AUSTRALIA'S female soldiers are to serve in frontline combat zones for the first time, but will be restricted to support roles.

The federal government has given the go-ahead for women to join frontline military units in support positions in battle zones after a review by the Australian Defence Force (ADF).

The government has agreed to stick with its long-standing policy of restricting women from direct combat roles but they can now be posted to infantry, armoured and artillery units in support roles in headquarters and administrative companies.

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1274&storyid=3658433

Thoughts??

I think that we should be putting our efforts towards creating a world that has no need for frontlines, instead of fighting for equality in the army. I see this as a small step forward for women, but a bigger step backward for people as a whole.

Took the words right out of my mouth mikie.

B

I think that we should be putting our efforts towards creating a world that has no need for frontlines, instead of fighting for equality in the army. I see this as a small step forward for women, but a bigger step backward for people as a whole.

Excellent! Just what I was thinking.

True. I could never figure out why trying to get women more "equality" in the military is considered a feminist issue. I mean, I can understand why women would fight against sexual harrassment in the military, but wanting women in combat? Why is it considered important to allow women to fight, and not important to teach men that it's OK NOT to want to fight?

Because I think that war is pretty much a constant in human nature.

Pacifism is admirable, but I can't see war going away any time soon. Especially as resources (habitable land, clean water, fish, oil, etc) continue to dwindle.

Personally I think that if a woman wants to fight on the front lines, she should be able to. I have yet to hear a good argument as to why this is not allowed.

If women aren't advocating to be treated the same as men in the army, then they aren't for equal rights: By definition, they are sexist by demanding the same benefits as men, but unwilling to be take the same drawbacks as men.

I don't care if they don't agree with modern warfare. I don't agree with modern warfare either, but that doesn't mean I get to ignore SS registration and the chance to die in some obscure country.

Mikie, I agree that the ideal world would be a world without warfare, but I don't think that will happen in the foreseeable future. Its quite obscene what the modern world spends on warfare. But this isn't an ideal world.

If a woman wants to fight for a cause she feels is important to her, I believe she should have that right. What is that cause right now, I wonder?

If a woman wants to fight for a cause she feels is important to her, I believe she should have that right. What is that cause right now, I wonder?

freedom & democracy, of course!!

*waves plastic american flags made in china*

*waves plastic american flags made in china*
:lol: Sad, but true. . .

Amy,

A war over fish?

Are women physically and mentally capable of dealing with the frontline?

Before anyone jumps down my throat I am just playing devil's advocate in order for there to be different opinions in here.

Amy,

A war over fish?

Are women physically and mentally capable of dealing with the frontline?

yes, and yes.

here's a link (one of many) about fighting over fish. IIRC, fish are one of the only things that democracies have exchanged fire over in recent years.

http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=242

The first lesson of international relations is that democracies don't go to war with on another. In his 1994 State of the Union addresss, President Clinton said that no two democracies have ever warred with each other. The conventional wisdom is that world peace can be achieved through universal democracy.

Unfortunately, this is not quite true. There are important exceptions. And exceptions probe, never prove, rules. The exception that makes even established democracies take up arms against one another is fish.

...At the end of 1992, twenty Scottish trawlers blockaded one of their own harbors to prevent French supertrawlers from using the port. A few months later, German and Danish fishermen went on strike and Scottish fishermen spilled oil on Russian catches. Meanwhile in France riotous fishermen confronted the British Royal Navy, French riot police, and blockaded ports. Last year, Spain dispatched armed naval vessels to fisheries off Canada's coast as part of an ongoing dispute which included the seizure of Spanish vessels on the high seas by Canadian gunboats. For decades Brits, Norweigans, and Icelanders have exchanged shots in naval skirmishes as part of their "cod wars". More recently, violence between Spain and Portugal has escalated from knives and axes to naval gunfire.

Amy,

A war over fish?

Are women physically and mentally capable of dealing with the frontline?

Before anyone jumps down my throat I am just playing devil's advocate in order for there to be different opinions in here.
Since you are originally from new jersey you should already know the answer to that question lol

freedom & democracy, of course!!

*waves plastic american flags made in china*

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?"

I'm sure you know who said that. :-)

Since you are originally from new jersey you should already know the answer to that question lol


Are you saying that Jersey girls are rough and tough?

Amy very interesting info, thanks.

Are you saying that Jersey girls are rough and tough?
You know it....which is why i live far away from joisy

i think that women are physically and mentally capable to handle the front lines, as demonstrated by the women of israel.

i think that it's appropriate for women who volunteer for the military to be allowed to go to the front lines, unless they sign on for support roles (which can sorta be done, sorta).

and until glorious day-o-total-peace comes, there will be wars and there will be armies and i believe that women should be allowed to stand with their male counterparts in battle to defend their loved ones.

And here's a telling scene from the Vineland Saga (paraphrased):

as the skraelings were attacking, the women came out of the shelter with the men, carrying swords. one woman was moving more slowly than the others, and it was because she was pregnant. She stood beside a large man, yelling at her enemies as the men do. When her man fell, she drew up his sword, tore her shirt to bear her breast. Beating the broad side of the sword against her breast, she gave a loud battle cry. The skraelings, terrified of the potency of this woman, fled without a backward glance. It was this act of ferocity from a pregnant woman that saved the community for a time.

women are certainly capable of anything a man is capable of. to suggest otherwise is to be an arrogant, sexist asphole.

Where do you foresee a woman from, for instance, the US or Canada, "defending her loved ones?" And why would she need to be in the military in order to do so?

i think that women are physically and mentally capable to handle the front lines, as demonstrated by the women of israel.

I think you are drawing the wrong lesson from the Israeli experience. Israeli women are on the front lines because the survival of Israel depends on it. Not so the survival of the US. So the analogy does not hold.

The issue of US women serving on the front lines is driven by two factors:
(1) feminist ideology, and (2) careerism, in that it is perceived (perhaps correctly) that women will not get the same kinds or promotions and status in the US military that men will get unless they serve on the front lines.


i think that it's appropriate for women who volunteer for the military to be allowed to go to the front lines, unless they sign on for support roles (which can sorta be done, sorta).

I don't believe that women have the same level of strength and stamina to serve on the front lines that men do. Also, I don't believe that US women who might be captured and raped and tortured would receive the same reaction among the US public as a comparable Israeli woman would receive among the Israeli public. In other words, I think Israelis would react stoically to such a development, while the US public and the US media would just go bonkers over any such incident, as they did over Jessica Lynch.


and until glorious day-o-total-peace comes, there will be wars and there will be armies and I believe that women should be allowed to stand with their male counterparts in battle to defend their loved ones.

The military needs 5 to 6 persons in supporting roles for every 1 person it needs on the front lines. I believe that women in the military should serve in those supporting roles.

Saying that soldiers are serving in a "battle to defend their loved ones" is dubious at best. Current opinion polls show that most Americans believe that the deployment of US forces in Iraq does not serve US interests, was unnecessary and inappropriate, and does not serve to enhance the security of the US. So please don't spew out this war-mongering garbage about how we should be putting women on the front lines "to defend their loved ones," when that has little or nothing to do with the reasons US troops are in Iraq.


women are certainly capable of anything a man is capable of. to suggest otherwise is to be an arrogant, sexist asphole.

Women simply don't have the same strength and stamina as men. Women are also much more likely to be raped if captured then men, and much more valuable to the enemy as prisoners to weaken morale and influence public opinion in the US.

Sorry you are so intolerant of disagreement. Anyone who is so intolerant of disagreement seems to me to fit into the category of "an arrogant, sexist asphole." Or does Zoe claim some sort of "special right" to "special treatment" from disagreement on account of her "special" status as woman? She's allegedly able to face combat but not able to face disagreement with her opinions?

i wasn't making a comparison about survival of a family, etc.

women on the front lines in isreal behave just as men do on the front lines. They are as capable of handling the job of fighting battles on the front lines as men are. Just as women are as capable of high-pressure surgeon occupations as men are.

the idea to which i responded is not about when or if women should fight (as a matter of cultural needs), but whether or not they are capable.

they are capable. if they want to fight--whether for survival of their homeland or for some ideal (as men are right now), then why keep them from doing that which they want to do, that which they volunteer to do, and that which they are physically and mentally capable of doing?

Throughout the centuries, women have dressed as men and gone to the front lines. It wasn't until they died or were severely injured that people even figured out that they were women. obviously, these women were just as capable, physically and mentally, as men when working as combatants on the front lines.

That was the question. The question is adequately answered. Women are just as capable as men at any outward occupation--physically, intellenctually, emotionally, and otherwise. We really aren't that much different.

Women simply don't have the same strength and stamina as men.

BS. there are women who are stronger and have more stamina than men. There are women in the miltary right now who can do exactly what their male counterparts can do physically, emotionally, and mentally in regards to their training.

To say that a woman isn't physically capable of combat means that you're going to cut out all of the men who are of the same size and weight as women--the same strength and stamina. Also, what about those women who are the same size as some men--6 ft tall and what not? Also my husband at 5-7 can carry more than me, but i can carry more than some guys i know who are 5-3. So, who is more capable to fight in a military situation?

I'm stronger than that guy. I have more stamina than that guy. yet he gets to fight and i don't? am i not more capable, physically, than that guy? If i am, why does he get to fight simply because he's the right sex and i don't? i'm more capable than him!

now, i have no interest, myself, in going to battle. But i know women who do.

Women are also much more likely to be raped if captured then men

it is the nature of military combat that someone may be taken prisoner. Of course, it is against the rules of war (not that people follow them) to rape any POW, regardless of sex. And, men are also raped, yet i don't see anyone using the possibility of rape as a reason why men shouldn't go to war.

and much more valuable to the enemy as prisoners to weaken morale and influence public opinion in the US.

i haven't seen a great deal of evidence to this fact, other than the issue of jessica lynch. of course there have been other women POWs in the current conflict, but we don't hear much, if anything, about them--particularly if they are women of color. Also, i haven't seen that they are considered more valuable POWs, or that they weaken morale moreso than other POWs.

Sorry you are so intolerant of disagreement.

i'm not intolerant of disagreement. I'm intolerant of the sexist notion that men are more capable than women. Men are not more capable than women at any given occupation. Some men and some women may be better suited to a given job than other men and women. If a man and a woman can both proove their value or worth or ability in a job, i see no reason why their biological *sex* should impact whether or not they get to do the job that they WANT or ELECT or VOLUNTEER to do--knowing all of the risks and difficulties of that occupation.

Or does Zoe claim some sort of "special right" to "special treatment" from disagreement on account of her "special" status as woman? She's allegedly able to face combat but not able to face disagreement with her opinions?

I'm not claiming any right or special status. Why? because you and I are not actually in disagreement. We're looking at a different issue.

i was looking at it from the angle of--is any given woman or a specific woman capable of physically handling the demands of combat situations? is any given woman or a specific woman capable of emotionally handling combat situations? is any given woman or specific woman capable of intellectually handling combat situations?

This is a different question from--can our culture handle women in combat? can our culture bear the thought of women POWs? can our military men handle the struggle of recognizing that women may face a great deal of danger to do the job that they do? can our culture handle putting women into this danger?

These are questions about how our culture views women. it has sexist undertones, but in and of itself is not a sexist question. But to say that a woman doesn't have the physical, mental, or emotional ability to handle a situation is ridiculously sexist. what it does is sets up both a valuation and power heirarchy between men and women which is entirely unnecessary.

Women are physically capable of handling combat, as thousands of women have proven over thousands of years of participating in combat situations. Women are also emotionally and intellectually capable, as we have also demonstrated over the years. I see no reason, then, why a woman should be banned from a job that she wants if she is physically and emotionally able to do the job, assuming those are the only two criteria.

To bar a woman from becoming a surgion because of a belief that she can't emotionally handle the pressure is sexist. To bar a woman from becoming a police officer because of a belief that women are physically incapable of police work is sexist. to bar a woman from participating in front-line combat situations because of a belief that she is less physically or emotionally capable is sexist.

But, the questions as to whether or not women SHOULD do something based on the cultural climate, that's another discussion altogether. It will have sexist elements (based on the cultural valuation of men and the percieved ideas about their abilities and the cultural valuation of women and the percieved ideas about their abilities), but it isn't inherently sexist so much as saying: zoebird, because you're a girl, you're weaker and have less stamina than a boy, you also have less spiritual import, therefore, you are not going to be as good a yoga teacher as someone else, and in fact, you shouldn't be a yoga teacher at all; zoebird, because you're a girl, you're not going to understand spacial relationships as well as a boy, therefore we don't think you should become an engineer; zoebird, because you're a girl, you don't have the stamina that a boy has, therefore, we aren't going to let you run ultramarathons.

That's sexist BS.

It's very different than issues of whether or not it is appropriate for our culture to allow me to be a yoga teacher, an engineer, or run ultramarathons. or heck, wear pants for that matter. that's a huge cultural issue right there.

ludi:

the language of war, including the current conflict in which the US finds itself (or put itself), is such that it refers to 'fighitng for loved ones." we are 'fighting for freedom' and 'fighting for our way of life' etc. Other wars have included language regarding 'protecting our loved ones from these evil powers who seek to harm us and our way of life.'

why would it be appropriate for a man to fight in a war--which uses any or all of this language--but it wouldn't be appropriate for a woman, assuming we're using the criteria that women have to have the physical and emotional capability?

I've not studied war, so I don't know the "language of war." In my opinion, no one in the current conflicts, from Canada or the US, is fighting to defend their loved ones, though they may believe they are. Nor are they fighting for "freedom," in my opinion.

Why wouldn't it be appropriate for a woman to fight in a war? I never said it wouldn't be. A woman can fight in all the wars she wants to, as far as I'm concerned.

Joe -- Rape and torture happens to both male and female POWs. I think a famous case of male rape would be TE Lawrence. (But I suspect that, in US culture, male rape doesn't have the same weight as female rape. Perhaps its a holdover of the mentality that only homosexuals are raped.)

women are certainly capable of anything a man is capable of. to suggest otherwise is to be an arrogant, sexist asphole.
Can they run 9.77 in the 100 meter dash? Not saying that women aren't fit for military service, but you can't make a blnaket statement like that.