Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbfsb!cbnewsc!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: bxr307@csc1.anu.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Combat MOS for Women ?
Message-ID: <1991Jun21.015101.15785@cbnews.cb.att.com>
Date: 21 Jun 91 01:51:01 GMT
References: <1991Jun20.021602.2623@cbnews.cb.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.cb.att.com (william.a.thacker)
Organization: Computer Services, Australian National University
Lines: 53
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: bxr307@csc1.anu.edu.au
In article <1991Jun20.021602.2623@cbnews.cb.att.com>, pierce@bcstec.boeing.com (Greg Pierce) writes:
> 
> When I went through Jump School women were not required
> to meet the same physical standards as there male counterparts.
> Given the recent political push for Women to be able to fill
> combat MOS's, it causes me to consider if we are not compromising
> standards set for the military vs. equal rights, thus causing
> needless loss of life on the battlefield.  I know that some
> years ago the IDF abandon the policy of women in combat.
> What was this based on, and what other military force has
> pursued this doctrine?

	Two years ago the Danish Defence Forces undertook a trial whereby
women were allowed to volunteer for all branches of their services.  The
intention in the Army was to provide one mechanised infantry company of mixed
sex and train them to the required standard.  It was found after the trial
period of six months that the women did not appreciably perform any worse
than the men, and in some cases better (endurance was one aspect apparently
where the women were able to out perform the men).  They did though, discover
that there was a much higher drop out rate of women compared to men during
the trials as those women were not able to withstand the physical demands of
the role fell away.  Those that were left though, were highly praised by
their commanding officer apparently for being hard working and just as
proficient as the men as "infantrypersons".  As a consequence all positions are
now open to women within their army.

	There is absolutly no reason why a female cannot fulfil the same role
as males within the military.  If we look back through history, there are
numerous examples of female serving alongside men in irregular forces and being
just as efficient as soldiers/guerrillas as their counterparts.   However,
just as there are men who are not suited by temperament and physical form
to the role of being a soldier, there are women.  If females are to be allowed
the right to serve in combat roles they should have the same (or nearly the
same) rigious standards applied to them as should be applied to males.  If
some females fail, just as do males, then thats simply a case of the system
weeding out those who are unsuitable for the role.  However they should not be
denied the chance to try for that job simply because of their sex.  Equality
is about equality of choice and that choice is about having the chance to not
only succeed but to fail as well.


-- 
Brian Ross

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
	"If we got it so wrong in the Middle East yesterday, what makes
you think we are going to get it right this time?"

	Arthur Schlesinger
--------------------------------------------------------------------------