Air Force Academy Blamed for Sex Scandal

Associated Press ^ | December 7, 2004 | John Lumpkin

[Doc On The Bay]

COMPLETELY AGREE.

IF the Individuals in the Military training are Trained as "Officers of the US Military," then they are TRAINED to regard "Human Females" as SACROSANCT!!

They are TRAINED to PROTECT HUMAN FEMALES at all costs, short of the LIVES of their Unit!!

There can be NO "Legitimate excuse" for treating ANY Females as less than "Protected Ones."

NO "Service Academy Harrassment" of ANY Females is EVER acceptable!

The Reported Incidents represent a SERIOUS BREAKDOWN of Military Discipline & Doctrine.

Doc

[Grut]

There is no evidence that their presence wins wars more effectively then if they were not there.

Much the same can be said of, say, Texans. Would you therefore want to keep Texans out of combat? And yes, I know Audie Murphy was a Texan, but heros are a military oddity who almost never make any difference in the outcome of the war.

[sarasmom]

Depends on the type of service.
No way was I, or are most women, capable of performing the same degree of ground field combat operations as would be a typical, average, healthy male.
There is really no sane argument regarding that aspect of military service.
When people argue the merits of female participation in the military services, those "against" generally say women aren't physically as strong as men.
True.
But women are just as strong, perhaps stronger,to deal with the actual true horrors of war.

[Mr Rogers]

Glad to hear you are so tough.

It is still rare to see women pilots in the USAF - at least in fighter squadrons. The ones I've met were...average.

The question is, "Do the women bring enough value added to combat to justify the extra effort needed to place them there?"

What extra effort? Well, the USAF has had a bunch of sexual assault cases. Most run like this: A coed group gets very drunk. A drunk female and drunk male split off and go to her room. They drink even more. They have sex. The next morning, she says it was rape. He says it was consentual. Both were probably too drunk to know what they were doing anyways. No witnesses.

And no, women don't have the same upper body strength men have. That is why a number of maintenance tasks require more women to accomplish than if done by men. It also is a factor when there is an emergency - for example, in the Navy with a fire on ship. Can you carry your fellow sailor to safety? The number of women who can answer yes is dramatically smaller than the number of men.

You also introduce the whole fraternization issue. I've seen some ugly problems arise out of that.

Hate to break it to you, but if politics were removed from the equation, women would NOT be in the military. They cost twice as much to recruit, leave in much higher percentages, and are a mixed blessing as a worker.

BTW - my daughter is in the Marines, and she would agree with what I've written. One of the things she has learned, she says, it that she cannot compete equally in physical tasks with the average male Marine. It comes from weighing 115 pounds - she tries harder, but when you give up 80 pounds in weight, it is tough being equal.

[uncbob]

Coed military academies are a ridiculous JOKE

[TalBlack]

"These toads must feel their macho egos are threatened by having females there that can do everything they can do. What little sissies they are!"

In what alternate universe can these woman "do everything" the men can do?

Where have you been the last 30 years? The standards were lowered UNTIL woman could perform "up to standard".

[demecleze]

They are actually in the process of abandoning the idea. Even though the need for warm bodies is high there.

Its not just the fact that men have larger and denser bones, more and stronger muscle per pound of body weight, more blood with a composition optimized for physical activity and clotting, or the fact that men have an immune system oriented 'out' to protect against external injury while a woman's is internally oriented, generally larger organs, higher tolerance to most substances (alcohol for instance) per pound of body weight and so on.

Men and women are different, women are great but they are not optimal for soldiering. I think this opinion is shared by most honest people.

Some women might be quite testosterone soaked but they are the exception that makes the rule.

[Mr Rogers]

But women are just as strong, perhaps stronger,to deal with the actual true horrors of war.

I've seen zero indication this is true. In the limited sample I've seen, it was not.

[Lucky Dog]

I don't pretend to be "all wise", but it has been just recently in our history that women have been ALLOWED the same rights as men. Hey, we're smart enough to cast an informed vote! Who'd of thunk?? Wow, we can drive cars, hold jobs, become doctors....now there's a shock for ya!

Madam, military combat efficiency has, throughout history, been the ultimate arbiter of victory. If women had significantly increased combat efficiency at any time in the past, there would have been no question women about being allowed to participate, they would have been drafted to do so. However, since such has never been the case, the question is still on the table and you have not addressed it at all.

I know that there are some things men can do better, and there are things that women are better at. But in general, I think both are equally capable of going through the rigors of basic training, attending the academy, and serving the military.

You are correct that there are some things that, in general, each sex is better at than the other. In particular, men are, on average, 10% taller, 25% more muscular (even more so in the upper body), possess greater physical endurance, and are somewhat better at target directed skills. All of these tend to be important characteristics in a combat situation. Given this physical imbalance, one must wonder why it is at all advisable to put women in a combat situation where they could face a male adversary and be at such a potential disadvantage. Perhaps you could answer this important question.

As to your assertion concerning your “belief” that both sexes are equally capable of enduring the rigors of basic training, you are very mistaken. An earlier post on this thread cited several studies with statistics that women experience significantly more injuries in basic training than men. Unfortunately, the real issue is not basic training, but combat which is far more rigorous and perilous than basic training. Again, perhaps you could address why we, as a nation, should put women into a situation where they are likely to experience more injury unnecessarily and, as a consequence, reduce the combat efficiency of the unit to which they are assigned.

Some men just can't seem to get over that fact and will do their darndest to make life for these women in the academy as difficult as they can. They would never live it down if the girls outdid them! It would be a deadening blow to their egos! These are the "toads" I am talking about!

It seems that this is an emotional response and completely vacuous in terms of addressing why women should be at the academy or in military combat assignments. Perhaps you could explain how this response logically and factually relates to the is

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Agreed! Young people at the peak of their drive and at the nadir of their common sense.

[OldCorps]

The larger problem here is the emasculation of the military. It is a process that has been going on for many years. The academies are insecure about there role in society (I say this as a West Point graduate) and in order to maintain favor with politicians who control the purse strings, they are always at the forfront of their respective services in integrating women into their organization.

The men see the double standard and are disgusted by it. Political correctness has run amok and soldiers, sailors and airmen who were once very loyal to their services and to the nation are tired of putting up with the bs.

Remember how Elaine Donnelly of the center of military readiness exposed the double standards designed to create women fighter pilots in the Navy? She was litigated ad naseaum by the feminist military lobby. One man, in uniform, could never stand up against the imposers of "women in the military," he would be toast the minute he raised his head.

Now all the guys just go along to get along. But there exists a lot of resentment.

[sarasmom]

Bite me, groundpounder!
If we did not maintain air superiority over Iraq, your casual grunt gripes would be afforded some respect.
But we do, so why are you groundpounders blaming airmen for your faults?
Airmen have died over Iraqi skies for almost a decade before you groundpounders even got invited into the fight.
Don't diss your superiors.

[demecleze]

I think women actually had quite a lot of power before they were able to vote. Maybe not authority but they certainly had power.

I notice this with the 'lowly' housewives in my extended family. They are often at the apex of power, getting things done bullying all the men but this happens in a partitioned manner. In my observations this seems to work quite well. They usually have their political orientations (with respect to area of interest, not affiliation) in one direction, the men the other.

I think these women represent the central core of a healthy society, with men in a secondary position as worker ants scurrying about doing this and that.

Sure fire way to get a soldier to cry when in captivity is ask him about his wife.

[sandviper]

Pregnant troops leave the war; Central Command not counting

10% or more of female troops are pregnant in country at any given time. This means they are rotated. Is it possible they have found a way out ?
Mrs. Donnelly has written to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warning that the military is becoming a haven for single moms. She said fiscal 2002 statistics show that the Navy reassigned to shore duty 2,159 pregnant women, or 12.3 percent of 17,543 enlisted women on ships.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040615-115647-8125r.htm

[OldCorps]

please look at my post, number 51

[arasina]

Have separate academies. If the women who want to join the military really want to do it for the right reasons, they shouldn't mind a bit if they're not among the men. They can even claim separate, but equal. I say 'claim' because I don't believe that women ARE capable of the same physical or emotional fortitude as men. It's just the way we're designed.

If women want true 'equality' in a military setting, perhaps they could show themselves to be up to the challenge and quit using accusations of harrassment to 'achieve' whatever it is they're seeking.

Flame away, ladies and gents. :o)

[lizma]

But women are just as strong, perhaps stronger,to deal with the actual true horrors of war.

I tend to agree with you. Over the past several years I've witness girlfriends twice go though the death of one of their children. Their strength was unbelievable. They were the ones that held their families together.

Men and women will never be equals. We are gifted in different ways. For the military not to tap into these gifts is just plain ignorant and to try to prove us absolute equal is just plain deadly.

[americafirst]

My POV is pretty straight forward. If there are women who want to put their butts on the line to defend us, more power to them, if they measure up.

I was there when they first brought women into the Academy, into UPT and into PIT - and there were some who didn't measure up. But there were some who did - and when we started having honest-to-god female distinguished graduates (voted on by us line pukes with NO pressure from above whatsoever), your POV seems pretty narrow.

So we get to the real issue - what the heck is going on with these sexual harassment allegations at the Zoo? For the life of me, I can't understand why the women didn't reject these 'unwelcome' advances in the first place, so I'm a little suspicious that some of these allegations were cases of 'buyers remorse' the morning after. But just as I would argue that Clinton's disparity in power/command over his intern was disproportionate and could mitigate Lewinski's consent, an upperclassman who took advantage of an underclassman in his chain of command faces the same issue to a lesser degree. Clearly, the command structure was slow to comprehend the seriousness and scope of these charges/allegations and I was not surprised to see the ensuing purge.

[TChris]

But, I won't name him.

I won't either, but his initials are William Jefferson Clinton. Was that too much of a clue?