New armed forces scandals revisit the question of why women are in them

ARMIES, navies and air forces are inviting laboratories for government social engineers. Unlike the population as a whole, soldiers, sailors and airmen are captive guinea pigs. Civilians may choose to ignore the latest state edict on proper behaviour and thinking. However, men and women in uniform have no choice but to obey. The irresistible temptation this presents to government do-gooders to tinker with the natural order may be the gravest threat yet to the nation's defenders. A handful of critics charge that more damage will come to the Canadian armed forces from politicians' eagerness to integrate women into combat roles than from the crushing spending cuts of the last three years or the over-stretching of resources to meet growing peacekeeping commitments.

Interestingly, the first proof that Canadian women in combat roles could undermine military preparedness may come from the bedroom and not the trenches. If sensational allegations made in the August issue of the independent Canadian military magazine esprit de corps are to be believed, four unmarried female peacekeepers were sent home from Cambodia this spring after getting pregnant.

On top of that, the magazine reports, female Canadian Forces staff at the northern base of Alert "made a fortune" selling their sexual favours to male colleagues. And two female sailors on board the HMCS Protecteur during the 1991 Gulf War were also part-time prostitutes, the magazine charges. In a curious twist, a third woman who informed on the first two was countercharged by the pair for allegedly trying to seduce them into a lesbian relationship. The magazine claims all three were flown back to Canada in the middle of the war.

The Department of National Defence (DND) has refused comment on the specific allegations made by esprit de corps. DND spokesman Susan Gray would only say, "This alleged prostitution in the forces is based solely on speculation and not fact."

But the accusations do not surprise many military experts. Christopher Check, a former United States marine and now associate director of the Rockford Institute's Center on the Family in America, located in Rockford, I11., claims prostitution is one of the results of putting women in combat. "I know for certain there was a woman marine who was selling fellatio in the [washrooms] at a pier in Saudi Arabia," Mr. Check says. "I understand she was doing quite well for herself, too."

The decision to put women into combat did not come from Parliament, or even from military brass, but rather from the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). In February 1989, the CHRC ruled that "The long-term societal trend is clear; women will continue to enter the paid work force, by choice or by necessity." Therefore, the commission ordered "the Canadian Forces...to take advantage of that trend." The rights body ruled that complete integration must be accomplished in all service roles, except for submarines, within 10 years.

Still, CHRC chairman Max Yalden was not satisfied. "Ten years is a long, long time," he said. "Perhaps when [the forces] get down to the nitty-gritty they'll be able to do it a little more quickly."

Retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie, who commanded United Nations forces in Sarajevo for over a year after the outbreak of hostilities in the former Yugoslavia, says the CHRC ruling got the Canadian Forces out of a tight spot. Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie had been ordered by his political boss, then-defence minister Perrin Beatty, to conduct "scientific testing" on the suitability of women for combat. But, he explains, the military's physical entrance requirements had not been lowered to compensate for women. So he had the examples of only two or three women to study, far too few to reach any verifiable conclusions. "Except for the CHRC decision, we would have been forced to adopt a quota system, affirmative action [for combat women]," Gen. MacKenzie admits.

Despite his personal reservations, Gen. MacKenzie supported the Mulroney government's decision not to appeal the CHRC decision. "If something's inevitable, you don't spend a lot of time fighting it," he says.

The transition to a coed combat force has been smooth, says Lieutenant-Colonel Diana Hope, Canadian Forces director of personnel policy, who is responsible for "gender integration." Currently all positions in the Canadian military are open to women, who represent 10.8% of all troops. However, there are fewer than 100 women in combat units, less than 1 % of total combat forces.

Lt.-Col. Hope says women's low numbers in combat units is the result of their lack of interest in battle.

She also blames male soldiers' lack of deference to women in uniform. A 1992 survey by DND claimed that almost one-third of women in the Canadian Forces professed to being harassed, with 26.5% claiming sexual harassment. "A lot's happened since then," according to Lt.-Col. Hope. Besides, she says, harassment isn't higher in the military than anywhere else. There has been a changing of attitudes and "all of the units are reaching out and touching."

Feminists, such as American Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder, argue that putting women in combat roles would lead to a feminization of the military, which they consider a good thing. But, "you've got to hope your enemies do the same," laughs James Scott, writer for esprit de corps. "I definitely think there's a certain natural biological ideology that men and women have. It's a danger that women will make your military nice and gentle and nurturing. Unfortunately your enemies may not follow that prescription and guess what? You're going to get your butt kicked somewhere."

"Your military has a particular role to perform," Mr. Scott continues. "Whether you like it or not it's there to prepare to fight national wars and to enforce national policy." Perhaps women are more conciliatory and less aggressive, Mr. Scott concedes, "but when a soldier has to pick up a rifle and charge a farmhouse full of enemy soldiers are you going to say 'well, let's send a woman and see if she can root them out her way?' You can't change the job in order to accommodate new social conditions."

"The military is a place where traditions have practical value," argues the Rockford Institute's Check, who retired at the rank of captain in 1994 after six years in the U.S. Marine Corps, including service in the Gulf War. Innovation should have only one purpose, he says. "Will it make us better at killing our enemies? If the answer is no; even if the answer is not certain, then that change has to be resisted."

Peter Worthington, former war correspondent and editor emeritus of the Toronto Sun, decries the experimentation he sees running rampant in the Canadian military. "I think the bureaucrats in uniform are running the armed forces and they're destroying them. There's a greater division now than ever between the active military and the bureaucratic military." Soldiering is like no other job, he insists. "As long as you are going to make the military into a civil service job with job equity and parity and quota systems...it's going to make the military worse."

A veteran of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, Mr. Worthington is infuriated by the efforts of organizations such as the Canada 21 Council, a group of former Liberal activists and career lobbyists to "make the Canadian Army into social workers." The "peacekeeping myth" of modern politicians and bureaucrats is nothing less than "a subversion of our country's traditions." The havoc wreaked on the forces since the unification crisis of the 1960s "has left our military too ill-equipped to fight," Mr. Worthington believes.

No country in modern times has ever successfully integrated women into its permanent combat ranks, says military historian and former Canadian Forces soldier John Thompson, now executive director of the MacKenzie Institute. He says that even countries in mortal danger have given up on the idea. Israel is the example most often used by feminists. But Israel "actually took women out of the front line at the very height of their manpower crisis in 1948, at the very time when they were taking immigrants off ships as soon as they arrived, giving them a rifle and some scratch training and flinging them into battle."

It has as much to do with the men as with the women, Mr. Thompson says. "The problem is that the males get over-protective. In the Israeli Army in 1948, they were taking too many losses because men were protecting female soldiers in the ranks"--not only from wounding or death but also from capture. "The Israelis had a very good idea of what the Arabs would have done to a captured female soldier, even the body of a captured female soldier." The horrifying experience of captured American service-women during the Gulf War proves that this is still a threat (see below).

The Soviet Red Army during the Second World War is also cited by feminists as an example of side-by-side male-female fighting. But according to Mr. Thompson, segregation was the key to the success of female Russian soldiers in the war. "The Soviets had all-women units--women sniper regiments, women infantry regiments, artillery, close air support, etc. Some of them behaved quite well but generally again when they had to co-operate with men they found the males were getting overprotective. After the war, the Soviets took women out of combat units."

One successful example of men and women fighting together, says Mr. Worthington, was the Eritrean Liberation Army. Mr. Worthington, who reported on the civil war in Ethiopia in the late 1980s, recounts, "You had 3 million Eritreans against 40 million Ethiopians. You had to use every facility, every man, woman and child."

Mr. Worthington believes there is a threshold for successful integration of female soldiers. When they reach 30% or more of an army "they have an acceptable sort of social environment. If it is fewer than that you have all kinds of problems of rivalries...men worrying about how the women were doing."

Sexual tension between men and women in combat is always troublesome, too, according to Mr. Thompson, who explains that the Red Army had a brutal solution. "There was a standing order for Soviet commissars to shoot women who had become a cause of dissension and division within partisan units. That doesn't say much for the sybaritic men. You could say this was sexism, but it was still the problem men had serving with women in combat."

Furthermore, women soldiers get very little respect from their male counterparts, says Mr. Check. "At the US Naval Academy in Annapolis," he says, "the slang term for female midshipmen is WUBA, which stands for Women Used By All." And female recruits often have to worry about their female superiors as well. Mr. Check says that the dominance of a group of lesbian drill instructors at Parris Island, South Carolina, the Marine Corps' main training camp, was so severe that female officers he knew wen afraid to go there.

Morality is difficult for women to maintain in military situations, too, according to Mr. Check. Of single parents in the U.S armed forces 64% are male, 36% are female "When you consider that women make up about 10% of the forces, they are over-represented in illegitimacy," he argues. Pentagon figures show that 11% of female troops, married and unmarried, are pregnant at any one time. And it is now commonplace for American servicewomen to become pregnant in order to evade hazardous duty. "Women don't even need to get pregnant," says Mr. Check. "I know of one woman marine who routinely avoided weekly physical training duty by saying she had to get a pregnancy test."

Lt.-Col. Hope says she doesn't know what purpose it would serve to keep pregnancy rate statistics for Canadian servicewomen. "I've never seen any. I'm not even sure they exist," she says. "Bullshit," replies Gen. MacKenzie. "Sure it happens and will continue to happen," he says of the "self-inflicted wound" of deliberate pregnancy. Still, he argues, it's not so much different than "the old days, [when] men used to shoot off a toe," in order to avoid duty. Canadian service-women can get up to six months maternity leave, and servicemen can get up to two months paternity leave.

Pregnancy rates in the Canadian Forces are already impairing efficiency, says Gen. MacKenzie. "Current policy does not fill in behind," he says. In other words, "there are no extra positions to fill these vacant spots [caused by maternity leave], so it creates a manning problem." First Canadian Service battalion in Calgary is particularly affected by this. "The smaller the army gets in size, the more significant the problem is," the general explains.

Just as our armed forces are weakened by the pregnancies of soldiers, the demands of army life place a great strain on female soldier's families. Sgt. Teresa Vezeau is responsible for building and computer security at CFB Edmonton. The 32-year-old military policewoman has been in the service for 13 years. She has an administrative position now, but for nine years she worked a 12-hour shift. As a mother and the wife of a firefighter who also does shiftwork, she says her marriage has "had its difficult moments."

The longest Sgt. Vezeau has been away on duty has been three months. But it is possible she could be sent as an MP to a United Nations peacekeeping posting, which would take her away for six months and put her in a combat zone.

By her own admission "more determined and stubborn" than most people, Sgt. Vezeau says she looks forward to the opportunity to be posted to a war zone. She says she is "no more [worried] than anyone else. I do have a family. My feelings on that are that I've been trained for 13 years and I would prefer to go myself rather than have the military take on someone who is not trained." She'd probably like it, she says, although her husband "is a little more apprehensive."

Has the Canadian experiment with women in combat been a success? "That's the party line," says Mr. Thompson. But he disagrees. Many of the women who go into combat roles were looking for something else. "A lot of positions in the Army are hard to fill anyway. Not many people want to be infantrymen." Gen. MacKenzie concurs. "Combat is often a consolation prize because they can't get into engineering or communications." Mr. Thompson believes that "only segregated units could have a chance of success."

Mr. Worthington says of the integration effort: "It's totally unnecessary in Canada. Our military is so strapped anyway and I don't think there are many women who want to be soldiers." Since the number of female combat soldiers will never rise near the 30% plus level he thinks necessary for successful integration, the Canadian Forces experiment is just "tokenism."

Bob Ringma, Nanaimo-Cowichan Reform MP and defence critic, spent 35 years in forces, retiring as a major-general. Based on his experience in the Korean War, Mr. Ringma says, "I could not [then] conceive of women serving in roles other than the traditional ones, such as nursing." But he's changed his mind. My attitude of 'No, I don't think it will work' has changed now to that it can work in certain situations."

Gen. MacKenzie is also a convert. "I was amazed at how many of my concerns were proved groundless," he confesses. He now concludes that the fears of others that women would prove so disruptive that military efficiency would be impaired are false. "I am more concerned about sexual orientation," he adds, referring to the DND's 1992 decision to end its ban on homosexuals. "Many lesbians are attracted to the military life," he argues and this places considerable strains on vulnerable young heterosexual women entering the military. Still, he adds optimistically, "the numbers are so small, the problems tend to go away."

So few women have opted for and completed the requirements for combat duty that a statistical disparity has been created. Military analysts now fear feminists will blame the low numbers on systemic discrimination, claiming that women are willing and able to fight but are being quietly kept from doing so by sexist military bosses. This worries Gen. MacKenzie. "Affirmative action would be a stake through the heart of the fighting organization," he says. "It would show our leaders had less concern for the lives and the safety of their units than for political experimentation."

Ultimately, the purpose of armed forces is to kill or die. "Is this a proper role for women?" asks esprit de corps' Scott. "They have to bear the future generations...So to put them under conditions where that would be threatened is almost like saying you're putting your country's future in front of the muzzle of a gun."

Mr. Thompson quotes Rudyard Kipling. "The female of the species is more deadly than the male." He worries that "women are much crueller and mentally tough than men, and that encouraging that aspect of female character may not be in our best interests."

Mr. Check believes there are still some things worth fighting against. "When a civilization is prepared to send its daughters and sisters to war, it really can't consider itself a civilization any more."

WHEN Josephine Green, an unmarried British Royal Navy nurse, became pregnant in 1984, she knew she would lose her job. Pregnancy was a sacking offence. She moved to Australia and carried the dark secret of her child's father with her. When she announced last June that her lover had been a Roman Catholic priest, she became a tabloid star and earned $747,000 for her sordid story.

While Miss Green's is the most notorious case, it is not the only incident of the British armed forces dismissing a female officer or soldier after she became pregnant. In all, over 5,000 former servicewomen fired for becoming pregnant are suing the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for lost wages, loss of future wages, lost fringe benefits and "solatium consolation," or hurt feelings. The total bill could be in excess of $213 million. The headlines following each new settlement have shocked and disgusted the British public in equal measure.

Until 1989, the British armed services followed a policy of strict equality at all ranks. Women had to be as available for duty as men. Those who joined up knew that if they became pregnant they would get not maternity leave, but a pink slip. In 1989, however, the British High Court ruled that this regulation was a violation of the 1976 Equal Employment Opportunity Act.

In 1991, two women launched the first suit against the now-unlawful old policy. The MOD pled guilty and agreed to provide maternity leave. The awards were relatively modest, $21,000 and $32,000, respectively. But the military was now helpless against the tidal wave of suits that followed, most before labour relations boards instead of the courts. Disaster struck the MOD last year when the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, to which Britain is bound by the European Community, struck down Britain's $23,000 limit on awards based on sexual discrimination.

After that ruling, the awards to female former soldiers and sailors discharged for becoming pregnant quickly became astronomical. And being with child while in uniform had become what in England is called "a nice little earner."

Women have no combat role in the British armed services and are still largely restricted to the traditional roles of nursing, training and teaching. Arguing against the size of the awards, the MO1 pointed out that 90% of the fired women had found other employment, and more significantly, that only 46% of servicewomen granted maternity leave since the policy had been changed had returned to their jobs at the end of the leave.

Something of a turning point in public opinion was reached when the London Sunday Telegraph arranged a meeting between the most outlandish of the litigious women and a Royal Air Fore aerobatic pilot rendered a quadriplegic after a mid-air accident in 1963. Abigail Kirkby-Harris said it was "absolutely appalling that Michael Cooke was not legally entitled to any compensation for his catastrophic wounds. Yet she betrayed no inkling of irony when she claimed to have been "robbed" by the Royal Army Educational Corps and that $1.08 million was "what I was worth for having her career of teaching mathematics and English to soldiers rudely interrupted.

A bemused Mr. Cooke said: "It's a funny old world where ladies who are performing their God-given right to have children are not able to claim such vast amounts." This gravy train for the gravid may have reached its destination before Mrs. Kirkby-Harris was able to board, however. Last month, Britain's Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that six-figure awards are "manifestly excessive," and urged tribunals to "keep a due sense of proportion" in the future To date, the MOD has paid out $48 million.

TAILHOOK, the sexual harassment scandal that has rocked the United States Navy establishment for three years, ended earlier this year with a verdict based on a peculiar twist of logic. Investigators determined that the navy pilots who sexually assaulted two of their female colleagues during a convention in Las Vegas were, like most fighting men, unable to control themselves in the company of women. The proposed solution: introduce women to combat. Put them on the front lines and in the barracks side-by-side with men.

In September 1991, fresh from their triumph in the Gulf War, active and former naval aviators convened at the Las Vegas Hilton for Tailhook '91, an annual event renowned for its nightly uninhibited partying. But even by Tailhook standards the debauchery on the Saturday night of the gathering was astounding.

Lieutenant Rolando Diaz was publicly shaving the legs of female Navy officers on the infamous third floor of the Hilton that night, an infraction later termed a serious breach of discipline. One of the women he depilated was Lieutenant Paula Coughlin. At the time, Lt. Coughlin seemed to see the incident as a bit of harmless fun. After he shaved her limbs, she signed a banner he was carrying with the words, "You made me see God. The Paulster."

Later, however, Lt. Coughlin claimed to have had her buttocks and breasts fondled by flyers who had formed a gauntlet in the hallway outside Diaz's room. Stories of public orgies also leaked to the media. Overnight, Lt. Coughlin became famous.

Lt. Coughlin's cause was taken up by Colorado Congressman Patricia Schroeder, an advocate of American servicewomen being placed in combat roles, who bayed for the blood of Navy officers and bureaucrats, whether involved with Tailhook or not. When the Navy announced it intended to give the accused men due process, Rep. Schroeder uttered her now-famous catch-phrase for all men: "They just don't get it."

The year the investigation began, 1992, was an election year and then-president George Bush was suffering a "gender gap" among female voters. The Navy didn't have a chance. The Secretary of the Navy, the Judge Advocate General, the Naval Intelligence Service Commander and a Rear Admiral were fired or forced to resign, even though they were not directly involved nor linked to any cover-up.

Lt. Coughlin's memory failed her when she was asked to testify at the court-martial of her alleged assailants. Under cross-examination she could identify only two men, one of whom was not at the hotel and the second of whom had an iron-clad alibi. Christopher Check, a former U.S. marine and current associate director of the Rockford Institute's Center on the Family in America, says that "having willing female participants is no excuse for intemperate or bad behaviour." But the fact that no successful courts martial have resulted from Tailhook proves that it has become a powerful feminist myth. "Sexual prowess is an identifying feature of American servicemen," Mr. Check says. "The way sailors and marines, in particular, behave when they are on liberty is deplorable."

But there are greater perils to combat life than mere drunken lasciviousness. Army Major Rhonda Coraum testified in favour of admitting American women to combat roles before a 1992 presidential commission, even though she revealed that she and Army Specialist Melissa Coleman had been subjected to a special torture while they were held prisoner by the Iraqis during the Gulf War. They had both been raped and sodomized. "Do we really want women subjected to this?" asks Mr. Check.

I have also been searching the Internet for information about Cornum treatment. I found several sites that quoted from the President's Commission saying she had been digitally violated vaginally and anally. She was not raped because the guard could not get her flight suit off over her broken arms.

I found this site cached by Google. It has a pretty complete report of both Cornum's and Rathbun-Nealy's experiences while in captivity. While this site clearly has an agenda, it also has a pretty interesting analysis of women in the military.

You can't be a feminist without being a liberal. The natural order, evolution, god whatever you want to call it arranged things in such a way that things work best when women are assisting, aiding, complementing men etc but not trying to compete or be equal with them. Women have a valid role in their traditional jobs in the military and in everything else but with very very very few exceptions most women should stick to them.

Are men who never serve in the military or who never see combat "not equal" with men who have?

This is a very good question, Lorianne. I am a war veteran, and I lived 3 1/2 years behind the Iron Curtain serving in the US Army Berlin Brigade. But do you see my semantical trick? I am a war veteran but I am not a combat veteran! I spent plenty of years in combat training but I was never in combat. And, yes, I consider a combat veteran a notch higher than I am even though I spent years a policeman! I thank God every day I never had to use that crapola women's rifle, the M16 in combat---(Whoops, here I go!)

Of course I have met many admirable men and women in the civilian world. I say to myself, "This person is very fortunate that he nor she never had to go through basic training nor combat for that matter because this person is quite a mature individual." Then there are other civilians who are such whiners I'd like to throw them into a war zone.

As far as military men who never saw combat, read Anton Myrer's Once an Eagle. I believe Myrer adequately addresses the question of annoying bureaucrat types in the Armed Forces.

As far as addressing females in the Armed Forces, I commend batboy's argumentation. I don't think we're gonna lose a war but I'm sorry to say that we may lose a battle or get nailed in some major incident because of this feminist poppycock and balderdash.

Canadians shed blood along with Americans on the beaches of France, and in a hundred other places.

I see point in denigrating these wonderful allies.

Oh please! Get a sense of humor will you. Your just as bad as the politically correct crowd that gets offended at every pierceved slight.

Telling people what they can and can't do is top down authoritarianism. It is anti-freedom and anti-American.

Setting standards and allowing anyone and everyone the opportunity to compete to meet them is the American way.

I don't happen to believe most women are suited to combat. However, some may be. Also, the nature of "combat" may change in coming years which may have an impact. Nevertheless, objective standards are fair. Irrational authoritarianism is not.

Also combat does not equal military service. As I've mentioned countless times only a very small percentage of those in the military will ever serve in combat. A small percentage will ever be asked to serve in combat. In the meantime, the military had beaucoup jobs that have to get done. With a volunteer system, its simply stupid to turn away qualified people who will be an asset to your organization. If the military is having a hard time finding qualified people (which it is) then they need to change their hiring and screening practices, just as any other organization which wants to succeed has to do. Arbitrarily cutting out half your potential work force is foolhardy and dangerous.

Not everyone who volunteers for military service does it out of a sense of patriotism, but many do, including women. In a time of war and with a volunteer service, we're shooting ourselves in the foot by bad mouthing patriotic citizens who want to serve their country.

Oh and by the way, there are many conservative feminists. You need to educate yourself.

I've never heard of a non-liberal feminist. What does a non-liberal feminist believe or not believe that a liberal feminist believesI've never heard of a non-liberal feminist. What does a non-liberal feminist believe or not believe that a liberal feminist believes (or doesn't believe)?

Conservative feminists believe in many conservative things for example: the sanctity of free speech, personal responsibility, free and open markets, individualism over collectivism, less taxation, equality and justice for all. In addtiion many are pro-Life. Conservative feminists are pro-Family but believe individual families have the capacity to decide how organize their own personal lives, including education and work and conservation of family resources.

Feminists come in many stripes. In addtion, there are feminists all over the world and they are not all the same ideologically as NOW has apparently duped you into believing. They play that hand nicely and you (and millions others) fall in line like sheep. Fortunately, this is actually an advantage for broader feminism. As in the military, while people are fighting a meaningless battle on one front, the real work is being done elsewhere.

People are not all the same, no matter how we try to collectively stereotype them.

It is MEN, not women, who are exempting women from selective service registration and MEN not women who are keeping women from serving in combat positions . Incidently, not all men are qualified for combat. The military finds useful positions for people of all kinds of aptitudes. Proportionally, more people are involved in logistics and support positions. Are men who never serve in the military or who never see combat "not equal" with men who have?

All men are equal with each other, and are superior to women, since all men are subject to the draft. I know it is the MEN who do not want women to serve, but neither do women want to be drafted either. Men do not want women in the miliary or in combat because they think women are inferior. Draftable women, just do not want to do it,and think they can get out of it.

Be that as it may, it doesnt matter the reasons, if women were truely equal, they would be subject to the draft, and would go into combat just as men are.

Women are not equal, the "feminine" is still considered sissy and inferior, and any boy or man who expresses the feminine is scorned. While, on the other hand, the "masculine" is considered superior by all in our society, by both men and women, and masculinity is considered admirable, tomboyish, and desirable, even in girls or women to try to be or emulate masculine/masculinity.

Women may "pretend" they are considered "equal", but they are not !

I kind of agree, I too was in Korea and was amazed at the whoring the married men did over there.

I even knew some of these men while I was stationed in Ft Lewis, a bunch of us from Lewis went there and about of the thousands of guys (married and not) I knew one that I was somewhat sure that he was not cheating on his wife. By about month 6 I decided to stop being surprised, I was still surprised when they would brag about it, to include how much they paid.

Also while in Korea our company had they highest number of STDs, one month the CO decided to convey this to the rest of the company. Obviously these guys were not wearing the free condoms that the company had left in the hanger, barracks, etc.

I’ve been deployed too, with all men. I pulled more than my weight, being a female attracts attention. So if they need someone to carry the m60, you’re it, same with dirty jobs and working late and o every aircraft. What I saw was a lot of men sitting around watching. A lot of E5s and above not knowing how to do their job, probably because they got away with not doing it for years.

“Ah, now see madam, here is where you let every veteran know that you are clueless and know not of what you speak.
Yes, it is a volunteer military. However, there are a finite amount of slots. Some slots are very competitive and very hard to get into because there are not a lot of them from the get go. When a female receives such a slot and doesn’t pull her weight, it hurts everyone. Pulling her weight can mean a lot of things. For instance, she’s in x slot, but cannot perform her job functions because she’s gotten herself knocked up. This puts a strain on her peers because they have to take up her slack, yet the unit cannot get a person to replace her because she is still there. She may be working as a clerk or a driver or who knows what, but as far as PERSCOM is concerned, she’s still filling the slot.”

It’s more likely he couldn’t get a high GT score (Army).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.