Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-26-2013, 01:49 PM   #41
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
mickeyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Texas~29N/98W
Posts: 5,880
This PC move seems to be in the offing no matter what anyone thinks. I heard Gen Dempsey and SECDEF Panetta endorse the idea.
My next comment... Welcome to Instant Coughbullshit

Will 18 YO women ever be required to register for the draft like 18 YO men do?

Crickets...
__________________

__________________
Part-Owner of Texas

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. Groucho Marx

In dire need of: faster horses, younger woman, older whiskey, more money.
mickeyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 01-26-2013, 02:02 PM   #42
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
A perspective from Margaret Wente of Toronto's Globe and Mail. In part:

Quote:
U.S. Marine Captain Katie Petronio is as tough and motivated as they come – a combat engineer officer with five years of active service, during which she led many field operations. She used to think women like her could serve in the infantry, but she has changed her mind. For one thing, women are far more prone to injury than men. Her last stint in Afghanistan was so gruelling that after seven months, she had lost a large amount of muscle mass and stopped producing estrogen. “I went from breaking school records to being broken in a rather short amount of time,” she told an interviewer. “And I was only doing a portion of what my infantry brethren were doing.”
. . . .
What happens when women are fully integrated into combat? Fortunately, we have a great example: Canada. Overall, women account for 14 per cent of all jobs in the Canadian Forces, a slightly lower percentage than in the U.S. As a result of a human-rights decision, front-line combat jobs were opened to women in 1989. Yet today, despite strenuous recruiting efforts, women hold just 2.4 per cent of these jobs. Their commanding officers praise their competence but treat them differently, by shielding them from combat. According to a Wall Street Journal report this week, the widespread impression among Canadian female soldiers – much to their frustration – is they are used “only sparingly.” Men serving next to women also exhibit a counterproductive battlefield trait: protectiveness.
Wente cites numerous examples of the differing physical capabilities of women, (should be obvious, but apparently we need to explicitly state these things today), but I don't think that alone should be a reason to exclude >>individual<< women from combat units, if they meet objective physical standards relevant to the job. Neither should the unacceptably high rate of pregnancy (not all women will get pregnant. Those who do get pregnant while in specified military duties (combat, at sea, etc) and any male servicemember associated with the pregnancy should be subject to UCMJ penalties for causing her to be unfit for duty).
But the protectiveness of male soldiers is something much harder to grapple with. It is detrimental to mission accomplishment, and it's neither the woman's nor the man's "fault." The physical attractions and the jealousies and emotional conflict that will result are much more likely and have more serious ramifications in a field deployed combat unit than in any office (or in typical non-combat military unit). I also think the sanitation issues are getting short shrift in the rush toward equal treatment.

As a nation, we don't presently have a shortage of volunteers for combat duty, so there's no particular pragmatic national security reason to take this step. We are doing it for other reasons. We need to get past the blanket "everyone should have equal opportunity" pablum and actually look at the impact. And if mixed gender combat units will result in more deaths of men and women in those units or lowered military effectiveness (the same thing), then we need to decide if we should go with the "theoretical good" or the "practical good."

And we're back to Project 100,000.

A theoretical question: How much do we truly value equality? From a physical strength standpoint, we know a fundamental reason women, in general, have less skeletal muscle strength than men: their testosterone levels are lower. Men and women are "unequal." Systematic testosterone injections and weight training for women would allow them to have many of the traits that make men, in general, more suited to land combat . . Anyone who doubts this should take a look at the the East German women's sports teams of the 1970s or female bodybuilders today. So, if they want it, why should we deny women this remedial treatment if it would allow them to be physically more equal to men and to better serve in combat units? Yes, the side effects might kill them on average 8 years earlier than other females, but that's no worse than men already experience. Yes, they might not be able to bear children thereafter, but men can't do that, either. We'd be doing a lot to promote equality on several levels. If we think this abhorrent, why? Because everyone has a fundamental right to do anything another person can do?

__________________

__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 02:31 PM   #43
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
We need to get past the blanket "everyone should have equal opportunity" pablum and actually look at the impact. And if mixed gender combat units will result in more deaths of men and women in those units or lowered military effectiveness (the same thing), then we need to decide if we should go with the "theoretical good" or the "practical good."

And we're back to Project 100,000.
As usual, we will go with the theoretical good. Checking against reality has been banned, for anyone who is not desiring to commit career suicide.

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 03:15 PM   #44
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Bimmerbill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,631
I've always had issues with the two physical fitness test standards. One for men, one for women.

I've seen first hand the kind of issues a mixed gender unit has. They are the same issues everywhere I think, but at a minimum the behavior I observed was a distraction from the mission.

I say give it a shot as long as PT standards are the same for both men and women.
__________________
Bimmerbill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 03:22 PM   #45
Full time employment: Posting here.
antmary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Northern California
Posts: 542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bimmerbill View Post
I've always had issues with the two physical fitness test standards. One for men, one for women.

I've seen first hand the kind of issues a mixed gender unit has. They are the same issues everywhere I think, but at a minimum the behavior I observed was a distraction from the mission.

I say give it a shot as long as PT standards are the same for both men and women.
I agree with this...in a life-or-death situation, both sexes must be able to pass the same requirements.

A side note: I think that most girly-girls would not want to participate in combat. Socially - in our culture - things may heat up, and get very interesting if and when the draft comes along again.
__________________
antmary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 04:26 PM   #46
Full time employment: Posting here.
Redbugdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 959
There exists a fundamental difference in how the different genders are hardwired (despite the best efforts of the feminists and castrated males). Men are designed to fight and protect their tribes, and women are designed to be the nesters and nurturers of their tribe. The woman's role is NOT a weak one. Remember the movie "300"? Although graphic, it also focused on how the difference between men and women strengthened their culture. Women's strength must be used strategically, not by placing them on the front lines.

The bond that men in combat share is amazing, and completely different from the bond men form with women. Put a fighter with a natural nester and ask them to fight together, and you have just complicated things in a way that aren't there with two fighters working together. The added complexity is that a man feels a natural need to protect a woman fighting in his unit, not the same as with another man. This can be seen as sexist, chivalrous or patronizing, whether or not the woman is just as capable as the man. However, it is instinct, not intent.

Does this mean that women should not be in a combat role? It depends on the situation. I do think the standards need to be the same for both sexes for a particular job. I believe the standards will be lowered and we will have a less effective military force.

You know the old saying...It's all fun and games till someone gets killed.
__________________
"I either want less corruption, or more chance to participate in it." Ashleigh Brilliant
Redbugdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 05:03 PM   #47
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Katsmeow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redbugdave View Post
There exists a fundamental difference in how the different genders are hardwired (despite the best efforts of the feminists and castrated males). Men are designed to fight and protect their tribes, and women are designed to be the nesters and nurturers of their tribe.
Oh, please. This reminds me in the mid-70s when I went to interviews for jobs shortly before I graduated from law school. I wanted to be a litigator and I was constantly being asked how I would feel about having to compete with men (fine) and whether it would bother me to beat a man in court (no) and how I saw my career plans as opposed to my family plans (I didn't seem that as being opposed).

Women and men differ. I am very competitive by nature and am not much - at all - of a nester or nurterer. I do enjoy being a parent -- I didn't have my first child until I was 40 -- but a know lots of men who enjoy being a parent. I never enjoyed the stereotypical nesting/nurturing activities. For example, even though I absolutely love being a parent (3 kids), I had zero difficulty returning to work when my son was 6 weeks old.

To say that men natural fighters and women are natural nesters is too general. That may be true for many men and many women, but it isn't true for anywhere near all of them. And, frankly, I would think that it most certainly isn't true for the women who will volunteer for combat roles in the military. To say that they can't have those roles because a natural woman would be a nester rather than a fighter is the epitome of stereotyping women and fencing us in.

It was always frustrating to me when in interviews people seemed so boggled by the idea I wanted to be litigator and they wondered how I would feel about a role in law that was so competitive. To me it was obvious that if I hated competing I wouldn't have been wanting a job as a litigator. I guess I just failed to realize that they knew better than me about how I should feel as a proper woman.....
__________________
Katsmeow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 05:03 PM   #48
Administrator
Gumby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redbugdave View Post
The added complexity is that a man feels a natural need to protect a woman fighting in his unit, not the same as with another man.
It might be instructive to look at some recent Medal of Honor winners from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:


Corporal Jason Dunham USMC -- threw himself on a grenade to protect his fellow (male) Marines

Specialist Ross McGinnis USA -- threw himself on a grenade to protect his fellow (male) soldiers

Petty Officer Michael Mansoor USN -- threw himself on a grenade to protect his fellow (male) sailors

Staff Sergeant Robert Miller USA -- killed while diverting Taliban fire so his fellow (male) soldiers could escape

Sergeant First Class Jared Monti USA - killed trying to rescue a wounded fellow (male) soldier
__________________
Living an analog life in the Digital Age.
Gumby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 07:22 PM   #49
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Largo
Posts: 1,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by brewer12345 View Post
About damn time. Now lets change the selective service registration requirements to include 18YO women, too.
+1
__________________
Buckeye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 07:37 PM   #50
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Largo
Posts: 1,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeyd View Post
This PC move seems to be in the offing no matter what anyone thinks. I heard Gen Dempsey and SECDEF Panetta endorse the idea.
My next comment... Welcome to Instant Coughbullshit

Will 18 YO women ever be required to register for the draft like 18 YO men do?

Crickets...
The sooner we (women) have to register, the better. Maybe this will make the politicians think a little harder prior to sending our mothers, fathers, and children into harms way.
__________________
Buckeye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 07:40 PM   #51
Administrator
Gumby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye View Post
Maybe this will make the politicians think a little harder prior to sending our mothers, fathers, and children into harms way.
That is my fondest hope.
__________________
Living an analog life in the Digital Age.
Gumby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 07:34 AM   #52
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,038
With equal rights come equal responsibilities.
__________________

__________________
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.
Lazarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:02 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.