Combat for the disposable sex versus combat for the protected sex
… 1 think women are too valuable to be in combat.
US. Secretary of Defense (under Reagan/*
It is not appropriate for women to engage in combat… to be captured or to be shot, as opposed to pushing a button someplace in a missile silo.
Sandra Day O’Connor, Supreme Court Justices
Men get killed in wars all the time. But she’s my daughter.
Retired Chief Master Sergeant*
If there’s a fire at sea and you have to slam down a hatch to save the ship, you might do it on a man. But on a woman. . .
Larry K. Kenavan,
Master Chief Petty Officer,
U S. Navy7
Combat positions in the armed services are now divided into dangerous versus less-dangerous combat positions8 In wartime, only men can be forced into the dangerous combat positions. Restricting women from even volunteering for the most dangerous combat positions is clearly discrimination against women. But it also discriminates against the men who must fill these dangerous positions.
The service is often called the college for the poor, yet these dangerous positions are poor preparation for civilian life. The New York Times has few "help wanted" ads for cannon artillery positions, armored tank specialists, and infantry positions in civilian life. Poor men hope to be trained in jobs such as computer specialties, office jobs, food preparation, teaching, nursing, social work, flight controller, or jet mechanic. When only men are forced to fill the dangerous combat jobs, only men lose the opportunities for these civilian preparation positions.
In addition, cannon artillery and infantry positions are also more likely to reinforce the killer mentality’, create the most psychological disturbances and the most difficulty adjusting psychologically to civilian life. The restriction on women, then, makes men more disposable in military life and more disposable in civilian life.