In the battle for equality, women have had a historic win, with the Defence Force finally opening up combat roles for females.
“If an individual woman has got the physical, mental and psychological capacity to do a job, then if they can do the job on merit, pass the same standards that a man passes, qualify in the same way a man does, then she should not be excluded,” said Defence Minister Stephen Smith, as he announced the changes yesterday.
Over the next five years, all ranks — including special elite forces and front-line positions — will now be open to women. Currently women can work only in 93% of defence jobs. Just 4.5% of senior military ranks are held by females, although women make up 18.5% of the Defence Force.
Smith said he hoped the change would see more women in senior military roles. “We’ve seen over the years a slow, but nonetheless progressive increase in the number of women in senior positions. But this change will effectively enable into the future women to fall for consideration for all of the positions including the highest.”
The changes will have the biggest effect in the army, which has the largest number of combat roles.
The fast-tracking of the women on the front-line issue came after criticisms the Defence Department mishandled an incident earlier this year when an 18-year-old cadet was filmed without her consent having s-x with another cadet, with the act broadcast via Skype to other cadets who were watching. Smith announced that women would be allowed on the front line in April, but now the issue has the full support of Defence officials.
Neil James, from the Australian Defence Association, said he was disappointed Smith didn’t want for a review currently under way by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation before implementing the changes. “It’s a pity he didn’t wait until the science is in,” said James. “He should have waited for the report so the public debate would be more logical.”
Troy Shepherd at The Punch goes through all the current myths and stereotypes about women on the front line, knocking each argument on its head:
“Women will endanger troops because men will take their eyes off the prize, lose sight of the mission, if a woman is in danger. Gallantry will be our downfall.
Then the Force needs to choose different men, or train them better on how to prioritise.
Women will be more at risk of r-pe.
Leaving the house increases your risk of r-pe. They’re grown ups. If there are extra risks, tell them. Many activities carry extra risks. Good on you for being so caring, so chivalrous. If it’s your daughter, your wife, have that conversation on a personal level. Don’t presume to tell all women it’s too nasty out there for them. That way lies chastity belts. Work out the risks and do the best you can to reduce them.”
Meanwhile, a new report, commissioned by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, found that “subliminal and intangible discrimination is holding women back in the workforce and helping to entrench the nation’s gender pay gap,” reports Ruth Williams in The Sydney Morning Herald.
It’s a about the general acceptance of fundamental gender equality. Nothing more, nothing less. How it works out in practice depends on the capacity and ability of an individual to perform a specified task.
At last, a job for us lesbians who aren’t interested in running alternative theatre groups 🙂
Amber…
I realise that this is only a media wrap but PLEASE don’t give that Neil James and his little tin-pot Defence Association any oxygen on Crikey.
The ADA was set up in the early 1970s by Bob Santamaria as the Vietnam War went pear-shaped. The idea was to provide a sort of “union” for the defence force… that could speak “in their interests” without actually “representing” them in any way.
There are very good reasons why the Australian military isn’t unionised… it creates organisation within organisations and violates the chain of direct command. And, constitutionally and legally, the hand at the end of that chain is the elected parliament, not the blokes wearing braid and funny hats.
“Speaking in their interests” means attacking any government – not just Labor – that dares interfere with the established order of things or exercises any control over the military. The ADA does little else.
It is inherently conservative as a result – araldited to the status quo and the interests of the incumbent military leadership. This “activity” has run to defending the playful hijinx at ADFA, spreading scurrilous rumours concerning the victim, through to attacking any attempt to charge or investigate cases of alleged crimes by serving soldiers in Afghanistan or Iraq.
But more importantly, the key role is to fend off and denigrate any attempt by civilians ( whether from the Defence Department, or the elected parliament) to exercise any scrutiny or direction over our “men in uniform”. It is a highly subversive outfit and warrants serious attention from ASIO and others.
Interestingly the board of directors consists of the usual bunch of old NSW right wing ALP groupers and retired desk jockey warriors but also one Natasha Stott Despojia – for reasons that completely escape me given James public comments against women at every possible occasion.
The ADA is worth a serious examination – not easy, Mr James is nothing if not prolific … a smokescreen of his history appears on their website … but I’d be starting with the Board of Directors myself and their financial affairs.
So please – no more quotes in Crikey from this ratbag. Next thin about the ADA should be an expose.
@PeterOrmonde
Too right!
And while we’re at it, how about a ban on quotes from the multinational corporate oligarchy called Greenpeace?
Stiofan…
Last time I looked, Greenpeace only claims to speak for itself …I don’t know enough about its internal workings to say whether that is enough or whether the leadership actually represents its members. Feel free to enlighten me.
What amazes and concerns me is why anyone would be interested to know the views of an outfit run by old union hacks, and ex-feminist Senator and a retired desk general about issues of military matters, and the relationship with the elected government. Yet the media gives James a platform whenever the Minister, the Department or the parliament intrudes into an area apparently the sole responsibility of blokes in funny hats, according to the ADA.
Mr James must be most careful in explaining who he actually represents … anonymous “concerned citizens”, the ADA (whoever that is) but not – definitely not – the serving military, whose views they actually appear to represent, while simultaneously denying it.
It is a curious outfit indeed.