Don't ask Don't tell anyone about the repeal

[Hurlshort]

5. The above preclude homosexuality on grounds that it interferes with normal intense bonds which occur on the front line but which have nothing to do with sex.

 

But it really shouldn't. This is a hang up that doesn't need to be accepted. It is also a problem that lies completely with the homophobic person, and not with the homosexual person.

 

Social change is necessary here, just like racism has been heavily targeted for change over the last 50 years, so must we target homophobia.

[Raithe]

Social change is necessary here, just like racism has been heavily targeted for change over the last 50 years, so must we target homophobia.

 

Although you have to be very careful with targeting things like this. There have been a few instances over here where it gets hammered home that it doesn't matter how you actually meant something you said or did, but how someone else perceived it.

Which sets you up for an automatic fail.

 

Like the policeman who was on holiday in Africa and sent a jokey postcard that was sold at his holiday resort back to the police station. It got passed around with some humour, right up until the guy who'se grandfather had originally been from said location in Africa claimed that it was rascist and was used to humiliate him by the guy who sent it, and all the constabulary in the office who passed it around.

 

And I have to admit, I've had to struggle over the last few years of finding myself almost becoming rascist due to various people I've met who were jerks, but who then play the whole "i'm not an obnoxious jerk, it's because I belong to x minority group so I can be a total **** and be abusive and if you call me on it its because you're rascist."

 

I could take the first few with a grain of salt and humour, but when people start dropping the "you're x-ist" at the drop of a hat and can have the weight of discrimination laws behind them just because they're a minority and you're automatically in the wrong because they can claim to have perceived something as a slight ... it starts to get worrying.

 

Of course, that's a whole nother matter then the Army issue. Although on one hand I don't quite see it having that much of an effect. I think on a certain level it'll run along pretty much the same "don't ask, don't tell" lines but without the stresses of what happens if it is told or comes to light...

 

But then I might be oversimplifying it.

[Monte Carlo]

The British army overturned it's ban on homosexuality almost ten years ago with no perceptible impact on unit cohesion and effectiveness. The thing that did impact on unit cohesion and effectiveness was the Labour government's obsession with human rights law, health and safety, budget allocation to defence and a cavalier attitude to foreign policy (q.v. Afghanistan).

 

Women serve in every capacity in the British army, with distinction, except for the infantry and cavalry. This, like GD points out using his experiences in the USMC, is as it should be.

[Calax]

Amusing.

 

And completely irrelevant to the functioning of an army. Yet another case of retarded civilian policies making their way into the military.

Other than the fact that otherwise intelligent, strong, capable soldiers were being ejected or refused the ability to work within the military simply because they were openly gay.

 

You know, denying yourself manpower is TOTALLY irrelevant.

[Thorton_AP]

I'd have no issues with women in infantry and armor, assuming they are able to pass the same PFT requirements set forth. If no one is able, then that is what it is.

[Raithe]

Hm, I might be coming out of left field here, I have some vague memories of seeing on the news a few weeks ago that here in the UK they did put a change in about allowing women to be placed on the front lines.

 

While allowing women to serve in many positions within Her Majesties Armed Forces, they made that change not because women couldn't handle it, but because no matter how pc a group is, the men will still put themselves at greater risk to protect any women who are along.

[ShadySands]

I would never agree to allowing women to serve in the infantry or armor. Physically they just cannot do it. Yes some can, 98% can not. I had a discussion with a femal Marine i served with about that. She was insistent that a woman could fight as well as a man. I told her I'd agree if just one time she could finish a run. In the Marines the whole unit does PT together 4 days a week. Usually it's the daily dozen exercises (push ups, mountain climbers, bend & thrust, etc) followed by a 3-4 mile run in formation. Behind the formation there is a safety vehicle (pick up truck, hummer, whatever) with a corpsman and some other stuff in it. Well, there were eight women in my unit and not one of them, not a single one, ever finished a run in the formation. Every one, every time, they fell out and finished the run riding in the back of the truck. In the marines, every man had to pass the combat PFT every year, that included a six mile run in full uniform & 782 gear (pack, flack jacket, web gear, rifle, & magazines) rope climb in full uniform, and 100 yrd firemans carry in full gear with the "wounded man" in full gear. This is along with the rgular PFT everyone takes (Women are exempt from the Combat PFT). I have never met a female Marine who COULD do that.

 

Now don't get me wrong, they can serve and excell in every other capacity including tactical command and fighter pilots, but not as infantry. That is one glass ceiling that should not be shattered. And yes, I know that means there will never be a female Commandant of the Marine Corps since infantry service is prerequisite.

 

GD, the new Commandant is a pilot so there is hope for women to some day lead the Marine Corps.

 

Also, I'm a bit saddened that the Marines were the branch most opposed to the repeal.

[GreasyDogMeat]

One intersting story though. The women often posted higher aggregate rifle range scores than the men did in Boot Camp. I always wondered why until a former shooting instructor from the MCRD in San Diego explained it to me. Most men by the time they joined (between ages 17-21 typically) had had some exposure to shooting firearms. The M-16A2 (no longer in use but that was what we had at the time) does not shoot like "your daddys huntin' rifle) as my Drill Instrctor used to say. So the male recruits had to unlearn some bad habits to become proficient with the M-16. The women by and large had never fired a rifle before so they learned how to do it right the first time with no bad habits to break. The guy who got the highest range score in my boot camp platoon had lived in Boston his whole life and had never shot a rifle before enlisting. Interesting stuff.

From what I've heard, women also have better hand-eye coordination.

[Hurlshort]

One intersting story though. The women often posted higher aggregate rifle range scores than the men did in Boot Camp. I always wondered why until a former shooting instructor from the MCRD in San Diego explained it to me. Most men by the time they joined (between ages 17-21 typically) had had some exposure to shooting firearms. The M-16A2 (no longer in use but that was what we had at the time) does not shoot like "your daddys huntin' rifle) as my Drill Instrctor used to say. So the male recruits had to unlearn some bad habits to become proficient with the M-16. The women by and large had never fired a rifle before so they learned how to do it right the first time with no bad habits to break. The guy who got the highest range score in my boot camp platoon had lived in Boston his whole life and had never shot a rifle before enlisting. Interesting stuff.

From what I've heard, women also have better hand-eye coordination.

 

Because they are always so busy doing their nails

 

 

 

 

That wasn't very funny, it was just the first image that popped into my head.

[Guard Dog]

I would never agree to allowing women to serve in the infantry or armor. Physically they just cannot do it. Yes some can, 98% can not. I had a discussion with a femal Marine i served with about that. She was insistent that a woman could fight as well as a man. I told her I'd agree if just one time she could finish a run. In the Marines the whole unit does PT together 4 days a week. Usually it's the daily dozen exercises (push ups, mountain climbers, bend & thrust, etc) followed by a 3-4 mile run in formation. Behind the formation there is a safety vehicle (pick up truck, hummer, whatever) with a corpsman and some other stuff in it. Well, there were eight women in my unit and not one of them, not a single one, ever finished a run in the formation. Every one, every time, they fell out and finished the run riding in the back of the truck. In the marines, every man had to pass the combat PFT every year, that included a six mile run in full uniform & 782 gear (pack, flack jacket, web gear, rifle, & magazines) rope climb in full uniform, and 100 yrd firemans carry in full gear with the "wounded man" in full gear. This is along with the rgular PFT everyone takes (Women are exempt from the Combat PFT). I have never met a female Marine who COULD do that.

 

Now don't get me wrong, they can serve and excell in every other capacity including tactical command and fighter pilots, but not as infantry. That is one glass ceiling that should not be shattered. And yes, I know that means there will never be a female Commandant of the Marine Corps since infantry service is prerequisite.

 

GD, the new Commandant is a pilot so there is hope for women to some day lead the Marine Corps.

 

Also, I'm a bit saddened that the Marines were the branch most opposed to the repeal.

Yup, sure enough. Gen James Amos was a winger (slang for Marine Air Wing) his whole career. I did not know that. Apparently he is the first. I guess they have done away with the infantry service prerequisite at some point. Most of my time was under "Big" Al Gray. He was a grunt at heart, but one of the most popular commandants. I was a winger myself for my whole tour and I hated having to do the "grunt bull s**t" as we called it. But it was necassary. We had a saying back then: Every Marine Is A Rifleman First.

 

I guess we can have a female commandant. I know there are at least two or three female general officers.

 

As for his resistance to removing DADT, there is going to be some of that, but over time it will fade away. Five or ten years from now no one will remember that there was once a ban on gays.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Guard Dog

[Nepenthe]

One intersting story though. The women often posted higher aggregate rifle range scores than the men did in Boot Camp. I always wondered why until a former shooting instructor from the MCRD in San Diego explained it to me. Most men by the time they joined (between ages 17-21 typically) had had some exposure to shooting firearms. The M-16A2 (no longer in use but that was what we had at the time) does not shoot like "your daddys huntin' rifle) as my Drill Instrctor used to say. So the male recruits had to unlearn some bad habits to become proficient with the M-16. The women by and large had never fired a rifle before so they learned how to do it right the first time with no bad habits to break. The guy who got the highest range score in my boot camp platoon had lived in Boston his whole life and had never shot a rifle before enlisting. Interesting stuff.

From what I've heard, women also have better hand-eye coordination.

 

Because they are always so busy doing their nails

 

 

 

 

That wasn't very funny, it was just the first image that popped into my head.

That's probably better than the one I had.

[~Di]

And the fact that war would be specially harsh to a woman, more so if she it's captured.

 

Harsher than being brutally tortured and beheaded? Because that's what has happened to our captured male soldiers, and that seems pretty damned harsh to me.

[Gorgon]

It would be harsher on account of her frail feminine sensibilities.

[Thorton_AP]

And the fact that war would be specially harsh to a woman, more so if she it's captured.

 

Harsher than being brutally tortured and beheaded? Because that's what has happened to our captured male soldiers, and that seems pretty damned harsh to me.

 

Probably because you can also add rape to the table. Though you can probably make an argument to toss that under being brutally tortured.

[Orogun01]

And the fact that war would be specially harsh to a woman, more so if she it's captured.

 

Harsher than being brutally tortured and beheaded? Because that's what has happened to our captured male soldiers, and that seems pretty damned harsh to me.

 

Probably because you can also add rape to the table. Though you can probably make an argument to toss that under being brutally tortured.

There is a difference, most men don't attract the same kind of attention as women. A captured woman in a camp full of men becomes the "stress reliever" of the whole camp, it's not even torture for the sake of information its for pleasure. Also more lasting since the chances of death are minimal.

 

Edit: I find this topic to a bit disturbing, can we get back on subject and be happy for our gay troops? I have already congratulated my gay enlisted friend and asked him if he was going to appear in full drag on camp

Edited December 21, 2010 by Orogun01

[Aram]

And the fact that war would be specially harsh to a woman, more so if she it's captured.

 

Harsher than being brutally tortured and beheaded? Because that's what has happened to our captured male soldiers, and that seems pretty damned harsh to me.

 

Probably because you can also add rape to the table.

Yeah, only we go that far with our male prisoners.

[Thorton_AP]

Touche

[cronicler]

On female soldiers in infantry positions; personally I don't have much knowledge in the issue however

 

 

There are a couple of right wing mil / mil-sf writers that I enjoy reading. Tom Kratman is one of them. He recently wrote a novel about females in army, granted his "army" is a far cry from the current day militaries but it does a realistic job on the whys: inferiority of females vs males in infantry positions. (You can find the first 6 chapters here )

 

 

To put his observations into bullet points, a female infantry has the following problems compared to a male infantry:

 

-Less carry capacity (it takes about 3 females to carry the load of 2 soldier teams like m.gun, At, Radio, etc.)

-Less endurance (Can't march as far)

-Less strategical speed (Marches slower)

-Needs specialised and dedicated support (Dedicated Childcare to begin with)

-Needs more R&R per year (Again childcare, also some other internal problems males don't have)

-Has a lot of negative social conditioning that slows training

-Totally different starting mindset and priorities that require different training

-Needs specialised gear. Even if you give them the same basic gear (gun, armor, fatigues) for most slots to avoid supply issues, you still need different, specialised gear for certain "slots": boots, backpacks, cleaning supplies...

-Their effects on males when wounded. You can say that male soldiers do not like to see female units get wiped out.

 

 

I know that there have been a lot of thinking on how female soldiers would make excellent fixed position soldiers (which does eliminate most of their problems) but most militaries can't really accept the loss of mobility (and the option to use in other unsuited jobs; see how to mis-use rangers and paratroopers: ww2, vietnam...) and overspecialisation. There is no shortage of male cannon fodder after all.

Edited January 13, 2011 by cronicler

[Orogun01]

On the other hand they have been combat proven and doesn't seem to have any immense effect as you are making it sound.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Orogun01

[Walsingham]

You fellahs are stil talking in generalities. I know at least two female soldiers who'd wipe the floor with a good 30% of the male ones I've met. And often did. The way I figure it is one common standard, whoever excels can have eight balls and three breasts for all it matters*. However, on gut instinct I think it's wiser to have separate units. Which isn't that extreme when you consider that I think we should go back to haveng county regiments or at the very least regional ties in regiments.

 

 

 

*Although this would probably add to the costs of parachute harnesses.

[Calax]

Of course you're gonna need separate regiments... otherwise it's gonna be a literal breeding ground.

[213374U]

I know at least two female soldiers who'd wipe the floor with a good 30% of the male ones I've met. And often did.

Two, out of how many?

 

Because I've been in some "nice" outfits (~60-70% had already dropped when I called it quits myself - and I wasn't the last) and met none. Maybe it's just my luck... or English women are much tougher.

[Orogun01]

Of course you're gonna need separate regiments... otherwise it's gonna be a literal breeding ground.

Don't worry; the army issues condoms.

[Calax]

Of course you're gonna need separate regiments... otherwise it's gonna be a literal breeding ground.

Don't worry; the army issues condoms.

So do colleges, but that doesn't seem to help as much

[Walsingham]

I know at least two female soldiers who'd wipe the floor with a good 30% of the male ones I've met. And often did.

Two, out of how many?

 

Because I've been in some "nice" outfits (~60-70% had already dropped when I called it quits myself - and I wasn't the last) and met none. Maybe it's just my luck... or English women are much tougher.

 

Give you an example, one of them made corporal in three years with a persistent nerve disorder that meant she was in constant serious pain. The other one was an officer who - on a weekend training exercise - got an iron rebar straight through her thigh infiltrating up a beach and refused to make a sound for fear of compromising the 'mission'. Super-organised, always on the go, full of jokes, knew all the procedures you name it. And that's only in the part-timers.

 

Men and women serve together in the signals (my old unit). My regiment comment was about field units who are less well supervised. That is outside the 'daycare' environment of bases.