Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!aplvax!ded From: ded@aplvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Bloody shreds revisited Message-ID: <203@aplvax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 26-Jul-83 13:59:44 EDT Article-I.D.: aplvax.203 Posted: Tue Jul 26 13:59:44 1983 Date-Received: Wed, 27-Jul-83 08:52:24 EDT Lines: 26 I've received several similar responses to an article I posted, so I suppose it's time to answer them all publicly. Here is a representative quote: "The military should only put appropriate people into combat, men AND women." The question is: how can this be done? The military currently uses a blanket policy to put the "appropriate" people into combat: they use men. The basis for this policy is that, over-all, men will freeze-up less, kill better, etc., than women. And in a general sense, this is true. If you randomly select a group of 100 men and 100 women from the population, the group of men will most likely be the most effective combat force. I am not a fan of the military, but I can't for the life of me think of a better way to choose cannon fodder. Will we have some sort of "combat suitability" test? If we did, would you try to pass it? There isn't a test written that I couldn't flunk if I wanted to, especially so-called "psychological tests." What about it? Is there some fair and gender-independent way to choose who will risk their lives in combat, given that there won't be enough volunteers? Don Davis JHU/APL ...decvax!harpo!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!ded ...rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!aplvax!ded