Send your daughter to war

[davsel]

Just thought this statement was a bit naive. Kind of came across to me as "not allowed-didn't exist" in the context put forth.

Captain Obvious? Not really. Go back and re-read your post. You might see how it could be mis-construed.

Sent via Mobile

Perhaps if you read past the "-" in my original post, you would have better understood the "meaning" I was attempting to convey.
I'll try to spell it out more obviously in the future.


ETA obligatory emoji:

[crays]

Uh,no. You were still putting it in the context of the military not accepting it, with the implication that it was not an issue.(i.e.: it didn't exist, but it does now due to lax leadership).

Great. Glad your head is not in the sand.

Sent via Mobile

[davsel]

Uh,no. You were still putting it in the context of the military not accepting it, with the implication that it was not an issue.(i.e.: it didn't exist, but it does now due to lax leadership).

Great. Glad your head is not in the sand.

Sent via Mobile

My point being that it was not accepted in the military at the time. Therefore, if gays were "outed," they were removed from service. We were not forced into accepting them into our Units. They were considered incompatible with military service. If they kept a low enough profile, they remained.

Today, our military is forced into accepting damn near everyone, regardless of their compatibility with military service, and any military member who questions this is the one being removed.

It's a bunch of PC, social diversity, feminist nonsense that gets people killed.

[crays]

Well stated. I fully understand and agree with your statement.

Sent via Mobile

[cstone]

Armies are as political as any other group endeavor.

My point is that as an individual member in a unit, you had no say about who else served in your unit. Your commanders and ultimately our political leaders establish the rules for who may and who may not serve in the military.

I am reminded of all the debate and struggle over the issue of how, and under what circumstances slaves could be enlisted into the state militias and the national army during the Revolutionary War. Some states raised units of freed blacks, while other states paid owners to allow their slaves to serve. Just the system of quotas used to promote general officers in the colonies was totally based on politics and had nothing to do with the merit of the individual. Ask Benedict Arnold how he felt about the politics of his day.

[crays]

But, devil's advocate, were gays that were better soldiers booted while crappy straight soldiers coasted through?

Not trying to continue a debate, just a thought.

Sent via Mobile

[Fmedges]

Men and other men aren't the same.

See: Gersh Kunzman

Objective standards (if they exist or can be established) should determine which jobs should be available to people who are able to meet those standards.

If accurate shooting was the only criteria for infantry service, there are plenty of women that would outpace plenty of men. Clearly there are other areas, both physically and mentally that go into making a warrior.

Of those who have served, how much say did you have on who served in your unit with you? Leadership is about building a team with what you are given to work with and then accomplishing a mission with that team.

Just my $.02

We had 5 or 6 women at any given time. One of those women was really good and was quite an asset. The other 4-5 were either injured or pregnant or a combination of both at any given time. My engineer platoon had about 3-4 people injured or sick on any given day and consistently 75% of that group was the few women that we did have. I'm all for women being included in these units if the numbers worked out, but to be honest they don't and they haven't in the past. My wife is an excellent example. Max PT tests, excellent at her job, great leader, expert shooter, combat valor awards and way better at every aspect of the military than I was and yet couldn't ruck march at all. It was just physically impossible for her to carry that much weight for a prolonged amount of time.

[davsel]

US Marines To Accept Chubbier Women

In an effort to maintain the new status quo of cutting standards everywhere in the name of equality and "progress", the Marine Corps announced major changes over the Fourth of July holiday weekend regarding how much it will allow service members to weigh, and the biggest shift comes for women: going forward "larger" ladies will be allowed to defend the country while also standards used within the physical fitness test will also be relaxed.

[TheGrey]

I pray that standards aren't lowered for combat positions to be filled by women that couldn't otherwise do the job.

Then again, there are a ton of support positions that women could (and do) easily fill: for every soldier in the field, how much support does he need? Who packs supplies on pallets, fills the shipping orders, loads the planes, etc.

[Skip]

US Marines To Accept Chubbier Women

A buddy sent me this yesterday. I had to take a moment to think about it. This is what got me thinking...

A 5-foot-9 woman was allowed to be up to 169 pounds, but can now be 176

That is "overweight" by civilian BMI standards. How long would that hypothetical recruit be in a receiving platoon/on diet? That's not just bad for the Marines, it's bad for that recruit.

And are we really hurting that bad for recruits that can meet standards? How many have been cut in last seven years that could meet standards, some having combat experience. SNCOs have been hit hard by reductions.

I think it's going past political correctness at this point. Someone wants the USMC to fail.