From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Subject: Re: Women in Combat
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:58:02 GMT

In article <1ds3jaINNgr6@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.211426.24815@adobe.com>, kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
>> In article <1992Nov11.095500.9583@news.cs.indiana.edu> "Amy Young Leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>> >In article <4221@novavax.UUCP> vaccaro@novavax.UUCP (N. Trafford Vaccaro) writes:
>> >
>
>[deleted]
>
>> Anyway, my point is, I agree with the above that the forced separation
>> allows for the uncivilized behavior of military men toward women.  My guess
>> is that the military *wants* uncivilized brutes who will do their murderous 
>> deeds without question...
>
>Well, I agreed with you up to this point.  In point of fact, there is a real
>problem with disobeying an order because you consider it morally wrong.
>In a lot of cases, it is justified, but in others it isn't.  If nothing
>else, no army could possibly function effectively if everyone had to sit
>down and have a town meeting before doing anything.  I don't know of anyone
>who has really solved this problem.  For the most part, it seems like the
>recommendation is to go with your conscience, but to be prepared to face the
>consequences if public opinion doesn't back you up.
>
>I'm also somewhat curious what you meant by "murderous deeds".  Did you mean
>"that massacre of those innocent civilians"?  Or do you consider any form of
>armed conflict to be murderous?

 I think we have a similar point of view.  I don't tend to generalize
 all armed conflict as murderous, but I was thinking of the massacre
 of innocents:  Vietnam, Native Americans, Tibetans... you can point
 to almost any war.

 I realize that soldiers have to be trained to respond to orders instinctively
 and not think about whether or not to follow them (you'd lose battles that way).
 But, obviously, I think war brings with it much ugliness and power-hungry
 commanders.  It's much easier to win a war if you simply wipe out the whole
 town instead of trying to find the few enemy soldiers located within.  By
 destroying the town potential food, shelter and medical care for the enemy 
 is destroyed as well...  Except, the enemy now has a reason to fight ever 
 so much harder.

>                                   Having grown up in the 3rd world, I have a
>fairly good idea of the value of life in some (many? most?) parts of the world
>and the contempt with which they view pacifism.  Actually, for that matter,
>things aren't that different here.  I remember in grade school when someone
>would beat me up, everyone kept telling me it was wrong to fight back and if
>I would just ignore them, they'd leave me alone.  Funny, it just seemed to
>make things worse.  And we all remember how much turning the other cheek did
>for Chamberlain and Deladier.  Then again, maybe we don't. :(
>
 My sister had to finally let her son know that he can fight back against
 a bully.  You can map childhood behavior easily onto governmental behavior.
 (In fact, when I hear of aggression between people, my imagination filters
 them into children and the whole situation becomes more easy to
 understand...)

>>  Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall
>> 
>>       Don't Panic!  Clinton will be our *42*nd President.
>
>-- 
>
>#include <std_disclaimer.h>
>
>Dan S.


Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men