A nation that involves its women in front-line combat, engaging in close infantry, hand-to-hand confrontation and lethal actions, reflects a nation that either trivializes combat or fails to honor women.
This unfortunate choice to permit women access to all combat roles within the Australian military propels Australia closer to both scenarios. It will diminish our military’s effectiveness and respect, and lead to diminished respect for women as well.
This choice stems from a postmodern illusion, an ideology-induced distortion of nature that stands in opposition to reason, common sense, military professionalism, and all human experience. It undoubtedly indicates that the Gillard government has largely ceased to take defense matters seriously.
For those seeking cynical interpretations, it’s worth noting that the announcement followed closely after polls indicated Julia Gillard was facing challenges with female voters. Alternatively, one might deduce that managing the defense force as a means of social engineering and feminist messaging enhances the leadership image of Defence Minister Stephen Smith. The fact that the opposition accepted this maneuver reveals its political shrewdness and growing emptiness regarding core values.
This is an exceedingly poor decision.
The government’s assertion that military leaders endorse it lacks substance. Military leaders support whatever the government directs them to endorse. That is the essence of civilian control over the military. However, this choice is detrimental to the military, harmful to women, and detrimental to Australian society overall. Recent media reports indicated that Canada and New Zealand are the only nations implementing similar policies, though there might be a few other militaries doing the same. They do so because they are not earnest about military matters.
Israel, having learned from difficult experiences, has enlisted women in a variety of roles typically filled by men, yet the Israeli army does not integrate women in
infantry or other killing units meant for close-quarters combat. The United States, which also grapples with the impacts of political correctness, refrains from this practice, understanding that it cannot be done effectively.
Let’s break this down further.
Firstly, consider the physical standards. The soldiers in the army likely represent the fittest, strongest 20 percent of men in society. Of that group, perhaps only 10 percent could qualify as special forces candidates. That translates to merely 2 percent of men. There is no significant number of women who can fulfill those physical prerequisites. Discussions about establishing objective physical criteria for tasks and ensuring those criteria are gender-neutral lack substance.
Enduring a night’s march with a 50kg pack and remaining combat-ready the following day does not derive from abstract standards; instead, it comes from genuine understanding of what the most resilient and robust men can endure. Should the SAS transition to being unisex, the option rests on either substantially lowering physical standards to accommodate more women or maintaining a nominal unisex approach where, in reality, women remain absent. Indeed, this latter scenario—gender-neutral in theory but with no women present in practice—represents the only minimally acceptable outcome this misguided policy could achieve.
Additionally, there would be significant disruption to the small-unit cohesion that a combat military unit tirelessly strives to build and sustain, often proving critical between life and death in actual combat scenarios. This decision is not fundamentally about women.In combat zones, or even within specific combat roles like fighter pilots or on warships, the focus shifts to women serving in the infantry, in units explicitly designed for close-quarter engagement.
There tends to be an unease in Australian conversations regarding the function of military units. Our special forces in Afghanistan are tasked with hunting and eliminating Taliban and al-Qa’ida members. In a just war, their actions are morally justified, and according to the laws of war, they are indeed obligated to exercise extreme violence and lethality.
This recent ruling that expects women to engage in such activities is counterintuitive.
Should we encourage women to compete in unisex professional boxing matches against men?
If not, why not?
Professional boxing, while demanding, is far less intense and violent compared to facing the Taliban. Would we support women participating in this weekend’s National Rugby League grand final, facing full tackles from players like Brent Kite or Manu Vatuvei?
If not, why not?
Compared to combat missions for the SAS, the NRL seems like a walk in the park.
This leads us to one of the most contentious debates that postmodern ideologies have with human nature: the belief that there are no inherent spiritual or moral differences between men and women. It mirrors a scene in Life of Brian, where a man insists on his right to bear children.
This represents an assault on all traditions and established wisdom, as society acknowledges men and women’s equality yet is pressured to accept the absurdity that they are fundamentally identical.
Such a decision marks yet another challenge to the concept of chivalry. In Australia, as in many societies, domestic violence is predominantly perpetrated by men against women, for two principal reasons: men are generally larger and more aggressive than women. Civilizing humanity includes teaching men to manage their aggression effectively. Good soldiers often excel in controlling their aggression. An essential aspect of civility involves recognizing that men have special obligations of courtesy and protection towards women.
To speak this truth nowadays invites mockery and condemnation. Yet, is there any decent husband who does not feel this way towards his wife and daughters? If your family were threatened, would you send your wife to confront the attackers first?
Countries that claim to practice gender equality in military engagements are often those that do not take their militaries seriously, as they do not face substantial threats. Australia, unfortunately, cannot afford this perspective. This decision is profoundly misguided, lacking depth and substance, and while it may hold some meaning, it is detrimental to our soldiers and the broader society.
by Mike Hansom
