USNA vs USCGA

<p>Shogun, well said!</p>

<p>Guys, I watched the Frontline show last week also, and I spent quite a bit of time wondering how women would fare in a similar situation. Personally, I don't think women belong in combat, however if the training is the same that men experience and the desire and ability are there, I am not sure why we can justify excluding them. </p>

<p>My daughter will work just as hard as the best of the guys at WP (I espect Shogun can say the same, as can marines4me and a few other young women who have posted on these threads). I also hope that the camaraderie that each of you experience at any of the service academies is inclusive and continues beyond graduation. </p>

<p>Finally, I'd like to say that none of these academies are "easy" to get into. As we all have learned and are learning there is much more than a great SAT score or varsity sports that go into the acceptance decisions. All 5 institutions are excellent, and so are the various prep programs. I think the "brotherhood" really crosses all of the academies (except maybe during football season). In other words, you are all special because of the experience you will have. And there is a bond that will continue throughout your lives.</p>

<p>You are entitled to your opinion, of course. But, the sooner we have an army that is a "Band of Americans" rather than a gender based "Band of Brothers" the safer we all can be. I think the article above demonstrates fully that the comraderie between men and women serving together not only exists, but makes the Army stronger. Other nations such as Israel which do not have the luxury of a large population have already discovered that concept through necessity. The inability of a particular male soldier to function effectively because there is a woman fighting at his side is really not her issue, it's his.</p>

<p>I have to agree with Snipes. The lifeblood of our combat soldiers is the brotherhood that exists between them. Bringing women into the fold could very well destroy this unique bond. I think this is the primary reason that women are barred from direct combat roles like armor, special forces, and infantry.</p>

<p>"But, the sooner we have an army that is a "Band of Americans" rather than a gender based "Band of Brothers" the safer we all can be."</p>

<p>I don't know about this. </p>

<p>First off, though, as Shogun aptly pointed out, women are already serving in a variety of combat support roles, many of which are extremely dangerous and routinely put them directly at risk of serious harm. </p>

<p>I think that's enough. There is no need to put women into the infantry. </p>

<ol>
<li><p>The presence of women in combat units has a negative impact on the overall fighting ability of the unit. The Israelis have documented this. While the paternal instincts of American males may be "wrong," they certainly exist, and these insticts lead to men putting the good of the women ahead of the good of the mission. </p></li>
<li><p>Women are just not as strong as men. The military is pretty high-tech in a lot of areas, but today's infantryman still maintains a pretty spartan existence. Men are simply more effective in this role. </p></li>
<li><p>If we can insulate a segment of our society from the awful, in-your-face aspect of war, why shouldn't we do it? War is not an opportunity, but a terrible duty. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>This is what I gleaned from my experiences in the Marines, so take my views for what they are worth. </p>

<p>As a side note, what do you guys think about the ban on gays in the military?</p>

<p>DeepThroat</p>

<p>I honestly don't have a problem with gays in the military. The "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy is fine though. Why would a gay servicemen WANT to make known their sexual orientation? There have been cases of discharges due to homosexuality, but they are at the lowest levels in years. Many gay servicemen are serving honorably right now.</p>

<p>One important consideration about the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. In the event that a draft were to re-instated, this gay ban would likely end. It would create a loophole of many people getting out of their service obligation due to "homosexuality." Hell, I would rather serve in combat with a gay man than a women. At least he can't get pregnant, go through menstrel cycles, and can be as naturally strong as most men. Also, I don't think he would make a fuss about being gay, as a women might do in the same situation.</p>

<p>But that's just my two cents.</p>

<p>"The lifeblood of our combat soldiers is the brotherhood that exists between them. Bringing women into the fold could very well destroy this unique bond."</p>

<p>I am sure those exact sentiments were expressed the first time a minority joined a heretofor whites only club, the first time women were admitted into the service academies, the first time a women climbed into the cockpit of a warplane on a combat mission, etc etc etc. The bond that exists between soldiers is exactly that--between soldiers---don't let the fact that they have been traditionally and selectively all male get you confused between the bond of a soldier and "male bonding". </p>

<p>As far as strength--lets take it one step further. Let's make strength the determinant factor, NOT gender. The average girl on the street is not as strong as the average guy on the street but a girl who has trained certainly can hold her own in terms of both leadership, endurance, and poise under pressure. My daughter whooped the boys in her squad in pushups, two mile run, 300 yd shuttle run, and situps. In short, with regard to endurance she wiped the floor with them. They had the upperhand on her in the standing broad jump. If strenth and endurance is what counts sign her up and send those boys back to the supply train. Next thing Im sure we'll here is that girls at service academies are taking up spots for more qualified boys---don't even go there.
As far as insulating a segment of our society from war I say hogwash! Maybe the more people that see the true face of war the less war we'll have to fight. Having women in combat certainly couldn't kill more human beings or mess up the human condiion any worse than the men have! :)</p>

<p>"Some critics claim that women would be unable to perform adequately in combat because of biological and emotional differences. Admittedly this is true of some women, but it is also true of some men. Experience in World War II indicates that women can take the emotional and physical stresses of combat. Recently the Commander of the Marine Training Base on Parris Island asserted that "there is no reason the female can't fight just like the male."10</p>

<p>While the average woman is both physically smaller and weaker than the average man, it should be noted that warfare has moved away from an emphasis on physical prowess. Modern operations with missiles and aircraft differ greatly from traditional warfare. The superintendent of the Naval Academy told a Congressional hearing in 1974 that he would be hard pressed to find a Navy combat job a woman could not do.11 Or as former Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt said, " . . . women are able to do the work in any rating, and there is no question but that women will be able to serve in all ships effectively. . . . "12</p>

<p>Critics also note that the idea of women in combat is, in the words of an Air Force general, "an offense against the dignity of women."13 What is more dignified than service to one's country? The rights and responsibilities of citizenship should be extended to all, not only to all, not only to the male half of the population, and soldiering is one of the most important and most basic of these responsibilities. If the U.S. military is to be more than a band of mercenaries, our society must stress citizen responsibility.</p>

<p>Critics express concern over female casualties. Women might be captured by foes who, as in the last two American wars, have treated prisoners with little regard for the rules of war or Western traditions. True. But this concern should be extended to all soldiers, not just women, as should concern for all soldiers killed or wounded. If the thought of women being maimed and killed is repulsive to society, perhaps it will be a welcome incentive to choose carefully the wars we enter. Allowing only highly paid male volunteers to carry war's burden makes war all too easy, which it should not be.</p>

<p>A central concern of many of the critics, however, is the traditional hang-up of sex and sexism. What of toilets and sleeping facilities? How will the military and the country respond to the knowledge that men and women are living in close and stressful proximity for long periods of time? Problems, yes, but should policy be based on problems of this magnitude?</p>

<p>Finally, there is the practical importance for servicewomen of changing this situation. Lifting the combat ban will permit the full utilization of women in the military and open up avenues of promotion and roles now closed. Combat has always been the acme of the military profession. No group banned from combat training and combat service can hope to achieve equality. Combat training and service are symbolic of the military and what the military stands for. Certainly, combat training and service are a major factor in promotion.</p>

<p>Surely there will be problems. The integration of blacks indicates all too clearly the difficulties of implementing an overdue and correct action which was, at the very least, unpopular with numbers of the military and the general public. The same is true with women. But attitudes can be changed. The past performance of women in the military and their present motivation and abilities suggest that women can successfully handle this challenge and opportunity. In the end the measure should be simply equality across the board for all: black, white, rich, poor, young, old, male, female. Military efficiency should come first. The criterion should be simply: Can they do the job? The military and the country, as well as women, stand to gain. "</p>

<p>I served 6 years on fast attack submarines and I seriously doubt any woman would want to be there. If they did, I would have to question their "manlyhood"? Say what you want about equality. But somethings a woman shouldn't do!</p>

<p>Women on submarines?</p>

<p>The first American woman to complete Submarine Engineering Duty officer qualification, eligible to wear "Dolphins" (LCDR Mary Townsend-Manning). </p>

<p>Lt. Commander Solveig Kray of Norway is the commander of the submarine Kobben. SHE is the first woman to command a combat sub or maybe any standard size sub in history. (See confirmation in Jane's Defense Weekly.) </p>

<p>Like the African Americans who were forced to be cooks and stewards on US ships of war..........Only a matter of time.</p>

<p>She is manly then.</p>

<p>Shogun, I fully understand your point, BUT, you are making what I feel are some poor analogies. It is difficult to compare the civil rights movement with women in the military. Don't forget, in the 1940's and 50's with the advent of Tuskegee airman and the Buffalo soldiers, and as far back as the 54th massachussetts of the civil war, African Americans have been helping to fight this nations war's. But they were not women, they were men. It is very different. The military must take into consideration many things when giving women military assignments with men. Such as the toilet and sleeping facilities that had to be redone on Navy ships in the 1950's. </p>

<p>There is no reason to give women every job in the military. The military is here to protect and defend our nation, not to garentee everyone a job. Why would we put a women in a combat situation when a man could do the same job and do it better? Men have been winning the countries wars before we were a nation.</p>

<p>In my view this is more of an equal rights issue than a defense issue. Things are just fine the way they are now and I don't foresee them changing. Women are not as strong as men, they have a few biological restrictions, and our country's culture is to protect women from harm and killing.</p>

<p>We don't need women on the front lines, and they shouldn't be there.</p>

<p>And what is this about women on subs? The norwegian Navy? Our Navy actually does something, and there isn't enough room on a submarine for women and there seperate needs.</p>

<p>This issue is a no-brainer. Our military has obviously done something right that we are still here and we are still a free nation. So put the equel rights issue aside and think about what's best for the nations defense. And don't try this "Band of Americans" thing. It doesn't work. The truth is you ask all those soldiers out there fighting, and they will tell you to keep women out of their unit, it's hard enough as it is without looking after someone like that. And unfortuntely, in the Army, men are the bosses, because men are needed to fight. You take all men, they can get the job done. You take all women, there is no way they are going to be as affective in a combat situation. As long as there are men out there who won't serve with women in combat, women won't be in combat.</p>

<p>If women are more concerned about equality than the defense of our nation, they should look to join the Coast Guard, Navy, and Air Force. In the Army and Marines, they shouldn't even hope to have the same duties and go as high up the ladder.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Did you use "Norway" and "combat sub" in the same paragraph? Now that's funny!</p></li>
<li><p>Have you ever served in an integrated military unit? How about a non-integrated unit? I have, and in my experience women cause problems among the men. Anywhere you have men and women workig in close proximity, a certain amount of tension arises. In the civilian world, I would say that the men just have to deal with it. But when we are talking about the defense of country and our way of life, I don't much care about ensuring equal opportunity for women. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>DeepThroat</p>

<p>Our infantry units are efficient and deadly, why fix what isn't broke? All that GI Jane stuff is a bunch of ********, I will grow flippers and gills before a woman becomes a Navy SEAL.</p>

<p>Women aren't just concerned with "equality". Just an equal opportunity to defend a nation that is just as much theirs as the boy next door's. Blacks were tolerated in the military as long as they were separate and led by white officers. They proved themselves able to fight and lead and time eventiually corrected things. Women are proving themselves every day in combat situations in Iraq and Afganistan. Time will straighten things out i n their case as well. Because this change is inevitable, there will be a few women who are courageous enough to prepare now so that when that time happens they will be ready. Sex and a male dominated culture is the driving force behind keeping women out of combat, not bathrooms and menstrual cycles. The times are changing, the military is changing and there is nothing that's gonna stop it. If I were you I wouldn't presume to doubt the desire or the ability of my daughter or anyone elses to serve the nation in any capacity for which they train. Character is the first prerequisite of leadership. Change is the first prerequisite of a great democracy.</p>

<p>As far as the Norwegian captain of that submarine I am sure she understands that the US Navy is the most powerful in the world. There is no need to show disrespect to either her nation or her country by making such a condescending comment about either her duty or her navy. The fact that she is a woman and she commands a combat submarine speaks for itself, in anyone's navy. </p>

<p>"Things are just fine they way they are now"</p>

<p>That might be true of a Navy and Air Force that hasn't seen recruitment go down in an all volunteer force vs the Army and Marines that have seen it fall---and this at a time when the Army and Marines are at the for-front of the war on terror. It seems that our ground forces are grossly understaffed for the mission today, our leaders will not reinstitute the draft, and we are ignoring an entire part of our citizenry who might be willing to volunteer because we're afraid of sex in a fox hole. "Things are just fine the way they are now"---where have we ever heard that before???---famous last words. If you don't forsee a change, better look up because like in every democracy that isn't afraid to correct it's mistakes, it's coming.</p>

<p>As far as making the blanket satement that " ask all those soldiers out there fighting, and they will tell you to keep women out of their unit" you must not have read the comments some of those soldiers made that I quoted earlier regarding the women they served under in Iraq.</p>

<p>I bear you no ill will. Your attitudes are representative of that last bastion of manhood-our military. Change has been slow, but as you can read in my earlier posts, leaders in both the Pentagon and in the field, can see the writing on the wall. The day will come when the nation will call upon some women to "officially" serve in ground combat. (They already have combat assignments in the Navy and Air Force and they do so in all but "official capacity" in the Army.) It may not happen until the threat is so serious as to endanger our very survival as a nation, but then, isn't that the only justifiable reason to make war on one another anyway? </p>

<p>rmoorenc
I am sure that all those years in submarines you learned something about the exhibition of good character. I am assuming that your comment above about the two women I mentioned that were achieving successful careers in the submarine service was not representative of that.</p>

<p>amen Deep Throat</p>

<p>What is up with all the parents? There are probably more parents on this forum then there are applicants. While the parents are checking everything out what are the students doing? Do the students want to go to a service academy or do the parents want their kids to go to a service academy?</p>

<p>Many of parents on this forum are kind enough to spend time answering candidates questions and provide what guidence they can based on either their own experience or that of their own son or daughter during the admissions process. I am sure some of the info the parents provide is appreciated. Particularly from those who's son or daughter has already garnered an appointment to one or more of the service academies.</p>

<p>I think more info could be garnered by talking to current cadets/midshipman and other prospective applicants.</p>

<p>Certainly, but the number of current cadets and midshipmen on this forum can be numbered on two fingers (if you're lucky).</p>

<p>As for current candidates, they also have much info to offer. Unfortunately, not all of it is correct. The more people that know the process and participate in the discussion, the better for all.</p>

<p>Good luck on your application.</p>

<p>I have found that I have learned very useful information from both parents and candidates in this forum. </p>

<p>Not, however, in this thread. Squabbling about which academy has more prestige, so that you can bail out at the earliest possible moment to go to an ivy league grad school?</p>

<p>I think you've missed the point.</p>

<p>I think maturity has now taken a back seat.
Seal, there is nothing about honor, leadership or service in your use of abusive language to people, especially those you don't know. The anonymity of an internet discussion group is not to be taken as an opportunity to "act out". I think you owe Ms. Lewis an apology. You need to work on your ability to take criticism and engage in a mature conversation in a manner that would naturally be expected of one who is attempting to gain admission to a US service academy.</p>