I'm shocked. Shocked! To discover that further idiocy is going on here.
What amazes me beyond words is that 56% of the country still thinks we're doing A-OK over there. I keep picturing an excruciatingly young Harrison Ford leaning forward, shoulders hunches, and shouting toward a communicator, "Just a slight, er, reactor core leak. We're all fine here! How are you?"
Now 1656 to 0.
I presume it's a programming glitch, but it's really aggravating nonetheless.
Huh.
I read this thread and wandered away and thought about it for a while before I came back. I will admit that my response is informed by the fact that I've been neck-deep in the headspace of a fictional disabled female combat veteran for the past nine months, so take this with however many grains of salt y'all feel that warrants. Now, disclaimer of personal bias aside....
(I'm impressed, by the way, that no-one in this thread has felt the need to raise the bugaboo of "female soldiers being raped and tortured." Because, as we all know, those things never happen to male soldiers, or to civilians of either gender. Good avoidance of one of the more ridiculous hot buttons.)
There are certain well-documented physiological differences between the genders: minor sexual dimorphism in terms of physical endurance, physical flexibility, physical strength, pain tolerance, etc. I suggest that the bell curves do overlap a bit, for one thing, and for another I suggest that a single standard should be adopted and maintained for both genders in any role where physical capability can make a difference in who lives and who dies. Seems only logical.
On the other hand, if you consider infantry and other combat roles--well, that's where it breaks down. Historically, there have been a number of combat roles that could be fulfilled as well or better by a qualified woman as a qualified man. Some of them are jobs that no sane person of either gender would want. (Tunnel rat leaps to mind as the obvious, if extreme, example of a dirty combat job where small size and meticulousness count for more than upper body strength.)
More importantly, this ignores the most important consideration of combat: we have never, in a time of serious war (as opposed to recreational war), had the luxury of choosing to send only the ones most suited to combat. (Otherwise there would be no need for, to choose an item at random, Fucking Ridiculous Eye Devices). And it seems to me utterly ridiculous to claim that a twenty-year-old woman is less suited to serve under fire than a fifteen-year-old boy, and John Gorka wouldn't have an absolutely wonderful song ("Semper Fi") about his then-teenaged father's choice to join the Marines to get out of the coal mines.
As for the sorts of nasty infections that either gender might find themselves subject to under conditions that might best be described as unsanitary... considering the fact that my grandfather was Army Corps in the South Pacific and lost portions of both feet to trenchfoot, I find Capt. Egan's comments in that regard to be something of an insult to my family honor, as I must infer from his comments that that maiming is somehow less significant than a vaginal yeast infection. (Assuming for a moment that there was some substance to his argument.)
The rule in a real war is "You fight if you're able, and you serve in whatever capacity you can." And there's no reason in a modern army for gender alone to be an exclusionary factor if a soldier can meet every other qualification for the job. Especially when the armed forces are and have been an opportunity for the underprivileged and poor.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2003 | 4 |
Total: 4 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Elizabeth Bear:
Show all comments by Elizabeth Bear.