Women in combat jobs discussion continues
Our buddy, Tequila Volare, sent us this missive to clear his own head on the subject;
Putting pen to paper, okay fingers to keyboard, to express my thoughts on those arguing in defense of the recent announcement from outgoing defense secretary Leon Panetta to open up combat arms to women. I am doing this more out of frustration then anything. In stating my opposition to this decision I of course have been subjected to all of the obligatory name calling from the liberals and many an indignant female. My frustration stems from the fact that I spent 22 years in the Infantry meaning I have slightly more knowledge and experience in this particular argument then my critics. One can not convey the true meaning of what it means to be a member of the Infantry in 140 characters on Twitter or in some anonymous comment on a blog which gets swallowed up in the cacophony of others voicing their opinions.
Today I have also been treated to others who have worn the uniform ranging from truck drivers to helicopter pilots who support the lifting of the ban. While I respect their service they can not equate their jobs in the military to what a grunt does day in and day out. Listening to somebody who served as a hatch gunner on a HMMV and may or may not have gotten shot at while riding around doesn’t just quite match somebody who spends days, weeks, months living out in the environment exposed to the elements with no relief in sight. The things which bind an effective Infantry unit together are all of the intangibles which aren’t taught. When you upset that delicate balance you are inviting disaster. You can not ignore the physical differences, which are obvious to anybody and while that particular aspect has been beat to death I won’t belabor that point here.
What I want to address is that unseen bond which forms in combat teams who are forced to depend on each other for their very survival. It is not enough to merely dismiss such concerns by saying service members are expected to act as professionals. They are humans too. As such they are prone to such things as emotions and normal human behavior. What follows next will inflame feminist everywhere, but when you insert a female into a cluster of testosterone laden young males they are going to act like young males in any species on this planet do. There will be fights to establish dominance. Jealousy and envy will infect the ranks. If you are more worried of getting into a firefight because your rival may use it as an excuse to get rid of his competition you have a real problem. Often times the issue of chivalry is raised. Some discount this by saying once the bullets start flying you don’t care about the sex of the person next to you. For those with chivalrous tendencies that will not be the case. Somewhere in the recesses of their mind they will be keeping an ear and eye out and therefore not concentrating on the task at hand. Lastly, in what I call the “Hey Bubba watch this” Syndrome, which can be witnessed at any coed social gathering there is always going to be the guy who does some stunt to attract attention and therefore the eye, he hopes, of the females. Doing such a stunt while on a mission can lead to disaster. You can not regulate this sort of behavior out of existence for to attempt to do so is mere folly.
One of my other favorite arguments that has been thrown at me has been that women that live in such conditions would become unappealing to their male compatriots to which I respond have you ever been in a bar at closing time? I would like to see some reporters go ask some of the wives of married service members what they think about their husband sharing a foxhole with some woman for an extended period of time. I don’t think a lot of them would be on board with that idea.
Regarding the physical difference, without getting into the weeds on that particular aspect but in keeping in the vein of this missive does anybody think there might be just a wee bit of resentment in the ranks because the female is not expected to carry the machine gun, or radio, or mortar tube? She will still be eligible for promotion provided she meets the other criteria without having fulfilled all of the duties her male counterpart would have been expected to do.
Anyway that is what I wanted to say. Go ahead, call me a chauvinistic, misogynist, pig but it doesn’t change the points I brought up for to do so would be to refute the very essence of human nature since they first appeared on the planet.
While we’re on the subject, Dejah Thoris at the Victory Girls had this discussion with her significant man, and you should read it;
I know he feels passionately about this, because he has dedicated most of his adult life to making sure that I can sleep well and live free and he feels like they are taking the last thing he had that was really “his” away. This is one of the reasons I love him so much.
ADDED: Our buddy, Kira Davis, has another view from a former Marine female pilot;
Are there a handful of women who are capable of executing ground combat jobs? Yes…in fact, my husband and I came up with a list of five women that we knew personally that had the physical aptitude and mental temperament that would fit the bill. We have 24 years of military experience between us. Should America open up 230,000 ground combat jobs when there are only a handful of applicants that are qualified?
January 28th, 2013 at 12:02 pm
Chauvinistic, misogynistic pig! I mean, you’re absolutely correct in all your points, but you made the mistake of letting reality intrude on political wish fulfillment, and for that you must be chastised.
January 28th, 2013 at 12:04 pm
Here’s another perspective, from 1991. It’s kind of long, but well worth watching.
Gen Robert H. Barrow, 27th Commandant of the Marine Corps, testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Women in Combat, June 1991.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fy–whDNNKk#!
January 28th, 2013 at 12:30 pm
The link was a long read, but I now want to buy that man a beer.
January 28th, 2013 at 12:46 pm
Tequila V…You are spot on and as a chick, I see nothing wrong with your line of thought. None. But, naturally, there will be women who want to believe they can make a difference-i.e. They can “handle” it. Like I’ve said in previous posts, I am pretty tough, but not so tough that I could do what you grunts have done and will do. No way. I got over myself. I was the best at the job I had instead of trying to be what I was never going to be.
January 28th, 2013 at 1:18 pm
‘Fraid you can’t, Twist. GEN Barrow passed away in 2008.
GEN Barrow held the distinction of having been awarded both the Navy Cross (Korea) and the Army’s Distinguished Service Cross (Vietnam). I’m guessing that’s a relatively exclusive “club”.
May he rest in peace.
January 28th, 2013 at 1:24 pm
As usual with conservatives, a lot of speculation about what might happen, and since we don’t know, we shouldn’t even try it. They have been using that same stalling tactic to quash new ideas for millenia. After all the bluster and pontification, the only way to find out is try it. Then we’ll have a better idea, one way or the other.
January 28th, 2013 at 1:30 pm
Hondo, I was talking about the Kira Davis link. Sorry for the confusion.
January 28th, 2013 at 1:31 pm
Joe maybe you don’t realize actions have consequences and when you go messing with what has up to this point been a pretty good formula it results in real life and death situations, none of which are hypothetical. You want to flirt with your own life, fine go do it but don’t jeopardize the lives of hundreds of others just so you can try out some grand social engineering scheme. What are you going to say to the families of those that lose loved ones. “Oops, my bad”.
And why do you start off with saying conservatives? This is concerns voiced by those serving and who have served with no political consideration given other then the impact it will have on mission accomplishment and unit readiness.
January 28th, 2013 at 1:31 pm
@6, Says the person who has never served and doesn’t know what he is talking about on the subject. Not that it has ever stopped you before.
January 28th, 2013 at 1:36 pm
The problem with “trying it”, Joey-boy, is that it will result in additional bodies coming home in boxes. Even a dim bulb such as yourself should be able to see that, fool.
In 2010, the average 19 y/o male was 70″ in height and weighed about 175 lbs. The average female? 64.3″ and 150 lbs. And the standard deviations were different, too – 4.27″ for the males and 3.02″ for females.
What that means is that only around 2% of US 19 y/o women were even as tall as the average male. The rest were shorter.
Here’s the data: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_11/sr11_252.pdf
Strength is generally directly correlated with size, dipstick. Ditto endurance while performing strenuous work. And on top of the average size advantage, men have a higher fraction of muscle mass. That’s due to something called “testosterone”. It’s the original anabolic steroid.
I’m guessing you’re probably academically familiar with the concept of testosterone, Joe. Even if you don’t bother to acknowledge its existence in your daily life.
My point: you do not design a large, human-based system (like a military) to depend for proper function on having exceptional physical specimens to do the work. You design it for the average case, then you select from that to get your elite units.
For many military specialties, women possess the physical aptitude to do the job as well and in some cases better as a group than do men. For a select few specialties, however, as a group they do not; biology prevents it. And those select few specialties happen in general to be the ground combat arms specialties.
January 28th, 2013 at 1:42 pm
You guys are not going to stop the march of progress with hand ringing. Yeah, there is risk involved, just like when we sent men to the moon. I suppose you would have put the kibosh on that too along with anything else that was scary? I don’t think the integrity of the armed forces is at stake any more than with integration in 40′s-50′s. A lot of doomsayers then too. And if a person is not comfortable with the idea, they don’t have to enlist or reenlist.
I’ve seen interviews with active male and female soldiers who are in favor of it. Why should I believe you and not them?
January 28th, 2013 at 1:43 pm
Twist: my bad, amigo.
January 28th, 2013 at 1:44 pm
Since Joe doesn’t know his flabby behind from a hole in the ground about women in combat, I will hereby post this link to a photo of someone I greatly admired as the only woman doing combat photography that I had known of in 1965. (Army nurses were not getting much publicity at the time.) She was one of the reasons I went into the Navy in the first place. I had hoped to follow in her footsteps.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thienmai/6547055257/
This is what happens to men and will happen to women in combat.
January 28th, 2013 at 1:45 pm
“….biology prevents it.” Over the course of time, women have heard that a lot, usually as spoken by a man.
January 28th, 2013 at 1:49 pm
Joe: you prove yourself less intelligent each and every time you open your mouth here.
You do know what drove integration in the Army, right? No, it wasn’t basic fairness or the concept of equality.
It was freaking military necessity. During Korea, we needed more combat troops pronto. We couldn’t train them quickly enough using a segregated unit model for the combat arms. That introduced inefficiencies we simply could not tolerate on the battlefield. We were in danger of getting our asses kicked.
The result was a decision to integrate that was driven by military effectiveness and efficiency. Politics did not drive that decision. And the result worked – because while there is a modest difference in physical size, etc . . . , along racial lines, the difference is not particularly significant.
The difference between men and women IS significant. Only about 1 in 50 women on average is as large as the average male. True “Amazon warriors” are incredibly rare.
January 28th, 2013 at 1:50 pm
“Yeah, there is risk involved”
Would you care to enlist and share the risks that you want us to take? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
January 28th, 2013 at 1:54 pm
Yes, Joe – biology prevents it. Just like biology prevents us from seeing female NFL players, NHL players, and so on. And from having unisex Olympics.
Want all you want to, but you aren’t going to overcome literally millenia of mammalian evolution just because you say “I want that.” And even a Mendelian selective breeding program (not a viable choice for humans, obviously) takes generations to have a substantial impact on population characteristics.
January 28th, 2013 at 1:58 pm
We’ll see if your protestations are valid.
January 28th, 2013 at 1:59 pm
Thanks for the video USMCE8Ret. I concur with the good General. The bond among soldiers is what makes them effective. Playing with that bond will damage or destroy units.
January 28th, 2013 at 2:01 pm
I’m still waiting to see if Joe is willing to take the same risk that he is oh so happy for us to take.
January 28th, 2013 at 2:01 pm
Puts me in mind of Heinlein’s commentary about “When women demand ‘equality’ with men, they are invariably selling themselves short.” Or words to that effect.
Gender-desegregate all military barracks, berthing, toilet and shower facilities.
Desegregate all training commands and require all female applicant pass exactly the same basic training requirements as men are now required to do, in mixed units, and with mixed-gender instructors.
Eradicate female-specific uniforms from utilities through dress uniforms. One service, one uniform code, including haircut requirements and prohibition against jewewlry or makeup on duty.
Do this 100% throughout ALL services, and grandfather (grandmother) No ONE from recruit to General/Admiral…
THEN let’s talk about women in combat arms.
January 28th, 2013 at 2:03 pm
Oh, yeah, the astronaut program. It was all men. Actually, the people who were chosen for the astronaut program in ther Mercury, Gemini and Apollo stages were qualified fighter pilots, some of whom were test pilots.
Women were not unqualified to apply at the time, but there were no women in fighter pilot training. When they did begin to apply, they were required by the program to take flight training in fighter jet aircraft. And they were mostly civilians.
Sending ‘men’ to the moon had less to do with sexism or chauvinism than it did with the military aspect.
January 28th, 2013 at 2:03 pm
Twist,
I am well into my 7th decade – I don’t think they’d take me under any circumstances. SO you’re on your own.
January 28th, 2013 at 2:07 pm
In addition, Sigourney Weaver, who wrangled the flame throwers and other weapons in the “Alien” movies, is 5’10″, which is well above the average height for women.
Just because, as an actress playing LT Ellen Ripley, she had a big mouth and and aggressive personality (which I’m guessing Joe gets off on), and fought off the giant cockroaches, it doesn’t mean she does that kind of thing in real life.
January 28th, 2013 at 2:09 pm
Kira Davis made an interesting point ….. exactly how many women could actually do the job? I spent 8 years in the Army, and came up with the exact same number she and her husband did. However, unlike all too many radical feminists I actually included myself.
January 28th, 2013 at 2:10 pm
Joe, we already know what will happen. I’ve done three deployments as an MP. Women are never held to the same standard.
Each deployment, we sent a half dozen or so females home because of pregnancy. Those are jobs that the guys had to cover down on. Oh and do you know how bad it can fuck up morale of a young man in Iraq who has the joy of hearing the married Army couple have sex all night? Totally mission focused. How about when a relatioship goes south when both are in the same platoon? Lots of fun to spend my time hearing some couple agrue while trying to do the job.
I loved working with my guys, because they were funny and industrious and if they screwed up I could actually discipline them., and the would usually square themselves away and all would be forgotten. With a female, there are EO complaints, threats, manipulation of other NCOs. Good times. Oh, and good luck to my Combat Arms company grade officers and 1SGs. Their time will now be spent dealining with issues that stem from sexual relationships, not training. And a bonus. On all three of my deployments, my CO has been relieved because he banged a pretty E4 or at least was accused of such. Great for the combat effectiveness of a unit.
January 28th, 2013 at 2:11 pm
@23 – “Knock knock…?”
January 28th, 2013 at 2:11 pm
Alright Joe let’s play it your way. What level would you consider acceptable losses before you realized the folly of this decision? 1, 10, 100 maybe 1,000? I guess your excuse then would be well they knew what they were signing up for, huh? Maybe we could try this theory out in a less threatening environment, like say the NFL?
January 28th, 2013 at 2:12 pm
Sloppy spelling. Shoulda typed that comment on a keyboard. My bad.
January 28th, 2013 at 2:13 pm
I understand that because of your age you cannot serve, however I find it disconcerting that you have no problem putting as at a risk that you will not have to take. This is my life and the life of my friends and Soldiers that you people are toying with for a social experiment. You are not the one that will have to knock on my wife’s door and tell her that I am not coming home.
January 28th, 2013 at 2:13 pm
Every time I read Heinlein I am amazed by his social and political insight. It is as if he could remove himself from the emotional argument and view problems without the cloud of feeling. A brilliant man.
January 28th, 2013 at 2:17 pm
Joe,
Were you drafted? If not, why not?
Sincerely,
MAJO
January 28th, 2013 at 2:17 pm
I’ve given this a lot of thought. Well, a little bit of thought.
Joe actually hates women. If they go into combat and get gruesomely killed (see link I posted to photo on Flickr) there will be fewer of them around.
January 28th, 2013 at 2:21 pm
@14 Yes that argument has been used in the past (unjustly I might add) to prevent women from many jobs/activities. HOWEVER in this case it is true. Most if not all of us on here are not saying or disagreeing with the thought that “some” women “could” do these job(s). What we are saying is the “average” women could not. If you look closely we are saying that most of the jobs in the military can be done by the “average women” but ground combat centric jobs i.e. infrantry, art, armor, are not one of them. When looking at a large organization you must look at the averages not the special cases. Much like Hondo said you do not design a large organization based on “exceptional physical specimens to do the work. You design it for the average case, then you select from that to get your elite units.” When talking about ground combat you must take into account the physical rigors involved. Such as being able to carry 75% or some times more of your own body weight over long distances over a protracted period of time. Or being able to break track in the field to conduct field repairs on a M1A1 or Brad. Those things require a certain level of ability that the average female of our species just dosn’t have. We are talking averages here not special cases ala G.I. Jane (which is a movie btw not real life). I’m sorry of basic science and biology are getting in the way of your PC crusade but all the hoping in the world won’t change the hand nature has dealt us. Until science/enginering advances to the point allowing us to create power armor ala Iron Man and Starship Troopers [book not movie] these basic facts won’t change.
Also like many on here have said unless they are going to revisit Selective Service registration and the draft this issue is nothing more than a PC publicity stunt/pay back campaign doners that will unfortuatly, more than likely result in good folks being hurt.
-Ish
January 28th, 2013 at 2:22 pm
Joe’s excuse for the draft is that his number never came up, but he has no problem restarting the draft, even though he never served, he thinks it’s a good idea to have people forced into the service. Kinda like his situational “support” of the Second Amendment before Newtown. As long as he has no skin in the game.
January 28th, 2013 at 2:32 pm
@19 (et al) – You’re welcome.
January 28th, 2013 at 2:34 pm
I seldom ring my hands, and I like dealing with reality for the most part. There is a small town in Western Mass that has a law about stopping for any pedestrian. They’ve taken that law to the extreme so that the pedestrians now believe anytime they step in the roadway cars are obligated to stop. It’s a great idea because we don’t want motorists killing pedestrians, the problem is that the laws of man still don’t overcome the laws of physics. Stepping into a crosswalk with a vehicle traveling 25mph 50 feet away means the car will stop 30 feet after it runs you over…even though the law dictated the motorist stop for the pedestrian standard reaction time and physics dictate a different outcome.
Similarly with the laws of biology that many have mentioned you have the average woman incapable of physically matching the average male in performance of those tasks most appropriate to combat arms, strength and endurance. Regardless of the desire of the sponsors of this activity to proclaim us all equal in every regard, reality dictates otherwise. Of the 2% of women who are the same size as the average man, how many actually intend to serve? And under what circumstance?
A lowering of the standards will most inevitably ensue when the numbers in combat arms don’t meet the expectations of the people forcing this standard on the military. At that point the ability of the force will be lessened due to weaker standards, that’s a truth whether it’s a comfortable on or not.
January 28th, 2013 at 2:35 pm
“My number never came up” is not an excuse for lack of service; it is at best an admission of an unwillingness to volunteer for service.
Which refusal is anyone’s right, of course – - until they then choose to opine that it’s just fine for OTHERS to be forced to serve, or they consider themselves qualified to dictate the terms of service for others who do volunteer.
At which point they are still within their rights (as protected by others), but far outside the realm of ‘credible opinion.’
January 28th, 2013 at 2:35 pm
Kinda makes me wonder if Joe’s mommy or daddy had pull to get Joe a high number in the draft? With no frame of reference and no skin in the game and absolutly no facts, Joe’s argument is like Joe. Empty.
Most of the combat arms officers I spent time with at ILE were extreemly physically fit. As I told my Swiss officer buddy, who was infantry, be careful trying to keep up with our guys. He was very fit, but not at the same level as some of our infantry types.
I do know of a few women who could deal with the physical aspect of humping a ruck with the infantry, and be better than quite a few I have met and served with, but that is not the point. The cohesion required to operate effectively as an infantry unit is paramount. This is what General Barrow discusses in the video posted by USMCE8Ret, above, explains.
January 28th, 2013 at 2:36 pm
Well, I guess if conservatives hadn’t been against:
- Ending slavery
- Women’s sufferage
- The Civil Rights movement
- Integration of the armed forces
- Marriage Equality
(and by the way, any of these would apparently result in the end of civilization as we know it) and on and on, they might have a better track record and more credibility.
January 28th, 2013 at 2:40 pm
“Wait! I’m losing! Racist homophobes!” <- Joe
January 28th, 2013 at 2:42 pm
OK, for Joe’s edification, and to equalize the playing field, let’s reinstate the draft, eliminate the top-end age limit, and extend it to both sexes.
That means Joe’s number comes up and he has to serve, right along some old gart (int.) like me who has no patience with maroons like him. He’ll have to put in his six.
I guess I’d have to finish mine. Oh, who cares! I could use the extra cash right now.
January 28th, 2013 at 2:48 pm
Well… you held up pretty well Joe, but now you have taken up the liberal talking points on subjects that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread! You have now lowered your standards to just whistling out of every orifice you have. Good luck to you.
US Army Veteran SSG E-6 66-70
Vietnam Veteran 69-70
January 28th, 2013 at 2:51 pm
Not to worry, Joe’s APFT requirements would be similiar to those of a 35 year old woman. I’m just guestimating that, since research demonstrates an 18 year old female has similiar APFT requirements as a 55 year old man.
January 28th, 2013 at 2:54 pm
Uh, Joe . . . “there you go again”.
1. It wasn’t “conservatives” who were against ending slavery and the Civil Rights Movement, idiot. Rather, it was the southern wing of the Democratic Party, plus a bunch of racist fools and tools in other areas. Both liberals and conservatives from other areas of the country supported both ending slavery and the Civil Rights Movement.
In fact, without help from that “nasty, conservative” GOP – none of the Civil Rights Acts would have passed.
2. I’ve already address the integration of the military. You’ve already been proven to be an idiot on that count.
3. The first state to grant women’s sufferage was Wyoming. Not exactly a liberal area, then or now.
4. Since inter-racial marriage was a Civil Rights issue, well, you’re wrong about Marriage Equality too. Now, if you’re talking about the current push to redefine marriage to allow same-sex marriages – that’s a different issue. But don’t claim that as “marriage equality”. That is not “marriage equality”; it’s the redefinition of an existing institution to be something it never previously was. (Although expecting honesty from you on such matters is probably foolish, I’ll at least point out the fact that you’re lying above in your choice of terms.)
January 28th, 2013 at 2:56 pm
Joe, you’re an idiot. The Republican Party was founded on ending slavery, even Lyndon Johnson acknowledged that he couldn’t have passed the CRA, 1964 without Republicans, Eisenhower got the CRA of 1957 passed with a majority republican Congress. Marriage Equality? Really? From the guys who passed the marriage penalty tax without a single Republican vote? The Democrats filibustered against the vote for women. More Republicans voted for the act than Democrats, and your enlightened president Wilson was the chief opponent of women’s right to vote. I guess you’re living proof that wisdom doesn’t necessarily come with age.
January 28th, 2013 at 2:57 pm
Joe,
Gender is a biological fact, not a construct. The only way women will be able to perform as equally as males in the combat arms field is if the standards are lowered to get the “correct” amount of integration.
Lowering the standards is going to get a lot of people killed. There is nothing preventing women from climbing the ranks in the military right now. But thank you for playing.
January 28th, 2013 at 2:59 pm
@40 – Check your history again, Joe. You’re wrong AGAIN!
January 28th, 2013 at 3:11 pm
@ $40: Now I will stoop to calling you the lying bastard that you apparently are. DO NOT DENEGRATE MY FAMILY AND MY ANCESTORS! You and your kind are the ONLY idiots in our history who have enslaved other people. It is conservatives who ended slavery, passed Civil Rights legislation in spite of the progs, and pretty much the rest of your stupid list. Don’t EVEN attemot to explain that Truman ended segregation in the military – he had to be made to do so out of necessity.
What you have done in the past is not good enough for you – now you want to send women into combat? And you accuse others of waging a war on women?
January 28th, 2013 at 3:16 pm
@23 “I am well into my 7th decade”. Well, hurry up and die.
January 28th, 2013 at 3:30 pm
“The parties switched side because of the Civil Rights Movement” in 3….2…..1…..
January 28th, 2013 at 3:37 pm
Joe trots out the list of supposed offenses against justice that “conservatives” have committed down through time. No doubt he will go through extreme mental gymnastics to support his contention. Allow me to offer an example of why he is (as usual) full of horse manure.
Right after the civil war North Carolina had a Republican governor named W. W. Holden and he holds the distinction of being the first governor to be impeached in U.S. history. He was impeached for sending the militia out after the Klan which was terrorizing his black constituents. That was too much for the Democrat legislature and they threw him out.
Now Joe will probably try that tired old line that the parties have switched over time and that Holden would be a Dem today with the vile racist Republicans running him off, but that fails in one important respect. The Dems held the N.C. Legislature from then until 2010. Only after the Republicans took over in 2011 was Holden finally exonerated. Why would the modern “racist” conservative Republicans be interested in exonerating Holden? Why did the supposedly progressive “anti racist” Dems fail to act for so long? Why will Joe fail to provide a coherent answer to these questions.
January 28th, 2013 at 4:17 pm
Joe: “My number never came up.”
Joe: “I am well into my seventh decade . . . .”
Well, Joe, since you brought up numbers – let’s look at them.
Being “well into” your 7th decade means you were born between today’s date in 1943 and the end of 1952, inclusive – but I’m guessing 1948 or later; otherwise you’d probably have phrased the comment about your age differently or have made reference to Social Security and/or Medicare instead. Ergo, you probably turned 18 somewhere between 1965 and 1971; I’m guessing 1969 or 1970. Since you used the phrase “my number never came up” you obviously were subject to the draft lottery. That was only used 3 years during Vietnam: 1969, 1970, and 1971 (the 1972 numbers were drawn but not used).
So, folks, that means we have here one-each genuine Vietnam draft avoider – all done nice and legal. Just the same as a host of other folks, mostly conservatives, who’ve caught absolute hell from various leftist talking heads for doing the exact same thing.
What were you going to do if you got a low number, Joey-boy – head north?
That is weak, tool. REALLY weak. As in “free rider” weak, to put in in “union-speak” terms.
If I recall correctly, you’re a big fan of unions and a big foe of right-to-work laws – generally because of the “free rider” problem. Well, guess what, Joey: you’re nothing but a “free rider” yourself. You’re willing to take the benefits of living in a free country, but not willing to serve the nation when needed. Rather, you stayed home safe and comfy – and let some other poor sap do your share of the dirty work.
I’m frankly surprised you actually had the nerve to admit that here.
What that also tells me is you’re basically spineless as well – which we at TAH already knew from your limp comments here. How so? Simple: you had neither the courage to serve nor the guts to put your money where your mouth doubtless was and publicly resist the draft. (Given your comments here at TAH, I really just can’t see you being in favor of US involvement in Vietnam – or being quiet while opposing it.) Instead you just took the nice, safe path of least resistance – once you found out it was a safe one because you had a high draft lottery number, of course.
Must be nice to be able to check your self-respect at the door and live life without it.
January 28th, 2013 at 4:21 pm
n excellent article from a woman vet over at The Weekly Standard.
No Better Critics
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/no-better-critics_698023.html
January 28th, 2013 at 4:34 pm
@46 Additionally something our friend Joe might be unaware of, is that the iconic JFK voted against that CRA in 1957 along with Al Gore Sr….of course some folks don’t like to let the truth get in the way of diatribes.
One could argue that 7 years later basically the same bill as ’57 along with a momentous addition of welfare was put forth by the Dems and effectively ended the 2 parent black family.
January 28th, 2013 at 4:45 pm
Another can of worms that this going to open is should women be required to register with The Selective Service System?
January 28th, 2013 at 5:20 pm
Appearance over results will define this disastrous administration for the rest of history and this is just another square peg going into a round hole for them. Americans love it though, because it makes me feel proud and recently have overwhelming agreed with the administration on this issue although the vast majority have never served and even fewer in actual combat arms units.
‘Merica!
Where stupid reigns due to majority
January 28th, 2013 at 10:42 pm
Tequila Volare nails it…but chalk up another asinine light bulb moment from the Good Idea Faery.
Long time readers of TAH will already know my position on this, so leaving aside all the anatomy and physiology issues, here’s an anecdote:
Around ’95 I was working on one of the numerous towers that sprang up on the Strip here in Vegas like mushrooms. We had been ordered to hire female Ironworkers for that gender equality thing. Now Local 416, for good reason, had very few (almost zero) female Journeymen because 416 is all rebar, no structural, and working rods has to be experienced to be believed.
So, it was time to place the cord steel around the perimeter of the deck. We were only around 35 floors up so it was #10′s 60 feet long that had to be threaded through all the columns. Each bar weighed 258 lbs, which is a typical, no biggie load for an Ironworker in 416.
One of the chicks we hired was standing there looking pretty, so wanting to see what she was made of, I told her to get on the other end of that pile of rebar I was standing next to, and let’s start punking (means to carry) out the cord steel. She flat refused. I asked her that if she was getting the same Journeymen’s wages as I was (I knew she was), she should be able to do the same work. No dice.
And she wasn’t the only one. Jonn’s right, this is just going to fill up more body bags.
January 29th, 2013 at 12:16 am
As a woman, I want all qualified women to have the chance to excel, in any field. However, the military isn’t “any field.” We have a military to protect the country, defend the Constitution, and be the power that physically projects America’s will any place, any time.
It’s not there so individuals can have fulfilling careers. Anyone in service is subject at any time to be reassigned to another billet. As McChrystal said, the needs of the service come first, not your career and not your desires. If the ban is repealed, there is no bar to forcibly assigning women to combat jobs should the need arise. With this ever present reality, what will it do to female recruitment?
You want your little Heather down at the mall dropped into a combat unit at a remote outpost in Afghanistan, against her will? Really? And what kind of society are we who sends women to fight our battles if they have just had a baby? I remember an example during Iraq when a single mom was killed, and her two year old was orphaned. Yes, Dads are important, but society maintains a structure that serves the family, the community and the nation, and provides the roots for it’s strength and continuity.
Are we a society that, in extremis, places a young nursing mother in combat infantry? If she protests, so what? Guys have to go. Equal is as equal does, right? People simply aren’t thinking through the philosophical, moral as well as physical realities here.
I’m as much of a feminist as anyone, but I also know not every sector of life exists to be the experimental plaything of those in power. Women enjoy lives of unparalleled ease and opportunity in America because it’s free, secure and well-defended. But like fish who don’t know they’re in water, we have swum in freedom so long that we no longer realize what it is. (But will when it’s gone.)
The transformational changes of our societal foundations are coming fast and furious these days. Gays and women in these positions, dramatic, sudden demographic shifts with immigrant amnesty, etc… The pillars of the city, as the saying goes, will rot from within unless more time, care, and leadership is exerted.
January 29th, 2013 at 10:11 am
“What follows next will inflame feminist everywhere, but when you insert a female into a cluster of testosterone laden young males they are going to act like young males in any species on this planet do”
True. When you introduce a female into an infantry squad, the males stop behaving like a wolfpack and start competing for the female’s attention. All sorts of clusterfucks ensue.
“Am I out on patrol again so that my squad leader can get more face time with Elizabeth? This is the 3rd time in – [BOOM!]“
January 29th, 2013 at 10:14 am
Maybe it won’t make any difference at some point. I found this:
http://traffic.outbrain.com/network/redir?key=b0a2be3dd6d3b56f62921cb2eeedaddc&rdid=458522796&type=YLD_d/RF_ch&in-site=false&idx=5&req_id=0d697f679dc9a731fb7485180e6a7c8a&agent=blog_JS_rec&recMode=7&reqType=1&wid=107&imgType=0&refPub=296&prs=false&scp=false
January 29th, 2013 at 10:19 am
Joe: “[Biology prevents it] Over the course of time, women have heard that a lot, usually as spoken by a man.”
Wrong again, usually its spoken by a scientist or doctor.
Women have 10% less hemoglobin
Women have 10% less bone density
Women have 10% more body fat
Do you have the faintest idea how that affects them in combat? And I’m not even getting into muscle mass.
January 29th, 2013 at 10:23 am
Joe: You guys are not going to stop the march of progress with hand ringing.
At least your honest about your motives – social progress and to hell with how many of our sons and daughters die until you grow up enough to realize how ignorant and selfish you are.
BTW, chicks don’t dig the betamale sucking up. Its not going to get you laid.
January 29th, 2013 at 10:34 am
Of the things that I are firmly believe are that a dirty old man used to be a dirty young man and that a stupid old man was once a stupid young man. Are you both, Joe, or only the latter?
January 29th, 2013 at 10:48 am
OK … I have not weighed in on this subject because often some of you Army guys have trouble separating satire from my truth.
So here it is … my truth (whether you want to hear it or not):
1. There are some direct combat jobs that should always be off limits to woman … period. If you need me to list them I will give you three or four and a like application standard can be applied. However, you can figure it out.
2. General and or basic combat related jobs should be opened up fully to females without dumbing down standards. If at anytime during training any trainee (male or female) should be removed from consideration for combat. If at anytime during actual combat there is an apparent failure of anyone in terms of combat effectiveness he or she should be removed from the battlefield at the earliest and most opportune moment.
3. I don’t mind nor do I care if females serve in combat roles. It would certainly help if the are 100 % combat effective as compared to their male counterparts, they are all in everyday of the month, we all shit can any preconcieved notions, and most importantly they are good looking … that is always good for morale!
On the issue of morale, you only have to look to our good friends and allies … our sisters in the IDF: http://www.google.com/search?q=idf+females&hl=en&tbo=u&rlz=1R2ADBR_enUS378&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=pN8HUd38CYrk8gTGnYA4&sqi=2&ved=0CD8QsAQ&biw=853&bih=537
The above commentary is not satire!
January 29th, 2013 at 10:55 am
@ 53 Hondo Says:
January 28th, 2013 at 4:17 pm
OUCH … snapped off in his ass!
January 29th, 2013 at 11:50 am
As long as we’re pressing for total equality, it’s time for all women 18 and older to register for the Selective Service and a potential draft, just like every American male.
How do you think that’ll sit with Kim Kardashian, Miley Cyrus and GaGa?
You want total equality. C’mon in!
January 29th, 2013 at 12:49 pm
Just kicking this up!
January 29th, 2013 at 1:56 pm
I am a certifed thread killer!
January 29th, 2013 at 2:07 pm
@69, I throw the BS flag on that one. Since you commented on this and bumped it up to the top you are a certified thread reserectionit.
January 29th, 2013 at 3:36 pm
@ 70 Twist … ROGER THAT!
January 29th, 2013 at 8:57 pm
In regard to women 18 to 25 registering with Selective Service, this showed up today:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/29/16745990-push-for-all-younger-women-to-register-with-selective-service-gaining-steam
Not reviving the thread, just adding this bit of news to it.
January 30th, 2013 at 10:47 am
@72, (I posted 67)
This is AWESOME! Can you imagine the Kardashians, Lady GaGa, Miley Cyrus,theReal Housewives of Anywhere….. yes…Lindsey Lohan signing up at the local Post Office? This alone is worth the price of admission!
January 30th, 2013 at 11:26 am
So, a group called SWAN was an advocate for the change? Perhaps that’s apropos considering what happens at the end of a “swan song”.
January 30th, 2013 at 11:30 am
Okay, Hondo, here’s the technical question: if the draft requires 6 years of service, does that mean if you don’t have a full six you get called back to finish your 6?
Wouldn’t that put all those unpleasantly malorous peasants who currently endores protest groups back on active duty?
January 30th, 2013 at 12:05 pm
Ex-PH2: probably not. Technically, they’ve almost certainly fulfilled their total military service requirement even if they served less than 6 or 8 years on active duty.
When someone enters the military, they incur a total military service commitment on entry. That total commitment may be served in either the active or reserve components, or split between the two. (The current total military service commitment is now 8 years vice 6, by the way; I believe that changed sometime back in the 80s. Total military service commitment through at least the late 70s or early 80s was indeed 6 years.)
The general practice was (and still is) for the active duty portion of that military commitment to be governed by either enlistment contract, needs of service, or a combination of both. That’s where the terms “3-year enlistment”, “4-year enlistment”, etc . . . , came from. These terms were technically inaccurate, as they were only referring to the active duty part of the total committment.
The general practice was (and still is) for persons finishing their active duty portion with total military service commitment remaining to be placed into the reserve components. Those who desired generally could be placed in RC units or mobilization augmentee positions which required periodic training and active participation. Collectively, these constituted the Ready Reserve. Certain early release programs required participation in the Ready Reserve.
Those who didn’t desire to participate in units or mobilization augmentation programs were generally placed into the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). Basically you didn’t do anything (there was a technical requirement for an annual muster, but I don’t personally know anyone who ever was called for one) – but as many folks found out in 1990-1991 and since, you are indeed still subject to recall to active duty from the IRR should the military need your skills and body. Once an individual no longer had a military service commitment remaining (e.g., at either 6 or 8 years, depending on the year of entry) enlisted personnel were normally dropped from the IRR. (As I recall, officers had to ask for their release or they remained in the IRR until 2x nonselected for promotion, at which point they were also dropped.)
Bottom line: all of those folks you’re talking about are probably long gone off the military’s “books”.