🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <50t38v$4g6@kiowa.wildstar.net>, mwwheatl@kiowa.wildstar.net 
says...

>jroberts@ionet.net (John Roberts) writes:

>>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.  

>To me this is total crap.  If you can't meet the physical requirements of 
>being in the Army, regardless of gender, you shouldn't be there. Period.

Afraid you need to speak with the Army, and the feminists who forced the lower 
standards for women, about that.

>>Second, latrine (restroom) and shower facility schedules were required to be 
>>adhered to 

>To me this is also crap.  Why must you have separate facilities? 

Because the women demand it.

>>Now, since the women were non-combatants, they couldn't be expected to 
>>participate in the defense of the position - now much larger than it would 
>>have been for the same number of men because of the extra facilities - 
>>should it become necessary.  
        
>Again a construct of society. Women were in non-combatant rolls
>because it was decided that was the case. 

Women were in non-combatant roles because they were unable to fill a combatant 
role due to the lowered physical requirements.

>So it seems to me this claim only establishes that having personell in a 
>combat unit who are non-combatants drags down the unit.

Precisely.  And as long as the women are not required to meet the same physical 
standards as their male counterparts, they should not be allowed in a combat 
unit.

>>Anyhow, I just thought I'd toss out a few comments as a person who has 
>>experienced a few of the realities of the situation.  

>Thank you for your insight. I submit that the implementation
>was sub-optimal and thus not an accurate predictor of behavior of
>a fully integrated co-ed unit.

Okay - on what empirical data to you base your submission?