# Equal rights, when it suits you? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 7, 2001, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-when-it-suits-you/64621 "2001-05-07T06:09:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2001, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-when-it-suits-you/64621/41 "2001-05-13T04:57:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by KellyM \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > > **However, if the issue is ‘will this person be able to carry a 50 pound pack over rough terrain’, devise a test that would assess that.** > > Give them a 50 pound pack and have them try to carry it over rough terrain. > \*\* And I’ve seen women do it, while carrying eight-pound rifles, combat webbing, and steel battle helmets. So it can be done. ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2001, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-when-it-suits-you/64621/42 "2001-05-13T05:17:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JamesCarroll \* > **Why don’t you all just admit that on average women are smaller, slower, weaker, dumber, and less able to carry out the type activities needed to kill.** You know, for someone who’s been on these boards for a year and a half, you sure as hell haven’t learned anything. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2001, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-when-it-suits-you/64621/43 "2001-05-13T05:25:18Z")
**pepperlandgirl** : > [@](#): > > Now let’s say women and men are drafted. Who is left behind to do the work? Who is left behind to take care of the families? Who stays in the nation to make the supplies needed to win the war? All the men and women who weren’t drafted - either because they were too young, too old, physically unfit to serve, or simply lucky. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2001, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-when-it-suits-you/64621/44 "2001-05-13T13:24:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by KellyM \* > \*\* > So, in other words, women have to be protected from criminal men because the Army is incapable of policing its own effectively? > > Bullshit. The solution to **this** problem is to make the penalty for raping a fellow soldier during wartime a capital offense. After a few guys get shot for their jollies, you’ll see guys behaving a whole lot better. > \*\* Whether or not Kelly’s solution would work, I don’t know. However, it’s important to remember that winning the war is cricial. For this reason, lots of desirable social ends have to take a back seat to military effectiveness. ---
**Author:** ![fecal\_nugget](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b38774/32.png) [@fecal\_nugget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fecal_nugget)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2001, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-when-it-suits-you/64621/45 "2001-05-13T18:53:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SpoilerVirgin \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by fecal\_nugget \* > > \*\* > > 2. Women are excused from the selective service. > > I cannot help but see it as selfish that a movement can demand equality, yet stop short of truly equal treatment when it comes to the downsides to their newly aquired rights. > > \*\* > > There are feminists who demand equality, yet request to be excused from the draft? I’d like a cite, please. > \*\* Apparently, I was mistaken about the feminist movement, I was wrong and therefore, have no cite. ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2001, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-when-it-suits-you/64621/46 "2001-05-13T19:10:55Z")
I don’t even want to get started on what **JamesCarroll** said. It wouldn’t be pretty and would probably get me a warning from the mods. I cannot speak from all women, or even for the entire feminist movement, but I can say for sure that I want women to have equal rights in all situations. Right now, in the US, they have more rights than men as they are excluded from the draft. That isn’t equal rights. Simple, eh? In my mind, feminism works both ways. It would be extremely hypocritical and dishonourable to demand equal pay, equal opportunity and then turn around and expect to be excluded from the draft and all those “hard” jobs. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2001, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-when-it-suits-you/64621/47 "2001-05-14T12:33:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\* > Wring suggests that “we” analyze our test data. Who is “we”? You’d think the store manager would be trying to get the most accurate test, since the hiring decision actually matters to her. However,in this context, Wring seems to be saying that she and her feminist buddies need to analyze and adjust the employment tests for every occupation, including fire fighter, soldier, janitor, etc. (Luckily for me, they haven’t gotten around to the actuarial exams yet.) > > What makes them think they have the competence, experience and qualifications to improve all these tests? The answer is found in wring’s hypothetical example. Current tests are presumed to be “idiotic.” It follows that a feminist can automatically do better. \*\* Once again, **december** your own agenda trips you up. as I linked before, the State Department studied the issue of training exercises in the military and how to make them gender neutral. Not the feminists. Nor me. Yes, the people in charge of hiring have the deep abiding interest in hiring folks who are qualified. However, if the ‘training’ and ‘assessments’ have been the same for 40 50 years, it would be likely that in most cases anyhow, there would have been substantail advancements in those areas in that time. and, as was pointed out, the true measure of ‘can this soldier carry this equipment’ or ‘can this firefighter carry this hose’ is to test that, and not, say ‘can this firefighter do 75 pushups?’ ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2001, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-when-it-suits-you/64621/48 "2001-05-14T13:16:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > \*\*Once again, **december** your own agenda trips you up. as I linked before, the State Department studied the issue of training exercises in the military and how to make them gender neutral. \*\* Why would the State Department study military training exercises? Wouldn’t that properly be the domain of the Defense Department? ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2001, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-when-it-suits-you/64621/49 "2001-05-14T13:19:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\* > However, it’s important to remember that winning the war is cricial. For this reason, lots of desirable social ends have to take a back seat to military effectiveness. \*\* Like discipline, it would seem. Ever notice that during wartime, the tolerance for failure to comply with disciplinary regulations goes **down** (not up, as your thesis would suggest)? Maintaining discipline in the ranks is one of the most important steps to military effectiveness. Enforcing a rule against rape is just part of enforcing military discipline. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2001, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-when-it-suits-you/64621/50 "2001-05-14T13:24:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by KellyM \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > > \*\*Once again, **december** your own agenda trips you up. as I linked before, the State Department studied the issue of training exercises in the military and how to make them gender neutral. \*\* > > Why would the State Department study military training exercises? Wouldn’t that properly be the domain of the Defense Department? > \*\* yes, it was the Dept. of Defense, (hey I correctly atributed it when I first posted about it, doesn’t that count for something) insert embarrassed smiley here. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2001, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-when-it-suits-you/64621/51 "2001-05-14T21:59:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > \*\*Once again, _december_ your own agenda trips you up. \*\* It’s my agenda, and I’m sticking to it! The world seen utter disasters when power was in the hands of people who didn’t know what they were doing or who weren’t fully committed to the success of the endeavor. It’s amusing when feminists ask for equality on the one hand and preferences on the other. But, it’s serious if feminist involvement with the fire department causes people to burn to death or if their involvement with the military causes our soldiers to be killed, or, even, the loss of a war. Wring is still criticizing people for hypothetical idiocy: > [@](#): > > However, if the ‘training’ and ‘assessments’ have been the same for 40 50 years, it would be likely that in most cases anyhow, there would have been substantail advancements in those areas in that time. It certainly would be stupid to have ignored the technological advances of the last 40 or 50 years. Wring, is this a real problem? Do you have a cite? ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2001, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-when-it-suits-you/64621/52 "2001-05-14T22:25:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*It’s amusing when feminists ask for equality on the one hand and preferences on the other. But, it’s serious if feminist involvement with the fire department causes people to burn to death or if their involvement with the military causes our soldiers to be killed, or, even, the loss of a war. \*\* ante up now. Provide a cite for feminists that have demanded equality and preferences at the same time. Provide a cite for a feminist involved in a fire department and caused any person to burn to death. Provide a city for a woman causing the death of soldiers (because she was female) and the loss of a war. I’ll wait over here while you do it, thank you. (and as a pre-emptive, no, a link to one of your favorite columnists saying that it happened won’t do, thank you) (I provided a cite for why the Dept Of Defense has altered it’s training regime. it was on page one.) ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2001, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-when-it-suits-you/64621/53 "2001-05-14T22:56:47Z")
data on firefighters: [do women and men have the same requirements](http://www.ci.plymouth.mn.us/city_services/Fire/firefighter_FAQ.html) [they seem to](http://www.city.saskatoon.sk.ca/org/fire_protective/careers_training/becoming_a_firefighter.asp) [in years past, things were different](http://www.wfsi.org/WFS.wannabe.html) and noted that they weren’t better. New standards (in the past 30 years) have brought a level of profesionalism up in the standards. this warns potential recruits to insure that when taking the tests insure that the gear fits properly, noting that it’s the fire department’s responsability to ensure gear appropriate to all sizes (as in, don’t only have extra large gloves/hats so that the smaller recruits will not have fitting gear). data on soldiers has already been presented. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2001, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-when-it-suits-you/64621/54 "2001-05-15T11:29:10Z")
Regarding the negative effect of feminism on military preparedness, here are three cites. Note the passage from the second quote below, “When physical standards are diluted, female soldiers suffer dramatically higher rates of injury.” BTW this is from a Canadian source. [http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/People/Horowitz/fem-mil.html](http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/People/Horowitz/fem-mil.html) > [@](#): > > There are many purposes behind the feminists’ efforts to restructure the military, but you can be sure that greater national security is not one of them. [http://www.skyboom.com/rusivictoria/index13.html](http://www.skyboom.com/rusivictoria/index13.html) > [@](#): > > What happened to asking for “a few good men” and promoting the team-building attitude behind it? Today’s military is championing inclusiveness at the expense of preparing for war. The army has welcomed the feminist push for increased representation in combat positions, which has led to lower physical standards for all recruits, and lower standards higher up to ensure rapid female promotion. When physical standards are diluted, female soldiers suffer dramatically higher rates of injury. A recent book descussed these sort of items in great detail. Included is a paragraph from a review: [http://www.commentarymagazine.com/0002/bk.fukuyama.html](http://www.commentarymagazine.com/0002/bk.fukuyama.html) > [@](#): > > Stephanie Gutmann’s new book, The Kinder, Gentler Military, debunks this received wisdom through first-rate reporting on the reality of the contemporary military. There is, as it turns out, a simple reason why academic studies and official commissions cannot get at the truth in this area: in the wake of the 1991 Tailhook scandal, which ended the careers of many navy officers who were found to have been insufficiently vigilant in rooting out sexual harassment, the military has become one of the most politically correct of all American institutions. In conducting the research for this book, Gutmann, a freelance journalist, was herself dogged by a variety of public-affairs officers determined to prevent a word of criticism from passing the lips of active-duty servicemen or servicewomen. To move beyond this “all-is-well-with-the-grain-harvest” sloganeering, she resorted to interviewing active-duty personnel off the record, talked to retired military men and women with no careers at stake, and visited scores of Internet bulletin boards. The result is a troubling indictment of what we have let happen to our armed forces in the name of sexual quality. An example not quite on point was the incompetent performance of Janet Reno, who was chosen to fulfill a promise of a female AG. Reno said she was responsible for the mis-handling of the Waco standoff, in which dozens of innocent women and children burned to death – the majority were Black and Hispanic. The Waco tragedy was indirectly responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing, so Reno in some sense shares a degree of responsibility for that. I don’t have a specific cite for fire or police departments. > [@](#): > > (I provided a cite for why the Dept Of Defense has altered it’s training regime. Wring’s cite shows that DOD was made “gener-neutral.” The question is whether military capability was lost in the process. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2001, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-when-it-suits-you/64621/55 "2001-05-15T11:53:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > (I provided a cite for why the Dept Of Defense has altered it’s training regime. > > Wring’s cite shows that DOD was made “gener-neutral.” The question is whether military capability was lost in the process. \*\* so your claim is that the Department of Defense \*\*intentionally \*\* lessened it’s military capability? Or that they don’t realize they’ve lowered their military capability? or that they don’t care? Or perhaps they don’t **agree** that they’ve lowered their military capability. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2001, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-when-it-suits-you/64621/56 "2001-05-15T12:49:01Z")
**december** states > [@](#): > > It’s amusing when feminists ask for equality on the one hand and preferences on the other. But, it’s serious if feminist involvement with the fire department causes people to burn to death or if their involvement with the military causes our soldiers to be killed, or, even, the loss of a war. I ask for proof (and mention that commentaries are not proof). He submits: a book review - the book involved “To move beyond this “all-is-well-with-the-grain-harvest” sloganeering, she resorted to interviewing active-duty personnel off the record, talked to retired military men and women with no careers at stake, and visited scores of Internet bulletin boards” not a study. interviews with individuals who may or may not have access to data, who may or may not have an agenda. I linked to the DoD report which outlined not only the changes it’s made but the reasons for them, and he challenges that with > [@](#): > > Wring’s cite shows that DOD was made “gener-neutral.” The question is whether military capability was lost in the process. So, he’d have you believe that the Department of Defense shouldn’t be entrusted with the well being of our military, and we should instead trust the statements made and collected by some reporter. riiiiiiiight. His second, the Canadian source makes statements (like the ones he’s quoted) but offer no source to those statements. It did include this gem, however > [@](#): > > The best way to recruit young men likely to make good soldiers is to revive the military requirement of manliness ah, yes, there’s an unbiased source, one that is looking to recruit the best soldiers for the job, not one with a preconcieved idea of what a soldier should be. his third is yet another commentator - and starts the article with this line > [@](#): > > There are many purposes behind the feminists’ efforts to restructure the military, but you can be sure that greater national security is not one of them and refers to the Tailhook scandal as “a drunken party at which crotches were grabbed in a gantlet ritual” ( you know, the one where, according to the official investigation, [as many as 83 women and 7 men were assaulted](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/navy/tailhook/91.html) ) and, finally, \*\*december \*\* acknowledges that he has no data re: police and firefighters. One needs to question, then where he comes up with the statement referenced above. So, he asserts that inclusion of women into these professions puts lives at risk, I ask for proof, he gives me commentators. been there, did that in another thread. **december** this site is for fighting ignorance. You make assertions. Not based in fact, based on opinions, and rarely linked. I call on you now to prove or retract your reprehensible assertion again quoted above. Of course, you have a right to your opinion, but here once again, you’ve made assertions, and when asked for evidence to support them, have none. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2001, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-when-it-suits-you/64621/57 "2001-05-15T13:09:41Z")
\*Originally posted by wring \* **…so your claim is that the Department of Defense intentionally lessened it’s military capability?** Actually it’s Stephanie Gutmann’s claim that the DoD substantially lessened America’s military capability due to political pressure from feminists. I haven’t read her book, but it was favorably reviewed in a lot of places – even in the liberal NY Times. If you don’t agree with Ms Gutman, isn’t it your turn to find a source? \*\*Provide a cite for feminists that have demanded equality and preferences at the same time. \*\* A couple of years ago, the courts forced an all-male military academy to accept a young woman, in the name of equality. But, when she was required to shave her head like all the men, she refused. **december** states > [@](#): > > It’s amusing when feminists ask for equality on the one hand and preferences on the other. But, it’s serious if feminist involvement with the fire department causes people to burn to death or if their involvement with the military causes our soldiers to be killed, or, even, the loss of a war. I ask for proof (and mention that commentaries are not proof). He submits: a book review - the book involved “To move beyond this “all-is-well-with-the-grain-harvest” sloganeering, she resorted to interviewing active-duty personnel off the record, talked to retired military men and women with no careers at stake, and visited scores of Internet bulletin boards” not a study. interviews with individuals who may or may not have access to data, who may or may not have an agenda. I linked to the DoD report which outlined not only the changes it’s made but the reasons for them, and he challenges that with > [@](#): > > Wring’s cite shows that DOD was made “gener-neutral.” The question is whether military capability was lost in the process. So, he’d have you believe that the Department of Defense shouldn’t be entrusted with the well being of our military, and we should instead trust the statements made and collected by some reporter. riiiiiiiight. His second, the Canadian source makes statements (like the ones he’s quoted) but offer no source to those statements. It did include this gem, however > [@](#): > > The best way to recruit young men likely to make good soldiers is to revive the military requirement of manliness ah, yes, there’s an unbiased source, one that is looking to recruit the best soldiers for the job, not one with a preconcieved idea of what a soldier should be. his third is yet another commentator - and starts the article with this line > [@](#): > > There are many purposes behind the feminists’ efforts to restructure the military, but you can be sure that greater national security is not one of them and refers to the Tailhook scandal as “a drunken party at which crotches were grabbed in a gantlet ritual” ( you know, the one where, according to the official investigation, [as many as 83 women and 7 men were assaulted](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/navy/tailhook/91.html) ) and, finally, \*\*december \*\* acknowledges that he has no data re: police and firefighters. One needs to question, then where he comes up with the statement referenced above. So, he asserts that inclusion of women into these professions puts lives at risk, I ask for proof, he gives me commentators. been there, did that in another thread. **december** this site is for fighting ignorance. You make assertions. Not based in fact, based on opinions, and rarely linked. I call on you now to prove or retract your reprehensible assertion again quoted above. Of course, you have a right to your opinion, but here once again, you’ve made assertions, and when asked for evidence to support them, have none. \*\* [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2001, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-when-it-suits-you/64621/58 "2001-05-15T13:12:10Z")
\*Originally posted by wring \* **…so your claim is that the Department of Defense intentionally lessened it’s military capability?** Actually it’s Stephanie Gutmann’s claim that the DoD substantially lessened America’s military capability due to political pressure from feminists. I haven’t read her book, but it was favorably reviewed in a lot of places – even in the liberal NY Times. Military preparedness is a serious matter. If you don’t agree with Ms Gutman, isn’t it your turn to find a source? \*\*Provide a cite for feminists that have demanded equality and preferences at the same time. \*\* A couple of years ago, the courts forced an all-male military academy to accept a young woman, in the name of equality. But, when she was required to shave her head like all the men, she refused. **december** states > [@](#): > > It’s amusing when feminists ask for equality on the one hand and preferences on the other. But, it’s serious if feminist involvement with the fire department causes people to burn to death or if their involvement with the military causes our soldiers to be killed, or, even, the loss of a war. I ask for proof (and mention that commentaries are not proof). He submits: a book review - the book involved “To move beyond this “all-is-well-with-the-grain-harvest” sloganeering, she resorted to interviewing active-duty personnel off the record, talked to retired military men and women with no careers at stake, and visited scores of Internet bulletin boards” not a study. interviews with individuals who may or may not have access to data, who may or may not have an agenda. I linked to the DoD report which outlined not only the changes it’s made but the reasons for them, and he challenges that with > [@](#): > > Wring’s cite shows that DOD was made “gener-neutral.” The question is whether military capability was lost in the process. So, he’d have you believe that the Department of Defense shouldn’t be entrusted with the well being of our military, and we should instead trust the statements made and collected by some reporter. riiiiiiiight. His second, the Canadian source makes statements (like the ones he’s quoted) but offer no source to those statements. It did include this gem, however > [@](#): > > The best way to recruit young men likely to make good soldiers is to revive the military requirement of manliness ah, yes, there’s an unbiased source, one that is looking to recruit the best soldiers for the job, not one with a preconcieved idea of what a soldier should be. his third is yet another commentator - and starts the article with this line > [@](#): > > There are many purposes behind the feminists’ efforts to restructure the military, but you can be sure that greater national security is not one of them and refers to the Tailhook scandal as “a drunken party at which crotches were grabbed in a gantlet ritual” ( you know, the one where, according to the official investigation, [as many as 83 women and 7 men were assaulted](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/navy/tailhook/91.html) ) and, finally, \*\*december \*\* acknowledges that he has no data re: police and firefighters. One needs to question, then where he comes up with the statement referenced above. So, he asserts that inclusion of women into these professions puts lives at risk, I ask for proof, he gives me commentators. been there, did that in another thread. **december** this site is for fighting ignorance. You make assertions. Not based in fact, based on opinions, and rarely linked. I call on you now to prove or retract your reprehensible assertion again quoted above. Of course, you have a right to your opinion, but here once again, you’ve made assertions, and when asked for evidence to support them, have none. \*\* [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2001, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-when-it-suits-you/64621/59 "2001-05-15T13:32:14Z")
still waiting for evidence of military unprepardness. You’ve linked to a book review, where the book interviewed some people (unnamed, unnumberered etc) I’ll give you my ex-sister in laws phone number (she’s an ex Navy) you can ask her opinion, too. Won’t prove any more than your book review did. Keep in mind that you’ve made the assertion that > [@](#): > > But, it’s serious if feminist involvement with the fire department causes people to burn to death or if their involvement with the military causes our soldiers to be killed, or, even, the loss of a war. where is your proof that women in the military cause soldiers to be killed or loose the war, proof that women in the fire department cause people to burn to death. Re: military cadet refusing to shave her head. I think she should have done it (although the whole shave the head thing seems to me to have little to do with military prepardness and more to do with getting the rookies to do stuff) . Do you have a link to the story? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2001, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-when-it-suits-you/64621/60 "2001-05-15T15:42:08Z")
\*Originally posted by wring \* \*\*Re: military cadet refusing to shave her head. I think she should have done it (although the whole shave the head thing seems to me to have little to do with military prepardness and more to do with getting the rookies to do stuff). Do you have a link to the story? \*\* [/QUOTE] I looked for a link, but failed to find it. IIRC the school was either The Citidel or Virginia Military Institute. I took cello lessons in the late 1950’s from Lillian Rehberg Goodman, who was married to Saul Goodman, long-time tympanist of the NY Philharmonic. She said that Leonard Bernstein had told her that she’d be easily good enough to play in the NY Philharmonic, if she were a man. In those days, most major orchestras allowed women to play only the harp. That was totally unjustified discrimination. When women were admitted to the NY Philharmonic, nobody proposed different standards for women musicians or for for all musicians. Nobody second-guessed the conductor’s musical judgment. Women who could play as as well as men (or better) were accepted as orchestra members, and that was that. Worse than average male usicians were relaced by above average women, so the overall quality improved. Similarly, Jackie Robinson excelled at the exact version of baseball that he went into. He didn’t demand 4 strikes for himself or for all baseball players. This is quite different from today’s feminists, who properly want women accepted, but who improperly want to revise existing structures. I am suspicious of their motives in seeking these structural changes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-when-it-suits-you/64621.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-when-it-suits-you/64621.md?page=4)