Female soldiers eyed for combat

[VarmintShooter]

"her wants should be placed above the obvious issues that it causes within the service."

--those obvious issues are issues now...that doesn't mean they can't be worked out (my initial point). there was an issue regarding women in aircraft when that started too...what's your point?

"So mission accomplishment is a secondary goal here?"

--where's the definitive proof it's going to compromise mission accomplishment? besides your opinions, i dont see much.

semantics are important here. believe it or not, im fed up with a lot of the women's lib movement stuff too (ie, see my 1,110 posts on abortion), but to lump everything together into the negative connotation "women's lib" is generalizing. just like anything else, it's got its bad and good. a lot of great things have come out of it, and more can as well.

OK, I'm not attacking you, I was just hoping for a cordial dialog to hash out the facts. So ...

The issues are issues now, and were for women pilots too, as you said. Thus the problems we had over the years to get where we are now (people still talking about the chick who crashed her F-14, etc). I'm not saying women can't do the job, they can. I'm saying that it causes problems in the military *at first* which definately degrades mission accomplishment for at least the amount of time needed for everyone to adjust. So to answer your question, my point is that our decision should be whether or not the military (with the goal of defending our country) is the correct forum to work out these issues, or whether they should be worked out before we allow this process to degrade the mission.

Now, definative proof that it will degrade the mission ... when I was out there on a boat, we had mast cases every time we pulled in to port with people for various degrees of fraternization. I personally witnessed a PO2 who dated at least two chiefs. There were rumors of a chief and a commander in a relationship (I can't substantiate those on my ship, but know that O/E relationships do happen). I also mentioned working with your exes, by which I meant that the relationships which do go on can adversely affect the workplace environment in a way far more destructive than in the civilian community (both because of the amount of time spent together in close quarters and the importance of our overall function). So, are these my opinions? Maybe they are. What are your opinions and what are they based on?

Finally, the negative connotation was deliberate but a real connection to the women's lib movement was not.

 

[kevin]

the problem is, i dont think there ARE many facts. im not disagreeing with you about growing pains, but i doubt you'd find many people who believe aviation is less effective now because we have women in that community. how do you know it would be any different with any other community? and i realize fraternization happens (both in civilian and military), but i dont see this as a good enough reason to keep fully qualified women from engaging in a community. if these problems occur, maybe there are some MEN (and women as well) who shouldnt be there. as far as civilian environments, i agree with you...but would point out that it's already happened. just look at women in firefighting, law-enforcement, construction, etc. also keep in mind that most of those environments have SEPERATE physical standards for men and women. im talking about military units where physical standards are identical.

 

[Cate]

VarmintShooter - The rest of your argument aside, I'm not seeing how hot bunking and any resulting degradation of mission is the result of women onboard ship. You mentioned numerous women who hooked up with numerous men during the course of the trip - those women aren't representative of women as a whole, or of military women in particular, but of military women who are kind of ho-ey. The women - and men, of course - who are involved in those cases don't prove that women should be on ships, they prove that some people don't have the self-control to keep it in their dungarees until they find a port. And I can't speak for everyone, but when I see someone, male or female, who lacks the basic common sense and self-control not to boink a superior officer, my first thought isn't, "Wow, that's a person I want defending my country." Just maybe the emphasis should be on continence instead of avoidance.

 

[VarmintShooter]

the problem is, i dont think there ARE many facts. im not disagreeing with you about growing pains, but i doubt you'd find many people who believe aviation is less effective now because we have women in that community. how do you know it would be any different with any other community? and i realize fraternization happens (both in civilian and military), but i dont see this as a good enough reason to keep fully qualified women from engaging in a community. if these problems occur, maybe there are some MEN (and women as well) who shouldnt be there. as far as civilian environments, i agree with you...but would point out that it's already happened. just look at women in firefighting, law-enforcement, construction, etc. also keep in mind that most of those environments have SEPERATE physical standards for men and women. im talking about military units where physical standards are identical.

Well, I agree that there are no studies or easily grasped facts. I also wouldn't be bold enough to say that aviation is less effective now than before, I wouldn't know. The fraternization issue is where I find the sticking point, but as you correctly point out, it is a total opinion call as to whether it is important enough to keep women out. I agree that the men and women are equally responsible and perhaps should not be there (although I don't think just kicking everyone out is the answer either). With respect to the civilian community working out the problems first, I more meant getting our society in a mindset where women are on equal footing with men. I don't believe that has happened yet. I agree with you as well on the equal standards issue (for infantry, etc, not for the entire military).

All up we seem to agree on most things ... just a couple sticking points in there.

 

[EngineGirl]

You are really gonna hate me for this post. That is the sad truth...sometimes men cant control themselves, especially if they havent seen "action" for a while. Testosterone build ups are not a pretty thing. Sadly but truly, it would decrease performance and endanger women in combat units.

yes it is the mens fault, yes it should not happen, yes men are "sick", but at the end of the day...those "sick" men are the ones getting the job done on the ground. It is not about fairness, it is about who can do the best job. A woman would only be a distraction, and that is considering she is actually able to perform on the same level. It is human nature and there is nothing we can do about it, it is not a perfect world.

like I said, you'll probably hate me for this post but it's just the truth. If I am not mistaken you did mention once that some of the men you worked with had an issue "staring." Why bring those issues to the field? If you have ever been around an infantry unit, you would know what I am talking about. It may be unfair and all you want it, then again, aren't you being too emotional? guys will always be guys, and girls alway girls regardless of how "progressive" your thinking may be.

and by the way...this is not about who's dreams, this is about the mission. Too much GI Jane for whoever said that.

S/F

I got over the "issues" that men had with me and so did they....they eventually looked at me as an engineer, not a female. And honestly, if the type of men that are "getting the job done" are men that would rape and assult, I don't want them defending my country (what happens when these men go into villages and women are there....yes I know there have been problems with that and I would hope that these men would be punished for assulting these women...and kicked out of the military....do we really want America represented like that?). I know lots of men that have gone long periods without sex and have been frustrated yes, but have also been just fine. I personally don't beleive that women should be put on the front lines for reasons I stated earlier in this thread. This particular argument should not be used to keep women out though. Punishing one group of individuals and not letting them do something because another group of individuals can not behave is ridiculous.

EngineGirl

 

[VarmintShooter]

VarmintShooter - The rest of your argument aside, I'm not seeing how hot bunking and any resulting degradation of mission is the result of women onboard ship. You mentioned numerous women who hooked up with numerous men during the course of the trip - those women aren't representative of women as a whole, or of military women in particular, but of military women who are kind of ho-ey. The women - and men, of course - who are involved in those cases don't prove that women should be on ships, they prove that some people don't have the self-control to keep it in their dungarees until they find a port. And I can't speak for everyone, but when I see someone, male or female, who lacks the basic common sense and self-control not to boink a superior officer, my first thought isn't, "Wow, that's a person I want defending my country." Just maybe the emphasis should be on continence instead of avoidance.

Cate, the emphasis is currently on continence, but it does continue to happen. Again, women aren't the problem, putting men and women together is. As hard as we try I am not sure we'll ever be able to screen men and women enough to prevent the problem before they enter the military. Perhaps there is a solution where men and women could be in close proximity and not fraternize, or perhaps it's just not that important.

So I guess to answer your first sentence, no women on board means no hooking up. It (avoidance) is the only definate solution to the problem I have heard. Again, maybe it just isn't that important ...

 

[kevin]

...maybe im just thinking too specifically on this, but i doubt any guy is going to be thinking about how he can get inside said girl's pants when bullets are flying by.

 

[Clux4]

...maybe im just thinking too specifically on this, but i doubt any guy is going to be thinking about how he can get inside said girl's pants when bullets are flying by.

What about when the bullets are not flying down range and.......

 

[FlyingDoc]

What about men and women training together in a stressful environment? My brother <a reserve MP> constantly tells stories of how he hated being in an integrated unit for training. The girls would break down and cry during stressful evolutions, and that would destroy the morale of the guys.

I believe that you motivate young men to do stupid things that may get them killed in ways that wouldn't necessarily work for women. That could have an impact on operations.

 

[airwinger]

When I went through OCS, I was pretty excited that I would be getting leadership classes with that component being 50% of our grade. Then we were plunged into classes about equal opportunity, counselling, UCMJ, office hours and navy relief. Whatever happened to the chesty puller "follow me" classes I was expecting.

Apparently the bulk of being an officer is solving your units problems, including the PFC that goes to Tijuana, out of bounds, punches a pregnant mexican police officer or the married private with 2 kids on food stamps(saw both of these at pendleton). Integrated combat units will have their own problems, but resourceful and talented officers will find a way to solve them.

 

[rare21]

Its funny how, if you blame women for the segregation then women get mad. So then you blame the men for it and the women get mad. weird. So who's to blame? And for the women that think that their male counterparts completely think of them as professionals....go watch Chris Rock once in a while and find out the truth.

 

[Cate]

I honestly don't care whether my male counterparts think of me as a professional. But they damn well better treat me as a professional, or else we have a talk.

 

[EngineGirl]

And for the women that think that their male counterparts completely think of them as professionals....go watch Chris Rock once in a while and find out the truth.

I have to agree with Cate here.....it's not necissarily what the men think about us. It is how they treat us. I know that there are many times I'd like to tell someone what a dumb f*ck they are or how stupid they are acting or many other things, but I just smile and bite my tounge.


CantSeeME- Yes some women do break down and cry. But, just like the reactions men have, these reactions in women can be conditioned and they can be trained to not cry (I used to cry super easy, but when I started working in enginerooms and working with engineers, I've learned to control my tears).

EngineGirl

 

[EngineGirl]

Ok, whom ever gave me negative rep points and said "Women can't fight... get over it." might want to read my previous posts from this thread.....I'm against women in direct combat. That is just messed up. But if you don't beleive women can't fight, just ask my ex fiance whose nose I broke in one punch.

EngineGirl

 

[vegita1220]

Ok, whom ever gave me negative rep points and said "Women can't fight... get over it." might want to read my previous posts from this thread.....I'm against women in direct combat. That is just messed up. But if you don't beleive women can't fight, just ask my ex fiance whose nose I broke in one punch.

EngineGirl

Or how about being mature enough to pick a communication method that ISN'T anonymous...

But EngineGirl, let's be honest...those horny boys who haven't gotten some you work with are engi-nerds. Not exactly the most aggressive slice of society.

Although I agree on a matter of principle that we shouldn't really say that women can't do certain things b/c of how the men will react...I think that's reality. It IS F-ed up, but it's also reality. Accomodating dreams are nice, but the military is a mission oriented organization...you've got to make sure that whatever changes you make are POSITIVE one's that improve the Navy's ability to wage war as a whole. So I think introducing into support and aviation was a good move. By opening up recruiting to a different group, I'd guess that you get to be a little more picky in the quality of individual... But no matter how cruel it is, if the action doesn't improve our effectiveness, it's not a necessary change.
I think the policy towards gay is an excellent analogy.

I haven't really kept up with the discussion so if something's out of place, i apologize.