From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Women in Combat
Date: 18 Nov 1992 20:27:09 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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!)

							--  Michal
Newsgroups: soc.women,misc.education,talk.bizarre,soc.couples,soc.college,rec.humor,rec.music.gdead