NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/women/19772

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 5.3 KB | 100 lines

Newsgroups: soc.women
Path: sparky!uunet!destroyer!cs.ubc.ca!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!cthong
From: [e-mail] (Christopher Thong)
Subject: Re: Women in Combat
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:30:17 GMT
Lines: 88

[e-mail] (N. Trafford Vaccaro) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Debra Potts) writes:
>> >If we don't let women into combat because, as a group, they are weaker
>> >than men, then the consistent thing to do would be to bar asians
>> >(who are, I think, on average weaker than whites), and maybe even bar
>> >whites (who are, perhaps, on average weaker than blacks -- we need to
>> >collect some data on this one). Is this the way you think?
>>
>As long as you can carry my wounded butt out of the line of fire, I
>don't care who you are or what gender. That is why they have
>minimum criteria for fitness, like carrying one's own weight (pull ups,
>etc).

>One thing that no one ever seems to mention, though. When a fire team
>or rifle squad is out in the field, teamwork is essential. It's hard
>enough having teamwork with all the the other petty fights and
>arguments and feuds, and peoples' lives are at stake, during
>peacetime too, when you're working with heavy or dangerous equipment.
>You want people to keep their minds on their job. Now what do
>you suppose is on a lot of 18 year old men's minds when they
>are sitting out in the field, bored, and haven't seen a female
>in weeks? I've seen what happens when several young men are
>trying to "date" the one woman that shows up at the enlisted club.
>They're at each other's throats.

>Now you can yell at me.

the command generally do not want to include women in COMBAT roles because
1) if all the members of the section or platton are to be treated equally
with no extra consideration given to any one or two... how will they handle
bathing , sleeping and toilet arrangements ?
2) the highest rate of divorce occurs in the millitiary and para - millitiary.
most enlisted men generally make the service their foremost priority - that
is discounting the ones who sign up for the money - women it is thought may
not be able to juggle the pressures of a double relationship that well -
ESPECIALLY if the issue of pregnancy and / or maternity leave comes up .
3) no extra consideration to any member of your unit - is compromised with
the forming of romantic relationships within members of your unit .
4) traditional image of women has been one of ' weaker ' sex . images are
changing and times are changing but we aren't yet at the point where ALL men
will not feel the impulsive urge to help ( or at least go out of his way to
render aid ) to a woman in distress . mission may be compromised . objectivity
may be temporarily put aside when instinctual urges call out . NOTE: point here
is that women may be a distracting influence more than another man who may be
in the same situation as her .
5) people at the top are reluctant to buck the trend . traditional concepts are
changing and even the people in uniform are more and more progressive .but the
armed forces like it or not is one of the oldest bureacracies of all - and an
abrupt change in policy now would ruffle too many feathers and be too
disruptive an influence .
6) i was an infantry section commander in the army and was going out with a
fabulous woman . she was (is) a very smart and extremely capable naval
communications officer . the troubles she used to face with enlisted men who
were at least 5 ranks below her ..... yes . they were assholes . yes .she
did NOT deserve it being at least 10 times as smart and capable as them .
but the sad truth of the situation is that htey just didn't RESPECT a WOMAN
officer... hell... they probably were fine with their girlfriends and all
but they had trouble adjusting to the fact that a woman was telling them what
to do. they were wrong . but don't expect them to change overnight . far
easier for the command to simply avoid the problem (sidestep it) than to
re-educate . too time consuming - too risky . you NEED ti know that your men
will unquestioningly follow their commander ANYWHERE ...

these points here do not NECCESARILY reflect those of my own .
i'm simply stating what i FEEL may be the reasons for the command not being
too happy with women in COMBAT roles .

oh yes .....
one other more important point.

7) politics . in the vietnam war era , people were in an uproar about their
SONS being sent off to a foreign land to kill and/or to die . television
was flooded with pictures of american servicemen statistics and images of
death . can you imagine what would have happened to government if the public
had seen their DAUGHTERS being killed ? gulf war fr'instance - one incident
with a female major being assaulted by the enemy drew more sensationalisation
and uproar than the numbers of male sexual assault victims ....

i'm sorry for intruding with what may be a totally irrelevant ( to the slant
of the ongoing discussion ) message but the truth of the situation is that
i'm not quite sure yet how to work the system - hey i never said i was a
genius... i mean i DID serve in the army remember ? ( no offence to ANY
service...people out there..)
nenk you.
.

>Nick