The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-26-2013, 07:03 AM   #76
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
If the answer is more than .001%, then it's something the military needs to be very careful with.

Not saying it's a bad idea, but there'd better be more deliberation put into it than a DOD political appointee press stunt designed to rally the base.
That's what the rational say. Those with a social agenda don't care if the figure is 0.001% or 100%. They what what they want regardless, and if standards can't be met, standards themselves will be attacked until they're lowered.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 07:11 AM   #77
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,679
Default

The female Army colonel the Pentagon put forward for CBS interview had very interesting response to the question "How many women do you think with actually apply for Combat Line position?" and her response was:

Stark also said she had no doubt about women being able to succeed in combat arms, although she doesn't expect them to be lining up. "I think there will be some that want that opportunity, and many that don't. There's many males that don't sign up for combat arms."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_16...men-in-combat/
elsid13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 07:20 AM   #78
That One Guy
Producer of Nonsense
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sun and Beachville
Posts: 14,066

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
General Dempsey already answered this for us,

“Importantly, though, if we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn't make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high? With the direct combat exclusion provision in place, we never had to have that conversation.”

Right on cue.
Is there a link for this? I hadn't read this.
That One Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 07:24 AM   #79
That One Guy
Producer of Nonsense
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sun and Beachville
Posts: 14,066

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elsid13 View Post
The female Army colonel the Pentagon put forward for CBS interview had very interesting response to the question "How many women do you think with actually apply for Combat Line position?" and her response was:

Stark also said she had no doubt about women being able to succeed in combat arms, although she doesn't expect them to be lining up. "I think there will be some that want that opportunity, and many that don't. There's many males that don't sign up for combat arms."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_16...men-in-combat/
Absolutely. The issue now, though, becomes if they're CAPABLE of doing what men are, why aren't they held to a similar standard. If they can't be held to a similar standard, then they need to MOS respective standards (which is actually what I've been a proponent of for a looooong time) instead of army-wide standards.
That One Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 07:33 AM   #80
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by That One Guy View Post
Absolutely. The issue now, though, becomes if they're CAPABLE of doing what men are, why aren't they held to a similar standard. If they can't be held to a similar standard, then they need to MOS respective standards (which is actually what I've been a proponent of for a looooong time) instead of army-wide standards.
I agree completely. The good news is the secondary schools - like Ranger School, Army Combat Swimmer, BUD/s, SF Quals School - will weed out the weak and not effect us.
elsid13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 08:31 AM   #81
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elsid13 View Post
The female Army colonel the Pentagon put forward for CBS interview had very interesting response to the question "How many women do you think with actually apply for Combat Line position?" and her response was:

Stark also said she had no doubt about women being able to succeed in combat arms, although she doesn't expect them to be lining up. "I think there will be some that want that opportunity, and many that don't. There's many males that don't sign up for combat arms."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_16...men-in-combat/
The gender bean counters will see this as a reason to bang against the doors and demand standards be lowered and women wooed and accommodated at every turn.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 08:38 AM   #82
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by That One Guy View Post
Is there a link for this? I hadn't read this.
It was the press conference he gave with Panetta when they announced this whole thing. They admitted it then and there. For some odd reason the media left that part out of the nightly news.

U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
News Transcript


These situations are ALWAYS about racial and gender bean counting. There is a percentage that is demanded and standards will be expected to be lowered to accomplish this. Dempsey admits this indirectly:

We'll also integrate women in a way that enhances opportunity for everyone. This means setting clear standards of performance for all occupations based on what it actually takes to do the job. It also means ensuring that these standards are general [gender] neutral in occupations that will open to women.

As we introduce to women to previously closed occupations, we must make sure that there are a sufficient number of females entering the career field and already assigned to the related commands and leadership positions in order to sustain success over time.

The services and Special Operations Command will begin expanding the number of units and the number of women assigned to those units this year. They will continue to assess, develop and validate gender neutral standards so that we can start assigning personnel to previously closed occupations. And they will take the time needed to do the work without compromising the principles I just mentioned.


-----------------------------------------

Dempsey is being a bit Orwellian. You can't have standards and then have X percentage of women involved. You simply can't. He's admitting between the lines that he understands that that's the case. This is another case of pandering and fencepost riding. "Gender neutral" is the big hint here.

Last edited by nyuk nyuk; 01-26-2013 at 08:41 AM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 10:23 AM   #83
That One Guy
Producer of Nonsense
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sun and Beachville
Posts: 14,066

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
It was the press conference he gave with Panetta when they announced this whole thing. They admitted it then and there. For some odd reason the media left that part out of the nightly news.

U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
News Transcript


These situations are ALWAYS about racial and gender bean counting. There is a percentage that is demanded and standards will be expected to be lowered to accomplish this. Dempsey admits this indirectly:

We'll also integrate women in a way that enhances opportunity for everyone. This means setting clear standards of performance for all occupations based on what it actually takes to do the job. It also means ensuring that these standards are general [gender] neutral in occupations that will open to women.

As we introduce to women to previously closed occupations, we must make sure that there are a sufficient number of females entering the career field and already assigned to the related commands and leadership positions in order to sustain success over time.

The services and Special Operations Command will begin expanding the number of units and the number of women assigned to those units this year. They will continue to assess, develop and validate gender neutral standards so that we can start assigning personnel to previously closed occupations. And they will take the time needed to do the work without compromising the principles I just mentioned.


-----------------------------------------

Dempsey is being a bit Orwellian. You can't have standards and then have X percentage of women involved. You simply can't. He's admitting between the lines that he understands that that's the case. This is another case of pandering and fencepost riding. "Gender neutral" is the big hint here.
That definitely sounds like they're going to MOS based but gender neutral standards. I absolutely love that. We'll see how they do it but I think it can be done. More women will always want to be secretaries than Special Forces.
That One Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 10:36 AM   #84
BroncsRule
Perennial Pro-bowler
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 943

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by That One Guy View Post
Absolutely. The issue now, though, becomes if they're CAPABLE of doing what men are, why aren't they held to a similar standard. If they can't be held to a similar standard, then they need to MOS respective standards (which is actually what I've been a proponent of for a looooong time) instead of army-wide standards.
That's a really good idea.
BroncsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 10:46 AM   #85
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,879

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Uh-oh, we're already seeing huge repercussions form this:

Male soldiers starting to grow breasts!

http://news.discovery.com/human/heal...mkcpgn=rssnws1
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 10:51 AM   #86
BroncsRule
Perennial Pro-bowler
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 943

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by That One Guy View Post
That definitely sounds like they're going to MOS based but gender neutral standards. I absolutely love that. We'll see how they do it but I think it can be done. More women will always want to be secretaries than Special Forces.
..and we'll always need more secretaries than Special Forces.
BroncsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 11:23 AM   #87
That One Guy
Producer of Nonsense
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sun and Beachville
Posts: 14,066

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncsRule View Post
..and we'll always need more secretaries than Special Forces.
Sure.

I was just saying they won't issue an order of "every MOS need X% women".
That One Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 02:00 PM   #88
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by That One Guy View Post
That definitely sounds like they're going to MOS based but gender neutral standards. I absolutely love that. We'll see how they do it but I think it can be done. More women will always want to be secretaries than Special Forces.
Gender neutral = lower standards. Don't be conned by this. Women cannot keep up with current standards.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 02:01 PM   #89
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by That One Guy View Post
I was just saying they won't issue an order of "every MOS need X% women".
Why not? They're already pushing this stuff with fire and police departments. If X percentage isn't reached, then guess what they start pushing for?
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 02:20 PM   #90
chadta
Atomic Meatball Keeper
 
chadta's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Posts: 2,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Mc Rib
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
Why not? They're already pushing this stuff with fire and police departments. If X percentage isn't reached, then guess what they start pushing for?
Its affirmative action all over again.

I don't care if you are male, female, black, white, straight or gay, it makes no difference, get the best person for the job.

Ban all job interviews, do everything over msn or some other means where you cant identify who or what the applicant is.

If I'm going in for heart surgery, I want the best person doing it, and if that is the gay black woman then so be it, but if its a straight white male, don't give me second rate service.
chadta is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:13 AM.


Denver Broncos