Spinnoff from Golf Thread, Military-Policy-politics.

[Aquila]

Military-Policy-politics.

at the moment there is one standard for women and one for men.. which is supported by many feminist as fair why I dont know as it requires the women to not perform as much as the man.

Personally I would like to see one standard.. Period.

also
I would also like to see the officer corps drawn from the enlisted ranks and not wet behind the ears college students.. nothing like a shiny new butter bar to piss of a group of real soldiers, and get them killed. However The good ones listen to their sergeants and eventually become good leaders, however I still think too large a portion of officers have no business commanding a garbage truck, much less fighting men.


those are my two gripes/and topics for discussion for this particular thread

 

[Chuckus]

See my thread entitled "All Caucasian Schools and Clubs?"

 

[Aquila]

See my thread entitled "All Caucasian Schools and Clubs?"

Yes but im more concerened in this instance about officers being drawn from colleges, and the effect of the women double standard in the military issues.. ill edit so it makes better sense.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Re: Military-Policy-politics.

at the moment there is one standard for women and one for men.. which is supported by many feminist as fair why I dont know as it requires the women to not perform as much as the man.

Personally I would like to see one standard.. Period.

also
I would also like to see the officer corps drawn from the enlisted ranks and not wet behind the ears college students.. nothing like a shiny new butter bar to piss of a group of real soldiers, and get them killed. However The good ones listen to their sergeants and eventually become good leaders, however I still think too large a portion of officers have no business commanding a garbage truck, much less fighting men.


those are my two gripes/and topics for discussion for this particular thread

The standards have been lowered in order for women to be part of this, hence one set of LOWERED standards.

 

[Chuckus]

Re: Re: Military-Policy-politics.

The standards have been lowered in order for women to be part of this, hence one set of LOWERED standards.

I don't know if that's true or not, I think there are two sets of standards, one for women and one for men. If the standards across the board have been lowered then IMHO that is bad.

 

[Aquila]

Re: Re: Re: Military-Policy-politics.

I don't know if that's true or not, I think there are two sets of standards, one for women and one for men. If the standards across the board have been lowered then IMHO that is bad.

the standards have been lowered for women.. I.E. they are required to complete certain task in a longer period of time, carry less weight, be less combat effective.

In my opinion that lowers the standards for the men as well.. A soldier that can not depend on his or her squadmate to be able to accomplish certain basic functions at a certain minimum of competence and/or level of intensity is handicapped. and the sub-standard soldier has been placed in danger beyond their means of handling, which is unfair as well.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Military-Policy-politics.

the standards have been lowered for women.. I.E. they are required to complete certain task in a longer period of time, carry less weight, be less combat effective.

In my opinion that lowers the standards for the men as well.. A soldier that can not depend on his or her squadmate to be able to accomplish certain basic functions at a certain minimum of competence and/or level of intensity is handicapped. and the sub-standard soldier has been placed in danger beyond their means of handling, which is unfair as well.

Absolutely! ~smiling~

 

[ma_guy]

Aquila - As someone that is retired military I have some views on this and I'm interested in the views of others but I'm just running out the door. I'll subscribe to the thread and pop back in tomorrow morning.

Cheers!

 

[Aquila]

Aquila - As someone that is retired military I have some views on this and I'm interested in the views of others but I'm just running out the door. I'll subscribe to the thread and pop back in tomorrow morning.

Cheers!

Your views are looked foreward to.

 

[Chuckus]

Aquila - As someone that is retired military I have some views on this and I'm interested in the views of others but I'm just running out the door. I'll subscribe to the thread and pop back in tomorrow morning.

Cheers!

check out my thread also...........I think both might have some interesting posts........

http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=114948

Thread titled "Caucasian ONLY Schools and/or Clubs?????"

 

[April]

Re: Military-Policy-politics.

I still think too large a portion of officers have no business commanding a garbage truck, much less fighting men.

Damn skippy!! Fucking officers.

 

[Aquila]

Re: Re: Military-Policy-politics.

Damn skippy!! Fucking officers.

Ever notice how the good one seem to stop at O6? what is it that makes it so if your a good leader, you percolate to the mr high muckity muck REMF-Brass ranks fast?

[edited because finger slipped on number pad]

 

[April]

I think it's peer pressure. Also, most managers (whether of stores or whatever) seem to think that being a good manager means being the worst asshole you can be.

True story: Several years ago, while working at a bookstore, we got a kickass, wonderful, nice manager. We all liked her so much, we would do anything she asked us to without much complaining. Of course, we had to complain a little just for general purposes. LOL

But the point is that she was very effective, and we were extremely loyal to her because she didn't treat us like shit and wasn't above working with us. The other managers tried to get her to toe the line and be a bitch. They tried damn near everything. Tried to get her fired, threatened her, told stories about her, gave her the shit shifts, denied her vacation, etc. It was horrible. The store manager himself insisted that the only way to be good in her job and to advance was to be evil. It never did work. Eventually she left though, so I guess they got their way in the end.

I guess my point is that if you treat your workers fairly and generously even, they will be loyal and more productive than if you treat them like nothing more than warm bodies. Anybody in a position of power and authority would do well to learn and remember that.

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

Well, the standards in the military haven't been lowered BECAUSE of women. They have been lowered for many reasons.


They were losing many good soldiers, soldiers that may have had a problem on one particular part of the APFT test, but excelled in the other parts.

They were losing many good soldiers who got tired of being judged on push-ups, sit-ups, and 2 mile run, all in the name of battle readiness.

I've always been of the belief that diversity in soldiers is what makes the military strong. Have a skinny guy that can run like hell, a big guy that is slow, but can carry 300lbs and fight like a warrior...have a smart guy to think things through...a dumb guy to act as fodder etc... When the main way to weed out people is to use the APFT, then the Army is losing out.

On the topic of women's APFT, there are many women (and men) that do the bare minimum. But there are many women (and men) that try their hardest, and it shows. My wife is one such woman. She has maxed every APFT test she has ever taken. She has nearly maxed the APFT for men in her same age group, only missing by a few push-ups. She strives to be the best soldier....PERIOD!!! not the best "female" soldier.

** I do think that the APFT test should be expanded, and not only test endurance, but also test strength, agility etc... and the standards for men and women should be the same....but instead of lowering mens standard to women's standards or vice versa, just meet somewhere in the middle.

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

I agree with Aquila's main point in the thread also....officers should have to pull 3 years of enlisted time. I come from 9 generations of military people...most career military. From what I saw when I was growing up, with my dad in the Army, my mom in the Army, my step-fathers in the Army, my own time in the Army, my wife's current time in the Army....the best officers are "prior enlisted" officers. Those that know what it's like to walk in the shoes of the enlisted man.

Not just from a standpoint of knowing how enlisted men are treated, but also because the enlisted corps is where better leadership is taught.

Today, the differences between the enlisted corps and the officer corps are minimal. My wife has more college than many of the officers she has to deal with on a daily basis. Sadly, many officers are just worthless fodder that assume the word "officer" means they are better, smarter, or better leaders.

 

[Aquila]

I agree with Aquila's main point in the thread also....officers should have to pull 3 years of enlisted time. I come from 9 generations of military people...most career military. From what I saw when I was growing up, with my dad in the Army, my mom in the Army, my step-fathers in the Army, my own time in the Army, my wife's current time in the Army....the best officers are "prior enlisted" officers. Those that know what it's like to walk in the shoes of the enlisted man.

Not just from a standpoint of knowing how enlisted men are treated, but also because the enlisted corps is where better leadership is taught.

Today, the differences between the enlisted corps and the officer corps are minimal. My wife has more college than many of the officers she has to deal with on a daily basis. Sadly, many officers are just worthless fodder that assume the word "officer" means they are better, smarter, or better leaders.

Also, I think its not a good idea to have a kid, thats never seen a combat situation in his or her life, be responsible to lead soldiers in a firefight... Who knows if the kids going to crack under the preasure? I mean they can be the finest parade ground officer on the planet, but the minute they hear the bzzzzzzzzzzzzt of a bullet going by the ear, they may turn into the biggest cowards.. and nothing like a scared shitless leader to rattle the troops.. its not fair to the soldiers to be led by someone who has no clue what the hell is going on, and its not fair to the butterbars to be expected to lead his or her men in situations he or she has never seen before.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

The function of officers and enlisted is completely different in the military. An O2 is not just "assigned" to be the leader, as most of them know. Most junior grade officers rely VERY heavily on their senior non-commissioned officer for field leadership.

An officers function in field conditions is not so much "fighting" as coordinating with command grade officers to employ the tactics and placement as dictated by the BIG picture.

An anology to what you are suggesting is to allow the "pawns" to set the moves in a chess game.

Rhumb

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Re: Re: Re: Military-Policy-politics.

Ever notice how the good one seem to stop at O6? what is it that makes it so if your a good leader, you percolate to the mr high muckity muck REMF-Brass ranks fast?

[edited because finger slipped on number pad]

The ones that I know that got promoted deserved it. There's a lot of scrutiny in that move from O6 up.

 

[KillerMuffin]

The military is all about careerism. The good officers stop at O-5 because they haven't spent enough time politicking and spent too much time doing a job in a way that makes them good leaders. Good leaders are concerned with what happens below them and making sure it's in optimum working order and they are not concerned with how to move up the chain instead of taking care of troops.

I agree that officers should spend time as enlisted personnel before getting their rank. Not because the military should be topped from the bottom, but because a lot of stupid officer mistakes come from the simple fact that they don't understand what it's like to be on the bottom and they don't understand the dynamic. There is a lack of respect in a lot of officers going downwards that shouldn't be there.


My take is that females do not have the physical strength men do. Holding women to male standards will be exclusionary. Hold men to female standards will be reducing readiness. How do you solve that problem?

 

[TallOne]

And now that we've got women in the military, why don't they have to register for the draft? All in the name of equality.

Leaders with battle experience are a huge plus. But we simply don't get into enough battles these days to provide that combat experience to a large number of personnel.

In fact the majority of battles fought these days are fought strictly by officers. In the form of pilots dropping bombs. So it's not fair to generalize officers as bumbling know it alls who never face battle.

The rest is special forces territory. It takes a lot(like a land war with Iraq) to expose the ordinary foot soldier to battle. Being in the army is probably the safest place to be in today's military.

 

[Aquila]

And now that we've got women in the military, why don't they have to register for the draft? All in the name of equality.

Leaders with battle experience are a huge plus. But we simply don't get into enough battles these days to provide that combat experience to a large number of personnel.

In fact the majority of battles fought these days are fought strictly by officers. In the form of pilots dropping bombs. So it's not fair to generalize officers as bumbling know it alls who never face battle.

The rest is special forces territory. It takes a lot(like a land war with Iraq) to expose the ordinary foot soldier to battle. Being in the army is probably the safest place to be in today's military.

Actually it doesn't take much to put an infantryman into a firefight. you seem to forget the marine corps gets deployed around the globe almost on a daily basis to unstable regions.
I don't really know about the army though.. I think their primary mission is defense.. running the bases and all. though they have expiditionary forces its not their primary mission.

 

[TallOne]

Yeah the Marines would probably be the most dangerous place to be. But I hardly consider them a general infantryman. More like an entire branch of special forces. I've got a lot of respect for them. They've got the smallest budget which forces them to scrounge for materiel from other services, yet they probably face the most bullets.

But I'm a big subscriber of the Air Force policy. In a battle, you've got planes....and you've got targets.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Re: Military-Policy-politics.

at the moment there is one standard for women and one for men.. which is supported by many feminist as fair why I dont know as it requires the women to not perform as much as the man.

Personally I would like to see one standard.. Period.

Again, there is one set of standards and they have been lowered to admit women.

 

[Aquila]

Yeah the Marines would probably be the most dangerous place to be. But I hardly consider them a general infantryman. More like an entire branch of special forces. I've got a lot of respect for them. They've got the smallest budget which forces them to scrounge for materiel from other services, yet they probably face the most bullets.

But I'm a big subscriber of the Air Force policy. In a battle, you've got planes....and you've got targets.

Every marine is an infantryman first, whatever else second.. hell even the pilots get trained up as infantrymen. then again all marine pilots fly is CAS.

 

[Aquila]

Re: Re: Military-Policy-politics.

Again, there is one set of standards and they have been lowered to admit women.

Last time I checked they let the women use the step, but not the men.. which says two standards to me.