Women in Combat - Food for Thought

[Anonymous]

The following was obtained from the Current News Early Bird at http://ebird.dtic.mil/Jan1999/s19990121women.htm.

Something to think about for those of you who think that women should be allowed into combat.

Please note, the article is written by a woman.

Semper Fi,

Submariner

Reader’s Digest February 1999 Pg. 138

Should Women Go Into Combat?

A soldier brings her perspective to the ongoing debate

By Catherine L. Aspy

Inside my boots my feet had turned to hamburger. My uniform, even my belt, was soaking with sweat, and my back and shoulders were numb from the 40 pounds of gear in my rucksack. The climax of Army basic training at Fort Jackson, S.C., a 12-mile march, was almost over.

Determined to keep up, I forced my exhausted muscles to move. But few of the other women in the company remained with me near the front. Many were straggling, and some rode the truck that followed to retrieve discarded rucksacks. The men, meanwhile, were swinging along, calling cadence. They seemed to relish the whole thing.

That march confirmed something which had struck me often during the previous eight weeks: with rare exceptions, the women in my unit could not physically compete with the men. Many were unable to lift heavy weights, scale barriers or pull themselves along a rope suspended above a safety net. Mixed running groups had inevitably sorted themselves out by sex; in final tests on two-mile runs, the average woman took 18 minutes, the average man about 14. It was apparent that too many of the men weren’t challenged enough by the training regimen.

There were certainly good soldiers among the women in my company; later on, during regular duty at a military-intelligence installation, I saw women of all the service branches perform as well as or better than men in a variety of capacities. Nevertheless, the huge physical performance gap, so obvious in basic training, forced me to consider the implications of placing women in ground combat units.

Today the nearly 200,000 women in the nation’s armed forces (14 percent of all active-duty personnel) serve as everything from Air Force fighter pilots to military police officers to captains of Navy ships. But the direct combat arms of the Army and Marines—including infantry, armor and field artillery—are closed to them.

Should women be allowed into these units as well? Many believe they should. After all, we Americans resent being barred from anything; it’s part of our instinct for freedom. Former Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D., Colo.) declared, "Combat-exclusion laws have outlived their usefulness and are now nothing more than institutionalized discrimination."

It’s not an issue I thought about much when I enlisted. I’m sure if I had been asked at the time whether women should be allowed in combat, I would have at least said, "maybe."

Now I say "no." Everything I observed during my hitch in the Army, and later, as I studied the issue and talked to others inside and outside the military, has convinced me this would be a mistake.

Combat is not primarily about brains, or patriotism, or dedication to duty. There is no question women soldiers have those in abundance. Combat is about war-fighting capacity and the morale of the unit. Here physical strength can be a life-and-death issue. And that is why the physical disparities between men and women cannot be ignored.

Unequal Load. For years, Sgt. Kelly Logan [Not her real name] believed that women should be allowed into combat units, that "it didn’t matter if you were a man or a woman—there is one standard, we all meet it, bond, and drive on with the mission." Then came her 1997 tour of duty with peacekeeping forces in Bosnia. "I had a complete change in attitude," she says. "When we had to do things like digging and reinforcing bunkers, the guys ended up doing most of the physical work. The women tended to move themselves to the sidelines." Logan watched resentment build until it undermined the unit’s morale.

She also observed that many women were "so unprepared for heavy-duty soldiering that they would have endangered the unit in a crisis." Patrolling in Bosnia required soldiers to remain on high alert and in full battle gear, including flak vests and ammo. Says Logan: "The equipment prevented many of the women from moving as quickly as men, let alone being combat-effective."

While some women may be up to the rigors of combat, she says, "they are the rare exception. And for some individuals, it was only a matter of time before the platonic bonds progressed to sex, and then all kinds of disruptions ensued."

Logan has reluctantly concluded that "women cannot bond with men in a unit the same way men do." But she cannot say so openly, and insisted that her real name not be used. "It can definitely hurt your career to speak your mind publicly about these things."

The expectation in military units has always been that you pull your own load. But an Apache helicopter pilot told me that his female crew chief simply refused to carry her tools, which weighed 60 to 80 pounds.

"The Army is supposed to be about not showing favoritism," says Desert Storm veteran Sam Ryskind, who was a mechanic in the famed 82nd Airborne Division. "But the females I trained with were de facto exempted from any heavy-lifting jobs."

Whether it was changing truck tires, loading cargo, or even moving heavy cooking pots into position on the chow line, Ryskind says men "always pulled the hard work. Pretty soon this made it an us-and-them situation."

While these experiences do not reflect actual combat conditions, they point to the kinds of intractable problems that would arise if women were in combat units.

In 1994 an Army rule barring women from hundreds of "combat support" positions was eliminated. Meanwhile the Army tried to institute tests to match a soldier’s physical strength to a specific "military occupational specialty," or MOS. Then it was discovered that the tests would have disqualified most Army women from 65 percent of the more than 200 MOSs. The tests were scrapped.

The Strength Factor. To deal with the male-female performance gap, the Army has increased emphasis on "teamwork." No one is against teamwork—that’s the essence of the military. But in some cases it has become a euphemism for defining down military tasks, as when three or four soldiers are needed to carry an injured comrade instead of two.

"From a combat standpoint this is just ludicrous," notes William Gregor, a veteran of combat in Vietnam who is now associate professor of social sciences at the Army’s School of Advanced Military Studies in Fort Leavenworth, Kan. "You may not have extra people around. And battle wears you down. A unit where one person can’t pull his or her weight becomes a weaker unit."

I’m five feet, six inches tall, and I arrived at basic training weighing 135 pounds. I was taller than many women in my unit. But the average female soldier is 4.7 inches shorter and 33.9 pounds lighter than her male counterpart. She has 37.8 pounds less lean body mass. This is critical because greater lean body mass is closely related to physical strength.

A U.S. Navy study of dynamic upper-torso strength in 38 men and women found that the women possessed about half the lifting power of the men. In another Navy study, the top seven percent of 239 women scored in the same range as the bottom seven percent of men in upper-body strength.

Even though I had been athletic in high school and had been toughened by two months’ training, that final 12-mile march was a killer. One reason: cardiorespiratory capacity—the rate at which the heart, lungs and blood vessels deliver oxygen to working muscles. Trainers know that this capacity is key to sustained physical performance. And numerous studies have revealed differences by sex. "In general," summarized the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, "women have a smaller heart mass, heart volume and cardiac output than men."

Some who want women in combat units acknowledge these differences, but claim they’re based on stereotyping and can be minimized by extra training. It isn’t that simple.

In a 1997 Army study, for example, 46 women were given a specially designed 24-week physical-training program to see if they could improve their ability to do "very heavy" lifting. During the training, the number of women who qualified for these jobs increased from 24 percent to 78 percent. Still, on average they were unable to match the lifting performance of men who did not undergo the program.

But what about those few women who might qualify for combat units? Gregor, who has done extensive research on male-female physical performance, questions how realistic it is to train 100 women for combat on the chance of finding a handful who will meet—or in exceptional cases exceed—the minimum requirements.

Tougher Standards? The interchangeability of every soldier in a combat emergency is an enduring principle of an army’s effectiveness as a fighting force. It assumes that each has received the same training and can perform to the same basic standard. That’s still true for men who sign up to go directly into the Army’s combat arms. They train "the old way," in a harsh, demanding environment.

It’s no longer true elsewhere. Under mixed-gender basic training instituted in 1994, men and women are held to different standards. The regimen became less challenging, to hide the difference in physical performance between men and women (although the Army denies this).

Eventually, the softness of basic training became an object of such widespread public ridicule that "tougher" rules were drawn up. Even with these new standards, scheduled to take effect this month, women can score as well as men who are being tested against a tougher standard. In the 17-to-21 age group, for example, to get a minimum score of 50 points, a male recruit must do 35 push-ups, a female, 13. If women were allowed into combat units and these double standards were made universal, the result would be to put physically weaker forces into the field.

An Army publicity release defended these "tougher" standards on the ground that they "promote gender equity" and "level the playing field."

I don’t know about the "playing" field. But somehow I think the field of actual combat will not be very level.

Catherine L. Aspy graduated from Harvard in 1992 and served two years in the Army. She is now in the Individual Ready Reserve. Aspy was assisted in the reporting of this article by the Reader’s Digest Washington Bureau.

Submustang@aol.com

[Anonymous]

: The following was obtained from the Current News Early Bird at
: http://ebird.dtic.mil/Jan1999/s19990121women.htm.
:
: Something to think about for those of you who think that women should be
: allowed into combat.
:
: Please note, the article is written by a woman.
:
: Semper Fi,
:
: Submariner
:
: Reader’s Digest February 1999 Pg. 138
:
: Should Women Go Into Combat?
:
: A soldier brings her perspective to the ongoing debate
:
: By Catherine L. Aspy
:
: Inside my boots my feet had turned to hamburger. My uniform, even my belt,
: was soaking with sweat, and my back and shoulders were numb from the 40
: pounds of gear in my rucksack. The climax of Army basic training at Fort
: Jackson, S.C., a 12-mile march, was almost over.
:
: Determined to keep up, I forced my exhausted muscles to move. But few of the
: other women in the company remained with me near the front. Many were
: straggling, and some rode the truck that followed to retrieve discarded
: rucksacks. The men, meanwhile, were swinging along, calling cadence. They
: seemed to relish the whole thing.
:
: That march confirmed something which had struck me often during the previous
: eight weeks: with rare exceptions, the women in my unit could not
: physically compete with the men. Many were unable to lift heavy weights,
: scale barriers or pull themselves along a rope suspended above a safety
: net. Mixed running groups had inevitably sorted themselves out by sex; in
: final tests on two-mile runs, the average woman took 18 minutes, the
: average man about 14. It was apparent that too many of the men weren’t
: challenged enough by the training regimen.
:
: There were certainly good soldiers among the women in my company; later on,
: during regular duty at a military-intelligence installation, I saw women
: of all the service branches perform as well as or better than men in a
: variety of capacities. Nevertheless, the huge physical performance gap, so
: obvious in basic training, forced me to consider the implications of
: placing women in ground combat units.
:
: Today the nearly 200,000 women in the nation’s armed forces (14 percent of
: all active-duty personnel) serve as everything from Air Force fighter
: pilots to military police officers to captains of Navy ships. But the
: direct combat arms of the Army and Marines—including infantry, armor and
: field artillery—are closed to them.
:
: Should women be allowed into these units as well? Many believe they should.
: After all, we Americans resent being barred from anything; it’s part of
: our instinct for freedom. Former Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D., Colo.)
: declared, "Combat-exclusion laws have outlived their usefulness and
: are now nothing more than institutionalized discrimination."
:
: It’s not an issue I thought about much when I enlisted. I’m sure if I had
: been asked at the time whether women should be allowed in combat, I would
: have at least said, "maybe."
:
: Now I say "no." Everything I observed during my hitch in the Army,
: and later, as I studied the issue and talked to others inside and outside
: the military, has convinced me this would be a mistake.
:
: Combat is not primarily about brains, or patriotism, or dedication to duty.
: There is no question women soldiers have those in abundance. Combat is
: about war-fighting capacity and the morale of the unit. Here physical
: strength can be a life-and-death issue. And that is why the physical
: disparities between men and women cannot be ignored.
:
: Unequal Load. For years, Sgt. Kelly Logan [Not her real name] believed that
: women should be allowed into combat units, that "it didn’t matter if
: you were a man or a woman—there is one standard, we all meet it, bond, and
: drive on with the mission." Then came her 1997 tour of duty with
: peacekeeping forces in Bosnia. "I had a complete change in
: attitude," she says. "When we had to do things like digging and
: reinforcing bunkers, the guys ended up doing most of the physical work.
: The women tended to move themselves to the sidelines." Logan watched
: resentment build until it undermined the unit’s morale.
:
: She also observed that many women were "so unprepared for heavy-duty
: soldiering that they would have endangered the unit in a crisis."
: Patrolling in Bosnia required soldiers to remain on high alert and in full
: battle gear, including flak vests and ammo. Says Logan: "The
: equipment prevented many of the women from moving as quickly as men, let
: alone being combat-effective."
:
: While some women may be up to the rigors of combat, she says, "they are
: the rare exception. And for some individuals, it was only a matter of time
: before the platonic bonds progressed to sex, and then all kinds of
: disruptions ensued."
:
: Logan has reluctantly concluded that "women cannot bond with men in a
: unit the same way men do." But she cannot say so openly, and insisted
: that her real name not be used. "It can definitely hurt your career
: to speak your mind publicly about these things."
:
: The expectation in military units has always been that you pull your own
: load. But an Apache helicopter pilot told me that his female crew chief
: simply refused to carry her tools, which weighed 60 to 80 pounds.
:
: "The Army is supposed to be about not showing favoritism," says
: Desert Storm veteran Sam Ryskind, who was a mechanic in the famed 82nd
: Airborne Division. "But the females I trained with were de facto
: exempted from any heavy-lifting jobs."
:
: Whether it was changing truck tires, loading cargo, or even moving heavy
: cooking pots into position on the chow line, Ryskind says men "always
: pulled the hard work. Pretty soon this made it an us-and-them
: situation."
:
: While these experiences do not reflect actual combat conditions, they point
: to the kinds of intractable problems that would arise if women were in
: combat units.
:
: In 1994 an Army rule barring women from hundreds of "combat
: support" positions was eliminated. Meanwhile the Army tried to
: institute tests to match a soldier’s physical strength to a specific
: "military occupational specialty," or MOS. Then it was
: discovered that the tests would have disqualified most Army women from 65
: percent of the more than 200 MOSs. The tests were scrapped.
:
: The Strength Factor. To deal with the male-female performance gap, the Army
: has increased emphasis on "teamwork." No one is against
: teamwork—that’s the essence of the military. But in some cases it has
: become a euphemism for defining down military tasks, as when three or four
: soldiers are needed to carry an injured comrade instead of two.
:
: "From a combat standpoint this is just ludicrous," notes William
: Gregor, a veteran of combat in Vietnam who is now associate professor of
: social sciences at the Army’s School of Advanced Military Studies in Fort
: Leavenworth, Kan. "You may not have extra people around. And battle
: wears you down. A unit where one person can’t pull his or her weight
: becomes a weaker unit."
:
: I’m five feet, six inches tall, and I arrived at basic training weighing 135
: pounds. I was taller than many women in my unit. But the average female
: soldier is 4.7 inches shorter and 33.9 pounds lighter than her male
: counterpart. She has 37.8 pounds less lean body mass. This is critical
: because greater lean body mass is closely related to physical strength.
:
: A U.S. Navy study of dynamic upper-torso strength in 38 men and women found
: that the women possessed about half the lifting power of the men. In
: another Navy study, the top seven percent of 239 women scored in the same
: range as the bottom seven percent of men in upper-body strength.
:
: Even though I had been athletic in high school and had been toughened by two
: months’ training, that final 12-mile march was a killer. One reason:
: cardiorespiratory capacity—the rate at which the heart, lungs and blood
: vessels deliver oxygen to working muscles. Trainers know that this
: capacity is key to sustained physical performance. And numerous studies
: have revealed differences by sex. "In general," summarized the
: 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed
: Forces, "women have a smaller heart mass, heart volume and cardiac
: output than men."
:
: Some who want women in combat units acknowledge these differences, but claim
: they’re based on stereotyping and can be minimized by extra training. It
: isn’t that simple.
:
: In a 1997 Army study, for example, 46 women were given a specially designed
: 24-week physical-training program to see if they could improve their
: ability to do "very heavy" lifting. During the training, the
: number of women who qualified for these jobs increased from 24 percent to
: 78 percent. Still, on average they were unable to match the lifting
: performance of men who did not undergo the program.
:
: But what about those few women who might qualify for combat units? Gregor,
: who has done extensive research on male-female physical performance,
: questions how realistic it is to train 100 women for combat on the chance
: of finding a handful who will meet—or in exceptional cases exceed—the
: minimum requirements.
:
: Tougher Standards? The interchangeability of every soldier in a combat
: emergency is an enduring principle of an army’s effectiveness as a
: fighting force. It assumes that each has received the same training and
: can perform to the same basic standard. That’s still true for men who sign
: up to go directly into the Army’s combat arms. They train "the old
: way," in a harsh, demanding environment.
:
: It’s no longer true elsewhere. Under mixed-gender basic training instituted
: in 1994, men and women are held to different standards. The regimen became
: less challenging, to hide the difference in physical performance between
: men and women (although the Army denies this).
:
: Eventually, the softness of basic training became an object of such
: widespread public ridicule that "tougher" rules were drawn up.
: Even with these new standards, scheduled to take effect this month, women
: can score as well as men who are being tested against a tougher standard.
: In the 17-to-21 age group, for example, to get a minimum score of 50
: points, a male recruit must do 35 push-ups, a female, 13. If women were
: allowed into combat units and these double standards were made universal,
: the result would be to put physically weaker forces into the field.
:
: An Army publicity release defended these "tougher" standards on the
: ground that they "promote gender equity" and "level the
: playing field."
:
: I don’t know about the "playing" field. But somehow I think the
: field of actual combat will not be very level.
:
: Catherine L. Aspy graduated from Harvard in 1992 and served two years in the
: Army. She is now in the Individual Ready Reserve. Aspy was assisted in the
: reporting of this article by the Reader’s Digest Washington Bureau.


eph6_10@hotmail.com

[Anonymous]

Very good. However, here is something not taken into concideration. In America we spend thousands of dollars to keep death row inmates alive, while they appeal time after time after time. We do this because 1% are not guilty of the crime they were convicted of. Of that 1% only half are actually innocent the other half, not of that crime but of others just as grievious. If we are so ready to spend money to keep someone alive just a few years more only to finally exhaust their chances., then why not spend the money to train woman for combat conditions. Granted only about 5% are up to the challenge, but I like those odds better than the 1% of inmates on death row. One other point: the training is not wasted nor is the money spent. Most may not be able on the long haul but the good majority would come pretty close and these would be good as a back up or at least qualify for other fields. No not all woman are cut out to serve in combat units, and no not all men are cut out to servein combat units. but the men are at least given a shot at trying. If they don't they're put where they can best serve. Why not women?

eph6_10@hotmail.com

[Anonymous]

: Very good. However, here is something not taken into concideration. In
: America we spend thousands of dollars to keep death row inmates alive,
: while they appeal time after time after time. We do this because 1% are
: not guilty of the crime they were convicted of. Of that 1% only half are
: actually innocent the other half, not of that crime but of others just as
: grievious. If we are so ready to spend money to keep someone alive just a
: few years more only to finally exhaust their chances., then why not spend
: the money to train woman for combat conditions. Granted only about 5% are
: up to the challenge, but I like those odds better than the 1% of inmates
: on death row. One other point: the training is not wasted nor is the money
: spent. Most may not be able on the long haul but the good majority would
: come pretty close and these would be good as a back up or at least qualify
: for other fields. No not all woman are cut out to serve in combat units,
: and no not all men are cut out to servein combat units. but the men are at
: least given a shot at trying. If they don't they're put where they can
: best serve. Why not women?


eph6_10@hotmail.com

[Anonymous]

Well, hello again Submariner!

Did you see the Dec 7, 1998 issue of Navy Times? Did you see the editorial about our Armed Services not meeting recruitment goals? Some points from it:

In fiscal year 1998 it costs the Army $11,187 in recruiting costs and advertising for EACH RECRUIT. It cost the Navy $7,271 per recruit, the Air Force $4,161, and the Marines $5,590. The Army has just announced they’ll pay $3,000 to each recruit who signs up. As the editor quips, “That’s for a private, not a pilot!” The Navy couldn’t fill 6,892 of its billets last year. Congressman John P. Murtha (Pennsylvania Rep, ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations National Security Subcommittee) points out that the price we’re paying for an “all volunteer force” is simply too high, and we’re still not meeting goals. He’s suggesting we need to start using the Selective Draft.

So what's my point?

I hear the argument. Too few women are physically strong enough. It's not worth it to sort through & get the ones who can do it.

I disagree with you. And I disagree with Ms Aspy and her massive 2 years of military service. There's all the reason in the world to find QUALIFIED VOLUNTEERS, before going for NON-VOLUNTEERS. And based on the advertising costs for new recruits and the fact that over half our population is women, I think, quite frankly, that any attempt to exclude any qualified person without giving them a fair shot is just plain dumb.

Why are you so obsessed over women in the military, if you don't mind me asking? After a year of posting here, I would have thought the interest would have worn off. At first I thought you were just interested, or maybe trying to get a feel for where the women you work with are coming from. But that doesn't really make sense, as you're not working with any women if you're in a submarine. Further, it seems more that your posts tend to point out why women don't belong. What's the deal?

FW & FS, Tracy (Yes, I changed my handle.)

Women in the Military

tracy_liz@geocities.com

[Anonymous]

I have some facts too about differences between men and women. These are statistics from the web page: www.pliktverket.se/statistik/statistik.htm The page belong to the authority that are testing potential conscripts in Sweden. They test everything, from medical health, fitness to intelligens, of the men and women that are considered for conscription. The tests tell what positions that will be open for you. To weak, no Infantry.

The results are graded from 1 to 9, 9 is the highest score.

This the average test results 1996 (they do not change much over the years):

Intelligens: Men:5.0 Women:5.5 Mental health: Men:5.0 Women:6.1 Leadership ability: Men:5.0 Women:6.2 Muscle strength: Men:4.7 Women:2.0 Cardiorespiratory capacity: Men:6.1 Women:5.4

You can all draw your own conclusions, but if we shall generalize as much as many other at this board does, we can say that women are smarter, and better as commanders while men are stronger. The conclusion would be to put women as tank commanders and the men as tankloaders...

Since these statistics started, comparing male and female results (men and women do exactly the same tests, and use the same scale. A woman with 4 in strengh lifts the same weight as a man with 4 in strength.) women has constantly produced better results in intelligens, mentalhealth and leadership ability.

Further more the average female runner at my regiment runs 2 miles below 14 min simply because 14 min is the limit for both men and women. There are about 25-30 females at the regiment.

Women will only lower physical standards if you let them. Don't do that, instead use them to increase intelligens and enhance leadership.

milwoman_sweden@hotmail.com

[Anonymous]

Greetings CWO2 Wells!

Congratulations on the promotion! My apologies for the delay in my response, but my busy schedule does not allow me the luxury of making frequent posts on bulletin boards. Now that we have dispensed with the pleasantries, shall we begin? En guarde! :-)

>Did you see the Dec 7, 1998 issue of Navy Times? Did you see the editorial


:about our Armed Services not meeting recruitment goals? Some points from it:


>In fiscal year 1998 it costs the Army $11,187 in recruiting costs and advertising
:for EACH RECRUIT. It cost the Navy $7,271 per recruit, the Air Force $4,161,
:and the Marines $5,590. The Army has just announced they’ll pay $3,000 to each
:recruit who signs up. As the editor quips, "That’s for a private, not a pilot!" The
:Navy couldn’t fill 6,892 of its billets last year. Congressman John P. Murtha
:(Pennsylvania Rep, ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations National
:Security Subcommittee) points out that the price we’re paying for an "all volunteer
:force" is simply too high, and we’re still not meeting goals. He’s suggesting we
:need to start using the Selective Draft.

Agreed. This is a serious problem. Interestingly enough, the USMC is the only service that does not appear to have a problem meeting their recruiting goals. They have met or exceeded their recruiting goals for 43 straight months (see 18 FEB 99 Washington Times article by Rowan Scarborough, or check out http://ebird.dtic.mil/Feb1999/e19990218marines.htm). Indeed, they appear to have better retention numbers than the rest of the services as well. This would also be the only service which trains men and women recruits separately. Of course, that is only a correlation, and I am sure that you and I will take opposing views with respect to causation! :-)

>So what's my point?

>I hear the argument. Too few women are physically strong enough. It's not worth it
:to sort through & get the ones who can do it.

Actually, there's more to it than that, but I will address this issue later.

>I disagree with you. And I disagree with Ms Aspy and her massive 2 years of
:military service.

Curious. What is the point that you are trying to make here? Does the fact that Ms Aspy has only 2 years of military service make her less qualified to debate this issue? What of the points she makes? I doubt that it would make much difference to you that a friend of mine, who happens to be a female USMC captain who served on the ground during Desert Storm, also feels that women do not belong in combat.

Since my entry into boot camp in 1982 I have often come across this attitude regarding amount of service, much to my disappointment. It seems that there are many "old salts" out there that, when unable to defend their position, will fall back to the "get some time on the pond" attitude. The idea being that since the first person doesn't have as much time in service, at sea, at test depth, on a spec op, etc as the second person, the first person's position is therefore completely without merit. I believed that such an attitude was poor leadership then and I continue to believe that it is poor leadership today. Don't get me wrong, experience is very important, but it is not the end-all and be-all. The captain of the Titanic was very experienced and he still got a lot of people killed. Experience must be tempered with reason and facts.

>There's all the reason in the world to find QUALIFIED VOLUNTEERS,
:before going for NON-VOLUNTEERS.

Agreed. No debate on this point.

>And based on the advertising costs for new recruits and the fact that over
:half our population is women, I think, quite frankly, that any attempt to
:exclude any qualified person without giving them a fair shot is just plain
:dumb.

Our society has a given number of rapists, murders, illicit drug dealers, illicit drug users, etc. Should we seek to include them too, assuming that they are "qualified," since they represent a de facto percentage of our population (indeed, illicit drug users comprise a large segment of our society's population)? Of course, this is an extreme example, but I believe the point is made: just because a certain group comprises a percentage of our population, that does not mean that they should automatically be allowed to serve in the military (or, in this case, in combat). If the standards were equal for men and women (which they are not), there would be a considerable cost to either find the small number of women who would meet (physical) standards or to train them up to (physical) standards so that they could be at par with the weakest males. Neither option is an efficient use of our limited resources. Of course standards could be simply lowered across the board, which would help those who would not otherwise meet these standards to feel better about themselves. Unfortunately, this would also dull our combat effectiveness. Having said that, I do not believe that the current USN PRT is a valid measure of physical fitness or an adequate gage for determining whether someone can pull his or her weight in the fight to save a ship and its crew. The real issue is how we define "qualified" and whether that definition varies based on one's sex.

>Why are you so obsessed over women in the military, if you don't mind me
:asking? After a year of posting here, I would have thought the interest would
:have worn off.

I wasn't aware that making 4 or 5 posts here about 10 months ago and then posting one article this January qualified as an obsession. I must have missed that in my psychology classes in college.

Let me be clear, I am not against women in the military. I am against the double standards currently employed to accommodate political correctness. I am for putting ships to sea and troops ashore that will accomplish the mission with a minimal loss of life to our people. I believe that our current policies on the "women in combat" issue will get people killed that otherwise would not have died when a shooting war starts. Would it be considered an obsession to want to minimize waste fraud and abuse, drug abuse, accidental groundings, accidental deaths, etc in the military? I think not.

>At first I thought you were just interested, or maybe trying to get a feel
:for where the women you work with are coming from. But that doesn't really
:make sense, as you're not working with any women if you're in a submarine.
:Further, it seems more that your posts tend to point out why women don't belong.

Is the implication here that since my warfare specialty is submarine warfare, then I must not have much experience working with women and therefore am not qualified to address the issue of "women in combat?" I hope not. One does not need to be an elephant trainer to know that one does not want an elephant in one's house. Similarly, one does not need to understand the physics behind the operation of a thermonuclear warhead to know that the detonation of one could ruin your whole day. I do have the experience and understanding of what it takes to put a ship to sea and keep it safe. I understand what is required to fight a ship, including what is necessary to survive battle damage. Given this knowledge, I can apply it to the factual data which is available about the abilities and unique characteristics of women, and then make an informed decision about whether it is a good idea for women to be onboard combatant ships. Incidentally, I have been attached to submarines for only 3-1/2 years of my Naval career.

>What's the deal?

The deal is this: I believe that there are three reasons that women do not belong in combat or on combatant ships. These are: pregnancy, strength and endurance, and the deleterious effects on unit cohesion which sexual relations have in a command structure. I will briefly focus on the first two, as there is not enough time (or space, I imagine) to adequately explore all of the aspects of the third.

The former commanding officer of the USS L.Y. Spear (AS-36) reported in the June 1997 issue of the Naval Institute Proceedings various statistics regarding unplanned losses for his mixed-gender crew. Interestingly, the point he was trying to make was in support of women being onboard combatant ships (or the article was written very tongue in cheek). The data he provided did not support his argument very well. For the submarine tender's crew of 1,053 males and 389 females, the unplanned loss rates for the preceding year were 7% and 8% for males and females, respectively, not including pregnancies. When losses as a result of pregnancy were factored in, the female loss rate increased to 24%. The information available to me indicates that this statistic is not atypical. Rather, it appears to more common than the Navy would like to publicly admit. Given the fact that the Navy is not meeting it's recruiting goals, this is a significant problem.

There are those who would make comparisons between pregnancy and sports- related injuries. However, there are fundamental differences between pregnancy and sports-related injuries. Pregnancy is a voluntary condition. A pregnant sailor will not receive a negative performance evaluation regarding her pregnant condition, regardless of the circumstances of that pregnancy or its effect on the ship. In contrast, any sailor who willingly injures him or herself is guilty of malingering and can be punished under the UCMJ. Each pregnant sailor is nondeployable for the duration of her pregnancy. In addition, each pregnant sailor is permitted six weeks of convalescent leave after the delivery of the child. Few sports-related injuries would render a sailor nondeployable for such a length of time.

Every time a pregnant sailor's ship goes to sea, her billet on board is gapped (unless a temporary trade can be negotiated with another ship). A replacement cannot be requested until she transfers from the ship, which is usually before the 20th week of pregnancy or when the ship deploys, whichever comes first (IAW OPNAVINST 6000.1A). As I am sure that you are aware, when a sailor becomes an unplanned loss, there is a finite period of time (often several months, and this is exacerbated when there are shortages in personnel) between that loss and the arrival of a replacement. Even if a replacement arrives immediately, an additional period of time is needed to qualify that sailor to stand watch. Depending on the watch situation, this too can take months. In the meantime, the rest of the crew must pick up the slack caused by the unplanned loss. High unplanned loss rates are detrimental both to crew morale and unit readiness.

Another aspect of pregnancy is it's effect on the morale of those men who must deploy, leaving behind a pregnant wife, while there are women assigned to the same ship who won't make the deployment due to their own pregnancies. Is it really fair to deny a sailor a shore assignment while his wife is pregnant, when we do this very thing for the women onboard ships who get pregnant before a deployment? Not exactly "equal pay for equal work", is it?

Now for strength and endurance. The report by the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (which included Elaine Donnelly, a former DACOWITS member who is strongly opposed to exposing women to combat) cited a study that compared the relative physical abilities of enlisted men and women. The study found that of the two-person teams attempting to carry a simulated victim in a Stokes stretcher, only 12% of the female teams (compared with 100% of the male teams) were able to complete the task successfully. Isn't it interesting that the standard is now 4 person teams? What if there is battle damage and you can't physically fit four people into an area to evacuate an injured person? Only 1% of the female teams (compared with 96% of the males) were able to transport successfully a P-250 pump to the scene of a simulated casualty. Further, women only have 46% to 58% of the upper torso strength and 73% of the aerobic capacity of men. These are just some of the examples form the great body of evidence which shows that there are significant strength and endurance differences between men and women. If the differences between men and women don't matter, then why don't we have co-ed professional football teams? When equipment is broken, fires are raging, and your ship is flooding, strength and endurance DO matter.

The current peacetime environment has allowed us the luxury of redefining and subdividing tasks to minimize gender differences in strength-related task performance. While the relatively benign environment of daily shipboard operations may result in "no job on a ship today that cannot be done because of lack of strength or stamina," the outcome would be drastically different were a ship to experience battle damage.

The tragedy aboard the USS Stark (FFG-31) serves as a grim reminder that physical strength and endurance do matter, especially when trying to save a stricken ship and crew in a hostile, smoke-filled, environment. A case in point is that of Petty Officer Michael O'Keefe, who singlehandedly saved many sailors by pulling them out of a burning and flooding compartment and then spent the next 36 hours fighting the fires that resulted from the two Exocet missiles striking the ship. While I am confident of my ability (and the ability of most of my male counterparts) to pull any female (and most male) sailor(s) out of a compartment in a casualty scenario, I do not believe that the majority of female sailors would be able to reciprocate. How many more sailor's lives would have been lost on the USS Stark if Petty Officer O'Keefe and others like him did not have the strength and endurance to get the job done?

These are serious issues. Unfortunately, they are currently be ignored or glossed over by leadership. I fear that it will take one or more Stark-like tragedies on mixed-gender combatants before people wake up and look at the facts, rather than pretending that everything is OK and that warships can operate just like corporate America.

Our job is to defend the nation. We do this by killing people and breaking things (or showing to potential enemies that we have the capability and resolve to do so) when ordered to. These are the cold facts. The military is not about social experimentation or trying to prove that we are all the same. We are not. Some differences (such as race) do not and should not matter. However, when the objective is to kill the other "guy" before he can kill you (or invade your homeland) the differences in strength and endurance, the effects of pregnancy on morale and readiness, and the effects of sex within the ranks on unit cohesion do matter. The battlefield is not an equal opportunity provider. The weaker and less prepared die.

Well, time to move on to other things. Take care and best wishes to your and your family. It will probably be some time before I post here again (please, no alligator tears! ;-) ), as I am very busy (and wouldn't want to appear obsessive).

Semper Fi,

Submariner

Submustang@aol.com

[Anonymous]

Forgive me for so over stepping the bounds of a mere Army cadet but as my training is almost solely that of FM7-8 Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad tactics (that of the famed light infantry) I feel the need to put in my proverbial two cents. I am sure that all looking at the computer screen are probably smirking, but like the man said "The idea being that since the first person doesn't


: have as much time in service, at sea, at test depth, on a spec op, etc as
: the second person, the first person's position is therefore completely
: without merit." And I know this not to be true. First let me give you some facts : I run two miles in fifteen minutes, in two minutes I do 42 pushups, and I do 85 sit ups in the same time period - in short I max my PT test for my age and sex in the Army. If I were a male I would still pass and technically be eligible for a comission as an Infantry officer. The fact remains that I don't want that commission. However I submit to you that I and my sex are not the problem - rather it is the males who are the problem. It is they who can not handle a female amoungst them.


Let's forget about the officers for a second. Let us look at the lowly Infantry PFC. He is what? About 18 -19. Last I heard this prime specimen of the species was at his sexual peak...correct me please if that is not so, however I know it to be so because I myself am only 21 years old and am not that far removed from interacting with these walking hormones. Now let us remove these individuals from the Army setting and put them on the street with a rather decently attractive female around the same age - thier brains go to mush and they regress to about the age of 12. Switch the scenario and a rather decent male might get a glance from the female set of the test subjects.

Where am I going with this? I want to address first this pregnancy issue. First off anyone in the same unit should not be dating, that is bad for morale. But I really think it is more the males that have a problem forgetting that thier coworker is female then the reverse of the situation. However let us say that two young armed services volunteers do get involved and the female gets preganant aboard ship, out in the field, wherever - you said: Pregnancy is a voluntary condition. And I am in whole hearted argreement - therefore if a male sailor or soldier did not want a female to leave due to pregnancy should he have been sleeping with her in the first place or making the voluntary decision not to use birth control? You seem to place the blame soley on the female for becoming preganant, however according to the wonderful gym teacher that taught my health class last I heard it took two to tango. The key word in "birth control" is "control." And control starts with knowing what appropriate behavior is and what isn't. That is up to the Armed Services to teach and execute. The fact that a male can not handle a female in his unit is not her problem but it is rather his. You seem to cast blame before you will accept any.

As for the strength issue. In the Army's Cadet Command it uses light infantry tactics to evaluate its cadets. As a matter of fact I just returned from a four night FTX where I slept out in the woods and carried around a 60 pound rucksack filled with everything I could possibly need for the weekend. I acted as a cader PSG and Squad leader at different points during the training. I took out two bunkers each containing two M60's, I toted around an M16 for all five days and it never left my side - it even shared my sleeping bag at night. It snowed and rained all weekend. In the pooring rain I lead a vehicular deliberate ambush, then moved out for a three mile road march during a platoon attack of an abandoned air field. I ate, slept, went to the bathroom, brushed my teeth, and changed my tampon all in the field. And I had a great time. Light Infantry is the most stressful job in the Army...that's why it uses it to evaulate its leaders. And at no point during the weekend did a male have to carry anything for me or assist me in any way. Does that mean I have what it takes to be an infantry officer - no not at all. I actually want to be an MP. But that does not mean that not all women should be barred from serving thier country that way. I submit to you that there are women out there that could make many infantry guys look like babies. They should have thier chance. As for the combat arms...as it stands now in the Army FA, ADA, and Aviation are all open to females and they are combat arms. Just this past year females were given clearance to fly the Apache helicoptor and enter the ranks of field artillerymen. It is being chipped away, and most men would tell you that now it is no longer the myth that females can't do it that holds them back but rather the fact that males can't handle the fact that they can do it that keeps them from Infantry and Armor slots. I would like you to look inside yourself. How much experience have you had with combat training? What standard are you operating on? What era is your view of females from? Do you underestimate the young people of today?

I will not go so far as to say that I am right and you are wrong. I don't think this question has any definative answer. I don't think that even if you let females into the last three combat arms (infantry, armor, SF) that the issue would be prooven either way. Those females would come under such bitter attack and unwelcome feelings that the experiemtn would be skewed towards failure from the beginning - and it would be the males chauvenists that would hold the blame. However I believe you should rethink your arguement and realize that you are dismissing a whole half of the population without even giving them a fair chance.

- PS - I can fireman carry a 180 pound male for at least the ten meters it would take to get him to a CCP
:
: Congratulations on the promotion! My apologies for the delay in my response,
: but my busy schedule does not allow me the luxury of making frequent posts
: on bulletin boards. Now that we have dispensed with the pleasantries,
: shall we begin? En guarde! :-)
:
: Agreed. This is a serious problem. Interestingly enough, the USMC is the only
: service that does not appear to have a problem meeting their recruiting
: goals. They have met or exceeded their recruiting goals for 43 straight
: months (see 18 FEB 99 Washington Times article by Rowan Scarborough, or
: check out http://ebird.dtic.mil/Feb1999/e19990218marines.htm). Indeed,
: they appear to have better retention numbers than the rest of the services
: as well. This would also be the only service which trains men and women
: recruits separately. Of course, that is only a correlation, and I am sure
: that you and I will take opposing views with respect to causation! :-)
:
: Actually, there's more to it than that, but I will address this issue later.
:
: Curious. What is the point that you are trying to make here? Does the fact
: that Ms Aspy has only 2 years of military service make her less qualified
: to debate this issue? What of the points she makes? I doubt that it would
: make much difference to you that a friend of mine, who happens to be a
: female USMC captain who served on the ground during Desert Storm, also
: feels that women do not belong in combat.
:
: Since my entry into boot camp in 1982 I have often come across this attitude
: regarding amount of service, much to my disappointment. It seems that
: there are many "old salts" out there that, when unable to defend
: their position, will fall back to the "get some time on the
: pond" attitude. The idea being that since the first person doesn't
: have as much time in service, at sea, at test depth, on a spec op, etc as
: the second person, the first person's position is therefore completely
: without merit. I believed that such an attitude was poor leadership then
: and I continue to believe that it is poor leadership today. Don't get me
: wrong, experience is very important, but it is not the end-all and be-all.
: The captain of the Titanic was very experienced and he still got a lot of
: people killed. Experience must be tempered with reason and facts.
:
: Agreed. No debate on this point.
:
: Our society has a given number of rapists, murders, illicit drug dealers,
: illicit drug users, etc. Should we seek to include them too, assuming that
: they are "qualified," since they represent a de facto percentage
: of our population (indeed, illicit drug users comprise a large segment of
: our society's population)? Of course, this is an extreme example, but I
: believe the point is made: just because a certain group comprises a
: percentage of our population, that does not mean that they should
: automatically be allowed to serve in the military (or, in this case, in
: combat). If the standards were equal for men and women (which they are
: not), there would be a considerable cost to either find the small number
: of women who would meet (physical) standards or to train them up to
: (physical) standards so that they could be at par with the weakest males.
: Neither option is an efficient use of our limited resources. Of course
: standards could be simply lowered across the board, which would help those
: who would not otherwise meet these standards to feel better about
: themselves. Unfortunately, this would also dull our combat effectiveness.
: Having said that, I do not believe that the current USN PRT is a valid
: measure of physical fitness or an adequate gage for determining whether
: someone can pull his or her weight in the fight to save a ship and its
: crew. The real issue is how we define "qualified" and whether
: that definition varies based on one's sex.
:
: I wasn't aware that making 4 or 5 posts here about 10 months ago and then
: posting one article this January qualified as an obsession. I must have
: missed that in my psychology classes in college.
:
: Let me be clear, I am not against women in the military. I am against the
: double standards currently employed to accommodate political correctness.
: I am for putting ships to sea and troops ashore that will accomplish the
: mission with a minimal loss of life to our people. I believe that our
: current policies on the "women in combat" issue will get people
: killed that otherwise would not have died when a shooting war starts.
: Would it be considered an obsession to want to minimize waste fraud and
: abuse, drug abuse, accidental groundings, accidental deaths, etc in the
: military? I think not.
:
: Is the implication here that since my warfare specialty is submarine warfare,
: then I must not have much experience working with women and therefore am
: not qualified to address the issue of "women in combat?" I hope
: not. One does not need to be an elephant trainer to know that one does not
: want an elephant in one's house. Similarly, one does not need to
: understand the physics behind the operation of a thermonuclear warhead to
: know that the detonation of one could ruin your whole day. I do have the
: experience and understanding of what it takes to put a ship to sea and
: keep it safe. I understand what is required to fight a ship, including
: what is necessary to survive battle damage. Given this knowledge, I can
: apply it to the factual data which is available about the abilities and
: unique characteristics of women, and then make an informed decision about
: whether it is a good idea for women to be onboard combatant ships.
: Incidentally, I have been attached to submarines for only 3-1/2 years of
: my Naval career.
:
: The deal is this: I believe that there are three reasons that women do not
: belong in combat or on combatant ships. These are: pregnancy, strength and
: endurance, and the deleterious effects on unit cohesion which sexual
: relations have in a command structure. I will briefly focus on the first
: two, as there is not enough time (or space, I imagine) to adequately
: explore all of the aspects of the third.
:
: The former commanding officer of the USS L.Y. Spear (AS-36) reported in the
: June 1997 issue of the Naval Institute Proceedings various statistics
: regarding unplanned losses for his mixed-gender crew. Interestingly, the
: point he was trying to make was in support of women being onboard
: combatant ships (or the article was written very tongue in cheek). The
: data he provided did not support his argument very well. For the submarine
: tender's crew of 1,053 males and 389 females, the unplanned loss rates for
: the preceding year were 7% and 8% for males and females, respectively, not
: including pregnancies. When losses as a result of pregnancy were factored
: in, the female loss rate increased to 24%. The information available to me
: indicates that this statistic is not atypical. Rather, it appears to more
: common than the Navy would like to publicly admit. Given the fact that the
: Navy is not meeting it's recruiting goals, this is a significant problem.
:
: There are those who would make comparisons between pregnancy and sports-
: related injuries. However, there are fundamental differences between
: pregnancy and sports-related injuries. Pregnancy is a voluntary condition.
: A pregnant sailor will not receive a negative performance evaluation
: regarding her pregnant condition, regardless of the circumstances of that
: pregnancy or its effect on the ship. In contrast, any sailor who willingly
: injures him or herself is guilty of malingering and can be punished under
: the UCMJ. Each pregnant sailor is nondeployable for the duration of her
: pregnancy. In addition, each pregnant sailor is permitted six weeks of
: convalescent leave after the delivery of the child. Few sports-related
: injuries would render a sailor nondeployable for such a length of time.
:
: Every time a pregnant sailor's ship goes to sea, her billet on board is
: gapped (unless a temporary trade can be negotiated with another ship). A
: replacement cannot be requested until she transfers from the ship, which
: is usually before the 20th week of pregnancy or when the ship deploys,
: whichever comes first (IAW OPNAVINST 6000.1A). As I am sure that you are
: aware, when a sailor becomes an unplanned loss, there is a finite period
: of time (often several months, and this is exacerbated when there are
: shortages in personnel) between that loss and the arrival of a
: replacement. Even if a replacement arrives immediately, an additional
: period of time is needed to qualify that sailor to stand watch. Depending
: on the watch situation, this too can take months. In the meantime, the
: rest of the crew must pick up the slack caused by the unplanned loss. High
: unplanned loss rates are detrimental both to crew morale and unit
: readiness.
:
: Another aspect of pregnancy is it's effect on the morale of those men who
: must deploy, leaving behind a pregnant wife, while there are women
: assigned to the same ship who won't make the deployment due to their own
: pregnancies. Is it really fair to deny a sailor a shore assignment while
: his wife is pregnant, when we do this very thing for the women onboard
: ships who get pregnant before a deployment? Not exactly "equal pay
: for equal work", is it?
:
: Now for strength and endurance. The report by the 1992 Presidential
: Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (which included
: Elaine Donnelly, a former DACOWITS member who is strongly opposed to
: exposing women to combat) cited a study that compared the relative
: physical abilities of enlisted men and women. The study found that of the
: two-person teams attempting to carry a simulated victim in a Stokes
: stretcher, only 12% of the female teams (compared with 100% of the male
: teams) were able to complete the task successfully. Isn't it interesting
: that the standard is now 4 person teams? What if there is battle damage
: and you can't physically fit four people into an area to evacuate an
: injured person? Only 1% of the female teams (compared with 96% of the
: males) were able to transport successfully a P-250 pump to the scene of a
: simulated casualty. Further, women only have 46% to 58% of the upper torso
: strength and 73% of the aerobic capacity of men. These are just some of
: the examples form the great body of evidence which shows that there are
: significant strength and endurance differences between men and women. If
: the differences between men and women don't matter, then why don't we have
: co-ed professional football teams? When equipment is broken, fires are
: raging, and your ship is flooding, strength and endurance DO matter.
:
: The current peacetime environment has allowed us the luxury of redefining and
: subdividing tasks to minimize gender differences in strength-related task
: performance. While the relatively benign environment of daily shipboard
: operations may result in "no job on a ship today that cannot be done
: because of lack of strength or stamina," the outcome would be
: drastically different were a ship to experience battle damage.
:
: The tragedy aboard the USS Stark (FFG-31) serves as a grim reminder that
: physical strength and endurance do matter, especially when trying to save
: a stricken ship and crew in a hostile, smoke-filled, environment. A case
: in point is that of Petty Officer Michael O'Keefe, who singlehandedly
: saved many sailors by pulling them out of a burning and flooding
: compartment and then spent the next 36 hours fighting the fires that
: resulted from the two Exocet missiles striking the ship. While I am
: confident of my ability (and the ability of most of my male counterparts)
: to pull any female (and most male) sailor(s) out of a compartment in a
: casualty scenario, I do not believe that the majority of female sailors
: would be able to reciprocate. How many more sailor's lives would have been
: lost on the USS Stark if Petty Officer O'Keefe and others like him did not
: have the strength and endurance to get the job done?
:
: These are serious issues. Unfortunately, they are currently be ignored or
: glossed over by leadership. I fear that it will take one or more
: Stark-like tragedies on mixed-gender combatants before people wake up and
: look at the facts, rather than pretending that everything is OK and that
: warships can operate just like corporate America.
:
: Our job is to defend the nation. We do this by killing people and breaking
: things (or showing to potential enemies that we have the capability and
: resolve to do so) when ordered to. These are the cold facts. The military
: is not about social experimentation or trying to prove that we are all the
: same. We are not. Some differences (such as race) do not and should not
: matter. However, when the objective is to kill the other "guy"
: before he can kill you (or invade your homeland) the differences in
: strength and endurance, the effects of pregnancy on morale and readiness,
: and the effects of sex within the ranks on unit cohesion do matter. The
: battlefield is not an equal opportunity provider. The weaker and less
: prepared die.
:
: Well, time to move on to other things. Take care and best wishes to your and
: your family. It will probably be some time before I post here again
: (please, no alligator tears! ;-) ), as I am very busy (and wouldn't want
: to appear obsessive).
:
: Semper Fi,
:
: Submariner

[Anonymous]

(Well, at least it's not QUICHE!)

=)

Well, Hello again, oh Mighty Denezin of the Deep!!

No problem on the delay. I have been quite tied up myself, so thanks for your patience! I’m pissed off at myself for letting your hideous post sit so long un-addressed. =) ! So here we go:

You: “ This would also be the only service which trains men and women recruits separately. Of course, that is only a correlation, and I am sure that you and I will take opposing views with respect to causation! :-) “

Me: Righto, we sure do! That’s a whole ‘nuther topic, though, & I’ll get into that one another time.

You: “Curious. What is the point that you are trying to make here? Does the fact that Ms Aspy has only 2 years of military service make her less qualified to debate this issue? What of the points she makes? I doubt that it would make much difference to you that a friend of mine, who happens to be a female USMC captain who served on the ground during Desert Storm, also feels that women do not belong in combat. Since my entry into boot camp in 1982 I have often come across this attitude regarding amount of service, much to my disappointment. It seems that there are many "old salts" out there that, when unable to defend their position, will fall back to the "get some time on the pond" attitude. The idea being that since the first person doesn't have as much time in service, at sea, at test depth, on a spec op, etc as the second person, the first person's position is therefore completely without merit. I believed that such an attitude was poor leadership then and I continue to believe that it is poor leadership today. Don't get me wrong, experience is very important, but it is not the end-all and be-all. The captain of the Titanic was very experienced and he still got a lot of people killed. Experience must be tempered with reason and facts. “

Me: Ooooo! Low blow! I am wounded! Withdraw thy cutlass! Yes, yes, I completely agree with your points. You miss my point, though. I don’t begrudge Ms Asby her opinion merely because of her lack of military experience. What I find fault with is that she attempts to speak from experience when in fact she has very little. Yes, experience must be tempered with reason and facts. It must also be tempered with fresh, new, innovative ideas. That’s not the point here, though. This woman is holding her 2 years of service like a framed credential to prove that women… women like me… women more experienced than me… women who have served throughout time with distinction… women who have struggled to prove themselves while defending their country for 10, 20, 30 years…don’t belong. Frankly, I find that insulting and offensive. She can hardly be regarded as an “expert” in this topic, as she tries to portray.

You: “Our society has a given number of rapists, murders, illicit drug dealers, illicit drug users, etc. Should we seek to include them too, assuming that they are "qualified," since they represent a de facto percentage of our population (indeed, illicit drug users comprise a large segment of our society's population)? Of course, this is an extreme example, but I believe the point is made: just because a certain group comprises a percentage of our population, that does not mean that they should automatically be allowed to serve in the military (or, in this case, in combat). “

Me: Yes, it is an extreme example, and although I understand your point I think it misses the mark. We disagree on the definition of qualifications. My idea of qualifications excludes rapists, murderers, illicit drug dealers, illicit drug users, so they’re not even up for consideration. My idea of qualifications includes a set of physical and mental standards that must be met for each job. Felons are a completely different animal, and you know it. They don’t even make it through the first rung of screening to be evaluated for physical and mental standards. Or are you implying that women, like felons, should not even be considered, regardless of their physical or mental skills? I never said, by the way, that women should automatically be allowed to serve in the military or in combat. I am saying they should be given the same opportunity. If a man or a woman doesn’t cut it for an occupation, I don’t think they should be allowed to serve in it. If they DO cut it, they SHOULD. If not, we are foolishly excluding a large percentage of QUALIFIED candidates.

You: “If the standards were equal for men and women (which they are not),”

Me: Yes they are. There are a few services where they are not, but that is changing, thank god.

You: “ there would be a considerable cost to either find the small number of women who would meet (physical) standards or to train them up to (physical) standards so that they could be at par with the weakest males. Neither option is an efficient use of our limited resources. “

Me: You know that’s not true. Nobody said anything about “finding” women who would meet certain physical standards. If they knock on the door, let them in. Same with the guys. Recruiting both men and women who are qualified doesn’t cost anything extra. And as far as the training…. Nobody said anything about special treatment or training, either. If a woman can cut the same mark, take her. If she can’t, don’t. You’re making this more complicated than it needs to be, I think.

You: “Of course standards could be simply lowered across the board, which would help those who would not otherwise meet these standards to feel better about themselves. Unfortunately, this would also dull our combat effectiveness. “

Me: We agree on that one.

You: “Having said that, I do not believe that the current USN PRT is a valid measure of physical fitness or an adequate gage for determining whether someone can pull his or her weight in the fight to save a ship and its crew. “

Me: Of course it’s not. I agree it’s not a valid measure of physical fitness, although I’m relieved that you understand that’s what it’s supposed to be and not a measure of strength or a qualification for a job. Lots of people think it’s a “standard of strength”, and that men and women have different standards. Few people understand it’s actually a benchmark against averages, (women, men, age) to determine if the AVERAGE person in that group is in shape and take care of themselves. Lots of people don’t understand the purpose of the program, which is one of several reasons I think it could use a major overhaul. As far as determining whether someone can pull his or her weight… it was never intended to do that. I don’t know where you came up with that.

You: “The real issue is how we define "qualified" and whether that definition varies based on one's sex. “

Me: I don’t see your issue here. Qualifications are pretty much spelled out, and they don’t vary based on sex, nor should they. How is this an issue?

Me: “>Why are you so obsessed over women in the military, if you don't mind me


:asking? After a year of posting here, I would have thought the interest would
:have worn off. “


You: “I wasn't aware that making 4 or 5 posts here about 10 months ago and then posting one article this January qualified as an obsession. I must have missed that in my psychology classes in college. “

Me: You're right, I'm sorry. I guess that really was uncalled for. I don’t post here often either, and it seems by coincidence that everytime I did, you did too. I’ll work on my SA. ; )

You: “Let me be clear, I am not against women in the military. I am against the double standards currently employed to accommodate political correctness. I am for putting ships to sea and troops ashore that will accomplish the mission with a minimal loss of life to our people.”

Me: I don’t know what double standards you’re rallying against, but I agree with your basic objective of success in battle, of course.

You: “I believe that our current policies on the "women in combat" issue will get people killed that otherwise would not have died when a shooting war starts.“

Me: Why do you think that?

You: Is the implication here that since my warfare specialty is submarine warfare, then I must not have much experience working with women and therefore am not qualified to address the issue of "women in combat?" I hope not.

Me: Yes, I think that’s the implication. Of course you can use things you've read to help support your position... you'll find something to support any side you choose. And certainly you're entitled to your opinion. But without any first hand knowledge, how can you take so strong a position? How can you speak against serving with women if you’ve never done it? What are you basing your opinion on? Ms Asby? What someone told you? Have you been aboard one of our state-of-the-art new destroyers and observed what’s really happening? I will be surprised if you say yes, because contrary to your fears, I’ve encountered some professional, competent crews who are more than up to the tasks at hand. What are you basing your misgivings on? I simply don’t understand why you are taking so strong a stand. It seems contrary to the characteristics I observe in your writing... you seem very level-headed and to have an open, receptive mind. (NO, I'm NOT insulting you. I'm saying it doesn't seem consistent to what I see in you, which makes it hard for me to understand.)

You: “One does not need to be an elephant trainer to know that one does not want an elephant in one's house. Similarly, one does not need to understand the physics behind the operation of a thermonuclear warhead to know that the detonation of one could ruin your whole day.”

Me: Come on, now. I’m not an elephant or a nuclear warhead, unless you REALLY piss me off. Don’t you think that’s just a touch of paranoia there?

You: “ I do have the experience and understanding of what it takes to put a ship to sea and keep it safe. I understand what is required to fight a ship, including what is necessary to survive battle damage. Given this knowledge, I can apply it to the factual data which is available about the abilities and unique characteristics of women, and then make an informed decision about whether it is a good idea for women to be onboard combatant ships. Incidentally, I have been attached to submarines for only 3-1/2 years of my Naval career.”

Me: I’m glad you know these things about ships, and I’m not surprised. You’re a very sharp guy. That’s part of the reason I’m REALLY confused as to the perceived problem. And interesting that you claim subs after only 3 ½ years! (wink!)

You: “The deal is this: I believe that there are three reasons that women do not belong in combat or on combatant ships. These are: pregnancy, strength and endurance, and the deleterious effects on unit cohesion which sexual relations have in a command structure. I will briefly focus on the first two, as there is not enough time (or space, I imagine) to adequately explore all of the aspects of the third. “

Me: The rest of your post is very well written, and I will go now to research your data before responding. (Not to say the rest wasn’t well written… it was, but it really didn’t have any meat in it.) I’ll post the rest soon, as I want to leave your very good points very well addressed. I am running out of time, here, but I WILL be back! =) (God, I hate you for making me spend so much time with these answers!)

Best to you and yours, Tracy

tracy_liz@geocities.com