OT: Women on subs

[pmulcahy11b]

Fortunately for me, I don't flirt well, and I know it. I kept female soldiers at arm's length because I don't dance well enough to manage anything else. Webstral

I struggled with that one my whole life. After my nervous breakdown, I just gave up on the whole idea, and pretty much now, I'm too old to even give the idea of romance a thought any more. (Except when I watch romantic movies -- my guilty pleasure.) Romances have always been tough for me to start, impossible to maintain, and usually started almost by accident.

My best friend, however, is female; her name's Gladys. We met in college and have known each other since. We've nursed each other through tough classes, bad family lives, busted romances, and worse -- and better (I was there through her first pregnancy, after her husband left her when he found out she was pregnant. If you ever get a chance to be in the delivery room, take it). We never thought of each other romantically in the least -- it's almost like we were long lost brother and sister. So it doesn't always have to be either romantic or platonic.

[Mohoender]

A few tricks

1) Need to be polite (not servile). Keep learning: you'll never stop. Here are basic rules.
- If you wear a hat, always take it off when speaking to a woman.
- Always let them go first when you go through a door in a place you know. However, in a place you don't know (restaurants for exemple), you enter first. Most people have forgotten about that rule but the explanation is simple. You don't know who might be behind the door and you have to protect her. You might have to explain it to her but trust she will appreciate.
- When climbing a stair you let her go first. You are polite and get the best view.
- When going down a stair (especially dangerous ones), you always go first (so you can catch her if she goes down). After all you are her charming prince. (again you might have to explain it)
- Hold the door of your car (increasingly hard with remotes) and be careful not to close the door on her leg.
- Listen to what she says and I mean listen.
- If you cross another woman and look at her (you look at the gorgeous and hideous ones not matter how much you try it), don't deny it. Of course when you look at that woman, just don't do it too obviously (except if she is of hideous type). Anyway, your girl friend look at other man going by (You like nice boops, they love nice asses). Then, if you are caught, tell your mate than that woman passing by was nice looking but that she is ten times more gorgeous.
- Help her sit down (it's tricky) when going to a restaurant (and why not at home)
- Don't sit down at a dining table unless they are seated. If you are seated don't forget to stand up.
- If you are invited and the hot meal is already in your plate, don't wait to eat (that's an insult to the cook). Widely forgotten, therefore, make sure it doesn't hurt anyones feeling.
- To salute her leave the initiative. Some will shake your hand as a man others wont.
- Handkiss is still working but do it in a less formal way (with some sense of humor)
- If you offer her red roses, it has to be an uneaven number unless married (1-3-5-7-9...). Heaven numbers brutally means you want to fuck her. Usually she does too but better to be less aggressive.
(I'm sure I'm forgetting a lot of rules). Rules of politeness works especially well with American women.
2) Don't ever share the bill, always propose to pay but don't forget to let her do it from time to time.
3) Don't offer them gifts and flowers all the time (needless) but don't forget to do it from time to time. For my part, I often forget my wife's birthday (oops).
4) If you know how to cook, you have done half the road. On that matter women and men are the same.
5) Anyway, unlike what most men think, men don't hunt women, it's the other way around. However, don't ever let them know you understood it (unless you are married and your wife has a well developped sense of humor). There is no need to flirt at all, in fact. Just be present and kind, they will hunt you if you please them. That also explains the trick with the red roses.
6) Compliment them and I mean compliment them. Don't even hesitate to overdo. She'll know you are facking it but it works nonetheless. If she resist and tells you you are an hypocrit, push it forward.
7) From time to time, go shopping with her or you'll never be able to surprise her. I know its painful but there is no need to do it each time and you can put some limits.

And to those who think this is OT, it is not. We are talking military matters all day and women are exactly like the stronghold you want to take. That's why military strategist and politicians have often been successful with women.

I'm married, never cheated on my wife, but I can't help it. I still find women (most of them) to be the most beautiful thing in life. As an Iranian friend told me once as he was looking at a girl with beautiful legs and short skirts: That girls is gorgeous, praise god that she is willing to share it with us.

[Mohoender]

My best friend, however, is female; her name's Gladys. We met in college and have known each other since. We've nursed each other through tough classes, bad family lives, busted romances, and worse -- and better (I was there through her first pregnancy, after her husband left her when he found out she was pregnant. If you ever get a chance to be in the delivery room, take it). We never thought of each other romantically in the least -- it's almost like we were long lost brother and sister. So it doesn't always have to be either romantic or platonic.

I'm almost 40, I have been married with my wife for 5 years now and we have dated for 7 years. The tricky part is that we have known each other for 35 years. Took us almost 30 years to move forward. There still is hope for you, then.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

1. IF the female can pass the qualifications I agree it should be open to them if they choose. There needs to be ONE standard of performance however, not one for men and one for women. Make it or fail.. one and all. I know many female 'warriors' that would put the average male 'warrior' to shame in 90% of the task. (I was married to one for 17 years)

2. IF a female gets pregnant, she is non-deployable. SOME get that way so they don't have to 'perform their duties'. I'm old and crass.. if they are non-deployable and have a good service record, it's one thing.. medical reassignment. IF on the other hand they are bricks before, then seperation from service. How many do not have someone to take care of the child? Same story.. Yeah like I said, I'm a old crass fart.

3. Male chauvanism gets in the way of 'prgress'. It also makes for dangerous situations in combat. There is a ingrained thought I think that males will tend to be protective of the female at their own risk. And there are females that take advantage of that same thinking. I served with females... some great 'warriors' many fell into the latter... The bottom line is WHY people join the armed forces.. usually for the WRONG reasons... 'gee I didn't join to go to war, I joined for college, or the paycheck, or what ever lame reason'

I shall now step off the soap box.. and thank the makers that I am not in the service now... and hope the MEN can handle it.

I do agree with you where there should be one standard. I'm squeamish about women serving aboard subs in a coed manner. Webstral has a point too where Sting of the Police (at that time) pointed out about the problems of human nature. If I may bring about another musical group example, I would use the song from The Partridge Family where "I am willing to meet you halfway." Maybe we need to test a sub or two with all female crews and see how they perform and take it from there. I'm normally against experimentation in the military but I think we can spare a boat or two and just see what happens.

Chuck

[pmulcahy11b]

I do agree with you where there should be one standard. I'm squeamish about women serving aboard subs in a coed manner. Webstral has a point too where Sting of the Police (at that time) pointed out about the problems of human nature. If I may bring about another musical group example, I would use the song from The Partridge Family where "I am willing to meet you halfway." Maybe we need to test a sub or two with all female crews and see how they perform and take it from there. I'm normally against experimentation in the military but I think we can spare a boat or two and just see what happens.

Chuck

I agree with you that there should be one standard, but I also think that coed units are a place where men and women, especially young men and women, need to grow up about their professional relationships with each other. That kind of immature attitude can happen in coed units. To a large extent, curbing this attitude is also a leadership problem. Men and women can work together professionally --I've seen it happen.

[waiting4something]

It's a thorny issue. Mixing men and women causes problems wherever you do it. Sting said it best: "There is no political solution/for our troubled evolution." ("Spirits in the Material World") Substitute policy or administrative for political, and you have something to apply to the military. Men and women can have fraternal relationships, but men and women in their breeding prime (especially men) want love and sex--not necessarily in that order of priority. Ignoring this unavoidable fact is just immature. Given our oddly puritanical attitudes towards sex, it's not surprising that the US military is struggling with integrating men and women in a fashion that is fair, impartial, and workable.

I'll be honest: I struggled with the mixing when I was MI. The combat engineers and the infantry are just easier in that way. Fortunately for me, I don't flirt well, and I know it. I kept female soldiers at arm's length because I don't dance well enough to manage anything else. While I daresay that many male soldiers have my attitude, at least as many are eager to find themselves in the company of female soldiers for all the wrong reasons. I won't repeat the things I heard at an EO seminar; young soldiers are looking to get some.

It's not all one-sided, either. In my various XO positions for MI AIT companies at Huachuca, I was constantly in the company of young female soldiers. The command team (the commander, the first sergeant, and I) had a runner assigned to us whenever snowbirds, blackbirds, or light duty types were available. The runner occupied a desk in my office, which was between the CO's and 1SG's offices. Many's the day I walked into my office and got a "Hi, sir..." greeting that told me I needed to be out and about all day.

After PT one day, I discovered that I didn't have enough time to drive home and shower before an early appointment. I kept a spare set of BDUs in my trunk for just such an occasion. I showered in the seldom-used VIP shower in the barracks. The private assigned to clean that area came in and struck up a conversation with me through the shower door. She was one of the "Hi, sir..." types. She ignored hints that I was just about done with my shower. She did not leave when I shut off the shower and dried off. I told her I was going to have to get out of the shower and get dressed now. She said, "That's okay, sir."

I solved the problem by telling her to find the senior drill sergeant right away. There was a pause, then she left. When the senior drill sergeant arrived, I told him that under no [expletive deleted] circumstances were any of the trainees to enter the VIP shower while anyone was in there. He gave me a three-bags-full. I think he understood.

While it may be true that fraternization represents a lack of discipline, asking for monastic discipline on top of combat discipline may be more than one can ask. We don't want choir boys in the Army, and we don't recruit monks. We want killers. For better for for worse, the kinds of men who sign up to kill people against whom they have no particular gripe want to [expletive deleted] women. If government-sponsored brothels were available, then I'd say the Army would have a case against fraternizing in the field. In lieu of providing authorized outlets, the Army needs to grow up and accept that its killers never signed on for celibacy. Men and women under stress are going to have sex just as surely as a bullet fired in the air will come down someplace.

If I were in charge, I'd set up brothels that were under strict military control and issue ration cards or some other rationing system for access. Then we'd have an argument that male and female soldiers should not be finding solace in each others' arms.

Webstral

Now this is the kind of guy we need in charge! But, he has common sense, so he could never become a General. Really you hit the nail on the head.

[pmulcahy11b]

...We want killers...

Webstral

I probably just misunderstood your phrasing here, but I didn't and don't want someone next to me who wants to kill. I made a pointed effort to get two such people out of my squad, people I believe actually wanted to go to war and kill someone. I want someone who is capable of killing, but still has his essential humanity intact. People who actually want to kill shouldn't be allowed to even touch a weapon.

[Webstral]

I probably just misunderstood your phrasing here, but I didn't and don't want someone next to me who wants to kill. I made a pointed effort to get two such people out of my squad, people I believe actually wanted to go to war and kill someone. I want someone who is capable of killing, but still has his essential humanity intact. People who actually want to kill shouldn't be allowed to even touch a weapon.

I agree that in an ideal world the military would be full of folks who would feel suitably reluctant to press the [metaphorical] trigger and suitably remorseful afterwards. The combat arms in particular present us with rather a Catch-22. Rifleman, tankers, cannon crew, etc. have to be willing to kill and highly motivated to train to that end without falling victim to the not-always-covertly bloodthirsty combat arms subculture. It's a tightrope act that not everyone can manage. If a rifleman must fall off the rope, we'd rather he fall on the side with too much aggression than the side with too little. Beggars can't be choosers; an Army staffed by volunteers and which offers no real incentives to be in the infantry other than membership in the brotherhood of killers is going to find itself with a fair number of men looking to take lives. As for the rest of us, if we were really opposed to taking life, we'd be able to find ourselves positions in the AG or JAG.

Rene Belloq (Raiders of the Lost Ark) tells Dr. Jones: "[We] are not so different as you pretend. I am but a shadowy reflection of you. It would only take a nudge to push you out of the light."

Webstral

[perardua]

I was always a fan of what my instructors used to tell us they were trying to do, which is to give people the ability to 'flip a switch' in their heads and go from being the bloke in the pub to being able to kill, and back again. The whole 'warrior culture' thing has always vaguely unsettled me when I've encountered it, though it seems to be quite a big part of the US military (at least in my experience). But then, real and perceived differences in military culture between nations could probably be a whole other (quite interesting) thread.

Anyway, back to the topic in hand: Whilst fraternising within a unit is frowned on, and rightfully so, I think there has to continue to be an acceptance that inter-unit relationships, short and long term, will happen, and that trying to stop them is a bad idea. This is especially true on large bases which are effectively towns in their own right, and where, especially for the younger troops, their main social life is with each other.

[Webstral]

A splendid book called The Kinder, Gentler Military by Stephanie Gutmann explores the idea of a gender-neutral (female friendly) military and asks whether such a military can be as effective as the military it replaces. The author admits that she started the project with the intent of exposing the military as just another boys' club that needed to be forced to mend its degenerate ways. Partway through her research, she became convinced that the military is a separate subculture that needs to be preserved so it can do its job and so the civilian population can remain blissfully unexposed to the brutality of war. Women who want to join the world of the military, Gutmann insists, need to adapt to the military way of business rather than demanding that the military adapt to the woman's way of doing things. She also acknowledges that the majority of women she interviewed believed this, and that the real problem comes from female members of Congress who haven't served but think they know best.

Gutmann recommends exactly what so many have said in this thread already: a single performance standard needs be set for an MOS. Meet the standard, male or female, and you're in. Fail to meet the standard, male or female, and you must find a different MOS. While I'm still not thrilled about the idea of women in the infantry, I'd trade an objective standard for having a few women around.

Of course, making it tougher to be in the combat arms (with objective, gender-neutral standards) isn't going to increase the ranks of the combat arms any more than making it tougher to be a teacher is going to bring more teachers into the profession. The infantry in particular need incentives built in. New recruits should be competing for a available infantry slots, and the infantry should have the option of refusing entry to at least a third of the recruits who meet the general standards to be soldiers. There are two routes to increasing incentives, and both should be tried. The first is to offer more pay and better housing for the infantry. There should be an infantry bonus amounting to at least 20% of base pay for anyone in the 11 series. I'd be open to arguments that the light infantry should receive an even greater bonus than the mech guys. I'd also be open to arguments that the infantry should receive more than 20%. Housing for the infantry should be conspicuously superior, such that junior enlisted soldiers in the CS and CSS should ask themselves how badly they want to be in the rear with the gear. The other advantage should be conspicuiously superior privileges and official respect. The infantry go to the head of the line. The infantry get more days off, and so forth. With a greater pool of applicants, the infantry can afford to get rid of the pogues, train harder (you don't like the pace? There's a slot in the quartermaster unit with your name on it!), and hold itself to even higher standards. THEN we could bring in women, because for every chucklehead unable to control his male impulses in the field, there'd be a line of eager replacements.

As for the other combat arms, I'm on the fence about a modest bonus. In the current climate, the tankers and cannon cockers aren't fighting the same war as the riflemen. However, if HIC breaks out someplace, the gun and fighting vehicle crews will fnd their lives in much greater peril. Since you go to war with the Army you've been training for the past five years, I suppose some sort of accomodation for the other combat arms is in order. Again, if one has objective standards and many more applicants than openings, it becomes more feasible to bring in the women and demand celibacy from everyone.

(I'm still in favor of government-run brothels. My wife assures me that the women would need to frequent them, too.)

Webstral

[perardua]

While I am all for the infantry having more official recognition, I am not sure measures quite as drastic as those you propose would work. The first thing that springs to mind is that in modern operations, everyone is a target. When you have supply convoys getting hit frequently, and when you're sending non-infantry personnel (medics, interpreters, etc) on the same patrols as their infantry counterparts, but without the benefits, then the idea of incentivising people to join the infantry loses some of its legitimacy.

Furthermore, deliberately creating second class citizens within the military just seems like a bad idea. I know the infantry are what wins wars, but so do suppliers, engineers, mechanics, medics and all the other personnel that enable them to do their jobs. You make it sound like people in those trades have less value than infantrymen, and that is simply not true.

As an aside, does the US Army have different fitness standards for combat arms as compared to CSS types? I know the British Army Combat Fitness Test has different weight and distance standards for different arms, and the RAF Regiment has the Regiment Operational Fitness Assessment to help set it apart from the rest of the RAF.

[pmulcahy11b]

As an aside, does the US Army have different fitness standards for combat arms as compared to CSS types? I know the British Army Combat Fitness Test has different weight and distance standards for different arms, and the RAF Regiment has the Regiment Operational Fitness Assessment to help set it apart from the rest of the RAF.

Technically no, but everyone in the Army (when I was in) knew that in Combat Arms units, you were going to be graded on each pushup and situp repetition was going to be graded more harshly. (The 2-mile run time doesn't allow for harder grading -- the time is the time.) However, standards go down as you get older, and women have lower standards for PT then men.

When I went to the 82nd Airborne, we were expected to score 20% higher than the book standards, plus there was a pullup event added to the PT test.

[Eddie]

Technically no, but everyone in the Army (when I was in) knew that in Combat Arms units, you were going to be graded on each pushup and situp repetition was going to be graded more harshly. (The 2-mile run time doesn't allow for harder grading -- the time is the time.) However, standards go down as you get older, and women have lower standards for PT then men.

When I went to the 82nd Airborne, we were expected to score 20% higher than the book standards, plus there was a pullup event added to the PT test.

That comes from the 82nd's Ranger Envy. Ranger Standards used to be 80% in each event in the 17-21 year old age range plus 6 pull ups. Then that changed when the age standards got revamped in '99-'00. Now it's your age group.

The Army Standard is 60% per category. Infantry standard is 70%. Nothing really happens to you if you don't make it except maybe a flag for no favorable action and getting put on remedial PT.

About three years ago RTB changed their PT standards and renamed the APFT the Ranger Phsycial Fitness Test. Now the RPFT is 80% for push-ups and sit-ups in the 17-21 year category, a 5 mile run in 40 minutes substituted for the 2-mile, and the pull-ups. The rest of the Army still does the APFT.

[Webstral]

Furthermore, deliberately creating second class citizens within the military just seems like a bad idea.

A dual-class system already exists in the military-any military. The officers are the first class citizens, and the enlisted troops are the second class citizens. Pay and privileges are allocated accordingly. Soldiers (and seamen, airmen, and Marines) are accustomed to living and operating in a system in which service members are not all peers and in which some receive much better treatment than others for the execution of certain duties. There also exists a multiple-standard system in which SO operates under substantially different rules than the line units. The US Army already recognizes the differences between troops when offering re-enlistment bonuses; Special Forces gets $150,000. The truckers and MI and heavy engineers aren't getting this money.

Everyone may be a target, but it's still the infantry who are doing more than their share of the dying. The combat support guys may be exposed to combat, but the combat arms guys are the ones who are assigned to prosecute it. Truckers on the highways are exposed to ambushes and IEDs. Riflemen purposefully engaged in urban combat are exposed to an entirely different order of threat.

I take your point about having medics and interpreters on patrols, but I'm not convinced the solution is to avoid giving incentives altogether. A case can be made for recognizing that the rifle platoon medic deserves the same incentives as the riflemen under his care. I'm not going to address incentives for interpreters, very few of whom in Iraq are American servicemen.

As for second class, there's a difference between second class by inherent quality and second class by choice. The infantry ain't rocket science. Those who succeed and those who don't principally are divided by motivation, not by native intelligence. Traditionally, the infantry makes due with the folks who are left over after the more technical services take their pick. I wouldn't say that the US infantry is filled with rocks, but too many are doofuses who should be doing something else. By the same token, MI is full of folks who would be good infantry except for the fact that they can't imagine why they'd put up with that [expletive deleted] for the exact same pay and privileges. Who can blame them?

I know the infantry are what wins wars, but so do suppliers, engineers, mechanics, medics and all the other personnel that enable them to do their jobs. You make it sound like people in those trades have less value than infantrymen, and that is simply not true.

All jobs may contribute to victory, but not all jobs are equal just because they contribute. As an analogy, I'll point to civil service. A municipality (with minimal corruption) does not create jobs that do nothing. Every paid position contributes to keeping the municipality running. Not every position merits equal pay. Try paying the cops the same as you pay a file clerk for a given level of experience, and you will find yourself with a very poor pool of candidates for the police department. All jobs may contribute, but not every job is equally critical. Not all jobs pose equal risk to life and limb.


Webstral

[Eddie]

Everyone may be a target, but it's still the infantry who are doing more than their share of the dying.

This is the only part I'll nitpick on. In Iraq and until recently, Afghanistan, the majority of engagements have been on non-Combat Arms MOSs because they present the softer target. Running a historical tally, you're correct though.

We've had our differences in the past Webstral, but as an Infantryman...when are you running for Congress? You got my wife's vote when you said more than 20%.