previous post next post  

Oh oh, boys like girls, and vice versa!

 "Sex is major reason military commanders are fired"


"With all those offenses taken together, more than 4 in every 10 commanders at the rank of lieutenant colonel or above who were fired fell as a result of behavioral stumbles since 2005."

1. I don't think, when it comes to the issue of sex, the problem is that much greater now than it was 30 years ago. I do think the culture that chose to ignore it has changed.  Interestingly, while the culture as a whole has become *much* more libertine, for some reason the military was supposed to be impervious to this.

2. What did you expect when you threw the sexes together in stressful situations? It's not like this wasn't predicted, and predictable. That observation coming from someone who is not hostile to the idea of women in the service.

3. The numbers cited, in isolation, are meaningless when used as a comparative barometer, because they don't actually have an accurate base to compare to (see #1).

Lastly, the reason the ratio of sex-to-competence firings is so high is because there haven't been enough non-punitive competence firings. But that's just a personal vendetta of mine.


 The Air Force has an up-or-out system for at least its junior officers.  What about the senior officers?  And what about the other branches?
Ms. Baghwati, who clearly has some axe to grind, recommended thta disciplinary decisions of these sort should be the responsibility of lawyers as commanders cannot possibly be impartial.  We already have the lawyers running combat operations, I get the next step is to put them in charge of order and discipline as well.  Oh, my.
Greetings:  and especially "lvncenturion"

Back in the first half of the last '80s, I was working as a civilian printer for our Navy in Newport, (Li'l Rhodey) Rhode Island.  One day, a Yeoman brought in the copy for a Change of Command program we were to print.  The program included the military "cirriculum vitae" (God, almightly, I still do enjoy a bit of Latin on a Sunday morning.) of a female LCDR.  She had spent ten years in the Navy; eight at various Newport commands and two at the Public Affairs Office on Fifth Avenue in New York City. Her "nom de guerre" was "Legs".  Sic transit gloria.

What "lvncenturion" (and did I mention that I love a bit of Latin on a Sunday morning?) points out about the JAG infestation certainly rings true with my more recent reading.  Instead of following Will Shakepeare's counter-legal advice, our current military leadership is all too willing to go with the CYA flow and genuflect before a policy idea that makes even less sense than 15% females in our military.  Whenever the females in the military issue arises, my bottom line isn't can they do the job but can they do it so much better that all the intendant accommodations their presence will require are surmounted.  I think that the same evaluative criterion should be applied to the JAGgies.

Sic Semper Tyrannis

In Hoc Signo Vinces

Per Aspera Ad Astra

essent parati in prælium

I recall getting a useless survey from the diversity bubbas that included the question "How many employees do you have broken down by sex?"

I took great delight in responding "Actually, we find that alcohol is a bigger problem."
How long did it take you to look up those quotes Centrurion? Or did they make you memorize all that in Jump School?
I knew three, Google translation supplied the last.  Artifacts of the Infantry Bar, not Jump School - beer bets can be hell.

Per Aspera Ad Astra, is, of course, the motto of Kansas.  It's on our license plates.

And of course the Navy ignores the fact that sending a ship off on a seven to nine month deployment with a mixed crew is by definition a good order and discipline problem. They always fuzz the pregnacy while deployed statistics and the sex related incident numbers because they conflict with the the official line that women at sea are a good thing (and don't bother me with the facts, thank you). Full disclosure: I'm married to a retired CDR, USN, who I met and married while on active duty. Diversity delenda est.
 As I recall from active duty in the late 60's onward (Gawd, am I THAT old?) was that the post-'Nam drawdowns had the same characteristic: zipper failures being part of the selection process for consinued service in the Commissioned Reserve, anyway. After your 4 or 5 years Commissioned Service, a Reserve Officer served "at the pleasure of", so ANY form of negative behavior was cause to be added to the RIF pile.

Since the RIF pile didn't get big enough fast enough, the reasons for making the pile o'infamy got pickier and pickier. That's when a DUI with no accident was elevated to the status of a firing offense, for example, whereas prior to that, you got a stern lecture from your CO. Towards the end of that madness for me (I had applied for Early Out to join a police force), I was a rated Captain on a Deployed Unit base, so I got to do a lot of that sort of field-grade work. Any sort of sexual dalliance, even consensual, even between an officer and another officer's wife, was cause to get the boot.

Guess what, the peacetime military is BAAAACK!
Would that all of the wimminz in the .mil could be just like Honor Harrington! Except that she is a genetically-engineered fictional character 2000 years in the future, living in a fictional SF universe with physical laws different from those of the real universe we live in. I am afeared that, in this universe, boys will continue to be boys, and girls will continue to be girls. Now they are going to complicate things further, as in that song by the Kinks, "girls will be boys and boys will be girls." (I am an ape man!)