[Coeloptera]

Quote:       Originally Posted by The_Patriot

I wish the world was all rainbows and ponies. I wish everyone got along. I wish women, gays and little people could all serve seamlessly with your average 6-foot testosterone-filled 20-year-old guy, but it just doesn't happen that way in the real world. I'm not against progress. My only point is that it's easy to present a solution when you haven't had to walk a mile in those shoes.

Desegregation sure as hell wasn't easy back in the day. I have no doubts this won't be difficult too.

But it's got to be done if we want a truly equal society that can utilize all its resources to its utmost.

You wouldn't argue that because integrating blacks and asians into the army was hard it wasn't worth doing, right? The Armed Forces are now just about the most thoroughly integrated institution in American history. Black men can rise to any rank based on merit and performance. Hell, the Armed Forces are a great model for how society at large should be handling this.

Check it out: Integration of the Armed Forces

This is what we need to do if we wanna keep progressing as a civilization. Slavery is effectively done, women aren't chattel...we need to keep pushing these antiquated boundaries aside as we hit them. Our culture will change. It has changed. Military culture is not and has never been static. It maintains a great sense of tradition, but that's not quite the same thing.

Same goes for civilian organizations, too. I long for a world where you just have to be qualified to do whatever you're capable of. The military led the way in the past, it'd be great to see it do it again.

Not easy, but necessary.

That and again, one standard, any job. Meet it or go home.

Huh. See? This is an example of a good aspect of liberalism. You temper it with some realism and intelligence and you got something.

- Coeloptera

[Seabeescotty]

I was talking about past experience, not sitting in an easy chair, trying to justify a point. At the time I used as an example there were no women in frontline units, so there was no point in discussing the notion that women could be disruptive. They were simply filling all the stateside billets, and left us with no choices, for conus duty.

Logic is a wonderful thing, in the comfort of a quiet office, or classroom, but I didn't see much of it, in combat.What I did see was determination, fear, and courage. And the will to survive...

And once again, as far as I'm concerned, if the bar is set, and a person qualifies, so be it. But in too many cases, the bar is lowered, for women and minorities, to the detriment of more qualified individuals, who might happen to be white males. I've seen too much of it, over the years. If you want social engineering, that's one thing, but if you want true equity, set the level for all, and leave it alone. I don't care if a martian wants to serve, as long as that martian qualifies at the same level as everyone else. You poked around, implying that I might have prejudice, that I'm unaware exists. Let me just say this, there is no such thing as prejudice, on the battlefield.

[Jim Rau]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Seabeescotty

I was talking about past experience, not sitting in an easy chair, trying to justify a point. At the time I used as an example there were no women in frontline units, so there was no point in discussing the notion that women could be disruptive. They were simply filling all the stateside billets, and left us with no choices, for conus duty. Logic is a wonderful thing, in the comfort of a quiet office, or classroom, but I didn't see much of it, in combat.What I did see was determination, fear, and courage. And the will to survive... And once again, as far as I'm concerned, if the bar is set, and a person qualifies, so be it. But in too many cases, the bar is lowered, for women and minorities, to the detriment of more qualified individuals, who might happen to be white males. I've seen too much of it, over the years. If you want social engineering, that's one thing, but if you want true equity, set the level for all, and leave it alone. I don't care if a martian wants to serve, as long as that martian qualifies at the same level as everyone else. You poked around, implying that I might have prejudice, that I'm unaware exists. Let me just say this, there is no such thing as prejudice, on the battlefield.

You are correct Scotty,
I look back at MANY SITUATIONS where the 'average' woman could not 'pack the gear'! There are FEW who could have the physical ability to do what is necessary, but VERY FEW!!! I spent two tours in RVN, and eight (8) years in a Special Forces Unit (NG). I have projected women into many real combat situations and even many of our training scenarios and they would not have had the physical ability to do what is required in the most critical situations. I spent 26 years as a cop and worked with many women on the street and MOST were good cops and several I would prefer as my back-up over many of my male counterparts. But TRUE combat is totally different!!
Women are our 'equal', but they have differences which make them more or less suited for some roles in society, and combat is not one they are suited for.
Just reality!!!

[BattleRifleG3]

Obviously we don't all have the same religious beliefs and we have a free society where we can hold whatever beliefs we want freely. That being said, here's another point that is seldom recognized outside of Christian circles.

People proposing identical treatment of men and women (which isn't the same as equal rights) and identical recognition of homosexuality with traditional sexuality (which isn't the same as affording them the freedom to relate as they wish) often compare those issues to racism and a sexism of subjugation, where women lacked the right to participate in government and were denied justice against violence in the home.

However, with regards to Biblical Christianity, there is no grounds at all for racism or for the mistreatment of women. People who claim to have it are grossly misreading Scripture. There is, however, a strong recognition of the distinction of men and women and of marriage as a relationship between men and women. While there is still a wide variety of opinions within Christianity about what those differences mean, there is also a widespread respect for the need to be consistent with your beliefs about the roles of men and women in the family and society. Which ultimately means that conscribing women to place them in mortal danger would violate the religious beliefs of many in our society, more than just religious pacifists.

There is a way to keep from drafting women and still have equal rights. Don't draft men either, at least not on the federal level. In the American Revolution, conscription was on the community level and supplied the militia. That is also where I see the role of women, in defending their communities but not being sent away to war.

Without any disrespect to those who have supported the draft, the supreme court decision supporting the draft is very lame. They basically threw up their arms and said "well, what do we say?" when they perhaps could have said that it is an unconstitutional act authorized in extreme cases. Instead they supported it with circular reasoning and in effect said that the representative government is above that sort of thing, which is bogus - that's why rights are protected by the Constitution itself and not just by the individuals elected under the constitution.

[SightNSqueeze]

I replied last night and it posted ... now it's gone. So, here it is again. My answer is "no" though they should continue to be trained and armed for combat. The "Marine Corps model" is the best model. In the Marines, women are assigned to support duties which are just as critical as combat duties. Since the modern battle space is ever fluid and dynamic, female Marines can be a force multiplier instead of a hindrance in an emergency until the emergency is over.

The job of our nation’s defense is that of all men and women who can take the oath and mean it, and get through training. The primary job of fighting is that of men. Howl if you want, but the above model is the best model and it works. The Marines defied Clinton Administration orders in the past concerning women in "assigned" combat, and they'll defy them again if need be.

[pixiedustboo]

No.

Now, if a woman enters the military and wants that 'equality' between herself and men then she better be willing to deal with it. In those cases, I suppose being in the front lines is what is equal.



In general though, no. I actually had part of a blog on pet peeves, and it kind of goes along with this so I will share my thoughts;

The thought that all women want to be treated the same as a man. I don't want to be treated the same as a man. If I did I would have gotten a sex change and joined a freaking football team so people would run over me, crush me to death and bruise me. There are some women out there that want to be taken care of and not crushed to death! Personally, I don't find the idea of being ran over by a million football players exciting in the least. I'd be excited...). Is that sexist of me? Yeah well that brings me to another pet peeve....


Women who want to be treated equally to a man, but special. Listen babes. It's either equal or not. If you want to be equal in all respects to a man that you better step up to the plate and be ready to take it. Kudos to you women who do this – truly. It's not my first choice, but I respect any woman who wants to be equal to a man and yet won't scream for special treatment when the mood suits her.

[Jim Rau]

Quote:       Originally Posted by pixiedustboo

No. Now, if a woman enters the military and wants that 'equality' between herself and men then she better be willing to deal with it. In those cases, I suppose being in the front lines is what is equal. In general though, no. I actually had part of a blog on pet peeves, and it kind of goes along with this so I will share my thoughts; The thought that all women want to be treated the same as a man. I don't want to be treated the same as a man. If I did I would have gotten a sex change and joined a freaking football team so people would run over me, crush me to death and bruise me. There are some women out there that want to be taken care of and not crushed to death! Personally, I don't find the idea of being ran over by a million football players exciting in the least. I'd be excited...). Is that sexist of me? Yeah well that brings me to another pet peeve.... Women who want to be treated equally to a man, but special. Listen babes. It's either equal or not. If you want to be equal in all respects to a man that you better step up to the plate and be ready to take it. Kudos to you women who do this – truly. It's not my first choice, but I respect any woman who wants to be equal to a man and yet won't scream for special treatment when the mood suits her.

Good post. And you hit the nail on the head. There are exceptions to everything involving the human animal. BUT, as you can see above, I have a vast experience in this area and even though I have known many women who did the job and did it well in LE, I can count on one hand the number I have encountered who could even come close to 'packing the gear' in a REAL combat environment!

By the way I voted for #3. Only in an extreme situation, then it's live or die for us all.

[HEMI]

Scotty you are correct sir this happens way to easy in the military,police dept,fire rescue etc..

How would every one feel about going into battle with a pre op tranny?
Or working in a high profile proffesional field with a cross dresser?

Its nice that everyone is so pc but when things are wrong they are wrong!!!!
Don't say it out loud or your labelled a racist even though the majority agrees.

This touchy feely pc crap must go.

[Coeloptera]

Quote:       Originally Posted by HEMI

Its nice that everyone is so pc but when things are wrong they are wrong!!!! Don't say it out loud or your labelled a racist even though the majority agrees. This touchy feely pc crap must go.

Well, that's your opinion. And it's just that.

"Wrong" is easy to define when it's something you personally disagree with, isn't it? It is difficult to accept something you personally find distasteful. That, though, is the real measure of freedom.

PC's got nothing to do with it and I have worked with a tranny before. Damn good at her job. Tough as hell, too, better shape than I'm in. It's not combat, no...but the point I'm making is that this is cultural, no different than blacks or what have you.

There was resistance before, but it went. Same thing now. There's honestly no logical reason whatsoever to have kept women from being say...combat pilots...but the culture didn't want them, even though they not only can do it, they have innate advantages that can give them the same sort of edge an infantryman would have over an infantrywoman.

Applying some of the logic I've seen, we should scour the Air Force clean of male pilots because women have physiological advantages that can make them better at it.

But that's just a silly idea...

And another question...what happens as combat becomes more and more high tech? Caseless weapons with polymer bodies, weight-carrying exoskeletons? This is all coming. It's a question of "when", not "if".

And Seabeescotty. I'm not implying you're prejudiced. But what I was doing was pointing out a mode of thinking you have that you may not be aware of. Really examine your responses to the "gay guy attacks straight man" versus "straight man attacks straight woman" question and ask yourself why you may have the responses you do. "Because I'm a bigot" isn't likely an answer you're ever going to come up with, nor it is likely to be true anyway.

Look at the broader question as well. You saw it happen, so you formed an opinion. What about women who have been sexually assaulted while in the service? Do you think that if they thought all straight men should be barred that would be a logical opinion?

And again I will reiterate my very strong opinion that this can only truly be "real" if physical standards are set for any particular job and remain static regardless of gender. Otherwise, it is a waste of effort.

- Coeloptera

[TXplt]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Coeloptera

Applying some of the logic I've seen, we should scour the Air Force clean of male pilots because women have physiological advantages that can make them better at it. But that's just a silly idea... - Coeloptera

Coel, I do agree with some of your technical assessments; however, women pilots enjoy absolutely no physiological advantages whatsoever over male pilots. I've helped train literally thousands of pilots and instructors, so's I might have some experience in the matter. Any perceived "G" tolerance (or physical tolerance to aircraft maneuvering, thinking while maneuvering, decision making capability and competence in a physical and mentally stressing environment, etc.) difference between sexes is wholly unmeasurable in practice. In fact, individuals' natural G tolerance both over the short term and longer term varies quite a bit person to person, as does their ability to sustain aerial maneuvering and properly accomplish an anti-G strain over an extended time period. Sometimes this has absolutely nothing to do with what physical shape someone seems to be in.

I've observed, other than learned behavior, there's absolutely no difference in ability to operate and employ an airplane based on sex alone. Women and men in our current aircraft (given proper attitudes at least) can be completely equal in fighting ability. There's no difference, one way or another (but, again, it does demand the proper mentality be developed by the group and not monkeying with it via some social engineering scheme). Great harm can be done by experimenting with a functional organization or group whose job it is to kill people and break things when it's essentially working very well. The best women fighter pilots we had were those who were capable, did what they said they could do, didn't overstate their abilities, admitted when they screwed up, and fit in with the squadron as well (i.e. not the "out to make a point or prove something" women).

On the other hand, women can sometimes be underestimated by adversaries (and also by us) who view a woman as less of a threat when in reality she's a viscious killer. This isn't so much a statement for the fighter as it is to the underestimater. Women terrorists could prove a significant threat to some cultures (who might initially view them as "safe").

[Jim Rau]

Cleo,
You are missing the point here. PC sucks because it violates our basic right to 'free speech'. Just because 'a person' don't like what is said or the way it's said is not reason to sanction the person for expressing themselves.
As long as one person is not threatening another or conspiring to commit a crime they should be free to say what they want even if it is 'offencive' to others!!!
I may not like what they say, but I will defend their right to say it!

[Coeloptera]

Quote:       Originally Posted by TXplt

In fact, individuals' natural G tolerance both over the short term and longer term varies quite a bit person to person, I've observed, other than learned behavior, there's absolutely no difference in ability to operate and employ an airplane based on sex alone. Women and men in our current aircraft (given proper attitudes at least) can be completely equal in fighting ability. There's no difference, one way or another (but, again, it does demand the proper mentality be developed by the group and not monkeying with it via some social engineering scheme). Great harm can be done by experimenting with a functional organization or group whose job it is to kill people and break things when it's essentially working very well. The best women fighter pilots we had were those who were capable, did what they said they could do, didn't overstate their abilities, admitted when they screwed up, and fit in with the squadron as well (i.e. not the "out to make a point or prove something" women).

Well, obviously I'm gonna bow to your experience in the matter. I'm also with you on the "proving a point" people. The Citadel, anyone? That was funny. All that effort and she washed in what? Six days? Then they got somebody real: CNN - The Citadel graduates first woman in its history - May 8, 1999

I don't say we experiment so much as we just apply the model used when integration was on the table.

- Coeloptera

[Coeloptera]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Jim Rau

Cleo, You are missing the point here. PC sucks because it violates our basic right to 'free speech'. Just because 'a person' don't like what is said or the way it's said is not reason to sanction the person for expressing themselves. As long as one person is not threatening another or conspiring to commit a crime they should be free to say what they want even if it is 'offencive' to others!!! I may not like what they say, but I will defend their right to say it!

Oh, that's not the issue. Say what you want. That's what the 1A is all about (to a slightly simplified extent). It's when it starts to creep into legislation and employment opportunities that we have problems.

- Coeloptera

[Jim Rau]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Coeloptera

Oh, that's not the issue. Say what you want. That's what the 1A is all about (to a slightly simplified extent). It's when it starts to creep into legislation and employment opportunities that we have problems. - Coeloptera

You lost me here, when what 'starts to creep into legislation and employment opportunities'????
If your are referring to PC 'creeping in', it already has!!!

[Mooseman684]

Ok...I think they should be allowed if they desire since they volunteered anyway . I will add that if we have a War against Muslims, I think the women should go out front Naked with their Helmet , Rifles and an ammo Belt...so the Enemy would HAVE to kill themselves !!(and our guys would gladly be behind them supporting them !

[Coeloptera]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Jim Rau

You lost me here, when what 'starts to creep into legislation and employment opportunities'???? If your are referring to PC 'creeping in', it already has!!!

Oh...descriminatory langusge and attitudes. That stuff creeping in.

The flipside is no better, obviously. That's why I am strongly against "Hate Crime" legislation. Aggravated assault is aggravated assault. I see no difference between it because someone "doesn't like queers" versus "doesn't like your face".

So Moose...you find any pictures of your idea in action? It's the internet, I'm sure they're out there.

- Coeloptera

[Jim Rau]

Cleo,
That has been my position as well. If hate is the motive it should be considered as an aggravating circumstance at sentencing.

[Deersniper]

Moose, I was thinking along the same lines. A platoon of scantily dressed babes dressed up like Mini Mouse, [they don't like mice either] would distract them long enough for the men to flank em. In other words, women have certain abilities they can bring to the service too. They have a built in diversionary chemistry. Hey if they can stay in the ring with Chuck Norris, let em go serve, But I am against both family members serving at the same time. Sure breaks up a family.

[big shrek]

Back in the 80's I was asking folks to give me a company of Female Marines armed to the teeth and Iran would be a bad memory. All I'd do is get 'em bunked together for a few months until they were all cycling together...then turn 'em loose when the PMS hit...

Someone shoulda taken me up on it.

[HEMI]

Even out the process, same tough standards for everyone. Whoever makes it makes it. This you and I agree on coel.