There's probably going to be a lot of potential for sexual harassment especially when it comes to exposed genitalia. For example, you're always drinking a lot of water so you pee pretty often. If you're stuck in the truck for several hours waiting to exfil you're going to need to find a use for one of those empty gatorade bottles. If you're outside the wire or in the field and moving in formation everyone can't stop for one person to pee. If they do stop, you're flanked by your squad. Also, you don't leave your patrol base to pee and it leaves no room for privacy.
When I was in, we had shitty knee pads that wouldn't stay in place. They'd fall down your legs and pull your pants somewhat tight. This would cause your pants to tear at the crotch if you took a knee. It's not that big of a problem until you realize that pretty much no one wears underwear. It chafes way too much. Going commando is a phrase for a pretty good reason. Now I've heard that the new uniform integrates knee pads into the pants in a way that isn't useless, so maybe this is no longer an issue. However, the crotch blows out in uniforms even when you're not wearing knee pads. Women might not have the same problem (I'd imagine underwear doesn't chafe as much without a penis and scrotum), but I'm sure they don't want to see dicks all the time.
Another problem is that the buildings created to accommodate infantry weren't built with women in mind. Many share bathrooms and shower areas. The barracks on Sand Hill (where infantry basic is held on Fort Benning) had a single shower and bathroom area serving the entire bay. My barracks in Fort Lewis had the same thing for all of our rooms. Obviously this is a quick fix with a little construction. Hopefully that construction is under way or already happened, though the Army isn't very quick to perform needed construction. Our same barracks in Fort Lewis had asbestos for almost 2 years. They didn't remove that until we deployed.
Maybe none of this will make for a big problem. Maybe other units with men and women serving alongside each other don't have this problem. Though it might be much easier to give people privacy outside of a combat environment. Combat arms has had institutionalized sexism for centuries so it's bound to have asshole leaders within its ranks. The other countries with women in combat arms may have easily handled this problem already. Though Americans are prudes and the transition might not go as smoothly. Regardless, all of those infantry in their late teens and early twenties will have to learn to act like adults, because there's going to be a lot of nudity.
(You'd think people would have to be pretty mature to go to war. You'd also be wrong.)
That said, establishing gender-neutral standards and allowing any soldier that meets them to pursue the MOS is absolutely reasonable.
I agree with this, as does most of the thread. So not just for mcdermott but for the whole thread: Do we think this is likely?
It sounds like the physical fitness standards are different between the sexes for non-combat roles. Will that carry over to combat roles? Or will combat roles keep the current male standard as the only one? Or are new, even-tougher, gender-neutral standards on the way?
I hope this will not happen but I suspect political pressure and the already extant presence of differing gender standards for physical fitness will lead to degradation of physical fitness standards in the military and thus degradation of US military combat effectiveness.
Compared to women, men are on average: bigger, with more muscle (especially upper body), less fat, more RBCs, more hemoglobin, more oxygen carrying capacity, stronger bones, tendons and ligaments, and higher pain tolerance. All things that are useful when carrying heavy loads around, and going into combat. Training can close some of these gaps, but not all of them. For normally distributed traits with sufficiently different means we would expect very few women to be suitable for combat and the ratio of M:F who pass the suitability threshold to increase rapidly the farther we get from the mean. All of which is to say the presence of few women in combat roles wouldn't be defacto evidence of discrimination. Of course we know there has been discrimination, of the most obvious kind, and we should expect the number of women in combat roles to shoot up rapidly before stabilizing. I just expect that stable level to be pretty low.
The Swedish Marine Corps, which seems to have gone the furthest of the participating allies in creating a gender-blind force, does not distinguish between men and women in berthing assignment. Bathrooms, bedrooms, and showers are shared. People deal with it. This strikes me as the logical endpoint of integrating an expeditionary force.
Mixed-sex, sexually liberated groups of combat troops: it seems like something out of sci fi like The Forever War, or Old Man's War or Starship Troopers.
Seems like it would be really important to understand how the Swedish Marine Corps and other fully sex-integrated fighting forces managed to successfully integrate women, especially if their fighting effectiveness has proven to be the same as all-male forces. It also makes even more dubious the oft-heard proposition that integrating women necessarily means loss of morale or unit cohesion or fighting spirit, or makes rape inevitable, or whatever other excuse people bring up to avoid integration.
You know as i was reading that i was picturing Old Mans War specifically.
Good reference.
What's the Swedish civilian approach on sex segregation
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It was many moons ago, but we had no special MOS specific APFT standards in armor. It was just that standard scale, based on age (and gender, but we were all male).
It would be easy enough to have a "must score on men's scale" policy. And there's precedent, anyway. IIRC airborne school required a given score on the 17-21 scale, so forcing a soldier to score outside their own gender/age group is not unheard of.
It'd be easy enough to require infantry units to score on men's scale regardless of gender.
What's the Swedish civilian approach on sex segregation
Not sure if that's how done everywhere, all the time, but when my a classmate of mines sister served with the Swedish military (at Skövde p4, mid 80-ies, I believe) they didn't segregate. Changing rooms and showers were coed or at least some of them were. Swedes are a lot less hung up about nudity and don't equal it to sexy time as much.
Out in the civilan normal world, public gym/bath changing rooms and showers are generally segregated, with exception for children under the age of 7ish, or so, who can go with the adult who is responsible for them, regardless of gender. And inside the changing rooms, showers and saunas it's full on streaking. If you live with people who you are not romantically involved with you can still pretty much count on running into them naked now and then. Because its 7am and putting on clothes takes too much hand-eye coordination or whatever.
I like the discourse in this thread. I did 12 years on submarines in the Navy. I grew up as an Army brat, I have several family members and friends active duty in all branches. We all agree that combat arms should be open.
My only takeaway from this is that @Paladin should fuck off and die. Seriously. Just shut the fuck up.
What's the Swedish civilian approach on sex segregation
Not sure if that's how done everywhere, all the time, but when my a classmate of mines sister served with the Swedish military (at Skövde p4, mid 80-ies, I believe) they didn't segregate. Changing rooms and showers were coed or at least some of them were. Swedes are a lot less hung up about nudity and don't equal it to sexy time as much.
Out in the civilan normal world, public gym/bath changing rooms and showers are generally segregated, with exception for children under the age of 7ish, or so, who can go with the adult who is responsible for them, regardless of gender. And inside the changing rooms, showers and saunas it's full on streaking. If you live with people who you are not romantically involved with you can still pretty much count on running into them naked now and then. Because its 7am and putting on clothes takes too much hand-eye coordination or whatever.
Even so, it's interesting that the military as an exception to the division of society rather than a rule has already been accomplished.
Also @ ing me to a thread you want me out of is weird
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Nah I just wanted you to be aware that you have been seen, evaluated, and rejected. But I'm probably just bought into the current system and need to be dissuaded. So keep tilting that effervescent windmill.
Nah I just wanted you to be aware that you have been seen, evaluated, and rejected. But I'm probably just bought into the current system and need to be dissuaded. So keep tilting that effervescent windmill.
That's fine, dude, you're entitled as a person with actual experience, and you should feel free to discuss your opinion. But you're a bit late on my account; my concerns were fully addressed in the middle of the last page. I promise not to bother or engage you if you don't want my interference.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Nah I just wanted you to be aware that you have been seen, evaluated, and rejected. But I'm probably just bought into the current system and need to be dissuaded. So keep tilting that effervescent windmill.
That's fine, dude, you're entitled as a person with actual experience, and you should feel free to discuss your opinion. But you're a bit late on my account; my concerns were fully addressed in the middle of the last page. I promise not to bother or engage you if you don't want my interference.
Is there a legit reason for any combat role to have the same fitness standards as a non combat role other than cost and convenience
No
Eh. "Non combat role" can get...pretty flexible at times. Ditto "combat role".
This isn't really true and it seems like there's a lot of confusion about this.
The "combat roles" we're talking about here are MOSes that solely focus on combat. They are combat arms. All of their training revolves around their individual roles in combat. As such, they are the ones tasked with combat centric missions. Infantry go on raids to capture or kill the enemy. Artillery do fire missions to support infantry. Tankers go on patrols with tanks. Etcetera.
There is an overlap with combat arms jobs and it's that everyone can see combat. However seeing combat isn't the same for a motor transport operator, someone in supply, or a cook. Seeing combat is not really the job description of artillery, infantry, or tankers either.
First of all, non combat arms missions don't involve killing the enemy. If you're ambushed during a convoy while taking a Logistical Package to a Combat Outpost then you're going to push through the kill zone and keep going. Delivering the Log Pack is your priority and you're neither equipped nor trained to handle the enemy. Whoever's providing convoy security might stop to seek out the enemy, but even then probably not. If you need that particular group of enemy dead you'll most likely call someone else.
Second, they don't train for combat like combat arms. When combat arms are in garrison they only train for combat. In the field they only train for combat. In theater they only do combat and Counter Insurgency. They are the best trained to handle it. Cooks will spend the vast majority of their time cooking. Supply will their vast majority of time on supply. Motor transport operators will spend the vast majority of their time driving and working on their vehicles. Combat isn't so simple as people think. Most aspects of combat have several hundred page Field Manuals written about them. You can't be a dilettante when it comes to seeking out and destroying the enemy. You have to memorize these FMs and each tiny facet of the actions associated with them and constantly train on them until you can perform them in the most stressful situations of your lives. Non combat arms don't do this. They don't have to train to lift artillery shells, load tank rounds, or carry 1000 rounds of 7.62 either.
Thirdly, only combat arms are equipped like combat arms. Only tankers get tanks or know how to operate them. Only artillery gets artillery pieces and know how to operate them. Only infantry get all of their weapon attachments, gear, and vehicles (ie Bradleys and Strykers) and know how to use them. This equipment is needed to effectively perform their jobs. Their training ensures that no other MOS can really even use them satisfactorily, because it takes so much training. People think there's a lot of overlap with combat arms compared to everyone else, this is false. Everyone knows their specific job and has trained for it. For example, machine gunners know their machine guns in and out. They know every aspect of machine gun employment and have ample experience with them. A cook with a machine gun has probably been to the range a few times, but doesn't need to worry about carrying that extra weight to support it so doesn't really train for that. They cook. A random sampling of non combat arms aren't going to know how to perform battle drills outside a class or two, not like the infantry who can do it in their sleep even when their Sympathetic Nervous System takes over.
When it comes to non combat roles that combat arms fulfill, it's something like putting in paperwork or cleaning. It's something every job handles internally. In the field they still train for their duty positions which are combat related. You're not going to see them take over for cooks or supply in the same way that infantry would cover down on a raid for special forces.
Well, not unless they're sent to an S shop, in which case their chain of command has deemed them unfit for the line anyway.
Now, support personnel in combat arms companies will see combat, and seek it out with combat arms, but they aren't going to perform combat arms duties within combat. They're going to perform their own duties in combat. Mostly. A supply guy in a line company might walk around with the CO and guard him, but that's nowhere near the same a kicking down doors and doing battle drills. Being a supply guy in combat arms still doesn't require the level of fitness a SAW gunner or ammo bearer needs.
my best friend has forgotten his anniversary twice since he got back from Iraq but he still will blurt out like a robot anything from the details of the rifling, to the weight, to the disassembly/cleaning procedure of an M240-Bravo if you ask him
that shit is burned in there
Is there a legit reason for any combat role to have the same fitness standards as a non combat role other than cost and convenience
No
Eh. "Non combat role" can get...pretty flexible at times. Ditto "combat role".
This isn't really true and it seems like there's a lot of confusion about this.
The "combat roles" we're talking about here are MOSes that solely focus on combat. They are combat arms. All of their training revolves around their individual roles in combat. As such, they are the ones tasked with combat centric missions. Infantry go on raids to capture or kill the enemy. Artillery do fire missions to support infantry. Tankers go on patrols with tanks. Etcetera.
There is an overlap with combat arms jobs and it's that everyone can see combat. However seeing combat isn't the same for a motor transport operator, someone in supply, or a cook. Seeing combat is not really the job description of artillery, infantry, or tankers either.
First of all, non combat arms missions don't involve killing the enemy. If you're ambushed during a convoy while taking a Logistical Package to a Combat Outpost then you're going to push through the kill zone and keep going. Delivering the Log Pack is your priority and you're neither equipped nor trained to handle the enemy. Whoever's providing convoy security might stop to seek out the enemy, but even then probably not. If you need that particular group of enemy dead you'll most likely call someone else.
Second, they don't train for combat like combat arms. When combat arms are in garrison they only train for combat. In the field they only train for combat. In theater they only do combat and Counter Insurgency. They are the best trained to handle it. Cooks will spend the vast majority of their time cooking. Supply will their vast majority of time on supply. Motor transport operators will spend the vast majority of their time driving and working on their vehicles. Combat isn't so simple as people think. Most aspects of combat have several hundred page Field Manuals written about them. You can't be a dilettante when it comes to seeking out and destroying the enemy. You have to memorize these FMs and each tiny facet of the actions associated with them and constantly train on them until you can perform them in the most stressful situations of your lives. Non combat arms don't do this. They don't have to train to lift artillery shells, load tank rounds, or carry 1000 rounds of 7.62 either.
Thirdly, only combat arms are equipped like combat arms. Only tankers get tanks or know how to operate them. Only artillery gets artillery pieces and know how to operate them. Only infantry get all of their weapon attachments, gear, and vehicles (ie Bradleys and Strykers) and know how to use them. This equipment is needed to effectively perform their jobs. Their training ensures that no other MOS can really even use them satisfactorily, because it takes so much training. People think there's a lot of overlap with combat arms compared to everyone else, this is false. Everyone knows their specific job and has trained for it. For example, machine gunners know their machine guns in and out. They know every aspect of machine gun employment and have ample experience with them. A cook with a machine gun has probably been to the range a few times, but doesn't need to worry about carrying that extra weight to support it so doesn't really train for that. They cook. A random sampling of non combat arms aren't going to know how to perform battle drills outside a class or two, not like the infantry who can do it in their sleep even when their Sympathetic Nervous System takes over.
When it comes to non combat roles that combat arms fulfill, it's something like putting in paperwork or cleaning. It's something every job handles internally. In the field they still train for their duty positions which are combat related. You're not going to see them take over for cooks or supply in the same way that infantry would cover down on a raid for special forces.
Well, not unless they're sent to an S shop, in which case their chain of command has deemed them unfit for the line anyway.
Now, support personnel in combat arms companies will see combat, and seek it out with combat arms, but they aren't going to perform combat arms duties within combat. They're going to perform their own duties in combat. Mostly. A supply guy in a line company might walk around with the CO and guard him, but that's nowhere near the same a kicking down doors and doing battle drills. Being a supply guy in combat arms still doesn't require the level of fitness a SAW gunner or ammo bearer needs.
my best friend has forgotten his anniversary twice since he got back from Iraq but he still will blurt out like a robot anything from the details of the rifling, to the weight, to the disassembly/cleaning procedure of an M240-Bravo if you ask him
that shit is burned in there
Yeah, I was a machine gun team leader and I still cringe whenever I think I might not remember something correctly.
That's from all of the training and combat showcasing its necessity. You see Iraqi militia members jumping around corners and firing from the hip at you, while you shoot at them from cover using the four fundamentals of marksmanship. You also see attachments (whose MOSes I can't remember) dismount their up-armored HMMWVs to shoot M9s at the enemy, while you shoot at the enemy from cover with weapons that have a long enough max effective range. You can't overestimate its importance.
There was never any denying women saw combat. So when people say women have been performing these jobs all along, I can't help but wonder why they think this news has any importance whatsoever and what they think combat arms actually do.
There was never any denying women saw combat. So when people say women have been performing these jobs all along, I can't help but wonder why they think this news has any importance whatsoever and what they think combat arms actually do.
The issue isn't what they do, it's what they represent. Combat arms, especially when you're talking officers, is the route through which promotion to higher commands runs. Keeping women out of them has been a form of glass ceiling.
There was never any denying women saw combat. So when people say women have been performing these jobs all along, I can't help but wonder why they think this news has any importance whatsoever and what they think combat arms actually do.
The issue isn't what they do, it's what they represent. Combat arms, especially when you're talking officers, is the route through which promotion to higher commands runs. Keeping women out of them has been a form of glass ceiling.
I'm talking about my confusion caused by people's conflation of combat experience with combat arms and their interpretation of this news.
There was never any denying women saw combat. So when people say women have been performing these jobs all along, I can't help but wonder why they think this news has any importance whatsoever and what they think combat arms actually do.
The issue isn't what they do, it's what they represent. Combat arms, especially when you're talking officers, is the route through which promotion to higher commands runs. Keeping women out of them has been a form of glass ceiling.
I'd argue a coldly meritocratic system is even more important for general officers, since their fuckups can costs, tens, hundreds, thousands, of lives. Even with this change, if we still mostly use combat arms for higher command, which we probably should, it'll still only slightly shift.
OTOH, I'd argue most senior military leaders have been in the military too long without a break, and have drunk the koolaid way too much. Frankly, an enforced 1 year hiatus after 10,20, and 30 years for them to go to another government agency or private company and work with civilians, in civilian clothes, and do other shit could be a great change.
So, say, you don't seen Gen/ Milley advocating for up to 100 days of training per year for National Guard, as if there's any realistic way for someone to have a viable civilian career like that, let alone any 'crazy bullshit' like family vacations.
Or, for lesser importance, higher level / division runs. Every fucking lower level leader hates that shit, but after 10+ years in, somehow, "This is a waste of time, which sucks, and serves no useful purposes. I had more importance training that got pushed to the right because of this fucking nonsense" becomes, "Hooah!* Golly! We could sure use some Hooah! esprit this morning! Hooah!" The one saving grace is when, as a pogue, your ex-infantry NCO uses one of the "too true to what the military is actually about" cadences and the bible thumping, worthless BC has to retire to his fainting couch.
*Hooah is a dumb Army expression of enthusiasm or affirmative that is ridiculous. For perspective, one story that amuses me is a Group guy saying that he let is slip one time and they threatened to send him back to the conventional Army if it happened again.
Most of my concerns are more nonsense: What is the female equivalent to "Jody"? Will the female latrines be bombarded with crude drawings of vagina's? Will females in combat arm units also be slightly homophobic and homoerotic at the same time? Will we see women partake in the hatred of POG's and REMF's?
My real concern is that there are some really bad apples in the military, more so in combat arms, so what will the Military do to deal with an increase in Sexual Harassment? Maybe this could also lead to more males coming out about sexual harassment.
Most of my concerns are more nonsense: What is the female equivalent to "Jody"? Will the female latrines be bombarded with crude drawings of vagina's? Will females in combat arm units also be slightly homophobic and homoerotic at the same time? Will we see women partake in the hatred of POG's and REMF's?
My real concern is that there are some really bad apples in the military, more so in combat arms, so what will the Military do to deal with an increase in Sexual Harassment? Maybe this could also lead to more males coming out about sexual harassment.
Will women still be Joes? Who will watch the first female privates pee for their urinalysis? Will someone come up with a gender neutral version of Yellow Bird? Will someone deem it inappropriate to call SAW ammo pouches "nutsacks"?
I've heard a rumor that one of the first females in artillery has already filed an EO complaint for being called a fister, which I saw as shorthand only because it makes saying fire support easier. Though it's not hard to believe that someone may have used it inappropriately.
Most of my concerns are more nonsense: What is the female equivalent to "Jody"? Will the female latrines be bombarded with crude drawings of vagina's? Will females in combat arm units also be slightly homophobic and homoerotic at the same time? Will we see women partake in the hatred of POG's and REMF's?
My real concern is that there are some really bad apples in the military, more so in combat arms, so what will the Military do to deal with an increase in Sexual Harassment? Maybe this could also lead to more males coming out about sexual harassment.
Will women still be Joes? Who will watch the first female privates pee for their urinalysis? Will someone come up with a gender neutral version of Yellow Bird? Will someone deem it inappropriate to call SAW ammo pouches "nutsacks"?
I've heard a rumor that one of the first females in artillery has already filed an EO complaint for being called a fister, which I saw as shorthand only because it makes saying fire support easier. Though it's not hard to believe that someone may have used it inappropriately.
Fisters are fisters. I don't even think I heard a 13F called anything but that.
Not even a few days and someone already filed a hurt feelings report, eh? I'm sure they will be super held together when someone yells at them while they're being shot at downrange. 10/10, would risk my life in their weak willed hands.
The one case where someone should have actually filed an EO report I know of, honestly, they should have just beat the living fuck out of the guy instead, so it's still kinda zero, really.
Most of my concerns are more nonsense: What is the female equivalent to "Jody"? Will the female latrines be bombarded with crude drawings of vagina's? Will females in combat arm units also be slightly homophobic and homoerotic at the same time? Will we see women partake in the hatred of POG's and REMF's?
My real concern is that there are some really bad apples in the military, more so in combat arms, so what will the Military do to deal with an increase in Sexual Harassment? Maybe this could also lead to more males coming out about sexual harassment.
Will women still be Joes? Who will watch the first female privates pee for their urinalysis? Will someone come up with a gender neutral version of Yellow Bird? Will someone deem it inappropriate to call SAW ammo pouches "nutsacks"?
I've heard a rumor that one of the first females in artillery has already filed an EO complaint for being called a fister, which I saw as shorthand only because it makes saying fire support easier. Though it's not hard to believe that someone may have used it inappropriately.
Fisters are fisters. I don't even think I heard a 13F called anything but that.
Not even a few days and someone already filed a hurt feelings report, eh? I'm sure they will be super held together when someone yells at them while they're being shot at downrange. 10/10, would risk my life in their weak willed hands.
The one case where someone should have actually filed an EO report I know of, honestly, they should have just beat the living fuck out of the guy instead, so it's still kinda zero, really.
I have trouble imagining any EO problems actually cropping up in combat. There's never time for anything but combat. Well, maybe smoking a cigarette counts. Even outside the wire things should be okay. We never had any problems with our female searchers, that I know of. We didn't have problems with any of our female attachments. I wouldn't say that my unit was exceptional in that regard.
It's when you have downtime that you'll have problems.
Most of my concerns are more nonsense: What is the female equivalent to "Jody"? Will the female latrines be bombarded with crude drawings of vagina's? Will females in combat arm units also be slightly homophobic and homoerotic at the same time? Will we see women partake in the hatred of POG's and REMF's?
My real concern is that there are some really bad apples in the military, more so in combat arms, so what will the Military do to deal with an increase in Sexual Harassment? Maybe this could also lead to more males coming out about sexual harassment.
Will women still be Joes? Who will watch the first female privates pee for their urinalysis? Will someone come up with a gender neutral version of Yellow Bird? Will someone deem it inappropriate to call SAW ammo pouches "nutsacks"?
I've heard a rumor that one of the first females in artillery has already filed an EO complaint for being called a fister, which I saw as shorthand only because it makes saying fire support easier. Though it's not hard to believe that someone may have used it inappropriately.
Fisters are fisters. I don't even think I heard a 13F called anything but that.
Not even a few days and someone already filed a hurt feelings report, eh? I'm sure they will be super held together when someone yells at them while they're being shot at downrange. 10/10, would risk my life in their weak willed hands.
The one case where someone should have actually filed an EO report I know of, honestly, they should have just beat the living fuck out of the guy instead, so it's still kinda zero, really.
Most of my concerns are more nonsense: What is the female equivalent to "Jody"? Will the female latrines be bombarded with crude drawings of vagina's? Will females in combat arm units also be slightly homophobic and homoerotic at the same time? Will we see women partake in the hatred of POG's and REMF's?
My real concern is that there are some really bad apples in the military, more so in combat arms, so what will the Military do to deal with an increase in Sexual Harassment? Maybe this could also lead to more males coming out about sexual harassment.
Will women still be Joes? Who will watch the first female privates pee for their urinalysis? Will someone come up with a gender neutral version of Yellow Bird? Will someone deem it inappropriate to call SAW ammo pouches "nutsacks"?
I've heard a rumor that one of the first females in artillery has already filed an EO complaint for being called a fister, which I saw as shorthand only because it makes saying fire support easier. Though it's not hard to believe that someone may have used it inappropriately.
Fisters are fisters. I don't even think I heard a 13F called anything but that.
Not even a few days and someone already filed a hurt feelings report, eh? I'm sure they will be super held together when someone yells at them while they're being shot at downrange. 10/10, would risk my life in their weak willed hands.
The one case where someone should have actually filed an EO report I know of, honestly, they should have just beat the living fuck out of the guy instead, so it's still kinda zero, really.
one post with some concern about sexual harassment in combat arms
followed by two posts belittling the idea and one post extrapolating that a report of sexual harassment means the person is a bad soldier
Most of my concerns are more nonsense: What is the female equivalent to "Jody"? Will the female latrines be bombarded with crude drawings of vagina's? Will females in combat arm units also be slightly homophobic and homoerotic at the same time? Will we see women partake in the hatred of POG's and REMF's?
My real concern is that there are some really bad apples in the military, more so in combat arms, so what will the Military do to deal with an increase in Sexual Harassment? Maybe this could also lead to more males coming out about sexual harassment.
Will women still be Joes? Who will watch the first female privates pee for their urinalysis? Will someone come up with a gender neutral version of Yellow Bird? Will someone deem it inappropriate to call SAW ammo pouches "nutsacks"?
I've heard a rumor that one of the first females in artillery has already filed an EO complaint for being called a fister, which I saw as shorthand only because it makes saying fire support easier. Though it's not hard to believe that someone may have used it inappropriately.
Fisters are fisters. I don't even think I heard a 13F called anything but that.
Not even a few days and someone already filed a hurt feelings report, eh? I'm sure they will be super held together when someone yells at them while they're being shot at downrange. 10/10, would risk my life in their weak willed hands.
The one case where someone should have actually filed an EO report I know of, honestly, they should have just beat the living fuck out of the guy instead, so it's still kinda zero, really.
one post with some concern about sexual harassment in combat arms
followed by two posts belittling the idea and one post extrapolating that a report of sexual harassment means the person is a bad soldier
He's not belittling the idea nor is he saying that the person bringing up the EO charge is a bad soldier. He's saying the person whom committed it should've just been beaten by everyone else. In-house, low-level, "we will take care of it on our own" aka wall-to-wall counseling, kind of thing.
edit:
Back when I was in Arty, women where only allowed as 13T's. When my Battery went over in 2004-2006, we were attached to units with women. Again, as long as we were busy, there was no time to really think about women serving alongside you. You and everyone else just did your job and then you fucked off back to your rack/hole and crashed out. When we were converted to 19-series, CAV-Scouts (hate), and sent back over, and were attached to a unit with women, for the majority of the tour we stayed out of trouble. Dead time just breeds issues though, and that's not unique to women serving alongside you; all sorts of trouble just comes along with any type of downtime. You have a few hours with nothing to do? Someone/some people are just going to get in trouble. And they give us guns.
When I was a DS, we had female drill sergeants in my CO. They were some of the most motto, hardcore, and meanest people I have ever met. You think your DS was bad? These female DS were downright ice cold.
Even though I'm no longer in, I am a bit excited to finally see this whole thing come to fruition. Now women can enjoy the close knit bonding with their fellow depressed, unsanitary, maniac, teetering the line between exhaustion and hyper awake, grunt. It's not all sunshine and rainbows and I'm sure they understand that. Welcome, it's quite a ride.
edit edit:
Every 13F is a fister, and every Fister has heard the dumb joke on why they're called fisters.
he definitely is calling that person a bad soldier - the first case, not the later personal case
but I perpetually don't feel like I'm in the proper framework to comment because these are people that kill other people for a living
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Most of my concerns are more nonsense: What is the female equivalent to "Jody"? Will the female latrines be bombarded with crude drawings of vagina's? Will females in combat arm units also be slightly homophobic and homoerotic at the same time? Will we see women partake in the hatred of POG's and REMF's?
My real concern is that there are some really bad apples in the military, more so in combat arms, so what will the Military do to deal with an increase in Sexual Harassment? Maybe this could also lead to more males coming out about sexual harassment.
Will women still be Joes? Who will watch the first female privates pee for their urinalysis? Will someone come up with a gender neutral version of Yellow Bird? Will someone deem it inappropriate to call SAW ammo pouches "nutsacks"?
I've heard a rumor that one of the first females in artillery has already filed an EO complaint for being called a fister, which I saw as shorthand only because it makes saying fire support easier. Though it's not hard to believe that someone may have used it inappropriately.
Fisters are fisters. I don't even think I heard a 13F called anything but that.
Not even a few days and someone already filed a hurt feelings report, eh? I'm sure they will be super held together when someone yells at them while they're being shot at downrange. 10/10, would risk my life in their weak willed hands.
The one case where someone should have actually filed an EO report I know of, honestly, they should have just beat the living fuck out of the guy instead, so it's still kinda zero, really.
one post with some concern about sexual harassment in combat arms
followed by two posts belittling the idea and one post extrapolating that a report of sexual harassment means the person is a bad soldier
I see why the concern was brought up!
Who's belittling the idea?
A "hurt feelings" report is a pretty awful way to describe someone reporting sexual harassment!
Most of my concerns are more nonsense: What is the female equivalent to "Jody"? Will the female latrines be bombarded with crude drawings of vagina's? Will females in combat arm units also be slightly homophobic and homoerotic at the same time? Will we see women partake in the hatred of POG's and REMF's?
My real concern is that there are some really bad apples in the military, more so in combat arms, so what will the Military do to deal with an increase in Sexual Harassment? Maybe this could also lead to more males coming out about sexual harassment.
Will women still be Joes? Who will watch the first female privates pee for their urinalysis? Will someone come up with a gender neutral version of Yellow Bird? Will someone deem it inappropriate to call SAW ammo pouches "nutsacks"?
I've heard a rumor that one of the first females in artillery has already filed an EO complaint for being called a fister, which I saw as shorthand only because it makes saying fire support easier. Though it's not hard to believe that someone may have used it inappropriately.
Fisters are fisters. I don't even think I heard a 13F called anything but that.
Not even a few days and someone already filed a hurt feelings report, eh? I'm sure they will be super held together when someone yells at them while they're being shot at downrange. 10/10, would risk my life in their weak willed hands.
The one case where someone should have actually filed an EO report I know of, honestly, they should have just beat the living fuck out of the guy instead, so it's still kinda zero, really.
one post with some concern about sexual harassment in combat arms
followed by two posts belittling the idea and one post extrapolating that a report of sexual harassment means the person is a bad soldier
I see why the concern was brought up!
Who's belittling the idea?
A "hurt feelings" report is a pretty awful way to describe someone reporting sexual harassment!
He's not belittling the idea nor is he saying that the person bringing up the EO charge is a bad soldier. He's saying the person whom committed it should've just been beaten by everyone else. In-house, low-level, "we will take care of it on our own" aka wall-to-wall counseling, kind of thing.
Yeah. For context, the guy who needed a wall to wall counseling was a misogynist piece of shit who was too scared go on missions himself, but was also a dick in general, and we're talking about a case where other tools didn't work so well. And this was in Afghanistan, so that sort of problem was a major issue, as opposed to just making garrison unfun.
As to EO in general, anyone who actually discriminates based on protected factors or who engages in genuine harassment, especially quid pro quo type stuff, should be drummed out so fast their commander sprains their wrist on the paperwork, but OTOH, anyone who can't take a joke is bad for unit cohesion and calls into question their mental toughness.
Maybe their was more context to the specific situation that would radically alter my opinion, but, again, fisters are fisters, and only fresh-faced 2LTs actually call fire support specialists 'fire support specialists.' And yeah, if your name shortens down to fister, it rather comes with the territory that someone is going to make a joke about that at some point.
Most of my concerns are more nonsense: What is the female equivalent to "Jody"? Will the female latrines be bombarded with crude drawings of vagina's? Will females in combat arm units also be slightly homophobic and homoerotic at the same time? Will we see women partake in the hatred of POG's and REMF's?
My real concern is that there are some really bad apples in the military, more so in combat arms, so what will the Military do to deal with an increase in Sexual Harassment? Maybe this could also lead to more males coming out about sexual harassment.
Will women still be Joes? Who will watch the first female privates pee for their urinalysis? Will someone come up with a gender neutral version of Yellow Bird? Will someone deem it inappropriate to call SAW ammo pouches "nutsacks"?
I've heard a rumor that one of the first females in artillery has already filed an EO complaint for being called a fister, which I saw as shorthand only because it makes saying fire support easier. Though it's not hard to believe that someone may have used it inappropriately.
Fisters are fisters. I don't even think I heard a 13F called anything but that.
Not even a few days and someone already filed a hurt feelings report, eh? I'm sure they will be super held together when someone yells at them while they're being shot at downrange. 10/10, would risk my life in their weak willed hands.
The one case where someone should have actually filed an EO report I know of, honestly, they should have just beat the living fuck out of the guy instead, so it's still kinda zero, really.
one post with some concern about sexual harassment in combat arms
followed by two posts belittling the idea and one post extrapolating that a report of sexual harassment means the person is a bad soldier
I see why the concern was brought up!
Who's belittling the idea?
A "hurt feelings" report is a pretty awful way to describe someone reporting sexual harassment!
Now, this isn't to invalidate your opinion, but for context, that is basically what you call any type of complaint about a lot of minor shit that you just deal with in the Army.
"Are you fucking retarded?" is not necessarily an unacceptably unprofessional statement in a military context, and if someone has a problem with that, well, that's pretty weird.
So, "You fisters need to pull your hands out of each other's asses and PMCS (do preventative maintenance) on these vehicles," would be an appropiate reminder to properly use time management techniques and work efficiently, and not genuine harassment on their choice of sexual acts or partners.
0
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
The last thing any soldier wants is to get caught in an IED blast. The next last thing any soldier wants is to get caught in an IED blast wearing armor that doesn’t fit right—making her vulnerable to shockwaves, intense heat, and shrapnel. Getting the right fit is imperative, especially now that qualified women are allowed in all front line combat roles.
Oh, you didn’t hear? Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter announced it Thursday, giving the Navy, Marine Corps, Army, and Air Force 30 days to begin the integration process. And for women capable of becoming SEALs, Green Berets, paratroopers, machine gunners, bomb squad techs, and other roles, part of that integration means being issued the right gear for the job.
“Each service has their own unique needs in combat gear,” says Major Ranking Galloway, a spokesman for the Department of Defense. And that’s before you get down to X and Y chromosomes. A Navy SEAL’s waterproof body armor is going to look very different from an Air Force Combat Controller’s parachute-friendly padding. Generally speaking, though, everyone needs essentially the same gear: stuff to protect your head, chest, and pelvis.
But a protective vest designed for a man’s broad shoulders and long torso will cut off a woman’s arm circulation as she’s aiming a rifle, and make it difficult to crouch. Even when you aren’t in the heat of battle, poorly-fitting gear can be a deadly distraction. It’s difficult to keep your wits if you’re constantly tugging at your armor straps and waddling like a toddler. In case you need a reminder, a typical woman’s skeleton has narrower shoulders, a shorter torso length, and wider hips than a man’s.
The services already are on top of these redesigns. For instance, the Army started issuing a female version of the Improved Outer Tactical Vest in Afghanistan in 2012. The vest is darted, to fit a woman’s torso more snugly. It’s also shorter, so women can sit without having the thing ride up into their chins. It even has a collar designed so it won’t snag on a hair bun. Similarly, the Marine Corps’ Plate Carrier (a vest that holds armor plates) is shorter, with narrower straps.
Still, this is about much more than making everything smaller. Another critical class of gear protects the pelvis. The Army developed seven sizes of its female-specific Protective Under Garmets to better fit a woman’s hips. Also, no fly.
That’s just the basic stuff. The Army (along with DARPA and several commercial partners) is developing male and female versions of a futuristic full-body combat suit called the Soldier Protection System. The current mock-ups look like Halo-knock offs, and protect solders against flames, chemicals, bullets, blades, microbes, and even spectral spying.
How do they do this? Lots of testing. Every bit is rigorous. That means sizing and resizing, even using lasers to get the fine detail. Then they break up the infinitely different body types and sizes into different groups (you know, L, M, S, XS). Lumped together, those body sizes resemble a bell curve. And when finished, the SPS should fit every woman from the 3rd to the 97th percentile.
So yeah, men and women are different, and the military recognizes that by building better gear. But underneath it all, every soldier is essentially the same: Full of guts.
he definitely is calling that person a bad soldier - the first case, not the later personal case
but I perpetually don't feel like I'm in the proper framework to comment because these are people that kill other people for a living
To be fair you also seem to not be in the framework by taking goosey as fuck potshots like the bolded.
I am not trying to denigrate the military, and I do not imply anything unsavory about this. But I do believe that this is the aspect that intimidates and causes the social and psychological divide between military personnel and noncombatants like me and disqualifies me from commenting on military decorum and lifestyle. Because while I may take a profession that risks my life for others, I am never expected to kill anyone for any reason. So I can't imagine what sort of social mindset is necessary to deal with this, and I hesitate to judge military people socially for this reason.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
he definitely is calling that person a bad soldier - the first case, not the later personal case
but I perpetually don't feel like I'm in the proper framework to comment because these are people that kill other people for a living
To be fair you also seem to not be in the framework by taking goosey as fuck potshots like the bolded.
I am not trying to denigrate the military, and I do not imply anything unsavory about this. But I do believe that this is the aspect that intimidates and causes the social and psychological divide between military personnel and noncombatants like me and disqualifies me from commenting on military decorum and lifestyle. Because while I may take a profession that risks my life for others, I am never expected to kill anyone for any reason. So I can't imagine what sort of social mindset is necessary to deal with this, and I hesitate to judge military people socially for this reason.
Ehhhhh....still a very insensitive and goosey thing to say. And you should know that. I know lots of combat soldiers, and not a single one of them would describe their duties as "killing for a living". Not in any serious manner. No body wants to kill man.
he definitely is calling that person a bad soldier - the first case, not the later personal case
but I perpetually don't feel like I'm in the proper framework to comment because these are people that kill other people for a living
To be fair you also seem to not be in the framework by taking goosey as fuck potshots like the bolded.
I am not trying to denigrate the military, and I do not imply anything unsavory about this. But I do believe that this is the aspect that intimidates and causes the social and psychological divide between military personnel and noncombatants like me and disqualifies me from commenting on military decorum and lifestyle. Because while I may take a profession that risks my life for others, I am never expected to kill anyone for any reason. So I can't imagine what sort of social mindset is necessary to deal with this, and I hesitate to judge military people socially for this reason.
Ehhhhh....still a very insensitive and goosey thing to say. And you should know that. I know lots of combat soldiers, and not a single one of them would describe their duties as "killing for a living". Not in any serious manner. No body wants to kill man.
I don't have the wherewithal to describe it more elegantly without losing the gravitas necessary to help me check my privilege. However, I will say that you don't have to want to kill someone for it to be your job and something you have to come to terms with. If that involves a roughshod use of language and a particular sense of humor, so be it, I don't get to make that call because I am ignorant.
If the social mores of the military are actually within my knowable experience and not in part due to this aspect of the military mission, then I stand corrected and will offer comment.
For the purposes of topicality, I am arguing about the expertise of civilians to judge the social arm of military gender integration, especially in combat roles which I believe have an insular culture for various obvious reasons.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Most of my concerns are more nonsense: What is the female equivalent to "Jody"? Will the female latrines be bombarded with crude drawings of vagina's? Will females in combat arm units also be slightly homophobic and homoerotic at the same time? Will we see women partake in the hatred of POG's and REMF's?
My real concern is that there are some really bad apples in the military, more so in combat arms, so what will the Military do to deal with an increase in Sexual Harassment? Maybe this could also lead to more males coming out about sexual harassment.
Will women still be Joes? Who will watch the first female privates pee for their urinalysis? Will someone come up with a gender neutral version of Yellow Bird? Will someone deem it inappropriate to call SAW ammo pouches "nutsacks"?
I've heard a rumor that one of the first females in artillery has already filed an EO complaint for being called a fister, which I saw as shorthand only because it makes saying fire support easier. Though it's not hard to believe that someone may have used it inappropriately.
Fisters are fisters. I don't even think I heard a 13F called anything but that.
Not even a few days and someone already filed a hurt feelings report, eh? I'm sure they will be super held together when someone yells at them while they're being shot at downrange. 10/10, would risk my life in their weak willed hands.
The one case where someone should have actually filed an EO report I know of, honestly, they should have just beat the living fuck out of the guy instead, so it's still kinda zero, really.
one post with some concern about sexual harassment in combat arms
followed by two posts belittling the idea and one post extrapolating that a report of sexual harassment means the person is a bad soldier
I see why the concern was brought up!
Who's belittling the idea?
A "hurt feelings" report is a pretty awful way to describe someone reporting sexual harassment!
Yeah it is.
That's only one post.
Your post seemed pretty sarcastic on the topic as well, but I'll withdraw my comment and stick to saying PJs post was the one that really bothered me.
He's not belittling the idea nor is he saying that the person bringing up the EO charge is a bad soldier. He's saying the person whom committed it should've just been beaten by everyone else. In-house, low-level, "we will take care of it on our own" aka wall-to-wall counseling, kind of thing.
Yeah. For context, the guy who needed a wall to wall counseling was a misogynist piece of shit who was too scared go on missions himself, but was also a dick in general, and we're talking about a case where other tools didn't work so well. And this was in Afghanistan, so that sort of problem was a major issue, as opposed to just making garrison unfun.
As to EO in general, anyone who actually discriminates based on protected factors or who engages in genuine harassment, especially quid pro quo type stuff, should be drummed out so fast their commander sprains their wrist on the paperwork, but OTOH, anyone who can't take a joke is bad for unit cohesion and calls into question their mental toughness.
Maybe their was more context to the specific situation that would radically alter my opinion, but, again, fisters are fisters, and only fresh-faced 2LTs actually call fire support specialists 'fire support specialists.' And yeah, if your name shortens down to fister, it rather comes with the territory that someone is going to make a joke about that at some point.
Most of my concerns are more nonsense: What is the female equivalent to "Jody"? Will the female latrines be bombarded with crude drawings of vagina's? Will females in combat arm units also be slightly homophobic and homoerotic at the same time? Will we see women partake in the hatred of POG's and REMF's?
My real concern is that there are some really bad apples in the military, more so in combat arms, so what will the Military do to deal with an increase in Sexual Harassment? Maybe this could also lead to more males coming out about sexual harassment.
Will women still be Joes? Who will watch the first female privates pee for their urinalysis? Will someone come up with a gender neutral version of Yellow Bird? Will someone deem it inappropriate to call SAW ammo pouches "nutsacks"?
I've heard a rumor that one of the first females in artillery has already filed an EO complaint for being called a fister, which I saw as shorthand only because it makes saying fire support easier. Though it's not hard to believe that someone may have used it inappropriately.
Fisters are fisters. I don't even think I heard a 13F called anything but that.
Not even a few days and someone already filed a hurt feelings report, eh? I'm sure they will be super held together when someone yells at them while they're being shot at downrange. 10/10, would risk my life in their weak willed hands.
The one case where someone should have actually filed an EO report I know of, honestly, they should have just beat the living fuck out of the guy instead, so it's still kinda zero, really.
one post with some concern about sexual harassment in combat arms
followed by two posts belittling the idea and one post extrapolating that a report of sexual harassment means the person is a bad soldier
I see why the concern was brought up!
Who's belittling the idea?
A "hurt feelings" report is a pretty awful way to describe someone reporting sexual harassment!
Now, this isn't to invalidate your opinion, but for context, that is basically what you call any type of complaint about a lot of minor shit that you just deal with in the Army.
"Are you fucking retarded?" is not necessarily an unacceptably unprofessional statement in a military context, and if someone has a problem with that, well, that's pretty weird.
So, "You fisters need to pull your hands out of each other's asses and PMCS (do preventative maintenance) on these vehicles," would be an appropiate reminder to properly use time management techniques and work efficiently, and not genuine harassment on their choice of sexual acts or partners.
For years women (and men, I am sure) have dealt with sexual harassment in the military, and have been told to suck it up, it isn't that bad. Sexual harassment shouldn't be "minor shit you deal with in the military". All EO complaints should be taken seriously and investigated, even if ultimately no remedial steps are needed.
Your first reaction to a rumor about someone filing an EO complaint is to dismiss it as hurt feelings and declare them a shitty soldier. I'm sorry if I don't accept that that's just the way military culture is or should be.
He's not belittling the idea nor is he saying that the person bringing up the EO charge is a bad soldier. He's saying the person whom committed it should've just been beaten by everyone else. In-house, low-level, "we will take care of it on our own" aka wall-to-wall counseling, kind of thing.
Yeah. For context, the guy who needed a wall to wall counseling was a misogynist piece of shit who was too scared go on missions himself, but was also a dick in general, and we're talking about a case where other tools didn't work so well. And this was in Afghanistan, so that sort of problem was a major issue, as opposed to just making garrison unfun.
As to EO in general, anyone who actually discriminates based on protected factors or who engages in genuine harassment, especially quid pro quo type stuff, should be drummed out so fast their commander sprains their wrist on the paperwork, but OTOH, anyone who can't take a joke is bad for unit cohesion and calls into question their mental toughness.
Maybe their was more context to the specific situation that would radically alter my opinion, but, again, fisters are fisters, and only fresh-faced 2LTs actually call fire support specialists 'fire support specialists.' And yeah, if your name shortens down to fister, it rather comes with the territory that someone is going to make a joke about that at some point.
Most of my concerns are more nonsense: What is the female equivalent to "Jody"? Will the female latrines be bombarded with crude drawings of vagina's? Will females in combat arm units also be slightly homophobic and homoerotic at the same time? Will we see women partake in the hatred of POG's and REMF's?
My real concern is that there are some really bad apples in the military, more so in combat arms, so what will the Military do to deal with an increase in Sexual Harassment? Maybe this could also lead to more males coming out about sexual harassment.
Will women still be Joes? Who will watch the first female privates pee for their urinalysis? Will someone come up with a gender neutral version of Yellow Bird? Will someone deem it inappropriate to call SAW ammo pouches "nutsacks"?
I've heard a rumor that one of the first females in artillery has already filed an EO complaint for being called a fister, which I saw as shorthand only because it makes saying fire support easier. Though it's not hard to believe that someone may have used it inappropriately.
Fisters are fisters. I don't even think I heard a 13F called anything but that.
Not even a few days and someone already filed a hurt feelings report, eh? I'm sure they will be super held together when someone yells at them while they're being shot at downrange. 10/10, would risk my life in their weak willed hands.
The one case where someone should have actually filed an EO report I know of, honestly, they should have just beat the living fuck out of the guy instead, so it's still kinda zero, really.
one post with some concern about sexual harassment in combat arms
followed by two posts belittling the idea and one post extrapolating that a report of sexual harassment means the person is a bad soldier
I see why the concern was brought up!
Who's belittling the idea?
A "hurt feelings" report is a pretty awful way to describe someone reporting sexual harassment!
Now, this isn't to invalidate your opinion, but for context, that is basically what you call any type of complaint about a lot of minor shit that you just deal with in the Army.
"Are you fucking retarded?" is not necessarily an unacceptably unprofessional statement in a military context, and if someone has a problem with that, well, that's pretty weird.
So, "You fisters need to pull your hands out of each other's asses and PMCS (do preventative maintenance) on these vehicles," would be an appropiate reminder to properly use time management techniques and work efficiently, and not genuine harassment on their choice of sexual acts or partners.
For you, it's minor shit that you deal with every once in a while, but how often do you think they have to deal with it? How often do you think that for them it's legitimate discrimination versus just someone being a dumbass?
There's a bunch of shit that the guys can just let roll off their backs because, to them, it isn't a sign that someone is legitimately going to be a dumbass down the road, things like the stupid acronyms and nicknames. Man, just think for a second how much of the military "joke" stuff is specifically targeted at making being a woman (or gay) into a bad thing. For us it's just jokes, for them it could be a sign that the person next to them doesn't have their back or could try something especially stupid because they don't see them as an equal. Worse, how often do you think those jokes are signs that they see the butt of the joke as inferior or "ruining the force"?
You really want to be out there with all the other shit you have to deal with and also be wondering if the SAW gunner is going to cover you or not because you're a woman and he's been cracking jokes about your sex the whole time? You really want to try to sleep two holes from that guy?
The military laughs off a ton of shit that they shouldn't have. We had guys who got kicked out of SARC classes for saying that they should be able to beat their wives or that women were inferior, the higher ups just laughed that shit off. Sheetmetal was a physically demanding job filled with guys getting way too macho for themselves, and where women got one chance to succeed for every four that guys got, and jokes about how women can't do the job usually led to people really talking about how women shouldn't be doing the job. I cannot believe that the infantry is any more progressive. There's a bunch of stupid jokes that shouldn't be kept going in the military. Shit, "Fister" could be changed to "Fist" and you've still got the whole reason it's called that in the first place (FST) and it doesn't make it into an easy joke about a person's sexual preferences.
The military has a really stupid fuck problem with sexism and rape, and I sure as shit can't fault someone for feeling that something is inappropriate and reporting it. Hell just to put a point on it, the US percentage of people raped or sexually abused in the US? About 0.1% of the population. In the Military? 5% of women and 1% of men.
So yeah, "hurt feelings report" my ass, there's serious fucking problems in the military and a lot of it comes down to people shrugging off the warning signs or belittling people for reporting.
Posts
When I was in, we had shitty knee pads that wouldn't stay in place. They'd fall down your legs and pull your pants somewhat tight. This would cause your pants to tear at the crotch if you took a knee. It's not that big of a problem until you realize that pretty much no one wears underwear. It chafes way too much. Going commando is a phrase for a pretty good reason. Now I've heard that the new uniform integrates knee pads into the pants in a way that isn't useless, so maybe this is no longer an issue. However, the crotch blows out in uniforms even when you're not wearing knee pads. Women might not have the same problem (I'd imagine underwear doesn't chafe as much without a penis and scrotum), but I'm sure they don't want to see dicks all the time.
Another problem is that the buildings created to accommodate infantry weren't built with women in mind. Many share bathrooms and shower areas. The barracks on Sand Hill (where infantry basic is held on Fort Benning) had a single shower and bathroom area serving the entire bay. My barracks in Fort Lewis had the same thing for all of our rooms. Obviously this is a quick fix with a little construction. Hopefully that construction is under way or already happened, though the Army isn't very quick to perform needed construction. Our same barracks in Fort Lewis had asbestos for almost 2 years. They didn't remove that until we deployed.
Maybe none of this will make for a big problem. Maybe other units with men and women serving alongside each other don't have this problem. Though it might be much easier to give people privacy outside of a combat environment. Combat arms has had institutionalized sexism for centuries so it's bound to have asshole leaders within its ranks. The other countries with women in combat arms may have easily handled this problem already. Though Americans are prudes and the transition might not go as smoothly. Regardless, all of those infantry in their late teens and early twenties will have to learn to act like adults, because there's going to be a lot of nudity.
(You'd think people would have to be pretty mature to go to war. You'd also be wrong.)
You know as i was reading that i was picturing Old Mans War specifically.
Good reference.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It would be easy enough to have a "must score on men's scale" policy. And there's precedent, anyway. IIRC airborne school required a given score on the 17-21 scale, so forcing a soldier to score outside their own gender/age group is not unheard of.
It'd be easy enough to require infantry units to score on men's scale regardless of gender.
Not sure if that's how done everywhere, all the time, but when my a classmate of mines sister served with the Swedish military (at Skövde p4, mid 80-ies, I believe) they didn't segregate. Changing rooms and showers were coed or at least some of them were. Swedes are a lot less hung up about nudity and don't equal it to sexy time as much.
Out in the civilan normal world, public gym/bath changing rooms and showers are generally segregated, with exception for children under the age of 7ish, or so, who can go with the adult who is responsible for them, regardless of gender. And inside the changing rooms, showers and saunas it's full on streaking. If you live with people who you are not romantically involved with you can still pretty much count on running into them naked now and then. Because its 7am and putting on clothes takes too much hand-eye coordination or whatever.
I like the discourse in this thread. I did 12 years on submarines in the Navy. I grew up as an Army brat, I have several family members and friends active duty in all branches. We all agree that combat arms should be open.
My only takeaway from this is that @Paladin should fuck off and die. Seriously. Just shut the fuck up.
Even so, it's interesting that the military as an exception to the division of society rather than a rule has already been accomplished.
Also @ ing me to a thread you want me out of is weird
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
That's fine, dude, you're entitled as a person with actual experience, and you should feel free to discuss your opinion. But you're a bit late on my account; my concerns were fully addressed in the middle of the last page. I promise not to bother or engage you if you don't want my interference.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Cool.
my best friend has forgotten his anniversary twice since he got back from Iraq but he still will blurt out like a robot anything from the details of the rifling, to the weight, to the disassembly/cleaning procedure of an M240-Bravo if you ask him
that shit is burned in there
Yeah, I was a machine gun team leader and I still cringe whenever I think I might not remember something correctly.
That's from all of the training and combat showcasing its necessity. You see Iraqi militia members jumping around corners and firing from the hip at you, while you shoot at them from cover using the four fundamentals of marksmanship. You also see attachments (whose MOSes I can't remember) dismount their up-armored HMMWVs to shoot M9s at the enemy, while you shoot at the enemy from cover with weapons that have a long enough max effective range. You can't overestimate its importance.
There was never any denying women saw combat. So when people say women have been performing these jobs all along, I can't help but wonder why they think this news has any importance whatsoever and what they think combat arms actually do.
The issue isn't what they do, it's what they represent. Combat arms, especially when you're talking officers, is the route through which promotion to higher commands runs. Keeping women out of them has been a form of glass ceiling.
I'm talking about my confusion caused by people's conflation of combat experience with combat arms and their interpretation of this news.
I'm not arguing against this in any way.
I'd argue a coldly meritocratic system is even more important for general officers, since their fuckups can costs, tens, hundreds, thousands, of lives. Even with this change, if we still mostly use combat arms for higher command, which we probably should, it'll still only slightly shift.
OTOH, I'd argue most senior military leaders have been in the military too long without a break, and have drunk the koolaid way too much. Frankly, an enforced 1 year hiatus after 10,20, and 30 years for them to go to another government agency or private company and work with civilians, in civilian clothes, and do other shit could be a great change.
So, say, you don't seen Gen/ Milley advocating for up to 100 days of training per year for National Guard, as if there's any realistic way for someone to have a viable civilian career like that, let alone any 'crazy bullshit' like family vacations.
Or, for lesser importance, higher level / division runs. Every fucking lower level leader hates that shit, but after 10+ years in, somehow, "This is a waste of time, which sucks, and serves no useful purposes. I had more importance training that got pushed to the right because of this fucking nonsense" becomes, "Hooah!* Golly! We could sure use some Hooah! esprit this morning! Hooah!" The one saving grace is when, as a pogue, your ex-infantry NCO uses one of the "too true to what the military is actually about" cadences and the bible thumping, worthless BC has to retire to his fainting couch.
*Hooah is a dumb Army expression of enthusiasm or affirmative that is ridiculous. For perspective, one story that amuses me is a Group guy saying that he let is slip one time and they threatened to send him back to the conventional Army if it happened again.
My real concern is that there are some really bad apples in the military, more so in combat arms, so what will the Military do to deal with an increase in Sexual Harassment? Maybe this could also lead to more males coming out about sexual harassment.
Will women still be Joes? Who will watch the first female privates pee for their urinalysis? Will someone come up with a gender neutral version of Yellow Bird? Will someone deem it inappropriate to call SAW ammo pouches "nutsacks"?
I've heard a rumor that one of the first females in artillery has already filed an EO complaint for being called a fister, which I saw as shorthand only because it makes saying fire support easier. Though it's not hard to believe that someone may have used it inappropriately.
Fisters are fisters. I don't even think I heard a 13F called anything but that.
Not even a few days and someone already filed a hurt feelings report, eh? I'm sure they will be super held together when someone yells at them while they're being shot at downrange. 10/10, would risk my life in their weak willed hands.
The one case where someone should have actually filed an EO report I know of, honestly, they should have just beat the living fuck out of the guy instead, so it's still kinda zero, really.
I have trouble imagining any EO problems actually cropping up in combat. There's never time for anything but combat. Well, maybe smoking a cigarette counts. Even outside the wire things should be okay. We never had any problems with our female searchers, that I know of. We didn't have problems with any of our female attachments. I wouldn't say that my unit was exceptional in that regard.
It's when you have downtime that you'll have problems.
Jesus christ.
one post with some concern about sexual harassment in combat arms
followed by two posts belittling the idea and one post extrapolating that a report of sexual harassment means the person is a bad soldier
I see why the concern was brought up!
Who's belittling the idea?
edit:
Back when I was in Arty, women where only allowed as 13T's. When my Battery went over in 2004-2006, we were attached to units with women. Again, as long as we were busy, there was no time to really think about women serving alongside you. You and everyone else just did your job and then you fucked off back to your rack/hole and crashed out. When we were converted to 19-series, CAV-Scouts (hate), and sent back over, and were attached to a unit with women, for the majority of the tour we stayed out of trouble. Dead time just breeds issues though, and that's not unique to women serving alongside you; all sorts of trouble just comes along with any type of downtime. You have a few hours with nothing to do? Someone/some people are just going to get in trouble. And they give us guns.
When I was a DS, we had female drill sergeants in my CO. They were some of the most motto, hardcore, and meanest people I have ever met. You think your DS was bad? These female DS were downright ice cold.
Even though I'm no longer in, I am a bit excited to finally see this whole thing come to fruition. Now women can enjoy the close knit bonding with their fellow depressed, unsanitary, maniac, teetering the line between exhaustion and hyper awake, grunt. It's not all sunshine and rainbows and I'm sure they understand that. Welcome, it's quite a ride.
edit edit:
Every 13F is a fister, and every Fister has heard the dumb joke on why they're called fisters.
but I perpetually don't feel like I'm in the proper framework to comment because these are people that kill other people for a living
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
A "hurt feelings" report is a pretty awful way to describe someone reporting sexual harassment!
To be fair you also seem to not be in the framework by taking goosey as fuck potshots like the bolded.
Yeah it is.
That's only one post.
Yeah. For context, the guy who needed a wall to wall counseling was a misogynist piece of shit who was too scared go on missions himself, but was also a dick in general, and we're talking about a case where other tools didn't work so well. And this was in Afghanistan, so that sort of problem was a major issue, as opposed to just making garrison unfun.
As to EO in general, anyone who actually discriminates based on protected factors or who engages in genuine harassment, especially quid pro quo type stuff, should be drummed out so fast their commander sprains their wrist on the paperwork, but OTOH, anyone who can't take a joke is bad for unit cohesion and calls into question their mental toughness.
Maybe their was more context to the specific situation that would radically alter my opinion, but, again, fisters are fisters, and only fresh-faced 2LTs actually call fire support specialists 'fire support specialists.' And yeah, if your name shortens down to fister, it rather comes with the territory that someone is going to make a joke about that at some point.
Now, this isn't to invalidate your opinion, but for context, that is basically what you call any type of complaint about a lot of minor shit that you just deal with in the Army.
"Are you fucking retarded?" is not necessarily an unacceptably unprofessional statement in a military context, and if someone has a problem with that, well, that's pretty weird.
So, "You fisters need to pull your hands out of each other's asses and PMCS (do preventative maintenance) on these vehicles," would be an appropiate reminder to properly use time management techniques and work efficiently, and not genuine harassment on their choice of sexual acts or partners.
I am not trying to denigrate the military, and I do not imply anything unsavory about this. But I do believe that this is the aspect that intimidates and causes the social and psychological divide between military personnel and noncombatants like me and disqualifies me from commenting on military decorum and lifestyle. Because while I may take a profession that risks my life for others, I am never expected to kill anyone for any reason. So I can't imagine what sort of social mindset is necessary to deal with this, and I hesitate to judge military people socially for this reason.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Ehhhhh....still a very insensitive and goosey thing to say. And you should know that. I know lots of combat soldiers, and not a single one of them would describe their duties as "killing for a living". Not in any serious manner. No body wants to kill man.
I don't have the wherewithal to describe it more elegantly without losing the gravitas necessary to help me check my privilege. However, I will say that you don't have to want to kill someone for it to be your job and something you have to come to terms with. If that involves a roughshod use of language and a particular sense of humor, so be it, I don't get to make that call because I am ignorant.
If the social mores of the military are actually within my knowable experience and not in part due to this aspect of the military mission, then I stand corrected and will offer comment.
For the purposes of topicality, I am arguing about the expertise of civilians to judge the social arm of military gender integration, especially in combat roles which I believe have an insular culture for various obvious reasons.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Your post seemed pretty sarcastic on the topic as well, but I'll withdraw my comment and stick to saying PJs post was the one that really bothered me.
For years women (and men, I am sure) have dealt with sexual harassment in the military, and have been told to suck it up, it isn't that bad. Sexual harassment shouldn't be "minor shit you deal with in the military". All EO complaints should be taken seriously and investigated, even if ultimately no remedial steps are needed.
Your first reaction to a rumor about someone filing an EO complaint is to dismiss it as hurt feelings and declare them a shitty soldier. I'm sorry if I don't accept that that's just the way military culture is or should be.
For you, it's minor shit that you deal with every once in a while, but how often do you think they have to deal with it? How often do you think that for them it's legitimate discrimination versus just someone being a dumbass?
There's a bunch of shit that the guys can just let roll off their backs because, to them, it isn't a sign that someone is legitimately going to be a dumbass down the road, things like the stupid acronyms and nicknames. Man, just think for a second how much of the military "joke" stuff is specifically targeted at making being a woman (or gay) into a bad thing. For us it's just jokes, for them it could be a sign that the person next to them doesn't have their back or could try something especially stupid because they don't see them as an equal. Worse, how often do you think those jokes are signs that they see the butt of the joke as inferior or "ruining the force"?
You really want to be out there with all the other shit you have to deal with and also be wondering if the SAW gunner is going to cover you or not because you're a woman and he's been cracking jokes about your sex the whole time? You really want to try to sleep two holes from that guy?
The military laughs off a ton of shit that they shouldn't have. We had guys who got kicked out of SARC classes for saying that they should be able to beat their wives or that women were inferior, the higher ups just laughed that shit off. Sheetmetal was a physically demanding job filled with guys getting way too macho for themselves, and where women got one chance to succeed for every four that guys got, and jokes about how women can't do the job usually led to people really talking about how women shouldn't be doing the job. I cannot believe that the infantry is any more progressive. There's a bunch of stupid jokes that shouldn't be kept going in the military. Shit, "Fister" could be changed to "Fist" and you've still got the whole reason it's called that in the first place (FST) and it doesn't make it into an easy joke about a person's sexual preferences.
The military has a really stupid fuck problem with sexism and rape, and I sure as shit can't fault someone for feeling that something is inappropriate and reporting it. Hell just to put a point on it, the US percentage of people raped or sexually abused in the US? About 0.1% of the population. In the Military? 5% of women and 1% of men.
So yeah, "hurt feelings report" my ass, there's serious fucking problems in the military and a lot of it comes down to people shrugging off the warning signs or belittling people for reporting.