Flash pointed out that the joke thread that Unk Deedah began on Femininism and How It's Destroying America simply got too long after a serious discussion ensued. Who woulda thunk it,eh?

I'll start off this thread by tossing Flash my response to his latest.

Flash:

I understand what you and Unk are saying. I even understand what others are saying when they suggest that men have grown up to protect women. However, I'm not seeing that same protective nature in the men who are now old enough to join the military. I'm seeing an attitude of "each holding their own." When it boils down to it, the next war won't be fought by the men who are now suggesting that morale is low in the military. It will be fought by the folks who are just now getting old enough to join. Clinton won't be the president, so you can stop using HIM as an excuse for everything. [I must admit, however, that I admire your restraint in spelling his name correctly.]

The old thoughts won't be in charge anymore. Politics may not even play a role in determining what training female candidates receive...especially in light of the majority of the populace believing that women should participate in combat. How can they do this if they haven't been chosen for their abilities and trained side-by-side with men in exercises that will weed out the weak and strengthen the strong?

Are any of the men with whom you've talked of age 19 or 20? If not, you're talking to men who won't be in combat the next time around anyway. There's a funny thing about experience in things like combat. One gets the experience, but then finds one too old to USE that experience. It's like this with most activities that require the ability of youth. It's for this reason that I discouraged daughter #2 from pursuing a life of gymnastics. Sure, she had the skillset, but what would she be doing when she's 30? Polishing an olympic medal? Remembering the "good old days"? Selling underware?

Again, Flash, I encourage you to read the link I provided in the other thread. I'd love to hear your comments once you've done that. As it stands, you've talked to guys who may/may not have hated the idea of working side-by-side with women in the first place. You've talked to guys who desperately wanted to treat women the same way Bill Clinton treated women and couldn't. How unfair!

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 04, 2000

Answers

Y:

Since you noticed my comment about communicating past one another, why is it that you haven't posted in the thread in which I made that comment?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 04, 2000.

No doubt this is one conversation that women would like to continue until eternity, but they would still be wrong. Men follow orders and do the job they signed up to do, while women hold focus groups and discuss sensitivity issues. When it comes time to do some ass-kickin, they are more of a nuisance than an asset.

-- General H. Norman Schwarzkopf (Stormin Norman @ tells it. like it is), June 04, 2000.

>When it comes time to do some ass-kickin, they are more of a nuisance than an asset.

You obviously missed Flash's description of the ass-kicking dykes in SF. Closer to home, here in Columbus, we have some wonderfully large ladies of German and Romanian descent whom no one messes with. No one. And when their hormones kick in, I run.

-- (kb8um8@yahoo.com), June 04, 2000.

"You obviously missed Flash's description of the ass-kicking dykes in SF. Closer to home, here in Columbus, we have some wonderfully large ladies of German and Romanian descent whom no one messes with. No one. And when their hormones kick in, I run."

No doubt, but for all practical purposes, those are not women, they are men, some kind of genetic screwup. These freaks are rare, maybe 1 out of 100. I was referring to normal women.

-- General H. Norman Schwarzkopf (kick ass first @ ask. questions later), June 04, 2000.

Debra,

On the other thread you asked what I meant by posting from William Shakespeare's "Taming of the Shrew". At that time, the thread was a joke thread. I thought it would be funny to throw in the same argument from a long time ago.

Should you teach your daughter Shakespeare? Absolutely. I would also make sure she read Kipling, Twain, Plato, Socrates...well, you get the drift. Avoiding the ideas won't make them go away. Here's a piece of Kipling's Jungle Book: ____________

"Ye choose and ye do not choose! What talk is this of choosing? By the Bull that I killed, am I to stand nosing into your dog's den for my fair dues? It is *I*, Shere Khan, who speak!"

...Mother Wolf shook herself clear of the cubs and sprang forward, her eyes, like two green moons in the darkness, facing the blazing eyes of Shere Khan.

"And it is *I*, Raksha [the Demon], who answer. The man's cub is mine, Lungri -- mine to me! He shall not be killed. He shall live to run with the Pack and to hunt with the Pack; and in the end, look you, hunter of little naked cubs -- frog-eater -- fish killer, he shall hunt THEE! Now get hence, or by the Sambhur that I killed (*I* eat no starved cattle), back thou goest to thy mother, burned beast of the jungle, lamer than ever thous camest into the world. Go!"

Father Wolf looked on amazed. He had almost forgotten the days when he won Mother Wolf in fair fight from five other wolves, when she ran in the Pack and was not called the Demon for compliment's sake...

______

Do you like that one better, Debra?

-- helen (b@t.s), June 04, 2000.

Anita,

Thanks for starting this new thread. I must confess that I didn't read the article you posted in detail. I will do so, and report back my perspectives after having done so. I do recall Boadecia, now that you reminded me. Maybe I can find something equally as long that supports my views for you to read, too! [G]

Time will tell if you are right. I hope to hell you are. Remember, this new "integrated" military has never faced a real enemy or a real war. Desert Storm was a cake-walk with our side having such an overwhelming advantage as to have made Marshal Zhukov happy!

Also remember that the old geezers that are upset with our "new military" are battle-tested veterans who have been-there and done-that many times in real fighting and dying situations. How do you think our modern mixed sex units would have done at Guadalcanal or at Chosin Reservoir, or Bastogne? How about the Rangers that scaled the cliffs at Normandy and suffered horrendous losses as the Germans fired down on them while they climbed ropes secured only with grappling hooks? That is the real face of war that we don't seem to see much of it in our media anymore. Believe me, it's going to happen again, probably in our lifetimes. History says so. The weaker we allow our military forces to get, the more increased is the likelihood we will be severely tested.

Re: the Clinton spelling, it was hard to resist but I figured if I'm in really serious debate mode that it's best not to try and be cute. I still think Klintoon is the best way to describe him, other than maybe The Rapist.

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), June 04, 2000.

Forgive me for being a little bored with this conversation.

The facts remain:

1A. There are females willing and able to serve on the front lines. They WILL serve on the front lines if we ever go to war. There is nothing the old fuddy duddies of this forum can do to change that, so wasting my time typing is foolish.

1B. There may not be any females in this forum who meet the requirements for combat duty, but that does not negate the fact that they do live outside this box.

2. There are female police officers, and fire personnel who are as capable as some men, and MORE capable than many others.

You can argue this all you want, but the bottom line is; we are here, we are capable, and you cannot subjugate females any longer. (Except those who allow themselves to be subjugated.) Not even dinosaur females such as Cherri, helen, and cin can change that fact.

I suspect those who think women can't perform in combat, or that they will be a "distraction" when faced with the final conflict, also hear "voices" via radio signals in their fillings. I'm not going to bother with a bunch of ignoramasus' anymore.

-- Carol Carter (Carol_Carter@net.care), June 04, 2000.

Flash:

You're saying that mixed genders in battle have never been tested,yet I've provided a link wherein examples were given where they were. Just because women haven't been used extensively in U.S. battles doesn't mean our history starts with the U.S.

You're also stating that women in battle reflects weakness. This also has been documented to be untrue. You can't use history to prove YOUR point while I use it as well to prove MINE, unless we both limit history to specific battles wherein women in the ranks lost the battle, which I've already done in the case of West Africa. Of course the example in that case was one of ONLY women, fighting to the death against an army totally outraged by an all-female army.

Regarding your use of alternative names to describe the current president, I defer to your term of "rapist" and your description of lowered morale when troops weren't allowed to do the same. If this mindset is typical of military men, I suggest we're better off without them.

Carol:

It's perhaps best that you leave this discussion. Like the posts of General whats-his-name, this latest post of yours has nothing to offer save a flame in the face to some other participants. You're correct in that nothing said here will change reality, but some of us still enjoy the banter and respect the others who engage.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 04, 2000.

"I'm not going to bother with a bunch of ignoramasus' anymore."

This is precisely the reason that most women are nothing more than useless excess baggage in a military scenario. When confronted by something which offends their emotional sensibilities, they'll start whining, throw down their guns, and call their therapist or lawyer. Not to mention the fact that men are also physically far superior in 99 out of 100 cases (there's those genetic freaks again!). Do your country a favor, quit trying to prove something and stick with your Barbie dolls.

-- General H. Norman Schwarzkopf (women @ can't. cut the mustard), June 04, 2000.

There may be another reason to prevent women from fighting in a total war. Simply this: if 80% of the men in a generation are killed then that population can stll reproduce itself (if the remaining 20% do their "duty"). But if 80% of the young women in a generation are killed, then that population may never recover.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), June 04, 2000.

Lars:

As sad as it sounds, we still have full sperm banks and the ability to clone.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 04, 2000.

Dinosaur females ? As in vegetarian or weight ? LOL

(Chris)

I think that womens's assumption of the right to self-determinism was given a huge boost by a consequences of the 2nd World War.Many women (certainly in Britain)had to work & bring up a family by themselves during the War years.Not many relished going back to the kitchen when the war ended.Many traditional perceptions of what was considered to be a "woman's work" had to be abandoned during those years as women proved equal to the challenge.

(Sybil,who is remembering the Dunkirk survivors today)

Our votes on this subject goes for the provision of equal opportunity & the selection of the best person ,regardless of gender, for any particular role.

-- Chris & her Mother (griffen@globalnet.co.uk), June 04, 2000.

Anita,

The link you provided is a very good one. Thank you.

The summary of pro and con positions concerning women in combat, addressed in the three categories of biology, psychology, and sociology, is a very good overview of the issues raised by both sides.

I think everyone interested in this subject should read it.

ANITA'S LINK

-- Debra (...@....), June 04, 2000.

Debra, Chris and mom:

I'm still looking for input on The Changing Roles of Women thread.

I believe the three of you could offer substance there.

Debra: I agree that the thread mentioned all areas discussed. Unfortunately, Flash only observed the length and figured I had picked something from a feminist site. I'm making an assumption there, but one based on his statement regarding presenting a link to a long article that presented HIS views.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 04, 2000.

You can argue this all you want, but the bottom line is; we are here, we are capable, and you cannot subjugate females any longer.

Yes Carol, do move on and inflict that chip on your shoulder on people somewhere else. In the meanwhile leave the serious talk to us adults.

Have a nice day.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 04, 2000.

I can't think of a much better example of the differences between how the male and female brains think than this thread. Here the men are concerned with reality and the women are busy talking philosopy. Well Ladies, try quoting Shakespeare when the bombs are falling on your sperm banks. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad!

-- Concerned Citizen (CC@lunatics.R.us), June 04, 2000.

OOPs,

The above was not meant to apply to you wonderful REALISTIC, balanced women, of which thankfully there are still many! Thank GOD for you!!! You and us have, and will continue to keep our species alive, come what may. Natural selection will ultimately tale care of the fantasizers.

-- Concerned Citizen (cc@let.darwin.prevail), June 04, 2000.

Anita--

I was trying to make a serious point. A small number of men can impregnate many women. But a small number of women can only produce a small number of children.

Cloning humans? Has this been done yet? Even a cloned embryo needs a womb to provide life support.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), June 05, 2000.

I know you were serious, Lars, but in reality only a small segment of the female population would even qualify for combat, so the issue is kindof moot, dontcha think?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 05, 2000.

Moot? I guess I missed the point of this thread.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), June 05, 2000.

Lol Lars! Ya gotta wonder if they were in the military if they would even remember which side is the enemy!

-- (another@concerned.taxpayer), June 05, 2000.

As soon as we see the whites of their eyes, we'll say "Aw screw this! Let's all go for coffee and get to know each other."

Poking fun at us, kind of... Seriously what would it be like with less testosterone directing the affairs of the world?

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), June 05, 2000.

There are some things that are more important that social fairness. What is experienced by front line ground troops is not covered in the book of miss manners or social correctness or what is politically correct-all bets are off and we are down to the raw gut leval, kill or be killed basics where opinions and consenses and all of the other polite social interactions have no place.

My desires and choices and opinions don't amount to a hill of beans and neither do anyone elses. It is necessary to strip away all non-essential baggage to allow pure instinct and reflexes a free reign. That is the number one priority. The examples of women on the front lines of combat all involve situations where there was no choice, where it was physically necessary to prevent their homes, communities. I do not doubt the ability of American women raising to the challange if such a scenerio existed. There is no justification to purposely hinder what is already the most difficult function a person will ever have to perform.

Now let me in a fighter (jet) and I can perform without causing a conflict. No one would even need to know a female was doing the job. But the area we are consentrating on is the front line, ground combat troops.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), June 05, 2000.

Carol Carter=Ladylogic

-- It's her! (Yes@yes.yes), June 05, 2000.

Cherri,

Thanks for being one of the voices of reason on this thread. Since you've actually been in the military, your opinions should carry a lot more weight than those of persons who haven't.

-- Falsh (flash@flash.hq), June 05, 2000.

It's her!

Interesting and astute observation. It didn't occur to me at the time, but makes sense.

There has been some lengthy lurking going on at Bok's the last few evenings. Several people have suspected that LL is back.

-- Lurker Detector (lurkers@should.be.ashamed), June 05, 2000.

Sorry Anita, but women should not (NOT) be in combat roles. NO WAY! It didn't work in Israel and it will continue to fail. Just read Cherri and agree. Women can only do certain roles, so let them do what they are great at doing. There's no way a women should be a part of the ground troops. Too many dynamics going on for women and men to fight side by side. The military doesn't allow gays for the same reason. You can't fight the enemy when there's conflict in your own squadron. You need to focus on the field. I've been in the military, I know.

Now I going to read the other thread.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 05, 2000.

Anita, just read the other thread and I don't agree with the way you pooh-poohed the physical strength of women versus men. So what your daughter can do more push ups than your son. One data point doesn't prove your point. Women are weaker and the military shouldn't lower the standards just so women can "compete". I can bench press 120 lbs more than most women but not more than most men. After training men are so much stronger than women. After training, the best woman couldn't come close to the worst weakest man. After all my training, I improved my strength but still can't do as much PHYSICALY as a man. No way. I can do the same jobs as a man; I install cabinets, lay tile, install sinks and toilets, pour cement. But I still can't compete. Women are just the weaker sex, they can't run as fast, they can't lift as much. They don't belong in ground combat.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 05, 2000.

"But I still can't compete."

YOU can't compete. I have met others that can.

-- (I'm a M@le.feminist), June 05, 2000.

Killing is natural for men.We kill the children and peoples of other tribes so our children will be stronger and profit off the conquered.Rape?looting?Soldiers pay.Women are designed to nurture and raise our children.If they don't like it?Fine,nobody said they had to like it,we don't care if they don't like it because they're weak and they're property and that's the way it'll always be.And while the women are simpering and bitching and not facing the way things are,men will still be ruling and fighting and raping the women of the weaker men who should have spent more time becoming better warriors instead of wasting time caring how their whiny women felt.

-- sensitive guy (puma@hotmail.com), June 05, 2000.

Well, I can see we have come a long way here.

-- Normally (Oxsys@aol.com), June 05, 2000.

Captain Barbara A. Wilson, USAF (Ret) has a website devoted to women in the military. In the Women in Combat - my opinion sublink on that site, she offers her opinion on this issue. She also addresses Myths, Fallacies and Urban Legends about Military Women in the sublink of that name.

There's a plethora of information on her site, and her e-mail address is included for those who agree/disagree.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 05, 2000.

Captain Barbara A. Wilson, USAF (Ret) has a website devoted to women in the military. In the Women in Combat - my opinion sublink on that site, she offers her opinion on this issue. She also addresses Myths, Fallacies and Urban Legends about Military Women in the sublink of that name.

There's a plethora of information on her site, and her e-mail address is included for those who agree/disagree.

Sorry I screwed up the link the first time.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 05, 2000.

I wonder if that is the Barbara Wilson that used to date about 33 years ago? She had just a touch of feminism in her personality back then.

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), June 05, 2000.

Anita, it looks like you are the champion poster these days, no doubt due to your indefatigable spirit.

Weren't you also notgiving@anymore.thingee? If so, you're ahead of the next challenger by a lap or two!

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), June 05, 2000.

Gee, Flash. I feel guilty now. I've been learning some fascinating things researching this topic, in particular. How about this: "when Israeli women went out on patrol their opponents surrendered or retreated rather than engage in battle - for religious reasons - a man killed by a woman cannot have a desirable after-life." Isn't that interesting?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 05, 2000.

Anita,

Why feel guilty? You always have something interesting to say.

I'm still open to new and more proof, but it will take a while to convince me, yet. The historical info is interesting, though. I'm weighing the amount of time it might take to dig up some of the voluminous reports by serviceman relating to how badly our military's morale and readiness have suffered under "you know who". Hey, if I spell it Klinton instead of Klintoon, is that a fair compromise? [G]

Did the Israeli ladies perchance bare their breasts to mesmerize or distract their foes? Might work in some cases. Maybe they can "Wage Love". Remember those bumper stickers that used to say "Wage Peace"? Mine said "Make Love, Not War"!

Best...

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), June 05, 2000.

I am currently nearly finished reading Tom Brokaw's book, "The Greatest Generation," and highly recommend it to everyone. It talks about the World War II generation, and their contributions both in and after the war, out of the military. The women did amazing jobs at home and in the military. Wish we had a generation like them coming along!

-- Oldie Who Remembers (justme@thinking.aloud), June 05, 2000.

Hi, all,

Someone suggested that putting this question to some who are actually in the military might be useful. I wish it were as simple as that. If anything, the debate is far more heated and fragmented in the military than in the civilian society at large. The reasons for this are multifacited: those who tend to choose a military career are not a representative cross-section of the "average" American. And in spite of societal changes in mores, expression of opinion is constrained by chain of command, rigid training, and tradition. Any attempt to characterize the motivations and character of a "typical" military member in this day and age would simply fall flat. Diversity is there, but it is not quite the same as in the civilian world.

Among other things, I am a Naval officer; until a year ago active duty, now Reserve. My wife is an Army officer, also Reserve. As you can imagine, the discussion of women in combat comes up fairly frequently in our home. Neither of us has come up with a satisfactory answer. You see, the military is mostly concerned with implementing POLICY, and this issue seems to fraught with EXCEPTIONS.

I have flown with many female pilots and flight officers, and quite simply enjoyed the contrasts in style. But I have seen NO difference in innate skill; in fact, I have seen good evidence that some women are better able to withstand high-g than many men (myself included). It may have something to do with the lower center of gravity, but that is still not clear. However, when physical strength is the covariate, males still rate higher in g tolerance. In other words, in order to attain the same equivalent g tolerance, a woman would have to be significantly stronger than the average male pilot. Is that possible? Of course. Is it common? No, it's quite rare.

Another example of a potential issue has come up for woman onboard surface combat vessels. Most enlisted personnel have a combat assignment for damage control, in the event of an attack. One of these duties is "litter duty;" evacuating injured personnel from damaged areas. The standard regulation has been that 2 sailors carry one casualty from the damaged area. Since it was determined that the current average 2-female team was unable (on average) to carry this load up ladders (stairs to you land lubbers), the standard regulation was changed to FOUR sailors carrying the casualty, thereby lessening the number of sailors available to fight the ship. I'm NOT making this up.

Now, lest you think I'm some kind of sexist pig, let me relate to you my wife's experience in the Army. In her most recent PT (physical training) test, which every military member must pass every six months, she came in 6th in her command of @ 120, and was the #1 female overall. She works out at least 1 1/2 hours a day, in contrast to my 3x per week. I have run with her, and can only just beat her time in the 1.5 mile run. Life is not fair.

I am extremely proud of my wife, for her courage, commitment, and dedication to what she believe in.

How does she feel about women actually in combat? Well, her opinion has evolved from "why the hell would someone want that", to "well, I suppose, in principle, it's ok"; to "the number of woman who would actually qualify is kinda small"; to "well, why not, if they want to, why prevent it. Question is, can you guys handle it"?

Viscerally speaking, no, I don't think I could handle my wife in combat. In spite of the fact that we are both military officers, I find a deep-rooted demand (instinct?) that my wife, the mother of our son, never be placed in harms way. As I said, this issue is not a simple, abstract discussion, for us.

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), June 06, 2000.

"I have seen good evidence that some women are better able to withstand high-g than many men (myself included). It may have something to do with the lower center of gravity, but that is still not clear."

Are you saying that women have fatter asses? Whoooh boy, you're treading on dangerous ground there fella! What about their tits, doesn't that help balance it out?

-- Phil Donahue (my.audience@would.slaughter.you), June 06, 2000.

To think that all folks in the military would agree on either women in combat or even agree with women in the military in general seems akin to thinking that all IT professionals would agree on Y2k. In any activity, whether it be work or play, we bring our previous beliefs and reinforce or question those beliefs based on our experiences in the activity.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 06, 2000.

Spindoc, I don't think you're sexist. Hell, I'm sexist and a feminist. I think women can do anything a man can do, yet we have our limitations. We're not as physically strong as men. Lower standards to prevent discrimination is stupid. Standards are there for a reason. If a woman can't carry a man up the ladder, she shouldn't be put into that position. (My son can do it in training for wrestling; a an amazing feat!) This is akin to lowering the academic standards in school because we don't want the "slower" kids to feel bad. But that's another thread.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 06, 2000.

Maria:

I agree with you that women shouldn't be treated any differently, and that reducing the standards either for women or for the group [which has occurred in recent years in the military as well as some other professions] is absolutely WRONG! Of course I STILL disagree with the gender stereotyping. In her essay on Women In Combat, Captain Barbara Wilson concluded with:

"The pure and simple point is that all jobs should be open to women and men - if and only if - the women and men are qualified, capable, competent, and able to perform them! Nothing more, nothing less."

I wonder if the above is something on which we all might ultimately agree.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 06, 2000.

Anita, I don't disagree with the quote "The pure and simple point is that all jobs should be open to women and men - if and only if - the women and men are qualified, capable, competent, and able to perform them! Nothing more, nothing less."

I believe that wholeheartedly. As I said a women can do anything a man can do, some tasks even better than a man (ignoring the thread that Unc started). Women make better doctors, women are intellectually superior to men (I can't prove it but I believe it may be a topic for another thread but women have been ignored (academically) for so long that those chains have been hard to break).

Conversely women cannot perform as well as a man in jobs *demanding* physical strength. The above quote uses the word "qualified". Simple word but very powerful. A woman is not qualified for combat duty.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 06, 2000.

This has been difficult for me to discuss. I guess my main point is the integrity of the armed forces is the number one priority over what could or should be done. No matter how wrong the policy, it must be followed for the sake of the safety of our nation.

That said, it was stupid and backwards for the military to deny women access to carrier fields historically considered "male only" for as long as they did.

December 1971 no women were allowed in "male" jobs. February 1972 there were four of us females who were in training in one of those fields. We not only had to be as good, but better then the men, fortunately we were. I was allowed to train for and do a job I was more than capable of doing. If I were the kind of person who let other peoples words bother me I would not have lasted my first day of tech school. While walking to my first class, I passed a group of "boys" who were waiting to enter theirs. One said "Oh look! it's a girl!". I don't know how many people told me I had to be either a whore or lesbian to have joined the military, especially at the time I did, towards the end of the Viet-Nam war. A lot of they guys didn't like it, the instructors didn't like it and the wives sure as hell did not like it. My Mother, being the wife of a Military man told me that she and the other wives hated all women who were in the service and especially who worked around their husbands..

There was no logical reason to have prevented women from filling all of those "male only" jobs, but that is what was done. Up until, from what Anita showed, pressure was put on the military to change it. For the entire time I was in the service the harassment and resentment persisted. From what I understand it (blatant harassment) is not allowed now and I can only believe that time and new generations and decades of women doing a quality job have changed the way things used to be.

It was not uncommon for a lower ranking airman to scream out at me "You fucking bitch" in front of the first sergeant and officers without any fear of reprisal. Unfortunately when I left the military and went to work at Boeing, the only people qualified to do our job came from the military because that was the only place training existed for it. Wanna know how many times I got the same treatment? I did my job and I did it well, better than most. It was usually those who were incapable of doing the job well who were the ones who had the loudest voices and did the most bitching. I got regulations changed while in the Air Force, I helped prove that women were able to function in those "male" jobs. At Boeing I was the catalyst in our entire power structure being re-organized. My belief in women in front line ground combat has nothing to do with feminism or a belief that all women lack the abilities to perform it.

It has to do with what it entails to be on the front line of ground combat.

In order to put a man in position to kill shoot and kill a 6 year old child without a second though, they have to be essentially brainwashed from the first moment they join the military.

The military is more communistic than the communist block countries.

From the first moment the recruit is stripped of every non essential, superficial attitude they hold, their ego's are stripped down to the bare bones. The need for them to react without hesitation is one of the highest priorities. To purposely interject a non essential conflict-no matter how logical or politically correct-would be detrimental. It is difficult enough to take the "humanity" out of them so they can do what they have to do. Afterwards they are sent back into society, unfortunately many left to live out their lives in conflict with the actions they took while on the front lines. I've known more than a few guys who were forced to shoot a child (around 6 years old) dead without hesitation, because if they had hesitated they would have been dead themselves. Yes women could be next to them doing the same thing, but, no matter how unjust it is perceived, it would be detrimental to the mission. And in war, the mission comes first. It has to.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), June 06, 2000.

I seem about to "mix it up" on Pieter's "Terror alert on Anthrax" thread with someone calling himself DB (Debunker@nomore.xx). Any of you esteemed participants here that would like to also check in over there, please do.

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), June 06, 2000.

Cherri:

Again, I defer to Captain Barbara Wilson's descriptions of combat personalities:

"But when it comes to the trenches, fox holes, covert operations, guerilla warfare, etc. I think it takes a particular personality type - almost on the edge of a pathological one - to even want to become a trained killer. This can have appeal for both men and women, but hopefully very few of either sex."

I doubt very much that folks of like mind [of either gender] would cry out, "How could you DO that?" Body strength is NOT a pre- requisite for hand-to-hand combat. It's the mentality combined with training of the participant that rules. Traditionally, women have been thought to not have "what it takes." If this were true, we wouldn't have prisons full of women who find it quite easy to kill.

Flash: I'll check it out.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 06, 2000.

Body strength is NOT a pre- requisite for hand-to-hand combat.

Oh my. Is that why there are so many female boxing champions?

Sure a well trained female could hold her own against an untrained guy if he was not too much stronger than her. Other than that I think your statement is nonsense, since we must assume that the army fighting us would train their soldiers how to fight. Rent "Saving Private Ryan" and ff to the hand-to-hand combat scene, the one with the American knife fighting the German upstairs in the house. Then say that body strength is not important in hand-to-hand combat.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 06, 2000.

Anita, You state, "Body strength is NOT a pre- requisite for hand-to-hand combat. It's the mentality combined with training of the participant that rules. Traditionally, women have been thought to not have "what it takes."

I agree with the last statement. If by "what it takes" you mean the ability to kill (mentality). And do women have this trait? Absolutely (not as much as men though, numbers on death row point to this). You stated mentality with training. That's where we disagree. No amount of training (this includes physical strength) will make a woman as strong as a man (assuming they go through the same training). I went through military training. They lowered the standards so that more women could qualify. I improved my strength but still couldn't compete with the men one-on-one. Still can't do any pull ups. I agree with Unc. Body strenght IS a pre-req. No way we can have a weak ground force.

How many women have crossed the finish line before the first man in any race? Can you name any woman who competed with a man in weight lifting and can lift more than a man? None. We are supposed to have the best trained (physically and technically) people in combat. How can you say that a woman can out wrestle a man? Not one woman has won a wrestling state championship. (Women do compete with men in the sport of wrestling - the most grueling of sports.)

Women firefighters are around only because they lower the physical standards. What a shame! I'm not sure I want a woman struggling to put a ladder up against my house to save me from burning.

Please consult Captain Barbara Wilson for those standards. As I recall she doesn't hit this one head on. She dances around the issue by saying that there are standards for age groups also and that the military should make one standard for, as she puts it, "general conditioning". Well that's the same as lowering standards to allow more people to qualify. Not quite the same as getting the best we can.

Cherri, sorry to hear about your experiences in the military. Mine were quite different. Only a hand full of women in my field (out of hundreds) but always treated with respect.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 06, 2000.

Women have a "lower center of gravity"! Heeee heeee heee heeee hee!!

-- Isaac Newton (more.mass@in.the.ass), June 06, 2000.

Now we talked about the mentality of killing and the strenght needed for combat but we haven't mentioned the real reason women aren't allowed in the trenches. It's the same reason gays are allowed in the trenches. Same reason adultery is grounds for discharge. TOO MUCH EMOTION!

Fighting side by side, you need to trust your fellow squadron members implicitly. In the trenches you can't be wondering if your partner (to whom you also have some emotional tie) will save you or stab you in the back. This doubt only leads to an errosion of the main focus and the mission, win the battle. Emotional relationships have no place on the battlefield. Did the Captain have anything to say about this?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 06, 2000.

Anita, I've had hand-to-hand combat training, and body strength is ABSOLUTELY required.

-- helen (b@t.s), June 06, 2000.

Maria,

When were you in?

To be honest, except for a few times where my patience was put to the test, the harassment didn't bother me much, I considered it the problem of the harasser. I had a job I would have paid someone to let me do and got paid for it. I was/am usually good at putting things in perspective, and let the words roll off of my back, the same way I did on TB2000 when I was trying to ease the fears of others over Y2K and some people harassed me. Since did not grow up believing that the opinions of others defined me, and had learned to hold my own with my brothers, harassing words meant nothing to me. When the harassment or discrimination interfered with my work I would take action.

One such instance was when I was in charge while TDY with the B-52 simulator that was on a train car. It had an old analog computer, full of motor-generators, servo's and tubes. (This is the same computer that the FAA is finally replacing in the ATC centers). The air conditioner went out and the heat generated by the equipment caused it to fail immediately. I called the flight line and ordered a mobile air cart to blow cold air on the equipment until the air conditioner was fixed. These things were huge and used to help start aircraft engines, about the size of a Federal express truck. When the cart arrived I told the airman to show me how to start and run it. He refused. He wanted the person in charge, I explained I was. He asked if I had anyone else working with me who he could show. I told him I had an airman working inside and he said he would show him what to do. I went in and got "her". The poor guy just didn't think a female was capable and still refused. We had very high priority when we went to these bases because we had only three weeks to get all of the pilots in for their annual check rides. We answered right to the top. It was a friday evening and I called the wing commander who had to be tracked down at a social function- and explained the problem. The airman was shaking as he showed me how to run the cart. He just could not get it through his head that being female did not stop me from being able. And the sad thing was, it was simple to run, I probably could have figured out how to do it without instructions. There have been numerous times where it has been just irritating having to deal with the preconceived belief that my being female meant I was not able.

Oddly I don't resent men as a group even though I have been treated pretty badly by some of them, I have worked with so many who did not suffer from a problem of my being their peer. Those who actually believe the old idea of women not being equal need to be pitied, there is a deficiency in their egos that make them feel threatened by women as their equal. Their problem, no skin off my ass on that point.

I understand the sociology of how genders were perceived and also realize it took a lot of effort and social awareness to bring about the changes in perception of women's' abilities. The women's movement was necessary, although I did not play an active role in it. At least not intentionally.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), June 06, 2000.

I can't believe I typed that, but I did, and I deserve every bit of criticism for that statement that I got. What I MEANT to type was that body strength won't do a person any good if their nature is such that they refuse to use it....in the combat sense. Of course it won't do them any good if they aren't even accepted into the military, and won't do them any good if they lack other skills necessary for combat in general.

I saw Private Ryan a couple of times now, Unk. I've also seen Last Kiss Goodnight and watch La Femme Nikita on a regular basis.

Maria, Captain Wilson addresses LOTS of things on her website. I know you post from work so don't have the time to research all the links, but check out the Myths, Fallacies and Urban Legends About Military Women sublink on her site. The first link I provided went into more detail on the mistakes of lowering standards for women and how politics played a role in why they weren't even offered the same TYPES of training.

Cherri: That was an interesting story. I remember the first time I changed a flat tire on my car. It seems a man watched me throughout the entire experience from the window of his home. When I was done, he felt it his duty to come out and check the lug-nuts to ensure tightness. I let him try. Heh.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 06, 2000.

"When were you in?"

Gaaawd, you sound like my ex-wife before she dumped me!

-- (mister@skinny.dick), June 07, 2000.

Mister, You sound like my ex-husband before I dumped him....Is that you Stevie Poo???

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), June 07, 2000.

Cherri, you do let it roll off your back. I had older brothers too who knocked me around a lot. I had to defend myself at an early age. I joined the Air Force in 77. Worked at the Weapons Lab, programming in Fortran. It was mostly an acadamia environment, so they say, different from the *real* Air Force. Loved your story. Poor guy, probably got a big chunck of butt chewed on.

Anita, agree that your mind needs to be in the right place in order to be agressive in combat. That's what Cherri was referring to. The training tears you down, to no ego at all, then builds you back up. An amazing transformation. I thought I had confidence before I went in, but I've come to realize that was merely arrogance. The confidence came after I finished training. I KNEW I could do anything. Before I just thought I could do anything.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 07, 2000.

I'm going to take this thread off topic for a minute and review this "older brothers who knocked me around a lot" thought. I also had two older brothers who used me as "practice." In contrast, my SO had only one brother...no sisters. Once while on vacation, my son and my daughter got into an argument over something and SO caught my son giving her a whack. He took my son aside and read him the riot act about how males NEVER hit females and that if he did this to his sister, he'd end up being a wife abuser in adulthood. I had to have a little talk with him about that episode, explaining that my brothers have NEVER hit their wives, while they hit ME, tripped me, practiced karate chops on me, etc. I had to talk to the kids as well, explaining that he'd never had a sister, so didn't know the drill.

Unk, I ran across an article the other day about a coed boxing match. It wasn't in the U.S., and I have no idea whether the female won or not. She said she took up boxing after her husband knocked her around.

I wonder how much of our attitudes toward gender differences [particularly the protectionism afforded females] developed from experiences or lack of experiences in our families.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 07, 2000.

Flash, Unk: Any sisters?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 07, 2000.

Anita,

I have one sister, 2 years younger than me. We got along pretty well as siblings, and of course still do today. Although it wasn't necessary, I would have been protective of her and my mother had the need arose.

My parents had a relatively egalitarian relationship, so I guess that's why I've been surprised and put off by women who have a need to take pokes at males and/or obcess at so-called female superiority. My dad was a career military man and so postured a little as head of the household. My mom had more advanced degrees than he did and just smiled and did as she wanted, anyway. It all worked out rather well. In this regard, my wife is somewhat like my mother, only more stubborn. She wants to have her way ALL the time, whereas my mother was smart enough to at least let my dad THINK that he was the boss. None of the women in either my birth family or in-laws can imagine why women would want to be in combat units, and they are against it.

My mom is 76 and still a darn good shot with her .38 special!

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), June 07, 2000.

Yeah, I have a sis who is 2 years my junior, and I can still whup her ass in hand to hand combat.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 07, 2000.

Unk, only until the day your wheelchair is at the top of some stairs...

-- helen (b@t.s), June 07, 2000.

unk, how did it happen that you came to rest in a wheelchair?

-- (Sitting here@ wondering .outloud), June 07, 2000.

Hi Anita,

I found this article over on the Ezboard, posted by Ynot. Thought you might find it interesting.

link

US Navy on alert as sex war hits subs

Matthew Campbell, Washington

AMERICA'S enlisted men and women are giving new meaning to the term "comrades in arms". President Bill Clinton's drive to build an army whose diversity of race and gender makes it "look like America", has led not only to sexual harassment scandals, but also to rampant sex in the ranks.

A new book on women in the armed forces provides an unusual glimpse of a sex-obsessed military in which streams of rules about "fraternising" - a euphemism for sex - among recruits have not prevented armoured personnel carriers, tents, and even underground bunkers from becoming love nests for passionate soldiers of the so-called New Army.

The book, The Kinder, Gentler Military by Stephanie Gutmann, is raising eyebrows - and blood pressure - in the Pentagon, where admirals are wielding it as ammunition on the latest front line of America's battle of the sexes: submarines.

To the horror of an older generation of officers moulded in the cauldron of cold war tensions, the Pentagon has been powerless to prevent the imposition by Clinton's civilian defence advisers of a gentler vision of military life.

Under this new age ethos, female recruits have grown to 20% from 12% a decade ago; and having successfully installed women in warships, fighter jets and "boot camp" training bases, a Pentagon committee on women is pressing for their right to serve in submarines.

The committee is demanding that the navy refurbish the submarine fleet, building female-friendly craft with separate bunks and bathrooms guaranteeing privacy to women. The admirals are not amused. Even at a time when questioning the policy of sexual integration is considered a "career killer", they have dug in their heels.

Beyond the enormous cost involved - submarines would have to be lengthened at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars - commanders fear that mixing women with men for weeks on end in the tight confines of a nuclear submarine would create a hotbed of hormonal conflict.

"That sort of thing would be an invitation to promiscuous behaviour," said Frank Gaffney, director of Washington's Centre for Security Policy. Gutmann's book suggests such fears may be well founded.

When the USS Eisenhower was refurbished to accommodate women and set off in 1994 with its first mixed crew, the American press proclaimed it a resounding example of harmonious coexistence of the sexes. This was more accurate than anyone had imagined: the voyage turned into a "love cruise".

"Finding really cool, illicit locations for sex seemed to be part of the game," writes Gutmann, quoting a former naval officer who singled out the ship's laundry room, photography lab and chapel.

For those who lack such inventiveness, shore leave provides an easier forum for fun. Ordered not to go to brothels or strip bars, a group of male and female sailors from the USS Abraham Lincoln in 1998 holed up in a Hong Kong hotel and participated in what the navy called a "group sexual incident".

One of the female sailors reported that she had been sexually assaulted and three women and seven men were discharged from the service.

From the dismissal of Lieutenant Kelly Flinn, the air force's first female bomber pilot, on adultery charges, to the sentencing of a male sergeant on 19 counts of rape, the military has made an industry from the investigation of sexual complaints. In some units, simply looking at a woman for more than three seconds can be deemed harassment. As a result, the military has been accused, even by liberal commentators, of owing too much to radical feminists in its interpretation of what constitutes sexual misconduct.

Clinton, the commander-in-chief, who famously accepted sexual favours from a White House trainee, may count himself lucky. Male submarine commanders can only shudder at what the military's sexual arbiters would make of an environment in which the corridors are so narrow that crew members cannot pass each other without touching.

These days accommodating pregnancy has become such a priority in the forces that women sent home to give birth even before the Gulf war began were awarded medals along with combatants. On American bases special exercise classes are held for pregnant soldiers.

Even more alarming for military planners are the lower training standards evolved to accommodate women: the obstacle course at one base has been renamed a "confidence course" so as not to intimidate women; and while men must be able to throw a grenade 35 metres, women can pass muster by tossing it over a concrete wall.

It does not bode well, say critics, for America's combat

readiness.

"When we are involved again in a real war," writes Gutmann, "the fiercer, angrier, most blood-lusting force will win." That is not a description of America's new age army.

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), June 07, 2000.

Well, there goes a theory down the tubes. Thanks, Unk, Flash. Flash, it sounds like your dad would have felt emasculated if your mom didn't let him think he was right. There's a lot to be said for "introducing thoughts while allowing the introduced to believe the thoughts were their own." I think it's called psychological warfare. I do it to my kids all the time. Fortunately, my SO has no fear of emasculation, so I don't have to play games with him. His EX- wife played the "must have the last word" game. The problem was HERS, but he noticed.

Helen: You're pullin' his finger again.

Spindoc: Thanks. This reminds me of going to a shoestore where the shoe doesn't fit and the salesman tries to convince you that this little pad here, and a minor adjustment THERE will MAKE the shoe fit.

I think you know that I don't approve of these separate facilities, nor do I approve of reduced standards. If one has to toss a grenade 35 MILES, I think we should only accept folks who can do it. Politics shouldn't be interfering with the military.

I don't know how to address the folks who mix business with pleasure. One of my concrete rules was that I don't date men from the office. We have here some folks who basically screwed it up for folks who followed. My mom wouldn't let me have a dog because my oldest brother had one and wouldn't walk it. I hated him for YEARS over that.

I don't want women excluded JUST because they're women, but I don't want them given preferential treatment either. It sounds to me like folks who are up for close-quarter activity need to pass a psychological test to see if they a) can deal with an EQUAL of another gender, and b) can limit their sexual desires to the self for long stretches. If the standards are so high that women of the future can't pass, there's nothing to debate.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 07, 2000.

Anita,

My dad was a real man, an officer, and a real soldier. He would never have been emasculated by anything a woman said or did. Nor would he ever have let a woman have her way with anything unless it suited him.

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), June 07, 2000.

"I don't want women excluded JUST because they're women..." But that's the whole point. Only maybe 1% of the women can actually do the job (meet the male standards) but even if they allowed this 1%, they still shouldn't be a part of combat, ESPECIALLY on a ship.

Thanks spindoc, I had heard about that book and the author's conclusions. When women and men get together in highly stressed situations (do you agree combat is one of those situations?), emotions run high. When I went through OTS, only a "simulated" combat environment, romances cropped up all over, mine included. Women don't belong in combat. (BIG PERIOD)

Stop trying to be a feminist here. The military should not reflect society. It's mission is not a part of society "norm" and can't be stuffed into that mold. Military is unique for a reason.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 08, 2000.

["When we are involved again in a real war," writes Gutmann, "the fiercer, angrier, most blood-lusting force will win." That is not a description of America's new age army.]

Thanks, Spindoc.

That's what I've been trying to communicate all along!

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), June 08, 2000.

Did I win yet?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 08, 2000.

Unk:

lol. MY mind hasn't changed. I still see this one much like the situation once existed with blacks in the military. Folks said the white men would resent their presence, they wouldn't be able to concentrate on the job at hand, etc. I don't think I'm trying to be feminist about this one. I simply think that if only 1% of women qualify, only 1% should be accepted for the job. If they get pregnant, I say kick them out. If they consort with the males against regulations, I say kick them out, along with their partner.

I'm not saying it's not serious business. I'm simply suggesting that the best person for the job be accepted with no preferential treatment for either gender. This, obviously, hasn't been done before, and it may even be impossible to implement, but I don't like the idea of the military in 2020 faced with an evolved subset of women that are more mesomorphic than ectomorphic being excluded from a field of their choice due to outmoded rules. It may even be true that agility would be more useful in the future. It's a lot tougher for a man to touch the back of his neck with his toe than it is a woman. [grin]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 08, 2000.

Well, Anita, all I can say is "That's your story and your sticking to it". After they start kicking every one out for not obeying the rules, we'll have little to no army left. Since you've never had the experience, you really don't understand and probably never will.

It's not the same as blacks, we've overcome our racist bias. But we never will overcome our sexist bias, as long as opposites attract. As someone earlier said, "vive la differance".

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 08, 2000.

Maria,

Let's suppose there was a combat situation and two of the soldiers happened to be romantically involved. Assume they're on the front lines, near each other, waiting for the enemy. The enemy arrives. What could go wrong that would not be expected to go wrong if they were not romantically involved?

I will say that it's very difficult for me to buy into the distraction issue, because if the soldier knows he could take a bullet or be overrun if distracted (which would in turn put his loved one even more at risk), wouldn't that be incentive enough for him to focus on the enemy?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 08, 2000.

Eve,

You addressed this to Maria, and she can certainly answere for herself :), but allow me to jump in.

The point is that in combat situations, reason plays a very small role. You are suggesting a reasoned response to a life or death situation, when in fact reaction, emotion, and instinct reign. If a loved one is in imminent danger, the impulse is to come to the rescue, rather than to continue to fight the battle.

How many times have we seen headlines to the effect that the parent rushes back into the hopelessly burning building to save the child, resulting in the death of both parent and child? This is a truly an heroic , selfless, loving act, but a similar act in warfare could result in the destruction of the entire fighting unit.

If it were my lover, would I obey orders and continue forward, or would I disobey in the heat of battle and try to save her, at the cost of others? How could anyone be asked to make choices like that? Better not to be placed in that position at all, I'd say.

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), June 09, 2000.

Eve:

You didn't address the question to me, but I felt like jumping in here. To that question I'd say "While the spirit might be willing, the flesh would be weak."

The twenties is prime time for falling in love. I probably sound silly because I don't know squat about being in combat - but think back to being in love, remember how hard it was to get ANY work done?

Not that this would be a foregone conclusion, and I certainly can't speak for a man, but what I observe is - emotions are volatile when in love. I don't guess it's too compatible with combat training mentality. One's thoughts are on paradise and beautiful dreams. I'd say it's very distracting!

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), June 09, 2000.

It looks like a number of people have jumped in here. Eve, their answers are accurate. Spindoc got it right when referring to the rest of the unit. These two lovers put the entire unit at risk, not just themselves. Combat, a highly stressed situation, is quite different from anything you've experienced. Again, this is the same reason gays and adulterers aren't allowed on the field. Romantic emotions don't need to be thrown in the mix of already highly charged feelings.

Question for Anita, During a draft, would women enlistment be totally voluntary as opposed to men?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 09, 2000.

Oops pressed that submit button too fast. Another aspect is that in highly stressed situations, romantic involvement is almost inevitable. I'm reminded of the Mash episode when hot lips and Alan's character are caught behind enemy lines and play out a love scene. So the military would be creating an environment conducive to romance. Spindoc (I believe) posted the article on women on ships, called the "love boat". You're almost garuanteed one case as you described. As I mentioned earlier, OTS gave rise to many romantically involved couples, and a number of divorces.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 09, 2000.

Maria,

"Question for Anita, During a draft, would women enlistment be totally voluntary as opposed to men?"

An EXCELLENT question, and something we need to start pressing the government about NOW! This little reality will force a more realistic look at military service!

Why should just our boys be made involuntary "cannon fodder"? Maybe millions of moms might start thinking differently and elect someone with good sense to lead our nation.

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), June 09, 2000.

Spindoc, Debbie, Maria,

Thanks for your short, but thought-provoking responses. I'll mull over this angle a bit more and try to put myself in the place of the young, romantically involved female out there.

In order that my potential desires be maximized, Brando will play the role of my love interest. ("Stella!!!...I mean Eve!!!..."):)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 09, 2000.

"Question for Anita, During a draft, would women enlistment be totally voluntary as opposed to men?"

Actually, Maria, I'm curious to see what decisions are made overall relating to a draft. We haven't had one since 1973, and late last year HR 1812 was passed by the House, which basically removed all funding from the governmental body that collects names, etc. from young men turning 18. The Senate then re-established funding, the President felt it wouldn't send a strong message to the world if we didn't have folks already registered, and the DOD thought the whole concept stupid because they LIKE having an all-volunteer military where THEY can pick and choose who gets in. I agree with the DOD on this one.

BUT, in the unlikely event that the draft will be re-established, I would align myself more closely with the author of this essay on the draft.

If we're going to FORCE folks to engage, we're going to force ALL folks to engage. There would be no deferrals because daddy was rich and could enroll a kid in college to avoid serving, no deferrals by getting married at the last minute, no deferrals because one feigned stupidity on the armed forces test, no deferrals for conscientious objection, etc. Even without women included there, you can see we've already got a mess. In a word, the answer to your question is "NO", but I encourage you to read the link for the details.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 09, 2000.

The reason for instituting a draft is when our forces become depleted. Clinton already did a pretty good job at that. So in a draft, all will enter, no exceptions. That's not reasonable for women. I would predict that many would become pregnant. Also, many would not pass the physical requirements, maybe on purpose.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 09, 2000.

Maria:

I would agree. Plenty of real quick decisions were made the last time. Folks got married to avoid the draft; men made families to avoid the draft; men pretended to be either stupid or physically deficient to pass to avoid the draft; men left the country. I don't see women behaving any differently. If folks don't want to serve, creativity will abound, regardless of gender.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 09, 2000.

As I recall, stupidity and being a father didn't prevent men from going to Nam. But my point was that no women would be able to make the physical requirements. This would waste the gov's money and the women's time in attempting to train them. A volunteer army works during peace time, don't think many will volunteer during war.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 09, 2000.

Maria:

"As I recall, stupidity and being a father didn't prevent men from going to Nam. But my point was that no women would be able to make the physical requirements. This would waste the gov's money and the women's time in attempting to train them. A volunteer army works during peace time, don't think many will volunteer during war."

The essay I provided above stated: "I emphasize 'pre-military testing' because during the Vietnam War some tertiary school draftees with 3.0 and greater academic levels purposely attempted to flunk military entry tests with the hope of being rendered ineligible for military service and therefore discharged within days if not weeks of their induction. (The only drawback on the Vietnam War era testing system was that some who were discovered to intentionally degrade their competency and proficiency tests later agreed to accept officer commissions. Their residual anger at having to serve, particularly after their failed attempts for exemption or early discharge, was taken out on the enlisted personnel serving under them. Officer abuse during the Vietnam War era caused serious and severe morale and unit productivity problems as evidenced in the classified study done by Army Chief of Staff Westmoreland dealing with the fragging problem and others in Vietnam." I don't personally know anyone who did this. I DID know plenty of men who married to avoid the draft, as married men were put at the bottom of the list. I also knew some men who immediately had children because married with children threw one even LOWER on the list. I'm talking about draftees. Enlisted men didn't fall under the same criteria.

Regarding volunteering for war, history has shown that folks GLADLY enlist. HOWEVER, if the war goes on too long with demonstrated casualties exceeding expectations, the volunteers reduce in numbers.

Enlistment rates are currently lower than desired. It's also exceedingly difficult to retain the folks already in. If you have the time to read it, here is another article that relates to the reasons for this:

Filling the Ranks.

This article also addresses the monies wasted on recruits that would never make the grade.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 10, 2000.