[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: David L. Baker
Date: 15 Aug 2000
Time: 01:48:39
I suppose Israeli input is necessary to add dimension to this thread, but this is an issue which should be decided here in the U.S. What arguments are allowed public scrutiny in the ongoing debate are easily blurred. Hard fact are suppressed, and the experiences of male soldiers in dealing with female superiors and subordinates, as well as "equals" are not allowed to be discussed within the structure of military policy implementation. My personal experience with female soldiers convinced me that there is nothing to gain in affording females a combat option, much less into positions which are highly coveted. Many times, I was usurped in my position to report the performance of female soldiers. The ranking sergeants and officers would not allow any negative comments in performance reports about women. One particular female was openly rebellious, combative with officers and sergeants, and minimally qualified to perform technical tasks after weeks of remedial training. My first evaluation reflected her true perfomance level, but the report was returned to me with instructions to rewrite it with nothing but glowing endorsements. I quickly assessed the situation, arriving at two conclusions: First, the old guard military "Lifers" were very protective of young females, betraying a fatherly image toward the fairer gender (Which the old leaches interpreted as a sexual attraction) Second, military career "Lifers" will say, do, and follow every order, no matter how stupid, unworkable, or counterproductive to the mission it may be, to remain in the military. They punish males severely for nit-picking infractions of discipline (Haircut violations, parking tickets, etc), and allow females (At least the pretty ones...) to violate the very same regulations with impunity. Double standards never provide a valid leadership image, but the are "Standard" equipment in today's military environment.