And I’ve seen women do it, while carrying eight-pound rifles, combat webbing, and steel battle helmets. So it can be done.
You know, for someone who’s been on these boards for a year and a half, you sure as hell haven’t learned anything.
pepperlandgirl:
All the men and women who weren’t drafted - either because they were too young, too old, physically unfit to serve, or simply lucky.
Whether or not Kelly’s solution would work, I don’t know.
However, it’s important to remember that winning the war is cricial. For this reason, lots of desirable social ends have to take a back seat to military effectiveness.
Apparently, I was mistaken about the feminist movement, I was wrong and therefore, have no cite.
I don’t even want to get started on what JamesCarroll said. It wouldn’t be pretty and would probably get me a warning from the mods.
I cannot speak from all women, or even for the entire feminist movement, but I can say for sure that I want women to have equal rights in all situations. Right now, in the US, they have more rights than men as they are excluded from the draft. That isn’t equal rights. Simple, eh?
In my mind, feminism works both ways. It would be extremely hypocritical and dishonourable to demand equal pay, equal opportunity and then turn around and expect to be excluded from the draft and all those “hard” jobs.
Once again, december your own agenda trips you up. as I linked before, the State Department studied the issue of training exercises in the military and how to make them gender neutral. Not the feminists. Nor me.
Yes, the people in charge of hiring have the deep abiding interest in hiring folks who are qualified. However, if the ‘training’ and ‘assessments’ have been the same for 40 50 years, it would be likely that in most cases anyhow, there would have been substantail advancements in those areas in that time.
and, as was pointed out, the true measure of ‘can this soldier carry this equipment’ or ‘can this firefighter carry this hose’ is to test that, and not, say ‘can this firefighter do 75 pushups?’
Why would the State Department study military training exercises? Wouldn’t that properly be the domain of the Defense Department?
Like discipline, it would seem.
Ever notice that during wartime, the tolerance for failure to comply with disciplinary regulations goes down (not up, as your thesis would suggest)? Maintaining discipline in the ranks is one of the most important steps to military effectiveness. Enforcing a rule against rape is just part of enforcing military discipline.
yes, it was the Dept. of Defense, (hey I correctly atributed it when I first posted about it, doesn’t that count for something) insert embarrassed smiley here.
It’s my agenda, and I’m sticking to it!
The world seen utter disasters when power was in the hands of people who didn’t know what they were doing or who weren’t fully committed to the success of the endeavor. It’s amusing when feminists ask for equality on the one hand and preferences on the other. But, it’s serious if feminist involvement with the fire department causes people to burn to death or if their involvement with the military causes our soldiers to be killed, or, even, the loss of a war.
Wring is still criticizing people for hypothetical idiocy:
It certainly would be stupid to have ignored the technological advances of the last 40 or 50 years. Wring, is this a real problem? Do you have a cite?
** ante up now.
Provide a cite for feminists that have demanded equality and preferences at the same time.
Provide a cite for a feminist involved in a fire department and caused any person to burn to death.
Provide a city for a woman causing the death of soldiers (because she was female) and the loss of a war.
I’ll wait over here while you do it, thank you. (and as a pre-emptive, no, a link to one of your favorite columnists saying that it happened won’t do, thank you)
(I provided a cite for why the Dept Of Defense has altered it’s training regime. it was on page one.)
data on firefighters:
do women and men have the same requirements
they seem to
in years past, things were different and noted that they weren’t better. New standards (in the past 30 years) have brought a level of profesionalism up in the standards.
this warns potential recruits to insure that when taking the tests insure that the gear fits properly, noting that it’s the fire department’s responsability to ensure gear appropriate to all sizes (as in, don’t only have extra large gloves/hats so that the smaller recruits will not have fitting gear).
data on soldiers has already been presented.
Regarding the negative effect of feminism on military preparedness, here are three cites. Note the passage from the second quote below, “When physical standards are diluted, female soldiers suffer dramatically higher rates of injury.” BTW this is from a Canadian source.
http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/People/Horowitz/fem-mil.html
http://www.skyboom.com/rusivictoria/index13.html
A recent book descussed these sort of items in great detail. Included is a paragraph from a review:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/0002/bk.fukuyama.html
An example not quite on point was the incompetent performance of Janet Reno, who was chosen to fulfill a promise of a female AG. Reno said she was responsible for the mis-handling of the Waco standoff, in which dozens of innocent women and children burned to death – the majority were Black and Hispanic. The Waco tragedy was indirectly responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing, so Reno in some sense shares a degree of responsibility for that.
I don’t have a specific cite for fire or police departments.
Wring’s cite shows that DOD was made “gener-neutral.” The question is whether military capability was lost in the process.
so your claim is that the Department of Defense **intentionally ** lessened it’s military capability? Or that they don’t realize they’ve lowered their military capability? or that they don’t care? Or perhaps they don’t agree that they’ve lowered their military capability.
december states
I ask for proof (and mention that commentaries are not proof).
He submits:
a book review - the book involved “To move beyond this “all-is-well-with-the-grain-harvest” sloganeering, she resorted to interviewing active-duty personnel off the record, talked to retired military men and women with no careers at stake, and visited scores of Internet bulletin boards”
not a study. interviews with individuals who may or may not have access to data, who may or may not have an agenda. I linked to the DoD report which outlined not only the changes it’s made but the reasons for them, and he challenges that with
So, he’d have you believe that the Department of Defense shouldn’t be entrusted with the well being of our military, and we should instead trust the statements made and collected by some reporter. riiiiiiiight.
His second, the Canadian source makes statements (like the ones he’s quoted) but offer no source to those statements. It did include this gem, however
ah, yes, there’s an unbiased source, one that is looking to recruit the best soldiers for the job, not one with a preconcieved idea of what a soldier should be.
his third is yet another commentator - and starts the article with this line
and refers to the Tailhook scandal as “a drunken party at which crotches were grabbed in a gantlet ritual” ( you know, the one where, according to the official investigation, as many as 83 women and 7 men were assaulted )
and, finally, **december ** acknowledges that he has no data re: police and firefighters. One needs to question, then where he comes up with the statement referenced above. So, he asserts that inclusion of women into these professions puts lives at risk, I ask for proof, he gives me commentators.
been there, did that in another thread. december this site is for fighting ignorance. You make assertions. Not based in fact, based on opinions, and rarely linked.
I call on you now to prove or retract your reprehensible assertion again quoted above. Of course, you have a right to your opinion, but here once again, you’ve made assertions, and when asked for evidence to support them, have none.
*Originally posted by wring *
…so your claim is that the Department of Defense intentionally lessened it’s military capability?
Actually it’s Stephanie Gutmann’s claim that the DoD substantially lessened America’s military capability due to political pressure from feminists. I haven’t read her book, but it was favorably reviewed in a lot of places – even in the liberal NY Times. If you don’t agree with Ms Gutman, isn’t it your turn to find a source?
**Provide a cite for feminists that have demanded equality and preferences at the same time. **
A couple of years ago, the courts forced an all-male military academy to accept a young woman, in the name of equality. But, when she was required to shave her head like all the men, she refused.
december states
I ask for proof (and mention that commentaries are not proof).
He submits:
a book review - the book involved “To move beyond this “all-is-well-with-the-grain-harvest” sloganeering, she resorted to interviewing active-duty personnel off the record, talked to retired military men and women with no careers at stake, and visited scores of Internet bulletin boards”
not a study. interviews with individuals who may or may not have access to data, who may or may not have an agenda. I linked to the DoD report which outlined not only the changes it’s made but the reasons for them, and he challenges that with
So, he’d have you believe that the Department of Defense shouldn’t be entrusted with the well being of our military, and we should instead trust the statements made and collected by some reporter. riiiiiiiight.
His second, the Canadian source makes statements (like the ones he’s quoted) but offer no source to those statements. It did include this gem, however
ah, yes, there’s an unbiased source, one that is looking to recruit the best soldiers for the job, not one with a preconcieved idea of what a soldier should be.
his third is yet another commentator - and starts the article with this line
and refers to the Tailhook scandal as “a drunken party at which crotches were grabbed in a gantlet ritual” ( you know, the one where, according to the official investigation, as many as 83 women and 7 men were assaulted )
and, finally, **december ** acknowledges that he has no data re: police and firefighters. One needs to question, then where he comes up with the statement referenced above. So, he asserts that inclusion of women into these professions puts lives at risk, I ask for proof, he gives me commentators.
been there, did that in another thread. december this site is for fighting ignorance. You make assertions. Not based in fact, based on opinions, and rarely linked.
I call on you now to prove or retract your reprehensible assertion again quoted above. Of course, you have a right to your opinion, but here once again, you’ve made assertions, and when asked for evidence to support them, have none. **
[/QUOTE]
*Originally posted by wring *
…so your claim is that the Department of Defense intentionally lessened it’s military capability?
Actually it’s Stephanie Gutmann’s claim that the DoD substantially lessened America’s military capability due to political pressure from feminists. I haven’t read her book, but it was favorably reviewed in a lot of places – even in the liberal NY Times.
Military preparedness is a serious matter. If you don’t agree with Ms Gutman, isn’t it your turn to find a source?
**Provide a cite for feminists that have demanded equality and preferences at the same time. **
A couple of years ago, the courts forced an all-male military academy to accept a young woman, in the name of equality. But, when she was required to shave her head like all the men, she refused.
december states
I ask for proof (and mention that commentaries are not proof).
He submits:
a book review - the book involved “To move beyond this “all-is-well-with-the-grain-harvest” sloganeering, she resorted to interviewing active-duty personnel off the record, talked to retired military men and women with no careers at stake, and visited scores of Internet bulletin boards”
not a study. interviews with individuals who may or may not have access to data, who may or may not have an agenda. I linked to the DoD report which outlined not only the changes it’s made but the reasons for them, and he challenges that with
So, he’d have you believe that the Department of Defense shouldn’t be entrusted with the well being of our military, and we should instead trust the statements made and collected by some reporter. riiiiiiiight.
His second, the Canadian source makes statements (like the ones he’s quoted) but offer no source to those statements. It did include this gem, however
ah, yes, there’s an unbiased source, one that is looking to recruit the best soldiers for the job, not one with a preconcieved idea of what a soldier should be.
his third is yet another commentator - and starts the article with this line
and refers to the Tailhook scandal as “a drunken party at which crotches were grabbed in a gantlet ritual” ( you know, the one where, according to the official investigation, as many as 83 women and 7 men were assaulted )
and, finally, **december ** acknowledges that he has no data re: police and firefighters. One needs to question, then where he comes up with the statement referenced above. So, he asserts that inclusion of women into these professions puts lives at risk, I ask for proof, he gives me commentators.
been there, did that in another thread. december this site is for fighting ignorance. You make assertions. Not based in fact, based on opinions, and rarely linked.
I call on you now to prove or retract your reprehensible assertion again quoted above. Of course, you have a right to your opinion, but here once again, you’ve made assertions, and when asked for evidence to support them, have none. **
[/QUOTE]
still waiting for evidence of military unprepardness. You’ve linked to a book review, where the book interviewed some people (unnamed, unnumberered etc)
I’ll give you my ex-sister in laws phone number (she’s an ex Navy) you can ask her opinion, too. Won’t prove any more than your book review did.
Keep in mind that you’ve made the assertion that
where is your proof that women in the military cause soldiers to be killed or loose the war, proof that women in the fire department cause people to burn to death.
Re: military cadet refusing to shave her head. I think she should have done it (although the whole shave the head thing seems to me to have little to do with military prepardness and more to do with getting the rookies to do stuff) . Do you have a link to the story?
*Originally posted by wring *
**Re: military cadet refusing to shave her head. I think she should have done it (although the whole shave the head thing seems to me to have little to do with military prepardness and more to do with getting the rookies to do stuff). Do you have a link to the story? **
[/QUOTE]
I looked for a link, but failed to find it. IIRC the school was either The Citidel or Virginia Military Institute.
I took cello lessons in the late 1950’s from Lillian Rehberg Goodman, who was married to Saul Goodman, long-time tympanist of the NY Philharmonic. She said that Leonard Bernstein had told her that she’d be easily good enough to play in the NY Philharmonic, if she were a man. In those days, most major orchestras allowed women to play only the harp. That was totally unjustified discrimination.
When women were admitted to the NY Philharmonic, nobody proposed different standards for women musicians or for for all musicians. Nobody second-guessed the conductor’s musical judgment. Women who could play as as well as men (or better) were accepted as orchestra members, and that was that. Worse than average male usicians were relaced by above average women, so the overall quality improved.
Similarly, Jackie Robinson excelled at the exact version of baseball that he went into. He didn’t demand 4 strikes for himself or for all baseball players.
This is quite different from today’s feminists, who properly want women accepted, but who improperly want to revise existing structures. I am suspicious of their motives in seeking these structural changes.