Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Australian women to serve in combat for which profound reason?

As expected it has been announced that women will now serve in combat roles in the Australian armed services.

What has really struck me about the change is the way that it has been discussed in the media. Here is a good example from the Melbourne Age newspaper:

OPENING up combat roles to women in the Australian Defence Force should provide the impetus for more women to be promoted to the highest military ranks, according to Defence Minister Stephen Smith.

The comment came after yesterday's historic announcement that all military roles - up to and including those in elite special forces units - will be open to women within five years.

Currently, women make up 18.5 per cent of the Defence Force, but only 4.5 of the senior ranks in all three services. The highest ranked woman in the force is Air Vice-Marshal Margaret Staib, the commander in charge of logistics.

Mr Smith also said he hoped the changes would lead to women being better represented at senior ranks - including the chiefs of the three services and the chief of the Defence Force.

The thinking of liberal moderns is remarkably atrophied. Here we have a truly significant change in society and the only thing that truly interests our liberal moderns is career advancement and non-discrimination. It's particularly striking in this case because what is at stake is something that concerns life and death - both of individual soldiers and of a nation - which you might think would broaden the outlook of liberals in deciding the matter, but that doesn't seem to register with them at all. The only thing they can see is some brass stars on a uniform that a woman might be denied and that is held to decide the issue no matter what. It is a kind of ideological tunnel vision.

Anyway, I will register my protest at this site, no matter how futile my protest might be. It is ultimately a masculine duty to protect and a woman's to embody gentler virtues. When I see my wife's body, I do not see a warrior design. She is soft with fine, delicate limbs. She is emotionally sensitive. In comparison I am angular and muscular and stern. It seems perverse to me to suggest that my wife should go out to fight a war whilst I stay at home. That is not what is written in our natures, which is why women have not generally been in the front line of combat throughout human history.

No doubt there are exceptions to the rule: tough, nuggety women who really do want to experience combat rather than just eyeing off an officer's position. But it's not reasonable to demoralise the male instinct to protect just to placate such women.

What will happen if there is ever a serious threat to Australia? The message being sent to men is this: there is nothing masculine about fighting to defend your country. You have no particular reason as men to sign up. You are not the protectors of the women and children of your society - the women can defend themselves.

And if men don't sign up and there is conscription? Then how will the liberal state manage to run a double standard and conscript only men to fight? Isn't the liberal state committing itself, in principle, to conscripting young women? But how will that go down? Would fathers really passively allow their daughters to be conscripted to die violently in combat?

If there are answers to such issues they won't come from liberals. Liberals won't even have considered the problems in any serious way. The little prism through which liberals see the world is too narrow for that. All that liberals can see when it comes to this issue is how things affect female careerism. Doesn't matter to them how young women die, or if children are left motherless, or if men are less inclined to serve. That just isn't thought to be what matters.

40 comments:

  1. This is the best thing to happen in a long time. Women need to fight and die in combat in the numbers men have for years now. The era of female privilege is over. Once women start to see how they are treated on the battlefield, actually raped in POW camps, come back with severed limbs and the best part yet, dead, maybe they might suffer something called ego deflation. And maybe, just maybe they might appreciate the sacrifices men have made on their behalf for years. Maybe they might even start to cherish them as well.

    ReplyDelete
  2. When women go through their own version of Gallipoli, then they have achieved true equality. And for those that aren't familiar with that battle, it was a meat grinder for Australian and New Zealand troops on the Turkish coast during WWI. They suffered from disease as much as bullets.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yet more proof that the Australian military is not serious about war.

    "Would fathers really passively allow their daughters to be conscripted to die violently in combat?"

    I'm not going to allow my son to be conscripted to die in combat, either.

    Conservative males who fight for a liberal society that despises them are simply stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The IDF tried this a while back. It became such a disaster that Israel quickly abandoned it.

    What will happen if there is ever a serious threat to Australia?
    Likely they will discover exactly the same results as the IDF.

    I always wonder about the women who are preganant but don't yet know it. How does society benefit when these babies die with their mothers?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I wonder how long this rabid desire for "equality" will last when Modern Womyn (just like men) start coming home disfigured, crippled, maimed, in body bags, and as separate pieces in body bags?
    As we have seen demonstrated countless times in society for the last forty-plus years, Modern Womyn are rabid "equality" fanatics until "equality" doesn't give them any more privileges, or let them 'have it both ways'.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wait, what??? Australia has combat forces?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The only legitimate criteria for selecting combat soldiers should be the soldier's ability to do the job.

    The other issues raised in the post are simply bias. Sure, the brutal death of a female soldier is a terrible thing -- but then, so is the brutal death of a male soldier. It is awful for small children to lose a mother, but it's also terrible for them to lose a father. There is no difference.

    It is also suggested that men won't have an incentive to serve if women are permitted to do so.

    First of all, I doubt that would occur. For cultural and physiological reasons, combat positions will probably still continue to be filled largely by men and combat will retain its allure of machismo.

    But, secondly, your suggestion implies that men are incapable of seeing their own worth except in terms of how they can distinguish themselves from women. Sadly, I think there is some truth in your suggestion but it makes me feel nothing but pity for men who buy into this mindset. However, this point of view is not inevitable. Fostering a culture of respect for women (as well as for combat soldiers) would go a long way towards eradicating the notion that such the worthy endeavor of soldiering is no longer worthwhile if even women are allowed to participate. In other words, more feminism is the solution to the problem you raise.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The only positive consequence about this fiasco is that a liberalized military and defense is not as efficient and as potent to persecute dissenters from liberal ideals. A politically correct is instead constrained by it and weakened.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The only legitimate criteria for selecting combat soldiers should be the soldier's ability to do the job.

    Humans aren't autonomous beings at the core with autonomous abilities. Au contraire. The legitimate criteria you seek is one that does not violate the code of non-discrimination and pushes diversity and equality. Unfortunately this worldview has caused the decline of the West in slow motion.

    The other issues raised in the post are simply bias.

    And you yourself are not biased? The majority of human beings have some bias. Whereas others are biased towards traditional conservatism you are biased towards liberalism.

    ReplyDelete
  10. First of all, I doubt that would occur. For cultural and physiological reasons, combat positions will probably still continue to be filled largely by men and combat will retain its allure of machismo.

    Don't doubt it. Liberals are currently busy putting affirmative action and creating sensitivity training. We also have all of the kick-ass warrior chick series and films pushing this meme.

    But, secondly, your suggestion implies that men are incapable of seeing their own worth except in terms of how they can distinguish themselves from women.

    Are you implying that men and women are the same and possess no differences? Anyways humans should be capable of seeing their own worth beside themselves (e.g. family, society, civilization).

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sure, I think everyone has biases. But surely we all have an obligation to examine our beliefs and ask whether there is really a good reason for them. There is no really good reason to be more upset about the violent death of your daughter than the violent death of your son.

    I am not sure what you mean by "autonomous beings with autonomous abilities." Are you trying to say that I can't just magically will myself to be taller or make myself stronger than the upper limits of my ability? I don't think I suggested otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Elizabeth,

    You ask if I see men and women as the same, possessing no differences. The answer is: I do not see men and women as the same, possessing no differences.

    But I do think there is a ton of overlap in men and women's interest and abilities. I don't feel somehow diminished as a woman by the fact that many men are great at cooking or taking care of little kids. It doesn't follow that men should shy away from a particular career or endeavor, such as the military, just because women are doing it too.

    It seems that men are under a lot of pressure to prove their masculinity, which is usually defined as being "unlike women." That then means that women are constrained in their choices by the need to not undermine the masculinity of men by invading their turf so to speak. It's awfully foolish.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well well well, I'll just have to contact my Chinese handlers and inform them that the much vaunted Aussie military will soon be a pack of pansies.

    Finally some stretching room, New South Beijing? I like the sound of that....

    ReplyDelete
  14. Australia has ratified both International Labor Organisation treaties relating to forced labour. It cannot conscript women without breaching these obligations.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Half of the women will defect to the enemy because they fall in love with the foreign men treating them badly.
    I thank god every day im leaving this joke country.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The only legitimate criteria for selecting combat soldiers should be the soldier's ability to do the job.

    The other issues raised in the post are simply bias.


    I just love that. For several hundred years now liberals have resorted to the same hackneyed phrases to dismiss any opposition: "bias" "prejudice" etc. It sure beats having to think out an answer.

    It is awful for small children to lose a mother, but it's also terrible for them to lose a father. There is no difference.

    Both are terrible but there is a difference. I doubt if the child will think of his father's death as a form of abandonment.

    combat positions will probably still continue to be filled largely by men and combat will retain its allure of machismo.

    Maybe, but it depends on whether a tipping point is reached or not. It depends too on how far the institution is feminised in order to make the women soldiers feel comfortable; how much the institution is politicised with the men being berated for sins against women and so on.

    Although there will no doubt still be some men who will be oriented to a life in the military, I suspect that large numbers of men will find the prospect of serving feminist officers in a feminist military unappealing.

    your suggestion implies that men are incapable of seeing their own worth except in terms of how they can distinguish themselves from women.

    That's nice given that liberal moderns can only see worth in the trappings of careerism. I'd suggest, Georgina, that your pity is better expended on those women who believe that getting to some officer level in the army is what gives their life worth.

    Fostering a culture of respect for women (as well as for combat soldiers) would go a long way towards eradicating the notion that such the worthy endeavor of soldiering is no longer worthwhile if even women are allowed to participate.

    I don't think you get men, Georgina. Men are not going to respect women if they are bombarded with images of women training to kill, or if men are desensitised to the idea of women being killed violently on the battlefield.

    That will just make men indifferent to the fate of women.

    Men respect women who embody the lovelier qualities of womanhood; who act out of love for their families; who are loyal to the men in their lives; and who are responsible in carrying through their necessary role in society (i.e. who don't act destructively).

    ReplyDelete
  17. All the chickadees can go home now and stop playing soldiers. We aren't in a swedish kindergarten, this is the real world, and in the real world, when fifty men and fifty women go up against a hundred well trained men they're gonna get the crap beat out of them.
    I thank God I'm combat arms USMC, ain't got put up with that crap yet, though I hear its coming. God help us when it does.

    -NW

    ReplyDelete
  18. I wonder how long this rabid desire for "equality" will last when Modern Womyn (just like men) start coming home disfigured, crippled, maimed, in body bags, and as separate pieces in body bags?

    They already are (in America, anyway) and apparently nobody cares.

    http://apps.washingtonpost.com/national/fallen/sexes/f/

    ReplyDelete
  19. No one could possibly be stupid enough to allow women in the Defence Force so that they can then feel warm & fuzzy. This is done with malice. The real reason is that communist agents have infiltrated all western governments to the very highest level. This is intended to cripple the Australian military so that things will be easier when the time for a Red Chinese invasion & occupation comes. It's the same reason that they've done this in the U.S. & Britain.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Yes this decision will not let women experience Gallipoli but will turn us into Canada and NZ, which these days are two notoriously combat adverse nations with substantially ineffective or non existent militaries. (Poor Canada when they have deployed recently to Afghanistan their casualty rates have been far too high).

    Well this is it lads we don't have to sit in a position where the left and liberals take the initiative on change and we only fight defence and rear guard, we have to be on the front foot too and propose our own changes. Item number 1 reverse this decision.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Even Greg Sheridan, who for decades has given squalid nihilistic yobs a bad name - and who in the past has never met a single form of anti-Western, anti-Christian, and anti-white treachery he didn't like - has drawn the line at the latest social engineering, in his latest column for The Australian:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/women-have-no-place-in-combat/story-e6frgd0x-1226149860334

    As Sheridan doubtless realises, it's madness sending Australian women into combat when there are plenty of Australian girly-boys who should be sent there first.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Yes this decision will send our army down the weak path of Canada and NZ, encourage ineffectiveness in our forces and create an overall desire to avoid military conflicts, no matter the provocation, at all costs.

    We shouldn't feel that these changes are final and permanent though, we should feel bold and confident enough to undo the mad and destructive social changes of the left.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Although there will no doubt still be some men who will be oriented to a life in the military, I suspect that large numbers of men will find the prospect of serving feminist officers in a feminist military unappealing.

    The commenter 28 September 2011 11:21 has illustrated this point:

    I'm not going to allow my son to be conscripted to die in combat, either.

    Conservative males who fight for a liberal society that despises them are simply stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  24. And you guys don't even have any nukes!

    I'm sure it doesn't occur to any Liberal in a million years that Australia could ever again face a serious military threat. It's all 'humanitarian intervention' and 'peacekeeping'.

    Re: "Would fathers really passively allow their daughters to be conscripted to die violently in combat?"

    I wouldn't be too keen on my (12-14 years from now) son being conscripted either, unless the enemy were on the beaches*, in which case I'd presumably be conscripted alongside him. At this point I have zero trust in any of our governments to fight a just war. I'm not sure that female conscription would be a big issue in Britain, though - we're not very chivalrous. Maybe if there were a Feminist critique of it...

    *OK, technically the enemy were outside my front door for several hours this evening, the radical Salafis from just down the street were busy working on the moderate Muslims next door - again.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anon:
    "Conservative males who fight for a liberal society that despises them are simply stupid."

    That's my feeling now (didn't use to be, I was in the TA a few years). It was the US General George Casey's reaction to the Fort Hood massacre by the jihadi Major Nidal Hassan - 'it would be a greater tragedy if Diversity suffered' - that sealed it for me. Unless things change radically I'm going to strongly discourage my son from joining the military.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Liesel:
    "The IDF tried this a while back. It became such a disaster that Israel quickly abandoned it."

    Single-sex all-female units can do ok in terms of combat effectiveness, if sufficiently selective. It's mixed sex fighting units that are disastrous.

    ReplyDelete
  27. anon:
    " This is intended to cripple the Australian military so that things will be easier when the time for a Red Chinese invasion & occupation comes. It's the same reason that they've done this in the U.S. & Britain."

    If only the world made that much sense! The people wrecking our societies may be Maoists, but they don't take orders from Peking.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Jesse,

    Your first comment got caught in the spam box - apologies.

    You make a very good point, one that I had considered putting in the post. NZ and Canada are, if I remember correctly, the only other countries to have all combat positions opened up to women, but the difference is that they can afford to have ineffective armed services - Canada can rely on the US to shield it, NZ seems to rely on Australia.

    The problem for Australia is that we're more likely to be a target, given our mineral wealth. So we need the US alliance, which then commits us to supporting the US militarily.

    So I'm not sure we can follow the path of NZ and Canada. I think it's more likely that feminists will throw a certain number of young women under the bus in order to satsify their overall officer career objectives.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Perhaps conservatives and traditionalists should stop sending their sons and now soon their daughters to the military. Let only liberals enlist. So the roles of society will be reversed. Liberals will be defending people who make families and children. Rather than Conservatives dying to support people who are against the nuclear family.
    This could be a good change.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Simon and Anonymous,

    Men should continue to serve in the military because it is honourable and right to defend and serve your country. Even if the countries' leaders betray their obligations, and they are, its not right that we should also.

    Don't forget that this awesome change has the backing of the service chiefs, and I suspect of many people also who think its a ticket to quick career advancement. It has always been the case that those who seek self serving routes will follow the political fashions of the moment. A country, nation and history though cannot be allowed to fall, because of the weakness of transitory leaders. This is our country and we have an obligation to help ensure its future. To those who feel dismayed remember that history is not a single lane road going one way or the other, and that we have experienced many setbacks in the past and overcome them.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Men should continue to serve in the military because it is honourable and right to defend and serve your country. Even if the countries' leaders betray their obligations, and they are, its not right that we should also."

    I don't really regard Australia as my own country anymore. If there was ever evidence for convservative stupidity this is it. The wars in the middle east are a killing field for conservative males and females.
    Maybe conservatives should think about conserving their lives instead of defending the liberal multicultural monstrosity.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Save your life (the casualty rates in these wars aren't that great btw) and let your nation die? That doesn't sound like the way to go.

    ReplyDelete
  33. If there weren't double physical standards for men and women in the military, would there even BE any women there? I've read most women can't even do a single pull-up. So, end that, and all would be well. Of course, that won't happen.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Jesse 7:
    "Save your life (the casualty rates in these wars aren't that great btw) and let your nation die? That doesn't sound like the way to go."

    Unless you're SEAL Team 6 and you just shot bin Laden*, serving in Afghanistan does nothing to serve your country. Quite the reverse. The same is true for all the recent wars of 'humanitarian intervention'.

    *And that was in Pakistan.

    General Dannatt a few years back said that the British Army should be home defending our own streets, not overseas in Iraq furthering our elites' "invade/invite the world" madness. He was right then and he's right now.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Simon,

    Every time the flag gets raised in another country I'm happy. If humanitarian missions involve helping other countries that we might not like they also involve spreading our culture to the world and showing our superiority, both of which I support. We are also good Samaritans when we help other countries and unless we go too far and let all their peoples into our lands, there are many benefits from being activist/vigorous and going overseas. These include increases in world power, influence and the destruction of enemies.

    I can assure you that the current debt crises of the west are not caused by these wars but by too much indulgence and a horrendous lack of foresight. A strong and employed military is an indicator of a strong nation whilst the absence of a useable military or will to fight indicates a country in its last stages.

    There should be people at home cleaning things up and they should be the police force.

    ReplyDelete
  36. If I was still serving and women were allowed into front line combat positions, I would resign. Simple as that. I served in a mixed corps for a time and it was truly pathetic in comparison, to an all man combat units.

    In all honesty if standards are not dropped women will not make it to the front line. Dropping the standards would be the only way, and that prospect disgusts me.

    This is a political stunt to try and drum up the women vote for Gillard, in an attempt to paint Abbott as Misogynist. Funny how this decision comes out on the day, the polls post Abbott is now equal to Gillard on the women vote.

    The progressive politic machine is truly pathetic and open book.

    This is the opinion of a 30 year old ex soldier.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Jesse 7:
    "Every time the flag gets raised in another country I'm happy..."

    That's a natural reaction; the tribal Will to Power is very visceral. It's great seeing "our boys" beat up "their boys".

    ReplyDelete
  38. http://www.fredoneverything.net/WomenInCombat.shtml

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.