[Way OT] Military opporutinities for the fairer sex
- Thread starter AngelTears
- Start date
- Status
Dr. Strangemonkey
First Post
well, this thread has certainly become an interesting mix of themes.
And I mean that sincerely, nice to see that this topic would draw so many different opinions and experiences.
Not sure what I can add, but...
...as far as I've known the US military kept and still works towards the two wars policy. I did see an interesting argument that the policy should be adjusted to a major war and a holding action, but I've never heard that it went anywhere. The size and policy of the US military is a subject of some note in economic and political philosophy circles, I'd be very interested to see if that had changed.
The US military may not have social experimentation as its end, but... that does not change the fact that a permanent professional military in a democracy is a social project and risk of no small significance. In US history, the dramatic increases in civic unrest, crime, domestic terrorism, and even organized and illegal threats to political community after every major American war before WWII demonstrate the truth of this principle.
The fact that the US military has never significantly threatened the US government or society since WWII is largely a result of the fact that our government has recognized the military as a social project. And acts on that recognition through such pivotal projects as the GI Bill and the racial integration of combat units.
That last project had severe morale and PR implications. Ranging from public protest at the integration of any public institution to the controversy over reports of unusually high casualty rates among black enlisted men in Vietnam.
But the success of the project as a social program cannot be denied or questioned.
Certainly any social project has its own individual issues, but the significance and usefullness of the American military to both US society and world history does involve other questions as well as the issue of how affective a tool it is for defending our rights and projecting our will.
On a slightly off topic note, the only behavior that accurately links to domestic violence is domestic violence. I know a lot of social workers and the most frightening story they tell of working with spouse abusers is that there is no consistent pattern of behaviour, dress, culture, or social class aside from the pattern of abuse. Certainly the problem is aggravated under certain conditions, but just because you and your neighbor live in the right part of town and belong to the right parties does not mean that either of you are immune to this curse.
So please be careful about drawing ideological lines around an issue that will almost certainly not be solved by everyone voting the same ticket. I even doubt that the unlikely event of the discovery of a perfect philosophy that everyone could agree on would do away with whatever imperfect past causes us to hurt the people who live with us.
And I mean that sincerely, nice to see that this topic would draw so many different opinions and experiences.
Not sure what I can add, but...
...as far as I've known the US military kept and still works towards the two wars policy. I did see an interesting argument that the policy should be adjusted to a major war and a holding action, but I've never heard that it went anywhere. The size and policy of the US military is a subject of some note in economic and political philosophy circles, I'd be very interested to see if that had changed.
The US military may not have social experimentation as its end, but... that does not change the fact that a permanent professional military in a democracy is a social project and risk of no small significance. In US history, the dramatic increases in civic unrest, crime, domestic terrorism, and even organized and illegal threats to political community after every major American war before WWII demonstrate the truth of this principle.
The fact that the US military has never significantly threatened the US government or society since WWII is largely a result of the fact that our government has recognized the military as a social project. And acts on that recognition through such pivotal projects as the GI Bill and the racial integration of combat units.
That last project had severe morale and PR implications. Ranging from public protest at the integration of any public institution to the controversy over reports of unusually high casualty rates among black enlisted men in Vietnam.
But the success of the project as a social program cannot be denied or questioned.
Certainly any social project has its own individual issues, but the significance and usefullness of the American military to both US society and world history does involve other questions as well as the issue of how affective a tool it is for defending our rights and projecting our will.
On a slightly off topic note, the only behavior that accurately links to domestic violence is domestic violence. I know a lot of social workers and the most frightening story they tell of working with spouse abusers is that there is no consistent pattern of behaviour, dress, culture, or social class aside from the pattern of abuse. Certainly the problem is aggravated under certain conditions, but just because you and your neighbor live in the right part of town and belong to the right parties does not mean that either of you are immune to this curse.
So please be careful about drawing ideological lines around an issue that will almost certainly not be solved by everyone voting the same ticket. I even doubt that the unlikely event of the discovery of a perfect philosophy that everyone could agree on would do away with whatever imperfect past causes us to hurt the people who live with us.
Last edited:
ragefearmadness
First Post
Sad to say...
2 Things to say. Only 2 things.
My wife, me both military. She separated, me too. I gets called back. Both USAF. Her intel. Me Security Forces.
Yep. That's how some of you think we speak. Sad, isn't it, for a country that holds some of the higher education standards in the world. Yes, the military is stocked with bloodthirsty, misogynistic, racist, life hating idiots. I hate that stereotype. I have worked with and for females of evry rank and type in my career field. My career field, which is the ONLY NON SPECIAL FORCES COMBAT ARMS specialty in the AF. I have met amazingly intelligent and resourceful females and females that were dummer than hammered $h
(as they say in Texas). I like to think of the military stance on women as frontline soldiers as an unfortunate consequence of a society based on ignorant patriarchal dogma. Statistically more male POWs are raped by men than females. So there goes that excuse. There is a shot called Depo-prevara(sp?), commonly used as birth control that halts the menstrual cycle, there goes that excuse. Women do not react well under fire and the threat of immenent doom. Well, ya got me there. Except, maybe just maybe, I have known women to attack armed men, who made clear their intent to rape. They attacked and won. D#mn, next excuse?
I think it is truly the mark of a society when all members are embraced as equals regardless of gender, religion or "race". The United States are founded on the ideals. Ideals that have failed to manifest. I serve (however unwillingly, now) not these nonexistent ideals, but the promise they hold. We are underpaid, overly criticized and wrongly hated, by the people we defend. Everyone has a finger to point at the military. Ask yourself, why don't we scream back? Our mouths are held closed by the vows we took. Vows that have given us a second set of laws to follow. The Uniform Code of Military Justice effectively takes away our right to free speech, right to assemble, right to privacy and our freedom of movement, as well as many other commonly held rights. So the next time any of you (Americans)choose to criticize the military or place motives fabricated by an overactive imagination, smile. My life ensures that you can do so.
R.F.M.
2 Things to say. Only 2 things.
My wife, me both military. She separated, me too. I gets called back. Both USAF. Her intel. Me Security Forces.
Yep. That's how some of you think we speak. Sad, isn't it, for a country that holds some of the higher education standards in the world. Yes, the military is stocked with bloodthirsty, misogynistic, racist, life hating idiots. I hate that stereotype. I have worked with and for females of evry rank and type in my career field. My career field, which is the ONLY NON SPECIAL FORCES COMBAT ARMS specialty in the AF. I have met amazingly intelligent and resourceful females and females that were dummer than hammered $h
(as they say in Texas). I like to think of the military stance on women as frontline soldiers as an unfortunate consequence of a society based on ignorant patriarchal dogma. Statistically more male POWs are raped by men than females. So there goes that excuse. There is a shot called Depo-prevara(sp?), commonly used as birth control that halts the menstrual cycle, there goes that excuse. Women do not react well under fire and the threat of immenent doom. Well, ya got me there. Except, maybe just maybe, I have known women to attack armed men, who made clear their intent to rape. They attacked and won. D#mn, next excuse?I think it is truly the mark of a society when all members are embraced as equals regardless of gender, religion or "race". The United States are founded on the ideals. Ideals that have failed to manifest. I serve (however unwillingly, now) not these nonexistent ideals, but the promise they hold. We are underpaid, overly criticized and wrongly hated, by the people we defend. Everyone has a finger to point at the military. Ask yourself, why don't we scream back? Our mouths are held closed by the vows we took. Vows that have given us a second set of laws to follow. The Uniform Code of Military Justice effectively takes away our right to free speech, right to assemble, right to privacy and our freedom of movement, as well as many other commonly held rights. So the next time any of you (Americans)choose to criticize the military or place motives fabricated by an overactive imagination, smile. My life ensures that you can do so.
R.F.M.
I don't know if anyone has said this, I didn't read the last couple of posts, but have you ever looked into becoming a sniper.
It's probably not as physically taxing as an infantrist but the mental fortitude required to kill someone you have been stalking for hours even days is tremendous. And I know that in the past there have been a lot of successful female snipers, see Russia in WWII.
In any case, I hope you find what you're looking for. I only wish I knew what I wanted, would make life so much more pleasant.
Tata.
Ps: A good book about sniping, its history and what is required of the person is...euh...Sniper which can be found here.
If you're interested.
It's probably not as physically taxing as an infantrist but the mental fortitude required to kill someone you have been stalking for hours even days is tremendous. And I know that in the past there have been a lot of successful female snipers, see Russia in WWII.
In any case, I hope you find what you're looking for. I only wish I knew what I wanted, would make life so much more pleasant.
Tata.
Ps: A good book about sniping, its history and what is required of the person is...euh...Sniper which can be found here.
If you're interested.
Celebrim
Legend
Joker: The Finnish military has an exceptional history of fine snipers, and Finnish paratroopers (Bear Force and the other similar special operations units from all the Scandanavian counties) are one of the few non-UK units I'd feel comfortable assigning to fight on the same battlefield as US units. Although they are small units, they have a fine fighting tradiation, excellent physical standards, obvious capabilities in the cold, good equipment, good morale, and a tactical doctrine suitable for fulfilling the role that would be used for in conjunction with US forces. I don't think that women are allowed in the Finnish special forces, but I could be wrong on that.
Just speaking from a theoretical standpoint, you could form quite fine all female sniper units for defensive purposes. Two women working as a sniper team would arguably be as effective as two men, and would have certain advantages over the average man in terms of low profile with the terrain. Small size often equates with caloric efficiency, which improves time in the field without resupply. Also, (this comment may be too crude for this board but it is germane to a discussion of sniping), mastabatory impluses and similar distractions probably occur less frequently in women. Of course, certain medical problems recently cited in would need to be controled, but we can already do so and probably the military is researching better methods for doing so at the moment anyway (not all DARPA grants are for better bullets).
So theoretically, if you are Switzerland or Finland or someplace, I don't see alot of reason not to train female sniper teams other than economics or politics. But...
The reason the US military doesn't do so (and isn't asking Congress/The President to allow women in the role) is that in our operational doctrine, sniper teams are just not commonly employed for homeland defence or other similar static defensive missions. Increasingly, sniper teams are employed as part of a combined arms offensive approach. Sniper teams double as forward spotters for air support. And this means that said sniper team is dropped into the field with 80lbs. of gear per person (laser range finders, night vision goggles, GPS, radio, a rifle, few hundred rounds of ammo, shovel, body armor, food and assorted survival gear) and expected to hump it around the environment, which brings us back to the necessity of extreme physical strength.
Just speaking from a theoretical standpoint, you could form quite fine all female sniper units for defensive purposes. Two women working as a sniper team would arguably be as effective as two men, and would have certain advantages over the average man in terms of low profile with the terrain. Small size often equates with caloric efficiency, which improves time in the field without resupply. Also, (this comment may be too crude for this board but it is germane to a discussion of sniping), mastabatory impluses and similar distractions probably occur less frequently in women. Of course, certain medical problems recently cited in would need to be controled, but we can already do so and probably the military is researching better methods for doing so at the moment anyway (not all DARPA grants are for better bullets).
So theoretically, if you are Switzerland or Finland or someplace, I don't see alot of reason not to train female sniper teams other than economics or politics. But...
The reason the US military doesn't do so (and isn't asking Congress/The President to allow women in the role) is that in our operational doctrine, sniper teams are just not commonly employed for homeland defence or other similar static defensive missions. Increasingly, sniper teams are employed as part of a combined arms offensive approach. Sniper teams double as forward spotters for air support. And this means that said sniper team is dropped into the field with 80lbs. of gear per person (laser range finders, night vision goggles, GPS, radio, a rifle, few hundred rounds of ammo, shovel, body armor, food and assorted survival gear) and expected to hump it around the environment, which brings us back to the necessity of extreme physical strength.
- Status
