Right: A World War Two recruiting poster aimed at young men. The role of the girl in the poster is possibly to shame males into enlisting, but the young woman herself would be able to join the military today, to serve in most positions.
.Arguments against allowing women into all positions in the ADF
1. Women are physiologically unsuited to front line combat positions
It has been claimed that women are on average less physically strong then men and have less stamina. The United States Center for Military Readiness has stated that 'Female soldiers ... are, on average, shorter and smaller than men, with 45-50% less upper body strength and 25-30% less aerobic capacity, which is essential for endurance'. These facts, it is argued, should preclude women from front line active combat.
Further, health issues associated with menstruation and reproductive health are argued as one of the main reasons why the vast majority of submarine services do not accept women, although mixed-gender accommodation in a small space is also an issue.
It has been suggested that apart from the issue of physical strength, front line combat would place women at greater risk than it would men. Ian McPhedran, in an opinion piece published in The Daily Telegraph on September 10, 2009, has stated, 'Given that women are exposed to a whole different set of physiological risks to men, it is unlikely that an individual woman would be able to override Defence's duty of care when her long-term health, in particular reproductive health, might be at risk - making the Commonwealth potentially liable.'
British Military author and former soldier George MacDonald Fraser has argued forcefully against women being in front line combat positions in the British armed forces on the basis of their physical unfitness.
MacDonald Fraser has stated, 'Someone is plainly intent on wrecking the British Army. The recent suggestion that women might serve as front-line infantry is only the latest attempt to undermine its morale and efficiency, and is too wicked and cowardly to be written off as mere politically-correct stupidity. Women have not the strength, endurance or brutality for the job and every experienced officer knows it. The idea of a female teenager fighting hand-to-hand with a Panzer Grenadier or a Japanese White Tiger (or a Royal Marine) is ludicrous ... A woman's presence would cost lives ...'
Federal Liberal backbencher and former army officer, Stuart Roberts, has stated, 'It is also important to understand the physical exertions required in serving in combat manoeuvre units. Considering a 155mm Howitzer shell weighs 43kg, women in artillery will have to lift and carry these rounds during sustained fire missions where the rate of fire is fundamental. Anecdotal evidence from Canada where women can serve in self propelled artillery units indicates that some women are not physically able to keep up with the men in loading the artillery pieces, causing resentment and extra work for the male team members.
Women in the Infantry will have to carry packs up to and over 50kg across distances up to 50km in difficult terrain with little sleep, only to dig a fighting pit in rocky ground at the end of the march. Acceptance into the SAS and Commandos will require not only surviving but excelling in the Special Forces selection course that up to 80% of males who attempt, fail to complete.
All of this is required even though women have 50% less upper body strength, 30% less aerobic capacity which is essential for endurance and up to 40% less muscle mass.'
Australian Defence Association executive director Neil James has stated, 'It's a simple physicality thing. On the battlefield, academic gender equity theory doesn't apply. The laws of physics and biomechanics apply.'
2. Women are not psychologically suited to front-line armed combat
It has been claimed that a majority of women would be psychologically unsuited to front-line combat. This claim has been made with particular regard to the level of aggression that would be required.
The federal Opposition's Defence spokesperson, Bob Baldwin, has claimed that the psychological aspects of battle made the frontline unsuitable for women.
Mr Baldwin has stated,''The coalition believes in the equality of opportunity for women in the defence force. The coalition, however, doesn't agree with the placement of women into forces such as the SAS, clearance divers, commandos or frontline combat engineers.'
This view is supported by an editorial published in The National Observer in June, 2001. The editorial stated, 'The psychological fitness of women for front line combat has, it appears, been exaggerated. For those who are prepared to examine the matter scientifically, and not on a prejudiced basis, it is clear that men and women have very different levels of aggression. These differences are inherent and have a hormonal basis. Men, despite their more aggressive dispositions, often have difficulty in bringing themselves to shoot or bayonet individual enemy troops. It may be expected that this reluctance would be magnified greatly in the case of a normal woman. Further, the extreme trauma and brutality of close physical combat would impose a strain that one would not expect a normal woman to bear. Indeed, it is hardly going too far to say that if a particular woman showed a desire to kill men (or women) at close quarters, one would have severe doubts about her psychological balance, in view of the general characteristics of her sex.'
The same National Observer editorial also stated, 'One of the characteristics of the human race is for men to protect their dependent women and children. It appears that this characteristic is not merely cultural; rather it is now innate, having developed over at least many hundreds of thousands of years. Is this now to be abandoned? Is it really appropriate that young women (who are, and whose children are, properly the principal objects for protection in danger) should be put deliberately into positions of great physical danger and psychological stress? What should be said of a civilisation which adopts this course?'
3. Women in front line combat positions could damage morale
The disruption of a combat unit's morale is sometimes cited as a reason for women to be banned from front-line combat situations. Some soldiers have stated that they could not trust a woman to perform her duties in a critical situation relying on physical strength and a readiness to kill.
There is an additional concern that romantic relationships between men and women on the front lines could disrupt a unit's fighting capability. In front line combat situations group loyalty is very important. It has been argued that relationships between individual men and women could undermine this group loyalty.
It has also been claimed that females in front line combat positions could distract male personnel in other ways. Male personnel may feel protective of female fighting personnel and be unwilling to allow them to take equal risks. Were such behaviour to occur it would place male personnel at unacceptable risk.
Australian Defence Association executive director Neil James has claimed there is evidence that male soldiers are overly protective of women in the battlefield, which is a distraction from the task
The Israeli Defence Force [IDF] has claimed that male military personnel may become extremely distressed if female personnel are wounded in battle. The IDF claimed to have observed a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression when female personnel were attacked.
4. The majority of other nations do not allow women into all positions in their armed forces
It has been claimed that most countries in the world do not use women in all positions within their armed forces. The implication is that if other countries have reservations about doing so, Australia would be unwise to act in this manner.
Liberal backbencher and former infantry officer Stuart Robert has noted, 'My concern is that really only Israel and a handful of countries whose very existence is threatened have gone down this path - the rest of the Western world hasn't.'
In an editorial published in The Australian on September10, 2009, it was stated, 'Most countries continue to debate the issue, with only a handful (including New Zealand and Canada) allowing women in most combat roles. Even in Israel, where both sexes are drafted, it was only in the mid-1990s that combat roles were opened to women, most of whom continue to serve in combat support and light combat roles.'
5. Public opinion in Australia and elsewhere does not appear to support women in all front line combat positions
It has been claimed that placing women in all front line positions in the ADF would be premature as it is in advance of popular opinion. Indeed it has been claimed that a majority of Australian voters does not support women being put in such roles.
The Opposition's Defence personnel spokesperson, Bob Baldwin, has claimed there is no public interest or demand for women to be given more combat roles.
Mr Baldwin has stated, 'Whether women should be on the frontline ... is a question that is yet to be resolved, [but] I don't think that public opinion in Australia is ready to support that at this stage, and neither is the Coalition.'
It has also been suggested that the public would be likely to react very adversely if Australian female military personnel fighting overseas were to be killed in equal or greater numbers than male personnel. Australian Defence Association executive director Neil James has stated, 'I don't think the people of Australia would like to see their daughters, sisters, wives or female friends killed in disproportionate numbers to male service personnel.'
Surveys in the United States suggest that only a bare majority approves of women in combat positions while a substantial majority favour women in non-combat positions. Women in the U.S. military currently are prohibited from joining combat units. According to a new CBS News/New York Times poll just 53 percent support women in combat roles, while an overwhelming majority of Americans (83 percent) are in favor of women serving as support for ground troops in such capacities as military police, medics and Humvee drivers.
Both men (53 percent) and women (53 percent) favor an expanded role for women in the military, but just 44 percent of women age 45 and older support it, compared to 62 percent of younger women.
It has also been claimed that a country's citizens may be much less likely to support the continuance of a war if female military personnel are being killed or captured. Ian McPhedran, writing for The Daily Telegraph, on September 10, 2009, has stated, 'Images of a woman soldier or flyer being degraded or abused would have a major negative public relations impact.
Perhaps it shouldn't, considering that a female soldier faces the same risks entering combat as do her male counterparts. Nevertheless, there is a stronger emotional response to the idea of a woman in trouble on the battlefield.'