Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    
        re: 0
    	sorry, got carried away and forgot to sign my note.
    
    						kim

    Since it was requested that we avoid a discussion upon the ethics of
    war, I shall try to control my self ... ;-).  But, before I begin I
    wish to state clearly that I am not wildly in favour of war or the
    draft, etc. lest what I say be misinterpreted.
    
    I feel strongly that if men can be unwillingly conscripted, so then
    should women be.
    
    Many conscripts, and volunteers for that matter, end up at 'the front'
    so _if_ we're shipping men to the front, I believe that their female
    compatriots should be offered the same opportunity/risk.
    
    _Anyone_ specifically volunteering for combat duty should not be denied
    if they possess the necessary skills.
    
    You folks are s-o-o-o-o lucky I'm controlling myself here and that I'm
    stone cold sober and at my desk. ;-).  This is one is like peanuts for
    me...if I lose my grip I couild be typing into the Third Millenium...
    
      Ann

    
    (can you tell its a slow day, i think this is my third reply in
    here today!)
    
    There was also some comment about women in combat in the Panama
    fiasco--oops, invasion.  Seems due to the nature of the combat
    some of the batallions with women got 'caught in the crossfire' 
    and had to fight to survive, and the women shot/killed numbers
    of Panamanian soldiers.  So, there were comments about how
    they should be allowed to continue this, to fight in combat, 
    assuming they are trained and equally capable.  
    
    It does make sense to me.  If the service is your chosen career
    you should be able to achieve the highest rank your abilities
    NOT gender allow.  I agree with Ann, war and the draft don't
    please me, but if 'boys' have to go, so should 'girls'.
    
    Truthfully I think ALL 18 year olds should be required to
    spend 2 years in 'community' service, be it peace corps, 
    military, local shelters, or whatever.  Maybe we'd all have
    a different outlook on the variety of people, conditions, 
    environment, etc if we spent that time in dedicated service.
    
    deb
    

    There was  a  photo  (in  the  Boston  Globe?)  of a woman who the
    caption  identified as an officer in the MPs (Military Police) who
    had  led  a  group  in some sort of raid in the Panama invasion. I
    don't know how she got around the rules.

--David

    David,
    
    She didn't get around the rules. The rules about no women in combat
    apply to the Marines and Navy not the army according to the article
    that I read.
    
    Bonnie

    
    Herb,
    Note that both Ann and I said we disliked the draft...I
    agree,,,,neither should have to battle....
    but if it MUST exist then both should have to serve.
    
    d

    
    
    	RE the woman who was in the article.
    
    	If it was the same one I read, she was an Army captain
    	and was commanding 30 troops. She was assigned to take
    	a kennel filled with Police Dogs maintained by the opposition.
    	Supposedly, the kennel was heavily guarded (this had not
    	been anticipated) and she successfully completed the
    	operation. She also (again I just read this in the newspaper
    	and so the accuracy is always open to question) supposedly
    	crashed the gate with her jeep.
    
    	Supposedly, this was not considered COMBAT. It was considered
    	a Police Action so she was able to participate. Sounds suspiciously
    	like this should be another one for the DOUBLESPEAK note earlier,
    	hmm??
    							kim

    
    ?	I just heard that our representative here in Colorado
    ?	Pat Schroeder, will be presenting to Congress a plan 
    ?	to have female members of the Army (I don't believe 
    ?	any of the other service branches are mentioned just 
    ?	yet) go to a 4 year experiment with women in combat. 
    
     Without further information, I'll hold back on my opinion of this
    plan. My only question right now is - Who are we going to war with for
    4 years??????????
    
    ed

    see also:
    
    womannotes-v1
    167 - pilots and aviation and women
    309 - wanted: women veterans
    
    -Jody
    

    My opinion is:
    
    1.  Women who volunteer should be allowed in combat.
    
    2.  I do not believe in the draft for *either* men or women.
    
    3.  If there *has* to be a draft for *men* (which I would oppose)
        then I *do* *not* think there should be a draft for women as
        well.  This is because, in general, I believe men to be more
        suited for combat than women.  The reason I believe this to
        be the case is because most men are stronger and bigger than
        most women, and most boys are still raised to be tougher and
        much less emotional and sensitive than girls.  I think that
        it is very easy to blithely say that, Oh, yes, everything must
        be fair and equal in everyway.  But, we come from a society
        which traditionally does not expect to raise it's daughters
        to come home dead in a box when they are 19 yrs. old.  The
        American public is not going to accept this overnight.  Like
        it or not, there some basic differences between men and women
        that cannot be ignored.  There are a few exceptions in both
        sexes but not many.  By far the majority of 19 yr. old American
        women are not suited for combat, in my opinion, because they
        have not been raised to be suited for combat and because most
        of them are not strong or tough enough.  Remember we're talking
        about the entire population of U.S. females here, not an elite
        group such as most womannoters are.
    
    Lorna
    
      

RE; .9 (Herb)

>    <but if it MUST exist then both should have to serve.>
>    
>    
>    Why?


Because defending the United States of America is just as important to
women as it is to men.



kath

    A lot of men would be a lot less hawkish if their sisters
    and daughters were coming home in boxes. Sending women
    into combat might perversely turn into a powerful force
    for peace.

    re .11, Jody-
    
    > see also:
    > 
    > womannotes-v1
    > 167 - pilots and aviation and women
    > 309 - wanted: women veterans
    
    And here in this file:
    
    110 - Women in the Military (started by Rachel McCaffrey (GO IRISH ;-), 
    who is currently an officer on active duty in the Air Force.)
    
    DougO

	SOAPBOX 273 -- Female Soldiers in Combat Roles


and for a few of you that are having a hard time biting your tongues


	SOAPBOX 218 -- Morality of War


Both are very recent discussions and seem to be reasonably calm.

kath

    re: soapbox stuff
    
    I vaguely recall a rather heated soapbox session on women in 
    combat....Suzanne, weren't you part of that?
    
    In general:
    
    I think if women and men are drafted, and trained, then those
    who are physically and emotionally able are shipped off to
    the front lines, it shouldn;t matter if they are men or women.
    Note, only those *trained* are sent.  Sending untrained, incapable
    soldiers is silly (though certainly done) and truly a waste of
    human life.  Now, if fewer women pass the training due to lack
    of strength, ability, agility or whatever, so be it...but those
    who pass go.  Those who don't are given noncombat duty, both men
    and women.  
    
    Why isn't that fair?  Why shouldn't that be 'agreeable' to the U.S?
    
    Like kath said, women want/need/should protect their country just
    as much as the men.
    
    deb
    

    Re .9:  Why?
    
    Why not?  Why should qualified women NOT serve in combat if they want
    to?   I personally do not want to fight and have never wanted to fight,
    but I have *ALWAYS* felt it is unfair for: 
    
      o  men to have to go into combat whether or not they want to 
      o  women to be prevented from going into combat whether or not 
         they want to
    
    That's a waste of people.  And it's unfair to men.
    
    Also, it's a rathole, but I agree with a previous note:  conscription
    could be used as it is in other countries in a much wider and more
    positive way -- as a means of getting young people to do general
    community service.  Not just "draft" for the armed services.  Perhaps
    you could be required to give two years of <service>, but also given
    options as to what form that service took (army or community). 
    Benefits for the country:  more vital work done (bridges built, parks
    revitalized, homeless housed).  Benefits for the people:  more
    understanding of other segments of the population.  
    
    Pam

    Re .17, if basic training were set up as fairly as you describe
    there might not be anything "wrong" with it, but once a person has
    been drafted it's difficult to get out of going to combat if there's
    a war going on.  How is it determined that someone is not emotionally
    ready for combat duty?  Did you ever see "Full Metal Jacket"?
    Re:  others
    When someone makes a statement that says something like "women are
    just as ready to defend the United States " perhaps you should remember
    to say *some* women.  If I ever fight to defend anything it will
    because *I* decided to, not because somebody such as George Bush
    told me to go kill a bunch of people in a place we have no business
    being in.  
    
    As I said before, I don't believe in the draft for either men or
    women.  I do think that either sex who wants to fight should be
    able to.  But, basically the way I look at it is, it's bad enough
    that men have had to go to war, it would be even worse if women
    start going.  If all women eventually have the same attitude towards
    war and killing that many men have had, the human race will really
    be in trouble.  Maybe that will be how it all ends. :-)
    
    Lorna
      

    re.9  why?  [aren't you sorry you asked? :-} ]
    
    somehow it strikes me as a particularly deadly form of discrimination
    based upon gender, that men/boys are expected to risk getting
    their keesters [not to mention other valuable body parts] shot off
    simply because they _are_ men/boys.  If I were of the male persuasion
    this would piss me off big time.
    
    I do not wish to go into combat.  It is a 'right' for which I feel sure
    I will never fight...certainly not on my own behalf.
    
    As for 'making women more like men', Simone de Beauvoir once wrote that
    'there are two [classes] of people in the world: Men and Human Beings. 
    When women start behaving like Human Beings they are accused of trying
    to be Men.'
    
      Ann

    re .20, I agree with you!
    
    Lorna
    

    re .20
    I agree with a lot of what you said.  (I disagree only about things like
    "women are too special to fight" and "our entire humanity would be
    degraded if women fought" simply because to me ALL PEOPLE are special.
    Even men.  (JOKE, JOKE!)  )
    
    Your comment about women taking on men's values, though, was incorrect,
    at least so far as how it applies to my "why not" note.
    
      I do not "value" going to war.
      I do not "value" fighting.
    
      I DO "value" fairness and equality.  THOSE are things to be valued.
    
    If men HAVE to fight and women are not ALLOWED to fight, that is
    unfair.
    
      I do NOT WANT to fight, but I feel that it is unfair for me to be 
      safe from it when men my age are not.  I feel morally uncomfortable
      profiting from it.
    
    Per .0, we are not supposed to digress about how we feel about war, but
    for the record, I feel the best world would be one in which there is no
    war or fighting, but in which there is fairness and equality.  And,
    perhaps, as was pointed out by Dana, having women fight on the front
    lines and die might be a shocking way to make policy makers think twice
    and three times about sending ANYONE to war.
    
    Pam

    Re .21, actually since most (all?) wars have been started *by* men
    perhaps it isn't completely unfair that *men* have had to fight
    them?  Perhaps when just as many women have just as much money and
    power in the world as men have, then it will be fair for women to
    also have to fight?  Why should my daughter have to go into combat
    because a bunch of rich old men have decided it's time to have another
    war?
    
    I have always had a lot of compassion for my male friends who were
    drafted during Vietnam, but I think what we should be hoping for
    is a world where neither men or women have to go to war.  Not a
    world where both men and women have to go to war.  (Do 2 wrongs
    ever make a right?)
    
    If all equality for the sexes means is that all women take on all
    the attributes of the male sex, then I'd just as soon go back to
    the way things were before we even had the vote.  My idea of equality
    of the sexes is to take the best of each sex and combine them, and
    war is definitely not one of the best things that men have contributed
    to the world.
    
    Lorna
    

    Another thought: Upper middle-class white women with high SAT scores
    wouldn't have to ever go into combat anyway (unless they chose to).
     Even with a draft, they would be just as safe from combat as they are today
safe in their ivy league schools.  No, it would be the young black and
    hispanic women who would go to fight and die, and the young white
    women from blue collar families who didn't have enough money to
    go to college, and couldn't get a scholarship.  I find it interesting
    that women who wouldn't have to go, unless they chose to, find it
    so easy to send other women with lower SAT scores, and/or from poorer
    families off to war.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .20:    
    
    >I think women are too good and too important to fight wars.
    
    Women fighting in wars isn't a new idea.  When a people's
    entire way of life and population is *really and truly* at
    stake, history has shown that the women are willing to and do
    take on combat roles.
    
    For example:
    
    Joan of Arc
    
    Russian women in WWII - 3% of all combat roles were taken by women
    in WWII.  I'd have been there too, had the Nazis been invading
    *my* home.
    
    Israeli women - all able-bodied people are conscripted into the
    Israeli army, something like 97% of the population.  But I don't
    know if the women take combat positions or not.
    
    Can anyone name some other examples?
    

    My personal feeling is that we have to try it and feel what it does to
    us in order to move forward.
    
    But the point about people escaping service is a good one. If men do
    not have to send their daughters, but just other people's daughters,
    they aren't going to care any more than they do now about other
    people's sons. (I speak of the men who run the military; I consider it
    a reasonable generalization.)
    
    There's a part of me that wants to believe that if we made the move to
    put women in combat, and draft them, then we would fight fewer of the
    pointless wars, because the spineless war-mongers wouldn't be able to
    stomach the deaths of their bed-partners. 
    
    But the fact is: if I'm wrong, more people die. I guess I have to side
    with Herb: ban conscription of men.

    Well, I am replying without reading the other 27 responses, because I
    didn't want them to influence my thought patterns.
    
    I spent almost 7 years in the military. Two of those seven years were
    spent in a field that was *possibly* to be open to women that had
    been closed to women.
    
    I find it extremely hard to believe that most females are strong enough to
    face the battles of war (I'm not debating whether men are or aren't,
    I'm just keeping striclty to women). Most females are brought up to not
    like to get their hands dirty, to learn how to bake, and to be a good
    wife and mother - I'm not saying all females are, but in my basic
    training class, only 3 out of 30 females were going into fields that
    weren't considered "female" fields (ie CPBO, HOSPITAL, DENTAL,
    PURCHASING)
    
    I had to pick up bodies that had been burned beyond recognition several
    times in the two years that I was in the experimental field.  I know
    how it effected me. I know how I still have sweating nightmares if I am
    in periods of stress now over it. I know how I was "gone" for several
    days after the events, - and not able to function to 100% of my abilty
    - had that been a war, where the survival is often left up to the
    individual, I don't know if I would have gotten through it.
    
    These bodies were already dead. They had been dead for less than an
    hour to more than days before I got to them.  Not pleasant.  But at
    least I didn't have to point a gun at them, or a child, and kill them
    in cold blood.  I know VETS that did.
    
    I know there were times that I was out in the fields, and was on my
    monthly period... there were times that I was not able to deal with
    the issues that I should have dealt with. In war, woman would
    have these same issues...  its hard to change a tampax in a foxhole.
    Yes, the above line is extremely crude, but its a reality. You can't
    call in sick because you are experiencing cramps.
    
    I watched females in basic training cry their eyes out, and barely take
    stress that is given in the six/eight weeks, how in the world can they
    take the stress of war. 
    
    In the two years that I was in the experimental field, I discovered I
    was pregnant. The fetus I was carrying had been exposed to tear gas
    everyday, for almost 5 weeks before I realized I was pregnant. I
    sweated whether she was going to be all right (she's a straight A student,
    guess she turned out ok :-)...), but in a war, there are going to be
    females who do get pregnant... these are issues that are going to have to
    be dealt with.  I can remember SCREAMING at a colonel one afteroon, cuz
    I had sighed a statement that said I would not get pregnant during
    this experiment., and I had failed to keep my word to the military. I
    remember screaming at him that the AF should thank me, did he think all
    woman in the military were sterile? The military had to learn to deal
    with minor upsets like a pregnancy.
    
    I also watched as men in the military sheltered the females there. I'd
    hate to see a man have to give up his life, because he didn't want to
    have to have a femalen go forth first.  When I was in the military, the
    men I knew would lay their life on the line for a woman. I'd hate to
    have to have them put in that situation.
    
    Bottom line...  I don't belive women belong in combat. Period. (I also
    believe men don't, but thats not what is being debated here). Women were
    allowed into the field that I was in the experminent in. I was proud to be
    chosen. But it REALLY opened my eyes to what combat is all about. The
    field? Disaster Preparedness...  We worked with nerve gas, biological
    warfare, and tear gas. We picked up planes and helicopters that didn't make 
    it back to a safe landing. We lived with snakes, we lived without food. We 
    lived in body suits that let no air in at all, except though gas masks that
    we had to wear. Before I went through that experience I wondered.  After
    the experience, I say no-way.  In my class, I was the only woman that
    survived (1 of out 3, only 12 men out of 20 survived) that class.. the
    class behind me had the same statistics. We did finally get the five
    females that the AF wanted for the two years... how many of the five made
    it?  I don't know...  I left when I was eight months pregnant... cuz the
    AF was going to send me, not me and my newborn to Korea.  My priorites
    just were not where the militarys' was... if they want you to have a
    family, they'll issue you one.
    
    Leave women out of the day to day combat of war.

          President Bush in his news conference yesterday hailed the
          "heroic performance" of the women who fought in Panama.  However,
          he declined to support changes in the restrictions on women in
          combat.  He said, "I'll willingly ... listen to recommendations
          from the Defense Department" on changing the policy, but he
          emphasized that the female soldiers were not on "combat
          assignments."

          Maj. Doug Super, a Pentagon spokesman, took a similar position,
          saying the female soldiers were forced into fighting by "the
          circumstances of the situation.  They were not given combat
          assignments.  They found themselves in a firefight."

          However, Rep. Patricia Schroeder of Colorado, derided this
          semantic distinction.  "The Panama situation just shows you the
          fiction we've been living with.  You see women down there with
          their rifles.   It looks like combat, it smells like combat, it
          bleeds like combat."

          Shroeder said she has heard complaints from young women in the
          military that their exclusion from combat occupations shuts them
          out of all the interesting career options.

          "They're closed in the name of protection of women," Schroeder
          said, "even though they're subjected to as much risk as anyone
          else."

          Senator John Warner dismissed the prospect of "full equality,"
          saying, "there are still certain areas where we cannot co-locate
          men and women in close confinement."

          [ Why not?  Have precedents been set showing this absolutely
          would not work?  Is he assuming the men would not be able to
          control themselves around a woman? (assuming there would
          initially probably be only 1 woman in a group).]

                                                       nancy b.

          >  "They're (career options) closed in the name of protection of
          >   women," Schroeder said, "even though they're subjected to as
          >   much risk as anyone else."

          Reminds me of how, immediately following the Challenger disaster,
          women in the next couple launches were withdrawn from the
          missions.  Women must be just too delicate to be blown to bits.

                                                            nancy b.

.30>		Women must be just too delicate to be blown to bits.


    Nancy,
    
    I don't think its that females are too delicate, but it's the way the
    United States antecedents as a whole conform to.
    
    Woman are supposed to create, stay at home, have the second income if
    necessary, etc. Although a lot of people here in =wn= don't readily
    agree with it (me included), we are not the rest of the world.
    
    Even though we see it changing, I found a good example this week that
    it really isn't changing all that much.  Becky (my daughter) went back
    to school this week.  She could only take 4 core subjects (she is in
    high school), because all the typing, shorthand and home-ec (cooking,
    sewing, child-rearing, etc) were all full. This high school is STILL
    setting the girls up to do the female type things...
    
    It finally hit me this week in a conversation with another male who is
    a =wn= reader...  what the problem is - that we are not getting the
    education to the level we need to get it to.  If 15 years
    olds are STILL being told you need to take typing, shorthand etc so you
    can get a job as a sec't right out of high school (no, please I'm not
    saying there is anything wrong with being a sec't!!) that's where the
    problem is. That's where we need to get the eduction that girls can do
    anything they darn well want to do, if they apply themselves. We need
    to change to attitudes of the people running the schools, and those are
    the people that tend to still be my fathers age, and have the mentality
    that woman belong in the kitchen, home with the kids, and being cuddled
    and protected.
    
    Until you target education to that group - and change their minds
    through education (because brute force isn't going to do it), you
    are going to get the actions like you got with the challenger.
    
    Gale

    getting the right skills can be as easy (and as hard) as going to a
    VOCATIONAL high school (with a college prep program, if you wish), and
    majoring in any one of a number of things.  Oh, and you can generally
    take typing there too if you want....;).
    
    I think what would bother me about having women in *at risk* locations
    and positions would be WHAT IF their skills were needed in a
    semi-combat or combat occurrence and they hadn't been trained in those
    skills because "they were women and weren't meant to be in combat
    situations".....
    
    -Jody
    

    Re .30 & .32, I'd rather be "protected and cuddled" by a man any
    day than "be blown to bits" in combat.  Yes, Nancy, I am too delicate
    for combat.  
    
    Friday night I saw the movie "Born on the 4th of July."  It was
    an excellent movie, I thought.  As I was watching it and watching
    18 and 19 yr. old guys dying in combat and suffering in veterans
    hospitals, I thought of this note and I was disgusted that some
    people think it isn't bad enough that men have to go to war.  They
    think women should, too.  I am very glad they weren't drafting women
    in 1968 when I turned 19.
    
    Lorna
    

 I think women should be given the option of going into combat (and told all
of the implications before they choose.)

 The Doctah

    re.24 Lorna,
    
    I agree wholeheartedly that your daughter should not be drafted or
    shipped off to war.  I can sympathise with you.  If your daughter
    _chose_ to enter a combat role, would you deny her that control over
    her own destiny?  [why anyone would choose this is beyond me, but there
    are those who do]
    
    If you had a son, why should *he* have to go into combat 'because a
    bunch of rich old men have decided it's time to have another war?'
    I am presuming not. 'I Didn't Raise my Boy to be a Soldier' is an oldie
    but a goody [no, I know that you weren't around when it first came out
    :-}...]
    
    When I was out protesting and demonstrating, we all thought it would be
    the ultimate justice that those who started the war be forced to fight
    it.  I feel certain that it would have ended sooner [assuming that it
    ever got started in the first place...]  I feel that it is 'completely
    unfair' that men who fight wars generally are the instigators.
    
      Ann

    Re .18, Gale, I think you reply is very good, and brings up a lot
    of good points.
    
    In combat, I also think that soldiers are expected to by a lot stronger
    physically than most women are.  In the movie "Born on the 4th of
    July" when Tom Cruise's character got shot on the battlefield, a
    medic ran out, picked him up and slung him over his back and ran
    to safety with him.  I now I certainly couldn't pick up a person
    the size of Tom Cruise and sling him over my back.
 
    I think most women just don't have the qualities required for combat,
    either physically or mentally.  And, I think that trying to say
    they do is just wishful thinking on the part of some women.

    Lorna
    

    I meant .28, Gale's reply.
    

    Re: Carrying on the back.

    Lorna, that particular carry is called a firemans' carry, and believe
    it or not, you can be taught to do it, AND carry someone a LOT bigger
    than you...  I didn't believe I could do it either, but it is a lot
    easier than it looks :-)..

    Gale

    
    Lorna,
    I agree I don't have what it takes to go into combat (or the
    military in general for that matter...).  I too saw Born on the 4th
    this weekend, I certainly wouldn;t have gone!!  But then many many
    guys didn't want to go either.
    
    I don't think any of us here are saying the draft is right/fair/good,
    or that all women should be in combat...
    just that IF there are women who CHOOSE the military as their life
    career (why any woman would is beyond me, but some do)...then she
    should be allowed to take 'combat' duty in order to enhance her
    rank, and move up the ladder.  
    
    Just as if some women wanted to be a VP here, but the rules said
    all VP's must have served in xyz position...but that xyz position
    was only open to men, then there would never be any women VP's.
    not fair...and not allowed by the company,...and protested by
    many women/men for a long time.  So why not the military.???
    
    I agree with the comments about stopping the draft, stopping the
    wars, etc...but now, today, there is a military, and to get to
    the highest ranking positions (in a reasonable time) its necessary
    to serve in 'combat' jobs .... so if the women want it, let em try
    out for it!
    
    deb
    

    Re: some prior comments about women "who wouldn't have to go" being
    willing to force other women to be drafted... Some of us would indeed
    have gone, drafted or otherwise. [We might well have regretted it, but
    then, how many of the guys wished they'd never gone to war?]
    
    Sure, I'd love to see a world with no war in it. Failing that, I'd like
    an all-volunteer force (including equal opportunities for women). And
    if a draft was deemed necessary, I'd like it to be for both men and
    women.
    
    The note concerning actual field experience was interesting, and of
    course there are potential problems - but it seems to me that limiting
    a woman's choices in the armed services is just as bad as limiting them
    in construction, or medicine, or any other potential line of work.
    
    -b

    I once read some interesting research on the sociology of war.  
    The theory claimed that since it is mostly men who die during a
    war, the population's male-female ratio becomes imbalanced (i.e.
    there are more young women than young men).  The result is that
    women who want to get married have to try harder to attract
    a man;  the available men get to pick and choose the women 
    please them most.
                                    
    In other words (if you go by the laws of supply and demand), war
    can control the "value" of men by lowering the supply.  Men become
    valuable commodities and women make the necessary sacrifices to 
    get them. 
    
    I can see how this might be true.  I was in the Army Reserves for
    six years and had lots of informal discussions about whether women
    should go into combat.  When the topic didn't dwell on strength or 
    the ability to deal with stress, the dialog went something like this: 
    
    male:  I don't think women should fight in combat because I 
           don't want to come home from war and find that half the
           girls from my hometown are dead.
    
    me:    Oh?  But it shouldn't bother us that half the boys are dead?
    
    male:  Well, if you need to build up the population again, you need
           more girls [sic] than men, if you know what I mean.
    
    me:    You mean, the men will need to impregnate as many women as
           possible?  Are you sure they won't mind?
    
    male:  Well, heh heh, as long as they aren't ugly, heh heh.  But
           seriously, biologically speaking, it just isn't sensible to have
           girls [sic] go into combat.
    
    me:    Biologically speaking, it just isn't sensible to have a war.
    
    (this usually ends the discussion.)
    
    What do you think?
    
    Helen
    
    P.S.  Unless the policy has changed in the last 10 months, women
    in the army are authorized to train in any specialty that doesn't
    require hand-to-hand combat. Basic training is exactly the same
    for men and women except that women are required to do fewer pushups
    and situps, have a longer period of time to complete a two-mile run,
    and are forbidden bayonet training (because bayonets are used only in
    hand-to-hand combat).  
    
    At the end of basic training, our social conditioning had been turned
    inside out.  We were completely transformed.  Emotionally we were as 
    combat-ready as the male troops.

    Re .41, I once spent 3 months in basic training in the Army and
    my "social conditioning" was not completely turned around by the
    time I got out.  In fact, to quote a line by Robert Frost, I was
    "only more sure of all I thought was true."  
    
    It doesn't work for everybody.
    
    Lorna
    

    According to the news this week end, there were women in combat in
    Panama.  They were MP's sent in a "Non-combat" capacity but stumbled on
    a pocket of resistence and ended up fighting.  One of the women said
    that everything she learned in basic came back to her and she just did
    what she'd been trained to do.  
    
    I suspect that the "no women in combat" law will die only after a lonf
    hard struggle.  Congress is still primarily males in an age bracket
    that was not socialized to accept women in that type of role.

Do I understand right: the women who ended up in combat in Panama were _not_
taught any skills that could _only_ be used in hand-to-hand combat? So, were
they lucky, and didn't end up in hand-to-hand (they were gun-to-gun), or were
there hand-to-hand skills that they were taught because they could be used
elsewhere?

It sounds incredibly dangerous to those women, and all women in the military,
to _not_ be taught combat skills.
	Mez

    Women will not be sent into combat, so
    women soldiers will not be taught combat skills, so
    any woman soldier who inadvertently finds herself in
    a combat situation is SOL.
    
    "Military intelligence" is *still* an oxymoron.

    I am almost speechless at some of the responses in this string of
    notes. The one I most closely understand is .20, the rest leave me
    stunned.
    
    Men and women are not equal, they are not the same, never have been,
    never will be.  This push to make all things in this world "equal" by
    masculinizing them is insane.  If this is the new "feminism" I want no
    part of it.
    
    Look to the laws of nature IMHO, and you will see that males are
    physically larger and stronger than females.  They are generally
    heavier in build, larger in muscle structure, built for fighting if you
    must.  Furthermore, only females have babies. Males cannot. That hasn't
    changed, and that has a tremendous impact on the way society views its
    females, as it should.  In the larger picture of life, females, by
    societal instincts of survival, must be protected.  This is an instinct
    that must not be ignored, or scoffed at as being "unfair" or "unequal",
    and dismissed, or you will see civilization such as it is, deteriorate
    at such a degree you will wonder what happened.
    
    I don't know how to make myself completely clear. I don't mean that
    females are inferior to males, or that there is justification for
    treating them as two separate and distinct classes.  I only mean that
    in my mind I have come to realize (only over the past few years after
    being a die-hard feminist) that there ARE indeed, areas that women
    should stay out of, just as there are areas that MEN should stay out
    of.
    
    That's my two cents.
    

    re: .42
    
    Yeah, I agree that it is not for everyone.  I have talked many people
    out of joining the military.
    
    I did not mean to imply that the military conditioning is right.
    Basic training was designed to produce combat-ready soldiers.  This
    includes making sure that soldiers think killing for the 
    defense of their country is right (or at least acceptable).  All
    I meant was that (for most of us) basic training succeeded, though
    the effects were not permanent.  At the time, though, we were very
    gung-ho and this attitude was rewarded.
    
    For the record, let me say that I think everyone has the right to
    refuse this kind of conditioning.  I also think that everyone has
    the right to try to abolish war.
    
    -Helen

    I don't believe many women would do well against the average man in
    hand to hand combat (see my discussion in the Why men note for
    details 757.70) the strength deferiential is too great between the
    average man and woman.

    However, air force and navy jobs that involve combat don't require
    hand to hand skills. Why can't women have those jobs? I was in the
    Air Force only a short time, 7 months, and did not like it well. I
    did however finish the same pyhsical training as the men (with the
    exception of rifle training and how long it takes to run a mile). I
    could do whatever the men in a medical unit could have done. I saw
    much more than burned bodies in my civilian time in the E.R. You
    get hardened and used to it. Women have been seeing the bloody
    effects of battle for generations, it's false to say we couldn't
    handle it. Who do you think all the nurses are?

    A single pilot being shot down and captured might have a better
    chance if it was a man but once the pilot is down his effectiveness
    in the war is pretty much done. A woman pilot would not compromize
    us in the air and on the ground it's a moot point. The same is true
    for sailors.

    And finally, if dead women bothered us so much why did we kill
    mamma-san and her babies by the thousands in Viet Nam? Because they
    were the enemy? Becasue they were dangerous? Then women are indeed a
    force to be feared in battle. liesl

    re: .46
    
    I'm not speaking for all feminists; I'm speaking only for myself,
    so I don't know if my view is that of "new feminism."
    
    I can understand your horror at the thought of women
    dying senselessly in battle.  But something in your note bothers
    me, and I think this is it:
    
    I see motherhood as a choice and I don't believe every woman should
    be seen as a potential mother.  Women who die in battle will have no
    children, but neither will women who simply choose not to have
    children. 
    
    I think women are more than baby-makers.
    
    -Helen

    I don't think the numbers of women lost in combat would be enough
    to put an end to our species.  Not to sound heartless, but I just
    don't get that argument.  The planet is so overpopulated with people
    as it is.  I have known women in the military who were every bit as 
    gung ho as the men and willing to fight for their country.  It is
    hard for a civilian to relate to that mentality, but the military
    has its own subculture.
    	Linda

    Security forces [in which women may serve] are given a modicum of
    training in hand to hand fighting, although it is not specifically
    combat-directed.  
    
    If I correctly understand the training that friends have received in or
    to defend, apprehend, or subdue, the transferrence to combat situations
    would not be hard.  Whether it is enough when the need arises is open
    to opinion.
    
      Ann
    
    

    Re .46: The problem I have with "women must be protected" is that
    that's the same argument that has been used to keep women down since
    the dawn of time. Since it's more likely that humanity will do itself
    in en masse with pollution or germ warfare or some nuclear happening
    (accidental or otherwise), I don't think it makes much sense to suggest
    "preserving the species" as a reason to keep women out of combat.
    
    Besides, as has been pointed out, modern warfare kills and maims
    incredible numbers of women and children and other non-combatants; why
    shouldn't we at least have the chance to fight back?
    
    I believe in people protecting each other, but I don't believe in one
    group of adults having to take *all* the responsibility for protecting
    another group of adults - especially against their will.
    
    Not that I expect to change anyone's view of this - I just had a
    couple of spare pennies to get rid of, myself...
    
    -b

    I suspect that the percentage of non-combatants who die in wars is
    rather large, as has already been pointed out.  If so, then history
    would show that women are, in fact, killed in large numbers in warfare,
    whether they fight in the military or not.

    Of course, the non-combatant victims are typically the ones living on
    the land which is serving as the theater of operations.  As long as you
    fight wars in *other* nations, none of your own country's non-combatant
    "womenfolk" are in danger.  So from this we can conclude that the means
    of saving our nation's women from the dangers of the wars we fight are
    to a) keep them out of military combat roles and b) invade other
    countries. 

    And if a few Panamanian, Grenadian, or Vietnamese non-combatants die as
    a result, we can all breathe a collective sigh of relief.  Because hey,
    it's better that *their* women and children die than ours, eh?

    -- Mike

    re: .52
    
    > I don't believe in one group of adults having to take *all* the
    > responsibility for protecting another group of adults. 
    
    I agree.
    
    Also, one group should not be expected to take *all* the responsibility
    for creating life.  The attitude of so many people seems to be that
    it's ok for men to go out and destroy life (in wars that are rarely
    justified) as long as there are women to stay home and create life.
    
    As someone said earlier, if women fought and died in combat then
    maybe the bigwigs would think twice before getting the country into
    war.                    
    
    And if people find that a war is the only way they can protect 
    themselves, then it should be up to each individual to do 
    what s/he thinks will do the most good.  If some men and women think 
    they will be more useful in the front lines, then they should not
    be denied the proper training.  If other men and women think they
    will be more useful as civilians, making bombs, making babies, making
    the politicians see the needs of the people, whatever, then they 
    should not be denied this right either.  The idea of excluding *all* 
    women from the military is ridiculous to me; some women like it
    and are good at it.  It is just as ridiculous to draft *all* men.  
    Men are not all the same.  They are not all war-mongers.  They are 
    not all able to kill people.  Combat should be each individual's
    choice, whether the individual is a woman or a man.
    
    

I won't give my opinions here on warfare, the military, or the draft 
because I don't think they're relevant.  What I see as the key issue 
here (as in so many other things) is CHOICE.  Who decides what a woman 
may do with her life?  Is it the woman whose body, heart, and mind it 
is, or a wiser, more paternalistic head who knows what is best for her?

Just like with men, I'm sure there would be women who would end up 
regretting their choices.  Some won't be able to take the physical and 
mental stress, others will thrive on it.  Some will be cowards, some 
will be heroes.  Some will make inspiring commanders and brilliant 
stategists, others will be bunglers and toadies.  Some will pull out 
their uniforms every Memorial Day with pride, others will burn them in 
protest.  Some mothers will curse the government for the pointless waste 
of life, and others will hang gold stars in their windows.  Some women 
will think of it as the most adventurous time of their lives, some will 
spend their days staring out the windows of VA hospitals, some will 
never come home, some will just want to forget about it and become
housewives.  Whatever the outcome, good or bad, it is the obligation of a 
free adult human being to act as moral agent on one's own behalf, making 
choices and taking the consequences.  We only deny the right to choose 
to those we percieve as mentally incompent to understand consequences: 
young children and the developmentally impaired.  To imply that women 
are not capable of making the choice is to deny them adulthood.

Looking over my own life, I know I would have made different choices at 
different times.  If I had been drafted in 1965, I probably would have 
gone and I would even now be a Viet vet.  If I had been drafted in 1969, 
I probably would have gone to jail as a conscientious objector and I 
would even now be an ex-con (maybe with a Jimmy Carter pardon).  Either 
way, I could imagine at some point feeling that the choice I made had 
ruined my life.  The choices we have to make are not always nice ones -- it 
would be nice if no one ever had to make a choice about how to respond 
to the draft, for example.  It would be nice if no one ever had to make 
a choice about how to respond to having your family rounded up and put 
in a concentration camp, too.  It would be nice if we never had to 
decide what to do about an HIV+ diagnosis.  As terrible as all these 
choices are, I cannot think that it is better never to have had a 
choice.  It is the capacity to make choices that defines our humanity.
Denying someone the right to choose is the deepest denial of their right 
to be human.

    I had the same thought Catherine about it being a choice.  But I
    wonder if some women are worried that if women are allowed in combat
    and succeed at it, that it will lead to a draft for women and they
    won't have the choice *not* to go.  If it came down to that I think
    women would still have the same choices men had: be an objector,
    leave the country, or try and get out of serving on grounds of
    unfitness.  Or I suppose we could get pregnant and claim hardship.
    I don't think having to go into war is easy for a man emotionally
    either.
    	Linda

.27> (a nit)

>    But the point about people escaping service is a good one. If men do
>    not have to send their daughters, but just other people's daughters,
>    they aren't going to care any more than they do now about other
>    people's sons. (I speak of the men who run the military; I consider it
>    a reasonable generalization.)
 
I just wanted to point out that it isn't the *military* who starts the 
war.  I have had this very discussion with my friend Rachel McCaffrey last   
summer (she started a similar note then) and she convinced me of this
point...

At any rate, I think there are two issues.  Whether women should be allowed
coluntary combat roles, and whether women should be drafted. Most of the
arguments here against women in comabt seem to be against the latter - that
most women aren't suited, aren't physically capable, aren't mentally
prepared, etc.  But the women who *want* to fight, *are* mentally prepared.
If they make it through basic training, are judged ready, then who is to say they
are less able?  Gale, you say only very few women are qualified...but why
shouldn't the very few women be allowed to fight?

Any way, my view...if women want to fight, let 'em.  Forget all the
rationlizations, the arguments, etc.  What it comes down to, bottom line,
is - women want to do something, and are being denied the opportunity based
on their sex, not their ability.  Period.  

As for the draft, I am opposed to the draft, and specifically opposed to
drafting women.  The fact that only men are drafted means that we are halfway
to having no one drafted.  Female draft would be a step *backwards*.

D!

    Minor Nit:
    
    Getting pregnant and claiming hardship is no longer an option. 1979
    that ruling was repealed - if you get pregnant, now all it does is
    delay for 9 months and *4* weeks, where you would have to go.  The only
    time pregnancy can now be used for discharge is during basic training
    and initial duty training.
    
    Gale

    D!
    
    In saying those "who run the military", I did leave it open to imply that
    the men making the decisions may or may not be in the corps.
    
    If I recall, either congress or the president starts wars, and has some
    authority around "non-war" battles. So far, every president we've had
    has been male, and I hope I don't need to say that the representation
    of women within the legislative branch, especially the Senate, has been
    deplorable at best. Pointdexter and North, however, were corps men.
    
    Evidently decisions come from many places, but unless there's some
    pillow talk that I should know about, its been men making those
    military decisions.

    Only Congress has the power to declare war.
    
    The president, as commander-in-chief, has the right to order
    military actions short of war -- there's a law that defines when
    an attack (such as Panama or Grenada) becomes a war that needs to
    be approved by Congress.
    
    Smaller operations, like security patrols, are usually approved in
    the general orders.  Depending on how sensitive they are 
    (meaning, how likely they are to wind up on the evening news),
    they might need to be approved by higher officers, the joint
    chiefs of staff, or the president himself.
    
    Most career military people I've known don't like war.  They've
    been in it, they've seen the destruction and the pain, and they
    want to avoid it if at all possible.  But at the same time they
    think that it has to be done sometimes, and they're prepared to do
    it.  The really gung-ho bomb-droppers are usually armchair
    soldiers.
    
    --bonnie

  Let's not diverge to far onto the "men start wars" tangent.  Last
  I'd heard, women, once in a position of power, were just as capable
  as men at choosing military force, or responding with military force.
  Examples from our time:

    o Margaret Thatcher, in the Falklands war,

    o Golda Meir, in the '67 war,

    o Indira Ghandi, in various police actions

    o Corie Aquino, seemingly countless times against coups

                                   Atlant

    um, Atlant, "responding with military force" is NOT the same as
    "starting wars".  In each of the cases you cite, the woman responded
    rather than started.  That's not a trivial distinction.
    
    						=maggie

Maggie:

  I'll probably agree with you on three out of four.  But I don't
  think I'll agree when it comes to some of the wars waged in India.
  There, India was and is fighting various groups who (claim to be)
  seeking self-determination.

                                   Atlant

    My understanding is that many of the higher military positions are only
    available to personell that have held "combat rank". I believe that many
    women in the military resent being limited in their career potential due
    to their sex.

    What do we do? Continue the status quo, forbidding women from holding
    combat positions and preventing them from holding higher ranks? Allow
    woment combat positions if they choose, and allow them the same
    opportunities as men? Relax the requirements for higher rank, and allow
    men and women equal opportunity to hold them? (I've deliberately left out
    options like "abolish the military and get rid of the higher ranks" as out
    of the scope of this discussion).

        -- Charles

	A while back I saw part of a program (probably on PBS) about
	women in the military.  The part I saw was about women in the
	Navy.  The commander (is that right) of the ship could not
	get to command a larger ship because they were battle ships
	and it would put her in a combat position, so she could not
	get a higher ranking since it depended on the size of the
	ship.  This sounds like descrimination to me, but then I am
	a woman.  I may not have all the fact exact but that was the
	gist of the situation.

	All people should have the choice to progress in their choosen
	field without unfair restrictions.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			I no more want my daughter in the military
			than my son BUT it has to be their choice 
			not mine.

	Last night on NBC News it was reported that women who were in
	combat zones and were fired upon would not receive the combat 
	medal of honor (or whatever it's called) because of the Army's
	rule that women can not "officially" serve in combat roles, 
	whereas men in Panama who didn't even come near combat zones 
	will automatically be awarded this medal.

	Carla

    
        there is something seriously wrong with the rules that allow
        this to happen, carla.
    
    ~robin

Well actually Carla, it's an infantry medal of honor, and the women were in the
MPs, not the infantry. Also, male MPs won't be getting it either. There are 3
to 5 other medals that they're all up for (including some sort of Cross, which
no woman has ever gotten).

	Mez

    There is a thoughtful column in today's Globe on women in combat by
    Ellen Goodman. I will not try to represent the whole thing here. It
    considers both sides, but ends as follows.
    
    "So I come a long way around and not without qualms to believing that
    women should be allowed to try out for combat and, if fit, allowed to
    fight. Not only in the name of equal opportunity, but out of the hope
    that we can learn to value men equally.
    
    "Are Americans ready to see women come home in body bags? I hope not.
    But new risks and roles may force us to ask a deeper question: Why are
    we ready to see men come home in body bags? And more profoundly, it
    must lead us to insist that "Just Cause" is more than a perverse name.
    
    "In the end, this must be said: Any war that isn't worth a woman's life
    isn't worth a man's life."

 Thanks, Mez, for clearing that up.

 I heard the same thing on the news last night, and at first couldn't understand
why they weren't going to get the medals. Then I found out that they weren't 
eligible for the medals because they weren't infantry. So my immediate, angry
reaction was tempered somewhat. But when they said that women weren't allowed
to be infantry, I was annoyed all over again.

 The Doctah

I haven't read all of the replies, so excuse me if this is redundant....

but I had always been taught that women were not allowed into combat because
of the natural instincts of a man.  If a woman and a man are side-by-side
with machine guns (in combat) and the woman is shot and wounded, it is the
*natural instinct* of the man to assist the woman.  The man, instead of
continuing to defend his territory, would probably run to the woman's side
and try to assist her.  That is just one example, you can carry that on to
flying together, etc......  My personal experience has always been that men -
even perfect strangers - have come to my rescue any time it *appeared* that I
needed assistance.

I love that quality in a man, but at the same time I would have loved to fly
a fighter jet - right into combat if the situation arose!

    It was the Combat Infantryman's Badge.  I would say that it's fair
    if the Army has always made the distinction that support troops
    such as MP's don't get the CIB unless assigned to "the front lines."
    I do think that the distinction might have been overlooked in the
    past but the double-speak experts are being very careful about it
    this time.
    
    Dammit, if it looks like a soldier, smells like a soldier, kills like a
    soldier, it is a soldier.  Give 'em the medals.
    
    They are eligible for the usual medals of bravery such as the silver
    star, bronze star and Medal of Honor, just not the CIB.
    
    ed

    re .71:
    
    Lots of things that some people claim are "natural instincts"
    are just societal training.  Such as the idea that women are
    more natural and better nurturers of children and others than
    men are.  I'm not saying that's so in this case, but a possibility.

>If a woman and a man are side-by-side
>with machine guns (in combat) and the woman is shot and wounded, it is the
>*natural instinct* of the man to assist the woman.  

If it is "natural instinct" rather than social conditioning, why is it
that some men have it (to varying degrees) and some men don't.

I really, really doubt that the inclination to put one's own life in
danger for another is "natural instinct".  sounds more like the opposite,
where instinct is overcome by social conditioning.

Either way, both instinct and social conditioning can be overcome;
in this case, prsumably in basic training.

As an interesting related note, in my scuba class, my instructor was
adamant that women do their own work and handle their own gear, which
included carrying 100 pounds of equipment to the locker rooms, etc.
He said anyone who can't handle his or her own gear shouldn't be in the
water in the first place.  He stressed to the men that they might very well
have a woman as a "buddy" (diving partner) and his life would then *depend*
on her.  Does he want her to have had an easier training than he did?
He yelled at any guys who offered to help a woman carry her gear, or
help her out in any way beyond the ways one "buddy" is supposed to help
another (sometimes even making them do "laps" around the pool as punish-
ment.)  And sure enough, by the end of the class, the guys had gotten
rid of the so-called "natural instinct" to help women, at least in the
context of diving.

D!

"If a woman and a man are side-by-side
with machine guns (in combat) and the woman is shot and wounded, it is the
*natural instinct* of the man to assist the woman.  The man, instead of
continuing to defend his territory, would probably run to the woman's side
and try to assist her."
    
    Well, it is a theory, but I doubt that the gender of a fallen
    compatriot would have mattered to me.
    
    ed

    re. last few about "natural instincts":
    
    I was under the impression that basic training was designed to kick the
    "natural instincts" out of a person.  I mean, what could be a more
    natural instinct in a battle situation than to get the hell out of
    there?
    
    Karen

    re: .76:  Yes, I would say that Basic Training is a process which
    attampts to dehumanize the individual and get across the message,
    "You're not paid to think!"
    
    Of course, I was in a long time ago and many things could have
    changed...
   
    In fact many things have changed.
    
    ed

    	RE: 930.71
    
    	My youngest daughter wants to fly fighters in either the
    	Navy or Air Force. She's determined enough to do it, I
    	believe.
    
    	She understands the current lay of the land, but continues
    	to hope for changes in policy. We have two friends who were
    	pilots in the service (one graduated from the Air Force
    	Academy). They're supporting her all the way.
    
    	Scott

My opinion about women in the military is that if we want to claim full
equality in society, we have to accept the responsibility to fight for 
those rights if necessary -- or even be shot and killed equally in an
unjust war. 

We can't claim equality in one area if we aren't willing to accept it in
all areas.

--bonnie

    In a society where a woman is most likey to be raped,beaten or
    killed by the men she knows rather than a stranger I find the idea
    of men's "natural instinct" to protect a woman in battle laughable.
    liesl

In my opinion, if a draft is ever needed, men and women should be
drafted.  Those capable of combat should be able to have combat
positions, regardless of sex.  If certain strength or speed is needed,
measure that and not sex.  I agree with Bonnie, equality is equality,
not just when it's something "good".  "Luckily" with today's high tech
death weaponary, hand to hand combat and physical prowess is not as
important as it used to be and death is inflicted by pressing a button
in many cases.  

One can argue about when a draft is needed.  Some folks mentioned
defending the country.  Last I knew the country hasn't been attacked
since WWII.  Defending the country and defending the interests of US
multinationals countries are not necessarily the same thing.

I hope that with more women leaders, less war and conflict will be
manifested although that remains to be seen and neither sex seems to
have a exclusive either on aggression or conflict resolution.  

    re .80 I'm not terribly comfortable with the notion of humans having
    'instincts', but I have observed in myself protective feelings
    for women, some I know well, others I hardly know at all. 
    Instinct or training ? Couldn't say. I *do* know that when 
    my protective feelings were rejected by one women, I did 
    a 180-degree turn emotionally, and became quite angry with her.
    (You jerk,*I* know what's best for you.) In retrospect, it's
    very scary. 
    
    Maybe it's all part of the 'men are big and strong and supposed
    to defend the women' lesson we get from our upbringing.
    
    Dana

    I have instinctually protective feelings for the weak, for the hurt,
    and for the underdog.  Whatever sex they are.  Perhaps it has been so
    ingrained that women are weak, that it often happens that men get
    protective feelings about women, because they are playing out their
    protective feelings for the weak.
    
    -Jody
    

Re: .80

Actually the point you raise (unintentionally?) about rape and assault on women
is one of the arguments against mixed-sex combat units. The theory goes that in
the "heat of battle" such restraints may be weakened.

I think there are at least three good counter-arguments though:

	1) Don't mix sexes, have all women combat units
		(this is probably not feasible)
	2) Training and morale. In a well trained unit with good morale this
		shouldn't be a problem.
	3) Those trying to rape a combat veteran holding an automatic weapon
		are likely to "weed themselves out" fairly quickly...

	-- Charles

>	3) Those trying to rape a combat veteran holding an automatic weapon
>		are likely to "weed themselves out" fairly quickly...

 I suspect the worry is more of rape happening to prisoners of war.

 The Doctah

    Re: .85
    
    I doubt that the gender of the prisoner of war protects him against
    rape.
    
    At least, the only prisoner of war I know personally mentioned
    that as part of his experiences . . .
    
    --bonnie

    re: .85 (Bonnie)
    
    � war is a brutal dehumanizing place
    
    As is prison.
    
    Steve

    
    Heard on the evening news (peter jennings) that Barbara Bush
    has stated she thought women SHOULD be able to serve in combat
    positions assuming they have the proper training/ability.  She
    went on to say she thought women were emotionally and mentally
    just as tough an capable as men.
    
    yeah Babs!
    
    deb
    

>    I doubt that the gender of the prisoner of war protects him against
>    rape.

 I agree, but if you had 100 male POWs and 10 females, which do you think would 
be first on the list?

 The Doctah

    Even wonder why women fight so hard, Mark?
    
    							Ann B.

	.89


	I preceive your remark as a threat of rape to women who
	wish to be in combat positions.  Rape of POW's is not
	a sex act but an act of humiliation.  I think that you
	should open your ears and listen to what is being said
	and diferentiate between cultural norms, your gut reaction
	and reality in your responses to any issue that involves
	violence towards women just because they are women.

	_peggy
	
		(-)
		 |
			I have said that it is what one does
			that is telling, in some instances this
			does include how one uses words/ideas.

    re .88
    
    Actually what Barbara said was that IF women were as strong/capable
    as men and had the appropriate training, they should be allowed
    in combat situations. She followed this statement with another
    relating how she'd never yet seen a woman that was as strong as
    a man.
    

    re: women in combat/women as pow's/risk of rape
    
    I suppose this reply is in answer to The Women in Combat note and
    the Impact of Rape note.
    
    If women want to fight in combat, they should be able to.  If men want
    to fight in combat, they should be able to.  I oppose the draft for
    anyone, men or women.  If people want to join the military, that's
    their choice.  I wouldn't want anyone trying to make that choice for
    me.  
    
    So, if a woman gets raped in a pow camp, it *is* rape because she was
    in prisoner at the attack was obviously against her will,therefore we need
    to keep women out of combat to protect them from the potential danger.  
    
    If a woman gets raped walking down Boylston St. in Boston at 10p.m. on a 
    Wednesday night it's not necessarily rape because she was out alone at
    night of her own free will.  So maybe if we're so concerned about women
    getting raped that we should, not only keep them out of combat, but
    keep them out of all dangerous situations.  Maybe we should stay in our
    houses *all* the time (with houses being equiped with bars on the
    windows to prevent unwanted intruders and 10 inch thick steel doors),
    and just in case the potential intruder does get through the steel door
    and windows with bars, we will teach all women to be black-belts in
    some form of martial art and will arm and train all women to be expert
    markswomen.  I am sure that this would sufficiently protect women and
    increase our sense of freedom and well-being.  
    
    Although I am feeling particularly cynical about both issues today, the
    point I am trying to make is that the "we need to protect women by
    restricting women's choices" just doesn't wash.  
    
    Laura
       

>	I preceive your remark as a threat of rape to women who
>	wish to be in combat positions.

 Not at all. I am merely stating what I consider to be obvious; that men will
generally tend to rape women when given a choice between women and men. Do you
disagree with this presumption? 

 In Viet Nam, many of the soldiers raped villagers. From the stories I've heard
from veterans of that era, most of the raping was done to teenage girls, with
the occasional old woman thrown in there for effect (like to get some info
from the village chief). In my mind, a component of the rape is the fact that
the men generally felt very powerful. They had automatic weapons. They were
essentially unaccountable to anyone. They could do just about whatever they
wanted to. So aside from the humiliation factor, there was also the "I'm so
powerful, I can do this and you can't stop me" factor.

 If you take that note in the context of previous notes which have explained
my position on this subject, I find it hard to believe that you would take
.89 that way. I'll assume you didn't see the previous ones.

 The Doctah

    
    Laura, don't you see??? Its not that (note the addition of the most
    necessary word in womannotes today!) *SOME* men object to women being
    raped, they just don't like it when somebody else gets to do it!!!
                            
    Yup, I'm feeling particularly cynical today.
    
    Actually, I like my pre-cleaned, not-so-politically-correct-in-the-
    notes-file version better: Its not that men object to women being
    raped, they just don't like it when somebody else gets to do it!!!
                            
    
    And no, I don't have PMS.. and no Laura, this is NOT aimed at you. Its
    just general sick humor.

    I don't know that rape is worse than any of the other tortures that
    they could think to do to you.  I mean I hope we are not thinking
    of our country's or "our" women's honor here.  Not to minimize the
    emotional and physical pain of rape, but I wouldn't want to be burned
    with hot irons, poked with sharp sticks, or any of the other abuses
    either.  Why is rape such a hot button for some _men_?
    	Linda

    probably offensive, feel free to hit <next unseen>
    
    re .97 The word 'prerogative' comes to mind. Rape has 
    historically been a conquering warrior's prerogative. 
    To be raped means to be reduced to the status of a 
    defeated enemy's woman.
    (To the warrior, what could be worse ? Warriors scorn mere
    physical pain.)

    Dana
    
    PS My impression from those here who have been victims of rape 
    is that they would gladly trade their experience for the hot 
    irons, etc.

    

    re: .96
    
           >>         -< How did I get in such a bad mood??? >-
    
    Probably the same way I did, Ren...
    
    But *seriously* I'm glad you explained things to me.  Gee, I hate going
    around being confused.
    
    >>And no, I don't have PMS.. and no Laura, this is NOT aimed at you. Its
    >>just general sick humor.
    
    And I didn't think it was aimed at me.  I guess I'm doing the same
    thing that you're doing, which is voicing my frustration at the fact
    that there are certain times where violence against women is perceived
    as being intolerable and times where violence against women is
    perceived as just fine.  
    

.95>  I am merely stating what I consider to be obvious; that men will
.95>  generally tend to rape women when given a choice between women and 
.95>  men. Do you disagree with this presumption? 

If rape is, indeed, a power trip for men and not a sexual crime, as we 
are told over and over again, then why wouldn't men feel more powerful
and mighty if they conquered another man rather than a weaker specimen
such as a female?

Carla

    Some violence against anyone is intolerable, and other violence is
    just fine.  We wouldn't need armies at all if that weren't the
    case, and this whole discussion would be unnecessary.
    
    --bonnie

    One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is that "our boys" also rape. 
    War is hell.
    
    Wouldn't our armies be less likely to commit that type of pillaging if
    there were women in the combat unit?  The more women in the unit, the
    fewer rapes committed by the unit (this is assuming that we would win
    rather than lose a battle sometimes!).  Partly because women don't tend
    to rape and partly because men who do rape might be less likely to see
    women as rightful prey if they work closely with women.
    
    I'd be happy at that thought...
    
    Pam

>    One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is that "our boys" also rape. 
>    War is hell.

 I guess I didn't make that clear. What's new?

>    Wouldn't our armies be less likely to commit that type of pillaging if
>    there were women in the combat unit? 

 You might be onto something. I really like that.

 The Doctah

    The stories told of the atrocities committed by the female guards
    in the Hitlerian concentration camps don't give me much confidence
    in the gentleness of the so-called gentler sex.
    
    --bonnie

    On the other hand, Bonnie, Erich Maria Remarque's story about how the
    experienced veterans would make sure that the new recruits among them
    didn't carry saw-edged bayonets, argues that among soldiers, restraint
    and lack thereof are recognized and treated accordingly.
    
    DougO

    The idea that women should be kept from combat because they might
    be raped as POW's borders on the ridiculous. It seems to me that
    *any*one, male or female, who goes into a combat situation is
    likely to acknowledge (to him- or herself, if not to anyone else)
    that they could be become POW's, and that as POW's, they could be
    abused, tortured, or raped�. If they *do* go into combat with the
    understanding that this is possible, then it seems to me that they
    have decided that the benefits (if you want to call them that) of
    going into combat outweigh the risks of being a POW.
    
    --- jerry
    
    � Now really, if I was a POW, I sure the hell wouldn't want to count
    on not getting raped by my captors simply because I was male. It's
    not like I could count on that if I was convicted of a crime here
    at home and was sent to prison.

    Anybody see the cartoon on the editorial page of the Nashua Telegraph
    recently?  Three male soldiers hunkered down behind one female soldier,
    bullets whizzing all around, one of the men says to the other two
    "We'll be safe here. She's not allowed in combat!"

    re: .105
    
    Yes, Doug, you're right -- I don't think units of women, or
    containing women, are any LESS likely to value restraint.  I don't
    see any reason why women soldiers wouldn't display the same range
    of emotions and behavior as male soldiers, from courage to
    cowardice, from aggression to grief, from acts of compassion to
    acts of atrocity.
    
    We're all people, and those are all human reactions to an inhuman
    situation.  Most of the women in our society may have been raised
    to be compassionate and nurturing, but in an uncivilized
    situation, those traits are as likely to fall off as are a man's
    carefully nurtured gentlemanly traits.  
    
    --bonnie

    re .88, Barbara Bush -
    
    Someone just told me that according to the morning paper, she now
    thinks women are too weak to be in combat.
    
    What *could* have made her change her mind, do you think?!
    

>                     <<< Note 930.109 by GEMVAX::KOTTLER >>>

>    What *could* have made her change her mind, do you think?!
    
  A call from Nancy Reagan? :-)

                                   Atlant

    RE: last couple
    
    Seems to run in the family.
    
    I think Poor George was pro-choice before he teamed up with 
    Ronnie Raygun. 
    
    These are people who know their minds and stick to their principles.
    
    <*guffaw*>
    
    --DE
    

    
  >>A call from Nancy Reagan? :-)
    
    
    Nancy has a new slogan...
    
    "JUST SAY NO TO COMBAT"
    

    Let me make sure I understand the basics of the "rape" argument against
    women in combat.
    
    	Women should not be in combat because they might be captured
    	and raped. Men might be raped, but women are more likely.
    
    I have some fundamental problems with this.
    
    	1) Being raped is worse than being killed? "Women could go into
    	combat and get shot at, that would be ok, but the might get raped
    	so let's keep them out of combat." Hello? Are we speaking the same
    	language? Are we talking about the same thing?
    
    	2) Women might get raped so WE will decide to keep them out of
    	combat FOR THEIR OWN GOOD. hah! I've heard THIS one before.
    
    Can you say "Red Herring"? I knew you could.
    
    	-- Charles

    I think the argument (which I am repeating, not endorsing) is that
    raping  female POWs might be used to pressure the (chivalrous) men
    POWs into giving more information than they should.

--David

> <<< Note 930.114 by ULTRA::WITTENBERG "Secure Systems for Insecure People" >>>
>
>    I think the argument (which I am repeating, not endorsing) is that
>    raping  female POWs might be used to pressure the (chivalrous) men
>    POWs into giving more information than they should.
>
>--David

	But not pressure for the (chivalrous) women. - HUH!!!!

	_peggy

		Can you say "double standard."

<    I think the argument (which I am repeating, not endorsing) is that
<    raping  female POWs might be used to pressure the (chivalrous) men
<    POWs into giving more information than they should.
    
    Whereas they wouldn't be bothered by their buddy having his
    genitals shocked with a cattle prod...liesl

    ...then the only answer is to keep men out of combat, since they
    can't handle the emotional pressures.   :-)
    	Linda

Maybe my memory is going, but I can't remember anyone in this string actually
arguing that the danger of rape was a legitimate reason for keeping women out
of combat.  (Can someone point to a note that I missed?)

I think someone speculated that maybe there were people somewhere who thought
rape had something to do with women in combat; someone else thought that was
ridiculous; and 30 notes or so now have been devoted to debating this
hypothetical proposition.  

It makes for an interesting debate, when nobody is actually supporting the 
position, so all people can argue about is whether it would make sense if
someone did support it.  Oh well, DEC has the bandwidth, so I suppose we
have to use it for something.

	-Neil

    re: .117 (Linda)
    
    If only you could've been on my draft board 20 years ago. . .
    
    Steve

       re:   getting raped  .vs.  forms of physical torture

       excerpt of a poem by Dell Fitzgerald-Richards in 210.468:

	(WARNING: explicit terms follow)



		my choice yes some choice
   		open your legs to protect a pretty face
     		at least my cunt won't show
       		the damage only my mind
         	will show that

	(besides, I've had plastic surgery on my face to fix
	 a scar that is now almost invisible)

						   nancy b.

    I realize this topic is probably dead but I thought I would add
    an update to the first few notes of this topic...
    
    Regarding the Capt. involved (Capt. Linda Bray) with the "combat 
    confrontation" where she supposedly lead  US troops to battle on an 
    assault of a guard-dog kennel in Panama, here is a quote by 
    Brig. Gen. Charles W. McClain, " the Capt. was 1/2 mile away. The
    incident lasted no more than 10 minutes, not 30.
            
    This was a publicity stunt....
    
    From Los Angeles Times, quoting Army officers
      "Bray's exploits had been *grossly exaggerated" by the
      media accounts.  Army officials new of no Panamanian soldiers
      killed in the fight".

    As far as women in combat situations, I personally believe we
    are not 'equipped' to handle most combat situations.  My husband
    is an infantryman and I'll tell you, you'd have to be one hell of
    a sturdy woman to do the things he does, ex: hump 25 miles uphill with
    a 60 lb rucksack on your back at a pretty good clip.
    
    I also wonder if women were in combat in Vietnam, what kind of 
    children would there have been with agent orange?  In males, it
    affects some children but would all of the women become sterile
    so there would be no children?  Would this have created a wide gap
    in the population?
    
    I realize some people are saying "she's over exaggerating" but females
    are what keep the species alive....(we have testubes for males now
    if we want...remember?)  If there was a shortage of females, would
    we have a choice in not having children?  Today there are more deaths
    than births.   What about when all the baby boomers
    become "senior citizens"?  Once they die off, won't there be a real
    decline in population?  (Your only talking about 40-50 years from
    now.)
    
    Just thoughts...K
    

<    than births.   What about when all the baby boomers
<    become "senior citizens"?  Once they die off, won't there be a real
<    decline in population?  (Your only talking about 40-50 years from
<    now.)

    Some of us think a decline in the human population would be a very
    GOOD thing. I don't advocate war as the means but there are too many
    people in the world already. We need to leave a little room for the
    other species that share our world. liesl

    How about giving women equal say in the governing powers that decide
    whether their country's going to get involved in combat in the first
    place?

    Perhaps it would be better put 'How about we work to elect women to
    public office so that they will have a say in the governing powers
    that decide whether their country's going to get involved in combat
    in the first place?'
    
    Bonnie

    I think the last few replies generalize too much from the specific. 
    Not all women are peace loving, not all women will vote against war and
    combat. Many times, even in this century, have female heads of state
    sent the troops into battle, even elected female heads of state.
    
    ed

ed> Many times, even in this century, have female heads of state
ed> sent the troops into battle, even elected female heads of state.

In this country?  What female heads-of-state?  What battles?

D!

re: .128: I was thinking of this as an international notes file.  As specifics
I was thinking of Margaret Thatcher and the Falklands War, Golda Meir and the
1967 war in the Mid East.  I'm sure that have been some others.

ed

    RE: Last few
    
    However, perhaps if the overwhelming number of the decision makers
    were women, if women's psychology and (what are considered)
    traditionally "female" values were more prevalent in the culture(s),
    we might find the entire outlook of a culture to be entirely different
    than what we see today.
    
    Pointing to a handful of women leaders as paradigms  of What Women
    Would Do if They Ran the World seems excessive to me, not to mention
    the fact that they were elected in a time in which (traditionally)
    "male" values are extant.
    
    Not to mention that the 2 examples given (Mier and Thatcher) had
    totally different motivations and situations to deal with. 
    
    Women might *not* be, by default more "peace-loving", but the basis
    for *decisions* on how conflict is managed just might be radically
    different. 
    
    --DE
    

    re:.131:  That is certainly true.  I figure half the wars around are
    started to divert people's attention from the real problems.  I don't
    think "women's values" for example would have caused a Falkland's war
    to have started.  Or a Middle East or many others.  Mrs Thatcher and
    Meir were, for the most part, forced into action.
    
    ed

>>In this country?  What female heads-of-state?  What battles?

>    I think Ed said "in this century", not "in this country"!

You're right.  I misread that as "country" not "century", thus my mistake.
Sorry.  (No, it wasn't US-centrism...)

D!

    re a few back, maybe a good topic : What would the world be
    like if women ran it ?

    um, I hold no brief for pc-ness, but I would (once again) point out
    that as far as *I* know, the only data we have indicates that women
    leaders will respond to aggression but will not initiate it.  Granted
    the sample is woefully small, but if it is used to "prove" anything,
    let's at least go *with* the evidence!
    
    						=maggie

    The politically correct answer is that the world would be vastly
    superior if women ruled; it would be filled with peace, love and
    understanding, and the human race would coexist in pure bliss and
    harmony.

    The politically incorrect answer is that genitals do not determine
    these issue, but rather the economic, social, and political structures
    of society.  The fact that women as well as men in power have conducted
    wars, engaged in repression, etc., illustrates the fact that it is the
    structures that need to be changed, not merely the sex organs of the
    individuals in power.

    The politically correct rebuttal is that even if women are in power in
    those cases, the social structures in which they participate are still
    "male".  The maleness of the these social structures therefore has
    nothing to do with the gender of the rulers; rather, these structures
    are male for the simple reason that they are bad.  Even if there are
    males who oppose these power structures and females who support them
    and participate in them, they are still male social structures because
    of their badness.  Even if there are males who support egalitarian and
    non-militaristic social structures, and females who oppose them, these
    structures are nevertheless female because they are good.

    In summary, if a social system is bad, it is male; if it is good, it is
    female.  Just as grammatical gender in certain Indo-European languages
    often bears no actual connection to the specific sex of the noun in
    question, the maleness or femaleness of social and political structures
    has nothing to do with whether or not males or females actually support
    or participate in them.

    The subscribers to politically incorrect ideas thus being utterly put
    in their place, they have no choice but to slink away in defeat.

    Political correctness.  What a concept.

    -- Mike

    There are examples of women in power engaging in military aggression or
    political repression.  For example, one of the Caribbean nations
    (sorry, I forget which one) that participated in Reagan's military
    aggression in Grenada was led by a woman at the time.  Also, there were
    several women in the inner circle of the Khmer Rouge, which was one of
    the most brutal regimes in the history of the world.  Furthermore, many
    women out of power or in the periphery of power have demonstrated
    support for military aggression and imperialist policies.  Jeanne
    Kirkpatrick, as a member of the Reagan administration and the architect
    of at least some of his policies, was certainly one of those.

    While there are some overall statistical differences between men and
    women on some ideological issues (the so-called "gender gap"), large
    numbers of women do take stands on many social and economic issues that
    resemble the position that most men take.  For example, do not many
    women in the U.S. support the death penalty?

    -- Mike

>>    political repression.  For example, one of the Caribbean nations
>>    (sorry, I forget which one) that participated in Reagan's military
>>    aggression in Grenada was led by a woman at the time.  Also, there were

You mean the PM of the Bahamas.

.136> What would the world be like if women ran it ?

    My gut feeling is that it would be about the same as it is
    when men run it, about the same as it would be if <pick-a-
    random-religious-group> ran it, about the same as it would be
    if green-eyed people who could wiggle their ears ran it, etc.

    Granted, there would probably be differences in the
    particular types of oppression.  Who says the world needs
    running?  Especially by people?  Of course, I haven't seen
    much evidence that large groups of people can co-exist
    peacefully without someone(s) "running" things, but my gut
    feeling is that there's something wrong with the structure,
    not with the attributes of the people "running" it. 

    Mike V. -- I'm not understanding what you said.  Are you
    claiming that our hierarchical political/social system is
    perceived by some as "male" and others as "female?"  I think
    I missed something, but I'm not sure what it was.

    -- Linda

    Maybe this was said somewhere else, so hit next unseen if my note
    is irrelevant, but in a course on Viet Nam, I learned that there
    were thousands of women in VietNam who officially were 'not there'
    because of the rule against women in combat.  Because of this rule,
    they did not leave the women stateside, rather, they simply did
    not acknowledge their existence (so what else is new?).  At any
    rate, the problems that are emerging now are that for one, there
    are no support groups now for these women (oh yes, there were
    also many many women there who were civilians, working with news
    corps, etc. who also were unacknowledged).  THese women, many
    of whom are suffering from PTSD, do not have the resources that
    their male counterparts have, they *cannot* go to a VA hospital
    and request treatment for their PTSD because they *were not
    in combat* officially and therefore, not eligible for benefits.
    
    The VietNam 'conflict' was built on deceit, illegal activity, some
    of which is just now coming to the surface; one of the biggest
    travesty probably being the use of women without the acknowledgment.
    
    Maia
    

    Linda, I am talking about the perception that certain social and
    political systems are "male", and other systems "female".
    
    -- Mike

    re: .143
    
    Yes, this is true -- I know a woman who was disabled in combat in
    Vietnam.  She was officially listed as a 'nurse' but the only
    training she had was repairing bazookas.  She was stationed on the
    front lines and was injured while trying to keep a gun running
    during an attack.  
    
    She wasn't "in combat" because she wasn't firing the weapon, even
    though she was being fired at and was directly enabling others to
    fire. 
    
    --bonnie

	As long as society remains in a heirarchical mode where what is
	up is good an and is down is bad there will be problems with
	whomever is in power, because it will be power "over" others.

	In the view of some people the term should be power "with" others,
	that is, within oneself and within "other self" that should be
	used to describe "leaders" within society.

	Now, if one has heard of certain types of political systems as
	being either "male" or "female" then one is still listening
	to the elements within society who only see a and b and forget
	about the rest of the alphabet.  It is the good verses bad, 
	up/down problem and until one gets over that hurdle one is
	trapped.
	
	Women as political leaders in a dysfunctional society are as
	likely to be dysfunctional leaders as men.  The problem is not
	as simple as "If women were in charge there would be no war."
	The importance is that if women are in powerful political
	positions than the "status quo" is being challenged/questioned.
	It is from this questioning that change for the better is possible.
	For until one is able to experience a different societial norm
	one is not ready to acknowledge other ways of being.

	Put into simpler terms:

		You can not invent a mouse trap if you don't know
		any thing about a mouse.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			Women in positions of political power
			are symbols of change - and change is
			the way of the Goddess.

re: .145 (--bonnie)

How did she get into combat? It sounds like she wasn't _really_ a nurse. Are
there some support positions that get to go where combat is, and she was part
of them? I'd love to know.
	Mez

    Spooks are, for one.

This quote is from Robin Morgan's book The Demon Lover, p. 27:

"Although on certain bleak days I am sorely tempted to agreement with what 
we feminists have termed the "acute terminal testosterone-poisoning" 
theory of history...I do not make the argument that women are *inherently* 
more peacable, nurturant, or altruistic than men....Yet it is undeniable 
that history is a record of most women *acting peacably*, and of most men 
*acting belligerently* -- to a point where the capacity for belligerence is 
regarded as an essential ingredient of manhood and the proclivity for 
conciliation is thought largely a quality of women."

    
    very thought-provoking!
    

    So what do these writers say about Catal H�y�k and Hacilar?
    
    							Ann B.

re.152 - 

Well, here's what Monica Sjoo and Barbara Mor say about Catal Huyuk in 
their book The Great Cosmic Mother:

"This complex [Anatolian] town, a ceremonial center for the Goddess religion, 
flourished between 6500 and 5650 B.C. Catal Huyuk was very large for its 
day, 30 to 35 acres in extent. Twelve successive layers have been 
excavated, and no signs of warfare or weaponry have been found....The 
people were peaceful agriculturists, mostly vegetarian....The whole town 
seems to have been dedicated to the Great Mother religion and to religious 
artistry....Here the Great Goddess is shown, in mural images and statues, 
in her triple aspect: as a young woman, a mother giving birth, and an old 
woman or crone accompanied by a vulture. These are the three phases of the 
moon: waxing, full, waning....

"Erich Fromm, in The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, speculates on the
meaning of this culture: the fact that among hundreds of skeletons,
covering at least eight hundred years of continuous culture, not one shows
signs of violent death; the fact that women seemed to outnumber men and are
buried with greater honor; the fact that the religion of Catal Huyuk,
administered by priestesses, stressed the renewing and protecting powers of
the Great Mother. He writes: 

	'The data that speak in favor of the view that Neolithic society was 
	relatively egalitarian, without hierarchy, exploitation, or marked
	aggression, are suggestive. The fact, however, that these Neolithic
	villages in Anatolia had a matriarchal (matricentric) structure, adds 
	a great deal more evidence to the hypothesis that Neolithic society,
	at least in Anatolia, was an essentially unaggressive and peaceful 
	society. The reason for this lies in the spirit of affirmation of 
	life and lack of destructiveness which J.J. Bachofen believed was 
	an essential trait of all matriarchal societies.'"

Even if it is true that matriarchial societies tend to be less agressive/
violent/warlike, I am not sure of the cause and effect.

It might be that women leaders are less agressive/warlike.

It could also be that those societies are not warlike.  Agressive warlike
societies would place high value/prestige on agressive behavior and skill
in fighting.  If men were raised or are naturally more inclined to agressive/
violent behavior, then they would gain positions of higher prestige and
therefore leadership.  If indeed nuturing is primarily a woman's trait
(whether inherently or by being raised in the society) than in societies where
kindness/nurturing/passiveness is valued, women would more naturally gain
positions of prestige/leadership.

I think it is a combination of both (my uninformed opinion.)  Leaders can
change society.  But they also *reflect* society in their ability to become
leaders.

So even if women *are* less warlike, I am not convinced that electing women
leaders will make our society less warlike.  Given the warlike nature of our
society, I would guess that any elected official will reflect that, regardless
of gender.

D!

    WADR the preponderance of female remains *could* mean that
    the men went off to war, and got slaughtered. 

    The subject of last night's "Nightline" on ABC was the Virginia Military
    Academy.  It also touched on the question of whether women should be
    allowed in combat.  In his preface, Ted Koppel made an comment about 
    women in non-combat roles and in the civilian population.

        "The question is not whether women will die in war - they have 
        in the past and will continue to do so - but whether they will 
        be designated fit to fight back."
    

    Probably much of the basis for the faulty notion that the world would
    be vastly more peaceful if women ran it is a false reductionism that
    correlates political relations between nations to interpersonal
    relations between individuals.  Niles Eldredge (who developed the
    evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibrium along with Stephen Jay
    Gould) and Ian Tattersall, in their book "The Myths of Human
    Evolution", discuss the flaws in reductionism as applied to the "hard"
    sciences (they call the problem "physics envy").  The authors argue
    that "reductionism has been followed with knee-jerk regularity in most
    areas of science to the present day."

    I think they are right, and unfortunately this also extends to the
    social sciences as well.  I would call it an example of what the
    British philosopher Gilbert Ryle described as a "category mistake". 
    The concept of the category mistake is useful, and extends
    far beyond philosophical discourse.  

    In the case of political science, for example, without knowing her
    personally, it is possible to assume that Jeanne Kirkpatrick does not
    beat children or engage in barroom brawls, and yet she also advocates a
    strong and aggressive military.  To cite another example, it is
    possible for an active member of Amnesty International to engage in
    violent rape.  Comparing political ideologies to interpersonal
    relations is a classic example of Ryle's concept of the category
    mistake, and represents a reductionism from the global down to the
    interpersonal, the political to the psychological.

    However, like all reductionisms, it makes for great pop/amateur science
    (in this case, political science).  That alone doesn't explain its
    appeal, however; if it is politically correct, so much the better. 
    Since it coincides neatly with the "male bad, female good" dichotomy
    (e.g., "male 'pornography' is bad, female 'erotica' is good"), it is
    politically correct.  Politically correct political science can thus be
    added to politically correct physical anthropology (Elaine Morgan) and
    politically correct cultural anthropology ("The Chalice and the Blade")
    to form a neat, ideologically consistent inter-disciplinary package. 
    Of course, the Soviets under Stalin had their politically correct
    biology (Lysenko), which just goes to show that political correctism
    knows no ideological bounds.

    -- Mike

	The structure of the society is a very important infuence on
	how the leaders of that society will act.

	If each member of the society is valued and treated as a valued
	member of that society then the leaders will also reflect this
	in their treatment of others.

	If one individual in a group does not act in an ethical manner it
	does not mean that the group as a whole is flawed. BUT if that
	individual is not chaistised for that behavior by the group than
	that group is in fact flawed.  Ethical behavior is not just how
	we as an individual act but how we as a member of a group	
	respond to another member of that group acting in an unethical
	manner.

	So, if a leader is allowed to act in an way that goes against
	the structure of the society, that leader would no longer be a
	leader.  If that leader remains in the position of a leader then
	the structure/values of that society have changed to reflect
	those values.

	Think about this as far was the United States is concerned - 
	what are our acknowledged leaders like and what does that say
	about our society and what does that say about us as individuals.

	_peggy
			(-)
			 |
				The personal is the political
				and the political is personal.

"The God of Patriarchy, from the beginning, has been a God of War and 
Economic Exploitation; incessant warfare and economic exploitation have 
characterized the four-thousand year history of this male God--a timespan 
that is very brief relative to the 300,000 to 500,000 years of humanoid 
life on earth, but still long enough to make us feel, as a species, that 
"it has always been this way." It is no surprise that the world of today, 
the apotheosis of patriarchy, is a world of war and money. What else rules 
us, anywhere we go on earth? ...A global God of War, served by the global 
religion of money, defines the human condition today...."

   -- Monica Sjoo and Barbara Mor, The Great Cosmic Mother, pp. 394-395 

    I'm not sure arguing about the history of the species proves
    anything except that human beings are capable of incredibly
    diverse social structures.  There's a gaping lack of evidence for
    how people lived and thought in most ages, and saying that there
    was a peaceful matriarchal society once doesn't say a whole lot
    about whether our own much different society would be more
    peaceful if women were our elected leaders. 
    
    The Celtic tribes of northern Europe are believed to have
    worshipped the Goddess, but they were certainly warlike enough. 
    
    And isn't Kali, the deity of death and destruction in one of
    the Eastern religions, a female deity?  
    
    --bonnie

    One thing that I believe (and believe to be a commonly held belief
    among people in this conference) is that *not* all men are violent
    or aggressive or whatever.  And that not all women are the antithesis
    of Allmen.
    
    I think something like Pareto's Rule holds.  (Twenty percent of
    your <x> cause eighty percent of your <y>.)
    
    						Ann B.

    A few months back in science news there was an article about
    excavations around some early european farming communities that
    had long been held to be matriarchial and peaceful. They found that
    contrary to what had long been believed, the villages were surrounded
    by palasaide walls. This is causing some of the images of these
    villages to be re thought.
    
    Bonnie

RE:                     <<< Note 930.159 by GEMVAX::KOTTLER >>>

[quoting a book]
>"The God of Patriarchy, from the beginning, has been a God of War and 
>Economic Exploitation; incessant warfare and economic exploitation have 
>characterized the four-thousand year history of this male God--a timespan 
>that is very brief relative to the 300,000 to 500,000 years of humanoid 
>life on earth, but still long enough to make us feel, as a species, that 
>"it has always been this way." It is no surprise that the world of today, 
>the apotheosis of patriarchy, is a world of war and money. What else rules 
>us, anywhere we go on earth? ...A global God of War, served by the global 
>religion of money, defines the human condition today...."

Well, religious teachings certainly can be (mis)interpretted many
different ways.  In my view, this God of Patriarchy described above is
nothing other than the way people collectively and individually have
behaved.  Its certainly an interested exercise to try and find the
blame for such suffering that has occurred.  But I think that its
really streching to put the blame on God or Jesus himself.  I'm not a
Christian but many Christians are not people of war, sexism, racism,
homophobia or anything else.  So if this God or Jesus is to blame, how
come there are so many Christians who do live ideals of charity,
equality, and non-agrression (which Jesus also taught)?  In my view,
the Christian teaching have been incredably distorted by groups and
individuals out of their own self interest.

Arguments of the form:  My God(dess) is better than you God(dess) I
think miss the entire point of religious teachings.  The aim is to
take the teaching and realize it within yourself and that the teaching
is only a tool for that and not some absolute truth that we can fight
about (with someone who has another absolute truth) and cause yet even
more suffering and pain for everyone.

Many people worship themselves today and this can translate into
worshiping wealth and money.  In the quest for money and power, true
religion disappears regardless of what they call themselves.  The
message seems to be growth, growth, growth.  That way, individuals can
get more, more, and more.  The trouble is we live with fixed resources
and more translates either into less for someone else (and typically
this has been non-white males or other nations) or the destruction of
the environment. I get I see that as a most basic cause.  This quest
for unsustainable growth is very evident (to me) all over, in people's
lives, in the words of politicians, in the way the environment is
being treated.

And if the quest for unsustainable growth comes from greed or a desire
for security, where does the greed and desire for security come from?
That is a very interesting question and one that religions should help
with.  Why am I here on this earth?  Why are we here on this earth?

To accummulate wealth for ourselves?  To try and be secure and build
barriers against possible suffering and what we see as discomfort?  To
have the most sensory pleasure as we can get?  All these, are I think,
ultimateley not possible without clinging to wealth, greed, pleasure
and will result in our not realizing our full potential that we all
have as fully enlightened beings (or being the the Goddess, or
realizing your Buddha-nature, or as being in Christ or whatever name
you like to call it).

There really is no permanence expect change and death.  Born
empty-handed and die empty-handed.  So what to do in between?  What is
the potential of every moment?  What is this I that I want to
continuely try and protect against suffering?

When I see these fears for myself, I see a fear of trusting in the
universe, a fear of death, a fear that my individual ego will
disappear when I die.  And likewise, I see a separation for
experiencing the fullness of the moment, the *suchness* of the
universe, a clinging to desires, wants, and opinions.  Ironically,
this clinging for security is the cause of incredable insecurity! 
Because, this body is always changing, memories are always changing,
my situations is always changing, my self-images and what people think
of me are always changing.  I don't think this is to say that you
shouldn't want to take care of your body, mind, or family and friends. 
But what is one's relationship to taking care?  Is it a mechanism or
is it just caring care of what needs to be taken care of.

It's a difficult question of what to do, I think.  One only read the
newspaper to see how much suffering there is in this world. So what do
you do?  

May everyone realize their true nature and help save the world from
suffering,

john

	Two points:

		Kali = death and destruction

			We all die and all of us have bodies that
			decay - this is know as reality - this is
			also know as be-ing part of the earth a
			true earthling.

		God = Jesus = "The God of Patriarchy"

			It is not the "teaching" but the way the
			"teaching" have been used to sustain the
			warlike nature of Western society which
			has seen God as Male and not within each
			individual.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			The Goddess is the concept of be-ing
			within - The God is a concept of being
			outside the self.

    I imagine more people have been killed in the "God(ess) is on our
    side" type of war than any other. I agree with those who feel it is
    our society rather than the "inherent" nature of either men or women
    that makes for war mongers. liesl

    
    it is my understanding that one of the unique things about modern,
    mono-theistic, patriarchal religions is their insistence that *only*
    they are right and *everyone else* is wrong. in contrast, the pre-
    patriarchal societies seem to have accepted a wide range of spiritual
    thinking. thus, i would ammend ms. kolbe's comments, deleting '(ess)',
    to read '...more people have been killed in the "God is on our side"
    type of war...' 
    
    as peggy might say, there are many paths to the goddess, there is
    only one path to the god.
    

    Fundamentalist versions of monotheistic religions are generally very
    intolerant towards other beliefs systems, and do believe that their way
    is the only legitimate religious path.  However, it is untrue that this
    intolerance is an inherent feature of the Western monotheistic
    religions, and in fact many believers of the Jewish and Christian
    faiths are quite tolerant towards other traditions, believing that there
    are many paths to God.  For example, I have just recently received in
    the mail from Pendle Hill, a Quaker study center, a pamphlet which
    discusses the common mystical and spiritual features of Quakerism and
    Hinduism, and discusses Hinduism from a perspective of respect.

    Therefore, I don't agree with the characterization of the Western
    monotheistic religion in fundamentalist terms, or the view that
    believers of those faiths are necessarily intolerant towards other
    religions, although, given the vocal and shrill nature of the more
    intolerant factions, it is easy to come to that conclusion.  I might
    add that I have run across intolerance towards monotheistic faiths from
    the pagan side, so it does seem to work both ways.

    There are several books that discuss non-patriarchal theologies for the
    Western religions.  For example, Judith Plaskow's fascinating book,
    "Standing Again at Sinai:  Judaism from a Feminist Perspective"
    discusses a feminist Jewish theology, which might be of interest as
    well to Christians (since Judaism is the parent religion of
    Christianity.)  A Christian feminist theology of note is the book "In
    Memory of Her", which Plaskow cites a few times in her book; although I
    am not a Christian (or, for that matter, Jewish), I did attempt to read
    this book, but, unfortunately, I was unable to wade through more than a
    few pages of it, because I found it to be written in a pretentious
    academic style that was difficult to follow.  However, it seems to be
    an important book in certain circles, and those who are interested in
    the topic might find it worth reading.

    -- Mike

    
    re:.167
    i certainly agree that many religious people today have relatively
    tolerant attitudes towards other faiths. they do this as individuals.
    the religions themselves, while perhaps allowing for ecumenism, still
    hold to their creeds that they are right and everyone else is wrong
    in a theological sense. i reassert that it *is* inherent in the system.
    

    While it is true that in some cases tolerant individuals within Western
    religions are acting on their own, in others it is the religious
    institution itself that expresses the tolerance.  One example that
    mentioned eariler, of a Western religion that respects other
    religious traditions and which rejects the doctrine that "if not my
    faith, then you are damned", is Quakerism (which, I might add, generally
    lacks any set creed.)  Even the Roman Catholic Church, an institution
    that I generally don't have a great deal of respect for, has, since
    Vatican II, expressed official tolerance towards other, non-Christian
    faiths (although, admittedly, in a somewhat patronizing fashion).

    It is understandably easy, especially for those who might not be
    especially familiar with the full gamut of contemporary Western
    religions, to incorrectly judge the entire religious tradition on the
    basis of some of its most vocal and negative elements.  This
    inclination is reinforced by the ubiquity and strong historical
    tradition of these negative elements (particularly the intolerance.) 
    Despite this mistaken assumption, however, the existence of the
    tolerant elements demonstrates that the intolerance is not inherent to
    that religious tradition.  I believe that to suggest otherwise is to
    engage in the same sort of all-or-nothing dogmatism that is allegedly
    being condemned in that religious tradition in the first place.

    For more information about pluralistic approaches to Western (in this
    case, Christian) theologies, I highly recommend the recent works of the
    British theologian John Hick (for example, his book, "God Has Many
    Names"), and, to a lesser extent, Hans K�ng ("Christianity and the World
    Religions").
    
    -- Mike

    
    this is, no doubt, a case of violent agreement. as a quaker myself,
    albeit a not very serious one, i am quite aware of our approach to
    religious toleration. quakers have only been around for apx. 350
    years.
    
    i suspect i created some confusion by my use of 
    the word 'modern'. by that term i meant 'not-ancient', thereby
    including biblical judaism, early christianity, buddhism etc. i did
    not intend modern as in the sense of the last 5 years, or even living
    memory. 
    
    the example of the catholic church (which, until just
    a few hundred years ago, was the *only* church, hint, hint) and
    vatican ii is actually a very good example of the intolerance built 
    into the system. basically, it took the church just
    shy of 2000 years to decide to give non-catholics (not even non-
    christians) common respect. 
    
    yes, there are plenty of examples of religious groups that
    preached tolerance of other points of view (usually their own,
    witness the puritans). they were almost all persecuted by the
    established religions; until about 1700, violently and ruthlessly.
    the spanish inquisition was not abolished until well into the
    19th century.
    
    it's fairly clear to me, in spite of recent softening of attitudes
    that religious intolerance is the norm is western society. as to
    why that is, it also seems clear that it is inherent in that
    passage which says, 'thou shalt have no other god before me'.
    
    
    

>         <<< Note 930.166 by DECWET::JWHITE "keep on rockin', girl" >>>

    
>    it is my understanding that one of the unique things about modern,
>    mono-theistic, patriarchal religions is their insistence that *only*
>    they are right and *everyone else* is wrong. in contrast, the pre-
>    patriarchal societies seem to have accepted a wide range of spiritual
>    thinking. thus, i would ammend ms. kolbe's comments, deleting '(ess)',
>    to read '...more people have been killed in the "God is on our side"
>    type of war...' 
    
>    as peggy might say, there are many paths to the goddess, there is
>    only one path to the god.
    
Joe, it was my note and not ms. kolbe's that you would like to amend.
However, to amend it would miss the whole point of what I was trying
to say (perhaps this *is* your point, I don't know).  I deliberatley
put God(dess) in because my perception of the quote was it was making
the same mistake as the fundamentalist Christians saying that my
Godess is better than your God.  Tolerance is not unique to any group
and there is intolerance in all religions including Buddhism and
Goddess religions.  Mostly, my observation is that has to do with how
well the teachings really made alive in that person's being as opposed
to how much the teaching is a concept or collection of ideas.

I don't understand how you can assert that there is only one path to
God  many examples have been given of Christain faiths and individuals
that do not belief this (and I'll add another one - Unitarian
Universalists).  I'm not denying that the history of the Church is
horrendous in many ways especially around women and women's issues,
slaervy, and colonization, and genocide of Native People's.  But the
point I was (apparently unsucessfully) trying to make was that in my
view, this is not religion, at all, but a distortion of the teachings
to fit an agenda of greed and domination and prejudice.

I think it is important that the same mistakes (of intolerance ) not
be made in adherence to different political agenda.

john

    I agree that religious intolerance has a long historical basis in the
    Western religions.  The question is whether that history in and of
    itself makes the intolerance "inherent".  My feeling is that if certain
    quarters within Western religions have been able, in the last several
    hundred years, to move in some cases completely away from this
    intolerance and towards respect for other faiths, including those from
    the East, while still retaining their normative religious traditions and
    the essential characteristics of their faiths, then applying the word
    "inherent" to this historical tradition of intolerance seems
    inappropriate.  Either that, or perhaps we need to give a whole new
    meaning to the world "inherent".  I am not sure that I go along with the
    idea of identifying a feature as "inherent" and then, when confronted
    with exceptions, just shrugging them off by saying, "well, they don't
    count."

    I strongly believe that individuals and religious groups should be free
    to explore their beliefs, free of dogma.  That is why I strongly object
    to the "my god(ess) is good, your god(ess) is bad" attitude that
    sometimes pops up in this notes conference.  I don't feel that I have
    the right to tell someone, "No, you can't believe such and such,
    because it contradicts what I have determined in my infinite dogmatic
    wisdom to be the 'inherent' features of your belief system."  That
    strikes me as a sort of all-or-nothing thinking.

    More importantly, religions can reshape themselves over time while
    retaining their normative traditions, and in fact I believe that they
    must do so in order not to become useless dinosaurs.  That doesn't have
    to require throwing out the baby with the bath water.  That is in part
    what what some Quakers call "continuing revelation".  It is what
    such individuals as Judith Plaskow and Elisabeth Fiorenza have been
    doing, in developing feminist theologies of Judaism and Christianity
    (respectively), and thus moving beyond the patriarchal traditions of
    their faiths.

    Part of what Plaskow's and Fiorenza's efforts have been to rediscover
    the neglected role of women in the normative traditions of their faiths;
    so in that sense their work is historical, in critiquing the one-sided
    and patriarchal interpretations of those traditions.  In addition, there
    may be efforts at working to expand upon those traditions.  Plaskow
    offers what she considers a "feminist" conception of God, for example. 
    Gracia Fay Ellwood, a Quaker, analyzed in a recent Pendle Hill pamphlet
    the patriarchal image of Yahweh as the patriarchal and abusive marriage
    partner, as found in some of the writings of the Hebrew prophets; she
    argued, as Plaskow has also, that in formulating these sorts of feminist
    critiques of the prophetic traditions, feminists are merely acting in
    the spirit of the original prophetic tradition.  Both writers speak
    admiringly of the ways in which these ancient prophets condemned the
    oppression of the poor, for example, and feminist theology merely
    expands on that prophetic theme of social criticism.

    For biblical literalists, I have no doubt that it is a case of
    all-or-nothing acceptance of the historical and canonical traditions of
    their religious faiths.  So, for those people, it would probably be true
    that sexism and intolerance are "inherent" features of their religions. 
    However, for liberal, open-minded, thinking believers, there is no need
    to be accept a doctrinaire adherence to each and every historical
    element of their religious traditions, because there is no assumption
    that to do so would require tossing the entire tradition.  As Plaskow
    points out in her book, religious interaction with the divine is
    mediated through the community, and thus can reflect patriarchal and
    other negative aspects of the community.  The point of feminist theology
    is to understand this and to move beyond the sexist features of the
    community so as to develop a more humane religion.  This is perfectly
    consistent with maintaining one's faith in Western religions such as
    Judaism or Christianity.

    -- Mike

re .163 -

'Twould take a tome to do justice to the questions you raise...I recommend
the book, it's very interesting reading. 

I think the authors' quibble with patriarchal religions is that it was those
religions that first institutionalized certain values that are still prevalent
in our society and that have turned/are turning out to be very destructive.
Among them are the removal of the divine to an abstract sphere outside of
nature, which sanctions the domination/exploitation of nature by humans; 
the elimination of the feminine from the divine; the devaluation of women;
a hierarchical model that leads to the domination of groups over each
other, not least the domination of women by men. *Not* among them are the
more maternal, nurturant, egalitarian, earth-revering, life-affirming
(*this* life, not an "afterlife"), celebratory values implicit in the
ancient Great Mother religions. Also implicit in patriarchal religions,
Sjoo and Mor argue, is the conception of women as machines whose (first)
reproductive and (then) market-productive power is harnessed, controlled,
and exploited by the patriarchy, so that today we have half the world's 
population (women) doing 2/3 of the world's work for 1/10 of the world's 
income and owning less than 1/100 of the world's wealth. 

This is not to say that individuals of, say, the Christian religion have
not been peace-loving, etc. But, these authors maintain, the patriarchal
values that became encoded in patriarchal religions have carried over to
the state and all our social and economic institutions, including the
family -- even if today fewer people actually "believe" in those religions
-- to the impoverishment of *both* sexes. 

    
    just a couple of stray thoughts...
    
    listing quakers and unitarians and such as examples of 'tolerant'
    christians is not very compelling. these are some of the smallest
    'churches' around. worldwide there are something like 100 times
    more catholics. it's a little like saying since one basketball
    player on the seattle supersonics is under 6 feet tall, that
    height is not a relevent quality to basketball playing.
    
    i also feel like i'm talking to humpty dumpty. one can't decide
    that, well, these christians have been advocating these horrible
    actions for thousands of years must not be 'real' christians.
    sorry, folks. it's their word. they defined it. we can't change
    the definition just to suit our enlightened views.
    
    if anyone can come up with examples of goddess based religions
    that have perpetrated any atrocity on the order of the crusades
    or the conquering of the incas or the invasions of india or
    the armies of islam, i'd be *very* interested.
    

    This notes conference has an interesting way of defining religious
    tolerance:  tell other people that their religion is shit.  Now it just
    so happens that I am not a Christian, and I have no use for Christian
    theology.  But I also have no use for political correctness.
    
    Certainly it is relevant to discuss the negative features found
    historically in Christianity, or any other religion.  However, finding
    relevance does not equate with identifying a feature as inherent.  To
    shrug off the exceptions to the "inherent" features of a religion as if
    they did not count is to invent a new and curious definition of
    "inherent".  Since individuals can retain a religious faith while not
    adhering to those "inherent" features, it is not clear to me how those
    features can be inherent. Whether or not they constitute a small
    minority is beside the point; those individuals and religious
    institutions do exist.

    Religions often serve as a source of varied interpretation, and often
    lend themselves to dynamic development over time.  The philosopher of
    science Thomas Kuhn refers to the concept of a "paradigm change", a
    concept borrowed by Hans K�ng to apply to religion as well.  The Western
    religious tradition often contains a variety of elements, from which
    there can be many theological implications, sometimes even mutually
    contradictory.
    
    The more enlightened and the less enlightened Christians are still
    Christians.  It is not the degree of enlightenment that determines
    whether or not they are Christians.  The issue is the appropriateness
    of telling others that they cannot be an enlightened Christian because
    that enlightenment contradicts and "inherent" feature of the religious
    faith.  Curiously, this sort of dogmatic all-or-nothing nonsense is
    identical to the way that fundamentalists also think, so we have the
    curious situation of fundamentalist Christians and Christian-bashers
    being on the same side of the fence.

    Of course, this mode of thinking also has the quaint feature of
    presuming to tell other people what they can and cannot think.  What? 
    You're a Christian, and you are enlightened?  Impossible!  I won't
    accept your right to think that way!  If you are enlightened, damn it,
    then you can't be a Christian, and if you are a Christian than you
    can't be enlightened.  If you claim to be both then you are not being
    dogmatic enough to suit me!  I protest!

    Since I am in total agreement about all of the bad things to be found in
    the Western religious tradition, many of which are theological in basis,
    the issue is not that those things are bad, but rather that those things
    are not inherent to the religious tradition.  Since there exist
    followers of the Western religious tradition who do not endorse those
    bad ideas, no matter how small a minority they may be, then clearly
    those features are not inherent to that religious tradition. 
    
    Furthermore, Quakers and Unitarians are not the only "enlightened"
    elements of the Western religious tradition (I would add that most
    Unitarians and some Quakers are not Christians, but that's another
    story.)  I have personally known many mainline Christians who were very
    tolerant, and who were not sexist or warmongers.  To cite another
    example, Hans K�ng, a Catholic theologian, has written several books
    expressing respectful tolerance for other religions.

    The key issue here is intolerance, and its twin evil, "politically
    correct" thinking.  Like political correctness in general,
    characterizing a religion as a whole as politically incorrect
    represents a rigid, dogmatic approach to issues.  It's either all or
    nothing, y'know?  Thinking for yourself, exploring your own religious
    path, uh-uh, that's not acceptable.

    If anyone wants to criticize the evils of sexism, violence, or
    intolerance that are found within the Western religious tradition, I
    will more than agree.  In fact, I'll gladly join in.  The problem is
    with the assertion that any believer in one of the faiths of the Western
    religious tradition must necessarily share a belief in those evils, or
    the claim that those individuals have no right to identify themselves
    with that tradition if they reject sexism, violence, or intolerance. 
    That is patently false, and insulting to the many believers who clearly
    do not share those views.

    Of course, if the desire is for dogmatism and political correctness,
    rather than respect for the religious path that others have chosen to
    take, then it is perfectly reasonable to bash a religious tradition in
    its entirety.

    -- Mike

    re:.175
    
>	tell other people that their religion is shit. 

	who has said this?
    
>    Certainly it is relevant to discuss the negative features found
>    historically in Christianity, or any other religion.  However, finding
>    relevance does not equate with identifying a feature as inherent.

	at what point does a feature become 'inherent'?

>    To
>    shrug off the exceptions to the "inherent" features of a religion as if
>    they did not count is to invent a new and curious definition of
>    "inherent".  

	inherent: involved in the...essential character of something
	exception: 2) a case to which a rule does not apply
	(webster's 9th)

>    Since individuals can retain a religious faith while not
>    adhering to those "inherent" features, it is not clear to me how those
>    features can be inherent. Whether or not they constitute a small
>    minority is beside the point; those individuals and religious
>    institutions do exist.

	the catholic church opposes legalised abortion. that is
	inherent in its theology. some catholics support legalised
	abortion. they are exceptions. they are excommunicated
	from their church if their beliefs become known (which
	according to their theology places them in peril of
	eternal damnation; not particularly tolerant).

>    The more enlightened and the less enlightened Christians are still
>    Christians.  It is not the degree of enlightenment that determines
>    whether or not they are Christians.  The issue is the appropriateness
>    of telling others that they cannot be an enlightened Christian because
>    that enlightenment contradicts and "inherent" feature of the religious
>    faith.  Curiously, this sort of dogmatic all-or-nothing nonsense is
>    identical to the way that fundamentalists also think, so we have the
>    curious situation of fundamentalist Christians and Christian-bashers
>    being on the same side of the fence.

	this is obviously a semantic argument. what does the word
	'christian' mean? is there a useful definition that would
	apply equally well to jerry falwell and pope john paul and
	a druze and a quaker? i merely suggest that there isn't.
	for myself, i no longer see the value in saying 'i'm a
	christian, but i'm not one of *those* christians'. they
	can have the word christian. i'll take something else.

>    Of course, this mode of thinking also has the quaint feature of
>    presuming to tell other people what they can and cannot think.  What? 
>    You're a Christian, and you are enlightened?  Impossible!  I won't
>    accept your right to think that way!  If you are enlightened, damn it,
>    then you can't be a Christian, and if you are a Christian than you
>    can't be enlightened.  If you claim to be both then you are not being
>    dogmatic enough to suit me!  I protest!

    	please, believe what you want to believe! but look at
    	the semantics:
    
	if one is an 'enlightened' christian, the operative word
	is enlightened, since a 'fundamentalist' christian would
	find such a person to be not a christian at all. 
	
	and vice-versa.

>    Since I am in total agreement about all of the bad things to be found in
>    the Western religious tradition, many of which are theological in basis,
>    the issue is not that those things are bad, but rather that those things
>    are not inherent to the religious tradition. 
 
	if they're there, were there for thousands of years, and
	linger today, it seems to me they are inherent.

>    Since there exist
>    followers of the Western religious tradition who do not endorse those
>    bad ideas, no matter how small a minority they may be, then clearly
>    those features are not inherent to that religious tradition. 
 
	this is a little like saying that since there are people who
	do not vote for either the republicans or the democrats, we
	do not have a two party system.

>    Furthermore, Quakers and Unitarians are not the only "enlightened"
>    elements of the Western religious tradition (I would add that most
>    Unitarians and some Quakers are not Christians, but that's another
>    story.)  I have personally known many mainline Christians who were very
>    tolerant, and who were not sexist or warmongers.  To cite another
>    example, Hans K�ng, a Catholic theologian, has written several books
>    expressing respectful tolerance for other religions.

	even the word 'tolerance' is revealing. it implies 'allowing',
	as if one group has the right to 'allow' another to believe
	something.

>    The key issue here is intolerance, and its twin evil, "politically
>    correct" thinking.  Like political correctness in general,
>    characterizing a religion as a whole as politically incorrect
>    represents a rigid, dogmatic approach to issues.  It's either all or
>    nothing, y'know?  Thinking for yourself, exploring your own religious
>    path, uh-uh, that's not acceptable.

	christianity has been characterised, based on extensive
	historical and theological evidence, as sexist, intolerant,
	and violent. no one has said anything about individual
	christians. above semantic quibbles aside, i admire those
	christians who have tried to deal with these evils. but to
	use the political example again, what's the point of saying
	'you can't characterise republicans as a whole'. either 
	'republican' means something or it doesn't.

>    If anyone wants to criticize the evils of sexism, violence, or
>    intolerance that are found within the Western religious tradition, I
>    will more than agree.  In fact, I'll gladly join in.  The problem is
>    with the assertion that any believer in one of the faiths of the Western
>    religious tradition must necessarily share a belief in those evils, or
>    the claim that those individuals have no right to identify themselves
>    with that tradition if they reject sexism, violence, or intolerance. 
	
	who has said this?
    

RE:         <<< Note 930.177 by DECWET::JWHITE "keep on rockin', girl" >>>

Well Joe, I'm bowing out.  I don't feel like this discussion is
progressing at all.  We seem to be repeating ourselves and I am
starting to feel umcomfortable and getting the urge to "use a bigger
stick" to say the same thing.  So, I think I have said what I have to
say on the subject.  And, after all, this note is about *Women* In
Combat and not *Men* In Combat!  ;-)

john

    As a charismatic fundamentalist Bible-believing mainline
    [Lutheran] Christian leftwing feminist, I've found this argument
    very interesting ... didn't you guys have anything better to
    do last night?
    
    The only definition of a "Christian" is "one who follows Jesus
    Christ," however one defines "follow."  Yes, this does cover Jerry
    Falwell, the Pope, the Quakers, and the Druze. It also covers the
    communal Free Universal Church of Silver City, Idaho, the Surfers
    United for Christ, and the City Sisters (a religious order for
    inner-city ex-prostitutes and junkies).  As Dave Barry puts it,
    I'm not making any of these up. 
    
    Some members of some of these groups might well say that members
    of other groups don't really "follow" Christ, but they don't
    quarrell with the basic definition.
    
    The Jesus recorded in the Bible I have at home didn't have a lot
    to say about winning arguments, or fighting wars, or other cosmic
    issues.  Most of his recorded words are about how individuals
    should live their day to day lives.  They're about mending your
    own faults before you try to correct other people, and about
    giving your enemy your other cheek to hit rather than retaliating,
    and about loving strangers and enemies, even if they are members
    of despised groups.  He doesn't say you should never fight -- in
    fact he fought to clean out the Temple -- and he doesn't talk
    about blindly following what religious leaders say.  He does say
    life isn't easy and it isn't always fair.  And he and his early
    followers do talk about needing to use our intelligence and all
    our other skills to understand how to live and to serve God with
    all our power. 
    
    There's even a passage in Ezekiel that says "Don't trust in
    big armies and defense systems, because you'll live your life
    in fear.  Trust in God and you'll live in peace." 
    
    Real militaristic . . . 
    
    --bonnie

    I only had a year's worth of studies in Buddhism, but to my untutored
    eyes its various emanations certainly had a feeling of monotheism
    compared to Hinduism or Shintoism.  Yet I can't recall any rampaging
    Buddhist armies.

    The polytheistic Romans may have been more tolerant of other
    polytheistic religions (one of the benefits of polytheism being its
    adaptability), but they were hardly peaceable in other ways.  For that
    matter, Athena didn't do much to curb the Athenians' temper.

    At various times and places, Catholicism has benefitted from
    matriarchal and polytheistic elements such as the BVM and saints.

    Religion's support of war most often resides in the assurances that 1)
    those of us who die will go on to better things and 2) those on the
    other side are so inhuman that their deaths are of little importance. 
    Neither proposition implies monotheism or the sex of the involved
    divinities.

    Ray

    in re .181
    
    would you like me to go through my hymnal and see how many peaceful
    hymns I can enter?
    
    Bonnie

In reference to 930.179 and 930.180:

   I have followed this discussion with great interest, since certain 
elements of it seem to parallel the first "discussion" I participated in in
this Notesfile.

   Bonnie and Ray have expressed my views so well that I have little more to
add, except the gentle suggestion that those who have cast "patriarchal"
religions such as Christianity in the light that they have (a) have no
real understanding of the religion they are putting down and (b) are 
demonstrating the same kind of intolerance that they associate with the
"masculine values" that they say these religions promote.

   I further suggest that some of the entries which, by implication, cast
the following of these religions as "bad" are prime examples of how the
fundamental attitudes behind the evils once perpetrated in the name of these 
religions can be easily perpetuated by the victims of those evils, and of how
former victims can so easily fall into the same paths that their former 
oppressors did.

   In other words, when followers of so- called "male oriented" religions
oppressed the followers of so- called "female oriented" religions (Note here 
that I am only working within the framework presented in certain "feminist"
literature -- I do not necessarily believe everything presented within that
framework), they did so because of a belief that their religion was right and
everybody else's was wrong. Now I see, within the microcosm of this Notesfile,
the same sort of attitudes emerging -- except here they are manifesting in
a "female oriented" religious context which is, like their earlier religiously
bigoted oppressors, presenting a distorted view of what the other religion is
really about.

   It seems that the old saying is true: the more you hate your enemies,
the more like them you become. The oppressive aspects of the Masculine 
Principle have nothing to worry about; even if large numbers of people
become "enlightened" and leave religions such as Christianity for the "gentler"
Godddess- oriented religions, oppression will still exist. It will take 
different forms, maybe, but it will still exist.

   Now, having said that, can we please go back to what this discussion was
originally about? Please?

                                                -Robert Brown III

    I think that what some people are trying to say is that what a
    religion ostensibly teaches is not necessarily what it actually
    teaches (and that what it actually teaches may not be what it
    intended to teach).  This realization came to me from _Judgement_
    _Night_ (or maybe it was _Doomsday_Morning_).
    
    I have tried to discuss this idea in Religion.  Anyone care to
    continue this rathole there?
    
    						Ann B.

Ann:

   I think your point about the disparity between teaching and practice
is inherent within the discussion.

   Your point on the difference between what a religion "supposedly" teaches
and what it "actually" teaches is well taken.

   Unfortunately, people putting down "male- oriented" religions often
tend to forget that the differences you name are tendencies within ALL
religions -- including "female- oriented" ones.

   They forget that PEOPLE are imperfect -- not just Christians, Muslims,
or Romans. That of all the billions of human beings who have ever existed
on this planet, very few have ever really lived up to any religion's 
highest ideals -- and seldom really "teach" or otherwise perpetuate those
ideals. That of those few, some were men and some were women.

   All I want to do is remind them of this.

   Question: which "Religion" were you considering to continue this "rathole"
in. The Religion Notesfile? Or the note here? I'd be happy to move to
wherever you desire to continue this.

   Please let me know.

   To all others: apologies.

                                                      -Robert Brown III

    Getting back to the topic of women and combat, the February 1990 issue
    of Z Magazine contains an article, "Panamanian Women and the U.S.
    Invasion".  The following excerpt is taken from the section titled
    "Women and War":

        President Bush evoked the ardor of U.S. militaristic chivalry as he
        continuously stated that the U.S. invaded Panama to protect
        "American lives" as well as "American womanhood."  The death of the
        military officer (who Panamanians stated was armed and had injured
        civilians in a shootout with the PDF at a compound near Noriega's
        barracks) and the assault and interrogation of a Naval officer and
        sexual threats against his wife were used as justification for war.
        Although U.S. women have been raped and murdered in El Salvador by
        the Salvadoran military, killed by the contras in Nicaragua, and
        raped and tortured by the Guatemalan army, neither the Bush nor
        Reagan administration authorized a U.S. invasion for the protection
        of U.S. lives and "womanhood" in these countries.  And of course the
        administration has never expressed concern for Panamanian women most
        at risk during the U.S. siege, invasion, and "reconstruction" of
        Panama.  There are no images of women in the picture drawn by the
	major media and the State Department for home consumption.  At the
	funerals for U.S. troops killed in action, there were few if any
	images of mothers, daughters, or wives grieving.  U.S. women
	pictured were those proud of their families' sacrifice for their
	country.  The other U.S. women depicted are the combatants who made
	history.  Captain Linda Bray, the first woman to lead U.S. troops
	into combat.  Representative Patricia Schroeder, Colorado Democrat
	and chair of the House Armed Services subcommittee, viewing this as a
	feminist achievement, is now advocating that women no longer be
	barred from direct combat in future U.S. "wars," i.e., invasions and
	interventions in the "Third World."

	Absent are the stories and pictures of Panamanian women resisting
	the invasion and U.S. troops battling women.  Women (as well as some
	children) participated in the Dignity Battalions, the nationalist if
	not necessarily pro-government, paramilitary squads.  Women also
	participated in the Panamanian Defense Forces.

	An estimated 5,000 Panamanians are being detained by the U.S.
	military.  The only charge necessary for incarceration in a
	concentration camp is that one be against the invasion.  Since the
	U.S. never declared war on Panama, it does not refer to Panamanians
	in camps as prisoners of war but as "detainees."  As a result of
	this terminology, the U.S. is not bound to international law
	protecting the rights of prisoners of war.

	The U.S. has consistently criminalized Panamanian resistance to U.S.
	domination.  According to the State Department there is no such
	thing as political resistance to U.S. imperialism and racism.
	Conveniently compatible with a national racist psyche, all
	(criminal) resistance comes from black men.  Press pictures of
	alleged PDF "rounded up" by U.S. troops in guerrilla camouflage
	never show a woman who fought in the resistance.  Pictures, of
	women, blindfolded, hands tied or hogtied, dragged by their blouses
	through the streets, lined up on the grass, face down on the hot
	pavement, or lined up in detention camps behind chainlink fences
	and barb wire, would send messages incompatible with the mythology
	of the Gringo liberator.

	Women were part of the resistance to U.S. intervention.  The Base De
	Instruccion Femenina Rufina Alfaro is a women's military battalion
	named after Rufina Alfaro, who in 1821 issued the first call for
	Panamanian independence and sovereignty from Spain.  Before the
	December invasion, the U.S. military harassed the neighborhood where
	Rufina Alfaro was located.  Several times a week, U.S. troops would
	invade the barriada, pointing artillery at houses, buzzing over the
	rooftops in helicopters before dawn.  U.S. troops directed much of
	their psychological warfare against the women in the barracks at
	Rufina Alfaro, making a point in their incursions to surround the
	barracks and demand that the women soldiers come out.

	On the fence and building of Rufina Alfaro, cloth banners in Spanish
	and English could be seen before the invasion as the women responded
	with their own psychological warfare against the U.S.  The banner on
	the building read:  "Ay Que Miedo, Gringo.  Ja, Ja, Ja" ("Oh What
	Fear Gringo, Ha, Ha, Ha").  The ones on the fence across the street
	(directed at General Maxwell, Thurman, head of the Southern
	Command), jibed "Mad Max How Come You Are Not Married?" and warned
	"Don't Forget Vietnam."

	Opposition to U.S./oligarchy rule in Panama exists independently of
	the former government and its armed forces.  An example of that
	opposition is the recently formed Panamanian feminist/womanist
	organization, FUMCA, which is led by women of color.

    The rest of the article describes FUMCA in much greater detail.

    -- Mike