pierce@bcstec.boeing.com (Greg Pierce) (06/20/91)
From: pierce@bcstec.boeing.com (Greg Pierce) When I went through Jump School women were not required to meet the same physical standards as there male counterparts. Given the recent political push for Women to be able to fill combat MOS's, it causes me to consider if we are not compromising standards set for the military vs. equal rights, thus causing needless loss of life on the battlefield. I know that some years ago the IDF abandon the policy of women in combat. What was this based on, and what other military force has pursued this doctrine? Fossil from above uunet!bcstec!pierce
hnkst2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Hanhwe N. Kim) (06/21/91)
From: "Hanhwe N. Kim" <hnkst2@unix.cis.pitt.edu> (Greg Pierce) writes: >I know that some >years ago the IDF abandon the policy of women in combat. >What was this based on, and what other military force has >pursued this doctrine? > The Israeli Defense Forces stopped assigning women to combat MOS's because opposing arab forces were more reluctant to surrender to IDF units where women were present, thereby resulting in consistently higher casualties for those units. I think Russians in WWII had women fighter pilots. -Han Kim
bxr307@csc1.anu.edu.au (06/21/91)
From: bxr307@csc1.anu.edu.au In article <1991Jun20.021602.2623@cbnews.cb.att.com>, pierce@bcstec.boeing.com (Greg Pierce) writes: > > When I went through Jump School women were not required > to meet the same physical standards as there male counterparts. > Given the recent political push for Women to be able to fill > combat MOS's, it causes me to consider if we are not compromising > standards set for the military vs. equal rights, thus causing > needless loss of life on the battlefield. I know that some > years ago the IDF abandon the policy of women in combat. > What was this based on, and what other military force has > pursued this doctrine? Two years ago the Danish Defence Forces undertook a trial whereby women were allowed to volunteer for all branches of their services. The intention in the Army was to provide one mechanised infantry company of mixed sex and train them to the required standard. It was found after the trial period of six months that the women did not appreciably perform any worse than the men, and in some cases better (endurance was one aspect apparently where the women were able to out perform the men). They did though, discover that there was a much higher drop out rate of women compared to men during the trials as those women were not able to withstand the physical demands of the role fell away. Those that were left though, were highly praised by their commanding officer apparently for being hard working and just as proficient as the men as "infantrypersons". As a consequence all positions are now open to women within their army. There is absolutly no reason why a female cannot fulfil the same role as males within the military. If we look back through history, there are numerous examples of female serving alongside men in irregular forces and being just as efficient as soldiers/guerrillas as their counterparts. However, just as there are men who are not suited by temperament and physical form to the role of being a soldier, there are women. If females are to be allowed the right to serve in combat roles they should have the same (or nearly the same) rigious standards applied to them as should be applied to males. If some females fail, just as do males, then thats simply a case of the system weeding out those who are unsuitable for the role. However they should not be denied the chance to try for that job simply because of their sex. Equality is about equality of choice and that choice is about having the chance to not only succeed but to fail as well. -- Brian Ross -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "If we got it so wrong in the Middle East yesterday, what makes you think we are going to get it right this time?" Arthur Schlesinger --------------------------------------------------------------------------
carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) (06/21/91)
From: carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) In article <1991Jun20.021602.2623@cbnews.cb.att.com>, pierce@bcstec.boeing.com (Greg Pierce) writes: > [ Combat standards for males vs. females ] I have a friend who attended the USAF Academy. She was required to lose weight to meet the female standards, even though she was willing (_and_ able) to meet male physical standards, under which she would have been of acceptable weight. I found this bizarrely rigid even for the military. -- Alan M. Carroll <-- Another casualty of applied metaphysics Epoch Development Team Urbana Il. "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan
amoss@cs.huji.ac.il (Amos Shapira) (06/21/91)
From: Amos Shapira <amoss@cs.huji.ac.il> In article <1991Jun20.021602.2623@cbnews.cb.att.com> pierce@bcstec.boeing.com (Greg Pierce) write: | needless loss of life on the battlefield. I know that some | years ago the IDF abandon the policy of women in combat. It's not "some", it was more than 40 years ago, the idea of women in combat was abandoned immidiatly after the War of Independence. | What was this based on, and what other military force has | pursued this doctrine? The reason, as far as I know, was simply that the desicion-makers ware afraid of what can happen to the women if they were captured (the Arab armies and paramils where never famous for their good treatment of POW's, except maybe the Jordanian Legion). However, there are now demands to re-incorporate women into combat or para-combat jobs. Women fulfil many of the instruction jobs (tank, sniper, CBE, arty, etc). Some of the women serve as para assistants (parachute handlers and folders). This is not combat, true, but maybe soon. There ARE women pilots in the RPV squadrons :-). Cheers, Amos Shapira, Cpl. (Res.! at last) Marc A. Volovic, Sgt. (Res.) amoss@cs.huji.ac.il
amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) (06/22/91)
From: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) >From: pierce@bcstec.boeing.com (Greg Pierce) >...women were not required to meet the same physical standards as (MEN)... >... it causes me to consider if we are not compromising standards Women will NEVER in our lifetime be able to meet the same standards as Men. Put simply, their bodies are built differently (for those of you that didn't notice :-} ). Most of the physical training was intended to see that people in combat (and service) are physically fit. Physical fitness does NOT mean thing for everybody, but since personal fitness trainers are in the military budget, they are forced to use population standards. However, the averages for men and women are so much different that they use 2 sets of standards. The same is true for AGE physical performance standards. Even with these differences, you are probably better off with a 18 Yr old female that WANTS to be in the field, than a 45 Yr old male that doesn't. The other side of this argument is that combat rated jobs, AREN'T limited to tank crewws and rangers. SCUD crews which sit in a 1/2track and push a buttonare also combat jobs. Survival of the fit is a feature of ALL combat teams, with or without women. Right now, the 'survival' of this 'program' depends on common sense by both the military administrators AND the people involved. J al -- Al. Michielsen, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Syracuse University InterNet: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu amichiel@sunrise.acs.syr.edu Bitnet: AMICHIEL@SUNRISE
madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Max Abramowitz) (06/22/91)
From: madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Max Abramowitz) In <1991Jun21.014957.15697@cbnews.cb.att.com> "Hanhwe N. Kim" <hnkst2@unix.cis.pitt.edu> writes: >The Israeli Defense Forces stopped assigning women to combat MOS's >because opposing arab forces were more reluctant to surrender to >IDF units where women were present, thereby resulting in >consistently higher casualties for those units. I heard this, but I was also told by a family friend who is an officer in the IDF that there was another reason that women were removed from combat positions. It seems that the men serving with women would risk themselves when the women would be in trouble (for example being pinned down by a machine gun). *** On Soapbox *** Every time the issue of women serving in "front-line" combat positions is brought to the attention of the "ever informed" American public I get very annoyed. The debate always focuses on whether or not women can perform effectively as soldiers. This is not the real issue, because in my mind there is no question of women being able soldiers; they are. Does anyone remember the CNN Broadcast the night that the Iraqis were SCUDing Israel? Two reporters broadcasting from Tel Aviv, one male one female. The guy was so scared he was worthless. The woman was calm. It was clear that she was leading the whole group (reporters and support staff) keeping them functioning during a stressful time. The retired general serving as the CNN military analyst back in the US kept referring to her as, "a good soldier". There is a hurdle which must be overcome before women can serve in combat positions, however this is not a hurdle which women must overcome, rather it is a hurdle which men must overcome. Once men learn how to deal with women fighting in the "front-line", women will. The debate has always focuses on the issue of the ability of women, when it should focuses on the issue of why men serving in combat positions have difficulty with women serving in combat positions. *** Off Soapbox *** max abramowitz madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu The University of Chicago is an institution. Institutions do not have
madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Max Abramowitz) (06/24/91)
From: madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Max Abramowitz) In <1991Jun22.042038.3864@cbnews.cb.att.com> amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes: > Women will NEVER in our lifetime be able to meet the same standards as >Men. Put simply, their bodies are built differently (for those of you that >didn't notice :-} ). Most of the physical training was intended to see >that people in combat (and service) are physically fit. Physical fitness >does NOT mean thing for everybody, but since personal fitness trainers >are in the military budget, they are forced to use population standards. Not only is this perception wrong, but once again this is not relevant to the argument of whether or not women should serve in combat. I do not consider myself out-of-shape, I can run 5 miles very easily, I have completed the haute route(translation:ten days of walking over the Alps, on skis with a pack, from Chamonix to Zermatt), but I have met many women that could out perform me physically (including an ex-girl friend). SOME Women CAN meet the physical standard necessary for combat, just as SOME men CAN NOT. Women can exceed many of the abilities of men. A previous poster mentioned that women have better endurance on average than men. I also believe than many women deal with "real" pain better than men (my evidence: child birth hurts more than a gun shot wound, and I see more men asking for pain killer after getting shot than I see women not wanting natural childbirth). While the physical aspect of being a soldier is important, the mental aspect is by far, much more important. There is no evidence that shows that some women can not meet the mental and physical requirements which the United States Armed Forces have determined are necessary to serve in combat roles. max abramowitz madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu "One hundred years of women in interesting positions" - A T-shirt celebrating the Centennial of Smith College.
paj@gec-mrc.co.uk (paj) (06/25/91)
From: paj <paj@gec-mrc.co.uk> The Royal Navy is now putting WRENs (female officers) on combat ships. Some served in the Gulf. Recently a WREN and a male officer were court-martialled for "conduct predjudicial to good discipline". They had been found naked in her cabin. I would have thought that this would be a regular problem in mixed-sex combat units. Danger is well known to be an aphrodisiac, and if you are going to put men and women in a confined space for months on end and then shoot at them, the result seems fairly inevitable. The "baby boom" during the second world war is another example of the same behaviour. What should the Royal Navy do about this? On the one hand current policy is going to result in an awful lot of court martials of good officers for merely being human. On the other hand they cannot condone it, partly because of the moral outcry (the man in the above case was married) and partly because it IS bad for discipline: jealousy is going to be a major problem, especially as there will be far fewer women than men for the forseable future. Maybe women-only units would be a long-term answer. I fully agree with the previous poster who said that women capable of serving in a unit should not be barred simply on grounds of gender, but there are other issues. Incidentally, the navy wives were against the combat WREN program from the start. Paul.
psg@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) (06/25/91)
From: "Paul S Galvanek" <psg@unix.cis.pitt.edu> >Not only is this perception wrong, but once again this is not relevant >While the physical aspect of being a soldier is important, the mental >aspect is by far, much more important. There is no evidence that shows >that some women can not meet the mental and physical requirements >which the United States Armed Forces have determined are necessary to >serve in combat roles. >max abramowitz Actually Max it is your perception that is very, very wrong. You determine physical adequacy as being the number of mile a person can hike compared to another. That simply doesn't reflect in any way the realities of battle. Some interesting evidence that might be pertinent are the military's own studies of men and women in extreme weather conditions. Women simply couldn't preform as adequately as men under intense heat and sub zero tempratures. They dehydrated quicker then men were more susceptible to frost bite and hypathermia, they also tired much more quickly in both extremely hot and cold conditions. In addition to these fudamental difference there were the physical problems associated with the women's menstral cycle. Under ideal conditions nearly every women suffers some physical discomfort during her cycle. For most women these are minor but for many they can be severe. In the military weather studies many women became non-functioning when the combination of menstral cramps, headaches and swelling was multiplied by the 100 degrees + tempratures of the jungle or subzero temps. For a number of the women in the studies simple dehydration quickly turned into a life threatening problem under the most severe conditions a problem not shared by men (not the dehy- dration but the rapid decline in preformance) The simple truth known by anyone who has served in the military is that women are judged by different physical standards from basic training right on up through the various acadamies and training programs, which may be okay for conducting war games, but in the real thing barriers and trenchs can't simply be adjusted to suit women as they are during peace time training. This alone has caused a great deal of resentment men in the military who feel it's unfair they must achieve a higher standard to gain the same recognition. Add to that the potential loss of trained critical personnel due to pregnancy and the to numerous to count emotional entanglements associated with men and women serving together and this seemingly positive political move could spell disaster of a real battlefield. Women in combat... No way! Paul Galvanek
d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) (06/25/91)
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) In article <1991Jun21.015101.15785@cbnews.cb.att.com> bxr307@csc1.anu.edu.au writes: > Two years ago the Danish Defence Forces undertook a trial whereby >women were allowed to volunteer for all branches of their services. There is one woman going through flight school at the Ljunbyhed flotillia now to become fighter pilot for the Swedish Airforce. I assume that it hasn't been any great changes in procedure, because the military meteorologists that has gone through basic flight school on Ljungbyhed has included a large percentage of women (the batch I know of had >50% women.) I'm not sure about the situation in the army, but I know that the last part of the navy, the subs, were opened not long ago. -bertil- -- "Some people almost never think. They just reshuffle their prejudices."
rdargahi@wilkins.iaims.bcm.tmc.edu (Ross Dargahi) (06/25/91)
From: rdargahi@wilkins.iaims.bcm.tmc.edu (Ross Dargahi) If women are to be allowed into combat, then there is no question in my mind that they should also be eligible for the 'draft'. "You can't have your cake and eat it too". BTW why is it that as a male, at the age of 18 I had to register with the Selective Service Board whilst women do not have to? I understand that currently they are forbidden from participating in combat, but are there not a myriad of non-combat related tasks that they could perform?
madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Max Abramowitz) (06/27/91)
From: madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Max Abramowitz) In <1991Jun25.024836.27951@cbnews.cb.att.com> psg@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes: >From: "Paul S Galvanek" <psg@unix.cis.pitt.edu> >>Not only is this perception wrong, but once again this is not relevant >>While the physical aspect of being a soldier is important, the mental >>aspect is by far, much more important. There is no evidence that shows >>that some women can not meet the mental and physical requirements >>which the United States Armed Forces have determined are necessary to >>serve in combat roles. >>max abramowitz >Actually Max it is your perception that is very, very wrong. You determine >physical adequacy as being the number of mile a person can hike compared to >another. That simply doesn't reflect in any way the realities of battle. You misunderstood what I was trying to point out. I did not say ALL women can meet SOME of the physical requirements, I said SOME women can meet ALL of the physical requirements. As to the mental aspect. Maybe it would be clearer if I put this way. Two men in a combat situation. One is in top physical shape, the other can meet all the requirements, but not much more. However, it is not unlikely for the man in excellent physical shape to freeze when bullets start to fly over head. While I have never been in combat nor for that fact in the military from what I have read and from those I have known who have, it seems to me that in an actual combat situation ones ability to deal with stress is far more important than ones physical condition. I do understand what you are saying. Personally, if I went into combat, I would be very unhappy if I was doubting the ability of any other member (male or female) of my group or squad. Also, I while I think that women should be allowed to serve in combat positions, I am not so certain that women should serve in all combat positions. I have fewer reservations with women flying combat missions in the Air Force than I would women serving in the infantry. However, believe what you want, but I think that an outright condemnation of women serving in any combat positions is wrong. max abramowitz madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu
carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) (06/27/91)
From: carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) In article <1991Jun25.024626.27716@cbnews.cb.att.com>, paj@gec-mrc.co.uk (paj) writes: > The Royal Navy is now putting WRENs (female officers) on combat ships. Some > served in the Gulf. > > Recently a WREN and a male officer were court-martialled for "conduct > predjudicial to good discipline". They had been found naked in her cabin. On a related subject that was touched on by some other posts, does anyone have any solid information on pregnancies / annum for females in the various armed forces? I thought I remembered that this was a real problem in the US Navy, but I could be mistaken. -- Alan M. Carroll <-- Another casualty of applied metaphysics Epoch Development Team Urbana Il. "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan