I've heard good points from both sides. I think. though, the safety of those on the front lines is compromised when some are female.

(Eve w/2 sons in Army)

Egalitarians are often accused of saying or believing that there is no difference in 'roles' of the two genders, and that therefore there is no difference between the male and the female gender.

I think that what many people fail to realize that although our gifts, abilities, and roles are influenced by gender, they are ultimately not determined by it. To assign to an entire group of people a role based on the gifts and abilities of majority of that group is ridiculous and discriminatory.

To illustrate, I could say that on the average, guys are not doing as well in the 1st year statistics course as girls (which is actually true at our university)....should we then prevent guys from taking stats altogether??? obviously they are not as good as the chicks at statistics, maybe God created them for a different purpose??? :-)

(Oneko Ariel)

Oneko makes an excellent point. When I was in the Army, at 5' 11", 175 lbs. I was just as strong as most of the men and stronger then many of them. That I should have been excluded from being a military policewoman is repugnant to me. On the other hand, there are people who will never be big or strong enough to do some of the jobs that need to be done in the armed forces. Our criteria needs to be which person is capable, not which person is plumbed right.

(Maggie, the Old Soldier)

after much thought and observation. A team is only as strong as its weakest link. No soldier's safety should be compromised because of the lower physical fitness standards for women. But if a woman can do the job, is there ever a reason to exclude her from certain venues of combat? Women are more likely to be...well, you know...when taken captive, and Army buddies can be deeply committed to defending one another. So is the team's safety more compromised by being coed? I just don't know.

(Eve)

I'll say what I feel Eve meant - women are more likely to be sexually molested when captured. That is a great fear I have about women being in combat.

(Joan)

If I am going to hold to the position that it is the "gifts" or abilities and not the gender that should determine who can hold a given position or perform a given function, then I cannot in fairness say that women cannot be in the military because of their gender. I also cannot say that women have the right to exempt themselves from military service because of their gender.

Take, for example, a slightly different arena of work. At the beginning, all the astronauts were men. "Only men were suited for this job." NASA did eventually run trials on women, but they stopped them when it became apparent that the women were performing as well as or better than men.

The tasks currently performed by people in the military vary widely. I, personally, could probably not perform many of the tasks performed by military personnel. My eyesight is not good enough to fly a plane, I don't have the strength to carry the large weapons. However, this does not mean there is no woman who could fly a fighter jet or carry anti-aircraft weaponry. Many men can also not do these things.

I think that war is abhorrent and evil. At the same time, I recognize that with the privileges of being a full citizen come certain responsibilities and that I cannot in fairness hide behind my gender to shirk those responsibilities. So far, this society has not required women to take on the responsibilities of fighting in war, but if it did I could not claim "I am just a woman (who votes and pays taxes like a man), I shouldn't be made to do this".

([email protected])

I recently (within the year) read an article in Reader's Digest about women in the military. The writer, who was a woman, concluded that there are some positions in which men's greater physical strength is a definite asset. She seems to believe some positions should be keep all male because of it.

(Joan)

Joan said:

>>I recently (within the year) read an article in Reader's Digest about women in the military. The writer, who was a woman, concluded that there are some positions in which men's greater physical strength is a definite asset. She seems to believe some positions should be keep all male because of it.>>

I work for the Air Force, civil service. I develop the technical training used to train new airman in their career field. I agree, there are some career fields, that due to strength, women can not perform well. However, it should be noted, that the physical requirements also prevent many men from entering that particular career field as well. As long as the decision is based on ability, or some sound reason I have no problem with the decision.

(Cathy)