    |
 |
|
|
|
|
Comment
by the Women
in Combat: Operational Capability Must Remain The Australian Defence Force (ADF)
has employed women in a wide range of ‘frontline’ and combat roles since the
mid 1990s. It is particularly insulting to these women professionally and
personally when uninformed commentators, or sloppy media reporting,
incorrectly states or implies that women in the ADF supposedly do not serve
(or somehow cannot serve) on the ‘frontline’ or in combat. It is simply factually and
conceptually incorrect ― and quite insensitive ― to claim that
women in our defence force, or each Service individually, are somehow not
serving on the ‘frontline’ or in combat roles and situations. It is also
incorrect to claim that they are somehow not permitted to do so for reasons
other than as a result of government decisions concerning operational
capability criteria ― with such criteria being based on physicality,
bio-mechanics or probability of disproportionate casualties (as discussed below). The rules on what types of job
female defence force personnel are allowed to undertake are set by the
government, not by the defence force, and reflect what governments believe
are acceptable to the Australian electorate and Australian society generally. Because opinions expressed on this
issue either way are so often based on beliefs that are not grounded in fact,
the Australia Defence Association suggests any serious and objective
discussion would benefit greatly by using the comprehensive information below
as a starting point. Debate is pointless unless those involved actually
understand the detail about what the government restrictions currently are,
and are not, and the reasons for them ― even if some may disagree or
mistakenly think they disagree with some or all of these reasons. The
information below also includes an analysis of the misconceptions and commonplace myths (for and against employing females in
combat) that too often mar effective public debate on this issue. What is the
Australia Defence Association Stance? The
ADA has long championed female participation across our defence force. The
Association is also widely acknowledged by former or serving women in our
defence force as an authorative contributor to informed professional and
public debate on this subject. The
ADA’s considered stance on the employment of females in our defence force is,
however, unfortunately often misrepresented through media or general public
misunderstandings about what defence force service actually involves.
Particularly where simplistic, misinformed or uninformed opinions (either for
or against female participation) too readily ignore or discount the many
complexities involved ― such as operational contexts, bio-mechanical
implications, professional nuances, moral dilemmas, and equity-intent versus
equity-result paradoxes. If more critics, either way, of current government
policy on the employment of females in combat actually bothered to research
the facts before pontificating, then public debate on this subject would be
much better informed and more useful generally. The
longstanding ADA position is that: ·
There are no psychological or emotional barriers to
employing female personnel in combat. Australia does this now, has done it
for many years and arguments commonly mounted to oppose female participation
on such grounds are invariably incorrect factually (see commonplace
myths below). ·
Once trained and qualified, female military personnel
should be allowed to undertake any military task where the current government
policy limitation is due solely to physicality, rather than bio-mechanics,
and where female personnel can meet the physical standards needed. ·
We support female personnel being employed in any
situation where technology, training or other means can effectively render
bio-mechanical differences gender neutral so that overall operational
capability is not affected. ·
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 (discussed further below). In
all cases of employment in combat roles, for both males and females, we
believe the following provisos must apply: ·
Operational capability must remain the prime
determinant of employment policy in our defence force,
otherwise the lives of both male and female soldiers would be risked
irresponsibly and immorally. ·
Standards of physical fitness, strength, endurance,
load-bearing and marksmanship based on hard-won battle experience over nearly
a century must not be lowered to permit female participation (just as they
are not lowered to permit participation by all males). ·
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. ·
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). Similarly, once we equip our artillery
units with self-propelled (SP) guns with automated loading systems, there
would be no insurmountable physicality or bio-mechanical reasons for not
employing female soldiers in the gun batteries of such units. But we should
note the Canadian experience of some continuing physicality problems when
such automated systems break down or are unavailable and manhandling must be
used in mixed-gender units to load 80kg artillery shells. ·
In a case such as employing females in gun batteries
because the guns would now be self-propelled ones (with automated loading
systems) there are, of course, consequent defence capability implications
that need to be acknowledged and implemented by our government to ensure both
gender-neutrality and no loss of operational capability. This would mean that
only (more expensive but more capable) self-propelled guns are provided by
Australian governments rather than cheaper and less capable towed artillery
being procured. Otherwise the Army might still end up having total or mainly
de facto segregation by gender in artillery units depending on whether the
guns were mechanised and automated or not. The same logic applies, for
example, to equipping our defence force with armoured vehicles and engineer
plant. Any continuing or new de facto segregation would, in effect, be unfair
to male personnel on both gender equity and operational risk grounds,
particularly where it involved them having to wholly or disproportionately
crew obsolescent or obsolete systems with higher risks of casualties,
injuries or exhaustion on a gender basis. Why we need to keep
in mind what our defence force is for? Any
serious discussion on women in combat needs to begin with accepting why we
have a defence force in the first place. Australia
has a defence force so we can, if necessary, deter or win wars by efficiently
applied violence. War
necessarily means seeking to deploy overwhelming force against our enemy to
defeat them swiftly and thoroughly, and minimise casualties to ourselves and
non-combatants. War is quite unlike domestic law enforcement, for example,
where minimal force is necessary and usual. A large part of the role we assign our defence force involves a readiness and capacity to engage in actual battle. Even the most modern battlespace involves abnormal and often prolonged conditions of physical effort, physical endurance, psychological trauma, destruction, death, injury and general mayhem. Battle is unique in our and international society. While police forces and fire services, for example, employ women in operational positions the degree of violence or physical effort involved does not match military combat for the scale, intensity, tempo, complexity, duration and prolonged repercussions of bloodshed and horror involved. Some
modern battle involves killing by the operation of complex technology or the
indirect or longer-range application of force. This is gender-neutral
operationally and enables females to join the fray as fighter pilots or
aboard submarines for example. Much battle, however, particularly in ground
combat, still depends on direct, physical, to-the-death, close
confrontations, often on an individual-to-individual basis. This type of
fighting rarely gender-equal. Finally, no-one we send to fight our wars can be always shielded from some exposure to combat. All ADF personnel of both genders may have to fight as at least a secondary task in their employment, especially in the case of the Army and particularly during counter-insurgency campaigns (where the ‘frontline’ can often be anywhere). Why is there so
much community confusion in Australia on the issue of women in combat? Why
does confusion arise so readily on the issue of employing women in combat?
Part of the problem is that most Australians now have so little personal,
close-family or even extended-family understandings of their defence force or
war through first-hand experience or knowledge. Another part of the problem
is the tendency to fixate on the Army and ignore the Navy and Air Force.
Another key problem is that many people do not realise that in the Army a
combat-support arms unit is actually a type of combat unit, and that mixed-gender
elements of such units usually operate on the ‘frontline’ ― as indeed
can many mixed-gender elements from logistic-support or health-support units. A
large contributor to public confusion is mindless repetition of commonplace myths (below) about women, war or how other
countries supposedly employ females in their armed forces and a failure to
find out the facts instead. Often there is also a failure to appreciate the
complexity of the issue and adequately define the contexts, nuances and
terminology involved. It would also appear much incorrect analysis or
commentary is driven or exacerbated by ignorance of defence force service and
military matters generally, a poor understanding of the specifics of military
terminology, and mistaken, vague or ambiguous description of concepts such as
what actually constitutes combat, direct combat or the frontline. Sadly
and too frequently, popular confusion on the subject of women in combat can also be driven by ideological motivations and
other biases not directly connected to the topic. Moreover, much media,
political and academic commentary on the subject of women in combat also
seems motivated by ‘opinionating’ imperatives or a desire for individual
publicity or sensationalist media splashes rather than being based on the
facts, genuine enquiry, intellectual objectivity or journalistic or academic
professionalism. What really is the
current situation with regard to the employment of females in our defence
force? Navy. In the Royal
Australian Navy women are employed in all roles (including combat ones) on
all ships, submarines and minor war vessels, except as clearance divers. The
limitation on clearance diving (a very small number of positions in the Navy)
is primarily based on bio-mechanical differences in blood flows between men
and women breathing compressed gases, and to some extent the associated
physical strength and stamina levels, when performing protracted tasks
underwater at depth. Air Force. In the Royal
Australian Air Force women can fly all aircraft, and are employed in all
roles (including combat ones), except for the ground (infantry) defence of
operational airbases in war zones, and a very small number of ground-based
support positions involving the frequent use of chemicals known to be
injurious during pregnancy (especially in its early stages where the women
concerned might be unaware they are pregnant). Army. In the Australian
Army, women can be employed everywhere in the air and on the ground and in
all units, including on the ‘frontline’ and in combat roles, with only a few
exceptions concerning matters of specific individual employment skills and
the required attributes, not geographic area of deployment, combat status or
general combat tasking. The exceptions constitute only seven per cent of the
range of employment categories across the Army, but they are the type of
category that involve large numbers of personnel in
any army (principally the combat manouvre units and some types of
combat-support unit). The
best way to understand how employment in the Army works is to look at it
using the classifications in which the types of ground-force unit are grouped
for organisational and tasking purposes: ·
Broadly speaking, specialist employment categories and
units (and their fostering Corps trade-streams) within the Army are divided
into the Arms and the Services. ·
Arms units are the ones tasked and organised to
fight as their principal and core function and are sub-divided into two
types: § combat-manouvre
arms units ― infantry (light infantry, mechanised infantry and
parachute battalions, and commando and special air service regiments) and
armour (tank and cavalry regiments); and § combat-support arms
units ― artillery (field, medium or air defence), aviation, signals and
engineer (combat or construction) regiments and intelligence battalions. ·
Since 2005 female soldiers can serve in every type of
unit in the Army – including on the ‘frontline’ and during combat ― but
in combat-manouvre arms units and some combat-support arms units they
serve only in the unit headquarters and with the unit’s logistic-support
sub-unit. Females do not serve in the fighting sub-units of combat-manouvre
arms units such as the rifle companies of infantry battalions, the tank
squadrons of armoured regiments and the reconnaissance or armoured personnel
carrier (APC) squadrons of cavalry regiments. Nor do they serve in all the
sub-units of two types of combat-support arms unit: the gun batteries of
medium and field artillery regiments and the field squadrons of combat
engineer regiments. ·
Women have long served in all other types of
combat-support arms unit such as aviation (including attack helicopters),
intelligence, signals, construction engineers, air defence artillery and
electronic warfare elements. This includes where such elements are co-located
and work alongside and with combat-manouvre arms sub-units when supporting
them in battle and other ‘frontline’ situations. It is likely with increasing
modernisation, mechanisation and automation (and consequently less reliance
on individual physicality) that female soldiers who are up to it physically
will also eventually serve more widely in field artillery and combat engineer
regiments. ·
Female soldiers also serve in ‘frontline’
service-support units such as transport, supply, maintenance engineering,
medical and military police elements which are also often co-located and work
alongside combat. What are the
employment principles, facts, contexts and nuances actually involved? First,
Australian governments have always rightly specified that operational
capability is the prime determinant of any employment policy in the defence
force. This should always remain so. Too many forget this primacy objective
and forget or discount why service in our defence force has to be different
in many regards to other types of employment. In particular, the battlefield
is not just another workplace. Our defence force is an unlimited liability company in terms of the men and women who
serve in it and the voluntary risk of death or wounds necessarily involved in
such service. Second,
the following facts are essential to understanding the combat employment
issue but are too often ignored or discounted: ·
Women have long been employed in combat roles in all
three Services where force is applied from a distance (especially in
the Navy and the Air Force). ·
For even longer, in all three Services, females have
undertaken combat roles where, occasionally rather than mostly, force
is not just applied from a distance but is likely to be applied directly
by having to fight in a physical person-to person sense (and not just
in self-defence). Examples of such jobs include: § naval boarding
parties; § aircrew and
aircraft ground crew when on the ground in contested areas; § working in the headquarters,
or the logistic-support sub-unit, of a frontline combat-manouvre unit (such
as an infantry battalion or a cavalry or tank regiment); § a combat-support
element co-located with a frontline combat manouvre unit (such as an
electronic warfare, signals or air defence artillery detachment directly supporting
an infantry, cavalry or tank unit); and § service-support
elements of any type (logistic, maintenance engineering, medical, etc)
directly supporting any frontline combat-manouvre unit. Third,
some combat roles in the Army in particular involve more than these criteria
of applying force from a distance, fighting person-to-person
and doing so only occasionally. For reasons discussed further below,
Australian governments have continued to place some restrictions on the
employment of women in some roles in such units, chiefly (but not
wholly) to avoid the risk of disproportionate female casualties where
physical, close-in force generally needs to be directly applied much more continually
(rather than only occasionally). ·
The longstanding principle involved concerning the
potential employment of women in ground combat-manouvre arms units (including
ground defence units in the Air Force) is that, because of the bio-mechanical
differences between men and women, and the general (but not universal)
differences in their physicality, female soldiers should not be unduly risked
in battlefield roles where, most of the time, the core business
and prime purpose of the element concerned is direct combat
with the enemy in an up-close, physical and person-to-person sense. ·
This operational employment principle therefore
includes five distinct but inter-related criteria ― but with the focus
on the frequency of direct, physical, person-to-person fighting rather
than on the existence, purpose and likelihood of such a degree of close
combat itself. Moreover, the criteria are related only to bio-mechanical
differences, the generally differing levels of physicality between the
genders and the probability of disproportionate female casualties. The
criteria used also result from battlefield lessons and other empirical
testing over many years, not mere untested or un-testable beliefs about what
female and male soldiers supposedly can or cannot do. ·
In 2009 moves to scientifically re-test the
environmental conditions involved, and the physicality criteria and
judgements arising from them, were announced by the then Minister for Defence
Personnel. The ADA has always supported such analysis as it will facilitate
evidence-based discussion of the issues rather than sloganeering (on all
sides). The ADA believes, however, that the additional scientific analysis is
likely to validate not invalidate the public policy principles concerned.
They are also likely to highlight that more than physicality criteria are
involved, particularly the importance and specific situational applicability
of relevant bio-mechanical differences between men and women. Moreover, an
objective scientific study is also welcome because it will again disprove commonplace myths either for or against female employment
in combat and help eradicate the misunderstandings and profound ignorance
that so often complicates effective public debate on the women-in-combat issue. Fourth,
and in particular, the principles concerning female employment in
combat-manouvre (infantry, tank and cavalry), field artillery and combat
engineer units are based on experience and facts. The battlefield continues
to be the ultimate unforgiving environment where the laws of physics,
bio-mechanics and probability apply without necessarily respecting
gender-equity theory in its ideological or academic sense or in its civil
contexts. Furthermore, bio-mechanical differences between men and women also
have significant effects on military service. Even in carefully planned
peacetime training among fit and healthy individuals in the ADF, the ratio of
incapacitating injuries to backs, knees, ankles, etc., between females and
males runs at a minimum of 5:1 due to bio-mechanical differences in
load-bearing abilities between women and men. Proven operational needs mean
there is little scope to lighten basic load-carrying tasks at an individual
level, especially in ground combat. While the physicality levels required can
be gender-neutral to an extent, there remain gender-specific factors involved
in the capacity to undertake certain types of combat function. Similar
bio-mechanical differences apply to upper body strength in particular, and to
lower body strength and human endurance. Finally,
there are the social, equity and operational ramifications of the risk of
disproportionate female casualties. For a range of operational, moral, and
occupational health and safety reasons, it would not be fair to our female
soldiers to expect them to fight enemy male soldiers continually in a person-to-person
physical sense and as a permanent and core part of their job. Some
would win such intense, person-to-person physical confrontations to the death
but more, probably many more or most, would lose – even if only eventually –
when such direct forms of combat are prolonged in duration. ·
Female casualties in such situations are therefore
likely to be disproportionate in numbers to their male team members because
they would be exposed to higher risks than our men doing the same job under
the same conditions. ·
This has obvious operational, leadership, practical
equity and fairness, moral responsibility, and (even in war) occupational
health and safety implications. ·
It would, in fact (and with some irony given the gender
equity motivation), be genuinely discriminatory to place female ADF personnel
in situations of higher risk purely because of their gender, especially if
this decision was based on ideological beliefs with no regard for ADF
operational capability, respect for the women concerned as individuals or
acknowledgement of the science and other facts involved. ·
Community support for our defence force is also
important when we commit them to war. It is likely that many, probably most,
Australians would consider it highly illogical and unfair for their
daughters, sisters, wives or female friends to be placed in situations with
a risk of disproportionate casualties just because they are women. Even
more to the point, community concern is very likely if women were placed at
such a risk of disproportionate casualties only to satisfy inapplicable
theories that it would supposedly be ‘discriminatory’ not to put them at much
higher risk than men in this regard. This risk of disproportionate female
casualties is undoubtedly a genuine gender equity aspect of the
women-in-combat issue and certainly not an inapplicable and old-fashioned
‘chivalry attitude’ as some out-of-touch feminist spokeswomen have mistakenly
maintained, often as a diversion from facing up to this aspect of the issue. As women can and do
already serve in frontline combat, is how they do it really a gender
equity matter at all? Given
the complexities and nuances of this issue, the question really needs to be
asked whether government-directed employment policies that seek to maximise
operational outcomes, or prevent unfairness in the risk of death, wounds or
injury for male and female soldiers serving in combat, are actually even
gender equity issues at all. This question is frequently ignored on both
sides of the debate, too often either deliberately due to ideology or through
misinformation or worse about the facts. On
one extreme of the debate are those who see the employment of women in any
form of combat as somehow inherently destructive of the moral fabric of
society, especially the sanctity of the family and society, and the nurturing
instinct typified by motherhood. Some also argue against the employment of
women in any combat role based on outmoded views of what women
supposedly can and cannot do physically or emotionally. Often these latter
objections ignore modern military experiences where women have long served at
sea, in the field and in the air with little or no problems. They also ignore
foreign military experiences that indicate female personnel are actually
often more suited psychologically than men in the operation of automated
weapon systems that kill remotely. On
the opposite extreme are those who see the issue of women in combat only as a
gender equity matter, rather than an issue that should be primarily focused
on operational capability and the complex environments involved. They view
the problems involved in absolute, abstract or idealistic terms and fear that
women are somehow being unlawfully or unethically discriminated against
because governments do not allow females to be employed in every
combat role all the time in every situation. Many on this
extreme appear unwilling to accept that there are any, or any significant,
bio-mechanical differences between women and men. Similarly, many on this
extreme appear unwilling to recognise that fighting wars can be an extreme
test of bio-mechanical or physicality differences in gender, especially where
these differences are not evident or not relevant in office, factory,
sporting or other peacetime civilian environments. Both these extremes tend to dwell on the existence or not of physicality and emotional differences. More importantly they tend to exaggerate or ignore the effects of real bio-mechanical differences respectively. As but one of many examples, ejection seat characteristics in fighter and strike aircraft need to cater for the different effects on human bodies ejected explosively at high speed and under major stress. In men the major risk is hernias. In women it is prolapsed uteruses. There are numerous other effects across the Services in how equipment is operated or carried because women and men tend to have different muscle masses and different centres of gravity and therefore markedly different injury rates or different risk factors during military service. Not all these differences can yet be overcome by technology, training or other means. Both extremes also avoid the real question, which is not whether females should or should not be employed in combat roles. The real question is how they can and should be so employed? Between the two extremes described above is the logical middle ground. This approaches the question of female employment in combat roles from a strictly utilitarian basis – what is best for Australia’s defence, and for the men and women directly concerned, based on empirical analysis of the facts and issues. After all, we invest large sums and significant personal efforts in our national defence and the operational requirements of the defence force should primarily influence any decision on force composition and employment. Demographic pressures and equity principles (including career experiences needed for promotion) also mean the employment of women in the ADF, and career opportunities for them, must be maximised not minimised. Too
many advocates on the extremes of the debate in the first and second
categories above seem to forget or ignore why we have a defence force and why
it is quite a different organisation to virtually all others in our society.
Many of the comments calling for markedly increasing, or lessening, the
involvement of women in combat come from those pushing political or
ideological hobbyhorses, rather than being based on any real knowledge,
experience or appreciation of what combat actually entails. Such
insular approaches are also particularly noteworthy for two aspects: ·
Those calling for women to serve in all combat
roles all the time rarely have any military experience themselves and
tend to not appreciate, or unduly discount, the real scientific and
battlefield issues involved. In at least some cases those advocating the
employment of women in all combat roles appear to be doing so for purely
ideological purposes essentially unconnected with the issue itself, and would
not serve in the ADF themselves or encourage their family members of either
gender to do so. ·
It is very rare to meet women with actual experience of
service in the ADF who disagree with the principles and practical approach
underlying current government policy. Especially where their ADF service has
involved fighting a war or mounting a peacekeeping operation. This is because
such female personnel understand what is involved and consider current
employment policies are not discriminatory in the civil-employment gender
equity sense. They also appreciate that technology and equipment procurement
decisions can work to neutralise many gender differences in operating weapons
and equipment, or overcoming battlefield conditions, but cannot yet eliminate
all of them. What are
commonplace myths and misunderstandings
about women and their employment in combat? Commonplace
myths for and against employing women in combat can be grouped in four
categories: psychology and emotion, sexuality or “bio-mechanical uniformity”,
“war is different now”, and what other countries supposedly do. Myths
based on beliefs about psychological or emotional differences between men and
women include: ·
Female soldiers are
somehow inherently less willing or less able emotionally to kill than men
when the need arises. Both Australian and overseas military experience does
not support this belief. Furthermore, some foreign military experiences
indicate women can be more suited than men to operating weapon systems that
kill by remote control. ·
Women are always
likely to be emotionally more prone to the shock of battle and its aftermath,
and therefore become ineffective, especially where violent death and horrific
wounds are involved.
There is little modern empirical evidence either way concerning infantry
combat, but the performance in other combat of existing mixed-gender units
with combat support, logistic support or health support roles indicates that
potential problems, even where they might exist, can be overcome by leadership,
training and battle inoculation. ·
In the extreme
conditions of battle, mixed-gender units might be compromised when the men
seek to protect the women, however subconsciously, rather than concentrate on
the priority collective task at hand. Again the so-called ‘chivalry problem’
does not appear to have been a significant problem in existing mixed-gender
units with combat support or logistic support roles. Myths
stemming from commonplace but often contradictory myths about sexuality,
physicality or the supposedly complete absence of bio-mechanical differences
include: ·
Sexual relations or
tensions between men and women in a team will impede morale and operational
effectiveness, especially at small-group level. Again this has
not generally been an unmanageable problem in existing mixed-gender units
with combat support, logistic support or health support roles, or in the
mixed-gender headquarters and logistic support elements of combat-manouvre
arms units. Extensive Canadian and British testing in peacetime with both
all-female and mixed-gender infantry sub-units has shown some teamwork
maintenance, group durability and unit cohesion problems but whether these
are unmanageable in modern infantry combat is effectively unknown as it is
untested. Again the likelihood is that such problems can be prevented or
minimised by leadership, training and battle inoculation. ·
Any differences
between men and women concern only physical strength or stamina. This leads to the
belief that some women therefore can and should be qualified to undertake any
battle or related task using tests based purely on physicality rather than
gender. This belief unfortunately ignores those differences that are
bio-mechanical as well as, or rather than, physical in cause or effect. The
different or more prevalent injuries under battlefield and training
conditions between men and women, such as lower back, knee and ankle problems
indicate otherwise. Myths
revolving around the mistaken belief that modern war is somehow now different
than in the past and that this supposedly means it is now easier for women to
participate: ·
The nature of war
has somehow changed and changed for the better. But despite the
modernisation of weapon systems the nature of war itself remains brutal.
Modern battle can be just as brutal as in the past, particularly where ground
combat is involved. ·
Modern wars are
somehow now fought in artificial or antiseptic environments with little or no
personal inter-action. The reality is that where such human inter-action in
battle does occur, especially in ground combat, it is still a physical fight
for personal and team survival, especially in direct person-to-person
confrontations. ·
The
gender-segregated lessons of everyday contact sports are irrelevant because a
battlefield is somehow easier than a sporting field. In fact (as
discussed further below), battle is
obviously a far more lethal contest than sport so if teams and competitions
in top-tier physical contact sports continue to be organised along
single-gender lines why is this commonsense and well-accepted approach not
accepted when discussing potential physicality or bio-mechanical differences
when employing females in every combat role. Finally,
there are widespread myths due to erroneous beliefs about how other countries
supposedly employ females in their military forces compared to Australia: ·
Other countries are
very different to us in how they employ women in their military forces. Contrary to this
particularly prevalent and recurring myth, the ADF employs female personnel
in a far wider range of roles than most of the world’s armed forces
(including Israel which actually has very strict limits). We have female
sailors on all our warships, female fighter and helicopter pilots, and female
diggers in nearly every part of our ground forces. Australian employment
policies concerning female personnel do not differ much, if at all, from the
most comparable countries such as the USA, UK, Canada, New Zealand or indeed
from most ‘Western’ countries. Where they do differ, this tends to be because
we employ women more broadly or more flexibly ― or the other countries
employ modern automated weapon systems (such as self-propelled medium artillery)
that we do not yet have and such systems are more gender-neutral in the
physical sense than our older un-automated equipment. ·
Other comparable
countries that supposedly employ women more broadly than Australia have
tested and proved their policies in combat. Those countries alleged to have
broader employment of women, and to have done so with purported success, are
invariably ‘Western’ countries and ones (with the exception of Israel) with
little or no modern experience of combat. In many cases, such as Germany
which conscripts only men, or Israel where women do not serve in
combat-manouvre arms units (but do undertake national service in the police),
the examples often cited are simply incorrect. ·
The principles
underlying ADF policies are based simply on old-fashioned perceptions of
gender differences not science or empirical testing. In fact the ADF
employment categories limited to males (by government policy) are only those
in which the primary and permanent duties involve frequent,
direct, person-to-person physical combat as a core requirement ―
such as the infantry. As discussed above, the rationale for this is
essentially based on operational needs for levels of physical strength,
physical power and load-carrying stamina not met by most women (and many
men), and the disproportionate risk of female casualties under circumstances
of direct and prolonged combat. ·
The women in the
ADF feel discriminated against and are demanding to serve in every combat
role.
In fact, women do serve in virtually every combat role in the Navy and the
Air Force and most combat roles in the Army. Moreover, there is little
clamour for significant change among female ADF personnel because they do not
regard this as a gender discrimination or indeed gender equity issue. This is
because they are best placed to understand the operational logic and context
behind current government policies and have confidence in the principles
involved. They also understand that the implementation of these principles
evolves over time as technological change affects how women can be employed
effectively, fairly and with due regard to their survival in battle ―
in both absolute terms and in comparison to males. How
some sporting analogies can perhaps help
us debate the issue? Battle
means playing for keeps. Battlefields are much tougher than sporting fields,
not least because deliberately inflicting or resisting immediate death is
integrally involved. But the overall situation of where, and where not, to employ women in combat is in part analogous to premier-grade and national-level sporting teams in physical contact sports. After all, even the most ardent feminist ideologue does not demand on equity grounds that every first-grade Australian rules, rugby union and rugby league team must have equal numbers of male and female players or at least be open to female participation. The same analogy applies to boxing tournaments. Similarly, no one appears to seriously question that even in non-contact sports such as netball, when mixed-gender teams can be involved, such competitions have rules limiting the number of men allowed in each team on physicality and bio-mechanical grounds. Another
good sporting analogy demonstrating bio-mechanical and physicality
differences between the genders is the often different recovery rates
involved. In top-tier professional tennis, for example, males play matches of
five sets but females play only three. This is not because females cannot
play five-set matches on physicality grounds at the time. The decision to
limit their matches to three sets is because they tend to take longer to
recover from such high-pressure, hard-endurance, physical contests ―
and long experience at that level has shown that the risk of disabling injury
is much greater if they play five sets rather than three (chiefly due to
bio-mechanical differences between men and women). Furthermore,
where hard-contact physical sports are played by women, such as rugby and
boxing, some of the physical contact rules are modified for safety reasons or
to account for bio-mechanical differences between men and women (and in some
cases at least due to generally different standards of physicality).
Similarly, although at first glance non-contact competitive sports such as
target pistol shooting could and should be open to both genders on an equal
basis, Olympic competition in this sport has now been segregated again to
offer female contestants the opportunity to compete at such a level. Again
this is generally attributed to bio-mechanical differences rather than just
general physicality standards. All battlefields are top-tier physical contests because lives are at stake. All battlefields do not include rules or other mechanisms that somehow eradicate or mitigate bio-mechanical differences between the genders. If we commonly accept why there are usually gender-based teams on a sporting field based on bio-mechanical or physicality requirements, what makes this commonsense approach somehow inapplicable to the much tougher physical endurance and physical contact conditions of a battlefield? Moreover, the sporting field has rules and sporting contests are not fought to the death literally. The battlefield in stark contrast is an environment largely without rules governing the extent of close physical combat. Even the most fervent or well-intended ideals for absolute gender equality (based on peacetime, civil employment situations) cannot change battle’s complex physical realities and long history. Why we need to face
some strategic and cultural realities about who we send our defence force to
fight? Finally, it is also an unfortunate fact of history, culture and Australia’s strategic situation that many of our past, current and potential adversaries do not come from societies and cultures imbued with our beliefs in the rule of international humanitarian law, civilised behaviour and modern ideas of gender equality. This aspect was not discussed in the myths category above because it is not a myth. The
types of people Australia sends its military to fight are not those who make
allowances for our national sensitivity to gender-equality issues. In many
cases they simply do not understand them or regard them with contempt as a
sign of weakness or a vulnerability to be ruthlessly exploited. As an
example, during the UN-endorsed war to liberate Kuwait in 1991, most of the
US female personnel captured in Iraq were sexually assaulted or raped. Our
female soldiers already face this additional danger during combat. Whether
we should necessarily increase the numbers facing such dangers and risks
needs to be carefully considered, particularly if the reason for doing so
depends more on general ideas of gender equality in a civil environment in
Australia rather than operational effectiveness requirements in a military
setting in overseas war zones. Why
we need to acknowledge some strategic and cultural realities about Australian
society? This said, and once Australian society as a whole has properly considered this matter, a person’s decision to join the ADF necessarily involves an individual decision to risk the dangers of combat ― including any extra risks that might be involved due to family composition, physique, ethnicity, religion or gender. If, after being properly appraised of such risks, female ADF personnel are individually willing to face a greater risk of rape or sexual assault after capture by an enemy, or a greater risk of death or wounds generally, then this should remain a matter of individual choice. The ADA raises one strong caution here. It would not necessarily be fair to leave such decisions about facing greater risks in combat to the females involved without acknowledging that their military professionalism, and their aspirations to live up to community expectations and equity ideals, could mean that they feel unduly pressured to accept such higher risks and therefore cannot really exercise free choice in the matter ― either absolutely or in comparison to their male peers. Whatever the validity of the community expectations, or whatever the degree of increased risk, to put female ADF personnel under such pressure just to meet such expectations would be unfair morally and clearly inequitable in practice. Why we need to pay
attention to facts and logic, not theory? There continue to be sound moral, operational and equity reasons why Australian Government policy authorises the employment of females so broadly in our defence force. For the same balance of reasons such employment, by necessity, is not yet total. |
|
Home
|
Latest Comment
|
Issues Index
|
Defender |
Defence Brief |
Membership |
Subscriptions
To preserve its independence and ensure transparency the corporate
administrative structure of the
Copyright
© 1997-2012
Australia Defence
Association.
All Rights Reserved. |