[Old Man G Funk]

BTW,

Ohio and $tinkle, I've been informed that they do have unisex latrines. That's where the menfolk hang out at night waiting for a chance to rape the women that they are stationed with. I'm glad that you would choose the rapist to go out with you on a mission rather than the women, simply because he has a penis.

Edit: This must be the strict standards that $tinkle's been talking about.

 

[BurlyShirley]

You're saying that since we can't expect the boys to behave, women need to be verboten.

I'm straddling the middle here. I agree with MG and OMGF that women should be allowed, but I also think that if they want to serve, Depo shots should be mandatory and standards should NOT be lowered (although going by the Marines I've met from Pendelton, the standard isn't much higher than mouth breather that can bench 200lbs...)

You're the one with the extreme viewpoint here, not me.

It's an extreme viewpoint that every major military in the world adheres to, as well as most political bodies as a whole. Exactly how "extreme" is it to be in agreement with most of the planet?
Also, I dont think you reall need geniuses to fire machine guns or march long distances. I mean there's more to it than that, but most basic infantry jobs are, well, pretty basic. Mouth breathers can get by I guess.

 

[DRB]

It's an extreme viewpoint that every major military in the world adheres to, as well as most political bodies as a whole. Exactly how "extreme" is it to be in agreement with most of the planet?
Also, I dont think you reall need geniuses to fire machine guns or march long distances. I mean there's more to it than that, but most basic infantry jobs are, well, pretty basic. Mouth breathers can get by I guess.

strong backs... weak minds

Go back and look at MikeD said the main job of infantry is. It ain't planting tulips and making nice.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I don't know how I can explain anything that's so self-evident as the fact that men relate to other men differently than they relate to women, due to the sexual potential between them.

Men and women are different. Is that what you want me to say? Of course they are. But, that doesn't mean they can't work together.

I'm 100% sure you'll deny it, but the first and most primal reaction when any man meets any woman (within a reasonable age category and outside of immediate family bounds...perhaps even within them, but that'd never be admitted) is an assessment of the other person's sexual desirability. Due to our education and societal standards, we can get past that and down to business under most circumstances...the pressure release valves afforded by having a private life away from work make this possible...but not in this place. You don't have a private life.

Again, I'm saddened that you need "pressure release valves" in order to not go off on all your female co-workers. I feel sorry for them that they have to work with a ticking time bomb.

So, do women size up every man they meet automatically for his sexual potential? Why don't people just simply f*ck the minute they meet, since we all size up every woman we meet as soon as we see her? How does any business work? How can anyone do their job? Oh, only by needing to go off and release the pressure? How sad.

Do you think a high school gym class could have coed showers, as long as you tell the students it'd be just unthinkable for them to look at each other in anything less than a professional manner?

Non sequitor. High school seniors are not trained and paid to be professionals doing a specific job set.

Do you blame men for projecting their sexual desires onto their female peers? They do it, and no amount of education will take that away. You can pretend you're so enlightened that you'd never do such a thing, but I don't believe you.

It happens. Now suck it up and be a professional and do your job.

So we've been in the field for a few months, none of us have have really seen anyone outside of the unit...[snipped for brevity]

Aren't there rules about sleeping with your fellow soldiers? Can't Bubba get over it that Susan and Bob have a closer relationship when the sh*t isn't hitting the fan, so long as they both do their jobs when the sh*t does hit the fan? What you are describing is every day sh*t that shouldn't matter when it is time to do your job. Period. If one can't handle it, then one shouldn't be in the job. Yes, they are young, but they are entrusted with a great responsibility which they asked to have. It's time for them to grow up and act like civilized human beings.

People in the team just can't have sex. (Your bait on the gay issue has already been answered, but you don't seem to read anything I write, so I'll avoid this for now except for saying I'd much rather have open gay men in the GCE than women...)

Why don't gay men upset the group dynamic? Seriously, tell me why.

You'll notice this has nothing to do with the ability to fight, which you keep harping on. I've never said particular women can or can't fight better or worse than particular men. Again, that's an individual thing, and sex averages in fitness, etc. don't really matter.

Exactly. You would rather have a guy who can't fight as well as a women simply because he has a dick. And all because you're worried that you and Bubba can't act like adults.

And you think a leader can and should be able to just train his people away from being people. Luckily, those wiser than you are in charge.

No, I think that the training they get to prepare them for this should actually prepare them to handle this. And, I think leaders should lead and not just "let boys be boys" and sweep things under the rug.

You don't understand the utter lack of a private life in the field for an infantryman on campaign.

Does it really matter that much? From what I'm hearing, it only matters if you can't control yourself.

You live on Planet Fair. I live on Planet Reality. It's not a matter of whose fault it is and it's not a matter of putting blame on someone, with which you are wholly obsessed. It's a matter of making the group as able to kill other people as possible.

BS. It's about upholding the status quo which says it's OK to discriminate against women and not give them the secret handshake that allows them into the clubhouse.

Maslow's full of ****. People don't put sex underneath the other needs. The other needs serve sex. What we can do is subliminate that sexual energy to other uses, which is why infantrymen sexualize aggression when training for and going to war.

Yeah, if I was getting shot at, I think I'd be trying to figure out how to get into Susan's pants instead of how to stay alive.

You brought up emasculation. I just said members of our society, brought up not to **** and piss in public and especially not among members of the opposite sex, would find it uncomfortable or unsuitable. It's hard enough to deal with for a lot of people among their own sex.

And, it's that patriarchal BS that feeds into this discrimination.

Get off it. You don't think people working in offices don't harbor those secret feelings and desires for other people in the office? But they can go home, distract themselves with their private lives and other relationships, maybe rub off a quick one in the shower, and go on with the rest of their existence. (Relieve the pressure, in other words.) The GCE does not have that option when it's really doing its job. The potentials and relationships and the whole mess never goes away.

I think you need to realize that not everyone has to go home in order to avoid raping the women they work with.

Are you kidding? There's an enormous difference. One excludes women entirely from the US military, another from a select line of MOSs.

eff that. You knew what I was talking about, yet you think you can pull this sh*t to get a rhetorical point. You got called on it.

I just didn't want to have to type that much more...what I said pretty much summed it up. Non-deployable for at least half of your two-year enlistment?

And it's an issue that deserves a real discussion. If you want to have one, start a thread on it.

Some whites didn't like blacks and claimed there'd be a group dynamic problem...they were wrong, esp. as society changed. Men will always be men and women will always be women and there will be drama between young men and young women for ever and always, and they will never, ever lose the desire to **** one another. Viva la differance.

And, blacks will always be black (except Michael Jackson). It's the same BS that it would hurt group dynamic and we had to keep the blacks separate because the racist white men wouldn't fight with the blacks.

I'd say you're lying to yourself for the sake of your politics if you didn't find your relationships with women to be different than that of men.

Actually, every relationship with anyone is different.

And where did the hyperbole about permitting men to rape and discriminate come from? The discrimination (not undue or unreasonable discrimination; the military discriminates against a lot of people for a lot of accepted reasons) is and should remain organizational, not individual.

Read the OP? And, the discrimination comes from the fact that you are arguing to uphold discrimination based on nothing more than the object of your discrimination has a vagina.

But leaders and the led alike should not have their jobs made more difficult or impossible by the presence of mixed genders in the GCE ranks. And this means, unfortunately, it's either all men or all women. And that means it's all men until they institute all-female units.

Yes, if you dropped a woman into a unit right now, it would be impossible because the attitudes and the infrastructure that currently exist that allow for sexual predation and harrassament. It's institutionalized in the military. But, let's not change. Let's not drag them kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Let's let the military be a safe haven for troglodytes.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

strong backs... weak minds

Go back and look at MikeD said the main job of infantry is. It ain't planting tulips and making nice.

And, only men can kill and maim?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

You're saying that since we can't expect the boys to behave, women need to be verboten.

I'm straddling the middle here. I agree with MG and OMGF that women should be allowed, but I also think that if they want to serve, Depo shots should be mandatory and standards should NOT be lowered (although going by the Marines I've met from Pendelton, the standard isn't much higher than mouth breather that can bench 200lbs...)

You're the one with the extreme viewpoint here, not me.

Except for the forced depo, which I'm not decided on, I agree with you completely. I'm arguing that women who can do the job should not be barred from service.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Did you answer the question? Of course you didn't. So are you going to ditch the infantry to start over because of all the "thugs"? How long is that going to take?

I did answer the question, although apparently not well enough for you? I suspect that it would be a problem at first, because of the prevailing attitudes and culture. That's why I qualified my statement. How long will it take? As long as it takes. You'll end up with a more effective force in the end.

If you take 20 men and 20 women and run them thru the paces of the physical aspects of being a regular run of the mill infantryman, how exactly do you think that distribution is going to look once scored? To be honest I wonder how many women can even meet the short and long term physical demands. And if that number is minimal, is it really worth the negative effect that its going to have?

Yes, it is in the long run.

Or do you relax the standards to get some in and working and tighten them as time goes on? Do they get more chances?

I've repeatedly said that I am not in favor of simply handing jobs to underqualified people simply because they have a vagina. Please read before spouting.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

For all you who say a woman can't do the job...

SOMETIMES GOOD LUCK comes disguised as bad press. A couple years back, Everett Harman '84G set out to study women's potential to perform U.S. Army jobs that required heavy physical labor. Harman, a research physiologist with the U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine in Natick, had a plan to subject a cohort of women volunteers to training ranging from fast-paced marching to long hours in the weight room but no advertising budget with which to solicit volunteers.

So he put out a press release. Which caught the attention of an Associated Press bureau somewhere. Which led to a flurry of controversy: why was our government spending money to, in the words of a particularly indignant Washington Times article, "turn the average woman into the average man, strengthwise"?

When Harman's study eventually got the green light, after a "cooling off period" of several weeks, he discovered no shortage of women willing to volunteer. What's more, they were steamed. "A lot of them were very interested to prove that women are capable," says Harman, who earned his Ph.D. from UMass in exercise science. "We had some who were so interested they traveled up to fifty minutes each way to be here. They were inspired."

This reservoir of resolve came in handy during the six months of training that ensued. Harman's subjects worked out an hour-and-a-half a day, five days a week. They pumped iron. They tossed medicine balls. They hiked, five miles at a time at a pace of at least four miles per hour, while carrying packs weighing up to seventy-five pounds. The routine was carefully prescribed to develop the ability to handle cumbersome loads; the Army's definition of "heavy" labor is any job that requires lifting more than 100 pounds. Indeed, when the results of Harman's post-test were tabulated, the number of women who met this standard jumped from 24 percent to 78 percent. Conventional basic training produces a fraction of this success. More surprising than the study group's performance was the difficulty Harman had in dispersing it when his experiment was finished. "We didn't anticipate the power of it," he says. "It was very inspiring how they bonded and supported each other. Their attitudes toward themselves and toward other people improved so much.

"I think most of them were pretty sad when it was over."

http://www.umass.edu/umassmag/archives/1999/winter_99/wint99_alumni.html

I'm still looking for the actual study.

 

[$tinkle]

Evidence?

in practice, college admissions for a minority who was accepted with help of their racial status correlates to a higher probability of defaulting on student loans, and being in the bottom percentage of the class (if they even graduate).

what for me is my "hope to get into" school is a safety school for an equally qualified minority. i cannot see how setting someone up for failure is helping them.

 

[$tinkle]

I was glib earlier, but seriously now: We should frame our expectations of moral behavior to the whims of a group of paid killers?

If we're going to do that, I'd like that made clear so that I NEVER hire anyone who was in that kind of system. Because what you're describing isn't going to mesh well with corporate America...

blackwater much?

 

[$tinkle]

BTW,

Ohio and $tinkle, I've been informed that they do have unisex latrines. That's where the menfolk hang out at night waiting for a chance to rape the women that they are stationed with. I'm glad that you would choose the rapist to go out with you on a mission rather than the women, simply because he has a penis.

Edit: This must be the strict standards that $tinkle's been talking about.

so if i'm hoping to rape, i had better restrict myself to the confines of a unisex latrine? while i'm contemplating committing a felony (carrying the rather high price if caught), what's a little "female" sign on another latrine door going to do to stop me? come on: you got a guy who's fixin' to rape someone.

another example is community showering (not sure how relevant that example is on a 40-day bivouac). follow that scenario given the most unrealistic, yet altruistic, training you would have imposed upon the group. just ain't gonna happen, chief.

 

[$tinkle]

And, blacks will always be black (except Michael Jackson). It's the same BS that it would hurt group dynamic and we had to keep the blacks separate because the racist white men wouldn't fight with the blacks.

and the convicted murderers & rapists will always be convicted murderers & rapists, even if "they can do the job"
and those beyond the age requirement will always be beyond the age requirement, even if "they can do the job"
fully grown adults below the minimum height/weight requirement will always be below the minimum height/weight requirement, even if "they can do the job".

Yes, if you dropped a woman into a unit right now, it would be impossible because the attitudes and the infrastructure that currently exist that allow for sexual predation and harrassament. It's institutionalized in the military. But, let's not change. Let's not drag them kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Let's let the military be a safe haven for troglodytes.

thought you might appreciate this:

Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester fought her way through an enemy ambush south of Baghdad, killing three insurgents with her M-4 rifle to save fellow soldiers' lives — and yesterday became the first woman since World War II to win the Silver Star medal for valor in combat.

The 23-year-old retail store manager from Bowling Green, Ky., won the award for skillfully leading her team of military police soldiers in a counterattack after about 50 insurgents ambushed a supply convoy they were guarding near Salman Pak on March 20.

The medal, rare for any soldier, underscores the growing role in combat of U.S. female troops in Iraq's guerrilla war, where tens of thousands of American women have served, 36 have been killed and 285 wounded, according to Pentagon figures.

After insurgents hit the convoy with a barrage of fire from machine guns, AK-47 assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, Hester "maneuvered her team through the kill zone into a flanking position where she assaulted a trench line with grenades and M203 rounds," according to the Army citation accompanying the Silver Star.

"She then cleared two trenches with her squad leader where she engaged and eliminated three AIF [anti-Iraqi forces] with her M4 rifle. Her actions saved the lives of numerous convoy members," the citation stated.

Hester, a varsity softball and basketball player in high school, joined the Army in 2001 and was assigned to the Kentucky National Guard's 617th Military Police Company, based in Richmond, Ky.

A female driver with the unit, Spec. Ashley J. Pullen of Danville, Ky., won the Bronze Star for her bravery. Pullen laid down fire to suppress insurgents and then "exposed herself to heavy AIF fires in order to provide medical assistance to her critically injured comrades," saving several lives, her citation said.

Six other soldiers with Hester's unit won awards for defeating the ambush, leaving 27 insurgents dead, six wounded and one captured. They include Hester's squad leader, Staff. Sgt. Timothy F. Nein, who also won the Silver Star.

QandO

 

[Silver]

blackwater much?

Obviously a group of higher paid private killers would be exempt from that concern...

 

[Old Man G Funk]

in practice, college admissions for a minority who was accepted with help of their racial status correlates to a higher probability of defaulting on student loans, and being in the bottom percentage of the class (if they even graduate).

what for me is my "hope to get into" school is a safety school for an equally qualified minority. i cannot see how setting someone up for failure is helping them.

Cite?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

so if i'm hoping to rape, i had better restrict myself to the confines of a unisex latrine? while i'm contemplating committing a felony (carrying the rather high price if caught), what's a little "female" sign on another latrine door going to do to stop me? come on: you got a guy who's fixin' to rape someone.

another example is community showering (not sure how relevant that example is on a 40-day bivouac). follow that scenario given the most unrealistic, yet altruistic, training you would have imposed upon the group. just ain't gonna happen, chief.

Way to miss the point. You did it intentionally, didn't you? Fess up.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

and the convicted murderers & rapists will always be convicted murderers & rapists, even if "they can do the job"

Barring someone due to a felony conviction is fine. Where did I say it wasn't?

and those beyond the age requirement will always be beyond the age requirement, even if "they can do the job"
fully grown adults below the minimum height/weight requirement will always be below the minimum height/weight requirement, even if "they can do the job".

And, I've already answered this.

thought you might appreciate this:QandO

I do, thank you.

 

[BMXman]

well I have just read this whole thread...and in the beginning I was all for women in the miltary...but after readin Mike D's and Ohio's post I have changed my mind. I think they're right in saying it's much more complicated than physical differences....

oh and old g man funk...I don't know what planet he's living on but it's certainly not Earth!...I don't even see how you can put up an effective agruement when you have never been in the service....D

 

[Kihaji]

Few points:

1. Yes, the military is a job. But to think you can compare the dynamics and relationships in a regular office job to one of combat, well that's just short bus retarded. There is a completely different, and I dare say stronger, bond developed by soldiers than a regular office setting. So thinking that "well it doesnt happen in my 9-5 job, so it should be fine in the field", just stop.

2. Yes, the military could integrate women into combat units right this moment. And in the future we may have a more effective fighting force, but that isn't guaranteed, and it wont be soon. You first have to wait for all the people who are unable to adapt to either be weeded out or retire, so give that 5 years. Then, you have to hope that we aren't in a war or any sort of combat for that time, as the distractions in those units, be it resentment for women getting their long time friends and teammates kicked out because a "girl wants to play GI Jane", will get more soldiers killed, breeding even more resentment. If we are in war or combat situations add another say, 5 years, as the men who are distracted are either killed or removed. Then, after that if we were in combat, add another 5 years of resistance from the families of the people who were killed who are angered that Johhny got killed because "some girl wanted to play GI Jane". So, you're looking at 10-20 or so years of "integration", in which time if we are in combat, and we will be, a lot of people will be killed.

Or, instead of doing that, how about we realize that yes, women can and have proven that they can suceed in combat, and as opportunities and situations arise, open more opportunities in forward positions at a gradual pace so people get used to it, and save a lot of lives and problems in the meantime? How about that?

3. Even with all of the above, women in combat will still be a bad idea and cause distractions, even more so in the future, because of our society. And you can actually blame the women and liberal movements for this. One of the nasty side effects of all the (rightful) liberation and freedoms women have taken back in the civilian world is the PC movement and lawsuits. This is one thing you can actually see in the workplace, men second guessing and being indecisive around women so they don't offend them and get sued. In combat, that spells death, and not just for the person second guessing themselves. A soldier cannot worry about if a look, or comment, or touch is going to be construed as harrassment. Women also have an absolute power to circumvent the chain of command at any moment, and get exactly what they want with just a single word, Rape. It's a sad fact that a man is guilty until proven innocent when it comes to allegations of rape, and even if found innocent, that stigma still lingers. For a soldier or a commander to have to worry about upsetting a woman and having her cry rape, again, people will die.


As for equality in the service in regards to requirements, at this point in time they are not. Women are pampered, even in field situations. They have "get out of deployment" free cards, pregnancy, and no one thinks strangely when the husband is not the father. They have lessened field times, at least in the Army. They were brought back to the rear every 3 days for hot showers and fresh clothes while in the field, while the men stayed much longer, my longest was 16 days without even a cold field shower and fresh clothes from my duffle. Their PT standards are different, I wont comment on easier or harder, but different. Their uniform standards are much more lax, and often not enforced, again because of the fear of retribution.


So, with all that said, my experience from being in a combat unit, in combat, IE actively getting shot at, is that at this point in time women will not work in combat units. That is not to say I have not seen some outstanding women soldiers who could stick with the best in combat, but sadly they are few and far between in todays military.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

well I have just read this whole thread...and in the beginning I was all for women in the miltary...but after readin Mike D's and Ohio's post I have changed my mind. I think they're right in saying it's much more complicated than physical differences....

oh and old g man funk...I don't know what planet he's living on but it's certainly not Earth!...I don't even see how you can put up an effective agruement when you have never been in the service....D

First, MG was in the service, but her opinion I guess doesn't count cause she's a woman?

Second, even in the group dynamic changes, they have not proven that the change would be bad.

Third, of course it is complicated, but you can't argue that it is impossible through the circular reasoning that has been employed. The "boys will be boys" mentality is appalling. Do you think that only "real men" are able to effectively kill? Please.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Few points:

1. Yes, the military is a job. But to think you can compare the dynamics and relationships in a regular office job to one of combat, well that's just short bus retarded. There is a completely different, and I dare say stronger, bond developed by soldiers than a regular office setting. So thinking that "well it doesnt happen in my 9-5 job, so it should be fine in the field", just stop.

But, it's still a job. There are some pretty intense jobs out there, so I suspect that you should be arguing that other jobs out there should be allowed to discriminate based on sex too, right? Or, that men should be allowed to blow off steam by harrassing their co-workers, right? The mysogeny in this thread is sickening.

2. Yes, the military could integrate women into combat units right this moment. And in the future we may have a more effective fighting force, but that isn't guaranteed, and it wont be soon. You first have to wait for all the people who are unable to adapt to either be weeded out or retire, so give that 5 years. Then, you have to hope that we aren't in a war or any sort of combat for that time, as the distractions in those units, be it resentment for women getting their long time friends and teammates kicked out because a "girl wants to play GI Jane", will get more soldiers killed, breeding even more resentment. If we are in war or combat situations add another say, 5 years, as the men who are distracted are either killed or removed. Then, after that if we were in combat, add another 5 years of resistance from the families of the people who were killed who are angered that Johhny got killed because "some girl wanted to play GI Jane". So, you're looking at 10-20 or so years of "integration", in which time if we are in combat, and we will be, a lot of people will be killed.

And, once again we see the blame the women for men not being able to cope card. When will it get old? Why don't we just blame all women who get raped too?

Or, instead of doing that, how about we realize that yes, women can and have proven that they can suceed in combat, and as opportunities and situations arise, open more opportunities in forward positions at a gradual pace so people get used to it, and save a lot of lives and problems in the meantime? How about that?

Nowhere did I say that we had to drop women into units right now. We should integrate them in a way that makes sense. Your nice little bit of straw here is duly noted.

3. Even with all of the above, women in combat will still be a bad idea and cause distractions, even more so in the future, because of our society.

Again, if the menfolk can't handle the distractions, you should blame and punish the women. Why don't we let women fight, but in burquas? That should solve the problem.

And you can actually blame the women and liberal movements for this. One of the nasty side effects of all the (rightful) liberation and freedoms women have taken back in the civilian world is the PC movement and lawsuits. This is one thing you can actually see in the workplace, men second guessing and being indecisive around women so they don't offend them and get sued. In combat, that spells death, and not just for the person second guessing themselves. A soldier cannot worry about if a look, or comment, or touch is going to be construed as harrassment. Women also have an absolute power to circumvent the chain of command at any moment, and get exactly what they want with just a single word, Rape. It's a sad fact that a man is guilty until proven innocent when it comes to allegations of rape, and even if found innocent, that stigma still lingers. For a soldier or a commander to have to worry about upsetting a woman and having her cry rape, again, people will die.

Blame the womenfolk again. How dare those damned liberal feminists actually want equality. They should be thankful that we allow them out of the kitchen.

As for equality in the service in regards to requirements, at this point in time they are not. Women are pampered, even in field situations. They have "get out of deployment" free cards, pregnancy, and no one thinks strangely when the husband is not the father. They have lessened field times, at least in the Army. They were brought back to the rear every 3 days for hot showers and fresh clothes while in the field, while the men stayed much longer, my longest was 16 days without even a cold field shower and fresh clothes from my duffle. Their PT standards are different, I wont comment on easier or harder, but different. Their uniform standards are much more lax, and often not enforced, again because of the fear of retribution.

And, no one has argued that the requirements should be different; more straw. I've already posted a link reporting a study where women were able to attain the same requirements as men BTW. It helps to read.

So, with all that said, my experience from being in a combat unit, in combat, IE actively getting shot at, is that at this point in time women will not work in combat units. That is not to say I have not seen some outstanding women soldiers who could stick with the best in combat, but sadly they are few and far between in todays military.

Right, so those women who are capable should be left out because....oh yeah, it will be too hard for the menfolk to deal with.

Have any of you thought about how women could increase the fighting force's effectiveness? Of course not, because you are all mired in medieval thinking. But, think about it. You would have a much larger talent pool to draw from. You'd have more people possible to field, which would allow for better training, more rest between missions, etc. But, I guess having a penis is more important than actually caring about effectiveness.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I don't even see how you can put up an effective agruement when you have never been in the service....D

Oh, it's called using logic and actually trying to back up statements, instead of unsupported assertions and catch-phrases laced with jingoistic mysogeny. The fact that you are swayed by someone who admitted that he can't work with women unless he's able to go home and rub one out afterwards is pretty sad. I imagine that he fantasizes about them grovelling in front of him so that he can establish his dominance, if only in his mind. He sounds like a dog that has to go around humping everything it sees just to make sure all the other dogs know that he's the alpha. What he's really scared of though is that he would be one of the ones weeded out from his precious military because he can't operate on a level where women are more than mere sex objects for his amusement.

 

[MikeD]

Wow, that sure sounds like a far cry from the great relationships I have with everyone at work, men and women, gays and straights, all carrying guns and traveling around the world doing our jobs...how sad I truly am...

 

[Silver]

Wow, that sure sounds like a far cry from the great relationships I have with everyone at work, men and women, gays and straights, all carrying guns and traveling around the world doing our jobs...how sad I truly am...

I'm confused...who are you replying to?

 

[MikeD]

I was responding to this characterization of me (directly above my post)...

... someone who admitted that he can't work with women unless he's able to go home and rub one out afterwards is pretty sad. I imagine that he fantasizes about them grovelling in front of him so that he can establish his dominance, if only in his mind. He sounds like a dog that has to go around humping everything it sees just to make sure all the other dogs know that he's the alpha. What he's really scared of though is that he would be one of the ones weeded out from his precious military because he can't operate on a level where women are more than mere sex objects for his amusement.

 

[$tinkle]

Cite?

much in the way that success is accomplished at colleges at a lower rate for minorities - again, who were admitted due to racial preferences - over whites, so too this is demonstrated in the corporate world. in particular in the field of law.

http://www.law.ucla.edu/sander/NorthCarolina/sander.pdf

abstract: blacks (and to a lesser & inconsistent degree hispanics) are overrepresented at law firms, yet are underrepresented as partners. because there is over-representation among first year employees from the selected field of law school graduates, it follows from this less rigorous selection their grades were lower, and thus the measure for success [being chosen as partner] as compared to their less represented (again, as a portion of law school graduates) white counterparts. minority attrition is also disproportionate to whites.

seeing how desire for success seems to transcend racial lines, what's left to conclude other than one pool is less academically qualified than another? i put forth the pepsi challenge socio-economic background is a stronger indicator of success than race. for most, it's the indicator.

maybe we should get a thread for this...or resurrect one of many. if it's all the same to you, i'll just keep hating browns & work on "articulate" explanations to thinly disguise my true colors. [<--- yes, to others who haven't read so much as 3 of my posts, that was sarcasm; but if it's sarcastic, why am i explaining it - white guilt perhaps?]

 

[$tinkle]

Barring someone due to a felony conviction is fine. Where did I say it wasn't?

it follows that someone who could otherwise do the job is being discriminated against would include both women and ex-cons, no?

for the job of going into another country & killing someone, wouldn't you rather have someone with a proven track record?

 

[Silver]

I was responding to this characterization of me (directly above my post)...

Did you give MG crap for taking things personally?

 

[Silver]

for the job of going into another country & killing someone, wouldn't you rather have someone with a proven track record?

Like I said upthread, if that's what you're argument comes down to, at least make that clear. Then we can clear out our maximum security prisons and put those bastards to work doing something they are good at.

Plus, we can also stop with the whole "They are selfless heroes!" and "You have to have served (unless you have a vagina of course, see BMXMan's post above which leaves out MG's point of view but leaves in ohio's) to have an opinion man!" useless rhetoric.

 

[$tinkle]

Wow, that sure sounds like a far cry from the great relationships I have with everyone at work, men and women, gays and straights, all carrying guns and traveling around the world doing our jobs...how sad I truly am...

who's menstruating now?

:fopfopfop:

 

[Changleen]

I am bored of this thread.

 

[Dog Welder]

And, only men can kill and maim?

HOLY CRAP...you guys realise that you've been arguing so long that you just went full circle?

 

[MikeD]

Did you give MG crap for taking things personally?

Silver, where are you coming from? I just don't know what in God's name you're talking about... (and I'm an atheist, so that's saying a lot.)

I've re-read this mess twice and can't find any such thing.

 

[DRB]

How exactly are women going to make an infantry unit more effective?

I was watching a youth soccer game yesterday afternoon that boys and girls were playing together. It was telling that at 7 years old, the boys were already exhibiting behavior that was much more aggressive then the girls.

I also find it funny that the alpha dog thing came up. If you have been around the enlisted men in an infantry unit for any amount of time, it is ALWAYS about establishing the Alpha dog amongst them. At home it happens all the time that there would be black eyes, bruises and stitches from all sorts of incidents between them. Sitting around in the desert waiting for something to happen it got even worse. Knowing guys from college commanding armor and helicopter units, they barely got any of that. Usually they punished for those conflicts, infantry officers quietly praise them.

There might be women that could survive that environment but finding one that would thrive is going to be exceptionally rare. And if you aren't thriving you aren't increasing the effectiveness of the unit. So even if you could add one per platoon is that pay off really worth the time frame that Kihaji laid out? Because losing at this little game has a very permanent outcome.

 

[MikeD]

who's menstruating now?

:fopfopfop:

It's that time of the thread. Take your hand out of your pants...

 

[Silver]

Silver, where are you coming from? I just don't know what in God's name you're talking about... (and I'm an atheist, so that's saying a lot.)

I've re-read this mess twice and can't find any such thing.

Whoops, my fault. That was ohio, not you...

 

[Westy]

Countries should just agree to have a certain number of women only front line troops and agree to only use those forces against other women forces. If they we were smart we wouldn't necessarily arm them but train them in hand to hand combat techniques like tickling and hair pulling. Of course we should video tape all battles and post them on youtube.

 

[BMXman]

Oh, it's called using logic and actually trying to back up statements, instead of unsupported assertions and catch-phrases laced with jingoistic mysogeny. The fact that you are swayed by someone who admitted that he can't work with women unless he's able to go home and rub one out afterwards is pretty sad. I imagine that he fantasizes about them grovelling in front of him so that he can establish his dominance, if only in his mind. He sounds like a dog that has to go around humping everything it sees just to make sure all the other dogs know that he's the alpha. What he's really scared of though is that he would be one of the ones weeded out from his precious military because he can't operate on a level where women are more than mere sex objects for his amusement.

ok you're making idiotic statements now...I know Mike D personally and he and I would not be friends if he was anything like what you describe....oh and logic??...It will be trumped by real world expereince everytime...D

 

[BMXman]

Few points:



2. Yes, the military could integrate women into combat units right this moment. And in the future we may have a more effective fighting force, but that isn't guaranteed, and it wont be soon. You first have to wait for all the people who are unable to adapt to either be weeded out or retire, so give that 5 years. Then, you have to hope that we aren't in a war or any sort of combat for that time, as the distractions in those units, be it resentment for women getting their long time friends and teammates kicked out because a "girl wants to play GI Jane", will get more soldiers killed, breeding even more resentment. If we are in war or combat situations add another say, 5 years, as the men who are distracted are either killed or removed. Then, after that if we were in combat, add another 5 years of resistance from the families of the people who were killed who are angered that Johhny got killed because "some girl wanted to play GI Jane". So, you're looking at 10-20 or so years of "integration", in which time if we are in combat, and we will be, a lot of people will be killed.

Or, instead of doing that, how about we realize that yes, women can and have proven that they can suceed in combat, and as opportunities and situations arise, open more opportunities in forward positions at a gradual pace so people get used to it, and save a lot of lives and problems in the meantime? How about that?

this pretty much sums up my own conclusion...we're just not ready for it....and to force it down peoples throat is a bad idea for EVERYONE....D

 

[JohnE]

Some of you guys need to type less and pedal more. Or apply to the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a job forming miltary policy...

 

[stevew]

...... train them in hand to hand combat techniques like tickling and hair pulling. Of course we should video tape all battles and post them on youtube.

So that would be a youtube link you would watch?