Click here to return to issues list


When you see a line of coloured and underlined hypertext, this means that you can click on that text to go to another information page.


Should women be allowed in front-line combat roles in the Australian defence forces?




Echo Issue Outline 1999 / 9: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney

What they said ...
`For centuries we have wasted the precious lives of young men on the battlefield, and bitterly lamented the carnage.
Now we are considering sacrificing the flower of young womanhood as well.
Will humankind never learn?'
Sydney writer, Vera Abriel

`The argument ... that women aren't as strong as men and therefore shouldn't be allowed to fight ... doesn't stand up for a moment'
Age commentator, Jane Sullivan

In January, 1999, it was announced that a Defence Forces personnel policy review had recommended that women be permitted in a number of front-line combat roles from which they are currently barred.
The review was first presented to the Chief of the Defence Force, Admiral Chris Barrie. In February it was referred to the Defence Personnel Minister, Mr Bruce Scott.
When a summary of the review's probable recommendations was published in early January they met with immediate opposition from the Victorian president of the Returned Soldiers League (RSL), Mr Bruce Ruxton and a range of military and media commentators.
Groups such as the Women's Electoral Lobby supported the supposed recommendations.
Before there can be any changes to the Defence Forces personnel policy these changes would have to be approved by the federal Cabinet.

Background
Women form some 13 per cent of the Australian Defence Force.
At present, women can serve in most combat roles in the navy and air force. These include flying fighter aircraft and serving on warships, including submarines.
However, women are rejected from army direct combat operations in most infantry, artillery, armour and engineering units and tank crews.
Within the navy women are unable to serve as divers who search for mines and they cannot be part of beach invasion forces.
Within the air force, women cannot be part of crews that defend aircraft bases from the ground.
The Australian Defence Forces' director of public affairs, Colonel Keith Jobson, has stated that the ADF is currently prevented by law from placing women in roles where they would be involved in hand-to-hand combat.
In Australia, only 50 per cent of defence roles were open to women before 1992. Currently 88 per cent of defence roles can notionally be undertaken by women.
Australia allows woman in a wider range of combat positions than do many other nations. However, despite the fact that nearly 90 per cent of defence roles are now open to women, the participation rate of women does not reflect this figure. It has been claimed that there is an anti-woman bias within the armed forces which effectively blocks women from many positions and from attaining promotion to
higher ranks.

There are a number of Internet sites which supply information on this issue.
Two of particular interest look at women in the military in the United States.
In the United States women comprise some 12 per cent of the armed forces and occupy most positions, with the exception of combat jobs.
All legal impediments have now been removed to women serving in combat roles, however, to date their deployment in this manner has been restricted by the policy positions of the different branches of the armed forces.
The deployment of some 40,000 women to Saudi Arabia has provided the most extensive experience to date of the role women might play in the United States military.

In December, 1996, the CRS (Congressional Research Service) produced a comprehensive report for the United States Houses of Congress on the position and role of women in the military.
The report is titled 92008: Women in the Armed Forces and was produced by David F Burrelli.
It is ten pages long and gives a clear and comprehensive overview of many of the issues involved including whether women should be barred from combat positions and the extent of, and suggested responses to, the problem of sexual harassment.
It can be found at http://www.fas.org/man/crs/92-008.htm

The Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine has reproduced an article titled, The Health and Hormone Status of Female Cadets and Active-Duty Women in the US Armed Forces.
The article can be found at
http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/journals/archive/ajdc/vol_152/no_1/letter_5.htm
It was originally published in January 1998 and was produced by Dr William H James of the Galton Laboratory, University College, London.
The article suggests that the prolonged, strenuous exercise undertaken by women in military training may lead to hormonal imbalances resulting in a cessation of periods, an increased risk of stress fractures and problematic pregnancies.
The article does not suggest that women should be prevented from undertaking certain forms of military service because of the effects on their bodies, however, it does suggest that estrogen supplements should be considered for such women.


Arguments against women taking on front-line combat roles in the Australian armed forces
One of the main arguments offered against women taking on front-line combat roles is that they lack the physical strength required.
This position has been put by Mr Bruce Ruxton, the president of the Victorian branch of the Returned Soldiers League (RSL).
Mr Ruxton has argued, `Women are different. They just haven't got the strength of a male - never have had.'
It has been claimed that if women are allowed into special operations units such as the SAS the result may be that the physical standards required for entry would be lowered to accommodate them.
The suggestion has been made that allowing women into front-line combat forces may thus compromise Australia's capacity to defend itself.
It has also been claimed that a significant percentage of women serving in the armed forces become pregnant and that this would impair their ability to assume a combat role.
This point has been made by Herald Sun commentator Michael Barnard who has claimed that 51 per cent of single enlisted air force women on US military facilities in Iceland were found to pregnant in a recent medical check and that 48 per cent of single enlisted navy women at the same facilities were pregnant.
It has also been suggested that women are psychologically unsuited to front-line combat positions as they are not as aggressive as men.
It has further been argued that the pressure for women to take part in front-line combat is coming from a relatively small number of pressure groups which are not representative of the views of the Australian community as a whole.
This position has been put by Herald Sun commentator Michael Barnard.
Mr Barnard has argued that the demand that women take on front-line combat roles is coming from a minority of people who are exerting ill-considered pressure for complete gender equality or `equal opportunity'.
Mr Barnard refers disparagingly to these people as `Gender Junkies'. He suggests that their views have acquired an apparent popularity but that they do not reflect the attitudes of the Australian community as a whole.
This position has also been put by Mr Bruce Ruxton and Mr Michael O'Connor, the executive director of the Australian Defence Force Association.
Mr O'Connor has claimed that in `all countries which employ women in combat forces ... the basic decision was made by bureaucrats under heavy pressure from small interest groups.'
A further argument offered against women taking on front-line combat roles is that such duties are not a right or a privilege. It is claimed that such tasks are a particularly onerous and unpleasant obligation and should only be undertaken by those most suited to do so.
It is maintained that the issue of who should take part in front-line combat is not properly an equal opportunity issue.
This argument has been put by Michael O'Connor, who has maintained, `Defending the nation is not a privilege. It is a social obligation of a particularly revolting kind ...'
A similar point has been made by media commentator, Helen Razer, who has asked, `When you have been insulated from the obligation to kill, why would you want to exercise this "right"?'
It has further been argued that once the principal that women should be able to fight in all arenas of war was accepted then this supposed `right' could one day become an imposition.
According to this line of argument, once women had been accepted voluntarily on the front-line, if Australia were at war, all physically eligible Australian women might find themselves conscripted into combat.
Such a position, it has been suggested, is hardly compatible with arguments based on rights and equal opportunities.
It has further been claimed that questions of equal opportunity need to take second place to the requirement that a nation be adequately defended.
According to this line of argument, disputes about the proper role of women in the defence forces may be damaging to morale and may distract the defence forces from what should be their principal task, defending the country.
Another argument offered against women being employed in direct front-line combat roles is that this may be socially undesirable.
Those who hold this view stress the violence and brutality of combat and argue that it is not culturally appropriate to have women take part in such actions.
What appears to be implied by this argument, is that culturally women are the nurturers and preservers of life and that we may damage our total society if we place women in situations where they are institutionally and routinely required to kill.
This position has been suggested by Michael O'Connor.
Mr O'Connor has argued that the community needs to decide, `whether its culture or concept of civilisation [supports] the employment of women in dealing out death and destruction in usually the most obscene of circumstances.'
It has further been argued that allowing women to perform in front-line combat roles might reduce support within Australia for any war in which we became involved.
According to this line of argument, women in combat positions would be more likely to be killed than women in support roles.
It has been suggested that if significant numbers of Australian women were to be killed in action then popular support for whatever military campaign they were involved in might disappear.
It has been claimed that this public disquiet might undermine both Australia's capacity to defend itself and to take necessary aggressive action.
Another argument against women taking part in combat roles is an argument against war itself.
According to those who hold this view war is so brutal and destructive that it is not a worthy human activity. It is therefore argued that it is something no man or woman should take part in.
Though her total attitude seems somewhat more complex than this, Sydney writer, Vera Abriel, has summarised this position.
Ms Abriel has written, `For centuries we have wasted the precious lives of young men on the battlefield, and bitterly lamented the carnage. Now we are considering sacrificing the flower of young womanhood as well.
Will humankind never learn?'

Arguments in favour of women taking on front-line combat roles in the Australian armed forces
One of the main arguments offered in favour of women being able to take on front-line combat roles in the Australian armed forces is that this is an equal opportunity issue and that it is unjust and inequitable to deny women who wish to do so the right to defend their country.
(It is interesting to note that those who support women being able to take part in front-line encounters appear to believe that such service should only ever be voluntary. It is not generally contemplated, let alone promoted, that women could be conscripted into front-line combat.)
According to this line of argument, as women currently make up some 13 per cent of the Australian Defence Force, those women who wish to (and are physically able to) should be allowed to assume any direct combat role.
It has also been argued that progression to higher ranks sometimes depends on the range of service to which an officer has had access. It has further been noted that military awards are also in part dependent on the type of service a member of the armed forces has had.
According to this line of argument, while women are largely confined to support roles rather than combat roles they will not achieve equal rank and status within the armed forces.
This position has been put by Ms Helen Leonard, the national executive officer of the Women's Electoral Lobby.
Ms Leonard has claimed, `The Australian Defence Force is a very powerful career path and if women are precluded from serving they don't get the gongs on Australia Day.'
It has further been claimed that the argument that women are not physically strong enough to assume such roles is inaccurate.
While it has been admitted that not all women would be strong enough to take part in physical combat, it has been claimed that there are many women who would be and all that is necessary is to have selection criteria and testing to ensure that only those women who were physically capable of undertaking front-line roles were permitted to do so.
This position has been put by Mr Michael O'Connor, the executive director of the Australian Defence Association.
Mr O'Connor has stated, `The association view is that there should be no restrictions, subject to the individual's capabilities ... It a horses for courses thing. You make your judgement about people every day - whether they are female or male.'
A similar position has been put by Age commentator Jane Sullivan.
Ms Sullivan has argued, `The argument ... that women aren't as strong as men and therefore shouldn't be allowed to fight ... doesn't stand up for a moment.
It seems reasonable to have physical strength and endurance tests ... in army jobs that require them.'
Further, with regard to women's supposed inability to withstand the strain of combat, it has been argued that women already assume active roles in dangerous and physically demanding activities.
Sarah Maddison, the convenor of the New South Wales branch of the Women's Electoral Lobby, has noted, `What the boys in the RSL ignore is that we already have women in the frontline of battles - at least the battles with the elements.
We have women in active roles in bushfire brigades and State Emergency Services. Nowhere have we seen these women hiding behind a burning log or collapsing in a heap of damp tissues.'
Relatedly it has been claimed that those women already serving within the Australian armed forces have demonstrated that gender is not a bar to competence and professionalism in the military.
This position has been put by Defence Force spokesperson, Colonel Keith Jobson.
Colonel Jobson has said, `I have served with women before, although not in combat roles, and they are just as professional as men.'
It has further been noted that in other areas in the world women fight in direct hand to hand combat.
This position has been put by Sarah Maddison.
Ms Maddison has noted, `Around the world we see contemporary examples of women in the frontlines; in Israel, Eritrea, China and even countries such as the United Arab Emirates where (by western standards) women have few rights of citizenship.'
In addition it has been noted that historically there have been women who have been either great warriors or made direct contributions to their countries' defence that required significant courage.
This position has also been put by Ms Sarah Maddison who has noted, `Throughout history there have been women warriors; Joan of Arc, Hera and Boadicea and their Amazon compatriots, Muslim women such as Nusaybah bint Kaab and Khawla bint al-Azwar to name only a few.'
Ms Maddison has also made reference to the important role played during World War II by Australian resistance fighter, Nancy Wake.
It has further been suggested that until all positions with the defence forces are available to women then the supposed anti-woman culture within the forces and the problems of sexual harassment and discrimination which are claimed to be a part of this culture may not be adequately addressed.
Though it does not appear to be a view he endorses, this position has been paraphrased by Herald Sun commentator, Paul Gray.
Mr Gray has noted, `Sensitive to the criticism that its culture is misogynist, senior armed forces' leaders are now considering recommendations to start placing women in front-line combat roles.'
It has also been maintained that the armed forces will never be able to promote themselves as progressive employers if they do not adopt the same non-gender based employment policies as apply in the general community.
This position has been put by Age commentator, Jane Sullivan, who has observed, `... you can't argue that today's defence forces are dynamic, forward-looking, enlightened employers ... and in the same breath tell women that they're not allowed to fight. That's what the armed forces are there for, after all.'
Finally has been argued that some of the general arguments put against women taking part in front-line combat, such as their supposed emotionality, are the same arguments that were once used to prevent women voting, having access to higher education and entering professions such as the law and medicine.
It has been claimed that as applied in the past these negative views of women's abilities have been proved false. The suggestion is that they will prove equally false with regard to women's potential to take part in front-line combat.

Further implications
It seems unlikely that in the immediate future women will assume front-line combat roles beyond those that are currently open to them.
From a political perspective this is a difficult policy to adopt as in the event of armed conflict involving Australia the probable death of female soldiers would be likely to make such a conflict extremely unpopular with the electorate.
Currently, Australia's role in international military operations appears to be generally confined to United Nations peace keeping missions and again the possibility of women soldiers dying in such operations would be politically costly for whatever Australian government had authorised their involvement.
It would also appear that there is not significant pressure within the general community for all positions in the armed forces to be made available to women.
The current government is also involved in a process of reducing the number of support personnel in the armed forces.
Under the Federal Government's Defence Reform Program defence force numbers are intended to contract from 57,000 to 50,000. In this staff reduction program maintenance positions are being cut back and combat positions retained.
Some nine thousand military personnel had left the armed forces up to January, 1999. Of this number, it has been claimed a disproportionate percentage were women. This would make sense as the cut backs are being encouraged in the support areas where women are principally found.
It has also been suggested that this loss of female personnel may also be related to sexual harassment and discrimination supposedly directed at women in the forces.
This apparent loss of female military personnel could have one of two directly opposite impacts on the question of whether the combat role for women should be extended.
If the government and the armed forces are serious in their supposed aim to increase the number of women in the forces then it may well be necessary to extend women's combat roles. This is particularly the case as current policies are increase the number of combat positions relative to support and maintenance positions.
At the same time, it has been suggested, the forces need to take more direct action to counter sexual harassment and sexual discrimination.
However, it is also possible that this loss of service women, in particular senior women officers, may reduce pressure from within the forces for reform.
Further, one means of reducing the incidence of sexual harassment and discrimination within the forces would clearly be to reduce the number of serving women. Extending the role of women within the services might be seen by some as merely increasing the opportunities for harassment and discrimination to be seen to take place.
Those with this view would be unlikely to favour further combat roles for women.

Sources
The Age
5/1/99 page 5 news item by Brendan Nicholson, `Ruxton attacks fighting women’
9/1/99 page 6 (News Extra) comment by Jane Sullivan, `Frontline feminism’
15/1/99 page 1 news item by Gervase Greene, `Military women in danger of being a passing parade'
16/1/99 page 1 news item by Gervase Greene, `Army not playing fair, says major’
20/1/99 page 3 news item by Gervase Greene, `Army whistleblower thrown off base’
21/1/99 page 5 news item by Gervase Greene, `Crisis among defence force women denied’
21/1/99 page 12 editorial, `The Defence Force must change’
5/2/99 page 5 news item by Fergus Shiel, `Why it’s mainly plain sailing on USS Fletcher’

The Australian
7/1/99 page 13 comment by Michael O’Connor, `Women in uniform: well dressed to kill’
8/1/99 page 10 five letters under the heading, `Women can hold their own in battle’
9/1/99 page 21 comment by Sarah Maddison, `Right to fight is feminism’s frontline’
9/1/99 page 21 comment by Helen Razer, `Women who want to be men are crazy’
14/1/99 page 8 cartoon, `To the householder’
15/1/99 page 10 comment by Vera Abriel, `If you go to war, my daughter’

The Herald Sun
5/1/99 page 7 news item by Matthew Horan & Andrew Cummins, `Battle calls for women’
5/1/99 page 18 editorial, `Fighting for equality’
16/1/99 page 2 news item by Ian McPhedran, `Women walk out on forces’
27/1/99 page 18 comment by Paul Gray, `Why push women into war roles?’
31/1/99 page 37 comment by Michael Barnard, `War is hell for men and women’