Sounds like you might have some issues to work out.

Of course, having an extra pair of eyes is generally advantageous.

http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/aircommandos.htm

I can’t help wondering if there would have been fewer A-10 “friendly fire” incidents in the Kuwait war and thereafter if 2-seaters had been deployed.

My experience with women in the military was generally very positive (same as with the men) – some great, some average, some bad. During my tour as an instructor pilot, I had three female students (for varying numbers of flights). One was above average, one was average, and one was below average. So basically the same as the male students. One of the best chiefs I ever had work for me (the chiefs would probably dispute who worked for who!) was female – I would put her up against any of the others when it came to running a shop. But I wouldn’t want her being the one trying to carry me offthe flight deck after a missile hit the carrier.

BTW, my wife (who is blond, and very attractive) served an enlistment in the Navy prior to going to nursing school (which is when we met) and she agrees with me on this subject.

And that is the nature of the problem; a certain level of physical conditioning should be a requirement, because it would rule out the vast majority of average women and average men. Isn’t that what boot camp is all about in the military: to make sure new soldiers *are* able to perform their duties?

Would a female sailor really be allowed on a ship if she weren’t able to pick up and lug a hose, or would a female soldier be allowed in Iraq if she couldn’t keep up hiking and carrying with the other guys she’s working with? I know in the fire department they’d certainly be shown the door if they couldn’t perform up to department standards, and that includes the psychological standards of going blind into a burning room and finding your way out without panicking.

I apologize for the obnoxious statement about timid wives, but the point I’m trying to make is that so often in discussions like this, there are outside factors people are considering and dancing around that have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a man or a woman is competent to do a certain job. And that’s just not right.

As you know, that’s not what I asked. And I was not discussing being shot at. I was referring to specific tasks involved with damage control on ships.

“They are expected to train until they can do that, and if they can not do it, they are invited to take their aspirations elsewhere.”
And that is the nature of the problem; a certain level of physical conditioning should be a requirement, but because it would rule out the vast majority of average women – meaning women who have not gone to unusual lengths to improve their fitness level – they will not do it.

“Your own little timid blondes at home who don’t want you working too closely with competent females?”
That’s a pretty obnoxious statement. Where the f do you get off saying that?

I used to work in a fire department, and the interesting thing I observed is that the men and women could work together, could accomplish what needed to be done in rescuing people and putting out fires — surely that is almost the equal in stress as getting shot at. However, the people at that point who were the most vocally against this integration were the wives of the male firefighters. You know, those silly little blondes who didn’t have any upper body strength but had enormous yaps with lots and lots of whine built in.

I just can’t believe you guys are saying that if women CAN build up their strength and CAN do the same physical things as men can, and if they volunteer and actively want to play those games, they should be kept from it. Who are you listening to any way? Your own little timid blondes at home who don’t want you working too closely with competent females? (Female astronauts in diapers always excepted, of course.)

She realized that is what would happen every time in the future and what that would in turn do to the unit’s effectivness. She quit.