Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    Since the ERA topic was starting to digress a bit, I thought that
    this topic deserved its own.  As someone who, back in college and
    beyond, considered himself to be "anti-military" I have to admit
    that reading Rachel's notes I've had to do some re-assessment. 
    Old stereotypes die hard, I guess.
    
    Back in my strident anti-military/feminist days I could never
    understand the "military's" stance about women and thought it
    incredibly sexist.  But over the past couple of years I've wondered
    if perhaps there was something to those rules.
    
    If you were running a typical Army or Marine platoon, would you
    want a mixed gender makeup or a single gender?  After seeings films
    like "Platoon" etc., I can't help but wonder about some of the problems
    that "must" come from mixed-gender platoons.  This is not to say
    that women shouldn't be in combat, but rather that there are logistical
    problems to mixing men and women in that type of situation.  I don't
    see as much of a problem in the Navy or in the Air Force, however.
    I also don't think that this is a problem with women, per se, but
    more a problem with men.
    
    Since I think I'm missing something, perhaps I can be enlightened
    here.  Someone mentioned Israel as a country with mixed-gender
    armed forces.  Are they doing something we aren't?

    Jim,
    are the problems that you imagine arising in mixed-gender platoons
    of a sexual nature? if so, has it occurred to you that the same
    "problems" might arise in a platoon containing lesbians or gay men?
    if not, could you elaborate more on these envisioned problems? i
    never saw "platoon".
    
    liz

    re .3, I think there might not be too many problems arising in
    mixed-gender *volunteer* platoons.  But, I do think there would
    be problems in mixed-gender platoons of people who had been drafted
    who basically didn't want to be there.  Straight people who hated
    the military would probably really cause a problem in mixed-gender
    platoons.  Straight people are used to being more open about their
    sexual exploits than gay men or lesbians.  Drafted women who hated
    the military would take every opportunity to get pregnant just so
    they could get out (I know I would! I'd rather have a baby any day
    than serve in the military!)
    
    I think that women who want to volunteer for the military, for combat,
    anything, should be allowed to.  I also don't think that anybody
    - male or female - should ever be drafted.  Maybe if enough women
    wanted to volunteer for combat, the men who don't want to wouldn't
    ever have to!
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    	One disclaimer...DougO who's been in told me that there's a
    	difference between being enlisted and being an NCO.  It's 
    	obvious that NCOs are hard-working committed people and they
    	have devoted much of their life in  service to their country.
    	If I offended anyone, I apologise and I apologise to NCOs.
    
    	GO IRISH!
    	GO AIR FORCE!
    
    	Rachel
    

    re .4, I don't understand why it would be "obvious that NCOs are
    hard-working committed people" who "have devoted much of their life
    in service to their country".  I thought NCO's were enlisted people
    who got to be sergeants (in the army anyway) - or is that not the
    case?  It has been my impression (thru stories from male friends,
    books, movies, TV, and 3 months in the army) that many NCO's (enlisted
    people who get to be sergeants, etc., and spend 20 yrs in the military)
    are just jerks who enjoy harrassing other people and wielding power
    over other people.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .4, also, I'm sure there have been many enlisted people who have
    been hardworking and committed, and who have devoted (whether they
    wanted to or not) much of their lives, if not their life to their
    country (supposedly) - like all those enlisted guys who got drafted
    and died in Vietnam.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .0, .4, .5, .6:
    
    Rachel and I have been exchanging quite a bit of mail recently about
    our mutual perceptions and experiences after 4 years of AFROTC,
    and from the standpoint of her just going into the AF, while I just
    got out.  With that context, following her .0, I sent her this mail
    message; her .4 mentions it.  But Rachel is in a hurry today and
    I'm sure I got what I asked for ("a hasty correction") which raised
    more questions than it answered.  This is what I really meant:
    --------------------------------------------------------------
From:	SKYLRK::OLSON        "green chile crusader!" 11-AUG-1988 14:32
To:	USMRW1::RMCCAFFREY,OLSON
Subj:	NCOs

    Rachel-
    
    Oy vay.  I don't know if it will happen sooner or later, but someone
    is going to take your head off if you do this again (it happened
    to me!)
    
    NCOs are not "enlisted".  NCOs are Non Commisioned Officers
    who are Enlisted Troops Recognized For Their Above-Average
    Skills And Committments And Privileged To Be Called Sergeant
    Or Chief In A Respectful Tone.
    
    That is, E-4s and above are NCOs.  OK?
    
    (Nobody ever explained it to me until one day, this Chief kinda
    jumped into my knickers on it.  By then, I was a 1Lt and he felt
    I shoulda known better.)
    
    Maybe you can post a hasty correction in =wn=?
    
    DougO
    
    P.S. Enjoy your fat pills!
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    P.S. to womannoters; I'm only entering this because Rachel said
    she'd be out until next Wednesday and I'm pretty sure she'd want
    Lorna's questions answered...if we confused, sorry!
    
    DougO

    NCO's are enlisted personnel who have advanced to a position of
    authority.  They are, nevertheless, enlisted personnel as compared to
    an officer.  Except for the navy, all enlisted personnel, NCO's
    included, wear the same style uniform.  The only difference is the
    insignia of rank. In the navy, chiefs get to wear a uniform that is
    somewhat similar to officers.  NCO's usually live, eat, and work with
    the lower ranks, because they are all enlisted personnel. 
    
    The person earlier who said that career enlisted people were people who
    stayed in because they were jerks and enjoyed exercising power over
    subordinate ranks is correct only to the extent that person can prove
    the point.  I have known many career enlisted people, including my
    brother.  I have found that there are no more jerks in that group than
    there are in any other group, including noters.  Many stay in because
    of job security, particularly those who had families.  Many stay in
    because they like the lifestyle, the travel, the responsibilities, the
    challenging work, etc.  Some even do it because they honestly believe
    that duty to ones nation is an honorable way to live.  No doubt a few
    like the power. 
    
    In time of peace, it is traditional for Americans to not think too much
    of the military, and maybe that is a healthy thing.  In times of
    national emergency, though, when the nation needs the military, we
    should be grateful that there are those people who are willing to
    make the military their life.  Without them, we would all be much worse
    off.  Maybe we would even be speaking German. 
                                                       
    Oh, I am rambling, but someone touched a nerve.
    

    Re .7, and .8, thanks for the input on what NCO's really are.  It's
    pretty much what I thought but I didn't *know* for certain that
    what I thought was right!
    
    Re .8, the problem with NCO's or officers in the military being
    jerks is that they are in the position to make many other peoples
    lives hell if they feel like it.  I realize that not all NCO's and
    officers are jerks but I do think there is a larger percentage than
    in most other walks of life.  This is because they are afforded
    a power of people that they normally would not be in civilian life.
    
    Actually, my views of the military do not come from peacetime, but
    from wartime.  I turned 19 in 1968 so many of the male friends I
    have had in my life had to deal with Vietnam one way or another.
     Also, I spent 3 months in the army myself in 1968, and I did meet
    more unpleasant people in that short time period than I have in any
    other single place I have ever been.
    
    As far as needing the military in time of war goes - well if there
    was no military there could be no war.  I've just never seen the
    glory and romance in killing and dying.  It all seems pretty unpleasant
    to me.
    
    Lorna
    

    re: -.9
    
    I agree, if no one had a military, there would be no wars.  Sounds
    rather utopian to me though, given the history of the human race.
    
    In my own experience of four years in the Air Force, from 1964 through
    1968 I also encountered some not very nice people in superior ranks. Lets
    not lose sight of what the military really is, though.  In order to
    function during combat, there must be discipline.  Obedience to orders
    is the primary function of the lower ranks.  A commander doesn't
    his/her job done by discussing every command with his/her subordinates
    until everyone buys-in to the plan like things are done here at DEC.
    
    Sure this grates against members of a free society, like us.   In order
    to train people to have this discipline (Notice I haven't said *blind*
    obedience. No references to My Lai please) in combat, it is necessary
    to enforce discipline at other times as well.   So, when a sergeant,
    especially in a training situation, doesn't take the time to be a nice
    person, he/she is really only doing his/her job in training his/her
    subordinates to respond to discipline.  
    
    There is no glory and romance and killing people and it is a very
    unpleasant business.  Most Americans would dearly love to live in peace
    and harmony with the world.  That is the way we have been taught.
    Until all nations feel the same way, however, we would be very foolish
    indeed to not be strong and vigilant.
    
    Mike
    
                                              
    

    could someone provide the oath that is taken upon entering the
    military, (U.S. that is)?
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Re: Liz Augustine
    
    I don't think that the problems with mixed-gender platoons etc.
    is necessarily of a sexual nature.  There might be a little of that,
    but don't think that it would be a major problem that would
    significantly decrease the military's effectiveness.  And with respect
    to homosexuals/lesbians -- I think that the sexual problem here
    is much, much less.  Because of the stigma, if nothing else.
    
    A couple of notes back hit on what I think part of the problem is:
    discipline.  Will a mixed-gender platoon be as disciplined as one
    that is all-male or all-female?  Much as I might hate the concept
    of that type of rigid, non-thinking type of discipline, I can't
    help but think that it is necessary to a certain degree.

    
    
    	I don't understand why a mixed-gender platoon would have anything
    	to do with discipline problems.  Please explain what you mean.
    
    	Sharon

    Rats, I was hoping to not have to get specific.  My comments are
    not to say that there *will* be discipline problems, but more asking
    if other people thought that there might less *cohesiveness* in a
    mixed-gender platoon than one with only one gender.  I didn't mean
    discipline problems, per se (sorry for the ambiguous wording).
    
    Of course, I have a lot of problems with this argument because
    its been my experience that groups where the sexes are mixed work
    better than single-gender groups.  But that's in the work place
    etc., which is different than in a military situation.
    
    /Jim

       I  cannot  comment  on what [would] happen in a fully integrated 
       line unit such as a regular infantry platoon, since I have never 
       experienced one.

       However  I  can  say  that I once was a member of an operational 
       team   that  was  40%  female.  Unfortunately  the  lowest  rank 
       represented  was  sergeant (of which we had several) so it gives 
       me no basis for guessing what would happen if ORs (=other ranks) 
       were  put in a mixed gender situation. In operational activity I 
       do  not  recall  ever really giving thought to the gender of the 
       people  I was working with: they, like me, had a job to do. They 
       were professionals and I had every confidence they would perform 
       adequately  in their specialist roles. Nor do I recall a case of 
       any  member  of  the  unit (of either sex) complaining that they 
       were treated differently on account of their gender (not only in 
       formal situations but in routine bull sessions in the mess, when 
       lots of other complaints were routinely aired).

       Discipline  problems: the only discipline problems I recall were 
       a few instances of drunkenness, a couple of folks RTU (=returned 
       to  unit) for failing to jump from an aircraft when required, or 
       because  they wanted to go back. There was no sexual bias in the 
       incidence  of  these things, nor was there any difference that I 
       recall in the way the incidents were treated.

       Away  from duty there was one area that showed up: the male NCOs 
       shared  a barracks whilst the female NCOs had private rooms. The 
       officers were all treated alike in terms of billeting.

       /. Ian .\

    AH, finally this subject has come up!!!!!
    
    
    The following is from the point of view of a dependent.  I have
    been a military dependent for my whole entire life.  I have been
    a dependent of an officer and an enlisted man.  One issue which
    I must address is the issue of "jerks in the enlisted corp".  The
    jerks in the enlisted corp are generally very juvenile.  BEcause
    they aren't in a position of power, they can't do any real harm.
    The jerks in the NCO corp area tad worse, but the worse they can
    do is be a pain in the fanny.  The jerks in the officer corp are
    deadly.  Often they hold (or they think they hold) the power of
    life and death over enlisted and NCO men.  They can destroy a career
    very quickly, and I have even had some REAL winners think that because
    my husband worked for them, that gave them rights to me.  
    
    In reality, the military is a microcosm of the world.  Proportionally,
    there are no more and no less jerks, winners, heros, and losers
    that you find anywhere else.
    
    
    Dependents of military personnel desere a hell of a lot more credit
    that we get.  We wait for our loved one while they are gone for
    months at a time ( I am NOT exaggerating, Ken has been gone for
    5 months a time).  We live on a pittance in the beginning (900.00
    a month).  We say goodbye to our family and freinds constantly (I
    moved 21 times before I was 18).  We live in sometimes substandard
    conditions in some of the hell holes of this earth.  But most
    importantly, we watch every international incident with bated breath,
    praying that this one isn't it, "God, please not now", and we cry
    ourselves to sleep when they are on a mission somewhere and he hasn't
    been able to call for 3 weeks and all you keep dreaming about is
    that they bring him home in a box.  You have discussion centering
    on how long you will wait for him if he is ever MIA or POW.  
    
    There are lots of reasons that we do it, and some of us actually
    do it because we believe in this country and what she stands for
    and understand that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. 
    Someone has to stand to the fore.  My hat is off to them and to
    us.
    
    They also serve, those who wait.
    
    
    Sue Walton
    Wife of Staff Sargeant Kenneth Walton, 10th Special Forces Group
    Airborne.

    Well said, Sue.
    
    						=maggie

    re:16 and the cold breath of reality blew in......
    
    Sue,
    	Some will never know and others will never understand why 
        men and women serve. To those like yourself who are 
        part of their lives, my admiration. One tour of duty 
        10 days or 10 months is torture to those who wait.
    
    Ken 

    re .0
    As a representative from the "NCO" side, I am very proud of my
    participation and performance in the Navy.  To avoid -nits-,
    in the Navy, you aren't an NCO, non-commissioned officer, you
    are a petty officer (sometimes apt);I am a PO1- petty officer
    first class- E-6.(phew!)
    I was active duty for six years and have continued in the Reserves
    for two years.  I think the way I was treated as a female, overall,
    was very equal.  The 'better treatment' that you have gotten is
    just luck; I have gotten substandard housing or more roommates than
    my rank warranted because of being female.  If there weren't enough
    rooms to separate male and female, sometimes the women got the
    better deal, sometimes the men....  Being in a technical field
    (electronics) I was always a minority.  One bad apple spoils the
    whole bunch really applies here!  If I followed a female technician
    that took advantage of being female or was simply an awful technician
    I had to work twice as hard at my new duty station to live the
    reputation that she made for "us" down!  I confess that because
    of our fragile reputations, I tended to expect more from my female
    subordinates than the males (they only benefitted from this extra
    attention, tho.)
    
    In the job that I had (I was not a "soldier-in-the-field" tho I
    am qualified expert in marksmanship) there was not one instance
    that I would have performed better if I were male.  Like your
    accomplishments in .0, I have excelled over many competing men
    and have earned respect from many chauvinists.
    
    I'm very proud of being in the military.  WE don't cause wars,
    and there are just as many power hungry people in the civilian
    world as military (maybe your boss!)  I have had a hard time
    meeting as many warm caring people, now that I'm out.  After learning
    that we had to make friends in a temporary environment (knowing
    that 'goodbye' will be in 6 months) I have made my closest bonds.
    GOOD LUCK! and write if you want some enlisted perspectives!
    Louise
    That was the hardest lesson to learn! 
    

    re .19
    The lesson that was hardest to learn was making friends that I
    would have to leave.  (somehow the last three sentences got
    scrambled!)

    
    	I'm afraid that I owe something of an apology to the community.
    	I've been out for a week and a half because of personal reasons
    	and therefore have been unable to monitor this note and contribute.
    	I'm sorry.
    
    	For the person who asked....
    
    	I, state your full name, having been appointed a Second Lieutenant
    	in the United States Air Force, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that
    	I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States
    	against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear
    	true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this oath
    	freely without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion,
    	and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of
    	the office upon which I am about to enter, so help me God.
    
    	This is totally off the top of my head, but I'm fairly certain
    	that it is correct.  Also, I have a deeper explanation of the
    	oath which all of the cadets at my det have to study during
    	their junior year.  If I remember, I'll bring it in.
    
    	I think that the greatest obstacle to complete integration of
    	women into the military is prejudice. Women have to believe
    	that they can enhance the military strength of our nation in
    	combat platoons if they expect to actually do that.  The men
    	in the platoons must feel the same way.  In combat, I'm told,
    	you have to TRUST the person covering your a**.  Whether it's
    	your wingman, your point or whoever, you cannot fight effectively
    	unless you believe with all your heart that the person assigned
    	to back you up will do just that.  The sex really doesn't matter.
    
    	As for enlisted people...I've been extrememly fortunate so far
    	in that I have always come into contact with a highly motivated,
    	highly intelligent group of NCOs.  I have a tremendous amount
    	of respect for the Sgts at my Det and they were always very
    	good to me and the other cadets.
    
    	To the people who are dependents.  You have probably the toughest
    	job...the waiting and the hoping.  Thank you for your support,
    	without which, there would not be an effective military in this
    	country.
    
    	To the people who are inherently against the military...try
    	to understand that the people who serve in the military are
    	the people who work hardest to prevent war.  If the US has 
    	to fight it is OUR BEST FRIENDS who are going to die.  We
    	serve for different reasons but not one of us serves in the
    	hopes of "the glory of war".
    
    	Thanks to all of the people who took an interest.  Sorry that
    	I've been gone so long.
    
    	Rachel

re: Note 54.58   by ANT::BUSHEE "Living on Blues Power"  

You asked for flames.  This isn't a flame.  However, I do think that you 
might want to review what you have said.
    
> I wouldn't want my life to depend on a female in combat! 
>The reason being that MOST women are just not big enough to handle a male 
<opponent in hand-to-hand combat, ...
<I know, I can just hear it now, well I'm big enough, maybe you are, but on the
<whole most aren't. BTW, I feel the same about the men that are also not big 
<enough to handle another man. 

Why then not say that you wouldn't want your life to depend on a SMALL PERSON
in combat?!  This would say the same thing without being sexist.  You could
also have just left out all of the above and said what you said at the end
of your note:

<Anyone facing combat should have to meet size and strength standards, it's 
<not only their life at stake, often it is also others. ...
<If they made standards that were realistic for hand-to-hand combat for ANYONE
<male or female, then I would have no problem in seeing females sent to combat
<as long as they could meet the standards, same for males. There are plenty of
<non-combat jobs that need be filled, let the ones unable to meet standards fill
<these jobs. 
                     Carol

    I doubt very seriously if the next war will be one that requires
    combat.
    
    Only the ability to unlock a box and type a command. Given that
    the majority of people left will be those in secure positions we
    better add women are there won't be a race. Men cannot reproduce
    by parthogenesis;women can.
    
    

    re .23:
    
    > I doubt very seriously if the next war will be one that requires
    > combat.
      
    That's what they said after Hiroshima. Depends on what you mean
    by "war". Because of the nuclear "situation" "war" no needs modifiers.
    "all out war" is an exchange of missles. "limited war" is Korea
    and Vietnam. Maybe the next [all out] war won't require combat,
    but I doubt that that means there will not be any combat before
    then. There will always be need for military action on a smaller
    scale than all_out_mutual_destruction. 
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    I simply have to agree with Ian - a properly trained woman with
    the right attitude will be as effective as any man in close combat.
    
    Not to mention the fact that men are more physically vulnerable
    if you're quick enough to hit the spot and capitalize on your
    advantage.
    
    --DE
    

    
    re .24
    
    Ah, but did she know Fujitsu..?

    
    	Regarding the Colonel's question as to whether there are height
    	standards in the military...I don't know as much about the Army
    	and the Navy but I do know that there are many standards in
    	the AF.  For instance, there is a minimum height requirement.
     	There's also a maximum height if one wants to be a pilot.  There
    	is a minimum and a maximum weight for every height and the AF
    	wants people to be at least 10% of their max weight below their
    	max weight and a similar amount over their min weight.  If a
    	person comes within the 10% region, they have to go on weight
    	programs and are monitored weekly or monthly.  This can cause
    	problems for the "Hulk" types because muscle weighs more than
    	fat and well-built men and women often push their max weights
    	and are "harassed" because of it.
    
    	Also, just for the record, I reject the notion that "most women
    	would be too small for hand to hand combat".  I'm 5' 7.5" and
    	when I work out I usually weigh between 145 and 150 and most
    	of it isn't padding.  I also have a bunch of friends from school
    	who spent at least an hour every day in the weight rooms of
    	different sports facilities at ND and I'm sure that if they
    	had to, they could hold their own in hand-t0-hand. 
    
    	No one who's 5' 1" and weighs under 100 should go into combat.
     	Someone must have seriously screwed up to allow such a thing
    	to happen.  Just as if a 6' 8" person were to be allowed to
    	fly an F-15.  That person would be much too tall to effectively
    	fly the Eagle.
    
    	Rachel

    	
    	RE: Standards for the Army (U.S of A.)
    
    	The only standards they had when I joined to be assinged to
    	a combat unit were, two eyes (glasses okay), two arms, two
    	legs and sometimes I think very little if any brains. ;^}
    
    	RE: back a few about my other reply, thanks, now you tell
    	me. Where were you when I was typing the thing??!! Okay, just
    	read the last part, that's what I wanted to say.
    
    	G_B

    The U.S. Army used to ('70's) have a min/max height requirements.
    I'd be a little surprised if this has changed.  Also, some of the
    branches like the M.P.s have even more stringent requirements. 
    I believe the Navy also has requirements.
    
    Steve
    

    I have to agree with .29, as far as minimum standards in the U.S.
    Army.  I enlisted in 1968 and during basic training I met a mentally
    retarded girl.  Sad, but true.  She was being released, but she
    had enlisted.  I also met a 30 yr. old itinerant former migrant
    fruit picker.  She could barely read or write.  She certainly couldn't
    read well enough to read an entire novel, but some recruiter had
    brought her in.  I think she actually made it through basic and
    stayed in.  And, the written test that we had to take prior to
    enlisting was so simple that any 10 year old of average intelligence
    would be able to ace it.  If you couldn't pass that test, I'd hate
    to know your IQ.  The standard were really high.  I think you had
    to be between 18 and 35 and human.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    	Just a random (or not so random) question.  I've told many of
    	you about my experiences--most of you know by now that I really
    	like most aspects of the military.  My question to women is
    	this:  If ERA passed and if a draft were instituted, would you
    	go or would you dodge?  And if you dodged would you go to jail
    	for your beliefs (Civil Disobedience) or would you run to Canada?
    	To be even more specific, let me offer some situations.
    
    	The first would be a peacetime draft that was organised just
    	to ensure that a minimum number of the population was trained
    	well enough to defend our country's interest.
    
    	The second would be a war that you personally considered just
    	(maybe WWII if you believe that Hitler had to be stopped).
    
    	The third would be a war that you personally disagreed with--
    	(many people might use Vietnam as this type of war)
    
    	I'm just interested in how many women would answer the call
    	if it came.  Men can answer this question also but please make
    	it clear as to what sex you are.  I'm not sexist, just wondering
    	if there might be a difference.
    
    	Rachel

    A draft is a draft is a draft.  I'd go if the call came.
    
    But I'd certainly be less happy about it if the case were a 
    peacetime draft.
    
    --Sharon
    

    I'd go.  (Heck, I even considered signing up for the draft when
    I was in high school -- just to be mischevious.)
    
    But if it's a peacetime draft, then They are Doing Something Wrong;
    it really ought to be possible to get enough people without it.
    
    							Ann B.

    Re .32, (I think), question on the draft - if it happened today
    or tomorrow?  Well, first I'm too old now, second, my honorable
    discharge for apathy (yes! isn't it a riot?) from the U.S. Women's
    Army Corps in 1968 states that I am considered to completely unsuitable
    for any further service in any branch of the United States military
    (whew! what a relief!), and third, since I'm 5'1" and weigh under
    100 lbs., as stated before in this topic, I would certainly not
    be big enough to be useful for combat duty.  But, most importantly,
    even if I were 19 today, I don't believe that anybody has the right
    to tell me that I have to go to war and kill other people and/or
    be killed myself.  I believe a draft violates my right as a human
    being to live my life as I see fit.  (If all the German youth in
    the 1930's had felt like that there wouldn't have even been a Hitler.
     Remember the "universal soldier."  I still believe "he really is
    to blame.")
    
    I'd *rather* go to Canada than jail any day.  My father was born
    and raised in Canada and some of my relatives still live in Vancouver.
     It's a nice place, nicer than jail.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Re .32:
        
    
    >    The first would be a peacetime draft that was organised just
    >	to ensure that a minimum number of the population was trained
    >	well enough to defend our country's interest.
    
    (male) I am philosophically opposed to a draft. I would resist a
    any kind of draft to the fullest, including prosecution. 
     
    >	The second would be a war that you personally considered just
    >	(maybe WWII if you believe that Hitler had to be stopped).
       
    I wouldn't wait to be drafted, I'd enlist.
    
    >	The third would be a war that you personally disagreed with--
    >	(many people might use Vietnam as this type of war)
    
    Same as peacetime draft.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    
    
    OK - I can't resist.
    
    My personal favorite solution to the draft/nodraft men/women conundrum:
    
    	Voting should be a privilege, not a right.
    	The way you qualify for the privilege of voting is by giving
    		service to the governmental unit you want to vote for.
    		(This means - if you want to vote for governor, serve
    		a unit within your state.  Vote for president, serve
    		a unit which serves the whole country.)
    	Service does not necessarily mean military service, but can
    		include public works such as Peace Corps, VISTA, 
    		assisting in a hospital or nursing home, etc. etc.
    	Service does not have to be given at any particular age - even
    		those over 65 have something that they can contribute
    		to the public good.
    
    I fear that it's too radical to ever be made public policy in the
    US, but the Constitution did not originally provide for universal
    suffrage.  Originally you had to be a landowner.  Landowners were
    the only ones who paid taxes.  Thus those with a stake in the system
    were the ones who called the shots.  Service seems to be a more
    egalitarian way of having those with a stake in the system be the
    ones calling the shots.
    
    	To answer the question asked - if drafted I would go (and would
    have in the '60's when I was graduating from high school.  If it
    was a war I believed in, I'd enlist.
    
    			Alison
    

    re .38:
    
    > ...but the Constitution did not originally provide for universal
    > suffrage.  Originally you had to be a landowner.  Landowners were
    > the only ones who paid taxes.  Thus those with a stake in the system
    > were the ones who called the shots.
    
    Excuse my pedantry, it is true that it did not mandate universal
    suffrage, but the Constitution did not require that one be a landowner 
    (or taxpayer) in order to vote. 

    "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every
    second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in
    each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the
    most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."
    				
    				-- Article I, Section 1
    
    The qualifications for suffrage was left to the States. 
                       
    "The _third_ charge against the House of Representatives is that
    it will be taken from that class of citizens which will have the
    least sympathy with the mass of the people, and be most likely to
    aim at an ambitious sacrifice of the many to the aggrandizement
    of the few.
    "...
    "Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives? Not
    the rich, more than the poor; not the learned, more than the ignorant;
    not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble
    sons of obscure and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be
    the great body of the people of the United States. They are to be
    the same who exercise the right in every State of electing the
    corresponding branch of the legislature of the State.
    "...
    "Were the objection to be read by one who had not seen the mode
    prescribed by the Constitution for the choice of representatives,
    he could suppose nothing less than that some unreasonable qualification
    of property was annexed to the right of suffrage; or that the right
    of eligibility was limited to persons of particular families or
    fortunes; or at least that the mode prescribed by the State
    constitutions was, in some respect or other, very grossly departed
    from. We have seen how far such a supposition would err as to the
    first two points. Nor would it be less erroneous as to the last."
    
    				- Federalist Paper #57, Madison
    
    Madison then goes on to criticise the British for requiring the
    representatives to the House of Commons to posses property greater
    than certain amounts and "which restrains the right of suffrage
    to persons having a freehold estate of the annual value of more
    than twenty pounds sterling, according to the present rate of money."
    
    Senators were elected by the State Legislatures and the President
    is still elected by the Electoral College.
                  
    I'm sorry to be so long winded about this but I have seen this charge
    quite a few times without any substantiation, and decided this time
    to look into it a bit. I admit that one source is not a very exhaustive
    search, but it does seem to say that the States did not require
    one to be a landowner in order to vote. Perhaps some of the States
    did have such a requirement, but I doubt that they _all_ did.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /

    >>The first would be a peacetime draft...
        
    I would go.  I tend to agree with .38, the idea of mandatory
    service for your country in some capacity sounds good.        
    
    >>The second would be a war that you personally considered just...
                                                                        
    I would enlist.
    
    >>The third would be a war that you personally disagreed with--...
    
    I would enlist but would rather be placed in one of the hospital
    or support type groups if possible.
    
    I would expect to be trained to fight and given the same chances
    of being involved in combat as anyone else. 
    
    There are certain debts that must be paid, either you pay them or
    someone else pays them for you.  I prefer to pay my own. 
    
    Angela

    I would not go, in any situation (peacetime or war.)  I think war
    is morally wrong, and I don't believe the government has the right
    to force me to violate just about every principle I have.  If I
    could, I would run (to Canada or wherever).  If I couldn't (I hear
    that after Nam, Canada is less willing to take draft refugees) I
    would go to jail.  This may sound unpatriotic, and perhaps
    hipocritical, that I would rather not go to war but I wouldn't want
    to go to jail for it - I don't think so.  Why should I have to go
    to jail because I hold certain values?
    
    If for some reason I ended up in the military, I would not kill.
    Of course, never having been there, it's hard to say, but (if I
    "stuck to me guns" [pun intended :-)] with respect to my principles)
    I wouldn't even kill to save my life.
    
    Of course, it's all a moot point because 1) there's no way they
    are going to institute a female-inclusive draft before I am over
    the age limit [things don't move fast in this country] and 2) I
    am physically unfit for the military...I couldn't join if I wanted
    to.  [Bad back, bad feet, bad eyes, etc...]
    
    D!ana

    I just thought of something else [with respect to my previous message
    saying I wouldn't kill to save my own life.]
    
    If my kids (I don't have any yet, but I will) lives were at stake,
    I most certainly would kill to save them.  This is consistent with
    my value system, which puts protection of offspring as top priority.
    (So I suppose if my own life were at stake, and I didn't feel my
    kids could make it without me, I would kill to save myself.)
    
    D!ana

    Re .38, then I wonder why you didn't enlist in the military when
    you graduated from high school in the 60's.  Perhaps you could have
    worked in a mash unit in Vietnam, being shelled every so often,
    and perhaps killed by flying scrapnel (spelling?), as some young
    female medics were.  
    
   Even though I myself don't like the military, I do respect the writer
    of the basenote for at least being a part of the military she believes
    in.
    
    It always really bothers me when women who say they believe men
    should be drafted, or who say they would go if women were drafted
    don't enlist.  There already are women's branches to the services
    and they're really tough, just about as tough as the men's branches.
     So, I think any woman who talks very pro military should experience
    it first hand.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    re .39
    
    	You're right, and I apologize for writing "off the top of my
    	head."  
    
    	My main point should have been that universal suffrage was not,
    	in any state, the norm.  All states had qualifications that
    	had to be met, although they differed from state to state.
    
    
    re .-1
    
    	At 18, I had not yet worked out my viewpoints on these matters.
    	I did, however, marry a military man and suffer through the
    	dependent's role.  How can I explain the combined grief/joy
    	that my beloved did not have to go to 'Nam (he graduated a year
    	too late), but felt that his military career would be at risk
    	because he had not seen combat and those he would compete with
    	for promotion had?  It was and remains a very difficult issue
    	for me, even after his separation from the service and my
        separation from him.
    
    	Part of the reason I say service at ANY age is because we continue
    	to grow throughout our lives - and willingness to sacrifice
    	for a goal is part of what we grow into.
    

    
    	re:  Diana
    
    	I know you're an engineer--have you ever studied history?  I
    	find your response interesting in light of some of the events
    	of WWII.  I'm not an expert on the war but I've covered it in
    	some classes and I've read some books and I'd like to point
    	something out to you.
    
    	It is conjectured that if a certain number of events had gone
    	just a little differently, Germany would have won the war. 
    	In the first instance, if the English had not been so tough
    	and England had fallen...in the second instance if Hitler had
    	not made what I think was his biggest military mistake in voiding
    	his treaty with Russia, attacking Russia and thus forcing Germany
    	to fight a war on 2 fronts...if the US had waited much longer
    	before becoming involved or if the US had chosen only to concern
    	themselves or even to MAINLY concern themselves with the war
    	in the Pacific...Up until 1941 and even beyond, Hitler's forces
    	were winning.  When we were attacked Roosevelt insisted that
    	we concentrate more heavily on winning the war in Europe than
    	the war in the Pacific theatre.  I bring all of this up because,
    	as most people know, not only was Hitler successful in Europe,
    	he was also successful in Africa.  Had the Japanese had the
    	necessary raw materials to fight their war, had the US not had
    	a total committment to beating the Axis powers......
    
    	I suppose what I'm trying to say is that the Allies came awfully
    	close to losing WWII.  For anyone who knows about what Hitler
    	did to the Jews and the genetic experiments he carried out,
    	the thought is worse than the best made disaster film.  If the
    	Axis had managed to defeat Europe and Africa there is little
    	doubt that sooner or later they would have attacked the US.
    	Then we really would have been fighting for our homes and
        homeland--and we probably would have lost.
    
    	Imagine what our lives would be like if that happened.  I'm
    	not flaming at you or ridiculing you or your beliefs.  I'd just
    	like you to think about it.  And maybe say a prayer or give
    	thanks to the men, and women, who over the past 200+ years,
    	felt that when their country asked, maybe even if the reasons
    	weren't as clear-cut as they were in WWII, who answered the
    	call.
    
    	I have one more thing to write.  It's a quote which I will butcher
    	because I don't have the original, but the idea is correct.
    
    		War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest.
    		The ugliest thing is any man/woman who does not feel
    		That there is anything in the world worth fighting for
    		Such people are weak and pitiful and are only kept
    		Free by the exertions of greater men and women
    		Than themselves.
    
    	Rachel		

Re: .45

    World War  II is an interesting case, as it is the only war in the
    history  of  the  U.S. that was almost universally thought to be a
    just  war.  One  must  remember  that while WWII was a just war, a
    large  part  of the population thought that the revolutionary war,
    civil  war,  WWI,  Korea, and Vietnam to have been either wrong or
    not worth the cost.  

    I, for  one,  will not support wars which are counter to our goals
    as  a  nation,  and  often  (such  as  Nicaragua)  serve  only  to
    strengthen regimes which we don't like.

    As an  aside,  when I was applying for a fellowship I had to swear
    to uphold the Constitution. My advisor and I had a long discussion
    about  whether  one  could uphold the constitution by overthrowing
    the government.

--David

    Re .45, you place a very high value on fighting.
    

.47>    Re .45, you place a very high value on fighting.
        
        And rightly so, given the context of the ending quotation.
        
        Andy
        (10 years voluntary military service.)
        

    
    	re:47
    
    	Don't get me wrong...I don't place a high value on fighting.
     	As I mentioned before, if the US goes to war my best friends
    	will die.  I love my best friends.
    
    	What I'm saying is that for us, meaning the US and you and
    	I, to be where we are today, sometimes we had to fight.  Sometimes
    	it's a necessary evil.  In the past I may not agree with all
    	of the times that the govt has chosen to use force.  I'm not
    	foolish enough to lump all of the US' military actions in one
    	pile.  I guess that it bothers me when someone says that they
    	would never fight.  In a way it bothers me for them because
    	I wonder how they'd survive in a time or a culture when to survive
    	sometimes meant killing...
    
    	Just one more small point.  Most of the political doctrine that
    	has come out of the USSR since the Great Revolution has declared
    	that Communism seeks to become universal.  (Or at least what
    	the Russians consider Communism)  The one thing I remember most
    	vividly about the history of Russia after WWII is that at some
    	point Stalin masacred over a million people.  (I think that
    	they were Ukranians, but I could be wrong)  Very little has
    	ever been written about that episode because they live in a
        closed society.  Just like if Germany had won the war there
        would be very little in the history books about the concentration
    	camps and there would be very few Jewish people alive.
    
    	I don't like fighting--I'll do everything in my power once in
    	the active duty military to try to avoid confrontation.  If
    	I have to fight to defend this country, though, I will.
    
    	Rachel
    	
    	

    Rachel,
    
    I see your point, and in fact, yes, I have thought about it.  (And
    no, I haven't studied any history beyond the required 2 years of
    US history in high school.)
    
    I might take exception to the statement that "war is not the ugliest
    thing."  I haven't decided on that one, let me ponder it...
    
    But I guess what I feel is that, by fighting in a war, we are fighting
    evil with evil.  I don't know how else to fight evil, but I have
    this gut feeling that there must be some better way to do it.  And
    a conviction to search for it rather than partake of the evil.
    
    And if it comes right down to it, I think it is better to have everyone
    in the world living in terror under a terrorist/facist/communist/fill
    in the bad-group-word regime than to have no one living at all.
    That is why, even with missles flying directly towards me, I would
    never 'push the button'.  And this philosophy affects how I feel
    about killing even one person.
    
    And yes,  I am glad to be where I am today, and it's true that I
    have some military people to thank for it, as well as wars.  But
    that doesn't change the way I feel about what should happen in the
    future...
    
    D!ana                                          

    
    	...But I'll defend to my death your right to say it.

    re .49:
    
    > The one thing I remember most vividly about the history of Russia
    > after WWII is that at some point Stalin masacred over a million
    > people.  (I think that they were Ukranians, but I could be wrong)
      
    Ukranians they were. The Ukraine is the "bread basket" of the USSR
    and did not take kindly to having their farms collectivized. Many
    fought against the Soviets and were killed, but far more died of
    starvation as Stalin confiscated their entire crop and distributed
    it elsewhere throughout the USSR. I think that there was also quite
    a bit of surplus that was left to rot in railroad cars. I also remember
    a figure of about 20 million dead. 
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

re: quotation
First of all, let me say that I *fight* nearly every day of my life.  I fight
against racism, sexism, and homophobia.  There are a lot of things that I would
die for, but not many that I would KILL for.

As for .32, my preferences:
<    	The first would be a peacetime draft that was organised just
<    	to ensure that a minimum number of the population was trained
<    	well enough to defend our country's interest.
   I would go to jail rather than even register.
    
<    	The second would be a war that you personally considered just
<    	(maybe WWII if you believe that Hitler had to be stopped).
   I would work in peaceful ways, perhaps in an underground railroad.
    
<    	The third would be a war that you personally disagreed with--
<    	(many people might use Vietnam as this type of war)
   I would go to jail or go to Canada.

However, none of this matters.  They would not have me anyway:  I'm Gay.

                 Carol 

	I don't believe in the draft period. If the people don't want to
       fight there's no reason for the war. I'm tired of old men sending
       young boys to do their dying for them. The same would go for old
       women sending young women for the same reason.

       I would probably enlist for what I considered a "just" war. I
       would however join the medical corps which is where I spent my
       brief active duty already. I could kill if necessary but I'd
       rather save lives.

       On the issue of war in general...I have spent over 7 years
       working in the hospital, that time divided between the emergency
       room and cancer therapy. I've seen just about everything horrible
       that can happen to a person and I've had people die in my arms.
       To have that happen just because some government wanted something
       (and wars are rarely fought for "noble" purposes) is sickening.

       I do not support suppressing peasants because a petty dictator
       says he hates commies. I do not support the CIA disrupting a
       country becuase we don't like their form of government. What we
       have done along those to lines is eternally shamefull. liesl

       "Hell no! I won't go!" Well back then they didn't say it like
       that, but in Britain and France in the twenties and thirties
       intellectuals and politicians alike were rabidly anti-war and
       anti-military. Student debating societies passed anti-war
       resolutions, politicians cut back defense spending year after
       year.

       Churchill preached against German expansionism, but he was a
       voice in the widlerness.

       So intense was this that at Munich Britain and France gave away
       part of Czechoslavakia to Germany rather than resist.

       It would seem that neither Britain nor France would get involved
       in a war: the politicians didn't want one, the youth didn't want
       one, and neither country had an army or an air force equiped for
       a modern war.

       Strange then what happened in September 1939...

       And on September 3rd morning the same students who had voted for
       the anti-war, anti-conscription resolutions where standing in
       line at recruitment offices.

       ===

       As for the "if they made me go I wouldn't kill" sentiment, there
       is a comment in one of these related topics somewhere to the
       effect that the army don't make you kill, they merely put you
       were people are trying to kill you and let you make up your own
       mind. I'm afraid I would have to say on this issue "if you
       haven't been there, you don't know *what* you'd do", though I
       have the deepest respect for those, who having "been there" had
       the strength of character not to fight.

       A dear friend of our family was drafted (in Britain) during the
       Malay 'troubles': he was a conscientious objector but opted to go
       into the medical corps. He was working as an orderly in a field
       hospital in Malaya when the guerillas attacked the hospital. He
       'saw red' picked up a sub machine gun and killed most of the
       attackers. He got a medal for that of which he is very proud: he
       still doesn't believe in wars, but he is now prepared to admit
       that in the proper circumstances he will kill.

       ===

       Incidentally why is it necesary to "register for the draft" in
       America? In British conscription in the past they simply used
       your Social Security number (issued in infancy). Yes I know in
       the past you didn't need an American Social Security number until
       you were starting work, but have you noticed that now you need
       one as a child so your parents can claim you as a tax deduction:
       if they ever need a draft in earnest in the future they have a
       total database of everybody likely to be eligible from the Social
       Security registers. And before somebody tells me that privacy
       laws prevent the Social Security folks from passing this to the
       Pentagon I suggest you 'get real' - in a true National Emergency
       nobody is going to worry about data privacy laws.

       /. Ian .\

    re: Army standards (I know, it was *way* back in the discussion,
    but I don't get out (into NOTES) much anymore. . .)
    
    The Army does have standards for various human attributes, but,
    you'll notice, I haven't commented on how high they are. . . :-}
    
    Also, during the late '60's and early '70's, there was an experiment,
    dubbed "Clifford's 100,000" (in honor of Defense Secretary Clark
    Clifford).  The idea was to allow 100,000 "borderline" cases into
    the services (either by draft or enlistment) and provide them with
    some additional training and support.  The border in question was
    was in the area of "mental" fitness.
    
    Steve
    

    re:.31
    
    Interesting. My (second-hand) experience was the opposite. The
    ex-lover that I mentioned in a previous note, when entering the
    Army, mentioned that the intelligence standards were very different
    for men than for women. The "failing grade" (on the tests) for men
    was considerably lower than the one for women. I guess they were
    looking for a "few good women", but would take as many stupid men
    as they could stuff in a bungalow.
    
    --- jerry

    re .59, Jerry, the difference might have something to do with the
    time period your friend was in the WACS.  I was in from Aug. 1968
    through Nov. 1968 (long enough for me).  Since that was during the
    Vietnam era I've been told that recruiters were expected to bring
    in more recruits than usual, and some of the recruiters got desperate
    about who they brought in to meet their quotas.  The theory was
    that for every woman who sat behind a typewriter, another man 
    became available to fight in Vietnam.  If your friend is younger
    and was in after Vietnam, conditions may have been different.
    
    If she was in during the timeframe I was in the only thing I can
    think of for our different experiences is that I was trying to get
    out the whole time I was in there and finally got sent to Casual
    Company to await my discharge.  I met a lot, but not all, of the
    people with problems in Casual Company.  They had been filtered
    out of the regular basic training platoons.  A person who never
    had the pleasure of meeting the inhabitants of Casual Company would
    probably never be aware that so many unlikely people had been deceived
    into enlisting.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .59, also, as far as the written test goes, we had to take before
    we enlisted and then again after we got to basic.  This test was
    so easy that after I got there, and knew I had made a mistake, I
    decided to flunk the test.  I deliberately put all the wrong answers
    and succeeded in getting EVERY question wrong!  The sergeant came
    in waving the test in my face and screaming, "We know you know this
    stuff Burns!  We know you did this on purpose!"  Ludicrous.
    
    I remember one of the questions was Which of the following contains
    Vitamin C?  A)ice cream   B)potatoes  C)orange juice
    
    I put ice cream and one of my friends laughed so hard she almost
    died, because the sergeant was yelling "You know there's no Vitamin
    C in ice cream!"  I just sat and stared at her.
    
    Believe me, that test was easy.  I'm not a genius.  I flunked Alegra
    I in high school.  But, I think I got everything on that test right.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .55, as far as your conscientious objector friend "seeing red"
    and killing all the attackers, that really doesn't surprise me.
     I consider myself to be a pacifist but at the same time I know
    I'm *capable* of killing another person in anger.  (I'm not taking
    into account whether I'm big enough, strong enough, whatever to
    actually do it.  I'm saying mentally capable of being that enraged.)
     Intellectually, I don't ever want to kill anybody, but I've "seen
    red" before and there are people walking around today who would
    be dead today if I had been holding a gun, and knew how to use it
    at certain crucial moment!  (That's why I'm against handguns, too.
     I know I can get angry enough at other people to kill them, if
    I had the physical capability.)
    
    So, just because you could kill if you had to doesn't mean you *want*
    to ever be in that situation.
    
    Lorna
    

    I enlisted in 1974.  the test taken by Lorna was not the test I
    had to take.  Obviously there must have been some rethinking after
    they had so many illiterates and washouts.  The acceptable test 
    scores for women were still higher than for men, but that was usually
    because women have to take higher positions, technical, then men.
    Where as you can send a man with low scores into the infantry, women
    had jobs like medics, labtechs, computer operators, secretaries.
    An illiterate person would not have been able to do any of these
    jobs. 
    As far as the military people I have known in my life, (my Dad, Mom
    myself, my husbands have all been in the Army) no one was ignorant,
    illiterate, unthinking, uncaring.  Some of the people
    that I have met may not have been skilled when they enlisted, but
    they used the system to become educated and highly valuable to
    the workforce.  Like everything in life, its what you make of it.
    If you are determined to fail you will, if you are determined to
    succeed you will. 
    Just my thoughts on this...
    
    vivian  

    re: .58
    
    I dunno, Jim.  While the experiences of Ghandi and his followers
    tend to support the idea that evil can be fought non-violently,
    I'm not so sure it's an idea that *always* works.  For example,
    what non-violent method could have stopped the atrocities of 
    Hitler's regime?
    
    Steve
    

    re .63, for me the military was not a case of success or failure.
     I simply didn't like it and wanted to leave.  Since just asking wasn't
    enough I had to "fail" on purpose in order to convince them to let
    me out.  The military isn't for everybody.  I don't like living
    in such a structured environment myself.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .65
    The structured environment lasts all the way through basic training.
    The rest of the military career is not structured. Its like any
    job at any company anywhere in the US.  theres the managers(officers)
    and then there are the employees(NCO, enlisted). I figured a short
    18 weeks of structured living would have the rewards later and they
    did.  I don't recall a situation in the army that I was not allowed
    to express myself.  Just like going to a unit manager or district
    manager or the center manager, there is a chain of command.  But
    maybe that would be considered structured to some also. 
    
    To me the military still is success or failure, but like I said
    before, that is how *I* feel.   
    
    vivian

    Re .66, to me all of military life is too structured - saluting,
    wearing uniforms, being told where you'll live and work - just not
    enough freedom.  I, personally, would have considered myself a failure
    had I let myself be brainwashed into believing there was any good
    in the military.  But, that's *me*.  Like I said, the military life
    isn't for everybody.  There is NO one way of life that everybody
    would like.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .66

>>    I don't recall a situation in the army that I was not allowed
>>    to express myself.  
	
    	This is obviously a function of your personality.   I am, and
    have always been a nonconformist in many ways.   So much so that
    I am not really capable of conforming (thinking and acting like
    everyone else).    While in the military I was threatened with jail 
    for expressing myself.   I had books taken away that my officers did 
    not approve of, and had to go up  the chain of command to get a 
    superior officer to *order* my CO to return my books.
    
    	*All* of military life is heavily structured, not just boot
    camp.   If you got a job assignment where there was less structure,
    you were just lucky.   There were places you could've been sent
    where you'd have been in boot camp for your entire enlistment.
    *I* don't ever remember a moment of my years in the military,
    where I felt at all free.   For me it was always a prison of sorts.
    
						Alan.

    every time I have ever entered a reply in any notesfile with my
    opinion of the army, the life I have led for over 25 years in the
    army as a dependant and as a person in the army, I have had mail
    and replys like the previous.  I realize the military isn't for
    all people, just like deoderant, shaving, perfume, smoking.  As
    far as the different liberties allowed in the service, I was in
    the medical corps, as an operating room technician.  I was an E-4
    and accorded no special privileges. I am a *severe* non-conformist
    as anyone who knows me will testify, I am blatently independant
    as my lifestyle and attitudes attest.  However I had a very powerful
    experience in the service because I learned self-reliance, independance
    and how to be a success without leaning on anyone or kissing rearends.
    the military is all what the person makes of it.  Because I don't 
    regret my enlisting, I have been slammed and termed a war monger, 
    non-thinking non-individual.  Its too bad that my pro-military 
    attitude is not as acceptable as the anti-military attitude. 
    
    so much for valuing differences.
        

    vivian

    <--(.69)
    
    Vivian, try to take it all with a grain of salt.  Believe me, there are
    plenty of people who, while not thinking well of the military
    experience itself, think *very* highly of most people who sacrifice
    large chunks of their lives to do military service.  
    
    						=maggie

    Re Vivian, I respect the fact that you chose to stay in the military,
    and I accept the fact that you enjoyed the life and got a lot out
    of it.  I just want you to understand and accept that my choosing
    to *not* stay in was not a failure but a conscious *choice*.  I
    respect your choice - I simply would like the same acknowlegement
    from you - that just because a person did not enjoy the military
    does not mean they *failed*.  It simply means they didn't *like*
    it.  Now, if I had enlisted, loved it, wanted more than anything
    to be a WAC, tried but not been able to do what I had to do, I would
    have indeed failed.  But, as soon as I got in, I realized that I
    had made a mistake.  (Anybody, who has ever met me could tell very
    quickly that I am *not* the type to be a WAC!)  I wanted to leave
    and so I set about trying to get out.  This resulted in me actually
    being in basic at Ft. McClellan, in Anniston, Alabama, for *3 months*.
     It was quite an experience.  I do value the differences of the
    women who chose to stay in for 3 years or more, but I would like
    you to value the fact that I would never be happy in that environment.
     It's difficult to explain but I have to know that at any time I
    feel like it I can walk away - even if something bad happens to
    me if I walk away, like starvation or whatever - I have to be able
    to walk away or I won't be happy.  It's just the way I am.  I've
    worked at DEC for almost 13 years, but I *know* that I could leave
    anytime I wanted to, even if it meant I starved to death.  But I
    have to know I'm not held against my will or I go crazy and there's
    nothing I can do about it.  I could not philosophically adjust my
    thinking to make a life of the army.  I looked around and decided
    I could make nothing out of a life in the Army, so I left.  It was
    the best choice for me.  If you stayed in and were happy then I
    have no problem with that.  I just don't want you to sound as though
    you have a problem with my leaving.
    
    During the 3 months I was in there I made friends with many girls
    from all over the country of all backgrounds - black, white, chinese,
    american indian, etc.  Some of my friends wanted to stay in but
    they understood that it wasn't the life for me and I understood
    that it was the life for them - for at least 3 years.
    
    There are a lot of things I, personally, don't like about the way
    the military is set up, but that, to me, does not reflect at all
    on the majority of the men and women who have served.
    
    As a matter of fact, I enlisted 20 years ago *today* - Aug. 30,
    1968.  I can't believe it's been 20 years.  That was also the first
    time I ever flew in a airplane and also my first time outside of
    New England & the Maritime Provinces.  In some ways it seems like
    yesterday.  Besides, as I look back now, I was so *young* then and
    in some way it doesn't seem like even I can be held responsible
    for what that 18 yr. old girl decided to do!!
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .71, I meant to say even I *can't* be held responsible for what
    I did then.  In some ways it seems like yesterday, but in some ways
    it seems like it wasn't even *me*!
    
    Lorna
    

    re Lorna
    
    I was not reacting to you not staying in, I understand that some
    people don't like being in the service, your finding that out so
    soon was definetly to  your benifit. Some people stay in and do
    nothing but Bi**ch, some of them even have the nerve to reenlist!
    So, just so you understand it wasn't that you didn't stay in...

    my biggest flame-setter is when people respond with statements about
    if I or anyone stays in the military or even enjoys the experience
    they are not individuals, cannot cope with non-structured environments
    cannot think for themselves, couldn't pick clothing unless it was
    olive drab, and mostly that people in the service are ignorant,
    stupid uneducated.  call me sensitive, but I am non of the above
    and I think I can count on one hand the people who fit in that
    catagory.
    
    So Lorna, I apologize if you felt that I didn't understand why you
    left.
    I don't apologize though for being offended by the comments
    of stupidity and conformity about people in the service by *anyone*
    as I have stated above.
    
    peace...... 
    vivian
    
    

    
    	I think that in some ways I, personally, do conform.  For instance,
    	I'm going through the process to gain a top secret clearance.
     	I have to fill out more papers than you could imagine.  I think
    	that these papers are, for the most part, silly.  I think the
    	process could be more streamlined.  But I just kind of accept
    	it like a cow being led to the slaughter.  Moooooo :-).
    
    	I also conform in that there are certain rules and regs that
    	I follow.  I may not necessarily agree with them but I follow
    	them.  
    
    	I think where a lot of people get confused is that they see
    	military people doing what they're supposed to do.  If outsiders
    	think what we're doing is wrong, they complain, protest and
    	expect us to do the same.  If I get ordered to do something
    	that I don't agree with, I'll do it.  (Provided it is legal)
    	If I don't agree with it YOU'LL never hear me complain.  Someone
    	higher up in the military might hear about it; it might even
    	cause some changes to be made but no one will ever know that
    	I complained.  Because of the nature of our service, the military
    	MUST maintain discipline.  DISCIPLINE not conformity.  Discipline
    	is knowing when and where to make your stands so that the greatest
    	good is achieved by all.  I consider myself highly disciplined
    	but I DO NOT consider myself a conformist.  
    
    	The military is not for everyone.  I can tell you for a fact
    	that I COULD not have been a flower child.  Preferences of
    	lifestyles will vary; that's what makes life interesting.
    
    	As to getting offended....if I might make a small personal comment.
    	You can say whatever you'd like and I'll listen.  I may not
    	agree but I'll listen.  If something that you write or say offends
    	me I'll say so, but I recognise that it is your opinion, which
    	you are entitled to, and therefore it will not cause me any
    	pain as a person.  I'll probably, however, defend my point of
    	view and attack people who make incorrect, unjustified statements.
    	None of it is meant personally.
    
    	To vivian...I say "Thank you".  If you've never heard it before
    	than I'm proud to be the first.  You gave up a lot to serve
    	your country (money, time, choice of location where you lived).
    	I'm glad that you had such a positive experience because it
    	just strengthens my conviction that the AF will be good for
    	me.  I just hope that I'm good enough for the AF.
    
    	GO IRISH!
    	GO AIR FORCE!
    
    	Rachel

    re:.60
    
    My friend joined in 1975, considerably after Nam. Both your and
    Vivian's suggestions for why the standards may have changed are
    quite reasonable.
    
    Incidentally, and rather tangential to the subject, as far as I
    know, my friend didn't join the WAC's, she joined the Army.
    Can anyone say for sure one way or the other whether the Women's
    Army Corps was officially dissolved as a distinct subdivision?
    
    --- jerry

    re:-1
    I was in the last class of recruits for the WAC's.  that was 
    " I don't remember exactly what month" I *think* April, 1974. 
    I even wear a WAC Army ring!  It seems that after my class, women
    and men then went into co-ed basic. Now, I admit, that might have
    been fun!!
    
    vivian

    Re .76, co-ed basic?  I could have *really* gotten into trouble!
    Then again, maybe I wouldn't have wanted to leave!:-) 
    
    Lorna
    

    
    I've been meaning to reply to this note for at least a week.
    At first I was going to use my usual approach - which is to
    read all the notes taking notes while I do so and then to
    respond to all the little barbs along the way.  But then I
    decided not to because I just want this to be short and to the
    point (almost an impossibility for me!)
    
    Today I counted up the days I have left of inactive reserve duty
    for the Navy.  37.  I hope even after hearing about the Libyan
    jets today that it remains 37!
    
    Not that I am not proud of my service in the Navy.  To the 
    contrary I feel I was a credit to myself, my family and my 
    country.  I would have to agree with some of the other noters
    and say that I feel that it is important to do something for
    other people in this country - if not in the military perhaps
    some other group dedicated to helping people.  
    
    In 4 years I attained the rank of E-5 (yes that's an NCO or 
    petty officer 2nd class).  I got to know a lot of other NCOs.
    I rarely met a cheif (or E-7 up ) I didn't like but met several
    lesser ranking NCOs I *didn't*.  There could be various reasons
    for this none of which I want to take time with here.  I would
    like to point out how luck both Rachel and Louisa were in meeting
    "highly motivated" NCOs.  Unfortunately I ran into many that were
    boorish, tactless, slovenly and a disgrace to their uniform.  A
    large part of ones outlook on the military *and* the people in it
    depends on what your training is and where you are stationed.
    
    This comes to play in both Rachel's and Louisa's fortune at not
    finding sexism.  I found plenty of it.  Naturally any area where
    women are allowed would have to play down these feelings.  But 
    women are allowed in a percentage (I'm not sure how little) of
    our military ranks.  Outside that area sexism is rampant.  Consider
    the two main feelings I continually ran into in the fleet.  (Most
    women get shore billets as women are only allowed on non-combattant
    vessels ie; tugboats, destroyer and sub tenders)
    A.)Women are in the service to find men.
    B.)Those that weren't were too unattractive and/or had different
       orientations
    
    Another frightening aspect was how men behaved overseas away from
    their wives and SOs.  I'll spare you the details.
    
    One noter expressed that these people are the same that you would
    find in day-to-day life across our nation.  Perhaps but in all my
    years at DEC nobody has asked me what kind of tree corn grows in!
    
    I'm just trying to paint a realistic picture.  I'm not saying that
    everyone in the military is guilty of the above.  It's a different
    world.  One that I am glad to be out of.  And I'm *very glad* that
    our ship was not involved in combat either offensive or defensive.
    
    Luis   - soon to be a *real* civilian.
    

    Hmmm...I almost forgot.
    
    This past Sunday, 60 MINUTES had a story on women in the military.
    The upshot of it was that women are still discriminated against
    vis a vis being allowed in combat positions, but the feeling seems
    to be that this won't remain so much longer. Though "officially"
    women aren't allowed in combat per se, there are a lot of them in
    combat *support* groups that, should a conventional war break out
    (say, in Europe), will *de facto* be in combat.
    
    One interesting tidbit (if I understood it , and am remembering it
    right) was that the US has the largest percentage of women in the
    military, moreso than even, contrary to popular belief, Israel.
    
    --- jerry

    I started to reply to this note last week and got lost - I'm one
    of those people that is intimidated by computers (please don't tell!),
    and never even played Pac-Man.  Here I go again.
    
    I spent 9 years, 4months, 16 days, and I can't remember how many
    hours in the U.S. Army.
    
    Women have always been in combat, whether they were recognized or
    not.  Example:  Molly Pitcher, 8 months pregant, followed her husband
    into battle as was common then.  When he was shot, she took over
    the cannon and won the battle.  George himself (Washington, not
    Bush) decorated her after the war.  Another woman in George
    Washington's time was Judy Fairchild.  She was a prosititute that
    listened intently to her favorite customer talk of battle.  She
    bought mens clothing and practiced acting like a man in her town
    until she felt comfortable.  She enlisted in the Army and fought
    bravely until she fell ill with a brain fever.  The examining doctor
    was the one to discover that she was a woman.  She was decorated
    by G.W. after the Revolutionary War and awarded lands for her
    valiant service.
    
    The U.S. lost a female pilot during WWII and we also lost 8
    women during VietNam.  According to Congress, women do not serve
    in combat; however, when one is being shot at, what would you do?
    
    There is more that I would like to say; however, duty calls.  My
    last job in the Army was in Equal Opportunity and I helped teach
    women studies.
    
    I am delighted for this vehicle to share information and I will
    soon introduce myself properly and take part.
    
    Debbie

    Sorry, I wasn't awake enough to get all the details, and it was a few
    weeks ago, so some of this information may be wrong or slightly
    inaccurate, but (note the ?'s) the overall picture is right...
    
    The Canadian Human Rights Commission (?) has declared the Canadian
    Armed Forces is in violation of the Constitution and equal opportunity
    (whatever they call our version of "AA"  - can't remember) by not
    allowing women to join combat units, and has ruled the Canadian Armed
    Forces must allow women access to any role they desire and qualify for
    or can be trained for, and further must prove women will be given such
    opportunities by reporting results.  Full integration has a time limit
    of sometime in the 1990's.  The only exception to this is submarine
    duty, since close quarters and living conditions are not conducive to
    or easily modified for both sexes (besides, Canada doesn't have any
    'real' submarines anyway :-) all are old diesel subs). 
    
    The Armed Forces can appeal the decision to the Canadian Supreme
    Court, but early indications are they will comply.
    
    I call this one a major (no pun intended) victory, except for the
    submarine thing, which seems a cop-out.
    
    Otto.                                  
    

    Right on, Canada - we are 52% of the population and it's about time
    women are included in a more active part of the military forces.
    As you know, women serve on ships in the U.S. Navy, but are limited
    to ships who do not have a combat mission.
    
    About 15 years ago, the Department of Defense embarked on a very
    important mission:  they decided to study the effects of women in
    the military.  It's been a long time since I had this info at my
    fingertips, but I will try to relate the basics of the studies.
    
    A study called MAXWACS was to determine how many women you can put
    in an Army unit before the efficiency is messed up.  Results:  they
    never found out.  They stopped after about 50%!
    
    Another study was to determine what the differences are between
    male and female soldiers.  Results:  Men patronize women and women
    take advantage of that.  In addition:  Men have more upper body
    strength than women.  
    
    I wish they would have asked me those questions.  I would have saved
    them a lot of $!  Have to sign off, but will add more little tidbits
    from my memory bank later.
    
    D.

Don't remember if this was mentioned, but Tom Clancey's recent pot-boilers
"Red Storm Rising" and "Patriot Games" have a couple of examples of "women
in the military."  They do ok, for what its worth.

About 15 years ago, someone proposed that Sweden extend its universal (male)
military service to include women.  Of course, the women would be banned
from combat roles.  An editorial writer in the major Stockholm paper wrote
that this would be a great idea, and if it worked, it should be extended to
the men, too.

Martin.

.84>I'm happy to see that women are allowed to have combat roles. Only when 
.84>they will be drafted and they MUST be in combat roles will they then 
.84>have equality in the armed services. 

    Surely that's not the *only* way to have equality in the
    armed services.  Honestly, I'd rather see the day when
    *neither* men nor women are forced to serve in combat roles. 

    -- Linda

   Advisory board wants to let women in Army try combat

   By Nolan Walters
   Mercury News Washington Bureau

	WASHINGTON - The Pentagon's own advisory board on women in the
    military has recommended that female soldiers be allowed to take any Army
    job, including direct combat roles, during a four-year test.
	The recommendataion is apparently the first of its kind form an
    officially sancioned advisory board. It shows a growing desire among
    servicewomen for true equality, including access to career-enhancing
    combat roles.
	"For heaven's sake, why not let them serve?" said Connie S. Lee, a
    history professor from Rock Hill, S.C., who chairs the Defense Advisory
    Comittee on Women in the Services.
	"Women would have to ask for the (combat) position, and they'd have to
    qualify in every way," she added.
	But with fewer men available for the military, Les said, the Army has
    good reason to open new jobs to women.
	The Army is aware of the recommendation and will study it, but had no
    immediate reaction, said spokeswoman Paige Ezersole. The Army is not
    required to act on the recommendation.

   Reprinted with permission of the San Jose Mercury News. Permission to
   reprint other than in Womannotes was not requested and has not been given.
   On the other hand, it was easy to get permission. Call Chuck Buxton at
   the San Jose Mercury - (408) 920-5230.

	-- Charles