In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1007
Online now 1004 Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
WTF? The argument against gays in the military was that it would affect unit cohesion, the same argument phatphelix is making against women in the military.
oh you're only referring to gays and women? sure, i guess you could make that comparison, although i find it ironic since people were saying "lol it's nowhere close to the same thing!" when we had a thread about repealing don't ask don't tell.
regardless, i haven't made a "unit cohesion" argument.
Phatboy if you had any balls I'd meet you at the AFA Boxing gym and have Coach Weichers put some gloves on us.
The military service is pretty good at classifying their human assets, and I can see women flying combat missions in planes or being part of a tank crew, and get serious, most of us have known or had someone in the family who would be more than capable of being in combat and covering your back as well as or better than some wimpy assed guy whether he's straight or gay. I've know some gals who I'd trust in combat before I'd trust some guys for sure. (You know the butch bull dykes who make up a large part of female softball leagues or who is your cousin maybe???!!!.)
I also don't think there will be a rush to reconstitute our front line units in the current conflict, but at some point you educate and integrate regardless of the sexual tensions or whatever. After all military is there to fight and not to fuck anyway, and part of the discipline of being military comes down to adapting to some dumb assed form of unnatural discipline. FUBAR. Under our system of law and government, I think it is right to affirm the principle though. Carry on.
I don't think its close to true but we still don't have proof that it doesnt have an adverse affect on unit cohesion.(i don't personally think it does) However, I feel that in battle if someone can pull their own weight, perform like any other battlefield soldier could then any cohesion issues quickly would disappear.
I'd also pose this question to you. would you run to the aid of a man or a woman first? both are equally injured and you know both just as well? 99% of men say they go to the woman. That alone is a problem and probably one of the biggest hurdle the other being the sexual tension.
This post was edited by jgdomino 15 months ago
Pic Sigs are for losers.
I don't remember that discussion, and I don't know who those people were, but I'm pretty sure I wasn't one of those people making that argument. I've been fairly consistent in my views of the overlap in many of these areas.
Fair point about unit cohesion -- I was lazily using that as short-form for the arguments that don't relate to physical abilities. (Although certainly some of the other posts in this thread touch on unit cohesion.)
1. I don't necessarily disagree that some of these are tough issues to work through. But we [should] work through them.
2. Not to belabor the comparisons to other forms of integration, but I think this argument isn't that different either. If you had asked a ton of white (or black) people in the 1940s [or even today] if they saw a white and black soldier injured equally, who would they run to the aid of first, I think many white people would say the white person (and vice versa). I'm sure we had many similar problems of this type as we first integrated combat positions. Maybe white (and black) soldiers were not exactly 100% confident that a black (or white) soldier would protect their back as well. But we got past that.
3. And even if what you're saying is true (and much of it might very well be true), that to me is all the more reason to re-evalutate with our socially ingrained views on these types of issues. Treating women or minorities equally requires that we treat them equally ... even if it that requires us to re-evaluate and come to terms with how we think and act. And in some instances, maybe that requires us to not be as paternalistic about women as we may be inclined to be.
Let me put it another way ... at its core, is what you're saying really that different from the myriad ways in which we struggle to treat men and women the same in the workforce? For example, the men in position of authority who think they have to go softer on women in the workforce (or in school) because the women just can't take it as well as men and will start crying or something. It's a tough road. And it's not ideal. And sometimes it leads to undesirable consequences in the short term. But we're a better society for it moving forward in my humble opinion.
This post was edited by terps99 15 months ago
@jgdomino's comment on Russia and China: Since when is human capital the only metric we use against our military rivals?
This is so stupid - just because one sex is genetically more physically capable than the other, does not mean that there is no overlap. This ban lift doesn't mandate any quota, but rather just opens up the field. The military does a pretty great job at making sure every soldier they have is ready and equipped to do what they do, and I fully expect merit and capability to be the main determinant for selection.
There are plenty of soldiers who enter and can not hack it in the military - it's ridiculous to think that this ban lift will result in women being placed in real situations they have no business being.
This post was edited by cathal 15 months ago
I don't disagree with that but I am not for experimenting on the battlefield to become a better society. Optimal military effectiveness is all I care about. When society evolves then my view may be different but i'm against it until then.
let's just send all the lawyers to the front line,,,that's what I would do.
Or at least the male lawyers. Because we all know that the mere fact that I'm a man makes me a better candidate to be on the front line than every single woman in this country!
This has to do with socialization, not with physical attributes.
Leaders in the military are our best and brightest - no chance they stray from doing the right thing because of any gender biases.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by cathal 15 months ago
And the issue of women in the military also has to do with socialization, not necessarily physical attributes (except to those who think there are literally 0 women who have the physical attributes to be a capable soldier).
And if military leaders stray from doing the right thing because of wrong reasons, then we as a civil society have an obligation to correct that (which is one of the reasons why modern, liberal democracies have civilian control of the military).
Being a capable solider is not the same as being a capable soldier in many of the units that did not allow women.
It's a good start.
A few of our best Presidents were military leaders, So i don't see your point. Are you saying our generals are idiots sarcastically?
Because of this board I'll never be able to hear someone say "best and brightest" and think they aren't being sarcastic
thus far the only point i've made has been one of logistics. women require separate berthing facilities, separate shower/bathroom facilities, and have different medical needs. this requires time, money, material, and support personnel. on a ship it isn't that big of a deal, since these things are pretty much fixed. women already serve on ships and fly combat missions. but on the ground, mobility and flexibility are the keys to success, and adding layers of complexity only hinders those goals. you can say that it doesn't matter and it's all about equality and whatnot, but understand that your goal is for social aims and not for what's best for accomplishing the mission.
based on experience, i don't think unit cohesion is that big of an issue here. ultimately people really only care about an individual's ability to do their job so they don't create more work for everyone else.
This post was edited by phatphelix 15 months ago
All of those are valid points and concerns I recognize. The only thing I might take issue with slightly is the insinuation that I don't care about "accomplishing the mission." Obviously that's the primary goal. But that doesn't mean you can't care about that and also care about other things.
unfortunately, this has not been the case historically. political pressure has led to women being rushed into service before they're ready in the past. this was the fault of idiot politicians and not anything to do with being a woman, but when you're dead i don't think you're going to pick nits.
It was hyperbolic, but it's safe to say that a) our top military leaders - people who have been there, know what they're doing, understand the ramifications - were involved in this decision, and b) the nature of the military, and combat, and war transcend gender biases that could get in the way of a leader making smart decisions.
yea politicians never influence military decisions.
Your article speaks nothing of political pressure. What it does say:
Capt. Mark Grissom, commander of the Navy's fighter wing for the Pacific fleet, based at Miramar Naval Air Station in San Diego, said an investigation is under way to determine the cause of the crash and whether Hultgreen ejected. One theory is that the plane may have stalled at 200 feet above the ocean as Hultgreen attempted the day landing.
"This unfortunate mishap should in no way (harm) the effectiveness of women in combat, the integration of women into combat units or their gaining the respect of their male colleagues," Grissom told reporters. The F-14 is one of several combat aircraft that had been off-limits to women before Aspin's action.
the military has just as many idiots as any other sector of society. even if they were involved with this decision-- which is by no means safe to say-- that doesn't mean it's the right one.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports