• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Why are you Leaving?

Finishing up sea duty here in TACAMO. I've been given the "path to success" and been offered to go to the FRS as an instructor. I politely said no thank you to everyone up my chain of command. I simply want to go to shore duty (probably ROTC) and retire. I can't see myself in this charade as a Department Head. My marketability at 39 vs 44 is very significant. Retirement O-3E vs O-4 pay after taxes isn't significant enough to entice me to stay; neither is a $100k+ bonus. I became an officer to lead sailors (not fly), unfortunately those opportunities have been few and far between.

So, I'm paying for my masters degree (prob in mechanical engineering) out of my pocket (saving the 9/11 GI Bill for my son) and retiring. Hopefully I haven't missed out on all of my son's events.

FWIW, if anyone says that TACAMO is great for families... punch them in the throat... they don't know what the F they are talking about.
 
squorch2 said:
Equality of opportunity first means acknowledging benefits that people derive from privilege. John Scalzi has a quick read on the subject: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/
Click to expand...

While there might be some truth in that it drives me up the fucking wall when I see that. First off, pretty much everyone born in this country is 'privileged' vs many other countries were just surviving childhood is an uncertain prospect. A middle or upper class upbringing, same story. But then I think back to a significant percentage of my fellow JO's in both my fleet squadrons and see prior-E's who came from more 'disadvantaged' backgrounds and earned their wings busting their ass and without any benefits of some sort of supposed privilege. I realize that I had a leg up over some of them growing up in the environment I did but we all started flight school as equals.

This is all on top of the fact that every one of us who wear wings have actually earned them, privilege went out the door when you started flight school. A gray jet or helo doesn't give two shits who is handling the controls or operating it's systems and that is part of the beauty of naval aviation, you are either competent or not no matter the background, gender or whatever other category you want to throw in there.

Finally, life ain't fair. You either make something out of what you were handed in life or not.
 
Last edited:
The more thought I've given to these issues recently - particularly with race relations constantly in the news, the more I'm convinced that we spend way too much time talking about our tangible (race/gender/socioeconomic) differences and not NEARLY enough focus on how the cultural differences in our society play a HUGE role in how we view one another. Unlike race or gender, one's culture is, to a great extent, a choice. Those choices have consequences for which the individual can/should be held accountable. I realize that someone who is born into an impoverished family that is mired in the urban gang culture can't just wake up one day and flip a cultural switch, but I think we, as a society, can be much more effective if we start talking less in terms of race and more in terms of the kinds of cultural qualities that can lead individuals in more productive directions.
 
Spekkio said:
That depends who you ask and how important you think it is to retain women and men with career-oriented spouses.
Click to expand...

Meh. Husband has (had?) a career-orientented spouse. We made some hard calls. And it is still, at times, a struggle, as I sit at the halfway mark of what will essentially be 9 years overseas. There has been sacrifice, and at the top of the pile on that bloody altar is my career. I won't downplay that, or how difficult it has been, or how uncomfortable it is for me.

And similar things can be said about so very many careers. Often there is a trailing spouse. That's not a military thing. But yes, it will be factor for some who get out or who never get in. And yes, I don't really see that as a bad thing, or at least not something that needs to be fixed, especially if recruiting isn't an issue. Certain subsets of people don't want to do certain jobs? Okay.

Brett327 said:
This discussion got me thinking about why certain jobs remain predominantly male and how society views that. Why isn't society or mainstream feminism wringing their hands over a lack of women in construction, or among diesel mechanics, electricians, or the other trades. Seems like the focus is on public service jobs - police, fire, military, even politics to a degree
Click to expand...

To be fair, the lack of women in STEM programs and professions is a huge talking point in many of these circles. It certainly isn't just service jobs.
 
villanelle said:
To be fair, the lack of women in STEM programs and professions is a huge talking point in many of these circles. It certainly isn't just service jobs.
Click to expand...

Good point, and I'm sure there are other examples, but why not the trades? That's what fascinates me. I think our society is more comfortable with the idea of a female fighter pilot than a female roofer.
 
My guess on the trades is that no business is willing to lose profit in the name of an ideal. If you can find a woman who can outwork/out lift/out hustle the Mexican laborers I just watched build my neighbor's house, she'd be hired. Until that happens, in any industry, social change will continue to be an experiment funded by the tax payer and executed by the government.
 
Brett327 said:
Good point, and I'm sure there are other examples, but why not the trades? That's what fascinates me. I think our society is more comfortable with the idea of a female fighter pilot than a female roofer.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that it is because the larger context is that women still make $.78 for every dollar men make, or whatever the number is. (And yes, I am well aware there are some issues with that number and with causation vs. correlation, and all that. Just explaining why I think the emphasis isn't so much on trades.) There isn't really a need to fight for access to lower paying jobs, so getting women into roofing isn't going to get as much attention as getting them into things that pay close to six figures. The push is to give access to more jobs to close the wage gap a bit, and so the focus is on getting women into the best jobs because that's a better use of time and effort.
 
Not disagreeing with what Nelle said, per se. Just that I think the real argument isn't "the military didn't suit me and so should change/is fucked up". More that there's merit in offering some flexibility and options. Okay, yes, the military is a noble calling. It's also an employer, and it's competing for smart, driven educated people that it has spent a lot of money training. It'd be insane if FedEx trained its own pilots and then let them walk after 6-8 years with minimal effort to retain them. Or if GE trained its own nuclear plant operators and managers. Or if Maersk trained its own ship officers. Or whatever. Any company that spent a lot of time and effort selecting new hires, a bunch of money training them, gave them a lot of experience and then eased them out the door if they decided they weren't CEO material after a few years would not exactly be held up as a worthwhile example of personnel management. Yet isn't that what we're doing?
 
Uncle Fester said:
Not disagreeing with what Nelle said, per se. Just that I think the real argument isn't "the military didn't suit me and so should change/is fucked up". More that there's merit in offering some flexibility and options. Okay, yes, the military is a noble calling. It's also an employer, and it's competing for smart, driven educated people that it has spent a lot of money training. It'd be insane if FedEx trained its own pilots and then let them walk after 6-8 years with minimal effort to retain them. Or if GE trained its own nuclear plant operators and managers. Or if Maersk trained its own ship officers. Or whatever. Any company that spent a lot of time and effort selecting new hires, a bunch of money training them, gave them a lot of experience and then eased them out the door if they decided they weren't CEO material after a few years would not exactly be held up as a worthwhile example of personnel management. Yet isn't that what we're doing?
Click to expand...
Hmm, the Army flying warrant idea stands out as a good example of how to keep pilots flying and officers...well...officering. Of course its not perfect either, but certainly shows there is another approach. The fact that there may be less competition from the outside for helicopter pilots can't be ignored either.
 
Brett327 said:
This discussion got me thinking about why certain jobs remain predominantly male and how society views that. Why isn't society or mainstream feminism wringing their hands over a lack of women in construction, or among diesel mechanics, electricians, or the other trades...
Click to expand...
There are several private industries that have come under fire in the media for being male-dominant. My guess about the lack of buzz for labor jobs is that they are viewed as low-skilled and low-pay. Women generally don't have problems getting $30k/year jobs and frequently out-earn men in their immediate post-college years; they have problems getting $60k/year jobs and keeping pace with men into their 30s and 40s.

IRT public service, most of the diversity push in those arenas seems to come from men. I don't see any feminists marching in San Fran asking to be drafted into an 03XX MOS.

Flash said:
Like it or not the military is one of those career fields that will long have a gender imbalance because of who wants to serve, much like police and fire departments to this day have a similar gender imbalance even after opening their positions to women years ago (there were only 41 women in the FDNY out of a force of 10,400 as of last year) . This was exemplified by the recent experiment to get female Marine officers to go through IOC, while the USMC wanted something like 120 to go through during the trial period only 29 volunteered even after they opened it up to O-3's. It isn't discrimination or a recruiting problem, it is reality.
Click to expand...
You misunderstood my point. I wasn't trying to say that the military needs to recruit 50/50 male and female; I'm saying that the military can make a better effort to retain the people it does recruit. If the 'target' is 20% women, then the military should attempt to retain a force composition of 20% women throughout the ranks. So I'm not talking about new recruits, I'm talking about retention. These women have already made the cut and are deciding to leave.

As a sidenote, FDNY has so few women because of the CPAT, which entails carrying/dragging 180 lb dummies and climbing ladders with 50-100 lbs of weight to simulate firefighting gear.

villanelle said:
And yes, I don't really see that as a bad thing, or at least not something that needs to be fixed, especially if recruiting isn't an issue. Certain subsets of people don't want to do certain jobs? Okay.
Click to expand...
But her frustration clearly arose not from disliking the job, but from her inability to maintain her close personal relationships while doing it.

Can you imagine a general or flag officer telling Congress "yea, this job is just for women who don't want any children?" I don't think they would hold their position very long.
Brett327 said:
Unlike race or gender, one's culture is, to a great extent, a choice. Those choices have consequences for which the individual can/should be held accountable.
Click to expand...
TRIGGER WARNING!!!! :mad:

No seriously, you better be careful with that...that kind of talk is likely to get a senior officer fired sooner rather than later...:(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top