|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 27, @03:44PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I know I'm likely gonna get flamed for this, But,
I know that there is alot of opposition to "Women in the millitairy." However, I don't think we should judge ALL women on the "Poor skills" that the forementioned female pilots exibited.
My personal belief is, That if a Woman can DO the job she should GET the job.
I mean, if she's qualified, well trained Etc. Why not? However if the training is "Dumbed down" in order to make a woman "qualified" or a qualified man is passed over just to meet some QUOTA then, THAT'S of course a different story.
Perhaps THAT is what happened in this case...(?)
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm of the opinion that this was the case here. What seems to have happened here is that these two women exhibited poor performance yet 'someone' pressed for their advancement anyway. Hence the apparent double standard.
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My personal belief is, That if a Woman can DO the job she should GET the job. I mean, if she's qualified, well trained Etc. Why not? However if the training is "Dumbed down" in order to make a woman "qualified" or a qualified man is passed over just to meet some QUOTA then, THAT'S of course a different story.
No one has a problem, Thundercloud, with the women who can pull their weight and do their job. The problem is that so many of them can't, and yet they keep their jobs, get promoted and pampered, and qualified men get passed over. Double standards are rampant. And the worst of political correctness is everywhere. Hell, there's a US ADMIRAL actually advocating removing urinals from warships because women might be 'offended' by them. I'm not making this up.
This isn't what you generally hear in the media, of course, and career military tends to tell the politicians what they want to hear.
Here's links to articles by Fred Reed, who was a military columnist -- mostly re-prints of letters he's received from serving military personel.
They make scary reading. I sure hope the Western military doesn't get into a big fight -- they're appallingly ill-prepared.
Women In the Infantry
Women In The Military II: Letters
Lying About Women In The Military
I have some friends in the military, too. They say the same things. Quietly, in hushed tones, after looking over their shoulder to make sure the Speech Police listening.
Ragtime
The opinions expressed in this posting are my own, but you're welcome to adopt them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mind you, I think that if women in the military reduce operational effectiveness then they should not be there. If male soldiers in the field try to protect there female colleagues (perhaps knowing that the enemy will treat women differently if captured) instead of following orders, it becomes reasonable to question women's role in the military. This is without going into all the sexual politics and pregnancies that reduce operational effectiveness even further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Last August, US New & World Report ran a story of heroes, and right there on the front cover was Rhonda Cornum. Cornum was a flight surgeon stationed in Saudi during Desert Storm. My recollection is that she was "credited" with being on a helicopter flight and in a perfect situation to attend to the rescue of a downed pilot. In the process, the aircraft she was flying on was downed and she broke both arms and was subsequently taken prisoner by the Iraqis. We can be reasonably sure she was sexually abused by her captors, though the 'official' government accounts don't say this. I had a colleague in 1997 who commanded an Apache helicopter squadron who advised me that Cornum was, in fact, on that flight on a joyride, in direct violation of standing orders for medialc personell NOT to be on such flights. This colleage went on to remind me how men are treated when they violate these orders, and that Cornum barely got a slap on the wrist, and then US News had the audacity to declare her a national hero.
Women in the military are disruptive because of several factors, not the least of which is the fact that they demand (collectively) and receive special treatment. In fact, it is being not-so-quitely said that the US Army's 1st Cav was unprepared for battle in Afghanistan because of the compromises in training made to accommodate women. So who got in first? The Marines and Special Forces, who have managed not to be so overwhelmed with political correctness.
Like most of us here, I have no issue with women in the military (or in any job for that matter) as long as they perform as effectively as men. But it's becoming clear that women in battle, whether or not they are in combat, may be more of a liability than an asset.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I used to fully advocate equal treatment and equal access of women in the military. However, I read a recent article that stated that Colonel Hackworth stated that the major reason that military males gave for leaving the military was because of "adverse working conditions." When further questioned about what they meant by "adverse working conditions", the majority of the same stated that the reason was that they found females in the military to be very difficult to work with . If, women, by their untoward and unjust behavior towards men in the military, are destroying the military, they should either be forced to serve in units separate from males or be forced to leave the military all togeather. The finding of this study does not surprise me at all given the unjust and oppressive and rude behavior that I've seen demonstrated against males in civilian jobs by females.
C.V. Compton Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We've seen it with marriage, we've seen it with education, we've seen it with the consumer marketplace, and now we see it with the military: men are just leaving the places where they are not welcome. They're not leaving in positively overwhelming numbers, but they are leaving in numbers large enough to have an impact.
Are the feminists paying attention? (Probably not) If they are, do they realize the long-term impact? (Probably not)
If all the men and all the women who like and respect men with testosterone were to go hide in the mountains, where do you think society would be? Up the creek without a paddle is the most likely place.
This is actually a very large-scale, broad-based phenomenon, and someone in the mainstream media ought to be paying attention. If things don't change, it'll grow, and it's growth will accelerate, and no one is going to like the result. In fact, with a little bit of analysis, we could probably predict within a few percent what the impact will be in terms of participation of men in these institutions.
I predict the following: men will avoid marriage and the population will decline faster than predicted; men will leave the colleges and universities and education will diminish in value; men will leave the military and the nations security will be at high risk; men will leave the mainstream economy, moving to barter and black-market trade, and the economy will collapse.
And all those rich white women who screamed so loudly that their choices were being limited will find themselves with nothing because all those material things they sought so aggressively will disappear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Take a sample of 500 AF personnel, 250 men and 250 women. Run them through the same conditioning and training... the physical training, the coursework, simulator time, flight hours, etc. Take good metrics to contrast how men and women handle G-forces, manage flight control systems, etc. Do the statistical analysis, plot some graphs, etc. It might be that men are a little better suited to this sort of work, or it might be that the two women were just poorly suited to it - a sample size of two is not enough to justify any damn thing against a population in the billions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're missing the point. From your "sample size of two" analogy, it seems to me that you believe I am saying that women are inferior pilots just because two women failed. That's not what I'm suggesting. It very well may be true that women and men will ultimately prove to be equal at the task of flying a F-14. The point is that, in this case, there was a 'force' trying to advance these two women in flight training when their performance was clearly substandard. DACOWITS and it's associated PC-police forced the military brass to look the other way so that these women could advance their careers. That's the travesty, because it advanced substandard performers into the front line to serve a political agenda, not a military one. Find women who do the whole job as well as the men and you'll get little argument from me. I say let them defend their own feminized state; I'll go to the beach. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My post suggested a method for determining where to go next. I didn't even address Dacowitz or whatever it's called because I was more interested in how to solve the problem than how to put down the situation, which has already been done in the older thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Take a sample of 500 AF personnel, 250 men and 250 women. Run them through the same conditioning and training... the physical training, the coursework, simulator time, flight hours, etc. Take good metrics to contrast how men and women handle G-forces, manage flight control systems, etc. Do the statistical analysis, plot some graphs, etc.
Here's some insight courtesy of Fred.
Among other things, he points out that "The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength…"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll add that flying into combat entails the risk of being shot down and having to engage in hand to hand combat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
""The 20-page report, backed by 104 pages of training records and related documents, exposed a pattern of low scores and major errors in the F-14 training of both women that may have contributed to the tragic death of Kara Hultgreen.""
The central culprit in the 'tragic death of Kara Hultgreen' was the clique of MALE admirals who told the lower eschelans that the female pilots would get their wings and do hazardous carrier duty regardless of their low test scores. Rather than stand up to the PC crowd that was pushing the cute notion female carrier pilots they decided that their precious careers were more important than taxpayers money, security and ulitmately people's lives. So they covered up for these unqualified females and got one killed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And they did this on orders from whom? They did this on orders from the White House, who 1) would have replaced them in a heartbeat had they objected out loud and 2) would have replaced them with someone more 'malleable.' And where did the White House get the brilliant idea that this was necessary? From DACOWITS, which was heavily feathered with feminists whose primary objective was to see to the advancement of women's military careers regardless of any detriment to the effectiveness of the military.
Sorry, Leuk, you argument is weak, here. Yes these men could have refused. But they would have been fired immediately, and each successive replacement would have been fired until someone who'd say yes came along. DACOWITS was a political steamroller for awhile. Thankfully, it has been marginalized, but it still exists, unfortunately.
Frankly, with the likelihood of getting killed that exists flying one of these suicide machines (not that I'd object to flying one, you understand) being higher than average, this woman's death, while unfortunate, disappears in the larger picture. Unless, of course, you regard her as a 'victim.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"""Frankly, with the likelihood of getting killed that exists flying one of these suicide machines (not that I'd object to flying one, you understand) being higher than average, this woman's death, while unfortunate, disappears in the larger picture. Unless, of course, you regard her as a 'victim."""
No, No, No! I would never be so condesending as to say that the woman who got killed was a "victim" because she was fast tracked into doing a hazardous job for which she was not qualified.
She was (I presume) an adult who volunteered, was college educated and bears at least a majority of the blame for her own death. She should have admitted she was not qualified to fly a jet and stepped down from the PC program.
My point is that there are unfortunately MEN in key authority decision making positions that are just looking out for number 1 and will not take a stand even when they know that it is part of their job to do so regardless of the consequences.
And let us not forget that these unqualified women more than likely occupied affirmative action positions that other qualified men were passed over for. So there are more sides to this tragedy than just a dead unqualified female affirmative action pilot and another one who washed out. But the main thing that caused all of this to happen was so called MEN in key authority positions that were more interested in protecting their careers rather that doing the right thing when the time came.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I hear you, but I still think that blaming the men as the PRIMARY perpetrators of this travesty is wrong-headed. The feminists made unreasonable demands and placed their constituents in a foolish and dangerous position. The men COULD have refused but didn't and that may make them SECONDARY contributors. But I don't buy for a minute that they deserve what appears to be your assignment of primary responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
