[JohnE]

The best #2 man I ever worked with in my EST experience (Over 10 years now) was a woman. ANYONE can pull a trigger. The Russians (In WW2) and N. Vietnamese used female snipers to great effect, and women were used quite extensively in the various resistance movements in WW2. The Israelis use women in combat arms roles now.
That being said, having women around causes trouble because of the men who are around. Men who cant handle the fact that a woman can do their job, or men who are trying to get some. But the trouble is no greater or worse then the trouble caused by a man who wont carry his own weight. I really think it is the mens hangups that cause the most problems in this arena.

 

[ohio]

It's not evolution that has caused us to subjugate women to the point where it becomes socially acceptable to exclude them.

It's evolution that has given us tendencies that when given long enough to fester in a culture cause us to subjugate women. However, male (and female for that matter) group bonding behavior has many, many universals that cut across cultures and history. Even in matriarchal societies.

Going back to another post of mine, evolution doesn't make something morally or ethically right. It mean that these tendencies are a reality that we need to acknowledge when planning our pursuit of an ideal that I think we agree on. John brings up some interesting examples, specifically the Israeli army, so it may be that I'm overestimating these tendencies.

 

[$tinkle]

John brings up some interesting examples, specifically the Israeli army, so it may be that I'm overestimating these tendencies.

no, you were spot on: jews have special skills:

 

[MikeD]

The Israelis use women in combat arms roles now.

Common misconception. The IDF have used women as trainers and defensive reserves, but not as offensive combat troops. Ever.

From Wikipedia, since it's the easiest source to find:

[edit] Women in the IDF
Israel has female conscription, but about a third of female conscripts (more than double the figure for men) are exempted, mainly for religious and nuptial reasons.

Following their active service, women, like men, are in theory required to serve up to one month annually in reserve duty. However, in practice only some women in combat roles get called for active reserve duty, and only for a few years following their active service, with many exit points (e.g., pregnancy).

Apart from the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, when manpower shortages saw many of them taking active part in battles on the ground, women were historically barred from battle in the IDF, serving in a variety of technical and administrative support roles. During this period however, the IDF reputedly favoured female instructors for training male soldiers in certain roles, particularly tank crews. This was on the basis that female instructors of similar age to the young conscripts were more likely to receive the full attention of their students. But after a landmark 1994 High Court appeal by Alice Miller, a Jewish immigrant from South Africa, the Air Force was instructed to open its pilots course to women (several served as transport pilots during the first Arab-Israeli War in 1948 and "Operation Kadesh" in 1956, but the Air Force later closed its ranks to women fliers). Miller failed the entrance exams, but since her initiative, many additional combat roles were opened. As of 2005, women are allowed to serve in 83% of all positions in the military, including Shipboard Navy Service (except submarines), and Artillery. Combat roles are voluntary for women.

As of 2002, 33% of lower rank Officers are women, 21% of Captains and Majors, but only 3% of the most senior ranks.

450 women currently serve in combat units of Israel's security forces, primarily in the Border Police. The first female fighter pilot received her wings in 2001. In a controversial move, the IDF abolished its "Women's Corps" command in 2004, with a view that it has become an anachronism and a stumbling block towards integration of women in the army as regular soldiers with no special status. However, after pressures from feminist lobbies, The Chief of Staff was persuaded to keep an "advisor for women's affairs".
--------

As you said, John, anyone can pull a trigger. I work with lots of female trigger-pullers now just fine. It's not about pulling the trigger, it's about so much more than that. But now I'm on the verge of repeating myself all over again.

 

[ohio]

Let me just finish by saying that if someone can do the job and is willing to do the job, we shouldn't say, "No."

Bunk. In my company (private sector, obviously) we turn away loads of people that want to and can do a job because they don't "fit." We do this because the TEAM is critical to our ability to deliver. Now aside from team chemistry, having a team with very diverse cultural and experiental backgrounds is also critical, which means "fit" can't translate into "a reflection of me." I can see how a "fit" justification can easily cover up racism, ethnocentrism, and sexism... but that doesn't make fit (when applied properly) any less important when performance depends on group dynamics.

 

[BurlyShirley]

This thread's funny. Pretty obvious who has the upper hand and the intimate knowledge of both the social and military consequences here. I dont disagree that men are the "problem" here, but the problem isnt just one of chauvanism as some wish, it's a "problem" of biology.
Exactly how effective is a pack of wolves at hunting if the matriarch is in heat? Of course, a pack of wolves has several goals...one of which is procreation.
If the military has one goal, to be effective in combat, than implanting biological distractions is nothing but a detriment to that goal. We can sacrfice some of that effectiveness for the sake of "equality" if you wish....but at the cost of human lives? I sure dont think its worth it.

 

[ohio]

In a controversial move, the IDF abolished its "Women's Corps" command in 2004, with a view that it has become an anachronism and a stumbling block towards integration of women in the army as regular soldiers with no special status. However, after pressures from feminist lobbies, The Chief of Staff was persuaded to keep an "advisor for women's affairs".

That's an interesting one. Always the tension between recognizing the differences and addressing them, but in doing so drawing attention to them...

No answer or opinion from me, because I haven't a clue. But I'd like to know what the experts (if there is such a thing) say.

 

[DRB]

As you said, John, anyone can pull a trigger. I work with lots of female trigger-pullers now just fine. It's not about pulling the trigger, it's about so much more than that. But now I'm on the verge of repeating myself all over again.

Again

 

[MikeD]

Again

You don't like my [/yogi berra]?

And I thought we were friends.

 

[DRB]

You don't like my [/yogi berra]?

And I thought we were friends.

See this smiley is misleading as it leaves the with out. This smiley is the one that should have been used . Very critical error and much confusion from it. However, since it isn't on the first little block its rare that I use the correct one. All of that being said I never said half the things I really said.

 

[BurlyShirley]

What are you faggots going on about? Can we get back to teh mysogony?

 

[DRB]

What are you faggots going on about? Can we get back to teh mysogony?

Shut up newsgirl.

 

[MudGrrl]

I am friggin amazed that I am, essentially, being compared to a wolf in heat. The guys just can't control themselves around a woman, especially in a combat environment. Do you realize that you're taking your own buddies down with that argument?

The funny thing about all of this is it just gets.... dumber. Or has been for a long time.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149190602564&path=!news&s=1063629688048

Calling women names because they're crashing your Super He-Man Woman Haters club?

While an instructor at the Academy, Webb wrote an article in 1979 entitled "Women Can't Fight" that led to harassment of female midshipmen.

According to the women, at one point Webb referred to women as "thunder thighs." He said Bancroft Hall, a dorm at the academy with 4,000 males and 300 females, was "a horny woman's dream," the women said.

Webb is a graduate of the Naval Academy and a decorated Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War who said in his 1979 column in "Washingtonian" magazine that the armed services were worse off for admitting women to service academies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006091302301.html

In the Washingtonian magazine article, "Women Can't Fight," the ex-Marine Webb wrote of the brutal conditions during the Vietnam War and argued against letting women into combat. Allen's campaign zeroed in on passages in which Webb described one of the academy's coed dorms as "a horny woman's dream" and said that he had never met a woman he "would trust to provide . . . combat leadership."

..
Webb, a Naval Academy graduate who was Navy secretary under President Ronald Reagan, issued a statement saying he was sorry "to the extent that my writing subjected women at the Academy or the active Armed Forces to undue hardship."

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/February2000/0200Check.htm
nothing like demeaning women...again

For one of my fellow lieutenants, however, the exercise almost meant the end of his career. He was the Assistant Regimental Communications Officer. In that billet, he was forced to tolerate something infinitely more unpleasant than a battery commander who took seriously the job of preparing his officers for war: Women Marines, a.k.a. “WM’s”—the American military’s foremost oxymoron.

Female radio operators and technicians are permitted to serve with artillery units in the Marine Corps at the regimental level (which is sufficiently removed from the fray, goes the justification). My friend had a half-dozen such WM’s under his care. On this trip to the desert, one of them came down with the sniffles or a stomachache (not uncommon when women go to the field) and convinced the corpsman to medivac her. My friend carried her ALICE pack up to the landing zone as she shuffled along behind him. Dumping the pack on the sand at the edge of the LZ, he turned to her, said, “You owe me one,” and left her there to await the incoming helicopter.

Three weeks later, back at Camp Pendleton, he found himself standing on the carpet in front of the regimental commander’s desk, responding to the charge that he had told the lady lance corporal that, in exchange for his carrying her pack up the hill to the LZ, she owed him one—well, you fill in the blank.

http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/women_in_the_military/when_mamma_wears_combat_boots.aspx

When it comes down to it, the question is not and never has been “Can * some women fight like men and go into battle?” Obviously, there are historical examples of women who have stood the test of the battlefield. But exceptions do not make the rules. The question we ought to be asking is not “Can women stand in the line of fire?” but “Should* we place women in harm’s way?”

Oh, god, I'm just....sooooo delicate.........


I didn't know that Post Traumatic Stress only affected women.
Or being an amputee only affected women.


We're all affected by being in a combat situation. I never asked to be protected.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I am friggin amazed that I am, essentially, being compared to a wolf in heat. The guys just can't control themselves around a woman, especially in a combat environment. Do you realize that you're taking your own buddies down with that argument?

Well the referance to a wolf in heat is one that is valid and I think you should understand. A wolf has only one or two breeding times per year, at which times, as a hunting unit, the pack become preoccupied and inneffective. In humans, the breeding season is essentially year round. Therefore, males and females are both always going to be trying to mate. Now this works well in society, but when humans are put in a hunting unit role, or combat unit, that biology becomes an enemy of effectiveness.
I dont think it's anything to be offended about on either side. It's really just a chemical process that neither you or any males have control of. Pheremones are released, hormone levels rise...these things are all done subconsciously. It's not a matter of self control or learned characteristics from a chauvanistic patriarchal society.
That's the reason I mentioned wolves in fact, becuase they're not only social in terms of hunting (warfighting) but they're also not TAUGHT anything. That's just how the chemical processes work. This cannot be denied.

 

[MikeD]

The major disparity in this argument is that one side is focused on the effectiveness of the military while another is focused on the rights of the individual. But the military's not about the rights of the individual. Lots of people are excluded from military service entirely for things completely out of their control.

I'm all for women in the military. Not because ANY of us have an inherent right to serve, but because it makes for a more effective force. The issues which I mention are outweighed by the availablity of more people, talented people, for military service, and the difficulties of mixing genders can be overcome for greater overall effectiveness of the military. But rom my experience as an infantryman, I've drawn a line for myself as to the cost/benefit equation for the military at large, and I'm putting it squarely at the threshold of the ground combat MOS series.

 

[$tinkle]

{truthiness}

/** deprecated */
Thread.stop()

 

[ohio]

I am friggin amazed that I am, essentially, being compared to a wolf in heat.

I'm friggin amazed that you keep taking this as a personal attack. Or that you keep assuming it is about self-control. Or that you think we think men will start spontaneously hopping on women in combat situations and start furiously humping. Of course, if all you read are Burly's posts, I can see how you would arrive at that.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Bunk. In my company (private sector, obviously) we turn away loads of people that want to and can do a job because they don't "fit." We do this because the TEAM is critical to our ability to deliver. Now aside from team chemistry, having a team with very diverse cultural and experiental backgrounds is also critical, which means "fit" can't translate into "a reflection of me." I can see how a "fit" justification can easily cover up racism, ethnocentrism, and sexism... but that doesn't make fit (when applied properly) any less important when performance depends on group dynamics.

Are the group dynamics in your company such that board meetings are run differently when there is a woman there? Do women doing their job at your company get called, "Peacunts?" I certainly hope not, because both of those could lead to some seriously bad juju with lawyers. The point is that the military is a job. I know that your job turns away qualified people, as do most jobs, but the military only turns away qualified people if they are gay or female or too old. Two out the three I definitely can't live with. The too old I can live with, if one can prove that the person really is too old to perform their duties, otherwise it's three for three. Anyway, the point is that they (the military) make people "fit," which is a luxury that most other jobs don't have, so other jobs have to cherry-pick what is available.

If you can prove to me that women can't do the job, then do it. But, your argument really boils down to men not being able to do their job around women. So, instead of educating the men and making the men change (evolve) you toss out the capable women? Why does that make sense to you?

I'm friggin amazed that you keep taking this as a personal attack. Or that you keep assuming it is about self-control.

Isn't that what you mean by, "Group dynamics?" Seriously, what else could it mean? You're arguing that men will act differently if there are women around, instead of doing their frikkin job. If that isn't about self-control, then what is?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

The major disparity in this argument is that one side is focused on the effectiveness of the military while another is focused on the rights of the individual. But the military's not about the rights of the individual. Lots of people are excluded from military service entirely for things completely out of their control.

I would make a semantic point in that I think one side is focused on the imagined effectiveness of the military. (I couldn't think of a better word.) The arguments that are being made about how the military will suffer if women are allowed to fight because of this and that and the other thing aren't defending the effectiveness of the military, per se. They are attacking the ineffectiveness of what is perceived will happen to soldiers who all of a sudden decide to act in a non-professional manner. Yes, some soldiers will do that, so who do we get rid of? Do we dump those who are acting non-professionally (or better yet, teach them to act like professionals) or do we dump a perfectly capable professional simply because she is a woman?

Edit: I know I said I was done, but I wanted to make that point.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

tell me again why there aren't female spec ops units, or at least female members in spec ops? is it really b/c we're not "being all we can be"?

Yes, that's exactly it.

Spec. ops don't admit women for the same BS reasons that are flying around here. "It'll hurt unit cohesion and group dynamics, yadda yadda yadda." So, it is somewhat circular for you to use the fact that women aren't allowed in spec. ops to argue that women shouldn't be in combat, no?

 

[DRB]

Yes, that's exactly it.

Spec. ops don't admit women for the same BS reasons that are flying around here. "It'll hurt unit cohesion and group dynamics, yadda yadda yadda." So, it is somewhat circular for you to use the fact that women aren't allowed in spec. ops to argue that women shouldn't be in combat, no?

I can tell you exactly why they aren't allowed in the Army Special Forces. Deploying a woman in an A team to Afghanistan or Iraq or South America is going to immediately and completely ruin the credibility of that unit in the eyes of the foreign nationals they are training. They'll get nowhere.

Hell even in business in those parts of the world women are practically ignored regardless of their capabilities. Cool thing about business is that no one typically dies.

 

[MikeD]

The point is that the military is a job.

No.

No.

No.

No.

This is the point where anyone who's been in a ground combat unit stops and realizes exactly how you could be so passionately wrong.

So, instead of educating the men and making the men change (evolve) you toss out the capable women?

So why can't we just educate people that crime is bad, and we won't have any more crime?

Why can't we just educate people that sexism is bad, and then we won't have any sexism?

Why can't we educate people that war is bad, then we won't need a military?

If men weren't men and women weren't women, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But we are, and some of us have to deal with reality instead of intellectual/ideological constructs, and sometimes that doesn't make everyone happy. And not everyone will always understand why we can't all be happy.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I can tell you exactly why they aren't allowed in the Army Special Forces. Deploying a woman in an A team to Afghanistan or Iraq or South America is going to immediately and completely ruin the credibility of that unit in the eyes of the foreign nationals they are training. They'll get nowhere.

Hell even in business in those parts of the world women are practically ignored regardless of their capabilities. Cool thing about business is that no one typically dies.

That's not the official reason, nor is it the only thing spec. ops does.

 

[Silver]

This is the point where anyone who's been in a ground combat unit stops and realizes exactly how you could be so passionately wrong.

If a group of hired killers can't do their job effectively with gays and women (unless they are of the slanty eyed prostitute variety, that of course applies to both the gays and the women...) around, who am I to argue?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

No.

What is it then?

So why can't we just educate people that crime is bad, and we won't have any more crime?

Why can't we just educate people that sexism is bad, and then we won't have any sexism?

Why can't we educate people that war is bad, then we won't need a military?

Well, we lock up criminals, don't we? We can fire people due to sexism, can't we? Are you arguing that men can't learn to respect and work with women, because that's the way it sounds from your response. But, even if a man "can't" learn to not be sexist, he can still get canned for it in the workplace.

If men weren't men and women weren't women, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But we are, and some of us have to deal with reality instead of intellectual/ideological constructs, and sometimes that doesn't make everyone happy. And not everyone will always understand why we can't all be happy.

But, your reality isn't the only way of looking at things. Yes, it's reality that there are a bunch of men in the military who will treat women like garbage. That's the men's problem though, not the women's. They need to learn to act like civilized human beings and do their job. Why should women who can do the job be held out for no reason but that the people around them can't do their job?

Let's say you are in a company setting. Susan comes in every day and does her job and is completely capable. Bob doesn't do his job because he's trying to get into Susan's pants. Following your argument, you would get rid of Susan because she's distracting Bob.

I hate to bring this up again, but do you know why women are required to wear burquas? It's because the men can't control themselves around women who aren't covered up. We all know that is bunk, but why should women have to pay the price for the failings of men? Your "solution" (keeping women out of the military) doesn't solve the problem, it only perpetuates bad behavior and bad attitudes.

 

[DRB]

That's not the official reason, nor is it the only thing spec. ops does.

While unconventional warfare and special operations are capabilities, training foreign nationals is the main purpose of the Special Forces. In that training role women would be completely ineffective in the Middle East and South America. You're talking about units that have looked a lot more seriously at it then standard infantry units and in their studies that is the exact reason that it comes off the tracks.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

While unconventional warfare and special operations are capabilities, training foreign nationals is the main purpose of the Special Forces. In that training role women would be completely ineffective in the Middle East and South America. You're talking about units that have looked a lot more seriously at it then standard infantry units and in their studies that is the exact reason that it comes off the tracks.

I dispute your assertion.
http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=5163

http://www.terra.es/personal2/monolith/00women3.htm

Besides, even if you were right, why would women not be able to do the jobs that don't involve work in SA or the Middle East? Or don't involve training troops?

 

[ohio]

Isn't that what you mean by, "Group dynamics?" Seriously, what else could it mean? You're arguing that men will act differently if there are women around, instead of doing their frikkin job. If that isn't about self-control, then what is?

If you assume group dynamics = self-control, I don't know where to begion explaining why you're wrong. You make a similar mistake in your reply to MikeD when you assume men will act in a non-professional manner.

Again, this is not about men popping wood when in a foxhole with a girl. THAT would be a self-control issue. This is about group-dynamics, going back to my teams at work. They can all be adequate for the job, and maintain perfectly professional behavior, and do piss-poor work because the team dynamic is f-ed. How can you possibly think that is about self control?

edit: I'm doing my best to make it clear that just firing the jackass that can't keep his mouth shot has nothing to do with solving the problem. I don't know how else to explain it.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

If you assume group dynamics = self-control, I don't know where to begion explaining why you're wrong.

Again, this is not about men popping wood when in a foxhole with a girl. THAT would be a self-control issue. This is about group-dynamics, going back to my teams at work. They can all be adequate for the job, and maintain perfectly professional behavior, and do piss-poor work because the team dynamic is f-ed. How can you possibly think that is about self control?

OK, so why can't women work in that group? If it isn't because Bubba is gonna pop wood or act in an unprofessional manner? If Bubba is gonna be professional, then there should be no reason why Susan can't work in the group.

You make a similar mistake in your reply to MikeD when you assume men will act in a non-professional manner.

Um, that's the argument that's being presented for your side. That men will act differently around the women-folk (what the original story was about) and that will A) break up the "group dynamic" and B) will lead to people dying because they aren't doing their jobs. "We have to remove the womens because the men can't do their jobs with the womens around." I'm the one who is saying that is BS. And, the ones who don't act professionally shouldn't get paid to act that way.

Edit:

Ohio, let me add that when your company selects for "group dynamic" they sure as hell don't do it based on physical attributes. Skin color, age, sex, are not traits that are used to select for "group dynamic." Personality is what determines "group dynamic."

 

[BurlyShirley]

God can you imagine sharing a foxhole with some broad menstruating all over the place?

 

[MikeD]

Lots of Germans would pay for that.

 

[MudGrrl]

I'm friggin amazed that you keep taking this as a personal attack. Or that you keep assuming it is about self-control. Or that you think we think men will start spontaneously hopping on women in combat situations and start furiously humping.

Wait a minute.... how did this whole thread start out?

An article about women being sexually assaulted (which y'all kinda sorta back.. the motivation being .... biology... and having women around a bunch of hell fired up aggressive men is not a very good group dynamic, so we must not allow the women in )

I know you aren't specifically saying "Mud can't do the job", but you (not just you) ARE saying that a group of women (which, SURPRISE, includes me) can not do the job, because other people are too bigoted to let me tote a rifle, and blaming it on ... biology and group dynamics (?????!!!)

I was the only female in a flight of 36 for a while, and I had little to no problem (barring a Sgt. who got demoted for leaving an explicit and unwarranted message on my answering machine). Other people in this debate are assuming that women are automatically going to get raped, and using that as an excuse for barring women from the front lines. That's how this thread started.


I am all about punishing the people who are doing the raping and intimidating of their own team mates. If someone is doing their job correctly, let them be. There are plenty of great soldiers/ amn/ military people out there who do know how to work cohesively. I've worked with plenty.

Maybe the commanders need to take a more active role, instead of a reactive "hush hush, this doesn't happen here" mentality so their unit isn't plagued with low morale due to reporting things that are so incredibly wrong . Maybe they need to make sure that all soldiers are respected, and if that's by making an announcement to the entire platoon that this crap will *not* be tolerated, and actually treat the harassment seriously.


How do we solve this whole mess without isolating and punishing the individuals who can properly do their job?

 

[MudGrrl]

God can you imagine sharing a foxhole with some broad menstruating all over the place?

Yeah, cause, like... war isn't bloody or anything, and men being scared of the monthlies is hilarious.

 

[MudGrrl]

edit: I'm doing my best to make it clear that just firing the jackass that can't keep his mouth shot has nothing to do with solving the problem. I don't know how else to explain it.

It goes both ways, doesn't it?
Getting rid of the woman isn't going to solve the problem, if all you have is a bunch of narrow minded individuals who can't work together anyway.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

edit: I'm doing my best to make it clear that just firing the jackass that can't keep his mouth shot has nothing to do with solving the problem. I don't know how else to explain it.

That's true, it doesn't solve the problem...so why are you advocating just exactly that in a way? It doesn't solve the problem to get rid of the guy, but it does to get rid of the woman?

I agree that it doesn't solve the problem. The jackass won't really learn anything and will harbor bad feelings. That said, it's no reason to discriminate against a whole class of people simply because there are jackasses out there.

 

[MikeD]

What is it then?

"jobs" don't have you huddling for weeks on end in a muddy foxhole, ****ting and pissing and jerking off with no privacy at any time, not changing clothes, huddling together for warmth at night, fostering mutual hatred, with no space for any facade of decency or civility. In a job, you're not forced to lay aside any pretense of who you really are as you **** your pants during a mortar barrage.

But really, where would some sexist jackass think that mixing genders in this environment would cause problems? Must be a bunch of sexist jackass he-man woman haters...if they were just "professional," it would be as simple as that! Because ****ting your pants in front of a woman wouldn't make some men feel odd or bad or weak, or vice versa. And if they do, it's because they're politically defective, so they should be thrown out anyhow.

And if these supposed conditions were really so overwhelming, sex wouldn't even be a thought! I've read abvout Maslow's heirarchy of needs!

I'm just at a loss for words. It's a case of "if you have to ask...", and I don't know if I'm eloquent enough to give you a clear understanding of just what the environment actually is and why it's so incompatible with a mixed group. All I can say is that you don't treat men and women exactly the same...the sexual potential creates a different dynamic. Under civil conditions and even most military ones, we can overcome the difficulties to get a greater output. Not in the combat arms

Well, we lock up criminals, don't we?

Which proves my point. Education doesn't always change essential behaviors, and thus the necessity of punishment. You're maintaining that it can. I'm not interested in inflicting a situation on the infantry which makes men have to be something else than men.

You're also incapable of understanding the male/female dynamic besides saying a man wants into a woman's shorts and thus can't do his job or harasses the woman. That's certainly part of it, especially in some cases, but you seem to think it ends there. There are many more complex things happening on an individual level, depending on who's interacting. Bonds form differently and exclusively, jealousies, subtle and unsubtle, form, etc. etc. A normal job lets these things vent out because you're not together 24/7, and there's no such outlet in combat arms

And in the end, your view is driven entirely by a preconceived ideology and not by an understanding the situation whatsoever. Mudgrrl, as a strong chick educated from the same ideology, is understandably pissed on a visceral level that someone/some organization will tell her "no" based on her sex. But she's just going to have to be angry about it, at least until the victory of some short-sighted and dangerous person who's more interested in their own career progress than the effectiveness of our warfighters. I'm sure it'll happen someday. I just sort of regret I won't be able to resign my commission in protest.

I'm really done this time.

 

[DRB]

I dispute your assertion.
http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=5163

http://www.terra.es/personal2/monolith/00women3.htm

Besides, even if you were right, why would women not be able to do the jobs that don't involve work in SA or the Middle East? Or don't involve training troops?

Dispute? That Special Forces main purpose is to train foreign nationals? And that if you can't train then you are of no use? Or that a woman training a Honduran, Iraqi or Afghan soldier is going to be respected, listened to and most importantly effective when speaking to subjects of direct land warfare and the things that go with it?

You act as if acceptance of female political figures is a sign that the same acceptance would extend to those countries military. That somehow those countries have broken a centuries old paradigm.

Where exactly do you think the vast majority of Special Forces teams are currently deployed? They are in countries where regardless of what the political leadership is doing (Central America, Philippines, the Middle East) women are still not going to be taken seriously in the very roles that you are thinking are suitable to women.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

"jobs" don't have you huddling for weeks on end in a muddy foxhole, ****ting and pissing and jerking off with no privacy at any time, not changing clothes, huddling together for warmth at night, fostering mutual hatred, with no space for any facade of decency or civility. In a job, you're not forced to lay aside any pretense of who you really are as you **** your pants during a mortar barrage.

"It's not a job, it's a way of life," right? Is that what you are saying? Well, I got news for you. You have a duty, you get paid to perform that duty. It's a job.

But really, where would some sexist jackass think that mixing genders in this environment would cause problems? Must be a bunch of sexist jackass he-man woman haters...if they were just "professional," it would be as simple as that! Because ****ting your pants in front of a woman wouldn't make some men feel odd or bad or weak, or vice versa. And if they do, it's because they're politically defective, so they should be thrown out anyhow.

You prove my point. Why would it be any more embarrassing to sh*t one's pants in front of a woman than another man?

And if these supposed conditions were really so overwhelming, sex wouldn't even be a thought! I've read abvout Maslow's heirarchy of needs!

I agree completely. If you are in the sh*t, I think you'd be focused on getting out alive. If the person next to you is doing their job, then you have a better chance of getting out alive. Does it really matter if that person next to you is a man or a woman so long as they are doing what they need to do to get you and your squad out alive?

I'm just at a loss for words. It's a case of "if you have to ask...", and I don't know if I'm eloquent enough to give you a clear understanding of just what the environment actually is and why it's so incompatible with a mixed group. All I can say is that you don't treat men and women exactly the same...the sexual potential creates a different dynamic. Under civil conditions and even most military ones, we can overcome the difficulties to get a greater output. Not in the combat arms

Once again you prove my point. The sexual potential? Why would that be a concern for a man doing his job?

Which proves my point. Education doesn't always change essential behaviors, and thus the necessity of punishment. You're maintaining that it can. I'm not interested in inflicting a situation on the infantry which makes men have to be something else than men.

And the reason it didn't work as a rebuttal is that you punish the person committing the crime, not the one who was victimized.

You're also incapable of understanding the male/female dynamic besides saying a man wants into a woman's shorts and thus can't do his job or harasses the woman. That's certainly part of it, especially in some cases, but you seem to think it ends there. There are many more complex things happening on an individual level, depending on who's interacting. Bonds form differently and exclusively, jealousies, subtle and unsubtle, form, etc. etc. A normal job lets these things vent out because you're not together 24/7, and there's no such outlet in combat arms

And those can't happen with all men? Please. If the dynamic is about personality, it doesn't matter if the person is male or female. If the dynamic is about sex, then it is discriminatory and unnecessary.

And in the end, your view is driven entirely by a preconceived ideology and not by an understanding the situation whatsoever.

I could say the same about you. You have a preconceived ideology that women will somehow destroy the effectiveness of our fighting forces. You don't have anything to back that up, except nebulous talk of "group dynamics" that falls apart under scrutiny.

Mudgrrl, as a strong chick educated from the same ideology, is understandably pissed on a visceral level that someone/some organization will tell her "no" based on her sex. But she's just going to have to be angry about it, at least until the victory of some short-sighted and dangerous person who's more interested in their own career progress than the effectiveness of our warfighters. I'm sure it'll happen someday. I just sort of regret I won't be able to resign my commission in protest.

And why would the effectiveness suffer? Because the men can't handle it? That's basically what you are arguing. The men will be affected by the horror of having a women fighting with them and it will change the "group dynamic." Maybe Bubba will get jealous because he thinks that Susan likes Bob and not him. Well boo effing who for Bubba. He needs to suck it up and stop acting like a little bitch. What we don't need to do is get rid of Susan for doing nothing more than doing her job. This is discriminatory. There are victims, and you don't go around blaming the victim, you blame the person who causes the problems.

Edit: Forgot to add that all bolding was mine.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Dispute? That Special Forces main purpose is to train foreign nationals? And that if you can't train then you are of no use? Or that a woman training a Honduran, Iraqi or Afghan soldier is going to be respected, listened to and most importantly effective when speaking to subjects of direct land warfare and the things that go with it?

You act as if acceptance of female political figures is a sign that the same acceptance would extend to those countries military. That somehow those countries have broken a centuries old paradigm.

Where exactly do you think the vast majority of Special Forces teams are currently deployed? They are in countries where regardless of what the political leadership is doing (Central America, Philippines, the Middle East) women are still not going to be taken seriously in the very roles that you are thinking are suitable to women.

I'm disputing that all the counties of the world are as back-ass-wards as ours in women's role in society.

OK, so a woman is able to be elected to lead the country and the military, but not able to train forces? Right. Plus, as we modernize those countries around us, we should make sure that the men-folk retain their medeival notions of women-folk and keeping the women-folk down, right? So, what happens when the other spec. ops guys show her the respect that she deserves? What happens when they actually stand up for her because she's a member of their team? Oh yeah, they probably wouldn't, because we coddle the type of thinking in our military that women shouldn't be there, so it's no surprise when that type of thinking rears its ugly head.

 

[MudGrrl]

"jobs" don't have you huddling for weeks on end in a muddy foxhole, ****ting and pissing and jerking off with no privacy at any time, not changing clothes, huddling together for warmth at night, fostering mutual hatred, with no space for any facade of decency or civility. In a job, you're not forced to lay aside any pretense of who you really are as you **** your pants during a mortar barrage.

Nope, I've never been a dirty, cold, mess around guys before. It'll totally change my view on life when I am....


Because, me, being a human being and all... I somehow don't understand how my team mate would be affected if we were all thrown into something that would cause us all to have PTSD.

Because ****ting your pants in front of a woman wouldn't make some men feel odd or bad or weak, or vice versa. And if they do, it's because they're politically defective, so they should be thrown out anyhow.

Looks like fear of emasculation brought on by traumatic events is keeping the sexes apart? And that's a legitimate reason? Feeling "weird" because men might crack?

Because strong women laugh at men who happen to be crying.
Because we didn't just go through the same thing that our team mate did. One of my guy friends got posted on a suicide, and was understandably affected, does that mean that I turned around and made fun of him because he was expressing his humanity? No. We all went through that event, and we all talked to each other about it.

Somehow, guys feel like lesser men when women see them cry, or freak out, or any of the other thousands of human reactions in war. The same reactions we all have, and somehow they're different because we are different sexes?

It's because admitting weakness is somehow admitting to being less of a man.

I'm just at a loss for words. It's a case of "if you have to ask...", and I don't know if I'm eloquent enough to give you a clear understanding of just what the environment actually is and why it's so incompatible with a mixed group.

Um... I've been in the miltary.
I do understand the environment.
It's a wee bit chauvinistic with a bit of cover up if something happens.
It's also great bonding between people when you're all in trouble, or are celebrating someone's success.

All I can say is that you don't treat men and women exactly the same...the sexual potential creates a different dynamic. Under civil conditions and even most military ones, we can overcome the difficulties to get a greater output. Not in the combat arms

Have you ever wondered if it's BECAUSE you treat men and women differently?

I'm not interested in inflicting a situation on the infantry which makes men have to be something else than men.

Please let me know what exactly makes a man under your definition.

Then please let me know what a woman is to you.

You're also incapable of understanding the male/female dynamic besides saying a man wants into a woman's shorts and thus can't do his job or harasses the woman. That's certainly part of it, especially in some cases, but you seem to think it ends there.

That sexual harassment part, yeah, I would consider being in fear due to threat of unwanted sexual advances a pretty big factor in unit cohesiveness. Those that you are supposed to trust with your life are now your night time enemy.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/08/1443232

from link:
Because the women, in fear of getting up in the hours of darkness to go out to the portoilets or the latrines, were not drinking liquids after 3:00 or 4:00 in the afternoon. And in 120-degree heat or warmer, because there was no air conditioning at most of the facilities, they were dying from dehydration in their sleep.

SPC. MICKIELA MONTOYA: I would still drink the three liters of water usually every day, but I would -- a lot of the females were, like, cutting off the tops of the bottles and in the middle of the night peeing in that and waiting ’til the morning to dump it out, so that we would prevent having to wake up in the middle of the night and go out in the dark, because it’s so dark at night.

AMY GOODMAN: You carried a knife with you?

SPC. MICKIELA MONTOYA: Yeah, and I would carry a knife with me later on.

AMY GOODMAN: For what purpose?

SPC. MICKIELA MONTOYA: Just to feel safe, because, I mean, you can’t -- I don’t know. I don’t know, I just felt safer that way.

AMY GOODMAN: Safe from the Iraqis?

SPC. MICKIELA MONTOYA: No, safe from the other soldiers.

There are many more complex things happening on an individual level, depending on who's interacting. Bonds form differently and exclusively, jealousies, subtle and unsubtle, form, etc. etc. A normal job lets these things vent out because you're not together 24/7, and there's no such outlet in combat arms

Tell me there aren't any jealousies in an all male unit.
Tell me that Pvt. Campbell doesn't envy Pvt. Allen because Pvt. Allen's family sends him cookies, or has bigger muscles, or got the promotion before Campbell, or is Northern and Pvt. Allen is Southern. And somehow, y'all work together.

And in the end, your view is driven entirely by a preconceived ideology and not by an understanding the situation whatsoever.

And what am I being driven by?
I was in the military.
You think I don't understand what's going on?
Men are given special privilege, and while women are fighting (why else would anyone go to the desert and risk what the above mentioned Specialist endured? You think it's because we want to put a thorn in your side? It's because we want to do our job, just like anyone else. How is this foo foo ideology?

Mudgrrl, as a strong chick educated from the same ideology, is understandably pissed on a visceral level that someone/some organization will tell her "no" based on her sex. But she's just going to have to be angry about it, at least until the victory of some short-sighted and dangerous person who's more interested in their own career progress than the effectiveness of our warfighters. I'm sure it'll happen someday. I just sort of regret I won't be able to resign my commission in protest.

It's nice to know that equality and the ability to give a job to a competent professional is somehow short-sighted and dangerous.

As for resigning your commission in protest, I would have liked to see that.

I'm really done this time.

no, you're not.