tankhokie Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 here is my 2 cents i was a tanker (armor) and it is still male only. i would have to say that front line fighters like armor, infantry, or any front line fighting force that depends upon close quarters with other soldiers needs to be all male. why? in my experience, men are naturally attracted to women (the way God intended) and whenever my soldiers were around females (clerks, supply, etc) it naturally caused a distraction. it's build into men to like women, like it or not, men will not be focused on their mission 100% if sally soldier takes a round to the arm...now if billy the butcher takes a hit, you slap a pressure dressing on him and yell at him to shove another main gun round into the tube and suck it up. if it wasn't for this natural protectiveness and attraction to females, i would welcome any female (that passes the physical fitness test, tank crew gunnery skills test, etc) into my tank crew. i am fine with females in choppers, air defense artillery, and other positions that do not fit in my first paragraphs category. (i hope my wife never reads this, it always sparked the nastiest arguements) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cluless Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 ---------------- On 12/16/2003 10:42:08 PM cluless wrote: too late buckaroo... ---------------- WHOOOOAAAA! NEWS FLASH FROM SVS .... THESE ARE THE NEW HOT ITEM... TOM V and RON from SVS says these are backordered untillllll 2006 Here's the one that I sent to Justin Here's the one that I sent ot OrangePeel Here's the three that I sent to BBB (one for each Once I get a picture of that cute little Bose bass module that is on Santa's sleigh on it's way to you, I'll be sure to post it.. Hugs Less Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBB Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 HEY CLU, YOU'RE ON A ROLL NOW BABY! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 Look I'm a rolling pin. I can really help you out in the kitchen now Clue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEAR Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 mOOn, You better help the ladies prepare a good meal now.They are on your case like stink on... Good luck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GooseChaser Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 ---------------- On 12/17/2003 12:33:25 PM DrWho wrote: he said the problem with women in the military (and gays, but that's another issue) is when a commanding officer tells someone to take a "compromising position." The person taking the position naturally thinks "why do i have to do this? oh wait, i saw him smile to this person the other day, i saw him do this and do that"...the pressence of different genders creates a disunity in the army. that slight second of hesitation and doubt often means the difference between life and death for the whole unit. ---------------- Tell that to the blacks who served and died for their country in World War II. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubinhard Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Since they're dead, can we tell the live ones instead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GooseChaser Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 ---------------- On 12/19/2003 4:36:51 PM Hepta Bronte wrote: Since they're dead, can we tell the live ones instead? ---------------- Nah, I doubt the dead wouldn't mind being told they caused "disunity" in serving their county and "hesitation and doubt" in life and death situations for the whole unit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubinhard Posted December 20, 2003 Share Posted December 20, 2003 Good point. When the bullets start flying, I don't care if the guy next to me is black, white, or wearing a black and white bra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Istari Posted December 20, 2003 Share Posted December 20, 2003 Women don't belong in a combat situation, not even flying... If you read what happened to Jessica Lynch then you can start to imagine... ...Forceable entry into the rectum...... By whom, or what and how many times the report doesn't say.... Would you want your daughter subjected to this if she is captured??? Officers in the military can't say what they really feel about this situation since it would kill their career. They have to be so PC in today's world that its not funny. Yes, there are positions in the military that women can do as well as men, but not in the fighting arena. A real man would not want to put a woman in harms way... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted December 20, 2003 Share Posted December 20, 2003 Hobbit, i have to agree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cluless Posted December 20, 2003 Share Posted December 20, 2003 ---------------- On 12/20/2003 2:28:56 PM The Hobbit wrote: Women don't belong in a combat situation, not even flying... If you read what happened to Jessica Lynch then you can start to imagine... ...Forceable entry into the rectum...... By whom, or what and how many times the report doesn't say.... Would you want your daughter subjected to this if she is captured??? Officers in the military can't say what they really feel about this situation since it would kill their career. They have to be so PC in today's world that its not funny. Yes, there are positions in the military that women can do as well as men, but not in the fighting arena. A real man would not want to put a woman in harms way... ---------------- When people male/female make a decision to join the military, they are making a commitment to this country that is so far superior to anthing that most of us would consider ever doing. Count ME OUT.. Quite frankly, the sexual acts that Jessica was subjected to was a Man's worst nightmare, but as far as woman is concerned, rape is rape, it really doesn't matter if it's a frontal assault or not. Our fighting boys could have been subjected to the same situation, with equal, if not more, demoralization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted December 20, 2003 Share Posted December 20, 2003 What happen to her? I must have missed the story. Was she sadamized? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheltie dave Posted December 20, 2003 Share Posted December 20, 2003 A real man must put his best friend in that situation. A real officer must sacrifice enlisted men if his survival provides his men with a better chance of mission success. Our current armed forces would come crashing to a halt without the valued contributions of women. So would Klipsch, and a multitude of other MNCs. It is rich irony that seven years ago, when I interviewed the commandant at the US Military Academy, he spoke for over two hours about the numerous contributions female officers have and continue to offer at West Point. Again, it appears that the US would only be at 75% combat readiness if women were not actively serving at every level of command structure in our military. The second best sharpshooter in my bro's battalian had three shoots - three kills last week in Samarrah. Any guesses as to the length of this person's hair? No crewcut or high-n-tight here There aren't many concerns about being politically correct here. We have no jobs or careers that will be influenced by this forum as long as we don't exceed Klipsch's leniant bounds. The military has it somewhat easier than civyland - guys are on the loose 16 hours a day and all weekend on this side of the fence. Boys behaving bad was the norm in the military...STDs outnumber ladies by 3 to 1 per capita...bankruptcies 7 to 1...armed criminal actions 7 to 2...DWIs 11 to 1...murder, don't even ask!...AWOL 5 to 1, all in a recent year end status report I obtained at Page avenue on an operational army base in Texas. Hey, if single young mothers go in the military so they can get day care, that is a perceptive decision on their part. It is a lot more difficult to keep up statistically with the loser we had on my boat who had five kids by four different moms in one year, went to seven CMs, and never saw a paycheck. Be careful of what you advocate without recourse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwm Posted December 21, 2003 Author Share Posted December 21, 2003 It comes as no surprise to me that the sympathetic comments re: putting women in jeopardy in certain military positions, run cheek to jowl with strong liberal politics and an almost pathological hatred of the current leadership in the U.S. As an outsider I dont see this as an accident.......It seems there is something else at play here. Try this one........Seasons Greetings to all. Sex, Equality, And Kidding Ourselves "Take Away Reason And Accountability...." Men of today's older generation grew up in the chivalric miasma of their time, which held that women were morally superior to men, and that civilized men protected women against any available vicissitude. A corollary was that women needed protecting. So common has this understanding been throughout history that one may suspect it of being based in ancient instinct: In a less hospitable world, if men didn't protect women, something disagreeable would eat them, and then there would be no more people. So men did. And do. Instincts have consequences, particularly when the circumstances requiring them cease to exist. Because women were until recently subordinate, and in large part played the role of gentility assigned to them, men didn't recognize that they could be dangerous, selfish, or sometimes outright vipers. They were no worse than men, but neither were they better. Men believed, as did women, that women were tender creatures, caring, kind, and suited to be mothers. Males deferred to women in many things, which didn't matter because the things women wanted were not important. When women came into a degree of power, it turned out that they were as immoral, or amoral, as men, probably more self-centered, and out for what they could get. Not all were, of course, as neither were all men, but suddenly this became the central current. This too followed lines of instinctual plausibility: Women took care of children and themselves, and men took care of women. It made sense that they should be self-centered. These newly empowered women knew, as women have always known, how to wield charm, and they quickly learned to enjoy power. The men of the old school didn't notice in time. They deferred, and they were blind-sided. They gave gentlemanly agreement to one-sided laws hostile to men. Political deference became a pattern. It remains a pattern. It probably springs in part from the male's instinctive recognition that, by giving women what they want, he gets laid. Between individuals this worked tolerably well, but less so when applied to abstract groups. When women said they wanted protection against dead-beat dads, the old school fell for it. They were attuned to saving maidens and the sheltering from life's storms of white Christian motherhood. "Dead-beat dads" was of course that sure-fire political winner -- an alliterative slogan of few words that embodied a conclusion but no analysis. So sure were men that women were the kinder gentler sex that they never bothered to look at the statistics on abuse of children, or the track records of the sexes in raising children. The romantic elderly male believed -- believes -- that women were the natural proprietors of the young. This led to laws virtually denying a divorced father's interest in his children, though not the requirement that he pay for their upkeep. The pattern holds today. Male judges in family law defer to women, almost any women no matter how unfit, and female judges side with their own. The demonstrable fact that women can and do abuse and neglect children, that a female executive clawing her way up the hierarchy may have the maternal instincts of a rattlesnake, that children need their fathers -- all of this has been forgotten. The reflexive deference continued. Feminists wanted congress to pass a vast program of funding for every left-wing cause that incited enthusiasm in the sterile nests of NOW. They called it the Violence Against Women Act, and men deferentially gave it to them. Of course to vote against it, no matter what it actually said -- and almost no one knew -- would have been to seem to favor violence against women. A law to exterminate orphans, if called the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, would pass without demur. There followed yet more male deference to female desires. When women wanted to go into the military to have babies, or a Soldier Experience, men couldn't bring themselves to say no. When the women couldn't perform as soldiers, men graciously lowered standards so they could appear to. It was the equivalent of helping a woman over a log in the park, the legal and institutional parallel of murmuring, "Don't worry your pretty little head about a thing." On and on it went. The aggregate effect has been that women have gained real power, while (or by) managing in large part to continue to exact deference and, crucially, to avoid the accountability that should come with power. A minor example is women who want the preferential treatment that women now enjoy, and yet expect men to pay for their dates. In today's circumstances, this is simple parasitism. Today men are accountable for their behavior. Women are not. The lack of accountability, seldom clearly recognized, is the bedrock of much of today's feminist misbehavior, influence, and politics. Its pervasiveness is worth pondering. A man who sires children and leaves is called a dead-beat dad, and persecuted. A woman who has seven children out of wedlock and no capacity to raise them is not a criminal, but a victim. He is accountable for his misbehavior, but she is not for hers. It is often thus. Consider the female Army officer who complained that morning runs were demeaning to women. A man who thus sniveled would be disciplined, ridiculed, and perhaps thumped. Yet the Army fell over itself to apologize and investigate. Again, men are held accountable for their indiscipline, but women are not. Men expect to adapt themselves to the Army, but women expect the Army to adapt to them. And it does. The male instinct is to keep women happy. Note that a woman who brings charges of sexual harassment against a man suffers no, or minor, consequences if the charges are found to be unfounded -- i.e., made up. A man who lied about a woman's misbehavior would be sacked. He is accountable. She isn't. Yes, large numbers of women are responsible, competent, and agreeable. Few engage in the worst abuses, as for example the fabrication of sexual harassment. Yet they can do these things. A man cannot throw a fit and get his way. A woman can. Only a few need misbehave to poison the air and set society on edge. And the many profit by the misbehavior of the few. People will do what they can get away with. Men assuredly will, and so are restrained by law. Women are not. Here is the root of much evil, for society, children, men and, yes, women. Subscribe Subscribe Unsubscribe Unsubscribe Resubscribe Resubscribe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEAR Posted December 21, 2003 Share Posted December 21, 2003 CWM, Great post,good read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted December 21, 2003 Share Posted December 21, 2003 cwm, very interesting read. It brings to light things I have thought about and observed myself for years. There is so much truth to that article you posted, women want it both ways. Aaaaand I better just stop right there before I starting going off on some issues that bother me deeply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMcGoo Posted December 21, 2003 Share Posted December 21, 2003 If the article above is trying to say it's time to relevel the playing field, I agree. If your view is to tilt it back in favor of males, it will never fly. One of my "favorite" US Supreme Court decisions dealt with a woman that was allegedly "raped" by her supervisor 40 or 50 times. The female got raises and good working conditions. The high court said that this was quid pro quo harassment. It held the male and his employer liable, but ignored the wrongful conduct of the female employee. It started the harassment rules that we live with today in the US. We all have pet peeves like this case, but aren't we getting away from the primary purpose of the forum which is audio? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheltie dave Posted December 21, 2003 Share Posted December 21, 2003 "Strong liberal politics" has little in common with my world, CWM. I am in engineering, safety, and on the nuclear side of things. Performance is number one, two, three, and four. It is not uncommon to dismiss a contrary position as one held by a person of a certain political ideology. I have donated more money to conservative officeholders than you have voted for, unless you recently moved to Canada from Chicago, where your Republican ballot wasn't counted anyway Please don't confuse me with a bleeding heart liberal that you so despise. I have yet to see your reply to the "Boys behaving badly" rejoinder, but don't worry too much. It's really hard to argue about felony statistics committed by and/or against memebrs of a country's military members. Most conservatives don't want to admit that "aggressive" male behaviour is not "prudent" behaviour, whether it be practiced in a civilian or wartime milieu. It is probably best to admit that we grew up in different generations- you grew up following a male hierarchy and I cut my teeth leading a mixed cultural and mixed sex division. Different times, different paradigms, different leaders. I won't talk too myself any more - enjoy the hockey season up yonder! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.