http://www.skynews.com.au/national/arti ... 01642&vId=

This article reports on the opening up of roles for women in the Australian military. Currently barred from direct combat roles this article indicates that women will be allowed to participate in any role that men currently monopolise. Is this just political lip service, that the reality says thay firstly women will not have the physical capability to make the grade, will not have the interest, and will not be supported when female casualties increase to the same levels as men.

If we take the view that the military should be gender blind and whoever can make the grade on the physical and mental criteria will be accepted? Setting aside any issues that seem to come up when they mix men and women in the forces, why have we not done the same thing in other walks of life? Why not insist that Olympic events will be open to anyone that meets a qualifying criterai regardless of gender? The qualiying time for the mens 100m is 10.07 for the 'A' and 10.28 for the 'B' section, while the womens record is 10.49 secs. This means that no women would even qualify to compete, leave alone gain any significant status in doing so. In fact for practically all track and field events, no women would qualify to compete. If we turned to tennis, golf, etc and simply offered a gender blind event, this would also eliminate the entire population of elite female athletes and sportswomen.

Anneka Sorenstam raised this challenge in golf and appeared to truly imagine she was competitive with the best males. The result was a whitewash. While she was the dominant female golfer, she ended up not making the cut after round 2, just like plenty of men. But they werent the best men, because plenty of men did make the cut, but the best woman did not. The reports about her appearance were full of how great her game was, her personality, the newsworthiness of it all, but sports like these, while acknowledging all these are based upon finding the best player. If you are not good enough to compete, even if you are a nice person, you dont compete. Thats good golf by my standard, but aside from the fact that she is a women, coming in the top 100 is no comparison to coming in the top 10. Clearly the issue is not around the principle of gender equality, but about securing the best possible position and using political slogans to achieve this.

Dont we still have the option to acknowledge that we want to have womens sports events where they are safe from competing with males, just because we do want an elite female population of sportswomen who are not measured by mens standards. The same should apply to the army. Why deny physical reality and argue that it will be just the same for women as for men in combat roles?

Nobody has said it will be just the same for women.

If you can do the job, you can do the job. No positive or negative discrimination. Maybe only 0.001% get through to combat roles? Who cares?

Sorenstam pfff.

Combat roles may be tough, but they are not quite the same thing as reaching the top of olympic competition. In fact women have made up considerable portions of fighting forces in the past, such as the Soviet army in WW2. You don't have to be in perfect physical condition to run for a couple of hundred meters, and fire a rifle.

The prohibition against women in combat is more about cultural norms than physical ablities.

I would agree

I suspect that as a percentage fewer women would make the physical grade compared to men, however that in no way means that those that do make the physical grade should be prohibited from killing people for their country.

Whether anyone should be killing people for their country is another matter.

There have been female combat casualties in this century, for example [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichola_Goddard]Canada[/url].

95Theses wrote:I would agree

I suspect that as a percentage fewer women would make the physical grade compared to men, however that in no way means that those that do make the physical grade should be prohibited from killing people for their country.

Whether anyone should be killing people for their country is another matter.

I am under the impression that in the US they have different fitness standards, no? I know two or three people in one of my classes objected to this for that reason.

Father O Rielly wrote:... You don't have to be in perfect physical condition to run for a couple of hundred meters, and fire a rifle ...

You never actually served, did you? It's more a matter of getting to the battle with all your kit (might entail marching with 150lbs on your back, or running 9 or 10 miles carrying 35lbs or more), then fighting, with a troop/section attack typically entailing running, dropping into cover, firing whilst your oppo runs to cover, then up & running, drop into cover, firing, up & running etc. Once you've taken a position, you then have to maybe go back & check enemy dead, or move on to the next objective, and then the next, and on until you've got the job done. Trust me, it's knackering. You need to be fit.

The main objection is cultural. As a section commander, I knew that I might need to put some blokes in harm's way. This can be as basic & brutal as getting someone to get up out of cover & run, in order to draw enemy fire & enable the enemy to be located - you can't shoot 'em if you don't know where they are. I'm culturally conditioned to act to protect women. I'd not hit one, nor act in any way so as to hurt a woman. I'd put myself in harm's way to protect a woman. It's the way I was brought up. Put a woman in my section, how do I overcome years of cultural conditioning & treat her the same as some bloke under my command? Scale that up for troop & company commanders, all they way on to the top.

chairman bill wrote:

The main objection is cultural. As a section commander, I knew that I might need to put some blokes in harm's way. This can be as basic & brutal as getting someone to get up out of cover & run, in order to draw enemy fire & enable the enemy to be located - you can't shoot 'em if you don't know where they are. I'm culturally conditioned to act to protect women. I'd not hit one, nor act in any way so as to hurt a woman. I'd put myself in harm's way to protect a woman. It's the way I was brought up. Put a woman in my section, how do I overcome years of cultural conditioning & treat her the same as some bloke under my command? Scale that up for troop & company commanders, all they way on to the top.

I feel the same way about women, and I felt that this was an interesting argument, but on reflection I'm afraid I don't agree Bill.

What is important is that the Woman who can pass all requisite physical tests wants to fight, and should be allowed to because a) there is no reason to stop her, and b) nothing will ever change if we don't force it through at first.

The prejudices (whether benign or not) of the other people She wants to serve with are not grounds for preventing her from serving.

Consider the following argument:

"I'm culturally conditioned to not like black people, therefore I can't have black people in my unit because I know I wouldn't treat them equally to the white soldiers"

What you do is recognise the conditioning you have, appreciate that it is incorrect and unfair on her, and do your damndest to get over yourself and send her out of cover to draw the fire if you would have asked the same of a male soldier. that is what she wants, not to be mollycoddled.

Also, however I feel about it, Women do not require special attention or help and do not deserve any more protection than men do.

Psychological reasons are there preventing women standing shoulder to shoulder with men on the front-line: men tend to be protective for one. A captured female, or one pinned-down & wounded under sniper fire could create havoc and make males harder to control. You may say, well boo-fucking-hoo we want equal job rights, but I would suggest the reality of evolutionary psychology may be too hard to break for these yet nebulous scenarios. And is it worth trying? By trying you risk massacre (and wasted training). I would suggest any role BUT this; try artillery, pilot, medic.. there's tonnes out there. ((tough not to sound patronising here))

Physically, not much in it. Special Forces may have a problem with many, not all.

Realistically, men are more expendable to a nation.

I realise that they were not strictly military but I feel I should mention a few names:

Violette Szabo GC (ATS) , Odette Sansom GC (FANY), Noor Inyat Khan GC (WAAF)

Ironclad wrote:Psychological reasons are there preventing women standing shoulder to shoulder with men on the front-line: men tend to be protective for one.

Oh, bullshit. It's women who are portrayed as "Mama Grizzlies", not dudes. Men have just been taught women are delicate flowers in desperate need of their protection. It's a social construction that women are desperate for protection by men, not evolutionary biology.

A captured female, or one pinned-down & wounded under sniper fire could create havoc and make males harder to control.

Oh yeah. And can you image how males might respond if a physically attractive women didn't cover up? Uncontrollable, I tell you!

Men have every ability to control themselves and behave rationally in scenarios they've been conditioned to respond to in a particular manner.

You may say, well boo-fucking-hoo we want equal job rights, but I would suggest the reality of evolutionary psychology may be too hard to break for these yet nebulous scenarios. And is it worth trying? By trying you risk massacre (and wasted training). I would suggest any role BUT this; try artillery, pilot, medic.. there's tonnes out there. ((tough not to sound patronising here))

That was beyond patronising and beyond condescending to both men AND women.

If a woman wants to risk her life, back off.

Realistically, men are more expendable to a nation.

They absolutely are not.

Rachel, it's obvious even from experience (let alone research) that women [generally] are more sensitive than men. Why would you even want to deny that? Sensitivity is not necessarily a 'weakness'. But it might be in the field of battle, where coldness and heartlessness become strengths which might be decisive.
If you want to defend the rights for some women to partake of battle, then fair enough. But imo, those kind of women are not the best kind of women... just as those kind of men are not the best kind of men.

Ironclad wrote:Psychological reasons are there preventing women standing shoulder to shoulder with men on the front-line: men tend to be protective for one. A captured female, or one pinned-down & wounded under sniper fire could create havoc and make males harder to control. You may say, well boo-fucking-hoo we want equal job rights, but I would suggest the reality of evolutionary psychology may be too hard to break for these yet nebulous scenarios. And is it worth trying? By trying you risk massacre (and wasted training). I would suggest any role BUT this; try artillery, pilot, medic.. there's tonnes out there. ((tough not to sound patronising here))

Any evidence that evolutionary psychology is relevant to this issue? And obviously the other point here is that even if it were an evolutionary psychology trait (the likelihood of which I doubt) this doesn't mean that it's impossible or even hard to overcome - and, perhaps more importantly, it doesn't tell us whether or not it's something we should try to overcome. Some evolutionary psychologists have argued that rape is an evolutionary trait (the research is bullshit of course, much like I imagine the research on men having evolutionary traits to "protect women" is bullshit) but what does this mean? It's too difficult to overcome, so we should just solider on with it?

jamest wrote:Rachel, it's obvious even from experience (let alone research) that women [generally] are more sensitive than men. Why would you even want to deny that? Sensitivity is not necessarily a 'weakness'. But it might be in the field of battle, where coldness and heartlessness become strengths which might be decisive.
If you want to defend the rights for some women to partake of battle, then fair enough. But imo, those kind of women are not the best kind of women... just as those kind of men are not the best kind of men.

Even if we assume that it's true that women are more sensitive than men, this would only apply on a general population level. When we start looking at highly selective sub-populations, it's unlikely that those general trends will persist or produce any real effect whatsoever.

Is treating women equally dependent on women performing equally

Ironclad wrote:Psychological reasons are there preventing women standing shoulder to shoulder with men on the front-line: men tend to be protective for one. A captured female, or one pinned-down & wounded under sniper fire could create havoc and make males harder to control. You may say, well boo-fucking-hoo we want equal job rights, but I would suggest the reality of evolutionary psychology may be too hard to break for these yet nebulous scenarios. And is it worth trying? By trying you risk massacre (and wasted training). I would suggest any role BUT this; try artillery, pilot, medic.. there's tonnes out there. ((tough not to sound patronising here))

Physically, not much in it. Special Forces may have a problem with many, not all.

Realistically, men are more expendable to a nation.

I would suggest that many of those problems could be solved by sexually segregating combat units.

chairman bill wrote:

Father O Rielly wrote:... You don't have to be in perfect physical condition to run for a couple of hundred meters, and fire a rifle ...

You never actually served, did you? It's more a matter of getting to the battle with all your kit (might entail marching with 150lbs on your back, or running 9 or 10 miles carrying 35lbs or more), then fighting, with a troop/section attack typically entailing running, dropping into cover, firing whilst your oppo runs to cover, then up & running, drop into cover, firing, up & running etc. Once you've taken a position, you then have to maybe go back & check enemy dead, or move on to the next objective, and then the next, and on until you've got the job done. Trust me, it's knackering. You need to be fit.

The main objection is cultural. As a section commander, I knew that I might need to put some blokes in harm's way. This can be as basic & brutal as getting someone to get up out of cover & run, in order to draw enemy fire & enable the enemy to be located - you can't shoot 'em if you don't know where they are. I'm culturally conditioned to act to protect women. I'd not hit one, nor act in any way so as to hurt a woman. I'd put myself in harm's way to protect a woman. It's the way I was brought up. Put a woman in my section, how do I overcome years of cultural conditioning & treat her the same as some bloke under my command? Scale that up for troop & company commanders, all they way on to the top.

You forgot to mention their poor ability to pull 200 pounds on a longbow. Times do change you know.

If abilities, physical or mental, are in question, set qualifying criteria a be (sex) blind.

If interest is in question, well .. there is no quota or is there?

If casualties will not be supported, that is a political lip service as OP calls it.

What is the problem here?

Though I tend to agree it makes sense for certain professions to be dominated by one or other other sex, to make policies or laws based on broad generalizations seem as redundant. Let every individual chose and have reasonable criteria for qualification, problem solved.

Personally, if I was a solider I would like to have some women around as from my experience men only teams do not preform as well as mixed teams, however, and as it was said if there is any evidence suggesting this does not apply to military, lets hear it.

byofrcs wrote:You forgot to mention their poor ability to pull 200 pounds on a longbow. Times do change you know.

I'm not that bloody old. Please explain how that relates to anything I wrote?

chairman bill wrote:

byofrcs wrote:You forgot to mention their poor ability to pull 200 pounds on a longbow. Times do change you know.

I'm not that bloody old. Please explain how that relates to anything I wrote?

ROFL!!

@Rachel: Plenty of women put their lives on the line and lost them, what I could have suggested further was that front-line heat of battle decisions would generate a bias...
@Rachel AND Mr Samsa: ..., further, social construct or not this is more likely a behaviour or psychology (social construct if you like) ingrained over millennia not your romantic Medieval Prince on horseback from 300 years ago.

Any evidence that evolutionary psychology is relevant to this issue?

Yes.

And obviously the other point here is that even if it were an evolutionary psychology trait (the likelihood of which I doubt) this doesn't mean that it's impossible or even hard to overcome - and, perhaps more importantly, it doesn't tell us whether or not it's something we should try to overcome.

Why would we want to defy a process that is naturally a key to our species survival and may be relevant again?
Someone say, Citation Needed.. please.

Back @Rachel: Don't feel to hard toward me, I am mostly playing Devil's Advocate here - I think you should do whatever you wish, I just also see pitfalls, welcome or not.

Ironclad wrote:@Rachel AND Mr Samsa: ..., further, social construct or not this is more likely a behaviour or psychology (social construct if you like) ingrained over millennia not your romantic Medieval Prince on horseback from 300 years ago.

Any evidence that evolutionary psychology is relevant to this issue?

Yes.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't very clear. I wasn't just asking out of curiosity to see if you thought you had any evidence, I was actually hoping you could present it here. So, with that confusion out of the way, can you link me to some of the articles demonstrating this effect?

Ironclad wrote:

And obviously the other point here is that even if it were an evolutionary psychology trait (the likelihood of which I doubt) this doesn't mean that it's impossible or even hard to overcome - and, perhaps more importantly, it doesn't tell us whether or not it's something we should try to overcome.

Why would we want to defy a process that is naturally a key to our species survival and may be relevant again?
Someone say, Citation Needed.. please.

Because we're smart enough to avoid the appeal to nature? Arguably, things like rape, autism and depression are evolved traits - are you asking for evidence as to why we should try to overcome these things? Because I can present all of the reasons why we don't want to leave rapists to themselves so they can attack people on a daily basis but surely I don't need to do this?

But firstly, you present evidence that this is a process that is "naturally a key to our species survival" and then we can discuss why, as a rational society, it's stupid to accept the idea that what is natural is good or right.