|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 10/12/2005 : 10:45:20
|
Just read this interesting article about sex in the military stationed in Iraq: http://www.sltrib.com/iraq/ci_3102537
I was particularly struck by this:
"If you're a woman and a soldier, those are the only two choices you get," Williams writes in Love My Rifle More Than You: Young and Female in the U.S. Army.
About 15 percent of the Army is female.
"And that whole 15 percent is trying to get past an old joke," Williams writes. "''What's the difference between a bitch and a slut?'" A slut will have sex with anyone. A bitch has sex with anyone but you.
"So if she's nice, friendly, outgoing or chatty - she's a slut. If she's distant or reserved or professional - she's a bitch," she writes.
But, one female Marine officer stationed in Ramadi notes, this is not a problem unique to the military.
"What a lot of these women don't understand, because they are young or inexperienced with sex before they came out here, is that it is the same back home, too," she says. "Men want a girl to be easy, but they don't respect a girl who is easy. So whether we're in Iraq, or Salt Lake City, or New York or wherever, this is our reality."
I am neither young (compared to the teens and early-twenties kids who were the subject of this article - I'm 27) nor inexperienced with sex, but it has never been my experience to have to choose between being a bitch and a slut. Not in HS, not in either of the colleges I attended, not in any of the numerous places I've been employed or community organizations I've been a member of. Now I'm not naive, I know that sort of atmosphere exists all over the place, but I've never had a problem avoiding those sort of crowds and guys. What sort of social groups has this poor woman been circulating in that she thinks "it is the same back home", and then gives a list of major cities and says that this is the reality for all women?
This reminds me of a couple weeks ago when a friend of mine posted on his blog, advice about how to express to a woman friend that you are interested in her romantically. He suggested having her over for dinner and cooking a nice meal, then maybe watching a movie. I thought that was a nice suggestion, especially considering that I had had guy friends make their move in exactly that way. But one woman posted a reply saying, "Nothing says 'I wanna get laid' like dinner and a movie at his place." All I could think was, if you have guy friends that think that single-mindedly, why would you be friends with them? But I suppose if you assumed that all men were that way, you would. How fucking sad is that - for both women and men.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
Edited by - marfknox on 10/12/2005 10:49:29
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 11:10:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
...I was particularly struck by this... [i]
The person writing the article focuses on a few attitudes, or viewpoints that are well-known and inflammatory. The same type of rants have been written about corporations and such also, particularly in the traditionally male dominated fields, and there's an element of truth there, but the magnitude of it shouldn't be exaggerated- it's probably not as endemic or universal as such writers sometimes imply. I haven't been in the military, but I suspect the attitudes run the gamot, as with most large organizations. I knew a guy who ran a tree service (male occupation) and he'd give females who wanted to try it crap because he was a nutcase... I worked for Middle Easterners who stereotypically are supposed to treat women like dirt- they treated them great. Gotta beware of sensationalism and jingoisms, but yea, there's still alotta garbage around.
|
Ron White |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 17:11:00 [Permalink]
|
Because of a recently released congressional committee report, there are a lot of talk about widespread sexual harassment in the military - how often it goes unreported, and when it does, how little is done about it. It is more and more being considered a serious problem.
"Sixty percent of women and 27 percent of men in the military reserves and the National Guard suffer sexual assault or harassment during their service, according to a long-overdue report released yesterday by a congressional committee.
"The Department of Veterans Affairs report said its surveys showed that 11 percent of women serving in the reserves or National Guard experienced rape or attempted rape, compared with 1.2 percent of males. More than half of the incidents took place at a military work site and during duty hours, and in most cases military personnel were the offenders, it found."
Read the rest of the article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/29/AR2005092902108.html?nav=rss_politics |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 10/12/2005 17:13:37 |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 17:44:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
..."Sixty percent of women and 27 percent of men...
I don't downplay the ugliness of such incidents, or advocate those who prefer to "shrug these things off" or encourage "plausible deniability" but I'd have to understand these statistics better- where they came from more specifically, and how the study was done (the article was very general.) 60% of females? 27% of males? I wasn't in the military, but I worked for, and with, those who were at a DOD establishment, and frankly, among the people I was exposed to (a fair number) there were only a couple I'd rate as "Possible" for candicacy, and a vast majority I'd rate as "Unlikely" or "Highly Unlikely" to intentionally and knowingly engage in such things... I have to wonder. What, exactly, is "sexual harassment?" If these numbers are legitimate, is it a small minority of predators involved in the transgressions? If that's the case, it seems a law enforcement solution would be possible... "Military justice is to justice as military music is to music" (Groucho Marx)... they can crack down on things, when they need to.
Adding in the rape/assault- those are some high numbers- so high, in fact, that I have to wonder... it talked about funding for "counselling" but if these things are credible, certainly prison time is warranted. Why not legislate harsher punishments? And a preponderance of the effort on making/filing complaints easier, and ensuring they're taken seriously? Sounds to me like dealing with pyromaniacs on the loose by federally subsidizing fire insurance, instead of catching them and throwing them in the slammer where they belong. I don't understand some of this, as it's presented.
|
Ron White |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2005 : 22:38:16 [Permalink]
|
How about a perspective from a skeptic and a former Woman Marine. I happen to agree with the WM Officer quoted in the article. There is a point of view from many men in the military, particularly young men, that 49.5% of women in the military are sluts, 49.5% of women in the military are bitches and only 1% of women in the military are professionals. I've heard it stated this baldly by male Marines. I was fortunate to escape from NAS Memphis without a reputation. In fact, I was checking out of the base, when I was asked by a male if I were checking in. What was going in his mind most likely was the idea that I was fresh meat. I'd seen it before, from most of the guys I knew on the base.
I was subjected to the same shit in NAS Whidbey Island while I was in training and again at MCAS El Toro when I reached my Fleet unit. In fact, I was harrassed significantly until I fought back, literally. I wound up throwing one of the guys I worked with into a test bench, yeah, what was said and happened should be considered as sexual harassment. VA didn't do anything about offering 'help' for dealing with sexual harassment while in service until after the entire AF Academy thing blew up.
Sexual Harassment training I was exposed to in the military existed entirely of how to write up someone for sexual harassment. This training was offered only to women and not to men. Until about my last year in the military. Then they wound up with me teaching the sexual harassment portion of the force march. I said sexual harassment and you could see immediately 249 male Marines withdraw from reality. Until I shocked everyone with a story of what consitutes sexual harassment and my personal response to that particular incident that I described. Needless to say, my SgtMaj, while complimenting me for getting their attention said I needed to find some way of telling the story with out the 'shock value'. I shocked everyone by swearing during a period of instruction. Don't ask.
I have seen the same attitude in the civilian community. If you are compliant, you're easy and therefore a slut. If you're not compliant, then you are a bitch. It is a social view that women can not be strong and independant. There is still to some extent a double standard as far as sex is concerned. If you are female and like sex, you are a slut, easy, whore, etc. If you are female and standoffish, professional, etc, you are a cold fish, bitch, hardass, etc.
Now, as for the not reported. Reporting sexual harassment in the military is a good way to commit career suicide. Ranks right up there with seeking psychological help instead of going to a chaplain. Seeking psych help in the military is considered weakness. Complaining about harassment is considered weakness. Mental weakness in the military is a good way to kill your career. It will follow you for your entire attempt at a career. Then there is always the concept that you are unfit for duty, which is something that your CO can use to prevent you from re-enlisting. It's vague enough that it's extremely difficult to counter if you try to re-enlist.
Ron, the military is an extremely male oriented society. Women in the military are odd. There are approximately 125,000 Marines on active duty at any given time, approximately 6000 of those Marines are women. I was in a unit with 245 Marines, I was one of 2 in the Maintenance division. There were 10 women in the admin sections. I was the only woman in my shop division, the other woman was in Flight Line. I was constantly tested by the guys I worked with. Both physically, they wanted to be sure I was physically capable of doing the job. But I was mentally tested by them as well. The attacks about being female, the guys insisted on chaning in the shop, I refused to leave. The snide comments. The damage to my coffee cup which only said, 'I have PMS, what's your excuse?' Talk about childish, my cup was filled with epoxy.
I was in a very male dominated area, I fought for every scrap of respect. It seemed the paper pushers were more likely to accept women, as paper pushers. But even there, I was an odd one, because I worked on aircraft. I was asked to review a proprosal by some colonel sitting on his ass in the Pentagon about resturcturing Marine Corps bootcamp for Women Marines. He wanted to fucking go back to teaching Women Marines how to throw a fucking tea party! A fucking tea party has no bearing on my ability to carry out my duties as a Marine. Neither does learning how to put on make-up. Though I can actually see the make-up thing, you don't need a Tammy Faye Baker slapped on paint job, which make-up class does prevent. And the regulation states that make-up, if worn, shall look natural.
Another story of something that happened, though I have this only second hand. A young Woman Marine was missing for roll-call, so her NCOIC went to her room. She was found bound and gagged and had been raped. Everyone thought it was just bondage gone wrong and that her claims of rape were her way of covering up getting left in an embarassing situation. After all, she was in the room next to the duty and he didn't hear any fighting or anything from that room. Therefore, she must have complied with her 'attacker'.
This was a prevalent attitude when I was in the military. And it's only been recently that this attitude has been challenged and begun to be addressed. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2005 : 22:18:44 [Permalink]
|
Trish, thank you for your very comprehensive, and illuminating explanation. I get the idea a little better. I shouldn't comment any more about the article or matter as the article described it, as not having actually been in the service (kind of a somewhat closed society within our own) my viewpoint can be nothing more than mere speculation, as I tried to convey. I do believe your account, and that the kind of crap you describe is BS and shoudn't go on, and yea, it sounds like there's some real social pathology involved... and, the "counselling" vs "see a chaplain" bit, consequent effect on career path etc. is, needless to say, asinine to the Nth power in the form of dealing with the matter by "flipping you off" as part of a minority, and pretending there's no problem- and that stinks- but it doesn't surprise me, entirely. That's not inconsistent with many anecdotal accounts and cliches depicting the worst aspects of military life (and, in the immortal words of Groucho, as previously mentioned... Justice/Music.) You hit upon so many issues, they can't be reasonably addressed concisely, so I'll just make a few brief points:
The military is a conglomeration of people from all walks of life, and I think it's possible you fell into a particularly nasty collection of characters, and a lousy context. I understand how things could seem that way, but males in the combined branches of the miltary are likely, overall, not so different in attitude than the general population. Regarding women who don't like men's attitudes in general, I wouldn't even want to try and address that... that's way, way, out of this little arena, and I'd wouldn't know what to say to them anyway... maybe "We're not that bad" but even that would be pointless. Discussions RE problems with institutions and organizations are manageable, but my simple mind, for one, can't fathom issues concerning psychosexual problems generally inherent to the species (this skeptic is happy to leave such witchcraft and necromancy to skullreaders, psychiatrists, and other quacks.) And of all organizations most likely to be so problematic, the Marines would probably be the first that came to mind. Right ahead of the National Football League. As far as I'm concerned, women should be able to pursue any career path they want to, and certainly shouldn't be subjected to such garbage... yet I must admit, honestly, I don't understand why women want to go into the Marines! Why?
(1) They could pursue most of the Corps vocational roles elsewhere.
(2) They're the "hard-core grunt" branch of the Navy. History of Navy: into early 20th century, they were a popular avenue for convicts, thugs, and the dregs of society... floggings were common punishment, including "floggings around the fleet" (we're talking into the 1900's... not too long ago!) Sure, remnants of the culture might persist. Look, I did boxing, martial arts, and all that macho stuff when I was young, and I didn't want to join that outfit... most people I knew who joined didn't like it... very few did, in fact. Why subject yourself to such a load of crap? It's not fair, and I think it's a bad thing women are treated as such, but I can't understand why they want any part of it! I mean, you must be a tough person, but there are more efficient ways to get from point A to B, as I see it.
|
Ron White |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2005 : 23:08:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
Trish, thank you for your very comprehensive, and illuminating explanation. I get the idea a little better. I shouldn't comment any more about the article or matter as the article described it, as not having actually been in the service (kind of a somewhat closed society within our own) my viewpoint can be nothing more than mere speculation, as I tried to convey.
Your comments are welcome. It's just that the military is considered a microcosm of the general society at large. The military is socially ahead in some areas and woefully behind in others. Racial integration in the military far exceeds that seen in the civilian sector, where acceptance of homosexuality and gender equality is woefully behind. It's the way it is. It will eventually change.
quote:
I do believe your account, and that the kind of crap you describe is BS and shoudn't go on, and yea, it sounds like there's some real social pathology involved... and, the "counselling" vs "see a chaplain" bit, consequent effect on career path etc. is, needless to say, asinine to the Nth power in the form of dealing with the matter by "flipping you off" as part of a minority, and pretending there's no problem- and that stinks- but it doesn't surprise me, entirely.
There is a prevalence of thought that seeking psychological help is weakness. There's even that thought in the civilian community. It's not that unique to the military. Though the civilian community is begining to accept psych help without the attached stigma.
quote:
That's not inconsistent with many anecdotal accounts and cliches depicting the worst aspects of military life (and, in the immortal words of Groucho, as previously mentioned... Justice/Music.) You hit upon so many issues, they can't be reasonably addressed concisely, so I'll just make a few brief points:
Those are the worst of the stories. Overall, I liked the Marine Corps and would still be in had I not blown out my knee.
quote:
The military is a conglomeration of people from all walks of life, and I think it's possible you fell into a particularly nasty collection of characters, and a lousy context.
Most people in the military are those from small isolated communities where little opportunity exists. Whether that's small town America or big city America. Prejudicial attitudes prevail in both sectors. Both sectors mentioned here also have surprisingly similar views. Gays are weak. Women are to be protected (whether its the version of protected from lifes evils or protected from being stolen by others). Badly stated there, but I think you can glean my meaning. Psych help is for the weak. We won't even go into the god thing.
quote:
I understand how things could seem that way, but males in the combined branches of the miltary are likely, overall, not so different in attitude than the general population.
No they aren't different overall. However, you must understand that the vast majority of the military are coming from the portions of society where little opportunity exists.
quote:
Regarding women who don't like men's attitudes in general, I wouldn't even want to try and address that... that's way, way, out of this little arena, and I'd wouldn't know what to say to them anyway... maybe "We're not that bad" but even that would be pointless.
I hope I didn't come across as a man hater. I'm not, I happen to like them - alot. I just prefer that they have a brain between their ears, rather than elsewhere.
quote:
Discussions RE problems with institutions and organizations are manageable, but my simple mind, for one, can't fathom issues concerning psychosexual problems generally inherent to the species (this skeptic is happy to leave such witchcraft and necromancy to skullreaders, psychiatrists, and other quacks.)
The military is an organization that is capable of forcing the change. With, mind you, a short period of accelerated growing pains. But it's been done before.
quote:
And of all organizations most likely to be so problematic, the Marines would probably be the first that came to mind. Right ahead of the National Football League. As far as I'm concerned, women should be able to pursue any career path they want to, and certainly shouldn't be subjected to such garbage... yet I must admit, honestly, I don't understand why women want to go into the Marines! Why?
My brother joined the Marines a year before I did. After he graduated bootcamp, there was something about him that I wanted for me. So I went into the Marines. The self-confidence to hold my head up and not hide was what I wanted. But I got so much more. The Marines typically attract tom-boys. The girls who grew up, like me, wearing ERA/NOW t-shirts, running races with the boys, not playing with dolls, etc. There are a lot of reasons to join the Marines.
quote:
(1) They could pursue most of the Corps vocational roles elsewhere.
They were the only branch of service willing to try to get me into DLI. Didn't happen, until the Gunny that was trying to get me to re-up was able to backdoor me out of my MOS. I lost my seat, not through the fault of the military. If my kid had showed up 2 weeks earlier and been less difficult to give birth to, I'd still be in now. Ah well.
quote:
(2) They're the "hard-core grunt" branch of the Navy. History of Navy: into early 20th century, they were a popular avenue for convicts, thugs, and the dregs of society... floggings were common punishment, including "floggings around the fleet" (we're talking into the 1900's... not too long ago!) Sure, remnants of the culture might persist. Look, I did boxing, martial arts, and all that macho stuff when I was young, and I didn't want to join that outfit... most people I knew who joined didn't like it... very few did, in fact.
The rules are different now. Most of them that I knew were ambive |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2005 : 00:53:55 [Permalink]
|
Well, if the combat aspects of it were what you liked, so be it- I guess you found the right place for it. My feelings when I was younger were probably the same as most other young guys- if I were drafted, I'd deal with it, otherwise, I'd take a pass. If you benefited from the experience, more power to you. I skimmed through Jesse Ventura's (ex-SEAL) first book, and he noted that he had no doubts there are women who could handle the physical requirements of SEALs, such as female "ironman" triathletes, etc. but he said women don't belong in combat roles by virue of the innate tendancies of men to protect them, which can distrupt things in a combat situation. I, personally, do not know.
But, in such an environment, it's not unexpected that women "showing up" would be subjected to extra scutiny, or abuse. To use a reverse analogy, suppose I insisted that I wanted to work at a traditionally female job, maybe child day care. In reality, I wouldn't want such a job, and I'd almost certainly be bad at it, but suppose (for arguments sake) I insisted upon it. People interviewing me would almost certainly take one look at me and wonder what was wrong with my head ("Is he a deviant? Or maybe a nutcase?") whereas some might just laugh and refuse to even discuss hiring me. And quite honestly, I wouldn't blame them for wondering- I might myself if I saw a totally miscast person applying for the role. I've never seen a bald, middle-aged guy doing that job- only (mostly young) women... I'm a gross misfit for the mold.
In an ideal world, of course, people should be able to pursue any utilitarian path they wish, but society is a semi-randomly evolved artificial constuct that's not tailored to suit everyone... not by a long shot. Women should be free to do traditionally male things, if they want, but in some instances I'm unsure whether it's a good idea or not, and in others I think it's a bad idea. Women's boxing will almost certainly continue to gain in popularity, and it's a bad idea. It's a very dangerous sport for men (probably one of the dumber things I ever did) and there are physiological differences that make it especially dangerous for women. Wait another decade or so... we're going to start to see cases of pugalistica dementia ("punch drunk") and other brain-damage related synsromes occur at a disturbing rate in female "veterans" of the fight game. But, "Do as one must," I suppose.
One of few people I knew that liked the Marines was in Recon for years, and was probably close to what the Corps would consider the "ideal Marine." He was a small guy, but he was tough... he joined the cops when he left, and liked that, too, even though he had his teeth knocked out, nose broken, ribs cracked, etc. (his wife hated it.) So... if you're like him, you definately belong in the Corps, and are a rare lady (count "Yes" answers... is this you?)
1. "When I was young, hunting and combative sports were my favorite activities."
2. "Getting hollared at a lot, maybe for no good reason, doesn't bother me."
3. "I don't mind getting my face smashed-in now and then... just another day at the office."
4. "I can run and do pushups all day... I love PT."
Scoring- 4 = "Born for the Corp"
3 = "Maybe"
2 or less "Better think twice"
(I'm joking, but the idea is, it's not necessarily a place for the classic model of femininity, as it's been defined to this point in popular culture... women should accept that, and know it might imply a bumpy road.)
Oh yea, you mentioned my remarks about psychiatrists, etc. They were in no way directed at you in any way- rather, they were half "in jest" and said to make the point that women who seek these roles imprudently as a way of displacing psychological issues involving anger, deep-seated discontent with their lives, or psychosexual difficulties (there are some) aren't pertinent to this discussion... meaning, basically, their reasons for joining weren't entirely rational to begin with, so whether they like or hate the experience, a greater degree of randomness was involved.
But, if women join for the challenge, excitement, etc. and they know what they're getting into, win or lose, that's great.
|
Ron White |
| Edited by - ronnywhite on 10/17/2005 20:34:48 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2005 : 22:18:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
Well, if the combat aspects of it were what you liked, so be it- I guess you found the right place for it. My feelings when I was younger were probably the same as most other young guys- if I were drafted, I'd deal with it, otherwise, I'd take a pass. If you benefited from the experience, more power to you. I skimmed through Jesse Ventura's (ex-SEAL) first book, and he noted that he had no doubts there are women who could handle the physical requirements of SEALs, such as female "ironman" triathletes, etc. but he said women don't belong in combat roles by virue of the innate tendancies of men to protect them, which can distrupt things in a combat situation. I, personally, do not know.
Not so much the combat aspects. I was at a point in my lift at 17 when I joined where I needed the rigidity of the hierarchical structure. I needed to know where I stood. With the military you get that.
As for women in combat. If a woman is capable, I don't see that she should be withheld from combat. Women in combat roles are quite prevalent in the Israeli military. I had the unique opportunity to work with one woman who served her two years in the Israeli Army before she emmigrated to the US. The differences between the attitudes of the men and women between the two countries were highlighted by the roles women play in both military organizations.
quote:
But, in such an environment, it's not unexpected that women "showing up" would be subjected to extra scutiny, or abuse.
Why is this necessary? I either can or can not perform my duties. If I can, then let me get on with my job. If I can't, then apparently I need EMI. I could perform all my duties. I ran the men's PFT, just to see if I could pass it, I did. In fact, I ran the men's PFT with higher numbers than many of the men with whom I worked. I went in know that where 90% was ok for the men, 110% wouldn't be quite enough for me. I gave that extra, knowing that I was only going to make it easier for the woman following me. That was acknowledged by a few of the men with whom I served, very few.
quote:
To use a reverse analogy, suppose I insisted that I wanted to work at a traditionally female job, maybe child day care. In reality, I wouldn't want such a job, and I'd almost certainly be bad at it, but suppose (for arguments sake) I insisted upon it. People interviewing me would almost certainly take one look at me and wonder what was wrong with my head ("Is he a deviant? Or maybe a nutcase?") whereas some might just laugh and refuse to even discuss hiring me. And quite honestly, I wouldn't blame them for wondering- I might myself if I saw a totally miscast person applying for the role. I've never seen a bald, middle-aged guy doing that job- only (mostly young) women... I'm a gross misfit for the mold.
Actually, men in daycare and early childhood development roles are needed more today than ever before. My daughter liked the two male teachers at her preschool. But she lacked for a father. They were stabilizing influences for her. With the numbers of single-mother households with absent fathers, men in a position of influence in early childhood education would be very good for most children.
quote:
In an ideal world, of course, people should be able to pursue any utilitarian path they wish, but society is a semi-randomly evolved artificial constuct that's not tailored to suit everyone... not by a long shot. Women should be free to do traditionally male things, if they want, but in some instances I'm unsure whether it's a good idea or not, and in others I think it's a bad idea.
As far as the military is concerned, there are sufficient non-cambat roles, fixing airplanes is one of them, that women are more than capable of filling those slots. Fixing airplanes is what I did. What I wanted was Russian Cryptologic Linguist. I spoke Russian when I went in. DLI is one of the best foreign language learning programs out there. It's a complete immersion program. That's what I wanted.
quote:
Women's boxing will almost certainly continue to gain in popularity, and it's a bad idea. It's a very dangerous sport for men (probably one of the dumber things I ever did) and there are physiological differences that make it especially dangerous for women. Wait another decade or so... we're going to start to see cases of pugalistica dementia ("punch drunk") and other brain-damage related synsromes occur at a disturbing rate in female "veterans" of the fight game. But, "Do as one must," I suppose.
If she chooses to scramble her brains, knowing the risks, then that is her prerogative. Physical combative sports like boxing are not amongst my favorite pasttimes. Now I wouldn't mind taking up fencing.
quote:
One of few people I knew that liked the Marines was in Recon for years, and was probably close to what the Corps would consider the "ideal Marine." He was a small guy, but he was tough... he joined the cops when he left, and liked that, too, even though he had his teeth knocked out, nose broken, ribs cracked, etc. (his wife hated it.) So... if you're like him, you definately belong in the Corps, and are a rare lady (count "Yes" answers... is this you?)
1. "When I was young, hunting and combative sports were my favorite activities."
2. "Getting hollared at a lot, maybe for no good reason, doesn't bother me."
3. "I don't mind getting my face smashed-in now and then... just another day at the office."
4. "I can run and do pushups all day... I love PT."
Scoring- 4 = "Born for the Corp"
3 = "Maybe"
2 or less "Better think twice"
(I'm joking, but the idea is, it's not necessarily a place for the classic model of femininity, as it's been defined to this point in popular culture... women should accept that, and know it might imply a bumpy road.)
Well, I used to run quite a bit and then work out after my runs. PT is great stress relief, nothing like beating feet to work out a bit of frustration. Except that it can and will kill your knees faster than anything else.
quote:
Oh yea, you mentioned my remarks about psychiatrists, etc. They were in no way directed at you in any way- rather, they were half "in jest" and said to make the point that women who seek these roles imprudently as a way of displacing psychological issues involving anger, deep-seated discontent with their lives, or psychosexual difficulties (there are some) aren't pertinent to this discussion... meaning, basically, their reasons for joining |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2005 : 23:30:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Trish
Not so much the combat aspects. I was at a point in my lift at 17 when I joined where I needed the rigidity of the hierarchical structure. I needed to know where I stood. With the military you get that.
That's good... you went in for the right reasons with your eyes open. That's the best we can do. From that point on, crystal balls that work are hard to come by.
As for women in combat. If a woman is capable, I don't see that she should be withheld from combat. Women in combat roles are quite prevalent in the Israeli military. I had the unique opportunity...
Assuming Jesse's argument doesn't hold water, I still don't know (uncertainty as to whether it's a good idea.) There's no doubt some women are capable- that's been demonstrated not just in Israel, but in various times and places during history (in the resistance/WWII, for example.) Israel is a "special case" and not good for comparison, because they're a small country of a historically targeted people, currently surrounded by enemies, and they have the (possibly accurate) philosophy that if they are to survive as a nation and people, the contribution and efforts of every able-bodied person may be required. Here, it's not as imperative- we have more resources, warm bodies, and a less-threatened geostrategic position. We have more choices and flexibility as to how to conduct our military policies. If there's a valid argument that it's to society's benefit to restrict combat to males, from our perspective it makes sense to. Whether there is, I don't know... intuitively or otherwise, I draw a blank. I won't argue your point, but I'm not sure you're right, either.
Why is this necessary? I either can or can...
It isn't necessary, nor is it a just thing- it's nonsense. I know you write highly of the military, and it has it's good aspects, but I think more garbage goes on than you imply. I'm told the school district I went to as a youth stopped allowing recruiters in the schools 20 years ago, and hasn't allowed them back- and there were good reasons for that. Such a lie-a-thon was going on as to what the kids were promised when they enlisted, and there were so many furious parents, that finally someone had to put their foot down.
BTW speaking Russian, that's great! Those slavic languages are hard as nails, and I can't believe they didn't pamper you as such.
Actually, men in daycare...
I just guessed, I haven't noticed it. Mostly women would likely be best, stats suggest kids do well with a (good) mother and absent father, (good) father but absent mom doesn't work too well. Having a father around seems to be optional, having a mother around isn't.
I'm not entirely certain I knew what I was getting into, who has the experience to know that when they're 18. But I learned a lot, enjoyed my time in, would have stayed but things didn't work out that way. Oh well...
As I mentioned, those crystal balls are hard to come by, but I can honestly say the path you took, and how it sounds you navigated it is really impressive. You probably came away a lot better than many who tried that road. Hopefully, next time, the Patron Saint of Adventureous Spirits (whoever that is) will be in a more generous mood.
|
Ron White |
| Edited by - ronnywhite on 10/17/2005 23:38:42 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2005 : 08:50:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
quote:
Originally posted by Trish
It isn't necessary, nor is it a just thing- it's nonsense. I know you write highly of the military, and it has it's good aspects, but I think more garbage goes on than you imply. I'm told the school district I went to as a youth stopped allowing recruiters in the schools 20 years ago, and hasn't allowed them back- and there were good reasons for that. Such a lie-a-thon was going on as to what the kids were promised when they enlisted, and there were so many furious parents, that finally someone had to put their foot down.[quote]
Depending on our age difference, which if you were worried about draft is at least 15-20 years, this is quite possible. There are 'failsafes' in place now with an all volunteer military to hopefully prevent the lies from occuring. Recently the Army has had to reexamine its policy with recruiters not meeting their quotas. Quotas have not been within the last year or so of combat in Iraq. For many seeking their way out of those lack of opportunity areas, the military isn't the thing it once was.
As for speaking highly of the military. There are many aspects of the military that are absolutely wonderful. The sense of self that is instilled through the challenges. The respect that is taught by more than a definition. The knowledge that no matter where I go, I have brothers and sisters with whom I have a common ground. That my sense of humor is shared and not so warped.
There are many aspects in the closed society of the military that are entirely reprehensible. The sexual harrasment, the intolerance for many differences, without realizing that the differences that are accepted are as big or small as the differences that aren't. The military is definitely not for everyone. For some, their 4 years are enough. For others it's their life. I could have made the military my life, probably quite happily.
[quote]BTW speaking Russian, that's great! Those slavic languages are hard as nails, and I can't believe they didn't pamper you as such.
Had I actually made it DLI, my knees wouldn't have mattered so much. They would have kept me in and fixed them.
|
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2005 : 19:45:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Trish
The other branches of the service, I think, went about integrating women in the wrong fashion. But then again that's only my opinion. The expectations for Women Marines were brought to match that of the Male Marine, not dropping the expectation of the Male Marine down to the Woman Marine. The respect is genuine when a WM gets it.
I personally think this is the right way.
Every once in a while I get into an argument with my girlfriend about equality stuff, and women excluded from some male-dominated jobs like police-force and fire-brigade. My opinion is that women may very well be police officers, but I don't like the idea of lowering the fitness standard for firemen in order to get more female firemen.
Just like in the marines, the bar should not be lowered just because you want more women.
If there's a 20kg difference in the strength requirement of the physical test between a male fireman and a female fireman, that can possibly mean the difference between the life and death of an unconcious me lying in a burning house. Whoever finds me needs to have the strength to pull me out. My weight is 95kg, regardless of what sex the fireman trying to rescue me is.
And then there's the respect of the fellow comrades. They know you have exactly the same qualifications as they have. An "affirmative" action always have the risk of picking a lesser able candidate before the ideal one.
(edit: some clarification) |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 10/19/2005 08:10:55 |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2005 : 21:40:48 [Permalink]
|
At 45, I missed the end of the draft by a few years, so that was no issue for me. Maybe there have been some reforms RE demanding accountability in recruiters and their tactics, but I'd still strongly recommend discretion to any young person considering the military. I've met a few recruiters, and they seem to range from very decent individuals to potential junk-bond salesman were they in civilian life (just like any profession, I suppose.) Given young people, many relatively naive with limited life experience at that age (I was) some can be easily maneuvered into bad decisions with a lot of talk by the unscrupulous.
I think some people are well-suited to that kind of regimented, highly-structured environment, and some just aren't. Not necessarily a matter of weakness or such, just apples vs. oranges. Sometimes they might not know until they give it a try. As for whether it's a better or worse career/vocational option for youth than in the past, it might be better in some ways, assuming they so fit the mold. The service offers health care and other insurance benefits, education, generous retirement, and stability of employment, as once did the major industries of the US, but no more. The civilian job landscape has radically changed in nature since the 60's... there's a lot of rhetoric spewing by politicians, but to say it's substantially deteriorated in quality would probably be an accurate description of the changes.
I think Mabuse's citing of the fireman example makes a very good point. If women can cut the mustard, that's fine. I actually think affirmative action is a good thing in some respects, but in other instances it's not a good idea. An article in "American Spectator" (a highly-skewed "Right-Wing" magazine, but it has a few good rants... Ben Stein had a column) humorously depicted the problems inherent to this in an example... a few years ago, a faction of the Actors Union required Hollywood Studios to include a certain proportion of minority actors be included for every so many slots/minutes of dialogue in TV shows (sounds fair enough... maybe encourages cultural diversity in popular media.) They noted that had this been done in the 50's, in order to meet the requirement, if "I Love Lucy" were pressed by scheduling constraints to meet its minority ratio, an episode may had to have been re-written to explain why Lucy's brother, visiting from out-of-town, was a Black guy.
Of course, the example was made in jest, but it illustrated the point that there are differences between people, and attempts to deny this can result in absurdities. Beyond a certain point, even well-intended ideas "gone berserk" can become counterproductive... better to just accept differences between the sexes and people in general, and deal with them, than to slam people into molds for the sake of equality(???)
|
Ron White |
| Edited by - ronnywhite on 10/18/2005 22:55:42 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2005 : 18:57:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Trish
The other branches of the service, I think, went about integrating women in the wrong fashion. But then again that's only my opinion. The expectations for Women Marines were brought to match that of the Male Marine, not dropping the expectation of the Male Marine down to the Woman Marine. The respect is genuine when a WM gets it.
I personally think this is the right way.
Every once in a while I get into an argument with my girlfriend about equality stuff, and women excluded from some male-dominated jobs like police-force and fire-brigade. My opinion is that women may very well be police officers, but I don't like the idea of lowering the fitness standard for firemen in order to get more female firemen.
Just like in the marines, the bar should not be lowered just because you want more women.
If there's a 20kg difference in the strength requirement of the physical test between a male fireman and a female fireman, that can possibly mean the difference between the life and death of an unconcious me lying in a burning house. Whoever finds me needs to have the strength to pull me out. My weight is 95kg, regardless of what sex the fireman trying to rescue me is.
And then there's the respect of the fellow comrades. They know you have exactly the same qualifications as they have. An "affirmative" action always have the risk of picking a lesser able candidate before the ideal one.
(edit: some clarification)
Maybe I need to clarify myself Mab. The Marines raised the WMs standards to the men's. The Airforce is based on some conglomerate of medical testing. The Navy had standards that were similar to the Woman Marine standard when I joined the Corps. The Army has lowered the standards for the men to meet that of the women. I no longer know what the Navy, Army, and Airforce standards are, however, the Marine standard is a 3 mile run in under 25 minutes, 80 situps in under 2 minutes, and 20 pull-ups for men and a 70 second flexed arm hang for women. Obviously the difference in the upper body fitness test has more to do with the possiblity of tearing breast tissue rather than lack of strength. Pull-ups are not the best form of exercise for women. The sit-ups, pull-ups, and flex-arm hang are the max or best. 50 seconds is the low end for the flex, 9 pull-ups are the min, and I forget the sit-ups. The 3 mile run max point time is 18 minutes.
The Marines got it right, like I said, I'm not so sure about the other branches of service. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2005 : 19:20:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
At 45, I missed the end of the draft by a few years, so that was no issue for me. Maybe there have been some reforms RE demanding accountability in recruiters and their tactics, but I'd still strongly recommend discretion to any young person considering the military. I've met a few recruiters, and they seem to range from very decent individuals to potential junk-bond salesman were they in civilian life (just like any profession, I suppose.) Given young people, many relatively naive with limited life experience at that age (I was) some can be easily maneuvered into bad decisions with a lot of talk by the unscrupulous.
The same holds true for any endeavor, including going to college.
quote:
I think some people are well-suited to that kind of regimented, highly-structured environment, and some just aren't. Not necessarily a matter of weakness or such, just apples vs. oranges. Sometimes they might not know until they give it a try. As for whether it's a better or worse career/vocational option for youth than in the past, it might be better in some ways, assuming they so fit the mold. The service offers health care and other insurance benefits, education, generous retirement, and stability of employment, as once did the major industries of the US, but no more. The civilian job landscape has radically changed in nature since the 60's... there's a lot of rhetoric spewing by politicians, but to say it's substantially deteriorated in quality would probably be an accurate description of the changes.
I agree completely. The military definitively is not for everyone. Exactly, that is why many young men and women join the military every year, particularly from economically depressed areas.
quote:
I think Mabuse's citing of the fireman example makes a very good point. If women can cut the mustard, that's fine. I actually think affirmative action is a good thing in some respects, but in other instances it's not a good idea.
Again, I agree with Mab as well. Equal rights mean equal responsibility and ability, end. Affirmative action was necessary to force the civilian community to hire those who would otherwise have been passed over for superficial, prejudicial reasons. Once in the door, it is definitively up to the individual to pull their weight and do their job to the best of their ability and meet or exceed the expectations of the employer.
quote:
An article in "American Spectator" (a highly-skewed "Right-Wing" magazine, but it has a few good rants... Ben Stein had a column) humorously depicted the problems inherent to this in an example... a few years ago, a faction of the Actors Union required Hollywood Studios to include a certain proportion of minority actors be included for every so many slots/minutes of dialogue in TV shows (sounds fair enough... maybe encourages cultural diversity in popular media.) They noted that had this been done in the 50's, in order to meet the requirement, if "I Love Lucy" were pressed by scheduling constraints to meet its minority ratio, an episode may had to have been re-written to explain why Lucy's brother, visiting from out-of-town, was a Black guy.
Agreed, there are definitely some instances where affirmative action is detrimental. However, again, it was that toe in the door that so many needed, that needed to be forced. The military never suffered under this, in that, for promotion they essentially crunch numbers. An individual could be prejudiced, but it would eventually come to light in the numbers crunch. The Navy does require tests passed at a certain level of competancy for promotion. The Marines base promotions on a combination of MCIs completed, FitReps, PFT scores, and availability in the field. FitReps are a NCOICs or SNCOICs way of identifying an individual by personal recommendation based on a series of qualifications.
quote:
Of course, the example was made in jest, but it illustrated the point that there are differences between people, and attempts to deny this can result in absurdities. Beyond a certain point, even well-intended ideas "gone berserk" can become counterproductive... better to just accept differences between the sexes and people in general, and deal with them, than to slam people into molds for the sake of equality(???)
Again agreed. But once again, you must look at the idea that was prevalent due to the 'Bell Curve' and a few other publications that stated, blacks were not suited to intellectual pursuits by evolution. It's simply not true, unless you look at the culture in which the vast majority of African Americans are raised, but then that is cultural, not biological. Again, the same with women, women were supposed to not excell at math and science but excell at language. Again a cultural prejudice, not a biological reality. These things must be overcome and affirmative action can die a painless death. Until then, the toe must be kept in the door to offer these opportunities to all. I fully intend to use the AA laws to my advantage. Then it's all on me. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2005 : 20:03:34 [Permalink]
|
Example noted simply used the point of a simple biological characteristic (skin color) making our natural human differences clash in a comical fashion with "requirements" to encourage "equality"... their was no racial bigotry implied by "American Spectator" (even though I fundamentally disagree with most of the mag's stances) and certainly not myself. I think references to IQ and other "differences" is angry malarkey by hateful people... that's a very narrow view of intellect, and there's a great deal more that goes into functionality than things like that. And yes, there are a great many extremely capable Blacks, and moreover, Blacks who are good people I'd prefer to share a world with than the hatemongers to spew racial nonsense and other scapegoating, whatever form it's packaged in.
Yes, even a friend that was "kicked out" of the military (I'm not sure why, because he sounded like a helluva soldier) spoke highly of the Army, and talked of the fairness of the testing and evaluation system. He was a Caucasion, and mentioned that working in the diverse environment of people the military provided, and travel, made him understand the basic commonalities of people of different cultural backgrounds.... an opportunity fror personal growth.
That's part of the reason many Blacks were attracted to it in decades past- they could get a fair shake.
BTW first time I tried a chat room... pretty cool. As an aside, I've been worrying about global warming, bin Laden, the conservative right... and just when I didn't think we could handle another major threat, someone on the chat board dropped another one on me- William Shatner is singing now. Yep, Captain Kirk. At first I thought it must have "slipped through the cracks" on us after 911 or something, then I realized the sinister brilliance of this- we're going to use Shat as a bargaining chip. See, Kim of N. Korea is appreciative of fine music and cinema... N. Korea starts playing with plutonium again, we jam their airways with a "warning shot" of Iron Butterfly/Donny and Marie Osmond marathons. Kim softens up, the knees start to buckle. If he holds, we drop the Shat doing Dylan on him... a 24-7 carpet bombing. Realizing a public revolt is soon forthcoming, it's back to the bargaining tables.
|
Ron White |
| Edited by - ronnywhite on 10/20/2005 10:38:10 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
