Double Standards in Aviation Training
Paul Jacobsen
Roger L. Perkins wrote in message <368a5...@news.sisna.com>...
>And that has been the way it is for over 20 years.
>
>That is what this argument misses - women have been in and doing as good
as
>the men for a long time now. It's just that some men find it difficult to
>recognize it. Some will try and pass the PT test off as some sort of
>pre-combat test when it isn't because it suits their arguments. Or they
>will fixate on a female failure as some sort of sign from God that all
women
>are bad. (Ignoring, of course, male failures) Reality is that the women
>are doing fine. Some are good, some are not. Sounds normal to me.
>
>Roger
>AIRBORNE!
Double Standards in Aviation Training:
We have posted information about serious, unresolved questions that were
raised by the untimely death of F-14 pilot Lt. Kara Hultgreen, one of two
women trained to fly the Navy's F-14 Tomcat. Former F-14 instructor Lt.
Patrick J. Burns, whose warnings about the women's unreadiness for the
hazards of carrier aviation were disregarded by local commanders, was
featured in a CBS "Sixty Minutes" segment that aired on April 19, 1998. As
confirmed by a Navy report, a "race" was on with the Air Force to get women
into combat aviation. Low scores and major errors that would have
disqualified others were forgiven, so that women would not fail.
American Dream
That short-sighted social architects (feminists) who believe that they
have some cosmic ability to see what is best for the military, are now
playing some kind of game by seeing how many women they can shove in the
forces. Nevermind that a number of these women, as mentioned in the post
below, are not qualified for their positions. In addition, even the
presence of those women who pass qualifying tests can have negative effects
on cohesiveness and readiness, by introducing the male-female
physical/psychological dichotomy into the military environment: obviously
this is an unnecessary characteristic that can only dampen the war effort,
introducing a tangle of problems such as abuse, fraternization, pregnancy,
and the lowering of standards for women, which leads to hostility from
males who must perform at higher standards to attain the same position,
just to name a few. Furthermore, even those women who have partially
succeeded in blending with the military environment (partially, because it
can never be done fully), have had to kill the feminine part of themselves
and become masculine women, an act which in itself is a perversion and is
self-destruction.
Again, the book "Women in the Military: Flirting with Disaster", by Brian
Mitchell, is highly recommended for those interested in this subject.
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
>succeeded in blending with the military environment (partially, because it
>can never be done fully), have had to kill the feminine part of themselves
>and become masculine women, an act which in itself is a perversion and is
>self-destruction.
What kind of romatizied neo-Victorian crackpot are you??
Despite the collective spew of multitudes of gender role defenders,
gender-based behaviour is still largely socially driven, rather than some
inherent characteristic.
Sweet and cuddly domestic daddies and bloody warrior maidens are not
"unnatural" merely awkward for the society.
In the narrow discussion of women in the US military, espcially questions
about the standards applied, compromising standards for bodies is simply
wrong. But at the same time, care should be taken to make sure the
standards are not set so arbitrarily as to clearly select out women.
But to suggest training a woman to be a combat pilot is somehow
"unnatural" is simple sentimentalist BS, and smacks of the bad old days
when there were any number of "reasons" why men of color couldn't fly either.
gbf
old days.
gbf
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci wrote in message ...
junkmail
miliatry, at all levels and in all duty positions.
In 26 years of service, I came across many a good
female soldier, and just as many good male soldiers.
It takes good leaders. Any female (or male) will fail
under poor leadership. When female soldiers are
forced to try to succeed in an environment where they
are constantly "put down" by their male counterparts
and leaders, they are bound to fail. Infantry
leaders, most that I have workded with, find it hard
to accept females as equals. In Haiti, the local
company commander of the SF unit in the hills around
PaP refused to allow female signal soldiers to do
their commo jobs. No guns needed, just airconditioned
radio vans. Stupid!
Physical strength is one small part of a combat ready
team. I would not give my M60 to the smallest female
in my platoon no more than I would give it to the
smallest male. Someone has to carry it, but not
everyone must be able to carry it. Give it to the big
guy and tell him tough sh**. It's not fair...but life
is not fair.
In two tours in the 10th Mountain, I can say I'm proud
of the mental and physical strength and toughness I
witnessed from the men and women of the Signal Corps.
In a Light Infantry unit, we had to meet the same PT
standards, road march times and all the rest of the
Light Fighters stuff. And we did it from out front,
never from the back. We were on the first choppers
into Haiti.
To say that all women are failures is as foolish as to
say that all men are successful. Only when good
leadership learns how to lead and stops complaining
about women in the army will our forces be strong.
Greg
<<<+)))
*** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ***
Dweezil Dwarftosser
Gallacci) wrote:
>>just to name a few. Furthermore, even those women who have partially
>>succeeded in blending with the military environment (partially, because it
>>can never be done fully), have had to kill the feminine part of themselves
>>and become masculine women, an act which in itself is a perversion and is
>>self-destruction.
>
>What kind of romatizied neo-Victorian crackpot are you??
So far, I agree with your characterization. None of the women I knew
in the service were "masculinized".
>Despite the collective spew of multitudes of gender role defenders,
>gender-based behaviour is still largely socially driven, rather than some
>inherent characteristic.
This, however, is just as crackpot an idea, for it denies fact in
favor of popular myth. Approximately thirty years of social
engineering by radical feminists and foolish sympathizers has not
diminished the physical, emotional, or other intrinsic differences
between men and women. ( Thank God...Vive la differance ! )
The USAF recognizes these differences, and accomodates them fairly
well - even though there have been a few slip-ups trying to deal
with PC implementations. Today, women are a very important part of
the AF workforce...not just because they comprise 10 to 15 percent
of the skills required, but also because they bring considerable
innovation and ability to handling the job.
>In the narrow discussion of women in the US military, espcially questions
>about the standards applied, compromising standards for bodies is simply
>wrong. But at the same time, care should be taken to make sure the
>standards are not set so arbitrarily as to clearly select out women.
How about when the standards are anything BUT arbitrary, yet clearly
de-select the overwhelming majority of women ? ( e.g. - pararescue ?)
>But to suggest training a woman to be a combat pilot is somehow
>"unnatural" is simple sentimentalist BS, and smacks of the bad old days
>when there were any number of "reasons" why men of color couldn't fly either.
No, it *is* unnatural - but that isn't at all a barrier that will keep
a woman with the physical stamina, intelligence, skill, and guts from
succeeding in a "naturally-male" environment. Don't make the mistake
of trying to compare it to clearly-discriminatory instances of a seg-
regated military, or old prejudices explaining why "women weren't
suited to science/engineering". These weren't based on hormones,
musculature, nor a distinctly different perception of logic between
the sexes.
BTW - last time I checked, nouns have gender; people have sex.
- John T.
American Dream
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci <bev...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<bevnsagF...@netcom.com>...
> >just to name a few. Furthermore, even those women who have partially
> >succeeded in blending with the military environment (partially, because
it
> >can never be done fully), have had to kill the feminine part of
themselves
> >and become masculine women, an act which in itself is a perversion and
is
> >self-destruction.
>
> What kind of romatizied neo-Victorian crackpot are you??
I am not a crackpot, thank you. And allow me to point out the popular
feminist tactic of name-calling; this is a measure used to discredit the
opponent instead of engaging in an adult debate.
> Despite the collective spew of multitudes of gender role defenders,
> gender-based behaviour is still largely socially driven, rather than some
> inherent characteristic.
> Sweet and cuddly domestic daddies and bloody warrior maidens are not
> "unnatural" merely awkward for the society.
Biological differences in men and woman are real, and many social customs
take advantage of these differences for the best benefit. In every society
in the world dating as far back as we know and until the present day, there
has been a certain pattern that has been followed (pertaining to men and
women), meaning that there has to be something more to the nature of men
and women than "social conditioning". Social customs build on these
biological facts for the best benefit; the idea of women and men and the
military follows from this. The idea is that men are best suited for the
military because of physical strength and aggressiveness (among other
things), and that women, because of the characteristics that come with
being a mother (among other things), are perhaps not best fit for this
task. There is nothing wrong with this; I do not believe that women are
inferior or less because of these differences, it simply means different.
And, can you name another military in the world that is in a mad rush to
push women into the forces? If I recall correctly, Israel tried this, but
then ran into a host of problems and realized that it was a sham, so they
ditched the effort. I predict that the United States will come to the same
conclusion, even if we have to learn the hard way.
> In the narrow discussion of women in the US military, espcially questions
> about the standards applied, compromising standards for bodies is simply
> wrong. But at the same time, care should be taken to make sure the
> standards are not set so arbitrarily as to clearly select out women.
This is the one thing I can agree with you on; standards should not be
lowered for women. But it is hard for me to understand just how you
believe this; if standards were not lowered for women, there would not be
any women in combat services, because women are physically unable to meet
the standards that have been set for the military. Thus, how can one
support women in the military without supporting the lowering of standards?
In addition, standards are not "set arbitrarily as to clearly select out
women". Standards for the military have existed long before feminists
wanted to take over the armed forces; standards exist so that only the
strongest and most qualified men can take up the utterly important task of
defending the nation. To suggest that military standards exist for the
purpose "selecting out women" is absurd.
> But to suggest training a woman to be a combat pilot is somehow
> "unnatural" is simple sentimentalist BS, and smacks of the bad old days
> when there were any number of "reasons" why men of color couldn't fly
either.
I still contend that training women for combat is unnatural, not
"sentimentalist BS". Not only is it unnatural, it is deadly because it
reduces the readiness of the armed forces by lowering standards, reducing
unit cohesiveness and removing the capability to strike hard and fast,
without having to deal with menstruation, pregnancy, fraternization,
pacification of the armed forces, and the other problems that are attached
to women when they enter the forces. And as I said previously, those women
who are able to partially blend, destroy part of themselves by killing the
feminine part of them; which is in itself a loss. Secondly, being a "man
of color", I can tell you that the issue of blacks in the military is as
different as night and day from the issue of women in the military.
Roger L. Perkins
1970 when I first came in. And doing fine. There is no feminist
conspiracy or any other bugga-bugga thing beyond women wanting fields open
to them. And, since the military is male dominated, I don't think that is
much of a factor.
My 21 years of observation of women in the service has told me that they do
just as well as the guys. Meaning some excell, most meet the requirement,
and some are crap. The crap is weeded out no matter what the gender.
So your dreams of some secret conspiracy to infiltrate the military just
ain't so. FYI, PT tests are set up to evaluate fitness, which differs
between genders, but it is used as a whipping boy by those who want women
out of the service and damn the performance. It's not a combat performance
evaluation tool.
So keep your propaganda. It doesn't do it for me any more than the
propaganda of those who think women are superior in some way does. I have
seen with my own eyes, I have worked for and with women, had them work for
me. And there just ain't any truth to either side of the myths. They just
soldier.
Now try dealing with reality. Women have been in the force for decades and
had no negative effect. Unless, of course, you count the rabid dog response
by some who can't stand a change in the status quo.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
American Dream wrote in message
<01be342e$fc60e0e0$7109...@gibbsjoh.user.msu.edu>...
>This is indeed a sad situation,
> That short-sighted social architects (feminists) who believe that they
>have some cosmic ability to see what is best for the military, are now
>playing some kind of game by seeing how many women they can shove in the
>forces. Nevermind that a number of these women, as mentioned in the post
>below, are not qualified for their positions. In addition, even the
>presence of those women who pass qualifying tests can have negative effects
>on cohesiveness and readiness, by introducing the male-female
>physical/psychological dichotomy into the military environment: obviously
>this is an unnecessary characteristic that can only dampen the war effort,
>introducing a tangle of problems such as abuse, fraternization, pregnancy,
>and the lowering of standards for women, which leads to hostility from
>males who must perform at higher standards to attain the same position,
>just to name a few. Furthermore, even those women who have partially
>succeeded in blending with the military environment (partially, because it
>can never be done fully), have had to kill the feminine part of themselves
>and become masculine women, an act which in itself is a perversion and is
>self-destruction.
Roger L. Perkins
that shoots your theory in the ass, just like your theories on women in the
military, huh?
The ignorant we can educate; the stupid we just have to live with.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
American Dream wrote in message
<01be344f$5cc18640$7109...@gibbsjoh.user.msu.edu>...
>
>
>Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci <bev...@netcom.com> wrote in article
><bevnsagF...@netcom.com>...
>> >just to name a few. Furthermore, even those women who have partially
>> >succeeded in blending with the military environment (partially, because
>it
>> >can never be done fully), have had to kill the feminine part of
>themselves
>> >and become masculine women, an act which in itself is a perversion and
>is
>> >self-destruction.
>>
Paul Jacobsen
Roger L. Perkins wrote in message <368ad...@news.sisna.com>...
>
>My 21 years of observation of women in the service has told me that they do
>just as well as the guys.
Your 21 years of observation must have been clouded. Did you go
parachuting without a helmet?
The truth is:
Air Wing 11 Report - June-Aug. 1996 - Present: Navy officials tried to
appease former F-14 pilot Lt. Carey Lohrenz, even though she was removed
from carrier aviation in May 1995 because of flying techniques described as
"unsafe, undisciplined and unpredictable." CMR published a concise, two-part
analysis of the 213 page Naval Inspector General’s Report on Sex
Discrimination in Air Wing 11, which refuted allegations of sex
discrimination in AW 11. According to investigators, Lt. Carey Lohrenz
frequently disregarded the directions of landing signal officers (LSOs), and
landed in ways that "scared everyone but her." The AW 11 Report also
revealed a quagmire of male/female disputes about pregnancy testing,
separate-sex berthing assignments, argumentative responses from some female
pilots during critical debriefings, and other personal misunderstandings
that mystified the men and annoyed the women.
Fred
>push women into the forces?
Canada.
Paul Jacobsen
>
>In the narrow discussion of women in the US military, espcially questions
>about the standards applied, compromising standards for bodies is simply
>wrong. But at the same time, care should be taken to make sure the
>standards are not set so arbitrarily as to clearly select out women.
>
We've compromised every standard there is for women and those who
will not conform to political correctness are in big trouble. Read and
weep:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
The Boys from Syracuse: The Rest of the Story
The Navy Inspector Generalís 1997 report on Air Wing Eleven confirmed that
the post-Tailhook Navy was in a "race" with the Air Force to get women into
combat aviation. This edition of CMR Notes analyzes what was happening on
the Air Forceís side of the race.
CMR first wrote about the "Syracuse Social Experiment" in February 1996. The
story centers on Maj. Jacquelyn Parker, an F-16 pilot whose failure to
become the first woman in aviation combat almost destroyed a New York Air
National Guard (NYANG) fighter wing that used to be known as the "Boys from
Syracuse."
When Maj. Parker resigned from the 174th Fighter Wing in June of 1995,
military and civilian authorities conducted two major investigations to find
out why. Findings of the two inquiries were dramatically different in
matters of fact, but disappointingly similar in the "spin" that was used in
portraying Maj. Parker as an almost-blameless victim of discrimination.
At the height of last yearís controversy over B-52 pilot Lt. Kelly Flinn,
her supporters argued that "antiquated" rules regarding personal behavior in
the military should be weakened or abolished. Defense Secretary William S.
Cohen responded by establishing a special task force to study the subject,
which has yet to make its report. The story of Syracuse is important not
because of what it says about the mistakes and personal failings of
individual men and women, but because it is relevant to the Pentagonís
current review of rules regarding personal conduct. Syracuse is an object
lesson in what can happen when sound principles of leadership, good order
and discipline are abandoned, and a dangerous social experiment goes
horribly awry.
On June 21, 1995, after struggling for 12 months with training that usually
takes three to four months to complete, Air National Guard Maj. Jacquelyn
Parker suited up for her final check ride in the F-16. Despite concerns
about her overall proficiency, Operations Group Commander Lt. Col. Raymond
DuFour had already approved Parkerís deployment to Iraq, where she would
become the first woman in combat aviation, patrolling a no-fly zone as part
of Operation Provide Comfort.
To participate in the operation, Maj. Parker had to successfully complete a
final training flight, simulating combat conditions over Iraq when two Air
Force F-15 pilots descended and mistakenly shot down two American Blackhawk
helicopters, killing 26 people. The exercise was a four-aircraft low
altitude step-down (LASDT) training flight, and she was expected to pass.
Instead, Maj. Parkerís career came to an abrupt end, following a
low-altitude maneuver that her instructor, Maj. Jeffrey Ecker, considered
extremely dangerous.
Parkerís mission, described as a "pretty benign scenario," was to intercept
two low-flying A-10s proceeding toward her aircraft from a known point. On
her first three intercept attempts, Parker failed to obtain radar or visual
identificationóa critical skill needed to avoid the targeting of "friendly"
aircraft. Her fourth attempt, at about 3,000 feet above the ground, almost
ended in disaster.
When Parker flew over the A-10s and finally spotted them behind her, she
over-banked her plane by about 120 degrees and started to pull the nose
down. According to instructor Ecker, a skilled pilot might have been able to
execute the turn safely, but Parkerís inept performance throughout the
mission suggested that she would have crashed into the ground. Fortunately,
Ecker was in position to see the dangerous maneuver, with sufficient time to
yell, "knock it off" on the radio.
Maj. Ecker described Maj. Parkerís reaction to the near-death experience in
his testimony before the New York State Inspector General:
"[Parker] was still a little pale-looking to me and I was ...upset about it
too....Iím starting to think about what could have happened....[M]y problem
with this protracted re-flying schedule was that I thought that someday she
was [going to] hit the ground and [we would] be in an investigation on the
other side of the coin saying, ëHow could you let her fly 50 rides in an 8
ride program knowing that she was never developing the skills to tactically
employ the airplane? How could you let her kill herself?í"
Parkerís frightening experience, following months of inconsistent
performance and disciplinary problems, might have been accepted as an
understandable reason for her resignation the next day. But she was a
high-profile woman, and BG John Fenimore, appointed by New York Governor
George Pataki to be Adjutant General, feared that her abrupt departure might
be seen as evidence of sex discrimination.
The Hobbs (Military) Investigation
Gen. Fenimore appointed a four-member board of inquiry, headed by BG Johnny
J. Hobbs, to find out why Maj. Parker had resigned. Gen. Hobbs, who worked
in the same office as Gen. Fenimore, conducted a series of closed hearings.
Members of the Hobbs board, who had no experience in F-16C general purpose
operations, scheduling, or training, failed to interview many of Parkerís
instructors, including Maj. Ecker, who witnessed her final flight.
Persons accused of wrongdoing were not permitted to answer specific charges
made behind closed doors, and Maj. Parker spoke to the board first and last.
It was not surprising, therefore, that the Hobbs report was sympathetic to
Parker, and critical of the men from Syracuse.
The primary target was Col. David Hamlin, the highly respected Fighter Wing
Commander and a decorated veteran of Vietnam and Desert Storm. Hamlin had
already been selected for promotion to brigadier general, but he received no
warning that his career was about to crash in smoking ruins. The October 20,
1995, release of the military findingsóhereafter referred to as the Hobbs
reportóbecame a major media event, covered by CNN and other news
organizations from press conferences at the Pentagon, the state capital at
Albany, and Syracuse.
Following fulsome praise of Gen. Fenimoreís actions from members of the
Pentagonís Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS),
eleven more highly-skilled commanders, pilots and instructors were fired,
demoted, reassigned to non-flying positions, or transferred to non-existent
jobs pending retirement from the Guard. Months of institutional chaos
ensued, culminating in a month-long grounding of the entire wing. The havoc
seemed to fulfill Maj. Parkerís parting promise: "If you speak of my
performance after I leave, I will become so vicious that I will tear this
unit apart." (Rose testimony, p. 253)
The New York Inspector General (Civilian) Investigation
The local civilian and military community formed a protest group called
"Friends of Col. David Hamlin," and demanded that the governor intervene and
provide due process for Col. Hamlin, Vice Commander Col. Tom Webster, and
others in the fighter wing who had been punished. In January of 1996,
Governor Pataki ordered a second investigation by the New York Inspector
General. The NY IG, a civilian named Rosslyn R. Mauskopf, spent 18 months
gathering information from aviators and other observers who were not
interviewed by the Hobbs board.
Inspector General Mauskopf released her findings in a 216-page report,
titled "Mismanagement and Missed Opportunities" hereafter referred to as the
Mauskopf report. The December 23, 1997, release date minimized media
attention, and the benign-sounding title distracted attention from
sensational information within. Unlike the Hobbs report, the civilian
Mauskopf review was more fair in exposing what the wing did to help the
women succeed, and more thorough in exposing what happened when Col. Hamlin
was not supported in his efforts to maintain good order and military
discipline.
Although the text of the Mauskopf report provided abundant evidence of poor
judgment and a failure of leadership by Adjutant General Fenimore, he was
not held personally accountable for the fiasco at Syracuse. Mauskopf
condoned the disproportionately severe punishment of Col. Hamlin and eleven
other male aviators, but had little to say about the Air Forceís failure to
discipline Parker for disruptive behavior that dissolved morale and good
order in the wing.
Mauskopf also missed the mark by allowing her report to be colored by the
"golden girl" mystiqueóthe belief that female pilots are too "special" to
fail. (See page 6) Several times, Mauskopf suggested that Parkerís "historic
opportunity" to become the first woman combat pilot was so important, even
her unprofessional behavior and performance deficiencies should have been
accommodated, no matter what. This expectation betrayed a profound
misunderstanding of the purpose of combat aviation training, and was a
disservice to other female aviators who do not demand special treatment in
the name of equality.
Starting Off on the Wrong Foot
Shortly after then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin opened combat aviation to
women in 1993, MG Michael Hall, then-New York Adjutant General, was
determined to train the first female combat pilot in the Air National Guard.
Available billets had been reduced by downsizing, but Hall circumvented the
problem by "attaching" Maj. Parker to the 174th Fighter Wing at Syracuse.
Hallís imposition of Maj. Parker on the 174th for training purposes was
bound to be controversial, because she had already been interviewed and
rejected by the fighter wing. The commanders of community-based,
state-controlled National Guard units normally have a great deal of autonomy
in hiring new pilots. Two other women had already been offered positions
with the 174th, and one of them, Capt. Sue Hart-Lilly, joined the wing and
experienced few problems.
Parker had been a test pilot, but her primary flight experience was with
transport aircraft such as the C-141 and KC-135. Pilots with "heavy"
aircraft skills are more likely to have problems transitioning to the
high-performance F-16 fighter. Acceptance of Maj. Parker was made even more
difficult when she flaunted her unusually friendly relationship with
Adjutant General Hall, who had known Parker since her days at test pilot
school in 1989. According to the NY IG report, Parker had traveled with and
attended overnight Air Force events with Gen. Hall, and frequently called
him "Mike" in the presence of other subordinates.
Hall should have anticipated the squadronís negative reaction to his
unilateral assignment decision and his personal familiarity with Parker, but
his judgment was undermined by other considerations. Operations Group
Commander Col. Robert Rose suspected that Hallís personal interest focused
on Parker not just as a woman, but as a political asset whose presence at
Syracuse might deter inclusion of the 174th in the next round of budget cuts
or base closures. Col. Hamlin told investigators, "...when Aspin...opened
the door...there were three services racing to be the first, plus one
general who had his own ego to handle and wanted to be the one that could
put up the first. And I think thatís the wrong way to a put a woman in a
fighter seat."
Personality Problems
Maj. Parker was seriously disadvantaged by her status as a perceived
outsider. That virulent problem might have been overcome, however, if she
had not conveyed an impression of self-absorption and unbridled ambition.
Parker alienated her colleagues by constantly talking about her own history,
her political connections, frequent media appearances, and a celebrity
status rivaling that of fellow "golden girl" Lt. Kelly Flinn. Parker had
received a "Groundbreaker" award from Hillary Rodham Clinton, appeared with
Air Force Secretary Sheila Widnall and Chief of Staff Gen. Ronald Fogleman,
and was photographed for a magazine profile arrayed in a glamorous gown with
a bomber jacket slung over her shoulder. Maj. Maureen Murphy commented, "One
thing was clear...In her value system, the l74th existed to serve her, and
being an F-16 pilot was simply a vehicle to getting somewhere elseóas soon
as she determined where she wanted to go."
She talked constantly about opportunities she expected to pursue after her
stint in Syracuseósuch as a California fighter squadron, law school, an
astronaut position with NASA, or a White House fellowship. Maj. Scott
Poppleton, who observed that her monologues sometimes occurred in the
presence of fellow pilots who were unemployed and facing financial hardship,
called it "a lack of situational awareness as far as people skills."
Sexual Harassment
As gender integration began in earnest, the formerly all-male fighter wing
was trying to define appropriate behavior in the presence of the opposite
sex. Jackie Parker complicated that process, by carrying on as if rules of
decorum simply didnít apply to her. As stated by the NY IG, "Parker engaged
in a series of crude and unprofessional acts toward some of the male pilots
that sent mixed messages about the bounds of appropriate conduct. In doing
so, Parker herself seemed to embrace the very culture that [Col.] Hamlin was
struggling to change. This conduct contributed to creating an environment
that was unsupportive and posed significant obstacles to Parkerís successful
integration in the unit."
It wasnít helpful for Parker to constantly use crude language, wear
revealing clothing, or carry a business card displaying the call sign
"Mankiller," which was later changed to "Yackie." Nor did she gain respect
by invading the menís restrooms and showers while fellow officers were using
them, or by touching and brushing up against certain men in ways that she
admitted drove them "nuts." Her favorite target was Capt. Anthony Zaccarro,
who eventually filed an unsuccessful suit against her for sexual harassment.
If made into a film, certain passages of the civilian IG report describing
Parkerís sexually provocative behavior would have to be rated "R." Parkerís
bawdy stunts drew notoriety and ready-room guffaws, but not respect. The men
said they didnít dare to report such incidents to Col. Hamlin and others in
the chain of command, for fear of retaliation from Parkerís high-ranking
allies in Albany. As Lt. Col. DuFour put it, "She was so powerful in her own
little way, and I knew that I had no [political] power. It was a lose-lose
situation with Parker."
What Love Had to Do With It
The NY IG presented abundant evidence that "The Rose/Parker relationship
proved to be one of the most significant factors in events during Parkerís
tenure at Syracuse. It infected Parkerís training environment... distracted
the unit from its primary mission, [and] served as the final straw that
destroyed Parkerís already tenuous standing in the unit."
This conclusion was strikingly different from that reached by the Hobbs
board, which accepted the testimony of Rose and Parker that their friendship
was "totally platonic." Awareness of the relationship began when Robert
Rose, a married man, confided to friends that his intentions regarding
Parker were less than honorable. As the relationship progressed, fellow
pilots overheard personal conversations between the two on aircraft radio,
and were aware that Rose spent time rock climbing with Parker, visiting her
apartment near a lake, and enjoying sailing jaunts and wine on the beach.
Contrary to his own prior testimony before the military board, Col. Rose
signed a sworn affidavit on January 16, 1996, confessing to sexual
involvement with Parker. The document mentioned details including, in one
instance, an overnight stay but not sexual intercourse. The admitted
fraternization was more than a personal matter because Rose was an
instructor and her training supervisor.
For some time, fighter wing members had observed that the coupleís violation
of rules forbidding inappropriate senior/subordinate relationships had led
directly to favoritism. Col. Rose was known to give unusually high marks to
Parker on routine training flights. He also raised eyebrows by questioning
instructor Jeffrey Eckerís evaluation of a close-air-support mission, during
which Parker experienced serious problems. Five times, she dropped 25-pound
practice bombs up to a mile and a half away from the intended targets. The
incident reinforced the impression that Parker was prone to going over the
heads of her peers, and her relationship with Rose was as "special" as her
training program.
Pranks Rattle Rose and Parker
The clearly inappropriate romance created a feeling of powerlessness and
resentment among her colleagues, who resorted to practical jokes and pranks
to express their disapproval. One involved a fake journalist, who caused a
panic by calling Rose to inquire about his relationship with the major.
Parker also overheard a disparaging limerick about herself on her aircraft
radio, and received the squadronís monthly sardonic "Toilet Bowl Award," a
plastic seat with her photo mounted inside.
Col. Rose was razzed with the wingís annual "Most Disgusting Duke" award,
presented to him for "Jackie sailing, Jackie climbing, Jackie this, Jackie
that." Rose accepted the award graciously but privately commented that it
was "pretty rotten." Outlandish jokes and sophomoric ribbing such as this
were common in the wing prior to Parkerís arrival, but in her case they
served to escalate tension, rather than dissipating it.
Flying Performance
The training process was prolonged by Maj. Parkerís frequent absences due to
illness or public appearances, which caused her to miss key training events.
Instead of the required 12 flights, performance problems made it necessary
for Parker to fly 23 missions, extending into the fall. Instead of
scheduling a check ride to complete the syllabus in September of 1994,
operations leaders elected to suspend her training in preparation for the
unitís Operational Readiness Inspection (ORI), scheduled for October.
The NY IG criticized this decision, made primarily because Parker was not a
regular member of the unit. Under ground rules set by the 9th Air Force
readiness inspection team, she would not count as a fighter wing asset
eligible for the ORI. In Mauskopfís view, it was"selfish" of the unit not to
see Maj. Parkerís success as a crucial part of the unitís overall policy
goals; i.e., gender integration.
After a two-month suspension of her training, which eroded her skills,
Parker had to repeat the basic course. She did not achieve qualification as
a mission-ready F-16 pilot until February 1995. She flew a total of 60
flights over a period of almost a yearóthree times more than the minimum
20-flight syllabus that most pilots complete in a few months. Instructors
put the primary blame on Parkerís limited ability in flying the jet.
In particular, they expressed concern about her ability to counter the
effects of G-force, which can cause a pilot to lose consciousness. They also
worried about inconsistency in her flight performance, particularly in basic
fighter and air combat maneuvers, and air to ground exercises. These
deficiencies had been noted during her previous assignments at test pilot
school and the F-16 Replacement Training Unit (RTU).
The NY IG report criticized the fighter wing for subjective, inconsistent
grading procedures, and possible bias on the part of instructors who simply
didnít like her. Bias in favor of Parker didnít count. MG Hall insisted that
he wanted Parker to be trained just like everyone else, but Col. Hamlin
testified that "...the direction from Hall was to ëmake it happen,í which he
understood to mean that Parker was not to fail."
The Going Gets Tough
The struggling aviatorís personal and performance problems began to
intersect shortly after a large-scale "Air Warrior" exercise at Nellis AFB
in March of 1995. Parker and Rose continued to socialize openly, while
denying that anything was "going on." That forced Col. Hamlin to remove Rose
as Operations Group Commander, effective May 1, 1995, and replace him with
Lt. Col. Ray DuFour.
Even though the punishment was aimed at Rose, Parker felt she had been
deprived of her mentor and only friend, and the Hobbs report criticized Col.
Hamlin for not being sensitive to her feelings of non-acceptance by the
group. Unit members resented her role in the demise of Roseís career, and
the consequent alienation exacerbated her flight performance problems.
The walls started to close in when BG Michael Hall retired at about the time
she was facing the toughest phase of her training. DuFour testified, "You
could see that she was starting to go downhill as far as what her future was
going to bring. I think for the first time Jackie Parker started to realize
she was not going to be able to either fake her way through something, or be
good enough to get through something....itís a single seat airplane."
Despite considerable evidence that Col. Hamlin and the 174th did make
diligent, good faith efforts to assimilate women, the report concluded that
failure to guarantee Parkerís success was "fundamentally unfair" and a
"disgrace." The criticism implied that the wing should have tolerated and
accommodated undisciplined behavior and poor performance, for the sake of an
"historic opportunity" that could have cost lives.
Epilogue:
The civilian report did not question or recommend revocation of punishment
for errors made by each of the twelve men of Syracuse, even though most of
the penalties were disproportionately severe.
Col. Hamlin was chastised for counseling Rose and Parker about their
relationship, and eventually depriving Parker of her friend by breaking it
up. Never mind that Col. Hamlin not only had the right to intervene, it was
his duty to do so. An Air Force Instruction regarding personal discipline,
which also applies to the Reserve and Air National Guard, directed
commanders to deal with inappropriate senior/subordinate relationships by
means of "...counseling, (an important first step), reprimanding, removing,
demoting, or processing people for administrative separation." (AFI 36-2909)
The principle behind the Air Force directive was lost on members of the
Hobbs board, whose conclusions were maddeningly skewed by belief in
testimony from Parker and Rose that their relationship was "totally
platonic." As noted in the Mauskopf report, months of turmoil resulted
because "NYANG leaders, including [Adjutant General] Fenimore, were aware of
and disregarded the true facts concerning the [Rose/Parker] relationship,
and allowed the [Hobbs] boardís flawed conclusions to become public and
drive the personnel transfers at the 174th."
The Syracuse twelve were demoted, transferred elsewhere, forced to resign,
or to accept non-flying positions which, in some cases, proved to be
non-existent. And in a cynical move that denied due process, Guard officials
labeled the reassignments "career broadening," so the pilots could not
challenge their groundings before an Aviation Examination Board. The
bureaucratic roadblock served to derail additional testimony and
investigations that might have embarrassed Air Force and Guard leaders, but
it was a clear abuse of power and a tremendous waste of human resources. It
costs at least $1.5 million dollars to train each F-16 pilot, and escalating
pilot shortages are causing mounting concern.
One pilot was punished for "smiling" and rolling his eyes when told by a
state Guard official that the 174th Fighter Wing should have accepted a
lower readiness inspection rating for the sake of Maj. Parkerís career.
Others were threatened with psychiatric evaluation or accused of sex
discriminationócharges that could end their careers with the airlines. In
view of the Hobbs boardís infuriatingly misguided conclusions and punitive
recommendations, itís a wonder that all the men from Syracuse didnít lose
their minds due to sheer frustration.
The Hobbs board also second-guessed the instructorsí decisions regarding
safety. As Ray DuFour wrote in an April 13, 1997, letter to the NY IG, when
an F-16 trainee begins "falling behind the airplane" and performance does
not improve, resignation from the program is a difficult but respected,
life-saving decision. He added that commanders must be free to deal with
such situations "...without fear of charges. It is a safety of flight issue;
people can and will die."
The Wall Street Journal published an editorial on May 22, 1997, which drew
obvious comparisons between Maj. Parkerís behavior and the widely publicized
transgressions of Lt. Kelly Flinn. Adjutant General Fenimore responded with
a letter to the editor, which continued to chastise the men of Syracuse. Lt.
Col. John Whiteside countered in a subsequent letter that objections to
flawed investigations should not be considered violations of good order and
discipline.
Release of the New York Inspector Generalís report was greeted with silence
by state authorities, including Governor George Pataki. Gen. Fenimore was
not held accountable for his mistakes in judgment and leadership, and BG
Johnny Hobbs, whose military board of inquiry produced a thoroughly botched
report, was awarded a second star and currently serves in the Pentagon.
Aside from administrative punishment of Col. Rose and a mild reprimand for
Maj. Parker, virtually nothing was said or done by Air Force or National
Guard officials to discourage similar fiascoes in the future. Maj. Parker,
who remains in the Air National Guard assigned to another state, refused to
testify and was not required to participate in the NY IG investigation. She
has avoided public comment since the report was released, but according to
Paul Richter of the Los Angeles Times, her attorney Susan Barnes "denied
Parker had an improper relationship with Rose...claimed Parker had to fend
off Roseís advances, and that Rose changed his story about the relationship
because of strong pressure from the males who were his friends for years."
(January 17, 1998)
The "Boys from Syracuse" have since abandoned their unitís historic name.
Although the civilian report did provide vindication by bringing out more of
the truth, aviators who hoped that the NY IG report would be critical of
double standards in training and disciplinary matters were disappointed.
Maj. Parker was not punished for behavior that would have ended any manís
career, which perpetuated the "golden girl" mystique.
Despite a huge body of evidence presented in her own report, explaining how
but not why Parker blew a tremendous opportunity, IG Rosslyn Mauskopf
offered this wistful speculation: "We will never know whether Parker had
ëthe right stuffí to fly one of the most demanding combat missions in the
military." Many accomplished men and women have fulfilled their dreams in
the Air Force, but all of them faced obstacles that had to be overcome. In
the real world of combat aviation, success is difficult to achieve, and
there are no guarantees.
NOTE: The text of the New York Inspector Generalís Report can be found on
the Internet at www.ig.state.ny.us/dmna.htm. The Hobbs report can be
obtained by filing a freedom of information request with the Division of
Military Naval Affairs, 330 Old Niskayuna Road, Latham, New York 12110-2224.
Presidentís Comments:
madw...@my-dejanews.com
i think he's PERFECTLY right.
In article <76e5uq$8la$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
"gbf" <g...@email.not> wrote:
> Men of color? Wow! And you have the nerve to slam someone about the bad
> old days.
>
> gbf
>
> Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci wrote in message ...
>
> >But to suggest training a woman to be a combat pilot is somehow
> >"unnatural" is simple sentimentalist BS, and smacks of the bad old days
> >when there were any number of "reasons" why men of color couldn't fly
> either.
>
>
--
-------------‰
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Roger L. Perkins
fields and doing fine. So deal with reality for a change, ok?
Roger
AIRBORNE!
madw...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<76jkqm$fo9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Bill
first hand knowledge of two of the pioneering women in Air Force fighters.
The 1st... Jeanie Flynn (not to be confused with Kelley Flinn) graduated
from UT (I was a sophomore at the time) as top graduate in aerospace
engineering... went on an academic deferment and got a 4.0 at Stanford in
her Masters in Aerospace Engineering... Went to UPT (Pilot Training) and
graduated 1st in her class and had to take KC-10s because of the policy
against women in Fighters. However she originally selected F-15Es... It so
happened that the policy was changed in time for her to become the 1st
female fighter pilot in the US military. She has done superbly by all
standards and those that fly with her hold her in high regard for her
abilities.
I point all this out because it would be an absolute waste not to put this
kind of talent in a fighter. As far as physical fitness... she could
probably kick all our asses. By the way, look for her to become the 1st
Female Shuttle Commander.
The 2nd.... Cathy Halligan (De La Garza now due to marriage).... Graduated
with me in the class of '94 and went off to ENJJPT at Sheppard. Got F-15s
and is now at Langley doing fine. I am very proud to know Cathy and
frankly take offense to all those naysayers who say women shouldn't fly
fighters. Once again, she is well ahead of her peers (both men and women)
and got there based on her performance. Not because she is a token woman.
On a side note.... She and I wrote counterpoint papers about just this when
we were seniors in college for our AS400 class. I took the side of
excluding women from Fighters .... Let me tell you, I have since changed my
mind.
Furthermore, neither of these women are "manly" at all. As I said before,
Cathy is happily married (last I heard) and was always as feminine as any
woman I ever met.
I agree with Perkins on this one .... THEY ARE IN.... THEY ARE KICKING ASS
... SO SHUT UP AND COLOR!!
Bill
Capt, USAF
David Lentz
Bill wrote in message <01be3671$76ddbc00$5736...@x.knology.net>...
>This is a fascinating discussion about women in combat aviation. I have
>first hand knowledge of two of the pioneering women in Air Force fighters.
Am sure that Jeanne Flynn and Cathy De La Garza are both fine officers and
pilots. However I do not oppose women in combat armes because their are no
good women available. You have demonstrated that there are. I oppose
women in combat arms because it is bad policy. It does not enhance our
combat readiness.
The mission of the Air Force is to fly and fight. Women in pilots flying
combat jet may advance social agenda. It does not improve the ability of
the Air fly and fight.
I recall reading an about Flynn is "Air Force Times", the story told how she
graduated at top of her class and picture showed her getting her keys to her
brand new Eagle.
Tis a real shame to pick of Flynns. The problem the Air Force has with
Flynns is that they come in pairs. You get the good one Jeanne and the bad
one Kelly. I am pleased to say that while the bad Flynn was still active
I e-mailed her some advise and she followed it, with her resignation.
Shame I can't really take any credit for it.
There might a different time when women in combat arms can handled in a
military and not politcal basis. When that time comes, the Air Force may
want to look at Jeanne Flynn and De La Garza flying combat jets. Not that I
am sold on the idea. However in the climate where military brass look upon
women aviators as trophies to impress CongressCritters the current policy
does not make sense.
David
Roger L. Perkins
cut it. I respect anyone who can, and these obviously fit that description.
But there are still those who will refuse to accept first hand knowledge and
cling to sorry stereotypes. Not having any experience of their own to base
their opinions, this is where they are left. But you know something?
Nobody cares because most folks know they don't count anyway.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
Bill wrote in message <01be3671$76ddbc00$5736...@x.knology.net>...
>This is a fascinating discussion about women in combat aviation. I have
>first hand knowledge of two of the pioneering women in Air Force fighters.
Roger L. Perkins
writers opinion, women do not enhance combat readiness, is silly. Exactly
how do men enhance it? Now, just so you know I see this as a non-simple
question, why not look at support as an descriminator? I happen to know
that box of tampon's cubes out the same as a can of 5.56. Tough choice for
some loggie somewhere. Or how about sanitation? Women need more than guys
do. So, accepting the fact that women probably can't serve everywhere what
does that leave us? Aviation, sea duty, possibly armor (they have it easy
anyway) or arty. MI for sure, though there is a combat exclusion for
brigades or lower - silly, but it's there.
What I am saying is do what the military has always done - fit the resource
to the need and drive on. And if that puts women in combat arms, so what?
Roger
AIRBORNE!
David Lentz wrote in message ...
>
>Bill wrote in message <01be3671$76ddbc00$5736...@x.knology.net>...
>>This is a fascinating discussion about women in combat aviation. I have
>>first hand knowledge of two of the pioneering women in Air Force fighters.
>
>
David Lentz
>And here is an example of the type I was speaking of. The fact that, in
the
>writers opinion, women do not enhance combat readiness, is silly. Exactly
>how do men enhance it? Now, just so you know I see this as a non-simple
>question, why not look at support as an descriminator? I happen to know
>that box of tampon's cubes out the same as a can of 5.56. Tough choice for
>some loggie somewhere. Or how about sanitation? Women need more than guys
>do. So, accepting the fact that women probably can't serve everywhere what
>does that leave us? Aviation, sea duty, possibly armor (they have it easy
>anyway) or arty. MI for sure, though there is a combat exclusion for
>brigades or lower - silly, but it's there.
An concession to logic that women do not belong everywhere and some logic
restrictions need to made. Further that these restrictions needed be based
and military and not political needs. All reasonable.
What shouldbe out bounds for women? For starter sea duty, armor, artillery
and all form of infantry. You put mixed gender crews on ships and you get
empty sea billets. The women get pregnant, and all too often can not be
replaced. I want to see a women handle a 120MM rounds, or repair a broken
track. Artillery should be obvious, most men don't qualify. Some linemen
on my high school football team ended up in artilery.
As for who will make the call, you sure can't trust political appointees of
fhe Clinton adminstration. Though question.
Right now we don't need women in combat arms. When we do need them, the
question can be revisited.
David
Bill
was working in the academic building of the 11BS while she was at Barksdale
for B-52H FTU training (which I helped develop for the Navigators). Yes,
sure all the cameras and press were there constantly because she was the
first female bomber pilot. BUT!! She wasn't the first female bomber
crewmember. We had a female go through the NIQC (Navigator Initial Qual
Course) a class before Kelley. Flynn, was a rotten apple that let fame get
to her head. But I fail to see what that has do at all with women in
combat aviation. Men crewmembers get in trouble all the time (trust me
they do).
Additionally, your argument that they don't improve the combat
effectiveness of the Air Force rings hollow. On the contrary, NOT putting
the best overall individual in the cockpit is what hurts combat
effectiveness. Jeannie was and is the best among men and women.... she has
proven that in every instance. I think you would actually prefer HIGHER
standards for women. Because when they compete on an equal basis with men
and win, you somehow feel like less of a man. I believe that is the REAL
underlying reason for the continued resistance by men to women in combat
aircraft.
WHAT?? Women pilots who get shot down will get raped by their captors!!
America wont tolerate it!! IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED .... and AMERICA
SURVIVED ...
During DESERT STORM, the Army had a Major (a doctor on a medical helo) get
shot down and captured. (I will get her name for you, she came and spoke to
us at SOS about her experience as a POW) Sure, she was raped by the
Iraqis. But she will freely tell you that it was something she expected
and that the men POWs were being treated bad too.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that America wants the best. Put
the best in there and it will all work out. It has in the past, it is now,
and it will in the future. I too, used to believe as you do, but when you
actually get to see and meet these highly professional military women (as
opposed to reading about them in articles) working in the military
environment, your opinion would probably change to.
Get past the male ego thing.... and consider what is best for the military
and America.
Bill
David Lentz
Bill wrote in message <01be3699$c2b09080$5736...@x.knology.net>...
<much good stuff snipped>
You could make the case with the addition of officers like Jeanne Flynn the
Air Force would be better served. Reasonable position. However that
remains a hypothetical position no matter how much merit my have. The
fact in the this politcal era military services view women as trophies to
enhance political and congressional standing.
I support all servicemen in honorable service to our country respect the
desire to put the best individual in the cockpit. However individual
qualification does should not over ride the needs of the government You
want a functioning team, and not a bunch of outstanding individuals. Is
this fair to an officer as good as Jeanne Flynn? I would not say it was.
However mixed gender combat unit have some inherent problems, and these
problems are compounded by an agenda driven adminstration.
If womem competed on an equal basis, I would be more supportive of women in
combat arms They don't compete on equal basis. About the same time the bad
seed Kelly Flynn was due for court martial, the Air busted a colonel (light
or chicken) for something like twiic dating an enlisted man, you hardly
heard a whimper about it in the paper. He did time in Leavenworth. The
colonel goes down with nary mention in the press and the bad seed Flynn is
all over the news.
One of the problem I had serving twenty years at mostly GSU's is that I
don't get to meet a great number of airmen. In addition for the first ten
years of my career my career field (393X3) was not open to women. One of
the best sergeants ever served with was female. However from my lmited
observation less was expected from female airmen and less recieved. Had no
significant interface with female officers. For that matter never rated or
was rated by a female.
I will say we share a comon objective, the best possible Air Force, even if
we do differ on methods. Not a fatal problem.
David
Howard C. Berkowitz
Bill wrote:
>
>
> During DESERT STORM, the Army had a Major (a doctor on a medical helo) get
> shot down and captured. (I will get her name for you, she came and spoke to
> us at SOS about her experience as a POW) Sure, she was raped by the
> Iraqis. But she will freely tell you that it was something she expected
> and that the men POWs were being treated bad too.
Rhonda Cornum. Noticed her name recently on the O-6 promotion list.
I've known a lot of military medical officers; my mother was Medical Service
Corps.
A relatively small subset are competent military officers as well as competent
health
professionals. Cornum is apparently one of these. Her autobiograpy is
interesting,
but I've run into people who know her and say she is for real. It wouldn't
surprise
me to see her someday as Army Surgeon General.
David Lentz
<snipped>
>>Am sure that Jeanne Flynn and Cathy De La Garza are both fine officers and
>>pilots. However I do not oppose women in combat armes because their are
no
>>good women available. You have demonstrated that there are. I oppose
>>women in combat arms because it is bad policy. It does not enhance our
>>combat readiness.
>>
>please explain how?
Fair question.
First you have the inherent problem of mixed gender combat units,, which in
of itself can be a disaster. Standards are lowered to comparible effort, a
rather absurd notion. With such logic you could assign Mr Magoo to an
advanced fighter because he was makong a comparible effort to see the
target.
Second, yoiu have the political climate, lead by the Cltinton follies, where
it is simply becomes impossible, or at teast very much too hard, not pass a
women no matter what her competency Women have been trophies to advance
political support.
Third, you are picking a slew of biological problems. You only have a
military asset if that asset, be it man, machine or beast, can actually be
deployed. Women, on average, are less deployable.
Also, not even the most die hard avocates of women in combat arms even
suggest that it would actually improve combat effectiveness. You would
think at minimum those avocating the change could demonstrate the increase
in combat efficency. Rather arguement is always advanced along the lines of
fairness and opportunity.
There appears to be little support wiithin the ranks of military womem to
be aasignd to combat arms with more support for aviation. The sexy always
more appealing than the mundane.
David
David Lentz
Paul J. Adam wrote in message <5TLqyQAq$rj2...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk>...
<snipped>
You answered more questions than you posed
A few short words about the pilots shortage. The Air Force force twelve
pilots to either retire early or take non-flying jobs in order to force one
unqualifed (for Vipers) female into the organization. Twelve good pilots
would go a ways to ease the pilot crunch. Get rid of the women I'll bet you
have more men staying.
David
David Lentz
Calum Gibson wrote in message ...
<snipped>
>You put mixed gender crews on ships and you get
>>empty sea billets. The women get pregnant, and all too often can not be
>>replaced.
>
>Thats funny my wife, whos in RAN, never got pregnant when she was on her
>last sea posting, infact she's due to return to a ship with 6 months of
>returning from maternaty leave. Do you have any facts to back this up?
You made a lot of good point, and presented a well reasoned position.
See http://www.spectator.org/archives/96-08_corry.html, Of the US Navy
doesn't even admit to a problem.
David
Paul J. Adam
<dlen...@rochester.rr.com//NO-SPAM//> writes
>Am sure that Jeanne Flynn and Cathy De La Garza are both fine officers and
>pilots. However I do not oppose women in combat armes because their are no
>good women available. You have demonstrated that there are. I oppose
>women in combat arms because it is bad policy. It does not enhance our
>combat readiness.
If they're good pilots, why is making use of their skills "bad policy"?
>The mission of the Air Force is to fly and fight. Women in pilots flying
>combat jet may advance social agenda. It does not improve the ability of
>the Air fly and fight.
Explain to me why ruling out 51% of the possible talent pool improves
the quality of the end product?
The problem - in the US - has been a grossly misguided political
process. Over here in the UK, the first woman to qualify for fast jets
dropped out during OCU. (No disgrace, many do, it's a tough course, and
I'd kill to get that close to fast jets myself). It took the next female
pilot to make it through, the process of putting women in the cockpits
on the front line was both slower and less politicised, and as a result
it's virtually a non-issue here. A frantic and politically-inspired rush
to get someone, anyone, female qualified seems to be the root of the
problem.
Pick the best candidates and put them in the cockpits. The problem comes
not when the candidates are the wrong sex, the wrong colour or the wrong
religion, but when the standards for one group are visibly lower than
for others.
>There might a different time when women in combat arms can handled in a
>military and not politcal basis. When that time comes, the Air Force may
>want to look at Jeanne Flynn and De La Garza flying combat jets. Not that I
>am sold on the idea. However in the climate where military brass look upon
>women aviators as trophies to impress CongressCritters the current policy
>does not make sense.
And there I agree with you.
One standard, one rule, one law. Those that meet the standard are
welcomed, those that don't are turned aside as gently as possible. Those
that follow the rules are praised, those who don't are disciplined.
Failure to apply that basic principle is the problem, not the gender (or
race or religion or any other attribute) of the players involved.
The archetypal extreme of this problem comes when you have to choose
between two candidates. One is the better pilot... but is female. The
other is male, and while competent is less talented than his rival.
How large a difference of talent do you accept, in order to insist that
you send the less-capable male in harm's way?
(The corollary, and the political poison, is that you _must_ be allowed
to reject a less-talented female in this case)
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Paul J. Adam
<dlen...@rochester.rr.com//NO-SPAM//> writes
>You could make the case with the addition of officers like Jeanne Flynn the
>Air Force would be better served. Reasonable position. However that
>remains a hypothetical position no matter how much merit my have.
Why? The Jeanne Flynns are there. Are you willing to write them
discharge papers and explain why - when you're desperately short of
pilots - you're deliberately jettisoning some of the best you have?
>The
>fact in the this politcal era military services view women as trophies to
>enhance political and congressional standing.
True, but not related to the fact that there are some very talented
individuals out there who are eager to serve.
Your point merely poisons the pool, by making it politically impossible
to move on incompetent females. (Though, how easy is it to dispose of an
incompetent _male_ serviceman?)
>I support all servicemen in honorable service to our country respect the
>desire to put the best individual in the cockpit. However individual
>qualification does should not over ride the needs of the government You
>want a functioning team, and not a bunch of outstanding individuals. Is
>this fair to an officer as good as Jeanne Flynn? I would not say it was.
>However mixed gender combat unit have some inherent problems, and these
>problems are compounded by an agenda driven adminstration.
It could have been argued, on the same grounds, for keeping military
aviation all-white and excluding anyone whose dermal albedo fell below a
set level, since "it might cause friction within the unit". You're
telling me that creating the 332nd Fighter Group didn't cause
significant problems and pressures?
The huge problem is when politics is allowed to override merit, which
has happened here in a few hugely-publicised cases, and I can't think of
any easy answer to that.
>If womem competed on an equal basis, I would be more supportive of women in
>combat arms They don't compete on equal basis.
There I agree completely. (So does the British military, we're
equalising standards and eliminating gender differences... upwards,
too.) Warfare isn't gender-normed.
Determine the standards for any given speciality. Welcome those who meet
those standards, and thank those who try but fall short. If that means
almost no women qualify (artillery, combat engineers, heavy armour, all
spring to mind) then so be it.
On the other hand, when you want to pull a bogged MBT out of the mud, it
doesn't matter _how_ brawny you are, mere muscle isn't the issue: you
need to be fit and skilled, not strong.
>I will say we share a comon objective, the best possible Air Force, even if
>we do differ on methods. Not a fatal problem.
Not even _my_ Air Force, but it belongs to a valued ally where many
people I like live.
Calum Gibson
David Lentz wrote in message ...
>
>Bill wrote in message <01be3671$76ddbc00$5736...@x.knology.net>...
>>This is a fascinating discussion about women in combat aviation. I have
>>first hand knowledge of two of the pioneering women in Air Force fighters.
>
>
>pilots. However I do not oppose women in combat armes because their are no
>good women available. You have demonstrated that there are. I oppose
>women in combat arms because it is bad policy. It does not enhance our
>combat readiness.
>
>The mission of the Air Force is to fly and fight. Women in pilots flying
>combat jet may advance social agenda. It does not improve the ability of
>the Air fly and fight.
>
I don't understand, how does excluding a good pilot IMPROVE the air forces
ability to fly and fight?
Cya
Calum Gibson <g...@shoal.net.au>
http://www.shoal.net.au/~gib
"Screw you guys, I'm going home" Eric Cartman
Calum Gibson
David Lentz wrote in message <0%vj2.1336$m7....@newsr2.twcny.rr.com>...
>
>An concession to logic that women do not belong everywhere and some logic
>restrictions need to made. Further that these restrictions needed be based
>and military and not political needs. All reasonable.
>
>What shouldbe out bounds for women? For starter sea duty, armor, artillery
>and all form of infantry.
I agree with infantry/armour and arty but As sailors and aircrew in my
actual experience they are more than capable of holding their own .Certainly
the ones I saw have been. In fact most of the female avionics techs I have
worked with where better than their male counterparts.
You put mixed gender crews on ships and you get
>empty sea billets. The women get pregnant, and all too often can not be
>replaced.
Thats funny my wife, whos in RAN, never got pregnant when she was on her
last sea posting, infact she's due to return to a ship with 6 months of
returning from maternaty leave. Do you have any facts to back this up?
Cya
Calum Gibson
David Lentz wrote in message
>
>First you have the inherent problem of mixed gender combat units,, which in
>of itself can be a disaster. Standards are lowered to comparible effort, a
>rather absurd notion. With such logic you could assign Mr Magoo to an
>advanced fighter because he was makong a comparible effort to see the
>target.
I haven't seen this in my experience in Australian and New Zealand services,
if any thing standards where raised as there was more competition.
>
>Second, yoiu have the political climate, lead by the Cltinton follies,
where
>it is simply becomes impossible, or at teast very much too hard, not pass a
>women no matter what her competency Women have been trophies to advance
>political support.
>
I agree politics are troublesome but It seems that the US has more of a
problem in this reqard than the rest of us. ;-)
>Third, you are picking a slew of biological problems. You only have a
>military asset if that asset, be it man, machine or beast, can actually be
>deployed. Women, on average, are less deployable.
>
Gee I wish you'd tell that to the RAN , my wife will be going to a ship when
our first child is 9 months old. 4
>Also, not even the most die hard avocates of women in combat arms even
>suggest that it would actually improve combat effectiveness.
Not in Armour, infantry etc but as sailors/airmen then I don't see how , If
they reach the standards they don't improve combat effectiveness.
You would
>think at minimum those avocating the change could demonstrate the increase
>in combat efficency.
or those not avocating the change could demonstrate the decrease in combat
efficency.
>There appears to be little support wiithin the ranks of military womem to
>be aasignd to combat arms with more support for aviation. The sexy always
>more appealing than the mundane.
true enuff
sta...@bigfoot.com
Good riddance, then. We don't need macho assholes clogging up the
system.
This doesn't apply to the twelve pilots you mention, who were forced
out by politics. But the guys who just can't hack having chicks
around and show it are Neanderthals and deserve to be booted out into
the civilian world, where they REALLY can't get away with that kind
of shit.
I bet that fifty years ago there were a lot of white soldiers who
got out because of the "coloreds." I'm glad they left, too, even
if one of them was the next Alvin York.
Why? 'Cause our business is NOT just killing people. It's being
part of a civilized society that occasionally has to kill people.
--
Geo.
geo...@stankow.com
Dweezil Dwarftosser
wrote:
>Actually, there are many - male and female - who can't fly. They just can't
>cut it.
I can see where some women might think some arbitrary rule is used to
keep them out. I'm only 6ft. 1 in. - but I'm a head taller than most
when sitting down. ( Every car I've ever owned has a slightly-stained
spot on the overhead padding above the driver's seat.)
It didn't seem fair to me, until the first time I was working an F-4
and it started raining. I moved the seat bucket to its lowest
position, pulled out the canopy uplock, and closed it.
I had to duck my head a little; I can't imagine adding the inch or so
of padding that comes inside a flight helmet.
Such is life...
- John T.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
<dlen...@rochester.rr.com//NO-SPAM//> wrote:
>If womem competed on an equal basis, I would be more supportive of women in
>combat arms They don't compete on equal basis. About the same time the bad
>seed Kelly Flynn was due for court martial, the Air busted a colonel (light
>or chicken) for something like twiic dating an enlisted man, you hardly
>heard a whimper about it in the paper.
Of course not - "don't ask, don't tell" is a favored position by the
news media ! <G>
(Or perhaps you meant the colonel dated an enlisted *woman* ??? )
- John T.
David Lentz
<368f4761...@news.rdu.bellsouth.net>...
Unless the Air Force changed siine I was in the term is enlisted man. LIke
was are enlisted peronnel in the AIr Force were airmen. I have to admit
that the local fish wrapper did change my terminology in the letter I sent
them.
So I meant to say enlisted man, but I admit thet it was confusing However I
reserve the right to get hard headed on a few ponts
David
David Lentz
<snipped>
>Good riddance, then. We don't need macho assholes clogging up the
>system.
>
>This doesn't apply to the twelve pilots you mention, who were forced
>out by politics. But the guys who just can't hack having chicks
>around and show it are Neanderthals and deserve to be booted out into
>the civilian world, where they REALLY can't get away with that kind
>of shit.
>
>I bet that fifty years ago there were a lot of white soldiers who
>got out because of the "coloreds." I'm glad they left, too, even
>if one of them was the next Alvin York.
>
>Why? 'Cause our business is NOT just killing people. It's being
>part of a civilized society that occasionally has to kill people.
The macho atttitude has been part and parcel to the warrior ethos since time
immemorial I find it scary that new regime is so utterly wiling to throw
away traditions that worked in order to strive for social utopia that may
well be impossible.
I cmmented to in another thread that Weasels may be somewhat crazy. You go
trolling for SAM's in hope that they shoot at you. If a llittle macho makes
a pilot more willing to take that calcuated risk, all the better. Mayve Ed
can comment on this better than I can. All soldiers are expected to taks
risks. However the fighter pilot has to make instant decision, largely on
his own, as the risk he will take. The foolish, or unlucky, pilot doesn't
return. The overly conservative is a waste. You can't fight without
taking risk, and if you cull out the mache, you are culling out the risk
takers.
I think it is easier to tone down an overly aggrsssive fighter than it is
create a aggressive person. The same macho attittude that yoiu deplore is
the same attittude that fosters aggressiveness. My does a paratrooper jump
of out perfectly good airplane and seem to like it? Lord knows why.; But I
would rue the day that we had to depend on a stick of sensitive
paratroopers.
As the regretable analogy between racial and gender integration, there isn't
much of an analogy. The differences between races, and there is some, is
trivial when compared the differences between the sexes. Heck Venus and
Mars has become a permanent publishing fixture. In addition a little
review of military history, examples the Ninth and Ten Cavalry, reveal that
blacks have served and served well. With racial ntegration you were simply
mixing two populations with a demonstrated warrior ability. Now with gender
integraion, you are attempting to mix a warrior population with a population
of almost no history of actual warrioring in hope against all odds that you
an effective force when you get done.
Do a thought experment. Take three groups at random, one all male, another
all female, and a thrid mixed gender. Take take three of your best military
instructors, give them equal time, and resources. At the end of your
training which force is going to be the most effective? The all-male force.
If for the only reason, thet we know how to convert civilian males into
fighting men. Witth the other two populations we don't.
David
Groundplant
>During DESERT STORM, the Army had a Major (a doctor on a medical helo) get
>shot down and captured. (I will get her name for you, she came and spoke to
>us at SOS about her experience as a POW) Sure, she was raped by the
>Iraqis. But she will freely tell you that it was something she expected
>and that the men POWs were being treated bad too.
The question I have to ask is , What did seeing her get raped do to the men
captured at the same time?
I know that personally, I would rather see her get killed by the enemy than
have her raped with me not being bale to do anything about it.
Maybe that is my "male ego thing" or just a natural/biological male
protector thing, I don't know for sure. But I do know that, I doubt many
soldiers/sailors/airmen could handle that kind of toture.
>Get past the male ego thing.... and consider what is best for the military
>and America.
>
>Bill
>
>
SSG Wardle
Bill
Seargent to Baghdad. The Sgt was right there and didn't do anything,
because it was understood they would kill him if he interfered. Would you
be able to handle seeing guys get raped?? The problem is that you are
seeing her as simply a woman, vs a professional soldier.
Look, nobody likes what occurs to POWs. NOT ANYBODY.... all kinds of
torture are horrible. She has learned to deal with her experiences, we
should too.
Bill
Groundplant <war...@uswest.net> wrote in article
<368f3...@news2.uswest.net>...
Bill
women that performed and attained with the standards exactly equal. UPT
and fighter training makes no allowance for your gender.
Bill
Now, I know there were (and still are) many rumors and talk about women
combat crewmembers getting special treatment (i.e. additional checkrides,
more training) that the men don't get because of politics. If it is true,
then it is wrong. But I think this is the EXCEPTION not the rule.
Bill
think we should only allow women to fly fighters. If you can show me how
letting men fly fighters increases combat effectiveness over women.... YOU
WIN... Facts please... Facts..
Bill
Bill
culture shock and couldn't handle it. And that was in a Guard unit. Most
every active fighter guy I know (very many) doesn't care what the sex is of
the pilot. What counts to them is how good of a pilot they are. Period...
This is merely a change in culture.... those who can't handle it should
get out.
Also, women don't play a part of the Pilot shortage. Women have been
flying AWACS, Tankers, Transports for 15-20 years and the those are the
pilots getting out at the fastest rate. Bottom line here is the high
OPSTEMPO, PERSTEMPO and great paying jobs in the airlines.
Before this current airline hiring cycle, there wasn't a pilot shortage.
If women in the cockpit had ANYTHING to do with it... there would have been
constant shortages of Tanker toads and trash haulers for the last 20 years.
Bill
Get past the anecdotal comments and stick to the facts. Facts are what
matter, not off-the-cuff BS
Howard C. Berkowitz
Groundplant wrote:
> >During DESERT STORM, the Army had a Major (a doctor on a medical helo) get
> >shot down and captured. (I will get her name for you, she came and spoke to
> >us at SOS about her experience as a POW) Sure, she was raped by the
> >Iraqis. But she will freely tell you that it was something she expected
> >and that the men POWs were being treated bad too.
>
> The question I have to ask is , What did seeing her get raped do to the men
> captured at the same time?
As far I can tell from her autobiography, where was asked to skim over the
details
of the rape, she was isolated from others when it happened. Possibly was with
one
badly injured EM who was semiconscious.
The Shoe
incident the Major touched the sergeant with her foot in an effort to
indicate she was okay. The sergeant did all he could and the major has made
it quite clear to the world that he deserves no censure of any kind.
> She spoke to that. She was raped in the back of a truck taking her and a
> Seargent to Baghdad. The Sgt was right there and didn't do anything,
> because it was understood they would kill him if he interfered. Would
you
> be able to handle seeing guys get raped
> >
> > SSG Wardle
> >
> >
> >
>
Groundplant
wouldn't want to see anything like that <rape or otherwise> happen to any
soldier i serve with; I know I would have a much harder time dealing with it
if it was a woman being raped, not a man. While this may and some say should
be considered biased or sexist, I don't see the problem with this point of
view. We all need to remember that men and women are DIFFERENT and that is
what makes each special in thier own ways. Both should be allowed to serve,
but in a fashion that is consistent with what is natural for thier
respective sex. While I don't have the studies with me right now, I have
seen them that have shown that women <on the average> are far more
nuturing/caring and generally concerned for how other people "feel", while
men are more concered with what people "think". The various jobs in the
military can be assigned <and usually are based on things like the ASVAB
etc...> around these general differences in our species. I don't think we
should attempt to change what is working for a few people who either want to
do what the other kids are because they aren't allowed to now, let alone
those who want into job fields solely for the purposes of promotions < We
went through this fiasco in the Infantry a few years back when Pat Schroder
wanted to allow women in the 11B MOS field because we promote very quickly>.
Basically, If it ain't broke, Don't fix it.
SSG Wardle
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote in message <368FB477...@clark.net>...
Roger L. Perkins
the guy who posted it? I don't think he was trying to spoof me because he
signed it, but I'd like to know if my browser is hosed.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
sta...@bigfoot.com wrote in message <76ng43$er8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <0vAj2.1386$m7....@newsr2.twcny.rr.com>,
> "David Lentz" <dlen...@rochester.rr.com//NO-SPAM//> wrote:
>>
>> Paul J. Adam wrote in message <5TLqyQAq$rj2...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk>...
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>> You answered more questions than you posed
>>
>> A few short words about the pilots shortage. The Air Force force twelve
>> pilots to either retire early or take non-flying jobs in order to force
one
>> unqualifed (for Vipers) female into the organization. Twelve good pilots
>> would go a ways to ease the pilot crunch. Get rid of the women I'll bet
you
>> have more men staying.
>
>Good riddance, then. We don't need macho assholes clogging up the
>system.
>
>This doesn't apply to the twelve pilots you mention, who were forced
>out by politics. But the guys who just can't hack having chicks
>around and show it are Neanderthals and deserve to be booted out into
>the civilian world, where they REALLY can't get away with that kind
>of shit.
>
>I bet that fifty years ago there were a lot of white soldiers who
>got out because of the "coloreds." I'm glad they left, too, even
>if one of them was the next Alvin York.
>
>Why? 'Cause our business is NOT just killing people. It's being
>part of a civilized society that occasionally has to kill people.
>
Roger L. Perkins
that explains - nothing.
Use some of your professional logic here - put women where they can perform
and where they don't realistically inhibit mission accomplishment.
Infantry, probably not for log reasons if nothing else. Armor probably the
same. Aviation, sure. Sea duty, why not. Artillery, sure. Women have
been here for a long time. SF, depends. And so on. A blanket condemnation
of anything is indicative of being both too lazy to look into the issue and
too mentally limited to grasp that the world isn't black and white.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
David Lentz wrote in message ...
>
>Calum Gibson wrote in message ...
>
><snipped>
>
>>You put mixed gender crews on ships and you get
>>>empty sea billets. The women get pregnant, and all too often can not be
>>>replaced.
>>
>>Thats funny my wife, whos in RAN, never got pregnant when she was on her
>>last sea posting, infact she's due to return to a ship with 6 months of
>>returning from maternaty leave. Do you have any facts to back this up?
>
Howard C. Berkowitz
Groundplant wrote:
> My point was <and it is based soley on my own beliefs...> that while I
> wouldn't want to see anything like that <rape or otherwise> happen to any
> soldier i serve with; I know I would have a much harder time dealing with it
> if it was a woman being raped, not a man. While this may and some say should
> be considered biased or sexist, I don't see the problem with this point of
> view. We all need to remember that men and women are DIFFERENT and that is
> what makes each special in thier own ways.
In the seventies, I worked for HumRRO, the federal contract research center
that
did human factors/human resources studies, mostly for the Army. While some of
their projects were incredibly silly, one of the more interesting one tried to
come up
with predictors of what made effective combat helicopter pilots. It was a
well-designed
study, starting with surveys of warrant officer candidates before they entered
training,
and correlating the survey results with combat performance.
To put it mildly, successful helicopter pilots were strange. Lots of the
questions were of
the form (to quote one)
"As a teenager, did you jump off garage roofs?
If so, did you LIKE jumping off garage roofs?
A ballpark from my memory was that about 30% of the successful pilots jumped
off things,
but of the ones that did, 70% liked it.
Their aggressiveness tended to be off the scale. Paraphrasing what you are
saying,
men are different as well. The psychological tendencies that made a good helo
pilot would
have sent the nuclear Personnel Reliability Program people ballistic.
> Both should be allowed to serve,
> but in a fashion that is consistent with what is natural for thier
> respective sex.
An anecdote rather than a general solution, but I remember a chat I had with my
mother, an Army reserve medical service officer, when medical units were given
the choice of wearing a Red Cross or going armed. She chose to carry a .45,
with which she was a dead shot. She explained that she never thought she'd
fire
in personal self-defense, but had thought about it, and said she was willing to
kill
to defend her patients. I had no question she was serious.
> While I don't have the studies with me right now, I have
> seen them that have shown that women <on the average> are far more
> nuturing/caring and generally concerned for how other people "feel", while
> men are more concered with what people "think".
On the average, you may be right, although this seems to be changing over time.
There's social conditioning as well as genetics.
> The various jobs in the
> military can be assigned <and usually are based on things like the ASVAB
> etc...> around these general differences in our species. I don't think we
> should attempt to change what is working for a few people who either want to
> do what the other kids are because they aren't allowed to now, let alone
> those who want into job fields solely for the purposes of promotions < We
> went through this fiasco in the Infantry a few years back when Pat Schroder
> wanted to allow women in the 11B MOS field because we promote very quickly>.
> Basically, If it ain't broke, Don't fix it.
I am opposed to loosening any realistic physical requirements. But some men
are
not capable of being an 11B -- I doubt I would have been -- and some women are.
Let me be a bit sneaky here. Assume you don't let women into regular infantry
because
there's an adequate pool of men. What about Special Ops? Clearly, there are
covert
missions where a woman would be less suspicious than a man, or where a couple
can work together behind the lines. Seems like it would be lowering the SF
capabilities
not to allow them to have combat-qualified women as a resource.
sta...@bigfoot.com
"David Lentz" <dlen...@rochester.rr.com//NO-SPAM//> wrote:
> sta...@bigfoot.com wrote in message <76ng43$er8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>
> >Good riddance, then. We don't need macho assholes clogging up the
> >system.
> >
> >This doesn't apply to the twelve pilots you mention, who were forced
> >out by politics. But the guys who just can't hack having chicks
> >around and show it are Neanderthals and deserve to be booted out into
> >the civilian world, where they REALLY can't get away with that kind
> >of shit.
> >
> >I bet that fifty years ago there were a lot of white soldiers who
> >got out because of the "coloreds." I'm glad they left, too, even
> >if one of them was the next Alvin York.
> >
> >Why? 'Cause our business is NOT just killing people. It's being
> >part of a civilized society that occasionally has to kill people.
>
> immemorial I find it scary that new regime is so utterly wiling to throw
> away traditions that worked in order to strive for social utopia that may
> well be impossible.
Traditions like what? Looting? Pillaging? Rape? There's a line
that we have to draw between "macho" and "macho asshole."
Medal of Honor winner -- "macho"
Guy who gets into a barracks fight every weekend -- "macho asshole"
Is there some overlap? Yep. But the difference is that the latter
decreases morale, no matter how good he is in the field. Eventually,
someone will hesitate to charge the hill because that macho asshole
is the only one who'll get killed if they don't charge.
> I cmmented to in another thread that Weasels may be somewhat crazy. You go
> trolling for SAM's in hope that they shoot at you. If a llittle macho makes
> a pilot more willing to take that calcuated risk, all the better. Mayve Ed
> can comment on this better than I can. All soldiers are expected to taks
> risks. However the fighter pilot has to make instant decision, largely on
> his own, as the risk he will take. The foolish, or unlucky, pilot doesn't
> return. The overly conservative is a waste. You can't fight without
> taking risk, and if you cull out the mache, you are culling out the risk
> takers.
Again, difference between "macho" and "macho asshole."
> I think it is easier to tone down an overly aggrsssive fighter than it is
> create a aggressive person. The same macho attittude that yoiu deplore is
> the same attittude that fosters aggressiveness. My does a paratrooper jump
> of out perfectly good airplane and seem to like it? Lord knows why.; But I
> would rue the day that we had to depend on a stick of sensitive
> paratroopers.
I can tell you one reason that people DON'T jump out of "perfectly
good airplanes" -- it's not because they hate women. You're equating
antisocial behavior with combat effectiveness, and they don't
necessarily correlate.
Alvin York was neither macho nor a macho asshole, yet he's one of
the greatest soldiers the U.S. has ever produced. Under your
criteria, he would have been bounced out of basic for not being mean
enough. War is not just about who's meanest -- if it were, the Huns,
the Vikings and the Mongols would still be the superpowers, not the
U.S., the U.S.S.R. and China.
Also, soldiering isn't just war, especially these days. Macho
assholes are not what we need in Bosnia-Hercegovina, and whether
you personally like it or not, we're there, and we're going to be
there for a while.
> As the regretable analogy between racial and gender integration, there isn't
> much of an analogy. The differences between races, and there is some, is
> trivial when compared the differences between the sexes. Heck Venus and
> Mars has become a permanent publishing fixture. In addition a little
> review of military history, examples the Ninth and Ten Cavalry, reveal that
> blacks have served and served well. With racial ntegration you were simply
> mixing two populations with a demonstrated warrior ability. Now with gender
> integraion, you are attempting to mix a warrior population with a population
> of almost no history of actual warrioring in hope against all odds that you
> an effective force when you get done.
Circular reasoning -- women have no military history, therefore we
should keep them at home. Women are at home, therefore they have
no military history.
> Do a thought experment. Take three groups at random, one all male, another
> all female, and a thrid mixed gender. Take take three of your best military
> instructors, give them equal time, and resources. At the end of your
> training which force is going to be the most effective? The all-male force.
> If for the only reason, thet we know how to convert civilian males into
> fighting men. Witth the other two populations we don't.
So we shouldn't even bother with the other two. Brilliant reasoning.
Go back fifty years and say the same thing about nuclear weapons.
Go back ninety and say the same thing about aviation.
sta...@bigfoot.com
> the guy who posted it? I don't think he was trying to spoof me because he
> signed it, but I'd like to know if my browser is hosed.
Obviously, your computer thinks you are an idiot and is therefore
trying to convince you that you have written all posts written by
idiots.
--
Geo.
geo...@stankow.com
David Lentz
sta...@bigfoot.com wrote in message <76pqfc$9cn$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
<snipped>
I never taken the positino that women should not be in the miltary. I do
take the postion that they should not be in combat arms. End of back home
theory.
Blacks had a long mlitary history prior to integration. So all we were
dealing with the was problem of intergrating two populations.
Now woment may have the potential to be warriors, I kind of doubt it. Howeve
r before we plunge head long into putting women to combat arms. let us learn
how to train females into warriors. Let us learn to employ afl-female and
mixed gender combat units. That to say, make sure we have function parachute
before we jump oiut of the airplane, and not after.
Suppose we are walking through an old battleground. I see, a well beaten
path on the ground and stick to it. You create a new path never befrore.
Who is likely to encounter a land mine?
I will grant that no doing sometinng because it has never been done is not
in of itsefl a valid reason not to try. Neither is it in of itseflf reason
to proceed. Are national security situation is not so perilous that we
have to take dire action of putting women into combat arms.
David
Groundplant
>
>Physical strength is one small part of a combat ready
>team. I would not give my M60 to the smallest female
>in my platoon no more than I would give it to the
>smallest male. Someone has to carry it, but not
>everyone must be able to carry it. Give it to the big
>guy and tell him tough sh**. It's not fair...but life
>is not fair.
Wrong there troop, EVERYONE must be ABLE to carry and employ the weapon.
What if you or your gunner go down? Who's gonna pack the pig then? "Oh mary
can't, she's not quite strong enough to do it and the rest of us are
wounded...", That IS reality right there. If I can't count on my soldiers to
be able to do our mission, I have no need for them to be there in the first
place. Ask just about any Infantry leader and he will probably tell you that
he would rather have a platoon of 12 strong, smart, quick thinking, and
generally very violent soldiers, rather than 28 or so of more mediocre
stature.
That has been my experiance anyways
SSG Wardle
US Army Infantry
9 Years and counting
Groundplant
Howard C. Berkowitz <h...@clark.net> wrote in message
news:36903E7C...@clark.net...
>Let me be a bit sneaky here. Assume you don't let women into regular
infantry
>because
>there's an adequate pool of men. What about Special Ops? Clearly, there
are
>covert
>missions where a woman would be less suspicious than a man, or where a
couple
>can work together behind the lines. Seems like it would be lowering the SF
>capabilities
>not to allow them to have combat-qualified women as a resource.
>
SF has 5 primary missions:
1-Unconventional warfare. This is comprosed mainly of small unit level,
guerrilla tactics and lightning strikes on high value targets by a few Sf
soldiers and the indigenous personnel they are training.
2-Foriegn Internal Defense. SF Soldiers training friendly host nations
military and police forces in both tactics and techniques they can use and
thier enemy will use against them.
3- Direct Action. Self-explanatory.
4-Counter-terrorism. These units <SFOD-D, SEAL team-6 etc..> are places were
strength,speed,agility and a whole host of other warfighting skills likened
to DA missions are used.
5- Special Reconnaisssance. This is taken directly from FM 31-20 "Doctrine
for Special Forces Operations"
Special Reconnaissance
SR is reconnaissance and surveillance conducted by SOF to obtain or verify,
by visual observation or other collection methods, information concerning
the capabilities, intentions, and activities of an actual or potential
enemy. SOF may also use SR to secure data concerning the meteorological,
hydrographic, or geographic characteristics of a particular area. SR
includes target acquisition, area assessment, and post-strike
reconnaissance.
MYTH: SR is essentially the same as the tactical reconnaissance performed by
corps long-range surveillance units (LRSUs), but SF teams conduct SR deeper
and for longer periods in hostile territory.
FACT: SF may employ battlefield reconnaissance and surveillance techniques
similar to those used by LRSUs. However, SR is frequently more
technology-intensive. SF teams use their UW tactics and techniques, area
orientation, and language skills to accomplish more difficult reconnaissance
tasks. They may use sophisticated clandestine collection methods.
SF may conduct SR in any operational environment in peace, conflict, or war.
SF teams normally conduct SR missions beyond the sensing capabilities of
tactical collection systems.
SR typically seeks to obtain specific well-defined, and time-sensitive
information of strategic or operational significance. SF may use advanced
reconnaissance and surveillance techniques or more sophisticated clandestine
collection methods. During the critical transition from peace to war, the
NCA, JCS, and unified commanders may have priority intelligence requirements
(PIR) that only SF teams can collect. During war, SF teams deploy to named
areas of interest (NAI) to collect and report information in response to
specific PIR of the unified commander and his subordinate operational force
commanders.
In a conflict, SF teams may perform SR missions at the strategic,
operational, or tactical level. At the strategic level, SF teams collect and
report critical information for the NCA, JCS, or unified commander in crisis
situations and in support of national and theater CT forces. SF teams
perform operational-level SR missions in support of insurgency,
counterinsurgency, and contingency operations. SF teams may also perform
tactical reconnaissance when the nature or sensitivity of the mission makes
the use of LRSUs inappropriate.
The key point is "TIME-SENSITIVE INFORMATION", while yes, having a female
around to pose as your mate might be useful in certain circumstances, the
nature of the mission and the time lines that have to be followed do not
allow for the "building" of that image inside the theatre of operations.
Calum Gibson
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote in message <36903E7C...@clark.net>...
>Let me be a bit sneaky here. Assume you don't let women into regular
infantry
>because
>there's an adequate pool of men. What about Special Ops? Clearly, there
are
>covert
>missions where a woman would be less suspicious than a man, or where a
couple
>can work together behind the lines. Seems like it would be lowering the SF
>capabilities
>not to allow them to have combat-qualified women as a resource.
Women regular serve in the British Armies 14th Int unit that works covertly
in Northern Ireland. As you said there are many suituations where a woman or
couple is less suspicious than 1 or 2 males,
one of these women wrote a book anout her experiences. It was called one
up - A woman in action with the SAS.
Well worth a read if you believe they are the weaker sex. ;-)
Mary Shafer
Los Angeles Police Department's so-called standards. In order to be
hired by the LAPD, recruits had to be over 66 inches tall and
demonstrate the ability to scale an 8-foot wall. The first eliminated
many Hispanics and most Asians, male and female, and some women of
other ethnic origins and the second eliminated most females.
The funny thing about scaling the 8-foot wall was that an officer only
had to do it one time ever, to get hired. It wasn't necessary enough
to job performance that it was ever tested again. And when the LAPD
insisted that it was absolutely _vital_ to job performance and the
judge suggested that current employees be retested, something like 95%
of the officers on the street couldn't scale the wall and only a few
non-street officers got over the wall. Talk about a job-related
requirement absolutely vital to performance of duty.
As for the height requirement, it too didn't seem to be necessary.
The military managed with short soldiers, as did many other law
enforcement officers manage with short officers. And when the LAPD
moved their minimum height down, performance didn't drop at all.
On the other hand, military aircraft are designed with a certain range
of pilot heights and requiring pilots to be within the design range
seems perfectly reasonable. However, there's no good reason not to
change the design range when spec-ing new aircraft, so long as the new
parameters are reasonable (as defined by percentiles and based on
anthropomorphic data). Right now the minimum height is 64 inches for
the USAF. It's funny how companies manage to build cockpits that will
accomodate shorter pilots when the object is to sell the airplane to a
country with shorter pilots, though. Surely no one expects the pilot
population of, say, Singapore to be as tall as the pilot population
of, say, Denmark. Yet somehow the F-16 managed to be marketed all
over the world.
There's nothing wrong with requiring people to meet realistic
standards, so long as the standards are genuinely related to the
ability to perform the job. It's just that connecting the standards
to the job seems to be a little difficult sometimes.
Consider a public university, supported by the tax dollars from both
men and women, which claimed that women should be banned absolutely
from attending because women wouldn't like getting a buzz cut. What
does having a buzz cut have to do with attending a university that has
85-90% of its graduates go into office jobs? The few graduates that
actually join the military still have to go through the same training
as do graduates from universities that don't require all freshmen to
get buzz cuts, too.
After a few hundred such examples, it's not surprising that feminists
and members of ethnic minorities are a bit cynical about the so-called
standards. Granting waivers to Anglo males, which varies from not
uncommon to routine, doesn't assuage the cynicism much, either.
A lot of the remarks on this thread remind me of the folks who said,
before Pearl Harbor, that the Japanese were crummy pilots because
their slanty eyes meant that their vision was inferior to the vision
of people of European descent. Yeah, right.
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
sha...@reseng.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
For personal messages, please use sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com
eow
on something that has been bothering me for a while. Not to pick sides,
but if women have a place in combat jobs, pilot/aircrew, aviation
maintnance (Harriers/helos close to the front), Arty, etc... Then how
come they don't have to register for the draft? I have often thought
that I could pick out the true feminist (not somebody just worried about
numbers) when I see them standing up and demanding to register for the
draft along with the men. I remember watching an interview with Demi
Moore about her movie G.I. Jane (no I never bothered watching the
movie), and when asked if she would want her daughter to fight in a war.
Her answer was, If she CHOOSES this and if she CHOOSES, and if she
CHOOSES whatever, Demi wouldn't have a problem with it. All I could
think of was "What about those hundreds of thousands of poor SOBs that
didn't have a an opportunity to choose. I wonder, if in the future,
when/if women are cleared for all combat jobs, are they going to
register, or more likely will we see a lot of feminists fighting to
abolish the draft.
Evan O Williams
For the record, I never registered. The letter came from the Selective
Service Board, to me while I was in Boot Camp. My drill instructer
"taught me the error of my ways" taking great exception to the fact
that "I must be some communist infelTRAITOR, who didn't care enough
about my country, and must only be there to &^%$#@-up his beloved
Corps".
Brian Yeoh
Hey, Mary!
> On the other hand, military aircraft are designed with a certain range
> of pilot heights and requiring pilots to be within the design range
> seems perfectly reasonable. However, there's no good reason not to
> change the design range when spec-ing new aircraft, so long as the new
> parameters are reasonable (as defined by percentiles and based on
> anthropomorphic data). Right now the minimum height is 64 inches for
> the USAF. It's funny how companies manage to build cockpits that will
> accomodate shorter pilots when the object is to sell the airplane to a
> country with shorter pilots, though. Surely no one expects the pilot
> population of, say, Singapore to be as tall as the pilot population
> of, say, Denmark. Yet somehow the F-16 managed to be marketed all
> over the world.
ObFactoid: Shorter pilots are supposed to be better suited for dogfighting
as htey do not take too much strain from G-forces.
True? False? Whichever the case, Singapore's population tends to be
somewhat taller than the rest of SEA. snot entirely unusual to run into a
6'2 guy.
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo,
<insert name here> pathice et cinaede <insert name here>,
qui me ex versiculis meis putastis
quod sunt molliculi, parum pudicum.
C Valerius Catullus, XVI.I
José Herculano
>before Pearl Harbor, that the Japanese were crummy pilots because
>their slanty eyes meant that their vision was inferior to the vision
>of people of European descent. Yeah, right.
That reminds me of a description by Saburo Sakai on exercises they did to
sharpen their vision: picking out stars, from the ground, in daylight. I've
tried it with my 20/20 glasses on. I wish!
José Herculano
Gary Watson
Mary Shafer wrote in message ...
>For those of you who lament the "lowering of standards", consider the
>Los Angeles Police Department's so-called standards. In order to be
>hired by the LAPD, recruits had to be over 66 inches tall and
>demonstrate the ability to scale an 8-foot wall.
I have been reading this thread since the beginning and managed to keep from
biting my tongue through most of the male macho sexist bits, Mary's comment
about the LAPD twigged a personal opinion.
Speaking from personal knowledge and experience, females can do virtually
every job men can except big-time upper body strength tasks -which most men
can't do anyway.
1. My mother-in-Law was a Brit Army nurse in a hospital ship off of Anzio
and later in the far east. I won't want to tell her she can't handle combat.
2. My youngest daughter was a combat engineer in the Cdn Militia until her
squadron went broke then she joined the Calgary Police Service as a
constable. Her biggest complaint was, that after she was in for a year they
lowered the physical requirements so more minorities and females could make
the 1st interview cut, providing her with lesser qualified partners.
She is not a large person by any means but works hard at conditioning and
being a professional at what she does.
3. I have a neighbour who is an ATR rated captain flying B737s and
instructing at the higher level for commercial licenses. She currently flies
a private F900EX.
Gender and Race do not make a professional - which I think this thread is
about - dedication to doing the job properly makes one.
Paul J. Adam
<war...@uswest.net> writes
>>Physical strength is one small part of a combat ready
>>team. I would not give my M60 to the smallest female
>>in my platoon no more than I would give it to the
>>smallest male. Someone has to carry it, but not
>>everyone must be able to carry it. Give it to the big
>>guy and tell him tough sh**. It's not fair...but life
>>is not fair.
>
>Wrong there troop, EVERYONE must be ABLE to carry and employ the weapon.
>What if you or your gunner go down? Who's gonna pack the pig then?
And on top of that, _everyone_ carries some link for the GPMG. Then
there's spare radio batteries, extra rifle ammo, we scrounged some 66mm
LAWs that might be handy for busting bunkers and anyone whose bergen
looks light gets one of those... "Marius's mules" still have to carry
what they need to fight today's battle on their backs from A to B.
Note that this is _not_ an argument for excluding women from the
infantry: it's an argument for determining how much load you have to
carry, how far you have to carry it and how long you have to cover that
distance. Work out a test that usefully screens that role for key
attributes. Those that pass, you welcome. Those that don't, you guide
towards roles that suit them better.
One job, one standard.
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Paul Jacobsen
>
>A lot of the remarks on this thread remind me of the folks who said,
>before Pearl Harbor, that the Japanese were crummy pilots because
>their slanty eyes meant that their vision was inferior to the vision
>of people of European descent. Yeah, right.
>
Racism is not sexism although you seem to have fallen for that argument.
What is certain is that military service routinely demands endurance and
even, dare we say it? 'Brute strength'.
The endurance standards for 26 year old women in the American military
are the same as for the 54 year old men. (Anyone have a copy of the
regs handy?)
Another irrefutable fact is that we have routinely lowered every imaginable
standard for the ladies.... I would love to see the marginal,
gender-normed
lady pilot assigned to the left seat in Air Force One!
How do you think Bubba would like that one?
Roger L. Perkins
new troop in1970. If anything it has been a slow and very deliberate
process.
I just love it when the fanatics get ahold of an issue and make up stuff to
blow it out of proportion. I guess it's because they can't find any real
reasons.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
American Dream wrote in message
<01be344f$5cc18640$7109...@gibbsjoh.user.msu.edu>...
(SNIP)
>And, can you name another military in the world that is in a mad rush to
>push women into the forces?
Roger L. Perkins
reality of women flying combat missions - successfully - and women in the
Army doing just as well as men. But he will beat that old, dead horse til
he passes away. Why? Because he can't stand it that women are doing just
fine and will seek out any excuse, overstate any issue, make up any tale to
prove himself right. Just watch him come up with stuff he will say I have
said to try and counter facts. It's his way.
Pitiful.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
Paul Jacobsen wrote in message ...
L.R.S.
>infantry
>>because
>>there's an adequate pool of men. What about Special Ops? Clearly, there
>are
>>covert
>>missions where a woman would be less suspicious than a man, or where a
>couple
>>can work together behind the lines. Seems like it would be lowering the SF
>>capabilities
>>not to allow them to have combat-qualified women as a resource.
>>
Oddly enough, I recently read where women have been accepted into
Special Ops positions, specifically, Delta Force.
Figure if they can do the job there, then they can do it anywhere.
However, I do believe and always have believed, that for a woman to be
in a combat position, that it should be her desire...not that of the
commander, the service or the DoD.
L. Sobkoviak, 22 years, 2 months and 2 days Air Force,
Now retired and no longer counting.
Mike & Mel Kelly
>
> American Dream wrote in message
> <01be344f$5cc18640$7109...@gibbsjoh.user.msu.edu>...
> >
> >push women into the forces?
>
Count New Zealand in on that too....
Tom Weiss
indeed be in combat roles in the armed services, seem to think that the
macho male sexist attitude is the only impediment to women's integration or
success. Indeed, some of the posts in this thread seem to make light of, or
scoff at, these sexists attitudes as if to say "How dare you stand in the
way of progress....." It is only a matter of time before the dinosaurs are
all dead or retired and women can join the infantry. Women are just as
capable, right? Gender doesn't make you a professional, right?
I am going to argue that a vast majority of women are not physically suited
for combat and many non-combat roles in the military. Call me a sexist,
call me a pig, whatever. A study by a group called WITA (Women in the Army)
in 1981 categorized each Army MOS by physical demand. It broke it down into
five categories: Light,
medium, moderate, heavy, and very heavy. For a point of reference the very
heavy category was defined as frequent lifting of over 50 lbs. (an average
rucksack weight). The group assigned 64 percent of the Army's positions to
the very heavy category. They next applied a test called MEPSCAT, or
Military Enlistment Physical Strength Capacity Test to potential recruits.
It found that very few women could perform in the heavy (8 percent) or very
heavy (3 percent) category. The groups findings were never adopted as
policy, partly because it would concentrate 90 percent of women into less
than a quarter of the Army positions, making it politically "incorrect".
My experience is in the Infantry and the Artillery. And I can tell you that
rucksacks frequently climb over the 100lbs mark, and 155mm artillery shells
are right around 100lbs. Let me close with a question. Why aren't there
any women playing professional football? Surely they can do the job. Surely
a women can read a defense or run a pass route as well or better than a man.
Why? Because the owners and the league want the best personnel playing for
their team. Why don't we want the best personnel protecting our country?
In parting, I will leave you with a quote from Professor Martin Van Creveld,
an Israeli Military Historian: "To me, the very fact that this issue [women
in combat] is being discussed and this meeting being held simply shows that
you really don't take the military seriously. For you, the military is not a
question of life and death....So you can afford to make all kinds of social
experiments, which we cannot. The very fact that you have this debate may
itself be construed as proof that it's not serious. It's a game. It's a
joke."
Greg<<<+)))
So, any man not able to carry the load and perform is OUT, and any woman who
can is IN? Individual ability, not some predetermined gender based
one-size-fits-all misconception about what a man and woman are capable of
enduring?
Sounds good to me. Where do I send the women who want to take the entrance
exam?
Oh...you mean they can't prove themselves? They can't take some kind of PT
test to see if they qualify to start training? Like at Airborne or Air
assault school? So those women who are able to meet the physical demands
are excluded for....let's see....what reason do we have.....um......help me
here......
For a minute there I thought we had something going.
Greg
<<<+)))
Paul J. Adam wrote in message ...
John Carrier
>of pilot heights and requiring pilots to be within the design range
>seems perfectly reasonable. However, there's no good reason not to
>change the design range when spec-ing new aircraft, so long as the new
>parameters are reasonable (as defined by percentiles and based on
>anthropomorphic data). Right now the minimum height is 64 inches for
>the USAF. It's funny how companies manage to build cockpits that will
>accomodate shorter pilots when the object is to sell the airplane to a
>country with shorter pilots, though. Surely no one expects the pilot
>population of, say, Singapore to be as tall as the pilot population
>of, say, Denmark. Yet somehow the F-16 managed to be marketed all
>over the world.
Interesting point. Aircraft cockpit design has been driven by a desire to
accommodate the XX percentile (90 or 95 I think) male. Rejection of a
number of females because they didn't fit caused "concern" among advocates
and we're now designing aircraft (ejection systems in particular) to
accommodate a greater number of women. The fallout is that we're designing
out a lot of men.
From a policy perspective, does it make good sense to accommodate say 90% of
the female population and perhaps only 75% of the males in your combat
aircraft when your military's composition is overwhelmingly male (and is
likely to remain so for the foreseeable future)?
R/ John
Neil J. O'Connor
(snip for brevity)
> I am going to argue that a vast majority of women are not physically suited
> for combat and many non-combat roles in the military. Call me a sexist,
> call me a pig, whatever. A study by a group called WITA (Women in the Army)
> in 1981 categorized each Army MOS by physical demand. It broke it down into
> five categories: Light,
> medium, moderate, heavy, and very heavy. For a point of reference the very
> heavy category was defined as frequent lifting of over 50 lbs. (an average
> rucksack weight). The group assigned 64 percent of the Army's positions to
> the very heavy category. They next applied a test called MEPSCAT, or
> Military Enlistment Physical Strength Capacity Test to potential recruits.
> It found that very few women could perform in the heavy (8 percent) or very
> heavy (3 percent) category. The groups findings were never adopted as
> policy, partly because it would concentrate 90 percent of women into less
> than a quarter of the Army positions, making it politically "incorrect".
I would sincerely like to read this study, first hand. Question #1 will
be: "Which category did the MOS's 91B and 91C fall in?" For good
measure, I'd like to see where AOC's 66H and 66J fall, as well (if they
were even tested. I suspect the study authors never contemplated the
fact that nurse officers lift patients...). For those not familiar with
AMEDD MOS/AOC's, those are the Basic Medic (91B), LPN (91C), and
MED/SURG Nurse Officer (the 66's).
Patients tend to be heavier than 50 pounds, and are slid, turned,
transferred, and lifted at least "frequently". During those activities,
the staff person is bearing/shoving/moving 1/3 to 1/2 of the patient's
weight, and bearing that weight largely with arm and shoulder muscles
(at least a ruck will utilize hip, leg, and if the strap system is
intelligent, chest, muscles, as well.). If those direct care medical
MOS's were categorized as less than "heavy", the study's bogus, both
IMO, and based on 20 years of working in hospitals (and assisting with
patient transfers when needed). 60% of the direct care medical MOS's
are staffed by women; if lifting heavy weight is the big predictor of
combat suitability, then don't turn your back on nurses.
Of course, weight lifting is not the "big predictor". Training and
testing predicts any MOS's performance far more accurately. I'd like to
see the study; I suspect there are other procedural errors as well, and
those, not the "results", probably doomed its publication.
Usual and customary disclaimers apply.
--
Neil J. O'Connor
MAJ, MS
Social Work Officer/Log Officer
467th MED DET (CSC) (USAR)
Madison, WI
njoc...@facstaff.wisc.edu
Ogden Johnson III
: Wrong there troop, EVERYONE must be ABLE to carry and employ the weapon.
: What if you or your gunner go down? Who's gonna pack the pig then? "Oh mary
: can't, she's not quite strong enough to do it and the rest of us are
: wounded...", That IS reality right there. If I can't count on my soldiers to
: be able to do our mission, I have no need for them to be there in the first
: place. Ask just about any Infantry leader and he will probably tell you that
: he would rather have a platoon of 12 strong, smart, quick thinking, and
: generally very violent soldiers, rather than 28 or so of more mediocre
: stature.
:
: That has been my experiance anyways
Just out of curiosity, what are the Army's height, weight, and strength
minimums for assigment as a [using USMC MOSs here] 0311 [basic rifleman],
0351 [machine gunner], or {dammit, forgot} [mortars]? I know from my
two-year stint as a 5'5-1/2", 130#, 1371 [combat engineer] '61-'63, there
were none in the USMC at that time, and to the best of my knowledge still
aren't.
OJ III
sta...@bigfoot.com
"David Lentz" <dlen...@rochester.rr.com//NO-SPAM//> wrote:
>
> sta...@bigfoot.com wrote in message <76pqfc$9cn$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> <snipped>
> take the postion that they should not be in combat arms. End of back home
> theory.
>
> Blacks had a long mlitary history prior to integration. So all we were
> dealing with the was problem of intergrating two populations.
You're still reasoning in a circle -- women have virtually no
combat history, therefore we shouldn't place them in combat.
> Now woment may have the potential to be warriors, I kind of doubt it. Howeve
> r before we plunge head long into putting women to combat arms. let us learn
> how to train females into warriors. Let us learn to employ afl-female and
> mixed gender combat units. That to say, make sure we have function parachute
> before we jump oiut of the airplane, and not after.
Fine. So how long will this take? Twenty years? Ten? Five?
One? No one's saying that we should just wave our magic infantry
wand and say, "Poof! You're an 11B!" But let's not just set up
one company full of women and seize on the first problem they have
as proof that women just aren't cut out for combat, sorry, try
again in another two centuries.
> Suppose we are walking through an old battleground. I see, a well beaten
> path on the ground and stick to it. You create a new path never befrore.
> Who is likely to encounter a land mine?
And who's more likely to find an artifact?
> I will grant that no doing sometinng because it has never been done is not
> in of itsefl a valid reason not to try. Neither is it in of itseflf reason
> to proceed. Are national security situation is not so perilous that we
> have to take dire action of putting women into combat arms.
I would argue that this makes it the perfect time to do so. Get
them on the ground, test out the training and the theory and the
practice, BEFORE we have to send them into a meat grinder.
--
Geo.
geo...@stankow.com
Ogden Johnson III
: I hope this doesn't stray to far off topic, but this thread has touched
Reading this in one fell swoop after a long [Dec 30 thru yesterday]
holiday trip, it hasn't touched much on the strict subject line at all.
Lotta the long running 'Women [Yea/Nay] in the Military' backing and
forthing though.
: Evan O Williams
:
: For the record, I never registered. The letter came from the Selective
: Service Board, to me while I was in Boot Camp. My drill instructer
: "taught me the error of my ways" taking great exception to the fact
: that "I must be some communist infelTRAITOR, who didn't care enough
: about my country, and must only be there to &^%$#@-up his beloved
: Corps".
Proof positive that timing is everything. Joining at 17, naturally I
hadn't registered. Shortly after turning 18, I caught my Senior DI in a
good, belay that, less mean than usual mood, mentioned the milestone, and
asked him how the recruit was to take care of the registration
requirement. SSgt(E-5) R. R. Thomas quietly informed me that the recruit
belonged to his Marine Corps, and as long as the recruit did, the recruit
did not have to register; until the recruit was discharged or retired; and
that the recruit should get the #%$U_#@ out of his house and stop
bothering him with stupid questions. The draft board disappeared before
my retirement occured. A final lesson, 21 years later that the DI is
always right.
OJ III
Groundplant
the APFT for thier age group <and sex> and pass a body fat tape test if
applicable <decided when you have your hieght and weight measured before
every PT test.
I will try to find the info and will post it here when I do.
SSG Wardle
US Army Infantry
9 Years and counting
Ogden Johnson III <o...@cpcug.org> wrote in message
news:dBqk2.6029$rJ3.184...@dca1-nnrp1.news.digex.net...
Glenn Dowdy
>
> Groundplant (war...@uswest.net) wrote:
>
> : Wrong there troop, EVERYONE must be ABLE to carry and employ the weapon.
> : What if you or your gunner go down? Who's gonna pack the pig then? "Oh mary
> : can't, she's not quite strong enough to do it and the rest of us are
> : wounded...", That IS reality right there. If I can't count on my soldiers to
> : be able to do our mission, I have no need for them to be there in the first
> : place. Ask just about any Infantry leader and he will probably tell you that
> : he would rather have a platoon of 12 strong, smart, quick thinking, and
> : generally very violent soldiers, rather than 28 or so of more mediocre
> : stature.
> :
> : That has been my experiance anyways
>
> Just out of curiosity, what are the Army's height, weight, and strength
> minimums for assigment as a [using USMC MOSs here] 0311 [basic rifleman],
> 0351 [machine gunner], or {dammit, forgot} [mortars]? I know from my
> two-year stint as a 5'5-1/2", 130#, 1371 [combat engineer] '61-'63, there
> were none in the USMC at that time, and to the best of my knowledge still
> aren't.
>
> OJ III
Looking back at my platoon of engineers, I would say the average soldier
was about 5'9" - 5'10", and 160-170 lbs. I also remember that the
physical testing requirements for passing basic training were less than
those required for the rest of the Army, with the result that we got new
troops who weren't capable of passing the APRT upon arrival. I don't
recall any physical minimums for engineers, at any rate.
Glenn Dowdy
David E. Oakley
Groundplant wrote:
> >
>
> Wrong there troop, EVERYONE must be ABLE to carry and employ the weapon.
> What if you or your gunner go down? Who's gonna pack the pig then? "Oh mary
> can't, she's not quite strong enough to do it and the rest of us are
> wounded...", That IS reality right there. If I can't count on my soldiers to
> be able to do our mission, I have no need for them to be there in the first
> place. Ask just about any Infantry leader and he will probably tell you that
> he would rather have a platoon of 12 strong, smart, quick thinking, and
> generally very violent soldiers, rather than 28 or so of more mediocre
> stature.
>
> That has been my experiance anyways
>
> SSG Wardle
> US Army Infantry
> 9 Years and counting
SSG Wardle
I would rather be rich. I'm not so I get by with what I have. If we were
provideing for one platoon we could fill it with your perfect solders. When we
try to fill several thousand platoons, the supply does not meet the demand. The
question is, how do you fill all of those thousands of empty slots.
Many years ago I was in Army ROTC. For summer camp, each platoon was given one
BAR. Our platoon leader gave our BAR to the smallest person in our platoon. That
person never slowed the platoon down or in any way harm the performance of the
platoon. Several ambushs were succesfully conducted useing a fire team and the
BAR. The little felow was able to hall ass with the rest of them when the time
came.
The only true predictor of how well a person will perform a job is to test
thier ability to perform the tasks of that job.
David
Paul J. Adam
<junk...@noller.net> writes
>So, what you're saying is, it's based on ability and training, not plumbing?
>
>So, any man not able to carry the load and perform is OUT, and any woman who
>can is IN? Individual ability, not some predetermined gender based
>one-size-fits-all misconception about what a man and woman are capable of
>enduring?
>
>Sounds good to me. Where do I send the women who want to take the entrance
>exam?
Any British Army recruit depot.
>Oh...you mean they can't prove themselves? They can't take some kind of PT
>test to see if they qualify to start training?
Not in the United States, it seems, though not everyone does it your
way.
Glenn Dowdy
>
> Mary Shafer wrote in message ...
> >For those of you who lament the "lowering of standards", consider the
> >Los Angeles Police Department's so-called standards. In order to be
> >hired by the LAPD, recruits had to be over 66 inches tall and
> >demonstrate the ability to scale an 8-foot wall.
>
> I have been reading this thread since the beginning and managed to keep from
> biting my tongue through most of the male macho sexist bits, Mary's comment
> about the LAPD twigged a personal opinion.
> Speaking from personal knowledge and experience, females can do virtually
> every job men can except big-time upper body strength tasks -which most men
> can't do anyway.
My latest Keep Away From Forty exercise is rock-climbing. I've met quite
a few female climbers that, while they may not have the upper body
strength of the male climbers, certainly manage to use their whole body
to scale the walls. Some of them do have the upper body strength; others
just learn how to take a systems approach.
Most surprising was the sales rep who climbed with us last night. She is
about 5'4", 110 lbs. On her first night climbing, she climbed routes up
to 5.9 in complexity, climbing enough to become somewhat fatigued. She
then did three good pull-ups. She said that when she's in shape, she can
do nine pull-ups. I can't do nine pull-ups.
Glenn Dowdy
S. Evans
Snipped by Steve
>
> From a policy perspective, does it make good sense to accommodate say 90% of
> the female population and perhaps only 75% of the males in your combat
> aircraft when your military's composition is overwhelmingly male (and is
> likely to remain so for the foreseeable future)?
>
> R/ John
John,
Are the differences primarily in the "reach" distance to the controls,
or is it one of weight for the ejection seat?
And no, it does not make sense to eliminate the population of males to
make way for females.
Steve Evans
J.D. Baldwin
<nos...@florsheim.com> wrote:
> The sergeant was tied up had no opportunity to do anything. After the
> incident the Major touched the sergeant with her foot in an effort to
> indicate she was okay.
She touched the sergeant with her foot? I'm amazed she wasn't brought up
on harassment / fraternization charges.
--
From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
_,_ Finger bal...@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
_|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under
\ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lentz
sta...@bigfoot.com wrote in message <76ti5d$eeg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
<snipped>
>> Now woment may have the potential to be warriors, I kind of doubt it.
Howeve
>> r before we plunge head long into putting women to combat arms. let us
learn
>> how to train females into warriors. Let us learn to employ afl-female
and
>> mixed gender combat units. That to say, make sure we have function
parachute
>> before we jump oiut of the airplane, and not after.
>
>Fine. So how long will this take? Twenty years? Ten? Five?
>One? No one's saying that we should just wave our magic infantry
>wand and say, "Poof! You're an 11B!" But let's not just set up
>one company full of women and seize on the first problem they have
>as proof that women just aren't cut out for combat, sorry, try
>again in another two centuries.
I know this will sound like a smart ass answer, sobeit.
How long will it take to learn how to train women and mixed gender units
into effective combat units? As long as it takes. Short of a national
emergency is unthinkable to put unqualified troops into the combat. You can
learn on the training field or the battllefield. Coming in second place in
an exercise is not fatal.
David
Roger L. Perkins
and letting us take a look at it. A friend of mine serves with DACOWITS and
she hasn't heard of it.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
Tom Weiss wrote in message <76sb83$6s20$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>I find it interesting that most people, when arguing that women should
>indeed be in combat roles in the armed services, seem to think that the
>macho male sexist attitude is the only impediment to women's integration or
>success. Indeed, some of the posts in this thread seem to make light of,
or
>scoff at, these sexists attitudes as if to say "How dare you stand in the
>way of progress....." It is only a matter of time before the dinosaurs are
>all dead or retired and women can join the infantry. Women are just as
>capable, right? Gender doesn't make you a professional, right?
>
>I am going to argue that a vast majority of women are not physically suited
>for combat and many non-combat roles in the military. Call me a sexist,
>call me a pig, whatever. A study by a group called WITA (Women in the
Army)
>in 1981 categorized each Army MOS by physical demand. It broke it down
into
>five categories: Light,
>medium, moderate, heavy, and very heavy. For a point of reference the very
>heavy category was defined as frequent lifting of over 50 lbs. (an average
>rucksack weight). The group assigned 64 percent of the Army's positions to
>the very heavy category. They next applied a test called MEPSCAT, or
>Military Enlistment Physical Strength Capacity Test to potential recruits.
>It found that very few women could perform in the heavy (8 percent) or very
>heavy (3 percent) category. The groups findings were never adopted as
>policy, partly because it would concentrate 90 percent of women into less
>than a quarter of the Army positions, making it politically "incorrect".
>
David Lentz
>Now this looks like a ligitimate post. How about showing where the study
is
>and letting us take a look at it. A friend of mine serves with DACOWITS
and
>she hasn't heard of it.
<snipped>
>>I am going to argue that a vast majority of women are not physically
suited
>>for combat and many non-combat roles in the military. Call me a sexist,
>>call me a pig, whatever. A study by a group called WITA (Women in the
>Army)
>>in 1981 categorized each Army MOS by physical demand. It broke it down
>into
>>five categories: Light,
>>medium, moderate, heavy, and very heavy. For a point of reference the
very
>>heavy category was defined as frequent lifting of over 50 lbs. (an average
>>rucksack weight). The group assigned 64 percent of the Army's positions
to
>>the very heavy category. They next applied a test called MEPSCAT, or
>>Military Enlistment Physical Strength Capacity Test to potential recruits.
>>It found that very few women could perform in the heavy (8 percent) or
very
>>heavy (3 percent) category. The groups findings were never adopted as
>>policy, partly because it would concentrate 90 percent of women into less
>>than a quarter of the Army positions, making it politically "incorrect".
I have not foujnd the study but I did find a reference to it. The web
paging citing the study is http://www.frc.org/perspective/pv96b5wc.html ,
The cited study is "Women in the Army Policy Review." Office of the Deputy
Chief of Staff for Personnel. Department of the Army. Washington, D.C. 12
November 1982. I haven't found the study yet, but I hope this help.
David
Groundplant
situation to other soldiers of opposite sex. I spoke to a few today about
it, and these ARE damn good soldiers, but they honestly couldn't say that
they wouldn't think about just throwing her to the ground and getting "one
last piece before I die". Wrong as that is, that IS the fact. That IS what
our soldiers <the few I spoke to anyway> say about this topic. I know just
as well as you do that their thinking is wrong, but that is what they think.
We cannot change human nature completely, just a little bit. And the little
bit we need to change as far as combat arms MOSs are concerned, is to make
us not think about the taking of another human life. Those of us on the
sharp end of the stick don't need the extra worry about being able to take
care of any specific group of soldiers "special needs", let alone worry
about what the rest of them are thinking regarding the first group.
I have far too much to do in combat for that kind of thing.
David Lentz
Warning the post will be offensive. Sorry.
It is just a fact, the rape has been one of the traditonal spoils of
victory. I believe the American solder has been about as good as any in
abstaining from this long established custom. In World War Two, the Army
hanged rapist, US type.
A wee bit of biology testoserone is the same hormone that gets male fighting
mad, and gets him horny. So if a solider is victoriious in battle, his
testoserone level will also be high. Woe to the ladies in town. If anybody
is familar with the musical West Side Story, the Anita characterr was
singing that when her man come back from a street fight, she didn't care if
he was tired just so long a he was hot.
It is correct say that there as some aspect of human nature that ought to be
changed but dangerous to assume that they will be changed.
Out.
David
Paul Jacobsen
Roger L. Perkins wrote in message <368ad...@news.sisna.com>...
>OK... I'm not a feminist but I think you are a crackpot too. So I guess
>that shoots your theory in the ass, just like your theories on women in the
>military, huh?
>
>The ignorant we can educate; the stupid we just have to live with.
>
>Roger
>AIRBORNE!
The 1992 Presidential Commission ran a study to investigate whether women
could meet the same physical fitness standards as men. It found that only
3.4 percent of women achieved a score equal to the male mean score on the
Army's physical fitness test.[12]
Women experience more than twice the number of lower extremity injuries and
over four times the number of stress fractures, the report said.[13]
Without special training, the commission found, nature gives women only 50
to 60 percent of the upper torso muscular strength of men. They have 70 to
75 percent of the aerobic capacity of men.[14]
The United States Military Academy requires all cadets to complete an indoor
obstacle course test. The test evaluates a cadet's muscular
strength/endurance, flexibility, agility, and coordination. The average
completion time for the 10 obstacles is 2:50 (min:sec) for men and 4:05
(min:sec) for women.[15]
Even in the civilian world, rational minds recognize the fundamental
differences between the physical capacities of men and women. Dr. Mary Lloyd
Ireland, a Kentucky orthopedic surgeon, studied why female basketball
players suffer twice as many serious knee injuries as males and six times
more anterior cruciate ligament tears. She attributes the problem in part to
the fact that women's bodies are less-suited than men's to absorb the
driving and pounding of sports.[16]
Ann Loucks, an associate professor of physiology at Ohio University, found
that hard physical work coupled with a caloric deficit may have long-term
effects -- damaging a woman's reproductive ability and losing bone minerals,
which could lead to osteoporosis. Extended periods of hard labor and limited
caloric intake are common military conditions.[17]
Because of undeniable differences in speed, strength and endurance between
men and women, women will always be in greater danger than men on the
battlefield -- just as they are in some urban "combat zones." In terms of
modern-day combat, women do not have "an equal opportunity to survive."
Good physical condition is important for both sexes. But the most physically
demanding assignments should go to men who are genetically predisposed to
handling the toughest tasks. If special training is offered, it should go to
men to give them an edge over our enemies. Even the best and strongest
females are unlikely to match most male enemies.
America's military is on a slippery slope. Feminists and their supporters
want to gender-neutralize the military by incrementally ditching commonsense
policies. This latest study, which claims that women can be trained to be
like men, contributes to this misguided ideology, weakens the force
structure at its core, and puts America's military personnel in peril.
Groundplant
minds have drifted off to when the imenent threat of death was in thier
minds. Obviously noone can condone such behaviour, But at the time, there
was nothing that could be done about it. Just as, if the women were out
there in the holes with them, there would be precious little you as a leader
could do. You never hear about these types of actions/thoughts until far
after the fact. I think we are all intelligent enough to know that this
isn't the mindset of ALL soldiers in combat, but these soldiers are there
now, and again, why put them in a situation that you would find out if you
did have a "rapist" on your hands. It would be too little too late to do
much about it then.
SSG Wardle
US Army Infantry
9 Years and counting
Bill <b52...@knology.net> wrote in message
news:01be3916$89e67c40$5736...@x.knology.net...
>
>
>David Lentz <dlen...@rochester.rr.com//NO-SPAM//> wrote in article
><ibyk2.2158$m7....@newsr2.twcny.rr.com>...
>> Groundplant wrote in message <3692a...@news3.uswest.net>...
> I spoke to a few today about
>> >it, and these ARE damn good soldiers, but they honestly couldn't say
>that
>> >they wouldn't think about just throwing her to the ground and getting
>"one
>> >last piece before I die". Wrong as that is, that IS the fact. That IS
>what
>> >our soldiers <the few I spoke to anyway> say about this topic. I know
>just
>> >as well as you do that their thinking is wrong, but that is what they
>> think.
>
>In utter disbelief at where this has gone.
>
>I find the above comment sick, disgusting and I don't really care how "Damn
>Good" these "soldiers" are. They are
>
>1) Neither professional nor soldiers.
>2) Need to be recommended for psych treatment for having these thoughts.
>
>It is difficult to even write to this it is so absurd....... Basically,
>these "damn good soldiers" admitted to having rapist tendencies. And all
>this stuff about testosterone is BS. As crusty as Roger is, I doubt he
>ever entertained thoughts of "getting one last piece". I may not know much
>about the Army...... But if I was ever a Captain in the Army and even heard
>mention of this kind of crap .... there would be some serious problems.
>
>And I certainly hope that this ISNT the "FACT" in the Army, because I know
>it ISNT the "FACT" in the Air Force where we train and have PROFESSIONAL
>Airmen and Officers. Any such activity you mention would be dealt with
>swiftly, ruthlessly, and without mercy.
>
>And I pray I am misunderstanding these "soldiers" remarks, as well as your
>premise behind including them.
>
>Bill
>
Instruct
Seems like the nazi's in WWII had their own double standards...
OOPS !!! Godwin's Law.... I guess it's time to move back to military
folklore...
Vaughn
Bill
Tom Weiss
The information I posted came from the book "Women in the Military", by
Brian Mitchell, Chapter six, pages 108-109. In the notes to this chapter he
mentions that the WITA review group released its final report in the fall of
1982 but does not cite the report directly. However, two notes earlier, for
a quote unrelated to my post, he cited the Office of the Deputy Chief of
Staff for Personnel, "Women in the Army Policy Review" (Washington,
D.C.:Department of the Army, November 12, 1982). I suspect that this is the
same document he cites in relation to the MEPSCAT and the classification of
MOS. How to go about obtaining it, I haven't a clue. But if you have a
friend who works for DACOWITS, then perhaps she would have better luck. As
a side note... it doesn't surprise me that she hasn't heard of it. DACOWITS
has, as far as I understand, always held the position that more if not all
positions in the military should be open to women. And any evidence
suggesting that perhaps women are not suited to all military positions,
because it does not further their argument, is better left ignored.
BTW, while you are talking to your friend, ask her what the endstate for
DACOWITS is. When will we no longer need this group? Its original intent
and mission have changed greatly since the Korean War. I'm just
wondering....
sta...@bigfoot.com
"Paul Jacobsen" <pejac...@leagent.net> wrote:
>
> Roger L. Perkins wrote in message <368ad...@news.sisna.com>...
> >OK... I'm not a feminist but I think you are a crackpot too. So I guess
> >that shoots your theory in the ass, just like your theories on women in the
> >military, huh?
> >
> >The ignorant we can educate; the stupid we just have to live with.
> >
> >Roger
> >AIRBORNE!
>
> The 1992 Presidential Commission ran a study to investigate whether women
> could meet the same physical fitness standards as men. It found that only
> 3.4 percent of women achieved a score equal to the male mean score on the
> Army's physical fitness test.[12]
<much snipped>
> Good physical condition is important for both sexes. But the most physically
> demanding assignments should go to men who are genetically predisposed to
> handling the toughest tasks. If special training is offered, it should go to
> men to give them an edge over our enemies. Even the best and strongest
> females are unlikely to match most male enemies.
Horseshit. Ever seen some of those best and strongest females?
They're pretty scary, and they're on our side. Some of those same
studies have shown that women are more suited to analytical roles,
but we don't bar men from them solely on that basis. Give women
the chance, and there are some who will make the grade and add to
the force.
> America's military is on a slippery slope. Feminists and their supporters
> want to gender-neutralize the military by incrementally ditching commonsense
> policies. This latest study, which claims that women can be trained to be
> like men, contributes to this misguided ideology, weakens the force
> structure at its core, and puts America's military personnel in peril.
No one's saying that we can train women "to be more like men"
(whatever that means). We're saying that we can train women to
serve in close combat roles. As long as we hold fast against
the lowering of standards, then it's possible and it should be
done.
David Lentz
sta...@bigfoot.com wrote in message <76vbg0$2fv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>snipped>
>No one's saying that we can train women "to be more like men"
>(whatever that means). We're saying that we can train women to
>serve in close combat roles. As long as we hold fast against
>the lowering of standards, then it's possible and it should be
>done.
War fighting is a male specialty. We have been doing if for such a very
long time. In fact you listen to the NO(L)W ilk it seems like they feel
that the only thing preventing World peace is having too many males in
charage.
Sure you can train women to do anything. However that is not the question.
Will yoiur all female or mixsd gender unit represent an improvement in
combat efficency. If not your wrong headed policy will cost soldiers'
lives.
Why should women be in combat arrm? There is no dire need.
David
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
David Lentz wrote:
> Why should women be in combat arrm? There is no dire need.
That is what wrong with that. My freind, if you don't want women in combat, the
best way to do so is to raise standards for men and allow women in. Because
average men is 30% stronger than a female, and in some cases, like upper body
strength, up to 100% more stronger, you can effectivly illuminate 99% of women
from joing the armed forces. Include how many women who actualy want to go
army, and you effectivly illuminate 99.9% of women from joing the army. That
would be the only way. Of course it would mean a cut in men available to serve,
through still virtualy all men who would be willing to train would be able to
joint it. However, it would also lead to increase in combat readiness of the
whole armed forces and it would also be right. It would also mean that current
"warriors" would have to work a bit harder to stay in the Army. It is often
funny to see a fat cop coplaining about women joing the force. The cop himself
would not run two steps without hiting the ground with a heart attack. The only
thing this cop had been lifting in the last 10 years is donuts. You don't want
women in the force? Work harder. Set a requirement to bench press to 220lbs,
squats to 310lbs, and body fat to 10% and virtualy no woman would be able joint
the force. But does everyone in the force can bench 220lbs now?
Second, I think the major problem with today force that they want to make joint
women and men force. It would not work. Currently something like 40% of females
in the Navy are pregnant. I believe Army have plenty of jobs that can be
exclusivly female. Traffic controlers and all kinds of other bottom pushers can
be exclusivly female. It seams like in any normal country, that would be the
only way. Create real positions in the army which are almost exclusivly for
women. In Soviet Army in WWII, there were a lot of females, and I do not recall
too much bitching about women in the Army. 18 years old girls had been carrying
up to 20-30 wounded male solders in full gear from the battlefield under enemy
fire. 75% of Soviet AAA guns protecting Russian cities were controled by women.
Virtualy all communication and road traffic had been controled by women. I
believe there is a lot of places for women in the military. Women can virtualy
illuminate al the men from bottom pushers and table positions. In fact they
probably even be more effective than men.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
David Lentz
<snipped>
>No one's saying that we can train women "to be more like men"
>(whatever that means). We're saying that we can train women to
>serve in close combat roles. As long as we hold fast against
>the lowering of standards, then it's possible and it should be
>done.
< snide mode - on >
Good policy has to based nomal expectation. If you take G.I Jane and your
other exceptional women, you three that will qualify for infantry. Oh
forget it, G.I. Jane is a fictional character. Better make it two.
< snide mode - off>
On a more sober note, personnel polcy has to reflect utilzation of
resources. Does in make sense to invest in selecting and training a
population of a hundred women in order to get say seven qualified
infantrymen,; whereas selecting an training a population of a hundred
typical males may yield say seventy qualfied infantrymen. I really think
the bus Depot at Paris Island should be a one way operation as possible.
Why train women for combat arms at all? We have no dire need to do so.
David
David Lentz
Yevgeniy Chizhikov wrote in message
<36935F40...@popmail.csuohio.edu>...
>
>
>David Lentz wrote:
<good message snipped I.A.W rule 840>
If I understand your postition with respect to combat arms, you are saying
that using realistic non-gendered normed standards, ninety pluis percent of
your combat arms units will be male. Further if the choice is between a
ninety-plus percent male, mixed gender force or an all-male force, you would
opt for the all-male force. As would I.
By any objective measure World War Two for the Soviet Union was the most
dire of situations. In a dire situation you take drastic steps. You did.
Then when a nation's very survival in at risk, drastic steps are
appropriate. In the United States at this time, I see no position as dire
as the Soviet position was during the war. The need to emualate the Soviet
policy is not there.
I admit that no one can find a totally objective view of history. However
with Soviet history the problem is even worse. I don't know whether to
classify Soviet history under the Dewey Decimal System or just under F for
fiction. It would almost like the person who cited Jordi LaForge<sp> as
evidence. Alas he was merely a fictional character from "Star Trek: The
Next Generation".
Women consitute fifty-three percent of the population, An effective
personnel polcy has to make some plans to utilize such a large portion of
the population. However such a policy must strive to utilize women where
they best serve the needs of the force and their country. Current military
personnel policy is driven by the desire to advance social agenda, and
putting social agenda ahead national security is bad policy.
Good food for thought.
David
José Herculano
fighting
>mad, and gets him horny. So if a solider is victoriious in battle, his
>testoserone level will also be high. Woe to the ladies in town. If
anybody
BS flag.
José Herculano
Dweezil Dwarftosser
<dlen...@rochester.rr.com//NO-SPAM//> wrote:
>On a more sober note, personnel polcy has to reflect utilzation of
>resources. Does in make sense to invest in selecting and training a
>population of a hundred women in order to get say seven qualified
>infantrymen,; whereas selecting an training a population of a hundred
>typical males may yield say seventy qualfied infantrymen. I really think
>the bus Depot at Paris Island should be a one way operation as possible.
>
>Why train women for combat arms at all? We have no dire need to do so.
One of the things I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is the
effect of across-the-board lowering of standards, so that women can be
as successful at the job as the men.
I recall the early-70s push to include enlisted women in all aircraft
maintenance fields. In my case, they lowered the "de facto" required
scores ( 95th percentile in three mental areas, with 90th percentile
in the fourth ) to a basic 80th percentile in electronics alone. This
had always been "on the books" as the minumin acceptable - but usually
applied only to cross-trainees already succesful in another field.
The women we got were good; some were excellent. Like the guys, 10
percent shined, 10 percent were worthless, with all the rest somewhere
between the two extremes. Unfortunately. this meant that we also
started receiving many more male trainees who "just cleared" the bar.
The effect was a less-effective maintenance force, overall.
Start doing this with aircrews, and the result will be the similar.
- John T.
Roger L. Perkins
people rape, people commit attrocities. While you don't have to accept it
you do have to acknowledge that it happens. And soldiers are people. You
can face the problem without approving of the action. Life just isn't
simple.
So grow up, Bill. The human animal is a complex creature and this is part
of the package. Don't sit on your moral ass and click your tongue and try
to deny that "shit happens". Hiding your head in the sand does nothing
except expose your ass.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
Bill wrote in message <01be3916$89e67c40$5736...@x.knology.net>...
Roger L. Perkins
make the jump from that to "no women in the military". You post doesn't
support that.
Of course women and men are different. But difference does not imply
superoriority, just difference. I am not taking a absolutist position on
women in service or combat. I am saying put them where they can serve and
consider all factors in that service. Frankly there are many men who
couldn't cut it in the combat arms. Move them out as well. But put the
asset where it can be used and if that is in arty, then fine.
But to propose a blanket ban based on gender is just bullshit since women
have been serving in many roles for decades and doing fine.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
Paul Jacobsen wrote in message ...
>Roger L. Perkins wrote in message <368ad...@news.sisna.com>...
>>OK... I'm not a feminist but I think you are a crackpot too. So I guess
>>that shoots your theory in the ass, just like your theories on women in
the
>>military, huh?
>>
>>The ignorant we can educate; the stupid we just have to live with.
>>
>>Roger
>>AIRBORNE!
>
>The 1992 Presidential Commission ran a study to investigate whether women
>could meet the same physical fitness standards as men. It found that only
>3.4 percent of women achieved a score equal to the male mean score on the
>Army's physical fitness test.[12]
>
>Good physical condition is important for both sexes. But the most
physically
>demanding assignments should go to men who are genetically predisposed to
>handling the toughest tasks. If special training is offered, it should go
to
>men to give them an edge over our enemies. Even the best and strongest
>females are unlikely to match most male enemies.
>
Roger L. Perkins
you have any experience in what you are talking about.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
David Lentz wrote in message ...
>sta...@bigfoot.com wrote in message <76vbg0$2fv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>>snipped>
>
>>No one's saying that we can train women "to be more like men"
>>(whatever that means). We're saying that we can train women to
>>serve in close combat roles. As long as we hold fast against
>>the lowering of standards, then it's possible and it should be
>>done.
>
>War fighting is a male specialty. We have been doing if for such a very
>long time. In fact you listen to the NO(L)W ilk it seems like they feel
>that the only thing preventing World peace is having too many males in
>charage.
>
>Sure you can train women to do anything. However that is not the question.
>Will yoiur all female or mixsd gender unit represent an improvement in
>combat efficency. If not your wrong headed policy will cost soldiers'
>lives.
>
>
>Why should women be in combat arrm? There is no dire need.
>
>David
>
>
David Lentz
Roger L. Perkins wrote in message ...
>David, are you in the military? Or have you been? I am just wondering if
>you have any experience in what you are talking about.
United States Air Force (retired), 1969 - 1989
DRL
Roger L. Perkins
Would you not plan for it and be surprized when it happens? And you know it
does. That is to deny human nature. I think it's sad that you would ignore
the reality of human nature so as to be blind sided by it. And if you want
to make this an AF/Army fight we can get into where each service does its
duty - one in the comfort of an airfield and the other in the shit of a
battlefield, day after day after day. Different environments, different
leadership challenges. But I don't think you really want to do that, do
you?
I took what the guy posted at face value. It's was a hypothetical question
answered with 19-year old BS. But on the other hand, are you so dumb as to
believe it wouldn't happen and therefore take no steps to prevent it?
Forewarned is forearmed, you know. But the reality is that shit does indeed
happen.
Read what I wrote before you preach - "While you don't have to accept it
you do have to acknowledge that it happens."
Roger
AIRBORNE!
Bill wrote in message <01be39db$54cd14e0$5736...@x.knology.net>...
>So Roger, you are basically agreeing with Groundplant that US Army troops
>should be expected to ("People murder,
>people rape, people commit attrocities").... How sad that we have to use
>that as an argument for keeping women out of combat roles... That men
>can't help their "Human Nature" to rape and "get one last piece".
>
>I think I will continue to sit on my "moral ass" this time around. Maybe
>down here in the sand (in the Air Force) things are a little bit different.
> We try (many times we fail) to live by a standard of ethics and values
>that guide our behavior (yes... even in combat). I thought maybe the Army
>tried that too .... Perhaps "Human Nature" is simply too much to overcome
>there.
>
>No doubt, "Shit Happens", but I have a serious problem with professional
>soldiers wondering outloud whether they might just have to rape a fellow
>soldier (or for that matter anybody!) to get "one last piece before I die".
>
>Too bad you accept this as part of the soldier "package" because I don't.
>
>A very disappointed,
>Bill
>
>Roger L. Perkins <bad...@cc.usu.edu> wrote in article
><$s75pi...@cc.usu.edu>...