Australia lifts restrictions for women in combat roles

All I can say is that it is about time.

CNN) -- Australian women will soon be able to serve alongside their male counterparts in front-line combat roles -- a notable shift in the push for gender equality in professions historically dominated by men.

cnn.com

My first question is: what other countries do it? Not many:

Canada, Germany, South Korea, France, Spain, New Zealand, Denmark and Israel formally allow women to serve in combat roles, according to the Strategic Studies Institute and the Israel Defense Forces.

I think in Israel it is a mandatory after high school for women to serve a year, and for men to serve two.

I am kind of surprised South Korea is on the list.

Hopefully the US isn't far behind. If women want to serve, there is no reason they can't be in combat.
It shouldn't of taken this long.

This is not a debate as if women should be a combat. It should be more of a when.

The article also mentions that in April, submarines will now be open to females as well.

Australia has been taking steps the rest of us talked about for a long time.

Equal rights means exactly that, i dont care who the soldier is next to me as long as they got the training nesserry, why would i think any less of them.

This came up in a good thread a few weeks back about women and draft orders, a healthy capable woman should be included, voting and getting taxed like males, it should be all or nothing with the rights. *EDIT: i dont mean or nothing really, i mean, you cant say 'equal' and then opt out of some things!*

We could be learning a lot from Australia.

This is good news.

reply to post by nixie_nox


Women are far too precious for human combat... They should not fight...

reply to post by nixie_nox


Restrictions are Australian women will be lifted in 2015 however there will be strict testing for those applying in to some units.

As for the submarines.....jeezes, there's already enough problems within the Australian Navy re women and sexual harrassment. Military needs to pick up their game before 2015.

reply to post by purplemer


Woman are no more precious than men. Life is precious. No one should fight. But given the world we live in, women and men should be treated equally whenever possible.

reply to post by nixie_nox


This should prove interesting.

I wish them all the best.

But the one thing I did not see...are the standards the same? As many of us know...the US Military does not practice a fair standard between the sexes.

Being a old Soldier, I have known a few females that I would wholeheartedly serve alongside...and quite a few males who I would kick to the curb.

The key word here is "few".

A standard has to be upheld, before their is true equality. One for all.

reply to post by TDawgRex


No, standards will be much higher

Theres many types of women and many types of men, no one would throw a smart small male soldier at a heavy gunners job, the same way theres no piont putting a dumb female with a strong build into a pen pushing job.

Theres tonnes of roles in the forces for both genders, no ones posting here because they want to use females as meatshield for the males in tanks lol

If your country needs another person, then thats what they need, male, female, 18 or 30 they need you they need you, end of.

BTW op, i liked the original cartoon series too (your avatar... lol!), the film was terrible

reply to post by purplemer


That is kind of sweet but I think you would be surprised at how well some women can handle a gun.

reply to post by bluemirage5


I was editting as you posted.

But I hope you'r right. Combat Arms is a contact sport as we used to say. As long as it is one standard and enforced...everyone involved should do good. As long as sex does not get involved, and we all know it will eventually.

reply to post by TDawgRex


I think that is fair.
Everyone has strenghts and weaknesses. And there are differences betweens the sex.
BUT
I think it would be smart to use the strenghts of females. Females notice pscyhological behavior and notice far more details then men do. Which is why nowadays, 75% of workers in crime labs are women.

Women also can have better aim then men.

Women may not be as strong, but because of smaller size and weight(you hope) they can be much stealthier.I used this to my advantage playing paintball all the time. (big guy just can't hide behind a tree very well)

And I don't think it is a coincidence that this movement is along with the technological boom.
In a few more decades, most war is going to be done on screen in a room, pushing buttons, shooting satellites.

A soldier friend of mine told me that military may be leaning more to only hiring educated soldiers, just for that reason. It may no longer be much of outlet for the poor kids trying to get out.

reply to post by nixie_nox


I hope so because as a grunt i have nothing to offer an army, however ive been doing IT security for software companys for well over ten years, if they wanted people like that, i really would consider IT

reply to post by TDawgRex


They already said the standards for women in combat are going to be very high and most won't pass the gruelling tests; I will assume less than 10% of women who apply will pass. Some of those woman out there, especially in NZ, are more fearful and stronger than some of the men, let me tell you!

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

I think that is fair.
Everyone has strenghts and weaknesses. And there are differences betweens the sex.
BUT
I think it would be smart to use the strenghts of females. Females notice pscyhological behavior and notice far more details then men do. Which is why nowadays, 75% of workers in crime labs are women.

Women also can have better aim then men.

Women may not be as strong, but because of smaller size and weight(you hope) they can be much stealthier.I used this to my advantage playing paintball all the time. (big guy just can't hide behind a tree very well)

And I don't think it is a coincidence that this movement is along with the technological boom.
In a few more decades, most war is going to be done on screen in a room, pushing buttons, shooting satellites.

A soldier friend of mine told me that military may be leaning more to only hiring educated soldiers, just for that reason. It may no longer be much of outlet for the poor kids trying to get out.

I come from a mainly female family and I know that women are as capable as men....genders aside. I like to kid otherwise and my sisters always kick my butt....but hey, it's family

My only worry is when love/lust blooms within the squad.

No good has ever come from that in my experiance. It always turns into drama which distracts from the mission at hand. I've seen it firsthand...and I can tell you that it is a true leadership challange.

Dident a female actually pass selection for the New Zealand SAS? IIRC this was about a year ago.

Also, don't females already serve in the Royal Australian Navy? Or were they just restricted from submarines?

Why not?

Doesn't Australia always get behind the front lines support duty in War? Why stop at Women? Let kids do it.

Originally posted by Pervius
Why not?

Doesn't Australia always get behind the front lines support duty in War? Why stop at Women? Let kids do it.

kids dont vote

2nd

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I know woman are no more precious than men and that life is precious. But I still think women are far too beautiful to fight. I dont mean that in a sexist way although I am sure some peeps will take it that way..

reply to post by nixie_nox


One thing I forgot to mention is the the US Army and Marines now have what they call FET's (Female Engagement Teams).

They talk to the local women in villages because the men can't. They are quite effective.

The PSYOP and Civil Affairs teams have been using this technique for years...though it recieved little, if any press...for obvious reasons. It went against the regs.