Quote:
Originally Posted by KMA-628
Having served before the "integration" and after, during war time and peace time, my opinion, without getting into all fo the details based on personal experience:
Nope.
I know how sexist it sounds and i am willing to accept that moniker in this situation.
In same cases it was o.k., but it the majority of situations, it was bad. And I will repeat myself in case anybody missed it, i am speaking from personal experience on this one. It is real easy to spout an opinion when you are far removed, it is another thing to live it.
One example out of a whole bunch: I had to cover for a female when the shit hit the fan once, and she couldn't hack it, and there was nothing we could do about it except cover for her ass because our asses were on the line. In the reverse situation, if we had a guy that couldn't hack, we got rid of him using our own ways, ways that would've gotten us court-martialed if we attempted them on a female.
|
Well then I want to pose the same question to you. If the genders could do the same but be seperated into gendered company's, would that be a problem. For example, what if only female troops where sent into a city to take it?
Is the problem with the mixing of genders, or women in the military?
(Women are much worse to one another in my experiance than men are, so I do think that other women in an all female copy would "take care of the situation" as need by like you mentioned for discipline)
In otherwords, do you advocate no women in mission critical situations, or no mixing of genders, or both?
If you would like to speak on the side of no women is mission critical situations, would you be so kind as to provide an explanation as to why so we may better understand your point of view
(again, I am not attacking you, just hoping to distill some of what you are saying to better understand your position)