TexasCHLforum.com

Ameer wrote:I am younger than some of you and I am a product of my generation. I think women should be allowed to serve in any role.

But I'm also a realist and think the standards should be the same for everyone within that role. Same for men and women. Same for married and single. Same for dark and light skin color, or hair color, or eye color. Ideology and political correctness has no place on the battlefield. It has no place in business either, and that's one of the barriers the government puts in the way of businesses, but that's a discussion for a different thread.

I agree...its fine IF there is actually going to be a set of standards that are not lowered to accommodate those who cannot hack it. Like I said, I spent my years of service fixing airplanes. I make no pretensions of being enough of a bad dude to be in some front line combat unit, much less special forces, etc. Those people have to super tough and adhere to high standards or someone gets killed. IF women can meet those standards without the standards being watered down, go for it...but I bet money there wouldn't be all that many women that could...however, they'll be a bunch who want to be assigned to those units if that gets them promoted.

Heartland Patriot wrote:

Ameer wrote:I am younger than some of you and I am a product of my generation. I think women should be allowed to serve in any role.

But I'm also a realist and think the standards should be the same for everyone within that role. Same for men and women. Same for married and single. Same for dark and light skin color, or hair color, or eye color. Ideology and political correctness has no place on the battlefield. It has no place in business either, and that's one of the barriers the government puts in the way of businesses, but that's a discussion for a different thread.

I agree...its fine IF there is actually going to be a set of standards that are not lowered to accommodate those who cannot hack it. Like I said, I spent my years of service fixing airplanes. I make no pretensions of being enough of a bad dude to be in some front line combat unit, much less special forces, etc. Those people have to super tough and adhere to high standards or someone gets killed. IF women can meet those standards without the standards being watered down, go for it...but I bet money there wouldn't be all that many women that could...however, they'll be a bunch who want to be assigned to those units if that gets them promoted.

I have this argument with my wife occasionally, we had it again the other night - after I mentioned this topic to her. =) She was a refueler in the Army, I was infantry.

She, like you, insists that if there are women who can meet the demands of the job they need to be allowed to do it. My argument against it is that even if you ignore all of the other issues involved by adding women into the mix, the % of women who could meet the standard is so low that it will make integrating combat units unrealistic. That is something that I believe folks who have not been in those types of units have a hard time understanding.

Yep. Same physical standards. Same grooming standards. Same test standards for each MOS.

I think there also needs to be a change in rules about children, parental leave, etc. Getting knocked up should not be a Get Out of Iraq Free card.

Smart leaders look at the mission, then capabilities first, sustainability, and logistics play a part.. Gender only matters if it impacts the mission, not your feelings.

You're right. Feelings have nothing to do with it, however, that is EXACTLY why these ridiculous personnel policies have been implemented.

Feelings.

Smart leaders understand the importance of personnel selection, standards, and group dynamics.

There isn't a single senior leader I have talked to that has EVER thought integrating females the way they are today is a good idea, let alone sticking them with the boys in the line. CSM's, 1SG's, PSG's. Not a single one. The funny thing is, that most FEMALES don't like working with females either, and for the very same reasons males don't. Go figure. However, Joe being Joe, when he gets a manure sandwich, he'll do his best to choke it down.

Females have contributed NOTHING to the force that can't be obtained from a male. Their incorporation into the ranks has only weakened the force, and the time and resources spent on accommodating them, is a detriment to our defensive capabilities. They are anchors.

The W.A.A.C. corps was a much more sensible approach, and arguably, a far more effective way of utilizing females in the force.

You sure do exhibit a very low opinion of women!

tbrown wrote:

Purplehood wrote:Interesting thread.

In my experience, the aspect of young men and being distracted is really a non-issue.

I was in a Special Operations Civil Affairs Team (Direct Support Team). We typically hauled along female doctors, interpreters and the like on missions. Some of our teams had women members that were killed in the first week that we started operating in Afghanistan.

Civil Affairs Teams are exposed to the operational environment (I am not talking about Provincial Reconstruction Teams and the pogues that sit on the bases, but the small 2-4 man teams that operate independently), and are composed 98% of Reservists called to Active Duty. CAT-A members are almost exclusively made up of Officers/Enlisted that have had previous experience both in the Military and Civilian world. In fact there is only one active-duty Civil Affairs Bn in the entire Army. They want experienced members only.
The point of my post is this...women worked out fine in our little operations. I don't want to annoy the 11-Bravos on this website, but I personally knew a few that were walking around wearing the Combat Action Badge and deserved it. I don't have a problem with them.

How many teenagers were on those teams?

Not to be rude, but did you read my entire post?

They want experienced members only

Put them in the billets where they are the most effective. I know darn well that every Veteran on this board has come across Men (and I use the term loosely) that shouldn't have been serving.

I also agree with the statement above about Women not liking serving with other Women. Many of them strongly resent the fact that they are viewed as less than wholesome and despise those "ladies" that reinforce that negative bias.

bayouhazard wrote:Getting knocked up should not be a Get Out of Iraq Free card.

This is a serious matter, not a "what if" scenario. During Desert Shield/Desert Storm, I commanded a small unit with men and women. One of my sergeants (E5), who was a section leader, got pregnant and went home. She had been open with friends about her intent. Her husband, the presumed father, was in a nearby unit. So, I lost the use of a trained NCO, her section lost their leader and had a less-experienced E4 step in for OJT, and yet she remained on my books so I still had the administrative overhead. So, no chance of a replacment. All this because she decided she didn't want to be there. No repercussions or mentions of this in her efficiency reports were allowed by battalion, either.

Upon our return to garrison, I felt that I could no longer trust her judgement, loyalty, or courage.

I'm the first one to say that pregnant soldiers have no place in a combat zone and should be removed immediately. I do however think that deliberately taking actions to make oneself nondeployable should have some negative consequences. And, yes, their partners deserve similar punishment, but not removal from the combat zone.

Last I knew women weren't asexual unless that only happens in the military. If you want to punish the female soldier because she got pregnant, then the same punishment should apply to the male soldier that assisted.

threoh8 wrote:She had been open with friends about her intent. Her husband, the presumed father, was in a nearby unit. So, I lost the use of a trained NCO, her section lost their leader and had a less-experienced E4 step in for OJT, and yet she remained on my books so I still had the administrative overhead. So, no chance of a replacment. All this because she decided she didn't want to be there. No repercussions or mentions of this in her efficiency reports were allowed by battalion, either.

Upon our return to garrison, I felt that I could no longer trust her judgement, loyalty, or courage.

I'm the first one to say that pregnant soldiers have no place in a combat zone and should be removed immediately. I do however think that deliberately taking actions to make oneself nondeployable should have some negative consequences. And, yes, their partners deserve similar punishment, but not removal from the combat zone.

Really sounds like a whole lot of rumors to me. Unless she stated it directly to you I wouldn't put much stock in hearsay.

tallmike wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:

Ameer wrote:I am younger than some of you and I am a product of my generation. I think women should be allowed to serve in any role.

But I'm also a realist and think the standards should be the same for everyone within that role. Same for men and women. Same for married and single. Same for dark and light skin color, or hair color, or eye color. Ideology and political correctness has no place on the battlefield. It has no place in business either, and that's one of the barriers the government puts in the way of businesses, but that's a discussion for a different thread.

I agree...its fine IF there is actually going to be a set of standards that are not lowered to accommodate those who cannot hack it. Like I said, I spent my years of service fixing airplanes. I make no pretensions of being enough of a bad dude to be in some front line combat unit, much less special forces, etc. Those people have to super tough and adhere to high standards or someone gets killed. IF women can meet those standards without the standards being watered down, go for it...but I bet money there wouldn't be all that many women that could...however, they'll be a bunch who want to be assigned to those units if that gets them promoted.

I have this argument with my wife occasionally, we had it again the other night - after I mentioned this topic to her. =) She was a refueler in the Army, I was infantry.

She, like you, insists that if there are women who can meet the demands of the job they need to be allowed to do it. My argument against it is that even if you ignore all of the other issues involved by adding women into the mix, the % of women who could meet the standard is so low that it will make integrating combat units unrealistic. That is something that I believe folks who have not been in those types of units have a hard time understanding.

Well, I think that you may have misunderstood where I was going with things. IF the standards are kept at a certain (proper) minimum level, then women will indeed NOT be able to do those jobs. The problem would be "self-fixing". It becomes an issue when we change things to make them "more fair"...lowering and lowering the standards to meet who its "politically correct" to put into either the military as a whole, or a certain career field within a branch of service. THAT is when people's lives are put in jeopardy, or resources are wasted. You may have seen the former, I have certainly seen the latter.

Purplehood wrote:

tbrown wrote:

Purplehood wrote:Interesting thread.

In my experience, the aspect of young men and being distracted is really a non-issue.

I was in a Special Operations Civil Affairs Team (Direct Support Team). We typically hauled along female doctors, interpreters and the like on missions. Some of our teams had women members that were killed in the first week that we started operating in Afghanistan.

Civil Affairs Teams are exposed to the operational environment (I am not talking about Provincial Reconstruction Teams and the pogues that sit on the bases, but the small 2-4 man teams that operate independently), and are composed 98% of Reservists called to Active Duty. CAT-A members are almost exclusively made up of Officers/Enlisted that have had previous experience both in the Military and Civilian world. In fact there is only one active-duty Civil Affairs Bn in the entire Army. They want experienced members only.
The point of my post is this...women worked out fine in our little operations. I don't want to annoy the 11-Bravos on this website, but I personally knew a few that were walking around wearing the Combat Action Badge and deserved it. I don't have a problem with them.

How many teenagers were on those teams?

Not to be rude, but did you read my entire post?

They want experienced members only

Put them in the billets where they are the most effective. I know darn well that every Veteran on this board has come across Men (and I use the term loosely) that shouldn't have been serving.

I also agree with the statement above about Women not liking serving with other Women. Many of them strongly resent the fact that they are viewed as less than wholesome and despise those "ladies" that reinforce that negative bias.

I certainly HAVE seen men who weren't fit to serve. They usually got themselves booted out pretty quickly (yes, even in the Air Force). Women, however, could always play the "harassment" card, and so got put into made-up, make work jobs in an office if they couldn't hack it spinning wrenches on airplanes. There was, in the recent past, some "Occupy Seattle" female claiming to be an "Iraq War Veteran for Peace" in a national news story. Funny thing is, I knew her. She was in my last unit. She was SUPPOSED to be a hydraulic systems technician, but got pregnant before she even finished her OJT. They found an office job for her to do. Now, it became a problem because the USAF has rules about people who aren't qualified at the appropriate skill level can't hold certain ranks. What did the unit leadership do? Put her on the flightline long enough (a few days) to say she "got qualified" and pencil whipped her records and right back into the office she went, with a new stripe on. She didn't even know how to fix airplanes, much less ever go to the Persian Gulf REGION, and certainly not into Iraq. I understand you are trying to be fair-minded and stand up for those who have worked for you and with you. That is an admirable quality in a leader. But, if the troops you are leading can't hack it, they don't deserve to be there, to take up space, and waste resources all in the name of political correctness. I hope you can agree with that.

Heartland Patriot > I have seen both ends of the spectrum regarding Women in the Service. I don't discount a bit anything that you are saying as I have seen the same thing in the Marine Corps.

I only contend that Women in the Service are just as good or as bad as Men. It is simply a case-by-case basis and shouldn't be based solely on the premise that they are Women and that that somehow lessens their overall value to the Military.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think you are trying to say that. I just want to show the flip-side, and say that Women can be an Asset to the Military.

I had MEN working for me, and others over me, who were unable to perform their jobs properly, and I worked as an equal with another Gunner's Mate who I didn't like very much, but in whose hands I would have placed my life, and even did once, because I knew he was that good.

I had a First Class Gunner's Mate (E6) over me who could not read a hydraulic print and who told me that I should abandon the gun as unfixable, and when I fixed it, he tried to get me Court Martialed for making him look bad. I had an E-3 working form me who just barely knew which end of the gun went where, and don't get me started on his paint jobs.

There are good and bad of either gender, but generally, women are starting behind the line to begin with, but only generally. There was a young lady I went to college with who would have made a fantastic gunner in the fleet, merely due to her interest in and knowledge of guns.

I don't think it matters if she planned to get pregnant.

Unless she had her tubes tiied or has some other physiological impediment to conception, pregnancy is a foreseeable consequence of sex. Even using birth control. So, if she consented sex, pregnancy was a foreseeable consequence.

If she intentionally participated in an activity that's the proximate cause of she being unable to meet the physical standards for her job, then she should be disciplined. Maybe even discharged under less than honorable circumstances if it happened while deployed in a combat zone.

I'm not being sexist. A male soldier who iintentionally engaged in extracurricular activities that made him phyisically unable to perform his duties should also be disciplined. It doesn't mattter if he overeats and slacks on PT so he gets a big belly or is injured in a MMA fight for money. His responsibility.

bayouhazard wrote:I don't think it matters if she planned to get pregnant.

Unless she had her tubes tiied or has some other physiological impediment to conception, pregnancy is a foreseeable consequence of sex. Even using birth control. So, if she consented sex, pregnancy was a foreseeable consequence.

If she intentionally participated in an activity that's the proximate cause of she being unable to meet the physical standards for her job, then she should be disciplined. Maybe even discharged under less than honorable circumstances if it happened while deployed in a combat zone.

I'm not being sexist. A male soldier who iintentionally engaged in extracurricular activities that made him phyisically unable to perform his duties should also be disciplined. It doesn't mattter if he overeats and slacks on PT so he gets a big belly or is injured in a MMA fight for money. His responsibility.

All true.

The problem is that while the Military is more than willing to chase down and discipline the Male slacker, they won't do it to the Female slacker as they do not want to violate her rights based on reproductive reasons. And that is wrong.

bayouhazard wrote:I'm not being sexist. A male soldier who iintentionally engaged in extracurricular activities that made him phyisically unable to perform his duties should also be disciplined. It doesn't mattter if he overeats and slacks on PT so he gets a big belly or is injured in a MMA fight for money. His responsibility.

Yeah, like getting an STD.