Females in combat zones/jobs. Good Idea? Bad idea?

[lazs2]

Of course corporate America carries deadwood..  and lot's of it.. it is called affirmative action and the group who has scammed it the most is women.

If standards make sense then lowering them makes no sense.  It only hurts everyone but a few.

lazs

[john9001]

Originally posted by Tigeress
There are retards who are passed along and get a degree that isn't worth the paper its written ... it soooo happens.
 

I see you have met my niece's son.

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by BlueJ1
Im active duty Navy. From what Ive seen females in the Navy are nothing but trouble. Yes theres a good deal of them who work alot harder then their male counterparts. But for the most part all the females I have worked with use their gender to either not do work or to escape their responsibilities. Theres a few in my shop currently who do not go out on the flight line at night because they complain it is to cold. Theres also a large problem with Navy females becoming pregnant right before their shore duty is up and they are supposed to be moved to sea duty. Some females in my squadron (shore duty) have served around 8 years and have never left stateside because they purposely get pregnant. Its not uncommon to see these females with 4 or 5 children. This also means they receive a great deal of money from the government to do nothing. Ive never served in a combat yet so I cannot comment on that aspect. From a shore duty perspective stateside Id be afraid to see the problems there.

Hi BlueJ,

Thank you for your service.

I would not dream of defending anyone, male of female, who milk the system and don't do the job they were hired to do and don't pull their weight like their workmates do.

I learned not to judge an entire gender based on the behavior of the deadwood such as the particular women you are speaking of.

Those people who are not there to do the job and serve their country need to be weeded out and will no doubt be weeded out.

Judging 3 billion people on the behavior of some has a lot of downside to it, regardless of whether that 3 billion people are male 3 billion or female 3 billion.

In view of recent behavior, I resist making a blanket judgment of all on the action of a few or one. I know better than that.

Throwing out all women from the military would be throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Yes, you would get rid of the female deadwood along with seriously dedicated and extremely talented people who are doing their utmost for their country.

Every time one gender points a finger at the other gender and dismisses them as an entire group of people, damage is done to both genders.

The military will no doubt find and close loopholes some women are using to milk the system. The sooner bad sailors are gone, the better.

Might I suggest putting on gender filter goggles and try an experiment? Instead of seeing a female sailor or male sailor try seeing a sailor without a detectable gender, then judge that sailor as a sailor. There will always be deadwood that need to be removed or "motivated"... male and female.

TIGERESS

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by lazs2
Of course corporate America carries deadwood..  and lot's of it.. it is called affirmative action and the group who has scammed it the most is women.

If standards make sense then lowering them makes no sense.  It only hurts everyone but a few.

lazs

Trust me when I tell you that the mission of a corporation is to make money and as much money as they can and to deny money to their competitors.

There are lots of similarities there when compared with different government's militaries relative to each other. The corporate wars are what they are...

Yes, the so-called nanny laws you talk about causes some problems for corporations but anyone can get fired regardless of PC. I know minority individuals who are total deadwood and those who are very serious assets; both of which belonging to the same minority group.

Corporate America keeps getting smarter by the day, Lazs.

They now know and "get it" that corporate hiring bias against a race or a gender or a ”this or a that” throws the baby out with the bath water.

Corps figured it out and they can quantify the cost of hiring bias in millions of dollars of lost revenue.

It's a costly business decision to use biased hiring practices. The talent within a minority will just get hired by their competitors otherwise and any deadwood hired can be fired and replaced with new workers.

The idea is to make money... billions and billions and billions... by what ever legal means possible.

They need talented people to do that and to deny that talent to their competitors.

They would hire a 4 headed zombie if that zombie gave them an edge on the goal of making money and denying money from their competitors.

Ever taken a look at the CORP WAR going on between Intel and AMD for the microprocessor market? Books will be written about it.

They are fighting a no holds barred (within legal limits) WAR to the Corporate Death.

Winner takes all.

TIGERESS

[Jackal1]

The U.S. military has much bigger problems at the moment than deadwood trimming.
Cooperate America is in a strangle hold genderwise in terms of legal action. PCness in general.
Putting blinders on concerning the differences in gender as far as combat situations is just that. It shields reality. Reality in combat situations means life or death...........for many of both genders.
Females in the military do some awesome work. We have one right here in our BBS community that I know of. I expect there are quite a few.
 They just don`t belong in combat situations unless all other avenues are exhausted. We are far from that and  I hope we never reach that point.

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by lazs2
tigress.. you can't really drop the term "equal" if you want everyone to "be all they can be" because...  If you lower standards so that some can "be all they can be"  they really aren't being all they can be.. it is an artificial construct..

more artificial than your "social constructs"  if you leave out strength and temperment (not all men are suited to all jobs) then you leave out any fairness.

By your reasoning.. why not lower the standards for engineers to let the retarded in?

lazs

Actually, Lazs, I am looking for insight... I am not trying to start anything.

Is it possible that "equal" in the minds of one gender is not the same definition as the definition of "equal" is to the other gender?

For instance...
............................. ............................. .................
"You drive like a girl."

What guy hasn't heard that at some point?

Female race driver wins Indy 500 and sets new Indy 500 speed record; thus by so doing, diminishes and demotes all male drivers worldwide as driving worse than a girl.

This can not be allowed to stand... males loose superiority-based male pride when females win.
 
No… that can't be allowed to stand... ok, then... She isn't really feminine…  instead she is, by virtue of winning the Indy 500, a person who has lost her femininity thus, by so declaring,  men are protected from driving worse than a girl.
............................. .........................

Based on behaviors I have seen all my life, there are indications a competitive balance scale exists in the minds of men with women on one side and men on the other side.

If the balance scale tips in a direction, one side wins at the expense of the other side.

In my view, and most other women I know, I don't think like that.

I look to men as partners, not competitors.

"Equal" to me means fairness... equitable-ness.

What does "equal" mean to men?

Does someone? Anyone? Have an answer?

Please please don’t flame me, anyone,  for this post and for asking

TIGERESS

[Tac]

As a guy, when I think of 'equal' when it comes to this subject what comes to mind is that women receive no special treatment, bonuses or penalties due to their gender.

The problem however, is that every single woman I have met, studied and worked with that push for 'equality' do not expect to give up the privileges they have as females. In fact they get pissed off if you even mention that being 'equal' to men but receiving extra stuff for being female is not being 'equal'.


If a woman wants to be a combat troop I expect 'equal' to mean she has to carry the same weight, run the same distance and have the same treatment as a male. Yes, the expectations are based on MALE performance and its for a reason: men perform better in combat. Its a biological difference and there is no amount of political correctness or whiny activism that will change that. Lowering the standards for combat troops just so women can feel accepted into combat forces only lowers the overall strength of the army itself.

In the modern workplace I see women relying on benefits that our social values grant them to gain an advantage..be it in performance of the job or in securing a better chance to get a raise or be promoted.

...I remember one job I was in, one of our head managers had noticed that a co-worker of mine wasn't courteous to the female staff and because of that she had a negative impression of the man and passed him over for promotion. What was it she noticed? that the guy did not open the door for the ladies, that he did not seem 'polite' and avoided small talk conversation with them, etc. The guy was not rude or anything to the ladies he treated them exactly as he treated me.. yet this social expectation of giving extra to women sunk his chance to be promoted.

...Or the job interviews that result in the hotly dressed blonde getting the position over the avg joe that applied with better resume.

... being a 'minority' with privileges when they make up 50% of the population (huh?).

... 'maternity' parking. Its not a disability, its a privilege.



Silly little stuff but it adds up to a lot.

Try to ask any of your women friends if they would give up all these little things in the name of being 'equal'. I'd bet without thinking most would say 'no' or smirk or give you some body language that the very concept was laughable.

[Tigeress]

Hi Tac,

Thank you for your thoughtout reply.

It is ironic isn't it? 50%-55% of the world population being considered a class in need of protection from discrimination.

We are not a minority in numbers; if anything, males are in a slight minority.

This is a man's world, nevertheless.

Much of what we have gained in the US in the last 87 or so years has happened by the grace of enough men with compassion and sense of right and wrong to overrule the others.

But we had to have enough backbone to hang in there and persist in asking for, and constantly reason for, the gains; using the eye of the public media, lobbying congress, and pleading our case at home with our husbands, in our cities and towns, in state capitols, in Washington DC, and  Internationally.

Women were criticized, beaten, arrested, and some sent to prison in an effort to shut them up... even wives of men in high rank in government.

It was a national and international disgrace and reflected very poorly on a so-called democracy and the men who created it and ran it.

The denial of something as fundamental as voting to 50% of the population, among denial of other basic human rights men granted each other in the US Constitution and State and Federal Laws was and is hard to justify in the light of day. It was not right.

We aren't that hard to dominate, Tac, as this thread has recently evidenced.

Words often are more painful than physical blows.
Emotional pain lingers in the heart... sometimes, for a lifetime.

We can inflict that kind of pain as well... men also feel that kind of pain.

TIGERESS

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Tigeress
Words often are more painful than physical blows.
Emotional pain lingers in the heart...

TIGERESS

Which is a very good reason for women to be excluded from combat Tigeress. Our society values toughness in men, we want our women to be more tender.

[lazs2]

well said akiron.. not only that but our children need tender moms and tough dads.    Males raised by only females have a much harder time fitting in.   most gang members were raised by women.

Young men need the mentoring of men.. why do you suppose that is so if everyone is "equal"

and... a generalization like...  "you drive like a girl" is fine.. it matters not if once in a coons age a woman driver is almost as good as the men in her field.. it would be the same if an oriental became a famous driver.. the rest of em still suck.

lazs

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by AKIron
Which is a very good reason for women to be excluded from combat Tigeress. Our society values toughness in men, we want our women to be more tender.

Hi Dear,

There are enough of us around who are that tender... and some who are made of sterner stuff.

I, personally, could never have the heart to leave my children and husband and put my life at risk for personal reasons.

But there are women who want to and who do... it is their basic human right to choose and not have the right to make that decision taken from them.

TIGERESS

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Tigeress
Hi Dear,

There are enough of us around who are that tender... and some who are made of sterner stuff.

I, personally, could never have the heart to leave my children and husband and put my life at risk for personal reasons.

But there are women who want to and who do... it is their right to choose and not have the right to make that decision taken from them.

TIGERESS

I would agree that they should be allowed but only if they can meet the exact same physical requirements set for males. Anything less is stupid for several reasons which have already been stated.

Having spent 20 years in the Air Force I can say that there really aren't many problems caused by integrating the men and women in most Air Force jobs. I have heard BlueJ1's complaint from several Navy guys though with the most common being that women are tying up the preferred shore duty slots which causes more than a little resentment.

[lazs2]

ak.. whould that mean to you that they be in the same barracks and the same showers?  that really is the only way to make it equal.   If we are supposed to ignore the sexual part.. then why not completely?

Heinlein wrestled with this... he liked the concept of men and women being equal and tried to make it work in his stories but...  the starship troopers scene with everyone showering together was just plain silly when shown in something other than a printed page concept.   Lots of other examples of Heinlein trying to make men and women equal and failing misserably... he just couldn't accept that we are not equal in all things and it diminished his work.

I don't think that you are saying even that seeing a woman wounded or captured would have the same effect on you as a soldier or citizen as a man tho.. and... it shouldn't.. not if we think women should bear and raise children.. not if we think it is an inherrant trait of women to do so.

lazs

[AKIron]

Well, we are talking about combat jobs. There are a lot of support jobs in the military that do not require a rigorous physical and endurance standard. I think that the few women who could meet combat troop standards would probably have little trouble integrating. And yes, that means no provisions or exceptions. If the women don't want to share a shower or toilet with men then why not create combat units filled exclusively with women?

[Tac]

I merely answered the question of what 'equal' means to a guy Tigeress, its got nothing to do with domination or anything


I do not believe its still a 'mans world' out there today. If anything, society in the US is a lot more integrated gender-wise than a mere 30+ years ago. Not because some men stood up for women but because women rose to the challenge and succeeded. It is pointless to give women equal rights if they do not walk up to the voting booth or step into the universities to enter the workforce. If you look at Japan for example, their society is almost like the US society was in the 60's and 70's.. women go to college but most graduate in 'home economics' ... very few enter the actual workforce. They're rising to the challenge albeit at a slower pace.

In our society women are entitled to receive special/better treatment than a man would..its just how we are and I do not believe any guy would complain about having to open a door for a lady or that sort of thing. But as any kind of 'privilege', in time it becomes assumed it is a 'right' and ceases to have meaning when it becomes abused.

Extreme examples like these women activists demanding 'equal' opportunity to be a combat troop without considering the consequences this has on the armed forces illustrates how 'privilege' became 'right' and eventually becomes abusive.