<p>well, having BTDT, I found at it to be a great place to be at most of the time after plebe year. LOL... oh well, gtg, ttyl...*</p>
<p>*Being in the class of '07 I did ride uncle rodney's wave, so take the above comment for what its worth. I'm not sure I'd have the same reaction this year.</p>
<p>As for dating, both my roommates are dating mids. One actually got proposed to last Saturday. The other will most get engaged soon too. Her brother is an 06 grad and married his classmate after graduation.</p>
<p>Haven't met any one that I would want to date - too many shared experiences which makes one feel like they are dating a brother or sister.</p>
<p>Many a day this place has lived up to "terrible place to be at" Hoping the reply great place to be from proves true.</p>
<p>Also have been during Admiral Rempt's tenure - it was way more pleasant then - even as a plebe - did have too many terrible place to be at....this year much different story. As for cynicism - it can run rampant but keep in mind almost every college has it's share of cynicism within their student body - it is somewhat the nature of us 18 to 25 crowd!</p>
<p>
<p>Anyway....her findings found two "types" of female mids at the academy.... those that gravitated towards the "girly girl" end of of the spectrum, and those that didn't.... the latter often reffered to by the former as "letting themselves go".... meaning, no fussing with hair, makeup, etc. There was also a notation of distain by the latter towards the former amongst the two groups.
</p>
<p>I would love to see a copy of this “study”. Was it done by a “girly girl” sitting in her room lamenting her latest evaluation for being frivolous and superficial since she liked to wear lipstick, or was it done by a “dyke” lesbo sitting in her room on a Friday night unable to get a date? I think your further promulgation of this stereotyping has done a gross disservice to the vast majority of the women at the Academy.</p>
<p>Just another example of a parent using parochial second hand information and nonfactual prejudicial opinions to pretend to be an “expert”. This thread should be left to the midshipmen who have pertinent information. Perhaps this forum could use a couple of cans of bug spray.</p>
<p>Actually, as a current Female Midshipman I have heard about this study but have not ever seen it - will try to find it out there in google land. As what I read above it does seem pretty much on the mark and certainly has not done me any disservice. </p>
<p>Most of the mids that I hang with are really somewhere in-between the two stereo types. Yes I like to look like a female when out and about socially. In the hall - I'm hanging with my friends - guy and girls - it is a much more casual thing so most of the makeup etc goes by the wayside. Going to class you go looking professional - just like any normal female would if they were off to a civilian job.</p>
<p>What I find most troubling and quite a disservice to many of my friend is the Terminology that USNA69 uses for the opposite for girly girls. Just because many choose not to over do themselves in make up, and like blending in with the guys, and believe me what many guys actually find attractive: the low maintenance friend. That style does not need to be called names. I certainly hope when your were in the fleet you did not think of all non "girly types" in this fashion or at least not put it in writing!</p>
<p>
[quote]
What I find most troubling and quite a disservice to many of my friend is the Terminology that USNA69 uses for the opposite for girly girls
[/quote]
</p>
<p>USNA69's use of the word "dyke" wasn't meant to be serious. He was pointing out how riduculous it is to stereotype female mids into one of two distinct categories, because as was pointed out: </p>
<p>
[quote]
Most of the mids that I hang with are really somewhere in-between the two stereo types
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For the people who read this study, especially future female mids, you could make the argument that this gives them the perspective that to be successful at the Academy they have to basically turn in their girl card. Its tough for me to comment on the whole breadth of the study because I have not read it, however, from what was posted, it seems that it represents a gross oversimplification of what types of girls go to the Academy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
USNA69's use of the word "dyke" wasn't meant to be serious.
[/quote]
Joke - no joke; not serious-serious - all in the same it is offensive language.</p>
<p>As in all woalks of life there are times and places where proper appearance matters. On a date of course any female here know the girly card as put is acceptable and probably appreciated by said date. In uniform - tons of make up, playing the total girly card probably is not appropriate IMO. Go to any office to speak with a professional (bank, DR. etc and you are not going to see that level of done up) The female mids who want to remain feminine typically wear skirts rather than their pants when in SDB or Whites. </p>
<p>The type of female who attends the Academy is no different than the leaders from their high schools - scholars, athletes, class officers etc. Within that group you find all types - no different here. A study was done which tried to lump the Females into two distinct groups... oversimplification yes but the study had to start somewhere so the polar opposites was used. Take however you want - the fact is it was a study which does not prove it to be gospel, nor does it mean the person doing the study had to actually fall completely within one of the two groups and have anamosity about her situation or loath the other group.</p>
<p>The one thing I truly hate at the academy is the opinion that it is ok to use offensive language against a population that maybe you don't agree with or find wrong. This institution needs to work on that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The type of female who attends the Academy is no different than the leaders from their high schools - scholars, athletes, class officers etc
[/quote]
</p>
<p>currentmid, thanks for validating my comments.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As in all walks of life there are times and places where proper appearance matters. On a date of course any female here know the girly card as put is acceptable and probably appreciated by said date. In uniform - tons of make up, playing the total girly card probably is not appropriate IMO. Go to any office to speak with a professional (bank, DR. etc and you are not going to see that level of done up) The female mids who want to remain feminine typically wear skirts rather than their pants when in SDB or Whites.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think your misunderstanding my use of the term "girl card." Basically what I was trying to point out with that post is that girls can still be girls and be well respected mids. They don't have to completely turn in, as I put it, their "girl card" as act like a guy just to be successful....</p>
<p>As for the language used, maybe some could possibly term it "offensive," but I think it correctly illustrates the point to which the study unfairly stereotypes women at the Academy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The one thing I truly hate at the academy is the opinion that it is ok to use offensive language against a population that maybe you don't agree with or find wrong. This institution needs to work on that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You mean like 'man wh*re'?</p>
<p>"Judge not, that ye be not judged." -A. Lincoln
Although USNA69 brings up a good point, but I think he was a little over critical in his judgment. I don't think navy2010 was trying to abuse his/her status as a second hand evaluator rather trying to answer the question. Qualification or not, i dont see her claiming to be an expert either way. </p>
<p>From what I've seen from this discussion there is obviously a polarization at the Academy between female mids, which is natural since the Academy environment would be considered far from ideal. So the real question is whether or not lifestyles have to change because of the military environment. The obvious answer would be yes. Are many people transformed by the military environment including female mids? yes. Those under the general impression that, you do what you have to do to survive would agree. </p>
<p>As far as I'm concerned, I am not an expert. I'm applying to the class of 2013 but come from a strong military family including a mom who is a female police officer and lieutenant. She married another police officer, is this unnatural no...is it ideal? not really. </p>
<p>However, my motivation for attending the academy is far from meeting the love of my life. I am applying because I want to receive the best education possible (for free), serve my country, and begin a career decision that will shape the rest of my life. </p>
<p>As far as girls are concerned, I'm sure there is probably going to be some lonely nights at the Academy but face it, it's a sacrifice. Plus I heard the ratio of Mids to female mids is something like 4:1. It's the California Gold Rush, without miners and brothels. </p>
<p>Maybe I'm pampered because I live in Miami Beach, but face it... if you want girls go to a Civilian College, not to say that the mids don't have girls but they're not exactly what I signed up for.</p>
<p>
[quote]
if you want girls go to a Civilian College, not to say that the mids don't have girls but they're not exactly what I signed up for.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And exactly what kind of females do you think are midshipmen? Are you going to NASS this summer - if so Please take a look at the girls that attend - you will be surprised as your perception may not be correct. Try an all guy school if you are not signing up to have girls around. </p>
<p>As far as the best education - for free - think about that because it is anything but free.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Although USNA69 brings up a good point, but I think he was a little over critical in his judgment. I don't think navy2010 was trying to abuse his/her status as a second hand evaluator rather trying to answer the question. Qualification or not, i dont see her claiming to be an expert either way. </p>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>thankyou.</p>
<p>and yes, trying to answer a question.
USNA69, I never made any such claim. </p>
<p>for me, research is an attempt to answer a question.... and in the process, open up a dialogue. The question as to how female midshipmen view themselves was something I never gave much thought to..... just so happens the article caught my attention, and soon after the question was posted.... seemed an opportunity to open the dialogue, plain and simple. </p>
<p>Anyway-
will post the site for those of you open-minded enough to consider the points being made. Level 1 research? No.....but descriptive studies are a start, and it has to start somewhere. What would be interesting would be to take a "deep dive" to see the "why's" behind the responses. From the information posted, there was an attempt made to explore that. But please do read for yourselves, and form your own opinions:</p>
<p>Girl</a> Sailor: April 2008</p>
<p>What surprised me was the way female mids viewed themselves.... more than how others viewed them. I was pleased to see that most considered themselves empowered, strong, dedicated, intelligent, committed women. I was also surprised at what was described as "girl on girl" conflict, yet when I look back on several conversations I have had with female mids in the past, it was there had I been a better listener at the time to pick it up.</p>
<p>But for the record-
I am pro-female midshipmen, and I have still not changed my mind about Hillary.
My mid dates- outside the gate- although his gf lives close enough to come on the yard "prn." I would be kidding myself to think it is not a distraction. Thankfully he seems to manage despite her presence and my concern.
As for dating.... again, it's not so much the "dating" that is the issue, but the distraction away from books... for both sides of the equation. And time spent with "significant others" is time spent away from "company." It can cost you.
And please note.... when I refer to these issues, my intent is that they are "generic," meaning applicable to both men and women. Substitute at will.</p>
<p>hahahahaha... "girl sailor" is a friend of mine. This is not at all surprising coming from her</p>
<p>Current Mid, I understand that you feel like I am putting other females down at the academy but I did not say that I didn't want any girls around rather they are not what I'm attending for. </p>
<p>I am attending NASS, and I have already made friends with some of the kids that are from my area, a few that happen to be girls. But unlike some other lost high school kids, I don't show up to high school to find girls... I go to parties and hang out with my friends OUT SIDE of school to find people of "relationship status"... the same would go for the Academy since the agenda doesn't seem to give me enough time to work my magic. </p>
<p>Anyway, I'm sure I speak for many when I say that no-one wants the added drama of breaking up with another midshipmen, especially since the academy offers the perfect catalyst for rumors to spread.
I'm sure your aware of these types of rumors since you attend, and even if your not aware...it's human nature. Temptation is everything, but imagine what it must feel like to fall in love with a fellow mid and break up the next week, synergy is destroyed and the military's idea of one for all and all for the platoon, is cooked.</p>
<p>Semantics...sorry for saying it is free. Nothing is free, and I'm signing up for hard work. I am truly in awe and respect all of you who made this sacrifice. And that, is all there is to be said about it. But, for those of you who are thinking about making this choice, know where your priorities are.</p>
<p>Don't just blow off mid girls or even generalize us. Unfortunately it happens and everyone seems to put us into these two groups. Just think twice before categorizing a group of people, because without being here we may turn out to be completely different.
About dating in the Hall. It's not that big of a deal just as it isn't at a normal college, it's just that here most of the guys look down on it because we're not "real" girls to the majority of them. I would suggest dating someone in a nearby company because if you break up then it does get awkward, but you can't exactly pick who you like. I dated someone in the opposite reg and it didn't work out and you know what? It turned out okay.
It's an interesting side note but I have heard that mid-mid relationships increase after 2/c year when everyone is allowed to wear civvies. It's like it proves that these girls are in fact real girls.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's like it proves that these girls are in fact real girls.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>actually, to the "moms" out here, you women are remarkable.... and you won't hear any of us doubting for ONE MINUTE that you are not "REAL!!!"... in ANY SENSE OF THE WORD!!!!</p>
<p>the key is not to doubt yourself- and don't let anyone else define who "YOU" are!!!!</p>
<p>
[quote]
hahahahaha... "girl sailor" is a friend of mine. This is not at all surprising coming from her
[/quote]
</p>
<p>actually, I give a lot of credit to the Mid that tackled this question-- not easy to take a critical look at what is going on around you! The sad thing is that it would appear the girls can be hardest on themselves and on each other!!! That is the thing that needs to change.....</p>
<p>there is an old saying that "nurses eat their young".... and if one looks carefully enough, it is true in almost every "female" profession. Study after study has demonstrated this behavior is unique to women in particular- you don't see the same level on the men's side of the equation. Taking a critical look at the "why's" behind the behavior is the first step in correcting it.</p>
<p>How good was it that MIDN Dickerman's cover was placed on the top of Herndon!!! For the first time a female cover was used to crown the top of the monument!!! </p>
<p>Ladies- you don't have to prove anything to anyone about who you are!!! And you especially don't have to prove it to each other- which I believe was at the heart of the research article!! And despite everything that you "think," you really do look LOVELY in those uniforms- and the dress mess could not be more beautiful!!! And THINK about how few of you - a handful amongst milliions- that get to wear it!!! If you even think for one minute "they" are looking at the civilian girls around you with their yellow or pink or red or whatever dressy dresses, have NO DOUBT you are the one standing apart- FOR ALL THE RIGHT REASONS!!! Wear it proudly!!!! You have EARNED IT!!! </p>
<p>ok- lecture over.</p>
<p>Interesting thread....I have been away from this board for a while, but this is a topic discussed in my home frequently.</p>
<p>My daughter, a "girly" mid, struggles with being taken seriously because she refuses to completely abandon her femininity. She maxes the PRT, has a 3.6 GPA and is as the top of her varsity sport. Yet, there are those who feel comfortable blowing her off because they think she is not serious. She wonders what she needs to do to be taken seriously.</p>
<p>So far, she has decided to maintain her own identity and let others think what they like. </p>
<p>It is confusing for everyone. But, like anyplace else, you will figure out where you fit in. Good luck!</p>
<p>
[quote]
She wonders what she needs to do to be taken seriously.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would suggest a good place to start would be to put a picture of MIDN Dickmann's cover on the top of Herndon in a nice frame and place it in her room. It will speak volumes.</p>
<p>She needs to do nothing but be herself. Not more, not less. No excuses necessary.</p>
<p>hmmmm. . . as if you know what it takes to be taken seriously? That is, if I recall correctly, not that you have ever attended a single day here.</p>
<p>While th egesture of putting Dickmann's cover on top was, indeed, an honorable decision, [one tha I am glad was made] I don't know that it necessarily indicates she was taken "seriously." </p>
<p>I'm not even sure it indicates she was "respected." While I am not taking ANYTHING away from her [can't say I knew her], at the end of the day all she did was die. In her sleep.</p>
<p>Her death was a seriously tragic circumstance but suggesting this gesture indicates she was taken "seriously" is something like saying the mid who climbs to the top of the heap somehow "deserves" the Admiral's star [this year] the he was awarded. It was the heap that got him up there; he just happened to be the skinniest guy around. In Dickmann's case, she just happened to die right before Herndon; if her death had occurred in March, I wonder if the same honor would have been bestowed upon her memory?</p>
<p>I know of a mid who is REALLY smart, REALLY honorable, REALLY into the whole Academy thing. He's a good guy for the most part; I won't even entertain the thought that he is JOE because that's nto what he is about. Nonetheless, his "stand upedness" [is that a word?] is sometimes held against him because he is SO smart and straight. I suspect women face a similar problem.</p>
<p>You are correct, though, all you do is be yourself and then let the chips fall where they may.</p>