An Opinionated Rant

[Jamie123]

It seems to me that if we're going to have a military, the first thing that military needs to do is to be able to fight a war. It would be nice also if women, gays, transsexuals, ethnic minorities, minority religions etc are proportionally represented amongst all ranks and trades, but surely the first thing we need is soldiers who can fight, sailors who can work a ship and airmen (airpeople?) who can operate aircraft. And we need planes that fly and ships that sail properly, and aren't always being laid up with "propellor problems". We have these two super-duper carriers, and they never seem to be out of dock.

OK the Prince of Wales has just set out for the NATO exercises, but a whole day late. What would happen if there was a war? "Oh dont attack us today, Mr Enemy, we're still mending the propellor on our big new boat! Come back tomorrow when we're ready!" A little more investment in the military is needed all round, and bit more emphasis on ships that work and enough sailors to man them. That's right - the Royal Navy is scrapping perfectly good warships because we can't recruit enough sailors to sail them. And a bit less emphasis on wokey-poky diversity officers who think the woker the navy is, the more likely it is to win wars!

Disclaimer: I have never been in the military and haven't really a clue - so don't take me too seriously.

Edited February 13 by Jamie123

[Ironhold]

The US military, and a few other militaries, are facing similar issues. 

To put it simply, the same demographic groups most likely to encourage their children to consider the military as an option are the same groups most likely to be frustrated and appalled by the efforts to make the military more "woke", and so they're no longer actually encouraging service. 

Couple this with the events of the last 20+ years, and people no longer see the military as a "three hots and a cot" proposition they can fall back on when they're in financial need. 

Parents and other groups are also *discouraging* outdoor athletic activity due to a variety of factors, and so we have large numbers of younger individuals who are no longer physically fit enough to pass muster. 

And the same "woke" nonsense means that even if someone is physically fit enough there's no guarantee that they're mentally or morally fit. 

Western society has been poisoned by "woke" and we need to purge that poison. 

Worst case scenario? We have to start going back to conscription to meet our defense requirements, possibly including conscripting women. 

[The Folk Prophet]

58 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

It would be nice also if women, gays, transsexuals, ethnic minorities, minority religions etc are proportionally represented amongst all ranks and trades

Why would that be nice?

[The Folk Prophet]

9 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

possibly including conscripting women

That's a non-starter for too many. I, for example, would literally kill and die without hesitation before I'd let them send my daughter off to war. I suspect, that despite the corruption and evil in the world, that there are still too many who feel as I do in that regard.

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Jamie123 said:

It would be nice also if women, gays, transsexuals, ethnic minorities, minority religions etc are proportionally represented amongst all ranks and trades

No, it wouldn't.  And hereby you expose what is so wrong with "woke" - they think this is a measure of whether an organization is discriminating or fair.  The only reasonable goal here would be:

"It would be nice also if women, gays, transsexuals, ethnic minorities, minority religions etc have equal opportunity to achieve / enter all ranks and trades if they want..."

But the insane people behind today's nonsense seem to think that there's a proportionate number of all those "groups" that want every possible job there is, as if the percentage of women who want to be plumbers is exactly the same as the percentage of men who want to be plumbers which is exactly the same as the number of [name your absurd group] who want to be plumbers, etc.  The whole idea is absolutely absurd if you think about it for even a split second.  But no, until plumbers proportionately represent our absurdly defined groups, the universe is unjust*.

Hereby, they reject the individual's right to choose what the individual wants to pursue in order to force (and that would be the only way) their proportionate percentages of each group into every job out there.  What's that, gay man, you don't want to be a plumber?  Tough luck, we're short by one gay male plumber, and you're it!  Here's a monkey wrench, now pull those pants down a little and let that crack show!

(*Meanwhile, the universe thinks we can all go jump off a cliff for all it cares.)

[Grunt]

I think it would just be nice if we had qualified Soldiers that wanted to serve.   There are many reasons why we don't, but I'm not sure if I have the heart or time to list everything I find wrong with the current military after a lifetime of service.

[mikbone]

Like this?

[NeuroTypical]

"The mission of the United States military is to kill people and break things.  Anything else is a distraction."
- Rush Limbaugh

(Holy crap do I miss that guy more every day.)

[LDSGator]

56 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

hat there are still too many who feel as I do in that regard.

We do, and a lot of us would go the extra mile and would refuse to see our sons/nephews drafted as well. 

Edited February 13 by LDSGator

[JohnsonJones]

2 hours ago, Ironhold said:

Couple this with the events of the last 20+ years, and people no longer see the military as a "three hots and a cot" proposition they can fall back on when they're in financial need. 

I don't deal with recruiting or with a bunch of young fellows (or ladies") who are jumping over themselves to join the military today so I don't know the exact reasons why some of them join, but I HAVE heard that in today's environment, the Military actually pays exceptionally well for those who graduate with degrees, and even for those who join out of high school IF they finish their technical training and stay on track to be promoted on the regular by the time they graduate that training.  As pay goes up in relation to inflation, it's kept track of pay increases much better than most jobs in the civilian world.

That said, there also seems to be a thought among some of the young people I teach that serving in the military is a thing of last resort when one cannot do otherwise.  This, of course, is not shared by those I know who are currently serving in the guard or reserves as they go to school (and more rarely, the ones who have already served [more rarely because they are rarer to come across], though sometimes their opinions vary on the matter) who seem to do it to help them get through school and have it paid for.  (And if I may, this is ALSO a reason to try to go to a school with in-state tuition.  With some of the tuition fees today, if you are out of state you would still need far more money to pay tuition and fees, whereas in-state you could probably afford the entire thing on the G.I. Bill).

 

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

No, it wouldn't.  And hereby you expose what is so wrong with "woke" - they think this is a measure of whether an organization is discriminating or fair.  The only reasonable goal here would be:

"It would be nice also if women, gays, transsexuals, ethnic minorities, minority religions etc have equal opportunity to achieve / enter all ranks and trades if they want..."

But the insane people behind today's nonsense seem to think that there's a proportionate number of all those "groups" that want every possible job there is, as if the percentage of women who want to be plumbers is exactly the same as the percentage of men who want to be plumbers which is exactly the same as the number of [name your absurd group] who want to be plumbers, etc.  The whole idea is absolutely absurd if you think about it for even a split second.  But no, until plumbers proportionately represent our absurdly defined groups, the universe is unjust*.

Hereby, they reject the individual's right to choose what the individual wants to pursue in order to force (and that would be the only way) their proportionate percentages of each group into every job out there.  What's that, gay man, you don't want to be a plumber?  Tough luck, we're short by one gay male plumber, and you're it!  Here's a monkey wrench, now pull those pants down a little and let that crack show!

(*Meanwhile, the universe thinks we can all go jump off a cliff for all it cares.)

I don't know about the military currently, but in civilian life it can sometimes be harder than that. 

There is a MINIMUM Quota for them to meet.  If they have less then the minimum then they need to recruit more woman (or minorities) of sorts, but if they have exceeded that there is no requirement to get to a specific percentage.  They can keep hiring woman and minorities at the expense of the White Male.  There is no set percentage for White Males in general, so if you only have woman and minorities and no White males then you are good in the eyes of those who wish to have those percentages.  This is also no representative of the population.  This is because they associate white men with what they call the white male privilege. 

This can make it harder for some to gain employment.  On the otherhand, I see where they are coming from.  Even at our university we have a greater portion of the professors as White men.  There is something to the idea that white men still have an upper hand at attaining certain things in our western society.  This doesn't mean that EVERY white male will ALWAYS be seen as superior to other social groups, or that even most white men will be able to reach unprecedented heights of wealth and power.  it merely means that all things being equal, that if you have to equal candidates, that those who are white will be given the better opportunity.  If you have a white man from poverty and a minority from middle class, it would still mean that minority from middle class probably will have a better opportunity than the other.  BUT in general, if they are both from an equal  point, than the white man will still, in general, have a better outcome in equal situations.

I can see this reflected in our various positions at the University, and as you get higher in the ranks/promotions you see it more starkly.  The Deans and members of the University boards tend to have more white men than anyone else. 

I think that woman and minorities would probably enjoy the pay and leadership opportunities just as much as others in these instances, but with how society works, in general they tend to be less represented the higher in position you go.  Sure, we have one woman on the university board (out of many positions), but that is one in relation to many. 

So, CURRENTLY I tend to agree with the idea that there is an idea of privilege in our society and that something probably should be done to equalize things out (which means I CAN be persuaded to think differently on it if one has a persuasive enough argument), but I also agree that sometimes it seems a bit unfair on how we try to do it. 

Edited February 13 by JohnsonJones

[LDSGator]

16 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

hat said, there also seems to be a thought among some of the young people I teach that serving in the military is a thing of last resort when one cannot do otherwise. 

Sadly, this was popular in the 90’s too when I was a kid. One of my best friends in childhood joined the army right out of high school and all of us were stunned. She could have gone to any college in the Northeast and no one saw this coming. 

Edited February 13 by LDSGator

[Grunt]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

Sadly, this was popular in the 90’s too when I was a kid. One of my best friends in childhood joined the army right out of high school and all of us were stunned. She could have gone to any college in the Northeast and no one saw this coming. 

Most of the Soldiers I work with have a minimum 4 year degree and many of us have graduate degrees.

[LDSGator]

8 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Most of the Soldiers I work with have a minimum 4 year degree and many of us have graduate degrees.

That’s nice. As a teenager we didn’t know that. Nor would any of us have cared. We were all stunned she went into the army. I was simply telling @JohnsonJones that the “anti-military” thought was around when I was in high school as well.

Edited February 13 by LDSGator

[Jamie123]

47 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Most of the Soldiers I work with have a minimum 4 year degree and many of us have graduate degrees.

It says here

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2023/march/encourage-enlisted-education-beyond-college#:~:text=We live in one of,personnel have a bachelor's degree.

That only 7% of enlisted personnel have a bachelors degree. Are the people you're talking about mostly officers?

[The Folk Prophet]

4 hours ago, zil2 said:

"It would be nice also if women, gays, transsexuals, ethnic minorities, minority religions etc have equal opportunity to achieve / enter all ranks and trades if they want..."

Nope. Even if they want, we should proactively discriminate against certain things when it comes to the military (specifically I mean trans and women. Trans because I believe they're mentally unfit, and women because women shouldn't be fighting and dying for us).

[Grunt]

12 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

It says here

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2023/march/encourage-enlisted-education-beyond-college#:~:text=We live in one of,personnel have a bachelor's degree.

That only 7% of enlisted personnel have a bachelors degree. Are the people you're talking about mostly officers?

No, I'm talking about enlisted.  Officers are required to have degrees before or shortly after commissioning.  Warrants are different.   However, I mostly work with senior enlisted and officers.   Your study is enlisted only, of which almost 2/3rds are junior (E-5 and below).  Most of those Soldiers, assuming they enlisted out of high school, wouldn't have had time to earn a degree yet.   Mid-level NCOs, E-6 and E-7, are typically working on degrees if they want to get promoted.  I know they exist, but I don't know any currently serving Soldiers in my area at my level that don't have a 4 year degree.  Most have, or are working on, a graduate degree.

In the section that I manage, 88% have 4 year degrees.  Of those, 57% have a graduate degree or higher.

[zil2]

13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Nope. Even if they want, we should proactively discriminate against certain things when it comes to the military (specifically I mean trans and women. Trans because I believe they're mentally unfit, and women because women shouldn't be fighting and dying for us).

Things in my subconscious left unspoken:  The "who are physically, mentally, and emotionally capable of doing the job" was a given in my brain.  Another unspoken prerequisite is that the standards aren't lowered or otherwise negatively altered just because someone who can't meet them happens to belong to some "special" group.  (I know, that wasn't your concern - or doesn't appear to be - I'm just adding it in to add it in.  And frankly, those unspoken rules would disqualify a lot of people, including the (vast?) majority of women.)

Note that in order to be logically consistent on the "no fighting and dying for us" front, you should probably be opposed to women in all forms of law enforcement that remotely risk confronting a criminal who is not already restrained (at the very least).  (The possible exception being women guards in women's prisons.) 

Perhaps you should also be opposed to women defending others (e.g. with a concealed firearm) either at all, or at least when there's a man around (until / unless all the men get killed first) - I mean, if it's "women shouldn't be fighting and dying for us", there are a lot more ways to do that than just in the military...    (Yes, at this point, I'm just giving you a hard time just because I can.   I can't say I care that much about this issue, though I think it would be really fun to get launched off an aircraft carrier is whatever F-## is popular these days.  Once would probably be enough for me, though. )

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, zil2 said:

Things in my subconscious left unspoken:  The "who are physically, mentally, and emotionally capable of doing the job" was a given in my brain.  Another unspoken prerequisite is that the standards aren't lowered or otherwise negatively altered just because someone who can't meet them happens to belong to some "special" group.  (I know, that wasn't your concern - or doesn't appear to be - I'm just adding it in to add it in.  And frankly, those unspoken rules would disqualify a lot of people, including the (vast?) majority of women.)

Note that in order to be logically consistent on the "no fighting and dying for us" front, you should probably be opposed to women in all forms of law enforcement that remotely risk confronting a criminal who is not already restrained (at the very least).  (The possible exception being women guards in women's prisons.) 

Perhaps you should also be opposed to women defending others (e.g. with a concealed firearm) either at all, or at least when there's a man around (until / unless all the men get killed first) - I mean, if it's "women shouldn't be fighting and dying for us", there are a lot more ways to do that than just in the military...    (Yes, at this point, I'm just giving you a hard time just because I can.   I can't say I care that much about this issue, though I think it would be really fun to get launched off an aircraft carrier is whatever F-## is popular these days.  Once would probably be enough for me, though. )

Since ultimately I'm probably a "women should be barefoot and pregnant housewives" type (a.k.a. chauvinist pig),  I think my logic would be pretty consistent.

I think there's a difference, of course, between what women "should" do and what women should be allowed to do. And I think there's some nuanced allowance to be made on the "allowed" side of things in the military. If some woman wants to go be a Green Beret and can hold her own just as well as the men in that regard... I can see carving exceptions out, legally speaking. But obviously the qualifying part is unlikely to happen in most cases. They have to lower standards to make it "equitable". And that shouldn't be happening. Flying helicopters or jets or what-have-you.... once again, I think there's some allowance for nuance in the "if she wants to" side of things. I certainly don't believe women should be legally excluded from all military roles. But certain ones...yeah.

Really though, when it comes to fighting wars... a country that sends their women out to die for them deserves to rot in the pit of hell where they're surely headed. And a large part (sadly) of that is that the women want to in the first place.

Hollywood is lying to you all!

[NeuroTypical]

It's worth noting that you have to take the military ASVAB test to enter military service.  And if you don't score high enough, you won't be joining military service.  The ASVAB is roughly equivalent to an IQ test, so you roughly need an IQ of 83 or higher to join the military. 

Maybe the most widely-known event was Muhammad Ali scoring a 78, and not entering military service.  "I said I was the greatest, not the smartest."

It's a flawed and imperfect process, of course, but not a total failure at only letting people fight and die for our country who can actually choose to do so, rather than just following orders to stand in a line and sign your name and get on a bus. 

 

[zil2]

11 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

They have to lower standards to make it "equitable". And that shouldn't be happening.

I agree with you there.

13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Really though, when it comes to fighting wars... a country that sends their women out to die for them deserves to rot in the pit of hell where they're surely headed. And a large part (sadly) of that is that the women want to in the first place.

Careful, Captain Moroni will send his women and children to get you:

Quote

Alma 54:12 And behold, if ye do not this, I will come against you with my armies; yea, even I will arm my women and my children, and I will come against you, and I will follow you even into your own land, which is the land of our first inheritance; yea, and it shall be blood for blood, yea, life for life; and I will give you battle even until you are destroyed from off the face of the earth.

14 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Since ultimately I'm probably a "women should be barefoot and pregnant housewives" type (a.k.a. chauvinist pig),  I think my logic would be pretty consistent.

While I agree that the noblest and best thing a woman can do is to be a wife and a mother, embracing that language (and its associated subtext) is one of Satan's ideas.  And the same is true in reverse - that is, Satan's efforts to create conflict and confusion between the sexes is quite possibly his greatest victory.  All the stereotypes, extremes, jokes, etc. that one sex makes at the expense of the other appear to me to be straight from Satan (along with all the rejection of traditional marriage and family roles).

PS: Barefoot in the kitchen is dangerous - what if you drop a glass?

[LDSGator]

27 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

rather than just following orders to stand in a line and sign your name and get on a bus. 

 

I’ve never served in the armed forces, but I’ve worked at jobs where your coworkers would rather be anywhere else. I’m not saying everyone has to be 100% every day, that’s not reality.
 

But it’s a real morale killer to be with people day in and day out who are only going through the motions or worse, clearly don’t want to be there.  I can’t imagine what it’s like if your very life depends on someone like the coworkers I’m describing  

[LDSGator]

4 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Satan's efforts to create conflict and confusion between the sexes is quite possibly his greatest victory

“The greatest victory for Satan was convincing the world he doesn’t exist.”-from a movie called The Usual Suspects. 

[Grunt]

47 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Things in my subconscious left unspoken:  The "who are physically, mentally, and emotionally capable of doing the job" was a given in my brain.  Another unspoken prerequisite is that the standards aren't lowered or otherwise negatively altered just because someone who can't meet them happens to belong to some "special" group.  (I know, that wasn't your concern - or doesn't appear to be - I'm just adding it in to add it in.  And frankly, those unspoken rules would disqualify a lot of people, including the (vast?) majority of women.)

This is an issue the Army has been struggling with.  As the Army has moved to complete integration there have been issues we didn't seem to have in large numbers.  Let's use physical ability and the Infantry as an example, and because Infantry is the best anyway.  😁

Not everyone meets the physical qualifications for Infantry.  Historically, Basic Training and Advanced Infantry School weeded many of them out.  They've tried several methods of determining fair measurements of qualifications, but if one group meets the requirements far less, it gets junked.   OPAT and ACFT are examples.

 

 

[LDSGator]

5 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Not everyone meets the physical qualifications for Infantry

What are the physical requirements?

[The Folk Prophet]

25 minutes ago, zil2 said:

embracing that language (and its associated subtext)

I'm not sure what subtext you mean, specifically. But if by "embracing" you mean don't make jokes, then a pox on you and your humorless house.

On a side-comment, I always joked with my wife that I didn't want her barefoot and pregnant.... because I prefer high-heels.