ljs@hlhop.UUCP (07/17/83)
It seems to me that women have been serving their country (US) in combat situations for some time now. What do you think the nurses in WWI and WWII were doing? The only difference between them and the men they cared for was that they weren't given guns to fight back.
john@hp-pcd.UUCP (John Eaton) (07/20/83)
#R:hlhop:-15300:hp-pcd:19100006:000:349 hp-pcd!john Jul 19 12:22:00 1983 There is a big difference between being in combat as a soldier and being there as a nurse. Many of the problems that returning Vets have stem from feelings of guilt that come from fighting and having to kill. If they were exposed to the same situation as healers rather than as fighters then the emotional impact would be lessened. John Eaton
rwhw@hound.UUCP (07/21/83)
This is a letter I received. I removed the name of the sender so as not to
cause that person to get unwanted mail.
*****************************************************************************
You're quite right about women being the fiercest fighters. Remember when
Israel had women in combat? They took them out because they tended to go
so far beyond what the males considered brutal. Was once talking
to an Israeli colonel an he couldn't get over what they were like.
****************************************************************************
Roygary@rochester.UUCP (Gary Cottrell) (07/25/83)
I heard they had to take the women out of combat in the Israeli Army because of the sexism of the enemy- the Arabs would fight to the death to avoid being beaten by women. gary cottrell (allegra or seismo)!rochester!gary or gary@rochester
mauney@ncsu.UUCP (08/12/83)
References: bunker.269 Bunker!abhay says: Suppose women were sent to combat side by side with men and they are in trenches together waiting for the enemy. Remember these are not over the hill people but young people over 18. What would they be doing to satisfy the urge. Just imagine the commie standing with near the trench and the 'soldiers' having fun (or may be orgy). I do not think that having mixed-sex combat troops would lead to uncontrolled copulation. On the contrary, dealing with members of the opposite sex as military equals would probably improve the attitudes of many men and women. The military puts its personel through some intense training, and could teach respect for the opposite sex if it wanted to. Example: After a couple weeks of segregated basic training, the recruits get their first mixed exercise, unarmed combat. The horny young man steps into the ring with a leer, wrestles with the young woman, and when he gets the chance, gives her an unnecessary squeeze on the breast. The woman has been carefully selected for this demonstration, and flips him out of the ring so hard he sees spots for a week. After a few such lessons, the men know they can't get away with anything. In first aid, the recuits practice pressure points for controlling bleeding, including the femoral artery on the inner thigh just below the crotch. In swimming, they practice stripping off their clothes and jumping into the water to save someone from drowning. After a while, soldiers quit thinking of bodies as sexual apparatus, and are able to relate to others as comrades, no matter what their gender, or how they are dressed, or where they are touching them. Such training would probably be good for society as a whole, as it would promote equality, and diminish unrealistic attitudes about sex. Jon Mauney mcnc!ncsu!mauney
karen@randvax.UUCP (Karen Isaacson) (06/19/85)
> > {J. Eric Roskos} > > >However, I noted with an extreme degree of irritation how many congressMEN > >made the blatantly sexist remark, "obviously no one feels women should have > >to go into combat;" and even more, I noted that no women I knew challenged > >this statement. They generally agreed with it. OK, I'll challenge it. I think (subject to requiring a certain level of physical strength, as we do with fire fighters) that women should have to go into combat if men do. Of course, I'd just as soon no one had to go to war at all, at all. -- Karen Isaacson decvax!randvax!karen karen@rand-unix.arpa
rafferty@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Colin Rafferty) (06/22/85)
> {Karen Isaacson} > > OK, I'll challenge it. I think (subject to requiring a certain level of > physical strength, as we do with fire fighters) that women should have to > go into combat if men do. Of course, I'd just as soon no one had to > go to war at all, at all. I'll challenge the bit about fire fighters. In NYC just a few years back, the fire department was forced to give women an "equivalent" physical test for admittance. This test was the exact same thing that the men had, except every single part of it was easier (i.e. fewer reps, shorter distance, lighter weights). This was all because the test given was "geared toward men", who could do more strenuous activities than the women. I seem to remember that the general feeling by we male chauvanist pigs was that any one of us would feel much better if he were in a fire and the fire fighter coming to rescue him was male. In fact this was part of a letter to the editor in the Daily News (letter written by a female). What can you say about something like that??? ---- Colin Rafferty { Math Department, Carnegie-Mellon University } "I suspect that CMU would deny ever knowing me, let alone sharing my views."
dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (06/24/85)
[] > I'll challenge the bit about fire fighters. In NYC just a few years back, > the fire department was forced to give women an "equivalent" physical test > for admittance. This test was the exact same thing that the men had, except > every single part of it was easier (i.e. fewer reps, shorter distance, > lighter weights). This was all because the test given was "geared toward > men", who could do more strenuous activities than the women. I think the claim made by the women who sued to become fire fighters was that the tests for firefighters had parts which discriminated against women, and *which were not really relevant to firefighting ability* (i.e. doing pushups). The second point was the important one; it's my understanding that if the court had decided that these parts *were* relevant to firefighting ability, they would not have ordered the tests changed regardless of whether they discriminated against women. So the argument made was that these women were being discriminated against because of factors unrelated to their ability to do the job. > I seem to remember that the general feeling by we male chauvanist pigs was > that any one of us would feel much better if he were in a fire and the fire > fighter coming to rescue him was male. In fact this was part of a letter to > the editor in the Daily News (letter written by a female). It depends on the individual. If I had a choice between the woman who picks Rodney Dangerfield up in the beer commercial and Woody Allen, I'd have to go with the woman. Isaac Dimitrovsky allegra!cmcl2!csd2!dimitrov (l in cmcl2 is letter l not number 1) 251 Mercer Street, New York NY 10012 Just because it's a preconceived notion doesn't mean it's wrong!
zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (06/25/85)
> > > {J. Eric Roskos} > > > > >However, I noted with an extreme degree of irritation how many congressMEN > > >made the blatantly sexist remark, "obviously no one feels women should have > > >to go into combat;" and even more, I noted that no women I knew challenged > > >this statement. They generally agreed with it. > > OK, I'll challenge it. I think (subject to requiring a certain level of > physical strength, as we do with fire fighters) that women should have to > go into combat if men do. Of course, I'd just as soon no one had to > go to war at all, at all. > -- > Karen Isaacson I'll challenge it also.! In 1968 (late '68) the decision was made to allow the people of S.Viet-Nam to celebrate their new year (Tet) in a more traditional way then had been allowed for some time. A cease fire was arranged - history shows that it was used by the RVN and the Viet-Cong to build up troops and supplies so that when the offensive began things were even bloodier than before. The year 1969 saw more bloody and useless killing than any single year before or after (most of it occuring in the first 6 months of that year). I was there to see it and I have yet to find a way to justify my contribution to that effort..... (I hope I never do!) I saw women in combat Most were Vietnamese. Some carried weapons and some just fought for survival and subsistance for their families and themselves. No man put out a greater effort and I saw no women in that country unwilling to defend what they valued or believed in. Viet-Nam was an unusual war because of the immediacy (sp) made possible by technology. It is unfortunate that we still (as a world, as a society as a race of thinking beings) have not learned our lesson - and probably never will. I would be the last person to advocate war. I would almost as definitely be first in line too grab a weapon if my loved ones were threatened as the people of that country were. I can't and won't try to reconcile (sp) the vast differences expressed here. It is only inside myself that I have reached a balance. Many of my friends have their names inscribed on a wall in our nations capitol (finally) and but for a lot of luck and the grace of God I might have been listed there also. I carry my own scars, inside, and my own wounds. Perhaps the wish to "protect" women from war is one of the things which has made it such an ongoing item. Succesful cmbat experience makes good line officers who may eventually rise to decision making positions in the government not only in this country but in most others as well. Consider, for just a moment, the prospect of world in which major decisions which affeect the lives of all through military action might be made by women. jeanette l. zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpl!zubbie ================================================================================ All opinions above could be mine All opinions above could be yours I take them as my own. Do you dare? ================================================================================
scott@hou2g.UUCP (Danger Mouse) (06/25/85)
-> Consider, for just a moment, the prospect of world in which major decisions -> which affeect the lives of all through military action might be made -> by women. -> jeanette l. zobjeck -> ihnp4!ihlpl!zubbie I don't see it as necessarily better. Sane MEN would do just as well. Power-hungry women would do just as poorly. The military mind-set is a powerful influence, and can be just as ingrained as any racist or sexist upbringing. Unfortunately, most highly ranked military leaders think the same way (though not necessarily because they're MEN). Actually, I'd just as soon not have ANYONE making major decisions involving military action... "Men are MORE emotional than women... It clouds their thinking." -R.A. Heinlein Scott J. Berry
mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (06/26/85)
[][][] > > {J. Eric Roskos} > > > However, I noted with an extreme degree of irritation how many congressMEN > > made the blatantly sexist remark, "obviously no one feels women should have > > to go into combat;" and even more, I noted that no women I knew challenged > > this statement. They generally agreed with it. > {karen@randvax.UUCP (Karen Isaacson)} > OK, I'll challenge it. I think (subject to requiring a certain level of > physical strength, as we do with fire fighters) that women should have to ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ > go into combat if men do. Of course, I'd just as soon no one had to > go to war at all, at all. [ BTW, pause here to endorse K.I.'s views on war.] Certainly some jobs involving physical work seem to require in the worker a minimal standard of strength or build or agility. Then there's a temptation to entirely back off, and say to those employers "Okay, you can set those requirements, and give those tests, even though we're aware that, statistically, more men than women will be be able to pass the requirements. So we won't complain, so long as you apply the tests fairly, and women who do pass them are not further discriminated against." It seems to me that this could be a reasonable stance, as long as it doesn't mean accepting the particular _content_ of the physical tests uncritically. They should be scrutinized carefully. I'm thinking of a particular recent case involving fire-fighters. I can't find the article where I learned of this, and I apologize if details are incorrect here. It was either in NYC or here in Chicago, I think. A suit was brought by two women whose applications to the Fire Department had been rejected because they hadn't passed the physical test. They challenged the reasonableness of the particular requirements. One test was scaling a five-foot wall (carrying equipment?) . Offhand, that _looks_ reasonable: firefighters probably need to scramble into difficult places. But the plaintiffs brought in some veteran firefighters, and asked them things like "How often have you scaled a five-foot wall, while actually fighting a fire?" The general answer was "Never". The finding was for the plaintiffs. If I recall correctly, the court went further, and found (on the basis of when and how the tests had been instituted and revised) that the test was intentionally discriminatory. This placed the burden of proof on employers: they have to go beyond saying "This is a physically strenuous job, so we have to set physical requirements", they have to go further and demonstrate the relevance of each specific requirement to actual on-the-job activities. I don't know how high a court this was, or therefore how wide a precedent it set. Height requirements, in particular, have notoriously been manipulated to effect discrimination against women as well as against men from racial or national-origin groups that had a generally lower height distribution curve than men from groups the employer was trying to favor. -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago (linguistics) ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar
rafferty@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Colin Rafferty) (06/27/85)
>> I'll challenge the bit about fire fighters. In NYC just a few years back, >> the fire department was forced to give women an "equivalent" physical test >> for admittance. This test was the exact same thing that the men had, except >> every single part of it was easier (i.e. fewer reps, shorter distance, >> lighter weights). This was all because the test given was "geared toward >> men", who could do more strenuous activities than the women. > > I think the claim made by the women who sued to become fire fighters > was that the tests for firefighters had parts which discriminated > against women, and *which were not really relevant to firefighting > ability* (i.e. doing pushups). The second point was the important > one; it's my understanding that if the court had decided that these > parts *were* relevant to firefighting ability, they would not have > ordered the tests changed regardless of whether they discriminated > against women. So the argument made was that these women were being > discriminated against because of factors unrelated to their ability > to do the job. So why didn't the courts order the tests to be changed, and not simply have different tests for women and men? Seems that if the tests weren't fair, they should just be changed so that they would reflect the firefighter's ability. If there are two separate tests, then we are going back to the problem of hiring men and women separately. That is no good. >> I seem to remember that the general feeling by we male chauvanist pigs was >> that any one of us would feel much better if he were in a fire and the fire >> fighter coming to rescue him was male. In fact this was part of a letter to >> the editor in the Daily News (letter written by a female). > > It depends on the individual. If I had a choice between the woman who > picks Rodney Dangerfield up in the beer commercial and Woody Allen, > I'd have to go with the woman. I agree. However, that is the whole point of the physical: what can the person being tested do? Can s/he carry a person out a window, down a ladder. I don't think that Woody Allen would be able to pass the qualifier, even the women's. I think that a person's ability to run with a 150 lb. dummy on his back has a lot to do with being a firefighter. (How much does a firehose weigh?) > Isaac Dimitrovsky The main problem that I was talking about is that the courts decided that the men and women should have different tests. That can never be reasonable. Never. ---- Colin Rafferty { Math Department, Carnegie-Mellon University } "I suspect that CMU would deny ever knowing me, let alone sharing my views."
jdh@mtung.UUCP (Julia Harper) (07/02/85)
<> I agree with Karen about women in combat. Men and women should be treated equally. This includes being drafted. I certainly don't think my brother should have any greater responsibility for our country than I do. (He wasn't drafted either.) Which reminds me -- I've listened to a number of talk shows where older men who are veterans call up to tell the women speaking on the show that they don't have the right to make comments about the political policies of the United States -- because they haven't put their lives on the line like these men. Another note -- it's amazing how often people forget that many women have served the country and are veterans. -- Julia Harper [ihnp4,ariel]!mtung!jdh
zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (07/02/85)
> > Another note -- it's amazing how often people forget that many women > have served the country and are veterans. > > -- > Julia Harper > [ihnp4,ariel]!mtung!jdh I served in Vietnam from December 1968 to November 1969. While my role was communications and not combat that did not mean that I was not in a position where I would never have to use a weapon, I was, could have and would have if the need arose. Several years (1976) later a man I was dating, who happened to be an officer in the VFW made the comment to me that it was a shame that I could never be a member of that organization. Oh, I could join the auxiliary group but according to the original charter women MAY NOT become members of the regular VFW no matter what manner of foreign service they performed and I do think that serving in a combat zone if I understand aright, is the prime consideration for membership in the VFW. Side note: I know of many males military people who served as cooks, clerks and even in the same capacity as I - there where 7 men in my detachment - who can, and did, join the VFW. It would seem that there are some areas which are still the sacro- sanct dominion of men. By the way the Vetnam Veterans organizations recognize women as full and equal members for military service in the Republic of Vietnam. ~~~ (o o) ************************ jeanette l. zobjeck |WMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWM /MWMW| * CONSERVE AIR * ihnp4!ihlpl!zubbie |MWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMW | WMWM| * -*-*-*-*-*-*- * _________I_I________|/_____ * FOR USE IN * * PHONE BOOTHS ON THE * * MOON * ************************ ================================================================================ These are my opinions! I worked for them and I intend to enjoy them. Handle carefully or else someone might think they are yours also. ================================================================================ -- ~~~ (o o) ************************ jeanette l. zobjeck |WMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWM /MWMW| * CONSERVE WATER * ihnp4!ihlpl!zubbie |MWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMW | WMWM| * -*-*-*-*-*-*- * _________I_I________|/_____ * SHOWER WITH A * * FRIEND * ************************
barbaraz@tektools.UUCP (Barbara Zanzig) (07/02/85)
>It depends on the individual. If I had a choice between the woman who >picks Rodney Dangerfield up in the beer commercial and Woody Allen, >I'd have to go with the woman. So we're back to a woman having to be (at least) twice as good as a man to be accepted, eh? What a crock. Barbara Zanzig tektronix!tektools!barbaraz
lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) (07/04/85)
> >It depends on the individual. If I had a choice between the woman who > >picks Rodney Dangerfield up in the beer commercial and Woody Allen, > >I'd have to go with the woman. > > So we're back to a woman having to be (at least) twice as good as a man > to be accepted, eh? What a crock. > > Barbara Zanzig > tektronix!tektools!barbaraz Can we go easy on the flames here? I believe the original reference was to physical requirements for fire fighters. I'm sure the poster would also much rather have a man at least twice as strong as Woody rescue him/her from a burning building( though we love him for other reasons. -- ____________________ Michael Lonetto PHRI NYC (allegra!phri!lonetto) Do you think it's REAL?
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (07/07/85)
> > I've listened to a number of talk shows where older > men who are veterans call up to tell the women speaking on the show > that they don't have the right to make comments about the political > policies of the United States -- because they haven't put their lives > on the line like these men. > > Another note -- it's amazing how often people forget that many women > have served the country and are veterans. > > Julia Harper Even if many women were not veterans, the idea that women don't have the right to comment on the political policies of the U.S. would still be ridiculous. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
markv@dartvax.UUCP (Mark F. Vita) (07/17/85)
> >It depends on the individual. If I had a choice between the woman who > >picks Rodney Dangerfield up in the beer commercial and Woody Allen, > >I'd have to go with the woman. > > So we're back to a woman having to be (at least) twice as good as a man > to be accepted, eh? What a crock. > > Barbara Zanzig > tektronix!tektools!barbaraz Whoa, there. Nowhere in the original message is it implied that "a woman has to be twice as good as a man to be accepted". The person who posted the article stated quite clearly that it *depends on the individual*. It was assumed that the woman in the beer commercial was at least as physically able as most capable firefighters, and that Woody Allen is not. Implied was that the qualifications for being a firefighter should be based on a set of physical requirements which are applied equally to applicants of either sex. I don't know what you were thinking. That women must be twice as strong as Woody Allen to become firefighters? Somehow I don't think it would fly. :^) Please, Ms. Zanzig, in the future carefully read an article and the preceding discussion and make sure the brain is in gear before igniting the flamethrower. This sort of unfounded, antagonistic flaming serves no constructive purpose. -- Mark Vita Dartmouth College USENET: {decvax,cornell,linus,astrovax}!dartvax!markv ARPA: markv%dartmouth@csnet-relay CSNET: markv@dartmouth