women in combat
- Thread starter $tinkle
- Start date
Well, I hope you don't take your "deepest, most primal of human feelings" with you to work every day. I hope you don't start humping every woman you work with. But, I thought we weren't talking about "deepest, most primal of human feelings", aka sexual attraction. You said so yourself. So, now we are? Which is it? Is Bubba able to control his urges, or isn't he? Make up your mind already.
All of you are speaking in nebulous circles to hide the fact that you are basing all of your arguments on nothing more than punishing women for the way that men conduct themselves. That men are worried about being emasculated in front of a woman. That men are worried about getting into a woman's pants. That men might become jealous because a woman is paying more attention to another man. That a man might feel the need to protect the woman and not do his job. That a man might be distracted by her wily charms and not do his job. That a man might resent the presence of the woman and not do his job, or harrass her. That a man might not want to fight alongside a woman. Are any of these the fault of the woman? Do any of these mean that the woman can't do her job? The latter is only true if you give the bigoted man a free pass to be a bigot and let his job performance be affected by the simple fact that the person he has to work with has a vagina. Well, why don't all men rise up and reject women from the workplace because we might be distracted by their vaginas?
i usually enjoy being distracted by vaginas.
Obviously what this boils down to is your sad and misinformed opinion that gender roles are entirely a learned phenomena. It's not the way men "conduct themselves" as you put it, but rather the way men are built, chemically, emotionally, socially and all the rest. Regardless of whether men act on these "distractions" they are genetically ingrained and no amount of new age, feminist, social reprogramming can rewrite the human genome. Males interact with females differently than they do with other males. This is evident throughout nature in just about any species you can think of. In some areas, this is conducive toward success, in others...not so much. I dont see what's so hard to understand about that.
Thats what cracks me up. . . . no matter who is the "winner of this thread" the US military still won't allow females in the front line combat jobs.
You guys have pointed out lots of interesting things in your debates, and I have enjoyed following along, but none of it really matters.
Ha!
Too true. The military still won't allow women due to this thread. However, if enough people start thinking about it and enough people start realizing that sexist discrimination is not a valid reason to keep a woman from doing a job, then perhaps attitudes in this country will change and progress to the point where we do allow women in the military. It happened with blacks in the military afterall. Someone's got to take that step and fight the good fight.
Burly,
Since you are on my ignore list, I can't quote you, but I read what you said on MudGrrl's screen.
No, it is not biological. The reason that I've seen so far is that men might feel more emasculated in embarrassing situations in front of women. That is not biological, that is learned and it can be unlearned. If you really think it is biological, perhaps you can point out where we find it in the genome, or where we see it in nature? Are all men afflicted with this inability to work with women? Why, if it is strictly biological, does it only affect men who work in the military, or why is the military so special that a man doesn't have to be a professional like in any other job and ignore those biological tendencies?
You can only claim your sexism comes from biology if you can show it. You will have to counter the fact that our society does teach us this behavior. Boys are told that they shouldn't cry because only girls cry. Boys are told they have to be tougher than girls, that they can't lose to girls, etc. Is that biological or learned behavior when a man acts on that later in life?
Since you are on my ignore list, I can't quote you, but I read what you said on MudGrrl's screen.
No, it is not biological. The reason that I've seen so far is that men might feel more emasculated in embarrassing situations in front of women. That is not biological, that is learned and it can be unlearned. If you really think it is biological, perhaps you can point out where we find it in the genome, or where we see it in nature? Are all men afflicted with this inability to work with women? Why, if it is strictly biological, does it only affect men who work in the military, or why is the military so special that a man doesn't have to be a professional like in any other job and ignore those biological tendencies?
You can only claim your sexism comes from biology if you can show it. You will have to counter the fact that our society does teach us this behavior. Boys are told that they shouldn't cry because only girls cry. Boys are told they have to be tougher than girls, that they can't lose to girls, etc. Is that biological or learned behavior when a man acts on that later in life?
no, it didn't happen w/ blacks.
it happened w/ black men
why are you now appealing to emotion? ("fight the good fight")
Fine, it happened with black men, but it's the same BS.
And, I'm not appealing to emotion. I giving a rationale for why I engage in this. I dislike discrimination and bigotry and I tend to fight against those things when I encounter them. To me, it's a good fight to be in, because I feel like I'm doing the right thing. If I really felt that it would hurt the effectiveness of the armed forces, I wouldn't fight this fight, but no one has yet given me a compelling reason why it would hurt effectiveness. All I've gotten is that it would hurt "group dynamic." No one can explain what this group dynamic is, why women would hurt it in such a way that it is their fault and not the fault of men who can't control themselves, what it is about women that actually hurts the "group dynamic," whether the "group dynamic" is best without women and why, etc. Throwing out catch phrases doesn't actually prove anything, nor is it compelling. Appealing to unproven assertion like, "It's just different," or, "Men and women are just different and interact differently," or even, "It's biological that men have to be manly men or else they will be ineffective at fighting," also doesn't cut it. Prove the assertions, or at least find some supporting evidence. Pointing to how things are or have been in a patriarchal society that has harbored these opinions doesn't constitute proof.
So you think that within the first 3 years the effectiveness of infantry units being integrated wouldn't be affected in a negative manner?
I've explained from the beginning why it hurts group dynamic, and you continue to ignore or glibly diminish the importance of the fact that men bond in groups, whereas men and women bond in pairs. The exclusivity of this dynamic is the issue. You're telling me that teenage boys and girls, really, are going to live in foxholes with no privacy for long periods and that sex isn't going to get in the way. You're telling me that being comrades with a woman is the same as being comrades with a man. Well, no, you generally don't jerk off thinking about the man in the foxhole next to you, and if you don't see that as an issue of group dynamic that can't be simply educated away, we're simply going to have to disengage and go our own ways.
Edit: Also, you're continually laying the blame squarely at the feet of men, which isn't the case at all. It's an issue of gender dynamic, which comes from the sexual potential between men and women...which can and does come from both sides. I speak in a mainly male view because I'm a man, and refuse to think I can divorce myself of that fact.
Again, I see these issues as entirely overcomable outside the ground combat arms and any other 'job,' as there are sufficient 'pressure release valves' afforded by the environment. They're not afforded withing the GCE, and being in the GCE is not comprable to a mere job.
You mention, significantly, this being about "women in the military." It's not, it's about women in ground combat arms. But you're unable to separate the two situations, which shows me that you're just blindly tilting at a political windmill.
You also hastily sidestep the very significant issue of pregnancy, attempting to acknowledge the reality but rhetorically move the debate past it for the sake of your politics of fairness. Again, not women's fault that biology makes them the carrier, but undeniably a problem. And it does take two to make the baby, but only one becomes combat ineffective for half an enlistment or more because of it. I guess biology is just sexist. And by the way, black men can't become pregnant, so your race analogies fall apart.
You're projecting your apparently sexless view of the world onto a situation you simply don't understand. Mudgrrl claims she's been there, but she hasn't. She's been in situations that I readily acknowledge can accomodate mixed-gender groups.
As to special forces, I'm going to actually disagree with DRB...women can and do serve particularly valuable roles in the human relations and intelligence exploitation fields, which can make them valuable assets to special forces in certain situations and among certain cultures. (As he notes, however, not in any situation) Special ops types are those who will call a spade a spade and not let anyone operate who's not appropriate for a given situation, without regard to what anyone outside SF thinks. Due to the lack of GC backgrounds among women, this might not make them SF's primary shooters, but SF does a lot of different things.
And now I have to get to work, because my female boss really needs some reports.
MD
Edit: Also, you're continually laying the blame squarely at the feet of men, which isn't the case at all. It's an issue of gender dynamic, which comes from the sexual potential between men and women...which can and does come from both sides. I speak in a mainly male view because I'm a man, and refuse to think I can divorce myself of that fact.
Again, I see these issues as entirely overcomable outside the ground combat arms and any other 'job,' as there are sufficient 'pressure release valves' afforded by the environment. They're not afforded withing the GCE, and being in the GCE is not comprable to a mere job.
You mention, significantly, this being about "women in the military." It's not, it's about women in ground combat arms. But you're unable to separate the two situations, which shows me that you're just blindly tilting at a political windmill.
You also hastily sidestep the very significant issue of pregnancy, attempting to acknowledge the reality but rhetorically move the debate past it for the sake of your politics of fairness. Again, not women's fault that biology makes them the carrier, but undeniably a problem. And it does take two to make the baby, but only one becomes combat ineffective for half an enlistment or more because of it. I guess biology is just sexist. And by the way, black men can't become pregnant, so your race analogies fall apart.
You're projecting your apparently sexless view of the world onto a situation you simply don't understand. Mudgrrl claims she's been there, but she hasn't. She's been in situations that I readily acknowledge can accomodate mixed-gender groups.
As to special forces, I'm going to actually disagree with DRB...women can and do serve particularly valuable roles in the human relations and intelligence exploitation fields, which can make them valuable assets to special forces in certain situations and among certain cultures. (As he notes, however, not in any situation) Special ops types are those who will call a spade a spade and not let anyone operate who's not appropriate for a given situation, without regard to what anyone outside SF thinks. Due to the lack of GC backgrounds among women, this might not make them SF's primary shooters, but SF does a lot of different things.
And now I have to get to work, because my female boss really needs some reports.
MD
in your projected perfect world, there would no longer be a societal need for m/f latrines, but rather community uni-troughs, ja? i expect you would not predict that to be an outcome of perfect policy, so would i be correct in assuming you would still acknowledge differences, but they would not be significant to prevent "doing the job"?
when implementing "perfect policy", our nation has this poor notion of forcing change. affirmative action is what i'm thinking of: it's great in theory, and so far has sucked in practice.
why do you believe the military has other standards (which i enumerated a page or so ago)? without fail, there are olympic medalists in most swimming events who are under the military's minimum age of service. shall we allow them waivers to join the seals? shall the doors be flung open to all who are other-wise unqualified based upon previously enumerated criteria? seems to me your position is that if someone - anyone - can do a job, then the debate ends: give the potential applicant the job.
but that can't possibly be your position. am i missing a nuance?
and girls are taught similar sweeping generalizations about boys - some previously posted - which are inaccurate.OMGF said:
Your getting Special Forces (Green Berets) and Special Operations (SEALS, DELTA, Rangers and lord knows whatelse) mixed up. So I stand by my statement of being a gigantic problem with women in SF roles for the very reasons I mentioned. However, their use in units like FOG (Field Operations Group) then ISA (Intelligence Support Activity) and its follow ons, whatever they maybe now, is already a known fact. And in those roles some of the pitfalls we are talking about actually play into their favor.
Special Operations=broad term, non-specific, referring to many services, groups, missions, and combinations thereof.
SF=Army Green Berets, a specific group with a specific mission within the special operations community.
(This is why my SOP revisions aren't done...)
SF=Army Green Berets, a specific group with a specific mission within the special operations community.
(This is why my SOP revisions aren't done...)
I thought it was more like if Special Ops are all polygons then Special Forces are a rainbow triangle.
Now that's just not nice.
I think if I was in a ground combat platoon that I'd rather have MG in my foxhole than OMFG. 
Are you completely unable to separate the concepts of action (conduct, behavior, etc.) from thought (opinions, emotions, etc), and thought from subconscious (urges, triggers, etc.)? And then similarly completely unable to separate effects on an individual from effects on a group?
I can't tell if you're being stupid or obtuse.
I have to rely on MikeD to make the case that this is a different situation than other military posts or civilian ones, but until you demonstrate an ability to understand the word "group" it's a pointless argument.
We'll start simple: Why is it okay for men to give each other a congratulatory slap on the ass, but not men to women? Okat now here's the hard part: Why is a slap on the ass important? Your answer "I can't believe we're discriminating against women so men can slap each others' asses." And that would again demonstrate that you still haven't understood group bonding behavior.
Also, I'm still waiting for you to answer stinkle's question of whether we should abolish single-sex bathrooms. Certainly we can't argue that eating at MacDonald's is a life or death situation. How are our toilets NOT a failed attempt at separate but equal?
Of course. You need someone to hump.I think if I was in a ground combat platoon that I'd rather have MG in my foxhole than OMFG.
I think that if they were affected, it would not be the fault of the women. Allowing women in that can do the job is not the problem. The problem is the attitude that allows men to act like thugs towards those women. Getting rid of the women doesn't solve the problem, nor does it make Bubba any less of a thug. In fact, it just perpetuates Bubba's behavior. I think once the culture is changed, we would have an even more effective fighting force.
No, you really haven't. You've simply said it did. If I missed something, then I apologize, but I don't remember any explanations.
Evidenced by?
Yes, that's what I'm saying. It's in the training where this becomes reality. Under the current atmosphere, you are correct, they could not co-exist, but that is because that attitude is fostered and allowed to fester and grow. It's even inflamed at times by those who should know better (higher ranking officers.) I'm also saying that when the sh*t hits the fan, it's going to matter who can do the job. You'd rather have a guy in there who can't shoot as well as a woman, simply because he has a penis? That's ludicrous. I'd rather have the best person for the job, period.
I didn't know soldiers jack off in groups. Perhaps there are more gays in the military than I thought? Speaking of, do gays mess up your sacred group dynamic? Also, I'm still not seeing why it is the woman's fault in all this that Bubba has to jack off in the foxhole thinking about her. Why can't he keep his mind on the job at hand? Are you really suggesting that men are unable to focus on their job? Will you really go on record suggesting that men are nothing more than horny bastards that have no scruples and no control over their emotions? And, why are we so concerned with their emotions and feelings anyway? And, you all have the gall to talk about my feminist stance when you are concerned that a man might get more embarrassed in front of a woman?
This is either a straw man or a complete misunderstanding of my position. I'm not giving women a free pass. I think anyone in uniform, male or female, has to be able to do the job, and by saying differently, you are using a straw man. Either that, or you are misunderstanding my position and your own. You seem to think it's a two way street on the dynamic issue, but all I hear from you is that men will be emasculated if they sh*t their pants in front of women, or that they will want to get into a woman's pants. To me, it sounds like you are blaming the men, but punishing the women for it. Of course, if you are just talking about normal jealousy, etc. then that's true for any group (all male included) as MudGrrl already pointed out.
I hope no women who you work with read this and find out that you need "pressure release valves" in order to have to deal with working with a woman.
Nice semantic wrangling. What's next, going after my spelling or grammar?
Actually, what I said was that it was an important question that should be discussed, and I left it at that. If you want to delve into it, fine, but it seemed to be outside the scope of the OP (as you pretty much said yourself.) You can't fault me for not exploring something that you yourself were hesitant to talk about.
And, no my race analogies don't fall apart in terms of the "group dynamic" and fears that the "group dyanmic" would crumble if whites had to fight alongside blacks. No analogy is perfect, which is a problem with analogies, but that was the point intended. Blacks were integrated and we have a more effective fighting force because of it, right?
But, I have been in situations working with women; attractive women no less. I didn't hump them, I didn't sulk if they didn't give me enough attention, I didn't feel emasculated if I said something wrong or one of them corrected me. Am I just biologically different from all other men? Or, maybe simply because the job is different, the men in the GCA should be allowed to rape, discriminate, etc.?
Well, don't feel emasculated if you do something embarrassing in front of her. Oh the horrors.
In my "projected perfect world" women would not be barred from service in jobs that they are qualified for, simply because they have vaginas.
Evidence?
You need to read what I've previously written, because this has been answered already.
And those are just as wrong. And, when those sweeping generalizations interfere with a woman's ability to do the job, then it is just as wrong.
I'm not advocating giving jobs to anyone who is under-qualified. The fact that a person has a vagina, however, does not mean they are under-qualified from the get-go.
Considering that she is trained and I'm not, I don't blame you.I think if I was in a ground combat platoon that I'd rather have MG in my foxhole than OMFG.
I think you need to tell me which parts you think will be affected by having women around? You have been unable to give a straight answer to any of my questions. If men have urges, etc. but still act professionally, why is there a problem? If they don't act professionally, why is it the woman's fault? I've been asking this question in different formats for many pages now and no one is answering it. All I get is, "Men and women are different and the group dynamic will be all effed up because they are different." You haven't even attempted to show why the current group dynamic is necessarily better than one where men and women fight side by side.
I waiting for straight answers. I'm waiting for one of you to actually tell me how the dynamic changes. I work with women. My immediate boss is a woman. Does that change the way I work? No. Does it mean I need a release from having to work with a woman? No. Why is the GCA group any different?
He's not explaining it well enough for me I guess, so maybe you should try.
Who said that's OK? And, if it is OK, then why isn't it OK in a mixed group? I wouldn't advise ever doing that in a professional environment, mixed group or not for one. But, let's say we did allow that, it could be done in a non-sexual way, no? Otherwise we have lots of gays out there slapping other men's asses, no? And, why would that mean that women are unable to do the job? Again, that's punishing women for the actions/attitudes of men.
Actually, I don't think it's important, nor do I see why you think that my answering like that would show I haven't understood group bonding. If that is what is group bonding, then basically you are saying that men need to be "men" and can't do that with women, and that they need to be "men" when they kill people and that only "men" can kill people. This is so ridiculous, I'm flabbergasted that a smart guy like you would make this argument at all.
Geez, give me a chance to actually read and resond. Although, I probably didn't answer the way you think I should, right? Maybe we should have unisex bathrooms for the military. If there aren't any black, white, yellow, red, etc. soldiers, only green, then shouldn't that apply to women as well? It's not possible in the current climate, of course, but that's what needs to change anyway. We need to stop punishing women for the shortcomings of men. I don't know how I can say that any clearer.
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. 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.
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? Or would that be unduly uncomfortable for the students? Maybe a little unfair?
Oh, and the teachers should shower among them, too, just because that wouldn't be wierd or disruptive to order and discipline.
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.
So we've been in the field for a few months, none of us have have really seen anyone outside of the unit...none of us have our significant others around. (And this isn't the air force "field" or a combat support unit...we're in holes in the ground with no amenities, or making crushing foot movements...)
So sex starts, because 18-20 year olds are horny. (Oh, wait, in your neutered world, this won't happen because of training and the extremity of the situation. However, the extremity excacerbates the problems--it doesn't circumvent them. People relate more emotionally, not less so.) And then jealousies start. Suspicions and accusations start. Bonds form between men and women (boys and girls, really) who haven't even grown up into sexually mature and fully self-aware people yet. The most innocent expressions of camaradarie are magnified through this lens of isolation and stress...and that's before the general melodrama of youth takes over. Yes, indeed, "Bubba" as you so dismissively call him, is at the mercy of being a sexual human being. Bubb-ette is, too. And there's no relief, no way out of this. They're all stuck there together.
I suppose I can make a million different examples of how sex gets in the way, how one guy mistakes a smile for something other than camaradarie (edit: please don't tell me it's not her fault...I know, but it doesn't matter, and it can go the other way as well...it's still a disruption to group dynamic), how people obsess on their relationships-past, present, future-more than anything else in the environment (regardless of what you tell them is right), how those who do form a male-female pair bond are a hugely disruptive influence on a group who is generally denied the chance to have similar relations over long periods of time. I mean, you don't think it's going to upset a group dynamic when two of the group get to have sex with one another when the rest of them can't get any? You don't think that a fight or spat during or at the end of an immature relationship is going to disrupt the team members involved and surrounding it??? You don't think that changing partners, as young people are wont to do, will cause a problem??
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...)
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.
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.
You don't understand the utter lack of a private life in the field for an infantryman on campaign.
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.
Again, you must be neutered if you think there's not going to be any sex or sexual desire inside a mixed group over the course of stressful weeks/months/years. PEOPLE are horny bastards ruled by their emotions. This is enough of a detriment to the imposed order of the military without throwing the ultimate problem (sex) immediately in the mix. I mentioned Maslow sarcastically earlier. 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.
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.
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.
Are you kidding? There's an enormous difference. One excludes women entirely from the US military, another from a select line of MOSs.
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?
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.
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. Are they significantly different? No, because you're a professional working under normal professional conditions, and these relationships aren't your whole life and don't construct your whole world.
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.
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.
Thanks for the advice.
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...
Huh? I don't get you. Who's framing what expectations of moral behavior?
There seems to be this insinuation that because I don't think there should be a mixed-gender environment for ground combat troops that I'm somehow encouraging or condoning immoral behavior of some sort. Is that it? I just don't understand what you're talking about. Or is it the exclusion of women itself that you're calling immoral?
And who said anything about meshing with corporate America? We're trying to get people to kill other people and do it efficiently and, hopefully, eagerly. (Is that the immorality you speak of? If so, well, don't bother talking about the infantry, because that's what they do...) That's certainly not something that's a sought-after skill in corporate America. (unless you're working private security abroad for a corporate entity, I suppose...but even then, you're focused on the safety of your client, not closing with and destroying an enemy...)
Still, as I said in my first post, trained fighters/killers are taught from the beginning when to be savage and when not to be. And the skills you learn from an organizational and leadership standpoint are in high demand in corporate America...
MD
Except for the "Boys will be boys, after all, sorry about the rape, cunty!" atmosphere that you keep insisting is needed in order to make an effective combat unit.
Personally, I'm not hiring people who are walking sexual harassment suits...
What hell are you talking about? Have you read anything I've said? Where did I condone rape or harassment of any kind?
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.
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?
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?
Again that's just normal Army infantry requirements, Marine and Airborne Infantry have high standards then that and Ranger and Marine Recon units beyond even that. (But of course Rangers are much badder than any dumbass Recon guys but hey I'm tossing Mike a bone :biggrin: )
Or do you relax the standards to get some in and working and tighten them as time goes on? Do they get more chances?
Oh and I'll let you in on a little secret, the average platoon leader is just barely able to keep from losing his ass with both hands on it for the first 6 to 8 months he is in "charge". And just about the time he gets it, on he goes to something else. Yeah the integration period is going to be a long bitter ugly mess with unit effectiveness hugely impacted even if everyone is playing nice.MikeD said:
It has certainly done well by me.
No, I said (in extraordinarily summary language) because men and women, when put together, want to have sex, or actually have it, and this is inherently detrimental to the group structure, mixed genders need to be verboten. I admit that my voice did take a heavily male perspective, because I'm male...Silver said:
I never, ever said that rape or harassment of anyone was inevitable or the point at issue.
I'm advocating the status quo, frankly...that's extreme?