PDA

View Full Version : All of the services must allow women into all fields



UncaRastus
12-04-2015, 03:25 PM
The USMC has basically received it's marching orders, to allow women into the infantry, from Defense Secretary Ash Carter.

Part of the story, which outlines the reasons that the Marines do not want to include women in the infantry, excerpted:

'Earlier this year, the Marine Corps outlined a justification for that stance by publicly releasing some results of a yearlong study that concluded male-only units performed better overall than gender-integrated units.

Specifically, that Marine Corps-sponsored study found that male-only infantry units shot more accurately, could carry more weight and move more quickly through some tactical maneuvers. The study also found higher injury rates for women than for men'.

The article:

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/12/03/carter-telling-military-open-all-combat-jobs-women/76720656/

sandsjames
12-04-2015, 03:42 PM
The USMC has basically received it's marching orders, to allow women into the infantry, from Defense Secretary Ash Carter.

Part of the story, which outlines the reasons that the Marines do not want to include women in the infantry, excerpted:

'Earlier this year, the Marine Corps outlined a justification for that stance by publicly releasing some results of a yearlong study that concluded male-only units performed better overall than gender-integrated units.

Specifically, that Marine Corps-sponsored study found that male-only infantry units shot more accurately, could carry more weight and move more quickly through some tactical maneuvers. The study also found higher injury rates for women than for men'.

The article:

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/12/03/carter-telling-military-open-all-combat-jobs-women/76720656/

Not surprising. Gender is simply a state of mind. Are we even allowed to distinguish between male and female any more?

Seriously, though, it seems ridiculous. It's been proven, apparently, that the units are much more effective not being integrated. You'd think that effectiveness would outweigh PC.

MikeKerriii
12-05-2015, 03:20 AM
Not surprising. Gender is simply a state of mind. Are we even allowed to distinguish between male and female any more?

Seriously, though, it seems ridiculous. It's been proven, apparently, that the units are much more effective not being integrated. You'd think that effectiveness would outweigh PC.

We live in a society of laws and the mitary doesn't always get a free pass to ignore those laws.

If physical advantages were the only thing that matter then nobody but women would be allowed to aircraft, since their G-tolerance is far higher, and definitely no old slow folks over 25 or so whose reflexes are failing.

sandsjames
12-05-2015, 10:56 AM
We live in a society of laws and the mitary doesn't always get a free pass to ignore those laws. Of course they don't, but there are plenty of standards in the military that are very gender specific. There are plenty of forms of legal discrimination in the military. I'll take the word of those who actually go into the fights, as well what makes them the most effective. If you're ok with PC getting people killed then that's up to you.


If physical advantages were the only thing that matter then nobody but women would be allowed to aircraft, since their G-tolerance is far higher I can never find the G-tolerance, I think it's a myth


, and definitely no old slow folks over 25 or so whose reflexes are failing.I don't disagree with you here. We should find the combination of ages where leadership, physical ability, and weapon skills are at their peak, and build teams from there.

Rainmaker
12-05-2015, 03:55 PM
The first 90 days of our next major conflict is going to look an awful lot like Korea.

UncaRastus
12-05-2015, 04:47 PM
Korea, you say? Hmmm...

The mention of Korea caused me to think of a way to winnow out those that are not made of stern stuff.

Every wannabe combatant on the US side must eat a full jar of kimchee, within five minutes, without throwing up, or eating and/or drinking anything else, except for a jar of the kimchee marination, to help wash down the tasty cabbage and pepper, garlic and onion mixture, from the time that the delicious cabbage jar of self incineration is first opened, until 1 hour after the consumption of that jar of Korean goodness.

Anyone that can do this gets to join the infantry..

Korean Americans are exempted from doing this. Because they actually like this stuff.

OK, so do I. And I am not Korean.

Rainmaker
12-05-2015, 05:05 PM
Korea, you say? Hmmm...

The mention of Korea caused me to think of a way to winnow out those that are not made of stern stuff.

Every wannabe combatant on the US side must eat a full jar of kimchee, within five minutes, without throwing up, or eating and/or drinking anything else, except for a jar of the kimchee marination, to help wash down the tasty cabbage and pepper, garlic and onion mixture, from the time that the delicious cabbage jar of self incineration is first opened, until 1 hour after the consumption of that jar of Korean goodness.

Anyone that can do this gets to join the infantry..

Korean Americans are exempted from doing this. Because they actually like this stuff.

OK, so do I. And I am not Korean.

True. Just the mention of the Dreaded "Kimchi Morning Breath" Test is enough to make even the most combat hardened men quake in their boots.

UncaRastus
12-05-2015, 05:13 PM
Every morning when I wake up, my nose is stuffy. So I go to the pantry, and take out my jar of nose stuffiness clearing cure, which is also called kimchee/kimchi, or however it is spelled, in y'alls neck of the woods.

I first take a mouthful of this miracle stuff, and let it sit there for five minutes. The next step is to drink some of the wonder juice, so that I may gargle with that. Then, when my nose/sinuses begin to clear, I inhale the piquant aroma for about 5 minutes.

And Granny Clampett thought that she had a cure all.

This is my entrant to the home cures, worldwide.

USN - Retired
12-05-2015, 05:41 PM
If physical advantages were the only thing that matter then nobody but women would be allowed to aircraft, since their G-tolerance is far higher,

Not true...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3753357
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a177986.pdf



and definitely no old slow folks over 25 or so whose reflexes are failing.

Are you saying that there is no age discrimination in the military? I am 52 years old. Will the military allow me to join?

If we still used the military tactics from World War One, i.e. climb out of a muddy trench and march towards the enemy machine guns, then would we, as a society, want to include women in combat? Just askin'.

Mjölnir
12-05-2015, 10:44 PM
When I was in the USMC, if a Marine was sent to entry level MOS training and failed to complete training for whatever reason, as long as they were still being retained for service (most of the time) they would be reassigned -- often times to combat arms & very often to the infantry. Completing infantry school wasn't really hard, it was physical sure. But in general most make it through -- in part (anecdotally based on my experiences) because they join the Marines to be ... Marines ... and the infantry is a large part of what the Marine Corps does. Of those who I saw that didn't graduate infantry school, yes ... I think a few purposefully tanked it because they decided this wasn't for them. The secondary effect is if you fail to complete infantry school you are going to be separated -- no equivalent to the 'Undesignated Seaman' program.

So, a couple of legitimate questions would be:
1. Will women be forced to go to infantry school -- like their male counterparts who fail to complete other MOS training.
2. Will women who go into the Army & Marine Corps with an 'open contract' be assigned to infantry school like many males who go in with an 'open contract'?
*note: so far, all the females who have completed USMC School of Infantry (enlisted -- no females have completed Infantry Officer's School) were volunteers and screened for physical fitness (above the minimum PFT standards for females) prior to assignment to SOI -- something that does not happen with males.

BT BT

I am not against this new policy. If a Marine, Soldier, Sailor or Airman can do the job I don't really care if they are male, female, straight, gay etc ... but I am realistic and I care that they can meet the requirements of the job (combat arms included) -- unique to combat arms ... physical prowess/stamina, physical 'toughness' and durability are part of that. Marching with 110 - 130 pounds of gear on your back is taxing on a male (I was 18 and 6 feet 1 inch tall and about 190 pounds when I went to SOI) ... all studies show that it is more taxing on a female not because of a lack of motivation or dedication ... but as a matter of physiology (less muscle mass, bone density etc.) Pair the physiological differences with 110 pounds of gear may be 70 - 90% of a female's total body weight to begin with and you are likely to see a lot of injuries which equal a loss of combat effectiveness.

If a female can do it ... so be it. But I don't think we will see droves of females in these fields. Also, I can see a sense of resentment in those who are involuntarily assigned to combat arms if females are not also involuntarily assigned (which may be setting them up to fail.)

MikeKerriii
12-06-2015, 12:28 AM
Not true...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3753357
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a177986.pdf

(http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a177986.pdf)

Both show significant advantages for women, they h just ignore thier own numbers to say that they are insignificant, The USMC test did not show a more significant difference in numbers




Not true...
If we still used the military tactics from World War One, i.e. climb out of a muddy trench and march towards the enemy machine guns, then would we, as a society, want to include women in combat? Just askin'. W What does a war a century, in round numbers, ago have to do with reality today? Those tactics are about as likely to return as Napoleonic tactics are or the Greek phalanxes. I have no problem with women in combat.

garhkal
12-06-2015, 03:23 AM
The USMC has basically received it's marching orders, to allow women into the infantry, from Defense Secretary Ash Carter.

Part of the story, which outlines the reasons that the Marines do not want to include women in the infantry, excerpted:

'Earlier this year, the Marine Corps outlined a justification for that stance by publicly releasing some results of a yearlong study that concluded male-only units performed better overall than gender-integrated units.

Specifically, that Marine Corps-sponsored study found that male-only infantry units shot more accurately, could carry more weight and move more quickly through some tactical maneuvers. The study also found higher injury rates for women than for men'.

The article:

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/12/03/carter-telling-military-open-all-combat-jobs-women/76720656/

I read that article and listed to the General telling the brass what it was about, and i felt Carter did his Generals wrong. WHY have them do this study if they are just going to ignore the facts it finds out?

MikeKerriii
12-06-2015, 04:43 AM
O

I can never find the G-tolerance, I think it's a myth.nope its about a 1O% advantage, tand that is By DOD studies listed he in this tread, NASA studies were showed even a more serous difference but I can't find them now so that part is from memory, when the g-load is sustained for a matter of half an hour or more the situation reverses. the main advantage seems to come from height, the taller you are the lower you G-tolerance seems to be and women tend to be shorter


I don't disagree with you here. We should find the combination of ages where leadership, physical ability, and weapon skills are at their peak, and build teams from there. That will be hard since the ages at which each those seem to peak, varies from 17 for some physical abilities or so to late middle age for some mental and skilled abilities. I think answer for truly demanding positions if to let a lot of different people TRY, to meet the necessary standards, and not worry about relive trivial things like gender. the Army , at least according to my 1Lt, son, is developing MOS specific, gender neutral PT standards, that seems a very rational solution.

The change in standards is also in this years budget http://www.defensenews.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/11/25/obama-ndaa-defense-bill-military-retirement-overhaul/76302160

I think some old-fogies will leave becasue of this, but I also believe like what happening 1948 we will be well rid of those unwilling to follow orders instead of their own biases. The ones that left in the middle 70s, when women's roles were expanded were no great loss either.

MikeKerriii
12-06-2015, 04:57 AM
I read that article and listed to the General telling the brass what it was about, and i felt Carter did his Generals wrong. WHY have them do this study if they are just going to ignore the facts it finds out?

Two reasons I can see, for him to order this,only the marines had a problem with this,and I really doubt a there was any question what the results of a marine study would be, The other services did have the objections the Marines did, was that becasue female Marines are different from females in other services orf because that was the desired result?

The General are not harmed by this at all, they can retire whenever thy like, the alternative is to obey orders given be the Civilians they work for and continue doing their duties,

Reminding generals of the chain of command is sometimes necessary, and military people in the US work for civilians, thankfully. AF generals recently got a similar lesson for Congress, a well deserved one.

Mjölnir
12-06-2015, 06:50 AM
The change in standards is also in this years budget http://www.defensenews.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/11/25/obama-ndaa-defense-bill-military-retirement-overhaul/76302160

That was the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) ... not the budget. The NDAA is a product of the Armed Services Committees, which have to wait on the signing of the FY Budget Bill (which produces the 301A allocation) to begin on the NDAA. While it does establish the amount of authoirzed spending for DoD, when you refer to the budget in legislative terms that is the FY Budget Bill that is the product of the House & Senate Budget Committees. Also, while the NDAA says DoD can spend up to $607 billion, they don't have any funding yet, that comes from the annual Appropriations Bill. The authorization bill is like dad saying you can go to the movies, the appropriation bill is like going to mom to get the money for the ticket.


Two reasons I can see, for him to order this,only the marines had a problem with this,and I really doubt a there was any question what the results of a marine study would be, The other services did have the objections the Marines did, was that becasue female Marines are different from females in other services orf because that was the desired result?

What made it different is how the Marine Corps views infantry as the center of what they do. The Marine Corps' concern if you had read their study, was in the ability to get females into Combat Arms roles (specifically infantry) without altering the current standards of the training The Marine Corps is unwilling to compromise the standard to graduate from the School of Infantry or the Infantry Officer's Course. The Army took the same stance on Ranger School and saw results similar to the Marine Corps study (very few females that made it through). All the females that have attended either USMC infantry training or Ranger School were in above average physical condition prior to attending and the pass rate was still low and the injury rate was higher than that of their male counterparts.

Women have graduated from USMC infantry school (not the Infantry Officer's Course) and I think it is outstanding that they have. But, we have to also be realistic about the requirements of combat & the requirements of the job (in this case infantry) -- unique to combat arms ... physical prowess/stamina, physical 'toughness' and durability are part of the combat effectiveness of the infantry. If a female can pass the standard, no problem -- some already have done it. If we put 2,000 females through infantry training per year and 1,500 (based on the statistics) fail to graduate then that is a lot of lost money ... if 1,000 of those 1,500 get injured (based on the statistics) they cannot commence other training until they are healed ... lost time = lost money. if the standard has to be altered to allow more females to pass then that effects combat effectiveness.

In the Navy and Air Force, the number of units / personnel that do direct combat (SeALs, PJs etc.) are very small (<3%). The Navy actually said in their report to the Secretary that it would not alter the standard for females to attend BUDS (SeAL training) and that as a consequence expected very few female applicants and as a further consequence expected to lose little in the way of money for training, housing and processing those who fail to complete training. In the Army and Marine Corps the infantry is about 15% of the total force. The occasional woman going through BUDS etc. is very different than putting thousands of females through infantry training every year. If a female can do it ... great. But I don't think we will see large numbers of females in the infantry unless they are: 1. forced into those fields and 2. the standard to graduate the training modified in recognition of the physiological differences.

sandsjames
12-06-2015, 11:26 AM
nope its about a 1O% advantage, tand that is By DOD studies listed he in this tread, NASA studies were showed even a more serous difference but I can't find them now so that part is from memory, when the g-load is sustained for a matter of half an hour or more the situation reverses. the main advantage seems to come from height, the taller you are the lower you G-tolerance seems to be and women tend to be shorter I say that I can't find the G-tolerance and you respond with this? Pay attention, please.

USN - Retired
12-06-2015, 01:00 PM
Both show significant advantages for women, they h just ignore thier own numbers to say that they are insignificant, The USMC test did not show a more significant difference in numbers.

You are not correct.

sandsjames
12-06-2015, 01:07 PM
Here's the deal, whether people want it to be this way or not. Men are programmed to protect women. We will go out of our way to protect them, even if it means that we go off script to do so. IN the trenches, we can't have Marines/Soldiers going off script, to lose concentration, because the focus in on protecting someone, instead of performing as trained.

Talk about equality all you want. If it's "normal", mentally for a person to be gay or be a different gender, then it's perfectly normal for a guy to be pre-programmed to do stupid shit to take care of women.

It's dangerous, it's unnecessary to screw up elite fighting forces in order to be PC.

USN - Retired
12-06-2015, 01:44 PM
W What does a war a century, in round numbers, ago have to do with reality today? Those tactics are about as likely to return as Napoleonic tactics are or the Greek phalanxes. I have no problem with women in combat.

It was a hypothetical question. It appears that my hypothetical question bothers you. I wonder why?

Here's another hypothetical question for you...

How will the American public respond when captured female members of our military are sold as sex slaves in some ISIS slave market?

The reality may be very unpleasant. Are we ready for the reality?

sandsjames
12-06-2015, 01:57 PM
How will the American public respond when captured female members of our military are sold as sex slaves in some ISIS slave market?

The reality may be very unpleasant. Are we ready for the reality?Absolutely...and how many additional lives will be lost trying to prevent that?

MikeKerriii
12-06-2015, 06:13 PM
I say that I can't find the G-tolerance and you respond with this? Pay attention, please.

Number for g-tolerance are in this thread already, If you can't find them I suggest you re-read the thread

MikeKerriii
12-06-2015, 06:13 PM
You are not correct.

Numbers please?

MikeKerriii
12-06-2015, 06:17 PM
It was a hypothetical question. It appears that my hypothetical question bothers you. I wonder why?

Here's another hypothetical question for you...

How will the American public respond when captured female members of our military are sold as sex slaves in some ISIS slave market?

The reality may be very unpleasant. Are we ready for the reality?

We have had women POW taken before, and even before this decision when had women in positions where they could be taken prisoner such as pilots.

I remember when the line was what will when do when Women are killed in combat, It turns out that we do the same thing as we do when men are killed in combat we morn them then CM.

I objected to your hypothetical becasue it was simply silly.

sandsjames
12-06-2015, 06:21 PM
Number for g-tolerance are in this thread already, If you can't find them I suggest you re-read the thread

Nevermind...I guess the joke is way over your head.

TJMAC77SP
12-06-2015, 11:47 PM
We have had women POW taken before, and even before this decision when had women in positions where they could be taken prisoner such as pilots.

I remember when the line was what will when do when Women are killed in combat, It turns out that we do the same thing as we do when men are killed in combat we morn them then CM.

I objected to your hypothetical becasue it was simply silly.


While I may not hold to the belief that including women in combat roles means the end of military preparedness (I find Mjölnir's articulate input more in line with reality) it must be said that since we read of very real and factual situations regarding ISIS treatment of females the media constantly, USN's hypothetical is not that far fetched. You may dismiss it out of hand but I find that intellectually weak.

As for the previous US female POWs there is precedent there as well.


http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/29/us/female-pow-is-abused-kindling-debate.html?pagewanted=all

MikeKerriii
12-07-2015, 12:06 AM
While I may not hold to the belief that including women in combat roles means the end of military preparedness (I find Mjölnir's articulate input more in line with reality) it must be said that since we read of very real and factual situations regarding ISIS treatment of females the media constantly, USN's hypothetical is not that far fetched. You may dismiss it out of hand but I find that intellectually weak.

As for the previous US female POWs there is precedent there as well.


http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/29/us/female-pow-is-abused-kindling-debate.html?pagewanted=all

His hypothetical, that i mocked , was about a return to WWI over the top tactics, not about Women POW's

TJMAC77SP
12-07-2015, 03:12 AM
His hypothetical, that i mocked , was about a return to WWI over the top tactics, not about Women POW's

I see. I was referring to your dismissal of his hypothetical regarding women POWs.....which is why I quoted that post. I would think my referencing ISIS treatment of women would have put that in context.

garhkal
12-07-2015, 04:47 AM
How will the American public respond when captured female members of our military are sold as sex slaves in some ISIS slave market?

The reality may be very unpleasant. Are we ready for the reality?

I didn't really see as much uproar as some thought, when we had several gals captured by AQ in Iraq..
So i doubt that we would have anywhere near the uproar you think we might with ISIS.

Rusty Jones
12-07-2015, 12:12 PM
It's my understanding that, as a result to open up combat arms to women, the requirement for women to register for the selective service is about to be set in stone... if it's not already.

I'm of the mind that this was required of men... because we're supposed to fight, so our women don't have to. We're supposed to be the ones protecting women and children. Now, if women WANT to fight, great. But... I'm not so sure that forcing them to fight is a great idea.

As we all know, in order for a species to continue to exist, its females must be protected. Males are expendable. In a study released in 2006, many experts believe that the lack of gender roles is what led to the extinction of Neanderthals (i.e., Neanderthal women actually hunted and performed other tasks where their health and lives were at risk), and that gender roles is what allowed AMH's (Anatomically Modern Humans) to flourish.

I'm not saying that I believe that a woman's place is in the kitchen or the home, or anything like that.

However... I do have a problem with the whole "gender fluidity" thing and the fact that there appears to be less and less of a difference between men and women. Everyone is more androgynous these days.

I really do believe that there are various double standards out there. Men benefit from some, women benefit from others... so it evens out.

If you ask me, men bitching about having to register for the selective service while women don't have to... is one big example of how feminized men have become in recent years. I'm only 36 years old, so I don't know for sure if men were complaining about women not being drafted back in 1968. I'm there there were a few out there, but my money is on it not being the norm that it is today.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTwaX2AAAlQ

sandsjames
12-07-2015, 12:34 PM
It's my understanding that, as a result to open up combat arms to women, the requirement for women to register for the selective service is about to be set in stone... if it's not already.

I'm of the mind that this was required of men... because we're supposed to fight, so our women don't have to. We're supposed to be the ones protecting women and children. Now, if women WANT to fight, great. But... I'm not so sure that forcing them to fight is a great idea.

As we all know, in order for a species to continue to exist, its females must be protected. Males are expendable. In a study released in 2006, many experts believe that the lack of gender roles is what led to the extinction of Neanderthals (i.e., Neanderthal women actually hunted and performed other tasks where their health and lives were at risk), and that gender roles is what allowed AMH's (Anatomically Modern Humans) to flourish.

I'm not saying that I believe that a woman's place is in the kitchen or the home, or anything like that.

However... I do have a problem with the whole "gender fluidity" thing and the fact that there appears to be less and less of a difference between men and women. Everyone is more androgynous these days.

I really do believe that there are various double standards out there. Men benefit from some, women benefit from others... so it evens out.

If you ask me, men bitching about having to register for the selective service while women don't have to... is one big example of how feminized men have become in recent years. I'm only 36 years old, so I don't know for sure if men were complaining about women not being drafted back in 1968. I'm there there were a few out there, but my money is on it not being the norm that it is today.



Well said. The abandonment of gender based roles (as you said, not saying their place is in the kitchen, but it is our job/role/responsibility to protect them) is not a good thing.

hustonj
12-07-2015, 12:48 PM
It is too sad for me to be joking.

A group of black men in my office were talking about this on Friday. They came to the conclusion that the only way this could work would be if we had distinct and separate male and female units with different chains of command.

The retired, female, white officer and myself looked at them in disbelief before we started asking if they understood what they were saying. "Separate but equal." "Hey, the Red Tails existed because people didn't want mixed-race units. A group of black men is forgetting that and calling for the same discrimination against a new group? Seriously?"

The topic hasn't come back up . . ..

sandsjames
12-07-2015, 01:35 PM
It is too sad for me to be joking.

A group of black men in my office were talking about this on Friday. They came to the conclusion that the only way this could work would be if we had distinct and separate male and female units with different chains of command.

The retired, female, white officer and myself looked at them in disbelief before we started asking if they understood what they were saying. "Separate but equal." "Hey, the Red Tails existed because people didn't want mixed-race units. A group of black men is forgetting that and calling for the same discrimination against a new group? Seriously?"

The topic hasn't come back up . . ..

Way to fight the good fight, man.

MikeKerriii
12-07-2015, 02:01 PM
I see. I was referring to your dismissal of his hypothetical regarding women POWs.....which is why I quoted that post. I would think my referencing ISIS treatment of women would have put that in context.

We have had women captured and enslaved by utter savages before < Imperial; Japans military a good example. II blew it off becasue it was nothing new, ad ISIS is not significantly worse that the Japanese military was in treatment of prisoners. As ;est sp far, ISIS has not practiced vivisection on POWs.

MikeKerriii
12-07-2015, 02:07 PM
It's my understanding that, as a result to open up combat arms to women, the requirement for women to register for the selective service is about to be set in stone... if it's not already.

I'm of the mind that this was required of men... because we're supposed to fight, so our women don't have to. We're supposed to be the ones protecting women and children. Now, if women WANT to fight, great. But... I'm not so sure that forcing them to fight is a great idea.

As we all know, in order for a species to continue to exist, its females must be protected. Males are expendable. In a study released in 2006, many experts believe that the lack of gender roles is what led to the extinction of Neanderthals (i.e., Neanderthal women actually hunted and performed other tasks where their health and lives were at risk), and that gender roles is what allowed AMH's (Anatomically Modern Humans) to flourish.

I'm not saying that I believe that a woman's place is in the kitchen or the home, or anything like that.

However... I do have a problem with the whole "gender fluidity" thing and the fact that there appears to be less and less of a difference between men and women. Everyone is more androgynous these days.

I really do believe that there are various double standards out there. Men benefit from some, women benefit from others... so it evens out.

If you ask me, men bitching about having to register for the selective service while women don't have to... is one big example of how feminized men have become in recent years. I'm only 36 years old, so I don't know for sure if men were complaining about women not being drafted back in 1968. I'm there there were a few out there, but my money is on it not being the norm that it is today.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTwaX2AAAlQ

Men complained about women not being drafted in 1968, they complained about every single part of the draft, but mostly about how it was a rich mans war and a poor mans fight. The Draft was still in place when I joined the military so I remember those times pretty well.

Every adult citizen has a equal responsibility to defend the nation if they are able to do so. What is your problem with that concept?

Mjölnir
12-07-2015, 02:22 PM
ad ISIS is not significantly worse that the Japanese military was in treatment of prisoners. As ;est sp far, ISIS has not practiced vivisection on POWs.

I would say they are worse. While the Japanese didn't have the internet ... they did not publicly broadcast film / video of executions. Also, ISIS encourages / requires children of members to participate ... something that was very, very isolated in WWII Japan.

As far as vivisection, they are pretty close -- ISIS has quartered / disemboweled prisoners. To mind, I know of them having done the following (filmed it and broadcast &/or released it):

-beheading
-beating prisoners to death
-drowning
-castration & then allow the victim to bleed to death
-throwing prisoners off building
-stoning
-burning prisoners alive
-firing squads
-quartering
-drawing and quartering
-hanging
-firing squad
-used victims to test effectiveness / range of suicide vests & other explosives
-locked them in vehicles and shot the vehicles with RPG's

sandsjames
12-07-2015, 02:45 PM
Every adult citizen has a equal responsibility to defend the nation if they are able to do so. What is your problem with that concept?Everyone has the responsibility, but not the same role. If every able bodied adult was out fighting wars, what happens to families? Defending the country doesn't necessarily mean fighting in wars. Women served a huge role in WWII by not being deployed. They took care of much of the manufacturing, etc, and were still able to take care of their children, raise them to be productive.

Men and women have different strengths that are all very important. What is your problem with that concept?

Rainmaker
12-07-2015, 03:57 PM
I read that article and listed to the General telling the brass what it was about, and i felt Carter did his Generals wrong. WHY have them do this study if they are just going to ignore the facts it finds out?

Because it was a fait accompli from the beginning.

If our General Officer Corps were made up of actual Generals instead of with Obama cock-gobblers, they would stand up to the Double chinned, sweater vest wearing Goldman Sachs financier with absolutely no military experience, posing as a SECDEF.

This stupid Bullshit was tried before by the Pot smoking, Ballistic Missile Technology transferring, Draft dodger Bubba Clinton Administration. But, didn't fly because we still had a few Generals left in the inventory with a spine back then.

MikeKerriii
12-07-2015, 04:26 PM
Everyone has the responsibility, but not the same role. If every able bodied adult was out fighting wars, what happens to families? Defending the country doesn't necessarily mean fighting in wars. Women served a huge role in WWII by not being deployed. They took care of much of the manufacturing, etc, and were still able to take care of their children, raise them to be productive.

Men and women have different strengths that are all very important. What is your problem with that concept?

The problem is making the distinction of a persons capabilities based on genders instead of their abilities, that is a waste of resources.

Nothing, outside of childbirth itself, that women do can't be done a man, the reverse apples also.

sandsjames
12-07-2015, 04:30 PM
The problem is making the distinction of a persons capabilities based on genders instead of their abilities, that is a waste of resources.

Nothing, outside of childbirth itself, that women do can't be done a man, the reverse apples also.

So when you go out with your wife and some guy pushes her down, you're ok with her taking care of the guy herself?

MikeKerriii
12-07-2015, 04:32 PM
I would say they are worse. While the Japanese didn't have the internet ... they did not publicly broadcast film / video of executions. Also, ISIS encourages / requires children of members to participate ... something that was very, very isolated in WWII Japan.

As far as vivisection, they are pretty close -- ISIS has quartered / disemboweled prisoners. To mind, I know of them having done the following (filmed it and broadcast &/or released it):

-beheading
-beating prisoners to death
-drowning
-castration & then allow the victim to bleed to death
-throwing prisoners off building
-stoning
-burning prisoners alive
-firing squads
-quartering
-drawing and quartering
-hanging
-firing squad
-used victims to test effectiveness / range of suicide vests & other explosives
-locked them in vehicles and shot the vehicles with RPG's

-beheading: Japan did so by the thousands, even had newspaper articles about Contests among officers about who could behead the most POWs
-beating prisoners to death: Again by the hundreds and thousands, Have you ever read about Bataan?
-castration & then allow the victim to bleed to death. Again a common practice, Read accounts of the Pacific War or talk to a vetran of places like Guadalcanal and Okinawa
-firing squads: They tended to behead POWs instead, sometimes by the tens of thousands, resorting to shooting only when the numbers got too high at places like Nanjing
-quartering: Vivisection and experimentation of civilians and POWs
-drawing and quartering: Vivisection of civilians and POWs as an official policy
-firing squad: Beheading is not better
-used victims to test effectiveness / range of suicide vests & other explosives: Unit 731 makes ISIS look like pikers, They tested bio-weapons on villages
-burning prisoners alive: Pushing American And Filipino POWs into bunkers then pouring gasoline into the bunkers is some how better than burning POWs one at a time?

Add in
-Slavery,sex slavery and forced repeated gang rape as government programs, just as ISIS practices but on a larger scale,
-The "3 all's" policy, "kill all, burn all, loot all" That resulted in somewhere around 2.7 million Civilian deaths
-Retaliation for The Doolittle raid resulted in approximately 250,000 murders
-Nanjing Resulted in between 200 and 400,000 murders with at least 40,000 of them being POWs

The Japanese military made ISIS look relatively civilized, at the present rate it will take many years for ISIS to get a murder count to equal that the Japanese had achieved just by the end of 1937.

Most Americans pay attention to the relatively clean European war, but the Pacific part of WWII started earlier and was far more savage.

Rusty Jones
12-07-2015, 04:33 PM
The problem is making the distinction of a persons capabilities based on genders instead of their abilities, that is a waste of resources.

This is something that's been done a along time ago, and is the reason why men and women have different standards for the PT test in all services. Hell, they even teach you in middle school health class that men are physically stronger than women; as if no one hadn't already noticed that well before getting to middle school. Also, consider the fact that there are various illnesses - both physical and mental - that one sex is more prone to than the other.

None of this is rocket science.

sandsjames
12-07-2015, 04:34 PM
The problem is making the distinction of a persons capabilities based on genders instead of their abilities, that is a waste of resources.

Nothing, outside of childbirth itself, that women do can't be done a man, the reverse apples also.

There is tons of research showing how mothers are more naturally nurturing, how the bond between mother/child and father/child is extremely different. Are there certain cases where it doesn't apply? Of course. But overall, the roles are pretty well defined.

I'd assume you are a Big Bang/Evolution kind of guy...so why do you insist on not buying the evolutionary development of men and women for different roles?

sandsjames
12-07-2015, 04:35 PM
-beheading: Japan did so by the thousands, even had newspaper articles about Contests among officers about who could behead the most POWs
-beating prisoners to death: Again by the hundreds and thousands, Have you ever read about Bataan?
-castration & then allow the victim to bleed to death. Again a common practice, Read accounts of the Pacific War or talk to a vetran of places like Guadalcanal and Okinawa
-firing squads: They tended to behead POWs instead, sometimes by the tens of thousands, resorting to shooting only when the numbers got too high at places like Nanjing
-quartering: Vivisection and experimentation of civilians and POWs
-drawing and quartering: Vivisection of civilians and POWs as an official policy
-firing squad: Beheading is not better
-used victims to test effectiveness / range of suicide vests & other explosives: Unit 731 makes ISIS look like pikers, They tested bio-weapons on villages
-burning prisoners alive: Pushing American And Filipino POWs into bunkers then pouring gasoline into the bunkers is some how better than burning POWs one at a time?

Add in
-Slavery,sex slavery and forced repeated gang rape as government programs, just as ISIS practices but on a larger scale,
-The "3 all's" policy, "kill all, burn all, loot all" That resulted in somewhere around 2.7 million Civilian deaths
-Retaliation for The Doolittle raid resulted in approximately 250,000 murders
-Nanjing Resulted in between 200 and 400,000 murders with at least 40,000 of them being POWs

The Japanese military made ISIS look relatively civilized, at the present rate it will take many years for ISIS to get a murder count to equal that the Japanese had achieved just by the end of 1937.

Most Americans pay attention to the relatively clean European war, but the Pacific part of WWII started earlier and was far more savage.

Absolutely...and we know how we handled Japan...so we should definitely let the nukes start dropping in the Middle East.

Rusty Jones
12-07-2015, 04:36 PM
So when you go out with your wife and some guy pushes her down, you're ok with her taking care of the guy herself?

You'd be surprised at how that's become the norm these days. There was a video that went viral of a dude leaning on the car playing on his smartphone, while his girlfriend was changing a flat tire. I think once upon a time, a man would get his ass kicked for that.

sandsjames
12-07-2015, 04:40 PM
You'd be surprised at how that's become the norm these days. There was a video that went viral of a dude leaning on the car playing on his smartphone, while his girlfriend was changing a flat tire. It's pathetic. I think the sad part is that it shows how effeminate men are becoming.


I think once upon a time, a man would get his ass kicked for that.As he should.

TJMAC77SP
12-07-2015, 05:25 PM
We have had women captured and enslaved by utter savages before < Imperial; Japans military a good example. II blew it off becasue it was nothing new, ad ISIS is not significantly worse that the Japanese military was in treatment of prisoners. As ;est sp far, ISIS has not practiced vivisection on POWs.

Didn't you chastise Garhkal for using an outdated example?

I am not doing so but wondered at the apparent double standard.

I actually think you 'blew off' the comment because it ran counter to your position but that is another matter.

I hardly think the comparison is on target. Not because of the time it occurred but because of the difference in culture and technology of the two times.

Rusty Jones
12-07-2015, 06:11 PM
It's pathetic. I think the sad part is that it shows how effeminate men are becoming.

I talk about this alot on various groups on facebook. I think that there are problems happening on both ends when we raise children.

1. First, it's very clear that the man has been raised to be "secure in his masculinity" by not being ashamed of what's happening. Secondly, this goes back to what I was talking about earlier... feminism prompting men to bitch about equality on both sides, so you have men that refuse to be with a woman UNLESS she's "independent." Men don't like coming out of their pockets much these days, and demand going "Dutch" on dates. It's like... feminism is now something that men hide behind in order to avoid having to be men.

2. I think that we're raising our daughters to be "independent" to a fault. Nothing wrong with a woman being able to do for herself, but when a woman relies too much on herself... then she has absolutely nothing to lose by entering into a long term relationship with a worthless bum that can't (or won't) do jack for her, because she's been raised to not need someone who's the total opposite.

MikeKerriii
12-07-2015, 06:16 PM
There is tons of research showing how mothers are more naturally nurturing, how the bond between mother/child and father/child is extremely different. Are there certain cases where it doesn't apply? Of course. But overall, the roles are pretty well defined.

I'd assume you are a Big Bang/Evolution kind of guy...so why do you insist on not buying the evolutionary development of men and women for different roles?
Liker the appendix, evolution has made some development irreverent, and technology has made some simply silly. I have raised kids and I know single men who have raised kids, having a parent, preferably two dedicated to the task is all that is necessary.

The roles are defined but that doesn't make then any less obsolete and any less foolish

MikeKerriii
12-07-2015, 06:19 PM
Didn't you chastise Garhkal for using an outdated example?

I am not doing so but wondered at the apparent double standard.

I actually think you 'blew off' the comment because it ran counter to your position but that is another matter.

I hardly think the comparison is on target. Not because of the time it occurred but because of the difference in culture and technology of the two times.

I was responding direct to a post from the moderator, I was disagreeing with what he said... Do try to keep up.

Do yiou think that that a return to WII tactics is likely, or at all relevant to what we are discussing?

Rusty Jones
12-07-2015, 06:22 PM
Liker the appendix, evolution has made some development irreverent, and technology has made some simply silly. I have raised kids and I know single men who have raised kids, having a parent, preferably two dedicated to the task is all that is necessary.

The roles are defined but that doesn't make then any less obsolete and any less foolish

I'm sorry, I didn't catch the part where technology took us out of the animal kingdom.

MikeKerriii
12-07-2015, 06:23 PM
I talk about this alot on various groups on facebook. I think that there are problems happening on both ends when we raise children.

1. First, it's very clear that the man has been raised to be "secure in his masculinity" by not being ashamed of what's happening. Secondly, this goes back to what I was talking about earlier... feminism prompting men to bitch about equality on both sides, so you have men that refuse to be with a woman UNLESS she's "independent." Men don't like coming out of their pockets much these days, and demand going "Dutch" on dates. It's like... feminism is now something that men hide behind in order to avoid having to be men.

2. I think that we're raising our daughters to be "independent" to a fault. Nothing wrong with a woman being able to do for herself, but when a woman relies too much on herself... then she has absolutely nothing to lose by entering into a long term relationship with a worthless bum that can't (or won't) do jack for her, because she's been raised to not need someone who's the total opposite.

So you want to raise daughter to be dependent on others to live and prosper? What do you have against your daughters, being able to operate independently is the mark of an adult, not just male adults

Men tend to want to be with independent women becasue we are looking for partners not servants. Basically you are saying that women should know their place and stay in it.

Rusty Jones
12-07-2015, 06:26 PM
So you want to raise daughter to be dependent on others to live and prosper? What do you have against your daughters, being able to operate independently is the mark of an adult, not just male adults

Men tend to want to be with independent women becasue we are looking for partners not servants. Basically you are saying that women should know their place and stay in it.

No, I don't want my daughters to have children by shiftless bums who are in and out of jail. Or the kind of men that will fuck around on their smartphones, while they're changing flat tires. This is a consequence of raising our daughters to be too "independent."

Rusty Jones
12-07-2015, 06:38 PM
My wife was "independant" when I met her, and still is... I suppose. I would say that we're both more "interdependant," or "symbiotic," or whatever word you want to use.

Nothing wrong with that. However... unlike many men these days, I never saw a woman's "independence" as a license to not be about shit. Not everyone is as enlightened, unfortunately.

MikeKerriii
12-07-2015, 06:41 PM
No, I don't want my daughters to have children by shiftless bums who are in and out of jail. Or the kind of men that will fuck around on their smartphones, while they're changing flat tires. This is a consequence of raising our daughters to be too "independent."

I think that it is a result of bad judgement not independence being the problem. Men make the same kind of mistakes.

Rainmaker
12-07-2015, 06:43 PM
I can never find the G-tolerance, I think it's a myth



Rainmaker could never find the g-tolerance either and used to think that it was a myth as well.. .. But, then he met Natasha.....

Rainmaker
12-07-2015, 06:52 PM
It is too sad for me to be joking.

A group of black men in my office were talking about this on Friday. They came to the conclusion that the only way this could work would be if we had distinct and separate male and female units with different chains of command.

The retired, female, white officer and myself looked at them in disbelief before we started asking if they understood what they were saying. "Separate but equal." "Hey, the Red Tails existed because people didn't want mixed-race units. A group of black men is forgetting that and calling for the same discrimination against a new group? Seriously?"

The topic hasn't come back up . . ..

Technically the US hasn't won a war since they desegregated the military...... So, Maybe they're on to something?

USN - Retired
12-07-2015, 07:09 PM
We have had women captured and enslaved by utter savages before < Imperial; Japans military a good example. II blew it off becasue it was nothing new, ad ISIS is not significantly worse that the Japanese military was in treatment of prisoners. As ;est sp far, ISIS has not practiced vivisection on POWs.

Given modern technology, we may someday watch live video on TV of captured female members of our military as they are being auctioned off as sex slaves in some ISIS slave market. How will our society react?

Rainmaker
12-07-2015, 07:11 PM
I'm sorry, I didn't catch the part where technology took us out of the animal kingdom.

What? Didn't you read the article Rusty?

"Carter acknowledged that the Marine Corps' recommendation was based on a conclusion that allowing women to serve in combat units would jeopardize readiness and combat effectiveness, but said he disagreed with that assessment."

Yes of course he did...... Because, The progressive social engineers have successfully repealed the laws of physics!

Rusty Jones
12-07-2015, 07:16 PM
I think that it is a result of bad judgement not independence being the problem. Men make the same kind of mistakes.

Notice how the decline of the "nuclear family" started in the 1960's, and has spiraled out of control since then; with single motherhood still becoming increasingly more common. The push for women to be more independant started at the same time. I don't see it as a coincidence.

Just to demonstrate what I was talking about earlier, I have an old friend from high school that I keep in contact with on facebook. She was, and still is, a total "daddy's girl." She was actually raised by her dad to believe that men will try to control her with their money. Not only that, but he actually gave her a house that was in the family - had already been paid for, decades ago. This was for the purpose of giving her more leverage in terms of finances and assets in whatever relationship she may be in.

She's currently a single mother of five children, by three fathers. She has a state job that pays 50K a year.

But she's always messing with bums. Drug dealers, wannabe rappers, dudes in their 30's who work fast food, men who are in an out of jail, have multiple children running around that they've never met, etc. She won't date a man who is on her level or higher. Why? Because she perceives such men to be a threat to her independence. That's what she was raised to believe. Not only that, but with all the things that she buys her boyfriends and the fact that she lets them move in with her... it puts her in a position of power to take things away from them, and kick them out of the house for any reason or none at all.

And this is common, although not necessarily to this extreme.

Again... if a woman wants to strictly rely on herself only, then she has nothing to gain by entering into a relationship with a man who is actually about something. In fact, the incentive is in dating a loser.

sandsjames
12-07-2015, 07:27 PM
Liker the appendix, evolution has made some development irreverent, and technology has made some simply silly. I have raised kids and I know single men who have raised kids, having a parent, preferably two dedicated to the task is all that is necessary.

The roles are defined but that doesn't make then any less obsolete and any less foolish

So you didn't answer the other question. When some guy knocks your wife/girlfriend/woman to the ground, you're just going to let her handle it, right?...cuz she's equal and all....

Rainmaker
12-07-2015, 07:37 PM
This has nothing to do with military readiness. It's all about opening up career advancement opportunities for another victim class, in this case a couple of hundred Feminist dykes.

But, what's also being missed in this discussion (so far) is that this opens ALL women up to the draft because, they were excluded partly because they were not eligible to serve in combat roles. Rostker v. Goldberg

http://library.jmls.edu/pdf/ir/lr/jmlr15/38_15JMarshallLRev725(1982).pdf

Basically the argument goes as follows..... "How can women fight for equal access if they don't share an equal burden?"

Which in Progressive Mouth full Of Dick speak translates as ......."NEVER MIND REALITY, THERE IS NOTHING A MAN CAN DO THAT A WOMAN CAN'T DO BETTER!!!! FORWARD COMRADES to DEFEND THE HOMELAND FROM WHITE MALE CHRISTIAN EXTREMISTS!!!"

Rainmaker
12-07-2015, 07:57 PM
Notice how the decline of the "nuclear family" started in the 1960's, and has spiraled out of control since then; with single motherhood still becoming increasingly more common. The push for women to be more independant started at the same time. I don't see it as a coincidence.



And this is common, although not necessarily to this extreme.

It's not a coincidence. Basically it comes down to the law of supply and demand.

The Marxists behind the Sexual revolution convinced women that they deserved to get to act like whores.

Mjölnir
12-07-2015, 09:18 PM
Add in
-Slavery,sex slavery and forced repeated gang rape as government programs, just as ISIS practices but on a larger scale,
-The "3 all's" policy, "kill all, burn all, loot all" That resulted in somewhere around 2.7 million Civilian deaths
-Retaliation for The Doolittle raid resulted in approximately 250,000 murders
-Nanjing Resulted in between 200 and 400,000 murders with at least 40,000 of them being POWs

The Japanese military made ISIS look relatively civilized, at the present rate it will take many years for ISIS to get a murder count to equal that the Japanese had achieved just by the end of 1937.

Most Americans pay attention to the relatively clean European war, but the Pacific part of WWII started earlier and was far more savage.

ISIS does those too, sex slavery, retaliation etc.

To say ISIS makes the Japanese look civilized is silly. Yes, Imperial Japan was responsible on a much larger scale (they after all had time and numbers to rack up 'quantity'). What makes ISIS worse is that these types of atrocities are core to the system of ISIS' beliefs. Most Japanese while believing the Emperor to be a living god, were against torture and murder. ISIS requires the participation of children in these events (as a method of indoctrination), something the Japanese did not do.

Of note, compare beheadings ... to the Japanese this was a soldier's death, done quickly. The ISIS method is to pretty much use a small knife as a hacksaw.

Yes, the Japanese did horrible things to prisoners, and to more prisoners than ISIS has. But when looking at the ideology, the reasoning behind why they video tape and publish what they do ... they are a far more brutal foe than the Japanese were.

ACME_MAN
12-07-2015, 11:18 PM
I'm all for it, but with respect to combat, there should be separate regiments for males and females. The primary purpose of combat troops is to kill. Social experimentation should be left out of the equation in that area.

TJMAC77SP
12-08-2015, 01:17 AM
I was responding direct to a post from the moderator, I was disagreeing with what he said... Do try to keep up.

Do yiou think that that a return to WII tactics is likely, or at all relevant to what we are discussing?

I sometimes think you have two people using your account................aside from the obvious difference in typing and syntax skill

Anyway, you were responding to a post by USN_Retired (not a moderator and not Garhkal as I stated).
http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php/9482-All-of-the-services-must-allow-women-into-all-fields?p=360197&viewfull=1#post360197 (http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php/9482-All-of-the-services-must-allow-women-into-all-fields?p=360197&viewfull=1#post360197)


You stated you objected to his hypothetical because it was silly. Evidently because it referred to a war "...a war a century, in round numbers, ago". That is not quite the same as objecting to it. Then you referred to WWII (not I and not USN)

None of my posts referred to any comment you made in response to Mjölnir's comments. His responses to you speak for themselves.

Who is it that is having trouble keeping up?

MikeKerriii
12-08-2015, 01:44 AM
I'm all for it, but with respect to combat, there should be separate regiments for males and females. The primary purpose of combat troops is to kill. Social experimentation should be left out of the equation in that area.

With the nouns changed you sound l just like the fools in 1948 whining about Truman.

MikeKerriii
12-08-2015, 01:47 AM
I sometimes think you have two people using your account................aside from the obvious difference in typing and syntax skill

Anyway, you were responding to a post by USN_Retired (not a moderator and not Garhkal as I stated).
http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php/9482-All-of-the-services-must-allow-women-into-all-fields?p=360197&viewfull=1#post360197 (http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php/9482-All-of-the-services-must-allow-women-into-all-fields?p=360197&viewfull=1#post360197)


You stated you objected to his hypothetical because it was silly. Evidently because it referred to a war "...a war a century, in round numbers, ago". That is not quite the same as objecting to it. Then you referred to WWII (not I and not USN)

None of my posts referred to any comment you made in response to Mjölnir's comments. His responses to you speak for themselves.

Who is it that is having trouble keeping up?


the one having trouble

Do you get you jollies hypocritically stalking me?
You are

garhkal
12-08-2015, 03:52 AM
It's my understanding that, as a result to open up combat arms to women, the requirement for women to register for the selective service is about to be set in stone... if it's not already.

I'm of the mind that this was required of men... because we're supposed to fight, so our women don't have to. We're supposed to be the ones protecting women and children. Now, if women WANT to fight, great. But... I'm not so sure that forcing them to fight is a great idea.

As we all know, in order for a species to continue to exist, its females must be protected. Males are expendable. In a study released in 2006, many experts believe that the lack of gender roles is what led to the extinction of Neanderthals (i.e., Neanderthal women actually hunted and performed other tasks where their health and lives were at risk), and that gender roles is what allowed AMH's (Anatomically Modern Humans) to flourish.

I'm not saying that I believe that a woman's place is in the kitchen or the home, or anything like that.

However... I do have a problem with the whole "gender fluidity" thing and the fact that there appears to be less and less of a difference between men and women. Everyone is more androgynous these days.

I really do believe that there are various double standards out there. Men benefit from some, women benefit from others... so it evens out.

If you ask me, men bitching about having to register for the selective service while women don't have to... is one big example of how feminized men have become in recent years. I'm only 36 years old, so I don't know for sure if men were complaining about women not being drafted back in 1968. I'm there there were a few out there, but my money is on it not being the norm that it is today.

If anything rusty, i think YOU have gotten too 'feminized' into believing that women should have all the benefits of 'equal opportunity' but not the responsibility that goes WITH it.


Absolutely...and we know how we handled Japan...so we should definitely let the nukes start dropping in the Middle East.

Agreed. Japan was IMO as bad as ISIS is, and we dealt them 2 massive blows in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We should be doing exactly the same with ISIS.. Drop a tac nuke on their so called capital of their caliphate!


Technically the US hasn't won a war since they desegregated the military...... So, Maybe they're on to something?

True, Korea was just a police action.. And we are still Embroiled in the one with the radical muslims..


I'm all for it, but with respect to combat, there should be separate regiments for males and females. The primary purpose of combat troops is to kill. Social experimentation should be left out of the equation in that area.

Social experimentation should be left out of the military period. Leave us to do our job. FIGHT AND KILL THE ENEMY!

TJMAC77SP
12-08-2015, 04:12 AM
the one having trouble

Do you get you jollies hypocritically stalking me?
You are

Perfect example of when I was talking about two people using your account.

What the hell is this supposed to say?

Channeling Yoda you are.

MikeKerriii
12-08-2015, 05:19 AM
Agreed. Japan was IMO as bad as ISIS is, and we dealt them 2 massive blows in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We should be doing exactly the same with ISIS.. Drop a tac nuke on their so called capital of their caliphate! thus killing far more netrals and friend than enemuies, losing our allies en-mass and making far w more enmies than we want to have. The Folks in Japan were enemies, if we bomb Rakka we will be killing many allies and neutrals, not to mention the likelihood quite a few Russian mitary I wonder how the US c would fiction when even Canada and the UK cease diplomatic relations and start treating us like the Rouge state that we would have become people. ISIS is less a danger to American citizens than the flu, why makes it a more significant threat?






Social experimentation should be left out of the military period. Leave us to do our job. FIGHT AND KILL THE ENEMY! So we should have an all white male military. We should have no significant standing forces There should be negligible promotion between social classes that also define the rank structure ,officers being almost exclusively from the "gentleman class, The rights of the common soldier being almost no-existent.. All those changes were "Social Experimentation" most of which were considered radical and risky at the time. For example a large standing mitary was considered Anti-American for most of US history, but has been the norm within our lifetime

What year or century would you prefer to freeze the military into, 18th, 19th or 20th? the military is part of society whether anyone like it or not, people and societies change and the mitary must also.

MikeKerriii
12-08-2015, 05:45 AM
Agreed. Japan was IMO as bad as ISIS is, and we dealt them 2 massive blows in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We should be doing exactly the same with ISIS.. Drop a tac nuke on their so called capital of their caliphate! Killing more friends and neutrals than enemies, Cutting all our ties with even our closet allies as they back away carefully from the rogue state that we would have become, and making billions of new enemies is supposed to help fix things.

That's like killing the rats in your basement with a napalm air strike. Not to mention all the Turkish civilians that would be dying of the next couple of decades, dying a particularly horrible death at that

What good do you imagine that a tac nuke would do?, by modern standards Hiroshima was a mid-sized tactical nuke

Also it would give the go ahead for other to use nukes, What happens the next time India and Pakistan fight and atomic weapons are no longer unthinkable weapons of last resort but a weapon like any other? That is a genie we desperately need to keep in the bottle.





Social experimentation should be left out of the military period. Leave us to do our job. FIGHT AND KILL THE ENEMY!
Promotion of people outside the "Gentleman" classes to Officer ranks
Enlisted troops being fully entitled to due process
Soldiers being allowed to vote
Non-whites being allowed to serve
Women being allowed to serve in any capacity
Having a standing military of any significant size

All of those were social experiments that were considered risky at the time, a few like having a large standing mitary were considered anti-American for most of US history.

All of those things required social experimentation to fix, Letting the military remain socially fixed in time while the rest of society moves on is a pretty risky social experiment itself, if for no other reason is that military people will over time become both as weird and rare an an organization trying to live in the 1950 would be now. In a few years recruiting would be as difficult as the KKK finds recruiting now and for the same reasons.

What century do you want the mitary to be socially frozen at, the 18th, 19th or 20th, you obviously don't want much to do with the 21st

sandsjames
12-08-2015, 10:55 AM
Ok...WTF is up with these two posts? One all jacked up...the other, almost identical, but much more coherent. Exactly how many people are we conversing with here?


thus killing far more netrals and friend than enemuies, losing our allies en-mass and making far w more enmies than we want to have. The Folks in Japan were enemies, if we bomb Rakka we will be killing many allies and neutrals, not to mention the likelihood quite a few Russian mitary I wonder how the US c would fiction when even Canada and the UK cease diplomatic relations and start treating us like the Rouge state that we would have become people. ISIS is less a danger to American citizens than the flu, why makes it a more significant threat?




So we should have an all white male military. We should have no significant standing forces There should be negligible promotion between social classes that also define the rank structure ,officers being almost exclusively from the "gentleman class, The rights of the common soldier being almost no-existent.. All those changes were "Social Experimentation" most of which were considered radical and risky at the time. For example a large standing mitary was considered Anti-American for most of US history, but has been the norm within our lifetime

What year or century would you prefer to freeze the military into, 18th, 19th or 20th? the military is part of society whether anyone like it or not, people and societies change and the mitary must also.



Killing more friends and neutrals than enemies, Cutting all our ties with even our closet allies as they back away carefully from the rogue state that we would have become, and making billions of new enemies is supposed to help fix things.

That's like killing the rats in your basement with a napalm air strike. Not to mention all the Turkish civilians that would be dying of the next couple of decades, dying a particularly horrible death at that

What good do you imagine that a tac nuke would do?, by modern standards Hiroshima was a mid-sized tactical nuke

Also it would give the go ahead for other to use nukes, What happens the next time India and Pakistan fight and atomic weapons are no longer unthinkable weapons of last resort but a weapon like any other? That is a genie we desperately need to keep in the bottle.




Promotion of people outside the "Gentleman" classes to Officer ranks
Enlisted troops being fully entitled to due process
Soldiers being allowed to vote
Non-whites being allowed to serve
Women being allowed to serve in any capacity
Having a standing military of any significant size

All of those were social experiments that were considered risky at the time, a few like having a large standing mitary were considered anti-American for most of US history.

All of those things required social experimentation to fix, Letting the military remain socially fixed in time while the rest of society moves on is a pretty risky social experiment itself, if for no other reason is that military people will over time become both as weird and rare an an organization trying to live in the 1950 would be now. In a few years recruiting would be as difficult as the KKK finds recruiting now and for the same reasons.

What century do you want the mitary to be socially frozen at, the 18th, 19th or 20th, you obviously don't want much to do with the 21st

Rusty Jones
12-08-2015, 12:19 PM
If anything rusty, i think YOU have gotten too 'feminized' into believing that women should have all the benefits of 'equal opportunity' but not the responsibility that goes WITH it.

Garhkal... who's the one bitching and complaining about women and what they're allowed to do? Ah... you! That's what women have reduced YOU to. Yeah, I think you might want to shut the fuck up about other people being feminized. Especially considering the fact that women having rights is prompting you to want to step down from your role as a man.

giggawatt
12-08-2015, 12:54 PM
Considering that females will now have to register for the draft, I wonder how much of the non-feminist female population is actually happy about this new progressive policy. My guess is not much.

Rusty Jones
12-08-2015, 01:07 PM
Younger men who think like Garhkal are going to start thinking again real soon if shit hits the fan. Especially in a situation where a married man's wife has a lower number than he does.

sandsjames
12-08-2015, 01:14 PM
Mike...since you've avoided this question twice already, I'll ask it one last time, in a different manner.

You're standing on the street. You see two guys arguing. One guy hits the other guy. Do you get involved? Now, you see a guy and a woman arguing. The guy hits the woman. Do you get involved? Do you view it any different, or respond any different, than if guy hits a guy?

Don't worry, I don't expect you to answer because it's a no-win for you. If you say that you do view it different when the guy hits the woman then you are contradicting yourself. If you say you wouldn't get involved when a guy hits the woman than you are an embarrassment.

USN - Retired
12-08-2015, 01:16 PM
All combat jobs are now open to women; however, the NFL does not have even one football player who is a woman. Is a professional foot ball game more dangerous than direct hand-to-hand combat? Why are there no women playing football in the NFL? I'm just askin'.

Rainmaker
12-08-2015, 01:32 PM
Ok...WTF is up with these two posts? One all jacked up...the other, almost identical, but much more coherent. Exactly how many people are we conversing with here?

Shit Nelson!!! This Op has been Compromised//

....ALL HASBARA TROLL HANDS ON DECK.......ALL HASBARA TROLL HANDS ON DECK..... ALL HASABARA TROLL HANDS MAN YOUR BATTLE STATIONS.....

giggawatt
12-08-2015, 01:37 PM
All combat jobs are now open to women; however, the NFL does not have even one football player who is a woman. Is a professional foot ball game more dangerous than direct hand-to-hand combat? Why are there no women playing football in the NFL? I'm just askin'.

I don't know the answer to that question because we all know that there is no such thing as a weaker sex. Women can do any job that a man can do. And professional football is quite a lucrative job. We need more women in the NFL.

Bos Mutus
12-08-2015, 01:38 PM
All combat jobs are now open to women; however, the NFL does not have even one football player who is a woman. Is a professional foot ball game more dangerous than direct hand-to-hand combat? Why are there no women playing football in the NFL? I'm just askin'.

Women are not banned from the NFL, either.

Rainmaker
12-08-2015, 01:46 PM
Women are not banned from the NFL, either.

6 minutes since we sounded the alarm! What on Earth took you so long?

Rusty Jones
12-08-2015, 02:01 PM
Women are not banned from the NFL, either.

You're about to get interrogated, as if you're the one responsible for there not being any women in the NFL... and then the thread will have officially been hijacked.

I was about to answer the question myself, until I stepped back and thought about this.

sandsjames
12-08-2015, 02:05 PM
The "tough girl" in high school tried out for the football team. Day 1 of practice she separated her shoulder on the tackling dummy.

I was going to try out for the girls tennis team but I wasn't nearly manly enough.

/hijack over

Rainmaker
12-08-2015, 02:05 PM
WTF Bos?? It's been over 30 minutes and still no word from your handmaiden Absinthe Anecdote....

There Must've been traffic jam over at the Pentagon's "Diversity & Inclusion" Directorate!!

MikeKerriii
12-08-2015, 04:07 PM
Mike...since you've avoided this question twice already, I'll ask it one last time, in a different manner.

You're standing on the street. You see two guys arguing. One guy hits the other guy. Do you get involved? Now, you see a guy and a woman arguing. The guy hits the woman. Do you get involved? Do you view it any different, or respond any different, than if guy hits a guy?

Don't worry, I don't expect you to answer because it's a no-win for you. If you say that you do view it different when the guy hits the woman then you are contradicting yourself. If you say you wouldn't get involved when a guy hits the woman than you are an embarrassment.

It depends on a lot of thing if I see a big guy hitting a little guy I intervene, if i I see someone like My future daughter-in law being hit by a 5'5" 120 pond man, I watch and laugh as he is taken apart. I would intervene when the power deferential is too great, thus protecting the weak.

That is a clear win for me becasue I am not stuck in the past.

MikeKerriii
12-08-2015, 04:10 PM
Younger men who think like Garhkal are going to start thinking again real soon if shit hits the fan. Especially in a situation where a married man's wife has a lower number than he does.

I have been hearing the same type of line, about different tings my entire life. My father And I joked about him hearing it in the 40s and we both thought that my grandfather heard it in WWI.

MikeKerriii
12-08-2015, 04:21 PM
Ok...WTF is up with these two posts? One all jacked up...the other, almost identical, but much more coherent. Exactly how many people are we conversing with here?

One post one of the got hung up and I thought it was lost

Bos Mutus
12-08-2015, 10:19 PM
Sergeant Major Speaks Out On Women In Combat

Ok, been silent long enough on this. I have been a part of this process from the beginning and I am just going to put it out there. The Secretary of the Navy is way off base on this and to say the things he is saying is flat out counter to the interests of national security and is unfair to the women who participated in this study.

...

The best women in The GCEITF as a group in regard to infantry operations were equal or below in most all cases to the lowest 5 percent of men as a group in this test study. They are slower on all accounts in almost every technical and tactical aspect and physically weaker in every aspect across the range of military operations.



https://www.funker530.com/sergeant-major-speaks-out-on-women-in-combat/



I don't really doubt what the SgtMaj says is true...I guess my question would be, though, why is it necessary then to ban women? If they don't make it, they don't make it...and maybe we won't ever have a woman batting 4th for the Yankess...but, maybe batting 8th for the Marlins one day...or kicking for the Buffalo Bills? Maybe never...and if that's the case, why do they need to be banned?

IF one of those Top Women is in the bottom 5% of the men...doesn't that allow you to drop the lowest 1% of men and improve your team?

sandsjames
12-08-2015, 10:27 PM
[/SIZE]

I don't really doubt what the SgtMaj says is true...I guess my question would be, though, why is it necessary then to ban women? If they don't make it, they don't make it...and maybe we won't ever have a woman batting 4th for the Yankess...but, maybe batting 8th for the Marlins one day...or kicking for the Buffalo Bills? Maybe never...and if that's the case, why do they need to be banned?

IF one of those Top Women is in the bottom 5% of the men...doesn't that allow you to drop the lowest 1% of men and improve your team? [/h]

It costs a lot of money to train people. There are only a certain amount of slots to be filled based on manning levels. If you fill those slots with people who are extremely likely to fail, then it's wasting time and money. It's the reason we have minimum requirements on ASVAB scores for career fields. Is it likely that some of those who scored below the cutoffs could succeed and become outstanding troops/technicians and improve the force as a whole? Absolutely. But it's not worth the cost to take that risk.

Bos Mutus
12-08-2015, 10:36 PM
It costs a lot of money to train people. There are only a certain amount of slots to be filled based on manning levels. If you fill those slots with people who are extremely likely to fail, then it's wasting time and money. It's the reason we have minimum requirements on ASVAB scores for career fields. Is it likely that some of those who scored below the cutoffs could succeed and become outstanding troops/technicians and improve the force as a whole? Absolutely. But it's not worth the cost to take that risk.

The difference there is "ASVAB scores" shows individual aptitude. If we eliminated people because "A lot of people from Florida get low ASVAB scores, so we're not gonna let Floridians test anymore...the tests cost money, you know"...then it's not based on individual.

I don't know how they select people for the various training, I'm sure they have some kind of pre-screen test...but shouldn't it just be on individual achievement and lack thereof instead of on their demographics and how their group as a whole performs?

Again, we're at the...if a male fails we say, "there is one weak man"...if a woman fails we say "see, women can't do this."

Don't misconstrue that as me saying men and women are equally capable...clearly they are not. Opening up all jobs to women probably won't make much of a difference...very few, if any, will make it...so why go out of way to ban them from trying..I don't see the point.

sandsjames
12-08-2015, 10:41 PM
The difference there is "ASVAB scores" shows individual aptitude. If we eliminated people because "A lot of people from Kentucky failed, so we're not taking anyone from Kentucky"...then it's not based on individual.

I don't know how they select people for the various training, I'm sure they have some kind of pre-screen test...but shouldn't it just be on individual achievement and lack thereof instead of on their demographics and how their group as a whole performs?

Again, we're at the...if a male fails we say, "there is one weak man"...if a woman fails we say "see, women can't do this."

As I said, I truly believe it's more of a money thing...which includes logistics. I've never been in combat, but I'd assume that hygiene is pretty difficult to maintain. There are several excuses I could give, I suppose.

Bos Mutus
12-08-2015, 10:55 PM
As I said, I truly believe it's more of a money thing...which includes logistics. I've never been in combat, but I'd assume that hygiene is pretty difficult to maintain. There are several excuses I could give, I suppose.

Logistics and hygience? Oh, all the extra cargo space carrying maxipads into theater?

I'm sure we could go through the whole litany of excuses...that's how these kinds of discussion on banning whoever usually goes. "Well what about all the breast cancer...did you know women have 98% of all new cases of breast cancer? How will that affect the budget?" blah, blah.

Seriously...the Marines spent how much studying this to justify their ban...when if they just lifted it, it probably wouldn't have made a difference...

When I joined the AF, women were banned from USAF Security Forces.

Bos Mutus
12-08-2015, 11:38 PM
Vermont Soldier 1st Woman to Graduate as Combat EngineerCOLCHESTER, Vt. (AP) — A Vermont National Guard soldier is the first woman in the U.S. Army to qualify as a combat engineer.
Spc. Skylar Anderson,
of Derry, New Hampshire, says it was a "big eye-opener" when her
instructors told her over the summer that she was the first woman to
complete the course allowing her to work alongside combat troops. The
job can include clearing mine fields, defusing or detonating roadside
bombs and building or destroying bridges.

Anderson, a 20-year-old University of Vermont junior, says she hopes she can be a role model for other women in the military.
The U.S. military has been grappling for years with how best to integrate
women in the services into combat. On Thursday, Defense Secretary Ash
Carter ordered the services to open all combat jobs to women.
http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/56146785-story


Reckon we'll be seeing a lot of "First this" and "First that"

MikeKerriii
12-09-2015, 12:23 AM
It costs a lot of money to train people. There are only a certain amount of slots to be filled based on manning levels. If you fill those slots with people who are extremely likely to fail, then it's wasting time and money. It's the reason we have minimum requirements on ASVAB scores for career fields. Is it likely that some of those who scored below the cutoffs could succeed and become outstanding troops/technicians and improve the force as a whole? Absolutely. But it's not worth the cost to take that risk. As they do with many difficult courses, run a screening test first. Problem solved.

MikeKerriii
12-09-2015, 12:28 AM
Logistics and hygience? Oh, all the extra cargo space carrying maxipads into theater?

I'm sure we could go through the whole litany of excuses...that's how these kinds of discussion on banning whoever usually goes. "Well what about all the breast cancer...did you know women have 98% of all new cases of breast cancer? How will that affect the budget?" blah, blah.

Seriously...the Marines spent how much studying this to justify their ban...when if they just lifted it, it probably wouldn't have made a difference...

When I joined the AF, women were banned from USAF Security Forces. When I joined they had just lifted the Ban from most Communications 30XXX fields, why that ban was in existence is a mystery.

I guess folks figure that if they let Women in macho posturing is less effective.

Rainmaker
12-09-2015, 12:44 AM
When I joined they had just lifted the Ban from most Communications 30XXX fields, why that ban was in existence is a mystery.

I guess folks figure that if they let Women in macho posturing is less effective.

It's because prior to the establishment of the all male TACP AFSC 275, those duties were performed by 304's Ground Radio many of whom were attached to Combat Units in Vietnam

USN - Retired
12-09-2015, 12:59 AM
I don't really doubt what the SgtMaj says is true...I guess my question would be, though, why is it necessary then to ban women? If they don't make it, they don't make it...and maybe we won't ever have a woman batting 4th for the Yankess...but, maybe batting 8th for the Marlins one day...or kicking for the Buffalo Bills? Maybe never...and if that's the case, why do they need to be banned?

I am a 52 year old man. The military would never send me through direct combat training (SEAL, Ranger, etc). Why? Because I am too old. The military wouldn't even let a 52 year old man enlist.

If we're not going to restrict women from entering training for direct combat jobs then why have age limits on persons who enter training for direct combat jobs? Should we let people in their 50's go through SEAL and Ranger training? Perhaps a few old farts like me will make it through the training.

The military should ban women from those types of training (i.e., SEAL, Ranger, etc) for the same reason that old farts like me ARE banned from those types of training. We're probably not going to make it through the training, and it would be a waste of tax payer money to send us through the training.


Again, we're at the...if a male fails we say, "there is one weak man"...if a woman fails we say "see, women can't do this."

A few men may say "see, women can't do this" if/when a woman fails the training. Those men will be accused of hating women. If the majority of women fail the training, the liberals and feminists will blame the evil patriarchy and demand that the standards be lowered so more women can pass.

Bos Mutus
12-09-2015, 02:47 AM
I am a 52 year old man. The military would never send me through direct combat training (SEAL, Ranger, etc). Why? Because I am too old. The military wouldn't even let a 52 year old man enlist.

If we're not going to restrict women from entering training for direct combat jobs then why have age limits on persons who enter training for direct combat jobs? Should we let people in their 50's go through SEAL and Ranger training? Perhaps a few old farts like me will make it through the training.

The military should ban women from those types of training (i.e., SEAL, Ranger, etc) for the same reason that old farts like me ARE banned from those types of training. We're probably not going to make it through the training, and it would be a waste of tax payer money to send us through the training.


A few men may say "see, women can't do this" if/when a woman fails the training. Those men will be accused of hating women. If the majority of women fail the training, the liberals and feminists will blame the evil patriarchy and demand that the standards be lowered so more women can pass.

Lol....I don't think that's why you get accused of hating women, dude

garhkal
12-09-2015, 03:29 AM
Garhkal... who's the one bitching and complaining about women and what they're allowed to do? Ah... you! That's what women have reduced YOU to. Yeah, I think you might want to shut the fuck up about other people being feminized. Especially considering the fact that women having rights is prompting you to want to step down from your role as a man.

Excuse me?? My 'role' as a man? Where is it wrote what that is?
Where does someone get trained in it?
Do women also have their own 'role'? Oh yea, we have gotten away from that cause of feminism.. So why is that ok, but us men 'have to shut up and go back to your role'??


Younger men who think like Garhkal are going to start thinking again real soon if shit hits the fan. Especially in a situation where a married man's wife has a lower number than he does.

I'm almost 42.. I ain't young.
And what # are you on about??


All combat jobs are now open to women; however, the NFL does not have even one football player who is a woman. Is a professional foot ball game more dangerous than direct hand-to-hand combat? Why are there no women playing football in the NFL? I'm just askin'.

That is a very good point? Nor do we have women on the same national teams for Soccer, Hockey etc.. Heck even in schools, once you get into HS level, the teams segregate..

MikeKerriii
12-09-2015, 03:41 AM
It's because prior to the establishment of the all male TACP AFSC 275, those duties were performed by 304's Ground Radio many of whom were attached to Combat Units in Vietnam
That would make sense for the 3o4s, what about all the other 30XXXs? A 307XO for example was about as likely to be found on the front line as a military historian, or perhaps less likely.

MikeKerriii
12-09-2015, 03:49 AM
Excuse me?? My 'role' as a man? Where is it wrote what that is?
Where does someone get trained in it?
Do women also have their own 'role'? Oh yea, we have gotten away from that cause of feminism.. So why is that ok, but us men 'have to shut up and go back to your role'?? A mans "role' was something that men had back in the days when men were terrified of completing with women as equals. It is nothing anyone living in the current century has to worry about. Being an decent human being works well enough in the modern worlds




I'm almost 42.. I ain't young.
LOL, young is a relative term, I was in the USAF before you were born so you are young to me, but my neighbor calls me "young man".

MikeKerriii
12-09-2015, 03:58 AM
All combat jobs are now open to women; however, the NFL does not have even one football player who is a woman. Is a professional foot ball game more dangerous than direct hand-to-hand combat? Why are there no women playing football in the NFL? I'm just askin'.

You won't find too many 5 '5" 120 pound men in the NFL either bit you will find quite a few in a infantry outfit, I that also describes perhaps the most deadly and renowned infantry soldier in US history.

Do they forbid Vietnamese and Filipino immigrants from being infantry soldiers, I have know some of them that would be called petite if they were women, I also know that they tend to make very good soldiers and airmen.

The most decorated Infantry unit in WWII was comprise mostly of people no bigger than the average American woman of today, or even of that time

USN - Retired
12-09-2015, 05:19 AM
You won't find too many 5 '5" 120 pound men in the NFL either bit you will find quite a few in a infantry outfit, I that also describes perhaps the most deadly and renowned infantry soldier in US history.

A 5 '5" 120 pound man has significantly more upper body strength than a 5 '5" 120 pound woman.


The most decorated Infantry unit in WWII was comprise mostly of people no bigger than the average American woman of today, or even of that time

The average American woman today weighs 166.2 pounds.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/12/look-at-how-much-weight-weve-gained-since-the-1960s/

Of course, an obese woman will still not have as much upper body strength as a man.

USN - Retired
12-09-2015, 06:00 AM
A mans "role' was something that men had back in the days when men were terrified of completing with women as equals. It is nothing anyone living in the current century has to worry about.

There is no longer a man's "role"??? That's good to know.



Being an decent human being works well enough in the modern worlds


So does that mean that a man no longer needs to "man up" and "be a real man"? Now that we have eliminated the "man's role", does that mean that a man no longer has to financially support his wife?



...the modern worlds

So, are you saying that we have more than one world?

sandsjames
12-09-2015, 10:18 AM
When I joined the AF, women were banned from USAF Security Forces.I believe they still are. At least the one's I see working at the gate.

Mjölnir
12-09-2015, 11:07 AM
I believe they still are. At least the one's I see working at the gate.

They have female SP's manning the gate at Andrews AFB and Barksdale for sure.

TJMAC77SP
12-09-2015, 11:54 AM
The ban on women in the Security Forces is no longer in effect. Prior to the merger of the career field (or in historical context, the remerger) women were only allowed in Law Enforcement (and CATM since they are now part of the career field).

In my experience the only universal limitations of having women in the career field were cultural (men who wanted to 'do' for the women and women who played helpless female. The former was common, the later very rare). Most problems I have seen were rooted in the men and not the women.

Of course that is not to say that as a whole this would be true across the myriad of jobs and specialties of the US Military

giggawatt
12-09-2015, 11:58 AM
I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that SJ was joking and that was a dig at the overall attractive quality of the majority of females in the SF field.

sandsjames
12-09-2015, 12:18 PM
They have female SP's manning the gate at Andrews AFB and Barksdale for sure.Don't get me wrong. I believe they are technically females. They just don't look like it.

sandsjames
12-09-2015, 12:18 PM
I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that SJ was joking and that was a dig at the overall attractive quality of the majority of females in the SF field.

You are correct, sir.

Rainmaker
12-09-2015, 12:52 PM
Rainmaker's local installation is guarded by a 5-4" 145lb Latina Lioness.

She has Silky brown hair and bedroom eyes the color of chestnuts.

The best way I could describe her is that She's built like a smaller version of a Lane Bryant model with curves, if you know what I mean........Strangely, She wears these Blue Latex Surgical gloves when she checks your ID card.

Now, I don't really know if she could stop a Hardened ISIS Terrorist that's all hopped up on Captagon And really Determined to commit Jihad.

But, I must admit that every time I see her at the gate a little fantasy plays out in my head where she asks me to "please step out of the vehicle Sir" and then she proceeds to gently fondle my balls. Nomsayin?

Bos Mutus
12-09-2015, 01:07 PM
Don't get me wrong. I believe they are technically females. They just don't look like it.

There are some cuties I've seen.

Anyway...it does seem like SF has a TON of females nowadays...either that are SF always puts them at the gates...next to medical, it seems like one of the most popular career fields for women is SF.

Maintenance seems to be the last of the boys' clubs...though we're getting more females in maint than there used to be...still heavily tilted male.

sandsjames
12-09-2015, 01:13 PM
There are some cuties I've seen.

Anyway...it does seem like SF has a TON of females nowadays...either that are SF always puts them at the gates...next to medical, it seems like one of the most popular career fields for women is SF.

Maintenance seems to be the last of the boys' clubs...though we're getting more females in maint than there used to be...still heavily tilted male.CE is still pretty much a boys club, too, when you look at the base support people (Plumbers, carpenters, heavy equipment, electrician, power pro). There are a few more in Readiness and the job controllers, but as far as the hands on people, mostly male. Even where I am now, there are 85 military instructors...2 of those are female.

giggawatt
12-09-2015, 01:31 PM
SJ is right. The majority of females in CE are almost always found in customer service, readiness, and engineering assistants. The other "trade" shops are merely dotted with the occasional female and they not often attractive. My current shop has a female. First one in years. She's pretty laid back and works hard. Never takes offense or makes a big deal about shit.

On this most recent deployment, my shop had a rather attractive female. And I'm not talking about deployment goggles attractive either.

Rusty Jones
12-09-2015, 01:45 PM
SJ is right. The majority of females in CE are almost always found in customer service, readiness, and engineering assistants. The other "trade" shops are merely dotted with the occasional female and they not often attractive. My current shop has a female. First one in years. She's pretty laid back and works hard. Never takes offense or makes a big deal about shit.

On this most recent deployment, my shop had a rather attractive female. And I'm not talking about deployment goggles attractive either.

Yep, this is pretty much the same thing at the APS. Cargo, ramp, and fleet - all male with the occasional female (usually unattractive or even masculine), with all other the females in PAX and ATOC.

TJMAC77SP
12-09-2015, 02:56 PM
Rainmaker's local installation is guarded by a 5-4" 145lb Latina Lioness.

She has Silky brown hair and bedroom eyes the color of chestnuts. The best way I could describe her is that She's built like a smaller version of a Lane Bryant model with curves, if you know what I mean........Strangely, She wears these Blue Latex Surgical gloves when she checks your ID card.

Now, I don't really know if she could stop a Hardened ISIS Terrorist that's all hopped up on Captagon And really Determined to commit Jihad.

But, I must admit that every time I see her at the gate a little fantasy plays out in my head where she asks me to "please step out of the vehicle Sir" and then she proceeds to gently fondle my balls. Nomsayin?


Admission of the day.............I had to Google 'Captagon'.

TJMAC77SP
12-09-2015, 02:58 PM
I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that SJ was joking and that was a dig at the overall attractive quality of the majority of females in the SF field.

By jove Gig, you are right. I missed the part that said "at least the ones I have seen guarding the gate'.

Had touch of MK disease this morning

I don't agree with him as I have seen some very, very attractive women in the SF field (I even married one many eons ago)

sandsjames
12-09-2015, 03:07 PM
By jove Gig, you are right. I missed the part that said "at least the ones I have seen guarding the gate'.

Had touch of MK disease this morning

I don't agree with him as I have seen some very, very attractive women in the SF field (I even married one many eons ago)

I was simply playing to stereotypes for entertainment value.

TJMAC77SP
12-09-2015, 03:13 PM
I was simply playing to stereotypes for entertainment value.

I got that part......I really did.........once I saw the joke.

MikeKerriii
12-09-2015, 03:54 PM
A 5 '5" 120 pound man has significantly more upper body strength than a 5 '5" 120 pound woman.



The average American woman today weighs 166.2 pounds.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/12/look-at-how-much-weight-weve-gained-since-the-1960s/

Of course, an obese woman will still not have as much upper body strength as a man. The average man is obese also so what is your point? The average 5'5 120 Man is not stronger that the Average 5'10 160 Pound woman so again what is your point? Americans in general are so unhealthy that the number of people who could even be drafted or enlist is getting alarmingly low, Letting women fill every job helps with that.

That all can be fixed with what the Army has been working on, a fixed standards for each MOS, that is gender neutral. That makes the decision based on of capability not old fashioned bias and/or bigotry.

MikeKerriii
12-09-2015, 04:05 PM
I believe they still are. At least the one's I see working at the gate.
They have not been barred form that serve for decades?

From the USAF Web page: http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/109017/air-force-sets-plan-to-integrate-women-in-combat-jobs-by-2016.aspx

"The current Air Force specialty codes that do not allow females to enter due to the 1994 Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule include: combat rescue officer; special tactics officer; special operations weather officer; enlisted combat controller; enlisted tactical air command and control party; enlisted pararescue and enlisted special operations weather.'

Most Combat positions In the USAF have been open to women for many years already.

Less than 5000 positions are currently barred in the AF anyway

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/17/air-force-working-on-plans-to-allow-women-to-compete-for-last-7-male-only-jobs/

If a woman can make it though the training for those Jobs she is definitely qualified to do those jobs.

Rusty Jones
12-09-2015, 04:06 PM
The average 5'5 120 Man is not stronger that the Average 5'10 160 Pound woman

Did you really just say this? LOL

MikeKerriii
12-09-2015, 04:08 PM
The ban on women in the Security Forces is no longer in effect. Prior to the merger of the career field (or in historical context, the remerger) women were only allowed in Law Enforcement (and CATM since they are now part of the career field).

In my experience the only universal limitations of having women in the career field were cultural (men who wanted to 'do' for the women and women who played helpless female. The former was common, the later very rare). Most problems I have seen were rooted in the men and not the women.

Of course that is not to say that as a whole this would be true across the myriad of jobs and specialties of the US Military

I agree with you completely. Both of those problems tended to fade when women NCOs became more common, they were less likely to put up with either of those behavior's

MikeKerriii
12-09-2015, 04:12 PM
Did you really just say this? LOL

I both said it and know it to be a fact, what is your problem. If both are trained with the same regimen it is true

Rusty Jones
12-09-2015, 04:19 PM
I both said it and know it to be a fact, what is your problem. If both are trained with the same regimen it is true

LOL, no it's not.

I'm facebook friends with old high school buddy who is only 5'1," and probably doesn't even weigh 120. Doesn't work out, or train in any martial art. He was a very popular guy in school, and most of the women he dates are taller than him. He also has multiple domestic abuse convictions.

If we put the two hypothetical people together in an arm wrestling match, are you really going to put the money on the woman?

Rainmaker
12-09-2015, 04:25 PM
Did you really just say this? LOL

No way that there's Anyone who actually believes this drivel, that doesn't also sit down to piss.

Bos Mutus
12-09-2015, 04:27 PM
The ban on women in the Security Forces is no longer in effect. Prior to the merger of the career field (or in historical context, the remerger) women were only allowed in Law Enforcement (and CATM since they are now part of the career field).

In my experience the only universal limitations of having women in the career field were cultural (men who wanted to 'do' for the women and women who played helpless female. The former was common, the later very rare). Most problems I have seen were rooted in the men and not the women.

Of course that is not to say that as a whole this would be true across the myriad of jobs and specialties of the US Military

I'd have to say it's true of maintenance as well.

When I was growing up, though never banned to my knowledge, it was exceedingly rare to have women in maintenance...when they started showing up, the biggest thing was the fear of being taken to MEO for a joke...once that female told a dirty joke herself it was usually back to normal....maybe some of the grab-ass games gone forever...

Rusty Jones
12-09-2015, 04:27 PM
I'm also told that if a male midget were to punch you in the face, it would actually be just as hard as a punch from a man of normal size in the same physical shape.

sandsjames
12-09-2015, 05:13 PM
They have not been barred form that serve for decades?

From the USAF Web page: http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/109017/air-force-sets-plan-to-integrate-women-in-combat-jobs-by-2016.aspx

"The current Air Force specialty codes that do not allow females to enter due to the 1994 Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule include: combat rescue officer; special tactics officer; special operations weather officer; enlisted combat controller; enlisted tactical air command and control party; enlisted pararescue and enlisted special operations weather.'

Most Combat positions In the USAF have been open to women for many years already.

Less than 5000 positions are currently barred in the AF anyway

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/17/air-force-working-on-plans-to-allow-women-to-compete-for-last-7-male-only-jobs/

If a woman can make it though the training for those Jobs she is definitely qualified to do those jobs.


Sometimes I feel like I'm talking to Robert F. Dorr.

Mjölnir
12-09-2015, 10:55 PM
Don't get me wrong. I believe they are technically females. They just don't look like it.

+1, at least on a case by case basis for sure.

garhkal
12-10-2015, 03:10 AM
I'd have to say it's true of maintenance as well.

When I was growing up, though never banned to my knowledge, it was exceedingly rare to have women in maintenance...when they started showing up, the biggest thing was the fear of being taken to MEO for a joke...once that female told a dirty joke herself it was usually back to normal....maybe some of the grab-ass games gone forever...

Sounds just like my first Comm shop. Back in 93-95, on the USS America we had the first gal in our shop come in, and practically everyone was too scared to say anything, cause of how fresh in everyone's mind Tailhook was, till SHE started dropping the dirty jokes and such.. Then most everyone opened up.

giggawatt
12-10-2015, 10:55 AM
They have not been barred form that serve for decades?

From the USAF Web page: http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/109017/air-force-sets-plan-to-integrate-women-in-combat-jobs-by-2016.aspx

"The current Air Force specialty codes that do not allow females to enter due to the 1994 Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule include: combat rescue officer; special tactics officer; special operations weather officer; enlisted combat controller; enlisted tactical air command and control party; enlisted pararescue and enlisted special operations weather.'

Most Combat positions In the USAF have been open to women for many years already.

Less than 5000 positions are currently barred in the AF anyway

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/17/air-force-working-on-plans-to-allow-women-to-compete-for-last-7-male-only-jobs/

If a woman can make it though the training for those Jobs she is definitely qualified to do those jobs.

You're kind of dense aren't you?

Rusty Jones
12-10-2015, 02:23 PM
Awesome article, Marion Cotillard views on being "equal" vs being "the same":

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/actress-feminism-doesnt-create-equality-it-creates-separation

Rainmaker
12-10-2015, 02:39 PM
Awesome article, Marion Cotillard views on being "equal" vs being "the same":

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/actress-feminism-doesnt-create-equality-it-creates-separation

On this we Completely agree Rusty. and the first comment beneath the article, perfectly describes my view as well.

"To attempt making men and women equal in all things is to discard the best of both."

sandsjames
12-10-2015, 02:50 PM
Awesome article, Marion Cotillard views on being "equal" vs being "the same":

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/actress-feminism-doesnt-create-equality-it-creates-separation

Very good article. I think that most women probably agree with this, too. My wife and I have each have an equal role in our marriage, though our "duties/responsibilities" are far different. We compliment each other with our strengths and weaknesses.

Bos Mutus
12-11-2015, 06:24 PM
On the other hand, maybe women bring unique capabilities to combat units:



ISIS FIGHTERS TERRIFIED ON BEING KILLED BY FEMALE TROOPS

WASHINGTON — Kurdish fighters battling ISIS desperately want more guns
and armor, but they already have a secret weapon: The fanatics they’re
fighting fear that if they get killed in combat by a woman, they won’t
go to heaven.

http://nypost.com/2014/09/19/isis-fighters-terrified-of-being-killed-by-female-troops/

Rusty Jones
12-11-2015, 06:25 PM
On the other hand, maybe women bring unique capabilities to combat units:

Will they specifically be used for their "unique capabilities?" I doubt it. By opening ground combat MOSs to women, men are no longer specifically used for theirs anymore.

sandsjames
12-11-2015, 06:56 PM
Will they specifically be used for their "unique capabilities?" I doubt it. By opening ground combat MOSs to women, men are no longer specifically used for their anymore.

I'm sure they will be used for their "unique capabilities"...then they'll file a sexual assault report.

I'm sorry...that was too easy.