With physical, emotional, physiological issues, how can equality really be fully manifested in the services?

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 12:31:07 -0500

Not much has altered our military like the advancement of women into jobs that were male only: ship duty, subs, infantry, tank crews, pilots. The female draft is coming. What about Rangers and SEALs? How about LGBT issues? What about titles/ranks? What will the broadest context and physical manifestation of full gender equality look like? Is it as mundane as separate bathrooms and sleeping areas?

Response by SGT Benjamin Lindsey made Feb 4 at 2016 12:46 PM

SGT Benjamin Lindsey — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 12:46:57 -0500

There are already two Ranger qualified females. Once they figure out the meat and potatoes of how to put females into selection and assessment for SF and Seals it's just a matter of time before their first. I don't know how far all this will go,but if they are serious about it and it's more than just a political ploy then they should be more worried about the logistics of training and units instead of what they are going to be called.

Response by MSgt C Madd made Feb 4 at 2016 12:56 PM

MSgt C Madd — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 12:56:00 -0500

Just like Starship Troopers, communal barracks and showers. We are all the same. Nothing bad could possibly happen, right.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2016 1:01 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 13:01:32 -0500

Equality isn't a function of physical sameness. It's an equality of opportunity. On average females and men have very different strength levels, for example. But amongst men, there is also a wide variation of strength levels as well. But all men are given the opportunity to demonstrate whether they have the abilities to meet the standard. Many fail, but they were given the opportunity to try. Yet female soldiers until recently were not given the opportunity to demonstrate that they could meet the standard. They were excluded as a blanket policy. So women who do possess the capability to meet the standards are denied even the chance, while any man can get the chance to tryjust because he's a man.

That's the heart of this issue. It's not about lowering standards, it's about giving every soldier the opportunity to show that they meet the standards. As far as LGBT issues go, in 10-20 years, as the older servicemembers move on and today's young people become the senior leaders, they will wonder what all the fuss was about. Multiple surveys have shown that a large majority of young people today do not share the prejudices of their parents generation, and support LGBT rights. They have grown up side by side with openly gay friends, and each year more and more young people will enter the service with that experience.

After WWII, the Army surveyed white soldiers about their feelings on integrated units. A large majority were opposed. 80% said they did not want to have to be forced to live with or eat in the same mess halls as blacks. They said the Army should retain separate service clubs for blacks and whites. The senior generals opposed it as well. Today, those seem like ridiculous concerns to anyone but avowed racists and bigots. But those concerns were very real to those soldiers at the time. They didn't consider themselves anything but normal Americans, and thought society was losing its bearing.

I have no doubt that within a couple of decades, soldiers will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about, and those who so vehemently opposed LGBT integration today will look as out of place as those who opposed racial integration in the 40s and 50s.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Feb 4 at 2016 1:07 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 13:07:20 -0500

We will realize physical problems that require heavy lifting. At 170 lbs, 100 pounds of gear will be very tough.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Feb 4 at 2016 1:09 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 13:09:30 -0500

Simple answer? Other than for medical readiness, don't track or take gender into account at all....

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Feb 4 at 2016 1:52 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 13:52:32 -0500

The primary purpose of the military is to fight and to win wars. The more we add political agendas to the mission the more we detract from the primary purpose of the military.

We will know that we have gone too far when we lose a major war and are occupied by an enemy nation.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Feb 4 at 2016 3:32 PM

SSG Warren Swan — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 15:32:05 -0500

Senior don't think I'm playing the race card. There's a point I'm going to try and make. In the Civil War blacks were seen as less than White men and their fighting abilities were thought to be of a lesser standard. Now the movie Glory sought to show it wasn't true by using a unit 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment, led by a white man who went on to distinguish themselves in many battles. Moving forward to WWI and II, and more of the same, if you're not a White male, your abilities were doubted so you got to do jobs like porters, truck drivers (Red Ball Express), and after a LOT of doubts the Tuskegee Airmen proved anything is possible. The intent of this IS NOT to say "white man bad", or anything like that. It's to show that folks doubted the abilities of someone UNTIL they're placed in a particular position and THEN they find out those are some of the baddest mofo's out there. Women are in the same boat. Relegated to nurses, S1, factory workers in support of the war effort, yet there are some women pilots with more flight hours than their male counterparts. They don't get the "glory" being they flew the planes to their male counterparts so they could go forward and fight. Now with the GWOT(or whatever it's called today), women are no longer relegated to the "rear". There is no front lines anymore, no more standing Armies with "Honor Codes" to keep them in line. It's a complete free-for-all. I know of a few MP's that were in savage firefights, but since they're not grunts, their accomplishments are taken down and downplayed being a woman squad leader was in charge or the gunner was a woman. It's time to stop finding reasons why someone CAN'T and give them the tools so they CAN. Give them the tools, don't lower standards and should they fall, pick em the hell up, dust them off and say you got this. A video last year made the rounds on FB about a woman finishing a road march(I think it was for EFMB). The part that was shown was her falling at the end, but not across the line, and she had folks yelling at her to get up and go. It's not widely known that she BEAT a lot of her male counterparts in that march. Women CAN do it just like she did, just like the Rangers, just like the Blacks when they were doubted....the same way the most decorated unit in the Army is a Japanese American Unit who's families were in camps. Give the ladies the tools, the training, and the belief we have their back in anything they do and they will succeed.

Response by MSgt Marvin Kinderknecht made Feb 4 at 2016 5:29 PM

MSgt Marvin Kinderknecht — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 17:29:36 -0500

It can be manifested--just pass a law and POOF it happens. BS

Response by CPT Mark Gonzalez made Feb 4 at 2016 10:29 PM

CPT Mark Gonzalez — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 22:29:29 -0500

I agree with the majority of the comments, but I have to draw a distinction on LGBT. Most of us know and have no issue with an LGB, but very few of us even know a T personally. The familiarity with issue when it comes to the T is not there and it is very much a philosophical issue for many. For me it really comes down to can you do your job or not. I don't care about anything else, can you do you job. If your ability to do your job is degraded by the T or any other often associated mental health condition that is what I care about. You either make us more lethal or you don't. None of us are special and regardless of personal opinion the ultimate mission is national difference and not meeting the objectives of a special interest group or the limits of anyone's imagination on inclusiveness.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2016 1:46 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 01:46:05 -0500

LGBT issues should be this..if they have to wear their banner/button/vanity and/or they are transgendering and thinking of going through basic and thinking they will not be a security risk to the security officer then they need to get the change done before they join, go to the IRR to get their operation done, and then afterwards go another unit and/or to keep it straight- acting on duty like I am sure they did during the era before and during 'don't ask, don't tell' otherwise they are a training distraction and a liability to the unit and unit cohesion/morale/retention and discipline will suffer by LGBT 'minority rules'. It worked before. 20 years ago, I knew a suspected gay Ranger tabbed Mp solider in the CAARNG who only gave himself away when he covered his mouth when seeing men in underwear or in the shower. He was a good soldier so why do we need to make special accommodation for those LGBTQ that can't follow the army methods and discipline? I would want my battle-buddy to watch his sector instead of watching my six/behind. I am sure females who are straight would want a lesbian woman to not have roving eyes for her while they are working or on a mission. I have a transgender daughter who is a druggie/dropout due to her identity issues and those soldiers need to be comfortable with who they are and not be a liability to the U.S. military.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Feb 5 at 2016 10:31 AM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 10:31:10 -0500

We will see the dynamics of supply and an demand for each combat mos.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Feb 7 at 2016 12:22 AM

COL Charles Williams — Sun, 07 Feb 2016 00:22:56 -0500

All will be difficult, but we will figure it out.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Feb 9 at 2016 4:19 AM

Capt Jeff S. — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 04:19:04 -0500

In the real world, [not the fantasy world that Progressives frolic in, where pink unicorns fly over cotton candy clouds and pots of gold lie at the end of every rainbow] people aren't equal. We don't have equal abilities, equal talents, equal potential, or equal outcomes. We ARE however, equal in terms of our worth as human beings and we all have an equal right to live in freedom.

Progressivism is a cancer... a blight on sensibility and morality. It is Socialism wrapped in Political Correctness, which is counterproductive to a healthy functioning society, AND multiculturalism, which is nothing more than promoting other cultures and advancing their interests over and above those of Western European culture... a sort of "legalized" reverse racism if you will. It is being taught to our children in school, along with Atheism, Gay Pride, Unisex bathrooms, Transexualism, and other societal maladies... all of which we are supposed to accept as if they were normal. THEY'RE NOT! I would hate to be a kid today because kids today are bombarded with a bunch of conflicting messages and most of it is garbage.

We have to get rid of this idea that everyone is equal because we aren't. That's just the cold hard truth. Women don't make as good of combat soldiers. Our politicians, who can't make common sense decisions for fear of offending some group of donors or special interest lobby, are catering to PC and have decided for the military that the military will adopt their policies opening up infantry jobs to women -- even though studies show that units with women don't perform as well as all male units in combat infantry! Women can do equally well or better at other jobs, but nature didn't equip women to do combat. If you are a woman and don't like hearing that, I'm sorry. Not sorry I offended you, but sorry that you are stubborn and in denial, and that you refuse to acknowledge the truth. If we, as a nation, have to draft women for combat, then the men in our society have failed women, because they aren't acting like men, whose job it is to protect the women. In every animal species in nature where the males are larger, protection of the females is one of their responsibilities. You can kiss chivalry goodbye and along with it our combat effectiveness if we start drafting women into combat infantry units and putting them out in the front lines.

George Washington would be rolling over in his grave if he could see what has become of the men in our society, our military, and our country. I say it's time we dispense with this crazy idea that everything should be politically correct and serve the interests of minorities at the expense of others. The military is not a social experiment. We should be thinking about one thing and one thing only. Who is the best qualified and how can we best make use of their talents to maximize the combat effectiveness of our military forces.

Response by CPO Michael Sordelet made Nov 15 at 2021 6:04 AM

CPO Michael Sordelet — Mon, 15 Nov 2021 06:04:57 -0500

Mother nature determined long ago that healthy men and women between the ages of 17-30 are predisposed to mate. This is built into our DNA inorder to sustain the species! Now I was taught to never give a order that you know cannot be obeyed, yet for some reason we expect to put young healthy together for extended periods of time, in extremely close quarters, where they will experience periods of extreme stress, and we order them to not have sex. I understand that the DOD wields alot of power, however that power does not Trump Mother Nature or our DNA.