Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    I suspect that the ERA is to spell things out for those who haven't
    accepted the idea that women are persons. Much like the 15th
    amendment spells out that race and color can not be used to deny
    the vote is used to spell out that blacks are persons I would have
    thought that the 19th amendment (says the same thing for sex) have
    served that purpose but that appears not to have happened. At least
    not to everyones satisfaction. The combination of the 14th and 19th
    amendment would appear to do everything the ERA would do except
    spell out that a woman is a person. Anyone know anyone who thinks
    that women aren't persons?
        
    			Alfred

    Re .1:
    
    I imagine that the various amendments to voting rights(15,19,24,26)
    are required to modify Article I Section 4:
    
    | The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and
    | Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature
    | thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such
    | Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
    
    Also, concerning section 1 of the 14th amendment, most of it is
    a restatement of previous amendments with the key difference being
    the addition of "No State shall...".
    
    Also, by continuing to read the 14th a little more carefully, I've
    discovered the following:

    | SECTION 2.  Representatives shall be apportioned among the several
    | States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number
    | of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. 
    
      {this sentence is essentially copied from Section 2 of Article I,
       but excludes the euphemistic phrase "three fifths of all other 
       Persons", meaning, of course, slaves. The interesting bit comes
       next} 
    
    | But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of
    | electors for President and Vice President of the United States, 
    | Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of
    | a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any 
    | of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of 
             ^^^^
    | age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged,
    | except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of 
    | representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the 
    | number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male 
                     ^^^^                                            ^^^^
    | citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. 
    
    Strangely enough, the 14th is the only place the word "male" is
    ever used in the Constitution. Anyway, it still seems to me that
    these references to "male" are supeceded by the 19th amendment,
    so the question still remains, what does the ERA buy us?
    
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    
    P.S. Please don't get the impression that I am necessarily against
    the ERA, I am just wondering if it really adds anything substantive
    to the document or if it is all just rhetoric.

    
    Pursuit of ERA soaks up cycles which would otherwize go toward
    solving real-world problems... In that sense it keeps radical stripe
    liberals happily occupied chasing their tails and away from the real 
    levers of power.

    Not really a reply to the question at hand but I am just wondering
    if the figure at the end of Alfred's notes represent what I think?
    Is it a female in profile??  If so why?????
    
    

    I think you've got your noters mixed up. Alfred doesn't have any
    figure at the end of his notes. If you mean the base note, then
    it's Steve Marshall's initials in script, as best as one can do
    on a terminal.
    
    Tamzen

    re .5:
    
    Tamzen's right.
    
    It's alot of fun hearing what people think my little doo-dad is.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    (big "S", little "m")

    I've been meaning to tell you, Steve...
    
    Although I know what it is, it still looks like a face in profile
    to me.   / for forehead, ( for brow, ) for bridge of nose, / for
    straight of nose, --- for eyelid, and /// for lashes.
    
    							Ann B.

    re: .6
    
    I'm sorry.  I thought was a slightly eroded version of Mt.
    Rushmore. 
    
    --bonnie 

Not to get back to the subject, but...

I've often wondered what the ERA would add, and whether or not we'd need to
have one for all groups other than WASP men. My real preference would be an
ammendment to say that we're all guaranteed the same full rights of
citizenship and reasonable treatment, but that's too simple and
straightforward.

I was thinking about the kinds of cases that could be brought to the Supreme
Court under this ammendment, because that would be a good way to see what
benefits we'd get from it. One possibility is the case that was settled last
month about private clubs which bar women from membership (or bar their
presence). It was settled on other grounds.

Can a woman legally be denied a job or accomodations or a seat on a bus
because of gender? I'm thinking of the benefits that the civil rights acts
provided to racial minorities. What is the scope of the civil rights laws?
Do they cover all people or do they specify who's covered?

    One instance that present laws don't cover is women in the
    military.  Congress has passed a law that keeps women out of
    combat, and that law has been upheld as constitutional. 
    
    This means that the career of a woman who is seriously interested
    in military service is hampered, because an officer rises
    primarily through command in combat or pressure situations.
    
    Further, many skills are classified as combat skills and are
    denied to women -- learning to fire a bazooka, learning to
    fly the hot-shot jets.  

    A consequence of this is that a woman can't ever be the captain of
    a space expedition, since the captain must have full military
    flight certification, and getting this certification means you
    have to know how to fly the combat jets, and if you can't go into
    combat, you can't learn to fly the jets, and . . . 
    
    

Note 54.0                         

    Given the 14th amendment to the constitution:
    
    | SECTION 1.  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
    | subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
    | and of the State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce
    | any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
    | the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
    | liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
    | person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 
    | 
    | SECTION 5.  The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate
    | legislation, the provisions of this article. 
    
>    Exactly what purpose is served by the ERA?

It says no LAWS can be made that discriminate against us, and that the STATE
cannot kill us, take our property, or imprison us.  It doesn't say that
discrimination against us in the private sector is illegal in pay, housing,
    etc.
    
Note 54.2                         
    
    | But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of
    | electors for President and Vice President of the United States, 
    | Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of
    | a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any 
    | of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of 
             ^^^^
    | age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged,
    | except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of 
    | representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the 
    | number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male 
                     ^^^^                                            ^^^^
    | citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. 
    
>    Strangely enough, the 14th is the only place the word "male" is
>    ever used in the Constitution. Anyway, it still seems to me that
>    these references to "male" are supeceded by the 19th amendment,
>    so the question still remains, what does the ERA buy us?

Perhaps the references to "male" are not superceded by the 19th amendment.    
        (sigh)
Note 54.3                         
    
>    Pursuit of ERA soaks up cycles which would otherwize go toward
>    solving real-world problems... In that sense it keeps radical stripe
>    liberals happily occupied chasing their tails and away from the real 
>    levers of power.

	This speaks volumes in and of itself... the problems of women are not
	considered "real-world problems" by too many.  Even though woman and 
	children constitute the basis of poverty in America and the world.
        
Mary

    Many states have [had] laws restricting (for example) the weight
    of objects which an employee could be obliged to pick up.  Men
    were given a higher limit than women on these weights.  These
    laws had the effects of keeping women out of jobs where they had
    to pick up "heavy" objects -- like a box of computer paper.  These
    restrictive laws have been upheld, on the grounds that they did
    not restrict a woman's "privileges", etc.
    
    						Ann B.

    Sorry russ, the walls are still there.
    
    Examples:
    Men do a spacific number of pushups (FULL ONES) and women do less
    and on their knees.  (I met a few women sailors that could do twice
    as mant as I, the "Male" way)
    
    Men have (I think) 16 minute to do a mile and quarter, women have
    18.  Why???  I can run, but Melissa (just had a baby four minths
    ago) can run me into the ground...  even when I had a good left
    leg.
    
    I was on a supply corp Vessel (USS Samuel Gompers to be spacific)
    which had women on it.  When ever we had a replenishment detail
    (Refuel at see, cargo loadings etc)  The men were called and the
    (Lower ranking) women that should have also been called, operated
    the cranes and "stood by".  WHY!???  There should be NO BARRIERS!
    Over half of the female type sailors could do vertually anything
    I could do, and sometimes better.  So, why the "special" treatment.
    
    This caused ALOT, and I mean ALOT of bad water between the males
    and females.  When I was stationed in the tropics (Diego Garcia
    to be exact) we would have GQ (general Quarters), The men had to
    suit up and hit the beach (protect ourselves from the fish) and
    the women who were just as capable to handle GQ drills we ordered
    to their barracks.
    
    I was stationed on this island for four months when women started
    to arrive for "equal" tours of 12-18 months.  The men were moved
    to "huts", unairconditioned I might add, while the women were put
    into our rooms.  This was wrong.  Upon arrival, one must wait a
    couple of weeks or so while the SeaBees complete the rooms.  When
    your time came (seniority kinda system) you got an airconditioned
    room.
    
    The men voiced their opinions.......tough shit is the answer we
    got.  "Get your &%$$%^&$&asses back to your jobs before you get
    written up for insabordination.......
    
    No, Russ the walls are still as strong as they have always been.
    
    This is wrong.  Women can protect our country JUST AS GOOD as a
    man can.  There is no need for this special treatment of their (gag)
    "Fragile little bodies".1
    
    I could go on and on and on....... But it doesnt change the way
    people think.  Someday, I hope, people will see the value of PEOPLE,
    not male and female.  There are some great women out there, and
    until these walls are shattered, these "fragile little bodies" will
    never be able to meet their full potentials.
    
    
    1  Quoted from a skipper on the "island".
    
                  Take it or leave it.   AL
    
    PS.  If I, in some odd way, irritated someone in this little gust
    of wind, I am sorry.  It is not ment.  I tried to phrase it without
    touching nerves.
    

re: -.1    just curious...

    What did the women who underwent this special treatment think of
    it?  Did they request it?  Did they demand it or vocalize that they
    required it?  Did any of them ask to be removed from the "preferential
    treatment" list?  I mean, I'm sure many of them did not object
    vociferously, but was there any indication they had qualms about
    the whole thing, too?
    
    -Jody

    re: .15
    
    All the activities that .14 mentions women didn't participate
    in are considered combat activities.  For all I know, the housing
    even fell under these sometimes rather strange rules.
    
    I can't speak for those women, but I know one woman who left the
    Navy because she was kept from full participation. She was strong,
    intelligent, a good leader, creative in a tight spot -- would have
    made a great officer.  It's the Navy's loss as well as hers.
    
    --bonnie

    re .11:
    
    > It [the 14th] says no LAWS can be made that discriminate against us, 
    > and that the STATE cannot kill us, take our property, or imprison
    > us.  It doesn't say that discrimination against us in the private 
    > sector is illegal in pay, housing, etc.
    
    I do believe that the ERA only says the former and does not say
    the latter. I could be wrong, which is why I wrote .0 in the first
    place. If someone has a copy of it, please transcribe it.

                                                   
                  /
                 (   ___
                  )  ///
                 /
             
                  

           <<< RAINBO::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V1.NOTE;1 >>>
                   -< Original Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 188.1                      We need ERA NOW.                         1 of 36
ULTRA::GUGEL "Simplicity is Elegance"                13 lines   5-FEB-1987 13:35
                       -< Complete text of the new ERA >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
Complete Text of the New Equal Rights Amendment

SECTION I:	Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied
		or abridged by the United States or by any state on
		account of sex.

SECTION II:	The Congrress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate
		legislation, the provisions of this article.

SECTION III:	This article shall take effect two years after the date
		of ratification.
    

    Actually, most discrimination cases have been won on the
    "restraint of interstate commerce" clause....
    
    --bonnie 

    RE15.
    
    Yes a couple did in fact raise a commotion.  They were "transfered"
    due to the inability to adapt to the tropics. Or some sort of crap.
    
    It was considered unwise to cause "waves"... Pun intended.
    
    In the particular team that I was in,  Women could not go out to
    sea so they stayed on land.  This caused the me, and others, in my spacific
    field to be irritated due to the fact that I spent (After basic
    that is) all FOUR years of my four and a half OUT AT SEA.   Thus
    ONE of the reasons for my (and six others off the top of my head)
                                      
    Immediate civilianization after tour was completed.
    
    This is not the topic so I will leave it at that, OK.
    
                                        EX Military man. 

    re: .9
    
        Here are some examples from an article entitled "Why the ERA
    Won't Go Away" by Harlan Ellison originally published 19 March 1982.
    It is reproduced in his book "An Edge in My Voice".  I am too slow
    a typist to type it all in, but if someone offers to type the entire
    thing in I'll Xerox it (as long as no one tells Harlan) and send
    it to you so that you can read it and type it in if you wish to.
    
    1.  A father in Utah can sue a hit-and-run driver for striking a
        child, but the wife and mother can't.
    
    2.  In Nebraska a widow pays inheritance tax, but a widower does
        not.
    
    3.  If a wife dies the husband would not automatically keep receiving
        Social Security.
    
    4.  In Illinois a man and a woman working for the same publicly-funded
        clinic, who are the same age and earn the same money and retired
        the same number of years, would receive pension checks of which
        the woman's would be much smaller.
    
    5.  By Alabama state law a boy can have a paper route, but a girl
        cannot.
    
    ASP

    re .21:
    
    Examples of sexual discrimination do not necessarily make the case
    for the ERA. My point is that it seems to me that all of those laws
    are in violation of the 14th amendment already. Why would the ERA
    make any difference?
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Steve,
    
    As it stands now, each law which differentiates between treatment
    accorded women and that accorded men must have 1) a court case
    associated with it which 2) produces an adverse decision and 3)
    is appealed, and 4) the law declared unconstitutional by the appellate
    court.  Step 4 may require more than one level of appeal; i.e.,
    it may have to go to the Supreme Court.  All of this takes money,
    time, and effort.
    
    With the ERA, these laws would immediately and automatically be
    declared unconstitutional.
    
    						Ann B.

    re .23
    
>    With the ERA, these laws would immediately and automatically be
>    declared unconstitutional.

    Are you sure of this?  I may just be exposing my ignorance here, but
    I would have thought that the process of finding a law
    unconstitutional would be unchanged, regardless of which article or
    amendment makes it unconstitutional.  That is, the ERA might make it
    simpler to demonstrate a law's inconsistency with the constitution,
    but I don't see where any of the four steps listed could be bypassed
    just because of the ERA. 
    
    	-Neil

>    With the ERA, these laws would immediately and automatically be
>    declared unconstitutional.

    Ann, this is not entirely correct.  While many laws would be
    changed immediately, an uncooperative state could continue to
    enforce the law and we'd have to go through the same general
    procedure to prove that the law violated the constitutional
    provision for equal rights.  In situations like this, the burden
    of proof is on the injured party, not on the state. 
    
    For example, it was eighty years from the time the 14th amendment
    was passed to the time when most blacks had the right to vote.
    
    We would have stronger grounds of appeal if an explicit equal
    rights amendment passed, but the ERA would not be a panacea
    against unequal laws. 

    --bonnie

>        A consequence of this is that a woman can't ever be the captain of
>    a space expedition, since the captain must have full military
>    flight certification, and getting this certification means you
>    have to know how to fly the combat jets, and if you can't go into
>    combat, you can't learn to fly the jets, and . . . 

    Women have been flying combat planes since at least World War II.
    Granted they have not flown in combat but woman have been transporting
    fighters, bombers, and what not for a long time.
    
    			Alfred

    I don't know if they made exceptions for WWII, or if the laws that
    govern the present rules were made more recently, but in 1983 I
    was told by a woman officer and flight instructor that a woman
    couldn't fly a combat plane under any circumstances. 
    
     --bonnie

    In World War II, women were used to ferry airplanes from the
    U.S. to the combat theaters.  They also flew the airplanes
    that pulled the target drones that antiaircraft crews shot at
    for target practice.
    
    So, women flew combat planes, women were shot at (I "hope" not
    only by friendly fire), and many were killed in the line of
    duty.  But they were not combat flying; none of them were in a
    position to shoot back.  So it doesn't count.
    
    						  Ann B.
    
    P.S.  I apologize for my earlier mistake.  My wishful thinking
    led me to believe that it would be like confronting a con artist
    playing three-card monte.

	The whole issue of women in combat is highly emotional but the
	fact is that women have been in combat for centuries. They are
	mostly civillian women who made the bad choice of living somewhere
	men decided to have a war, no one seems to worry about them being
	killed.

	On another side of this, my mother was a navy nurse in the South
	Pacific during WWII. Nurses are often in combat zones because the
	enemy doesn't necessarily respect the idea of hospital ships being
	non-combatants. What makes it OK for a woman to die as a nurse but not
	as a combatant? I don't imagine it makes much of a difference to the
	dead. 
		liesl (off the central subject again)

    In an attempt to derail this women-in-combat rathole, are military
    regulations subject to Constitutional review? That is, the Constitution
    defines what laws can and cannot be made, but does that include
    military regulations? I don't think so. If the Army does not want
    left handed people in combat, then left handed people are not allowed
    in combat, and no appeal to the 14th amendment will make any
    difference.
    
    So it seems to me that this whole argument about women-in-combat
    is a straw being.
    
    But I could be wrong, having never been in the military.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    You are partly right -- military regulations are, on the whole,
    not subject to Constitutional review.  The armed forces have the
    right to make reasonable regulations regarding combat or anything
    else. The key is whether a particular regulation is reasonable. It
    used to be considered reasonable that black and white soldiers did
    not serve in the same units; later that same rule was overturned
    as unreasonable. 
    
    Congress has passed a law that says the armed forces cannot assign
    a woman to a combat position, and that law has been upheld in
    court more than once as reasonable given present cultural
    attitudes toward the differences between men and women.  One of
    the opinions explicitly says that 14th amendment protections
    weren't adequate, but if an ERA were passed, this rule would
    become unreasonable. 

    --bonnie

    
    One thing I don't understand, if the ERA is suppose to protect
    the women's rights,  why the ERA didn't get approved in many
    states?   Giving that there are half of population are female.
    
    I think the most important thing in ERA is that it will give
    equal benefit to woman to man in social security benefit.
    If a husband and wife earn equal money all their life,  when
    they retire the benifit are different for them;  women get
    less.
    
    Do you thing this is fair or unfair?   I think it is unfair.
    
    
    Jason
    

         Many of the states where the ERA was voted down had popular
    support for ERA passage according to polls taken in those states.
    Once again I have to recommend several of the articles from Harlan
    Ellison's book "An Edge in My Voice".  There are 3 or 4 articles
    dealing with the ERA amendment in his book.
    
    ASP

>    One thing I don't understand, if the ERA is suppose to protect
>    the women's rights,  why the ERA didn't get approved in many

	Alot of women I've talked to don't like ERA because it
	makes women (in their eyes) *too* equal, ie. it would
	force women into the draft as well as men, it one was
	instituted.  I don't know if ERA would do that, but I 
	do think that there are women out there (just as there
	are men out there), who want things to stay the way
	they are, ie. UNequal.

    Re .34, and those women who prefer to remain "unequal":
    
    You're right. Many people see as "protective" or "respectful" the same
    things that I see as "restrictive" or as violating my individual
    rights. I wish the emphasis could be on "more choice for everybody"
    rather than in (what is perceived as) forcing either side to have
    to give up its favored way of living.
    
    -b

    And face it, as silly as it sounds, some people are just afraid
    that passing the ERA will lead to unisex public restrooms and
    other such unpleasantries, so they'd rather live with the current
    unpleasantries. Better the devil you know, and all that jazz.
    
    --- jerry

    Look, people are just afraid of *change*.  Some figure they can
    deal with it, some figure they can't, and most just would rather
    not go to any effort -- so they'll opt for whatever is easiest.
    
    						Ann B.
    
    P.S.  I don't mean to sound cynical, so try to read the above in
    a philosopical tone of mind, please.

    Jerry's explanation is the one that most makes sense of my
    mother's objections to the ERA.  
    
    She knows life has treated her unfairly in many ways -- so many
    ways that she has no confidence that a change will be a change for
    the better.  She feels that however much an ERA will help women
    like me, she and the rest of the lower working classes will wind
    up paying for the unforseen complications. 
    
    There's no such thing as a free lunch, you know?  And something
    that looks so good for some of us has to have a gotcha in it
    somewhere. 
    
    And looking back on her life, and my grandmother's life, I
    can't blame her for feeling that a change like this is as likely
    to take away what little she's got as it is to help her.
    
    --bonnie

"And looking back on her life, and my grandmother's life, I can't blame her for
feeling that a change like this is as likely to take away what little she's got
as it is to help her."

There are many men who feel that way about changes as well...

There is no such thing as a free lunch, but we might be able to arrange that we
each pay for the lunch we bought rather then for someone else's lunch. :-)

JMB 

    Good analogy, Jim . . .
    
    But before one can pay for one's own lunch, one has to have the
    means to buy.  I can buy my own lunch, as nice as I want, as many
    times a week as I want.  I've got the training, the job skills,
    the confidence. 
    
    My mother has no job skills and little knowledge of how to use
    what she does have.  Society told her she didn't need it. Now [in
    her view] society is trying to tell her that's tough luck, she has
    to pay her own way anyway.  She feels she's going to be in back
    washing the dishes while the rest of us feast. 

    --bonnie

    
    	Sorry ahead of time to re-focus on the military aspect and
    	if you don't want to read this please feel free to move on...
    
    	I was commissioned on 14 May of this year.  I really loved ROTC
    	and I was pretty good at it.  Most of the time I didn't find
    	any prejudice against me because I was a girl unless it was
    	a "Perk".  ie on a refueling flight we had 4 women and 10 men
    	going up and there was only room for 2 in the cockpit for the
    	takeoffs and landings so the women got to sit in the cockpit-
    	2 for the takeoff and the other 2 for the landing- and none
    	of the guys got to experience the thrill of, almost, sitting
    	in the driver's seat.  I thought that it was unfair but for
    	someone who loves flying, I wasn't about to complain.
    
    	What bothers me the most is that, from what I've heard, the
    	situation is about to get a lot worse.  Women in ROTC have
    	practically no chance of getting pilot slots.  I had a roommate
    	at camp who was a super person and who would have made a great
    	pilot but there are only about 7 slots for female Rotc cadets
    	each year and she wasn't in the top 7.  (Also, some of it's
    	political but I won't go into that)  Once she does get in, no
    	matter how good she is, a woman pilot cannot fly fighters. 
    	To put it in a sense that more people might understand---if
    	the AF drove cars instead of planes the women would be forced
    	to drive station wagons (some very large), and cars along the
    	lines of the Ford Escort.  Not bad cars but they aren't the
    	Porsches, Jaguars, Lamborghinis, even Mercedes and BMWs (which
    	would parallel the attack planes like the A-10 Warthog) which
    	the guys get to fly.  It's a very large bummer to train on a
    	T-38, which all pilots right now (although this is changing
    	and pilots will soon train on planes like the ones they will
    	eventually fly.  ie A pilot will be assigned to a plane before
    	he or she goes to UPT (undergraduate pilot training) and will
    	train on prototypes meaning women will not get to fly jets at
    	all) train on and KNOW that the only way they will ever be able
    	to fly such planes on a regular basis is if they become IPs
    	(Instructor Pilots)  Many women, because of their skill, do
    	become IPs but none can fly in combat.  It's only worse when
    	one realizes that the fighter pilots, basically, run the AF.
    
    	Well, I've HEARD that fighter pilots control the AF and after
    	meeting some and even dating some, let me tell you that if
    	self-confidence (read, arrogance) will take someone to the
    	top in the AF, I don't doubt what I read.
    
    	I guess what I'm trying to say is that I will not vote for
    	any candidate who opposes ERA.  I don't stick labels on people
    	so I won't stick one on myself.  I do know that, even though
    	I don't want to fly, my friends do and if they're capable of
    	flying fighters, they should be able to do so.  (one small pt:
    	when I was at camp we had an orientation flight in a T-37. 
    	While in training for my flight I met a 36 year old female
    	Major who was a physiologist.  She told me that women's bodies
    	are better able to handle the stress of flying jets and someday
    	we may build a plane that goes so fast and pulls so many Gs
    	that ONLY WOMEN will be able to fly it)
    
    	One more point and then I promise to shut up.  We have certain
    	physical standards that we have to meet and men's are different
    	from women.  I can get the exact standards after the first of
    	Sept but for now this might interest you.  5 event PFT (Physical
    	Fitness Test)  Must be completed in 20 min.  Points awarded
    	based on performance.  Chin-ups--Male Min 6  Female Min 0
    	Standing Long Jump--Can't remember the Min but everyone does
    	well although most men do jump farther than most women--Push-ups
    	Men Min--13  Women Min--6--Situps--Men Max--92  Women Max--90
    	(sit-ups must be done within 2 minutes, no time limit on the
    	others except for the overall 20 min) most women do more situps
    	than the men--600 yard dash--Men's min is faster and most men
    	tend to sprint faster.  Then there is the mile and a half run.
    	The time for women is a joke--14.5 minutes for men it's 12 minutes.
    	At camp and at school, if I've been running regularly I am faster
    	than half of the men even if they've been running regularly.
     	At camp I ran it in 9:55 and was in the top third of my flight.
    	Someone needs to look at some of these standards ( I laugh at
    	the sit-up standard0 and make some non-biased decisions.)
    
    	Sorry about the length,
    
    	Rachel

    Rachel, someone said a ways back that the military is exempt from
    whatever equal opportunity requirements exist in the U.S.  Would
    that change with the ERA?
    
    							Pat

    
    	Pat,
    
    	I really don't KNOW for sure if it would definitely change things
    	but the military knows that it is run by a civillian gov't and
    	if the gov't were to say that women were to be treated truly
    	equally in all things than the military would go along.
    
    	I imagine that if ERA is passed somebody is going to ask about
    	the possibility of a draft.  If ERA is passed, I don't see how
    	women could be exempt.  If you have to draft women, what proportion
    	of them do you draft?  Or do you make the whole draft totally
    	on a lottery which would mean, statistically, that women would
    	comprise somewhere around 50% of a draft Army/Navy/AF/MC/CG.
     	If 50% of a force is comprised of women, it's going to be
    	impossible to prevent women from assuming roles in combat. 
    	If women are allowed in combat roles, women will be able to
    	fly fighters.
    
    	I have to tell you, one of my good friends, male and a missile
    	launch officer, said that he was against women fighter pilots
    	because of the chances that they would end up as POWs.  In Vietnam
    	it was the combat pilots who were shot down and ended up being
    	tortured and being kept prisoner.  Tim didn't want to see that
    	happen to women.  He also wasn't sure that a woman could "take
    	it".  Many of the guys I know, who are now officers, have serious
    	doubts about women on the firing line.  I don't know how to
    	answer their questions.  I can answer for myself, but I probably
    	wouldn't be considered your "average" woman when it comes to
    	the military.  (Consider for example that we commissioned 35
    	officers at our Det this May and only 5 of us were female and
    	the Army and Navy Dets had a much lower percentage of females.
    	The Navy, which is much larger than the AF, commissioned only
    	1.5.  It would've been 2 but Kate, who was Marine option, got
    	injured at Bulldog and had to complete it this summer to get
    	her commission)  Maybe it's just harder for women to get into
    	the military now.  I don't know.  I just don't know of very
    	many women who, upon hearing of my chosen career field, say
    	"That's something that I'd like to do".
    
    	I know that this doesn't really answer your question.  My gut
    	feeling is that if ERA passed, eventually the military would
    	have to make some concession to that fact and then maybe my
    	friends who want to be pilots, won't have half of the slots
    	in the AF closed to them.
    
    	Once again, sorry for the length.  I talk quickly so even though
    	I'm long-winded all of the time, orally it doesn't seem as bad.
    
    	GO IRISH!
    	GO AIR FORCE!
    
    	Rachel	

        Just an aside on the last few, in re female pilots,
        
        I was taught to  fly  by  a woman back in the early '60s at the
        Scottish Gliding Union, Portmoak/Scotlandwell in  Fife.  Out of
        about 8 instructors, three were women.
        
        Andy
        

    
    	re.45
    
    	In the USAF many of the IPs are women because they're good enough
    	to make it and it's the one opportunity that they have to fly
    	jets.
    
    	Rachel

       A few notes back Rachel commented about some senior officers not
       being sure that "women can take it". I am sure this does exist,
       but then it is worth noting that during WWII many of the special
       service operatives and resistance fighters were women. Many were
       captured, many tortured - sometimes to death. There is no
       evidence that I know of that women were less able to "take it"
       than men.

       However two attitudes are real problems. Some male officers are
       [subconciously?] afraid that they couldn't handle the guilt if a
       woman in their command were captured and tortured.

       Also there is a very real possibility that male prisoners would
       be subjected to "third person torture" - being forced to witness
       women prisoners being tortured or raped in order to break them.
       There *is* evidence that such third person torture (which was
       occasionally used by both the german gestapo and its japanese
       equivalent in WWII) is more effective in breaking a prisoner than
       direct torture in many cases.

       Perhaps all we are seeing is the unverbalised fears of men that
       *they* can't take it, being expressed as a fear that women can't.


       /. Ian .\

    Maybe this is digging deep, and if it's inappropriate for this topic
    I'll shut up.  But .-1 made me think about a conversation I had
    with my husband the other day.  It concerned a topic that on the
    surface is totally unrelated, but I wonder...
    
    We were talking about the form of sexism that I call the "Madonna
    complex" where men put women on a pedestal so to speak.  The context of
    our conversation was child abuse, and how the courts tend to return an
    abused child to the home of its physical mother to be abused again, and
    actually attach an almost ethereal significance to the fact that a
    woman PHYSICALLY BORE a child, regardless of how she treats that child.
    My premise was (and is) that this practice results from the fact that
    our system of justice (e.g. judges) is almost entirely men, and that
    those men see these women as some sort of madonnas and physical
    motherhood as something not of this world, not to be tampered with by a
    mere mortal. 
    
    Is it reaching too far to speculate that perhaps the attitude of
    the military could be some of the same?  Women can't fight in combat
    because... because they're women, that's why!  Women are special,
    women are to be pampered, etc ... ad nauseum.
    
    							Pat

    Re .48 (Pat)-
    
    > Is it reaching too far to speculate that perhaps the attitude
    > of the military could be some of the same?  Women can't fight
    > in combat because... because they're women, that's why!
    
    I enjoy and appreciate the tangent we're taking, but what a wonderful
    opportunity to return to the topic ;-).  Women can't fight in combat
    because... Congress says they can't.  I *do* think that were the
    ERA to be accomplished, Congress would have to change that law.
    "the attitude of the military" matters not now, nor would it then.
    
    Certainly individual members of our military forces feel 
    differently about it than congress does (witness Rachel's 
    pointed comments about jets); many of us with some small 
    military experience (ok, mine was all peacetime, nobody think 
    I'm claiming otherwise) are perfectly willing to bring women 
    into combat roles.
                             
    Hm- I'm only pointing this out because Pat, you touched one of my
    buttons, with your phrase "the attitude of the military..." thats
    like saying "the attitude of women".  It is lumping people into
    an anonymous amorphous politically-suspect mass.  In this case in
    particular, it isn't even the military preventing women from taking 
    combat jobs, its the congress.
    
    DougO

I imagine that the comment about the ERA not affecting the military has
something to do with the fact that 'military law' wouldn't pay anymore attention
to ERA then the zillions of other civilian laws ignored under military law.

I feel that there is a lot to the 'third party torture' reason for keeping women
out of combat.  I wouldn't go so far as the 'madonna' attitude. Assuming that a
man would fall apart watching a woman tortured (and all the other situations of
the same principle), is it still a good idea to have women in combat if that
means men will be unable to do their job because of the women's presence? 

I think that a lot of that has to do with considering 'the other sex' special
and different from your own sex.  I couldn't watch a woman being tortured, but
then again, I imagine a woman would have a hard time watching a man tortured.

I like considering women special and different from me; special because I like
differences.  Not to the madonna limit, but I would hate to have to give it up.
I think what I have is the 'valueing difference' attitude that women are
special, and I'd hate to have to think of them as being "the same". 

JMB

    So men will fall apart if women join them in combat?  I got a great
    idea then.  Ban men from combat!  They will make great nurses,
    clerks and other inglorious jobs suited to their frail nature.
    
    
    					Steve

    
    If women become combatants, then I daresay the battlefield
    would become *too dangerous* for mere men... battle would
    become frightfully brutal!
    
    I would skedaddle my a** out of the combat zone, forthwith...!

    It would seem to me that keeping women out of combat has more
    to do with the traditional idea that perpetuation of the
    species requires that the females be kept out of danger
    whenever possible. While this seems "reasonable" (certainly
    unfair, but in terms of species survival, reasonable) when
    the population is low, it hardly makes sense now, when we're
    practically choking to death from our own numbers.
    
    --- jerry

    re .51
    Yeah, Steve!  You remind me of the time in high school biology class
    when my (male) lab partner fainted when we started to cut into our
    frog dissection....

    Tony Lewis (who knows everything) is fond of remarking, when
    this topic comes up, "No society ever voluntarily armed its
    slave class."
    
    						Ann B.

    
    	Forgive me if I offend anyone and let me know if I go too far
    	but I'd like to address some points brought up by JMB.
    
    	"zillions of other civillian laws ignored under military law"
    	That offended me.  Military law is different from civilian law
    	but when it is, there is usually a very good reason.  Take AWOL
    	as one example.  There is no parallel in civilian life but that's
    	because a civilian job does not, at least as far as I've seen,
    	require the discipline of the military.  Also, we're not allowed
    	to join unions and we have to undergo random drug testing. (I
    	have never been quite as embarrassed because there is an enlisted
    	female in the bathroom with you to make sure that you don't
    	tamper with anything.)  However, most people in the military
    	live with the infringements upon our rights (such as not actively
    	supporting any candidate for office) because we believe in what
    	we do.  A friend commented to me yesterday that the military
    	really needs to get its act together.  In many ways maybe that's
    	true.  For people like me, that's a major reason we join.  Please
    	don't tone your responses to the military to make it seem like
    	1) as DougO said we are one big milling mass of sheep and 2)
    	that we ever forget that we are a CIVILIAN-CONTROLLED military.
    	(That later point being something drilled into me in ROTC and
        something I painfully discovered can sometimes be not-so-good
    	in my readings about Vietnam. 
    
    	"is it still a good idea to have women in combat if that means
    	men will be unable to do their job because of the women's
    	presence."  I agree with the previous response.  Also, I think
    	one could look at the success of the Israeli army and decide
    	that maybe women and men can work together successfully in battle.
    
    	As for third party torture, I'd have a hard time watching anyone
    	tortured.  That pain would be magnified if I knew the person
    	(For instance if I was in his/her squadron and we got shot down
    	together etc)  One also has to take into account that one of
    	the forms of torture which could be utilised is rape.  While
    	men can be raped, it doesn't seem, at least as far as my
    	experience, that it happens very often and it would seem to
    	me that in a POW-type situation, the enemy would be more likely
    	to rape a woman.  It would be hard for anyone , male or female
    	to have to watch another be raped.  I have to say, though, that
    	I agree with Ian that I can't see why it would be worse for
    	men.
    
    	Please don't get me wrong.  I don't EVER want to be involved
    	in an armed conflict.  However, if my cousins have to fight
    	why shouldn't I, who has had the same or better opportunities
    	then them or other men, have to fight also.  In a more selfish
    	light, by allowing women in combat roles you increase their
    	chance for promotion and A GREATER INFLUENCE on the military
    	policies of this country in peacetime.
    
    	Some of this may not be too clear.  I'd be happy to clarify
    	it.  Thanks for listening to my opinion.
    
    	Rachel
    	

I think jerry hit on a really good reason for not having women in combet in the
past...  Especially those nasty little wars that went on for decades...

Thanks for enlightening me on military/martial law DougO!

JMB

    
    	Well, no one has said it, so I guess I'll don my flame proof
    	suit and say it. I wouldn't want my life to depend on a female
    	in combat! Now, before someone jumps up and starts the flames,
    	please read the remainder. The reason being that MOST women
    	                                                 ****
    	are just not big enough to handle a male opponent in hand-to-hand
    	combat, which most of the action I saw in VN ended up. They
    	may be able to handle a weapon as good as any man, but what
    	about when it gets down to hand-to-hand. I know, I can just
    	hear it now, well I'm big enough, maybe you are, but on the
    	whole most aren't. BTW, I feel the same about the men that
    	are also not big enough to handle another man. These small
    	men ended up dieing most of the time and in a lot of caeses
    	were the cause for someone else to die because of their lack
    	of ability to do their job. Anyone facing combat should have
    	to meet size and strength standards, it's not only their life
    	at stake, often it is also others. In combat one of the most
    	important things to keep you alive is not only your ability
    	to do your job, but also the other guy's ability to watch your
    	back (do his job).
    
    	If they made standards that were realistic for hand-to-hand
    	combat for ANYONE male or female, then I would have no problem
    	in seeing females sent to combat as long as they could meet
    	the standards, same for males. There are plenty of non-combat
    	jobs that need be filled, let the ones unable to meet standards
    	fill these jobs.
    
    	my 2 cents worth.
    
    	Okay, let the flames fly, my suit is on!!
    
    	G_B
    

    
    
    	Good one eagles, am still chuckling over that one.  
    
    	No I don't mean anyone going into combat has to be a world class
    	weight lifter, just large enough to handle an average size person.
    	I really felt bad in Nam when we got this one new guy into our
    	unit, who was about 5' 1" and maybe 100 pounds soaking wet and
    	with full combat pack. Needless to say, he didn't survive the
    	first hand-to-hand we had (neither did a lot of big guys). That
    	kid should have never been in combat, he just couldn't handle
    	himself. Combat is a hard thing to survive as it is, placing
    	someone that can't handle someone of average size is only asking
    	to get that person killed needlessly. We don't send a person
    	with only one arm into combat, why should we send in a person
    	that has no chance in a hand-to-hand struggle, it doesn't make
    	sense.
    
    	G_B

    I've been fortunate to have not had combat experience or
    combat training (I thought Air Farce boot camp was about
    as hard as boy scout camp..)
    
    But it seems to me that those who run combat forces
    and combat forces training schools ought to know that
    half of their trainees are smaller that average, and
    that there are many combat disciplines in which
    superiority is not determined solely by brawn.

    
    of course, maybe it's a good thing not to train women for
    combat. if half the world is ignorant of the latest techniques 
    in micro- and macroslaughter, perhaps the human race still
    has a chance.
        
    	bruce

    Grist for the Mill Dept:
    
    Awright youse recruits, I hoid on da news that there's gonna
    be some danged *article* in Sunday's globe about *fe*males
    gettin' hand-to-hand training. . .in da Marines fer cryin'
    out loud.  Well, notwidstandin' alla dat, I expect youse all
    ta read it.  Yah, even you, Mullet, ah. . .Mal-hut. . .whatevah.
    Ya unnerstan?. . .
    
    What?  I didn't *hear* you. . .
    
    Whaaaatt??. . .etc., ad nauseum
    
    Steve
    

    
    re hand to hand in VN
    
    yeah, we out in the field heard that lots of it went on in
    Rue Tu Do around bottles of 'saigon tea'...

    re .58-.63:
    
    Could I remind everyone that note 110 has been created specifically
    to discuss "Women in the Military" and I am sure that it is not
    just for women to talk about their military careers.
    
    This note I would like to return to discussing the ERA.
    
    Thank you,
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    in re .64
    
    Thanks Steve, I second the motion.
    
    Bonnie J
    comod