I’m old enough to remember when the idea of “free ” love was rather more contentious than it is these days. For the younger people today sex is often considered little more than a recreational activity, entirely divorced form any notion of pair bonding or the creation of the next generation. Which why I have been wondering just what the fuss has been about because some recruits at the ADFA watched two of their fellows having consensual sex over a Skype connection.
Now a couple of things have struck me about this little scandal. In the first instance I have been rather annoyed that they young woman involved has been described in a way that suggest that she is a juvenile who has been preyed upon by evil grown up men, given the fact that women mature earlier than men this is not just not likely to be correct. Secondly the voyeurism via Skype is not actually the same as posting a video on You tube or some porn site. It is not “broadcasting” by any stretch of the imagination a closer analogy would be to suggest its like someone leaving a phone connection live so that others can hear the consensual sex over a phone connection, but with pictures. Of course if you put it that way it would not sound so bad for the idiots involved (and I think all involved are idiots) however for the likes of our defence minister Stephen Smith it has been a wonderful excuse to try to change the nature of our armed services so that he can make the ideological change that would allow women to serve in front line roles. Personally I don’t know if this is a good idea at all.
Mr Smith and the head of the defence force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, yesterday said that as long as women met the physical and academic requirements, any job was now open to them. However, meeting the rigorous entry standards for combat formations is likely to prove challenging. The Australian Defence Association lobby group remains sceptical about the use of women in combat, as does Keith Payne, the nation’s oldest surviving holder of the Victoria Cross for gallantry.
Mr Payne said that aside from the demanding physical requirements of combat infantry, a big concern for commanders would be responding to women wounded in action or captured.
“If you’re in a tight situation and one of the ladies goes down – and one of the blokes stops to pick her up – then that is the wrong thing to do,” he said. “You’re priority is to fight your way through to the bloody objective and then you come back and look after the casualties later.”
Mr Payne, who earned his VC in 1969 for gallantry in Vietnam, said he had enormous respect for Vietnamese women combatants, who served with distinction in combat units. But he added: “I’m old Victorian era. I don’t think it’s a place for women doing frontline duty.”
Opposition defence spokesman David Johnston said the sudden announcement appeared to be a distraction to divert attention from the of inquiries announced by Mr Smith into the Skype sex scandal at the Australian Defence Force Academy. “It’s like muddying the waters. It’s an odd thing to have mentioned among all those inquiries,” he said.
In a time of war we poor blokes are generally considered to be far more disposable than the womenfolk and it is easy to see that this very long standing tradition has a very sound biological rationale but even if you go beyond that meme there has to be a number of good if more mundane reasons that women in front-line infantry roles is a bad idea. For instance what about the ever necessary need have a piss while on patrol? A bloke can just whip out the old trouser snake do the business and be back on duty in less than half a minute, can a woman do her business as quickly?
There are times when specific gender roles just make absolute and incontrovertible sense and personally I think that restricting the most pointy end of our military spear to our more “disposable” gender just makes sense and that letting the feminist ideologues of the Labor party (and the Left in general) change this will end up being a bad idea.
I’m more than willing to be convinced other wise but there will need to be more than just the usual “equality” arguments.
Cheers Comrades
I see nothing has changed ?
Both David and I, when this story first broke, just sat back, laughed, and almost simultaneously, uttered Sprung !
You only have to have a peep around a military base (any service, they are all the same), and watch the skulking going on. These guys work hard, and bloody play hard.
I find it ironic, that all the “brass”, still walk around with their regs book, beating everyone over the head with it, in their hopeless task of trying to prove to everyone that political correctness rules.
Again, these people work bloody hard, and what’s more they play hard.
The lesson to be learned here, is perhaps it was unwise to post the vision ?
Doh ?
I realise your main point here, Iain, is whether or not women should be put at the front line of our armed forces. I see arguments for & against that idea and I’m not here to comment about it. I’m here to say I think you’re being rather dismissive of the crime that appears to have been committed by the bloke in this case. By your reasoning then, it’s okay to place hidden cameras to spy on women in the bathroom, having a shower, a piss or having consensual sex in what she thinks is a private encounter? That’s pretty much what you seem to be suggesting mate. Want to rethink it?
I’m Not saying that the use of Skype in this manner is OK Ray, what I am saying is that its not “broadcasting” or even posting it to the internet (so that anyone can watch) it is an indiscretion of a lesser magnitude than the media and the minister is suggesting. As far as I understand it you can’t even record Skype so only those watching at the time could have seen it.
I don’t think you guys, in all fairness, realise just how insular life is in the military. On a base somewhere, everything is there. These guys probably thought it would go around the base, and that’s it. You forget the outside world, you are made to forget about the outside world and you do !
Again, I think it is just a media beat up. A chuckle none the less ?
Fair enough, Iain, it’s just that you seemed to be saying that illegal voyeurism is “not bad”. Even if it’s transmitted to just one other person, it’s still illegal.
Sax, you’ve just explained what’s wrong with military culture.
People who are all “boo-yah” about women in combat roles will think twice when it pointed out that their daughters can now be conscripted in a time of war. After all, if men and women serve, then conscription must be of both young men and women, shouldn’t it?
Women do not belong in the military in combat roles. Gender is not a social construct. It is a biological reality. Wishing it were otherwise (or forcing the Australian Defence Forces to pretend it is otherwise) will not make it so.
Steve Smith has shown himself to be just another true Labor ideologue. Disappointing.
Hang on Luzu, either the girls want equality or not, which is it ?
You can’t just take the good stuff, and leave out that which is not savoury ?
Everyone seems to forget here, that for the most part, active service in a war zone in Australia, has been entirely voluntary for years ! If women want to go, I won’t stop them.
And Ray, yep, no denying that. The main wall people face in that little lala land ? Tradition. It is rife. Not good tradition either. You see it every day. From the way they march, dress, live, the graduation “dunking” etc. From the minute you sign the dotted line, they force feed you so much crap, that it ends up coming out every orifice you have. And, 99.9% of it, is all dribble.
The bottom line is that it is a criminal offence to record or transmit images of a person taken without their knowledge while they are naked and/or having sex. To try to explain that away as ‘boys being boys’ or ‘not that big a deal’ or ‘well she consented to sex’ is just ridiculous, in my opinion. Also, ‘voyeurism’ implies that all parties are aware of what is going on. That is clearly not the case here.
The age-old test of “How would you feel if this happened to your mother, your sister or your daughter?” should be applied in this case.
I don’t agree that women are incapable of fulfilling combat roles. In cases where hand to hand combat is required that may be true. But most ‘combat roles’ these days involve use of technology, and women can certainly carry those out at the same standard as men. (I have often wondered whether this exclusion of women from combat was more about the adverse propaganda that might follow if females were listed among the war dead.)
I have often wondered whether this exclusion of women from combat was more about the adverse propaganda that might follow if females were listed among the war dead
Exactly, Daniel. It’s a strong & compelling argument too.
It should be left up to individual women to decide if they are prepared to die for their country, Ray. Not men with chauvinistic attitudes about keeping them out of harm’s way.
Huh? You raised it yourself, Daniel – if women are killed in combat there will be a huge public backlash. That’s not “chauvinism”, it’s just reality.
I raised it; I didn’t say it was valid or that I condoned it.
Several US servicewomen have been killed in combat or combat-related roles in Iraq and Afghanistan. It doesn’t seem to have created too much uproar there, so perhaps American attitudes about women are not as wowserish and protectionist as ours.
Frankly I dislike reading or hearing about the death of any soldier killed in combat, particularly in a war of dubious motives and origins. But if it’s going to happen (and it seems it will) then I don’t see why women should be excluded from it, if they wish to volunteer to serve in dangerous areas.
The Americans have a much bigger military involvement in Iraq & Afghanistan so it stands to reason there would also be a bigger female involvement, yet (as you say) only “several” females have been killed.
Still, the issue is not ‘how many’ but what the public reaction in America has been. And I don’t recall any national uproar over the deaths of servicewomen.
(Although the Jessica Lynch farago suggests that someone in the US military PR department thinks that pretty young damsels need to be rescued.)
It’s odd isn’t it, with the Left so intent on pursuing ‘equality’ of the sexes that they are prepared to throw out traditions such as good old fashioned gentlemanly conduct. Put the girls on the front line, too bad if they’re hurt or injured, step over them. What a wonderful world we are creating when a man can’t extend a courtesy to a woman based on her sex without being accused of sexism.
In the real world, a woman wouldn’t call a man sexist for such a courtesy but the left ideology wants so much to eradicate any difference between the sexes that it is prepared to send women to the front line to prove a biologically unprovable point.
It’s odd isn’t it, with the Left so intent on pursuing ‘equality’ of the sexes that they are prepared to throw out traditions such as good old fashioned gentlemanly conduct. Put the girls on the front line, too bad if they’re hurt or injured, step over them.
That is a ludicrous way of looking at it. Nobody is “putting” anyone anywhere; we are simply suggesting that individual women should have the opportunity to serve on the front life, if that’s what they wish to do. The issue is about individuals having equal rights, it has nothing to do with social engineering or male and female biology.
No one has a “right” to volunteer to die, Daniel. I think you are confusing equality rights with common sense warfare here. If the Generals felt women would do as good a job I reckon they’d put them there.
I don’t mean to get too pedantic here, but I think you are taking equality too far to suggest it’s about the “right to die”.
If the Generals felt women would do as good a job I reckon they’d put them there.
“The generals” implement the legislation and policies determined by the government of the day, as instructed by the defence minister.
Our position is very clear. Most women aren’t suited to combat roles – but then again, that’s also true of many men. There are undoubtedly individual female defence personnel who would do exceptionally well in combat roles; it is discriminatory to prevent them from volunteering for combat on the basis of their gender. We want to see these barriers removed and then “the generals” can make decisions about who is fit to fight on the frontline, on a case-by-case basis.
That’s absurd, Daniel. Why are you arguing for a woman’s ‘right to die’? That is surely taking anti-discrimination and equality too far. People are more important than ideology. For goodness sake, grow up. Who in their right mind would fight for the right to go to war?
I’ll say it again: I believe that women should be able to volunteer for combat roles, and be selected for them, if they meet the requirements. To refuse them on the basis of their gender alone is discriminatory.
That is my view in a nutshell. This ‘women should die too’ or ‘women should have the right to die’ stuff has been confected by you and Ray, because you can’t adequately explain why women should be excluded. (By “adequately”, I mean without making some condescending reference to ‘old fashioned gentlemanly conduct’.)
‘confected’, a good word, and yes we have put together two and two and realised that the Greens are more concerned about so-called ‘equality’ or ‘anti-discrimination’ than they are about actual humanity. How many women actually want to go to war, in the front line? The argument is moot, because no right-minded woman would want to. No right-minded man ever did either, but they were forced to in earlier generations. That you are now pushing for a woman’s right to go to the front-line shows how mal-adjusted your policies are.
You have gone from fighting for the vote for women, equal pay, etc to arguing that it is a woman’s right to get shot.
Oh give me a break. This is a step too far. Choice is not more important than common sense. Once again, grow up.
War is evil, it is abhorrent, it is in the interests of all humanity that we no longer fight wars, yet now you are supporting sending women into combat to prove their equality. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.
‘See I’m equal to any man, I just got shot too’.
Humanity comes first, not your ridiculous ideology. Women will do just fine without stepping up to the front line in Afghanistan.
How many women actually want to go to war, in the front line? The argument is moot, because no right-minded woman would want to.
Good question. Possibly no women want to serve in combat positions. Our point is that that career path should not be denied to women on the basis of their gender. From my perspective, if not one single woman volunteers for a combat role, I’d be happy. But if a capable female soldier wants to serve on the front-line and is denied the opportunity, then that is wrong.
Of course this is paradoxical. The Greens are opposed to war in general and particularly wars that are waged for transient or phoney reasons. We don’t want to see any soldiers killed, least of all women. But principles aren’t mutually exclusive. We have to balance our dislike of war with our commitment to ensuring equality of opportunity for racial, religious and gender groups. Trying to suggest we are selling out one for another is just a crude debating tactic.
Why least of all women? According to you there’s no difference. ‘Paradoxically’ is a good word, because you are full of it. As I just said, humanity, society are more important than silly ideology. War is not the place to prove gender equality.
Men and women are different. Men can’t have babies. Is this clip anti-discriminatory?
Your example is silly. Men and women are obviously biologically different. That is not a license to discriminate against those women who might be capable of handling a combat role, simply because they are women.
We’ll have to agree to disagree; I’ve already repeated my point of view several times, very clearly.
“This ‘women should die too’ or ‘women should have the right to die’ stuff has been confected by you and Ray …”
No, Daniel, it was ‘confected’ by you in one of your earlier comments here (at 2.26pm):
“It should be left up to individual women to decide if they are prepared to die for their country”
It’s just too simplistic an argument. The foot soldiers do not “volunteer to die”, they volunteer to do what they’re told. You are applying everday, passive social and work principles to a military situation and it doesn’t work that way. If it did, then we’d have no workable armed forces as everyone would be running off to the courts for workplace related complaints against the brass. I don’t, of course, condone the activities that opened this topic (the illegal voyeurism) but that took place in Australia, in an academy, not on the battlefield. I reckon the Greens are simply out of their depth when it comes to matters military. Not that I blame them for abhorring war in the first place, but the suggestion that protecting women from frontline battle is discriminatory or “chauvinistic” (as you put it) is plain wrong.
Btw, I reckon any recruit who told the recruiting officer he/she was “volunteering to die” would fail the entry test. The Army isn’t about recruiting kamakaze/Rambo types – they’re too much of a risk.
I reckon the Greens are simply out of their depth when it comes to matters military.
To suggest that a political party, and all the individuals in a party, know nothing about a particular subject is just a cheap and lazy insult. There are actually two ex-ADF personnel who are active within my local branch of the Greens; I’m sure they would take issue with you.
“It should be left up to individual women to decide if they are prepared to die for their country”
Yes, I was wrong to say that. I have since been informed that all ADF personnel, in their application documents, must acknowledge that they may be required to serve in life-threatening situations. So all defence members must all be ‘prepared to die’, including women.
Also, when ADF personnel enlist, they select particular branches or occupations in one of the three services, e.g. infantry, submariner, electrical trades. My understanding is that if the ADF determines that they are unsuitable for those occupations, they are given the option of discharge or transfer. Hence it is unlikely that any individual would be ordered to serve in a combat-ready division of the ADF against their will, as you suggest.
Look, my argument is crystal clear. Women should not be excluded from combat roles in the military based on gender alone; if they wish to serve in those roles, their applications should be assessed on merit, not gender. I have asked you and the other commenter for a clear and logical reason why gender-based discrimination should continue. As yet, none are forthcoming.
To suggest that a political party, and all the individuals in a party, know nothing about a particular subject is just a cheap and lazy insult.
I did not say all individuals in the Greens know nothing about the military. I said that the Greens are out of their depth on the subject, meaning that the Greens as a party are not as well across the subject as the majors are. It’s an opinion, not a “cheap and lazy insult”.
And being required to serve in life threatening situations is not a pledge that they are ‘prepared to die’ as part of their job. Prepared to survive might be a better conclusion to draw from that. I think we’re all ‘prepared to die’, ultimately.
Yes, your argument is clear … and simple. Too simple. You see it purely in terms of gender equality. By your logic the AFL should insist its teams recruit and play women on the MCG every week … against the men. Go figure.
And Wimbledon – how very dare they don’t allow women to play 5 sets!!
It was an opinion conveyed as an insult; it means much the same thing. Like all parties the Greens have a great mix of talent, ideas, personal and professional experiences. What we don’t know, we are prepared to find out by talking to experts and people who matter. Saying we know nothing about a particular topic, opinion or not, is irrational.
I have outlined my perspective and will let it stand. I’m not interested in getting into semantic arguments or pointless analogies with football.
Daniel, this is my entire quote which you first called an insult and now call “an opinion conveyed as an insult” and that, somehow, I’m saying the Greens “know nothing” about the subject:
I reckon the Greens are simply out of their depth when it comes to matters military
It’s an opinion. It’s not an insult or “conveyed” as one. And it doesn’t say the Greens “know nothing”. And you say you’re “not interested in semantics”? Well, then don’t twist people’s words.
OK, Ray. I just don’t have the time to sit around playing who-said-what games like you do. I’ve said my piece on the matter; we’ll have to agree to disagree.
I just don’t have the time to sit around playing who-said-what games
Then don’t start them.
Ladies ?
Again I reiterate, for the most part, posting by anyone (either male or female), from an Australian force, for the last few decades, to a war zone, has been entirely voluntary !
The gals I served with in the worlds hot spots over that time, were never pressured to be there, or even asked. They put their hands up all on their own. Reading your comments above, and with this in mind, I can’t figure out your reticence, nor your arguments ? As a father, certainly, I would be concerned if one of mine put their hands up, but that’s life. As much as you want to, you can’t wrap your kids in cotton wool for their entire lives ? Our serving gals are highly qualified, and do a great job.
The Greens, like the other two parties, lack members that have actually served. They know nothing about the comraderie, nor the loyalty that is built between serving members. We don’t just let these guys and gals loose. They take care of each other, regardless of sex (or anything else for that matter). The pollies here, of any creed, just have to learn the lesson of keeping their unqualified, inexperienced bloody noses out of a subject they know absolutely nothing about ?
Let them, instead, attempt to score their points, or gain their political God status, on trees instead ?
Thank you for confirming the postings to active zones is voluntary, and that many women in the ADF want to serve there. I believe they should have that opportunity, even if others hold sexist views about them being too weak or inconsequential to do so, without putting themselves in danger.
The Greens do have a small quota of ex-servicemen, but to my mind that is irrelevant. Politicians do not need to have served in the military to make decisions about the ADF, any more than they have to be doctors to make healthcare policy. Sure, operational matters are best left to military personnel, that has always been the case. But gender exclusion is too big an issue to be decided internally.
If women want to serve in front line roles, let them. As long as they perform to the same physical levels as men, they should not be excluded. But we know that over time, the physical tests will be modified so as to allow some women to pass, just as has happened in the various police forces around the country. What then? Do other soldiers have to put their lives at risk to cover for someone who has passed a lower physical requirement, just so we can puff out our chests and proclaim our moral superiority to the world? Just so the Daniels of this world can feel better than nobody anywhere is denied anything solely on the basis of gender? Even if what they want may actually be harmful?
How many women actually wish to join the SAS? 1? 2? 5? And for that, you are willing to send your daughters off to be conscripted? Because if it is good enough for my sons to be conscripted, so it is for your daughters. You know, in the name of equality.
Just got back from a flight, and man that sun is nice. Winter has arrived early here on the island, and we have had that much rain, and now it is so bloody cold.
)
(you can stop laughing in the wings now Iain ?
I agree Daniel. Funny thing is, that women have been serving in war zones for decades, and right from the start ? Nurses, doctors, cormen etc have been on the war front lines, and none of this sort of argument has ever stopped that has it ?
There was a scheme put up, a fair time ago, where long term unemployed youth would be made, (to keep Centrelink benefits), a mini basic training course. To me, this would have been a great idea. Kids (of both sexes btw), in the late teen years, are cocky, arrogant, and sometimes incredibly lazy. This course would have had the twofold benefit of instilling a bit of self pride, discipline, as well as perhaps refiring initiative. To many bleeding hearts jumped out of their chairs, with cries of “war mongerers”, and the plan was quickly quashed. What a shame.
To a final comment from here on this subject, having served, being aware of the rule book, which for the most part was too politically correct, it has never been my experience, to see women victimised or otherwise mistreated. Actually, especially for RAAFy girls, it was the other way around. I go back to my very first comment, in my opinion, a few tossers went overboard, and got caught. The rest is just a beat up. If anyone under my command were guilty of sexism, or any discriminatory practise, over the years, they knew that they would have either been shown the door, or would have been polishing the ashphalt parade ground with their tongues for six months !
Sax, I am not sure the case at ADFA is indicative of wider problems in the military. The fact they were trainees with only 10 weeks service suggests that their actions were those of civilians more than military personnel. The review will not do any harm, however I don’t think there is a need to panic. The individuals concerned will be dealt with, and that is the main issue.
Luzu, your comments are hardly worthy of reply. Nobody is suggesting that training or fitness standards be lowered, or that women be conscripted. In fact I hope that neither occurs. It is just slippery-slope nonsense.
Just saw your Luzu and before returning to work ?
The short answer ? As has always been the case YES !
It is not just a male/female thing either. It’s a moral covenant. You look after everyone you serve with. Everyone has differing talents and physical capacities. The strongest always protect the weakest. Everyone has a role to play. It has always been my experience that, that is exactly what has happened.
If your daughter had her mind set on joining the SAS, or whatever, why should she be prevented from doing so, by some political decision a thousand miles away ? That is the discrimination ?
Luzu is correct though Daniel. Physical requirement standards for women are lower than those for the fellas. That is just the way of the sexes. It is not discrimination, but mere logic. They can’t carry the 100kg packs like the guys do, but they contribute just as much in other ways. Have a look at Israel, they have had women on the front line from the start, and they don’t seem to be suffering the backlash ?
I am sure that military commanders won’t lower standards for combat soldiers so that their lives are endangered. The issue here is the effectiveness of women in the military, and you seem to agree that they can do the job. We’ve had female police performing the same duties as men for decades now, and nobody is suggesting we go back to the days of ancilliary policewomen.
Daniel,
Your theories and reality will collide one day. My point about conscription of women was this: If women can fight in frontline roles, in a time of war, why should women be exempt from conscription? Because they don’t want to? Too bad, a lot of young men don’t want to either. Wouldn’t allowing women to evade conscription on the basis of gender be discriminatory?
AS for slippery slope nonsense, that is simply a way to dismiss a differing opinion. Go and find out about the male police officers who now not only have to confront violent thugs but also have to defend female officers who are not physically up to the job but were allowed to take an easier physical test so that they could be police officers. Then come back and tell me that this will not happen in the military.
Link for you, Daniel:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/women-officers-demand-change-to-biased-police-fitness-tests-645031.html
Shouldn’t these women have had to do the same tests as the men? If not, why not?
My positions are quite consistent and in harmony with each other. I support merit-based selections for combat duties and I am opposed to exclusion based solely on gender. I am absolutely opposed to conscription, for both genders.
Your posts have been a series of hypotheticals based on problems that will arise if women are permitted into certain military roles. I would prefer to see clear evidence of problems that have arisen where women are serving in active zones. Sax refers to women performing adequately in the IDF; if they can do it there, they can do it here. I don’t buy into the slippery-slope argument about the presence of women leading to the lowering of standards. It’s up to military leaders to ensure that standards aren’t lowered; they are the best equipped people to do that, not you or I.
As for women in the police force, I have no doubt that some female police officers are physically incapable of handling some of the more robust aspects of the job. That is also true of some male police officers. There is a growing problem with male police officers who are obese, alcoholic or addicted to prescription medication, for example. They are all operational issues for police command. Officers unfit for service should be redeployed, retrained or discharged on a case-by-case basis. Gender should have nothing to do with it.
My positions are quite consistent and in harmony with each other
Was that Daniel … or Derek?
Daniel,
You are missing the large pachyderm in the lounge. Where there are physical aptitude tests involved in certain occupations, the standards will inevitably be lowered so as to permit the inclusion of women. Because if there are no women, the tests MUST be discriminatory. Biological reality as an explanation is simply not permitted. We’ve seen it in the police services and we will see it in the military. Your wide eyed protestations to the contrary, Daniel, mean nothing.
As to conscription, I’m also opposed. But in a time of war, it really doesn’t matter what we think. Yes or no, Daniel? In wartime, should women be conscripted (assuming that women are able to take up front line combat positions)?
I’m not interested in raking over old ground from this thread. You have offered no evidence on why women would be a liability in combat divisions, only repeated opinions, so I’m not going to comment further.