Replies

If I remember correctly, women in the military during Reagan and Bush's respective administrations were not assigned to front line ops as a matter of policy. Clinton changed that, and that's especially where I fear the natural chivalry of an honorable man will get him, and the woman he might attempt to protect, killed. I don't have as much of a problem with women in the rear echelon, but I question the need to train them as a fighting force, instead of just for a particular job, if they would not be going to the front.

The issue of sex HAS been a pretty big issue. In the Gulf War, for instance, over 5.5% of women couldn't deploy with their units. Almost all of that due to pregnancy. Men have no such issue.

If I remember correctly, women in the military during Reagan and Bush's respective administrations were not assigned to front line ops as a matter of policy.

You dont recall correctly. My first duty assigment was to E Battery (Target Aquisition), 25th Field Artillery, 2nd Infantry Division (Korea) [82-83]. A Target Aquistion Battery is VERY close to the front. We had several women assigned.

The "chivalry" argument has been raised often but never proven. Indeed other armies which allow women have also not reported such problems.

Where is the "front"? PFC Lynch was assigned to a Maintenance Battalion - these normally do not see action. Thats why all soldiers need to be trained and prepared for all circumstances.

The pregnancy issue is one of the few that can be raised. My opinion has always been that if a female soldier becomes pregnant, she should be encouraged to leave the service as the soldier role and the mother role don't mix. A soldier, upon elistment, basically gives the military full rights to thier time for the duration of the elistment - marriage, children, family etc, all normally suffer greatly during this time - but the "first" commitment must always be the military. A mother can not say this and she should therefore voluntarily leave the service.