18 bombing sorties, one night:
http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargra...ova_TL_350.jpg

Okay, can we get back to "don't ask, don't tell" now?

Thank you. This isn't about women, and should be in a whole different thread (as it's a whole different beast).

(throws brakes on the threadjack-mobile)

However, I will say that women in the military and gays in the military do have a parallel. Why is it that only the hetero male is suitible for combat action? Does this only apply to infantry, or does this extend to artillery, aviation, etc...?

(I'm not a military expert, so please someone touch on different combat roles and whether it would be more or less difficult to serve alongside gays and lesbians in these situations.)

...

Dunno. Maybe hetero males make up the majority of the military and thus the homogeneous group that is the easiest to assemble and cater to for combat operations? The military, right or wrong, is about efficiency. It sometimes fears change because it can't predict the results. The "ignorance" of if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it is strong in the military. Racial integration wasn't exactly quick or smooth. I predict the same will be true for homosexuals if / when Mr. Obama decides to blow down the don't-ask-don't-tell wall.

Aviation may be classed as "combat arms" by some but I see it more like support. Aviation is like playing video games compared to light infantry tasks... which comprise the most physically demanding jobs in the military. It's one thing to fly a plane and pull a trigger to fire rockets, it's another thing to jump out of a plane and ruck 15 miles in 3 hours with 70 pounds on your back and be expected to close with and destroy the enemy using a rifle. Aircraft are badass and all but they don't win wars. Men with boots and rifles win wars.

...

I think it's funny that the anti-war crowd is whining that there isn't 100% equality in an institution they seem to disrespect so often.

Ah, the good ol' days, back when "real" men engaged in "real" wars.

:p
-----Added 20/1/2009 at 10 : 29 : 40-----
Well, those two women look like they have the testosterone to engage in combat.

;)

Everybody who does not support women in the infantry on this thread has mentioned aviation as an exception...which is what those two ladies did. If you are a plane pilot then you are also an...aviator.

They do not. Homosexual men are still, by a large margin, physically more capable than the average female parallel to the Heterosexual male.

A male liking another male does not mean he can not hump (sorry... it's actually military jargon) as well as the guy who likes girls. Get the average female soldier and they will not produce equal results as the average male. Therefore, there is no parallel. The parallel would be if we had to reduce physical requirements for homosexuals because not enough were passing.

The parallel is this:
"Not suitable for the job because he's gay."
"Not suitable for the job because she's a woman."

There are women who are physically capable for combat roles. Why rule them out based merely on gender?

The same goes for homosexuals. Are they capable of doing the job?

Majority rules. Cater to the dick-swinging brutish masses, bro.

I knew a handful of women in the army that were almost as badass as some of the guys, but their aren't too many of 'em.

They just didn't have the upper body strength required to do the crazy stuff we were asked to do.

I'm all for universal standards but they're "unfair" to women.

This Starship Troopers stuff... pipe dreams.

That's odd.

I didn't use Starship Troopers as an example. Isn't that sci-fi of some kind?

Stuff mentioned earlier. Coed military giant-bug-slaying scifi movie based ever-so-loosely on a Heinlein novel.

Silly people use it and the female characters in Aliens as a reason to let women serve in combat arms.

Oh, okay. That has nothing to do with what I said, though.

Look, I'm not saying force women into all combat roles. I'm saying allow women who are capable of doing certain jobs to do those jobs. If that means there will be virtually no women infantry, then fine. But that isn't the only combat role out there. It doesn't make sense to prohibit capable personnel from doing jobs (whether they be women or homosexuals), especially when you have the spectre of a draft hanging over your head.

Sorry, I was addressing like three different posts. I'm retarded.

...

My point is: Why change the flow of things in the military for the three women out of a thousand that can handle a particular job such as infantry, combat engineer, artillery, etc. Just because you can tweak something doesn't mean you should. I mean, we are talking about a job where people are supposed to kill others using weaponry that probably scares the man-dress off Allah. Men are better suited for the job. I'm all for equality, but let's get real. It's a messy job.

The "Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell" (DADT) policy, from what I've deduced from serving, is mostly about maintaining military decorum. The military is just as hard on heterosexuals as it is on homosexuals when dealing with "obscenity." Just look at the deployment rule book... no pornography. You can get UCMJ for having porn overseas these days. Can't see your wife for a year... but uh, we can't have you ogling a Playboy. Conservative through-and-through, the Army isn't a whole lot of Vietnam-style fun these days.

Draft: ...but we (U.S.) don't. It is my feeling that no politician in their right mind would ever try to pass a draft again. Short of WW3 with China, I don't see a draft going down anytime in the future. You can't send rich white college kids to war! That's unamerican!

But what if one combat personnel out of one hundred is homosexual. Should he continue hiding, and calling his beloved John back in Iowa "Joan"?

Personally, I don't have a problem with it... but it'd be silly to rock the boat right now. In the future? Go for it. When the U.S. is doing one of it's 10 year breaks from a "war" would be a good time to drop the DADT-Be-Gone bomb.

Wait 'til the war machine is taken out of gear before you crawl under the hood.

Good point.

Maybe I'm weird, but I don't see gay/straight/black/white/male/female thing in the military as all the social constructs that exist out in the civvie world.

I see it as raw materials, stats, doing-the-math of who can shoot, move, and communicate.

Race? Not an issue. Sexual orientation? Not an issue. Gender? The "move" part is a problem.

Females in combat arms:
Shoot - Studies have shown that the female hand is wired better to use firearms than the male hand due to a better ability to independently use the fingers.
Communicate - Most of the military communicates on a third grade level. That's not an issue. Studies have shown that women actually make better leaders than men in non-combat occupations due to their method of leadership being more lesson-oriented instead of punishment/reward.
Move - Problem. That's simple strength and endurance. The male model of human is generally superior in those categories. Straight biology.

Obviously this a very basic breakdown and misses all sorts of stuff, but you get the idea.

...

Okay. I'm going to go beat my chest and set things on fire.

Sorry bub, I didn't bring up women...Crompsin did. So you had a bad experience with a lousy soldier, you associate that with her gender, but none of the inadequacies you mentioned are necessarily linked to the differences between men and women. I'm sure in your experiences you also encountered incompetent male soldiers, were they poor soldiers because they were men?

I'm a reasonably fit man, but I would want at least four months of training before I attempted some of these things. There are people with all manner of physical strengths and weaknesses, some are men some are women. There are roles in the military for people with strong bodies and dull minds, people with weak bodies and sharp minds, and people with strong bodies and sharp minds.

Also, it's possible for women to pee and drive at the same time.
Yes I'm aware of the Israeli findings. I'm also well aware, as you should be also, that those findings have been completely disproven or become irrelevant over the past five years. If you had served with Leigh Ann Hester or Monica Lin Brown would you think that all combat soldiers should be women? C'mon, of course not. Did the men in the linked situations forget their training and huddle around the women? (The answer is no).

Hate to be the one to break this to you, but if you went to a public high school and went through boot camp there's a 99.9% chance that you've showered and shat with homosexuals. Turns out that gay men are capable of being in these situations and not gawking or wolf whistling at other men.


-----Added 21/1/2009 at 12 : 22 : 44-----
Can you link to these studies? I'm highly skeptical. Why isn't this supposed difference reflected in sport shooting, piano playing, or ... you name it?
Well you're right, except about the "problem" part. The military already segregates people based on their physical capabilities. There is every manner of specialization based on physical and mental ability. There's a little gray area for effort and determination but some people will never be Marines, snipers, paratroopers, SEALs (most people), etc. Some people aren't suited to be chefs, techs, or truck drivers but the military needs those people too. Have you seen some of the chubbies in active duty? I have, sure standards have been relaxed, but also America is the fattest country in the world. I agree with Slims and you that standards should not be relaxed for gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. The military has a long history of bigotry though so those standards require close attention.
Well good then, you're in complete agreement with President Obama (I've already linked this). I'm completely sure that this issue is only being floated by the right wing to rile their base and stir up controversy.

edits-grammar

This may be a threadjack... but you don't know how accurate you are with this statement.

I grew up in the military bubble. I never lived in areas which are ethnically or economically segregated until after my father retired. There was no "other side of the tracks," there was no separation between white/black/hispanic families as the housing on base was assigned. On base everyone has a great deal of base respect for each other being all members or family members of the military. It was only in High School after my father left the military when I ran into my first experience with racists.

Hopefully after homosexuality becomes a non-issue in the military (10 years from now or so) the military can again take the lead in social integration and acceptance (read that again without your head exploding hehe).

but why does it have to be 10 years from now. You and Crompsin seem to have this recurring idea of "that's great, but not now," which neither of you have really explained

No, I want this in effect now. It just took 10yrs for race to essentially to become a non-issue in the military, so I suspect it would take another 10 for homosexuality.