Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!americast-post Newsgroups: americast.natrev From: americast-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: americast-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: Letters Date: Fri, 30 Oct 92 13:09:31 EST Message-ID: Letters Women in Combat Boots All that's missing from David Horowitz's argument against the feminiza- tion of the military is personal perspective [''The Feminist Assault on the Military,'' Oct. 5]. Allow me. When I was in Special Forces school trying to earn a green beret the old-fashioned way, the first woman to win one did it the new way. She got a judge to rule that the school discriminated against her on the basis of gender. Perhaps it did. But the only gender discrimination I ever saw was heavily in favor of women. At airborne school, for example, the Army did everything it could to make things easier for women trying to win their silver wings. Pregnancy was absolutely epidemic among female GIs. I re- member one woman telling her commanding officer that she couldn't pho- tocopy a few sheets of paper ''because of the baby.'' He didn't even think to argue with her. Choose your own metaphor -- the chain is only as strong as its weakest link; the convoy is only as fast as its slowest ship -- but a unit with fifty men and five women would be less capable of doing its job than one with just fifty men. Ironically, the same feminists who demand that there be no double standard in the civilian workplace demand that there be one in the mili- tary. Only by making sacrifices to female physiological disadvantages has our military been able to become so heavily feminized -- the most heavily feminized in the world today. In such lopsided conflicts as the Gulf War, this may be of little import. But correct military planning emphasizes worst-case scenarios. Are we going to sacrifice our defense and allow fe- male soldiers a better than equal chance to die for their country because feminists have decided to change the laws of physiology with the law of the land? Michael Fumento Los Angeles, Calif. It is unfortunate that Mr. Horowitz chose to use the ''facts'' of a Heritage Foundation study to affirm his position. My daughter entered West Point this summer. Let me assure you that the plebes, both female and male, still train in combat boots, still run with heavy weapons, and still march with full backpacks, contrary to what Mr. Horowitz reported. As for his assertion that resentment on the part of male cadets is high, I would suggest that he visit West Point and decide for himself. I have observed otherwise. And although I cannot confirm or deny his assertion that 50 per cent of the women cadets reported being ''sexually'' harassed, it would surprise me greatly. All plebes are harassed -- it is an accepted part of the West Point experience. But from my conversations with both female and male plebes, it is dispensed without regard to gender. Daniel L. Flint Chappaqua, N.Y. Mr. Flint's letter is true in particulars, but the general impression it leaves is false. Thus, until 1976, when women were first admitted, cadets at West Point did their training exercises in combat boots. Two years later the practice was terminated. It is true that women and men now perform some routines together in combat boots, but neither wears them during regular exercises any more. The official explanation is that the wearing of combat boots during exercises caused injuries to both women and men and that the revised practice has nothing to do with the change to a sex- ually integrated academy. Readers can decide for themselves whether they believe this. The double standards for women and men at the academy are now per- vasive, and no reputable military authority will deny this fact. The double standard is enshrined in the official USMA ''Doctrine of Comparable Training,'' which accepts ''the use where necessary of comparable, rather than identical, standards in some aspects of physical education and mili- tary training.'' As to attitudes in the ranks, I did my own interviews with enlisted men and women. I stand by what I reported. -- DH Defending Advocates John O'Sullivan recently attacked the media's bigoted attitude toward Re- publicans [''From the Editor,'' Sept. 14]. Accepting his definition of bigotry, ''namely, hostility toward some group unsupported by, or contrary to, the evidence,'' isn't the Republicans' continual attorney bashing blatantly bigotry? All evidence -- never mind what the Council on Competitiveness says -- does not support continued calls for tort reform. The Rand Institute for Civil Justice, hardly a left-wing lackey, published a study in 1991 that reached conclusions inconsistent with the unmitigated hammering we at- torneys receive from the Bush - Quayle ticket. The Republican Administration says that trial lawyers cost society $300 billion. Rand concluded it is $150 billion, which accounts for every possible cost to the system. It adds that the majority of litigation costs are incurred in divorce rather than tort cases. Direct and indirect costs from nonfatal accidents impose a substantial burden on the economy each year, about $175.9 billion, or about 4 per cent of the GNP. Of this amount, earnings loss accounts for 44 per cent. Puni- tive damages and pain and suffering damages are negligible. The Rand study concluded, ''In this respect, Americans' behavior does not accord with the more extreme characterizations of litigiousness that have been put forward by some.'' Michael Rizik Flint, Mich. Setting the Record Straight As much as Peter Samuel would like to credit President Reagan for ''launching'' the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) [''Barbarians Within,'' Aug. 31], I am afraid that such credit is not due. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D., N.Y.) introduced the leg- islation to commission the $500-million study. The preliminary report was issued in 1987, and the ''final'' draft appeared in 1990. Neither of NAPAP's reports received more than passing notice from Congress, and the Envi- ronmental Protection Agency has never been receptive to its findings. Moreover, the ''green scare game'' that Samuel describes prevented the Reagan Administration from defending NAPAP's controversial prelimi- nary report. During the Bush Administration, this trend has continued. Scientists, such as the distinguished soil scientist Ed Krug, who have dared to challenge the conventional green wisdom on acid rain have been blacklisted by the EPA. NAPAP or no, the environmental establishment has still pushed ahead on acid rain. Jonathan H. Adler Washington, D.C. This article is copyright 1992 National Review. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM