<p>[Film</a> about first female cadets set at academy - Air Force News, opinions, editorials, news from Iraq, photos, reports - Air Force Times](<a href=“http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/11/airforce_movie_academy_071105/]Film”>http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/11/airforce_movie_academy_071105/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was just discussing this at breakfast. I really hope it doesn't promote the image that the academy is a sexist institution. We just don't need that, with the sexual assault scandal of the past few years. I know there was a lot of friction and sexism at the time, but I almost wish we could let that lie a bit longer. ...Here's hoping that it comes off decently!...</p>
<p>I hope you are right too raimius. I remember that summer and it was a big deal. By it's nature the Academy will likely be a Male dominated institution for a very long time. No one likes change and you can be sure General D and her sisters met some very big challenges and succeeded. There is a very positive story to be told, and it could very easily be distorted by people with a different agenda. We will have to wait and see if it is a positive story about a group of young women who met a challenge or the story of the hazing and harrassment that most certainly occurred. I hope they concentrate on the positive.</p>
<p>i still don't understand the problem with the "Bring Me Men" ramp. Men is a general term, and females at the academy for the most part don't ahve a problem with it either.</p>
<p>and as i have said to my friends, and they concur, why do't we just change it to Bring Me Women! I would have no problem with that! :)</p>
<p>Becuase of the rise of "Political Correctness" ushered in by Donna Shalala when she was the head of the University of Wisconsin we live in a country that celebrates victimhood, and champions those who are offended. "Bring Me Men" had to be sacrificed to appease the offended.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>AFA was male only for only it's first seventeen years. It has been coed for nearly twice that long. Also nearly twice the age of some of the cadets. It might be time to relinquish the old-boy network, your thinly veiled misogynic attitudes, and move on into the 21st century by supporting the incorporation of women into viable positions of defending our country. </p>
<p>Take a step back and reread your posts.</p>
<p>USNA69 Sir or Ma'am whichever the case maybe. I strongly believe that Women are an ESSENTIAL component in todays Academies. I also readily acknowledge the events of the past. My comment was meant to infur that I don't ever believe any of the Academies will ever have more Women in attendance than Men. I spent Twenty+ years in Air Force Fire Protection, one of the biggest "Old-Boy Networks" you will ever find, and have worked with some of the Best Firefighter in the World (Male and Female). I know the Fire Service is better off after the incorporation of Women, but not every Man or Women is cut out to be a firefighter the same with any other job on the planet. Oh and by the way if had any belief that women did not belong at the Academy I would have strongly urged my DAUGHTER to choose another type of school instead of enduring the challenges she is currently participating in.</p>
<p>
[quote]
[quote]
By it's nature the Academy will likely be a Male dominated institution for a very long time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>AFA was male only for only it's first seventeen years. It has been coed for nearly twice that long. Also nearly twice the age of some of the cadets. It might be time to relinquish the old-boy network, your thinly veiled misogynic attitudes, and move on into the 21st century by supporting the incorporation of women into viable positions of defending our country. </p>
<p>Take a step back and reread your posts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would hardly consider the first statement a reflection of "misogynic attitudes." As you said, women have been admitted to the Academy for about twice as long as I've been alive, yet they still make up only 20% of the Cadet Wing; that they're outnumbered by men is a fact, not an opinion. And as for the "incorporation of women into viable positions," the last time I checked, our Dean and Commandant were both female. Can your Academy say the same?</p>
<p>BTW, while the first class to graduate from this facility was in 1963, the first class to graduate was in 1959. So 17 years is not quite accurate, glad you know our history so well. ;)</p>
<p>The movement toward equal treatment has come a long way. I know that there is still sexism present at the academy, but it is actively discouraged by many and looked down upon by the vast majority of those here. </p>
<p>There was a '70s grad here who noticed that a squadron commander was female and said something along the lines of "How did that happen?" to a table full of cadets. Out of 8 cadets at the table, 8 were left nearly-speechless. The fact is, that as a group, we don't tolerate the display of those kinds of attitudes. The comm and dean are female, as well as last summer's wing commander, my old squadron commander, my current group commander, my old squadron's AOC, and my squadron's supt. Performance and ability are the measures here...We have come a long way in 27 years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think your quote says it all. One bad apple spoils the barrel. Until it is discouraged by all, there will be sexism. It has to come from within, no one can tolerate it. Your story of the squadron commander reminds me of a similiar situation that happened at happy hour at NAS Lakehurst, NJ, in the early seventies. An older retired senior Naval Aviator made a similiar statement about blacks in Naval Aviation. We all got up from his table and left. Slightly different situation but necessary. </p>
<p>In 1965, I went from the segregated South to an integrated Academy with far fewer blacks than AFA has women and to a Navy that had been integrated far shorter than, again, AFA, has had women. Ethically, morally, intellectually, and professionally, from day one of Plebe Summer, I knew where I had to stand. This does not appear to be the situation for cadets at AFA:</p>
<p>My question is how can a kid grow up in today's environment, apply to an institution that has been coed nearly twice his lifetime, and then, once a cadet, respond to a survey and state that women do not belong at USAFA. Annually, approximately 25% of the male cadets do so. I would propose that it is an attitude allowed by the present atmosphere within the academy. You point out that, as a group, sexism is not tolerated. It has to go beyond the group, down to the person himself. The question has got to be how one feels deep down inside as an individual. Do want want a female wingman, a female lead? If not, are you pursuing the right career?</p>
<p>Congress (in one of its innumerable committees) is currently investigating why women are "underrepresented" in the hard sciences and engineering fields in Americas colleges. Their focus is to address this "injustice" within the context of Title IX. Those of you who know what Title IX is all about will immediately get my "drift." It is social engineering in its most brutal form. The service academies are always in the forefront of congressionally-mandated social engineering. It is entirely possible that within the next few years the USAFA will receive a mandate from Congress through the president that that USAFA MUST have at least 50 percent women in its student body. Congress is persuaded that there are no differences in genders--only different flavors of bigots who continue to think there are. A "bigot" will be defined at law to be anyone who doesn't agree, and they will made to pay for their regressive attitudes.</p>
<p>I'm a "bigot" who believes there are striking and fundamental differences. What the mix of males to females at the USAFA or in the hard sciences/engineering fields should be, I don't know. But I suspect that the present mix is probably about right, that it reflects a healthy self-selection among individuals that has little or nothing to due with gender injustice.</p>
<p>Those of you tempted to open fire for my regressive attitudes, flame away. Please yourselves that you are enlightened and I benighted. I'm at an an age and station in life that it won't bother me. </p>
<p>I think it is very sad that such a great institution as the USAFA was apparently of no interest to the cultural elites who form cultural opinion through movie-making until one of them discovered the "women as victims" angle. Very sad indeed.</p>
<p>Anyone who is gasping in horror at the Neanderthal regressive flavor of my last post, bear in mind: this nation's wars were fought and won by men who held such attitudes. Their bodies lie cold and still beneath white crosses near Normandy, Margraten, Manila, and countless other war cemeteries. Their names are inscribed on the wall of the Vietnam War memorial. These are men who, while respecting and honoring the achievements and intense hard work of Brig Gen Desjardins see an immediate and striking warrior-model difference between her and a mustachioed, swaggering Brig Gen Robin Olds.</p>
<p>We're all dying off, though. Soon you will no longer have our perspective. You will only have the perspective that the "progressive" politicians and cultural elites have decreed you shall have.</p>
<p>kcraig I hope you are wrong and the movie does not play the women as victim story, and instead chooses the positive. As for usna69 before you demonstrate your Naval Insuperiorty Complex further please clean your own house first. I seem to remember seeing several recent stories of abuse coming out of the Yard including a few football players. It is striking that women choose engineering and science fields less often but it is a choice. My daughter has chosen that path and does know that other studies might be more accepted. She has always been in classes with more men than women, but it was her interest and choice. Not something everyone would choose.</p>
<p>DISCLAIMER: I am NOT anti-AF or anti-USAFA. I was an Air Force brat - 7 schools in 8 years - the whole bit. I would have supported any of my daughters if they had chosen the USAFA.
I didn't know much about the sign - "Bring Me Men" or the trials of the first women or the "scandal" - other than there was one. </p>
<p>First - the gender mix at the Academies is roughly the gender mix of the enlisted. This "goal" has roughly been met genderwise - not so with minorities. There is NO movement afoot to make the Academies 50/50 male-female.</p>
<p>What is the premise of the movie? Does it take place in 1976 - or over time from 1976-present? Any why USAFA? Why not USMA? USMMA or the Citadel?
Do you fine AFA folks feel that the USAFA is being "singled out" because of the "Sex abuse scandal of 2003"?</p>
<p>ramius:
[quote]
The fact is, that as a group, we don't tolerate the display of those kinds of attitudes.
[/quote]
right - the problem with this statement is three words - "the display of".
You should not be tolerating those kinds of attitudes. period. There is a big difference. You statement implies those attitudes are Ok as long as they are kept under wraps. problem is the attutudes eventually surface.</p>
<p>I think USNA69 makes a good point - as recently as 3-4 years ago over 20% of male cadets did NOT think females belonged at the AFA.
These cadets are young adult males and the academy has included women their entire lives. They were not born thinking women didn't belong there. They probably didn't have those ideas when they arrived as 17 year olds.was These ideas were apparantly formed as a result of the pervasive culture of sexism and degradation toward females that was brought to light in the 2003 scandal.</p>
<p>Good thing we don't ever present any movies about the end of slavery, Jim-Crow, the 19th ammendment, or the internment of Japanese-Americans----Lord knows we'd end up presenting them as "victims" and then we'd just be too "PC". The dangerous thing about playing the "PC card" so incessantly by both sides of the argument is that there is still a lot of social injustice that needs to be dealt with. Worrying about a group being portrayed as a victim in any way as being "PC" undermines the real work that still needs to be done, and there are still instances in both civilian and military life where otherwise willing and qualified women are still prevented from participating simply because they are women. Change comes slowly---how slowly depends on attitudes, not abilities. They usually end up changing not because people suddenly got a "conscience" but because of circumstances. American service women are now serving and sometimes paying the ultimate price in combat situations in Iraq, alongside the men. They are flying combat missions...they are proving my point every day. </p>
<p>Many of the above comments reflect EXACTLY what happens when social change occurs in any culture. The persistant attitude by some that somehow the prevention of one group or other from FULLY participating in America was "valid at the time." </p>
<p>How about we wait till the movie comes out and one of us actually sees it. It might end up being the kind of crap Hollywood made out of "Annapolis" a couple of years ago, then again it might actually be good.</p>
<p>As an ex AF officer and a mom of a future female AFA student I find this discussion quite interesting. I have always thought that we women often do more harm that good by demanding to be taken seriously and demanding that men change their attitude towards us. As a teenager wanting to go to college, my father told me that he wouldn't be able to help me financially. The reason for this lack of help was because I would never have to support a family and my younger brother would. Dad and mom would help him, not me. Certainly a poor attitude toward women and inappropriate actions as well. The end of the story is, I finished my B.S. and M.S. without financial help from my parents, my brother barely finished H.S. My point is that women should do the right thing and let the men worry about themselves. In the long run I think more attitudes will be changed that way. That is what I have always taught my daughters as well. One D is headed to the AFA, her senior quote is from Amelia Earhart "Don't interrupt me while I'm doing something that you told me I couldn't do." I think she will just fine with whatever she wants to do, even becoming a fighter pilot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don't accept sexism. I was trying to state the current situation. We do need to address more than just the overt displays. Displays of sexism spring from often hidden attitudes. I think there is some resentment here from differences in standards and treatment (going both ways), and some sexism that remains from a male-dominated culture and institution. I believe that people should be held to one standard. You either meet the standard or not. I think this would help to even things out. For example, I think women should be able to join the SPEC-OPS community if they can pass the same tests.</p>
<p>Most cadets won't tolerate sexism, but there are the small minority who taint the entire institution. We have made a lot of progress to correct sexism over the years, but we are far from perfect.</p>
<p>Well said raimius. None of us know what the movie will champion yet, and we can all hope it will be a positive movie about a great institution, as are all the Academies. It should also be said that all the Academies have had darker moments and somehow risen above them...I think to become better places. I KNOW FIRST HAND THAT SEXISM (HARRASMENT etc.) WILL NOT BE TOLERATED AT TODAYS ACADEMIES! The Cadets themselves do not want the stain of these attitudes on their schools. I also know that with time complacancy will set in and another scandal will be seen at one of the institutions...but this is the exception not the rule, and I feel far safer with my duaghter at USAFA than some IVY covered institution in the Northeast, or sunbaked resort school in CA or Fla etc.</p>
<p>The primary reason for "sexism" that I observe and hear about here is what ramius pointed to: standards. The female physical standards, for the most part, are set much lower than the males. While I understand the difference in builds between males and females, asking for complete equality should come with acceptance of all standards. Is it fair to ask for complete equality in places like SPEC-OPS or infantry or just in general, but to say, "except we deserve lower standards because we can't do the same things in physical abilities." What does this say? What do males think when the minimum male standards resulting in a 250 on the PFT or AFT will result in over 400 points in the female PFT/AFT. Again, because I will probably get comments from some, I UNDERSTAND THE PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES IN THE MALE AND FEMALE ANATOMY. </p>
<p>In the reconditioning system here, proportionally more females than males are on recondo/Athletic probation, despite the standards placed on females. Should the standards be raised, many people would not be allowed to remain here, plain and simple. </p>
<p>While many, many females perform to the standards, and can perform to the male standards, even 100 good examples will always be trumped by that small minority that complain, that don't perform, and pull the "girl card" so to speak. It's a fact of life in the military or not. </p>
<p>By demanding full equality but to make exceptions because "we can't do it" causes incredible amounts of cynicism and animosity and is probably one of the roots of the "20%" that believe females don't belong.</p>