Re: note to rec.sport.paintball readers

(Jeff Goslin <autockr@xxxxxxxxxxx> uttered:)

> From what I have heard from every person who has ever been in the
> armed forces, it's about the nature of men and women when it comes
> to injury. Men are VERY protective of women, and not just
> specifically women you're involved with, but rather just women in
> general.

Riiiiight.

] On average each fiscal year from 1990 to 1996, 23.2 per 1000
] spouses of military personnel experienced a violent victimization.
] :FY90-96 Spouse and Child Maltreatment, Department of Defense.
]
] The rate of violent victimization of spouses in the U.S. military
] has steadily increased from 18.6 to 25.6 per 1000 during the same
] time period.
] :FY90-96 Spouse and Child Maltreatment, Department of Defense.
]
] More than 8,000 active duty women were abused by their spouses
] from 1990 to 1995. Half of the cases involved abusers who were also
] in the military.
] :Department of Defense, December 1996.

Yeah, men are all about protecting women, I tell you what.


> Men get very protective when women are injured, and this causes a
> rather serious problem in a combat situation. While a woman may be
> injured, she may not be as injured as the person next to them, but
> men tend to focus on women when it comes to injury, regardless of
> the extent of the injury.

It's all about order, discipline, and being able to apply your
training. If a soldier treats a non-critical casualty when they
should be treating a critical one, they're not doing their job,
plain and simple. It doesn't matter whether they're treating a
woman instead of a man or their best buddy instead of someone they
don't know. The soldier in question is being negligent in the
performance of their duty.


> The thing is, if the standards are equivalent for men and women, women
> would(generally speaking) never get in anyways. There might be a few
> super-women able to really keep up with the guys, but the simple
> reality is that, mysoginistic undertones aside, and speaking in
> generalities, women are the weaker sex.

There are going to be fewer women than men in the some of the more
physically demanding trades. Them's the breaks. It has nothing to
do with gender, and everything with being able to do the job.

That being said, if the standards were actually reflective of the
capabilities necessary to do the job, you'd probably find a lot more
women in combat trades than you think. You don't need to be the
next Mr. America to fire a rifle. You definitely don't need much
upper body strength to operate a radio or drive a vehicle.


> Hell, if gays want to serve, and they can handle it, I say "knock
> yourselves out". I don't know WHY you would CHOOSE to subject
> yourself to the ***-hating-est group of guys the world has to offer,
> but if that's your cup of tea, go for it.

The fact that homophobia in the ranks isn't percieved to be a problem
by the brass says a lot in and of itself.




Rick
--
key CF8F8A75 / print C5C1 F87D 5056 D2C0 D5CE D58F 970F 04D1 CF8F 8A75
Everything worthwhile must be won again each day.
:Unknown
.

Quantcast