[binary visions]

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.

No, what's sad is you're resorting to truly disgusting personal attacks like this simply because the two of you are finding no common ground.

I imagine that you must do this kind of thing with MudGrrl when you fight. After an argument, you begin to ridicule her, suggesting that only her menial mental capacity would prevent her from agreeing with you. You then expand on how you think she's put on a few pounds in recent years and maybe if she were more attractive to you, you wouldn't be arguing in the first place. You sound like a scared, sad little man who is terrified to gracefully bow out of an argument when everything has been said for fear of appearing beaten and wrong instead of simply allowing the discussion to close.

edit: incidentally, if your statement is what you are actually drawing from MikeD's arguments, you are one piss-poor reader.

 

[$tinkle]

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...

and you need to understand the thread title alone requires that we fight like little bitches

 

[Westy]

So that would be a youtube link you would watch?

If properly described and commented then yes.

 

[Da Peach]

From the bushes, I was watching a youth soccer game yesterday afternoon that boys and girls were playing together....

Uh huh....thought so.

 

[DRB]

Uh huh....thought so.

That's funny cause it was kinda from the bushes.

 

[$tinkle]

If properly described and commented then yes.

when giving a forecast for glory,

(chance of precip: 300%)

 

[lugnuts]

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?

Um, I would not think they should be allowed to, but you do raise an interesting point.
It made me wonder why you never see too many women on the decks of boats in "Deadliest Catch" (great show BTW). Or why you don't see too many female Blackwater employees on the news running around in the desert guns a blazing. I mean, take some of the worlds most dangerous jobs (fisherman, loggers, construction, etc) . . . they aren't bound by gov't policies, and yet they are mostly male. Whats up with that? I doubt it has anything to do with sexual tension. And you don't really hear about many discrimination suits stemming from them.

But back to the topic at hand, there is no way you guys can really compare corporate america jobs to infantry.
Someone keeps mentioning how the infantry needs to stop being so medieval or barbaric, but thats exactly what they need to be to survive. If need be, you must to be able to stare into the eyes of the enemy and take his life from him. It's an entirely different frame of mind.
Sure they are both "jobs" whereas you get paid for your time, but one is more of a lifestyle. Being infantry is really a 24/7 gig. Its not like a regular job where if you have a sh**ty day you can go home and have a beer and unwind and hope that tomorrow is better. Instead having a sh**ty day means you are going home in a bag.

And just for the hell of it... someone kept asking for a definition of group dynamics.
Group Dynamics via Wiki
But I think the "group dynamic" that folks are referring to here relates more to unit cohesion and thus combat effectiveness. I'd describe it as a group of soldiers who must live, work, and function together in unison to both accomplish missions and to survive. You may have group dynamics at the office, but the difference is that the decisions you make at the office don't always directly effect everyone else around you. For the troop on the front line a bad decision can kill his buddy and vice versa. With those kind of consequences you tend to develop a more intimate relationship with the members of your group/team.


Well, none of this changes the fact that regardless of how your debates turn out, there will be no change in policy at the pentagon.

Am I the only one that finds that amusing?

 

[MikeD]

Well, none of this changes the fact that regardless of how your debates turn out, there will be no change in policy at the pentagon.

Am I the only one that finds that amusing?

It is crushing, considering the massive public policy effect our arguments on Ridemonkey usually instigate.

 

[lugnuts]

It is crushing, considering the massive public policy effect our arguments on Ridemonkey usually instigate.

I especially liked the discussions we had about cops after the Tazering and Groom shooting and how the world took notice. I don't think a single Groom (or Bride for that matter) has been shot since!

 

[DRB]

It is crushing, considering the massive public policy effect our arguments on Ridemonkey usually instigate.

Is the policy changing? No. So see we here at Ridemonkey have again saved the world.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

I find this thread perversely hilarious...

Being in a foxhole for an extended period of time while being shot at is exactly like every 9-5 office job. Being a CEO of a fortune 200 company requires just as much bonding and trust as trusting the person next to you with your life. Just because you can go home and lay pipe with your significant other does NOT mean that you're above "a pressure relief valve".

I can't help but laugh. And it's not a funny "Ha-ha!!" laugh, it's a very worrisome, haunted chuckle...


Edit: Thought the last line would've given away that I was indeed being sarcastic.:

 

[BMXman]

Being in a foxhole for an extended period of time while being shot at is exactly like every 9-5 office job

you can't be serious...D

 

[JohnE]

I find this thread perversely hilarious...

Being in a foxhole for an extended period of time while being shot at is exactly like every 9-5 office job. Being a CEO of a fortune 200 company requires just as much bonding and trust as trusting the person next to you with your life. Just because you can go home and lay pipe with your significant other does NOT mean that you're above "a pressure relief valve".

I can't help but laugh. And it's not a funny "Ha-ha!!" laugh, it's a very worrisome, haunted chuckle...

Yes, please tell me you are kidding. Because benefits, work environments and retirement programs for GIs and Fortune 500 CEOs are so similiar. And the buy out when they both **** up, big bucks for the CEO, a body bag for whats left of the GI.
If you are serious, please make sure you use the dumba$$ font from now on...

 

[binary visions]

I think you guys need to have your sarcasm meter calibrated

 

[SkaredShtles]

I think you guys need to have your sarcasm meter calibrated

 

[bullitking]

It seems this thread has already deteriorated to crap, but Ill just throw in my two cents. I remember a number around 15% of all active millitary are women. I would be willing to bet that this number is much lower in the infantry. I do believe that women could perform infantry jobs effectively and make an effective fighting force. However, I also believe that men bond differently than women. Though obviously a different situation, just think about when you were younger and on a sports team, or chillin with friends or whatever. Did you tend to go towards members of the opposite sex or did you stick with the comfort of your own sex? A Jr. Highschool dance floor is a good example... All the guys on one side, all the girls on the other. You go to where you are comfortable. Keep in mind, most of these soldiers are 18-21. They are young! I just think that having a woman mixed in adds another thing to think about for an already emotionally stressed soldier. Is it really worth possibly risking more lives in order to keep women in the military? They make up such a small percentage, that it would seem like a better plan to not even try to use women as soldiers, and thereby eliminate any problems that COULD arrise. Im not saying there will be problems, Im just saying that it does not seem worth the risk, so why do it? Why throw an element into the mix that could potentially cost lives? It just doesnt seem worth it to me. Oh, and yes this may be punishing women for the shortcomings of men, but it seems like a good idea to keep the vast majority of soldiers working at 100%, rather than making them potentially work at 95% and including women.

 

[MikeD]

I would be willing to bet that this number is much lower in the infantry.

Like zero? (Women do work in non-infantry MOSs in regimental and higher headquarters, to be accurate.)

 

[Old Man G Funk]

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...

Look, I'm sure you're a terrific guy, but when you say things that are basically misogynistic, I'm going to call you on it.

You probably don't need to go home and imagine women in submissive positions to work with them, so why would you say that men and women can't work together without that release?

Yes, group dynamics differ depending on whether you have men or women in a group. But, they differ no matter who is in the group. No two groups will be the same (have the same dynamic). This mystical "all-male" dynamic simply doesn't exist. If you are worried about sex, then you should be consistent and say that gays should not be allowed either. That doesn't prevent all-male groups from engaging in sexual politics either though.

Fact or fiction, the best soldiers are very emotional? I would think the best soldiers would be calm, rational, and professional. When the sh*t hits the fan, do you want someone who freaks out or someone who remains calm and does their job? Wouldn't you rather have a woman who remains calm and does what she is supposed to do to watch your back than a man who doesn't?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

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?

Once again, ex-cons were convicted of an act that they committed. What act did women commit?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

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

The whole thread has gone that way since about the second page.

I'm still waiting to find out whether anyone agrees with this sentiment, however. Are men simply better at killing and maiming? Is that the consensus? What about the a priori assumption that the mystical all-male dynamic is necessarily the best one for combat?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

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.

Breed a couple different sets of dogs for fighting, then place all the alphas in the same cage. See if you get cohesion.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

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....

Like I said a few minutes ago, I'm sure he is a nice guy. I'm objecting to his statements and taking them to their conclusion.

oh and logic??...It will be trumped by real world expereince everytime...D

If that were true then we would still believe that the sun really does revolve around the Earth.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

No, what's sad is you're resorting to truly disgusting personal attacks like this simply because the two of you are finding no common ground.

I imagine that you must do this kind of thing with MudGrrl when you fight. After an argument, you begin to ridicule her, suggesting that only her menial mental capacity would prevent her from agreeing with you. You then expand on how you think she's put on a few pounds in recent years and maybe if she were more attractive to you, you wouldn't be arguing in the first place. You sound like a scared, sad little man who is terrified to gracefully bow out of an argument when everything has been said for fear of appearing beaten and wrong instead of simply allowing the discussion to close.

edit: incidentally, if your statement is what you are actually drawing from MikeD's arguments, you are one piss-poor reader.

BV, I didn't make that custom title, so you can stop taking it out on me.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Look, I'm sure you're a terrific guy, but when you say things that are basically misogynistic, I'm going to call you on it.

You probably don't need to go home and imagine women in submissive positions to work with them, so why would you say that men and women can't work together without that release?

Yes, group dynamics differ depending on whether you have men or women in a group. But, they differ no matter who is in the group. No two groups will be the same (have the same dynamic). This mystical "all-male" dynamic simply doesn't exist. If you are worried about sex, then you should be consistent and say that gays should not be allowed either. That doesn't prevent all-male groups from engaging in sexual politics either though.

Fact or fiction, the best soldiers are very emotional? I would think the best soldiers would be calm, rational, and professional. When the sh*t hits the fan, do you want someone who freaks out or someone who remains calm and does their job? Wouldn't you rather have a woman who remains calm and does what she is supposed to do to watch your back than a man who doesn't?

Since you were all about citing sources earlier...

Show me one study that has been done that counters MikeD's real world experience with flying bullets, sh*tting pants, and just general foxhole livin'.

 

[MikeD]

Maybe the problem here is that I admittedly spoke with a very male point of view, seeing women as the 'problem' or positing them as the intruder...that's simply a result of the situation, in that it's the addition of women to an all-male force which I oppose.

But the inherent problem, as I've said many, many times, isn't with either men or women. (Contrary to the argument that you'd like to have and that some others have put forth.) It's with men and women together. To assert that women have no libido or are entirely able to control themselves in ways that men can't is either insultingly objectifying or idiotically naive.

You keep calling my assertations unsupported. However, your counters to my assertations, that men and women can and should simply control themselves, are also somewhat unsupported by reality. Teachers and students shouldn't sleep together, but they do. Married people shouldn't sleep with other people, but they do. People not mature enough, legally or emotionally, to have sex do it. People do things all the time that they shouldn't. People get punished for doing the wrong things sometimes, but they still do them. And in the situations we're describing, even doing the wrong thing without getting caught degrades the integrity of the unit. And doing them and getting caught likewise makes a mess.

Now, in the normal world, things like this can work themselves out. As I've said before, there are pressure releases. You look at my view of the world and liken me to a dog trying to hump things, and that I'm unable to deal with a female without visualizing a money shot. This is far from the case. I, like most people, live a normal life. I go home, I think about other things, I spend time with my wife and family, I cook dinner, I go for a ride.

This is because I'm not in the field for weeks, months, or years (see WWII, and think about how similar the war with China and North Korea would be vs, say Iraq.) under combat stress conditions. You don't comprehend that you don't have a private life under these conditions, and everything you do is known to your teammates. Your world shrinks and becomes these teammates, and even the closest ties you have at home become almost fictional…perhaps mythical, even, but not exerting immediate influence on you and your actions.

In short, you have no outlet, no 'pressure release,' to use the term that's become so controversial here in this thread. Anything that happens in this team has immense import, and people do get emotional in combat. Or the stress takes it completely away…people react differently, and vacillate between extremes sometimes. I don't know what sort of "support" I can offer these statements to make you at least understand my point of view.

You seem to want math equations or case studies…they simply don't exist, so what you get is my words and logical arguments. (Unlike BMXman, who is admittedly a good friend, I don't think logic trumps experience…but you have to have a base of experience on which to base your logic. You can't start from nothing and move in the direction you want…then you end up with, say, Marxism…essentially aesthetic arguments taken to practical absurdities.) But you simply don't acknowledge any logic to what I say. This is my last attempt to put some to it for you.

I say reality stands in the way of your sexless view of the world, and discounting sex is illogical. But I imagine you'll still say with a straight face that hearing two of your teammates having sex in a hole twenty feet away, when you've been away from your home and family for two years, or perhaps just had sex with one of those teammates a month ago yourself, isn't going to affect your ability to work with them. And that those effects couldn't degrade the ability of your unit to fight. You want people to ignore these feelings, but there's nowhere to run, no way to subliminate these feelings away in the field.

This isn't the air force; there aren't dormitories in basic training, or even sometimes on base…you're not tied to an airstrip and the associated infrastructure. Even in peace under the best conditions, people may live in squad bays or piled 3 to a room in condemned barracks. Or they might live in brand-new barracks with total privacy, I suppose.

But what's important is what may happen in the field…like I said, living on the run in ruins and holes in the ground for potentially many years. Just because it could work on a base in peacetime for training doesn't make it right for the potential all-out, long-term war for which we are obligated to prepare. When rear-echelon units may get tents and porta-johns, or operate out of firebases or logistics points, the infantry (and other ground combat units, like tanks and artillery) simply may not get any relief.

You can look at me with a straight face and can't fathom how sexual entanglements, tensions, and jealousies among members of such a unit would degrade their ability to bond as a team? You can tell me that because they're 'professionals,' (and you don't realize you're talking about the high school- and early-college-aged kids I discussed in my shower example, which you pooh-poohed) that they can lay that part of their humanity aside for that long under those conditions? You don't that when the world shrinks to the size of your team, these kids won't be limited by their environment and have feelings for one another?

Again, you want 'support,' but how can I support the self-evident? Do you want me to attach some study or some philosophical name to this? Weren't you ever a human being?? Weren't you ever a horny 18-21 year-old? Weren't you ever sick with desire over someone? Haven't you ever seen anyone do something stupid for sex or love? Haven't you fought with a best friend over a girl? Doesn't this stuff make any sense to you, aside from being some chimera of "patriarchy?"

In the normal world, personal responsibility is the issue you want it to be...do it wrong and get caught and you get smacked somehow. And it's not even the actions that are the worst part…it's the detrimental psychological effects on the individual which erode the team. In an infantry environment, mission accomplishment takes priority over all else, even the lives of an individual. But mission accomplishment is also a form of troop welfare, and I'm committed to a view that preserves both over the individual desires of anyone.

The world that's formed your view simply isn't the world and experience that's formed mine. I've attempted to explain it to you, but when it brings you to write descriptions of me like your post above, either I've failed as a communicator or you're just a laughable idiot.

Ed: One other point that we miss each other on: you might not see that these examples of detriments to team unity are NOT happening under fire, but in the long stretches of time between, where mind-numbing boredom lets people stew over the tiniest things in the distorted lens of the isolated, combat-fatigued mind. It's not a case of not being able to stop ****ing while the bullets are flying...it's an issue of what's happening prior to and after those bullets flying, making it less likely for the job to get done and the team to survive the next time they do fly.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Since you were all about citing sources earlier...

Show me one study that has been done that counters MikeD's real world experience with flying bullets, sh*tting pants, and just general foxhole livin'.

I've already cited sources about how women can do the job.

Here's a run-down of many of the arguments here (actually, probably all of them) with sources to counter most if not all.

http://www.cdi.org/issues/women/combat.html

http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/Combat.pdf

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB7515/index1.html

(Note where the last one came from....no friend to women in combat.)

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Maybe the problem here is that I admittedly spoke with a very male point of view, seeing women as the 'problem' or positing them as the intruder...that's simply a result of the situation, in that it's the addition of women to an all-male force which I oppose...[snipped for brevity]

So, why don't you oppose gays? Why do you not concede that sexual politics is not simply a matter for mixed-sex groups?

Yes, women and men might have sex. Men and men might have sex too. You can't eliminate that completely. But, you can minimize it without losing effectiveness (as I've said before you'll probably gain effectiveness.) You can't simply say that these are high school kids. That leaves out one important factor, their training. They don't just give you a pair of boots, a rifle, and send you out to fight. If the training is effective, the potential problems of morale, cohesion, etc. are minimized, regardless of who makes up the group, whether it is all-male or mixed.

And, to be honest, I'd probably admire anyone who could get it up in a foxhole while in mortal danger, because I'm sure I'd better scared limp. When it comes down to it, getting out alive is more important than sex, is it not?

Edit: BTW, what you've described is people needed release from the stress of the job, not from having mixed-sex units.

 

[MikeD]

So, why don't you oppose gays?

Boy, you really can't stop picking there, can you? You must have a whopper of a pre-arranged argument you're dying to lay on me. I just don't discuss it because I know it's killing you...

As for getting it up in a foxhole, see the rest of my post above. We're talking timeframes of years or more...maybe only you are limp-dicked enough to ignore sex that long. Or is the potential of digging in trenches in a major-theatre war with China or someone not politically convenient for your politics?

 

[MikeD]

Edit: BTW, what you've described is people needed release from the stress of the job, not from having mixed-sex units.

Exactly...and in the ground combat world, there is NO SUCH RELIEF under the worst of conditions, which is what we need to plan for.

 

[BMXman]

You sound like a scared, sad little man who is terrified to gracefully bow out of an argument when everything has been said for fear of appearing beaten and wrong instead of simply allowing the discussion to close.

hmmm....D

 

[Changleen]

Let the thread die. FFS.

 

[MikeD]

You can't simply say that these are high school kids. That leaves out one important factor, their training. They don't just give you a pair of boots, a rifle, and send you out to fight. If the training is effective, the potential problems of morale, cohesion, etc. are minimized, regardless of who makes up the group, whether it is all-male or mixed.
.

Wow, how many classes have you pushed through the School of Infantry?? #1, we can't and don't train sex out of them. As I said in my initial post, we actually sexualize violence and transform sexual energy into the attitude and desire needed to launch a bayonet charge and jam 6" of steel into someone's chest.

#2, training doesn't give you life experience and personal maturity. Learning how to maneuver as a unit and employ your weapons systems isn't commensurate with becoming a sexually secure and whole adult.

 

[binary visions]

hmmm....D

Uh, I hope you and OMGF both recognized I was simply making a sarcastic comment on his very nasty and aggressive personal attack - it was worded in the exact same way he worded his.

Maybe that wasn't obvious enough. It wasn't intended as a real attack at him or at MudGrrl.

My edit I fully stand by, though, OMGF. You're drawing some bizarr-o conclusions from MikeD's very rational and cohesive posts. I've read the thread a couple times now and there's literally nothing in his posts that should push you towards the labels you're putting on him.

 

[Changleen]

Die Thread Dieeee!

 

[BurlyShirley]

Die Thread Dieeee!

Are you really tired of seeing OMGF get humiliated? Oh I know you had his back and were similarly dealt a crushing blow of reality in this thread, but come on, this is good reading.

 

[MikeD]

Uh, I hope you and OMGF both recognized I was simply making a sarcastic comment on his very nasty and aggressive personal attack - it was worded in the exact same way he worded his.

(I think he was agreeing with you...)

 

[binary visions]

(I think he was agreeing with you...)

Yeah, I half figured but I wanted to clarify, too, because my post was rather aggressively worded and if the meaning was skipped over, it could have come off as... well, as rude and unpleasant as OMGF's was to you.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Boy, you really can't stop picking there, can you? You must have a whopper of a pre-arranged argument you're dying to lay on me. I just don't discuss it because I know it's killing you...

As for getting it up in a foxhole, see the rest of my post above. We're talking timeframes of years or more...maybe only you are limp-dicked enough to ignore sex that long. Or is the potential of digging in trenches in a major-theatre war with China or someone not politically convenient for your politics?

I'm just pointing out the inconsistency is all.

And, no one stays in a foxhole for years. There's not enough food you can carry with you. How long do you actually stay in a foxhole before rotating out at the end of your mission?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Wow, how many classes have you pushed through the School of Infantry?? #1, we can't and don't train sex out of them. As I said in my initial post, we actually sexualize violence and transform sexual energy into the attitude and desire needed to launch a bayonet charge and jam 6" of steel into someone's chest.

Any reason why you have to instill misogyny in men in order to get them to fight effectively.

#2, training doesn't give you life experience and personal maturity. Learning how to maneuver as a unit and employ your weapons systems isn't commensurate with becoming a sexually secure and whole adult.

No, but it can help you adjust to your teammates, to view them as people instead of sex objects, etc. Real bonding can take place based on your training, or would you disagree with that?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Uh, I hope you and OMGF both recognized I was simply making a sarcastic comment on his very nasty and aggressive personal attack - it was worded in the exact same way he worded his.

Maybe that wasn't obvious enough. It wasn't intended as a real attack at him or at MudGrrl.

My edit I fully stand by, though, OMGF. You're drawing some bizarr-o conclusions from MikeD's very rational and cohesive posts. I've read the thread a couple times now and there's literally nothing in his posts that should push you towards the labels you're putting on him.

Well, I'm not the only one who has had those ideas from his posts. You might be putting a spin on it from previous encounters, but I don't really know Mike D from anyone else. I'm going off of what I've seen/read.

And, yes the sarcasm was lost on me based on your previous record in dealing with me. Once again, you can stop blaming me for someone else giving me your personal title.