Women and the "Bro" mentality in the military
 

Read more here.

I guess the question we should first ask is - what do you want your military to look like?

Thomas P.M. Barnett articulated the current dilemma of the US military in a insightful way. He said that we are asking the military to do two tasks. The first is to be a hyper-aggressive killing machine that obliterates all enemy resistance. He calls this "the Leviathan", the traditional armed forces that were used to stare down the Soviet Union. The second is the regime-changers, the counter-insurgency units, the forces that are designed to keep security and cobble together a fragile democracy. They are diplomatic, patient, and use measured and proportionate force. He calls this the "SysAdmin" force - the force designed to trouble-shoot and maintain the international system. The two tasks are not compatible.

For the Leviathan force, you want locker-room masculine aggression. You want absolute team loyalty and trust, and sky-high, irrational levels of confidence. They are there to rip the enemy to shreds in an unfair fight. This would be the combat arms of the the military, the line infantry, the special operations units. If women can be integrated into that environment without damaging the esprit de corps, great. But unit morale and effectiveness come first. Gender equality is a distant second priority to combat effectiveness. As Bennett put it, he wants the Leviathan force to be "male, early-20s, and slightly pissed-off."

For the SysAdmin force, I think it would be absolutely beneficial to have women, both for practical reasons - women will have access to some segments of the society that men will not - and for symbolic reasons, to show an example of American values.

So...what do you want your military to look like?

I think you are retarded

i think women in the military should be nurses or doctors...

in my six weeks of military (that i had to do by accident) i witnessed a female officer trying to command a group of male soldiers marching around and we laughed our asses off cause she sounded like Minnie Mouse giving orders.

i have nothing against women in leading positions, i had female bosses as well and got along fine with them.

but when it comes to the army, they are simply in the wrong place

The army will always consist of mostly dumb uneducated civilians, who's best chance in life was risking taking a bullet in a politicians fight over oil or other naturel resources.

You will not find smart and well-balanced people in the army, so why do people expect them to behave as such? They are Cannon fodder/usefull idiots

I can only begin to imagine what it would be like to be a woman in the military. I was in infantry and it was just not an environment women would do well in. We spent our free time sharpening our knives, at the shooting range, and reading magazines about firearms. I've never met a woman who enjoys doing these things AND be good at hand to hand combat.

I'm not saying I'm against it, it's just not an area where women have much interest.

The problem we have these days is that there is no real battlefront: The women in motor transport suddenly find themselves in the middle of combat.

I believe the USMC just announced that women will be serving in combat in 2014. On one hand I feel this is good - let's call it "cautious optimism" - but on the other hand I feel women are stupid to even think of potentially subjecting themselves to the horrors of combat.

You couldn't be any more wrong.

The vast majority of the people who go into the military do so for adventures, opportunities, and education. Most do not go in because of a sense of pride or desire to serve their nation. Most kids who go in are the kind that didn't want to go to college, and didn't want a traditional 9-5 job. That's not to say that anyone in the military is "stupid" or dumb; It's a job with lots of on the job training.

You can either pay to go school for a trade, or you can get paid to go to school, get three years of the on the job training, and potentially travel around the world.

Pigshit. Prior to Iraq and Afghanistan...All branches of the military required a minimum of a Highschool Diploma (GED's were not acceptable) to qualify for enlistment. NCO's were required to have an Associate Degree or the equivalentcy. Many senior NCO's had a Bachelor/Master Degrees with some having a Doctorate Degree. All Officers had to have a minimum of a Bachelor Degree with Field Grade Officers having a minimum of a Master Degree and many Officers having a Doctorate Degree.

A spotless criminal record and a 100% perfect health record.

As in all armed conflicts/wars standards are reduced...to some extent...to keep the required number of warm bodies in the ranks.

Sure sure.

I signed up without having graduated high school and known drug use. This was back in 1985.

I was recently at my cottage and was sitting with a bunch of off-duty police officers, one of them female. In Toronto, we recently had a police officer charged with murder for shooting a kid on a streetcar. Shot him something like 8-9 times, with maybe 15-20ft distance from him, the kid wasn't near anyone else - and only had a knife. He was really no threat.

So we were talking about that stuff, etc. This female officer says she's never been discriminated against for being a female, and that they don't treat crimes by officers differently than citizens. She used an example of a DUI, that she'd arrest an officer friend if she pulled him over and he'd been drinking.

She said there is no "old boys club" basically.

Then she says in passing that one time a fellow officer slapped her ass in the locker room, and she just "gave him a look" and didn't "whine to her superiors".. I agreed she should let that pass. But, I said what if I was walking along the street and slapped her in the ass? What would happen? She eventually conceded that she'd arrest me. So I explained that indeed there are double standards, and it is hard for them to speak out against each other. Prime example. She got up and stormed off and didn't return.. I was like wtf? Sensitive subject I guess.

When the Military became an all volunteer force....the standards of enlistment continually became higher and higher as the ranks and retention were maintained. It reached the point that...in at least one case...a person I knew that had a Bachelor Degree was denied enlistment in the Airforce because they had to many speeding tickets. If I remember correctly they had three tickets.

BTW the Marine Corp was the last branch to bring their enlistment standards up to the level of the other branches of the Military. It used to be said of the Corp..."they will take anybody"...but that was never the real truth...but their standards of enlistment usually were lower than the other branches.

Really??

Why haven't you mentioned that before?

I wonder if you think that the rate is sexual assault by men is lower at universities. It would be interesting to compare the stats of both, I have a feeling that they are pretty similar. :2 cents:

BTW...I didn't have to serve with women and if I would have been required to do so I would have left the service.