Heidi Graw wrote:
> >"Mark Sobolewski" 
wrote in message
> >news:mark_sobolewski-CEB246.16170717012005{at}news.central.cox.net...
> (snip)
>
> >Mark S. wrote:
> > I appreciate your remarks and they sound sensible but the way
> > you phrase them, equal opportunity through different ways and means
> > sounds meaningless.
>
> "Capitalizing on each individual's strengths and talents."  I came
across a
> website that summarizes just what women in assorted armies around the
world
> were and are capable of.
>
> http://www.gendergap.com/military/Warriors-2.htm
>


I read thru this site. I am not sure what their point really was. I
mean, there have always been a few women who ended up on the firing
line, for one reason or another.
To me, the important questions concern the policy of the
governments that put them there. (Women sneaking in by themselves are
basically accidents). In other words, WHY did the women get put there
by their governments? In the biggest example, the USSR in WW 2, the
policy was to throw everything at the Germans. They used old people of
both sexes from nearby villages to walk out onto German minefields to
clear them. - in order to save the lives of soldiers - because
otherwise they sent regular soldiers. There was no thought of sparing
womens lives, there was little concern for how many died. Hardly
anything was invested in the training or equipment of any individual
soldier and none of them were expected to survive very long. There were
no "standards" to lower and everyone understood that. The Russians lost
80% of their forces each year of the war until 1945.
Fast forward to the present day. There is little tolerance for
heavy losses. Each soldier in combat is, idealy, trained and equipped
to maximise harm inflicted upon the bad guys at minimum risk to
themselves. But the point is to win and so that will always mean
breaking down doors and seizing ground. Infantry fighting is nowadays
putting ever greater strength/indurance requirements on the individual
sodier because there are so many more things now deemed essential -
body armor, communication gear with batteries, chemical protection gear
and as much ammunition as possible. Only the top few percentile
of young men is really suitable for this job if the goal is to have 100
to 1 kill ratios with the enemy.
So what sort of policy would correlate with putting significant
numbers of young women in that role? The number that could meet the
current physical standards is basically zero. So why do it? This is not
a silly question because if the answer is simply to show men that women
can be soldiers too- so there - your army has admitted to its troops
that winning the battle does not matter - this whole thing is just a
sociology experiment or a project meant to humilate guys but certainly
nothing for him to risk his life over. So then you do not have an army
that will fight, except to frag its officers.
Being a warrior, in some way or the other, is a deep rooted impulse
in many young men. If there is a cause that seems important enough,
lots of them will actually beg to get into the thick of fighting for
the sake of their own self respect. But the moment an army gives the
impression that the feelings of women are more important than winning
the battle or even their own lives it is all over.
A combat soldier is basically a heavily armed teenager. Getting him
to fight just the people you want him to fight has always been a
struggle.



> Let those who can and want to, DO!  ;-)
>
> Heidi


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/17/05 10:05:03 PM ---