Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-edu1!rafferty
From: rafferty@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Colin Rafferty)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Women in combat
Message-ID: <380@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 22-Jun-85 06:47:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-e.380
Posted: Sat Jun 22 06:47:30 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Jun-85 23:54:53 EDT
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 25

> {Karen Isaacson}
> 
> OK, I'll challenge it.  I think (subject to requiring a certain level of
> physical strength, as we do with fire fighters) that women should have to
> go into combat if men do.  Of course, I'd just as soon no one had to
> go to war at all, at all.

I'll challenge the bit about fire fighters.  In NYC just a few years back,
the fire department was forced to give women an "equivalent" physical test
for admittance.  This test was the exact same thing that the men had, except
every single part of it was easier (i.e. fewer reps, shorter distance,
lighter weights).  This was all because the test given was "geared toward
men", who could do more strenuous activities than the women.

I seem to remember that the general feeling by we male chauvanist pigs was
that any one of us would feel much better if he were in a fire and the fire
fighter coming to rescue him was male.  In fact this was part of a letter to
the editor in the Daily News (letter written by a female).

What can you say about something like that???

----
            Colin Rafferty { Math Department, Carnegie-Mellon University }

"I suspect that CMU would deny ever knowing me, let alone sharing my views."