Article

2004-01-29 Britain

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2004-01-29 8:25:53 AM|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 My concerns with women in the military have always been confined to the question of whether the woman meets the strength and size requirements of the job to which she is assigned.

THIS is the sort of assignment were strength and size are meaningless, and where leadership and decision making skills come to the forefront. Some may complain about the delay in making this particular event happen, but since there is no indication that any political pressure was applied, it seems to me that the Royal Navy decided that Lt. Atkinson was the best person for this job on her merits alone. No patronising tokenism here, IMHO.

Kudos to the Royal Navy for not only doing the right thing, but doing it the right way, and congratulations to Lt. Atkinson on her new assignment.

God save the Queen!

Posted by Ptah 2004-1-29 9:17:58 AM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2004-1-29 9:17:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 #1 Ptah

Agreed, well said.

Posted by Unmutual 2004-1-29 10:24:24 AM|| 2004-1-29 10:24:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Would it be out of line to ask her to iron my shirt ?

Posted by Carl in N.H 2004-1-29 11:29:17 AM|| 2004-1-29 11:29:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Depends on whether you want to spend time in the brig for insubordination or not.

Posted by rkb 2004-1-29 11:38:19 AM|| 2004-1-29 11:38:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Worked for a woman XO on Yellowstone; she was the best executive officer that I saw in my service time. I am for women being incorporated into the military with the only condition that they be placed appropriately in assignments that make sense for each individual.
For example, I think there was a woman Tomcat pilot that got pushed through training to satisfy somebody's moronic agenda. She received passing grades for performance that would have lead to disqualification had she been male. As I remeber, she crashed her plane fatally, a victim of some politicals clowns agenda. Other more capable women have earned their wings appropriately since then.

Note - I understand that John McCain was passed through flight school for political reasons as well with simular but non-fatal results.

I guess we live and fail to learn.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-1-29 11:55:57 AM|| 2004-1-29 11:55:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Here is a question. How has military terminology changed since women have been encorporated into the service? A "sucking chest" wound now means a hickie.

Sorry, I didn't have the guts to post that yesterday, the joke haunted me throughout the night like the ghost of Xmas past.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-1-29 11:58:45 AM|| 2004-1-29 11:58:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Actually, rkb, the response very well good be something like,

"Right ! a) put the shirt in question on b) lie down in front of my vessel. That will flatten out the wrinkles !

(bloody cheeky yanks....)"

Posted by Carl in N.H 2004-1-29 12:00:27 PM|| 2004-1-29 12:00:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 I'm sorry, are you all part of the Taliban? What a pathetic display of misogyny. Iron you shirt? Sheesh, what's next? Stadium executions? Seems like the average comment posters on this site are troglodytes.

Posted by Disgusted 2004-1-29 12:09:16 PM|| 2004-1-29 12:09:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Dear "Disgusted:"

Sometimes people post things here for reasons of "smartassery," and not as debate-class propositions. I understood immediately that Carl was joking. I suspect most other people did, too.

Relax.

Posted by Mike 2004-1-29 12:23:59 PM|| 2004-1-29 12:23:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Seems like the average comment posters on this site are troglodytes.

Dear Disgusted:
Donât forget that the human race has two sexes, male and female, and for centuries (if not millennia) that was a good enough reason to not mix sexes in the close quarters of military units -- unless you are thinking about bands of prostitutes that used to âserviceâ the troops. Is it wrong to exercise our free speech to explore the various levels of discomfort, concern, or simple bewilderment about what these changes in society mean? If the last several thousand years of military science are built on the examination and study of 100% male fighting units, what is wrong with sorting out misconceptions or simply voicing unease about the change to mixed sex units? Surely, you canât deny that there are at least a few physical differences between the sexes, can you? Perhaps this stage of maintaining peak military readiness, as femalesâ roles in the military increase, is not that unlike how blacks and other races became integrated into military units that historically were purely white.

Posted by cingold 2004-1-29 12:31:00 PM|| 2004-1-29 12:31:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 "Disgusted" is no doubt also known as "Faisal", which is simply amazing when you consider that the "Faisal" persona would have this captain stoned to death for not being adequately covered while commanding her ship.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-1-29 12:44:16 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-1-29 12:44:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 ...preventing the smuggling of explosives during a three-week patrol of waters around Northern Ireland

That's one busy commander...

Posted by Raj 2004-1-29 12:58:30 PM|| [http://angrycyclist.blogspot.com] 2004-1-29 12:58:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 SH brings up a good point. I've seen one passed through the Harrier program that should never have been. If she had to spring the ejection seat, the weight of her body could not handle the force exerted from the ejection itself, thus probably compacting her spine to the point of severe injury. She gave every effort to put on weight but just couldn't maintain the 135 or so lbs to be cleared. This was a case of non-gender neutrality in the cockpit. This was after the military politicos had her almost all the way threw the pipeline and boasting about the Corps' first female attack pilot. The tax payer's spent about a couple million dollars on her for the Harrier training. She now flys KC-130s. I don't hold her guilty of anything, she just wanted to fly and the Corps wanted a female fighter pilot to keep up w/the USAF & Navy. Politics and training don't mix. Put them in gender neutral jobs where they can succeed. Not in the grunts, or the artillery. I don't buy off on the race is the same as sex preference/sex equality debate. Being black, hispanic, or white is not a behavior. Just my $.02

Posted by Jarhead 2004-1-29 1:02:54 PM|| 2004-1-29 1:02:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Jarhead, I think individual capabilities is the way to go.

In the Navy an Operations Specialist does quite a bit of radar watching and problem solving along with be responsible for monitoring a radio frequency in either ear. Because multi-tasking is involved, the majority of women would perform better in this rating than the majority of men (applause and knowing laughter from women.)

That doesn't mean that the rating should be populated exclusively with women. The key is to make all recruits take ASVAB tests that qualify them for certain ratings. Having realistic physical requirements for each job is necessary as well. I've seen women lifters on ESPN that could certainly carry a full load of combat gear.
Unfortunately bozo's that want to be promoted tend to circumvent necessary requirements. That's what gets us linguists that can't read and other minions of the Island of Broken Toys. It's great when someone incapable of performing a necessary function of a rating progresses up the ranks on shore duty.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-1-29 1:47:05 PM|| 2004-1-29 1:47:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 "I've seen women lifters on ESPN that could certainly carry a full load of combat gear."

Heck, recruit'em. However, I've seen a full combat load break a female officer candidate's pelvis during a hike (not the only incident either). One of the reason they reduced the pack weight at OCS/Recruit training. Fleet Marine Force has different standards (heavier) as there are no women in the grunts, recon or in line artillery. That's my point. I'm w/individual capabilities angle, if it makes good common sense then I'm w/it. But, I've been around too long and seen too much political stupidity in putting well meaning, hard working, proud females in positions they could not succeed in due to physical limitations. Again, I'm not pissed at them, they just want to serve and do their best like anyone else. The system is not set up for them in some instances. Hard fact but true.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-1-29 2:05:15 PM|| 2004-1-29 2:05:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 As Andy Griffith observed:
"Man, woman, it don't matter. All I seen was an officer."

Posted by mojo 2004-1-29 3:07:16 PM|| 2004-1-29 3:07:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 This is S. I'm just seeing if I can change my name while posting from the same computer...(to see if trolls can)
And for the record, being female, I will simply say that lowering standards to admit women is a very bad idea. It does nothing to improve our military and creates the oppurtunity for problems that would not have occured had standards been followed.

Posted by someone else 2004-1-29 10:40:29 PM|| 2004-1-29 10:40:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Yup. I have completed my own personal experiment that I'm sure has been checked before but oh well. Yes, it is definately possible to simply change one's name.

Posted by S 2004-1-29 10:42:04 PM|| 2004-1-29 10:42:04 PM|| Front Page Top

10:13 B
08:14 Tresho
05:38 Raptor
00:01 Desert Blondie
00:00 Lucky
23:51 Rafael
23:25 tu3031
23:18 Lucky
23:18 tu3031
23:14 Gasse Katze
23:13 Jarhead
23:10 tu3031
23:03 Mike Sylwester
22:52 Lucky
22:48 4thInfVet
22:46 tu3031
22:46 Jarhead
22:46 4thInfVet
22:43 Jarhead
22:42 S
22:42 4thInfVet
22:41 tu3031
22:41 CrazyFool
22:40 someone else