Bob Brown - de facto Prime Minister of Australia

All you guys that have been shooting your big mouths off about this guy should learn to pull your heads in.

I do not agree with all he says but one thing I will say is that he gives answers a thousand fold more intelligent then most here like Adultboy and Magoo.

Judging purely by the quality of the posts, the answers to posts, the childishness of some posts, the significance of answers to topic, the percentage of pure girly name calling to truly witty or satirical answers. To the obviously well read and thought out replies to the blatantly obvious propaganda spin one would be forgiven for thinking that Mega was a mature aged thinker while Adultboy and Magoo could easily be mistaken for school children trying to fit into a grown up world

 

So our Government has decided to send Australian women to war in the front
line. What a disgrace....once again this Government lurches from one incompetent decision to another...this is wrong...totally wrong...

 

Why exactly do you object to women being in the front line?

Personally, I object to all humans fighting in wars (both men and women), but why do you find it particularly wrong for women to fight?

 

Women in the front line fighting wars is wrong. Women are to be cherished and loved, not sent to war.

 

I agree.

However, I also think men should be cherished and loved.

Do you think it's ok for men to be sent to war?

If so, why is it ok for men but "wrong" for women?

 

No sane person likes war, but when it happens men are better at it overall. Plain and simple. If you start having women getting blown apart next to you then it makes it hard to come home to something different. There is no intelligent reason to place women in front line combat units unless its a last resort defensive strategy which needs every last able person holding gun.

 

Dont get me wrong, I oppose wars also...but there are only two genders, and if there is a need for soldiers, they should be male. Men are also cherished and loved, yes I agree, and men going to war are fathers of children, and husbands of wives...need I go on...its a Government decision..a Labor decision by the Labor Minister for Defence...a decision which I think is wrong and totally unnecessary...

 

You have evidence to support this?

Studies? Anything?

 

Why though? What reasoning supports your opinion?

 

Tell you what... how bout we withdraw everyone from Afghanistan, and just send women to fight our wars...

 

From that reply, I assume that you have no reasoning.

It's merely an opinion based on emotion.

 

Im not going to argue with you.

 

A civilised 'argument' is a good thing.

I'm just trying to see where you're coming from.

If your opinion is based on subjective emotions, that's fine. Nothing wrong with that.

However, you have to understand that governments are not elected to make subjective decisions based on emotions: they need to form objective policies based on sound reasoning.

 

Yes, I agree that Governments have to make these decisions, but Smith seems to want to change the culture of the Armed Forces on the basis that
its his responsibility to stamp out sex scandals...he seems to want to send women to war simply to justify his existence. There is no need to send women to war simply because sex scandals occur at Duntroon. Doesnt it seem a kneejerk reaction...the odd thing about it all is that the Military will place its troops wherever they want them placed..whether that is in the grunts or in the kitchen, or just folding blankets...diggers just dont say "I want to be in the grunts" and get their wish...they go where they're told,
so who knows...maybe nothing will change....

I googled the following....

Women on the front line
by Amber Jamieson (12.4.2011)
A sex scandal in the Defence Force has led to Australian women finally being allowed to fight on the front line and opened a conversation on misogyny and the culture of Australia’s defence force academies.

Defence Minister Stephen Smith has opened his own war of words with defence officials, with Defence Chief Angus Houston apparently threatening to resign in a meeting with Smith on the weekend.

Smith said in a press conference yesterday: “Culturally we need to ensure that members of the Defence Force understand that there will be no tolerance for [poor behaviour] and we need to educate and effect cultural change.”

Smith criticised how the Defence Force have handled the recent sex scandal, and announcing a fast-tracking of a program begun back in 2011 to allow female soldiers to fight on the front line. Currently only 93% of defence jobs are open to women.

Smith also announced a number of reviews and investigations to examine chauvinistic culture in the force, including a look at the culture of alcohol and binge drinking.

Elizabeth Broderick, the Sex Discrimination Comissioner, will lead the inquiry into the treatment of women at the Australian Deforce Force Academy (ADFA) in Canberra, where the recent sex scandal — involving an 18-year-old girl being filmed having sex without her consent — took place.

........extracted from Crikey, 27.9.2011...

 

Frontline combat denotes infantry, some fundamental infantry skills are a requirement to be the ability to carry packs in excess of 30kg on your back for periods of 12 hours continous marching and living in the field with minimal or no toiletry and ablution facilities in close proximity to your other soldiers for periods exceeding a week. You also have to be able to pick up one of your fellow soldiers and carry them to safety. Most importantly you have to be able to stand face to face with your enemy and be able to fight them hand to hand to the death - and your expected to win. Sure some women might be able to meet the standard for tests, and perhaps the reality as well, but they must always expect to have to face a male enemy.

Putting women in this position against an angry male enemy who is intent on causing the most pain and destruction on you and your fellow soldiers runs the very real risk of adding additional mental burden onto the men. At the moment when they return home they can find solace in their wives and girlfriends in a very tangible way because women are not involved in that terrible experience of war within that generally self sufficiant and isolated frontline infantry unit. People who work normal jobs know that its good to switch off from work when your at home.... well now add the trauma of war. They need to be able to switch off and switch on and men do generally view women as different irregardless of how physical they might be.

Women are on average weaker and smaller then men, its a pure and simple fact due to the effects of testosterone in muscle and bone. Men have about 10 times as much testosterone as women, not double or triple, but ten times. So given the negatives of such a move I do not understand what possible positive can come out of it...... in my mind its a cheap political stunt to appeal to the majority who like to think they are involved when in reality they cannot be bothered actually investing real effort and thought into working out what is the right thing to do. People find it hard to project out of the surface argument which in this case is a shallow fairytale about how equality must be right. Its a typical ALP strategy to operate in the shallow end appealing to the mass audience and obviously its all the Greens know because they have no real policies at all.

 

So, no evidence. No studies.

I see.

 

Im sorry, what is your point? Do you contest something I've said??? Most people know it as obvious and Im sure if you do a google search you'll find data supporting my position but I dont really understand what you think needs a study to prove.

 

Seeing as you're having trouble, maybe pictures will help.

Are you saying this man should be able to fight on the front line, purely because he is a man:



and this woman can not, purely because she is a woman?

 

Yes, there's those aspects too...I am bitterly disappointed in this decision, one which is totally unnecessary.....

 

I think I now know why Im having trouble, you dont really have a point afterall.

Show me where I said any man should be able to because they are men. Its ok I understand you probably cant argue against my point rationally.

 

Let me spell it out for you then, seeing as you are having a real hard time tonight:

You are making sexist generalisations based on outdated subjective opinions that have no place in modern society.

I'm asking you if that's what you're saying (the question mark at the end gives it away).

Care to answer the question? It was merely a question.

 

Just thought I'd pose this question although it might be a bit off topic....
What would you think about women being permitted to play in the AFL or the
NRL....stupid question I can hear you saying....not really...its a comparison...a body contact sport which no woman would be able to endure,
compared to front line combat... wouldnt playing sport be easier than front line combat ?? ...the ARL/NRL would not entertain the idea for two
seconds, yet we have a politician making a decision which reeks of political
correctness...a politician, whose sole aim is to stamp out sex scandals
in the military by promoting women into a more equivalent role..
The decision to allow women in combat should be made by the Military,
not a politician....
Wrong Steven...wrong wrong wrong......

 

LOL. You think war has a place in modern society, and you think war is somehow like modern society.... nice fail, and you do not even properly understand what sexism is by the sounds of it.

You still havent clarified what you want proof for. The only thing I really claimed was men have about 10 times more testosterone and this leads to more muscle mass and larger frames on average... do you actually argue that point because you post a couple of pictures of what looks like a man with a health condition next to a steroid using female bodybuilder? Please try harder because your imaginary moral position isnt enough to sustain your position.

Then your question is an absurd suggestion which has no grounds. I couldnt support someones gender being a cause to require entrance into something. I dont see how that is anyway equivilant to using someones gender to limit them from doing something. They are two different things. Entrance into a job has requirements based on the job purely for operational reasons, do I need to explain those as well!!!? Its not wrongfully discriminatory reasons. I imagine you'll next argue that maintaining standards addresses any risk of that, but I've already outlined on mental health aspect of war fighting which standards will not address. In fact the health of the soldiers should be the most important thing after seeing what it does to WW2 infantry vets.

You might not know the difference because a lot of people think that all gender discrimination is somehow wrong or illegal. The 'reality' is the definition of discrimination is the recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another. A condition of discrimination occurs when unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, usually on the grounds of race, age, or sex.... lets call it wrongful discrimination. If gender discrimination occurs for sufficient reasons such as privacy and security as they do in public toilets etc, then they are considered acceptable reasons for gender discrimination. Not all gender discrimination is sexist, but all sexism is gender discrimination. Just remember frontline fighting in war is not a peacetime office work environment by a huge margin.

 

Not a stupid question at all. If they want to play, they should be allowed. Good luck to them.

That's just not true: many women couldn't, however, some could.
The same for men: many could endure it; many could not.

 

There are already separate leagues for womens rugby and football and numerous other contact sports. Magoo fails again.