|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
 Posted - 08/08/2002 : 15:36:06 [Permalink]
|
I don't think you understood my paragraph about people (women and minorities) wanting to be equal. Equal means having to do the hard work and earn your keep, not ride the coat tails of those willing to work. It also means the end of affirmitive action and other programs that ultimately only reinforce a belief that your particular group cannot survive without it.
Equal means no quotas, no United Negro College Fund, no WIC, no welfare, none of those nice perks that come from being 'oppressed'. It's easy to demand equal pay and access to jobs, but are you willing to give up the government handout and work for what you get? I don't see the welfare roles dropping any.
My point was that groups that scream the loudest about inequality are also the groups that have numerous programs already in place that that swing to the opposite pole and offer things that the working people paying thier taxes can't get. That's not equal either.
The answer is total equality, with no perks or programs based on gender, race, social status, etc. Sounds great, and you'd get alot of support for it. But it'd never pass because these 'victims' groups are unwilling to part with the freebees they currently receive. They want the freebees and equality. You simply can't have it both ways. Getting one negates the other.
Go tell NOW that all quotas are going away and pay will be scaled by position, not employee. They'd flip out and not from joy.
You can bet they'd simply find another injustice (real or imagined) to justify the reverse-discrimination (reverse hell, discrimination is discrimination, it all sucks) and keep the perks.
Women want to be equals in the military, yet somehow they can achieve General with years less experience than males. Why? Because there HAD to be female generals to satisfy political lobbyists, not because they earned it. Maybe those female generals are great troops, but that doesn't change the fact that a male cannot achieve the same rank that fast. Just who is the oppressed party?
Maybe it's a topic for a different rant, but the special interst groups are just not in the business of achieving equality for their group. For one, the lobbyists make a good living milking any perceived injustice for points on Capitol Hill. If they suddenly got thier wish, these people (lobby groups are to me, just another form of welfare) would need to find real jobs. They profit from the inequity. Not the most even-handed position to be in.
Also, the system that we have now simply cuts a check if you can win over a couple people in the loop of budget writing. This is no way to motivate people to do anything but sit back and let the Fed pay you just for being able to align yourself with a lobby. All the gov't perks only serve to re-inforce our differences by legitimizing the separation.
But as for the topic of women in the military, they are just not held to any useful standard nor will they ever be. The same people ranting about equal pay and such are the same people who lobby for Affirmative Action and handouts. It's not a matter of trying to do what's best to level the playing field, it's a matter of trying to get your particular lobby as much stuff (programs, money etc) as possible.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
 |
|
|
Cosmic string
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2002 : 19:58:45 [Permalink]
|
As long as military standards are based on sex rather than job ability, there will always be women in the military who have no business there. In part as a result of this, and largely due to the same prejudicial thinking that has led to these double standards, women will always be favored over men (typically, not in every case) in the military as long as we have these double standards. Consequent to these problems, the image promoted by extremist feminists (or feminazis  as I call them, though I don't mean that to seriously equate their actions with the nazis) of women as a weak (psychologically), disadvantaged underclass will be perpetuated by the women who don't belong in the military not being able to cut it. But, unfortunately, we will see no change as long as "women's studies," departments hold sway at our educational institutions and as long as feminazi propaganda and lobbying is successful (these two are obviously two aspects of the same phenomenon).
quote:
The same people ranting about equal pay and such are the same people who lobby for Affirmative Action and handouts. It's not a matter of trying to do what's best to level the playing field, it's a matter of trying to get your particular lobby as much stuff (programs, money etc) as possible.
Exactly. This discriminatory (indeed, bigoted) behavior permeates all of our society. Even in settings where the 'minorities' are at least as well represented (in numbers) as whites, such as where I went to high school, discrimination is abundant; its proponents call it "equality" (a perverted use of a word if I ever heard one).
Know Thy Enemy
When I was in high school (admittedly not too long ago), we had a "violence awareness week," certainly relevant to the preferential treatment of women and the amount of influence feminazis hold. This was a feminazi propaganda week. You couldn't walk 2 meters in the halls without coming upon at least one more false statistic(I'm not kidding). "Every 5 seconds a women is beaten in the US." "60 million women in the US are in abusive relationships." "1 in 3 women who attend college are raped while in college." "A woman who leaves an abusive man is 4 times more likely to be killed by him." "50% of women are date-raped." You get the idea. It should be no coincidence, then, that the prevailing opinion among girls at my high school (the few who even thought about this stuff) was that military standards were too tough on women and needed to be even more "equal" (i.e., discriminatory), as indicated by the op-eds in the school paper. In one column, the author went so far as to say that prospective female fighter pilots should not be required to remain conscious up to 9g's, but rather somewhere around 5 (to make things "equal"). What does a high school paper and "awareness" week have to do with military discrimination? Because these views are common at most levels of society. All of the false statistics I mentioned have percolated down from feminazis pushing their political agenda on the national level. They have been so successful that these, among other, lies have become widely accepted. This, along with direct lobbying on this subject, has contributed toward a social demand that there be double standards for women in most professions. It is difficult to combat this, however, because daring to question the truthfulness of these lies brings cries of "evil, abusive sexist!" one's way. The military is probably the easiest class of occupations to make a case against double standards for. Therefore, I think that before we can see the end of the 'new discrimination' in our society, we must first eliminate it from the military.
“The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning.” --Voltaire |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 05:57:02 [Permalink]
|
Well, this is certainly an interesting and hot topic, and I feel obliged to throw my two hundred cents worth in. Sorry in advance for sloppy referencing to sources, but this is slapped together.
-----------
First, physical fitness standards:
Until a few years ago, the Army had vastly inferior physical fitness standards for women. We do three events semi-annually: two minutes of push-ups; two minutes of sit-ups; a timed two-mile run. Women's standards were so low that they had almost only to show up to pass.
A few years ago, this was changed. Women's standards on the push-ups and the run are still lower than men's, but on the sit-ups they are identical. The gap has narrowed significantly for push-ups and the run.
That being said, it doesn't bother me for two reasons:
1. The individual females did not set the standards and most, in my experience, are embarrassed by the difference and try to max their scores out as opposed to most males who try simply to pass.
2. The fitness test is not a measure of what most people think it is. Frankly, I would prefer it be scrapped completely and replaced with something along the lines of a 200-pound drag across 50 meters, a series of alternating short sprints and low-crawls, followed by an obstacle course, pugil stick arena, bayonet lane, and finished with a marksmanship test once your breathing hard and sweaty. However, we have what we have. My opinion on it can best be summarized from this site:
http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/myths.html
Which says (I have cut out some parts with which I do NOT agree):
quote:
The GAO recently looked into this issue in depth - here is a brief from their report –
"There is a widespread perception that the existence of lower physical fitness standards for women amounts to a "double standard." However, the physical fitness program is actually intended only to maintain the general fitness and health of military members and fitness testing is not aimed at assessing the ability to perform specific missions or military jobs. Consequently, DOD officials and experts agree that it is appropriate to adjust the standards for physiological differences among service members by age and gender."
One hopes that these changes will address the fact that the ability to do 30 pushups does not constitute being a better soldier - especially when measured against the ability to do aerobic exercises - given that women can sustain aerobic exercises longer than men. Or that pitting upper body strength against lower body strength has anything to do with the ability to operate complicated equipment, fly jet aircraft, or fire sophisticated weapons. Brains, not brawn should be the watchword.
…
The rules are totally different with respect to physical standards for combat arms. According to Lt General Claudia Kennedy the following is the reality:
"These are the facts: Soldiers enlisting in the combat arms, who are by regulatory definition all men , undergo both Basic and Advanced Individual Training in gender-segregated (all male) units in what is known as One Station Unit Training. Therefore there are no women trainees to "weaken" the combat arms as political critics persist in implying. Their argument is without merit."
Second, regarding promotion to general:
These stats are a bit mixed because I haven't found a site or sites that give complete data for any one year.
The youngest person ever to attain the rank of Brigadier General during peacetime was Pete Dawkins, USMA. He got his star at the very tender age of 43. Smart money said he was a lock for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs but, instead, he went the profitable route and retired soon after, becoming a highly successful businessman.
|
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 05:57:55 [Permalink]
|
In case background matters, sollylama, I'll summarize mine. USMA grad, 1984. 9 years active duty in Military Intelligence. Opted for the rather attractive incentive package the military was offering when the massive downsizing began after Desert Storm and got out. Worked Intel in the New Hampshire National Guard for a year before moving to Colorado and joining an MI Det there in the Reserves. Moved back to the Indiana/Kentucky area and found a dearth of MI slots so went PSYOP for a bit then became a founding member of a brand new Civil Affairs unit. Gotta love those Spec Op guys, as you say. Soon after 9/11 there was a show on either Frontline or 60 Minutes, can't remember which, following a CA Cat-A team around Afghanistan. It was a nice bit of reporting. That's the work we do in my current unit, though we're working on closer relations with the SF, as in doubling up with their A-teams.
Why do I think my experience matters? Because I have an uncommon experience relating to females in the military.
Fully half of my bosses have been female. Only one was of questionable competence, and she was a civilian. That's when I worked at the Intel School. The remainder ran the gamut from okay to great. Just one ‘great,' really. My first female boss. I have had only one male boss who equaled her. But that's the nature of MI. I also have worked with more civilians than most and with more agencies.
In PSYOP and Civil Affairs, my units have been nearly one third female. We just completed SOF qualification training (not as impressive as it sounds, but straight units don't do it). The 10km ruck march was extremely fun in a torrential downpour. The standard is this: Walk 10km in BDU's with a ruck march weighing at least 55 pounds or 1/3 of your body weight, whichever is less, and complete it in under 2 hours. Several females and a few males weighed less than 165 pounds and so could have taken less than the 55 pound ruck. No one did. Of the females who took more than required, all met the standard of two hours. Of the males who took more than required, all but one met the standard.
----
Which is all just a set up for my philosophical opinion:
The problem is not with the individual females, nor even with the units to which they are attached. The problem is with the PC culture that has taken a decent idea and warped it.
The idea is that females can be and should be incorporated into the military in such a manner that does not degrade its efficiency and may, in fact, enhance it.
The warping is that the ‘not degrading efficiency' part has been lost in an effort to demonstrate ‘progress' in the form of numbers and classes.
I agree that training is watered down, but don't blame the female soldier. I agree that training priorities are royally screwed, but don't blame any soldier.
The solution is in replacing trust in the soldiers and in the commanders to make considered decisions.
Here's an example, and one that may surprise you given what I've written so far. My unit has nearly one-third females. My unit is wartraced to the 5th Special Forces Group in support of Centcom. We're also currently conducting joint exercises with the 82d Airborne which has units overseas and is sending more this fall, possibly with me in tow.
I support females in my unit. I do not support females going with my Cat-A team if I go to Kabul or Khost. Not because of the female, but because the environment would make the females a hindrance to accomplishment of my mission instead of an asset. In like manner, I don't want a soldier with a death's head tattoo on my team when I go to downtown Herat. I want someone that my native contacts will listen to. Regardless of how I perceive female soldiers, my contacts likely will not perceive them in a manner conducive to effective communications.
But if we go to an environment where the culture is different, then I'll tell the female soldier to pick up her weapon |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 10:26:37 [Permalink]
|
It's nice to see someone had a positive experience with women in the military, but I haven't. I'm the opposite, my exposure to women in uniform has been minimal. Yet I don't suffer from any lack of examples of how poorly women (in general) carry the uniform. Obvously there are exceptions.
I also doubt anyone, or at least anyone who doesn't wish to flush his career, would be honest with an officer about how they feel about the subject. Officers get told what they want to hear and ignore or prosecute dissenting opinions.
The average enlisted guy knows full well what answer he is supposed to give, and it's rarely the truth on an operational level. I was enlisted, and I knew that your opinion is only valid as long as it lines up with the commander's. Officers can deny it, but not being one, I can tell you what the pulse of the barracks was. I've seen too many "sensing sessions" where no one spoke because the command was present.
Don't get me wrong, I've known more than my share of useless males. But just by sheer volume, they are a far smaller percentage than the women I've had the misfortune to see in uniform.
By creating seperate standards for everything from PT to grooming and housing, the military didn't really let women in the regular military, they simply folded the WAC into it and called the ranks equal.
As for the PT test, yes it's useless, but it's the one the brass chose so we have to deal with it. I watched (in 1996, after the changes to the scale took effect for TRADOC) as women passed the 2 mile run walking-WALKING- the entire distance. Why even make them pretend to be qualified soldiers?! But I agree the current test is pointless.
Remember the run, jump, and dodge? There was a PT test that at least attempted to approximate the real physical requirements for combat duty. It was scrapped- partly because of REMF units crying about having to pass 'combat' standards, and partly because women simply weren't passing it. The answer: a whole new, largely useless test with a scale that can be slid about to make sure the right number of people (males and females) pass it. A fat body is still better than no body to the military it seems.
No argument about the few females that can measure up to the male standard is relavent when talking about DoD wide policy. No support unit is a hiding place from combat unless you never leave CONUS. This applies to the males that push paper too. When these units do meet the enemy, it is likely to be a Spec Ops unit operating behind the lines. Standards based on MOS are stupid for that very reason. And it has been argued at the highest levels to make the PT scale based on MOS rather than gender. Either way it's merely making excuses to let sub-standard soldiers, of any gender, in the military.
But as I've said before, even forgetting about physical strength, no one has addressed the issue of being equal until we're out of that uniform. Women want to be equal, but demand seperate latrine facilities and rooms, grooming standards and medical issues. This is not only a drain on a commander's/1SG time and resources, it also forces males to be the ones who get stacked in rooms, find themselves moving every couple months, etc.
The hit on morale from housing issues alone cannot be understated. I have seen a single private get an NCO room because it has it's own shower. Two NCOs evicted so a PV2 could wash her ass. Exactly what benefit can be extrapolated from that? Maybe officers don't hear the grumblings from the rest of the troops, maybe they just don't want to hear it. No one ever accused officers of being hip to the feelings of the enlisted. But it is there, and having to endure much more than females, yet get paid the same (that is until Affirmitive Action promotes her ahead of you) is probably a bigger issue than any officer or apologist is willing to admit to.
I'm all for a military with one, tough, standard. But the same women who cry equal pay and jobs are the same ones who would throw a hissy-fit if you actually tried to make women shave thier heads, shower with men, pass a difficult physical test, and quit whining about titty jokes. Let's not forget the effect of watching all the women get trucked out of the bush for a shower while the males continue to dig foxholes, often having to complete the female's positions while they're gone. That was PLDC, which is LEADERSHIP training with no small amount of EO classes tossed in. So that's what the current crop of future leaders is given as training. Literally "We're all equal, right up until three days in the field."
I bet you won't find that on a military mouthpiece website. Just like the issue of gays in the military, there is no shortage of academics, armchair generals, and real brass that will stand up in hearings and say how great it would be. No one ever asks the PFC actually affected by the results.
I had to meet with some civilian doing some fact finding thing as to why so many first term soldiers are leaving the military. Actually I had to do it 3 times, once for each E-4 in my section that was getting out. I asked them face to face, no rank, no PC, no retribution from higher- why are you getting out? Women and the double standard came up more than Clinton being a traitor scumbag (which came up in two out of three- this was in '99) and more than OpTempo. This is from an SF battalion where the women never went. They serve at Grp HQ only. Even then it was apparent that these guys had seen too much favoritism and getting over based on what you have betwixt your legs.
I don't have a handful of stats form websites (which, by the way would never publish anything negative- it's like expecting the Army Times to be unbiased) to spout. I wasn't an officer spending my days in meetings and lunches. I was Joe Tentpeg enlisted dude that lived in barracks for 7 of my nearly 11 years. Unlike the brass in their offices, I actually lived the experience of females wrecking morale and lowering our standards. Not just physical, but in too many aspects to count.
If you are going to hold women to a completely different standard for nearly everything, you haven't integrated them, you merely co-opted the Girl Scouts into the Army. "Here, you can be part of us, but only so far as it's convienant for you." Shave your head? Nah. Endure field conditions like the males? Nah. Be able to help load a conex or drop pallet? Nah. Be equal enough to not demand seperate latrine and showers? Nah.
How is it that we're all so equal yet have this myriad of differences that so obviously demand we are not?
I was lucky, I got out before it gets worse. I swore I'd quit the day I had to call in a box of Tampax for resupply.
"Yeah, we need 2 crates of 5.56, two dozen Claymores, a dozen flash-bangs, and oh yeah, a box of ultra-slim Maxi's."
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 10:47:09 [Permalink]
|
Well, as an officer, I have of course only experienced three-martini lunches and attended posh meetings at the spa, so I'm hardly qualified to comment on the grunt stuff.
I'm sorry your experience was so negative with females. But your comments support my point, that the problem is not with the females themselves but with the system that has replaced the goal of efficiently incorporating females with the goal of meeting some sociological standard.
You say you have no stats from a web site and that my anecdotes don't matter when it comes to discussing DoD-wide policy. I actually agree that my anecdotes prove nothing. But since you will not accept my anecdotes, then we must, to be fair, throw out yours, too, yes?
Your story about the exit interviews with the lower enlisted is interesting on a couple of counts:
1. You say that no enlisted will ever tell an officer the ugly truth, yet you say that a PFC will tell a senior sergeant the truth. Why the difference? You took off your rank, so what? When I was Platoon Leader, Company Commander, Battalion XO, section chief, whatever, I insisted that my soldiers disagree with me. I told them they were not allowed to accept any of my plans without dissecting them first. If they said they couldn't find anything wrong, then we stayed until they found something. I'm sorry your officers, apparently the ones in your beloved Special Ops, were so dictatorial.
2. The number one complaint was about the double standards for women. And the complainers were junior enlisted who didn't even have women in the units. Hmmmmm.....
Exactly what information on double standards did they have? I suspect it came from two sources: #1, the barracks rumor mill which lies about everything and #2, from senior sergeants who had experience with women, which would make the senior sergeants party to rumor-mongering and undermining morale.
---
Yes, the PT test we have is the one we have. That means you need to judge it on its merits and on its stated purpose, not on what you want it to be. In the context of measuring comparative fitness, the separate standards are not intrinsically wrong. For any test that is meant to measure abilities in combat conditions, double standards would be wrong.
quote:
I was lucky, I got out before it gets worse. I swore I'd quit the day I had to call in a box of Tampax for resupply.
"Yeah, we need 2 crates of 5.56, two dozen Claymores, a dozen flash-bangs, and oh yeah, a box of ultra-slim Maxi's."
So now you're not just against the special treatment for a woman's period but against the period itself. May as well say you'll quit the day you have to order toilet paper.
----
Actually, despite my tone in this post, we're not so incredibly far apart as it may seem. I just don't think you've thought all of this through.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 13:17:08 [Permalink]
|
I'm not down on (all) officers. But there are two distict worlds in the military, enlisted and officer. Enlisted give the answers they know officers want to hear. Remember, it is a UCMJ punishable affair to dissent from the official policies- enforced by the officers (I could not article 15 anyone, only recommend it) and what's the first thing in-coming soldiers do but sit down and review all the policy letters the commander signed. So from minute one, troops know what the 'official' opinion is, and the threat of UCMJ keeps them in line. I've sat thru no less than a half dozen 'sensing sessions' while troops so pissed off before the meeting they could barely contain themselves, suddenly sit silently for fear of having to see the CDR about voicing his opinions. I've seen it over racial issues, gender issues and OpTempo issues. Anyone who did mention something simply got the official army line spouted back at them as an excuse. Anyone who doesn't think there is a rift between officers and enlisted is, well, an officer. Enlisted know better. Only the nobility has the audacity to claim kinship with the plebes. Such is the case here. I'm good friends with several officers, but you can bet I chose my words around them.
How many nights, weeks, YEARS have you spent in the barracks with the troops? I lived in them for years. Both male only and co-ed barracks and I can tell you from direct experience that if you want to piss off a troop, mention the females standards and the way the are handled.
0330 on my very first day at Basic we were briefed that if a female cries rape, you WILL sit in jail until you can prove her wrong. Great way to start motivating soldiers to be equal.
Anecdotes are fine. I'm glad you have decent women. But are they really worth having rather than a male? Are the different standards and morale issues worth the PC points of having women in the military? What I'm saying is that you cannot make policy based on the "oh but there is this one female I knew that could do 50 push ups." My examples of bad soldiering on women's parts don't mean every female is worthless either. My point is that in my experience with women in uniform(which is less than average to begin with) I've seen far too many examples of females simply not measuring up to the most basic requirements asked of males who are receiving no greater benefit (pay, promotion, etc) for having to do much more.
I'm also not anti-woman. It is indeed the system that's at fault. But the system of a single standard and total equality is not what even the women libbers want. So what's to be done? The women screaming about combat roles and such aren't championing high and tights across the board. Mostly those lobbyists have never served a day in their lives.
So I'm in total agreement that the system is wrong. But I certainly haven't seen much evidence that it's not a system that the females are milking to the hilt. I've yet to see a woman volunteer to shave her noggin and room with males. Given the chance to prove the system is sub-standard and set an example, they do not. It's nice to get a shower every few days and get paid the same as the dude still in the bush.
The system may set up a situation for BS, but it's the females (the vast percentage in my admittedly limited experience) who ride the gravy train. Shannon Faulkner had a chance to really do something for women in the military, she showed up 20 pounds overweight. It's easy to talk the talk...
Yes, the E-4s that I had to interview had less experience with women in uniform than you, I'm sure. But shouldn't that mean that they have less examples and anecdotes than the guy who sees females all day? Given let's say half, the exposure as you, one would think we'd simply see less of the abuses. That does not appear to be the case. It seems that you have to spend alot of time around them to find good examples.
Also, a chunk of my argument is on issues like housing, latrines/showers, grooming, etc. Are you saying you support those double standards? But no others of course. Certainly none that might make a bump on an OER.
I've said it before- I'm in support of a military that has a single, high standard for everyone. ALL STANDARDS- not just the ones convienant to women. It's those same lobbyists who supposedly push for 'equality' that put the double set of standards in place. It was unfair to make women do what men did (physically is just the tip of the mortar tube) so they got their very own standards. It seems that's true for about everything. Yet somehow, in some alternate reality, we're all equal.
So while the system may be the ultimate faultline, it's not the system crying thier way into promotions, dodging heavy duties, dropping fradulant EO complaints et al.
The system requires equality in verbage only.
What is 'equal' has been defined to mean nothing more than pay and rank, and given AA, even that is doubtful.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 13:35:43 [Permalink]
|
As I said, I don't think we're as far apart as it seems.
Yes, officers and enlisted are different worlds; that's intentional.
No, I don't have nearly the amount of troop time or barracks time as you do.
No, enlisted will never be completely open when talking to me.
But I point to the system again and the cowardice of some officers.
If an officer is at a sensing session then it's not a sensing session, so shame on that officer.
But the point about females milking the system is, I think, misapplied.
I, too, have seen females milk the system. If we did an army-wide study, perhaps we would prove that most do.
The point is, though, that they milk it because the system encourages it, not because females make bad soldiers.
Consider if it were reversed. If females were held to a high standard while males, who in this hypothetical scenario comprise the minority, are allowed to slide. Do you think the males would milk it? I'd bet my salary on it.
People is people is people and what people do is get away with what they're allowed to get away with.
Fire the EEOC. Put the Marines in charge of army training. Make the trainers blind to gender. Make separate hygiene facilities where practical and fuggeddaboutit where not.
Make standards the standard and stick to them.
Do those things, and I bet you'd quickly form a different viewpoint of females in the army.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 14:02:09 [Permalink]
|
As an aside, my wife was in the military. She quit in disgust over what she saw EVERYDAY! Maybe I can get her to post here. A part of my arguments come from her input and insight. I can only tell you all the crap I had to witness, in her brief stint she witnessed no shortage of it either.
A soldier should be a soldier, male or female, race or religion matter not. However, until that day actually arrives, and not just the regulations that pretend it is so, I will tell you like it is in the real world. I lived it way too long for anyone to try to pawn PC garbage off on me.
The better question would be: is the current policy and implementation the best for the military? I say no, not by a long shot. Not even close.
Could it ever work? I guess, but I certainly wouldn't hold my breath. The current trend is to make things worse, all in the name of 'progression' in equality. The current system is the antithesis of that. It divides us possibly further than even the women (Garrett claims women are embarrassed by the different standards- but how many of them would even be there without them?) want and strains morale on both sides. It actually legitimizes the "women are weaker" argument by adopting official policy to that end.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 15:02:27 [Permalink]
|
I agree for the most part with the statement:
The point is, though, that they milk it because the system encourages it, not because females make bad soldiers.
So the people that took advantage of the insurance from the WTC attacks aren't really assholes because the system left the door open? How do you figure culpability lies with the law and not the individual taking advantage of it?
I do agree, though, that it lies with the individual, not the gender. There are alot of shitbag males riding thru as well.
However, you need to look at what makes a 'good' soldier.
While it's the first (and usually only) point brought up- Sheer Physical Strength is one of the most basic. As a whole-again the one or two you can remember doesn't qualify to make entire policy on- women are indeed weaker than men. Blame god, nature, whatever you're into, for that. Just don't try to deny it to be PC. That strength is also important in many non-combat duties, so the argument of women not needing it is strait BS.
A 'good' soldier can heft his wounded buddy and his weapon and hump a couple clicks to a dustoff point.
A 'good' soldier can spend any amount of time in field conditions. There are no regs limiting that FOR MALES. He can shower in front of his entire unit, wipe his ass at the treeline, and sleep in a foxhole, even the same sleeping bag with another soldier if need be.
A 'good' soldier doesn't require closing off entire latrines to service a couple individuals. They don't require shuffling room assignments or having snail pace ability groups. They don't require CQ's (a violation of BOSS, BTW) to monitor halls or need a stylist when deployed.
A 'good' soldier doesn't ask to be medevac'd for a bleeding pussy. They don't do obvious end-arounds the male chain of command to get that ride back to the rear.
A 'good' soldier is just that because he is not an undue burden on his commander.
This is just some of what I'd call a 'good' soldier.
In a female dominated unit, males would be 'bad' soldiers for many of the same reasons, so it's subjective. But since the military is made up of mostly men, I believe it's up to women to conform. That doesn't include rewriting standards to make it fit.
If parades, garrison duty, and inspections are you're idea of a 'good' soldier, then sure, women are just fine. But if you live in the bush, have to deploy alot, or basically be in the real military- then the inherent differences between the genders only serve to re-inforce my point.
As for being against a woman's period? In a foxhole, you betcha. If that period means she gets preferretial treatment, hell yes. If that becomes and excuse to fly a 10 million dollar bird and it's crew in a hostile fire zone- you bet your clusters I'm against it. What do you tell the families of the crew had something happened? He died heroically trying to cork a cunt?
I don't hold it against women, but even they see it as a reason not to be in the shit. Hence the three day rule. You can bet a male, especially a commander, didn't come up with that idea.
So I think we agree on alot of points, Garrett, but I define a 'good' soldier along combat/field lines. That is after all, the point of the military. Any troop, regardless of MOS is supposed to carry on a battle, hand to hand if need be. Any inherent disadvantage is a liability to other soldiers and to the operation at hand.
I have never said women don't compete in many areas, like intelligence. But brains tend to get splattered on the battlefield, not respected.
Maybe it's just my slant as a former action guy. But I believe the only purpose for a soldier is to kill thine enemy. Anything else is window dressing, garrison stuff. A civilian can do finance and cooking, Psyops and Intel. We need warriors first, office jockeys second. I have an Intel background, but I sure didn't see the office much.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 20:42:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Fire the EEOC. Put the Marines in charge of army training. Make the trainers blind to gender. Make separate hygiene facilities where practical and fuggeddaboutit where not.
Make standards the standard and stick to them.
thanks Garette - we'd love to whip you old army boys into shape.
Solly,
Look, you can't blame the woman for what is out of her control. the women doing the majority of the bitching about the standards in the military, aren't in the military ans should keep their noses out of it. but that whole business I was pointing out about the tea party thing...that came from a male colonel with too much time on his hands. The fact that I didn't deploy with my unit to SWA, came from a male mind - the CMC. Things that are out of our (women in uniform) control affect not only us, but the manner in which we are veiwed by the guys. Had CMC not said no WMs would deploy to SWA, I would have been one of the first ones on the plane - simply for some skills that I was allowed to practice after my bird was retired and I was deemed to short to retrain. I lost my seat in language school to my bad knee, they weren't going to let me reenlist...
That fact alone - a damned decision made by a male did more damage than any other thing I've had to do. Like warn my Major, Captain, GSgt, and SSgt that the WM in S-1 was looking to get someone charged with sexual harrassment. All because I asked if anyone needed coffee from down the hall - what's the difference between one coffee cup and six? Hell, the Major got me coffee more often than not. Most of the officers that I've had to talk to about strange things like this have all been Mustang Officers.
So, I've had the rare opportunity that presents an officer who is well aware of what it is to be enlisted. I don't know what these sessions are you all are going on about - but not similar to anything in the Corps.
I share you wifes opinions on dealing with women in the military. There was one wench in bootcamp that (had it not been bootcamp) I should have gone ahead and hit the bitch. She batted her lashes at me and said she knew exactly how she was going to get promoted. She became the pariah in my platoon.
I was the first woman in my unit outside of S-1. They weren't sure of me - so I did the one thing I knew would work, I worked harder than the guys, worked faster than the guys... I had to be better than they were. Things went downhill after we got 15 women in the unit. Unfortunately, all it takes is one to undo everything that one of us women in uniform tries to accomplish.
Put some perspective on the issue. You're painting with too broad a brush.
---
...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 |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2002 : 09:44:48 [Permalink]
|
My brush is only as wide as DoD policy. I've made the point several times that making policy for the entire armed forces should not be based on what a very few can accomplish.
Every couple years the powers that be send a couple women to SFAS (Special Forces Assesment and Selection) or to BUDS (Basic Underwater Demolision/SEAL) training. Over the years a couple have even made it through. But suddenly throwing the doors open to all females would be a serious mistake. Even if you kept the standards, (making the vast majority of women fail) you'd be wasting untold dollars sending people to training that, in all likelihood, will fail. Time, money, and slots taken from males will all be wasted on a grand scale. Enough males bolo out (hey, I broke an ankle in Delta tryouts and got sent home) already. Using those few training slots for a population that can be expected to fail in large part, is simply a waste of resources in the pursuit of political correctness.
I'm not trying to bash women as a whole here. But in regards to a policy that affects the entire military, you just have to make broad generalizations. Individuals just don't matter.
Soldiers are supposed to be 'the same'. Uniform, haircuts, housing, latrines, field time, medical issues (at least non-gender specific ones), and of course strength.
Although these things can vary widely (a result of increasingly lax regulations and standards) among males, they are at least, at the end of the day- close. Close enough for DoD anyway.
Women, however, are not even in the same league. More accurately- their standards aren't. But that's how we rate soldiers, so therein lies the dilema. Is a soldier any less sub-standard because the PC system allows it?
The system is of little concern when the bullets start flying. Only the quality of soldier in the hole next to you matters. It's not the system that's going to be killed if that sub-standard soldier isn't worth a damn. I couldn't give a shit less about political correctness, or equality, or anything above the lives of the troops in the shit. The problem here is that ideals and the want for equality are eclipsing the importance of human blood spilled.
Being 'the same' is just as important in garrison:
Even a lard-ass, non-PT doing male can be roomed with a snake-eating stud. They can share a latrine and nobody will lodge an EO complaint if either strip naked to enjoy a rain shower on a hill after a week in the jungle. One can provide security for the other while he takes a shit in the woods.
This is the nitty-gritty of military service. All the garrison jobs are merely secondary. That's why the 'combat' (I hesitate to dignify what serves as combat training in Basic with the word) is taught in BASIC training. The Soft skills come in AIT. The PC bullshit starts immediately.
So the most basic of soldiering skills are aligned with the attributes most males natually posess, and are at odds with the physical nature of females. That being high strength, ability to endure in harsh and unsanitary environments for extended periods, etc.
Further, the uniformity of the military is lost as well. Items like latrines, rooms, etc.
What is the purpose of men having extremely short hair? It can't be for sanitation reasons- women deploy to most of the same places as men. If that's not the issue, then uniformity is usually given. However, the female standards for grooming are about as open as a college campus'. So is it even fair to make males shave their heads? You certainly won't get women to shave thier heads to be accepted. The number of women in the service would PLUMMET if you made women conform to grooming standards held by men.
The division runs alot deeper than simply the muscle to move things about. After 3 pages, this issue still has not been addressed to any satisfaction on this post.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
Cosmic string
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2002 : 03:16:40 [Permalink]
|
Wow, what a lively discussion! I just wanted to say "thanks, this is very interesting and enjoyable to watch. Keep it up!"
“The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning.” --Voltaire |
|
|
|
Chagur
New Member
USA
21 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
