The general decline in standards today

[LoveMyHats2]

True - men and women aren't 100% equal, but the challenge is separating the natural differences from the artificial ones. Men can't give birth - no argument there. No amount of legal wrangling will allow a man to do so, and I don't see science changing that any time soon, either. And, a lot of you have said there are fundamental strength and mass differences between us - no argument there. Averages are averages. It's plain as night and day. You can see the numbers. Those are natural, biological differences that can't be disputed.

On the other hand, there are artificial differences that society has been working to demolish for some time now. Why, there's a movie coming out, or just released called Hysteria. Medical history buffs can rest assured the movie is about what they think. Consider the arguments about why women shouldn't be allowed to vote. People believed them then. Women as breadwinners was a ludicrous idea once. We look back on past generations with a certain (justified) sense of superiority in terms of racial and gender equality progress. Odds are, our great grandchildren will be doing the same about us. If they're not, then hopefully it's my great grandchild reviving this thread 75 years from now and saying, "What the heck is going on?". It'll take a while to remove all these institutional but unnecessary barriers, because the people who aren't restricted by them never see any reason to do anything about them, but they'll fall eventually, and like Lizzie says, more or less, "History won't look kindly on us".

This is all true to the most part, however to quote someone from the past in regards to what war is about;

"War is Hell" William Tecumseh Sherman

Utopia will never happen to this earth. Total equality from one person to the next is one part of the model exampled by communism. Some argue it works. I prefer to reject the argument.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

The way I see it, in such a case, it would be your training that would be suspect - or the fellow soldiers'. If a female recruit can't do her job as commanded by her superior, she shouldn't keep it. If a male recruit can't do his, same deal. If a male soldier can't do his job with a woman doing hers, we aught make sure we penalize the right person.

This is also true, however, the penalty that may be paid is that someone's son or daughter may have to come home in a body bag due to the misjudgment to begin with. There are many men that have served that are still undergoing mental health treatments, and medical treatment for giving their all to being in a combat setting, as the same holds for women that have served.

I am not negative about women, I hold nothing negative about them as individuals or as a group. They just (in my opinion) do not as a group, belong in combat. Training that some individuals have is by far more intense then others. Combat training for some units of service far exceed the average boot camp. However, it still is not the same as being in combat.

 

[Pompidou]

This is all true to the most part, however to quote someone from the past in regards to what war is about;

"War is Hell" William Tecumseh Sherman

Utopia will never happen to this earth. Total equality from one person to the next is one part of the model exampled by communism. Some argue it works. I prefer to reject the argument.

Exactly - I argue for an absolute meritocracy. I don't care about feelings or quotas. Pretending the whole world is populated by carbon-copy equals is pointless fantasy. I could list dozens of people stronger than me, smarter than me, etc, and vice versa. What I want, is for anyone willing and capable to be allowed to achieve their goals with enough hard work. I don't expect Mensa to lower their standards for my admittance, for example. The world doesn't work that way. I wouldn't expect the SEALs to take me on board just because I want to. I don't expect the same for any woman, either. No free lunches for anyone. Can the person do the job to 100% satisfaction? If I can't answer no to that question, I don't believe any regulation should prohibit that person from doing it for arbitrary reasons.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

The way I see it, in such a case, it would be your training that would be suspect - or the fellow soldiers'. If a female recruit can't do her job as commanded by her superior, she shouldn't keep it. If a male recruit can't do his, same deal. If a male soldier can't do his job with a woman doing hers, we aught make sure we penalize the right person.

I am sorry..don't mean to be rude..or seem pompous...but is very evident that you have no conception of what it means to be a soldier in combat or how it is often delt with. Penalize..? In battle..it can get down to the nitty gritty..human nature...real quick. It seems to me that you have a tendacy to overlook many aspects of military needs and human traits only in order to present your ideals and views. It is probably better for me to back out of this discussion..because nothing or no one will convince you otherwize. No matter what they have experienced..or where they've been.

 

[Pompidou]

This is also true, however, the penalty that may be paid is that someone's son or daughter may have to come home in a body bag due to the misjudgment to begin with. There are many men that have served that are still undergoing mental health treatments, and medical treatment for giving their all to being in a combat setting, as the same holds for women that have served.

Definitely. Misjudgements in the military lead to body bags. We're presumably working at minimizing all the current misjudgements that lead to body bags now. I imagine misjudgements are just par for the course in any institution. I'll have to stand by my position that one person's incompetence (making fatal misjudgements), shouldn't be one competent person's regulatory barring. We can't discriminate against one group of people because another group of people can't get the job done right.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

Exactly - I argue for an absolute meritocracy. I don't care about feelings or quotas. Pretending the whole world is populated by carbon-copy equals is pointless fantasy. I could list dozens of people stronger than me, smarter than me, etc, and vice versa. What I want, is for anyone willing and capable to be allowed to achieve their goals with enough hard work. I don't expect Mensa to lower their standards for my admittance, for example. The world doesn't work that way. I wouldn't expect the SEALs to take me on board just because I want to. I don't expect the same for any woman, either. No free lunches for anyone. Can the person do the job to 100% satisfaction? If I can't answer no to that question, I don't believe any regulation should prohibit that person from doing it for arbitrary reasons.

Yes I feel that way as well. Now for some reason, I just have to say, for me, not for you or anyone else, not for those women that want to serve or think service in a combat setting is insane, my own personal take on it, is no. For things to be forced upon someone one way or another is wrong. That I do agree with.

In part, as I have hired individuals, it is always what they are qualified to do and how they are as a person, how they will be able to fit into the work place, everything about "who" they are makes a very big difference to me. I have not once made a judgment call due to race, gender, ethnic back ground.

If I were a General, and told I had to hand pick troops, needed 500 of them to go into battle, I would tend to think not very many women would get picked by me. If I needed a few hundred women to fill the support groups that aid the 500 hundred combat troops, that would be easier for me to do.

Do I personally think women should be told they cannot do something or yes they can only do this or that, nope. That is up to them.

 

[Pompidou]

I am sorry..don't mean to be rude..or seem pompous...but is very evident that you have no conception of what it means to be a soldier in combat or how it is often delt with. Penalize..? In battle..it can get down to the nitty gritty..human nature...real quick. It seems to me that you have a tendacy to overlook many aspects of military needs and human traits only in order to present your ideals and views. It is probably better for me to back out of this discussion..because nothing or no one will convince you otherwise. No matter what they have experienced..or where they've been.

No worries - you're just fine. I have to ask if it's human traits or social traits that are the issue here? Look at the decline of chivalry. It might have been you that once stated that male to female empathy is on a tragic decline. I wonder if the notion of male to female protectiveness isn't dying along with all the other things TFL is here to talk about. You've got my respect, but you are right in that until I actually believe I'm wrong, I don't have it in me to change my opinion. I'm careful to take them in the first place - way too often have I found myself entrenched in a stand I didn't need to take. I've got a big mouth and it takes all the self control I can muster to keep from putting my foot in it.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Utopia will never happen to this earth.

It seems that throughout history almost everyone who tried to create a "Heaven on Earth" only succeeded in making the opposite.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

Definitely. Misjudgements in the military lead to body bags. We're presumably working at minimizing all the current misjudgements that lead to body bags now. I imagine misjudgements are just par for the course in any institution. I'll have to stand by my position that one person's incompetence (making fatal misjudgements), shouldn't be one competent person's regulatory barring. We can't discriminate against one group of people because another group of people can't get the job done right.

Not sure if you viewed recently on the news of a soldier that was getting awarded honors by the President for his courage in saving lives while in combat. One part of the venue that was covered regarding his story of courage was that his commanding officer had called in for more air/artillery support and that was denied. The majority of his unit did not survive. Being able to pick apart what is in part the cause of why things went as they did, in part, only in part, was due to the fact that those up the chain of command, had NO combat experience, and more than not, fell short of making choices that to me, in part is due to the current trend of allowing people to be in those positions due to having to follow what is commonly called, "politically correct". There is nothing about a war that is "politically correct".

I have to add in this as a note, while in combat, and coming to have to deal with those that died and had to come home, and in review of how their families had to feel about the loss, you can always find the hardest part of it is how final it is.

The Military now, is being pressed to be more "politically correct". Many that push for his have no clue about war.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

So I would tend to agree with you that the true test of how someone reacts is on the battlefield.

Many have stated that women are not in combat situations in the US military.

If the first two sentences are true, then how can we really know what it would be like to have women in combat situations?

(This is a serious question- if we don't know how someone reacts until combat, and we have no women in combat, how can we tell that women don't belong in combat situations?)

We do have women that are placed on the battlefields and some have done a decent job, and some have been decorated for what they did and have had great courage. I do commend them for that. I just think it would be far better had they not been there to begin with.

 

[Pompidou]

Not sure if you viewed recently on the news of a soldier that was getting awarded honors by the President for his courage in saving lives while in combat. One part of the venue that was covered regarding his story of courage was that his commanding officer had called in for more air/artillery support and that was denied. The majority of his unit did not survive. Being able to pick apart what is in part the cause of why things went as they did, in part, only in part, was due to the fact that those up the chain of command, had NO combat experience, and more than not, fell short of making choices that to me, in part is due to the current trend of allowing people to be in those positions due to having to follow what is commonly called, "politically correct". There is nothing about a war that is "politically correct".

No arguments there. Tom was talking about people getting positions in his past workplaces not for what they could do, but who they were. That's not right at all. The perfect world is color and gender blind. We can both agree that sometimes, bosses get to where they are, not through their own merits, and that this is undesirable. Putting this in the frame of the old debate, hiring a woman to a combat position for the sake of a more politically correct and diverse photo shoot for the recruiting station is horribly self defeating. Only the deserving should get the job. If the averages of biology continue to come into play, I don't think, if all my views came true, that you and I, were we both generals, would look all that different on the field in terms of units. There aren't many women out there that work for the desired muscle mass and such required for the line of work. You very well might have an all male unit. If the recruiting station picks up the occasional Eleanor Ripley, well, there are lots of military units to go around. I don't think changing the laws would really open any sort of floodgate, at least if the strict standards required for the job are upheld.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

It seems that throughout history almost everyone who tried to create a "Heaven on Earth" only succeeded in making the opposite.

That is very true indeed. While I was in school, doing a study for one of the classes I was taking at the time, we were given a role to take as to how to set up and structure a social setting, and to make it be anything other than what is currently factual today. Each group of my fellow classmates picked something like utopia or what resembled communism. Those models as they went on for merely a few weeks, all failed due to the normal and average input that a society has to deal with on a day to day basis.

The bottom line was, we are not perfect but what we do is the best there is.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

Have you noticed a current theme in some ways, (cannot get into this all the way up to the axles or I would have to bring in forbidden topic/structure) but that we are doing wrong one way or another, and that we need to change things about what we are socially? Many want to knock the USA and it really grinds me to no end. I have to say, if how we are as a Nation, stinks so badly, then why is it that people are willing to risk their life to drift from Cuba to the USA on an inner tube to be here? Or that people risk sneaking over the boarder to come into the USA!

My own personal take on this Nation, has little to do with elections or who sits where...it is a great nation because as a totality, we, the people, will always make it be that way. We come to help others in need, as showcased in the vast ways that total strangers have come to aid those that lost homes due to fires, flooding, or hurricanes. We over come the raw and discouraging mess that rules and policy are placed into our way that make it harder for us to make it, but we do. We push on and face some of the worst times, and continue to do so. Not knocking anyone here that is not from the USA, but I sure love my Country. I love it for it's people and for what it offers anyone that wants to do things one day at a time better.

 

[Tango Yankee]

Misjudgements in the military lead to body bags.

Actually, all combat-related judgements in the military (usually) lead to body bags; the goal is to keep the number of body bags needed on your side to a minimum. None would be best, with the other side needing lots.

To be quite frank about it, many men currently serving in combat would not be able to meet some of the standards that have been suggested. Sheeplady to the contrary, for the most part the men and women serving in the military are fairly average people. They're not all in top physical shape, especially those Guard and Reservists who do not have the benefit of having physical training as part of their duty day. But they still manage to deploy and do the job, and do it very well.

Should women serve in combat? Well, they already are. In places like we're in these days there really isn't any such thing as a safe "rear" where the support troops hang out. The question is actually more along the lines "should we let them serve officially in combat units." Well, I don't know. I can see and understand both sides of the discussion. I think that, in due time, it will happen. But probably not for some time.

On the subject of the draft, don't expect to see it come back unless we are already in dire straits. We discussed this when I attended the USAF Senior NCO Academy. One thing many people do not think about when they talk about the draft is the fact that it is very expensive to run a conscription-based military. First off is the high rate of turnover and the costs associated with that--the screening and training, for starters. With a draft military your standards are lower and most people don't want to be there, which results in increase washout rates and compatibility with the military issues--which leads to more turnover and training costs. The various aspects that drive up the cost of having a military if you implement the draft go on and on, and I do not have the time or energy to cover them all or to look up references right now--I'm supposed to be writing a paper for a class, not hanging out here! But you get the idea.

Regards,
Tom

 

[Pompidou]

Have you noticed a current theme in some ways, (cannot get into this all the way up to the axles or I would have to bring in forbidden topic/structure) but that we are doing wrong one way or another, and that we need to change things about what we are socially? Many want to knock the USA and it really grinds me to no end. I have to say, if how we are as a Nation, stinks so badly, then why is it that people are willing to risk their life to drift from Cuba to the USA on an inner tube to be here? Or that people risk sneaking over the boarder to come into the USA!

My own personal take on this Nation, has little to do with elections or who sits where...it is a great nation because as a totality, we, the people, will always make it be that way. We come to help others in need, as showcased in the vast ways that total strangers have come to aid those that lost homes due to fires, flooding, or hurricanes. We over come the raw and discouraging mess that rules and policy are placed into our way that make it harder for us to make it, but we do. We push on and face some of the worst times, and continue to do so. Not knocking anyone here that is not from the USA, but I sure love my Country. I love it for it's people and for what it offers anyone that wants to do things one day at a time better.

We're an amazing nation. We were in 1776 as well. Is there room to improve? Certainly. Didn't Winston Churchill say, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried"? Granted, that guy gets attributed to nearly every anonymous tidbit of witticism there is, but it's still kinda relevant here. Room for improvement but still the best around is how I look at us. Making those improvements is how we stay on top.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

No arguments there. Tom was talking about people getting positions in his past workplaces not for what they could do, but who they were. That's not right at all. The perfect world is color and gender blind. We can both agree that sometimes, bosses get to where they are, not through their own merits, and that this is undesirable. Putting this in the frame of the old debate, hiring a woman to a combat position for the sake of a more politically correct and diverse photo shoot for the recruiting station is horribly self defeating. Only the deserving should get the job. If the averages of biology continue to come into play, I don't think, if all my views came true, that you and I, were we both generals, would look all that different on the field in terms of units. There aren't many women out there that work for the desired muscle mass and such required for the line of work. You very well might have an all male unit. If the recruiting station picks up the occasional Eleanor Ripley, well, there are lots of military units to go around. I don't think changing the laws would really open any sort of floodgate, at least if the strict standards required for the job are upheld.

I understand all of this. No negative response by me at all about what you state. I think many that know me personally would label me as a bit of stubborn mixed with a very large heart. I view things from a few angles and at times, forget to take the time to consider what anyone else would think, but always welcome a variety of other viewpoints. Have to add to this, I also never step back, and am someone that more than not, will have a "take no prisoners" stand when it comes to what I believe is right or wrong. I never think it is good to "cave in" to anything just because the pressure is on, or due to popular demand. That is what works for me, and may not be any one else's cup of tea.

To dismiss the way anyone should be rewarded due position in life or the workforce is not a just thing, if not done by their worth and work product as well as qualifications. Yes if you happened to be someone's son or daughter of some famous person, you may weasel into a job you have no business being given and yes, at times there may be laws that say you have to hire five people to work for you that are zebra striped or you violate the law. My own take is it is not fair to do so...to have to hire anyone per a quota. I have not had that problem and hope I am not ever faced with it.

 

[Viola]

I don't have any problem with the military setting the bar that high - as I said, its common sense. I didn't mean to say anyone under 5'4" couldn't do the job, I was just using it to illustrate a point. Someone of my particular stature, man or woman, just doesn't have the muscle mass to perform those duties. If I put on 20 pounds of it, then that would be a different story.

I would respectfully posit that has little to do with your gender. I was a woman. Many of my friends who've served are. And fairly femme ones, generally.

I apologize if it sounded like I was saying either every woman could, or every woman should. I don't believe that. Hell, they've told me they won't take me back unless I fill out a big waiver and pay for my own foot surgery first (and I can't do that).

A lot of men can't pass the physicals either. It's the opposite problem from the "90 lb. weaklings" of WWII - some big ol' boys try to get in.

I have massive respect for a guy in my division of Basic training who pulled it together and lost 70 lbs. in two months. I said something to him about it, he replied in a deep backwoods Georgia drawl "reckon cuttin' out the twelve pack a night helped some..."

He made it. He was at least also really strong, and very hardworking. A lot of other guys don't make it. In the modern era, there's a fitness shortage. Male and female alike.

Sorry if you took my previous post as taking a shot at you, I wasn't.

Sorry for the slow reply, too, dang timezones leave me out of the best conversations.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

One last thing I would like to say that I think Admiral Halsey was quoted to say, something along the lines that he never knew a hero or a brave man, but he knew ordinary men that had to do extra ordinary things in times of peril.

We are really all, just that. I think it is very special that we can all be here, share, converse, think, learn, and all due to the Lounge. A toast for that, I say!

 

[LoveMyHats2]

I would respectfully posit that has little to do with your gender. I was a woman. Many of my friends who've served are. And fairly femme ones, generally.

I apologize if it sounded like I was saying either every woman could, or every woman should. I don't believe that. Hell, they've told me they won't take me back unless I fill out a big waiver and pay for my own foot surgery first (and I can't do that).

A lot of men can't pass the physicals either. It's the opposite problem from the "90 lb. weaklings" of WWII - some big ol' boys try to get in.

I have massive respect for a guy in my division of Basic training who pulled it together and lost 70 lbs. in two months. I said something to him about it, he replied in a deep backwoods Georgia drawl "reckon cuttin' out the twelve pack a night helped some..."

He made it. He was at least also really strong, and very hardworking. A lot of other guys don't make it. In the modern era, there's a fitness shortage. Male and female alike.

Sorry if you took my previous post as taking a shot at you, I wasn't.

Sorry for the slow reply, too, dang timezones leave me out of the best conversations.

Those time zones are something else. I have to call friends that are in London and one that is currently working on finance for his company that is based here in the USA, but they send him to China all the time. I get so confused about all that, I just leave them a voicemail and tell them to call me when the rooster crows!

 

[LoveMyHats2]

Actually, all combat-related judgements in the military (usually) lead to body bags; the goal is to keep the number of body bags needed on your side to a minimum. None would be best, with the other side needing lots.

To be quite frank about it, many men currently serving in combat would not be able to meet some of the standards that have been suggested. Sheeplady to the contrary, for the most part the men and women serving in the military are fairly average people. They're not all in top physical shape, especially those Guard and Reservists who do not have the benefit of having physical training as part of their duty day. But they still manage to deploy and do the job, and do it very well.

Should women serve in combat? Well, they already are. In places like we're in these days there really isn't any such thing as a safe "rear" where the support troops hang out. The question is actually more along the lines "should we let them serve officially in combat units." Well, I don't know. I can see and understand both sides of the discussion. I think that, in due time, it will happen. But probably not for some time.

On the subject of the draft, don't expect to see it come back unless we are already in dire straits. We discussed this when I attended the USAF Senior NCO Academy. One thing many people do not think about when they talk about the draft is the fact that it is very expensive to run a conscription-based military. First off is the high rate of turnover and the costs associated with that--the screening and training, for starters. With a draft military your standards are lower and most people don't want to be there, which results in increase washout rates and compatibility with the military issues--which leads to more turnover and training costs. The various aspects that drive up the cost of having a military if you implement the draft go on and on, and I do not have the time or energy to cover them all or to look up references right now--I'm supposed to be writing a paper for a class, not hanging out here! But you get the idea.

Regards,
Tom

I just now read this and yes, you surface many issues and address them very well, (something you have a talent for as always)!