NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/women/19879

Text File | 1992-11-18 | 3.7 KB | 75 lines

Newsgroups: soc.women
Path: sparky!uunet!s5!sethb
From: [e-mail] (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Women in Combat
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: my opinions only
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:01:03 GMT
Lines: 64

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Christopher Thong) writes:

>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 ?

Why don't you reread the first part of your question for the answer.

>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 .

Why not leave it up to the women the same way it's left up to the men?

>3) no extra consideration to any member of your unit - is compromised with
>the forming of romantic relationships within members of your unit .

It is also compromised with the forming of friendships with other
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 .

This implies you need to train the men better.

>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 ...

4, 5, and 6 can also apply equally well to racial minorities.

>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 ?

Is this good or bad?

Seth        [e-mail]