Opinion Section

"Women in Combat"

File #5

What's your opinion on this controversial issue?

Posted: 3 Nov 00:

Personally I think, women should be allowed to be in battle. They have always been involved, since the beginning or time. In some way or other women were put out in strenuous situations. No, we aren't as physically stronger than men, but "If there is a will there is a way." As the world begins to evolve and as the times change, the topic of women has become more controversial than ever. Women now are able to make decisions and are just as strong as men. We shouldn't portray a women by the common archetype "damsel in distress." Behind every good man there is a woman that turns the head. Without women's input society is useless. A woman can't always be a mans equal, then they would be negatively exposed, but they should be able to make decisions like a man. Thus, woman should be allowed in battle and if not, they will always in some way, fight.

Posted: 24 Oct 00:

The popularity of an idea is no measure of its truth. Much of this debate has been emotional, though, with facts taking a distinctly second place. In fact, there hasn't been much of a real debate. In the post-Gulf War, post-Tailhook period, all arguments against women in combat were countered in two ways: all future war would be high tech and 360 degrees (no fluid front lines etc) on the one hand, and simply evidence of the speaker's sexism on the other. The former is highly debatable; the latter, a smear worthy of the

McCarthy era.

If future war is going to be entirely fluid, then the physical and mental demands on everyone, including those in traditional support roles, will be increased. Everyone will have to be ready to be an infantryman at a moment's notice. That implies a high degree of physical fitness (in the absolute sense) and mental toughness. Any other

approach will simply make the softer support units obvious targets for any enemy, especially one seeking ways to counter our technological superiority in traditional warfare. In Viet Nam, air bases and support facilities were regularly attacked. In the Navy, ships will be more likely to take damage as more combat moves from the high seas into coastal regions, where distances will be compressed and reaction times reduced (to say nothing of passive threats like mines). That in turn will place more of an emphasis on damage control. If everyone in the Army or the Marines can be expected to be a rifleman, then everyone in the Navy can be expected to be a firefighter. Again, an absolute standard of physical fitness will be important. Anyone who has read about the 1982 war in the Falklands will note that the naval part of it was very antiseptic and high-tech, right up until the ships got hit. In Somalia, we had total information-dominance and were more than a century ahead of our opponents technologically (in some ways). But, none of that helped and we were

run out of the country with our tails between our legs, frightened of further casualties. That fact has not been lost on our enemies. Those arguing for antiseptic, high-tech, every man (and woman) a technician type wars, had better be right, because if they aren't we're going to be in a lot of trouble. Everyone may have a right to die for their country, but not to get their comrades killed in the process.

To win a war, everything (manpower and equipment) must be used to its limit. If equipment can be made 50% lighter, a soldier can carry twice as much as before (or more ammo or more food). Today's soldiers carry gear undreamt of by Rome's legions, but they carry the same 80-90 lb loads. Even if you can boost a woman's strength and endurance through rigorous conditioning, you can do the same for a man (in fact, it would be stupid and criminal not to do so). These sort of things, not prejudice, are the real barriers to women serving in combat, and also explain why there aren't many female firefighters.

There is also some precedent for efforts to make the military more like the rest of our civil society. After WWII, in response to complaints about various abuses, the Doolittle Board recommended various ways to make the services more "humane". Traditionalist who challenged these views were smeared as "fascists." These changes resulted in less emphasis on the physical and psychological stresses commonly placed on

recruits in basic training. There was also an effort made to reduce the powers of officers and NCO's to

discipline subordinates, primarily to make everyone more equal. In Korea, the fruits of this policy became clear. Many men were both physically and psychologically unfit for the stresses of combat. Although equipment shortages were a factor, it is also a fact that most of our units (except the Marines - who hadn't changed anything in their training) were outfought, panicked and generally failed to behave like soldiers. Almost 50% of our POW's died, mostly because they lacked the personal and collective self-discipline and cohesion necessary maintain a chain-of-command and to thereby survive in brutal POW

camps. In some cases, support units refused to engage in hand-to-hand combat because their MOS didn't include that - and that was while they were being shot at! None of this was evident before the shooting started. The troops still had the same "Can Do" mottos, looked good on parade and a whole host of senior military said things were never better. The troops thought they were good, too. (Today, US students, overdosing on false self-esteem, think they're the best in the world at various subjects. Too bad the tests

don't support that conclusion). Sound familiar? If it can happen once, it can happen again. Boot camps that have been reduced in intensity, all because most women can't be stressed to the same degree physically or psychologically as men, is playing with fire. We will pay for that on some future battlefield. Are the advocates of women in combat (and all of the associated cultural changes) willing to risk that? What will they say to the dead? "I feel your pain."

On the "social" side, there is a lot that is debatable about gender roles. However, there are differences between men and women that go beyond our respective reproduction systems. Things like brain chemistry and hormones differ in many respects. There is, then, evidence that some differences are the result of factors more fundamental than simply culture. But, even if that weren't true, what a lot of us men have trouble with is the contradictory messages we get. Feminists have said for years that men and women are different, and that men are more violent and must be tamed. They have said that women are peculiarly vulnerable to assault. Now, when dealing with the most violent activity of all, they claim that there are no differences. It just doesn't add up. It is also simply incredible to think that the same woman who is incapable of handling "harassment" will be able to handle combat.

Posted: 24 Oct 00:

Hey, if women can hang in the training, give 'em a gun and send 'em to the front if that is what they want. But I believe that the natural tensions between men in women in everyday life will multiply 100 fold in a combat

situation. In times when soldiers are putting their lives on the line for other soldiers they need 100% unity, there is no time to mess around with petty differences. Women should be able to serve in combat but separate from men. I don't want to hear the excuse, "well they're mature adults and they should get over the whole issue of men vs. women." That is crap. War turns people into animals maturity plays no role in war.

Posted: 19 Aug 00

I have some bad news for the infantry squad leader in the 82nd Airborne division, and the responder to the 15-year girl's desire to shoot an automatic rifle and drive a tank. I am a female. In my two years in the military, I have driven a Bradley, fired an M1A1 Abrams, qualified on an M-16, fired the M-4, M-203 grenade launcher, M249 SAW, MK-19, M-60 and an M240B machine gun, among others. I have hung a mortar, completed Air Assault school and on my last PT test I did 85 pushups and 102 sit-ups. I have many female friends who have done the same things. We are not "manly", do not look like men, or walk like men, and wear make-up and earrings regularly. If you tried to pick me or any of us out of a crowd of 20 year-old girls in civvies you probably would not be able to. I am not saying these things to sound like I am all that, but to show you that even though I am not a 15-year Infantry grunt I have some knowledge of what is going on.

I completed Air Assault last Friday. On the 12-mile road march, the average finishing time was around 2:45 or so. The cadre said it was the toughest course they had seen (hilly and rocky). The fastest guy finished in 2:03 (that's very fast for anyone who is not familiar with it). About ten more guys came in, then two girls, one of whom was probably the shortest girl in our class, both finishing in 2:25. (Our class graduated a total of 183 people).

I am not a feminist, and do not wave banners that shout "Women in combat! Women in combat!" But those of you who are posting things on this board that suggest women are pathetic, or that have women have no place training and fighting with the men are entirely out of line.

To the DA civilian: a logistical nightmare? Are you suggesting that the best Army in the world cannot handle providing the right size clothing for a few females in a line unit? I'm not exactly sure what job you hold right now, but it is probably not one which involves a lot of thinking...the Army does not provide "monthly supplies" to it's women, we can shop on our own, thank you very much.

To the squad leader at Ft Benning: you wrote that if a woman came onto the drill field the guys in your division would tear them apart. Well, Squad Leader, you can't be held accountable for your entire division of course,

but if the guys in your squad "tear them apart" then that's on you, and it means you aren't much of a squad leader if you can't control your own men. Surely, you have learned that in all the years of your great experience.

To the reservist: I laugh at your comments about how you have seen so much action and how you saw so many petty little females in Bosnia that couldn't pull their weight. You judged all females by the few you have seen. Well, let's be fair and do this right: The most amount of experience I have had with reservists came this past week at Air Assault. We had two reservists at the school. NEITHER could pull their weight. One was INFANTRY, for pete's sake. He was a 1LT, and one of the last to finish the road march, He just barely passed. Drool was hanging out of his mouth, he was whining the whole way, and he looked ready to pass out. The best was, he was a recycle. He had failed out on the hook-up portion of phase three. For those that aren't familiar with Air Assault, the hook-up portion of the rappelling phase (phase III) is one of the easiest, and stupidest things to fail out on. The other guy was barely better. He made himself look dumb with his stupid questions, and yes, he was in the last of the pack to finish the road march. It gets better, Mr. Reservist. One morning, we watched the local Guard unit do PT. They stretched, and ran three laps: for a total of about 3/4 of a mile. They had NUMEROUS fallouts. They had to stop. So I guess, if we are going by your standards, all the reserve units basically are no good. They can't pull their weight. Same with the Guard. Let's get rid of them too. Next you talk about female soldiers "servicing" a unit full of males. It takes two to do something like that, are you telling me that the guys aren't at as much fault as the girls doing that crap? Then you, the All-Star Reservist, go on to slam female police officers. For starters, this is a military-orientated webpage, but we won't go there. If you want to talk about unqualified individuals, lets talk about all the fat, waddling, size-56 pants, police officers that you see patrolling a block. I doubt those guys are great for running down suspects. I have met tankers that shake their heads and shrug when asked why girls aren't allowed in Armor. I have met Artillery guys that laugh and say, "Go FA! It's the best. We don't care if you're female!" I have talked to colonels that think that women should be allowed into the Infantry. All of this may be a long ways off. But if it does change, it will be on you guys, the squad leaders with the 15-years of experience, etc., that the Army will rely on to make it work.

So finally, the bottom line is, do not bad mouth females, do not shoot down a 15-year old girl's expectations. Lisa's senior ROTC may not be the same as Ranger school, yes, but that does not mean that she cannot pursue her goals. A female at Ranger school may be a long ways off. Then again, maybe not. I personally know two girls that graduated from Sapper school. It would be a long road for a female to go to Ranger school, but if the standards were not lowered, if she always pulled her weight and kept the right attitude, I

would be for it.

Posted: "In response to the 5 Jan 00 Post"

In response to the 15 year old girl wanting to join the military to drive a tank or use a semi-automatic in combat. as a squad leader in an infantry unit the thought of having a female as one of us is so far from our minds it is unimaginable. We perform difficult challenges everyday and having females admitted will bring such a drastic change in our way of doing things there will be much debate and confusion. We do not need this in any of our units and army jobs involving front line combat, women are the furthest thing from our minds when we're out there. in all honestly we don't want to look over our shoulders in a firefight and see a female next to us, its not something that sits right in most folks stomachs and having a bullet shot through a womb is somewhat barbaric. As it stands now, unfortunately if any woman came to Fort Benning, Georgia, onto our drill field, the guys in our division would tear them apart.

Posted: 25 Jul 00:

As a former Army officer and current DA civilian, I have participated in numerous exercises, deployments, and other training issues. I personally think everybody is missing one very important issue concerning women in combat. No one argues that Queen Slammer of the WWF can take on Chatsworth, the high school chess club president. Some women are more powerful than some men - most women are not more powerful than most men.

The issue is, what do you do with the isolated woman who can meet and exceed the physical, mental, and emotional requirements for a combat arms job. The logistical support for a single (or even a handful) woman would become a nightmare for the unit. I don't want to hear anybody insist that women wouldn't need anything special, monthly supplies immediately come to mind. The Army has a policy requiring showers for women in the field every 48-72 hours. The variety of sizes for clothing and equipment that would have to be stocked (or are all physically capable women size extra-large?) to support a few women would be unmanageable for the typical line unit. That is why right now women are concentrated in support organizations or headquarters. The greater the number of females in a unit, the easier it is to provide logistical support.

Until a unit can be guaranteed a constant supply of plenty of women, the military cannot condone such a logistical nightmare.

Posted: 19 Jul 00:

The United States is supposed to be the melting pot of the world. This means that the differences between people are not things to discriminate against. However, I think everyone can agree that discrimination is still very rampant, and it often exists because of generalizations. These generalizations are very damaging, to people of different races, sexual orientations, and even gender. Believe it or not, not every African American can be in the NBA or WNBA. Not every woman that wears a baseball cap is a lesbian.

I will admit that women on average are not as strong, tall, or muscular as men. On average kids spend about 3 hours per day in school. Averages really don't tell us much about things - kids don't go to school on weekends, or holidays, or during the summer, but that isn't taken into account for the above calculation.

If you were to line up every women from weakest to strongest and got rid of the first half of the line, the women left would surely be stronger than at least the first quarter of men. Keep taking away the weaker sections and you will end up with some women that are stronger than most men. (Because of design, the strongest people are probably men). See, not every woman is weak.

This line of reasoning can be used with almost any subject. Line up people in the order of chance of being unfaithful, some will be unfaithful when they see a person of the opposite sex only once a month, others not even when living with a person of the opposite sex. Keeping women out of certain positions because of the chance a man will be distracted - that is a problem with that man, why punish the woman?

I don't like to call myself a feminist, I prefer humanist, I believe that everyone should be given equal opportunities, but selection should not be based on anything other than capability. If only men pass a FAIR and JUST test to be in combat positions, that is fine, but when gender, race, and sexual orientation come into play I think we all lose.

As for putting your life into a woman's hands - it is called having a mother.

Posted: 14 Jun 00:

I am a Cadet Petty Officer in the Whitney M. Young High School NJROTC. I feel that this is a subject that we have to put aside. I do think women should be in combat units ONLY if they are capable of keeping up with the males. I do not think women should get any special privileges. After all, weren't we fighting for EQUAL RIGHTS! Women could pose as a distraction to males when in training and might interact with male cadets sexual. But this is THE UNITED STATES MILITARY. If men think that women would pose as a distraction, then obviously they haven't been taught anything all the years they have been in the military. Women should be able to take all training seriously, combat or not. This country's military should not be one giant sex scene. However, men might have the certain instinct to try to protect the women during war. This can endanger the man and woman involved. Therefore, if the military were to allow women, it would require more training for BOTH genders. Women should go through the same training as men do. Look at all the women who fight in

earlier years in other parts of the world. Many have lead battalions and conquered many countries. What happened? But women should not be in the front line!

Posted: 13 Jun 00:

Historically, women have not fought in the front lines. Of course, a few have, but they are exceptions, not the rule. Many of you might argue that this is irrelevant. In fact, men have been keeping women down all this time, and only now are females finally throwing off the oppressive yoke of the male chauvinist pig. We Americans are very progressive; we tend to be disconnected to the past; we think it is outdated, irrelevant.

However, I would like to point out that time is the ultimate test. Time tests everything, and its judgements are absolute. In a way, our debates attempt to mimic time by predicting what will happen if x, or what happen if y. But time is the perfect argument this happened, causing that to happen, and there is no room for argument. Therefore, we should take more note of what history has to say.

Historically, women have almost never served on the front lines. To produce such a steady record, there must be some powerful inherent barrier to women serving on the front lines. I would argue that society has not changed so drastically and fundamentally to erase that inherent barrier. Therefore, until that barrier is overcome, we will not allow women to fight on the front lines. The US may try it, but such a policy will not last.

I am reasonably certain of the above argument. I am not so certain on the issue of whether or not women should be allowed to fight in the front lines. This inherent barrier could be attitudinal; women might actually be excellent warriors. I admit I am not an expert on this matter. However, that has not stopped others from posting, so I will give my opinion. As I stated above, I believe that if we decide to allow women in front line combat without addressing the inherent barrier, the barrier will eventually assert itself, causing us to reverse our decision. I do not think such a flip-flop would be beneficial. Therefore, until this inherent barrier is addressed, I oppose allowing women to serve in front line combat.

Posted: 12 Jun 00:

This country has taken a turn for the worse. There's no such thing as males and females anymore. we've been blinded so much by this feminist equality crap that we avoid to see that there is a difference between men and

women. Why is it ok for women to walk around dressing like men but men can't wear dresses? Well they can, but they won't because they don't want to be women, so why do women want to be men? Feminist beliefs are ok in any other job in the US, but please, not in the military. I find it an insult to every man that has been drafted into the army and served, that war and military is some sort of game that feminists can attack. War is hell. It's no place for men let alone women. They bare our children, they are physically weaker then men by fact and do not need to sit in a foxhole with a man firing at the enemy. How would that soldier feel writing to his girlfriend about living in a secluded foxhole with another woman? ok so lets make women serve in foxholes with men

that are single or men that aren't attracted to them, its ridiculous. This is war not a feminist movement. There's no time to worry about what woman will go where with what man. 40 years ago it was so simple. It's war, your all men, you live together, eat together, and do what your told. I have every sense of respect for women but women in combat and in infantry is one of the last exclusions to women in this country and should be kept that way in honor of our history.

Posted: 18 Apr 00:

I am a reservist. I had served on active duty in Combat Arms. As a reservist, I deployed to Bosnia in

96 working Combat Service Support. The things that I had seen down range with female soldiers - undeployable pregnant, or single mom soldiers in Germany rear detachments, pregnant females being

evacuated from Bosnia, whining female soldiers about the conditions downrange, female soldiers that didn't have the strength to move equipment or boxes because of shortages of material handling equipment, female

soldiers prostituting themselves to male soldiers makes me believe that females do not belong in Combat

Arms. There were also some male soldiers that bitched and moaned and slacked off, but it was alot easier to

deal with males by laying down the law and not fear some EEO or IG complaint.

In civilian life, I am a police officer that has handled plenty of felony arrests and violent criminals. Also, I have worked with female police officers, and I also believe that females should not be in police work because the majority of them can’t handle the physical part. I have been in fights where my female partner did nothing but used her gun to “cover me”, and I was more afraid of fratricide than the crook. Female police officers claim that they can compensate for their lack of brute strength by using their verbal and reasoning skills. That is the biggest laugh of all time!!!

Remember, it was a female CHP officer that started chasing Rodney King that night. She pulled him over

and drew down on him. King laughed at her, and she waited for the LAPD to back her up. The 4 infamous

LAPD officers took over and used brute force to take down King, and they suffered for it.

Also, remember the female MP Captain that led the assault on a dog kennel during the Panama invasion?

She became the first female to lead an attack. I had heard that she had to take a disability retirement because she had hurt her back????

I am enclosing a copy of an article of 2 female California cops that had their asses kicked by a parolee. They were saved by a civilian male that was bigger than the crook and the cops. If this can happen in everyday life in the USA, what will you think will happen in a combat zone?? Something to really think about:

Saturday, June 28, 1997 LA Times, Orange County Edition Section: Metro Page: B-1 Talk About a

Citizen's Arrest; Crime: Anaheim police praise deliveryman who joined fight between officers and parolee.; By: ZAHIDA HAFEEZ TIMES STAFF WRITER

Paul Buehlman had finished delivering pianos for the day and was looking forward to surfing at Huntington

Beach. But instead of riding the waves, Buehlman came to the aid of two Anaheim police officers who were getting beaten up by a parolee they were trying to arrest. "At one point [the suspect] had his hand on my gun," Officer Cathy Johnson said. "You never know what could have happened. He walked in at the right moment." The scuffle began when Johnson was driving on the west side of Anaheim and a man on a bike caught her attention. William Joseph Young was wobbling while he rode, and Johnson also noticed a sap, a metal ball attached to a leather handle, jutting from his pocket. Johnson said that when she tried to arrest Young for having the illegal weapon, he went into a rage. The officer said he began swearing at her and yelling, "I'm not going back." Officer Alisha Galvan, who had been called as backup, was thrown into Lincoln Avenue by Young, police said. He got Johnson in a headlock and then tossed her onto the sidewalk. When she got up, Young punched her in the eye, according to police, and shouted, "Bring it on. Go ahead and kill me." Buehlman, 26, of Huntington Beach was driving by when he saw the fight. He came from a family of police officers, and he often rode along with uncles and cousins who worked in Compton, so he had an affinity for the officers. He parked his truck and ran across the street to help. "I saw cops flying to the middle of the street," said Buehlman, who is 6 foot 4, 180 pounds. He said he kicked Young in the face, then grabbed his right arm and twisted his wrist until the officers could handcuff him. Buehlman kept yelling, "Stop resisting arrest or else I'll break your arm," Johnson said. Johnson suffered a bump on her head, Galvan a badly bruised eye and Buehlman a scraped thumb in the fight June 20. Young, 5 feet 11, 130 pounds, is being held without bail on two felony counts of assaulting a police officer, two counts of possession of a lethal weapon--the sap and a knife--and a parole violation. The officers suspected he was under the influence of PCP or methamphetamine, but blood test results have not come back. Buehlman's bold move touched the two officers. Johnson said that it isn't uncommon for people to resist arrest but it is rare for a civilian to jump into a fracas. "I haven't heard many police officers say they've been helped like that," she said. "We were thankful. Police officers aren't well-liked people, so when anyone from the street comes to help police officers, when they risk themselves, we really appreciate it."

PHOTO: "I saw cops flying to the middle of the street," 26-year-old Paul Buehlman says.

Posted: 14 Apr 00:

Former 82nd Infantry and SQD LDR I feel I've earned my opinion and seen enough. Woman do not belong in any military occupation that requires possible physical confrontation. Now as far as the air farce and navy where they fly a plane that's fine the machine evens the battle field and you don't have to get out and fight like one might have to in a tank. But woman will never be in the Infantry let alone special operations, not in U.S Army! All my observations of woman have been that of sub standard performances where men had to pick up the slack. If woman want their chance the idea that SQD LDR in Ranger Bn is fine, trial by METL.. I know the standards won't be met. The Army already admits by the P.T scale that woman are weaker physically. If

you want the same respect, adhere to ALL the same standards as men. I don't see where men who have not been in combat arms, let alone the military can hold a valid opinion as you have no clue what is asked of us. To all the woman, Yes I have respect for them in any other job field, just not the military.

Airborne, All the Way

Posted: 7 Apr 00: "To The Senior ROTC Female in the 25 Jan 00 Post"

Lisa, as hard as you may be pushing yourself in this "club", it is so far from SF and Ranger units of the Army that it should not be mention in the same paragraph. I routinely carry a rucksack that weighs more than you. Even you think your experience is proof that women can "hang" you are sadly mistaken. I'm just worried that someone who can compare these things will someday "out rank" me. Thank God, and the last bit of common sense the Army has, that I serve in a SF battalion and do not have to worry about carrying you along with my ruck, as I most certainly would if you were given the "opportunity" to further your career at the expense of military readiness.

Posted: 3 Mar 00:

First I think that the word 'combat' should be given a specific definition in the context of this forum. As a former Military Police officer every bar fight I had to help break up was a form of 'combat'. While assigned to Physical Security duty on a NATO site in Germany a terrorist attack would be considered 'combat'. I may be wrong but I don't think any attacking terrorist group would honestly consider me calling 'time out' to bullets flying just because women are not 'allowed' in combat. My fellow female MP's agreed. The MP's aren't infantry but we called ourselves baby grunts for a reason. Even as a female I had to learn ambush tactics, mine clearing tactics, assault repelling tactics, this list does go on but you get the general idea. Our unit motto was Ready for War. War would have been with the Russians and East Germans. Somehow I don't think 'time out' would have worked with those factions either. The enemy purpose was and still is to kill the main army force and take over territory. I don't know about you, but if someone is lobbing bullets downrange at me, I'm shooting back. It's

not a male or female thing. It is a survival thing.

Those who say women don't belong in combat are only half right. No one belongs in combat, but as long as politicians wage war soldiers will die. Ordinance does not discriminate. After 10 years of Army service both active and Reserve, including time in the desert during the Persian Gulf I have learned that soldiers are individuals. I have known women who were good soldiers and bad. I have known men I wanted to sell to the enemy because I was determined not to let them get me killed. I have known some outstanding male soldiers as well. One of my former NCO's used to say combat happens, learn to deal with it. I would have to agree.

Posted: 25 Feb 00:

I have read numerous articles about women in combat. Each individual commenting on how they feel and what makes them qualified to make such a decision. I have my qualifications too. I am a veteran and am still

serving in the Air Force. I feel that there should be an elite force only for women. Try using us in counter- intelligence against those forces that presumably are so elite. I'm sure we would find out just how elite they are. Even though counter-intelligence was ruled out in the Nixon Administration, I still feel it would be beneficial.

It doesn't take much to drive a HumVee with a satellite on it. Hand held listening devices don't weigh much. Humm.

There are other ways to destroy an enemy other than face to face. Women can and do work smart.

If I had the capabilities to be a SEAL, you bet I would. I don't want to be considered an equal because I am not. Women are women and men are men. We must work together for the good of the whole. If I choose not to have children and become a warrior. That is my choice. But I must be able to handle each situation with equal ability of my counterpart no questions asked.

Posted: 25 Feb 00: "Men on Subs Don't Want Women Aboard"

Men on subs don't want women aboard: Poll

HALIFAX (CP) - Most of the sailors on Canada's submarines - the last male-only bastion in the Armed Forces - don't want women working beside them, says a newly released poll. And among the reasons is that their spouses will be unhappy with any arrangement that puts males and females in close quarters, says the

survey, obtained under the Access to Information Act. The poll was ordered last year to help the military grapple with the question of whether to allow women to work in the confined spaces of Canada's new Upholder submarines. The first of four Victoria-class subs, purchased from Britain, is to arrive by the fall, replacing Canada's older Oberon submarines. Two-thirds of the 256 submariners who were asked whether women should serve in submarines said they disagreed. Only about 22 per cent agreed, while the rest said they were neutral.

Even among male sailors who have never served on submarines, there was strong opposition to females on the Upholders. Almost half of 316 polled said they were opposed. Only female navy members expressed support for the idea: of 237 polled, almost half agreed with putting women on subs while a third were opposed.

The survey also specifically asked whether there would be problems with mixed male-female accommodations, as might be necessary on the cramped Upholders, if the navy showed strong leadership and implemented guidelines. The numbers for each group hardly budged. All those opposed to mixed accommodations were asked why. The top reasons cited were privacy, spouses' discomfort, potential for harassment or charges of harassment, general discomfort, unhygienic conditions, temptation for sexual relations, morale or cohesion problems, and the physical limitations of women. The June 1999 report, by Maj. Jane Adams-Roy, concludes that a co-ed sub policy will be tough to sell to male members of the navy. ''The majority of submariners . . . are not in favour of mixed-gender crews and a greater number are opposed to the idea of mixed accommodation

spaces than support the concept.'' The written survey was sent to 1,248 navy members and 826 replied anonymously. Not all forms were filled out completely.

There are about 350 qualified submariners in the Canadian navy. The new Upholders will be initially crewed entirely by existing submarine staff but new trainees will be added a year or two after arrival, five for each vessel. The study argues that if the navy opens submarine service to women, crews should be given training in ''gender awareness and change management.''

The navy should also ensure there is a ''critical mass'' of women assigned to each submarine for mutual support, though the level is not specified. Adams-Roy also concluded that ''many of the concerns expressed, especially those revolving around personal hygiene, are easily solved and minimal education would be required.''

Maj. Lynn Bradley, who has completed a study on mixed crewing of the Upholders, said the negative attitudes were not unexpected. ''A lot of the issues surrounding women in submarines, a lot of the things I hear, are the very same things that we heard in 1985, 1986, 1987 before we put women in ships,'' she said in an interview Tuesday. ''And I suspect if we'd taken an opinion poll at that stage of the game, and had been bound by it in some way, then we wouldn't have women in ships today.'' Bradley said the navy has not yet made a decision on whether to have mixed crews for submarines. Only Australia and Norway currently permit women on their subs.

On Jan. 20, the Canadian navy dropped a policy of designating only certain ships as mixed-gender vessels. Rules have been relaxed to ensure women can be posted to any surface vessels. The Canadian Forces have been under the gun since a 1989 ruling by a human rights tribunal to increase the number of women in the ranks.

Currently, only about 11 per cent of the Forces are female though the percentages are much smaller in some occupations such as combat arms.

Tony Prudori

Radio Thunder Bay News

Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada

phone 807/345-1322

fax 807/345-2583

e-mail Tprudori@radiotb.com

Posted: 25 Jan 00: "Saving Lives Should be the Priority"

Before the subject of combat should be broached let us look at the issue of Women in the Military in general. If you compare training in the military now to 15 years ago you will see a huge difference. Training now is like summer camp as long as you do a little bit of running before boot camp. I have been around the military for the past 25 years and I can see the difference. If women want to be in the military by all means allow them, but do not risk the lives of those who are in or enlisting by changing physical and training requirements to help these women pass boot camp. I find it ludicrous that people are willing to risk the lives of thousands of well trained fighters for the benefit of feminists whose opinions are clouded by the word 'equality'. These feminists do not see the harshness of combat or the importance of a strong military for the national security of our nation. The Royal Marines in the United Kingdom allow women to join, however, there is not one female Royal Marine, that is because they allow them, but none have passed the training requirements. This is the idea we should be following. I am a female in the military and I certainly don't wish to endanger the lives of my fellow Marines by going into combat. I feel degraded by the fact that we are not required to perform the same physical requirements as men. Combat is for the males or at least for those females who have more testosterone than the 'normal' female has. By all means feminists fight for equality in the military but don't ask the military to change for you, you change for your military. Do not risk more lives than necessary and do not risk the national

security of our nation, because you feel you are not receiving equal treatment. If you want equality then perform the same duties as the men do and at the same level as men do, that is equality. These issues will not be realized until the next major war and the cameras are filming females coming home in body bags by the hundreds. By that time it will be too late.

Posted: 25 Jan 00

I am currently in Senior ROTC and involved with a program called Desert Rangers. This program, albeit not exactly SF, does not discriminate by basis of gender. I am a 4' 9" 95lb. female and although I have to work twice as hard just to keep up, I, AM doing it, and I am having fun. I'll agree women generally aren't as physically strong as males, but that CAN be overcome by improvisation and dedication. I realize that I will more than likely never get a change to go to Ranger school, but I would truly like to see it as an option for my daughter should she decide to pursue a career in the military. I would gladly fight along side any male in a foxhole to defend my country and the freedoms it affords it's citizens. -- Lisa Rangers Lead the Way HOOAH.

5 Jan 00:

I am a 15 year old female and I am a sophomore in high school. I have a great desire to join the army. One of the many reasons i choose to do so is because I would like to fight for my country. My decision whether or not to join depends on whether or not I will be allowed to do what all the other soldiers do. I would like to drive a tank and be able to use a semi-automatic in combat. As it stands right now, it doesn't really seem to

hopeful.

I strongly believe that women should be allowed to fight for their country too. Women are American citizens too and they hold the same rights and freedoms as any man. That is why I think that they should be allowed to

fight for the rights that they were born into. Our forbearers went to great lengths to ensure that we would all have freedom and be treated as equals. Therefore, I think it unjust that women have to sit back and watch their

fathers, brothers, uncles and husbands fight for something that they own too.

As American citizens, women have come a long way. Not allowing them to fight and show that they appreciate the fact that they have come so far is robbing them of what they have worked so hard to achieve, and that is

equality. The theme of America is equality and opportunity. Therefore, allow women to be equal and give them the opportunity to show that they love their country, of which they would fight until the death for.

It should not be a matter of gender, but a matter of will and desire. Men and women who choose to dedicate a part of their lives to a military service show much will and unending desire. It is highly unfortunate that women have to go unfulfilled when it comes to the actual accomplishment of it all. Yes there are some dangers such as rape and sexual harassment, but if you are strong enough, you will make it through, unharmed and unaffected.

Those should be the reasons why women join a military service. Not just to show the rest of America that women contain the ability (although that could be an ulterior motive) but to show them that women also have a desire to do what is right and that is to fight for what they love.

Send in your comments to be posted for this opinion
Participate and give your comments on these opinion's. Select Here