🚀 go-pugleaf

jroberts@ionet.net (John Roberts) wrote:

>>>In article <50pdbv$294@choctaw.wildstar.net>, egburr@kiowa.wildstar.net 
>>>says...

>>>>The average woman may not have the necessary physical requirements.  That
>>>>is no reason to exclude ALL women.  The women that do meet the requirements
>>>>should not be prohibited.

>>>Let's not forget where the disparity in standards came from.  At one time, 
>>>women in the military *were* required to meet the same physical standards as 
>>>men.  However, the feminist movement complained that it was unfair to apply the 
>>>same standards to women as women on average were less capable of meeting those 
>>>standards.

>>>So, we now hold women to a lower standard than we do men, and we put men who 
>>>can't meet the higher standard out of the military.  This would seem to be 
>>>discriminatory to those men, also.

>>>However, getting away from the physical standards a bit, and to the actual 
>>>practicalities of women in combat units (the military calls this "logistics").

>>>As background, in the mid-70's I was assigned to one of the first combat units 
>>>in the army that had women assigned to it in a non-combatant role.  Here are a 
>>>few details I remember about deploying with this unit ...

>>>First, seperate tents were required for the women's sleeping quarters.  Of 
>>>course, since the women were physically incapable of putting them up, this task 
>>>fell to the men.  Add an extra hour or so per tent for each time the unit was 
>>>required to move.
The women couldn't put up a tent? Hmmmm.