Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!lll-winken!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!tridom!atssc!fang!att!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: psg@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Women in combat MOS's Message-ID: <1991Jun27.021812.5323@cbnews.cb.att.com> Date: 27 Jun 91 02:18:12 GMT References: <1991Jun25.025044.28238@cbnews.cb.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.cb.att.com (william.a.thacker) Organization: University of Pittsburgh Lines: 26 Approved: military@att.att.com From: "Paul S Galvanek" Judging from the responses I got in my mail box it is obvious I didn't make my point clear with my last posting. So I'll try again... I believe the military uses a different criteria for judging "physical competence" than the "she can run faster than most men climb better than most men etc.." The question the military is more concerned with is will soldier x that we've spent years and many dollars training be physically able AND available when called upon to preform their duties in a real combat situations. Women's reproductive differences pose to great a variable for military planners when it comes to the availability part, a problem that no man presents them. We know for certain no percentage of men will need to be excused from duty due to severe PMS or pregnancy while the later can be chosen at any given time by the woman or by accident. Being that this simply a matter of nature it seem perfectly legitimate for the military to avoid this potential problem by excluding the source. Since this subject is not really in keeping with sci.military I won't continue it here but feel free to contact me by e-mail... Paul Galvanek