From: cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong)
Subject: Re: Women in Combat
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 04:33:48 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:

>>the command generally do not want to include women in COMBAT roles because

>>1) if all the members of the section or platton are to be treated equally
>>with no extra consideration given to any one or two... how will they handle
>>bathing , sleeping and toilet arrangements ? 

>The same way you deal with them at home.  In a house boys and girls share
>bathrooms.  Note that we may have to give up our cherished american 
>prudishness, but I consider that a plus.

>>2) the highest rate of divorce occurs in the millitiary and para - millitiary.
>>most enlisted men generally make the service their foremost priority - that
>>is discounting the ones who sign up for the money - women it is thought may
>>not be able to juggle the pressures of a double relationship that well -
>>ESPECIALLY if the issue of pregnancy and / or maternity leave comes up .

>They seem to handle it just fine in industry, and in non-combat military
>units.

>>3) no extra consideration to any member of your unit - is compromised with
>>the forming of romantic relationships within members of your unit . 

>This already exists for women in non-combat roles.  

>>4) traditional image of women has been one of ' weaker ' sex . images are
>>changing and times are changing but we aren't yet at the point where ALL men
>>will not feel the impulsive urge to help ( or at least go out of his way to
>>render aid ) to a woman in distress . mission may be compromised . objectivity
>>may be temporarily put aside when instinctual urges call out . NOTE: point here
>>is that women may be a distracting influence more than another man who may be
>>in the same situation as her .

>Sounds like the men have a problem here.  By the same argument, women should
>not be allowed into ghettos and inner cities, either.

>>5) people at the top are reluctant to buck the trend . traditional concepts are
>>changing and even the people in uniform are more and more progressive .but the
>>armed forces like it or not is one of the oldest bureacracies of all - and an
>>abrupt change in policy now would ruffle too many feathers and be too 
>>disruptive an influence .

>Those at the top are supposed to be leaders.  If they can't (or won't) lead
>then they should step down.

>>6) i was an infantry section commander in the army and was going out with a
>>fabulous woman . she was (is) a very smart and extremely capable naval      
>>communications officer . the troubles she used to face with enlisted men who
>>were at least 5 ranks below her ..... yes . they were assholes . yes .she 
>>did NOT deserve it being at least 10 times as smart and capable as them .
>>but the sad truth of the situation is that htey just didn't RESPECT a WOMAN
>>officer... hell... they probably were fine with their girlfriends and all
>>but they had trouble adjusting to the fact that a woman was telling them what
>>to do. they were wrong . but don't expect them to change overnight . far 
>>easier for the command to simply avoid the problem (sidestep it) than to 
>>re-educate . too time consuming - too risky . you NEED ti know that your men
>>will unquestioningly follow their commander ANYWHERE ...

>First, lack of respect is not limited to women officers.  Alot of men 
>can't command the respect of their troops.  Alot of woman can.  Perhpas 
>we should judge a person's suitability to be an officer by whether or
>not they can command respect, rather than by the shape of their genitals?

>>7) politics . in the vietnam war era , people were in an uproar about their
>>SONS being sent off to a foreign land to kill and/or to die . television 
>>was flooded with pictures of american servicemen statistics and images of 
>>death . can you imagine what would have happened to government if the public
>>had seen their DAUGHTERS being killed ? gulf war fr'instance - one incident
>>with a female major being assaulted by the enemy drew more sensationalisation
>>and uproar than the numbers of male sexual assault victims ....

>If sending our sons off to war causes such an uproar, then perhaps the
>American people should re-evaluate the role of the military?  Is there any
>point in spending all those billions of dollars on being prepared if we're
>not willing to take action.  But then again, perhaps since Vietnam the 
>American people *have* re-evaluated their position....
>(I don't see this being any different whether it's sons or daughters 
>being sent off to war.  Keep in mind that it is not only combat units 
>that suffer casualties!)

1) the combat side of the militiary cannot be compared to the service sector
of the forces or to industries .
true . women may generally handle family pressures and pregnancies well but
not ALL of them do . and in a combat unit where there is generally very 
little allowance for substitutions of roles - this could be very disruptive.
men may have the same problems too - ( minus the obvious one ...) but at
least the system knows how to handle the situation as pertaining to men .
and furthermore , men tend to be more predictable in their .... lifestyles.
i don't know if i put this properly .. but i guess what i mean to say is that
the male dominated militiary KNOWS how to predict when a problem might pop up
and what should be done .... with women ... you'd have to re-train personnel
to further evaluate the unfamiliar situation . (am i saying this right? )
hmm.... 
besides.... let's not forget that that ONE problem i was talking about IS 
a BIG factor..
2) inter office romance and even relationships in the service sector ofthe
forces cannot be compared to relationships in the combat sector . 
they're mUCH more disruptive because life/death situations and decisions
generally are made more often in the combat units.
yeesh...bus is here..got to go..back tommorow.
>							--  Michal
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men