Typical. The vast majority of military personal that were in combat during WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Operation desert storm and this current one was all males.
Leave it to women to as always play the whiny victim card.
And a stoner man that lives in denial that women can do and go thru what men do.
shareWhat a horribly ignorant and borderline misogynistic thing to say. You not being able to get a date is - I promise you - making the female population extremely happy
shareThe point is the relationship with the child and how everyone develops and adapts-put a man in the role, same thing.
shareWhat you seem to be saying that when it comes to military service, women should be exactly the same thing as men, and based on the conversation between Maggie and her captain, the military's point is being a mother is exactly the same thing as being a father. He makes an excellent point by saying that his ex-wife deprived him of custody what Maggie's ex-husband was trying to do. However, your opinion and military's position and overall attitude toward female servicemembers contradicts the reality. Numerous studies show that women and men are different in many ways emotionally, physically, and psychologically, and especially that being a mother is so different from being a father. Not being able to deal effectively with this reality makes the military look very stupid because it shows that it is still unwelcome for women to serve alongside with men in all duties, as long as they act like men, which is a complete baloney.
shareThe Military does way more than it should already. In reality its not the military's fault when it comes to this problem. The problem is a result of a combination of a hypocritical culture and individuals who sometimes get in over their head.
So by stupid, you think that the military should be more accommodating? I am a US Army Officer. I have seen the complexity of this problem first hand. While I do welcome the service of females and feel very strongly that not only do they have a place all Branches, let me be very up front that I also feel that there is definitely a double standard. This double standard is one of hypocrisy. A hypocrisy increasingly enforced upon us by a culture that can't get its own act together when it comes to gender equality.
The insanity of this problem can be summed up very simply. The civilian authority says make jobs equally available to both genders but at the same time, there needs to be different qualifications and different standards for each gender. Equality should mean both genders have to meet the same standards in order to fill that position.
What we are looking at in the near future, if certain movements get their way, is opening up the 11X and 19X MOS groups to females. Without a doubt the physical standards will be lower for females. That is not equality.
The other double standard is this, family considerations. The way you state is being a mother is more important than being a father when it concerns children. So according to that mentality there should be a different rules for mothers that are soldiers than there should be for fathers that are soldiers. For a male soldier, there is minimal consideration for family. This should be the universal standard for soldiers. The Army has to come first, its the nature of the job. And if a female soldier cannot fully commit to that so be it but, that does not work for combat arms MOSs. You cannot train up a Infantry Company or Cavalry Troop for a deployment with females that will potentially become undeployable a week before deploying.
By stupid, I meant the military should stop being so hypocritical and stop pandering to political games, too much. I think you've explained it best. Sorry, but I'm not that familiar with Army MOS's and the Army lifestyle. As for military rules, I still don't understand what point does it prove by demanding that women who have children to go fight and die in faraway lands alongside with men, when, in reality, there are plenty of men available to do that kind of job? And yes, many studies show that mothers do a lot better nurturing children than compared to fathers, so intentionally sending them in harm's way when it's so unreasonable, does not make any sense to me.
shareBut its not the military that is pondering these issues. It is forced upon the military by convening authority. AKA Congress and to some extent the Executive and even Judicial Branches of civilian gov't.
The Defense Authorization Acts annually titled, AKA the military budget, is something proposed by the military leadership then approved by congress. First the House, then the Senate and signed by the President. That is 3 opportunities annually for lobbying and agenda to come its way. If one committee chair congressman tells said military leadership we will not approve you funding for your Aircraft Carrier until you open up the infantry MOS and other Combat Arms job to females than what do you think is going to happen? And that is exactly how it happens.
So we opened 68W to women. Which is the combat medic MOS, the job filled by the female SSgt. in the movie. Lets say that again, COMBAT MEDIC. Should we not expect to send that female combat medic into combat? Well there are still limitations of course. She will not be on the front line, unless the front line comes to her. She volunteered for that job why should she not be expected to fully do what that job entails? Military Police MOSs same thing. If we fully open up Combat Arms MOSs, and this is not limited to the Army, why would we not expect females to fully do the job. Congress, the Executive Branch and many in the public want gender equality, why would we not have them fully do the job? That is why its a double standard. People want supposed gender equality but when it comes to making things truly equal, the same people balk at the notion.
Not too long ago, the Marine Corps in anticipation that they would be forced to open up Combat Arms MOSs, blanketed standards for males and females when it comes the physical fitness. The Marine Corps mentality which I feel is logical and just, was that equality means equality. If women want to do the combat jobs they will have to meet the same standards as the males do. And lets be clear here not all males can even make the standards. I also don't doubt for a minute that there are females that could meet those standards. Notice I said 'was' the mentality. Because it lasted less than a month after it went into effect. 3/4 of the Marine Females could no longer meet the PFT requirements when tested. It was going to lead to 1000s of undeployable females and hundreds of discharges......so it quietly went away. And the lesson was reinforced for at least the foreseeable future.
You mentioned you were in the Navy previously. Well did you know that a few years ago, the Navy began to open submarines to females. They started with a experimental target group of female officers aboard Ballistic Missile and Strike Submarines. 34 to be exact. Within 18 months 14 of them were no longer in the program. This is hardly an acceptable rate of attrition among trained submarine officers. All of the attrited officers were due to maternity, fraternization or both. The most famous one involved fraternization between a female LTJG and the Senior Enlisted member of the Submarine. Both were married, so its adultery from both angles. It resulted in pregnancy. There was fraternization aboard the submarine, as well as professional misconduct. This doesn't bode well for the female submariner program. Which despite these glaring problems has led to opening of all sub jobs to females officer and enlisted, just last week. Why did the Navy just now open this? At the end of January? Why because it has just negotiated its portion of the Defense Authorization Act. Is the Navy in desperate need for people in Sub jobs? No apparently they are overmanned in most job types. No they were forced to do this. Probably by a Congressman or Senator or group of them whose pet project it was to get this done.
In the end it may be right thing to do. But its for all the wrong reasons, at the wrong time and under the wrong circumstances. The circumstance being the hypocrisy and double standards.
I completely agree with Colonel he makes excellent points. I do believe women should be forced to sign up to the draft as men are forced to do if they want to be able to vote etc. However its pretty obvious to me that most women will never be able to keep up with most men and therefore should not be serving together because it puts the mens lives at risk. If a male soldier is wounded and his female squad member can not pull him out of the area then she is essentially useless. You do not have this problem with male only units.
shareYou shouldn't have to be forced to go to war in order to vote.
shareWhat would you know? If you haven't served than what place do you have even discussing the topic?
Vast majority is an overstatement to start. Out of roughly 500,000 members in the US Army, 70,000 are female. Better than 1 out of 6 overall and if you just compare the rear its probably about 1 quarter females.
And lets be honest here, the female character in question didn't appear to me to be playing the victim card at any time in my opinion.
I served in the US Navy for 10 years.
shareWomen serve in the military as well and have a right to have their stories told. Good luck with your circle jerk nonsense. I'm sure it'll get you far....with other men.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-09OhQPiIg#t=85