Great idea, doubt any will make the grade, but great idea; well until they start coming home in body bags that is.

I doubt Australians have the stomache for women being killed and maimed in combat.



WOMEN will be allowed to serve in frontline combat roles after the Gillard government ordered the Australian Defence Force to bring forward the removal of bans that have stopped women from applying for the most dangerous and demanding military jobs.
The historic decision by Defence Minister Stephen Smith means women who meet the tough physical standards required of their male counterparts will now be able to serve in elite special forces units such as the SAS, work as naval clearance divers and join general infantry and armoured units.

The decision to fast-track women into combat roles coincided with the announcement of a raft of reviews and inquiries into the treatment of women in the defence force spurred by the Skype sex scandal.

About 93 per cent of all jobs in the military are currently open to women, including serving in submarines and piloting fighter jets, with the 7 per cent of jobs closed to women mostly in the army.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/combat-roles-offered-to-women/story-fn59niix-1226037485919

I hope they are not being sexist as they normally are when they make changes for women. They had better be on the same footing with conscription for men.

This is a smokescreen for the government to be seen to be doing 'something', even if it is totally unrelated to the current defense 'crisis'.
I just hope that the enemies our troops are sent off to kill in foreign lands are as politically correct as our government is, should any be captured in combat.
Perhaps the government could issue the Taliban with a nice glossy flyer in Employment Diversity and Equal Opportunity for Women.
More stupidity from Labor.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 7:23am:

This is a smokescreen for the government to be seen to be doing 'something', even if it is totally unrelated to the current defense 'crisis'. I just hope that the enemies our troops are sent off to kill in foreign lands are as politically correct as our government is, should any be captured in combat. Perhaps the government could issue the Taliban with a nice glossy flyer in Employment Diversity and Equal Opportunity for Women. More stupidity from Labor.

Israel has had women in the front line for yonks..as smith said they then will get to be the top jockey in the ADF...


wouldnt like to do it myself.. where women get the strength to just carry the gear is a mystery to me.

cods wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 7:37am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 12th, 2011 at 7:23am: This is a smokescreen for the government to be seen to be doing 'something', even if it is totally unrelated to the current defense 'crisis'. I just hope that the enemies our troops are sent off to kill in foreign lands are as politically correct as our government is, should any be captured in combat. Perhaps the government could issue the Taliban with a nice glossy flyer in Employment Diversity and Equal Opportunity for Women. More stupidity from Labor. Israel has had women in the front line for yonks..as smith said they then will get to be the top jockey in the ADF... wouldnt like to do it myself.. where women get the strength to just carry the gear is a mystery to me.

Israel certainly has had women in combat roles and for a few decades now, but Israel has never been one to send their combat troops to foreign lands on the other side of the globe.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 7:41am:

cods wrote on Apr 12th, 2011 at 7:37am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 12th, 2011 at 7:23am: This is a smokescreen for the government to be seen to be doing 'something', even if it is totally unrelated to the current defense 'crisis'. I just hope that the enemies our troops are sent off to kill in foreign lands are as politically correct as our government is, should any be captured in combat. Perhaps the government could issue the Taliban with a nice glossy flyer in Employment Diversity and Equal Opportunity for Women. More stupidity from Labor. Israel has had women in the front line for yonks..as smith said they then will get to be the top jockey in the ADF... wouldnt like to do it myself.. where women get the strength to just carry the gear is a mystery to me. Israel certainly has had women in combat roles and for a few decades now, but Israel has never been one to send their combat troops to foreign lands on the other side of the globe.

Hey chook

Israel has female combantants as a matter of survival, not political expediency. Without the extra troops they would have quickly ceased to exist, we do not have that problem.

Back in '86 labor first brought out the anit-discrimination act, the RAAF had to change the way the trained recruits, no more separate courses for males and females. Simple enough, just make the course easy enough for females and the 'lesser' males can just slide through instead of being cut from the system.

We ended up with a bunch of males that should never have passed and in the past they would have been shiat canned, but after '86 they got though easy as.  >:(

This is a token proposal which not only wastes time, but also costs money.  Women can have a role, but never a front line role where they actually get shot at. Even the Israeli Army do NOT have women actually on the front line getting shot at, maybe mossad yes.  The only instance where women do actually get to kill the enemy is as fast jet pilots (RAF, US, Canada), and there are not many of them; missile control in the Navy, and maybe the same in the Army.  Female SF is laughable; it’s extremely hard for a very fit man to pass selection let alone a woman, so what’s the bloody point?

Once again common sense is taken over by political correctness, and political/media BS and stupidity.

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 7:47am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 12th, 2011 at 7:41am: cods wrote on Apr 12th, 2011 at 7:37am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 12th, 2011 at 7:23am: This is a smokescreen for the government to be seen to be doing 'something', even if it is totally unrelated to the current defense 'crisis'. I just hope that the enemies our troops are sent off to kill in foreign lands are as politically correct as our government is, should any be captured in combat. Perhaps the government could issue the Taliban with a nice glossy flyer in Employment Diversity and Equal Opportunity for Women. More stupidity from Labor. Israel has had women in the front line for yonks..as smith said they then will get to be the top jockey in the ADF... wouldnt like to do it myself.. where women get the strength to just carry the gear is a mystery to me. Israel certainly has had women in combat roles and for a few decades now, but Israel has never been one to send their combat troops to foreign lands on the other side of the globe. Hey chook Israel has female combantants as a matter of survival, not political expediency. Without the extra troops they would have quickly ceased to exist, we do not have that problem. Back in '86 labor first brought out the anit-discrimination act, the RAAF had to change the way the trained recruits, no more separate courses for males and females. Simple enough, just make the course easy enough for females and the 'lesser' males can just slide through instead of being cut from the system. We ended up with a bunch of males that should never have passed and in the past they would have been shiat canned, but after '86 they got though easy as.  >:(

Well they had to drop recruiting standards just to make up the numbers in all the services.
The relaxation of disciplinary standards during the eighties in the Navy Recruit School did the service no favours in the long run.
When I joined up in Jan 1975, nine others failed to make the grade for every one of us that that did make that intake.
I suspect quite a few that shouldn't have passed did by the time standards were lowered in the mid eighties.
The highlight for me was in the nineties with ships were to sail to the Arabian Gulf to enforce the embargo on Iraq, and that particular sailor crying and blubbering on the wharf at Garden Island to the media cameras because the girly man didn't want to go to sea for six months.
Absolutely disgusting affair, he must have thought he signed up on the 'Love Boat'.
And Labor's latest PC decision is merely a smoke screen in an attempt at deflection from the real issues.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 9:21am:

The highlight for me was in the nineties with ships were to sail to the Arabian Gulf to enforce the embargo on Iraq, and that particular sailor crying and blubbering on the wharf at Garden Island to the media cameras because the girly man didn't want to go to sea for six months. Absolutely disgusting affair, he must have thought he signed up on the 'Love Boat'.

Yeh I was in then, a total fuken embarassment for everyone in the ADF, the sook should have been discharged Services No longer Required.  >:(

Low standards and low expectations, breed poor quality servicemen.

Sure, 'allow' to enter the SAS.

But if even one woman in the whole of australia can pass the selection criteria, I will eat my hat.  

next 'sensitivity training' will be compulsory for all combat troops.  FFS, their role is to fight, not talk things through with the enemy over tea and scones.

viewpoint wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 8:51am:

This is a token proposal which not only wastes time, but also costs money.  Women can have a role, but never a front line role where they actually get shot at. Even the Israeli Army do NOT have women actually on the front line getting shot at, maybe mossad yes.  The only instance where women do actually get to kill the enemy is as fast jet pilots (RAF, US, Canada), and there are not many of them; missile control in the Navy, and maybe the same in the Army.  Female SF is laughable; it’s extremely hard for a very fit man to pass selection let alone a woman, so what’s the bloody point? Once again common sense is taken over by political correctness, and political/media BS and stupidity.

We agree for once, in fact I'll go further & say this is brought up now to take some of the heat out of the current scandal at the college.
Classic tactics, a diversion on the flanks to divert attention while the main objective is overrun.
It seems to be working >:(

Women have been in combat roles for years. This is just the opening up of the last bastion, the really physical roles like Clearance Diver Special Forces and Infantry.  I doubt they will have many takers and even fewer will meet the standards. Although having said that, females in these roles is not new (except for CD) There were infantry units made up of women on the Eastern Front during WWII and the British SOE had female operatives all over Europe.

I too remember cringing with embarrassment as those pathetic excuses for men cried and whined about deployment to the Gulf. The hierarchy should have started discharge proceedings that day and pissed these wastes of space off. >:(

... wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 10:07am:

Sure, 'allow' to enter the SAS. But if even one woman in the whole of australia can pass the selection criteria, I will eat my hat.   next 'sensitivity training' will be compulsory for all combat troops.  FFS, their role is to fight, not talk things through with the enemy over tea and scones.

talking of sensitivity how about you spend a few hours in the Labour ward with a woman who has been in labour for 24 hours...

I think you misconscrue the sentitive part.. its about how to treat your fellow officer.. or comrade.. woman should not be subject to being raped as if its someones right to do so.. we are appalled if it happens when they are in the war zone..so why should their fellow soldiers be any different..


I agree smithy this is just the usual redherring .. to take our eye off the ball

they complain how shocking it was to bring this cadets charge of drinking before the court.... insensitive I think the word was so whats different about saying we will let woman go to the front so they can further their careers in the ADF...what has that got to do with anything that is on the table??..

they think we are stupid that makes me even madder.

cods wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 10:43am:

... wrote on Apr 12th, 2011 at 10:07am: Sure, 'allow' to enter the SAS. But if even one woman in the whole of australia can pass the selection criteria, I will eat my hat.   next 'sensitivity training' will be compulsory for all combat troops.  FFS, their role is to fight, not talk things through with the enemy over tea and scones. talking of sensitivity how about you spend a few hours in the Labour ward with a woman who has been in labour for 24 hours... I think you misconscrue the sentitive part.. its about how to treat your fellow officer.. or comrade.. woman should not be subject to being raped as if its someones right to do so.. we are appalled if it happens when they are in the war zone..so why should their fellow soldiers be any different.. I agree smithy this is just the usual redherring .. to take our eye off the ball they complain how shocking it was to bring this cadets charge of drinking before the court.... insensitive I think the word was so whats different about saying we will let woman go to the front so they can further their careers in the ADF...what has that got to do with anything that is on the table??.. they think we are stupid that makes me even madder.

Already done it - twice.

Anyway, my comment here has nothing to do with the issue this move is supposed take our attention away from.

I think people forget what the purpose of the armed forces is - it's not some big, all inclusive love-in.

War is hell, let's not pretend otherwise.

I say :

Give me eastern trimmin', where women are women
In high silk hose and peek a boo clothes
And french perfume that rocks the room
And I'm all yours  in buttons and bows.        :)

Don't agree with women in the front line. Equal opportunity gone mad.
They'll be letting in gays next.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 11:11am:

Don't agree with women in the front line. Equal opportunity gone mad. They'll be letting in gays next.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
DADT

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 11:28am:

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 12th, 2011 at 11:11am: Don't agree with women in the front line. Equal opportunity gone mad. They'll be letting in gays next. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D DADT

Educate me smithy, what does DADT stand for?

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 11:41am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 12th, 2011 at 11:28am: bogarde73 wrote on Apr 12th, 2011 at 11:11am: Don't agree with women in the front line. Equal opportunity gone mad. They'll be letting in gays next. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D DADT Educate me smithy, what does DADT stand for?

Don't Ask, Don't Tell
It's the American answer to the Gay thing

Thanks.

Thanks smithy -  you learn something new ever day.  Your comment prompted me to look up the "American answer to the gay thing "  


Don't ask, don't tellFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"DADT" redirects here. For the television syndication company, see Disney-ABC Domestic Television.
For other uses, see Don't ask, don't tell (disambiguation).

Part of a series on
Lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender (LGBT)
rights
           


Laws around the world
Recognition of relationships
Same-sex marriage
LGBT adoption
Military service
Immigration issues

Violence against
LGBT people
Legal aspects of
transsexualism
LGBT rights organizations
Opposition
           


LGBT portal
v · d · e
Don't ask, don't tell (DADT) is the term commonly used for the policy restricting United States military personnel from efforts to discriminate or harass closeted homosexual or bisexual service members or applicants, while barring those who are openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual from military service. The restrictions are mandated by federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). The policy prohibits people who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because their presence "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." (10 U.S.C. § 654(b)) The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The act specifies that service members who disclose that they are homosexual or engage in homosexual conduct shall be separated (discharged) except when a service member's conduct was "for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service" or when it "would not be in the best interest of the armed forces" (10 U.S.C. § 654(e)).

I like the idea of lady soldiers, just think.  When they get a bit bored between actions, the troops could all have a party, make a porno movie.

Ooooops, that one`s been done! :-[

I just do not see  why women would want to be in that position in the first place.Psychologically and physically it is crazy. Would not want to fight any bloke. Yes I am a feminist, but not on this one. It is way scary that Julia has agreed on this, she should know better. Jeez, I thought she was smarter. Insane. :'(

Women should be allowed into combat roles when sporting teams are not separated out along gender lines. Before then it's just the usual mindless stupidity we have come to expect from idiots who come up with this sort of thing.

Why not have mixed boxing teams? Wrestling? What about athletics - running, jumping, javelin? Swimming? WHe have separate men's and women's teams?

Next thing, they'll want to drive tractors!!

http://www.1930shanghai.com/items/522585/picture1.jpg

cods wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 7:37am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 12th, 2011 at 7:23am: This is a smokescreen for the government to be seen to be doing 'something', even if it is totally unrelated to the current defense 'crisis'. I just hope that the enemies our troops are sent off to kill in foreign lands are as politically correct as our government is, should any be captured in combat. Perhaps the government could issue the Taliban with a nice glossy flyer in Employment Diversity and Equal Opportunity for Women. More stupidity from Labor. Israel has had women in the front line for yonks..as smith said they then will get to be the top jockey in the ADF... wouldnt like to do it myself.. where women get the strength to just carry the gear is a mystery to me.

I too got the impression from Minister Smith that women will only ever be promoted to the upper echelons of the ADF if they have been permitted to serve on the front line...

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/SmithTranscripttpl.cfm?CurrentId=11682


Quote:

One of the reasons we announced it yesterday, in terms of bringing forward the implementation, was this very important point: because women are excluded from those roles, they are also, effectively, excluded from some of the senior leadership positions in the services. And by opening this up to women in the longer term, then women will be able to have aspirations - legitimate aspirations, leadership aspirations for all of the leadership positions in the force.

I'm ambivalent about this proposal because I can't fathom why anyone - male or female - would want to fight on the front line anyway...

If selection and training processes are sufficiently rigorous, then it is conceivable that some (but not all) female recruits would meet the same minimum combat aptitude standards as their male counterparts...

Hence, if women put themselves forward for front line duties - and they meet the usual criteria - then there should be no reason why they should be excluded...

This is about removing the remaining arbitrary gender barriers - not about guaranteeing front line jobs for women per se...

moronic post from equitist

I agree that women have a right to be in any other role in the ADF. Just seems stupid and annoys me that some women think it might be cool to be in that position. NOT COOL. Women and men do react emotionally different.  Men can be a lot colder and turn off. Women do not. No offense.

and i like driving tractors!

SOMEBODY NEEDS TO MAKE MY BED

SOMEBODY NEEDS TO WASH THE DISHES

ask your boyfriend

SOMEBODY NEEDS TO CLEAN MY SH!T UP

MY ROOM IS DIRTY AND YOU'RE SITTING HERE ARGUING ABOUT FEMINISM

male hero crashes feminist rally

http://www.mentalzero.com/Guy-Crashes-Feminist-Rally-In-Funniest-Way-Possible-2034.html

get with the program. Just stating the whole stupidity of war.

make my bed

just proves it

proves what

hahahahahaha

make my bed / clean my room

now

stop arguing about stupid feminist sh!t and clean my room

Bahaha. Cue lots of whinging males trying to prevent girls from fighting their wars. Hey if you're so pissed off about it, get off your arse and do it yourself. Otherwise, give 'em a salute and shut the bugger up. cause at least they have the heart to go and fight for their country.

Blasko wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 2:20am:

Bahaha. Cue lots of whinging males trying to prevent girls from fighting their wars. Hey if you're so pissed off about it, get off your arse and do it yourself. Otherwise, give 'em a salute and shut the bugger up. cause at least they have the heart to go and fight for their country.

No actual women have applied to front line combat rolse and those in the ADF know axactly what is involved, it's only the numbskulls that think it just another gender barrier beating this drum.

The miniscule percentage of females capable and willing is so small that I doubt we will see one any time soon if at all in the next few decades.

I agree. This is only a reactionary attempt to sway away from the initial problematic issue regarding sexual harrasment. I do not think any of those heirarchical women in power would actually want to be in a combat role. I understand gender equality but when does it over ride commonsense? If a strong woman wants to be in a boxing ring with any random male, would people think she has the right or is just plain stupid? I still think the latter. Come on sisters... Id rather us use our brains.

Never mind involving yourself in a testosterone maxime. Ugh. No romance there. Women have the right to be in the ADF and serve there country, absolutely.....it just seems crazy to want to in direct combat.

I mean 'their' country and dont bother with any lines on the romance..... ::)

It is only a diversion from the sex thing, is it going to happen well no probably not.

Do I care either way = NO.

Correct.

Just think it would make the situation worse.

Since all this argument has evolved after the adf scandals? Do you guys think that women will be promoted to frontline and combat roles? What is the difference between the two: frontline and combat roles? :o

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 6:50am:

Great idea, doubt any will make the grade, but great idea; well until they start coming home in body bags that is. I doubt Australians have the stomache for women being killed and maimed in combat. WOMEN will be allowed to serve in frontline combat roles after the Gillard government ordered the Australian Defence Force to bring forward the removal of bans that have stopped women from applying for the most dangerous and demanding military jobs. The historic decision by Defence Minister Stephen Smith means women who meet the tough physical standards required of their male counterparts will now be able to serve in elite special forces units such as the SAS, work as naval clearance divers and join general infantry and armoured units. The decision to fast-track women into combat roles coincided with the announcement of a raft of reviews and inquiries into the treatment of women in the defence force spurred by the Skype sex scandal. About 93 per cent of all jobs in the military are currently open to women, including serving in submarines and piloting fighter jets, with the 7 per cent of jobs closed to women mostly in the army. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/combat-roles-offered-to-women/story-fn59niix-1226037485919

Real women want real equality.  The lives of both women and men are equally sacred.

okay  changed my mind . Fair rights for all. I f you want to fight in combat and have the skills go for it!

... wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 10:07am:

Sure, 'allow' to enter the SAS. But if even one woman in the whole of australia can pass the selection criteria, I will eat my hat.

Valid point, as it is unlikely that any female would have the core strength to get though the rigourous training requirements.

Hope they start making tasty "hats". As you say, nothing is as inevitable like change.

pepper wrote on Jun 21^st, 2011 at 2:21pm:

Hope they start making tasty "hats". As you say, nothing is as inevitable like change.

You will find that was Wesley Pipes that eats hats Pepper.

As for change, any female thinking of SAS service will need to do the exact same physical tests as a man, for example carry a certain weighted pack and so much equipment for so long and so far.
All the packs will be the same, and they are not going to alter the test because in a real combat situation, the boys aren't very well going to carry her equipment for her.
So unless a female can have the same physical core strength as a highly fit young male, she simply won't pass the entrance tests.

pepper wrote on Jun 21^st, 2011 at 2:21pm:

Hope they start making tasty "hats". As you say, nothing is as inevitable like change.

Tis a pretty rigorous selection process, and given the much smaller base of potential female applicants, it'd be no mean feat for her to make it through.  In certain psychological aspects, women may have an advantage over men, but that's just 1 piece of the puzzle.  


Quote:

Selection is open to all serving Australian military personnel and involves a 3 week selection course which assesses both individual attributes and the ability to work effectively in a small team.[29] Prior to selection SASR candidates will face a paper board convened by the Special Forces Training Centre (SFTC) to check records and see which part of the service they are vying for.[30] Candidates then have to pass the SFTC Special Forces Psych Test and a Special Forces Medical Board to assess their psychological and medical suitability for the SASR.[30] 80% will meet the standard and continue to the Special Forces Entry Test that tests their physical fitness and includes push-ups, endurance marches and swimming; 64% of applicants will pass the Special Forces Entry Test and continue on to the three week SASR selection course, [30] and 16% of applicants will pass the SASR selection course.[31] Following selection candidates must complete up to 18 months of further courses before they join a squadron as a junior trooper or troop commander (Captain). A wide array of training and courses are also conducted throughout a SASR soldier's career to allow the regiment to have the most highly-qualified soldiers in the Australian Defence Force. Officers only complete the necessary basic courses to qualify them for service in the unit, as their expertise is in planning and administration. In general, they do not get the opportunity to complete all the specialist courses required of the ORs.

A taste of things to come.


Quote:

(Reuters) - A federal lawsuit filed on Tuesday accuses Corpus Christi, Texas of discriminating against female applicants to the city's police department by requiring them to pass a physical test that favored men. The Justice Department said the female pass rate for the test, which was used between 2005 and 2011, was 80 percent lower than the male pass rate and that it excluded otherwise qualified applicants from consideration for hire as entry-level police officers based solely on their gender. The test, which included push-ups, sit-ups, and a 300-meter and 1.5-mile run, had identical cut-off scores for men and women. But between 2005 and 2009, only 19 percent of the female applicants who took the test passed it, compared with 63 percent of the male applicants, according to the Justice Department. It said the disparate results "constitute a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment by women of their rights to equal employment opportunities regardless of their sex." The government wants to city to stop using the physical ability test and to develop hiring procedures that comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It also wants the city to hire some of the women turned away in the past and to offer them retroactive seniority and back pay. The complaint comes after a 2-1/2 year probe of the city's hiring practices by the Justice Department. Troy Riggs, a current assistant city manager and former police chief of Corpus Christi, said the city had cooperated with the investigation and planned to abide by any consent decree the court imposed. "We have never disagreed with the Department of Justice," Riggs said. "We believe its correct for them to be looking at us and that the city has failed in some respects in the past. We've been wrong. When we get a consent decree, we'll live by it." Riggs said that even as the investigation continued, the city had increased its effort to recruit female officers with some success. Of the 18 officers who graduated from the city's police academy in 2011, 3 were women, Riggs said. That made them 16.6 percent of the class, compared with a national average of 13 percent, he said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/04/us-usa-police-discrimination-idUSBRE86300820120704

Did you get that?  IDENTICAL requirements are "discriminating" against women. 

What should be the most important requirement for a police officer, intelligence or the ability to run a marathon with a full pack?

Both. 

Book learning won't save you when a 6' 5" madman is out for your blood. 

The mother of a friend of mine commanded an all-girl (the oldest was about 22)
T-34 tank crew at the Battle of Kursk, during WW2, on the Russian side.

They all survived the war.

So, they CAN do it.

The question is, unless a total-war scenario exists, why would they WANT to?

Maybe they think they were short-changed because they were born without
testicles, so have to 'prove' themselves equal?

What implications does this study carry for women in combat.

Worrying impairs female brains: study

If you're a born worrier, reading this won't calm you down. A new study has found that anxiety causes womens' brains to work harder than those of men and impairs performance.


Researchers at Michigan State University, set out to discover why anxiety, and worry in particular, is twice as prevalent in women as men and asked a group of college students to carry out a series of tasks while their brain activity was measured by an electrode cap. Only the women who acknowledged they were worriers, recorded high brain activity when they made mistakes during the task. "Our results suggest that anxiety impacts women's frontal brain regions dedicated to decision-making more so than men's," said Jason Moser, Assistant Professor in the department of Psychology at the university and lead investigator on the project. "Anxious girls' brains have to work harder to perform tasks because they have distracting thoughts and worries," he said. "As a result their brains are being kind of burned out by thinking so much."


http://www.northerndailyleader.com.au/news/national/national/general/worrying-impairs-female-brains-study/2617724.aspx

... wrote on Jul 9^th, 2012 at 11:50am:

A taste of things to come. Quote: (Reuters) - A federal lawsuit filed on Tuesday accuses Corpus Christi, Texas of discriminating against female applicants to the city's police department by requiring them to pass a physical test that favored men. The Justice Department said the female pass rate for the test, which was used between 2005 and 2011, was 80 percent lower than the male pass rate and that it excluded otherwise qualified applicants from consideration for hire as entry-level police officers based solely on their gender. The test, which included push-ups, sit-ups, and a 300-meter and 1.5-mile run, had identical cut-off scores for men and women. But between 2005 and 2009, only 19 percent of the female applicants who took the test passed it, compared with 63 percent of the male applicants, according to the Justice Department. It said the disparate results "constitute a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment by women of their rights to equal employment opportunities regardless of their sex." The government wants to city to stop using the physical ability test and to develop hiring procedures that comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It also wants the city to hire some of the women turned away in the past and to offer them retroactive seniority and back pay. The complaint comes after a 2-1/2 year probe of the city's hiring practices by the Justice Department. Troy Riggs, a current assistant city manager and former police chief of Corpus Christi, said the city had cooperated with the investigation and planned to abide by any consent decree the court imposed. "We have never disagreed with the Department of Justice," Riggs said. "We believe its correct for them to be looking at us and that the city has failed in some respects in the past. We've been wrong. When we get a consent decree, we'll live by it." Riggs said that even as the investigation continued, the city had increased its effort to recruit female officers with some success. Of the 18 officers who graduated from the city's police academy in 2011, 3 were women, Riggs said. That made them 16.6 percent of the class, compared with a national average of 13 percent, he said. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/04/us-usa-police-discrimination-idUSBRE86300820120704 Did you get that?  IDENTICAL requirements are "discriminating" against women.

Labor did that to the RAAF back in the 80's to meet their 'anti-discrimination' policies, everyone new the vast majority of females would never pass the recruiting requirements that the males had,so they just lowered the requirements so females could pass; simple.

Problem was that the weak / unacceptable males that would normally would get tossed out on their arse now get to stay in, just what the RAAF was looking for, a whole bunch of sub-standard males.  >:(

No point in asking clueless ideologues about it - why don't we ask the people who would know? 


Quote:

Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal Author: Capt Katie Petronio http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal As a combat-experienced Marine officer, and a female, I am here to tell you that we are not all created equal, and attempting to place females in the infantry will not improve the Marine Corps as the Nation’s force-in-readiness or improve our national security.

Quote:

Which once again leads me, as a ground combat-experienced female Marine Corps officer, to ask, what are we trying to accomplish by attempting to fully integrate women into the infantry? For those who dictate policy, changing the current restrictions associated with women in the infantry may not seem significant to the way the Marine Corps operates. I vehemently disagree; this potential change will rock the foundation of our Corps for the worse and will weaken what has been since 1775 the world’s most lethal fighting force. In the end, for DACOWITS and any other individual or organization looking to increase opportunities for female Marines, I applaud your efforts and say thank you. However, for the long-term health of our female Marines, the Marine Corps, and U.S. national security, steer clear of the Marine infantry community when calling for more opportunities for females. Let’s embrace our differences to further hone in on the Corps’ success instead of dismantling who we are to achieve a political agenda. Regardless of the outcome, we will be “Semper Fidelis” and remain focused on our mission to protect and defend the United States of America.

She just must be some kinda mysogynist eh?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D