The "oh no don't let teh gayz in" argument is completely baseless. If people disagree with homosexuals in the army they're either homophobic or stupid.
Hmm. I happen to agree with this, mostly again based on the fact that I know at least one openly & possibly other closeted gay soldiers in probably the most macho reg in the British army. One, it has fuck all effect on their ability to be a bloody good soldier. Two, I'm also mates with the openly gay bloke, shared a basha with him in the field (ie buddied together, sleeping next to each other etc), thrown each other over walls & so on, and not once have I - or anyone else in our unit as far as I'm aware - been worried that he might cop a feel, come on to me, or any of the usual tripe that I've heard other blokes moan about re: gays in the military.
However, any smart commander looks to the morale & effectiveness of all his troops first, and individuals second. Fact is that while there are a significant number of people in the military who are uncomfortable about having gays in their unit, it's not going to help either of the above. This doesn't mean it can't happen in time, just that the tempo of change necessarily has to be slow, and nice civil libertarian initiatives to force that pace are unwise - and this is from a pretty diehard civil libertarian. Furthermore, I've not met a single gay soldier yet who wants to be a trailblazer for gay rights in the forces, they all just want to do the same job as the rest of us without any special treatment in either direction.
Also, Shinto is right: "Teh Spartans!" is a stupid argument re: gays in the military, largely because homosexuality isn't generally acceptable as it was for the Greeks. Straight relationships are another question though.
These are ethics that may not have been particularly useful any longer in military situations where people are not fighting hand to hand, but instead have to be ordered dispassionately into possible ambushes.
PS He's not right about that though. Mate, you don't know the half of it. Life on the ground in Afghan or even parts of Iraq are much more visceral than you (or the media) give them credit for. Hand-to-hand is not a thing of the past, everyone I know who has deployed to Afghan has fixed bayonets at some point, and unit cohesion & bonding will always be a vital aspect of combat arms, and infantry in particular.
These are ethics that may not have been particularly useful any longer in military situations where people are not fighting hand to hand, but instead have to be ordered dispassionately into possible ambushes.
PS He's not right about that though. Mate, you don't know the half of it. Life on the ground in Afghan or even parts of Iraq are much more visceral than you (or the media) give them credit for. Hand-to-hand is not a thing of the past, everyone I know who has deployed to Afghan has fixed bayonets at some point, and unit cohesion & bonding will always be a vital aspect of combat arms, and infantry in particular.
And . . . what effect does the presence of a woman have on unit cohesion & bonding? Or are you seriously suggesting that a high degree of homosexual love affairs within a unit adds or detracts from it?
And . . . what effect does the presence of a woman have on unit cohesion & bonding? Or are you seriously suggesting that a high degree of homosexual love affairs within a unit adds or detracts from it?
Er, wrong sequitur. You seemed to be arguing that relationships within units for reasons of bonding were unnecessary in the current environment. I was merely pointing out that your assessment of the current environment was far from complete, and bonding is always necessary.
Also, if you read up, I specifically pointed out that homosexual relationships in the modern military wouldn't serve the same purpose as 2000+ years ago when it was socially acceptable, and was raising the question of whether straight relationships could serve the same purpose, as having women in a unit tends to present influences in opposing directions, namely relationships could either strengthen or weaken cohesion (same as any interoffice relationship) and the prescence of women can be beneficial in some areas, but possibly detrimental in others.
And . . . what effect does the presence of a woman have on unit cohesion & bonding? Or are you seriously suggesting that a high degree of homosexual love affairs within a unit adds or detracts from it?
Er, wrong sequitur. You seemed to be arguing that relationships within units for reasons of bonding were unnecessary in the current environment. I was merely pointing out that your assessment of the current environment was far from complete, and bonding is always necessary.
Also, if you read up, I specifically pointed out that homosexual relationships in the modern military wouldn't serve the same purpose as 2000+ years ago when it was socially acceptable, and was raising the question of whether straight relationships could serve the same purpose, as having women in a unit tends to present influences in opposing directions, namely relationships could either strengthen or weaken cohesion (same as any interoffice relationship) and the prescence of women can be beneficial in some areas, but possibly detrimental in others.
My only point was that "The Spartans!" is a really lousy argument. I was arguing that romantic love affairs within a modern unit really have debateable value to the modern unit.
My only point was that "The Spartans!" is a really lousy argument. I was arguing that romantic love affairs within a modern unit really have debateable value to the modern unit.
Fair enough, but it is at least debatable - I don't think it's necessarily the slam-dunk Bad Thing that the status quo argument makes out.
And . . . what effect does the presence of a woman have on unit cohesion & bonding? Or are you seriously suggesting that a high degree of homosexual love affairs within a unit adds or detracts from it?
Er, wrong sequitur. You seemed to be arguing that relationships within units for reasons of bonding were unnecessary in the current environment. I was merely pointing out that your assessment of the current environment was far from complete, and bonding is always necessary.
Also, if you read up, I specifically pointed out that homosexual relationships in the modern military wouldn't serve the same purpose as 2000+ years ago when it was socially acceptable, and was raising the question of whether straight relationships could serve the same purpose, as having women in a unit tends to present influences in opposing directions, namely relationships could either strengthen or weaken cohesion (same as any interoffice relationship) and the prescence of women can be beneficial in some areas, but possibly detrimental in others.
My only point was that "The Spartans!" is a really lousy argument. I was arguing that romantic love affairs within a modern unit really have debateable value to the modern unit.
The point here being that the debateableness of the value of an affair is purely down to the details on how that affair is handled in both a personal and policy level. The point being that "it depends". I disagree with the notion that women should be prevented from serving just because of the possibility of it causing problems with unit cohesion etc, especially when it's demonstrably the opposite in many cases.
The argument against it isn't strong enough to override the basic right that everyone should have equally, in all areas of life. If you're qualified for the position then you should have the right to work in it no matter what your gender or ancestry. Most of the arguments against it seem to boil down to phrases involving "might" or "could" related to how they maybe could contribute to some kind of ambiguous motivational problem.
People have a right to serve if they are qualified and so choose. If someone wants to prevent that due to sexism/racism/whateverism, they do not have the right to prevent it from happening. Period. There are various issues related to HOW integration and the various relationships and motivations should be managed but there should be no debate as to whether or not it should be allowed at all.
My only point was that "The Spartans!" is a really lousy argument. I was arguing that romantic love affairs within a modern unit really have debateable value to the modern unit.
Fair enough, but it is at least debatable - I don't think it's necessarily the slam-dunk Bad Thing that the status quo argument makes out.
No no. I don't mean that either.
I mean that the Greek's contention that it is a very positive thing that should be definately encouraged is suspect.
My only point was that "The Spartans!" is a really lousy argument. I was arguing that romantic love affairs within a modern unit really have debateable value to the modern unit.
Fair enough, but it is at least debatable - I don't think it's necessarily the slam-dunk Bad Thing that the status quo argument makes out.
No no. I don't mean that either.
I mean that the Greek's contention that it is a very positive thing that should be definately encouraged is suspect.
The Greek's contention is based on a philosophical argument that had basis in a very specific culture. We can learn from it and apply part of the ideas into our modern day management of the armed services, but there's no way that it's applicable as rote policy.
Yeah, if you say so Ninto. Personally, I don't think this particular piece of Greek culture has much for us to use in terms of applied military management.
Jessica Lynch is an excellent example of why women shouldn't be combat support. Not because she threw down her weapon and surrendered, no, that's just embarassing and pathetic. The entire spectacle/action movie that was made up by the whiz kids at the Pentagon is a big reason why.
As I understand it, her M-16 jammed before she was ever able to fire a shot, and when the vehicle she was in crashed, she was knocked out and suffered spinal injuries. She was a little too unconscious to throw anything or to surrender, and wasn't even able to stand up on her own for weeks after she was rescued. If you find that to be disgraceful and contemptible, you're a moron. Blaming her for how the media and politicians spun her story is even more ridiculous.
Out of curiosity, is it at all possible that the level of asshattery that's being discussed (which is very real, having been in both armor and infantry units) may be related to the lack of females in combat arms units? I've noticed that the more equal the male/female ratio is in a unit, the less of that shit goes on...so basically when you take a few hundred guys and put them in a total sausagefest of course they're gonna turn into dumbasses when they see somebody without a penis.
Jessica Lynch is an excellent example of why women shouldn't be combat support. Not because she threw down her weapon and surrendered, no, that's just embarassing and pathetic. The entire spectacle/action movie that was made up by the whiz kids at the Pentagon is a big reason why.
As I understand it, her M-16 jammed before she was ever able to fire a shot, and when the vehicle she was in crashed, she was knocked out and suffered spinal injuries. She was a little too unconscious to throw anything or to surrender, and wasn't even able to stand up on her own for weeks after she was rescued. If you find that to be disgraceful and contemptible, you're a moron. Blaming her for how the media and politicians spun her story is even more ridiculous.
She actually testified before a congressional inquiry stating all that, and how angry she was that she'd been lied about and made out to be some sort of damn rambo figure. She had been treated pretty shabbily by the PR corps.
Out of curiosity, is it at all possible that the level of asshattery that's being discussed (which is very real, having been in both armor and infantry units) may be related to the lack of females in combat arms units? I've noticed that the more equal the male/female ratio is in a unit, the less of that shit goes on...so basically when you take a few hundred guys and put them in a total sausagefest of course they're gonna turn into dumbasses when they see somebody without a penis.
That's pretty much what I think. I've worked in all-female environments and nearly-all-male environments as well as mixed ones, and the mixed ones are much less prone to weirdness and dickery. There's a place in society for single-sex spaces, but only in limited recreational contexts. Heavy segregation makes both genders operate under some quite bizarre social norms, and really enforces the us-against-them mentality.
I'm seeing a whole lot of talk here about sexism and gender roles, and not a lot addressing some of the primary psychological and biological motivators behind what inspires military personnel.
One of man's primary motivators is sexual - be a better man, attract a better or more woman and so forth. Keep in mind this goes both ways but in the interest of not over-complicating the verbiage I'll focus on the men pursuing women.
This is problematic. You're implying that a) women aren't sexual, and b) that men are so very sexual that they can't help themselves. If they really are the wacky combination of child and bastard that your statement implies, why would you support letting them out in public unsupervised, let alone fighting a war?
Short answer: Men aren't that obsessed with sex, can be motivated by other things, and have a lot more control than you give them credit for. A lot of problems with male actions wrt sex these days stem purely from the tyranny of low expectations, which encourages the above mindset.
3. The policy of non-fraternization causes the presence of "untouchable" sexual attractors to be a huge tease and denial game, which further tends to galvanize the issue. People keep insisting that people need to "learn to be more professional" and "control themselves" etc etc. What fucking planet do you live on that sexual needs aren't a primary driver for almost every goddamn thing that everybody does, ever? This puritanical need to remove sexual drivers from everything is causing way more harm than good.
What fucking planet do you live on where those standards of professionalism aren't expected in non-military life? No-one's asking soldiers to be monks. They're suppsoed to be held to the same standards as everyone else, not given a pass on pathological and close-enough-to sexual behaviour because of what they do on the clock. The way sex is framed in your post is incredibly destructive to anyone who subscribes to that view.
I don't know where you're getting it from, either. Far as I know, the only restrictions on sexual relationships between servicepeople are fairly sensible - ie, don't pork your boss, and try not to pork anyone you work with too closely. Both eminently sensible rules that are also norms in civilian life.
Jessica Lynch is an excellent example of why women shouldn't be combat support. Not because she threw down her weapon and surrendered, no, that's just embarassing and pathetic. The entire spectacle/action movie that was made up by the whiz kids at the Pentagon is a big reason why.
As I understand it, her M-16 jammed before she was ever able to fire a shot, and when the vehicle she was in crashed, she was knocked out and suffered spinal injuries. She was a little too unconscious to throw anything or to surrender, and wasn't even able to stand up on her own for weeks after she was rescued. If you find that to be disgraceful and contemptible, you're a moron. Blaming her for how the media and politicians spun her story is even more ridiculous.
Read her autobiography. She says she threw down her dirty, uncleaned rifle and prayed to God to survive before getting knocked out. Her rifle jammed because she didn't do proper maintenance on it. Her rifle didn't fail her, she failed her rifle.
I know she didn't make the big PR super duper hi speed Spec Ops Rescue Action Film that the Pentagon put into action, but how about you read her goddamn book before throwing names around, Action Jackson?
If I remember, people in the military aren't supposed to have sex outside of wedlock. Though that rule is usually ignored.
Read her autobiography. She says she threw down her dirty, uncleaned rifle and prayed to God to survive before getting knocked out. Her rifle jammed because she didn't do proper maintenance on it. Her rifle didn't fail her, she failed her rifle.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest she's not the first, nor last, lazy person who'll not clean a rifle properly. Especially given the impression I have been given suggesting a significant fraction of those in the military are there for the college ticket.
Read her autobiography. She says she threw down her dirty, uncleaned rifle and prayed to God to survive before getting knocked out. Her rifle jammed because she didn't do proper maintenance on it. Her rifle didn't fail her, she failed her rifle.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest she's not the first, nor last, lazy person who'll not clean a rifle properly. Especially given the impression I have been given suggesting a significant fraction of those in the military are there for the college ticket.
So that makes it alright?
Sorry but when I was coming up I saw people get physically hit over a dirty weapon, mainly because that's someone's life that could be taken because your lazy ass was too busy to clean your bolt carrier. That's part of your duties as a Soldier, and if you're not willing to perform those duties because "you're just there for college", you need to get the fuck out of the Army. That dosen't even begin to register as an acceptable excuse for what the fuck happened.
That statement just blows my mind because it shows how goddamn little you know about the military. Seriously, I think I almost blew a blood vessel when I read that.
I don't see your case.
I'm not blaming her for the Pentagon's shenanigans, I'm blaming her for being a terrible Soldier. She got the fucking Bronze Star for that fuck up, and God knows she didn't deserve it. I applaud her current actions in speaking out against the Pentagon Spin Machine and the perfumed princes (Hackworth's term for the Pentagon hacks who make a career out of staying in Washington DC), but she pretty much fucked up terribly when it came to the entire part where she's supposed to be a Soldier in the US Army.
I'm not blaming her for the Pentagon's shenanigans, I'm blaming her for being a terrible Soldier. She got the fucking Bronze Star for that fuck up, and God knows she didn't deserve it. I applaud her current actions in speaking out against the Pentagon Spin Machine and the perfumed princes (Hackworth's term for the Pentagon hacks who make a career out of staying in Washington DC), but she pretty much fucked up terribly when it came to the entire part where she's supposed to be a Soldier in the US Army.
Not because she threw down her weapon and surrendered, no
I'm not blaming her for the Pentagon's shenanigans, I'm blaming her for being a terrible Soldier. She got the fucking Bronze Star for that fuck up, and God knows she didn't deserve it. I applaud her current actions in speaking out against the Pentagon Spin Machine and the perfumed princes (Hackworth's term for the Pentagon hacks who make a career out of staying in Washington DC), but she pretty much fucked up terribly when it came to the entire part where she's supposed to be a Soldier in the US Army.
Not because she threw down her weapon and surrendered, no
?
What are you trying to say here. I don't speak non sequitor quotes.
Read her autobiography. She says she threw down her dirty, uncleaned rifle and prayed to God to survive before getting knocked out. Her rifle jammed because she didn't do proper maintenance on it. Her rifle didn't fail her, she failed her rifle.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest she's not the first, nor last, lazy person who'll not clean a rifle properly. Especially given the impression I have been given suggesting a significant fraction of those in the military are there for the college ticket.
So that makes it alright?
No but I am questioning what introducing this information proves. By all accounts the Australian soldier who died in Iraq several months back was probably an idiot who shot himself with his own weapon by being a jackass with it.
I'm not blaming her for the Pentagon's shenanigans,
+
The entire spectacle/action movie that was made up by the whiz kids at the Pentagon is a big reason why.
=
O_o
I should have expounded in the second quote. If it had been a guy who had been captured, I doubt we would have had the giant Pentagon planned operation nonsense with a goddamn joint SF/SEAL team or whatever the hell it was Air Assaulting into a friendly hospital and rescuing her while videotaping the entire damn thing via live feed. That wasn't her fault - that was some genius in the Pentagon believing that the nation would (predicatably) rally around her as an icon. Like I said, I just blame her for being a pretty terrible Soldier, that's all.
And Electricity, did they give that dude one of the nation's highest military awards along with a book deal? For some reason I'm doubting it, and it has fuckall to do with your assertion that because people are there for college money, its cool to have a dirty weapon.
And Electricity, did they give that dude one of the nation's highest military awards along with a book deal? For some reason I'm doubting it, and it has fuckall to do with your assertion that because people are there for college money, its cool to have a dirty weapon.
Stop strawmanning my damn points.
My point was, people fuck up and do stupid things in the military. Some of these people will be men.
So why is introducing the fact that a women also happened to do that relevant to this question?
Unless of course, your intention was to try and argue that women are incapable of being effective soldiers.
Because otherwise all we can say is that beurocracy is fucking stupid for not dispensing the appropriate discipline. But then of course, we have to ask whether it does so for those men who are guilty of the same. Which of course, requires us to look at things like service records and reprimands issued to an appropriate sample set.
Like I said, I just blame her for being a pretty terrible Soldier, that's all.
Thing is, she was pretty much a truck driver who passed basic. I know the army says all its members should be able to drop everything and operate at infantry level in theory, but in practice I doubt most of the rear-end support staff are really pushed to that level as much as they should be - especially since there's really no such thing as a front line anymore. Modern armies need to decide once and for all whether they really want to demand proper combat readiness from their non-front-line staff or not. The mentality distinguishing the two groups strikes me as outdated. 'course, I doubt that'll happen, because acknowledging that non-frontline staff now often have to do the same shit as frontline staff these days (on top of their other duties) would mean you'd have to pay them more and give them the same entitlements, if there are extras, right?
And Electricity, did they give that dude one of the nation's highest military awards along with a book deal? For some reason I'm doubting it, and it has fuckall to do with your assertion that because people are there for college money, its cool to have a dirty weapon.
Stop strawmanning my damn points.
My point was, people fuck up and do stupid things in the military. Some of these people will be men.
So why is introducing the fact that a women also happened to do that relevant to this question?
Unless of course, your intention was to try and argue that women are incapable of being effective soldiers.
Because otherwise all we can say is that beurocracy is fucking stupid for not dispensing the appropriate discipline. But then of course, we have to ask whether it does so for those men who are guilty of the same. Which of course, requires us to look at things like service records and reprimands issued to an appropriate sample set.
There's nothing to strawman. You made a ridiculous goddamn assertion (college money = okay to be lazy!) and now you're trying to backpeddle.
The reason its important is because I highly fucking doubt if a man had acted in the same way she did, he would have been awarded one of our nation's highest accolades. Technically, what she did is cowardice in the face of the enemy and should have been punished by Courts Martial, not with the goddamn Bronze Star, the POW Medal, and a tickertape parade in your hometown.
Now who's strawmanning? I never said women can't effective soldiers, but the kind of BS like this really dosen't help their cause much.
The Pentagon bullshit machine worked pretty hard for the circumstances surrounding Pat Tillman's demise.
It seems reasonable to assume that they just love creating heroes in an unpopular war.
I was there for Pat Tillman's death. Not like "in the country there", but like "it occured at the tiny ass firebase I was stationed out of".
The Rangers were giving the guys from my unit guilt for days, literally buying into a lie when they all knew what happened out there. They were blaming us for "not doing our job" and claiming that the reason there was a 100 man Taliban/Al Qaeda ambush was because we were just a bunch of lazy assholes.
And then the real story broke and I'm in the middle of a fist fight in the chow line a day later. Why? Because a Ranger was talking shit about how awesome Rangers are, going "Better marchers, better looking, better fighters, better marksman.." and then my old platoon sergeant "Yeah Pat Tillman knows all about what awesome marksmen you assholes are."
Then I'm kicking some dude in the head who's just knee tackled my squad leader.
There's nothing to strawman. You made a ridiculous goddamn assertion (college money = okay to be lazy!) and now you're trying to backpeddle.
No you flaming idiot, go back and read the OP. I said "I doubt she was the first person to inadequately maintain their weapon". I did not say "it is ok that she inadequately maintained her weapon", I said "it is not especially surprising some people inadequately maintain their weapons"
You were saying "she didn't maintain her weapon, she was a shitty soldier" - ok that might be the case, but people aren't arguing for special treatment for women and you are apparently assuming that of course they are.
You can dismiss them as idealists, which might be valid, but successful integration examples from other countries suggest otherwise and you have not addressed these points.
The reason its important is because I highly fucking doubt if a man had acted in the same way she did, he would have been awarded one of our nation's highest accolades. Technically, what she did is cowardice in the face of the enemy and should have been punished by Courts Martial, not with the goddamn Bronze Star, the POW Medal, and a tickertape parade in your hometown.
Now who's strawmanning? I never said women can't effective soldiers, but the kind of BS like this really dosen't help their cause much.
Right, and everyone in the fucking thread has pointed out that the Pentagon bullshit machine went nuts on that one because they needed to spin up a hero and hey, reasonably attractive female soldier captured by the enemy.
Like I said, I just blame her for being a pretty terrible Soldier, that's all.
Thing is, she was pretty much a truck driver who passed basic. I know the army says all its members should be able to drop everything and operate at infantry level in theory, but in practice I doubt most of the rear-end support staff are really pushed to that level as much as they should be - especially since there's really no such thing as a front line anymore. Modern armies need to decide once and for all whether they really want to demand proper combat readiness from their non-front-line staff or not. The mentality distinguishing the two groups strikes me as outdated. 'course, I doubt that'll happen, because acknowledging that non-frontline staff now often have to do the same shit as frontline staff these days (on top of their other duties) would mean you'd have to pay them more and give them the same entitlements, if there are extras, right?
Yeah, I don't expect her to be doing GI Jane feats of heroism, and again I blame the Pentagon for all that. But Basic does cover the entire "keep your weapon clean and fire it at the enemy" thing, so she bought that.
There's a huge separation between who goes outside the wire and who dosen't, and while I agree the mentality is ridiculous, it dosen't stop it from happening in the US military. Case in point, when I was at FOB Sykes up in Tal Afar, we'd run people down to FOB Spicher down in the vicinity of Tikrit. I can't even begin to describe how weird it was. You had people running in battalion formation, road guards, speed limit signs, MPs shooting radar. We're coming from a base that's getting rocketed about every night, and all thinking to ourselves "This is their war?" Our Captain had to pull rank to get into the chow hall, because they said we were "too dirty".
We were too dirty to eat in a chow hall in the middle of a combat zone. Marinate on that. And these same assholes almost some dudes in our CO's Stryker when they fired on it with their .50 caliber machine gun because they weren't familiar with the Stryker!. And that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to combat arms v support staff.
They're already getting all the same benefits we are, so the only difference between the two is the perks that the combat arms get over the support (called pogues or fobbits). I mean hell, last I checked they were giving combat pay for being in Kuwait. Explain that to me.
I hope this is all making sense, but if its not, I'll try to tone down the military jingo, or at least explain it better if you can point out what I'm not coming across with right.
There's nothing to strawman. You made a ridiculous goddamn assertion (college money = okay to be lazy!) and now you're trying to backpeddle.
No you flaming idiot, go back and read the OP. I said "I doubt she was the first person to inadequately maintain their weapon". I did not say "it is ok that she inadequately maintained her weapon", I said "it is not especially surprising some people inadequately maintain their weapons"
You were saying "she didn't maintain her weapon, she was a shitty soldier" - ok that might be the case, but people aren't arguing for special treatment for women and you are apparently assuming that of course they are.
You can dismiss them as idealists, which might be valid, but successful integration examples from other countries suggest otherwise and you have not addressed these points.
The reason its important is because I highly fucking doubt if a man had acted in the same way she did, he would have been awarded one of our nation's highest accolades. Technically, what she did is cowardice in the face of the enemy and should have been punished by Courts Martial, not with the goddamn Bronze Star, the POW Medal, and a tickertape parade in your hometown.
Now who's strawmanning? I never said women can't effective soldiers, but the kind of BS like this really dosen't help their cause much.
Right, and everyone in the fucking thread has pointed out that the Pentagon bullshit machine went nuts on that one because they needed to spin up a hero and hey, reasonably attractive female soldier captured by the enemy.
And people bought into it, and still do, and that's the problem.
My point is that she failed totally and utterly as a Soldier, and part of that was not keeping her weapon cleaned, and because she happened to be an attractive female soldier, she got away with cowardice in the face of the enemy. And I don't understand what the fuck is so hard about that to understand.
Address the fact she got accolades for her actions because of her sex, and then we'll talk. And by successful integration, I can only assume you mean the IDF, where women are able to pretty much opt out of serving in a combat role whenever they want to, while this luxury isn't afforded to their male counterparts.
That's not a goddamn "successful" integration. How about we integrate the Army, and let the women quit whenever they want to. HOORAY SUCCESSFUL INTEGRATION GOOD GAME D&D! Because that's about what you're preposing.
And people bought into it, and still do, and that's the problem.
My point is that she failed totally and utterly as a Soldier, and part of that was not keeping her weapon cleaned, and because she happened to be an attractive female soldier, she got away with cowardice in the face of the enemy. And I don't understand what the fuck is so hard about that to understand.
Address the fact she got accolades for her actions because of her sex, and then we'll talk. And by successful integration, I can only assume you mean the IDF, where women are able to pretty much opt out of serving in a combat role whenever they want to, while this luxury isn't afforded to their male counterparts.
That's not a goddamn "successful" integration. How about we integrate the Army, and let the women quit whenever they want to. HOORAY SUCCESSFUL INTEGRATION GOOD GAME D&D! Because that's about what you're preposing.
So...because we have stupid beurocratic bullshit regarding women being in front line roles now (because it's treated as "oh hey, let's use a quota system!") you're proposal is that clearly women should never be in the army ever.
Because I'll go out on what is not a limb here, and say that maybe you would make a clearer case by saying "I agree that if we could ensure that is what would actually happen then it would be ok - but..."
I would refuse to serve with women in a combat role if they could not pass the same requirements that I was required to pass. As long as they aren't given any leeway and are all on birth control during deployment, I have no issues.
Im still waiting for affirmative action for the military so we can have completely equal proportions of men, women, blacks, whites, asians, and jews.
And people bought into it, and still do, and that's the problem.
My point is that she failed totally and utterly as a Soldier, and part of that was not keeping her weapon cleaned, and because she happened to be an attractive female soldier, she got away with cowardice in the face of the enemy. And I don't understand what the fuck is so hard about that to understand.
Address the fact she got accolades for her actions because of her sex, and then we'll talk. And by successful integration, I can only assume you mean the IDF, where women are able to pretty much opt out of serving in a combat role whenever they want to, while this luxury isn't afforded to their male counterparts.
That's not a goddamn "successful" integration. How about we integrate the Army, and let the women quit whenever they want to. HOORAY SUCCESSFUL INTEGRATION GOOD GAME D&D! Because that's about what you're preposing.
So...because we have stupid beurocratic bullshit regarding women being in front line roles now (because it's treated as "oh hey, let's use a quota system!") you're proposal is that clearly women should never be in the army ever.
Because I'll go out on what is not a limb here, and say that maybe you would make a clearer case by saying "I agree that if we could ensure that is what would actually happen then it would be ok - but..."
I thought that was pretty much assumed if you had read the thread and seen me agree with Zal when he said as much here
You're still refusing to acknowledge history, which was they did the same thing for combat support jobs, and then when the females couldn't hack the Physical Fitness test, they lowered the standards so they could make it. And there's nothing to say they won't do the same thing with combat arms jobs, which would be a goddamn nightmare if you had a squad leader who couldn't hack the same things you had to. I saw it when it involved other men, and its not going to be any different if its a women who couldn't hack it. Its the entire "breakdown of order and discipline" thing you keep poo pooing away.
I'm done with you until you can acknowledge that.
Okay. There's not much else I can say except for what I keep saying:
The failures of those in charge to adequately enforce the standards has absolutely nothing to do with the people who MEET those standards.
I'm sorry that soldiers weren't held to proper account and that unit discipline suffered. I believe you when you say that has a devastating effect on unit effectiveness and safety.
It's not the soldiers' fault, however.
If you're so convinced that the people charged with overseeing the standards will fail, then honestly I think we need more people like you trying to become part of the process to make sure that it doesn't fail.
I appreciate the compliment, but guys like me don't get put in charge of high profile assignments like this. The military dosen't want to look like it "failed", so it'll put some yes man who'll bend the data to make everything look like a rousing success. What we're getting into now is changing the entire military culture, and that's something Col. David Hackworth has been going nuts about from Vietnam to when he died.
Edit: Colin Powell was responsible for covering up Mai Lai, but look where he made it. That's just one of many examples.
....And then went on to expand on that by saying I wouldn't have a problem with an all female infantry unit here,
Honestly, I wouldn't have a problem with an all female infantry unit, but when you mix genders in that sort of environment, the problems go far beyond any tangible benefits.
and even went so far on to expound on the tactical futures of both types of units if the US Army was into more specialist roles. This can all be found on page 3, thanks. Maybe if you weren't so eager to try and strike one in my misogynist heart for women everywhere, you would know this.
Oh look a 5 page thread and then siliconenhanced ranting about Jessica Lynch when the topic apparently didn't request it.
You know most of us take some effort to frame the relevance of information when it's introduced. Tends to make it clear what sort of point we're trying to make with it.
And then of course the fun and games of your rantings about me saying it's ok people don't clean their guns, which, because let's just reiterate what I said here:
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest she's not the first, nor last, lazy person who'll not clean a rifle properly. Especially given the impression I have been given suggesting a significant fraction of those in the military are there for the college ticket.
Now I suppose this does bring up the question of whether I'm saying it's ok she didn't, but for some reason this information was of vital importance about Jessica Lynch when every single person was already well aware of the fact that it was complete bullshit on that.
So you might see, how when presenting the relevance of your information clearly, you can avoid unfortunate misunderstandings.
Oh look a 5 page thread and then siliconenhanced ranting about Jessica Lynch when the topic apparently didn't request it.
You know most of us take some effort to frame the relevance of information when it's introduced. Tends to make it clear what sort of point we're trying to make with it.
And then of course the fun and games of your rantings about me saying it's ok people don't clean their guns, which, because let's just reiterate what I said here:
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest she's not the first, nor last, lazy person who'll not clean a rifle properly. Especially given the impression I have been given suggesting a significant fraction of those in the military are there for the college ticket.
Now I suppose this does bring up the question of whether I'm saying it's ok she didn't, but for some reason this information was of vital importance about Jessica Lynch when every single person was already well aware of the fact that it was complete bullshit on that.
So you might see, how when presenting the relevance of your information clearly, you can avoid unfortunate misunderstandings.
Uh okay I've gone over like five times how Jessica Lynch was a goddamn travesty, but if you're too stupid and can't get over the fact that she fucked up and got over because she happened to have a vagina, I'm not going to beat my head against the wall that is your stupidity.
I'm just going to go to bed and hope the Cat or Loren or Zal or goddamn somebody posts something insightful when I wake up in a few hours instead of having to read your fucking tidal wave of idiotic non-sequitors. So go on and say something mind numbing about how Jessica Lynch getting the Bronze Star for cowardice in the face of the enemy dosen't matter because some Australian dude who's apparently never served in an Armed Foces in his life says so.
This is siliconenhanced signing off to go punch a kitten. Good night and good luck.
Uh okay I've gone over like five times how Jessica Lynch was a goddamn travesty, but if you're too stupid and can't get over the fact that she fucked up and got over because she happened to have a vagina, I'm not going to beat my head against the wall that is your stupidity.
I'm just going to go to bed and hope the Cat or Loren or Zal or goddamn somebody posts something insightful when I wake up in a few hours instead of having to read your fucking tidal wave of idiotic non-sequitors. So go on and say something mind numbing about how Jessica Lynch getting the Bronze Star for cowardice in the face of the enemy dosen't matter because some Australian dude who's apparently never served in an Armed Foces in his life says so.
This is siliconenhanced signing off to go punch a kitten. Good night and good luck.
So what the fucking christ? DO YOU READ MY POSTS OR JUST START TYPING?
You see that part where you were all "rar how dare you question my example" and then I point out how it was very ambiguous? And those parts above where we argue about this and I understand what you're saying but point out that you could've said it clearer?
Do you read your own posts? Because apparently that exchange just went right by you.
Elec, shut the fuck up. Silicon wasn't saying what you think he was. Lynch did fuck up by not keeping her rifle in working order. however, that wasn't presented as an argument against women in the military. FFS, I have a hair trigger on that stuff. If I of all people am not reacting, do you think perhaps that you might be seeing things that aren't there?
Posts
Hmm. I happen to agree with this, mostly again based on the fact that I know at least one openly & possibly other closeted gay soldiers in probably the most macho reg in the British army. One, it has fuck all effect on their ability to be a bloody good soldier. Two, I'm also mates with the openly gay bloke, shared a basha with him in the field (ie buddied together, sleeping next to each other etc), thrown each other over walls & so on, and not once have I - or anyone else in our unit as far as I'm aware - been worried that he might cop a feel, come on to me, or any of the usual tripe that I've heard other blokes moan about re: gays in the military.
However, any smart commander looks to the morale & effectiveness of all his troops first, and individuals second. Fact is that while there are a significant number of people in the military who are uncomfortable about having gays in their unit, it's not going to help either of the above. This doesn't mean it can't happen in time, just that the tempo of change necessarily has to be slow, and nice civil libertarian initiatives to force that pace are unwise - and this is from a pretty diehard civil libertarian. Furthermore, I've not met a single gay soldier yet who wants to be a trailblazer for gay rights in the forces, they all just want to do the same job as the rest of us without any special treatment in either direction.
Also, Shinto is right: "Teh Spartans!" is a stupid argument re: gays in the military, largely because homosexuality isn't generally acceptable as it was for the Greeks. Straight relationships are another question though.
PS He's not right about that though. Mate, you don't know the half of it. Life on the ground in Afghan or even parts of Iraq are much more visceral than you (or the media) give them credit for. Hand-to-hand is not a thing of the past, everyone I know who has deployed to Afghan has fixed bayonets at some point, and unit cohesion & bonding will always be a vital aspect of combat arms, and infantry in particular.
And . . . what effect does the presence of a woman have on unit cohesion & bonding? Or are you seriously suggesting that a high degree of homosexual love affairs within a unit adds or detracts from it?
Er, wrong sequitur. You seemed to be arguing that relationships within units for reasons of bonding were unnecessary in the current environment. I was merely pointing out that your assessment of the current environment was far from complete, and bonding is always necessary.
Also, if you read up, I specifically pointed out that homosexual relationships in the modern military wouldn't serve the same purpose as 2000+ years ago when it was socially acceptable, and was raising the question of whether straight relationships could serve the same purpose, as having women in a unit tends to present influences in opposing directions, namely relationships could either strengthen or weaken cohesion (same as any interoffice relationship) and the prescence of women can be beneficial in some areas, but possibly detrimental in others.
My only point was that "The Spartans!" is a really lousy argument. I was arguing that romantic love affairs within a modern unit really have debateable value to the modern unit.
Fair enough, but it is at least debatable - I don't think it's necessarily the slam-dunk Bad Thing that the status quo argument makes out.
The point here being that the debateableness of the value of an affair is purely down to the details on how that affair is handled in both a personal and policy level. The point being that "it depends". I disagree with the notion that women should be prevented from serving just because of the possibility of it causing problems with unit cohesion etc, especially when it's demonstrably the opposite in many cases.
The argument against it isn't strong enough to override the basic right that everyone should have equally, in all areas of life. If you're qualified for the position then you should have the right to work in it no matter what your gender or ancestry. Most of the arguments against it seem to boil down to phrases involving "might" or "could" related to how they maybe could contribute to some kind of ambiguous motivational problem.
People have a right to serve if they are qualified and so choose. If someone wants to prevent that due to sexism/racism/whateverism, they do not have the right to prevent it from happening. Period. There are various issues related to HOW integration and the various relationships and motivations should be managed but there should be no debate as to whether or not it should be allowed at all.
No no. I don't mean that either.
I mean that the Greek's contention that it is a very positive thing that should be definately encouraged is suspect.
The Greek's contention is based on a philosophical argument that had basis in a very specific culture. We can learn from it and apply part of the ideas into our modern day management of the armed services, but there's no way that it's applicable as rote policy.
That's pretty much what I think. I've worked in all-female environments and nearly-all-male environments as well as mixed ones, and the mixed ones are much less prone to weirdness and dickery. There's a place in society for single-sex spaces, but only in limited recreational contexts. Heavy segregation makes both genders operate under some quite bizarre social norms, and really enforces the us-against-them mentality.
This is problematic. You're implying that a) women aren't sexual, and b) that men are so very sexual that they can't help themselves. If they really are the wacky combination of child and bastard that your statement implies, why would you support letting them out in public unsupervised, let alone fighting a war?
Short answer: Men aren't that obsessed with sex, can be motivated by other things, and have a lot more control than you give them credit for. A lot of problems with male actions wrt sex these days stem purely from the tyranny of low expectations, which encourages the above mindset.
What fucking planet do you live on where those standards of professionalism aren't expected in non-military life? No-one's asking soldiers to be monks. They're suppsoed to be held to the same standards as everyone else, not given a pass on pathological and close-enough-to sexual behaviour because of what they do on the clock. The way sex is framed in your post is incredibly destructive to anyone who subscribes to that view.
I don't know where you're getting it from, either. Far as I know, the only restrictions on sexual relationships between servicepeople are fairly sensible - ie, don't pork your boss, and try not to pork anyone you work with too closely. Both eminently sensible rules that are also norms in civilian life.
Read her autobiography. She says she threw down her dirty, uncleaned rifle and prayed to God to survive before getting knocked out. Her rifle jammed because she didn't do proper maintenance on it. Her rifle didn't fail her, she failed her rifle.
I know she didn't make the big PR super duper hi speed Spec Ops Rescue Action Film that the Pentagon put into action, but how about you read her goddamn book before throwing names around, Action Jackson?
Ha ha ha ha.
Not even remotely the case.
I don't see your case.
So that makes it alright?
Sorry but when I was coming up I saw people get physically hit over a dirty weapon, mainly because that's someone's life that could be taken because your lazy ass was too busy to clean your bolt carrier. That's part of your duties as a Soldier, and if you're not willing to perform those duties because "you're just there for college", you need to get the fuck out of the Army. That dosen't even begin to register as an acceptable excuse for what the fuck happened.
That statement just blows my mind because it shows how goddamn little you know about the military. Seriously, I think I almost blew a blood vessel when I read that.
I'm not blaming her for the Pentagon's shenanigans, I'm blaming her for being a terrible Soldier. She got the fucking Bronze Star for that fuck up, and God knows she didn't deserve it. I applaud her current actions in speaking out against the Pentagon Spin Machine and the perfumed princes (Hackworth's term for the Pentagon hacks who make a career out of staying in Washington DC), but she pretty much fucked up terribly when it came to the entire part where she's supposed to be a Soldier in the US Army.
?
What are you trying to say here. I don't speak non sequitor quotes.
+
=
O_o
I should have expounded in the second quote. If it had been a guy who had been captured, I doubt we would have had the giant Pentagon planned operation nonsense with a goddamn joint SF/SEAL team or whatever the hell it was Air Assaulting into a friendly hospital and rescuing her while videotaping the entire damn thing via live feed. That wasn't her fault - that was some genius in the Pentagon believing that the nation would (predicatably) rally around her as an icon. Like I said, I just blame her for being a pretty terrible Soldier, that's all.
And Electricity, did they give that dude one of the nation's highest military awards along with a book deal? For some reason I'm doubting it, and it has fuckall to do with your assertion that because people are there for college money, its cool to have a dirty weapon.
It seems reasonable to assume that they just love creating heroes in an unpopular war.
Stop strawmanning my damn points.
My point was, people fuck up and do stupid things in the military. Some of these people will be men.
So why is introducing the fact that a women also happened to do that relevant to this question?
Unless of course, your intention was to try and argue that women are incapable of being effective soldiers.
Because otherwise all we can say is that beurocracy is fucking stupid for not dispensing the appropriate discipline. But then of course, we have to ask whether it does so for those men who are guilty of the same. Which of course, requires us to look at things like service records and reprimands issued to an appropriate sample set.
Thing is, she was pretty much a truck driver who passed basic. I know the army says all its members should be able to drop everything and operate at infantry level in theory, but in practice I doubt most of the rear-end support staff are really pushed to that level as much as they should be - especially since there's really no such thing as a front line anymore. Modern armies need to decide once and for all whether they really want to demand proper combat readiness from their non-front-line staff or not. The mentality distinguishing the two groups strikes me as outdated. 'course, I doubt that'll happen, because acknowledging that non-frontline staff now often have to do the same shit as frontline staff these days (on top of their other duties) would mean you'd have to pay them more and give them the same entitlements, if there are extras, right?
There's nothing to strawman. You made a ridiculous goddamn assertion (college money = okay to be lazy!) and now you're trying to backpeddle.
The reason its important is because I highly fucking doubt if a man had acted in the same way she did, he would have been awarded one of our nation's highest accolades. Technically, what she did is cowardice in the face of the enemy and should have been punished by Courts Martial, not with the goddamn Bronze Star, the POW Medal, and a tickertape parade in your hometown.
Now who's strawmanning? I never said women can't effective soldiers, but the kind of BS like this really dosen't help their cause much.
I was there for Pat Tillman's death. Not like "in the country there", but like "it occured at the tiny ass firebase I was stationed out of".
The Rangers were giving the guys from my unit guilt for days, literally buying into a lie when they all knew what happened out there. They were blaming us for "not doing our job" and claiming that the reason there was a 100 man Taliban/Al Qaeda ambush was because we were just a bunch of lazy assholes.
And then the real story broke and I'm in the middle of a fist fight in the chow line a day later. Why? Because a Ranger was talking shit about how awesome Rangers are, going "Better marchers, better looking, better fighters, better marksman.." and then my old platoon sergeant "Yeah Pat Tillman knows all about what awesome marksmen you assholes are."
Then I'm kicking some dude in the head who's just knee tackled my squad leader.
I still don't see what this has to do with women. It seems like a more general problem of manufacturing heroes and heroics for the media.
You were saying "she didn't maintain her weapon, she was a shitty soldier" - ok that might be the case, but people aren't arguing for special treatment for women and you are apparently assuming that of course they are.
You can dismiss them as idealists, which might be valid, but successful integration examples from other countries suggest otherwise and you have not addressed these points.
Right, and everyone in the fucking thread has pointed out that the Pentagon bullshit machine went nuts on that one because they needed to spin up a hero and hey, reasonably attractive female soldier captured by the enemy.
Yeah, I don't expect her to be doing GI Jane feats of heroism, and again I blame the Pentagon for all that. But Basic does cover the entire "keep your weapon clean and fire it at the enemy" thing, so she bought that.
There's a huge separation between who goes outside the wire and who dosen't, and while I agree the mentality is ridiculous, it dosen't stop it from happening in the US military. Case in point, when I was at FOB Sykes up in Tal Afar, we'd run people down to FOB Spicher down in the vicinity of Tikrit. I can't even begin to describe how weird it was. You had people running in battalion formation, road guards, speed limit signs, MPs shooting radar. We're coming from a base that's getting rocketed about every night, and all thinking to ourselves "This is their war?" Our Captain had to pull rank to get into the chow hall, because they said we were "too dirty".
We were too dirty to eat in a chow hall in the middle of a combat zone. Marinate on that. And these same assholes almost some dudes in our CO's Stryker when they fired on it with their .50 caliber machine gun because they weren't familiar with the Stryker!. And that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to combat arms v support staff.
They're already getting all the same benefits we are, so the only difference between the two is the perks that the combat arms get over the support (called pogues or fobbits). I mean hell, last I checked they were giving combat pay for being in Kuwait. Explain that to me.
I hope this is all making sense, but if its not, I'll try to tone down the military jingo, or at least explain it better if you can point out what I'm not coming across with right.
And people bought into it, and still do, and that's the problem.
My point is that she failed totally and utterly as a Soldier, and part of that was not keeping her weapon cleaned, and because she happened to be an attractive female soldier, she got away with cowardice in the face of the enemy. And I don't understand what the fuck is so hard about that to understand.
Address the fact she got accolades for her actions because of her sex, and then we'll talk. And by successful integration, I can only assume you mean the IDF, where women are able to pretty much opt out of serving in a combat role whenever they want to, while this luxury isn't afforded to their male counterparts.
That's not a goddamn "successful" integration. How about we integrate the Army, and let the women quit whenever they want to. HOORAY SUCCESSFUL INTEGRATION GOOD GAME D&D! Because that's about what you're preposing.
Because I'll go out on what is not a limb here, and say that maybe you would make a clearer case by saying "I agree that if we could ensure that is what would actually happen then it would be ok - but..."
Im still waiting for affirmative action for the military so we can have completely equal proportions of men, women, blacks, whites, asians, and jews.
I thought that was pretty much assumed if you had read the thread and seen me agree with Zal when he said as much here
I appreciate the compliment, but guys like me don't get put in charge of high profile assignments like this. The military dosen't want to look like it "failed", so it'll put some yes man who'll bend the data to make everything look like a rousing success. What we're getting into now is changing the entire military culture, and that's something Col. David Hackworth has been going nuts about from Vietnam to when he died.
Edit: Colin Powell was responsible for covering up Mai Lai, but look where he made it. That's just one of many examples.
....And then went on to expand on that by saying I wouldn't have a problem with an all female infantry unit here,
and even went so far on to expound on the tactical futures of both types of units if the US Army was into more specialist roles. This can all be found on page 3, thanks. Maybe if you weren't so eager to try and strike one in my misogynist heart for women everywhere, you would know this.
You know most of us take some effort to frame the relevance of information when it's introduced. Tends to make it clear what sort of point we're trying to make with it.
And then of course the fun and games of your rantings about me saying it's ok people don't clean their guns, which, because let's just reiterate what I said here:
Now I suppose this does bring up the question of whether I'm saying it's ok she didn't, but for some reason this information was of vital importance about Jessica Lynch when every single person was already well aware of the fact that it was complete bullshit on that.
So you might see, how when presenting the relevance of your information clearly, you can avoid unfortunate misunderstandings.
Uh okay I've gone over like five times how Jessica Lynch was a goddamn travesty, but if you're too stupid and can't get over the fact that she fucked up and got over because she happened to have a vagina, I'm not going to beat my head against the wall that is your stupidity.
I'm just going to go to bed and hope the Cat or Loren or Zal or goddamn somebody posts something insightful when I wake up in a few hours instead of having to read your fucking tidal wave of idiotic non-sequitors. So go on and say something mind numbing about how Jessica Lynch getting the Bronze Star for cowardice in the face of the enemy dosen't matter because some Australian dude who's apparently never served in an Armed Foces in his life says so.
This is siliconenhanced signing off to go punch a kitten. Good night and good luck.
You see that part where you were all "rar how dare you question my example" and then I point out how it was very ambiguous? And those parts above where we argue about this and I understand what you're saying but point out that you could've said it clearer?
Do you read your own posts? Because apparently that exchange just went right by you.