Career Limitations for Women?

Hmm...missed that salient point!

Could be that was the "uniqueness" of it!

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
WHAT????

We have women in the military????????

What's the country coming to???

Patriotic_soldier.jpg


In all seriousness. IF the standards for a particular job/career/mission/etc... is established; then there should be no limitations based on gender. An individual either can meet the standards or they cant. Our government needs to stop politicizing gender, race, sexual orientation, etc... Matter of fact, they need to totally abolish Political Correctness. The only limitation should be on the INDIVIDUAL, not the GROUP they happen to fall into by birth.
 
More Minority Issues

To TPG:
Thank you for giving your daughter the best type of support!!!

IF the standards for a particular job/career/mission/etc... is established; then there should be no limitations based on gender. An individual either can meet the standards or they cant. Our government needs to stop politicizing gender, race, sexual orientation, etc... Matter of fact, they need to totally abolish Political Correctness. The only limitation should be on the INDIVIDUAL, not the GROUP they happen to fall into by birth.
Click to expand...
To Christcorp:
I agree in general principle with what you say, but please indulge me while I expand the issue.

Here is another radical idea to pursue--what if those "standards" are all created by one homogeneous group, trained to fight war in the way that they themselves were trained? What if, by limiting people to those who pass one set of standards, we miss out on new ideas and methods for fighting the "next war," always focusing on what happened in the "last war?"

What is more valuable, upper body strength, or the ability to diffuse a volatile situation in a different culture? What is more admirable, the determination to send as many people in as required to rescue a fallen soldier, or the cultural knowledge to tell at a glance, inside a target home, whether or not important men are inside? What is more important, the hand-eye coordination to pilot a jet under intense g-forces, or the hand-eye coordination to pilot a drone when you cannot receive any "seat of the pants" inputs?

My thesis is that all of these qualities are important, more so in some circumstances than in others. The most effective military is one that can draw from the skills of a diverse, creative talent pool, and that has leadership flexible and capable enough to choose the right skills to apply in the right situation.
 
Anne, this is an argument that CC likes to keep bringing up (and often distracts from the actual thread) and your argument among others gets said, people vehemently argue around each other, then the thread gets locked.

For all our sakes and this thread, can we avoid this path for once? Thank you.
 
I have to say follow Hornet's advice. Going down that rabbit hole is one that never ends with anything less than a thread locked, and sometimes people getting banned. People are very set in their personal views and nothing will change them, kind of like the process of repealing DADT. It just always ends the same way.:argue1::bang::lock::ban:

Back on topic.

For the AF I think women entering now are very fortunate because they have had pioneers already in front of them for decades creating a path for them to follow.

We have women in fighters in combat missions, we have had squadron CCs that are women, Wing Queens instead of Kings. We have flag officers that are women. Basically, except for a few areas if you want it you can get it.

Jeannie Flynn is someone I admire to the Nth degree, and as a woman she is someone that paved the path for other women. It was not easy for her, but without her, I am sure it would have been questionable if Fifi could have broken the next barrier in being the 1st female Thunderbird.

OBTW, Jeannie did get it all, she is married to a 16 driver, has 2 kids, and a career. So in case the next question is what about family life? She is proof. I was also a Realtor and I can tell you that in the past decade many of my clients were female military members, where their DH gave up his career in the military to follow her around and be the stay at home Dad. When I say many, I mean I can count on both my hands and feet. It is becoming the new trend....whose career is the one to become the number 1 in the family, instead of he wins. In other words they decide who has a better chance of being promoted...notice I said many stay at home Dads.

The only people I think of that probably had issues with that question is Jeannie and the Hestermen's. He and his wife were both fast trackers. John at 34 was already promoted 2x at the 2 BPZ to LTC. He was so young that he had to sit in Col grade for yrs because of the regs to be promoted to Flag. His wife Jenni was also promoted fast too, she retired as an O6 with @ 20/21 yrs in as a Vice Wing Commander. Remember you have to stay in grade for yrs to retire at that rank, and if you are BPZ you are the last to pin on. In other words, she probably got picked up for O6 at the 16/17 yr marker.

OBTW, also check out Phyllis Gould, she is married to the AFA Supe. Lt. Gen. Gould. She also had a fabulous career in the AF, but opted to take a unique route.
 
Last edited:
Just to be clear, civil discussion of different viewpoints and/or polite disagreements won't get this thread locked or individuals banned -- even if the subjects have been hashed out before. What isn't allowed is turning divergent viewpoints into personal attacks against other posters, using foul language, insulting members of the military or government, etc.

That has NOT happened in this thread. Let's keep it that way!
 
I let it cool down for a couple days. There is no argument here Hornet. I'm not sure what you're implying. I don't disagree with anyone on this topic.

My point is quite simple. There should not be any limitations on careers based on broad attributes. Especially attributes that an individual has no control over, such a gender, race, skin color, etc... The only limitations that should be imposed, should only be on the individual. Whether the individual can do the job or not.

Ann. I appreciate your opinion on the negatives of standards being created by a particular group. The problem is: Someone has to set standards. If you're going to be an electronic engineer, you CAN'T be color blind. Sorry. That's a fact. Thus, it's part of the standard. I would assume that pilots need to have pretty good vision too while we're at it. I agree that some groups, when in charge, can set some antiquated standards that really are meaningless. That indeed is an issue that needs to be addressed. My only comment was; assuming the standards that were set, were legitimate and meaningful for the task/career/job/mission/etc... at hand, it shouldn't preclude an individual from attempting to meet those standards based on genders, race, color, sexual orientation, etc... Simply put: You meet the standards, you're qualified. You don't meet them, you're not qualified. There were some jobs that I was simply not qualified for. Not because I'm a guy; but because I didn't meet the necessary standards.

I am glad to say that today, women have a lot more opportunities in the military than when I came in, in 1978. Some of that may have been social change, some military need. Either way; it's a good thing. Hopefully some day we won't need to have politics involved, and an individual will only be limited in their goals, based on their own individual limitations.
 
USMMA...first ruled out because it didn't seem "military" enough for me. Plus, they didn't have any majors that I was interested in I didn't even finish the application. Although kp2001 on here is a flight surgeon, so medical school is a possibility.

USMA....next one that I ruled out. USMA has a lot of tradition and history behind it, as well as being the most recognizable SA. But having the possibility of rucking it in the Infantry? I'll pass.

So that left USNA, USAFA, and USCGA. I would have gladly gone to any of these three, especially because I hope to become a pilot. All of them had the major that I wanted too. But something stuck out about the Coast Guard and USCGA...smaller Service, the people are given opportunities to lead earlier. And you get to perform your job daily, not just train for it.
 
eheart said:
the people are given opportunities to lead earlier. And you get to perform your job daily, not just train for it.
Click to expand...

It's pretty hard to start leading much earlier than as a 2LT platoon leader. I guess I must have imagined that?

There are an awful lot of us who have performed our "job" enough times hostile places to last a lifetime.
 
scoutpilot said:
It's pretty hard to start leading much earlier than as a 2LT platoon leader. I guess I must have imagined that?

There are an awful lot of us who have performed our "job" enough times hostile places to last a lifetime.
Click to expand...

I preface this with "I am not in the Army", but none of my Army friends have talked about anyone earlier than 1LT leading a platoon. How are they getting though BOLC I and BOLCII and leading a platoon? Is that common?
 
LineInTheSand said:
I preface this with "I am not in the Army", but none of my Army friends have talked about anyone earlier than 1LT leading a platoon. How are they getting though BOLC I and BOLCII and leading a platoon? Is that common?
Click to expand...
The first job that most Army officers have is that of a platoon leader and they start that as soon as they get to their first unit. BOLC B
(which is virtually the same thing that long ago we called OBC ) which is the course they go to post commissioning is about 4-1/2 months long. If they are Infantry or combat Arms officers they may go to Ranger School for another 61 days prior to going to their unit- but end result they still are going to be 2d Lieutenants for a while in their first assignment- which for virtually all branches will be as a platoon leader.
 
I had a leadership opportunity right after Intel school (6 mos out of USNA). I was responsible for 9 enlisted. I won't pretend that I was in combat or that I was responsible for 30 enlisted. But everyone was older than I and had more time in the USN than I. It was a challenge for me.

Bottom line is that each service had opportunities for immediate leadership in some fields and eventual leadership in others. No one service has a monopoly on leadership as a JO.
 
bruno said:
The first job that most Army officers have is that of a platoon leader and they start that as soon as they get to their first unit. BOLC B
(which is virtually the same thing that long ago we called OBC ) which is the course they go to post commissioning is about 4-1/2 months long. If they are Infantry or combat Arms officers they may go to Ranger School for another 61 days prior to going to their unit- but end result they still are going to be 2d Lieutenants for a while in their first assignment- which for virtually all branches will be as a platoon leader.
Click to expand...

And they may be in combat as a 2LT platoon leader?
 
 
Last edited:
Sounds good. Thanks for the info. I agree with Scout then, can't get much more junior for a regular commissioned officer command than 2LT. Have to wait until you're a LTJG for a CG cutter (for reg. commissions, there are SCPO and CWOs with commands).
 
LineInTheSand said:
Sounds good. Thanks for the info. I agree with Scout then, can't get much more junior for a regular commissioned officer command than 2LT. Have to wait until you're a LTJG for a CG cutter (for reg. commissions, there are SCPO and CWOs with commands).
Click to expand...

Why thank you. Yes, as I 2LT I had twenty soldiers (11 enlisted, 9 warrant officers) and a hand receipt worth about $44 million dollars (including five helicopters) with my name on the blame line.

I find it even more amusing that this eheart individual wants to be a pilot, is concerned about being able to lead at an early point in his career, yet somehow thinks that the Army doesn't offer such things.

By the by, I certainly am not insinuating that there are not identical leadership opportunities for a junior officer in the USCG. I just love it when candidates declare that they're going to X Academy because the opportunities thereafter are unique to only that academy.

As for "doing your job instead of just training for it," this young man will hopefully learn that the job of a military officer is not the tactical application of combat power. The job is LEADERSHIP. And you will do that job, your REAL job, every single day.
 
I only had 14 Coasties my first year out. There are positions on larger ships that will give an ensign a higher number of Coasties. That said, it was not a "command"....no command pin, etc. In the Coast Guard you will have to wait until you're a LTJG to have an actual command of a commissioned vessel.
 
eheart,

At least for the AF, @ the first 2 yrs of your career is all flying, because that is how long it takes to train a pilot. UPT alone is 1 yr. Bullet started in 03/88 and was not MQ at his operational squadron until 02/90. The first few years is about learning how to fly, it is not as if they just throw you up in the air and say land the plane. Even when you get to your 1st operational base, you still have to train for a couple of months until you can be classified as mission ready. So for the 1st 2 yrs you are the one reporting to someone, nobody is going to report to you...unless you consider being the class commander a leadership position...you get that because you are the oldest in the class, not because you earned it from your abilities. You also don't want it...basically it is a babysitter position.

Additionally, I am pretty sure LITS will tell you he commanded a desk for several yrs too.

I am not saying don't go USCGA, I am saying that it is a fallacy to believe in any branch your only job will be just about that career code, even as a young officer you will have other duties.

As others have stated it also varies not only branch by branch, but career field to career field in each branch.
 
Check eheart former postings! Man/Women/Parent? What is it? Sounds pretty wierd.:jerry::jerry:
 
AF6872 said:
Check eheart former postings! Man/Women/Parent? What is it? Sounds pretty wierd.:jerry::jerry:
Click to expand...

I am glad you noticed that too. This eheart character seems sketchy. Posting from the perspective of a candidate, an ROTC expert, a cadet, and a parent. The mods might want to look into this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top