2011/16: Should women be allowed in front line combat positions?
What they said...
'In the future your role in the Defence Force will be determined on your ability, not on the basis of your sex'
Defence Minister, Stephen Smith
'We have only a few examples of socialising women to kill at close quarters. All those have failed so far'
Retired Major General, Jim Molan
The issue at a glance
On September 27, 2011, the Minister for Defence, Stephen Smith, and the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Warren Snowdon, announced that the Government has formally agreed to the removal of gender restrictions from Australian Defence Force (ADF) combat roles.
Women will now be able to work in any position in the ADF, including combat roles, provided they have the ability to meet all of the demands of the role.
Roles to be open to women they were previously excluded from are: Navy Clearance Divers and Mine Clearance Diver Officers; Air Force Airfield Defence Guards and Ground Defence Officers; and Army Infantry and Armoured Corps and some Army Artillery roles.
The decision has been supported by the Opposition; however, there have been criticisms from a variety of commentators and from representatives of the Australian Defence Association (ADA).
Background
Women in combat roles around the world
From the beginning of the 1970s, most Western armies began to admit women to serve active duty. Only some of them permit women to fill active combat roles, and even here there is significant variation as to how these roles are defined. These countries include Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Germany, Norway, Israel, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland.
Other nations allow female soldiers to serve in certain Combat Arms positions, such as India, the United Kingdom and the United States, which allows women to serve in Artillery roles, while still excluding them from units with a dedicated Infantry role.
The United States allows women in most combat flying positions. Turkey uses female officers in combat flying (bombardment) missions over Northern Iraq and in ISAF patrol missions in Kabul, Afghanistan. Pakistan employs women in Air Force and has used female fighter pilots in search, monitoring and bombardment operations in her war against militancy. Pakistani female fighter pilots have also participated in international exercises and are currently deployed on supersonic F-7 fighter jets.
Women in the Australian Defence Forces
Women first served in the Australian military during World War II when each service established a separate female branch. The RAAF was the first service to fully integrate women into operational units, doing so in 1977, with the Army and RAN following in 1979 and 1985 respectively. The ADF initially struggled to integrate women, with integration being driven by changing Australian social values and Government legislation rather than a change in attitudes within the male-dominated military.
The number of positions available to women in the ADF has increased over time. Although servicewomen were initially barred from combat positions, these restrictions began to be lifted in 1990. In 2010 approximately 92% of employment categories and 84% of positions in the ADF were available to females as well as males. The only positions which women are currently excluded from are those in which there is a high probability of 'direct combat', which includes all infantry positions and other positions in which there is a high probability of hand to hand combat. As a result, while almost all positions in the Navy and Air Force are open to women, women are excluded from a high proportion of Army positions. (It is these restrictions that the recent change in regulations will affect.)
Despite the expansion in the number of positions available to women and other changes which aim to encourage increased female recruitment and retention, there has been little growth in the proportion of female permanent defence personnel. In the 1989-1990 financial year women made up 11.4% of the ADF personnel. In the 2008-2009 financial year women occupied 13.5% of ADF positions. During the same period the proportion of civilian positions filled by women in the Australian Defence Organisation increased from 30.8% to 42.8%.
In 2008, defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon instructed the ADF to place a greater emphasis on recruiting women and addressing barriers to women being promoted to senior roles.
In September 2011 Minister for Defence Stephen Smith announced that the Cabinet had decided to remove all restrictions on women serving in combat positions, and that this change would come into effect within five years. This decision was supported by the CDF and the chiefs of the services.
Internet information
On June 29, 2011, the ABC opinion forum, The Drum, published a comment by Ted Lapin, a ministerial advisor to the federal Coalition and communications director to a senior member the Republican Congressional leadership in Washington, titled, 'Weakening the ADF in the name of equality'. The comment gives Lapin's reasons for opposing women in frontline combat roles. The full text of this comment can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2776294.html
On September 27, 2011, the Defence Minister, Stephen Smith, issued a media release announcing that all positions in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) would be made available to suitable candidates irrespective of gender. The change will be put in place over the next five years.
The full text of the media release can be found at http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2011/09/27/minister-for-defence-removal-of-restrictions-on-combat-roles-for-women/
On September 27, 2011, the Defence Minister, Stephen Smith, and the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Warren Snowdon, gave a joint press conference after announcing there would be an opening up of all defence force positions on the basis of ability rather than gender.
A full transcript of this press conference can be found at http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2011/09/27/minister-for-defence-science-and-personnel-removal-of-combat-restrictions-projects-of-concern-maritime-arrivals
On September 28, 2011, Crikey published an analysis by Amber Jamieson titled, 'Women on the front line'. The analysis gives a brief account of the recent changes in defence force personnel policy and reactions for and against the changes.
The full text of the analysis can be found at http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/09/28/women-on-the-front-line-3/
On September 28, 2011, The Punch published an opinion piece by Tory Shepherd titled, 'A woman's right to choose war is her own battle'. The piece gives Tory's reasons for supporting the inclusion of women in direct combat roles within the ADF. The full text of this opinion piece can be found at http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/who-will-regret-sending-women-to-the-frontline/
On September 29, 2011, The Conversation published an analysis by Ben Wadham,
A senior lecturer at Flinders University, titled, 'Women in combat: the battle is over but the war against prejudice grinds on'. Though an analysis, the piece essentially supports the changes that have been made.
The full text can be found at http://theconversation.edu.au/women-in-combat-the-battle-is-over-but-the-war-against-prejudice-grinds-on-3593
On September 30, 2011, The Interpreter, the journal of the Lowy Institute for International Policy, published an opinion piece by retired Major General Jim Molan in which he outlined some of his objections to women being eligible for frontline combat. The full text of this comment can be found at http://www.lowyinterpreter.org
(Please note this is the current edition of The Interpreter and this comment will be replaced when a later edition is put online.)
On September 30, 2011, The Sydney Morning Herald published an opinion piece by Clive Hamilton titled, 'Women at war is the final surrender'. Hamilton argues that women in the frontline represent a failure or feminism and a loss of the best of women's values. The full text of this opinion piece can be found at http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/women-at-war-is-the-final-surrender-20110929-1kz77.html
Arguments in favour of women in front line combat positions
1. Only those physically and psychologically suited would be appointed
It has been stated repeatedly that there will be no lowering of entry standards for any branch of the armed forces and that only women who meet these standards will be accepted. Therefore, it is claimed that accepting women into all branches of the armed forces will not reduce the ADF's fighting capabilities.
The federal Defence Minister, Stephen Smith, has stated, 'In the future your role in the Defence Force will be determined on your ability, not on the basis of your sex.
A well-managed implementation program will ensure there is no diminution of standards so far as roles are concerned.'
Commenting specifically on the SAS, Mr Smith stated, 'If a woman is capable of doing the entrance program for the SAS or for commandos then they will be in it.'
Currently entry selection to the SAS requires at least one year served in an army unit, typically the commando regiment or combat engineers. What follows is a combination of some of the most gruelling physical and mental tests designed to weed out all but the most dedicated.
Tests vary, but can involve carrying an 80kg pack on endurance marches lasting several days. A test this year required entrants to each carry two 20-litre jerry cans of water in addition to their combat rucksacks.
Psychological tests involved long question-and-answer sessions to test cultural sensitivities, being woken in the middle of the night to write essays or being ordered to strip.
These tests would remain as rigorous when applied to women. It is therefore anticipated that very few women are likely either to apply or be accepted. What is at issue, however, is that those candidates who are capable should be accepted regardless of gender.
2. Women are already accepted in most defence force positions
It has been argued that women already make up an important and growing component of the Australian Armed Forces. It is claimed therefore, that so long as they are able to meet the relevant standards set for each branch of the defence forces, there should be no reason why the remaining seven percent of positions should not be opened to them.
One in five new army recruitments in Australia are women soldiers and the 8006 women serving in the ADF make up 13.8 per cent of the total. These 8,006 women are able to take up 93 percent of defence force positions.
The Royal Australian Air Force has the highest percentage of women at 15.1% (2,121 positions occupied by women), followed by the Royal Australian Navy with 14.6% (1,832 positions), and the Australian Army with 10.6% (2,554 positions).
Women also make up 17.5% of the defence force reserves (1% of the Naval Reserve, 14.6% of the Army Reserve, and 1.9% of the Air Force Reserve). Women's participation in a combined total of the permanent and reserve forces runs at 14.2%.
3. War is no more awful for women than for men
It has been argued that not allowing competent, willing women into frontline combat positions actually discriminates against men. If war is too awful for women, it is argued, why is it not equally awful for men?
This point has been made by Tori Shepherd in an opinion piece published in The Punch on September 28, 2011.
Ms Shepherd stated, '"Women will die, women will suffer, women will be traumatised in combat roles."
So will men, more men. Men have endured bastardisations and rapes and seeing their mates blown up. They suffer from post traumatic stress disorder, family breakdown. Why is it worse if it's a woman?
If Australia is "not ready", it needs to become ready. Or stop anyone going to war.'
Examples have been cited of traumatised men through two world wars and in wars since who have continued to fight either because they were ordered to or believed they should.
Some social critics and feminists have asked why, if it is deemed appropriate to allow men to endure the trauma of battle, willing women should not also be able to fight. The argument becomes any society that is prepared to send its sons to fight should be equally prepared to send its daughters. Anything else is discriminatory, and not only against women.
It has been noted that Australia has difficulty attracting the number of defence force personnel it requires. Australian demographic trends will put pressure on the ADF in the future. Excluding other factors, the aging of the Australian population will result in smaller numbers of potential recruits entering the Australian labour market each year.
Making more positions available to women may help to address this. In 1965, Australia had regular armed forces of around 76,000, with the aid of conscription. That force represented some 69 troops per thousand of the twenty-to-thirty-year-old male cohort. Currently, the figure is around 18 per thousand (counting men and women). Some critics claim that it makes more sense to draw on additional willing women rather than revert to conscripting men.
4. Allowing women to occupy front line combat positions would reduce sexist attitudes in the forces
The decision to open all positions to eligible women in the Australian Defence Force was taken after a series of scandals at the Australian Defence Academy involving the alleged mistreatment of female trainees.
The most recent of these occurred earlier this year, when a male cadet encouraged others to watch him, via Skype, having sex with an unsuspecting female cadet. When she later spoke to the media, after being alerted to what had happened by Defence Force investigators, she was vilified for doing so by other personnel who thought that her conduct, rather than that of the perpetrators, had brought the ADF into disrepute. It is hoped elevating women will promote a change in military culture.
The Defence Minister, Stephen Smith, considers the former prohibition on women taking on combat roles was a major hurdle to sexual equality within the military.
Smith hopes that opening all positions to women will also encourage women to gain senior positions in the ADF and that these two developments will either reduce or remove the more general sexism that appears to operate within the forces.
A 1996, a report on women in the ADF by Clare Burton made the point that leadership was the crucial issue if change was to come. The report stated, 'Discrimination issues are leadership issues first and foremost. If unequivocal commitment and support from leaders is the critical leverage point that is the key area where change in practices and behaviours must take place.'
5. Allowing women into frontline combat positions would open more promotion opportunities for women in the forces
Currently only 4.5% of senior military ranks are held by females, although women make up 18.5% of the Defence Force.
It has been argued that until all positions in the Australian Defence Forces are open to women it will be very difficult for women to assume major positions of command. Three reasons have been offered in support of this claim. Firstly, it has been claimed women would not have the range of experience required to demonstrate competence for senior command. Secondly, it has been suggested that the fact that women are not considered potentially suitable for all positions in the lower indicates a mindset within the ADF that would preclude women from the highest levels of command. Finally, it has been argued, this mindset would infect women in the ADF so that they doubted their own competence for command.
This last position has been put by former Australian Human Rights Commissioner, Pru Goward. Ms Goward stated, 'In theory it would be possible for a woman to be chief of the defence Force or chief of any of the three armed services.
In practice, it is difficult to see a woman being promoted to the most senior ranks without any of that direct experience. It is that simple, minor exclusion ...that might be sending the message to women that in the end, they aren't really suitable.'
The Defence Minister, Stephen Smith, has indicated that this opening up of all positions within the defence forces to those with the ability to do them, irrespective of gender, should also help remove any barriers that currently exist to women assuming high command. Mr Smith said any military opportunity for women 'should be determined on the basis of physical and intellectual capacity, not on gender. So the Chief of the Defence Force will bring forward that matter as a matter of priority.'
General Peter Leahy, director of the University of Canberra's National Security Institute and a former army chief, has said the promotion of women to more senior ranks will be a logical consequence of women serving in all roles.
6. Women are already involved in combat
It is claimed that women are already involved in direct combat. This is because the nature of modern warfare has changed. It is often city-based and involves occupation rather than forward attack. There is no clear frontline and the centre of battle can shift dramatically and unexpectedly.
About 1500 Australian troops are serving in war-torn Afghanistan, including many women based in forward units as combat medics, communications and intelligence specialists. Given the nature of the war, any of these women could find themselves involved in direct combat. Unofficial figures provided to The Australian suggest up to 15 per cent of military jobs in Afghanistan involve women.
Peter Leahy is a retired chief of the army and a senior University of Canberra academic. Commenting on the role of women in modern warfare, Leahy has stated, 'It's war among the population and women are there among the support roles; they're already right up there on the front line.
So, practice shows us they are not going to pull back on our capabilities; they add capabilities when you work among communities who expect their women will be searched or spoken to by other women.'
Other nations have also recognised that the nature of warfare has changed and that the division between frontline and non-frontline forces is no longer meaningful.
In the United States, the Pentagon commission recommended in its draft report that US defence forces remove their ban on women serving in combat positions. In November 2010, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said,
'I'd be hard-pressed to say that any woman who serves in Afghanistan today, or who served in Iraq over the last few years, did so without facing the risks of their male counterparts ... In a war where there is no longer a clear delineation between the front lines and the sidelines ... where the war can grab you anywhere, this will be the first generation of veterans where large segments of women returning will have been exposed to some form of combat.'
Expert claim that this also applies to Australian women fighting in these zones.
Arguments against women in front line combat positions
1. No significant number of women would be fit or strong enough for front line combat
It has been argued that front line forces are the fittest of men and that only a very small proportion of women would be able to match these men physically. Physiological reasons have been offered to support these claims. The female skeletal system is less dense and more prone to breakages, while women have a lower muscle to fat ratio than men. Studies of women already in the defence forces have shown 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.
Greg Sheridan, The Australian foreign affairs editor, has stated, 'The men in the army represent probably the fittest, strongest 20 per cent of men in society. Perhaps 10 per cent of those could make Special Forces soldiers. So that's 2 per cent of men. There is no meaningful percentage of women who can match those physical requirements. The talk of defining objective physical criteria for a task, and making those criteria gender neutral, is meaningless.'
Mr Sheridan has further stated, 'Walking all night with a 50kg pack and then being fit to fight all the next day is not an objective standard derived from a study of what you might have to do. It's an objective standard derived just from the experience of what the very strongest, toughest, most durable men can manage.'
It has also been claimed that there is a limit to the extent to which mechanisation can neutralise the strength differences between men and women. Therefore, it is argued, there will always remain some combat situations where women could not be deployed.
The Australian Defence Association has officially stated, 'Technology can provide some solutions to neutralising physicality and bio-mechanical differences between male and female personnel in our defence force but it cannot yet neutralise all of them. An example where technology can succeed is differently designed G-suits for female aircrew in jet fighters. An example where technology has yet to succeed is cancelling out the different risks if such aircrew have to eject (the female has more risk of serious injury).'
2. Very few countries allow women in their frontline combat forces
It has been claimed that only a minority of nations around the world employ women in their frontline forces in all capacities and that those nations that do tend to be countries that are not under serious threat of attack.
Only a minority of Western nations allow women in frontline hand-to-hand combat positions. These are Canada, New Zealand, Denmark and now Australia. They have 'non-discriminatory' policies that allow women to serve in infantry units. Israel restricts women to light infantry roles for 'biomechanical reasons'. Men-only units serve in border protection roles, which are considered by the Israeli Defence Force as more dangerous.
When announcing Australia's decision to allow women in all positions in the armed forces, the Minister for Defence, Stephen Smith, cited New Zealand, Canada and Israel as countries directly comparable to Australia who have included women in their frontline combat forces.
Critics have argued that New Zealand and Canada are not comparable to Australia.
Greg Sheridan, the foreign affairs editor for The Australian, has argued that New Zealand and Canada operate such policies 'because they are not militarily serious nations.'
The point was made more explicitly by former Major General Jim Molan who challenged, during a September 27, 2011 interview with the ABC's PM program, 'Name one big battle that New Zealand has been in in the last 50 years? Name one big battle that Canada has been in in which women have been in the infantry?'
3. Women in combat roles would destroy group cohesion
It has been claimed that incorporating women into combat divisions would undermine group morale and destroy cohesion.
This claim has been made by Greg Sheridan, the foreign affairs editor for The Australian. Mr Sheridan has stated, 'Of course, there would .... be intense disruption to the small group cohesion that a fighting military unit works endlessly to attain and then hold on to, and which is often the difference between life and death in actual combat.'
Some reasons offered for this loss of group cohesion include that male soldiers may doubt the competence of female soldiers to support them in crisis situations. There is also concern that romantic relationships between men and women on the front lines could disrupt a unit's fighting capability and break down the necessary group cohesion.
Concern has been expressed that some male soldiers may make special provisions or allowances for female combat soldiers that would also undermine group morale. In a 1997 United States study it was found that many men felt that there was a double standard in their unit due to 'different physical standards' and 'a perceived unwillingness of male supervisors to demand as much of women as they do of men.'
A 2009 British Ministry of Defence review indicated concern that male soldiers were paying more attention to wounded female soldiers than others and were putting their own lives at risk. It has also been suggested that some male soldiers may seek to defend female soldiers in a way that jeopardises the operation of the group. An ADA spokesman, Neil James, has stated, 'The ADA stands by this, when you get into the increased risk of sexual assault the men will try and defend the women based on the gallantry argument rather than engage the enemy troops.'
It has further been suggested that problems associated with a lack of privacy, communal bathing and no segregated toilet facilities may heighten tensions between male and female soldiers and interfere with the proper functioning of a combat unit.
4. Most women are less psychologically and socially suited to hand-to-hand combat
It has been claimed that most women are psychologically less suited to frontline combat than most men.
Studies among civilian populations have consistently shown that when compared with men, women have significantly higher prevalence rates of depression and anxiety disorders, including post-traumatic stress disorder. Studies of general military populations in garrison have paralleled findings from civilian studies. This has led to concern that women may not hold up as well as men under the strain of frontline combat.
It has also been argued that women's socialisation makes them less suited to hand to hand combat. Retired Major General Jim Molan has stated, 'We've had 10,000 years of socialising young men in killing at close quarters and we do it relatively well. It's very hard to do it but we do it relatively well.
We have only a few examples of socialising women to kill at close quarters. All those have failed so far. No real defence force in the world has ever tried this before.'
It has further been claimed that allowing women in frontline combat positions denies the unique contribution that women's different attitudes and psychology makes to political and social life.
Clive Hamilton, a professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University, has stated, 'Women's morality differs from that of men. Feminist philosopher Carol Gilligan says women are more motivated by care than duty, and more inclined to emphasise responsibilities than rights. They seek reconciliation through compassion and negotiation rather than demanding "justice", through force if necessary.'
Professor Hamilton argues that these female qualities make women less suited to war but give them a valuable social role in negotiating and maintaining peace. Professor Hamilton argues that by encouraging women into frontline combat we are 'compromising a subtle, civilising power that has always worked to restrain the violent tendencies of men.'
5. Australia does not have men and women compete against each other in contact sports
It has been argued that although individual women can be extremely fit and stronger than the majority of men, Australia does not pit elite sportsmen against elite sports women because the competition would be unequal.
The conclusion critics of women in frontline combat draw from this is that it is even less appropriate to pit women directly against men in battle.
Greg Sheridan, the foreign affairs editor for The Australian has raised this anomaly. 'Do we want women to participate in unisex, professional boxing matches with men? If not, why not? Professional boxing is much less demanding, and much less violent, than fighting the Taliban.
Do we want women to play in this weekend's National Rugby League grand final and to be tackled at full strength by Brent Kite or Manu Vatuvei? If not, why not? The NRL is a stroll in the park compared with combat missions for the SAS.'
The same point has been made by Ted Lapin, a ministerial advisor to the federal Coalition and communications director to a senior member the Republican Congressional leadership in Washington.
Mr Lapin has stated, 'Females are excluded from our most violent full contact sports because we know they won't be able to survive on the footy oval or rugby pitch. In track & field, swimming and basketball, we recognise the inherent physical superiority of men over women through gender-specific categories and leagues. After all, it's not called the WNBA for nothing.
The military feminists assure us there are Australian Amazons out there just waiting for the opportunity to prove themselves in the infantry. Perhaps, but let's first test this thesis on the footy and rugby fields, where the worst thing that thrown is the occasional elbow rather than a fragmentation grenade.'
6. A disproportionate number of women would be killed or sexually assaulted
It has been claimed that in a hand-to-hand combat situation women fighting men are more likely to be killed, thus their inclusion in front line forces both discriminates against them and weakens those forces.
Neil James, an Australian Defence Association (ADA) spokesperson has stated, 'Simple commonsense tells you that if you put women in some jobs where you directly fight men, enemy men, one-on-one in a physical confrontation for continuous periods, then we are likely to suffer more female casualties than male casualties.'
Mr James further stated, 'The other thing the feminists never justify in their arguments is would they be prepared to have women suffer disproportionate casualties compared to men just to satisfy their whims.'
The ADA has recognised the potential for higher numbers of female casualties with its official statement, 'In combat roles that incur additional risks for female personnel due to their gender (such as disproportionate casualties, more disabling injuries generally or sexual assault if captured), we support the right of female personnel to choose whether to accept such extra risks or not. However, we believe that the exercise of such choice needs careful monitoring to ensure it is truly free and reasonable in the circumstances ? and that it does not incur unintended, inequitable or unfair results for such females in practice.'
The ADA had further officially stated, 'Care must be exercised that females are not placed under undue pressure to volunteer for roles that will unduly risk their health through greater risk of injury in training or operations, or unduly risk disproportionate rates of death or wounding in combat, compared to their male comrades.'
Critics maintain that irrespective of the 'care' taken, in hand-to-hand combat with men, greater numbers of women would be killed.
It has also been argued that female frontline combat soldiers would be at greater risk of sexual assault. This would be especially the case if they were captured by the enemy. A United States Presidential Commission report found that male prisoners of war, while being subject to physical abuse, were rarely subject to sexual abuse, while female prisoners were almost always subject to sexual abuse.
Further implications
It is likely that in terms of the composition of Australian Defence Force operational units, the recently announced reforms opening all positions to suitable women candidates will make little difference.
Retired chief of army Peter Leahy, who supports women in direct combat roles so long as rigorous selection criteria are applied, believes that very few women will actually make the grade as they will not be able to meet the physical demands.
Leahy has stated, 'I support it in principle and practice as long as that practice means that the tests are robust and proper and have been scientifically developed so that whoever passes them - male or female - can do the job. That could mean being able to carry a wounded fully-laden soldier, weighing more than 100kg, from the battlefield. Informal army studies indicate few women will take up the offer of actual combat.'
Leahy further noted, 'Figures show 2 [per cent] or 3 per cent might be able to meet the physical requirements, and they're busy being Olympic athletes or playing basketball for professional teams.
Certainly in my experience, as I travelled around the army trying to gauge what people were thinking, I didn't find many women who actually wanted to be in the infantry.'
If Leahy is correct, this means that most of the fears of those who oppose the change are over-reactions. There will not be large numbers of women killed in hand to hand combat, simply because there will not be large numbers there in the first place. Women are also unlikely to have much impact on the morale of combat units because there will be so few of them and those who are there are likely to be demonstrably able to look after themselves.
The significance of the change seems largely symbolic and on this level it is far too early to say what impact it will have. It is intended that the full implementation of these changes will occur over a five year period and whatever effect they are going to have on defence force culture will only begin to be felt after that.
However, if the extent of the negative reaction among a range of unofficial defence spokesmen can be used as a guide, the symbolic value of the change may ultimately be significant. Opponents of the change are indeed speaking as though a citadel has been breached.
Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline
The Age: April 14, 2011, page 12, letter, `One feminist step too far'. (Letter is third item down in the online version)
http://www.theage.com.au/national/letters/without-equality-there-will-always-be-discrimination-20110413-1de97.html
The Age: April 14, 2011, page 11, analysis (photo of military funeral) by Jo Chandler, `What if it were a woman?'.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/what-if-it-were-a-woman-20110413-1de96.html
The Herald-Sun: April 13, 2011, page 28, editorial, `We salute our women'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/we-salute-our-women-in-uniform/story-fn6bn88w-1226038079563
The Herald-Sun: April 13, 2011, page 7, news item, `Women not fighting fit' (hard-copy newspaper version has photo and related item on SAS fitness and other requirements).
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/victims-demand-defence-forces-abuse-inquiry/story-fn7x8me2-1226038129658
The Australian: April 13, 2011, page 13, analysis (photos) by Nicholson and Dodd, `A woman's place is in combat'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/a-womans-place-is-in-combat/story-e6frg6z6-1226038108693
The Australian: April 13, 2011, page 13, news item by Lauren Wilson, `No defence of military gender bias'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/no-defence-of-military-gender-bias/story-fn59niix-1226038109948
The Australian: April 13, 2011, page 6, news item (photo of intending recruit) by S Elks, `Gemma wants force to be with her'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/school-girl-aspires-to-combat-military-role/story-fn59niix-1226038106550
The Australian: April 13, 2011, page 6, news item by Wilson and Dodd, `PM defends women's right to fight for their country'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/prime-minister-defends-womens-right-to-fight-for-their-country/story-fn59niix-1226038116662
The Age: April 13, 2011, page 14, editorial, `Women on the front line, not the back foot'.
http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/editorial/women-on-the-front-line-not-the-back-foot-20110412-1dckz.html
The Herald-Sun: April 12, 2011, page 1, news item (photos) by I McPhedran, `Front line women' (see also pages 4-5 photos and items under general heading, `About time girls joined the battle'). NOTE that most of these items, plus a video, are available on the link below, or on on-links.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/victims-demand-defence-forces-abuse-inquiry/story-e6frf7l6-1226037527951
The Australian: April 12, 2011, page 1, news item by M Dodd, `Combat roles offered to women'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/combat-roles-offered-to-women/story-fn59niix-1226037485919
The Age: May 5, 2011, page 17, comment by Georgia Lysaght, `Like it or not, women are no strangers to front-line fighting'.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/women-are-no-strangers-to-frontline-fighting-20110504-1e8bn.html
The Age: June 16, 2011, page 3, news item by Dan Oakes, `Bunking down, navy style'.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/bunking-in-navy-style-20110615-1g3yd.html
The Herald-Sun: June 15, 2011, page 9, news item (photo) by Healy and McPhedran, `Women to fight Taliban'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/australian-women-set-to-fight-taliban-next-year/story-e6frf7jo-1226075269358
The Age: June 10, 2011, page 5, news item by Dan Oakes, `Women could join frontline in Afghanistan by next year'.
http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac;jsessionid=8BBD0AB6C63A6DFB60876029888A2063?sy=afr&pb=all_ffx&dt=selectRange&dr=1month&so=relevance&sf=text&sf=headline&rc=10&rm=200&sp=brs&cls=70&clsPage=1&docID=AGE110610HU5FUFBJNJ0