Avatar feed
Responses: 5
Sgt John Steinmeier
3
3
0
Edited >1 y ago
Having all Female exclusive units just to make them "feel safe" to join or to stay in is about the dumbest thing I have heard regarding the military in a while.
The military is nothing more than a cross section of the entire American population. So by that reasoning we should just curtail male/female interaction across the board as a nation. Entire companies strictly for women so they feel safe. Hell why stop there entire cities and/or States...only for women so they can "feel safe."
The article mentioned multiple reasons why women leave the military not just because "they don't feel safe." The article also mentioned that more women are needed in the military because it is important to reflect demographics. Bulls**t. The military exists to kill things and break stuff. The only important thing is that the persons who serve are highly skilled at doing that or support doing that.
(3)
Comment
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
Cpl Jeff N.
>1 y
You are right, a poor idea built on unsound premise. Maybe we could bring back the WACS or other units. They will feel safe then. If women want equality then act like equals. You cannot paly the victim, require protection from men AND be their equal. That isn't how it works.
(0)
Reply
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
MAJ Montgomery Granger
>1 y
You over simplified my comment. Not only to feel safe, but to excel. And Sun Tzu's quote on need for use of force is instructive in light of your "kill" and "break stuff" idea: "One hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the most skillful. Subduing the enemy without battle is the most skillful." The mission comes first. But women have been trained and performed exceptionally in combat now for over 30 years. The article talks about recruitment as if it's a marketing issue. It's a CULTURE and HUMAN NATURE issue with men and women serving together.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
CW5 Jack Cardwell
2
2
0
Good though but that becomes separate but equal.
(2)
Comment
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
MAJ Montgomery Granger
>1 y
I don't think everything about a segregated, Male/Female military would be "equal," nor should that be the goal. The goal should be first on EFFECTIVENESS. The military is a BUSINESS first, with a sacred and essential mission to first win at war and defend the nation. Any plan to have women serve separately must be first focused on mission. In that regard, equality and fairness take a second seat to doing what's necessary to defend the nation and the nation's interests, and to win at war. I think segregated male/female units could do that. Within that separateness, not everything will be equal, nor should that be the goal. The goal should be effectiveness, efficiency and FAIRNESS. People respond to fairness, and I think female military would expect and flourish in such an environment.
(0)
Reply
(0)
CW5 Jack Cardwell
CW5 Jack Cardwell
>1 y
MAJ Montgomery Granger that said then females could server only in female units and that would create another glass ceiling.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Herbert Bollum
1
1
0
Worked along side some great ones who I wouldn't want to come up against if they were angry, they'd probably throw somebody over the roof.
(1)
Comment
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
MAJ Montgomery Granger
>1 y
Hooah!
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close