PDA

View Full Version : Foreign Policy: Women and gays serving in the military?




Lishy
03-11-2012, 10:50 PM
What is Paul's views of Women and Gays serving in the military? Would he allow them to fulfill offensive roles, and not just defensive?

cstarace
03-11-2012, 10:52 PM
Well, he voted for the repeal of DADT. So that answers the latter part of your question.

Republicanguy
03-12-2012, 10:26 AM
Few women worldwide make a career in the military as a foot soldier, and few ever pass through as good as a man.

Women should be allowed to fight, it is difficult as it is with the Misogynistic attitude that continues to exist in ranks in any military the world over.

Ofcourse not all militaries have women in the ranks where men are.

I have read two books on some women's experiences a couple of years back, "Lonely Soldier - The private war of women who served in Iraq" by Helen Benedict. This book in the concluding chapter lists solutions to change attitudes and make the military a much more equal institution. Racism and sexism are rampent in the military.

And "Is the Army any place for a woman?" by former Irish soldier Valerie O'Brien.

There is also another book by the former Marine volunteer who had to pick up the dead body parts "Shade it Black" - Jess Goodell. I wouldn't read it as it is graphic about her experiences with dealing with her job and sexist attitudes.

President Obama hasn't changed anything for them so far.

Republicanguy
03-17-2012, 09:49 AM
I think only a woman who gets elected president might be able to change the way the institution is run, but having said the above it would be very difficult. It doesn't stop there, it has to be a agreed by all people.

klamath
03-17-2012, 10:02 AM
Few women worldwide make a career in the military as a foot soldier, and few ever pass through as good as a man.

Women should be allowed to fight, it is difficult as it is with the Misogynistic attitude that continues to exist in ranks in any military the world over.

Ofcourse not all militaries have women in the ranks where men are.

I have read two books on some women's experiences a couple of years back, "Lonely Soldier - The private war of women who served in Iraq" by Helen Benedict. This book in the concluding chapter lists solutions to change attitudes and make the military a much more equal institution. Racism and sexism are rampent in the military.

And "Is the Army any place for a woman?" by former Irish soldier Valerie O'Brien.

There is also another book by the former Marine volunteer who had to pick up the dead body parts "Shade it Black" - Jess Goodell. I wouldn't read it as it is graphic about her experiences with dealing with her job and sexist attitudes.

President Obama hasn't changed anything for them so far.Have you served in the American army?

eduardo89
03-17-2012, 10:03 AM
Women should not serve in combat roles.

Personally I think DADT was fair, but if it's repealed, all sexual behavior should be punished.

bluesc
03-17-2012, 10:11 AM
Women in infantry would cause more problems than it would solve with extra manpower.

In my TA (National Guard) unit we allow women to train with infantry when they are going through a phase of UOTC (similar to ROTC). Luckily I never had any women in my platoon, but I heard some bad stories from a sister platoon.

I've worked with women in the engineers and logistics though, and some problems exist there too, mainly with taking orders. Can you imagine some of the women on this forum having to take orders from a male officer? Hence the problem in infantry. The feminazi movement has probably killed any real chance of women serving in the infantry any time soon, at least in the western world.

klamath
03-17-2012, 10:38 AM
I have served in combat with women soldiers and they are just as good a men. Certain heavy lifting high strength MOS's (Military Occupational speciality) a lot of women would be hard pressed to keep up though there is always the exceptions. Women take orders and give orders with the same sucess rate as men. There is sexism going both ways. I have known women that slept around with the guys and then when things didn't go right filed sexual harrassment charges. By the same token I have seen some disgusting treatment of women soldiers by guy soldiers but over all everyone has to gain respect in the military both male and female. I have seen both male and female officers gain a great deal of respect and I have seen them lose all respect. I have seen a Female Battalion commander relieved of duty in combat(Very rare) and the female soldiers were cheering just as loud as the male soldiers.

MelissaWV
03-17-2012, 10:54 AM
Re: the OP, I don't know what Ron's stance is on this. It would be interesting to hear, because on the one side he is quite a gentleman and doesn't want women on the front lines (of course, he wants NO ONE on the front lines if he can help it). On the other hand, he would not want discriminatory practices in place that only serve to give the Government/military more power.

* * *

People have trouble taking orders in general, bluesc. The guys on these forums are certainly no better than the women at that one.

As others have pointed out, a lot of the concern is about physical ability. Military standards should be inflexible, and if not a single woman makes it past those standards, so be it. If a thousand women make it, and whatever other standards are involved, I don't see the issue. When you're deploying into certain areas, you have to understand the culture, and there are situations where even a qualified woman should never be on the front lines. Some "enemies" have much more fun torturing women than men, and would make quite a show of it to any male captives. Not a good situation. That isn't sexist, though; it's smart. If there were a nation populated exclusively by old-fashioned KKK, and we invaded (we invade everyone), would you send in an infantry of all dark-skinned and homosexual soldiers? That might get... um... yeah. Not so good an idea overall.

Added to all of that, there should be gender neutral rules that are clear and enforced for everybody. This means that women don't get special protection from hearing a crude joke, they don't get time off for their time of the month, they don't get out of serving by getting pregnant (without some sort of compensation, I guess, to the military; men don't exactly get daddy time off from combat). This means that no one gets special protection if they rape someone, assault them, etc.. It should also be kind of obvious and plain to any woman that spending time in a high-stress environment with that much of a man:woman ratio is going to cause its own kind of problems. There is a certain amount of roughness that goes with the job. This is true on oil rigs, in the military, among firemen, etc.. If you can't handle it, then it's just malicious to try to bend the entirety of the military to your fluffy feel-good whims.

bluesc
03-17-2012, 10:58 AM
I have served in combat with women soldiers and they are just as good a men. Certain heavy lifting high strength MOS's (Military Occupational speciality) a lot of women would be hard pressed to keep up though there is always the exceptions. Women take orders and give orders with the same sucess rate as men. There is sexism going both ways. I have known women that slept around with the guys and then when things didn't go right filed sexual harrassment charges. By the same token I have seen some disgusting treatment of women soldiers by guy soldiers but over all everyone has to gain respect in the military both male and female. I have seen both male and female officers gain a great deal of respect and I have seen them lose all respect. I have seen a Female Battalion commander relieved of duty in combat(Very rare) and the female soldiers were cheering just as loud as the male soldiers.

Make no mistake, many men with big egos have trouble taking orders too, but disciplinary action in those cases is a pretty simple affair while the senior officers try to avoid taking on females, not for lack of ability, but for the many difficulties associated, extra paperwork, etc.

Sexual harassment suits are big deal and a huge factor, and a major source of inequality that is a result (intentional or unintentional) of the equality movement. There are some horror stories resulting from these. It is also why it's easier for the senior staff to just avoid rather than deal with.

Obviously being a reserve force is a factor as well, as well as taking on women from "privileged" backgrounds who see it as a part time gig to boost employment opportunities post-graduation.

All of that said, if the women of the army (~10%, mostly logistics) decided to stop working, the whole thing would shut down.

It's a tough situation, but if the disciplinary process is streamlined for both sexes, it could work.

eduardo89
03-17-2012, 10:58 AM
This is true on oil rigs, in the military, among firemen, etc.. If you can't handle it, then it's just malicious to try to bend the entirety of the military to your fluffy feel-good whims.

Yet that is exactly what's happening.

Demigod
03-17-2012, 11:00 AM
In my experience politicians have trouble with women soldiers fighting in the first lines not the army.If planes bringing home the bodies of dead fathers,sons and brothers is bad PR for them imagine what kind of PR dead mothers,sisters or daughters would their precious little wars get.

I do not see any reason why women could not be assault troops.

MelissaWV
03-17-2012, 11:01 AM
Yet that is exactly what's happening.

I know. I'm against it. The world's become so obsessed with being "diverse" that people have forgotten there's a job to be done in any profession. The person chosen should be the most qualified and the best fit. If that winds up being an entire company populated by left-handed Chinese men, each missing their right eye, so be it. The same thing is happening in schools, where instead of actually teaching the basic subjects, you have diversity day and assemblies about bullying and entire classes that focus on giving everyone the warm fuzzies. :(

eduardo89
03-17-2012, 11:04 AM
I know. I'm against it. The world's become so obsessed with being "diverse" that people have forgotten there's a job to be done in any profession. The person chosen should be the most qualified and the best fit. If that winds up being an entire company populated by left-handed Chinese men, each missing their right eye, so be it. The same thing is happening in schools, where instead of actually teaching the basic subjects, you have diversity day and assemblies about bullying and entire classes that focus on giving everyone the warm fuzzies. :(

I completely agree.

Didn't the federal government just recently institute a rule that contractors have to have an at least 7% disabled workforce?

bluesc
03-17-2012, 11:04 AM
People have trouble taking orders in general, bluesc. The guys on these forums are certainly no better than the women at that one.

Absolutely. I just pointed that out in a post. The difference (in the armed forces) is that disciplinary actions are straightforward with one sex and not the other.


As others have pointed out, a lot of the concern is about physical ability. Military standards should be inflexible, and if not a single woman makes it past those standards, so be it. If a thousand women make it, and whatever other standards are involved, I don't see the issue. When you're deploying into certain areas, you have to understand the culture, and there are situations where even a qualified woman should never be on the front lines. Some "enemies" have much more fun torturing women than men, and would make quite a show of it to any male captives. Not a good situation. That isn't sexist, though; it's smart. If there were a nation populated exclusively by old-fashioned KKK, and we invaded (we invade everyone), would you send in an infantry of all dark-skinned and homosexual soldiers? That might get... um... yeah. Not so good an idea overall.


Physical ability is a common argument, but the pass rate among the exercises we run (of the ones who don't drop out, which is pretty much equal among sexes) is roughly the same. If physical ability was the only factor, both sexes could fulfill the light infantry role.


Added to all of that, there should be gender neutral rules that are clear and enforced for everybody. This means that women don't get special protection from hearing a crude joke, they don't get time off for their time of the month, they don't get out of serving by getting pregnant (without some sort of compensation, I guess, to the military; men don't exactly get daddy time off from combat). This means that no one gets special protection if they rape someone, assault them, etc.. It should also be kind of obvious and plain to any woman that spending time in a high-stress environment with that much of a man:woman ratio is going to cause its own kind of problems. There is a certain amount of roughness that goes with the job. This is true on oil rigs, in the military, among firemen, etc.. If you can't handle it, then it's just malicious to try to bend the entirety of the military to your fluffy feel-good whims.

Can't disagree with this. It's where most of the problems currently arise. There are (political and bureaucratic) problems with implementing any change though, and apparently the status quo is preferred.

klamath
03-17-2012, 11:21 AM
Re: the OP, I don't know what Ron's stance is on this. It would be interesting to hear, because on the one side he is quite a gentleman and doesn't want women on the front lines (of course, he wants NO ONE on the front lines if he can help it). On the other hand, he would not want discriminatory practices in place that only serve to give the Government/military more power.

* * *

People have trouble taking orders in general, bluesc. The guys on these forums are certainly no better than the women at that one.

As others have pointed out, a lot of the concern is about physical ability. Military standards should be inflexible, and if not a single woman makes it past those standards, so be it. If a thousand women make it, and whatever other standards are involved, I don't see the issue. When you're deploying into certain areas, you have to understand the culture, and there are situations where even a qualified woman should never be on the front lines. Some "enemies" have much more fun torturing women than men, and would make quite a show of it to any male captives. Not a good situation. That isn't sexist, though; it's smart. If there were a nation populated exclusively by old-fashioned KKK, and we invaded (we invade everyone), would you send in an infantry of all dark-skinned and homosexual soldiers? That might get... um... yeah. Not so good an idea overall.

Added to all of that, there should be gender neutral rules that are clear and enforced for everybody. This means that women don't get special protection from hearing a crude joke, they don't get time off for their time of the month, they don't get out of serving by getting pregnant (without some sort of compensation, I guess, to the military; men don't exactly get daddy time off from combat). This means that no one gets special protection if they rape someone, assault them, etc.. It should also be kind of obvious and plain to any woman that spending time in a high-stress environment with that much of a man:woman ratio is going to cause its own kind of problems. There is a certain amount of roughness that goes with the job. This is true on oil rigs, in the military, among firemen, etc.. If you can't handle it, then it's just malicious to try to bend the entirety of the military to your fluffy feel-good whims.
In my last unit our sexual harrassment NCO was a female. She related a story about how she went to korea as a new soldier and was being introduced to the unit. One of the guys made a rude comment to her which she brushed off. A new male soldier with her decided to be her guardian and immediately filed harassment charges on her behalf. The soldiers of the unit only saw it as her immediately throwing her weight around with harrassment charges. She could never become part of the unit because the men were scared to be around her. She actually was one of the most capable easy going soldiers I have ever served with. Her point in her story was that most women can handle the stupid crude remarks men always on their own.

tod evans
03-17-2012, 11:37 AM
I've been in the service, known many women and several ***** in my 51yrs.

The women and ***** are far more ruthless than any "normal" men I have known.

Further, I have never known any **** to make overtures to straight people the way "normal" male service members do to "normal" female service members.

I say so long as our government is looking to recruit "cannon-fodder" we might as well let them be equal opportunity.

BUT; I'm dead set against special treatment of any service member for any reason especially for race/gender or religion.

Voluntary Man
03-17-2012, 12:13 PM
There are two problems with women in the military, quartering and chain of command.

Some of the same problems might be applied to homosexuals in the military, but to a lesser degree, I believe.

I certainly foresee circumstances when women might be required to fight, and (even if only for self-defense) I consider it irresponsible to not train women to do so.

However, except when absolutely necessary, having women fight (whether it is their will to do so or not) on the front lines with their husbands, brothers, and fathers corrupts the protective instinct that all men should have for their mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters, and it dissolves the social barrier to violence by men against women.

Further, whether women serve in combat roles or not, there exists the problem of billeting and fraternization. In prior times, there was a Women's Army Corp, in which female officers and enlisted personnel reported to female superiors, not to men. Since the combining of the services, the problems of fraternization, sexual harassment, and rape have skyrocketed (of course, the DoD likes to try to keep a lid on these incidents, but anyone who has served knows how ubiquitous these cases are).

A subset of the above described difficulties of sexual integration within the services is the impossibility of segregating the homosexual population. Prior to the implementation and subsequent repeal of DADT, homosexuals were openly discouraged from openly serving. How? Upon enlistment they were asked if they were homosexual. If they answered "yes," they were barred from service, but if they answered "no," they were permitted to serve, so long as their actions didn't betray a lie. Later, under Clinton, the question was no longer allowed to be asked, but homosexuals were still forbidden to disclose their preference.

DADT and the prior ADT may seem "unfair" or "discriminatory" to many of you. But, remember, part of the role of the DoD is to protect the lowest ranking service member against the possible predations of the highest ranking members. Homosexuals are not any more free from lust and predatory behavior than heterosexuals. It may be popular to impute nonexistent virtue to what is seen as an oppressed or demonized class, as sort of a counterbalance to public perception, but to buy into such notions is beyond foolish.

Even under ADT, homosexuals were far from unheard of in the military. Even though they were forbidden by the UCMJ to disclose their sexual orientation, I could recall a handful [<poor choice of words?] of soldiers who I'm confident were barely closeted in their civilian lives, and my gaydar isn't even that good. However, I never recall one of them being hazed or otherwise troubled about it, although no one was exactly synchronizing their shower schedules with them, either. Let's face it, just as male and female service members shouldn't be sharing the showers, showering with an openly gay member of the same sex might make things a little awkward, to say the least.

While it is true that, throughout human history, desperate times have arisen when men and women were forced to fight side-by-side, it has usually been military policy -- and I think a wise one -- to keep women as close to the safety of home and hearth, and as far from the horrors of the front lines as possible.

It is, also, true that homosexuals have served honorably as soldiers for as long as there have been armies, which is not to say that it's ever good policy for them to do so openly.

Keith and stuff
03-17-2012, 01:23 PM
I am no longer in the military, but even in 2007, women and people attracted to people of the same sex served in the military. They also severed on the front lines. No one even complained to me. I never heard anyone complain. I was in the medical field. Perhaps things were different somewhere else in the military.

I am not sure how long women have served in very dangerous military situations. Did it start 10 years ago, 30 years ago, 60 years ago? I do know it seemed widely accepted when I was in the military as I never heard a single complaint about it.

klamath
03-17-2012, 01:37 PM
I've been in the service, known many women and several ***** in my 51yrs.

The women and ***** are far more ruthless than any "normal" men I have known.

Further, I have never known any **** to make overtures to straight people the way "normal" male service members do to "normal" female service members.I say so long as our government is looking to recruit "cannon-fodder" we might as well let them be equal opportunity.

BUT; I'm dead set against special treatment of any service member for any reason especially for race/gender or religion. I have multiple times though not as much however that is very well skewed because the cost used to be ternination from service for a Homosexual advance while the most you might get for an heterosexual advance is a artical 15

tod evans
03-17-2012, 01:42 PM
I have multiple times though not as much however that is very well skewed because the cost used to be ternination from service for a Homosexual advance while the most you might get for an heterosexual advance is a artical 15

Guess I'm a tad bit uglier and older.......:(

Republicanguy
03-18-2012, 08:18 AM
I've never served in any military. But my primary point is, is that sexism and the idea that men should always be the protector is a very strong and old fashioned belief.

If woman cannot fight then they are very weak in the eyes of men, and are open to abuse either way. This view that women should be protected at all costs like in the old world is pretty deplorable. Naturally anybody that somebody cares about will protect, but this other view that a woman has no place in defending is ultimately quite disgusting.

To be a man doesn't mean to be able to dominate or just to protect women. That is far too old fashioned, out dated dogma.

A society cannot be strong without all genders and anyone else not being a part of defence.

truelies
03-18-2012, 08:33 AM
Soooooo what is your goal- a military capable of defending America or a social science experiment coupled with feel good diversity?

Republicanguy
03-18-2012, 09:05 AM
An Austrailian news columnist wrote about "Equality in war is lunacy." http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/equality-for-women-in-war-is-lunacy/story-e6frg76f-1225775215427

To say that women in the military is just a bad social experiment, one can wonder if you really are on the side of old fashioned conversatism.

The Lonely soldier book is a reading for anybody here. There is nothing wrong with a woman who can or proves to be able to be a part of the military. I am against ugly agendas by any woman who want to make a mess of the institution and pursue some sort of vendetta, they should be out. But at the same time a balance that men must also adopt is that women have a role in defending their nation as much as they do. Some guys out there only think a woman should be sorting the food out or just being a nurse in the military.

I donated my books on this subject to a charity shop, I first came across this book when an article in the BBC was published back three years ago. It was published in 2010. For anybody interested here are some clips related to the book.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hjOka0Ln4o Helen Benedict author of the book "What makes a woman want to be a soldier?", gives a read of her book(1hrs).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43tD-RYmjm0 2006 Eli Painted Crow - half native American. She joined the military in 1981-2005.

Another one of her 2009 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_e7rdiHngY

Somebody like Mr Paul isn't a man who probably thinks a woman should be the backbone of a military. He just pretends to go along with it. I am not against him for that, and I admire the man for his political honesty and his anti war message. But I don't agree with him on a number of issues. But that is okay, naturally this is the way.

Voluntary Man
03-18-2012, 09:44 AM
I've never served in any military. But my primary point is, is that sexism and the idea that men should always be the protector is a very strong and old fashioned belief.

If woman cannot fight then they are very weak in the eyes of men, and are open to abuse either way. This view that women should be protected at all costs like in the old world is pretty deplorable. Naturally anybody that somebody cares about will protect, but this other view that a woman has no place in defending is ultimately quite disgusting.

To be a man doesn't mean to be able to dominate or just to protect women. That is far too old fashioned, out dated dogma.

A society cannot be strong without all genders and anyone else not being a part of defence.

Not sure how many genders you think there are, but each gender/sex has a role, whether you like it or not.

I'm curious: are you married? If you're gay, I can sort of understand your position, of course. Otherwise, what does your wife/girlfriend think of your idea that she has no more need/expectation to be protected by you than a buddy who's losing a fight? I mean, if some guy grabs her ass in a bar or starts mauling her, you'll just sit back and watch, but, hey, if it turns out that the guy has her over-matched, you might step in? Maybe? Do you have any daughters? Sisters? A mother?

"Outdated gender roles"? You sound like a Marxist broken record. Feminism was developed by Marxists to corrupt the fundamental building blocks of the family (i.e., "gender roles"). Without gender roles the family disintegrates. Without strong families Marxism flourishes. Whether you've actually read the Communist Manifesto or not, it's obvious that you've been indoctrinated to accept some of its basic tenets. Feminism is just a tool for further dividing and conquering a decaying society, just as the propagation of homosexuality is a eugenics device.

Some "men" continue to eagerly lap up feminism, because it gives them cover for being degenerates, predators, or pussies!

klamath
03-18-2012, 10:03 AM
An Austrailian news columnist wrote about "Equality in war is lunacy." http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/equality-for-women-in-war-is-lunacy/story-e6frg76f-1225775215427

To say that women in the military is just a bad social experiment, one can wonder if you really are on the side of old fashioned conversatism.

The Lonely soldier book is a reading for anybody here. There is nothing wrong with a woman who can or proves to be able to be a part of the military. I am against ugly agendas by any woman who want to make a mess of the institution and pursue some sort of vendetta, they should be out. But at the same time a balance that men must also adopt is that women have a role in defending their nation as much as they do. Some guys out there only think a woman should be sorting the food out or just being a nurse in the military.

I donated my books on this subject to a charity shop, I first came across this book when an article in the BBC was published back three years ago. It was published in 2010. For anybody interested here are some clips related to the book.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hjOka0Ln4o Helen Benedict author of the book "What makes a woman want to be a soldier?", gives a read of her book(1hrs).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43tD-RYmjm0 2006 Eli Painted Crow - half native American. She joined the military in 1981-2005.

Another one of her 2009 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_e7rdiHngY

Somebody like Mr Paul isn't a man who probably thinks a woman should be the backbone of a military. He just pretends to go along with it. I am not against him for that, and I admire the man for his political honesty and his anti war message. But I don't agree with him on a number of issues. But that is okay, naturally this is the way.
reading one womens book is not going to give a clear picture of what is happening in the US military. There are actually very little areas in the US military where women are barred. In iraq and afganistan. For all extents and purposes US women are in combat now. The majority of all people killed in Iraq were from Ambushs of convoys and IEDs. Women are on those convoys. Women are appache pilots, blackhawk pilots fighter pilots, gunners on helicopters, gun trucks. They go through basic training with men. They serve on naval ships and subs. The jobs they do put them on the frontlines of modern combat.
Yes there are problems. Guys will do dumb stunts to each other in the military. Tip Porta pottys over while guys are using them. Stupid horseplay but if they try this with some women soldiers they would have charges filled against them for sexual harrassment.
You seem to have a very limited idea about the US military, based on a few books. I haven't read the books but with the ideas they gave you I suspect they are written by women that had a chips on their shoulders and couldn't work as a team. Some people in the military get treated bad by certain member of groups and form a bitterness against those groups.
And no women in the military will not become the backbone of the military because the majority of the women I know in general, the military life does not even appeal to them.

MaxPower
03-18-2012, 10:04 AM
I believe Dr. Paul's position (which I agree with) is that women who can pass the same objective standards for combat capability men can should be allowed to fight if they so desire; this means none of that "lower-the-bar-for-women-to-become-Marines" business. For example, if one needs to be able to do 50 push-ups, 10 pull-ups and run a mile-and-a-half in 10 minutes (I think those figures roughly approximate the actual requirements, though the running time is laughably slow to my ears) to be considered a combat-ready Navy SEAL, then females who want to fight as Navy SEALS should have to do 50 push-ups, 10 pull-ups and run a mile-and-a-half in 10 minutes. As such, unless the objective bar were lowered for everyone, we would inevitably still end up with a disproportionately male combat force, but females would not be barred in any discriminatory fashion.

Voluntary Man
03-18-2012, 10:09 AM
I believe Dr. Paul's position (which I agree with) is that women who can pass the same objective standards for combat capability men can should be allowed to fight if they so desire; this means none of that "lower-the-bar-for-women-to-become-Marines" business. For example, if one needs to be able to do 50 push-ups, 10 pull-ups and run a mile-and-a-half in 10 minutes (I think those figures roughly approximate the actual requirements, though the running time is laughably slow to my ears) to be considered a combat-ready Navy SEAL, then females who want to fight as Navy SEALS should have to do 50 push-ups, 10 pull-ups and run a mile-and-a-half in 10 minutes. As such, unless the objective bar were lowered for everyone, we would inevitably still end up with a disproportionately male combat force, but females would not be barred in any discriminatory fashion.

Should also have to pee standing up.;)

klamath
03-18-2012, 10:16 AM
I believe Dr. Paul's position (which I agree with) is that women who can pass the same objective standards for combat capability men can should be allowed to fight if they so desire; this means none of that "lower-the-bar-for-women-to-become-Marines" business. For example, if one needs to be able to do 50 push-ups, 10 pull-ups and run a mile-and-a-half in 10 minutes (I think those figures roughly approximate the actual requirements, though the running time is laughably slow to my ears) to be considered a combat-ready Navy SEAL, then females who want to fight as Navy SEALS should have to do 50 push-ups, 10 pull-ups and run a mile-and-a-half in 10 minutes. As such, unless the objective bar were lowered for everyone, we would inevitably still end up with a disproportionately male combat force, but females would not be barred in any discriminatory fashion.
Women's standards in this very area are lower than mens in the army. It is called phyical fitness or how goodof condition your body is. The standards are figured on what is considered the proper normal fitness of the sexes.

Voluntary Man
03-18-2012, 11:50 PM
I believe Dr. Paul's position (which I agree with) is that women who can pass the same objective standards for combat capability men can should be allowed to fight if they so desire; this means none of that "lower-the-bar-for-women-to-become-Marines" business. For example, if one needs to be able to do 50 push-ups, 10 pull-ups and run a mile-and-a-half in 10 minutes (I think those figures roughly approximate the actual requirements, though the running time is laughably slow to my ears) to be considered a combat-ready Navy SEAL, then females who want to fight as Navy SEALS should have to do 50 push-ups, 10 pull-ups and run a mile-and-a-half in 10 minutes. As such, unless the objective bar were lowered for everyone, we would inevitably still end up with a disproportionately male combat force, but females would not be barred in any discriminatory fashion.

Is this accurate, BTW? In 1982 the standards were higher than that for even getting in to Army Jump School. If you didn't meet the standards on day one, you weren't even allowed to train. Where does that info come from?

eduardo89
03-18-2012, 11:57 PM
Not sure how many genders you think there are, but each gender/sex has a role, whether you like it or not.

I'm curious: are you married? If you're gay, I can sort of understand your position, of course. Otherwise, what does your wife/girlfriend think of your idea that she has no more need/expectation to be protected by you than a buddy who's losing a fight? I mean, if some guy grabs her ass in a bar or starts mauling her, you'll just sit back and watch, but, hey, if it turns out that the guy has her over-matched, you might step? Maybe? Do you have any daughters? Sisters? A mother?

"Outdated gender roles"? You sound like a Marxist broken record. Feminism was developed by Marxists to corrupt the fundamental building blocks of the family (i.e., "gender roles"). Without gender roles the family disintegrates. Without strong families Marxism flourishes. Whether you've actually read the Communist Manifesto or not, it's obvious that you've been indoctrinated to accept some of its basic tenets. Feminism is just a tool for further dividing and conquering a decaying society, just as the propagation of homosexually is a eugenics device.

Some "men" continue to eagerly lap up feminism, because it gives them cover for being degenerates, predators, or pussies!

There's nothing more I could add. This is an awesome post. +rep

eduardo89
03-19-2012, 12:05 AM
Is this accurate, BTW? In 1982 the standards were higher than that for even getting in to Army Jump School. If you didn't meet the standards on day one, you weren't even allowed to train. Where does that info come from?

Army Physical Fitness Test for 17-21 year old male:

You need at least 60/100 points in each of the following categories

Pushups:
60 points = 22 pushups
80 points = 37 pushups
100 points = 71+ pushups

Situps:
60 points = 37 situps
80 points = 66 situps
100 points = 78+ situps

Running (2 miles):
60 points = 15:54 minutes
80 points = 14:24 minutes
100 points = 13:00 minutes or less

Voluntary Man
03-19-2012, 01:05 AM
Army Physical Fitness Test for 17-21 year old male:

You need at least 60/100 points in each of the following categories

Pushups:
60 points = 22 pushups
80 points = 37 pushups
100 points = 71+ pushups

Situps:
60 points = 37 situps
80 points = 66 situps
100 points = 78+ situps

Running (2 miles):
60 points = 15:54 minutes
80 points = 14:24 minutes
100 points = 13:00 minutes or less

Wow! Thanks. I didn't realize how far standards had declined

And, you could practically WALK the run in those times. If I recall correctly, you used to have to do that run in under 12 minutes, or you failed.

Republicanguy
03-19-2012, 07:13 AM
I'm a twenty three year old, white, hetrosexual male, and I'm not in a relationship.

I am a republican/ socialist leaning political person, I believe we should have a family unit in society, as I grew up in one, but I also do think we should have equality for all people. I deplore the hyper masculinity that degenerates men into animalistic behaviour, even though I do believe in evolution and our nature is imperfect. We are all capable if pressured, or even pushed to be that way, hell educated that way.

You really need to go the further mile to want to read about these sort of subjects, and not ignore them because their are just women talking, and they are feeble little creatures.

I am young, so I have an open mind. I don't think English men would ever trust the security of England to English women, because they don't believe in them and see them just as their girlfriend or wife.

And not all women want to be in the military, but we have to remember why we live in the society we live in, men dominate and want a certain lifestyle to prevail and always prevail. Anything else is just feeble to that particular mindset.

Ideally standards shouldn't be changed for any woman, as I did mention few women make it into the infantry of any military, and most don't allow it.

I wonder if Icelandic men are the most peaceful men in the entire world, ofcourse courtesy of American power;), at the end of the day they don't even know how to fight, they have no military. So no women in the ranks. Though the police force has a number of them.

When I was a volunteer at the charity shop I donated my books too, one American guy from Washington DC, who I had brought up the subject with him, he said that in America people tend to be more culturally conservative. It is even the same for political office, how many governors have ever been women, only a handful. It says a lot.

Seraphim
03-19-2012, 11:22 AM
Objective physical testing.

Can't pass the physical, you can't serve. Pass and you can serve. No arbitrary discrimination - purely about competance. Done.

klamath
03-19-2012, 11:31 AM
Wow! Thanks. I didn't realize how far standards had declined

And, you could practically WALK the run in those times. If I recall correctly, you used to have to do that run in under 12 minutes, or you failed.
I think your memory is off. If it was 2 miles in 12 minutes or less only about 5% of the people in the military would stll be there. Not that many people run 6 minute miles for two miles.

klamath
03-19-2012, 11:40 AM
Army Physical Fitness Test for 17-21 year old male:

You need at least 60/100 points in each of the following categories

Pushups:
60 points = 22 pushups
80 points = 37 pushups
100 points = 71+ pushups

Situps:
60 points = 37 situps
80 points = 66 situps
100 points = 78+ situps

Running (2 miles):
60 points = 15:54 minutes
80 points = 14:24 minutes
100 points = 13:00 minutes or less
It is changing.
http://www.army.mil/article/52548/TRADOC_revises_Army_Physical_Fitness_Test/

Voluntary Man
03-19-2012, 11:45 AM
I think your memory is off. If it was 2 miles in 12 minutes or less only about 5% of the people in the military would stll be there. Not that many people run 6 minute miles for two miles.

That's only about twice as fast as the average person can WALK 2 miles, not that fast. I was Airborne, and we did a lot of running, but we weren't noted as sprinters. All the currently posted SF/SEAL PT standards are BELOW the Airborne standards of 30 years ago.

According to a recruiting website I just browsed (thanks to info posted by Eduardo) a recruit can now GRADUATE from Basic Training with "50 push-up points"; that's 15 push-ups! 15! What are they doing in Basic, playing video games?!

klamath
03-19-2012, 11:53 AM
That's only about twice as fast as the average person can WALK 2 miles, not that fast. I was Airborne, and we did a lot of running, but we weren't noted as sprinters. All the currently posted SF/SEAL PT standards are BELOW the Airborne standards of 30 years ago. That is where we had the disconnect. I was talking army wide standards not spec op standards.

Voluntary Man
03-19-2012, 12:29 PM
I'm a twenty three year old, white, hetrosexual male, and I'm not in a relationship.

I am a republican/ socialist leaning political person, I believe we should have a family unit in society, as I grew up in one, but I also do think we should have equality for all people. I deplore the hyper masculinity that degenerates men into animalistic behaviour, even though I do believe in evolution and our nature is imperfect. We are all capable if pressured, or even pushed to be that way, hell educated that way.

You really need to go the further mile to want to read about these sort of subjects, and not ignore them because their are just women talking, and they are feeble little creatures.

I am young, so I have an open mind. I don't think English men would ever trust the security of England to English women, because they don't believe in them and see them just as their girlfriend or wife.

And not all women want to be in the military, but we have to remember why we live in the society we live in, men dominate and want a certain lifestyle to prevail and always prevail. Anything else is just feeble to that particular mindset.

Ideally standards shouldn't be changed for any woman, as I did mention few women make it into the infantry of any military, and most don't allow it.

I wonder if Icelandic men are the most peaceful men in the entire world, ofcourse courtesy of American power;), at the end of the day they don't even know how to fight, they have no military. So no women in the ranks. Though the police force has a number of them.

When I was a volunteer at the charity shop I donated my books too, one American guy from Washington DC, who I had brought up the subject with him, he said that in America people tend to be more culturally conservative. It is even the same for political office, how many governors have ever been women, only a handful. It says a lot.

While you're still young, unencumbered, and open-minded, this might be a good place for you to begin your deprogramming:http://www.wnd.com/2011/03/272353/

playboymommy
03-19-2012, 01:16 PM
I am no longer in the military, but even in 2007, women and people attracted to people of the same sex served in the military. They also severed on the front lines. No one even complained to me. I never heard anyone complain. I was in the medical field. Perhaps things were different somewhere else in the military.

I am not sure how long women have served in very dangerous military situations. Did it start 10 years ago, 30 years ago, 60 years ago? I do know it seemed widely accepted when I was in the military as I never heard a single complaint about it.

I like the story of Deborah Sampson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Sampson).

RJo
03-19-2012, 04:30 PM
The only sad part of the Sampson story is that she had to pose as a man to gain admission.

Republicanguy
03-20-2012, 07:22 AM
Some in the feminist movement are men hating such as Janet Porter, an English woman here who complains about the men having the say and power over decisions and the women are left out.

I don't like her attitude.

On a peak oil forum, noteably Matt Savinar's one in 2009. I had opened a thread on the military and women, especially concerning the future with energy crisis ahead, and the role of women and they're rights would be affected. Being a part of the military was an open minded idea.

But from one woman in particular who had three children and was from Austrailian probably some big man's joint. Was hateful towards me, because I said that women should have their freedom in the military and I thought it was fine. She said to piss off.

I can't understand why a woman would have three children by a man and then walk around with some sort of superiority, and then I was charged for being rude towards her, like wise she was rude and I didn't take it kindly. I hated the fact that I couldn't insult her, yet she could accuse me of presuming, yet she was doing the exact same thing towards me. And some of the other women on the board, including a few of the men said I should of listened to her and she was right because she was a woman. And that I was only a twenty year old who didn't know anything.

**** them, arrogant morons!

All I want is a society where equality exists, yes not everybody will agree with any of it. Some will be extreme, and that is just a part of reality. Women should be free in society, but shouldn't walk around with hate towards all men. That breaks down the attitude of freedom or women in the first place.

Republicanguy
03-20-2012, 07:29 AM
I like the story of Deborah Sampson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Sampson).

Brave woman! Mr Washington would never ever of thought to recognise her service. He was far to sexist to think a woman could even sabotage. What a shame.

dean.engelhardt
03-20-2012, 07:32 AM
Women should not serve in combat roles.

Personally I think DADT was fair, but if it's repealed, all sexual behavior should be punished.

I opened the thread because the OP is so outrageous. But this is LOL LOL LOL.

Did Rick Santorum hack Eduardo89's account?

cstarace
03-20-2012, 07:55 PM
I opened the thread because the OP is so outrageous. But this is LOL LOL LOL.

Did Rick Santorum hack Eduardo89's account?
Eduardo and I disagree on a lot of things, mostly socially. I think he's wrong here, but at least he's being equally fascist by punishing both heterosexual and homosexual sexual behavior.

eduardo89
03-20-2012, 07:58 PM
I opened the thread because the OP is so outrageous. But this is LOL LOL LOL.

Did Rick Santorum hack Eduardo89's account?


Eduardo and I disagree on a lot of things, mostly socially. I think he's wrong here, but at least he's being equally fascist by punishing both heterosexual and homosexual sexual behavior.

Well it's actually Ron Paul's position...He believes that the military shouldn't be sexualized and that all sexual misconduct should be punished, regardless of whether it is hetero- or homosexual in nature.

cstarace
03-20-2012, 08:02 PM
Well it's actually Ron Paul's position...He believes that the military shouldn't be sexualized and that all sexual misconduct should be punished, regardless of whether it is hetero- or homosexual in nature.
A) Source please.
B) Even if that's the case, I still disagree. Unless it's interfering with them doing their jobs, sex should not be a crime.

eduardo89
03-20-2012, 08:05 PM
A) Source please.
B) Even if that's the case, I still disagree. Unless it's interfering with them doing their jobs, sex should not be a crime.

Well this is what he said in favor of DADT


I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with.

The reasons sex and fraternization are banned in the military are maintenance of discipline and chain of command and the prevention of the spreading of military secrets to enemies, which may amount to treason or sedition under military law.

It's not just the US military that follows that policy.

cstarace
03-20-2012, 08:08 PM
Well this is what he said in favor of DADT
You're misinterpreting what he's saying. He's advocating doing away with disruptive sexual behavior. What constitutes disruptive? I don't think he meant all sexual behavior period. The discrepancy here is the use of that word. You simply said "all sexual behavior". I think there's plenty of sexual behavior that's not disruptive if it's done in a discreet and private manner.

eduardo89
03-20-2012, 08:12 PM
You're misinterpreting what he's saying. He's advocating doing away with disruptive sexual behavior. What constitutes disruptive? I don't think he meant all sexual behavior period. The discrepancy here is the use of that word. You simply said "all sexual behavior". I think there's plenty of sexual behavior that's not disruptive if it's done in a discreet and private manner.

Sorry I miswrote what I meant then. Obviously banning all sex for people in the military is ridiculous, especially given the fact that many married couples serve together. I meant sex while deployed, particularly in forward operating bases.

cstarace
03-20-2012, 08:17 PM
Sorry I miswrote what I meant then. Obviously banning all sex for people in the military is ridiculous, especially given the fact that many married couples serve together. I meant sex while deployed, particularly in forward operating bases.
Alright, then I agree. Anything that can be deemed disruptive and/or counterproductive to achieving maximum efficiency while deployed -- potentially putting fellow soldiers at risk -- is fair game.

Soldat_Amir
03-21-2012, 04:53 AM
Women should never serve as infantry!

Republicanguy
03-21-2012, 06:23 AM
Women should never serve as infantry!

Is that for the old traditional reasons or just because it doesn't look or just pretty much impractical. And if any woman out there can prove themselves, do you still disagree with a woman being in the infantry?

dean.engelhardt
03-21-2012, 06:40 AM
Well this is what he said in favor of DADT



The reasons sex and fraternization are banned in the military are maintenance of discipline and chain of command and the prevention of the spreading of military secrets to enemies, which may amount to treason or sedition under military law.

It's not just the US military that follows that policy.

Dude! You started out as being funny, but took a wrong turn. Do you really believe that sex is banned in the military? Have you served?

Jingles
03-21-2012, 06:45 AM
My view is I really don't care what race, gender, sexuality, etc... you are so long as you are able to do your job and are qualified for the job. This doesn't just apply to the military but any job really.

Republicanguy
03-22-2012, 08:23 AM
^ A very good atitude, we all should adopt that view. But that is also like saying I should be much more Libertarian leaning than socialist which I'm not.

Kluge
03-22-2012, 08:35 AM
I'm against women and gays serving in the military.

Of course, at this point, I'm against straight males serving in the military too.

Danke
03-22-2012, 10:38 AM
I'm against women and gays serving in the military.

Of course, at this point, I'm against straight males serving in the military too.

Cool, I always knew you supported my service.

Kluge
03-22-2012, 10:43 AM
Cool, I always knew you supported my service.

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2011/7/3/ca011752-25c0-4bfe-b7c4-5bfeb59b6ea2.jpg

That's for you and Eduardo.

eduardo89
03-22-2012, 12:35 PM
Dude! You started out as being funny, but took a wrong turn. Do you really believe that sex is banned in the military? Have you served?

I was talking about sex that causes disruptions to discipline and the chain of command.

That is not allowed.

eduardo89
03-22-2012, 12:36 PM
http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2011/7/3/ca011752-25c0-4bfe-b7c4-5bfeb59b6ea2.jpg

That's for you and Eduardo.

We're very proud of them.

QuickZ06
03-22-2012, 03:32 PM
Everything in the military should be 100% equal, this whole thing where women can do special pull ups and what not is ridiculous. If a women can preform her duty 100% in the infantry then let her serve in the infantry, period. There are many male grunts that would be put to shame by some female troops. Just look at history, women can and are capable of doing some pretty intense things when the time calls for it.

But the real issue we need to deal with is not letting women serve in combat positions but getting the current men and women out of these unjust wars. Then we can come back to this debate.

Danke
03-22-2012, 05:04 PM
Everything in the military should be 100% equal, this whole thing where women can do special pull ups and what not is ridiculous. If a women can preform her duty 100% in the infantry then let her serve in the infantry, period.

The military is an arm of the politicians. Hence "political."

Very political. I know from experience.

dannno
03-22-2012, 05:13 PM
all sexual behavior should be punished.

What about masturbating?

Do you really expect that an organization full of as much testosterone as the military focusing on punishing EVERYONE who engages in sexual behavior is the best way to use their resources? Do you think it is any way beneficial in the end?

Obviously they need to be treated equally... If a male soldier excessively hits on another male soldier or tries to coerce them into having sex they should be treated the same as if a male soldier did that to a female soldier.

eduardo89
03-22-2012, 05:16 PM
What about masturbating?

Do you really expect that an organization full of as much testosterone as the military focusing on punishing EVERYONE who engages in sexual behavior is the best way to use their resources? Do you think it is any way beneficial in the end?

Obviously they need to be treated equally... If a male soldier excessively hits on another male soldier or tries to coerce them into having sex they should be treated the same as if a male soldier did that to a female soldier.

If it's disruptive, then yes it should be punished. Simple as that.

UMULAS
03-22-2012, 05:16 PM
Why not make a don't ask don't tell? I mean really, If a person says there gay, and some people (even the ones that say "Hey I don't have a problem if there not near me" are going to have problems being close to them. Sometimes in drills they would have to be in close quarters. Now think, you don't want people to think differently about you, especially if there a scenario were you are in combat. I hope anyone can understand what I'm trying to say or if they can explain it to others :P

UMULAS
03-22-2012, 05:18 PM
We're very proud of them.

THEM? I'm sorry, but how are they allowing a transvestite military parade?

eduardo89
03-22-2012, 05:21 PM
THEM? I'm sorry, but how are they allowing a transvestite military parade?

Didn't you know Mexico has a big tradition of transvestite/transsexuals in the military? The first unit fought in the Mexican War of Independence in 1810. The Hombremujer Batalion was very instrumental in the Mexican Civil War as well.

flightlesskiwi
03-22-2012, 05:24 PM
The military is an arm of the politicians. Hence "political."

Very political. I know from experience.

social engineering.

dannno
03-22-2012, 05:30 PM
If it's disruptive, then yes it should be punished. Simple as that.

Sorry, missed post #61

UMULAS
03-22-2012, 05:44 PM
Didn't you know Mexico has a big tradition of transvestite/transsexuals in the military? The first unit fought in the Mexican War of Independence in 1810. The Hombremujer Batalion was very instrumental in the Mexican Civil War as well.

Link>?

eduardo89
03-22-2012, 05:54 PM
Link>?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hombremujer_Regiment

klamath
03-22-2012, 06:03 PM
The Spartans were the gay brigades.