Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
    
    RE:  pressure
    
    The pressure needs to go on the Congress, right?  I thought the
    no-women-in-combat rule was a law, not a policy of the Pentagon.
    
    NICK
     

    I read somewhere recently that there isn't a law, it's just a policy. 
    The policy however, may be set by Congress.  (Kind of like the
    difference between Digital Standards and Digital Guidelines.)
    
    Anybody else know any more about this?  Or should I call Pat Schroeder?
    
    judy

    re .2,
    
    Uh, Judy.  Whatever "policy" Congress sets is by definition law. 
    Strictly speaking Congress can't set policies.  The administration sets
    policies.  Occasionally, Congress will pass some resolutions but those
    are none binding.  In short, whatever Congress sets is either law or
    mostly harmless.
    
    Eugene

       One of the main reasons (so they say) for not allowing women
    in combat:  American men have been raised to protect women...
    therefore he will be watching out for his female co-worker instead
    of doing his job properly.  
       Note that this is simply what I've heard from *many* military
    men.
    
    
                                   L.J.

>       One of the main reasons (so they say) for not allowing women
>    in combat:  American men have been raised to protect women...
>    therefore he will be watching out for his female co-worker instead
>    of doing his job properly.  
>       Note that this is simply what I've heard from *many* military
>    men.

    I've heard this too, and I finally realized why it rubs me the wrong
    way: the men can't hack it, so the *women* are being denied opportunities
    for advancement.

    What say we allow women into combat positions anyway, and any man too 
    distracted to perform his job properly gets transferred to something 
    he *can* do.  If this results in the combat units being *only* women,
    and therefore most of the senior officers being women, and the secretary
    of defense being a woman, and the chair of the joint chiefs of staff
    being a woman, well... at least it won't be any more inequality than
    we already have now.

	Sharon

    Re: .4 (Dick's reply)
    
    I guess I'm suggesting that instead of getting used to it, we should
    change it!
    
    I'm a political animal by nature, so that's where I'd like the focus to
    be placed.  Let's *change* the law, policy, guideline, or whatever.
    
    Of course, the obvious way to do this is to pass the ERA.  Then it
    would be illegal to discriminate against women in any way, including
    allowing them to be in a combat MOS. (MOS=Military Occupational
    Speciality)
    
    And as far as .5, I agree with Sharon.  Just because men have these
    hangups about protecting women, that's no reason to discriminate
    against the women.
    
    And, to top it off, women *are* in combat, no matter what we want to
    call it.  Let's pay and reward them for it.
    
    judy

    The same arguements were used in the past to ban Blacks from the
    military. It was aruged that no white man would take orders from
    a black man.
    
    Bonnie

    see also:
    
    Womannotes-V1 (unclear on exact contents as the file is still offline,
    but judging by the topic title alone)
    463 - military service? 
    
    Womannotes-V2
    110 - women in the military
    930 - women in combat
    
    Mennotes
    500 - why are MEN always the combatants
    
    Euro_woman
    230 - women at war
    
    -Jody
    

    This morning NPR mentioned that no-women-in-combat would likely be
    revisited by Congress.

    I'll have to check out V2 of =wn= to see what else has been said.
    
    I realize that the military has set their own rules, and has their own
    court system.
    
    However, it does have to follow the laws set by our country, no?  In
    1948 President Truman ordered that Blacks be allowed to join the
    regular military (compared to having their own regiments).  The
    military had to comply with this policy set by the President.  Or did
    they just follow it because it was expedient at the time?  (This is 
    not a rhetorical question.  I really don't know.)
    
    I do find it amazing to think that only 43 years later, Colin Powell is
    the Joint Chief of Staffs.  
    
    If this could happen with Blacks, then perhaps when many of us write to
    our elected officials then women will be allowed the same privileges.
    Although I am cynical that in only 43 years a woman would be the Joint
    Chief of Staffs...
    
    judy

    IMHO, women in combat may be  a good idea in an all volunteer army. 
    Where I am uncomfortable with this is in the case of women draftees. 
    If my daughter is drafted and placed in combat against her will, then
    it IS different than for a son.  The physical and psychological
    ramifications of POW status are greater and more severe for a woman. 
    To be specific, rape is almost certain, possibly repeatedly, forced
    prostitution a possibility, and pregnancy as an outcome quite possible.
    
    Even in a volunteer army, what happens to the woman who signs up for a
    non-combat position and is moved against her will into combat?  Should
    all women unwilling to face these consequences stay out of the
    military?
    
    FYI, the Israeli army does not put women (though all serve) in front
    line combat positions.  They served in the war of independence but not
    since then.  This policy has strong public support.
    
    For the record, I consider myself a feminist and have for over 20
    years.  On this issue, I beg to differ fron the other comments.
    
    Laura

    The paper today reported that two women were killed in the SCUD
    attack on the barracks in Dhahran.
    
    Bonnie

    Like -.3 I also don't want anyone at war, and I certainly don't want a
    draft.  But, *if* there is a war and *if* there is a draft, then both
    sexes should participate.
    
    Also, women *are* on the front lines, there is a women POW in Iraq
    somewhere right now, and as Bonnie said, there were two women killed in
    the scud attack.  So being classified as non-combat is not a protection
    in any case.
    
    We have to deal with the reality of the situation.  Women should get
    financial and career compensations when they serve our country, just as
    men do.
    
    judy

  Re: 713.9 by CALIPH::binder 

  -d,

  When I was in the air force, I was told in person by someone on the 
  Judge Advocate General's staff that a member of the military gives up
  no Constitutional rights.  So, on paper anyway�, the military obeys
  the laws of the land at least to that extent.

  This makes sense, even in things such as Article 15 of the Uniform
  Code of Military Justice (I'll save someone the trouble of pointing
  out that Military Justice is to justice as Military Music is to music).
  Article 15 lets a commander find someone guilty and impose punishment.
  But that is _only_ done if the individual agrees to it -- s/he can always
  demand a Courts Martial and can even hold out for a jury of peers (i.e.,
  people of the same rank).

  JP

  � I say "on paper" because as the JAG's representative made this statement,
    I was living in an environment where a First Sergeant could wander into
    your room and look through your drawers (pun intended) at any time.  So
    when I thought of constitutional protections against unreasonable search
    and seizure, I had to bite a hole in my cheek to keep from laughing out
    loud.

    re .16, I don't believe in the draft for either sex, but *if* there
    were a draft I don't think that women should be drafted.  One of the
    reasons is that I think it's bad enough that men are drafted and we
    shouldn't make it even worse by drafting women, too.  But, the main
    reason is that I think there would be so many women who would turn out
    to be unsuited for the military that it would cause more problems than
    it would be worth.  
    
    I think one of the main problems (and injustices) in drafting men is
    that men who are completely unsuited for the military wind up there and
    have to deal with and be dealt with.  I think that there would be a
    much larger percentage of 19 yr. old females would be unsuited for
    military life than there are men.  I think the reasons for this lie
    both in physical differences and in the way most females are raised
    versus most males, and what we are taught to expect, want and believe.  
    
    I was in the women's army corps in 1968 and I was in Casual Company for
    two months.  That is the company where women are sent to be processed
    out of the military for whatever reason.  If everyone could see the
    motley crew of 18 yr. old girls from all over the U.S. who were trying
    to get out of the army, including myself, and this is from a volunteer
    army where women weren't allowed in combat, then you might have some
    idea of where I'm coming from.
    
    Most girls just aren't raised to take this stuff seriously.  Last month
    in The Boston Phoenix there were excerpts from interviews with young
    women on the street who were asked what they would do if they were
    drafted.  Some of them just said, "I wouldn't go."
    
    To a small percentage of feminists working at Digital in male dominated
    professions being drafted into combat duty might seem a reasonable
    thing.  But, to the majority of American women I don't think it would
    be considered a realistic request.  Most of us are never going to be
    equal with men in our lifetimes anyway, so why should be willing to go
    to war.  It's one of the few aspects of life where being a woman has
    been better than being a man.  Why should the average woman, who is not
    an engineer or manager in a high tech company, be willing to?
    
    Lorna
    

    Re: .18
    
    I have read that we learned our lesson about using the draft during
    Vietnam.  That we probably won't use it again, unless we are involved
    in a war that requires more troops than the volunteer force supplies.
    And even with the Iraq situation, the recruiting stations were filled
    with enlistees.  So maybe the problem would take care of itself.
    
    That said, I don't think we can ask for things to be both ways.  We
    can't demand equality in one area and want privileges in another.  It
    just isn't fair.
    
    And by the way, I have a sister-in-law who was in one of those military
    camps because she was unsuited and wanted out while she was in boot
    camp so I have first hand knowledge of a woman who physically can't
    handle the task.  (At 18, I doubt I could have either. I'm only got
    into shape when I was in my late twenties!)
    
    But there *have* to be some men that can't handle it either.  I don't
    think we should allow all women to be off the hook because some of them
    aren't physically capable.
    
    judy

    re .19, but we *don't* have it both ways.  Women, in general, do not
    have equality with men yet.  I'll take equality first, then I'll think
    about combat duty.  When women earn $1.00 for every $1.00 a man earns
    then I'll think about it.  Until then I think it would be men who would
    be having it both ways if women could be drafted.  Women would still
    not be equal but would have to also go to war?  
    
    Can you imagine engaging in combat while having menstrual cramps or
    morning sickness?????
    
    Plus, I think there are a *lot* *lot* *lot* more women who would be
    unsuited for combat than there are men.
    
    Things will have to change a bit more before I worry about the fact
    that women don't get drafted for combat might be unfair!
    
    Besides, you talk about "we" as though you speak for the entire female
    population of the United States.  I'm not sure you do.  I think you
    might be speaking for an elite group of feminists who hold professional
    jobs, and I no more want an elite group of feminists dictating my life
    choices to me, than I do a group of men.
    
    Lorna
      

    re .20
    
    I think you meant that women earn .59 or .63 cents to a man's $1.00,
    right?
    
    Anyway, I am using we to mean women.  I certainly don't mean to speak
    for every woman, but I'm quite involved in changing the political
    process and have represented a few thousand women at bill hearings and
    the like.  But I am guilty of being an upper-middle class
    feminist.   I struggle with that.  But I figure that with less money
    I would spend more time trying to survive and not be able to work in
    the movement.  (Nice justification, huh? Besides I spent most of my
    life in the struggle part.  It's only since I was graduated from college
    that I got out of the struggle.)
    
    I think women lose credibility when we ask to be excluded from
    something that isn't as pleasant as making the money or getting the
    respect that we deserve.  And I also think that one way for us to get
    equality is to be in every part of our culture.  We have to get into
    the boardrooms, the combat strategy rooms, and the legislatures.
    
    I don't think the men are just going to hand over the power.  We need
    to move our way up and I know it will take longer than my lifetime.
    
    Heavy sigh.
    
    judy

    And while I can't imagine having morning sickness while in combat,
    there must be some women who have already experienced this, since women
    soldiers were in Kuwait.
    
    One of the points I'm really trying to make is that women already are
    in the service performing essentially combat duty, but the women aren't
    getting compensated for it.
    
    I want *that* fixed.
    
    Also, the military already has a policy for its pregnant soldiers.  I'm
    sure they can come up with another one for its pregnant soldiers who
    are assigned to combat units.
    
    judy

    Judy
    
    The daughter of a close friend of mine has a husband in the Saudi
    desert and was staying with her mom when I visited. Diana was talking
    to me about the problems that women were having over there. She
    mentioned one woman who had found out she was pregnant (she was married
    btw) when she got over there and could not get rotated back. There
    was no adequate medical help for her (there were gyns because they
    are good at abdominal surgery but no appropraite meds) and she was
    badly dehydrated. As of December when I talked to Diana the friend
    had written that if she did not lose the baby it would almost
    definitely be born deformed. (this was at 5 months and the baby wasn't
    growing properly.)
    
    Bonnie

    re .22, I think that women who *want* combat duty should be allowed to
    have it, and get compensated for it.  I just don't believe they should be 
    able to be drafted.  But, I don't really think that men should be able
    to be drafted either.  If women who want combat duty can get it, maybe
    some of the men who don't want it won't have to!  Let the people who
    want to fight, fight - men or women!
    
    Lorna
    

    
    re .23:
    
    Sounds like grounds for a fat, juicy lawsuit to me, and I hope
    she takes it to court too (and wins).  In my own opinion, of course,
    THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for not allowing a pregnant soldier
    to come home!
    

    re: .24
    
    Lorna, 
    
    I think you and I are in violent agreement here.  I don't believe there
    should be a draft at all---men or women.  We just disagree on whether
    women should be included if there is one.
    
    And, I feel awful about Bonnie's friend. Unfortunately, it will
    probably take cases like these for the army to come up with a fair
    policy.
    
    Right now the policy I know about is that the army allows pregnant
    women to decide whether to leave its branch of service when they
    are pregnant (although, they can't leave until the typical disability
    time), even if they are in the middle of a tour.  They do *not*
    allow a woman to decide after the baby is born.  I think this is a
    little ridiculous, since many women want to decide after the baby is
    born. 
    
    judy

    By the way, to clarify that, the woman I mentioned was the friend
    of Diana, the daughter of my long time friend Linda. So I don't
    have any way of directly knowing what happened to her. I'll write
    to Linda and maybe she can post an update here about the woman if
    her daughter has told her any more.
    
    Bonnie

re Note 713.9 by CALIPH::binder:

> now shout it:  THE MILITARY IS NOT GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF THE COUNTRY
> IT IS CHARTERED TO PROTECT.

        I believe that the higher civilian courts, in particular the
        supreme court, may review any decision of a military court.

        Also, as a general principle, of course our military is
        governed by the laws of our country!  If not, they could
        unilaterally suspend the procurement laws, they could print
        their own money -- heck, they could storm into Congress and
        the White House and take over!

        Bob

re Note 713.13 by CALIPH::binder:

> The military had to allow blacks to join regular outfits when Truman
> said so because the President is also the CIC (Commander in Chief) of
> the military.  His word is law for them.  Obviously, most presidents
> don't speak to issues of military jurisprudence without a helluva lot
> of consultation with military lawyers first!

        Yes, but it is the Constitution that defines the President to
        be the Commander in Chief, and the claim before us is that
        the military can ignore the Constitution, in particular a
        hypothetical ERA.

        Bob

    Something disturbing was said earlier in this note.  The idea that if
    rules about women in combat make them equal with men, and they serve in
    that capacity, then the "credibility" gained will translate into
    greater equality in the workplace.
    
    I find this a strain on logic.  First, the women (like the men) who
    would serve in combat are nearly all from the working and lower middle
    class.  Their situation bears little comparison with the mid to
    upper-middle class woman struggling to achieve credibility in a white
    collar job.  I can imagine that woman in combat boots saying, "Not on
    my back, kiddo."  This justification is self-serving.  I would rather
    know the opinion of the women in question.  Their reasons for being in
    the military and their goals there, are what is important here.
    
    Going into combat is NOT the same as playing raquet ball with the boys
    after work.  I cannot believe that it would bring greater respect, only
    intolerable burdens and grief.
    
    How is it, that if they serve in combat that will help achieve
    equality?  We are kidding ourselves if we think that this will
    contribute to the broad change needed in the USA.  Do you think that
    men will say, "Gee, that woman fights just as well as a man.  I think
    they should have equal pay back home." ???
    
    Women are not the same as men.  We can perform equally well in most
    jobs and should indeed receive equal pay.  But our social roles and
    needs are distinct and its pure delusion to think otherwise.  A real
    rathole and another deep sleep for the feminist movement.  For anyone
    stuck in a narrow agenda I'd say "wake up and hear the music."  
    
    I have the greatest pity now for the female POW stuck in Iraq.  Before
    advocating a greater role for women in combat, try to imagine her
    plight.  Being a POW has mentally and physically broken many men.  For
    a woman that route is accelerated and magnitudes worse.  I am horrified
    at the thought of of her suffering.  If you can't imagine this, and you
    wouldn't serve in combat yourself, then don't push for another woman to
    go through it.  That's a very selfish thing to do.
    
    Laura

    
    >If you can't imagine this, and you
    >wouldn't serve in combat yourself, then don't push for another woman to
    >go through it.  That's a very selfish thing to do.
    
    The point is that there are many women already in the military who
    want these jobs.  Why shouldn't I support that?  (The draft is a
    totally different issue as I see it.)  And please don't call me
    selfish.  I don't see it that way *AT ALL*.
    

    re .31, excellent note!  I agree completely.
    
    In fact you helped to clarify my own reasons for being against women in
    combat.  It's a sad thing to think that lower class and minority women
    could be used in this way to help advance the working conditions of
    upper class professional women, and yet do nothing to advance the
    careers of the actual female soldiers when they return to their own
    working class civilian jobs.
    
    How many minority women and working class women and women with low SAT
    scores would have to die in combat in order to raise the glass ceiling
    a bit for female professionals?  Interesting idea.
    
    Lorna
    

    The only way to get into the "fast track" in the military is to get
    into combat.  You are *not* allowed a certain promotion track unless
    you serve combat.  This is what I meant by saying that in order to
    reach the higher level ranks, where the real power is, women must be
    allowed to be classified as combat soldiers, which in my opinion, many
    of them already are.
    
    I don't want to use lower class and minority women at all.  I want to
    empower them to get higher in the ranks, where they can affect real
    change.
    
    It's sort of like women being in the local legislatures who will
    eventually move into the federal ones.  Right now this is not happening
    enough, but at least there are no laws that prevent it from happening.
    
    judy

    This is a total aside, but relevant.  Many commanding officiers (male
    ones) were trying very hard to get their units assigned to Saudi
    Arabia, in combat, because they wanted to elevate their own careers. 
    Since they also cannot advance without that combat experience.
    
    I don't think combat experience has any relevance to professional women
    getting ahead at all.  I'm only talking about professional women
    soldiers who decide to make the military service their career.  They
    should have the same opportunities as men.
    
    judy

    Thank you .31, I couldn't agree more.  I am sick of this push to see
    women in direct combat roles as a matter of military policy with the
    mistaken idea that this will magically cure the centuries of inequality
    that has transpired.  It simply won't happen.
    
    My take -- women do not belong in combat, nor do they belong in many
    other male dominated professions.  It is the EXCEPTIONAL woman that
    makes a competent fireman or policeman.  Women are not as physically
    strong as men, pound for pound.  This is reality.
    
    Women can get pregnant.  Men cannot.  If you take some time to think
    about this, and all of its ramifications, perhaps you will understand
    the "instinct" males feel toward females to protect them, keep them
    from harm.  This instinct is good, not bad.  If we in our quest to
    provide equality for women, a "fair" world, destroy the natural
    instincts and inclinations of males to protect and defend (being the
    stronger) the weaker (yes, women and children) in society, we will
    destroy civilization.
    
    I consider myself a feminist AND a realist.  There are some things in
    this world that are very practical solutions to the inequalities that
    exist among people, sexes, races.  But placing women in front line
    combat is NOT one of them.  (Volunteer or draftee, it matters not)
    

    What do .31, .34, and .36 think should happen to women who choose to
    join the military?
    
    Or should we just not permit them to join at all? 
    
    I am not being sarcastic here at all.  Since women are on the front
    lines without getting the pay or promotion benefits, should we limit
    women's opportunities in the military by saying that they can only
    serve on bases that are not currently under attack, or that are not in
    any hostile area?
    
    judy

    re .36, I agree.
    
    If women could be drafted into combat duty then the women who are
    career people who want to get into positions of power would be using
    the enlisted women (minorities, working class women) to advance their
    own personal quest for power.  I don't admire this in a man and
    wouldn't admire it in a woman either.  Most combat soldiers, enlisted
    or drafted, are only in to do their time and get out.  They are not in
    the military to seek positions of power.  Allowing women in combat
    would only serve to advance the careers of a very small minority of
    women, whose goals most women cannot identify with, and at the expense
    of a large percentage of working class women.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    re .38:
    
    Sara said it before, but I'll say it again:
    
    ALLOW <> REQUIRE
    
    I am in favor of only those who *wish* these positions to
    have them.
    
    Allowing women or men to be in combat positions is what I'm for.
    Requiring women or men to be in combat position is what I'm against.
    

    .39 Yes, yes!
    
    When a person signs up for military service, they choose their own
    speciality.  They are locked into the speciality.  So, if you want to
    be a gun runner, then you choose that.  If you want to be a tank
    mechanic, you choose that.
    
    Women should have as many options open to them as men do.
    
    I didn't open this note to talk about the draft.  I am not for the
    draft for either men or women.  I am also not pro-war, but the war and
    my day care provider have me thinking about the military and the way
    women fit into it.
    
    Of course, there  still are the economic issues that exist that make
    the military one of the few choices for so  many men and women. Now, 
    that's where I wish we could have true change.
    
    judy

    If it were up to me, as a matter of policy I would not permit women in
    combat positions.  Because they are not qualified for the job.  That is
    how I view the job of being a combat soldier.  Part of being qualified
    for the job is being able to fit into the team, on an equal footing,
    without requiring any special dispensations, without the other team
    members having to allow for the inherent differences between male and
    female.
    
    Would you take a relatively healthy, adult female and throw her in with
    the Green Bay Packers, expect her to play football, not get hurt, and
    carry her load like one of these pro football players?  Even a woman in
    good physical condition would have a rough time of it.  Because they
    are not playing on equal footing.  Give the same pysical training to a
    man and a woman and the man will come out ahead, his muscles are
    larger, his frame is bigger.  Men and women were not created equal,
    they were created for different purposes.
    
    When it comes to equal opportunity that's a different story.  Men and
    women equally capable of using their minds and thinking ability.  And
    everyone should be given the OPPORTUNITY to perform a job.  If you
    don't meet the qualifications for the job, you're out.  I believe that
    women, by their biological nature are not suited for combat.  (With the
    rare exception)
    

    I know nothing about the military, but does being in combat require a
    lot of muscular strength? I see a difference between physical fitness
    and physical strength and it's the latter that women typically lack.
    I suspect there would be many jobs that a physically fit female soldier
    can do.
    
    manisha

    re .41, This argument has been made many times.  You are entitled to
    your opinion.  I find it incorrect on many grounds.
    
    I propose to you that your way of thinking, that 'qualifications' 
    must be met, is a dual-edged sword, and it may cut your arguments 
    to ribbons.  I suggest that consistency demands of you, that if any
    particular "combat requirement" can be completely and unambiguously
    better met by women than by men, that you would agree that women should
    not only not be barred from those particular combat positions, but
    indeed should be recruited, and men debarred after their lesser
    qualifications have been replaced.  Do you agree to the wager?  If I
    show you a physical ability that women have that better suits them for
    certain combat roles, will you eat your words?
    
    DougO

There is evidence that women are physiologically better qualified to be pilots
than men... They have faster reflexes and tolerate high-G better.

	-- Charles

    > the "instinct" males feel toward females to protect them, keep them
    > from harm.  This instinct is good, not bad.  If we in our quest to
    
    This talk of "protective instinct" makes me really uncomfortable. Of
    all the men I've met, the one's who seemed to have this instinct were
    the same one's who treated women and children like their property. In
    fact, I felt it was the same emotion.
    
    So the soldiers may feel very protective about women from their country
    but wouldn't think twice before raping the enemy.
    

    As Doug and Manisha hinted, "strength" is a rather limited area.
    Women have been tested as having stamina, tolerance of heat, cold,
    and pain, and resistance to G-forces superior to those of men.
    Somehow, this never comes out in explanations of why women should
    be kept out of combat.
    
    						Ann B.

    re.39
       You do not get to choose what your job is if you volunteer for
    duty.  This is usually only given for special reasons, such as
    a better education or high scores on certain preliminary tests.
       By and large most military find out what job they have upon
    graduating from boot camp and being sent to their training school.
    And they usually don't have a choice in the matter. 
       Sometimes they give the top graduate his/her choice, but that's
    really about it.
    
       Another reason cited for not allowing women in full combat is the
    concern that she could be raped by her own side.  Mind you, this is
    just the reasoning I've heard.
    
       While I was in the service my experience was that about 50% of the
    men either thought it was cool that I was in or didn't care anymore
    than they would have if I'd been male.  25% felt I shouldn't have
    been in their mans Marine Corps.  The other 25% felt that females in
    the military were there for troop motivation.
       Considering how far womens rights have come in 100 years I thought
    50% was a very positive number.  Yes, I'd like to see 100%, but things
    like reality step in and mess things up sometimes. ;^)
    
    
                                  L.J.
    
    
    

    re: .47
    
    Thank you for clarifying that.  I didn't realize that only the elite
    get to pick.  I always wondered why someone would want to specialize in
    some high-tech killing machine...how would that help you get a job when
    you got out of the military?  This makes a lot more sense.
    
    judy

    During the Viet Nam war, Margaret Mead advocated that women should
    not be allowed in combat.  Her reasoning was that women differ from
    men in that they have the physical *and psychological* equipment that
    it takes to be a mother.  The fighting part of a woman's fight or
    flight instinct is geared toward the protection of young.  So when
    women fight they fight more intensely than do men and are more likely
    to be extremely vicious.  I don't know, perhaps women do take fighting
    more emotionally than men.
    
    Toward the end of WWII when the Russians had to dig pretty deep after
    suffering a lot of casualties they had some female combat units.  The
    German men feared them the most because they took no prisoners.  Their
    anger being kindled by the fact that these were the same German soldiers
    who killed their husbands and sons.
    
    I don't know if I buy this theory, but I thought I'd post it.  Margaret
    Mead was a kind of hero for me in my youth.  There weren't many good
    female role models then, she was one of the few.
    
    Mary

    
    L.J., how long ago was it that you were in service?  I see from your 
    note that you were in the Marines.  It's been a long time since I was 
    in (Air Force,75-79) but I had my choice of a job before I signed 
    anything and that job was guaranteed.  And I wasn't a special case;
    most of my basic training buddies knew what they would be training for
    and we also knew what our choices would be if we flunked out.  And, if
    the AF didn't give us what they'd guaranteed, we had the option of
    saying "So long, it's been real," no hassles.
    
    CQ

    Men in the US feel protective of women and it would interfere with
    combat troops somehow doesn't wash with me.  This is a country where a
    woman is beaten or raped every 5 minutes!  Actually looking at the
    combat casulty figures for the latest conflict, the battle-zone was
    safer than living in a large city here.
    
    Also during this conflict and the one in Panama, there have been women
    in the combat zones, in jobs, that until recently were considered
    combat related.  Now they are considered combat support, rather than
    related since women began doing them.  figure that one!
    
    Meg
    

    re .44, durn you Charles, stole my thunder.  Ah well.
    
    DougO

    CQ
      I joined the Corps in '81.  I was gauranteed an M.O.S.(Military
    Occupational Speciality) in the 3000 field because of my test
    scores.  3000 is supply related.  Within that, however, the options
    were up to them.  As it happened I was a publications clerk and
    keep all the rules and regs for our Battalion.  I could have just
    as easily been a fork lift driver or anything else withing the
    field of supply.
      But then again, Flyboys always got what they wanted! ;^)
    
    
                                  L.J.

.49 by Mary Maling struck a spark with me.  Mary paraphrased Margaret Mead:
    
    >The fighting part of a woman's fight or
    >flight instinct is geared toward the protection of young.  So when
    >women fight they fight more intensely than do men and are more likely
    >to be extremely vicious.  I don't know, perhaps women do take fighting
    >more emotionally than men.
    
    This came up in a lunchtime conversation (those who know me, know what
    I mean! ;-} ) last summer.  Mead's comments pretty well sum up my
    feelings on fighting.  I'd rather not fight.  There are better ways to
    solve problems.  But sometimes you have to fight, and if you do, what's
    the point unless you are fighting for keeps?  Add to that the fact that
    I am a small person, and not trained in fighting (my fault/choice); so
    if I ever do fight, it _better_ be for keeps because the first is the only
    chance I get.
    
    The men at the table felt pretty much as the Germans were described as
    feeling about the Russian women's combat units.
    
    Sara

    re:.41
    
    Think about what you're saying. For the sake of argument, let's
    assume that you are correct that muscular strength is the single
    most important criterion for qualification for combat duty (as some
    others pointed out, that's bogus, but let's assume it). What you're
    saying then, is that *no* women should be allowed in combat because
    the average woman is not as physically strong as men.
    
    But the fact remains that *many* women are stronger than *many* men.
    I'm a man, and I'm not all that strong. There are undoubtedly any
    number of women who are stronger than I am. But according to your
    argument, I'm better qualified for combat duty than any of those
    women. That's simply ludicrous.
    
    The point is that anyone WHO MEETS THE PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR A
    COMBAT SOLDIER should be allowed combat duty. Some of the people who
    meet those requirements will be women. I agree -- women who *don't*
    meet those requirements shouldn't be allowed into combat positions,
    but women who *do* should.
    
    --- jerry

re 713.34

combat may be *a* way onto the fast track. It may even be the *best* way, but
it certainly isn't the *only* way.

I'm a reservist in the British army, the army put me through university and
postgrad study. I made major in my mid twenties, Lt.Col at 31 and full colonel 
at 37. Had I chosen to remain in the regular forces I believe I would be a
brigadier (at least) by now.

I have never commanded *any* unit, and though I had combat experience (including
getting a leg wound that leaves me with a slight limp) *none* of my
promotions has ever been on the basis of combat.

Nor is this unique: my cousin (1 month younger than me) has only seen active
service in Northern Ireland yet with no college level education he has worked 
his way up from private to Lt.Col. (he's a mine disposal specialist, currently
seconded to the Abu Dhabi defense forces)

Nor is it uniquely masculine: in my own specialist area about 45% of the 
officers are women. My day shift "oppo" (I work the evening shift) is a woman,
and she's a [regular army] colonel similar in age to myself. Should the post
above us open I am *very* unlikely to get it, but she has a very good chance, 
and with it the increase in rank to Brigadier.

I am assured by American colleagues that similar promotion paths exist in the
US forces.

/. Ian .\

    re: -.2
    
    I hope that the women in the American military have as good a chance as
    do the women in Great Britian.  Thank you for letting us know that
    perspective.
    
    judy

I got a fact sheet from National NOW about the Persian Gulf conflict and 
women in the military.  It's quite long, and I've taken parts that are 
relevant to this note and included it here.  (If you want the entire memo, 
please send me mail and I'll get it to you.)

It also did say that all troops are getting imminent danger pay, which was 
a question I posed in the base note.  

Facts on Today's Military

Our total active forces are about 2 million people.  In our all volunteer 
armed forces, women make up 11% of the military, compared to 1.5% during 
the Vietnam War.  This is the highest percentage of women on active duty of 
any armed force in the world.  In general, women join the military for 
exactly the same reasons that men do---job training, educational 
opportunities, career interests, and patriotism.  Women are 13% of the 
Reserves overall---including 19% of the Army Reserves and 21% of the Air 
Force Reserves.

Women according to branch:   Army:        11.2%
                             Navy:         9.7%
                             Air Force:   13.5%
                             Marines:      4.9%
                             Coast Guard:  7.3%

Women of color comprise 37.9% of all military women; 19% of officers and 
41.2% of enlisted women.  (People of color make up 30% of total military 
personnel.)  It has been suggested that women of color join the military in 
disproportionate numbers, compared to their numbers in the general 
population, to obtain job training, education, and economic opportunities 
less available to them in the civilian world.

Women of color by branch:    Army:        50.4% of all women
                             Navy:        32.6% of all women
                             Air Force:   27.9% of all women
                             Marines:     37.1% of all women

In Operation Desert Storm 6% of the 500,000 troops are women (about 
30,000).  Of the 30,000 women involved, 42% are women of color.

Combat Exclusion
----------------

Due to so-called combat exclusion laws (which are actually job segregation 
laws), women are barred from a full 50% of all military jobs.  This results 
in a ceiling on the number of women who can be recruited since there are 
not enough jobs available for all those who are qualified and interested.  

Women are barred by statute in the Navy and Air Force, and by regulation in 
the Army, from jobs designated as combat positions.  Each service defines 
combat differently.  Inconsistencies are widespread.

For example, the Navy allows women to be pilot instructors, but does not 
allow them to fly the planes in combat.  Air Force women are not allowed to 
even learn to fly combat planes, although they do fly planes that refuel 
them.  Marine Corps women are not allowed to fly at all.  Women are not 
allowed on combat ships, but are allowed on ships that fuel and supply 
them.  (These supply ships are slow, unarmed targets that approach and 
retreat from the combat ship without cover.)  ?Women are trained in defense 
to fire M-16 rifles and M-60 machine guns, but cannot be sent to the front 
lines to use them.

In Operation Desert Storm, women are firing the Patriot missiles that knock 
out the Iraqi Scud missiles.  Women are also allowed in nuclear missile 
silos.  Apparently, these are considered not combat, but defensive 
positions.