Discussion in 'Academy/Military News' started by scoutpilot, Apr 27, 2016.
Branch transfer approved.
The comments section is an interesting read.
Congratulations to the Captain.
O pleasant exercise of hope and joy
Congrats are in order, but definitely interesting comments.
Ughh, the comments!!! Trolls unleashing vitriol and disrespect. One poster even commented they hope she gets raped...really? Congrats to the Captain. I wish her nothing but the best...she has a tough road ahead.
If anyone noticed, there is a direct but inverse correlation between the amount of hatred spewed and the apparent literacy level of the poster. Not judging, of course, just an interesting observation.
Absent the scurrilous "rape" comment, are we really surprised that there is a negative reaction, a number of which probably come from "been there-done that" types? Have we really reached the point where it is expected that we will not only accept, but celebrate, decisions made by politicians, without question?
"Tough road?" I don't think so. It'll be paved and and then gilded over.
Not asking for anyone to celebrate and questioning is a good thing but the level of disrespect posted by past and present military on these posts is unnerving for anyone with a female family member or friend serving. Will we ever reach a point in which we can respectfully disagree about these issues without calling females derogatory names and spewing hatred?
I am old enough to remember the uncommon, but still present, women-centered hostility at USNA when I was there. I didn't go looking for it, and I do not think of myself as helpless or a victim, but it was there and I saw it. Any time a previously-excluded group breaks new ground - African-Americans in 1949, women in ROTC and the SAs in 1975/76 and VMI/Citadel in the 90s, gays and lesbians in the past few years - there has been backlash, resistance, and bad behavior on the part of (typically) white guys who feel threatened. And a lot of times this backlash comes from members of the military. The claims people make are almost always about the "intruder's" ability to do the job ("blacks are not smart enough, can't make decisions under pressure" "women are weak" "gays interfere with good order and discipline") OR some BS conspiracy theory about how the "intruder" isn't qualified but the system is rigged to allow the black/woman/gay to succeed where they really shouldn't. Different year, different group, same old tired noise. If history holds, in about ten or so years there will be some sort of scandal (Tailhook, woman chained to urinal at USNA, hazing incidents at VMI/Cid) in some infantry unit where harassment/mistreatment of women infantry officers. The Army will clean house, put policies and guidelines in place, and life will go on. Eventually, the daughters of women and men who are now lieutenants and captains will command platoons and battalions with almost no question. But just as the women at service academies today rightly enjoy much greater acceptance and respect from their company mates BECAUSE us old farts (and women before me!) refused to be distracted by bad behavior, Capt. Griest and 1LT Haver will lead the way forward as well. I've no doubt they'll do an excellent job clearing the way for other highly-qualified and -capable women.
I can't get used to rape threats, though. Just not acceptable.
No, I sincerely doubt we ever will (on any topic). The anonymity of most of these responses fuels the vitriol even more.
Sorry but I am not sure if I can agree with you on this LongAgoPlebe. First off, I have seen positive and negative opinions from what I presume to be the entire racial cross section of the active, retired, former military and civilian world. I have seen positive and negative opinions from self-declared females. So, this isn't a "white guy who is threatened" backlash.
We may never know the true story of what concessions (if any) were extended to the female Ranger candidates. There are certainly a number of people who claim to be in the know who say there were. And others, of course, who say otherwise. Unless you were there (and not necessarily even then!), you can not claim to have knowledge either way. Claiming that they are "BS conspiracy theories" doesn't make them so.
Let me be clear: I understand both your positions.
Understood, USMCGrunt. To clarify, I spoke (er, wrote) about populations, understanding that there are surely some exceptions to my sweeping generalization - thus my qualification of "typically." (One caveat I thought of, only after I posted, is that the military already is predominantly Caucasian men, so even if this is the case with the commenters, it does not necessarily support my claim as it is already more likely, for reasons that have nothing to do with what I wrote!) As to our second point: I chose the term "BS conspiracy theories" because, despite many claims, to my knowledge none of the claimants have offered any kind of actual and verifiable evidence (I have, in fact, looked, although not thoroughly). So here's the scientist being skeptical of her own claims. However, as one of my heroes Carl Sagan famously offered, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Agree and unfortunately I don't believe it will ever change. I just find it incredibly sad that in my 10 years of following military posts on various sites vitriol almost always comes out on articles featuring achievements of females in the military. Many of those comments group all females in derogatory wide sweeping generalizations. When I read articles or posts about men doing remarkable things the majority of comments are congratulatory and positive. Even when there are articles and posts about military members doing things truly unbecoming the vile comments are often nowhere near the level that is spewed at remarkable women such as Captain Griest. I am extremely proud of my kids that are serving….but when I read comments by military trolls past and present it gives me chills. I stay away from comment sections now…unless someone directs me to them.
And what position are you in to question it? Are you a combat arms leader? Do you know the standards to which female infantry officers are held? Or female Ranger students? Or is this yet another permutation of the tired old line that women don't belong because they supposedly can't meet some arbitrary standard to which no men are actually held (i.e. the old "if she can't pull a 230 pound man out of a burning tank" lament). To say the road will be "paved and gilded" is insane, tone-deaf, and largely a pathetic comment. Having borne witness to a woman being the first of her kind in a unit that has never had women, I can tell you the road is anything but smooth. It's a slog.
The world doesn't need any more blowhards in the cheap seats saying women can't do this or that simply because we never let them before. I'd put my female officer--the first in that previously closed unit--up against any man on this forum or in our community. She's a physical beast and a talented leader with boundless energy. And unlike most of my other guys, she writes well, thinks clearly, and doesn't keep her kit smelling like a sack of farts and gym socks. I'd photocopy her in a heartbeat if I could and hire all of them.
One of the hallmarks of the military (I'll do you the respect of assuming you served, as I don't know your background) as you probably recall is that you don't have to like the legal order. You do have to shut up and execute it. This is one of those times where we should execute it with vigor. We can't hope to have the world's best volunteer force in perpetuity if we tell bright, strong, energetic leaders that they don't belong simply because their personal plumbing is internal.
........and doesn't keep her kit smelling like a sack of farts and gym socks.
I bust a gut on that one.
This from the man that skewered the pictures of laughing girls in the "New Cadet BBQ" thread. A thread in which you and MomWPGirl were diametrically opposed IIRC.
Never served, never claimed to. But I have worked for the federal government, certain mechanisms of which are universal. Clearly the world needs less "blowhards" and more "yes men."
And thank you for the biology lesson. I had clearly been misinformed on the singular physical dimorphism between men and women being the location of their "plumbing."
If nothing else comes of this internecine bickering, you've given me new respect for the leadership in the Marine Corps.
And you have maintained my perpetually dim view of government employees.
Glad to see that a woman was given an opportunity like this one and succeeded. I think it really shows that females have a lot more potential than many people think and under proper conditions, they can do close to anything that any man can do.
This makes me wonder though, could this lead to women being held to the same physical fitness standards as men? If a woman can make it through ranger school can't women also reach the male PFT standards? I wonder if differing men's and women's standards for physical fitness is actually putting women at a disadvantage. They may have gotten used to the lower standards and now just try to reach those when they actually have the potential to meet the male standards if they just aimed higher. If we held women to the same standard as men, might that lead to more women like this one accomplishing things that many thought they couldn't? I think it would be cool if one day a female becoming an infantry officer isn't considered news worthy.
Don't ride the fence, kid; you'll get splinters.
This is obviously a "hot topic" but I hope on this forum we can keep the commentary more on point and civil. We have many young ROTC and SA cadets monitoring the forum. Give them something to think or talk about other than insults. As they will be the next generation of military leaders.
My question: how will integrating women into combat arms benefit America’s fighting forces? Will it make an infantry squad or platoon more lethal, or more efficient?
This is not akin to racial integration. This is integration of biologically different humans. Putting young men and young women into the furnace of infantry squads and platoons in an attempt to suppress eons of innate biologically driven sexual drives. You cannot stop the attraction, and jealousies that will result, and with them unit disintegration. How are they to be managed without disrupting the unit and the mission.
Let me be clear Capt. Greist and many other women warriors (Navyhoops) can out run me, outlift me, and generally stomp me. Even in my prime years ago. However, as an overall percentage that group is much smaller than the number of men who can do the same. They are also excellent performers, many who have experienced combat and gone beyond what other men could have done. Of their courage and abilities such individuals cannot be questioned. But this is not just the individual stories, or what certain individuals can or cannot do. We also have to recognize that because womens bodies, overall, are not meant to be physically beat down in the field. Do not equate this with lack of strength or high pain tolerance. The species would have died out left if men carried babies. But watch the VA statistics in 25 years and see how the figures are on women's injuries.
My background is the corps where, in my time, an infantry platoon left to their own devices was the most chauvinistic, homophobic, foul mouthed group of (young) men to be around. Nothing was off limits: mother, sister, father sex jokes, race, ethnicity. All were fair game. And not everyone liked everyone else, and not everyone could be counted on, but all knew who could and would be. But it was a unit torn down and built up. I am not sure an infantry squad/platoon needs to be more civilized. Maybe that is my disconnect. My wife calls me a dinosaur from a past age that has disappeared. Maybe she is right, and that time and thought process has and should pass.
Infantry and combat arms are on the front lines being asked, and quite honestly expected to do the most difficult and horrendous tasks. They are the equivalent of the “thin blue line” from law enforcement, the tip of the spear. How will putting women in those positions, infantry squads and platoons, make such "spears" more deadly and lethal? And if they will not then why is it being done?
This very complex topic - an argument against the "Infantry and combat arms are on the front lines being asked, and quite honestly expected to do the most difficult and horrendous tasks" is not all the time. Today's military requires these hardcore Infantry and combat arms soldiers more than "killers" to win over the local populace. Somewhat similar to the candidate selection criteria - whole person concept. How many times have we seen pictures/stories of combat arms soldiers smiling with local kids or helping local communities in Iraq/Afghanistan.
Separate names with a comma.