Women soldiers 'face frontline ban' (UK)
Sky King
@hotmail.com says...
> FYI
> Saturday, 30 March, 2002, 02:20 GMT
> Women soldiers 'face frontline ban'
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1901000/1901721.stm
>
> Many women want to be able to fight
>
> Female soldiers will not be allowed to fight in the frontline after a study
> found they were not physically capable, it has been reported.
> Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon will make the announcement in the next
> fortnight, according to the Independent newspaper.
>
> Many ministers and activists want women soldiers to be eligible for
> frontline duty, with others believing the current ban breaches the Human
> Rights Act.
>
> But a Ministry of Defence report, entitled Combat Effectiveness Gender
> Study, has found fewer than 2% of female soldiers are as fit as the average
> male soldier, the newspaper says.
>
> The study also suggests women are up to eight times more likely to be
> injured.
>
> 'Barred from units'
>
> The MoD is already facing a number of compensation claims from women who
> were injured during "unisex" basic training, introduced four years ago.
>
> The paper says Mr Hoon's decision would mean women could keep serving in
> units in wartime as long as they did not risk close combat.
>
> This will bar them from special forces, commando units and armoured
> regiments.
>
> The Independent says the report was based on an "exhaustive" series of
> tests.
>
> Soldiers under 30 had to carry 20kg of equipment and their rifle while
> running a mile and a half in 15 minutes, as well as carrying a colleague for
> 50 yards.
>
> Not one of the female soldiers were able to complete this task, the
> newspaper reports.
>
>
> Yeah but there are still many out there that think women can. Pathetic. sky
>
>
GodEvolved
news:MPG.1710f56e...@news3.news.adelphia.net:
> In article <a86p9p$q7m02$1...@ID-59530.news.dfncis.de>, phillewis25
> @hotmail.com says...
>> FYI
>> Saturday, 30 March, 2002, 02:20 GMT
>> Women soldiers 'face frontline ban'
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1901000/1901721.stm
>>
>> Many women want to be able to fight
>>
>> Female soldiers will not be allowed to fight in the frontline after a
>> study found they were not physically capable, it has been reported.
>> Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon will make the announcement in the next
>> fortnight, according to the Independent newspaper.
>>
>> Many ministers and activists want women soldiers to be eligible for
>> frontline duty, with others believing the current ban breaches the
>> Human Rights Act.
How can keeping *anyone* from frontline combat duty be a breach of the HRA?
<Snip>
--
-----------------
"...What you have to understand, young lady, is that the Greeks, not
content with dominating the culture of the Classical world, are also
responsible for the greatest, some would say the only, work of true
creative imagination produced this century as well. I refer of course to
the Greek ferry timetables. A work of the sublimest fiction. Anyone who
has travelled the Aegean will confirm this..." Professor Watkin - Dirk
Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
-----------------
Paul J. Adam
<m...@home.net> writes
>> FYI
>> Saturday, 30 March, 2002, 02:20 GMT
>> Women soldiers 'face frontline ban'
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1901000/1901721.stm
>>
>> Many women want to be able to fight
>>
>> Female soldiers will not be allowed to fight in the frontline after a study
>> found they were not physically capable, it has been reported.
>> Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon will make the announcement in the next
>> fortnight, according to the Independent newspaper.
Note the "will make" claim.
May well be true, or may be a final trial balloon before the politicians
*actually* decide the result.
Still sounds like selective leaking before the politicos reach a
decision. I'll wait for the *actual report* rather than more-or-less
informed speculation about what it may or may not contain, before I
reach a conclusion.
Me? As long as everyone who serves is qualified for the job, I don't
care. As long as we don't copy the US and go for gender-normed double
standards...
>> Soldiers under 30 had to carry 20kg of equipment and their rifle while
>> running a mile and a half in 15 minutes, as well as carrying a colleague for
>> 50 yards.
>>
>> Not one of the female soldiers were able to complete this task, the
>> newspaper reports.
Sounds like someone's garbled their reporting. (But what can you expect
from unattributed leaks?)
Which British Army test was this? None that I recognise. (It's not
unreasonable, just unfamiliar)
>> Yeah but there are still many out there that think women can. Pathetic. sky
Anyone who is willing to get off their arse and try, deserves respect
for making the effort (too many don't, won't or can't, these days)
Anyone who *passes*, you should think twice before rejecting.
One job, one standard. Simple as that.
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Sky King
ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk says...
William Black
GodEvolved <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns91E27C0C8...@198.164.200.20...
> >> Many ministers and activists want women soldiers to be eligible for
> >> frontline duty, with others believing the current ban breaches the
> >> Human Rights Act.
>
> How can keeping *anyone* from frontline combat duty be a breach of the
HRA?
Probably members of both sexes could claim they were being treated unfairly
unless both are treated in exactly the same way.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
GodEvolved
news:a87kul$ksq$1...@helle.btinternet.com:
>
> GodEvolved <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns91E27C0C8...@198.164.200.20...
>
>> >> Many ministers and activists want women soldiers to be eligible
>> >> for frontline duty, with others believing the current ban breaches
>> >> the Human Rights Act.
>>
>> How can keeping *anyone* from frontline combat duty be a breach of
>> the
> HRA?
>
> Probably members of both sexes could claim they were being treated
> unfairly unless both are treated in exactly the same way.
Even if one cannot perform the duties?
>
> --
> William Black
> ------------------
> On time, on budget, or works;
> Pick any two from three
>
>
>
--
Jeff Laventure
> "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:a87kul$ksq$1...@helle.btinternet.com:
>
> >
> > GodEvolved <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns91E27C0C8...@198.164.200.20...
> >
> >> >> Many ministers and activists want women soldiers to be eligible
> >> >> for frontline duty, with others believing the current ban breaches
> >> >> the Human Rights Act.
> >>
> >> How can keeping *anyone* from frontline combat duty be a breach of
> >> the
> > HRA?
> >
> > Probably members of both sexes could claim they were being treated
> > unfairly unless both are treated in exactly the same way.
>
> Even if one cannot perform the duties?
You change the standards until all can perform.
Sky King
jef...@pacbell.net says...
>
> "GodEvolved" <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns91E2965A2...@198.164.200.20...
> > "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > news:a87kul$ksq$1...@helle.btinternet.com:
> >
> > >
> > > GodEvolved <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Xns91E27C0C8...@198.164.200.20...
> > >
> > >> >> Many ministers and activists want women soldiers to be eligible
> > >> >> for frontline duty, with others believing the current ban breaches
> > >> >> the Human Rights Act.
> > >>
> > >> How can keeping *anyone* from frontline combat duty be a breach of
> > >> the
> > > HRA?
> > >
> > > Probably members of both sexes could claim they were being treated
> > > unfairly unless both are treated in exactly the same way.
> >
> > Even if one cannot perform the duties?
>
> You change the standards until all can perform.
The standards are necessary to get the job done. Name a civilian job
that changes the standards so ALL can perform? They have a job and need
someone that can do the job and the person that can do the job best gets
the job. sky
Sky King
black_...@hotmail.com says...
>
> GodEvolved <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns91E27C0C8...@198.164.200.20...
>
> > >> Many ministers and activists want women soldiers to be eligible for
> > >> frontline duty, with others believing the current ban breaches the
> > >> Human Rights Act.
> >
> > How can keeping *anyone* from frontline combat duty be a breach of the
> HRA?
>
> Probably members of both sexes could claim they were being treated unfairly
> unless both are treated in exactly the same way.
>
Then all the women need to pass the same exact standards as the men. We
now have a child abandon law in the U.S. and it does not allow men to
abandon in the "exact" same way women can. We have the Violence Against
Women Act that does not treat men exactly the same way. sky
Philip Lewis
" Jeff Laventure" <jef...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:UvJp8.283$_X5.28...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
|
| "GodEvolved" <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
| news:Xns91E2965A2...@198.164.200.20...
| > "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
| > news:a87kul$ksq$1...@helle.btinternet.com:
| >
| > >
| > > GodEvolved <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
| > > news:Xns91E27C0C8...@198.164.200.20...
| > >
| > >> >> Many ministers and activists want women soldiers to be eligible
| > >> >> for frontline duty, with others believing the current ban breaches
| > >> >> the Human Rights Act.
| > >>
| > >> How can keeping *anyone* from frontline combat duty be a breach of
| > >> the
| > > HRA?
| > >
| > > Probably members of both sexes could claim they were being treated
| > > unfairly unless both are treated in exactly the same way.
| >
| > Even if one cannot perform the duties?
|
| You change the standards until all can perform.
Sure - and that would result in a less effective military.
Phil
Jeff Laventure
"Sky King" <m...@home.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.171130a6...@news3.news.adelphia.net...
> In article <UvJp8.283$_X5.281...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
> jef...@pacbell.net says...
> >
> > "GodEvolved" <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns91E2965A2...@198.164.200.20...
> > > "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > news:a87kul$ksq$1...@helle.btinternet.com:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > GodEvolved <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:Xns91E27C0C8...@198.164.200.20...
> > > >
> > > >> >> Many ministers and activists want women soldiers to be eligible
> > > >> >> for frontline duty, with others believing the current ban
breaches
> > > >> >> the Human Rights Act.
> > > >>
> > > >> How can keeping *anyone* from frontline combat duty be a breach of
> > > >> the
> > > > HRA?
> > > >
> > > > Probably members of both sexes could claim they were being treated
> > > > unfairly unless both are treated in exactly the same way.
> > >
> > > Even if one cannot perform the duties?
> >
> > You change the standards until all can perform.
>
>
> The standards are necessary to get the job done. Name a civilian job
> that changes the standards so ALL can perform? They have a job and need
> someone that can do the job and the person that can do the job best gets
> the job. sky
> > >
compete will be allowed to succeed rather than requiring the lessor to
reach for the higher standard. Once they have succeeded, we then declare
how successful
we have been. Meanwhile, the difficulty of the task itself is unchanged.
For instance, within the military there is a requirement to accomplish "X"
amount of pushups. Women couldn't, as a general rule, do the same as their
male counterparts so they changed the standard ( amount of pushups) required
of females. Males were required to do 50 pushups and women to do 30. In
doing so both, when attaining their requirement, were declared equal. Ain't
liberalism great?
Jeff Laventure
"Philip Lewis" <phill...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a87p7r$nj3oj$1...@ID-59530.news.dfncis.de...
>
> " Jeff Laventure" <jef...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:UvJp8.283$_X5.28...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> |
> | "GodEvolved" <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
> | news:Xns91E2965A2...@198.164.200.20...
> | > "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> | > news:a87kul$ksq$1...@helle.btinternet.com:
> | >
> | > >
> | > > GodEvolved <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
> | > > news:Xns91E27C0C8...@198.164.200.20...
> | > >
> | > >> >> Many ministers and activists want women soldiers to be eligible
> | > >> >> for frontline duty, with others believing the current ban
breaches
> | > >> >> the Human Rights Act.
> | > >>
> | > >> How can keeping *anyone* from frontline combat duty be a breach of
> | > >> the
> | > > HRA?
> | > >
> | > > Probably members of both sexes could claim they were being treated
> | > > unfairly unless both are treated in exactly the same way.
> | >
> | > Even if one cannot perform the duties?
> |
> | You change the standards until all can perform.
>
> Sure - and that would result in a less effective military.
>
> Phil
In effect, that's what I said.
William Black
Sky King <m...@home.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.171131345...@news3.news.adelphia.net...
> In article <a87kul$ksq$1...@helle.btinternet.com>,
> black_...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> > GodEvolved <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns91E27C0C8...@198.164.200.20...
> >
> > > >> Many ministers and activists want women soldiers to be eligible for
> > > >> frontline duty, with others believing the current ban breaches the
> > > >> Human Rights Act.
> > >
> > > How can keeping *anyone* from frontline combat duty be a breach of the
> > HRA?
> >
> > Probably members of both sexes could claim they were being treated
unfairly
> > unless both are treated in exactly the same way.
> >
>
> Then all the women need to pass the same exact standards as the men. We
> now have a child abandon law in the U.S. and it does not allow men to
> abandon in the "exact" same way women can. We have the Violence Against
> Women Act that does not treat men exactly the same way. sky
Well in the UK such an act would be against the HRA and so probably fall.
The standards will have be the same for both sexes or it breaks the law.
The current UK government has a large amount of its credibility bound up in
'equal rights for both sexes' issues. It would loose a lot of support if
it made the army a special case.
And the UK military doesn't really get a vote. Not an awful lot of soldiers
vote Labour Especially as the current government doesn't have many
ex-forces in it and the opposition is led by a retired officer.
GodEvolved
>
> "GodEvolved" <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns91E2965A2...@198.164.200.20...
>> "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:a87kul$ksq$1...@helle.btinternet.com:
>>
>> >
>> > GodEvolved <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns91E27C0C8...@198.164.200.20...
>> >
>> >> >> Many ministers and activists want women soldiers to be eligible
>> >> >> for frontline duty, with others believing the current ban
>> >> >> breaches the Human Rights Act.
>> >>
>> >> How can keeping *anyone* from frontline combat duty be a breach of
>> >> the
>> > HRA?
>> >
>> > Probably members of both sexes could claim they were being treated
>> > unfairly unless both are treated in exactly the same way.
>>
>> Even if one cannot perform the duties?
>
> You change the standards until all can perform.
Why would we want to do that?
GodEvolved
So, you're arguing that that's a bad thing? Or a good thing? Some
clarification would be in order here, I think.
GodEvolved
And how is that a good thing?
Philip Lewis
Indeed - it is a policy that our enemies would have much interest in
promoting.
Phil
Mark Borgerson
Sky King wrote:
>
> In article <a87kul$ksq$1...@helle.btinternet.com>,
> black_...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> > GodEvolved <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns91E27C0C8...@198.164.200.20...
> >
> > > >> Many ministers and activists want women soldiers to be eligible for
> > > >> frontline duty, with others believing the current ban breaches the
> > > >> Human Rights Act.
> > >
> > > How can keeping *anyone* from frontline combat duty be a breach of the
> > HRA?
> >
> > Probably members of both sexes could claim they were being treated unfairly
> > unless both are treated in exactly the same way.
> >
>
> Then all the women need to pass the same exact standards as the men. We
> now have a child abandon law in the U.S. and it does not allow men to
> abandon in the "exact" same way women can. We have the Violence Against
> Women Act that does not treat men exactly the same way. sky
Well, SOME U.S. states have child abandon laws. In some they may even
apply differently to fathers than they do to mothers. Here in
Oregon, the child abandon law is WRITTEN to be gender-neutral. Whether
it is APPLIED in gender-neutral fashion is still to be determined.
Not sure what that has to do with soldiers, though.
Mark Borgerson
Jeff Laventure
I'm saying it is a bad thing. It's as if you had ten football teams and the
coaches strive to do as well as the last place team.
Angilion
<black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Sky King <m...@home.net> wrote in message
>news:MPG.171131345...@news3.news.adelphia.net...
>> In article <a87kul$ksq$1...@helle.btinternet.com>,
>> black_...@hotmail.com says...
>> >
>> > GodEvolved <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns91E27C0C8...@198.164.200.20...
>> >
>> > > >> Many ministers and activists want women soldiers to be eligible for
>> > > >> frontline duty, with others believing the current ban breaches the
>> > > >> Human Rights Act.
>> > >
>> > > How can keeping *anyone* from frontline combat duty be a breach of the
>> > HRA?
>> >
>> > Probably members of both sexes could claim they were being treated
>unfairly
>> > unless both are treated in exactly the same way.
>>
>> Then all the women need to pass the same exact standards as the men. We
>> now have a child abandon law in the U.S. and it does not allow men to
>> abandon in the "exact" same way women can. We have the Violence Against
>> Women Act that does not treat men exactly the same way. sky
>
>Well in the UK such an act would be against the HRA and so probably fall.
What, like the recent change in the law to make it legal to prevent men
from becoming MPs?
Oh, wait. That's the law.
>The standards will have be the same for both sexes or it breaks the law.
Nope - if it penalises men, the law can be changed or ignored.
>The current UK government has a large amount of its credibility bound up in
>'equal rights for both sexes' issues.
Please name three such issues in which the UK government has any
significant degree of credibility involved. N.B. "More for women" is
not the same as "equal rights for both sexes".
>It would loose a lot of support if
>it made the army a special case.
The current plan is to do just that, by denying people of the "wrong"
sex entry into certain units, solely because of their sex.
>And the UK military doesn't really get a vote. Not an awful lot of soldiers
>vote Labour Especially as the current government doesn't have many
>ex-forces in it and the opposition is led by a retired officer.
>
>--
>William Black
>------------------
>On time, on budget, or works;
>Pick any two from three
On a good day.
--
Always remember you're unique.
Just like everyone else. (Anon)
John Jones
"Mark" <ma...@pi8.co> wrote in message
news:Xns91E3A96FA...@209.249.90.101...
> What confused me about this:
>
> even if only 1% of women are deemed fit enough to pass, why
shouldn't
> that small minority have the chance to fight? I haven't seen
this issue
> addressed yet.
It's been discussed a lot. I don't have a problem with it. I DO
have a problem with double standards. I'm not keen on the idea
of coed basic training, but since i've no expertise in the
matter, I don't argue the point a lot.
Philip Lewis
"Mark Borgerson" <mborg...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3CA79A6F...@attbi.com...
How do you know - have you checked if it has been 'determined' in practice?
|
| Not sure what that has to do with soldiers, though.
Sky is alluding to the disingenuous way that so-called "gender neutral"
initiatives are often actually implemented.
As it happens - when the british army stopped making the training and tests
for women easier than for the men IOW genuinely 'gender neutral' - they
found that women could not match up ("Soldiers under 30 had to carry 20kg of
equipment and their rifle while running a mile and a half in 15 minutes, as
well as carrying a colleague for 50 yards.Not one of the female soldiers
were able to complete this task, the
newspaper reports.") - but 'oh dear' how unacceptable it is to find that men
are actually superior at something - time for another "GI Jane" MOVIE
methinks. ;-o)
|
| Mark Borgerson
Philip Lewis
" Jeff Laventure" <jef...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:RoKp8.3971$uh3.311...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
About as 'great' (and 'real') as 'GI Jane' -I'd say. ;-o)
Phil
GodEvolved
Ah, well, in that case, we're in agreement.
GodEvolved
> What confused me about this:
>
> even if only 1% of women are deemed fit enough to pass, why shouldn't
> that small minority have the chance to fight? I haven't seen this issue
> addressed yet.
Because of all the time, effort and money it takes to determine if that 1%
is able to fight, and because accomodating such a small percentage of women
is not cost-effective.
Mark Borgerson
I share the conclusions of Stephanie Gutmann in "A Kinder, Gentler Military":
*High and equal standards in Boot Camp and AIT.
* MOS-specific qualifying tests. Physical tests,
that is. Specific mental and educational tests
are already used. 'People express it as "If women
can do the job, let them do it"; or "I wouldn't
mind women in the infantry, if they could do the
job"' (Quote from Gutmann's book)
If no woman passes the specific tests for the combat
units, so be it. If any person passes the test, they
are eligible to volunteer or be assigned to the
unit.
Mark Borgerson
Philip Lewis
|
| even if only 1% of women are deemed fit enough to pass, why shouldn't
| that small minority have the chance to fight? I haven't seen this issue
| addressed yet.
Because of the COSTS (the UK military is currently under very tight
budegetry constraints if not cutbacks!) involved - recruitment targeted at
women, funding seperate quarters and facilities etc(and other costs that
many in the military may be 'shy' of voicing - such as the costs of
frivolous suits alleging SH etc.).
Phil
Philip Lewis
Since so few women CAN pass the tests for combat units - I see no
justification for politically correct pandering at a time when our military
is already suffering from stringent budget cutbacks.
Phil
|
| Mark Borgerson
WhiteDragon©
And this raises another question.
How much money do "We The People" have to spend in tax dollars to have 1 or
2 out of 100 pass
the test?
"We The People" (the real majority in America) are getting fed up with
politically correct pandering for the sake
of pleasing these radical and unreasonable "groups" who serve no intrest for
america other then their own.
If they can pass the test. Fine, let them in.
But "Who pays" Who foots the bill to be politically correct.
~wd
|
| Phil
| |
| | Mark Borgerson
|
|
Mark Borgerson
I would expect that the cost of testing itself would be very low.
Remember that it should be a test specifically for entrance to
combat units. Many women might pass tests designed to find
people who are capable of becoming intel specialists, clerks
or cooks. Many fewer would pass the tests for combat positions.
(I suspect that only a small percentage of women in the
military would even take those tests.---why would they bother
if they knew that they had to run a mile in 15 minutes with
20Kilos of gear and a rifle and knew that it was beyond their
capability.---better to go take the photo interpretation or
pastry-cook test.)
Why should you accept the cost of that test? For the same reason
you accept that 80% of the candidates might drop out of SAS testing--
you want to find enough qualified people to fill the positions
available. Sometimes equality costs a bit more. But if the
standards are uniform and well known to the people applying to
take the tests, the cost should be minimal.
Mark Borgerson
Mark Borgerson
Hmmmm, I don't see uniform, gender-neutral standards and open tests
to be 'politically correct'. I suspect that many feminists would
see them as just the opposite!
Mark Borgerson
WhiteDragon©
This is simply not true, Think about it.
Just the payroll alone to have enough personel to do the testing would be
astronomical.
Then land would have to be cleared, and facilities built.
I could spend all night listing the expenses that will be incurred.
| Remember that it should be a test specifically for entrance to
| combat units.Many women might pass tests designed to find
| people who are capable of becoming intel specialists, clerks
| or cooks. Many fewer would pass the tests for combat positions.
| (I suspect that only a small percentage of women in the
| military would even take those tests.---why would they bother
| if they knew that they had to run a mile in 15 minutes with
| 20Kilos of gear and a rifle and knew that it was beyond their
| capability.---better to go take the photo interpretation or
| pastry-cook test.)
You know nothing about the inner workings of the military.
Women are failing "Basic" Trainning, before they even get into an actual
combat
training.
So your theory of only a small percentage of women in the military would
even take those tests
is a farce.
This is costing billions to house and feed and cloth them.
They are giving medical exams, and shots.
They recieve pay and benefits, before they step one foot into a testing
area.
Six weeks into the training, they fail the 1st of a series of tests.
|
| Why should you accept the cost of that test? For the same reason
| you accept that 80% of the candidates might drop out of SAS testing--
| you want to find enough qualified people to fill the positions
| available.
Why?
Because the Military does not pay for SAS.
And comparing the two is like comparing a tank to a car.
Sometimes equality costs a bit more. But if the
| standards are uniform and well known to the people applying to
| take the tests, the cost should be minimal.
Sorry Mark, but as usual, your replies are long, but have no validity.
|
| Mark Borgerson
Philip Lewis
But nevertheless you don't know.
| Remember that it should be a test specifically for entrance to
| combat units.
Yes - and whilst tested they would need to be billeted - more costs and more
precious time taken up by highly experienced service personel and officers
that would be better utilised testing units that had a better than 1 or 2
percent chance of passing!
Phil
Jeff Laventure
"WhiteDragon©" <serv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uafp38h...@corp.supernews.com...
OK, you've allowed testing and inclusion to combat units. Not to mention
the problem with male versus
female facilities, what do you do about the resultant human emotions called
love and jealous which can
lead to divisiveness rather than cohesion within a small unit.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Mark Borgerson
Hmmm, I thought the SAS was funded by the same government that funds
the British military and that they drew most of their recruits from
the military. Maybe the dropout in SEAL training would be more pertinent.
>
> Sometimes equality costs a bit more. But if the
> | standards are uniform and well known to the people applying to
> | take the tests, the cost should be minimal.
>
> Sorry Mark, but as usual, your replies are long, but have no validity.
OK. If you insist, I guess I can relegate the Gutmann's conclusions to the
status of 'well-researched conclusions deemed invalid by WD.'
Hey, my reply wasn't all THAT much longer than yours! Should I have
<snipped> more??
Mark Borgerson
Mark Borgerson
Philip Lewis wrote:
>
><<SNIP{>>
> | > And this raises another question.
> | > How much money do "We The People" have to spend in tax dollars to have 1
> or
> | > 2 out of 100 pass
> | > the test?
> | > "We The People" (the real majority in America) are getting fed up with
> | > politically correct pandering for the sake
> | > of pleasing these radical and unreasonable "groups" who serve no intrest
> for
> | > america other then their own.
> | >
> | > If they can pass the test. Fine, let them in.
> | > But "Who pays" Who foots the bill to be politically correct.
> | >
> | I would expect that the cost of testing itself would be very low.
>
> But nevertheless you don't know.
Nope. Do you? Should we both guess and split the difference---or
perhaps ask for a GAO study?
>
> | Remember that it should be a test specifically for entrance to
> | combat units.
>
> Yes - and whilst tested they would need to be billeted - more costs and more
> precious time taken up by highly experienced service personel and officers
> that would be better utilised testing units that had a better than 1 or 2
> percent chance of passing!
I think you're mixing up the 1 or 2 percent that might pass the
combat fitness test with the larger number that might pass the
tests for clerk and cook.
>
<SNIP my own stuff>
Mark Borgerson
Mark Borgerson
Jeff Laventure wrote:
>
<<SNIP>>
>
> OK, you've allowed testing and inclusion to combat units. Not to mention
> the problem with male versus
> female facilities, what do you do about the resultant human emotions called
> love and jealous which can
> lead to divisiveness rather than cohesion within a small unit.
Hmmm. Good question. Gutmann mentions that in the body of her
book, but leaves it out of the conclusions. I suppose we could
see how other professionals, such as police officers, have
handled the emotional stresses.
Mark Borgerson
GodEvolved
You can't base how your military should act based on how a civilian police
force acts. It's not the same thing at all.
>
> Mark Borgerson
Sky King
MOST have it I believe. sky
In some they
> > may
> > | > even
> > | > | | > | apply differently to fathers than they do to mothers.
In ALL they treat single fathers differently then they do single mothers
when it comes to being able to legally abandon. sky
Here in
> > | > | | > | Oregon, the child abandon law is WRITTEN to be gender-neutral.
I bet it states that anyone having LEGAL custody can abandon which
leaves out almost ALL single men. sky
> > | > | | >
> > | > | | > | Whether
> > | > | | > | it is APPLIED in gender-neutral fashion is still to be
> > determined.
Name one single man anywhere that has been allowed to use this law. sky
> > | > | | >
> > | > | | > How do you know - have you checked if it has been 'determined' in
> > | > | practice?
> > | > | | >
> > | > | | > |
> > | > | | > | Not sure what that has to do with soldiers, though.
> > | > | | >
> > | > | | > Sky is alluding to the disingenuous way that so-called "gender
> > | > neutral"
> > | > | | > initiatives are often actually implemented.
Exactly. At least the Military in the UK made the women meet the same
standards as the men. In the U.S they do not. sky
Indeed. Just not cost-effective to train 100 women and only a couple
can pass. sky
> > | >
> > | > And this raises another question.
> > | > How much money do "We The People" have to spend in tax dollars to have 1
> > or
> > | > 2 out of 100 pass
> > | > the test?
> > | > "We The People" (the real majority in America) are getting fed up with
> > | > politically correct pandering for the sake
> > | > of pleasing these radical and unreasonable "groups" who serve no intrest
> > for
> > | > america other then their own.
> > | >
> > | > If they can pass the test. Fine, let them in.
> > | > But "Who pays" Who foots the bill to be politically correct.
> > | >
> > | I would expect that the cost of testing itself would be very low.
Nope. You spend a lot of money on women in basic training. More then is
spent on men because women have "special" needs. sky
Sky King
says...
> What confused me about this:
>
> even if only 1% of women are deemed fit enough to pass, why shouldn't
> that small minority have the chance to fight? I haven't seen this issue
> addressed yet.
>
those jobs takes a lot of training. Lets say that if they train men
they know by experience that out of 100 men trained 98 will make it.
If they also know by experience that out of 100 women only a couple
could make it why do you think its cost-effective to train women
if the failure rate is high? sky
Sky King
says...> news:UvJp8.283$_X5.281...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
> >> "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:a87kul$ksq$1...@helle.btinternet.com:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > news:Xns91E27C0C8...@198.164.200.20...
> >> >
> >> >> >> Many ministers and activists want women soldiers to be eligible
> >> >> >> for frontline duty, with others believing the current ban
> >> >> >> breaches the Human Rights Act.
> >> >>
> >> >> How can keeping *anyone* from frontline combat duty be a breach of
> >> >> the
> >> > HRA?
> >> >
> >> > Probably members of both sexes could claim they were being treated
> >> > unfairly unless both are treated in exactly the same way.
> >>
> >
> > You change the standards until all can perform.
>
>
>
>
Yeah bring on the blind, deaf and dumb and lower those standards until
ALL can meet them. Pathetic. sky
Mark Borgerson
GodEvolved wrote:
>
> Mark Borgerson <mborg...@attbi.com> wrote in
> news:3CA7F4F6...@attbi.com:
>
> >
> >
> > Jeff Laventure wrote:
> >>
> > <<SNIP>>
> >>
> >> OK, you've allowed testing and inclusion to combat units. Not to
> >> mention the problem with male versus
> >> female facilities, what do you do about the resultant human emotions
> >> called love and jealous which can
> >> lead to divisiveness rather than cohesion within a small unit.
> >
> > Hmmm. Good question. Gutmann mentions that in the body of her
> > book, but leaves it out of the conclusions. I suppose we could
> > see how other professionals, such as police officers, have
> > handled the emotional stresses.
>
> You can't base how your military should act based on how a civilian police
> force acts. It's not the same thing at all.
>
Could you be more specific?
I was thinking that they are both jobs which put men and women together
in high stress situations. It is true that cops don't normally
live in foxholes or share tents. But I suspect that much of
the jealousy among both groups comes from the spouses of the
men and women involved.
Mark Borgerson
Mark Borgerson
Sky King wrote:
>
> In article <3CA7F28B...@attbi.com>, mborg...@attbi.com says...
<<SNIP>>
> > > | > | | > |
> > > | > | | > | Well, SOME U.S. states have child abandon laws.
>
> MOST have it I believe. sky
I think its up over 30 now. A definite majority of states.
>
> In some they
> > > may
> > > | > even
> > > | > | | > | apply differently to fathers than they do to mothers.
>
> In ALL they treat single fathers differently then they do single mothers
> when it comes to being able to legally abandon. sky
>
> Here in
> > > | > | | > | Oregon, the child abandon law is WRITTEN to be gender-neutral.
>
> I bet it states that anyone having LEGAL custody can abandon which
> leaves out almost ALL single men. sky
NOPE: Here is the wording:
SECTION 1. { + (1) A parent may leave an infant at an
authorized facility in the physical custody of an agent,
employee, doctor or other medical professional working at the
authorized facility if the infant:
(a) Is 30 days of age or younger as determined to a reasonable
degree of medical certainty; and
(b) Has no evidence of abuse.
(2) A parent leaving an infant under this section is not
required to provide any identifying information about the infant
or the parent.
It just says PARENT. Not "parent having legal custody" or
"biological parent". Which is why I don't think it will
be clarified until it ends up in court.
> > > | > | | >
> > > | > | | > | Whether
> > > | > | | > | it is APPLIED in gender-neutral fashion is still to be
> > > determined.
>
> Name one single man anywhere that has been allowed to use this law. sky
Hmmmm, might be difficult, given that anonymity is part of all these
laws! I can't name anyone, man or woman! ;-)
Hmmm, depends on how much of a recruiting shortfall you have, I guess.
> > > | >
> > > | > And this raises another question.
> > > | > How much money do "We The People" have to spend in tax dollars to have 1
> > > or
> > > | > 2 out of 100 pass
> > > | > the test?
> > > | > "We The People" (the real majority in America) are getting fed up with
> > > | > politically correct pandering for the sake
> > > | > of pleasing these radical and unreasonable "groups" who serve no intrest
> > > for
> > > | > america other then their own.
> > > | >
> > > | > If they can pass the test. Fine, let them in.
> > > | > But "Who pays" Who foots the bill to be politically correct.
> > > | >
> > > | I would expect that the cost of testing itself would be very low.
>
> Nope. You spend a lot of money on women in basic training. More then is
> spent on men because women have "special" needs. sky
Got any cites for that?
<<SNIP>>
Mark Borgerson
Parg2000
>From: Mark ma...@pi8.co
>Date: 3/31/02 4:02 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <Xns91E3A96FA...@209.249.90.101>
>
>What confused me about this:
>
>even if only 1% of women are deemed fit enough to pass, why shouldn't
>that small minority have the chance to fight? I haven't seen this issue
>addressed yet.
{Parg} Since not one single man can birth a child, why should any of them have
the chance to parent?
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sky King
@cs.com says...
not let them have kids. Also training 100 women to get 1 that can hang
is not cost effective. Same can't be said about fathers. sky
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Sky King
>
>
> Sky King wrote:
> >
> > In article <3CA7F28B...@attbi.com>, mborg...@attbi.com says...
> <<SNIP>>
> > > > | > | | > |
> > > > | > | | > | Well, SOME U.S. states have child abandon laws.
> >
> > MOST have it I believe. sky
>
> I think its up over 30 now. A definite majority of states.
> >
> > In some they
> > > > may
> > > > | > even
> > > > | > | | > | apply differently to fathers than they do to mothers.
> >
> > In ALL they treat single fathers differently then they do single mothers
> > when it comes to being able to legally abandon. sky
> >
> > Here in
> > > > | > | | > | Oregon, the child abandon law is WRITTEN to be gender-neutral.
> >
> > I bet it states that anyone having LEGAL custody can abandon which
> > leaves out almost ALL single men. sky
>
> NOPE: Here is the wording:
>
> SECTION 1. { + (1) A parent may leave an infant at an
> authorized facility in the physical custody of an agent,
> employee, doctor or other medical professional working at the
> authorized facility if the infant:
Indeed it say a PARENT. A single man is not the legal parent until a
court says he is which would make it hard for him to legally abandon.
sky
> (a) Is 30 days of age or younger as determined to a reasonable
> degree of medical certainty; and
> (b) Has no evidence of abuse.
> (2) A parent leaving an infant under this section is not
> required to provide any identifying information about the infant
> or the parent.
>
>
> It just says PARENT. Not "parent having legal custody" or
> "biological parent". Which is why I don't think it will
> be clarified until it ends up in court.
Wrong. They mean legal parent. sky
Philip Lewis
No I am not - for we are niot talking about basic training but training for
combat units.
Phil
Paul J. Adam
<serv...@hotmail.com> writes
>| you accept that 80% of the candidates might drop out of SAS testing--
>| you want to find enough qualified people to fill the positions
>| available.
>
>Why?
>Because the Military does not pay for SAS.
Who does, then? The 22nd and 23rd Regiments are part of the military
just like any other.
Please get your facts right.
>And comparing the two is like comparing a tank to a car.
So tell me, _mon capitan_, have you ever been trained by a SAS officer?
I have, though it was far less dramatic than it sounds. (He was a damn
good soldier who mostly concentrated on being as warm and comfortable as
possible in any given situation... though his fieldcraft was quite
awe-inspiring to us reservists)
> Sometimes equality costs a bit more. But if the
>| standards are uniform and well known to the people applying to
>| take the tests, the cost should be minimal.
>
>
>Sorry Mark, but as usual, your replies are long, but have no validity.
From personal experience of the UK's armed forces - Mark is right,
you're wrong. (At least get your funding lines straight) Assessment is
cheap, it's the training and upkeep that costs.
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Ian
"Parg2000" <parg...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20020401111749...@mb-bg.news.cs.com...
On the contrary. Giving birth is about the only thing women can do anywhere
near as men. As both men and women are able to raise children, what makes
you think that men won't be vastly better at it, than women, bearing in mind
men are substantially better at everything else they do wrt women, that can
be subjectively measured?
GodEvolved
>
>
> GodEvolved wrote:
>>
>> Mark Borgerson <mborg...@attbi.com> wrote in
>> news:3CA7F4F6...@attbi.com:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Jeff Laventure wrote:
>> >>
>> > <<SNIP>>
>> >>
>> >> OK, you've allowed testing and inclusion to combat units. Not to
>> >> mention the problem with male versus
>> >> female facilities, what do you do about the resultant human
>> >> emotions called love and jealous which can
>> >> lead to divisiveness rather than cohesion within a small unit.
>> >
>> > Hmmm. Good question. Gutmann mentions that in the body of her
>> > book, but leaves it out of the conclusions. I suppose we could
>> > see how other professionals, such as police officers, have
>> > handled the emotional stresses.
>>
>> You can't base how your military should act based on how a civilian
>> police force acts. It's not the same thing at all.
>>
> Could you be more specific?
>
> I was thinking that they are both jobs which put men and women
> together in high stress situations. It is true that cops don't
I rather think that being a member of the Elite Guard(or was it Imperial
Guard) in Iraq during the Gulf War was a bit more perilous than being a cop
in, say, LA. Dangerous place, to be sure, but you aren't carpet bombed for
days on end, and your whole army doesn't get obliterated from the air while
withdrawing from Kuwait.
> normally live in foxholes or share tents. But I suspect that much of
> the jealousy among both groups comes from the spouses of the
> men and women involved.
I don't know anything about that. Do you have any evidence to back that
up?
John Jones
> GodEvolved <nos...@spam.com> wrote in
> news:Xns91E2D2336...@198.164.200.20:
>
> > Because of all the time, effort and money it takes to
determine if
> > that 1% is able to fight, and because accomodating such a
small
> > percentage of women is not cost-effective.
>
> So the most important thing about the choice of soldier is cost
> effectiveness?
What do you think is the most important aspect when choosing a
'warrior'?
Philip Lewis
Yes they are - inviting sexual politics into combat units is not sound
military policy.
| I suspect that many feminists would
| see them as just the opposite!
The gender\rad feminists would whine and scream the equity feminists would
rejoice but NEITHER would want women barred altogether from combat units.
Phil
|
| Mark Borgerson
John Jones
[...]
>
> Is there a relibable predeterminer as to what will make a
person most
> effective at learning a particular skill. I've never heard of
anything.
If English isn't your first language, this would be a good time
to say so.
Sky King
> Sky King <m...@home.net> wrote in
> news:MPG.171248d02...@news3.news.adelphia.net:
> > Well lets say you are a civilian employer and you have jobs to fill
> > and those jobs takes a lot of training. Lets say that if they train
> > men they know by experience that out of 100 men trained 98 will make
> > it.
> >
> > If they also know by experience that out of 100 women only a couple
> > could make it why do you think its cost-effective to train women
> > if the failure rate is high? sky
>
> effective at learning a particular skill. I've never heard of anything.
>
same male physical standard. Its why women now have lowered standards.
sky
Ian
"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tYOBSzhF...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
> In article <MPG.1710f56e...@news3.news.adelphia.net>, Sky King
> <m...@home.net> writes
> >> FYI
> >> Saturday, 30 March, 2002, 02:20 GMT
> >> Women soldiers 'face frontline ban'
> >>
> >> Many women want to be able to fight
> >>
> >> Female soldiers will not be allowed to fight in the frontline after a
study
> >> found they were not physically capable, it has been reported.
> >> Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon will make the announcement in the next
> >> fortnight, according to the Independent newspaper.
>
> Note the "will make" claim.
>
> May well be true, or may be a final trial balloon before the politicians
> *actually* decide the result.
Quite. Like Tony Blair, has he made any law since elected, because
it was the right thing to do. It think we'll find that everyone in his
parliament, including that pointless waste of space Alan Milburn, who
has men in London waiting 4 weeks for a doctor's appointment,
have other people give the bad news and themselves do only the
photo shots.
Still it's good to see that Tony and Gordon have kicked him
into touch now the election's over. He was one of the more useful
MPs pre-election, being able to repeat "Boom and Bust" parrot
like without even questioning, let alone knowing what he was talking
about.
Let's look at what the goverment have done in the past 6 years
for the army.
Are we using MI6s? Or do we still have the wonderful SA80?
It would be nice if Tony spent a bit of money keeping the men
alive that keep him alive.
>
> Still sounds like selective leaking before the politicos reach a
> decision. I'll wait for the *actual report* rather than more-or-less
> informed speculation about what it may or may not contain, before I
> reach a conclusion.
>
>
> Me? As long as everyone who serves is qualified for the job, I don't
> care. As long as we don't copy the US and go for gender-normed double
> standards...
>
>
> >> Soldiers under 30 had to carry 20kg of equipment and their rifle while
> >> running a mile and a half in 15 minutes, as well as carrying a
colleague for
> >> 50 yards.
> >>
> >> Not one of the female soldiers were able to complete this task, the
> >> newspaper reports.
>
> Sounds like someone's garbled their reporting. (But what can you expect
> from unattributed leaks?)
>
> Which British Army test was this? None that I recognise. (It's not
> unreasonable, just unfamiliar)
>
>
> >> Yeah but there are still many out there that think women can.
Pathetic. sky
>
> Anyone who is willing to get off their arse and try, deserves respect
> for making the effort (too many don't, won't or can't, these days)
>
> Anyone who *passes*, you should think twice before rejecting.
>
> One job, one standard. Simple as that.
Sky King
>
> > Because of the COSTS (the UK military is currently under very tight
> > budegetry constraints if not cutbacks!) involved - recruitment
> > targeted at women, funding seperate quarters and facilities etc(and
> > other costs that many in the military may be 'shy' of voicing - such
> > as the costs of frivolous suits alleging SH etc.).
>
> Would you change your mind if recruitment became more of a problem than
> finance or would you prefer conscripted men to women volunteers?
>
I prefer the best that can do the job, the one that can pass all the
SAME physical requirements as the men, however if only one woman out
of 100 tested can make it it makes little since to keep trying to train
them. sky
Sky King
> GodEvolved <nos...@spam.com> wrote in
> news:Xns91E2D2336...@198.164.200.20:
>
> > Because of all the time, effort and money it takes to determine if
> > that 1% is able to fight, and because accomodating such a small
> > percentage of women is not cost-effective.
>
> So the most important thing about the choice of soldier is cost
> effectiveness?
>
can do the job.
If you have to train 1000 women to get 100 that can qualify and you can
get 900 men out of 1000 trained to pass then tell me why training women
is cost-effective. Beyond that the amount of man hours to train them
is a waste. sky
GodEvolved
> GodEvolved <nos...@spam.com> wrote in
> news:Xns91E2D2336...@198.164.200.20:
>
>> Because of all the time, effort and money it takes to determine if
>> that 1% is able to fight, and because accomodating such a small
>> percentage of women is not cost-effective.
>
> So the most important thing about the choice of soldier is cost
> effectiveness?
It's a damn big part of it, yes. I've heard it suggested here that an
exoskeleton would make a 130lbs woman the equivalent of a 180lbs pound man.
Now, someone tell me how that makes sense.
Does it really make sense to train, equip, provide separate accomodations
for, deal with all the frivolous SH lawsuits, to get such a small fraction
of women?
GodEvolved
> GodEvolved <nos...@spam.com> wrote in
> news:Xns91E3C2D9F...@198.164.200.20:
>
>> Does it really make sense to train, equip, provide separate
>> accomodations for, deal with all the frivolous SH lawsuits, to get
>> such a small fraction of women?
>
> Well I've never agreed with paying taxes to create separate military
> accommodations, or separate public tiolets for that matter.
Oh well.
>
> Do you have separate mens and womens toilets in the USA? We have them in
> the UK but I was talking to someone more widely travelled recently and
> she says they're quite rare in the world as a whole. That surprised me.
I'm not from the US, I'm from Canada. Yes, we have them here, Ally McBeal
notwithstanding. "...in the world as a whole..." I just love
generalizations.
Sky King
says...
> Mark Borgerson <mborg...@attbi.com> wrote in
> news:3CA7F4F6...@attbi.com:
>
> >
> >
> > Jeff Laventure wrote:
> >>
> > <<SNIP>>
> >>
> >> OK, you've allowed testing and inclusion to combat units. Not to
> >> mention the problem with male versus
> >> female facilities, what do you do about the resultant human emotions
> >> called love and jealous which can
> >> lead to divisiveness rather than cohesion within a small unit.
> >
> > Hmmm. Good question. Gutmann mentions that in the body of her
> > book, but leaves it out of the conclusions. I suppose we could
> > see how other professionals, such as police officers, have
> > handled the emotional stresses.
>
> You can't base how your military should act based on how a civilian police
> force acts. It's not the same thing at all.
>
> >
> > Mark Borgerson
> >
>
and on high alert much of it. If women and men are together many women
are going to end up pregnant. Heck the women may get leave and get
pregnant from a civilian. sky
>
>
Dennis
> What confused me about this:
>
> even if only 1% of women are deemed fit enough to pass, why shouldn't
> that small minority have the chance to fight? I haven't seen this issue
> addressed yet.
Because it is not cost effective in terms of time, money and energy
finding and training that very small number and that number will have little
to no positive effect on combat readiness especially in terms of the costs and
effort involved, and might very well have a detrimental effect. So NOW do
you understand?.
GodEvolved
> GodEvolved <nos...@spam.com> wrote in
> news:Xns91E3C68D1...@198.164.200.20:
>
>> "...in the world as a whole..." I just love
>> generalizations.
>>
>
> That one wasn't mine wasn't mine. I was only repeating. No doubt I will
> make some of my own but you'll have to wait a while to spot one :)
And I didn't claim it was yours. Now that we've both stated our respective
positions on the matter of who owns that particular generalization, we
should move on.<g>
Mark Borgerson
Hmmm. and when was the last time the US or UK armies were carpet bombed?
When do you expect it in the future? I guess it would be a good argument
for no women in the Iraqi army, though! ;-)
>
> > normally live in foxholes or share tents. But I suspect that much of
> > the jealousy among both groups comes from the spouses of the
> > men and women involved.
>
> I don't know anything about that. Do you have any evidence to back that
> up?
Right now I can only recall personal discussions with a woman firefighter
,with my brother-in-law, who is a cop, and his wife, who is a dispatcher.
My wife has also reported harassing phone calls from a spouse at her
job---which is a government job, but not as high stress as police
work or firefighting.
Mark Borgerson
Mark Borgerson
Well, heck, guys in the army may get married to a civilian who thinks their
job is too dangerous and convinces them to quit.
Mark Borgerson
GodEvolved
Shit happens.
>
>
>>
>> > normally live in foxholes or share tents. But I suspect that much
>> > of the jealousy among both groups comes from the spouses of the
>> > men and women involved.
>>
>> I don't know anything about that. Do you have any evidence to back
>> that up?
>
> Right now I can only recall personal discussions with a woman
> firefighter ,with my brother-in-law, who is a cop, and his wife, who
> is a dispatcher. My wife has also reported harassing phone calls from
> a spouse at her job---which is a government job, but not as high
> stress as police work or firefighting.
What? I have no idea what you just said.
Mark Borgerson
Sorry. My evidence (that jealousy comes mainly from spouses) is only
anecdotal.
Mark Borgerson
Philip Lewis
"Mark Borgerson" <mborg...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3CA7F28B...@attbi.com...
|
|
| "WhiteDragonŠ" wrote:
| >
snip>
| > Six weeks into the training, they fail the 1st of a series of tests.
| >
| > |
| > | Why should you accept the cost of that test? For the same reason
| > | you accept that 80% of the candidates might drop out of SAS testing--
| > | you want to find enough qualified people to fill the positions
| > | available.
| >
| > Why?
| > Because the Military does not pay for SAS.
|
| the British military and that they drew most of their recruits from
| the military. Maybe the dropout in SEAL training would be more pertinent.
The SAS is an elite unit (and relatively tiny in size) but even there it's
dropout rates are not as high as those would be likely for women candidates
for regular combat units.!
| >
| > Sometimes equality costs a bit more. But if the
| > | standards are uniform and well known to the people applying to
| > | take the tests, the cost should be minimal.
| >
| > Sorry Mark, but as usual, your replies are long, but have no validity.
|
| OK. If you insist, I guess I can relegate the Gutmann's conclusions to
the
| status of 'well-researched conclusions deemed invalid by WD.'
".. a Ministry of Defence report, entitled Combat Effectiveness Gender
Study, has found fewer than 2% of female soldiers are as fit as the average
male soldier..."
I think the above study is far more pertinent to the UK armed services -
especially as it has been undertaken by the Ministry of Defence and not some
author with a 'politically correct' axe to grind.
Phil
|
| Hey, my reply wasn't all THAT much longer than yours! Should I have
| <snipped> more??
|
|
| Mark Borgerson
Kerryn Offord
Philip Lewis wrote:
>
> "Mark Borgerson" <mborg...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3CA7F28B...@attbi.com...
> |
> |
> | "WhiteDragon©" wrote:
> | >
> snip>
> | > Six weeks into the training, they fail the 1st of a series of tests.
> | >
> | > |
> | > | Why should you accept the cost of that test? For the same reason
> | > | you accept that 80% of the candidates might drop out of SAS testing--
> | > | you want to find enough qualified people to fill the positions
> | > | available.
> | >
> | > Why?
> | > Because the Military does not pay for SAS.
> | > And comparing the two is like comparing a tank to a car.
> |
> | Hmmm, I thought the SAS was funded by the same government that funds
> | the British military and that they drew most of their recruits from
> | the military. Maybe the dropout in SEAL training would be more pertinent.
>
> The SAS is an elite unit (and relatively tiny in size) but even there it's
> dropout rates are not as high as those would be likely for women candidates
> for regular combat units.!
Yes but all personnel trying out for the unit (SAS) should have
adequately prepared... it's not as if there is any excuse for not
knowing what you're letting yourself in for (these days).
How would properly motivated females compare? My reading on 14 int coy
suggests that, as a percentage of applicants, more females pass the
selection and contnuation training for 14 int coy than do males. This
would suggest that properly motivated females would do at least as well
as males WRT drop out rates for regular combat units.
> | >
> | > Sometimes equality costs a bit more. But if the
> | > | standards are uniform and well known to the people applying to
> | > | take the tests, the cost should be minimal.
> | >
> | > Sorry Mark, but as usual, your replies are long, but have no validity.
> |
> | OK. If you insist, I guess I can relegate the Gutmann's conclusions to
> the
> | status of 'well-researched conclusions deemed invalid by WD.'
>
> ".. a Ministry of Defence report, entitled Combat Effectiveness Gender
> Study, has found fewer than 2% of female soldiers are as fit as the average
> male soldier..."
>
> I think the above study is far more pertinent to the UK armed services -
> especially as it has been undertaken by the Ministry of Defence and not some
> author with a 'politically correct' axe to grind.
The problem is you are trying to apply new standards to people who have
never previously been required to achieve those standards. The normal
male combat soldier (artillery, armour, infantry etc) is likely to be
fitter than most female soldiers because they have to be. To hold the
fact that females have never been required to attain and maintain the
combat soldier level of fitness shouldn't be held against them.
What is more relevant is whether (and how many) properly motivated
female soldiers COULD attain and maintain those standards (currently
fewer than 2% apparently are so motivated). This has NOT been tested (or
not adequately).
Philip Lewis
You wrote on Tue, 02 Apr 2002 17:01:18 +1200:
KO> Philip Lewis wrote:
>> "Mark Borgerson" <mborg...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>> news:3CA7F28B...@attbi.com...
>> |
>> |
>> | "WhiteDragon©" wrote:
>> | >
>> snip>
>> | > Six weeks into the training, they fail the 1st of a series of
>> tests.
>> | >
>> | > |
>> | > | Why should you accept the cost of that test? For the same
>> reason | > | you accept that 80% of the candidates might drop out of
>> SAS testing--
>> | > | you want to find enough qualified people to fill the positions
>> | > | available.
>> | >
>> | > Why?
>> | > Because the Military does not pay for SAS.
>> | > And comparing the two is like comparing a tank to a car.
>> |
>> | Hmmm, I thought the SAS was funded by the same government that
>> funds | the British military and that they drew most of their
>> recruits from | the military. Maybe the dropout in SEAL training
>> would be more pertinent.
>> The SAS is an elite unit (and relatively tiny in size) but even there
>> it's dropout rates are not as high as those would be likely for women
>> candidates for regular combat units.!
KO> Yes but all personnel trying out for the unit (SAS) should have
KO> adequately prepared... it's not as if there is any excuse for not
KO> knowing what you're letting yourself in for (these days).
Of course - did I indicate otherwise?
KO> How would properly motivated females compare? My reading on 14 int
KO> coy suggests that, as a percentage of applicants, more females pass
KO> the selection and contnuation training for 14 int coy than do males.
The 14th Int is not part of the SAS - this is mistake often made by those
who have not done their homework.
KO> This would suggest that properly motivated females would do at least
KO> as well as males WRT drop out rates for regular combat units.
*LOL* Comparing apples with oranges is not good 'logic' Kerryn.
>> | >
>> | > Sometimes equality costs a bit more. But if the | > | standards
>> are uniform and well known to the people applying to | > | take the
>> tests, the cost should be minimal.
>> | >
>> | > Sorry Mark, but as usual, your replies are long, but have no
>> validity.
>> |
>> | OK. If you insist, I guess I can relegate the Gutmann's
>> conclusions to the | status of 'well-researched conclusions deemed
>> invalid by WD.'
>> ".. a Ministry of Defence report, entitled Combat Effectiveness
>> Gender
>> Study, has found fewer than 2% of female soldiers are as fit as the
>> average male soldier..."
>> I think the above study is far more pertinent to the UK armed
>> services -
>> especially as it has been undertaken by the Ministry of Defence and
>> not some author with a 'politically correct' axe to grind.
KO> The problem is you are trying to apply new standards to people who
KO> have never previously been required to achieve those standards. The
KO> normal male combat soldier (artillery, armour, infantry etc) is
KO> likely to be fitter than most female soldiers because they have to
KO> be.
Circular 'logic' alert!!
KO> To hold the fact that females have never been required to attain and
KO> maintain the combat soldier level of fitness shouldn't be held against
KO> them.
The fact that male recruits before entering (and PASSING the req. tests etc)
those services also "have never been required to attain and maintain the
combat soldier level of fitness " shouldn't be held against them either but
it IS - if they don't PASS they don't get in!
KO> What is more relevant is whether (and how many) properly motivated
KO> female soldiers COULD attain and maintain those standards (currently
KO> fewer than 2% apparently are so motivated). This has NOT been tested
KO> (or not adequately).
According to YOU - however the military has been trying all sorts of
schemes to get women "properly motivated" and it has not worked! The fact is
that there are some tasks where the sexes are not as interchangeable as the
feminist "socialisation is all" brigade would try and have us all believe.
Phil
The Adam & Eve story was about
the loss of "innocence" caused
by the emergence into sentience
of human beings.
Apples - food for thought!
(Len Firewood 2001)
Hot Frog
> news:Xns91E2965A2...@198.164.200.20...
> > "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > news:a87kul$ksq$1...@helle.btinternet.com:
> >
> > >
> > > GodEvolved <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Xns91E27C0C8...@198.164.200.20...
> > >
> > >> >> Many ministers and activists want women soldiers to be eligible
> > >> >> for frontline duty, with others believing the current ban breaches
> > >> >> the Human Rights Act.
> > >>
> > >> How can keeping *anyone* from frontline combat duty be a breach of
> > >> the
> > > HRA?
> > >
> > > Probably members of both sexes could claim they were being treated
> > > unfairly unless both are treated in exactly the same way.
> >
>
> You change the standards until all can perform.
Sounds like they are going back to the 18th century definition that "The
duty of a soldier is to die."
Hot Frog
phill...@hotmail.com writes:
> About as 'great' (and 'real') as 'GI Jane' -I'd say. ;-o)
You will recall that the character in that movie dropped out of SEAL
training because she admitted she could not make the grade. There was a
bunch of Boo Hoo about how mean everyone was to her, but at the end she
didn't want back in.
Sky King
pregnant it makes them worthless in combat. Women have a out, just
get pregnant. sky
Philip Lewis
"Mark Borgerson" <mborg...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3CA91DBB...@attbi.com...
Less likely and guys don't get pregnant btw.
Phil
|
| Mark Borgerson
Philip Lewis
"Hot Frog" <hot...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.17135c237...@news.earthlink.net...
*LOL* I never knew that!! I once got the video and only watched up to the
part where she walked into the control room of a ship and then proceeded to
demonstrate how "stupid" all the highly trained officers were - I switched
off after that as the suspension of belief had already been irreparably
breached!
Phil
Paul J. Adam
<dra...@hotmail.com> writes
>Let's look at what the goverment have done in the past 6 years
>for the army.
Well, they did finally fix the L85A1.
Other than that? Lots of "future programmes" but not much current help.
>
>Are we using MI6s? Or do we still have the wonderful SA80?
Actually, a late-model L85A1 is a pretty good weapon, and a L85A2 is
_very_ good. But it took too damn long to admit and fix the problems.
On the other hand, look at the US and the M16 and ask how long it took
them to be really happy with it (if indeed they really are now... some
folks still damn the M16). David Hackworth, who some seem to think is a
great guru on warfare, dismisses all 5.56mm rifles as "popguns" and
appears to believe that the US should still be using M14s (a rifle with
its own problems).
I liked the L1A1 for its reliability and for its perceived stopping
power (rightly or wrongly, it was a rifle that felt like anyone you hit
would fall down and not get back up)
I hated _early_ hard-used L85A1s as accurate but unreliable crap, but
late-production L85A1s were just as reliable as the elderly L1A1s I'd
been used to and they turned me from a competent shot to a marksman. The
L85A2 appears to be a very good rifle.
>It would be nice if Tony spent a bit of money keeping the men
>alive that keep him alive.
It would, but that's not in the spirit of government. Tommy Atkins gets
his budget cut year on year and smiles, salutes and carries on anyway.
Defence is not important, sexy or a vote-winning issue for UK politics
at the moment. So... nobody really cares. Smilin' Tony wants to be able
to send UK forces to the important hot-spot of the day, but balks at the
cost of that readiness. Lots of promises, all in the future, with
current spending under incredible pressure.
Of course I speak only for myself.
Lady Veteran
<jef...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>"WhiteDragonŠ" <serv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:uafp38h...@corp.supernews.com...>> news:3CA7E3E3...@attbi.com...
>> | "WhiteDragonŠ" wrote:
>> | > "Philip Lewis" <phill...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> | > news:a88h03$qf64d$1...@ID-59530.news.dfncis.de...>> | > | news:3CA7B8E6...@attbi.com...>> | > | | > news:3CA79A6F...@attbi.com...
>> | > | | > | Sky King wrote:
>> | > | | > | > In article <a87kul$ksq$1...@helle.btinternet.com>,
>> | > | | > | > black_...@hotmail.com says...
>> | > | | > | > > GodEvolved <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> | > | | > | > > news:Xns91E27C0C8...@198.164.200.20...
>OK, you've allowed testing and inclusion to combat units. Not to mention
>the problem with male versus
>female facilities, what do you do about the resultant human emotions called
>love and jealous which can
>lead to divisiveness rather than cohesion within a small unit.
Please rim your posts folks...
To answer that question you do the same thing the underground units
did in France....shoot those who have sex on duty...
One cannot prevent those emotions from happening, but they can be
controlled. That is what makes us different from animals...we can
reason....
That does not mean that reasoning will take place, place, especially
with those in charge, but the ability is there.
Bobbi
------------------------------------------------------
"Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won
a war by dying for his country. You won it by making
the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
General George S. Patton May 31, 1944
----------------------------------------------------
Official Phoney Veteran Buster
http://www.phonyveterans.com
-----------------------------------------
Wanna Punch an Idiot?
www.slugme.0catch.com
--------------------------------------
You don't love a woman because she is beautiful,
but she is beautiful because you love her.
-Anon.
----------------------------------------------
There is only one tactical principle which is not
subject to change. It is, "To use the means at hand
to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death, and
destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of
time."
- GEN George S Patton, Jr, AUS
----------------------------------------------------
GodEvolved
Well, then. It's not enough.
Ken
Let's face it, in REAL LIFE, she never would have gotten IN in the first
place!!!!!!!
Sky King
says...
anecdotal but one can forsee it would be a problem just like it would in
civilian life, even more because of the circumstances of the duty and
the location. sky
>
>
Sky King
arm...@bigfoot.com says...
Ummm a rim job. :) sky
>
> To answer that question you do the same thing the underground units
> did in France....shoot those who have sex on duty...
Feminist wouldn't stand for it. sky
>
> One cannot prevent those emotions from happening, but they can be
> controlled. That is what makes us different from animals...we can
> reason....
So women that get pregnant should be shot. sky
Sky King
@hotmail.com says...
They do not just quit. They serve their tour. Its mostly white women
that leave the military before their first tour is up. Men do not
get discharged for getting pregnant. sky
Ken
Phil - - - A few years ago Carol Ann SWORE it was a "DOCUMENTARY" that it
was based on a REAL STORY!
Right up till somebody released that the Navy has NEVER had a woman apply to
become a SEAL.
Mark Borgerson
Well, it's all I've got. Do you have anything better?
Let's face it, for some, a complete, statistically
valid, double-blind study verified by the National Acadamy of Sciences
would not be enough to convince some people that women belong in the
military. Wouldn't matter in any case, since the real numbers that
count show up in recruiting shortfalls and budget numbers. At some
point we all get to vote (in a representative fashion, at least). The
response time is a bit slow, though. I suppose that we will see
the answer to women in the military sometime in the next 25 years.
(and another answer 25 years after that, perhaps! )
Mark Borgerson
GodEvolved
Has there been such a study by the NAS? When you say belong, what do you
mean, exactly?
Kerryn Offord
Philip Lewis wrote:
>
> Hello, Kerryn!
> You wrote on Tue, 02 Apr 2002 17:01:18 +1200:
>
> KO> Philip Lewis wrote:
>
<SNIP>
> >> The SAS is an elite unit (and relatively tiny in size) but even there
> >> it's dropout rates are not as high as those would be likely for women
> >> candidates for regular combat units.!
>
> KO> Yes but all personnel trying out for the unit (SAS) should have
> KO> adequately prepared... it's not as if there is any excuse for not
> KO> knowing what you're letting yourself in for (these days).
>
> Of course - did I indicate otherwise?
>
> KO> How would properly motivated females compare? My reading on 14 int
> KO> coy suggests that, as a percentage of applicants, more females pass
> KO> the selection and contnuation training for 14 int coy than do males.
>
> The 14th Int is not part of the SAS - this is mistake often made by those
> who have not done their homework.
I have never suggested that 14 int coy was part of SAS (At one time SAS
was responsible for the selection and training of 14 int coy.....).
My point is that 14 int coy is the only SF unit females (in the UK) can
serve with, and that as a percentage of applicants, more females pass
selection and training than males.
>
> KO> This would suggest that properly motivated females would do at least
> KO> as well as males WRT drop out rates for regular combat units.
>
> *LOL* Comparing apples with oranges is not good 'logic' Kerryn.
My contention is that, as females applying for 14 int coy have high
motivation and thus have a good pass rate then it is probable that if
the motivation was there female pass rates in regular combat units would
be significantly better than SAS ~10% pass rate (as opposed to the
reports indication that only 2% of current personnel were capable of
passing the standard).
> >> | >
> >> | > Sometimes equality costs a bit more. But if the | > | standards
> >> are uniform and well known to the people applying to | > | take the
> >> tests, the cost should be minimal.
> >> | >
> >> | > Sorry Mark, but as usual, your replies are long, but have no
> >> validity.
> >> |
> >> | OK. If you insist, I guess I can relegate the Gutmann's
> >> conclusions to the | status of 'well-researched conclusions deemed
> >> invalid by WD.'
>
> >> ".. a Ministry of Defence report, entitled Combat Effectiveness
> >> Gender
> >> Study, has found fewer than 2% of female soldiers are as fit as the
> >> average male soldier..."
>
> >> I think the above study is far more pertinent to the UK armed
> >> services -
> >> especially as it has been undertaken by the Ministry of Defence and
> >> not some author with a 'politically correct' axe to grind.
>
> KO> The problem is you are trying to apply new standards to people who
> KO> have never previously been required to achieve those standards. The
> KO> normal male combat soldier (artillery, armour, infantry etc) is
> KO> likely to be fitter than most female soldiers because they have to
> KO> be.
>
> Circular 'logic' alert!!
How do you expect females in signals, medicine, transport etc to achieve
the same standards as men in combat infantry, artillery, and armour.
What would be interesting would be comparing the capabilities of males
and females in the same non combat unit, rather than females in non
combat with males from combat units.
> KO> To hold the fact that females have never been required to attain and
> KO> maintain the combat soldier level of fitness shouldn't be held against
> KO> them.
>
> The fact that male recruits before entering (and PASSING the req. tests etc)
> those services also "have never been required to attain and maintain the
> combat soldier level of fitness " shouldn't be held against them either but
> it IS - if they don't PASS they don't get in!
But the testing was not of new recruits. It compared the performance of
males in regular combat units with females from non combat units. The
fact is that the tests examined standards that the females had never
previously been required to pass, but which most of the males (because
they currently serve in units females cannot serve) are expected to have
achieved.
Note that males wanting to get into regular combat units have an
expectation that if they meet the standards, they at least can get in.
Females don't have the same expectation (no matter how good they are
they can't get in...).
>
> KO> What is more relevant is whether (and how many) properly motivated
> KO> female soldiers COULD attain and maintain those standards (currently
> KO> fewer than 2% apparently are so motivated). This has NOT been tested
> KO> (or not adequately).
>
> According to YOU - however the military has been trying all sorts of
> schemes to get women "properly motivated" and it has not worked! The fact is
> that there are some tasks where the sexes are not as interchangeable as the
> feminist "socialisation is all" brigade would try and have us all believe.
But the first step towards "properly motivated", as demonstrated buy
their ability to meet the standards for 14 int coy, is that they have an
expectation that IF they meet the standards they will be permitted to
serve in the combat units.
Quite frankly, if (for example) there was no expectation that meeting
the standard would result in selection for 14 int coy then the number of
females bothering to achieve that standard would be low (why bother??)
Roger Perkins
decades, and it doesn't cause any more problems than the guys do.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
"Sky King" <m...@home.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.171400dd8...@news3.news.adelphia.net...
Roger Perkins
to be decided. It's a done deal and has been for decades. Their entire
argument is OBE.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
"Mark Borgerson" <ma...@oes.to> wrote in message
news:3CAA5C64...@oes.to...
Mark Borgerson
1. Not that I know of.
2. By belong, I mean that they have access to any specialties
for which the are mentally and physically qualified. Also that
they are recruited the same as men---no quotas, different standards,
etc. I also feel that there are good points in favor of
universal service---somewhat like Israel, where everyone
would undergo at least some basic training and spend 6 months to a year
on active duty. I'm afraid that accepting that many more
people for training would swamp our recruit training system though.
(and there are other arguments against it also).
Mark Borgerson
Peter Skelton
<roge...@attbi.com> wrote:
>Perhaps but the reality is that women are in the service, have been for
>decades, and it doesn't cause any more problems than the guys do.
Roger, Sky claims it would be a problem "just like it would in
civilian life." I think he's probably right. Civilian life has
adjusted. The potential for jealousy is something leaders have to
deal with.
In 1999 (I think, don't hold me to the date) the CF did a survey
among submariners, trainees and recent ex-submariners of barriers
to women in subs. One of the top ones was spousal jealousy,
expressed as something that needed to be addressed. (One
suggestion was to take them (wives) for a ride in an O-boat.)
Peter Skelton
<s>
>> > >
>> >
>> > Well I have heard it from a lot of men and women in the service. It may
>be
>> anecdotal but one can forsee it would be a problem just like it would in
>> civilian life, even more because of the circumstances of the duty and
>> the location. sky
>> >
>> >
>
>
____
Peter Skelton
Philip Lewis
"Ken" <k...@atlantic.net> wrote in message
news:Qtqq8.136$Bo1.2...@news1.atlantic.net...
*LOL*It makes one wonder how she can WALK - she has shot herself in the foot
so many times!
Phil
|
|
|
|
Philip Lewis
"Kerryn Offord" <ka...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:3CAA65B8...@student.canterbury.ac.nz...
|
|
| Philip Lewis wrote:
| >
| > Hello, Kerryn!
| > You wrote on Tue, 02 Apr 2002 17:01:18 +1200:
| >
| > KO> Philip Lewis wrote:
| >
| <SNIP>
| > >> The SAS is an elite unit (and relatively tiny in size) but even
there
| > >> it's dropout rates are not as high as those would be likely for
women
| > >> candidates for regular combat units.!
| >
| > KO> Yes but all personnel trying out for the unit (SAS) should have
| > KO> adequately prepared... it's not as if there is any excuse for not
| > KO> knowing what you're letting yourself in for (these days).
| >
| > Of course - did I indicate otherwise?
| >
| > KO> How would properly motivated females compare? My reading on 14 int
| > KO> coy suggests that, as a percentage of applicants, more females pass
| > KO> the selection and contnuation training for 14 int coy than do
males.
| >
| > The 14th Int is not part of the SAS - this is mistake often made by
those
| > who have not done their homework.
|
| I have never suggested that 14 int coy was part of SAS (At one time SAS
| was responsible for the selection and training of 14 int coy.....).
Yes they were - but they SAS standards were not used to judge them by.
|
| My point is that 14 int coy is the only SF unit females (in the UK) can
| serve with, and that as a percentage of applicants, more females pass
| selection and training than males.
14th int is an intelligence gathering unit - not a combat unit.
|
|
| >
| > KO> This would suggest that properly motivated females would do at least
| > KO> as well as males WRT drop out rates for regular combat units.
| >
| > *LOL* Comparing apples with oranges is not good 'logic' Kerryn.
|
| My contention is that, as females applying for 14 int coy have high
| motivation and thus have a good pass rate then it is probable that if
| the motivation was there female pass rates in regular combat units would
| be significantly better than SAS ~10% pass rate (as opposed to the
| reports indication that only 2% of current personnel were capable of
| passing the standard).
Your contention is invalid because you are trying to exterpolate results
from a non combat unit to the standards required for combat units.
I don't - just as the army doesn't expect men in signals,medicine,transport
to achieve the same standards as men in combat infantry,artillery and
armour. Those applying for those combat units don't (and shouldn't) get into
them unless THEY pass the required standards.
|
|
| What would be interesting would be comparing the capabilities of males
| and females in the same non combat unit, rather than females in non
| combat with males from combat units.
"But a Ministry of Defence report, entitled Combat Effectiveness Gender
Study, has found fewer than 2% of female soldiers are as fit as the average
male soldier, the newspaper says.
The study also suggests women are up to eight times more likely to be
injured."
i.e. it is not just in combat units that men have the fitness advantage.
Phil
Ken
I really want to get that CHICKEN DELIGHT franchise for the troops in
Afghanistan. I am also applying for the Otis Elevator contract for the
mountains. And I just received the "LITTLE THINGIE" contract for the Air
Force for all the LADY Jet pilots!
Ken
"Mark Borgerson" <ma...@oes.to> wrote in message
news:3CAA5C64...@oes.to...
> Let's face it, for some, a complete, statistically
> valid, double-blind study verified by the National Acadamy of Sciences
> would not be enough to convince some people that women belong in the
> military. Wouldn't matter in any case, since the real numbers that
> count show up in recruiting shortfalls and budget numbers. At some
> point we all get to vote (in a representative fashion, at least). The
> response time is a bit slow, though. I suppose that we will see
> the answer to women in the military sometime in the next 25 years.
> (and another answer 25 years after that, perhaps! )
The answer to "women in the military" has been obvious forever. There
are many things women can do quite well in the military. There are a few
things they shouldn't do. Combat. It isn't rocket science Mark. Simple
acknowledgement of the reality of the demands of combat and the physical
reality of the two genders. Politics and delusional feminists cloud the
issue.
Ken
"Roger Perkins" <roge...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:c3uq8.208552$q2.18055@sccrnsc01...
> Perhaps but the reality is that women are in the service, have been for
> decades, and it doesn't cause any more problems than the guys do.
Depends on what you want the women to do Roger.
Ken
> Remember, Mark, that the nay sayers are discussing this as if it's
something
> to be decided. It's a done deal and has been for decades. Their entire
> argument is OBE.
Roger ramjet - the issue is women in combat. The issue of women in the
military was settled right after WW-2. We can ignore the physical demands of
combat at our peril.
Ken
> > | Well, heck, guys in the army may get married to a civilian who thinks
their
> > | job is too dangerous and convinces them to quit.
(( Maybe with the new FEMINIZED military you can just walk into the
Captain's office and QUIT, but when *I* was in you'd get BRIG time for
trying anything so stupid!))
> They do not just quit. They serve their tour. Its mostly white women
> that leave the military before their first tour is up. Men do not
> get discharged for getting pregnant. sky
Well a guy can always start peeing the bed and crying for his mommy and
get out. Of course I am disappointed that Mark hasn't seen where pregnancy
is INCOMPATIBLE with COMBAT!
Sky King
says...
>
> "Sky King" <m...@home.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.171403155...@news3.news.adelphia.net...
>
>
> > > | Well, heck, guys in the army may get married to a civilian who thinks
> their
> > > | job is too dangerous and convinces them to quit.
>
> (( Maybe with the new FEMINIZED military you can just walk into the
> Captain's office and QUIT, but when *I* was in you'd get BRIG time for
> trying anything so stupid!))
Women can men cannot. sky
>
> > They do not just quit. They serve their tour. Its mostly white women
> > that leave the military before their first tour is up. Men do not
> > get discharged for getting pregnant. sky
>
> Well a guy can always start peeing the bed and crying for his mommy and
> get out. Of course I am disappointed that Mark hasn't seen where pregnancy
> is INCOMPATIBLE with COMBAT!
>
>
>
>
A man that starts crying etc. would not just get out without some
consequences.
Sky King
> On Wed, 03 Apr 2002 02:47:36 GMT, "Roger Perkins"
> <roge...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >Perhaps but the reality is that women are in the service, have been for
> >decades, and it doesn't cause any more problems than the guys do.
Not in direct offensive combat units. sky
>
> Roger, Sky claims it would be a problem "just like it would in
> civilian life." I think he's probably right. Civilian life has
> adjusted. The potential for jealousy is something leaders have to
> deal with.
>
> In 1999 (I think, don't hold me to the date) the CF did a survey
> among submariners, trainees and recent ex-submariners of barriers
> to women in subs. One of the top ones was spousal jealousy,
> expressed as something that needed to be addressed. (One
> suggestion was to take them (wives) for a ride in an O-boat.)
>
> Peter Skelton
>
> <s>
> >
I don't think a ride on the boat would alleviate the fears the wives
have. How you been Peter? sky
Sky King
says...
folks to think they could in combat? In civilian life the even have a
special law to protect them, its called the VAWA. We do not have a
VAMA. sky
>
>
Peter Skelton
>In article <3caa88c0.45371460@news>, skel...@cogeco.ca says...
>> On Wed, 03 Apr 2002 02:47:36 GMT, "Roger Perkins"
>> <roge...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Perhaps but the reality is that women are in the service, have been for
>> >decades, and it doesn't cause any more problems than the guys do.
>
>Not in direct offensive combat units. sky
>>
>> Roger, Sky claims it would be a problem "just like it would in
>> civilian life." I think he's probably right. Civilian life has
>> adjusted. The potential for jealousy is something leaders have to
>> deal with.
>>
>> In 1999 (I think, don't hold me to the date) the CF did a survey
>> among submariners, trainees and recent ex-submariners of barriers
>> to women in subs. One of the top ones was spousal jealousy,
>> expressed as something that needed to be addressed. (One
>> suggestion was to take them (wives) for a ride in an O-boat.)
>>
>> Peter Skelton
>>
>> <s>
>> >
>
>I don't think a ride on the boat would alleviate the fears the wives
>have. How you been Peter? sky
The expressed fear was of extra-curricular sex. There aren't many
private places in an O-boat. The wives had a slightly distorted
idea because of the water-skiiing and cigar incidents.
Pretty much over the Fall's tireds - I'll be all the way back by
the end of the year so they say, but the smart money's on June.
Working full time now.
____
Peter Skelton