Quote:
|
Explain to me why you don't believe women should be aboard combat ships?
|
This
social quagmire of an issue is not a problem - as long as one accepts the
'separate but equal' and
'there'll always be someone around to do that for me' arguments which were a part of the discussion that resulted in a change to the previous requirements for a general seaman on such a ship to be able to carry a wounded sailor of equal or greater bodyweight up a ladder during an emergency. Since the theory has not - as far as I know - been tested to date, life has gone on pretty much as before with our combat vessels being staffed by members of both sexes.
Saw the same thing in the Air Force when female aviation mechanics were first assigned to an SOS at Rhein-Main AFB and couldn't carry their tool boxes to the flight line during an EDRE as required because they were too heavy and the males had to carry them. But the requirement was simply waived with the stroke of a commander's signature, the males were upset until the change became a matter of routine, and life went on.
Also dealt with the physio- and psychological effects on trainees and cadre (both male and female) of the standards (85% physical capacity) issues in regards to women and airborne training. The standards remain in place, some people still don't like it, and life has gone on.
Personally, IMO the greater problem remains less one of physical capabilities and continues to arise more from the proverbial
'battles of the sexes' - a distracting element for any male-female unit's chain-of-command and an issue for which there may never be other than a compromise of a solution.
Now, as an educator, the issues I deal with on a nearly daily basis among the faculty and student bodies are not all that much different and the only measurement I've come to use is whether anyone can successfully perform the duties of their
job description or not. Go figure.
Richard's $.02
