|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
 Posted - 08/02/2002 : 14:11:13
|
Besides being a classic Iron Maiden tune, it's a pretty touchy topic I'm surprised I haven't seen a poll on here at SFN.
I'd like to open the issue of women in the armed forces for discussion. Pros and cons.
Do you think they help, or hinder the military in it's operations?
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2002 : 14:33:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Do you think they help, or hinder the military in it's operations?
Over all if we only have one vote, I say Hinder.
But, what do you mean 'it's operations'. Would that be fighting in war time, as 1st comes to mind when speaking of the military or would that be the everyday workings of the system?
----------------
*Carabao forever
*SAN FERNANDO VALLEY SECESSION - YES
*All lives are movie settings, it's what channel you're on that counts. Zatikia
*Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand.
Homer Jaye S. |
 |
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2002 : 14:57:16 [Permalink]
|
You can't really seperate war from peace. One is only practice for the other.
What I'm getting at is: are the problems raised by having an inter-gender military worth the actual payoff of more bodies in uniform?
Bear in mind that even if you agree with the current policy, it is a political platform used by groups (whos members rarely have ever served a day) who wish to push more radical agendas, like women in direct combat roles. A snowball effect that by being lax now may cause much greater harm later.
If I knew how to set up a poll, I'd give specific choices.
1) Women should not be part of the military
2) Women should have thier own organization (like the old WAC)
3) Women should be allowed in, but restricted to support roles
4) Hand her a grenade, she's goin' in!!!
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2002 : 15:10:06 [Permalink]
|
When I was in uniform women only held support roles. So I have no first hand experience--but that's never stopped me from holding an opinion on something.
On board ship I think it's an awful idea. The space is at such a premium that the crews sleep in racks of six bunks. Heads are limited and open to the world.
In combat I don't know. My experience is that if you shout "GET DOWN!!" men will drop and women will look around to see what they should get down to avoid.
And if I was traveling in jungle looking for black hats, personally, I'd rather be backed up by somebody who was six foot two hundred pounds than someone five, three, one and a quarter. I can remember times when there was no technology and it came down to fists and knives. Size and muscle mass is what counts then.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2002 : 15:45:22 [Permalink]
|
I think that there exists something of a double standard there. If women are by their gender disqualified from playing certain roles in the military, then their should be some non-military jobs that they are disqualified for for similar reasons.
I think that it is same kind of inconsequential logic that lets femists cry woman and children first when on a sinking ship, that makes them ignore this double standard. There are just not enough feminist who want to serve in the military.
From what I have heared it is a bit better in the US then it is over here, but the US current gouvernment seems to have been working hard to undo much of the process that had been made there.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2002 : 16:46:14 [Permalink]
|
But then there is combat and there is combat. A woman trying to make a beach landing under fire off an LST would probably put a lot of lives in jeopardy. That same woman might be able to handle an F-16 better than any guy.
The problem is "war isn't fair."
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2002 : 17:25:05 [Permalink]
|
A couple things:
Does anyone expect a woman or a man that is 5' 3" and weighs 125 lbs to be sent on a search and destroy mission? There are a lot of women larger than that. I think the average height for a woman is about 5' 6" and a man is about 5' 8"
This being said I don't think it's fair to compare a woman smaller than average to a man larger than average. There are plenty of women out there that can handle physical duties and it is these women that are more likely to enlist I would think.
There should be some standard for physical ability that is not altered to be politically correct. Either you make it or you don't. Same applies to men of course.
There is also the fact that service people have access to cheap loans and a few other perks. Every American should be able to collect these as long as they can pass whatever tests are required.
Until recently I think serving in the military was a virtual requirement for political advancement. Hell, didn't Dubya serve us well in the Coast Guard? No way did he get to be President without that feather in his cap.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2002 : 18:12:50 [Permalink]
|
Does anyone expect a woman or a man that is 5' 3" and weighs 125 lbs to be sent on a search and destroy mission?
You've never been a GI I take it. Yes, I expect it. You're in the service you do the dirty work, no exceptions.
... I don't think it's fair to compare a woman smaller than average to a man larger than average.
True but a man the same height and weight as a woman will have sometime like 20% more muscle mass. That's just the way our species is.
Either you make it or you don't. Same applies to men of course.
Here, here.
But I can't help but remember that when women sued to become members of the NYPD they forced them to change the requirements saying that such things as height and strenght requirements were discriminatory. Now the Cops are a bunch of shrimps-men and women.
There is also the fact that service people have access to cheap loans and a few other perks.
There are no cheap loans and the GI bill isn't worth crap anymore. But I understand what you are saying.
Until recently I think serving in the military was a virtual requirement for political advancement.
You could always have acted in a movie where you were a service hero.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2002 : 20:24:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You could always have acted in a movie where you were a service hero.
Too bad The Duke never ran for president then, eh?
...And I'm going to agree with @tomic here: Flat Out Equality. If she is able to do the job, she should be allowed to. Wait a minute. How can a strength requirement be anything but discriminatory? It discriminates against those not strong enough to do the job. (I know, I know, I just wanted to say it anyway.)
An Slater's right: there really aren't very many "perks" to being in the military now, unless you get very lucky and they give you the duty station you ask for.
-me. |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2002 : 21:29:25 [Permalink]
|
In the military, women are equal only in pay.
From the first minute at basic, women are held to a standard that won't even compare to a male.
Even given the same MOS, men get tasked with all the physical labor. Even finance clerks have to unload supply trucks, do landscaping (a real worthwhile effort for any soldier), complete road marches, etc. Women usually stand by and watch.
I've seen women literally cry their way to passing grades in LEADERSHIP training on missions so simple a Guardsman could do it- and they freeze when the grenade sims go off.
I've been told to order a medevac chopper in the dead of night in a hostile fire zone because (I'm not making this up) a female was "menstrating longer than usual". A female medic went to the female commander (bypassing the entire chain of command because it was made up of men) to get me to call it in. I laughed at them.
I've been made to set up tents and showers for females while they stood by watching. We males never got to use the shower at all.
Official policy states females will not spend more than 3 days in the field without a shower, even if it means driving them all the way out of the training area and back to the barracks. There is no limit on the amount of time a male can be remain in the field.
An entire Special Forces excersize (Robin Sage) was suspended to search for two females supporting the excersize that managed to get lost for 5 hours- while going no more than 100 meters to a stream to fill canteens. A backwoods local found them wandering Uwarrie Nat'l Forest sobbing.
A female Intelligence Analyst (96B) ran on and on about her skills with maps and land navigation. She said she was as good as any man.She aced the written test. Then given a course so easy a blind man could pass, and a 4 hour time limit- she was found running in little circles on a road sobbing uncontrollably. She managed one point out of 6 when on the ground with a map. She was sent back to her unit (in Panama, so tax dollars paid for her to fly to Ft. Campbell and return her having failed). No male, regardless of MOS, including cooks, supply guys, and EOD types, failed the Land Nav course.
A PFC medic in a unit I was in a hostile fire zone with couldn't give an IV to save her (or your!!!) life. This is the most basic lifesaving technique. She did, however, run a lucrative business as a prostitute in the air conditioned ambulance. She got caught mid-hummer- in a hummer! She did not even lose rank. Female commander, 'nuff said.
I have a great story about that same commander who didn't even know how to rack the slide on her sidearm, and had to have me disassemble it for cleaning. Again, in a combat zone!
Yes, there are some great females in uniform. I've met one or two. But you cannot make policy based on the very few that can cope. For every 'GI Jane' there are 100 whimpering little girls.
As it stands, every time women fail a standard, the military simply lowers the standard. It's dangerous in support units. It's criminal in combat units.
None of this has even taken into account the logistical nightmare to have to accomodate women. The cultural conflicts that arise from having women superior to men (this was a huge problem during the Gulf War and had the potential to break the camel's -pun intended- back of the coalition). The issues of sex, sexual harrassment, pregnancy, conflicts of interest within a unit. Superior/subordinate fraternization. Different grooming standards. And a host of other considerations.
Moreover, it is just a negative factor on morale. Guys can only do all the hard work while women hide, for so long before they get pissed. They watch the girls get out of duties, leave the field for showers, get promoted because of affirmative action, we're forced to sit through anti-male EO classes, and all the while women claim to be our equals. To say differently will end your career.
They cannot be equal because boy and girls are made differently. I can't believe this concept somehow eludes women libbers.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2002 : 21:46:50 [Permalink]
|
Military benefits by and large are a joke today. Medical coverage while active is free, which saved my neck, but it is slowly starting to cost out of pocket for soldiers as well as dependants.
AMERICA SHOULD BE ASHAMED THAT A SOLDIER CHARGED WITH IT'S DEFENSE SHOULD EVER QUALIFY FOR FOOD STAMPS!!!!!!!!!!
I cannot express the rage that makes me feel. Worse, the military is becoming a form of welfare. Women with kids and no job are joining the military because 1) it's lax to the point of ridicule and 2) they know they won't deploy as single parents. I got passed over for promotion by just such a woman. I speak from experience.
All these horror stories, (and I have more!) and you have to bear in mind I spent the vast majority of my service in male only Special Operations assignments. My exposure to women in uniform was minimal!
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2002 : 21:59:19 [Permalink]
|
But on the otherhand there is the effect they have on the men.
I once found myself-instead of having a nice snack as I planned-under 100 feet of water swimming in a school of half a dozen seven foot long sharks simply because a beautiful girl (that I didn't even know) was watching and I didn't want to appear chicken.
This effect that might come in handy in a battle.
I really must learn to think with my brain instead of other parts of my anatomy.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2002 : 22:17:47 [Permalink]
|
From the first minute at basic, women are held to a standard that won't even compare to a male.
This is perhaps one of the biggest mistakes the military makes.
Even given the same MOS, men get tasked with all the physical labor. Even finance clerks have to unload supply trucks, do landscaping (a real worthwhile effort for any soldier), complete road marches, etc. Women usually stand by and watch.
Well - you were never in my unit.
I've seen women literally cry their way to passing grades in LEADERSHIP training on missions so simple a Guardsman could do it- and they freeze when the grenade sims go off.
Someone needs to bitch slap them then.
I've been told to order a medevac chopper in the dead of night in a hostile fire zone because (I'm not making this up) a female was "menstrating longer than usual". A female medic went to the female commander (bypassing the entire chain of command because it was made up of men) to get me to call it in. I laughed at them.
Um, it could be a serious medical problem. The solution would be to offer (for those who can take them) birthcontrol to control their menses.
I've been made to set up tents and showers for females while they stood by watching. We males never got to use the shower at all.
Then someone needs to bitch slap the idiot that decided on that idiocy. If they can't set it up maybe they shouldn't use it.
Official policy states females will not spend more than 3 days in the field without a shower, even if it means driving them all the way out of the training area and back to the barracks. There is no limit on the amount of time a male can be remain in the field.
Well, sounds here like a policy change is needed. These things are set up by those in places that have nothing better to do. And of course - they've received their lobotomies at this point.
An entire Special Forces excersize (Robin Sage) was suspended to search for two females supporting the excersize that managed to get lost for 5 hours- while going no more than 100 meters to a stream to fill canteens. A backwoods local found them wandering Uwarrie Nat'l Forest sobbing.
Leave 'em.
A female Intelligence Analyst (96B) ran on and on about her skills with maps and land navigation. She said she was as good as any man.She aced the written test. Then given a course so easy a blind man could pass, and a 4 hour time limit- she was found running in little circles on a road sobbing uncontrollably. She managed one point out of 6 when on the ground with a map. She was sent back to her unit (in Panama, so tax dollars paid for her to fly to Ft. Campbell and return her having failed). No male, regardless of MOS, including cooks, supply guys, and EOD types, failed the Land Nav course.
I've seen a lot of loud mouthed officers that could't get their heads out of their asses, both men and women.
A PFC medic in a unit I was in a hostile fire zone with couldn't give an IV to save her (or your!!!) life. This is the most basic lifesaving technique. She did, however, run a lucrative business as a prostitute in the air conditioned ambulance. She got caught mid-hummer- in a hummer! She did not even lose rank. Female commander, 'nuff said.
UCMJ - conduct unbecoming, and probably a whole slew of others. Bitch deserves the book thrown at her.
I have a great story about that same commander who didn't even know how to rack the slide on her sidearm, and had to have me disassemble it for cleaning. Again, in a combat zone!
In bootcamp we had to learn to field strip and clean the M16. In order to pass the test the weapon had to be stripped in less two minutes.
Yes, there are some great females in uniform. I've met one or two.
Thank you.
But you cannot make policy based on the very few that can cope. For every 'GI Jane' there are 100 whimpering little girls.
Bootcamp standards need to be strengthened and hopefully weed out these little pansy twits.
As it stands, every time women fail a standard, the military simply lowers the standard. It's dangerous in support units. It's criminal in combat units.
There should be no difference in standards. If someone can't hack it, they shouldn't be there.
None of this has even taken into account the logistical nightmare to have to accomodate women. The cultural conflicts that arise from having women superior to men (this was a huge problem during the Gulf War and had the potential to break the camel's -pun intended- back of the coalition). The issues of sex, sexual harrassment, pregnancy, conflicts of interest within a unit. Superior/subordinate fraternization. Different grooming standards. And a host of other considerations.
As a service the US military can attempt to accomodate the cultures of foreign powers, however, to use that as an argument for disallowing women in the military is ridiculous. Our society allows women in the military and if a country is going to make allies with the US then ask for our assistance or offer us the use of their military bases then they are the ones who should accomodate the women serving in our military.
As for sex, sexual harrassment, etc...pregnancy is one of those things that will happen with a woman - that is something that can be accomodated in the military much the same as a surgery for an injury. Humans like sex, the problem arises with the cultural view of property instad of mutual satisfaction. As for sexual harrassment - the means of determining if sexual harassment has occurred are too flexible. Personally, the guy that decided to grab me I threw across a work bench - never happened again.
As for special accomodations - anyone that expects a regular shower in a combat zone - get real. There are issues with hygiene during menses. If women are in a combat role - shave their hair. In support roles it is easier to provide those accomodations. One concern with menstruating women in some exercises - bears think that it's a female bear in heat and will attack.
Moreover, it is just a negative factor on morale. Guys can only do all the hard work while women hide, for so long before they get pissed. They watch the girls get out of duties, leave the field for showers, get promoted because of affirmative action, we're forced to sit through anti-male EO classes, and all the while women claim to be our equals. To say differently will end your career.
This is an issue - unfortunately there's a rather strong lobby that thinks equal rights means special rights. Equality in all things - including the work load.
They cannot be equal because boy and girls are made differently. I can't believe this concept somehow eludes women libbers.
True, men and women are made differently - however, that by no means means that women can not be an asset to the military. The views of commanders must change toward women and that equal rights means equal responsibility.
Now, for some of what has been fought by those few of us women that like the military and weren't willing to shed a few tears to get our way. In 1985, women were first allowed to qualify with the M16A2 in the Marines. In 1993, women were first allowed to participate in offensive tactis in the field. (Oh, and we didn't get showers til we got out of the field - 1 week.) Also, women were finally allowed to use pugil sticks. In 1997 or 98, women in the Marines were finally being processed through ITR - just like the men. I remember specifically a letter received about reworking womens bootcamp and teaching women how to throw a fucking tea party. Now, what kind of fucking twit has that much fucking time on their hands. Anyway, I wrote a rather scathing letter in response abo |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2002 : 00:42:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But on the otherhand there is the effect they have on the men.
Good thing I did read some of the posts before making another comment.
Slater said what I was going to say only in another way.
I think some men if not most would instinctually would either try to protect or otherwise help a women, perhaps in a combat situation that could cause major problems.
Women can say what they want about being equal but they are not.
Even if there's a taller stronger women then a shorter weaker male, the women could be precieved as needing help and that puts an extra burden on a man.
----------------
*Carabao forever
*SAN FERNANDO VALLEY SECESSION - YES
*All lives are movie settings, it's what channel you're on that counts. Zatikia
*Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand.
Homer Jaye S. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2002 : 00:59:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
As it stands, every time women fail a standard, the military simply lowers the standard. It's dangerous in support units. It's criminal in combat units
SOP for the schools, advanced learning too, police, fire, business,....you name it. Standards are being lowered everywhere. And it sucks. But oh my! We can't have anyone have their feelings hurt, can we? Or make them do better. Let's just have inferior products and service instead.
----------------
*Carabao forever
*SAN FERNANDO VALLEY SECESSION - YES
*All lives are movie settings, it's what channel you're on that counts. Zatikia
*Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand.
Homer Jaye S. |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2002 : 08:54:09 [Permalink]
|
Gosh I don't know what to say. A policy that states that women must be given the opportunity to shower ever three days?
What kind of a unit were you in. Good grief. Stick your head under the spigot of the water buffalo. Quit bracing when its 40F. Better than coffee for a wake-up.
Men put up the tents while the women stand around?
Tell that one to my blisters. Rarely have I seen that happen. If someone is standing around while others are busting ass, something can usually be "found" for them to do that make putting up tents seem like a breeze.
Tears for a passing grade? Give me a break. I was in a "non-traditional" career field. At least it was when I joined. (Ground Radio Maintenance) At test time, you either knew the material or you didn't. If you didn't, you washed out. Yes, I saw plenty of tears from women (and men), but the passing requirements are stated very clearly at the beginning of the course.
Sounds like you had someone in your chain of command who was more interested in being PC than getting the job done. Too bad really. I worked with some great teams during my 20 years. We all knew each others' strengths/weaknesses and abilities, and could complete tasks in half the allotted time.
If you have someone who's a whiner, complainer, or general wuss, (of either sex) weed them out. Makes life easier for everyone.
We have enough youth. We need a fountain of smart. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
