[ummester]

http://www.abc.net.a...ontline/2946258

Thought this could make an interesting OT discussion.

I was in the army a while back and health concerns were always sited as the main reason women shouldn't be in operational roles. Digging into a pit and going without any kind of full cleaning for a week was figured to be more dangerous for women to men. Then again, if a woman drops below a certain percentage body fat, monthly occurances cease to happen and it may not be an issue.

Wonder if the military will have to consider age equality now also? Instead of 18-35 yr olds - will they have to take women up until the new retirement age of 75? I recon a bunch of grannys running around shooting at things would be hilarious, if not entirely effective:)

[Ruffian]

ummester, on 27 September 2011 - 06:02 AM, said:

http://www.abc.net.a...ontline/2946258

Thought this could make an interesting OT discussion.

I was in the army a while back and health concerns were always sited as the main reason women shouldn't be in operational roles. Digging into a pit and going without any kind of full cleaning for a week was figured to be more dangerous for women to men. Then again, if a woman drops below a certain percentage body fat, monthly occurances cease to happen and it may not be an issue.

Ah, woman... 'the beast that bleeds for a week but doesn't die'...scary stuff!

Umester, the views you cite are somewhat out of date, I think.

There are many forms of longterm contraception that prevent that pesky monthly bleeding as a by-product of the contraceptive effect.
Try googling depo or mirena, and I'm pretty sure there are others - even the pill will do it if she skips the week of sugar pills.

Regardless of that, a packet of tampons weights what, less than 100gms, and they are as disposable as anything else you find in a latrine. (not to mention useful as field dressings (that's where the name originates) and even during bouts of dysentery (use your imagination).

Other than that the vagina is generally considered to be a self-cleansing organ.


Give that an individual ticks all the boxes physically and mentally, they should be technically able to do what they are slated to do, regardless of gender. I suspect relatively few women will be able to tick all those boxes, though.


The problems of introducing women into front line operations are far more subtle than that. First up is the way that a group of either sex behaves one way when they are on their own and perceptibly differently when someone of the opposite sex arrives on the scene.
The whole dynamic of the modern fighting unit will be seriously knocked out of kilter and will have to be quite consciously rebuilt - and I doubt that the military have either the subtlety or the will to put in the necessary effort to make it work.

Rather, I think this will be an experiment that will 'fail' and women will have to go back to being bottle washers or medics or whatever.

[tom]

Maybe this is a really stupid question but do women and men share facilities like toilets etc in the defence force? I was spun out when I rocked up at uni and found a woman in what I thought was the mens drying her hair, so I guess it is possible...

If they don't then I guess that is a practical implication for women say being submariners? You don't really want to replace your fleet because space has been used too efficiently to allow men and women to share it? I understand they already serve in most parts of the navy just not submarines and it seems mine clearance divers?

I guess this could be overcome by having one of the submarines kitted out only for women folk. Imagine the psychological impact on some cultures if you sunk their patrol boat with an all woman crew submarine!

[wim]

tom, on 27 September 2011 - 08:37 AM, said:

Maybe this is a really stupid question but do women and men share facilities like toilets etc in the defence force? I was spun out when I rocked up at uni and found a woman in what I thought was the mens drying her hair, so I guess it is possible...

If they don't then I guess that is a practical implication for women say being submariners? You don't really want to replace your fleet because space has been used too efficiently to allow men and women to share it? I understand they already serve in most parts of the navy just not submarines and it seems mine clearance divers?

I guess this could be overcome by having one of the submarines kitted out only for women folk. Imagine the psychological impact on some cultures if you sunk their patrol boat with an all woman crew submarine!

Both Townsville and Puckapunyal have separate facilities for both toilets and showers. The showers are group showers. The toilets have urinals. Given the amount of sexual harassment that seems to be occurring at the moment I think that separation would be common.

[ummester]

Ruffian, on 27 September 2011 - 07:27 AM, said:

Ah, woman... 'the beast that bleeds for a week but doesn't die'...scary stuff!

Umester, the views you cite are somewhat out of date, I think.

There are many forms of longterm contraception that prevent that pesky monthly bleeding as a by-product of the contraceptive effect.
Try googling depo or mirena, and I'm pretty sure there are others - even the pill will do it if she skips the week of sugar pills.

Regardless of that, a packet of tampons weights what, less than 100gms, and they are as disposable as anything else you find in a latrine. (not to mention useful as field dressings (that's where the name originates) and even during bouts of dysentery (use your imagination).

Other than that the vagina is generally considered to be a self-cleansing organ.


Give that an individual ticks all the boxes physically and mentally, they should be technically able to do what they are slated to do, regardless of gender. I suspect relatively few women will be able to tick all those boxes, though.


The problems of introducing women into front line operations are far more subtle than that. First up is the way that a group of either sex behaves one way when they are on their own and perceptibly differently when someone of the opposite sex arrives on the scene.
The whole dynamic of the modern fighting unit will be seriously knocked out of kilter and will have to be quite consciously rebuilt - and I doubt that the military have either the subtlety or the will to put in the necessary effort to make it work.

Rather, I think this will be an experiment that will 'fail' and women will have to go back to being bottle washers or medics or whatever.

And my views are out of date:)

I recon, swap it all around. Let women fight and men stay home for a change. Since recorded history, men have done the fighting and dying for propaganda masquarading as patriotism - perhaps they deserve a break from it.

[ummester]

wim, on 27 September 2011 - 09:28 AM, said:

Both Townsville and Puckapunyal have separate facilities for both toilets and showers. The showers are group showers. The toilets have urinals. Given the amount of sexual harassment that seems to be occurring at the moment I think that separation would be common.

On the joint showers/urinals thing. I've always loved those shows like Starship Troopers and the new BSG where men and women fight together, throw punches at each other the whole shebang. And why not?


Shouldn't true equality mean there are men vs women boxing matches, no mens events in the olympics - just events and so on. Actually, wouldn't true equality mean that there are no age, ethnic or disability distinctions either.


The 100m dash for instance, should just be open to all who can compete, even a disbaled person with spring loaded legs if they can hold their own.


I think my point is, I don't like the gradual tweaking around the edges. Either all things are equal, or they are not. One or the other.

[staringclown]

I think the cultural shift will be the difficult bit as others have pointed out. The kind of women that would be capable of passing the tests would be kickarse women. (Well they'd kick my arse anyway) Valkyries. Plus they've got a gun. I wouldn't be messing with them.

Quote

The 100m dash for instance, should just be open to all who can compete, even a disbaled person with spring loaded legs if they can hold their own.

How about wheels?

I've always fancied the idea of the "open" olympics. Everything including genetic engineering (mermaids) and bionics are allowed. Make great telly...

[ummester]

staringclown, on 27 September 2011 - 10:31 AM, said:

How about wheels?

There are wheel chairs. What is the time difference between a 100m wheel chair race and one where those african men with supersized quads charge down the track?

staringclown, on 27 September 2011 - 10:31 AM, said:

I've always fancied the idea of the "open" olympics. Everything including genetic engineering (mermaids) and bionics are allowed. Make great telly...

Would be great to watch, wouldn't it. Androgenous Chinese genetic freak vs cybernetic Japanese organism (with purple or green hair).

I've always wondered why reality tele doesn't cut straight to the chase also. Like why don't they just give them weapons in survivor and a million bucks to the true survivor.

But I have totally digressed from my own thread:)

I don't know about women in combat roles - truly. Like all things there are arguments for and against. That's why I posted it for discussion. Could just be a Gillard stunt to get some kind of feminine support (which may be a sexist abuse of the political system:)).

[Mr Medved]

They will be slaughtered (more often than not). A politically-correct decision that IMO is a very poor decision.

[Solomon]

We are now getting into some fascinating areas of the "equality between the sexes" debate and social change.
Are women different from men?
In what ways?

We know they have different sexual organs, and body parts, but is that the only distinction.

Is it any different if a woman gets killed on a battlefield compared to a man?
Why? Does a bullet care, if it is male or female flesh that it tears through?
During the Vietnam war, there were many women in the front-line of the Viet-Cong.
Allied forces only found it difficult to shoot them, up until they started firing at them.

Couldn't it be enough, that all soldiers killed just be considered, human beings?

I'm trying to ask some serious questions here, based upon our social perception of the sexes.

Are there in fact, some differences that cannot be denied, such as physical mass and muscle tone to be considered in this decision.
I have seen some fairly muscular women, and some very effeminate men.

What about the emotional aspect of masculinity and femininity?
Does such a thing even exist?

What about mothers with children? Is that any different to fathers with children?
What about middle aged women, compared to middle aged men? Again is there really any tangible difference or is this all contrived difference?

I don't really know for sure, because I'm male.
Can I know whether being a female is different, and unfortunately no woman can answer that, because they are female.

We live in interesting days, that's for sure.
I can't believe the women actually want to be equal with the men in this particular issue.

We demand to be killed just like the men!!
We shouldn't have any barrier put before us in allowing us to be involved in the wasteful pursuit we call war!
We want to be able to kill people, just like the men do!
I honestly don't get it.
Let them have a go, if they're so damned eager.

[tor]

wim, on 27 September 2011 - 09:28 AM, said:

Both Townsville and Puckapunyal have separate facilities for both toilets and showers. The showers are group showers. The toilets have urinals. Given the amount of sexual harassment that seems to be occurring at the moment I think that separation would be common.

Don't confuse the cause and effect.

It is possible that by creating an environment where one sex is the weaker by definition (they aren't allowed in combat and so therefore must be weaker mentally, physically and so on) and making the environment hierarchy driven the pecking order will focus on the people that are labelled as weak.

Letting the people that have been labelled weak be strong if they want is probably a good start to stopping the sexual harassment.

Then it will just go back to normal high testosterone bullying to decide the pecking order.

[ummester]

Solomon, on 27 September 2011 - 02:00 PM, said:

What about mothers with children? Is that any different to fathers with children?
What about middle aged women, compared to middle aged men? Again is there really any tangible difference or is this all contrived difference?

This raises a very interesting question if there is ever an equal oppurtunity draft.

Could a mother and father of the same offspring end up being drafted to combat and leave the children totally parentless? What liability would the government have for those children then?

For a less extreme situation, if women are allowed in armed roles and if there is ever another draft, could men refuse if women aren't alos drafted?

Knew a copper that grew his hair long and refused to cut it under equal oppurtunity. He was stood down on LWOP and started a court case. Civil court was finding in his favour (according to him) but police miinster got the case squashed so as 'tradition' was not upset in that line of work.

[Turkey]

Let the politicians who order the start of a war fight in the front lines regardless of sex, it will make them think twice before going for it.

[Ugg]

Turkey, on 28 September 2011 - 05:23 AM, said:

Let the politicians who order the start of a war fight in the front lines regardless of sex, it will make them think twice before going for it.

Better still, let the politicians from both sides have a cage match to decide the winner of the war and everyone else can stay home and watch it on telly.

[Ugg]

Solomon, on 27 September 2011 - 02:00 PM, said:

We are now getting into some fascinating areas of the "equality between the sexes" debate and social change.
Are women different from men?
In what ways?

I think to deny that there are innate differences between a population of men and a population of women is silly and possibly faddish. However a mature society would not assume those differences are upheld in an individual, and so should not discrimminate on that basis. A similiarly mature society would celebrate those different qualities and not assign good or bad judgements to those qualities. They are what they are. Same goes for race. That is, if you can kill a buffulo with a toothpick it shouldn't matter if you are male or female, I will let you defend the country...if you want.

This post has been edited by Ugg: 28 September 2011 - 06:29 AM

[ummester]

Ugg, on 28 September 2011 - 06:28 AM, said:

I think to deny that there are innate differences between a population of men and a population of women is silly and possibly faddish. However a mature society would not assume those differences are upheld in an individual, and so should not discrimminate on that basis. A similiarly mature society would celebrate those different qualities and not assign good or bad judgements to those qualities. They are what they are. Same goes for race. That is, if you can kill a buffulo with a toothpick it shouldn't matter if you are male or female, I will let you defend the country...if you want.

That is a good point. So long as individuals aren't discriminated against, it should be ok to quantify differences when it comes to general population groups. However, at what point should an individuals right to make generalisations based on groups be scrutinised as discriminatory?


If you are looking to recruit 100 workers and you need them to take as little leave as possible to get a job done over a 10 year period, would it be fair to assume that the bias may be towards men and women above reasonable breeding ages, without making any individual judgements? Could you use this POV to justify a recruitment outcome with 20 women aged 18-40, 30 women aged above 40 and 50 men of all ages?

[Ugg]

ummester, on 28 September 2011 - 07:28 AM, said:

That is a good point. So long as individuals aren't discriminated against, it should be ok to quantify differences when it comes to general population groups. However, at what point should an individuals right to make generalisations based on groups be scrutinised as discriminatory?


If you are looking to recruit 100 workers and you need them to take as little leave as possible to get a job done over a 10 year period, would it be fair to assume that the bias may be towards men and women above reasonable breeding ages, without making any individual judgements? Could you use this POV to justify a recruitment outcome with 20 women aged 18-40, 30 women aged above 40 and 50 men of all ages?

Perhaps (in a suitably advanced society).

I guess you would first need to consider the variability of the selection characteristic/criteria in the whole population, variability in the population of applicants and the variability in the applicants you eventually select to see if a statistical anomally arises. Probably need to use some other non-interview characteristic as a reference point e.g. are bigger bra sizes over represented in your successful interviewees compared to the general population or population of applicants.

Ok they might sound like the right words, but someone with some more statistical nous could help me here.

This post has been edited by Ugg: 28 September 2011 - 09:24 AM

[staringclown]

ummester, on 27 September 2011 - 10:44 AM, said:

Would be great to watch, wouldn't it. Androgenous Chinese genetic freak vs cybernetic Japanese organism (with purple or green hair).

I've always wondered why reality tele doesn't cut straight to the chase also. Like why don't they just give them weapons in survivor and a million bucks to the true survivor.

I think tors cause and effect point is interesting. The inequality is perpetuated by these exceptions. Women police already find themselves in some perilous situations. Don't if there are firewomen. There should be.

Are we appalled by women dying in war zones? That's already happening so it would be hypocritical to see that as a reason against women being in the front line shooting back. I'd like to think that as professional soldiers that some sort of misguided chivalry wouldn't kick in when a woman was in trouble versus a male. Follow the training. Private Benjamin will not be beside you it will be. It'll be closer to Queen Boudica/Boadicea

Now there will be problems for the pioneer women. They will be hammered. My advice as a beta male is to practice the fine art of quick wit retort. A good line can save your bacon in most situations and give the idea that you are indeed a "good bloke". Once you have attained "good bloke" status it will become easier. One of the few ways to ensure alliance with the alpha male is to exude the ability to turn the other betas against the alpha. You can be a valuable ally of the alpha and it can work well when it's mutually beneficial. Testosterone and cunning.

[Solomon]

staringclown, on 28 September 2011 - 10:27 AM, said:

I think tors cause and effect point is interesting. The inequality is perpetuated by these exceptions. Women police already find themselves in some perilous situations. Don't if there are firewomen. There should be.

Are we appalled by women dying in war zones? That's already happening so it would be hypocritical to see that as a reason against women being in the front line shooting back. I'd like to think that as professional soldiers that some sort of misguided chivalry wouldn't kick in when a woman was in trouble versus a male. Follow the training. Private Benjamin will not be beside you it will be. It'll be closer to Queen Boudica/Boadicea

Now there will be problems for the pioneer women. They will be hammered. My advice as a beta male is to practice the fine art of quick wit retort. A good line can save your bacon in most situations and give the idea that you are indeed a "good bloke". Once you have attained "good bloke" status it will become easier. One of the few ways to ensure alliance with the alpha male is to exude the ability to turn the other betas against the alpha. You can be a valuable ally of the alpha and it can work well when it's mutually beneficial. Testosterone and cunning.

Don't give away too many of our secrets SC.

I still say we are not certain what the differences between men and women are, and whether they are contrived or real differences.
On one hand, if I say they are contrived or only perceived, then how do we go about attitudinal change, to think differently about men and women.
On the other hand, if they are real differences that can be tangibly measured in some way, then we may be placing lives at jeopardy if we (authorities) do not take such differences into account in the field of life.
This is not just a defense force debate, but a whole of life debate.
Are there any definitive roles that are exclusively the domain of men. If so, why?
Are there any definitive roles (other than pregnancy and child birth) that are exclusively the domain of women. If so, why?
If these can be proven, lets honour the fact that we simply cannot be the same.
That is my interest in the subject.

[staringclown]

Solomon, on 28 September 2011 - 10:55 AM, said:

Don't give away too many of our secrets SC.

I still say we are not certain what the differences between men and women are, and whether they are contrived or real differences.
On one hand, if I say they are contrived or only perceived, then how do we go about attitudinal change, to think differently about men and women.
On the other hand, if they are real differences that can be tangibly measured in some way, then we may be placing lives at jeopardy if we (authorities) do not take such differences into account in the field of life.
This is not just a defense force debate, but a whole of life debate.
Are there any definitive roles that are exclusively the domain of men. If so, why?
Are there any definitive roles (other than pregnancy and child birth) that are exclusively the domain of women. If so, why?
If these can be proven, lets honour the fact that we simply cannot be the same.
That is my interest in the subject.

I think that the differences lie largely in the perception that women are still regarded as the "weaker sex" sol. I've dated women body builders that are far more competent and willing than myself at extreme sports. It isn't and can't be the domain of the "average" woman. The bar will be set very high.

I can't join a fernwood gym but neither can a woman invade the inner precincts of the Melbourne club except on approved knights. I'd happily see the back of all of it. If there are tests of strength, mental fitness for the role etc then if a woman passes then so be it. They're no less ready to fight than a male.