I have seen womens (american variety) reactions to SCUDS slamming into the desert. I have also watched them "freak out" trying to get their chem gear on.
nuff said.
Ancient Women Warriors
Moderator: Available
-
Dana Sheets
- Posts: 2715
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am
Ancient Women Warriors
Tony -
You've never seen a male solider freak out? Ever?
Women in the military live in a fishbowl. There are the minority - every single move they make is held up for review by men and women alike.
Of course the woman who didn't want to fight made the news. A woman doing her job by fighting isn't news - nobody writes that story. The media likes to create conflict around the issue because good news makes money. Nobody wants to write the story about a male solider not fighting - that story would be labeled "unpatriotic" and the man would be an "exception". But one woman is suddenly representative of the entire gender???
Many, many people are not ready to see women come back in body bags.
I still think we're talking about two issues.
Women in the military at all
Women on the front lines
Women on the front lines is the most volatile concept for us. We haven't seen women fight in in wars in a long time. Our military has come up with a methodology of fighting made by men for men. No wonder women are having trouble fitting into this paradigm.
Obviously women have fought in wars in the past and will do so in the future. That really isn't the question. The question is if we should continue to maintain a dysfunctional system that will guarantee the failure of a majority of females recruited to work in that system. I don't sense much sentiment in favor of finding ways to make that work. What I'm hearing is "if they can't fit in the box, then they don't belong in the box". That sounds a lot like good old fashioned discrimination.
You've never seen a male solider freak out? Ever?
Women in the military live in a fishbowl. There are the minority - every single move they make is held up for review by men and women alike.
Of course the woman who didn't want to fight made the news. A woman doing her job by fighting isn't news - nobody writes that story. The media likes to create conflict around the issue because good news makes money. Nobody wants to write the story about a male solider not fighting - that story would be labeled "unpatriotic" and the man would be an "exception". But one woman is suddenly representative of the entire gender???
Many, many people are not ready to see women come back in body bags.
I still think we're talking about two issues.
Women in the military at all
Women on the front lines
Women on the front lines is the most volatile concept for us. We haven't seen women fight in in wars in a long time. Our military has come up with a methodology of fighting made by men for men. No wonder women are having trouble fitting into this paradigm.
Obviously women have fought in wars in the past and will do so in the future. That really isn't the question. The question is if we should continue to maintain a dysfunctional system that will guarantee the failure of a majority of females recruited to work in that system. I don't sense much sentiment in favor of finding ways to make that work. What I'm hearing is "if they can't fit in the box, then they don't belong in the box". That sounds a lot like good old fashioned discrimination.
-
Tony-San
Ancient Women Warriors
Dana,
I've seen Men panic, i've succumed to panic myself. But I've never heard men scream like in horror movies and eyes bug out. That's what I remember.
A woman does not have an affinity with death and destruction like a male does. Even the most timid male who writes in big words on the internet and loves jesus will start pounding his chest when the drum starts beating. It's all a question of "when".
I've seen Men panic, i've succumed to panic myself. But I've never heard men scream like in horror movies and eyes bug out. That's what I remember.
A woman does not have an affinity with death and destruction like a male does. Even the most timid male who writes in big words on the internet and loves jesus will start pounding his chest when the drum starts beating. It's all a question of "when".
Ancient Women Warriors
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Allen M.:
<font color=blue>
There is one newspaper article, written during the Panama invasion, that turned me off against women warriors forever.
</font><font color=red>
Heavy fighting was going on and a journalist approached a woman officer sitting in her Jeep talking to her men who were, at that very moment, in the middle of a firefight. When the Journalist asked her why she wasn’t in there fighting alongside with her men, she replied: I don’t want to get hurt!”
</font><font color=blue>
My thoughts of women in combat are no longer good. Sorry about that, but that tainted my idea of the “woman warrior” forever.
</font><font color=red>
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And that officer, like any other, should have been pulled up on charges of cowardice in the face of the enemy under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, unless she was kidding and was doing fire control observation.
Respectfully,
Lee Darrow, C.Ht.
<font color=blue>
There is one newspaper article, written during the Panama invasion, that turned me off against women warriors forever.
</font><font color=red>
Heavy fighting was going on and a journalist approached a woman officer sitting in her Jeep talking to her men who were, at that very moment, in the middle of a firefight. When the Journalist asked her why she wasn’t in there fighting alongside with her men, she replied: I don’t want to get hurt!”
</font><font color=blue>
My thoughts of women in combat are no longer good. Sorry about that, but that tainted my idea of the “woman warrior” forever.
</font><font color=red>
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And that officer, like any other, should have been pulled up on charges of cowardice in the face of the enemy under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, unless she was kidding and was doing fire control observation.
Respectfully,
Lee Darrow, C.Ht.
-
Allen M.
Ancient Women Warriors
I don't think so, Lee.
We are now living in a woman's world where she makes up all the rules, like it or not.
------------------
Allen Moulton from Uechi-ryu Etcetera
We are now living in a woman's world where she makes up all the rules, like it or not.
------------------
Allen Moulton from Uechi-ryu Etcetera
-
Guest
Ancient Women Warriors
What I'm hearing is "if they can't fit in the box, then they don't belong in the box". That sounds a lot like good old fashioned discrimination.
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Just sounds like recruitment criteria too me.
When one recruits personnel for the military or for civilian jobs one must establish some criteria the applicants must demonstrate to be considered for the team.
Some civilian positions require the candidate to have an MBA. So if you don't have the degree don't apply, because you're not qualified! Just because you don't have the degree doesn't mean you can not do the job. But the people doing the recruiting have determined to have a new employee who will be functional quickly the degree is an indicator of success in the organization. (This assumption is based on results of past job incumbent's)
These recruiters are attempting recruit personnel who will perform within desirable performance characteristics.
I have seen organizations us screening tests that require all applicants to score within a specific range in the tests. This range is the mean average of quality job incumbents. Applicants who score to low are considered not qualified and disguarded. Applicants who score too high (above the mean range) are deemed to be over qualified, they will not be challenged in the position, they will be bored and not perform well as a result of their lack of focus. They too are rejected.
These screening methods are far from foolproof. They do however narrow the field and keep the field within traditional acceptable parameters. (Based on the long term results of the recruiting organization) Now the recruiting organization is the one paying the salaries so they normally try to choose the incumbents they desire.
So if someone fails to measure up to military recruitment requirements, I don't see it as sexism, I just figure they are not suited to military needs.
Military recruitment is a serious business. If you have the wrong folks you may loose the war you will definitely loose lives.
Now we all know the military is not perfect. After all this is where the term SNAFU came from. (Systems normal all f**ked up) But based on there centuries of experience they have
determined that combat is a physical game. They have therefore utilized physical prescreening as part of the recruitment process to eliminate applicants who do not possess the physical attributes displayed by successful past incumbents.
This is not designing the box to keep the ladies out; it's screening for the attributes that are desired.
Police departments and fire departments do it too. The Vancouver police department requires all recruits to pass a physical exam. Part of the exam is diving off a 12-foot wharf and pulling a 200 pound dummy from the harbor. You must swim back to a ladder and carry it to the top of the wharf.
If you can not do it your gone. The fire department has similar requirements. Heavy dead weight out window and down the ladder.
I would suggest that these requirements test the candidate's ability to perform lifesaving tasks in the day to day performance of their duties. Police work, combat and firefighting all require strength of character and body. I grow weary of those who feel discriminated because of their sex or race and want to change the requirements of the job.
If a candidate does not posses the physical strength to pass the recruitment test then they are not qualified. The Box exists for a reason. If one can not measure up and they truly want to they should train. Many women and many people of diminutive race have succeeded in passing these tests. I see no reason to lower the bar. To those who succeed I would say welcome to the team!
Laird
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Just sounds like recruitment criteria too me.
When one recruits personnel for the military or for civilian jobs one must establish some criteria the applicants must demonstrate to be considered for the team.
Some civilian positions require the candidate to have an MBA. So if you don't have the degree don't apply, because you're not qualified! Just because you don't have the degree doesn't mean you can not do the job. But the people doing the recruiting have determined to have a new employee who will be functional quickly the degree is an indicator of success in the organization. (This assumption is based on results of past job incumbent's)
These recruiters are attempting recruit personnel who will perform within desirable performance characteristics.
I have seen organizations us screening tests that require all applicants to score within a specific range in the tests. This range is the mean average of quality job incumbents. Applicants who score to low are considered not qualified and disguarded. Applicants who score too high (above the mean range) are deemed to be over qualified, they will not be challenged in the position, they will be bored and not perform well as a result of their lack of focus. They too are rejected.
These screening methods are far from foolproof. They do however narrow the field and keep the field within traditional acceptable parameters. (Based on the long term results of the recruiting organization) Now the recruiting organization is the one paying the salaries so they normally try to choose the incumbents they desire.
So if someone fails to measure up to military recruitment requirements, I don't see it as sexism, I just figure they are not suited to military needs.
Military recruitment is a serious business. If you have the wrong folks you may loose the war you will definitely loose lives.
Now we all know the military is not perfect. After all this is where the term SNAFU came from. (Systems normal all f**ked up) But based on there centuries of experience they have
determined that combat is a physical game. They have therefore utilized physical prescreening as part of the recruitment process to eliminate applicants who do not possess the physical attributes displayed by successful past incumbents.
This is not designing the box to keep the ladies out; it's screening for the attributes that are desired.
Police departments and fire departments do it too. The Vancouver police department requires all recruits to pass a physical exam. Part of the exam is diving off a 12-foot wharf and pulling a 200 pound dummy from the harbor. You must swim back to a ladder and carry it to the top of the wharf.
If you can not do it your gone. The fire department has similar requirements. Heavy dead weight out window and down the ladder.
I would suggest that these requirements test the candidate's ability to perform lifesaving tasks in the day to day performance of their duties. Police work, combat and firefighting all require strength of character and body. I grow weary of those who feel discriminated because of their sex or race and want to change the requirements of the job.
If a candidate does not posses the physical strength to pass the recruitment test then they are not qualified. The Box exists for a reason. If one can not measure up and they truly want to they should train. Many women and many people of diminutive race have succeeded in passing these tests. I see no reason to lower the bar. To those who succeed I would say welcome to the team!
Laird
Ancient Women Warriors
Two views:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
And:
http://www.policefoundation.org/docs/policewomen.html
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
[Ron Bales]"Our politicians continue to promise more uniformed reinforcement. What we get in Tampa are the loveliest young women one would ever hope to see across the dinner table. They are not what one would hope to see when calling for help dealing with a 6' 3" 250-pound prison-physique on the rampage. These gendarmettes are gorgeous but mostly useless. Then again, many cops are useless, and not so pleasant to look at."
And:
http://www.policefoundation.org/docs/policewomen.html
-
uechiwoman
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2000 6:01 am
- Location: Silver Spring, MD
Ancient Women Warriors
Standards should be uniform for everyone employed in the same occupation, regardless of their gender. If a PERSON can't pass a minimum physical strength test required for a program, then they can't enter the program. If MOST men are stronger than MOST women, then more men will likely be in a more physically demanding job. That's no reason to exclude the women who can cut it, though, nor is it a reason to lower standards so more women can.
A woman who's hit so hard by PMS that she's doubled over with cramps shouldn't make it through medical screening for assignment to some types of duty like a ground combat unit. Most women who are in good physical condition are uncomfortable or experience pain that's tolerable. Sanchin training also helps in that regard but that is another thread.
-Heather
A woman who's hit so hard by PMS that she's doubled over with cramps shouldn't make it through medical screening for assignment to some types of duty like a ground combat unit. Most women who are in good physical condition are uncomfortable or experience pain that's tolerable. Sanchin training also helps in that regard but that is another thread.
-Heather
-
Allen M.
Ancient Women Warriors
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
------------------
Allen Moulton from Uechi-ryu Etcetera
Absolutely!!!That's no reason to exclude the women who can cut it, though, nor is it a reason to lower standards so more women can.
------------------
Allen Moulton from Uechi-ryu Etcetera
