Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!ora!daemoN From: nadel@aerospace.aero.org (Miriam H. Nadel) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: women in combat Keywords: women in war Message-ID: <64741@aerospace.AERO.ORG> Date: 11 Jan 90 16:50:45 GMT References: <64700@aerospace.AERO.ORG> Sender: ambar@ora.ora.com Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA Lines: 59 Approved: ambar@ora.com In article <64700@aerospace.AERO.ORG> twinsun!PacBell.COM!rsp (Steve Price) writes: >I've noted with interest several articles in the press about female >soldiers in the U. S. invasion of Panama of 1989. It seems that a >number of U. S. women soldiers got to kill people in combat there and >that this was quite exciting and thrilling to them. Their comments >in the press seems to evidence a certain exuberant satisfaction at >being able to behave just as the male soldiers did. My interpretation of the excitement they felt wasn't that they were thrilled at killing people in combat but that they were thrilled not to be hampered in doing their jobs. That is, the ability to perform exactly as the male soldiers were was the point of it. All of the articles I read quoted things like "I just went and did my job and nobody cared that I'm a woman" type things. >I admit that I'm being a bit sarcastic in saying that it was the killing >that excited them -- but I think that that is at least a part of the >thrill of combat. In any case, I'd be interested in what Feminist >reactions there are to the prospect of full combat participation by >women military personnel. This seems to be a potentially explosive issue >for people who'd like to see women allowed to experience the full range >of choices as citizens, but who also have reservations about the use >of deadly force as an instrument of policy. I don't see a real conflict. If one has reservations about the use of deadly force as an instrument of policy, how does it matter whether it's only men or both men and women using that deadly force. I can't really imagine people who oppose draft registration working *for* draft registration for women, but I can't see that it would make much sense for them not to fight draft registration until it affects women, for example. At any rate, it seems to me that the prospect of full combat participation by women military personnel is a good thing. Women who do choose to go into the military are often hampered in their careers by the current restrictions, since one is less likely to get promoted beyond captain (and very unlikely to go higher than major) without some combat experience. >Personally, I think there may be a little bit of sexism in the assumption >that men can kill and be killed as combatants, but that this is unseemly >to allow in the case of women. I don't think "unseemliness" has anything to do with this but, rather, historical precedent. Remember that preservation of the species requires more women than men (at times when the human population is depleted) simply because of the long gestational period for humans. In that context, it made sense to preserve the lives of women. It no longer makes sense because the nature of warfare has changed and civilians aren't safe the way they were when war meant two armies lined up, faced each other, and shot or bayonetted each other. Remember, too, that "non-combat" positions don't mean one isn't going to be in a combat area (nor do combat positions mean one will be in a combat area, for that matter. There are a handful of women in the Air Force who do have combat crew status - they're missile operators). Miriam Nadel -- Not dating one of the 66% of American men who believe in love at first sight. nadel@aerospace.aero.org