|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
 Posted - 08/03/2002 : 16:03:37 [Permalink]
|
There is an interesting thing going on right now here in SF.
Most of the firefighters are gay men. Nobody here has a problem with this because such a large percentage of them are into body building. To see a fire engine go down the street loaded with guys who could all easily toss you over their shoulders with one hand inspires confidence.
Now the city has started, at tax payer expense, girls fire camps. Summer camps for girls in their late teens to play at being firewomen with the sole announced purpose of increasing the number of women on the force. Boys need not apply.
Is it my self-centered view of things or is it the job of the military, the cops and the fire department to protect the general population? Isn't it in everyone's best interests to get the best possible people to protect us and not be concerned with their sex, race or what have you? And if the best people are huge strong men then get them and not worry about being fair. Worry about everyone being safe instead.
-------
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 - 08/03/2002 : 18:04:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Is it my self-centered view of things or is it the job of the military, the cops and the fire department to protect the general population? Isn't it in everyone's best interests to get the best possible people to protect us and not be concerned with their sex, race or what have you? And if the best people are huge strong men then get them and not worry about being fair. Worry about everyone being safe instead.
That is view I would agree to. Not looking at a persons gender, skincolor or sexual orientaion and so on, but just wheter they are qualified to do the job.
The problem starts when someone makes generalisations. Not is this appliciant fit to do the job, but is this type of appliciant good enough to do the job in general. The average woman might be less suited for military work then the average man, but that should nobody from employing a woman who is suited.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2002 : 19:31:48 [Permalink]
|
The problem in these cases is not employing a woman who is suited but rather employing a woman who is not suited on the grounds of her sex. I think the thought behind it is to redress past wrongs but I can't see how that benifits the public. Better I should think, to declare a fresh start (halleugha I am saaaaved) and not try to correct a wrong with a second wrong in the opposite direction.
-------
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 |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2002 : 19:50:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There is an interesting thing going on right now here in SF.
Most of the firefighters are gay men. Nobody here has a problem with this because such a large percentage of them are into body building. To see a fire engine go down the street loaded with guys who could all easily toss you over their shoulders with one hand inspires confidence.
Now the city has started, at tax payer expense, girls fire camps. Summer camps for girls in their late teens to play at being firewomen with the sole announced purpose of increasing the number of women on the force. Boys need not apply.
Is it my self-centered view of things or is it the job of the military, the cops and the fire department to protect the general population? Isn't it in everyone's best interests to get the best possible people to protect us and not be concerned with their sex, race or what have you? And if the best people are huge strong men then get them and not worry about being fair. Worry about everyone being safe instead.
Right ON!
I never like SF that much. Nice place to visit but.....(I like the earthquakes we have here in LA better. )
But who could argue with what you've said? It's insane to insist on having women or any other minority JUST because.
----------------
*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 - 08/04/2002 : 05:21:54 [Permalink]
|
You're correct Slater. Having someone on a job just to be PC is not only silly, its dangerous. My career field used to be men-only. Someone realized that soldering irons aren't all that heavy, and it doesn't take a certain level of testosterone to read a circuit diagram.
Part of Solly's complaint was that women had special rules (the shower bit), were given breaks (tears for passing grades), and able to get away with slacking (standing around while the men put up the tents).
None of this crap would have flown in the units I was in. You either did your job or sought other employment. Both my husband and I are responsible for quite a few airmen finding themselves at transition assistance instead of re-enlistment briefings. Whiners, complainers, and slackers bring down an entire team, and make any job more difficult for that entire team.
We have enough youth. We need a fountain of smart. |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2002 : 10:34:23 [Permalink]
|
Actually this is an Army wide problem, not just one or two units. The shower every three days is a TRADOC policy. FORSCOM adopted it as well. Some units may strewtch it by a couple days, but that will only last until a female cries about it.
As for the possibility of a menstrating woman having a real serious problem. Bullshit. Men that have been shot have stayed for days and even continued fighting until help could arrive. She should cork it and shut up. What really got me wasn't just another woman dodging her duties. no, no.
What got me was the utterly unprofessional way it was handled. The medic on call was male. The troop had to track down the female medic. They skipped the entire chain of command (squad ldr, platton ldr, 1SG) and went to a female commander. This is playing the system and completely at odd with serving to dignify women's position in the armed forces. These two didn't even comprehend what they were asking for.
A 10 million dollar chopper and crew to fly at night (these aren't exactly 160th guys we're talking about) about 300 miles (one way), in a hostile fire area (Somalia). No bleeding pussy on earth warrants that risk. But the mentality of females is that they are completely special, whether for PT standards, Field standards, or medical emergencies. But tell them they should not be in certain jobs, or get paid as much and suddenly we're all equals. Easy to talk the talk.
The Army (I know, but I imagine all branches) rates it's jobs by difficulty of physical labor. The vast majority of them are considered heavy lifting jobs. Women can choose most (of course excepting combat MOS's) of these fields, knowing full well that at some point they will have to stand by and get a man to do the job.
Examples: mechanic, medic(hospital type), POL (gas huffers), cooks, etc. All are accessable to women.
1) I watched 3 women struggle with the retaining ring on a duece wheel. After nearly braining themselves on the metal pole, they called a male to do it.
2) A female hospital nurse attempted to get me out of a bed (I had absolutley shattered my right knee and blew the ACL in the left) and DROPPED ME! Her little 105 pound self simply couldn't hold up (much less carry if it was neccessary) my 190 lbs. So down I went onto a demolished knee.
3)Cooks often unload large shipments of food off trucks. They have to move 55 gallon drums of grease about. In the field they have to assemble MKU's.
Even support units like finance occasionally have to play soldier in the woods for ARTEP purposes. And they deploy around the world. That means loading the Conex, pallets, vehicles, maybe a railhead. All of which seperates the dirtbag men from the strong. Women are rarely required to help in that. It's better actually, women just end up in the way.
And in 5th Special Forces (where women serve at the Group HQ level, but not in the battalions where the green beanies are) when women have a great oppurtunity to prove themselves. One female lodged an EO complaint against every male in her office. So the command offered to appease her. They offerered her any assignment (since obviously we're all pigs and she's not just a liar) she wanted to go away. Oh no, she insisted on staying and launched another round of EO complaints in another office. Eventually she became the only female in an SF battalion because they had no where else to put her. I left 5th then, so I don't know how far it went. I heard she failed her pt tests and finally got booted, but that FOAF info.
The issue here isn't one worthless bitch, the problem is that the current policies tied the command's hands and allowed this to continue. Bear in mind this was during the mid-90's when Saddam was showing his ass and the US re-deployed there 3 times in 18 months.
Commanders simply have more important things to deal with than bleeding pussies, crying failures, lack of mauscle mass, special showering rules, PT groups for women, pregnancies, EO complaints, et al!
None of that contributes to the whole point of war: To close with and kill the enemy opposition.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2002 : 11:11:59 [Permalink]
|
You can also toss the "equal standard, period" argument about all you want. It still won't be the same.
First, do you keep the high male standard, or do you lower it so at least a few women can compete? This includes PT, grooming, etc.
Let's say you keep the high males standard and make women conform (like lobby groups would ever let that happen) to them.
Great, you solved the issue of physical strength. Now what about those special "female problems"? How do we make that equal? The only answer is that no gender specific illnesses will be recognized. Obviously that can't happen.
What about housing? We're all the same until we get in the shower. I've seen what havoc one or two females in a barrcks can cause. Guys end up shuffling from room to room and over-crowding rooms just so one female can have a room. Whole latrines become off-limits to the other group. This means more men have to pack into a few facilities while women have no lines. At least everywhere I've been men greatly outnumber women. I was evicted from my NCO room (with it's own latrine) that I shared with another NCO, so a PV2 female could have a room with a latrine so we wouldn't have to close off an entire shared latrine for one person. This is horrendous on morale, by the way.
Oh, the idea of a shared latrine (with the little sign you flip over) works until the first guy accidentally walks in on a female in the shower. Seen it in 2 units now.
Although males can become a burden on the command if they knock someone up, he is still not a lost body. Women are sent home the minute they turn up pregnant.
So even given equal intelligence, equal strength, equal patriotism- women will always be an undue burden on a commander.
I never saw anything wrong with the old WAC. Women served proudly and with great dignity for several wars in the WAC. It started off little more than a candy-striper outfit and grew to be vital to the military. I don't recall a single sex scandal rocking that organization. If the SMA can be brought down by allegations of misconduct, then we need to re-assess the contributions of women in uniform to the problems they create. Not defending McKinney, if he did it then he should be fired.
Women have every right to serve thier country, and many do so with distinction. But is the current policy the most effective and dignified way they could be serving? I think not.
I say bring back the WAC and give it real responsibility and good command. A full partner in the armed forces, but tailored to be more effective given it's members. Pay is pay, equal for rank, giving a bonus for combat duty. This way men will make more, but only if they are doing something the women are not. Otherwise it will be dead equal. Since PT and leadership standards will be lower in the WAC, there will have to be adjustments to the promotion system to make it fair. But by and large, it would work. Better than is does now at least.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2002 : 12:00:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What got me was the utterly unprofessional way it was handled. The medic on call was male. The troop had to track down the female medic. They skipped the entire chain of command (squad ldr, platton ldr, 1SG) and went to a female commander. This is playing the system and completely at odd with serving to dignify women's position in the armed forces. These two didn't even comprehend what they were asking for.
I'll buy, wrong way to handle the situation. Though I won't warrant that any person should not be transported - if possible - in a medical emergency. No, if it's not possible - then again - I don't think I would have bitched any more than the general inconvenience that having an extended period causes.
As for physical standards - I've passed the male Marine PFT - not as well as I would have like but not at the minimums either and even maxed one of the areas.
As for getting a man to do the job - sorry have tossed ALQs with the guys and never dropped my end. Sounds like an army problem and that standards in the army need changed. I fixed airplanes and never once complained or got a guy to do my job. I found another more creative way around the issue. My maintenance times were never that far off the guys either. You yourself said that this is army policy, apparently it's not policy in the Air Force or the Marines.
So, your problem isn't necessarily with women in the military but women in the army and your army chain of command. Work to change that and quit bitching. I partially blew my ACL in the Marines and destroyed most of my left knee. I still did what was necessary until I separated from the Marines.
Unfortunately, your experience with women in the army was bad...that kind of shit makes it that much worse for the rest of women in the military. However, because the army has decided on one set of substandard standards for women, don't assume that the other branches are the same.
The standard army pft isn't even up to par with the WM pft - at least it wasn't when I was in.
---
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young |
|
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2002 : 19:04:09 [Permalink]
|
We played an exhibition game of rugby against a womens team one time. We thought "They're girls. We'll go easy on them." Maybe they were playing extra agressive against us, but they sure caused us pain in many parts of our bodies. They were MEAN. We ended up winning the game on points, but they intimidated the hell out of us.
So SollyLama, it's the type of women, not the gender in general. Therefore, I am on the "if they can do the job, let 'em." side.
If you think it's work, you're doing it wrong. |
|
|
|
Robert
New Member
Korea
21 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2002 : 20:44:59 [Permalink]
|
I gotta say!..... I am all for equality throughout the service. In the same regard though, standards to accept those into service and into specific fields need to be raised a little bit. Only then would we be able to weed out the weak of mind, that so greatly infest todays military! One satndard for both sexes,... If a female wants to be on the front lines... Fine! As long as she endures and completes the same training as her male infantry counterparts.
Twice this week already I have seen two seperate female soldiers crying because of issues steming from their dress uniform not being ready on time,... and the other was something about not liking how the duties were assigned! What would these soldiers do if someone started shooting at them?
To be fair though... I saw a male soldier a couple weeks ago crying because he and his wife had a fight over furniture moving or some shit like that! I personally consider myself, very strong willed and not at all easly shaken up. I know I would not want any of these kinds of people in a foxhole, or anywhere else on a battlefield with me!
Bottom line..... As long as there is one standard set for both sexes, I have no problem with women in any field of the military... infantry or otherwise. However the biggest problem then would be female soldiers being raped and assaulted even more than they are now, in our military. Some kind of new security measures would have to be set in place to prevent this as much as possible. Either much stiffer sentences for convictions .. like life in Leavenworth!.... or just come up with a system to weed out those who find nothing wrong with abusing women!.....
|
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2002 : 13:35:43 [Permalink]
|
While you may have been an excellent soldier, Trish, you would be the exception. When dealing with DoD wide policy, you have to make generalizations. You have to weigh the input of the few against the shortfalls of the many. Individuals do not matter. The individuals I pointed out are there to show a sytemic problem, not simply a string of eyewitness to failures.
The "I was a great soldier" or "I had a great female in my unit" argument just isn't important when dealing with the whole of the armed forces. The same logic that deduced that women should have completely seperate standards than men should have figured out what they were doing was in essence creating another armed force without the inconvienant title of WAC. Regardless of the color of uniform and patch on the shoulder, the military is uniformly divided along the gender line. The males in the Marines and Air Farce (sorry, force) have more in common in standards than female marines (and airmen, airwomen, air person, just what is that rank anyway?) in thier same units.
Most any male who is willing to be honest (basically one who would risk an entire career on an opinion) will tell you that women are treated so differently than men, even given the same position and rank, that it might as well be another branch.
There's the Army that I served in, with rigorous PT, tight grooming and appearance standards, long stays in the bush, and harsh UCMJ...then there's the Army the women served (even though some of the time we wore the same patch) in with almost no regulation, let alone enforcement of appearance and grooming, camping trips instead of tough combat excersises, PT standards a 10 year old boy can pass, and affirmative action quotas.
Look at the age of many senior females in the military. They achieve rank in a couple years men take whole careers to reach. Female generals? Most have a decade less time in service than males before getting that precious star. Most male generals are combat-vets from a time when there was still a WAC! Yet women appear with stars with a fraction of the time, and none of the combat leadership of thier male counterparts.
What possible purpose, other than satisfying a political lobby and political correctness does that serve?
Women don't want to be equal any more than minorities do. Equality means actually having to work for what you're given. They cry equality, but let someone try to take away affirmative action quotas or even enforce the ridiculous female standards as they are now- and suddenly it's complicated.
Of course, none of this has still addressed the logistical issues. What about the latrines and showers? Roomates and dirty jokes?
Just how equal are you willing to be?
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2002 : 17:10:48 [Permalink]
|
Piltdown, are you listening? Slater? is anyone there? Lisa? Trish? Since you supported Rubysue so vehemently, let's see some applause here.
quote:
Women don't want to be equal any more than minorities do. Equality means actually having to work for what you're given. They cry equality, but let someone try to take away affirmative action quotas or even enforce the ridiculous female standards as they are now- and suddenly it's complicated.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2002 : 17:51:50 [Permalink]
|
I'm listening, but I don't know what the hell you are talking about.
-------
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 |
|
|
|
Satan
New Member
USA
27 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2002 : 18:55:22 [Permalink]
|
Maybe we should give the gender-equality nuts what they want. Equality. If a woman is fit for armed service, let her in. If she whines about being treated just like the men, ignore her or reprimand her. If she can't take it, show her the door.
The problems with women's effect on men are not an excuse to keep women out, any more than they are to keep men out and only let women in! The solution may not be clear-cut, and it may not be perfect, but we have to try to do something anyway. Maybe "separate but equal" units would be acceptable, despite that phrase's dismal failure in the legal world regarding racial discrimination. But then, white men don't usually go after black men the same way they do women!
Ultimately, the real solution to this problem is to get the men in the armed forces accustomed to the idea of women serving alongside them. The more frequent it becomes, the more accepted it will become, and the fewer incidents will occur. Breaking our prejudices that men are stronger than women, purely because the former are male and the latter are not, would take much time and effort. But it is an admirable goal and, in my opinion, ultimately a necessary one.
Satan,
a.k.a. the Talking Snake Whom Atheists, Witches, Muslims, and Puerto Ricans Worship (If You Ask Anyone In This State) |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2002 : 20:03:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Piltdown, are you listening? Slater? is anyone there? Lisa? Trish? Since you supported Rubysue so vehemently, let's see some applause here.
quote:
Women don't want to be equal any more than minorities do. Equality means actually having to work for what you're given. They cry equality, but let someone try to take away affirmative action quotas or even enforce the ridiculous female standards as they are now- and suddenly it's complicated.
Gorgo is right, Solly. Your disclaimers do not give you carte blanche to spout ridiculous and unfounded stereotypes. Minorities? I assume you mean 'racial' but come on, what percentage of any racial minority do you think actually prefers collecting food stamps in the projects?
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
