions and clean water –cystitus is dangerous -ie bladder infections all too easy to occurr and really serious if not treated by day 2-3 —we will just leave it at that hey folks.JKG.Brisbane
You are so right John, men have never ever suffered health problems due to unsanitary conditions. I suspect it’s because they are so much better with ‘general knowledge’ that they are resistant to urinary tract infections. *deadpan*
Oh, please. If women were that frickin’ delicate we’d have gone extinct before figuring out fire.
Sounds to me like the navy were either too damn stingy or too thoughtless to issue wet wipes to their staff. Given that most armed forces (and hell, most workplaces full stop) are pretty useless at providing gear, supplies, and clothing that work for females, I’m not surprised if they do get sick, or if injury patterns can be linked to particular tasks. That’s one of the reasons the government’s assessment of task requirements purely on a biomechanical basis is such a great idea – if done well, it will be able to detect hazard hotspots that affect all armed forces staff and possibly even design solutions to those problems.
I remember the German army got in trouble a few years back for ordering the same size bra for all their female staff, incidentally. Its funny, but its not!
Yes I knew this commentarey would draw fire alright-Last evening I watched a DVD of what the Aussies and the Turks and many other UN troops ALL MALES many ex WW 2 combatants apparently — performed at night in and aorund INCHoN in Korea in 1952 a year before my birth –just a handful of men on two fronts gunned down and hand to hand hand destroyed in the dark and extreme cold some thousands of Chinese communist Regulars absolutely darly girl really gunned them downed somnething fierce I wouold love to have been there to give em a hand but hand to hand is tough shit Ugly homophobic rant redacted, that kind of language isn’t OK here, JGK -okay JGK. Brisbane QLD AUST.
You’re right she is a good example of why women don’t serve in combat roles. Serena Williams is a superstar of women’s sport. A colossus. And yet she couldn’t even come close to competing against a man in the sport of her choice, and was in fact beaten easily by a bloke had spent the morning playing golf and drinking, and who wasn’t even good enough to make the cut for a grand slam.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=21533
Methinks JGK will not enjoy the historic moment a few decades hence when a Chinese woman becomes the first human to walk on the surface of Mars.
Yobbo – I don’t think anyone is proposing that women should from a new front line with only their kung-fu skills.
Maybe, just maybe, the military would allocate roles according to individual capabilities as determined in training.
Y’know, like they do for men, BUT NOT FOR WOMEN.
Well, if you’re going to cherry pick one anecedote from the world of tennis to make an overarching point relevant to the armed forces, be my guest, silly as it is. I suppose you were still in nappies when Bobby Riggs was thoroughly trounced by Billie Jean King, if I might be allowed to cherry pick my own piece of thoroughly irrelevant anecdata. (Or maybe not so irrelevant: Some women can beat some men. People should be chosen for demanding work on their own qualities, not their gender.)
Yes Helen, and don’t you feel like Captain Obvious for having to point that out?
In 1985 there was also no law preventing such a person, with the additional impairment of chronic and acute alcoholism, from applying to be Vice-Chancellor of Griffith University – and look where that got us!
That’s rear Admiral Obvs to you FDB
“I’m arriving late to this… I think Robert got it exactly right: the desire to avoid public opinion turning against military action is the real issue. That’s why these silly arguments about men bonding with each other are brought out. Anything to avoid mothers in body bags.” – Lachlan O’Dea
Yeah.
Whats the public reaction going to be like the first time a female soldier who is pregnant gets killed on the front line?
I bet thats got something to do with the military’s reluctance to face the issue. The coverage of war is very sanitised these days, but it doesn’t take an image to convey the horror of a pregnant woman being killed. Its easier for people to cope with non pregnant women dying, even horribly, and easier still for people to cope with men dying, even horribly. (Provided, of course, that you don’t actually know them.)
I think this has as much to do with managing peoples perceptions of war as it does with the actual abilities of women on the front line.
I don’t know if comparing elite contact sport works in this debate either.
Obviously its gonna be bloody hard for any woman to make it at an elite level in a contact sport against males. Its already hard enough for the vast majority of men to make it, so hard they don’t make it. However, if it came to grass roots contact sport against the blokes… I know plenty (well a t least 5) of women who could play AFL in most leagues and be able to hold a spot in a first division side.
In the league I play in they would dominate, well they’d get votes.
I imagine the same thing would apply to combat. there would be plenty of women who are capable of excelling in those roles, maybe the percentages would be different, depending on the specific role, (I’d expect to see very few women in the SAS, but I wouldn’t think it impossible, or even unlikely, that you could have women filling over 50% of the combat pilot places available.)
And I imagine that compared to to their value on the front line, the potential threat of bad publicity to the ability of our military to manage public perception in an actual war is greater. That would have to be a serious issue wouldn’t it?
Whats the public reaction going to be like the first time a female soldier who is pregnant gets killed on the front line?
I find this kind of wryly funny given the fact that women, pregnant women and children die in their droves in modern warfare. But then they’re not described as being in the “front line”, more “collateral damage” or other euphemistic phrases. And the “front line” is a bit of a misnomer these days – where is the “line” in Fallujah? in Baghdad? In the backblocks of Swat?
There seems to be a bit of framing going on here, because I ain’t seeing any of the opponents of women in combat suddenly sitting up and going “Oh but whoa! All these women are getting killed already! In combat! Surely that’s unacceptable?”
Depends if they’re objecting on moral or [perceived] pragmatic grounds, Helen.
“I find this kind of wryly funny..”
Its actually tragic, but I do get your point. In fact i completely agree with it. My actual objection, personally, to women in combat is the combat bit. So if its going to happen anyway … but the reasons why the objections are happening in public debate, thats got nothing to do with my personal feelings.
Women, pregnant women and children get killed in combat all the time. I actually know that, and think its fucked.
In the context of the war on terror for example, the public, well the mainstream media, only seem to care about women and children on our side getting killed, and they don’t define that as combat.
What a joke!! LOL.
Enough of this taking equality to extremes and trying to do everything that men do. Its so funny.
women are women and men are men. Just face it and enjoy life.
Let me say that if I was in a combat situation I would no way in hell want a woman out there watching my ass. This is for many reasons.
1) If I am injured and can’t move, can she pick me up on her shoulders and carry me out of there? I doubt it.
2) As much as all you feminists would like to beleive it. Men and women are not equal when it comes to physical strength. I will admit that there are some very strong women out there, some stronger then some men. But give men and women the same training and the man WILL be stronger. I know a super strong girl who could do plenty of chin-ups etc. she even said that as much as a girl likes to think she is strong, when the heat is on and adreneline is pumping a mans strength and might are not comparable to a womans and she advised her own female friends to not try and fight a man no matter how strong they think they are.
3) Aggression. In combat you need ot have pure aggression and ferocity. Women simply cannot compare to men in this either. Again, we ARE differnt. We have testestorone.
4) I have a good friend who was in the police force in NZ. He told me that secretly all of the guys dreaded when they were partnered with a female officer. It just meant that their day would be harder and they would have to do more. The police force has had to loosen the entry standards to allow for women to be employed. Shit, why do you think there are so many shootings and tasers these days. Back in the old days you had to be 6ft and over ot be a cop. this meant that a cop could usually handle himslef in a physical situation if need be and the gun (taser now) was the last resort. the 6ft standard has since bene dropped and now all kinds of fairies can be cops.
Too many movies around giving chicks fantasy ideas.
I’m all for equal rights, equal pay, equal treatment etc, but damn it…we are not made equally. We are NOT the same physically or psychologically. The sooner women can men accept this and try to understand each other more the better of the world will be. Can’t men have something just for us anymore? Or must the over inflated ego of feminsim spread into every field?
Some of the ideas posted here are quite interesting. such as the idea of setting the standards and letting whoever passes those standards in.
I can also imagine the blokes might be a little distracted if they were out in the bush with a few girls with them. It just wouldn’t work anyway.
“Let me say that if I was in a combat situation I would no way in hell want a woman out there watching my ass.”
Gordon, I agree. I’d want a man — a real man — watching my ass.
And I’d be watching his firm, ripe, ass. Very closely.
And if he didn’t show enough “pure aggression and ferocity”, I’d bust his butt.
I didn’t bring up Serena Williams Helen, somebody else did, funnily enough as an example of women who could compete on a physical level with men. The truth is though that she couldn’t, not even barely. In fact if you read the anecdote Serena herself complained mostly about the strength of his serve nearly knocking her over, something she usually does to *her* opponents. And this guy was a nobody.
Riggs was 55 years old when that match was held, whereas King was #2 in the world at the time. They don’t let pensioners serve in combat roles either. Even male ones.
Some people find it hard to accept the physical realities that men are stronger than women. Being “in the front lines” as you put it isn’t just about your prowess with a weapon, its also about being able to carry a heavy pack on your back and lift heavy objects/perform feats of physical strength as a part of your everyday duties.
I’m all in favour of putting standards in place that people have to meet and then accepting anyone who can meet the criteria, but what happens in practice is that physical strength requirements have to be modified to allow most women to achieve them, as now happens in the police force.
There’s nothing particularly insidious or patronising about the army refusing to accept women combatants, its mostly a cost-saving measure since it’s a waste of time and money to put potential applicants through a test that they are guaranteed to fail.
Oh I think that sentence has its subject and object quite mixed up. Move the nouns around and it starts to make a lot more sense.
And to reprise my #10 comment, here’s one against the pig police state for you, Iceman. Death to the fascist insect!
” Can’t men have something just for us anymore? Or must the over inflated ego of feminsim spread into every field?”
No Gordon. Nothing just for you. Everything for us. Now tell me about the fairies being let in? What are fairies exactly? Make up your mind, is it boys or girls? Or is it both. Or are you just just a delicate boy in a hysterical realm? Don’t worry. We like cherry lips here.
And whilst Gordon is answering the question about fairies, let me respectfully suggest that tall elf-queens and elf-princesses like Galadriel and Luthien would kick the arse of gnomes like Glenn Milne in front-line combat.
But seriously, let Lyudmilla Pavlichenko answer your questions.
Gordon, as a bloke who’s spent heaps of time in the field with women (admittedly not in a combat role), I find your comments both stupid and offensive.
And no, I’m not a poofter (not that there would be anything wrong with that).
Actually, I need to rethink my last claim, seeing as I’m less than 6 feet tall.
I’m just saying what many men think and don’t wanna say because it is politically incorrect. Why do we feel the need to shut our mouths from saying what we feel so that we don’t hurt the feelings of feminist women? Men are men and women are women. simple as that. Women have their advantages over men and men have their advantages over women. Combat is one such area. And sewing is one such area for women. Only kidding..before I get a whole heap of hateful feminist messages. Really I think men and women are equal as persons, but not given equal attributes. Lets just face it and live with it instead of trying to compete in every area to prove a point.
David Irving:
I have a good friend who is in the army. SHE is a pretty tough girl. I had this same conversation with her. At first she was stunned that I said it like I said, but later she agreed with me. She would not be able to carry an 85kg man on her shoulder or carry out many of the other tasks required in a combat role. Being in combat and carrying out other non-combat tasks is very different.
Casey:
Fairies would include anyone that would not be able to take on a big drug crazed thug. Male or female. Fairies would probably include you. Awww….don’t feel bad cos you would be left out of something that men do.
for the rest of the comments. I’m not gonna respond to some nerd who wants to pick a beef with me for the way i wrote what i wrote. Cos, I’m not exactly spell checking or grammar checking what i write here, cos it doesn’t really matter, unless you are so childish. the point i am making is what matters. so, if you wanna say something about that, then please do.
“Men are men and women are women. simple as that.”
A simple sentiment from a very, very simple man.
C’mon guys, one of you has made up Gordon as a piece of satire, surely.
Fine:
Again another idiot who simply replies with an insult. How intelligent you must be…or at least think you are because you learnt how to type.
Be careful, Gordon. I’ll hit you with my fairy stick and it’ll be all sparkles and unicorns for the rest of your life.
Wow…you’re also very funny Fine.
We are probably of the same intelligence level, accept that for some reason your intelligence has made you smug.
Most things in life are very simple, its just that today we seem to enjoy making everything complex.
I love unicorns and sparkles.
Seeing as Gordon can’t stop banging on about relative intelligence (for which the proof has been amply displayed in the pudding anyway), I’m going to extend on my impoliteness before and say that not only is he a bit thick, but also secretly knows it and has a massive complex about it.
/armchair psychology
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/51406384?esource=life_license
maybe you could wave that wand fine, and retrospectively reincarnate gordie as a grunt on the front lines…. somewhere in south vietman on around 31/1/68?
maybe all you nerds should stop thinking you are so smart and great.
FDB:
y sm lk rl pssy by…thats probably why you think you are so smart.
All of you so called “intelligent people” haven’t responded to the points I made at all, but have instead turned to insult. That really shows how intelligent you are. Defeated, hence you turn to insult.
Grow up up and let your pathetic egos calm down. You are not the smartest in the world. Probably you are deficient in other ways and have hence made yourself into some kind of “intellect type” to appear smart, so that you finally have something for your self.
Why not reply to the points i made?
I don’t mind sparkles either. But I prefer glitter in the 5.56mm NATO to the old 7.62mm sparkle, you can carry more magazines in pannier bags on your unicorn.
That leaves more space for bedazzler bandoliers.
Thinking you are intelligent and actually being intelligent are two different things. Using big words and being smug does not mean you are intelligent. Now, even if you are intelligent thats no reason to be smug and look down at others who you perceive to be socially different from you. You probably think I’m some kind of tradies, jock or “grunt” and that you are of another “class”, because you thikn you are sophistaced, which must make you intelligent and therefore better.
I am a jock and a grunt, but I’m also university educated and well read. Think what you want of my IQ, but until you actually say something other than sophisticated insults, it is you who have proven to be of a low IQ.
Me:
“not only is he a bit thick, but also secretly knows it and has a massive complex about it”
Gordon:
“you seem like a real pussy boy…thats probably why you think you are so smart.
All of you so called “intelligent people” haven’t responded to the points I made at all, but have instead turned to insult. That really shows how intelligent you are. Defeated, hence you turn to insult.
Grow up up and let your pathetic egos calm down. You are not the smartest in the world. Probably you are deficient in other ways and have hence made yourself into some kind of “intellect type” to appear smart, so that you finally have something for your self.”
and:
“Thinking you are intelligent and actually being intelligent are two different things. Using big words and being smug does not mean you are intelligent. Now, even if you are intelligent thats no reason to be smug and look down at others who you perceive to be socially different from you. You probably think I’m some kind of tradies, jock or “grunt” and that you are of another “class”, because you thikn you are sophistaced, which must make you intelligent and therefore better.
I am a jock and a grunt, but I’m also university educated and well read. Think what you want of my IQ, but until you actually say something other than sophisticated insults, it is you who have proven to be of a low IQ.”
QED
Yeah, Liam. I’m going for purple tulle tutu and putting unicorns decals on my bazooka. I’ll look quite fetching on the front lines.
Avoid the purple, Fine. It’s not actually very good camouflage in most places. And tutus have a distinctive shape.
See..the problem is you are all talking about a subject you have no clue about.
The way you have behaved on this forum, and the sort of person it shows you to be, are all I’m talking about Gordon.
The only info I’ve got to go on is what you’ve provided.
[Pssssst... you're not helping]
What do you advise David Irving? I mean, purple is my favourite colour, and if I can’t wear it, I simply don’t want to go to war.
Well then FDB y dck knb…why not respond to the points I made about the actual topic?
Ok, that may have stretched the wand power of Lord Voldemort….a one-way-ticket to Tehran? Definitely do-able.
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/83817257/AFP
Fine – stay home.
There’s at least one place right here in Australia where the talents of a woman with a can-do attitude, “pure aggression and ferocity” and a love of purple will always be needed.
I’ll respond to whatever I like, whenever I like Gordon.
I find your obvious self-esteem issues to be a more interesting topic.
You could always consider not flouting them so obscenely.
Listen… Men have qualities that women don’t have. and women have qualities that men don’t have. for instance, as a man I respect the fact that women have excellent intuition, among other things. We are different and we should be working to compliment each other and not compete with each other. Feminists have lost the plot. I wonder what makes them go so far to be “equal to men”. Perhaps they don’t feel adequate as women and cannot embrace what they are. I am a man and don’t try to compete with women at what they are best at, because I know thats best left to them. But that doesn;t mean I don’t respect women or value them…just that i am clear headed enough to recognise that we are different. I don’t think risking the lives of all the men in a unit is worth it in order to let a women feel equal to a man.
Flouting flaunting, but you get the idea.And who says a jumped up pseudo-intellectual Dick Knob needs to use the right words anyway?
FDB…y mst b th sftst lttle pssy by!!
sckng p t… bt y hv t sck p t wmn t gt ld nd thn d chrs fr thm.
f y cn’t rspnd t th tpc, thn kp y ptty nslts t yslf…btch by.
or the right html tags?
I’m as funny and brilliant as FDB
“as a man I respect the fact that women have excellent intuition, among other things”
What other things?
“I am a man and don’t try to compete with women at what they are best at”
Okay then, lemme guess…
Is it chores?
I’m gonna go with chores.
Lock it in, Eddy.
“I’m as funny and brilliant as FDB”
I don’t share your opinion, but I’ll happily consent to the judgement of an authoritative third party.
This thread’s done. It’s time to go with chicks with guns.
ok, a whip round for a bus fare to perth, hitch up the coast and get on of those now empty leaky boats for the return journey:
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/71370033/AFP
Which battalion?
I s’pose purple’d be OK if we declared war on San Fransisco, Fine, but I don’t think it’d work anywhere else.
You always need to be aware of shine, shape and sillhouette, I was told, and I reckon a purple tutu would be a fail on all three. (I still remember sniggering all the way through the educational movie on camouflage, because it reminded me of the Monty Python sketch on how to hide. The platoon staff thought I was odd already, so it didn’t matter much.)
oh, ok…
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/90296640/AFP
Liam, I can’t believe it’s taken this long.
Jo – that woman in your photo, front and centre. She looks like she’s thinking about her period, and how long she’s still got to have kids, and how she needs a big strong man like Gordon to protect her, and then fuck her without “sucking up”.
And the dishes.
Well, i guess if i had a daughter and she wanted to join a combat unit in the military I mwould want her to be allowed to if she was up the standard.
However, this move by the governemtn is not about equality, but about raising numbers. They figure that if they allow women to have combat positions it will attract more women. then they will eventualy lower the standards in order to let these women in the get the numbers up. Same like what happened to the police force.
The women @ 105 & 127 have seen action.
The battalion @ 116 look fierce.
But there is something universal about this image of a war weary Sudanese soldier:
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/88388815/AFP
FDB…Fremantle! Just never.
David I, I’ll remember those tips, ‘the three s’s’ for all my wardrobe issues in the future.
Poor little Gordy is throwing a tantrum ‘cos the nasty people are teasing him. And I believe he means ‘complement’, not ‘compliment’, but I guess spelling is just so pussy and fairy that a big, brave man can’t be bothered with it. Although I agree that men and women should be compliment each other. So, to all the pussy, fairy, bitch boy, dick knobs on the thread – my compliments.
Well, i guess if i had a daughter and she wanted to join a combat unit in the military I mwould want her to be allowed to if she was up the standard.
However, this move by the governemtn is not about equality, but about raising numbers. They figure that if they allow women to have combat positions it will attract more women. then they will eventualy lower the standards in order to let these women in the get the numbers up. Same like what happened to the police force.
Fine:
Oh, another one picking up on a simple spelling error and making a big deal about it to show how smart they are.
Looks like you made an error too. “Although I agree that men and women should be compliment each other.”
This sentence does not make sense. I think you meant “Men and women should complement each other”.
Can have a smartie medal too.
anyways, it appears that someone has changed my mind a little on this subject. I guess if a woman was up the standard then she should be allowed in. although it still other problems, such as distracting men while on duty and also sleeping and bathing facilities. Basically they would have to create all new facilites just for 1 woman for every 100 men. thats about the unmber i would guess could make it into a combt unit at todays current standards for men, if any at all. I do see the point that they should have the freedom to try it.
Wrong again Gordon. I meant that men and women should say nice things about each other, which is ‘compliment’. However, I did write ‘be’ which was my silly typo. But gosh, I’m just an empty-headed feminist, so you’ll have to excuse me.
I don’t know why you are all bothering, I think it’s beneath you. Srsly. Trolls are trolls and this one isn’t even particularly amusing.
Yeah nah, that’s the easy part. From what I have been told by drunkenly honest women about why it takes them so long to have a wee in a busy public dunny, the real problem will be the platoon shitter in the field. REMF units can take some heshian walls and so on in their many vehicles, but when ur a-grunting with the infantry, it’s a small hole in the middle of the night harbour (defensive perimeter). One sits there squeezing one out in plain sight of one’s comrades, sometimes having a quiet chat with someone nearby.
A social phobia only of course.
Anyway I would normally be too PC obviously but since Liam & Jo insist.
Hmmm. I’m going to turn it into a post at some stage, but there was a very interesting article in the latest issue of the ADF Journal.
Essentially, the ratification of the statute of Westminster was only ratified by the Australian parliament in 1942, at the instigation of Curtin and Evatt.
What prompted the ratification? The desire to ensure that Australian sailors were ultimately covered by Australian military law, after two soldiers were sentenced to death by a British-led court martial on HMAS Australia after they murdered a crewmate.
The reason for the murder? A love triangle gone horribly wrong – and yes, all three were male.
It seems that “distractions” on the front line are hardly a new phenomenon…
Fine:
My point was that everyone makes errors sometimes when typing. I don’t know why there are so many people in here that think theyhave won the lotto by pointing out an error. They must be empty headed.
Sean: True about the shitting in the bush.
Anyways, I agree that if women would like to try-out for a combat position they should be given the right. I still do’t lke it. Can you imagine what would happen to Commando or SAS culture.
Actually i take that back…would be fine i suppose.
Robert:
True…and the number of gay men in the military is a small proprtion.
So, logic would suggest that putting women in the military in combat roles there would be a much larger number of distractions. you helped prove my point that sexual atttractions in the military can be dangerious.
thank you buddy
Ahhh…who knows. I just don’t like it. Not my decision or problem anyways.
Peace out to all you bloggers…even the feminists
Laura:
Are you calling me a troll? What do you mean by this word on me?
“i’d say weight matched (and possibly reach) women box as well as men.”
FXH:
Great Video and really top notch boxing. However, saying that weight matched women box as well as men is a major exaggeration. If that were the case, why doesn’t a female boxer challenge a real male boxer. I guarantee if you put a 59kg Male boxer in with a 59kg female boxer,of equal skill the male would win by pure strength, power, speed and endurance.
Female boxers are great though and I admire them. I used to train at a local gym where we had the local womens state champ and she was only 16. she would have taken most guys out…talking about untrained…don’t know about the trained ones.
Perhaps some highly trained martial arts women may be able to defeat a man in hand to hand combat. I’ve heard stories from a friend of mine about a friend of his who was in the FBI.
Peace out. Or, you know. Neither peace nor out.
And when you’ve finished admiring la dinamitera’s steel nerve, consider the NYT.
Voice Over: Ken’s opponent in Tuesday’s fight is Petula Wilcox, the Birmingham girl who was a shorthand typist before turning pro in 1968. (Cut to typical teenage girl’s bedside. Pin-ups of pop stars on the walls. Teddy bears on the bed and gonks. Petula Wilcox is sitting up on the bed knitting.) She’s keen on knitting and likes Cliff Richard records. How does she rate her chances against Ken?
Petula: Well, I’m a southpaw and I think this will confuse him, particularly with his brain problem.
(Cut to the ring. Floodlight. The night of the big fight. Murmur of a huge crowd. Excitement, cigar smoke rising in front of the camera. Bustle of activity all round. In medium close-up the master of ceremonies walks out into the middle of the ring, and takes the microphone.)
Master of Ceremonies: My lords, ladies and gedderbong… On my right, from the town of Reigate in the county of Kent, the heavyweight… (unintelligible) Mr. Ken Clean-Air Systems!… (applause, cut to Ken’s comer; Ken raises his arms above his head) and on my left! Miss Petula Wilcox.
(Superimposed caption appears on the screen: ROUND 1 For the first time we see Petula dance out into the middle of the ring, frail and lovely in a white muslin dress, with a bow in her hair and boxing gloves. The referee brings them together, cautions them and then they separate. The bell goes. As speeded-up as we can manage and with the same stupendous sound effects as for all-in cricket, Ken belts the hell out of Petula. While this goes on, we hear a few voice overs.)
Colonel Type: I think boxin’s a splendid sport – teaches you self-defense.
Critic: Obviously boxing must have its limits, but providing they’re both perfectly fit I can see nothing wrong with one healthy man heating the bring daylights out of a little schoolgirl.
Heating the bring daylights?!?!? It wasn’t copied from a PDF, wtf is going on here? Had to be the bloody punchline too didn’t it.
if i was in combat, i would want 2 be facing a chick 4 sure……..i get a new gun and a good time…..believe that….and if you don’t your kidding yourself, no disrespect ya’ll…
Yes, we’re aware that rape is used as a weapon in wartime, but usually we don’t have commenters actually admitting to it. Stay classy, trolly boy!
149,
even if that’s a joke its very, very sick. If you did try to join the army you wouldn’t get past the psychologists.
War crime—it’s the go-to LOL these days.
Anyway, back to milicianas.
Yeah you’re not allowed to do that, they showed us a video and everything.
Guys thats life and you think war has rules, you call me sick, but it’s reality you think war is like a game of tiggy? war is brutal and there is no role for women in close combat, unless shes is really a he(if you know what i’m saying?), then she would have a secret power, to lure in the enermy and then use his superior strenth on him.
strength, my bad ya’ll, peace.
Transvestite rape fantasies eh?
What an interesting development.
There are at least few commenters upthread with actual combat experience (as opposed to your delusional sick-little-boy dreams). They share neither your love of rape, nor your strange fantasies about fighting alongside transvestites with super powers.
Doctrinally correct. All reactionaries are paper tigers, right?
And… because two links in a comment is forbidden, here are more Commie chicks with guns.
AK-47, roger.
http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1808205_1713277,00.html
LOL…good to see FDB using his dorkish ways on someone else.
Why do you turn to insults FDB?
Making up stuff too..why do you say paully has a love for rape? he never said that. I think you have a love for barbie dolls and pink heels.
what big paully is saying is probably true.
The girl will be a target by the enemy as well as a distraction for her own troops.
Yeah. Because men are never targets for the enemy in wartime.
That’s a pic of me going out to ‘lure the enemy’:
http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/photoessay_6010_images/1216081621_M_xdress_klinger_450.jpg
“Yeah. Because men are never targets for the enemy in wartime.”
not in the same way as a woman would. if you think otherwise you are just being naive or living in fantasy world. fantasy nerd world.
Nice pic Maxwell. the dress needs to be show a little more leg.
Gordon, this is what your new bestest buddy “Big” Pauly W had to say:
“if i was in combat, i would want 2 be facing a chick 4 sure……..i get a new gun and a good time”
He would WANT to be facing a chick, because he would get her gun and rape her. This would constitute “a good time” for him.
I’m not sure of the sequence of events here – surely to get the gun he’d need to kill or capture her first, thereby violating either the Geneva convention on POWs or the social taboo against necrophilia.
Which do you reckon?
think i hit a nerve with FDB, you is really clever, and if you honestly would fell more comfortable with a woman watching your back in combat or carry you out of fire if you get hit, you need to have another crack pipe… cause you both be goners….but i think it would be a good idea to send the ladies combat group in first, to to give the enermy a false sense of security, then unleash the big BOYS to finish them off, so i guess there are some advantages, fdb could be one of them, i’m sure he would have the right outfit with matching heels………mwah mwah
You hit a nerve alright.
The nerve that tells me those who celebrate rape as a weapon of war need to be smacked down hard.
Also, the nerve that tells me those who fantasise about fighting alongside transvestites with “secret powers” might just have a little something loose in the top paddock. Maybe a rhino in a tutu?
Although despite his obvious problems, pauly’s point about women attracting special attention from the enemy having potential tactical advantages is noted.
But it kind of pulls the rug out from under your opposition to women in combat.
Because noncombatant women are never raped in wartime. No sirree.
By the way Paully, was it raping a prisoner of war, or raping her dead body that you had in mind.
Enquiring minds wanna know.
Far, far away from the enemy, some Australian women get raped, often in their own homes.
“FDB, I dont thikn Paully meant he would actually want ot rape her…but was suggesting that it is likely that enemy troops would take this view. damn, u sure are petty whenit comes to picking on peoples use of words.”
You can thikn what you like, but I took his words at face value. I was picking on what he said, not how he said it. How “petty” of me, to think that he meant what he clearly said.
I’m not sure this Paully’s a horse you really want to back Gordon.
gee…yotube type commentary..
moderator…infestation of dribbly dicks on aisle 2,….disinfectant, mop, bucket required, pronto!
These are the kind of guys who get moderated at Bolt’s or Blair’s for being too unhinged.
Thread closed. Now.