- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 50
Posted by Ian Edwards <[email protected]> on Tue, 12 Sep 2000 21:47:14 -0600
Not disputing the logic of your arguments, but
dead Canadian soldiers were NOT shipped back to Canada
in body bags in WW2 or earlier. I‘m sure this is just
a slip on your part but in case some of the younger readers ...
The MacFarlanes‘ wrote:
>
> In the 90s, just before I took my release, my Unit was allowing women in
> Combat roles artillery. As individuals, some of the females that I
> trained, and worked with, were as able, or more so, than many of the males.
> That aside, I found, and many of my fellow Snr NCOs agreed, that their
> presence had a disruptive effect in the Unit. Not in how they functioned as
> soldiers, but the effects they had on group dynamics. Imagine a unit smoker
> when 3/4 of the male soldiers are trying to gain the affections of one of
> the female soldiers. Or when a pretty, well-endowed, or whatever female
> course candidate is legitimately excelling on a course, when all the sour
> grapes types proclaim it is favouritism. Imagine the affect on a platoon
> when one of your own female members is found raped and tortured at the
> hands of an enemy, as opposed to a similar affect, if the soldier was male.
> Maybe all female units is the way to go, instead of co-ed. Not to open
> another can of worms, but I think the same applies to gays in the military.
> Just as capable as individuals, but the Unit morale is affected negatively
> possibly, even if it is due to archaic or unfounded views.
> On a related story, I was talking to a WWII vet, who was friend of mine, one
> day. He was relating to me a discussion he had had with a young female
> officer who was lividly defending women in combat. The old gent smiled at
> her and said that during the war, he saw a lot of his comrades headed back
> to Canada in body bags, and he thought if half of them would have been
> female, it would have suited him just fine. Of course, she quickly pulled in
> her horns, sputtering that wasn‘t what she meant, etc.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 6:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Manditory service requirement
>
> > Thanks for your support Joan, and I fully agree with what you‘ve said.
> > I think I made the wrong impression when I stated the ‘I‘ wouldn‘t be all
> > that comfortable with forcing women to enlist.
> > Let me explain a little- I think that, as long as he\she can cut it in
> every
> > aspect of the militaryphysically, mentally, etc,, he-she should be
> allowed
> > in to whatever trade she wants into.
> > All I meant is that I personally wouldn‘t feel all that comfortable having
> to
> > go into combat with women. Not that they wouldn‘y be effective soldiers,
> but
> > I know that being the old fashioned guy I am, I would tend to favour them
> > should something happen. Especially if I held a commision and one was
> under
> > my command.
> > Now, I‘m being frank and down to earth. I think, despite your opinions,
> you
> > know I"m not being intentionally prejudice. I just think that way. I often
> > think I actually belonged way back when..... Really. Sometimes I wonder
> why I
> > wasn‘t soldiering during one of our wars. I don‘t know... And, no, I"m not
> > nuts.
> > Sorry for any hard feelings.
> > -Matt
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to [email protected] from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to [email protected] from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to [email protected] from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
Not disputing the logic of your arguments, but
dead Canadian soldiers were NOT shipped back to Canada
in body bags in WW2 or earlier. I‘m sure this is just
a slip on your part but in case some of the younger readers ...
The MacFarlanes‘ wrote:
>
> In the 90s, just before I took my release, my Unit was allowing women in
> Combat roles artillery. As individuals, some of the females that I
> trained, and worked with, were as able, or more so, than many of the males.
> That aside, I found, and many of my fellow Snr NCOs agreed, that their
> presence had a disruptive effect in the Unit. Not in how they functioned as
> soldiers, but the effects they had on group dynamics. Imagine a unit smoker
> when 3/4 of the male soldiers are trying to gain the affections of one of
> the female soldiers. Or when a pretty, well-endowed, or whatever female
> course candidate is legitimately excelling on a course, when all the sour
> grapes types proclaim it is favouritism. Imagine the affect on a platoon
> when one of your own female members is found raped and tortured at the
> hands of an enemy, as opposed to a similar affect, if the soldier was male.
> Maybe all female units is the way to go, instead of co-ed. Not to open
> another can of worms, but I think the same applies to gays in the military.
> Just as capable as individuals, but the Unit morale is affected negatively
> possibly, even if it is due to archaic or unfounded views.
> On a related story, I was talking to a WWII vet, who was friend of mine, one
> day. He was relating to me a discussion he had had with a young female
> officer who was lividly defending women in combat. The old gent smiled at
> her and said that during the war, he saw a lot of his comrades headed back
> to Canada in body bags, and he thought if half of them would have been
> female, it would have suited him just fine. Of course, she quickly pulled in
> her horns, sputtering that wasn‘t what she meant, etc.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 6:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Manditory service requirement
>
> > Thanks for your support Joan, and I fully agree with what you‘ve said.
> > I think I made the wrong impression when I stated the ‘I‘ wouldn‘t be all
> > that comfortable with forcing women to enlist.
> > Let me explain a little- I think that, as long as he\she can cut it in
> every
> > aspect of the militaryphysically, mentally, etc,, he-she should be
> allowed
> > in to whatever trade she wants into.
> > All I meant is that I personally wouldn‘t feel all that comfortable having
> to
> > go into combat with women. Not that they wouldn‘y be effective soldiers,
> but
> > I know that being the old fashioned guy I am, I would tend to favour them
> > should something happen. Especially if I held a commision and one was
> under
> > my command.
> > Now, I‘m being frank and down to earth. I think, despite your opinions,
> you
> > know I"m not being intentionally prejudice. I just think that way. I often
> > think I actually belonged way back when..... Really. Sometimes I wonder
> why I
> > wasn‘t soldiering during one of our wars. I don‘t know... And, no, I"m not
> > nuts.
> > Sorry for any hard feelings.
> > -Matt
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to [email protected] from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to [email protected] from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to [email protected] from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
