Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    Re: .0
    
      I meant to say: 1- "900"etc.
    
    
    Lorenzo
    

    I hope to God I never have to kill anybody, for any reason at all.
    
    But Lorenzo, look at it this way.  I'm a full citizen, an adult, with
    all the rights and responsibilities of any other citizen.  In my book,
    citizenship confers both rights AND responsibilities to one's country. 
    Now, people will define the duties of a citizen differently, but for me
    there are several things that bear on your question.
    
    Is it a system I support?
    Is it worth preserving?
    Is it worth fighting for?
    
    If the answers to the above questions are 'yes', then no one has the
    right to say, 'some citizens have this duty, others have that duty'.
    I could not in conscience ask another to shoulder my responsibilities.
    
    Sara

    re.2 Combat experience is virtually required for advancement in some
    parts of the military. If you are denied the 'opportunity' to
    fight you are thus denied the opportunity to advance. 

    In many or all branches of the service, promotion past a certain
    level requires combat experience. So by not being allowed to opt
    for combat women's career advancement in the military is dead ended.
    
    This morning on NPR there was a reporter interviewing a man who
    had served in Vietnam (I believe he was now a member of Congress).
    
    He pointed out that on the order or 95-97% of the jobs in the Navy
    and the Air Force do not require extra body strength and should be
    open to women. He added, however, that to be an infantry soldier
    in the Army required carrying 150+ pounds of pack and that there were
    very few women who could do that. 
    
    He also mentioned that while most or all of the women in the service
    that he had interviewed wanted combat to be an option for women, very
    few of them would actually choose it for themselves. He commented
    on women complaining about not being able to shower for days and then
    when water was available having no privacy to shower. Other women
    in the Desert Shield Operation complained about lack of privacy to
    relieve themselves, men staring at them when they did, and getting
    'hit' on. I got to work and turned off the radio when he was talking
    about units that had gone off to war 'unready' minus members because
    of having to leave pregnant women behind.
    
    He was, obviosly, from the remarks I've quoted, against women serving
    as infantry soldiers, but seemed to be supporting women in 'button
    pushing' roles. (i.e. gunners).
    
    Bonnie

The women want the combat experience for the same reasons the men want combat
experience (whatever that may be).

Why do you question the women's reasons but don't question the men's?

Bruce

>   Those men that went over to Vietnam; my cousin being one of them,
>    came back with a diversity of ailments....Including the NIGHTMARES! WHY
>    would anyone in their right minds, would want the "right" to take a life:
>    especially when they don't have to?
 

	Ask your cousin.


	Heather   

    Re: .5
    
       Simple!  We're designed differently, physically, mentally, and
    emotionally. I was with the 1st Infantry Division (Big Red 1), Ft Riley
    Kansas and Goppingen Germany; the training I had those few years, was
    proof enough "for ME", that women should not fight in combat.... The
    road marches along would slow them down; not to mention your full gear
    ruck sack, weopon/s, not being able to shower (Not including your
    natural cleanliness), you know Blood & Guts stuff. Now, I'm sure there
    are women who CAN handle it, but there's still limit.
    
    Lorenzo
    

    Re: .6
    
       He didn't have a choice to go.
    
    Lorenzo
    

	We had a discussion about this here the other day.  We
	sorta came to the consensus ( Oh no! Not CONSENSUS !) that
	really, if the applicant is qualified for the post, then
	gender should be no object.

	However, lowering the standards ( as the military academies
	and boot camps have recently done ) is wrong.

	In other words, if the person being considered is capable
	of toting a 150 lb. pack 15 miles in the desert, then 
	put the person in that position !  It's been shown that
	women are often better at withstanding high G-forces, so
	a woman may have the combat edge over an equally capable
	opponent pilot.  So, put 'em in fighters if they're the
	best qualified !

	As far as I'm concerned, the standards should be gender-blind...
	but realistic standards ( no 105-lb tank crewmen who can't
	change a tank track due to lack of oomph ).

	Steve H

    Newsweek has a very interesting article on this question this week. 
    
    From that article:
    
    The Israelis have determined that it isn't a good idea to have women in
    infantry combat units, because the men in the unit have been socialized
    to protect women, and the entire unit becomes ineffective when half of
    it is busy trying to do 2 jobs, while the other half is impeded by the
    "help".
    
    Currently, physical fitness standards are different for men and women
    in the Armed Forces.  For women to be effective ground combat troops,
    the disparity in standards has to be erased.  They have to be able to
    carry the load, at speed, and for the distance.
    
    Pregnancy (and parenthood - apparently lots of soldiers wound up coming
    home or not going in Desert Shield/Storm because child-care
    arrangements fell through) results in a unit vacancy.  But other
    injuries, mostly sports-related, result in similar unit vacancies.  To
    the best of my knowledge, the stats on total vacancies have not been
    broken out by sex and cause from that experience.
    
    
    Personal opinion:
    
    I wish Rachel Barlow was still here.  (For those who weren't here when
    she was, she had been in AFROTC at Notre Dame, worked here for a few
    months, and then left to go on active duty.)  She spoke eloquently of
    why women would choose the military option.
    
    It is very, very difficult to reach General Officer ranks without
    combat experience.  That experience starts to become a promotion
    criteria for Majors.  The military has an "up or out" policy which
    states that if you are passed over for promotion twice, you leave the
    service.  (I don't know the criteria for NCO promotions, but would
    expect that there is a similar effect there as well.)  This means that
    it is possible to be 10 to 15 years in to a normal 20 year career, get
    passed over for lack of combat experience, and be out.  Women who have
    had the training and want the career, are at a significant disadvantage 
    in the promotion process because they lack a particular experience.
    
    I know that it isn't a career that I want.  It was a career my ex did
    want, and stopped early because he didn't have combat experience and
    would be up against guys who did have that experience on promotion
    boards in the foreseeable future.
    
    
    My personal bottom line is probably to allow women to fight if, and
    only if, they meet the physical fitness criteria necessary for the job. 
    And for the immediate future, have all-female or all-male squads, to
    avoid the stated problems the Israelis found.
    
    Alison   

	An important consideration is to remember is that the
	reason the US military exists is to maintain the defense
	of the United States, not to provide employment or career
	advancement for members of the military.

	With that in mind, if any particular person in a particular military
	job adds to the ability of the US military to protect the country,
	then I am for it, if they detract from the mission, I am against it.

					Tom_K

    There has been a dramatic lowering of standards in the military
    academies with the advent of female cadets.  I'm gratified to see
    some senior officers starting to speak out against "full participation"
    by females in all facets of the military.
    
    No one should make any judgements on the female role in combat based
    on the recent fiasco in the Muddle East.  I'm talkin' about real
    infantry combat, ala WWII, Korea and Veetnam, and believe me ladies,
    you don't belong there.  I can provide anyone with some very graphic
    examples of why I think a female role in infantry (or any combat arms)
    combat is absolutely ludicrous.  Prefer not to clutter this note up
    with the details.
    
    

    Are you saying that a gentleman, such as yourself, does belong
    in combat?
    
    						Ann B.

    Alison
    
    One of the problems with an all female squad is that it would be
    quite likely for them to come up against an all male squad of
    enemy soldiers that could out fight them.
    
    Bonnie

    I wish Rachel Barlow was still here.  

She is.

i think you are thinking of Rachael McCaffrey, USAf 2nd Lt.  :-)
[She was a buddy of mine while she was here - now I have lost track
of her :-( ]

D!

    re which Rachael --
    
    D!   You're right.  Sorry about that Rachel :-}
    
    re Bonnie's comment.  However we go about integrating women into ground
    combat units (if we do), there are going to be problems.  I prefer not
    to make the assumption that any all-male unit will be able to out-fight
    any all-female unit, which is how your comment feels to me.  
    
    Alison

    Alson
    
    That wasn't what I meant, I meant that there would be a risk
    of that happening in combat.
    
    Bonnie

    re.14 Given full-auto rifles, grenades, and air support, how do you
    figure an all-male squad can likely beat an all-female squad? 
    Granted, if both sides simultaneously run out of ammo and they
    have to fix bayonets...
    
    Seems more like a matter of keeping cool under fire, sensible
    tactics and strategies, working as a team. (All of which gives
    a slight edge to the women, IMO)

    Dana
    
    What you write makes sense, I was trying to imagine how service
    'brass' would react to all women units.
    
    BJ

    as a sidebar...
    
         You know what scares me?  People in here are reporting that
    beyond a certain point men don't get promoted unless they have
    combat experience.  Though I spent four full years in the Air
    Farce and don't remember *that* criteria being mentioned (maybe
    because since the Vietnam war was ongoing *everybody* was 
    somehow involved) what this means to me is that MEN IN THE
    MILITARY WHO WANT TO BE PROMOTED WILL ENCOURAGE WAR AND COMBAT.
    Perhaps there is an advantage to not allowing women to serve
    in combat.  "We women demand equal rights...you men *CANNOT*
    have a war because then you'd have an advantage over us."
    
        If this works to avoid war, I'd be for it.
    
    Frederick
    

    Re the previous few.........when I've stopped laughing I'll be back.
    
    You people ain't for real.  All the male squad would have to do is
    send over some announcements for a sale at the exchange...and then
    they could shoot all the females in the back while they were runnin'
    to the PX.
    
    

    That's an interesting definition of gentleman.  (It is also an
    interesting view of how [some] men feel they can best compete with
    women.)
    
    						Ann B.

    in re .21
    
    I presume that you wrote deliberately to get a 'rise' out of women?
    
    My kids bate people better than you do, and more subtly..
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie, you know from the box that cookie ain't subtle, and he's an mcp
    from way back too, and proud of it.  Don't bother... 

    If you guys really think that combat represents an "opportunity", I
    sincerely hope you find yourself in such a situation.
    
    Lemme give you a little primer.  The military exists to make war,
    period.  War is the ultimate opportunity to test our military...men,
    tactics, and machines.  Members of the military with combat experience
    are highly valued as they have passed the test.  Combat is no place
    for women, period again.
    
    Opportunity is not an appropriate word when discussing military careers.
    Ability to perform is.  Take your opportunity to Cambridge.
    
    Oh, I give up

    re: .25 (::CALIPH::binder)
    
          I hope you don't mean me together with your other "boys,"
    because if so you'd be mistaken.  Actually, I'd rather see the
    equality first and ending the excuses later (in fact, in HUMAN_
    RELATIONS back seven months ago or so, I specifically mentioned
    that women should share this "wonderful opportunity.")
          Frankly, though I know you like to side yourself with all
    the *other* "Gals" in here, if you aren't going to be more specific,
    I find your reply quite condescending and arrogant.  My entry
    was unfortunate to be closely entered to some jerk's...that doesn't
    make me one.  Yours sounds lofty and superior and disgusting to 
    me.  I hope all these women "buddies" of yours see your patronage
    for what it is.
    
    Frederick
     

    re.26 best argument against standing armies since the 18th century

>    Oh, I give up

Good.

    re .9
    
    Excellent reply. I couldn't agree more.
    
                                     L.J.
    

	I completely agree with the idea of equal pay for equal jobs.
	I can understand the feminist movement but I have no desire
	to share restrooms with men or to be drafted.  I kinda expect
	that if the government allows women to be in combat then they
	will also make women eligible for the draft.  I mean, if they
	are gonna go that far, why not go all the way.  

	However, I expect many women feel as I do.  I have no desire to
	be in combat (or in the military for that matter) and I would 
	hate it if a draft was imposed for women.  If combat for women 
	is seriously being considered by the government then draft would 
	also be considered and I expect that alot of women would speak up
	against it.  Right now the only vocal ones are the women and
	men for it; perhaps they really are a minority.

	I guess I am trying to say that perhaps the majority of women
	keep quiet because they are happy with the state of things as
	they are.  The vocal minority wants changes but the majority
	keeps quiet unless these changes seem likely.

	Karen

	

I am against a draft for *anyone*.

Men go on and on about how much they want to protect women - maybe if
there was a draft for women, they would put their money where there mouths
are an not have any wars.

D!

Frederick, sorry to have offended you.  But it is patronizing in the
extreme for a man to say to a woman, "I will not allow you to fight for
your beliefs solely because you are a woman."

I mean, really, just how macho do men have to be?  "It's blood and guts,
and that's no place for a woman, so go home, little girl, and don't muss
your skirts."  Of course it's no place for a woman.  It's no g*dd*m
place for a man, either, and it really bugs me to see men being "tough"
by denying women the opportunity -- or let's call it by its proper name,
the right! -- to choose how they as individuals will share in the 
responsibilities of military action.

-d

    .re 7
    
    I know, I know, I should leave it alone.  But.  I have never read
    a more patronizing, stereotypical, opinionated, note before in
    this file.  Show me facts, and let me worry about the "blood and
    guts" of things, thank you.
    
    Maia
    

  Um, about those guts and blood and all.  If it's that nightmarish, 
  then I suppose women should be sheltered from it it at the MASH units 
  and other hospitals, right?  Or do you think that it is a man's
  place to create it and woman's place to clean it up?

  JP

    SET CYNICISM ON...
    

    
    
    Ladies and myn, you're obviously missing the point! Men are not denying
    women the right to combat because they're being chivalrous. And they
    are not trying to protect women. They are trying to protect THEIR IMAGE
    OF WOMEN. These men are not ready to see women in one of the most
    aggressive roles in history!!! These men do not want to see women as
    killing machines. And they are not prepared to share the triumph of
    battle-lust with women.
    
    Oh, they've got us fooled, saying they don't want to see us die. I
    think they don't want us learning how to kill men.

    'ren
    
    do you recall the effect on Black men of being allowed into combat
    units in WWII. The images from the t.v. movie of Roots really
    stick in my mind.
    
    Bonnie

    What Justine said.....Being very antiwar myself, I too hate to be in
    the position of advocating equality for women in combat.  And I agree,
    when it comes, all of a sudden, women and minorities will be the one's
    fighting in bigger and bigger numbers.  And the saddest thing of all,
    they still will have a harder time of making the high level positions,
    just like we do in the rest of the world.
    
    -HA

    I think I heard someone say, during the recent Persian Gulf Thing,
    that the *real* reason homosexuals were excluded from the military is
    that they suddenly realized they'd be arming all those angry "f*gg*ts"!
    
    Maybe they just don't want to see all those women *armed*. :-) Gawd
    only *knows* what'll happen if we learn to protect ourselves from men
    at home!
    
    --DE
    

    No kidding!!
    This country that "doesn't want to see women coming home in body bags"
    is the same society which sees women killed by their partners
    regularly, beaten up in their own homes, raped on the streets and at
    home, by both strangers and "friends".
    
    I am and have been anti war, and prefer to be left in peace rather than
    regimented, but their are women who are capable and willing to fight or
    serve in other combat positions just as their are women capable of
    fighting fires, working on police forces, and repairing computers. 
    There are also men totally incapable of any form of combat or military
    service, who prefer maintaining households, raising children, and
    keeping the home fires burning.  Give me a break!  Equality means
    allowing people to do what they can do best regardless of gender.  
    
    Meg

    And....Am I the only one who sees the old platitudes in all this:
    "it's for your own good"...Pooh!  Seems to me that's what most
    arguments boil down to......Said in the most sincere tone of voice that
    can be mustered......
    
    -HA

    
    if yer gonna have a war
    don't make me sit idly by
    and WATCH
    let me fight
    
    don't hobble me
    in one of them long, slinky skirts
    while I wobble on my heels
    fainting at the sight of battle
    on the evening news
    
    I'm not weak
    nor am I helpless
    I'm human
    As resilient as that sounds
    as fierce as that sounds
    as fragile as that sounds
    
    women can bleed as well as men
    can't we?
    I'd rather bleed at the front
    doing something
    than be bombed out of existence
    in some nebulous air run
    because the AT&T main switching location
    is in Worcester
    and I'd be caught 
    in the nuclear shrapnel
    watching TV
    helpless
    my slinky skirt fried a noxious shade of orange
    my heels melted
    
    -Jody
    

    I think the "we don't want our women to bleed" train of thought is
    very interesting in light of the fact that, rather than putting some
    effort into getting the female troops in the Persian Gulf the "sanitary
    supplies" they needed, the women were put on a steady dosage of birth
    control pills - to prevent them from bleeding...er...inconveniently.
    
    Blood...no blood...it's all the same so long as it's men who control
    it...?
    
    --DE
    

    I can't support anything that will result in more young bodies being
    made available to be slaughtered in rich, old men's wars.
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .42
    
         "Doing it for your own good" is usually a euphemism for
    "doing it *my* way."
    
    
    re: .45 (Lorna)
    
         I agree with your sentiment...expressed by Robert Bly as
    "young men die to fulfill old men's fantasies."  (I would caution
    against the generalizations and unifying the joint thoughts of
    rich and old...lots of old women benefit from having young men
    dying for them, too, you know...whether they are rich or not...)
    But in point of "fact," most war is a result of totally, ineptly
    handled adolescent emotions, manifested in combat and competition,
    by "old *boys*.  They don't even have to be rich.
    
    Frederick
    

Dunno if I've entered this elsewhere.  Here is what the Curmudgeon's
Dictionary says about war:

    war, n.  Man's version of Darwin's "survival of the fittest" theory
    of evolution, in which the cleverest survive by conscripting the
    fittest to be cannon fodder.

	Older men declare war.  But it is youth that must fight and
	die.  And itis youth who must inherit the tribulation, the
	sorrow, and the triumphs that are the aftermath of war.

			- Herbert Clark Hoover, speech, 1944

Just thought I'd throw that into the discussion as support for the
Robert Bly quotation from Frederick.

-d

    
    ANd in the words of songwriter Phil Ochs
    
        It's always the old who lead us to the war
        always the young to fall
        Take a look at what we've done with a sabre and a gun
        Tell me was it worth it all
    
    
    
    From "I aint marching anymore" by Phil Ochs

    
    Someone expressed offense at my omission of white men from my list of
    those whom I fear will be killed in future wars.  Since I was talking
    about the impact of opening  combat jobs to women and wanted to point
    out the similarity I see between white women's role/value in society 
    and that of men and women of color, I didn't mean to talk about white
    men at all.  I believe that it is the least valued members of society 
    (women and men-and-women of color) who are most like to be considered
    expendable (and especially - out of proportion to their numbers in the
    society and in the military).
    
    Here is my original note with a slight change to make my position clearer:
     
    I think if you subject everyone to the same rigorous physical
    requirements to qualify for combat (I believe it was 110 lb packs
    they talked about on NPR, not 150 lb), then there would be fewer
    women than men out in the trenches.  But it seems that a lot of the jobs 
    that qualify as "combat" jobs are not as strenuous as the work the folks 
    on the front lines do, so it seems only fair that women be expected and 
    allowed to do whatever the work is that needs to be done and for which 
    they qualify.
    
    Personally, I hate to say or do anything that might lead to even more
    of my sisters being killed (but then statistically speaking, they'll be
    safer in the battlefield than they are in and around their own homes).  
    I have this sick fear that once women are allowed into combat, then we'll
    have even more "military actions," and we'll see white women and
    ||men-and-women of color (in disproportionate numbers) fighting wars that 
    benefit only rich, white men -- few of whom will ever see combat (but 
    some will serve in "combat" positions so they can get their stripes -- 
    looks good to have an officer on the company letterhead).  
    
    Sickened to think that my fight for equal rights means I might have to
    support the right of more of the disenfranchised to become cannon
    fodder.  Yes, the battlefield is no place for women -- they should
    wait in their villages for the soldiers to come rape and murder them.
    That would be much more ladylike.
    
    
    Justine -- from the frontlines of the war against women - what makes
               you think women haven't seen combat?  
    
    

Listen to John McCutcheon's "Christmas in the Trenches."  A very moving
comment against war.

-d

    	The argument about "not lowering military standards" for women is
    	a strange one.
    
    	The standards were set so that most able-bodied men within the 
    	range of "average" would qualify for military service.  If they'd
    	set the pack weight at 250 lbs, very few men would have qualified
    	for combat duty (which would have made it somewhat tough to have
    	a war.)
    
    	The weapons, packs, etc. were designed to be within the range of
    	strength/stamina of these "average" able-bodied men.  If the
    	average group of men could not carry 110 lbs (or 150 lbs, or
    	whatever it is) - they would have lowered the amount to qualify
    	for combat to fit in with the design specs of most men's bodies.
    
    	Now, when it comes to women, it's considered "special treatment"
    	(read: bad) for the standards to reflect the average range of
    	strength and stamina for women's bodies.  If the military can
    	set the standards to "average" for one sex, why not the other?
    
    	If anyone says that the reduced strength/stamina should be a
    	reason to keep women out of combat altogether - then I think
    	men's reduced ability to withstand G-force should keep nearly
    	all men from becoming combat pilots.  They should set the
    	standard for the forces WOMEN can stand, then expect the men
    	to live up to these standards (which would disqualify most men.)

    RE: .50
    
    Exactly! The rules of the game are created for those who create the
    game. In an equal-footing world, men would be "less qualified" for
    athletic events like balance beam, for example. Unfortunately, the
    tendency to focus on male characteristics as "Standard", (and thus
    female characteristics as "substandard"), obscures this.
    
    In the Nintendo-type war, being able to carry a heavy field pack is
    going to be less important that it was when soldiers slogged thru the
    mud and underbrush. All things being equal, women in the military would
    do what their talents equipped them for (accurate firing of missles,
    for example) and the men with greater upper-body strength could do
    whatever slogging needed to be done.
    
    (On the other hand, I'd prefer to see everyone putting their efforts
    toward creating a cooperative, rather than combative, world. I know,
    I know. Different topic.)
    
    --DE
    

    RE: .4  Bonnie
    
    > I got to work and turned off the radio when he was talking
    > about units that had gone off to war 'unready' minus members because
    > of having to leave pregnant women behind.
    
    Shortly after the Gulf War, I heard an Army official give some hard
    stats on how soldiers who happened to be women fared in the Gulf War
    (medically speaking.)
    
    Of the 30, - 40,000 female soldiers who served in the Gulf, only 
    around 70 had to be removed from the area due to pregnancy.
    
    The Army official stated that women offered no special problems for
    medical personnel during the war.  He was quite obviously impressed
    with the way women adapted to the conditions (no showers, etc.)

    Well, it seems obvious to me that it does matter about the
    circumstances under which women end up in body bags.  If women end up
    in body bags due to being killed in a war, then that is totally
    unacceptable and *must* be prevented at all costs.
    
    If women end up in body bags due to being killed by their partner,
    husband, boyfriend or by a stranger on the street then that is no big
    deal.  It happens all the time.  We're used to it, right?  It is
    glorified in all the slice and dice, gratuitous violence against women 
    type movies.  
    
    Laura

    I keep wondering if the pack frames were adapted to women's anatomy, if
    women would then be able to "shoulder the load" required in the field. 
    Having the physical stamina to carry food, water, weapons, ammo,
    protective gear, and medical supplies for a sustained march, and being 
    able to be an effective fighter when you get to the destination is the 
    requirement for infantry troops.  Some equipment innovations may be 
    necessary.
    
    I have a feeling women would be fighter pilots if the men in charge
    weren't so worried about how they would be treated as POWs.
    
    Alison

    I have heard that a woman's strength is in her legs, and that women's
    legs are stronger than mens. So... I think women should have "saddle"
    bags! Take the strain off the back and on the legs where we can handle
    it!

The news reports that women have now been approved for combat pilot duty. Of
course, these are all volunteer positions so nobody is forced into this job.

I don't understand the thinking that says it's ok for women to fly planes, and
shoot rockets and bombs at the enemy, but it's not ok for women to indulge in
other types of combat. For example, what is so different about driving a tank
versus flying a plane? Is the threat of becoming a pow, or having the female
body mutiliated a factor? (A pilot is more apt to be killed than captured or
wounded than is a tank commander.) What is there about the mind-set of the 
Pentagon that says for women, planes are ok, but tanks (and other stuff) is not?

Bruce

    Actually what happened was that Congress overturned a *federal* law
    barring women from combat flights.  It is now up to the individual
    services to decided whether or not to let women fly in combat.
    
    Anyone want to guess when *that* might happen?
    
    I ain't holding my breath...
    
    \D/
    
    

    I don't understand all the concern over the '100 pound' pack.
    In this day and age battlefield all those expensive trucks and
    HUMV's should be able to keep trained fighters supplied, 
    instead of working them like pack mules. The ability to haul
    heavy loads _does not_ equal the ability to win a battle. 
    
    Any leader who saddles their troops with 110 pounds of gear
    has flunked Logistics 101.

    "    In this day and age battlefield all those expensive trucks and
    HUMV's should be able to keep trained fighters supplied, "
    
    BUT remember that Murphy is a General in the other side's army...
    Unfortunately the foot soldier is the ultimate weapon.
    
    I do agree that 100 pounds is an arbitrary measure, but anyone who
    relies entirely on machinery is bound to lose.
    
    Once upon a time the way troops were allocated to the combat
    arms was: "Big to the Infantry" "Small to Armor" ... with exceptions
    galore.  This is out of date and I'm sure women can show themselves to
    have the stamina, endurance, and tenacity to win anything.
    
    ed
    
    
    

    inre .52
    
    Suzanne, 
    
    Yesterday I read the article in the current Newsweek about women
    in combat. One thing that was mentioned was that while records
    of women who left due to pregnancy were kept, no records of men
    who left because of sports injury (a much higher number.)
    
    Bonnie

    Another interesting thing is that all the news/magazines articles I've
    seen about the Gulf War provided a lot of human interest information on
    some of the men that died in the war.  However, I was listening to NPR
    this morning and they did a piece on a reserve group from PA who lost
    13 people when the scud missle hit the barracks.  Two women were killed
    in that attack, Beverly and Christine.  Why haven't we had some human
    interest information about them...unless I missed an article or
    something.  Is this the country's inability to deal with the fact that
    women died in the Gulf War, women died in the Vietnam War, etc., etc.?

	Hi,

	There are some jobs in the military for which physical
	strength standards are not arbitrary.

	The person that carries a squad automatic weapon has got
	to be able to carry a big chunk of iron PLUS a great
	deal of ammo to feed it.  Likewise for TOW missile
	launchers, radio gear, explosives specialists.

	Tank crewmen don't just sit and drive.  They must be
	prepared to replace a "thrown" track ( heavy, metal
	links ), re-provision the tank quickly ) including 
	loading the heavy depleted uranium penetrator rounds,
	and perform other "brute force" tasks.

	Again, I don't think most people would set arbitrary 
	standards, but a tank crewman who is unable to perform
	the normal tasks could put a whole platoon in danger.

	As to jeeps and other vehicles moving people around, 
	the infantry is really the only tool that can operate 
	in forests, cities and that sort of environment. We
	might be able to fly over an area, drive around it, and
	so forth, but the infantry is what's required to secure
	and hold an area in a battle.

	Steve H

    
    Well, if the military is as dedicated to equal rights as our president
    is, perhaps they'll put some underqualified woman in a combat job, let
    her and a number of her comrades get killed, and then say "see?"
    
    nah, the military wouldn't risk lives just to make a point.
    
    Justine

There were a number of women working in Patriot missile batteries, and
at least one Army flight surgeon was female (Maj Cornum, shot down and
captured attempting to extract a downed A-10 pilot in Iraq).  Plus there
were women helicopter pilots involved in the 82nd Airborne's move into
Iraq.  Hopefully they will get credit for combat experience.  In addition,
there were a number of women crewing in transport aircraft among other
things.  My limited understanding is that Congress has determined where
women can and can not go.  And in the case of the helicopter assault to
establishing a forward base for the 82nd, the Army has pushed the rules
right to the limit.  You can affect the rules that Congress sets.  Once
the legal barriers are lifted, then you can deal with whether a woman really
wants to do the dirty ugly job of the infantry.  Or pull 9G's avoiding a SAM.
I am personally in favor of letting anyone who wants have a go at any
job, but not changing the standards.  When you go off the tailgate of
a C-130 at 40,000' with a HALO team, carrying 100lbs+ of gear, into
hostile territory, you want meanest, roughest, characters that you can
find on either side of you.  And if that includes women, that's fine.
But I expect that few women will apply for that job, and that's OK too.

When I stop laughing I might have to make some serious comments.  It is
so damned hilarious watching other males fumble around trying to come up
with valid reasons why women should not be allowed the same range of
opportunities they themselves have.  What the hell are you afraid of,
boys?  That the women would show you up for wimps or something?

Give me a break.  Grow up.
-d
    

    Sorry if this is out of sync, or if someone's already said it, but
    those people who are concerned about women being involved with
    blood-and-guts-intensive activities, had better find some other gender
    to do the birthing. (And the nursing, and all the other
    service-to-humanity stuff that requires coping with gore of one kind or
    another.)
    
    --DE
    

    	Well, one thing I'd like to know is why people ask women - "Gee,
    	why do you want the right to kill" when men_in_combat is called
    	"serving one's country" (and is regarded as such an honorable
    	thing.)
    
    	Our victory celebrations for the Gulf War didn't include huge
    	banners declaring "Let's celebrate the KILLING of Iraqis."
    
    	It's pretty condescending when people say (essentially) to women,
    	"Gee, YOU don't want to go to a nasty, dirty ole war where all
    	you'll do is to kill people.  It's barbaric and yucky.  Now,
    	please excuse us while we celebrate the great victory in the
    	Gulf War where our forces showed a lot of bravery in service
    	to our country!"
    
    	What a crock!