[mark12_30]

If I may add a military perspective on the development of close combat situations and a tightly knit team:

In terms of the Fellowship, I would compare them to a submarine crew; together for many months under tremendous stress and strain, needing to depend fully on each other in sudden crises.

A submarine commander simply cannot risk that one of his sailors be emotionally involved-- I mean romantically but not necessarily physically-- with another on board ship. The sailor must be able to consider everything with a dispassionate mind. If five guys are dying in one compartment and one guy is dying in another compartment, the sailor cannot choose which one he wants to go and get; he has to go and get the one that his commander tells him to. Emotional attatchments are out of the question.

That is a very important reason why females are not on board American submarines. The odds that one of those hundred-or-so guys would fall for the woman is pretty high, especially after three months of intense nearness and teamwork and cameraderie. Whether he acts on it, whether he's allowed to express it or not, is not the question. The question is, "Is she special to me." Cmomanders can't afford to have that question being asked.

Even if nobody fell for her, there could still be the tendency to have a chivalrous attitude towards her, which places her on a different emotional plane than the rest of the crew, again, making her "special". You have one woman dying in one compartment, and five guys dying in another compartment. We can say they shouldn't think or feel chivalrously til we are blue in the face. The fact is they do feel that way.

So the submarine commander cannot risk women on board because he cannot risk emotional entanglement. (Let's also remember, some of these sailors are eighteen years old-- I've saat in class with them; they are hormones with feet, God bless 'em.)

For the SAME reason, submarine commanders don't want gay men aboard: because the risk of ANY emotional entanglement is a threat to military efficiency and cool-headedness in battle.

We can deny this all we want, but experience bears it out; and gentle, non-discriminatory, equal-opportunity minded submarine commanders nevertheless stand by this. The risks of emotional involvement are not acceptable.

So what about women in combat? If we are to put women on board submarines, I say great; but it will have to be an all-female submarine.

Heh heh heh. Now there's a thought.

Anyway, is that why Tolkien didn't have any women in the fellowhsip? I doubt it; there were no women in the trenches with him in WW1; it wasn't a topic for discussion back then. He had plenty of wartime experience, and all that experience told him that you send teams of males. He did what he knew. But if he knew then what we know now, would he have changed it? I doubt it.

[ March 26, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]