From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Sex and War
Date: 14 Oct 1992 00:19:16 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <1bfdmqINNj9a@agate.berkeley.edu> seb3@gte.com writes:
>I would have replied using email, but this was an anonymous posting.
>Sorry to bother everyone.
>
>In article <2AD5AA7B.22488@ics.uci.edu> anonymous writes:
>[...]
>>4. Service in a combat unit, and exposure to combat conditions, must
>>be a precondition for senior military positions.
>[...]
>>6. If the unit is so constituted that sexual relations or the
>>possibility of sexual attraction (whether reciprocated or not) exists,
>>then unit cohesion is placed at severe risk.
>[...]
>>This is the reason that many thoughtful commanders [...] support the
>>current brute-force ban on gay males in the military and women in
>>combat units. [...]
>
>But this doesn't follow, does it?  If the only objection to women in
>combat units is that the possibility of sexual attraction is thought to
>jeopardize the cohesion of the combat unit, why not just have all-women
>combat units as well as all-men units?
>
>Depending on the size of these units, I suspect that homosexual women
>and men could also be placed in units in such combinations that the
>perceived risk of sexual attraction is minimized.

Agreed, but I have to question the detrimental effects of attraction, or
whether it's all just a red herring to keep women out of places where
they're "not wanted."

Women were also not allowed at first into the hard sciences because we
would "distract the other scientists."  Women were not allowed in
politics for (among many other reasons) because we would "distract the
voters."  In many modern patriarchal religions, women are not allowed to
speak in church or even to be seen by the men because we would "distract
them from their contemplations."

Are men so vacuously attached to the task at hand that they can be drawn
away from it so easily?  Puh-LEEEEZE.  If someone is shooting at your
ass, I really don't think you'll be all that distracted by someone in
the foxhole with you wearing the latest in camouflage lingerie.  If you
are so easily pulled away from your scientific endeavors by a mere
female presence nearby, get a new career; your mind is evidently not
sufficiently dedicated to the one you have.

This "it would be distracting" crap is as old as the hills and has been
used for GENERATIONS to keep undesireables out of positions where they
aren't wanted.  How would people know whether or not having men and
women in the same group would have a detrimental effect on fighting?  It's
never been TRIED.  And, if there are problems, well, there were problems
after Truman desegregated the armed forces as well.  Black people were
once "distracting," too.  Oh, I guess we shouldn't have let them in,
then.

If you are distracted by the sight of a woman, your mind is quite
obviously not on the task at hand, so get a new job. 

I'm a little close to this issue since I spent years in the hard
sciences, where I was sometimes viewed as a "distraction" to the other
(male) students.  Too damned bad.  I'm not going to go lock myself in a
closet to keep the menfolk from being dragged away from their tasks by
brazenly strutting around as if I belong there (while, of course, I do).
We are "distracting" because there are so few of us.  After we are seen
more often, the novelty will soon wear off.
 
Regards,
Janis C.


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.