Most Marines against lifting DADT

[Harshaw]

You know, the bull**** fear of communists that permeates so many threads around here is enough to make me want to flash the hammer and sickle.

Just to screw with the scaremongers.

:shrug: No one would question disgust at a swastika, and the hammer and sickle has at least ten times the blood on it.

 

[roguenuke]

i was talking about the problems that apply when you get mixed gender unit. women-in-the-infantry is another debate, although this ties in there as a factor as well. 'cultural treatment of women' i'm not sure what you're talking about there.



wrong, given that women are generally kept out of the units where their comparitive lack of physical abilities would be an issue, the vast majority of problems caused specifically because the unit is mixed-gender stem from the natural tension between men and women.



yes, as in they are attracted to them. the sexuality of the situation is simply something you can't beat out of human nature.



which is generally part and parcel of the same problem. we just had a female win a meritorious promotion board, despite the fact that every one of her objective scores were lower than the competition by a considerable amount. so how'd she win? she's the company clerk, and she flirts with her company guns and company first sergeant, who made up 2 of the 4 votes on the board. they probably didn't mean to do it; they just liked her and translated that in their heads to helping her get something good. you think that the rest of her shop isn't pissed off at her now? think that the leadership and respect for the chain of command across the battalion hasn't been degraded? think that she will be respected once she pins on? think that we haven't just taken the rest of her competition (who were the best of our best) and taught them that It Doesn't Matter How Well You Perform It Matters If You Have Nice Tits And Giggle At SNCO's Jokes? think that won't degrade the performance of those who by definition we previously depended on the most? one of her competitors i happen to work with, is a female, is an awesome Marine; she won 3 of the 5 competitions that the board is based on (the first female didn't win any, the other two were taken by two males one apiece); we were hoping she would pick up so that we could put her in charge of her section of the shop over another Marine who is frankly less competent, but who has seniority. Now, we can't; so that shop will go to war with less competent leadership.

fortunately, never in the history of mankind has competency in leadership made the difference between lives saved or lost, or else that would be bad, eh?

i could go on for several 6,000 character posts about females in the military getting special treatment due precisely because of the sexual nature of interaction between men and women.
to say nothing of the probems caused by office affairs, favoritism, degrading of good order and discipline, lack of focus on the mission, gossip, and so forth.

which is why i would prefer to see us move to single-gender units as much as possible. there seems to me to be no reason not to minimize something that we know to be a continuing source of problems.

all those problems that exist due to the sexual nature of interaction between men and women, we will increase in the mixed-gender units by adding another source, and add to the single-gender units; which - as they are often combat units - are those who can least afford them.

this proves that your chain of command would consider any of their personal views of a person over the evidence of how well a person does the job, not that it has anything to do with sexual tension. The specific example you gave proves my point more than yours, since a gay man most likely would not be able to flirt with members of their chain of command to get 3/5 of the backing for a promotion/honor/award, despite not having earned it. But it also sounds like you are saying that this chain of command would have also given that promotion/award/honor to a male who didn't deserve it but had made friends with the upper command had that woman not have been eligible for it.

Servicemembers make relationships within their ranks, all of which, whether sexual or purely plutonic, can cause bias for or against people within the unit. It is human nature. This is sad when you are talking about who deserves promotions/honors/awards/recognition and who actually gets them, but it happens all the time. I knew guys who made themselves look like they did all kinds of things to help their division and they got honored for it, eventhough, if those in charge would have actually checked on what those guys were actually doing, they would have found that it was all a show and the person didn't deserve such honors.

 

[roguenuke]

Yeah I guess that would be a start. Also figuring in what ways has having mixed gender units affected these units. Is there a net gain or a net loss in their effectiveness.

Actually, a better analysis would be comparing how personal feelings toward male personnel by the chain of command or other members of that unit affect how he is viewed in his actual ability to do the job and/or their contribution to the unit vs personal feelings toward female personnel by the coc or other unit members affect how she is viewed in her actual ability to do the job. I guess a better way to put it would be does the chain of command/unit personnel only take in consideration their sexual attraction towards personnel when making biased decisions or do they also take into account plutonic relationships? Ideally, a person's feelings toward another unit member are not taken into account at all when making a decision that affects that person's career, but rather only that person's ability and performance of their duties, including how well they interact with others and if they are causing any disruption that are due to their own actions.

 

[cpwill]

Yeah I guess that would be a start. Also figuring in what ways has having mixed gender units affected these units. Is there a net gain or a net loss in their effectiveness.

firstly, any loss of time, effort, and focus from combat operations to dealing with the fallout of fraternization and adultery is a loss in effectiveness.

secondly, no such comparative study exists (to my knowledge) or would even be justifiable; of course there isn't going to be a reasonable comparison between sexual tensions in mixed-gender units v all-male units.

 

[Navy Pride]

Oh yes, they do. It only depends on what your ship's policy is and how well the chain of command accepts gays. I went to sea with openly gay men and women.

There is only one policy in the Navy and if a command does not enforce it they are in violation of the law and anyone who violates it should be court martialed..........Again I am talking about Gay men, not Lesbians.......I guess in todays Navy according to you people in charge can pick and choose what laws and articles under the UCMJ they want to enforce and that my friend is scary...........

 

[winston53660]

There is only one policy in the navy and if a ship does not enforce it they are in ciolation of the law and anyone who violates it should be court martialed..........Again I am talking about Gay men, not Lesbians.......I guess in todays Navy according to you people in charge can pick and choose what laws and articles under the UCMJ they want to enforce and that my friend is scary...........

So lesbians get a different policy?

 

[roguenuke]

There is only one policy in the Navy and if a command does not enforce it they are in violation of the law and anyone who violates it should be court martialed..........Again I am talking about Gay men, not Lesbians.......I guess in todays Navy according to you people in charge can pick and choose what laws and articles under the UCMJ they want to enforce and that my friend is scary...........

There are only certain times when commanders are required to discharge openly gay personnel. It is completely up to their discretion unless the person has violated any rules that could be detrimental to the image of the military or if they haven't signed lots of paperwork and pushed very hard to prove they are gay in order to get discharged.

It is all the same policy. And, yes, I knew openly gay men on my ship along with the openly gay women.

 

[Navy Pride]

So lesbians get a different policy?

I don't care about Lesbians.........

 

[Navy Pride]

There are only certain times when commanders are required to discharge openly gay personnel. It is completely up to their discretion unless the person has violated any rules that could be detrimental to the image of the military or if they haven't signed lots of paperwork and pushed very hard to prove they are gay in order to get discharged.

It is all the same policy. And, yes, I knew openly gay men on my ship along with the openly gay women.

Its pretty cut and dry with me..........DADT, Don't Ask Don't Tell if your gay and you tell your LPO, Your Chief, Your Division Officer, Your Dept, Head, The XO, The Captain you are subject to discharge....There is no legal wiggle room............Some of your friends might have been Lesbians or you suspected they were.........If they revealed they were then they should have been discharged.............

 

[winston53660]

I don't care about Lesbians.........

Oh so you have a separate policy for lesbians and that would be "I don't care."

 

[Navy Pride]

Oh so you have a separate policy for lesbians and that would be "I don't care."

As far as I am concerned yeah...What Lesbians do don't affect the men who work for me......

 

[roguenuke]

Its pretty cut and dry with me..........DADT, Don't Ask Don't Tell if your gay and you tell your LPO, Your Chief, Your Division Officer, Your Dept, Head, The XO, The Captain you are subject to discharge....There is no legal wiggle room............Some of your friends might have been Lesbians or you suspected they were.........If they revealed they were then they should have been discharged.............

That is not how the policy is currently being enforced and not how it has been enforced for a while. In fact, just stating that you are gay, can be easily ignored if the chain of command so chooses just for the fact that the CO has the discretion of investigating an open acknowledgement of homosexuality or not, as long as the way that the person was found out did not involve some form of official record, such as a medical report or arrest report.

In fact, if the CO suspects that a person is lying about being gay just to get out of the military, then it would fall on that person to actually prove that they are gay in order to get their discharge. My class MMCM in power school squashed the mass of pseudo-gays real fast by telling our class that anyone who was willing to come into his office, call their mom on the phone, and explain to her exactly why he/she was getting out of the Navy right there in front of him could sign the papers saying they were gay to get out. No one else tried it after that in my class.

And, I did know some of the girls were lesbians, just like I knew some of the guys were gay. What part of this don't you understand NP? I served with men and women, and I knew men and women in my department who were openly gay. Everyone knew they were gay and they didn't hide it, and no one cared. In fact, the group of guys in my department who were gay usually sat together during meals while we were out to sea.

 

[Thorgasm]

I think Navy just exposed his true feelings on this subject. He feels that gay men are icky and a threat to straight men. Lesbians aren't icky and therefore not a threat to straight men.

 

[Gardener]

Lesbians aren't licky.

I beg to differ.

 

[soccerboy22]

I think Navy just exposed his true feelings on this subject. He feels that gay men are icky and a threat to straight men. Lesbians aren't icky and therefore not a threat to straight men.

Of course not. Lesbians are friends to straight men. They do very fine work.

 

[Glinda]

I don't care about Lesbians.........

That's too bad, Navy. I've yet to come across a red-blooded American man that didn't have an appreciation for a little girl-on-girl action.

Maybe you're not looking closely enough. :shrug: