Backward Look at Women in the War

In regards to your article entitled “On the Firing Line” about women serving in physically dangerous jobs (Feb. 21), I cannot understand what all the brouhaha is about. It seems to me that the concern over this issue as perpetuated by The Times sends a backward-thinking message.

Regarding the Tina Kerbrat example, The Times states, “The fact that she was the mother of two small children seemed to make the loss harder to take.” This statement implies that it is less of a loss when a male officer with children is killed.

This perpetuates the notion that somehow men are less important in the role they take in raising children than are women. We must not infer that a mother is a more important parent than a father, for this lifts caretaking responsibility from men, and generates negative attitudes against mothers who choose physically dangerous occupations. Any person who chooses a job that protects citizenry, be it soldier, fire fighter or police officer, should be highly commended regardless of their sex and/or parental status.

This issue in the media of whether or not it is right for women to occupy dangerous jobs such as soldier or police officer is an unnecessary discussion, and in my opinion is dangerous to the progress that women have made in striving for equal opportunity. The fact that it is even brought up is paternalistic and patronizing.

Regarding women serving in the Gulf, I can’t help think of the positive effects on the first generation of children to see women as strong heroes working side by side with men serving our country. The effects and influences of these role models on boys and girls will be beneficial to all of us in years to come.

ANNIE PROMEN

Los Angeles