I rant against rabid feminism that seeks to subjugate men, or hold women to a lesser standard, because the logical inconsistency annoys the hell out of me. I believe in treating people as equals until they prove otherwise, and today I realized that I was not acting on that belief out of fear.
Some background is in order, right now I am taking a class that has separated me from my family for a few months. The Army still considers this "dwell time" but it is anything but. The course is designed for Captains and above, but the National Guard has the opportunity to send 2nd Lieutenant or higher as they see fit for their state. In this class we have a few Guard Soldiers, and one of them happens to be a female 2LT.
She is struggling with the classwork because there is nothing in her background to give her any familiarity with the coursework, and she is very new to the Army. I don't offer to help her because I am afraid to give her the power over me to lodge a sexual harassment complaint. I would have no problem giving aid to a male 2LT in the same boat, because I wouldn't have that fear.
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't do anything, but as an Officer even the hint of impropriety is punishable. I have been an investigating officer for such allegations of misconduct where the one accused was as innocent by all available evidence that I could gather. The woman he was accused of sleeping with denied it, her friend who was named by name to witness this denied it, he denied it, the women who lived in the BHut denied him ever visiting, and in the end there was nothing more than the original accusation of a female soldier with no evidence to back it up. Careers, livelihoods, and even freedom were put into jeopardy because of an unsubstantiated accusation which required a mandatory investigation. And even when someone is cleared of unsubstantiated charges it stays on their record. Get enough "unsubstantiated" investigations on your record and the promotion board starts to think that you are good at getting away with it, not that you are innocent.
So I am fearful that I would at any point be subject to such a witch hunt. And because of that a fellow Soldier is not going to receive help from me. No wonder feminists constantly claim that male peers don't give them the support they give each other, if I am in any way indicative of the larger male population as a whole there are a lot of female Officers out there floundering in isolation because we are afraid to offer assistance. And who really loses out in the end? One of the Soldiers that she will be trying to protect from death or dismemberment. Congratulations feminists, this is the world you made.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
I show somewhat similar behaviors. If I am driving and see a soldier I always ask if they need a ride. I will not do so for a female soldier because of the potential for a 'he said, she said' situation.
After being away for a while, I have been looking at the Army in more detail in order to get re-acquainted.
The overall mistrust between the ranks, and sexes are destroying the effectiveness of the Army as aon organization.
While I regret leaving, there is no way I could be an effective officer in this environment.
That is the reason that the 12yrs I was in uniform I did not dare date anyone in uniform. Too much to lose for no reason. I'm sure I missed some great opportunities, but the risk wasn't worth it.
So the "old, white, misogynist bastards" were correct in saying that allowing a co-ed military was bad for good order and discipline? You mean they actually knew what they were talking about? Go figure!
You are useful to them as long as you are easing their way.
As soon as you stop providing that service, or realize you've been duped, you become useful in "other" ways.
...just saying.
John in Alaska
The rabid feminist don"t care...their daughters will never be in uniform. The Military is just a notch in their political,activist bedpost.
I used to council the female members of my unit with my office door open and the female soldier seated in the hall while I remained in the office, how's that for CYA? the male soldiers received their counseling in private with the door closed. I was an MP and investigated many innocent male soldiers whose careers were ruined.
I saw this kind of stuff taking hold in the late 80's when I was in. I can only imagine how bad it has become now. Luckily I was artillery so I didn't have to mess with it too much back then but I had to listen to my friend complain as he was an MP. He grew old almost over night dealing with some of the BS because he knew no matter how well he watched himself there was still an element of "bad" luck that could ruin his life and career.
Your writings reveal the depth and strength of your character. I respect you enough to say you know letting her fail is wrong.
Turning one's back for fear of career is selfish, not Selfless, service. There are techniques that make "Leave No Soldier Behind" meaningful every day. Soldiers M/F ought be treated the same in all ways but the latrine. Even if the unthinkable should happen, your Sacred Honor lies within your heart, you will know the truth.
I know, I've been there...in the end it was worth it to Stand.
LTC (Ret) Mark Strehle
Indeed, you are an indicator, I will have absolutely NOTHING to do with females at the fed locale I work at. They are persona non grata. I refuse to give that kind of power over to anyone. There are a world of females beyond those doors. I don't need the hassle and yes...it's a sad day what feminism has wrought. They have built the backlash.
When I was single my first duty was to Country.
Now I have a wife and two young sons, and they are my first duty. It is selfish of me to put them first, but love dictates no other action though I weep at my cowardice.
You are no coward. You are not selfish. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is your family trusts you. No one would have it any other way.
I always counseled junior enlisted to think of females in uniform as career-ending pressure-activated anti-personell mines. I have served with some extremely professional female soldiers, but it only takes one slip...or one appearance of a slip...and you are done.
Safer to have a drug habit. They will give you rehab for that.
This is *NOT* just a .mil problem, it effects the civilian world just as well!
I've been "written up" on the job for having a historical conversation while off the clock, at lunch.
A coworker said "women have always gotten the kids in a divorce" - I explained this was not true. As the Father had responsibility for the kids, he was entitled to their labor in the family business/farm and thus HE typically "got the kids."
A female at the next table said "yeah, well... women were considered property..." and "...men were allowed to beat their wives with a stick so long as it was no bigger than their thumb..." and claimed this was the origin of the phrase "rule of thumb."
I corrected these inaccuracies as well... Women were NOT property - the purpose of "dowry" was to give her assets that were *HERS* in the marriage. Women DID have the legal status close or equivalent to a child, however. Since her husband was the one who'd be legally responsible for her actions - up to and including PRISON, just as he was for a child - he was entitled to discipline her just as he COULD a child. There were however laws against abuse of women OR children, much like there still are today - and the "rule of thumb" nonsense is NONSENSE.
Anyhow, she then went and filed a complaint with HR claiming I'd "created a hostile work environment" for her... I was basically warned to avoid her at all costs, and to be VERY careful what I said in her hearing!
Obviously from then on I and my friends were basically paranoid as we could be whenever there was any possibility of being overheard by her... After all, we'd simply had a discussion of historical FACTS, and remained polite despite her eavesdropping and rudely jumping into our conversation STILL maintained a congenial and friendly tone while correcting her misperceptions...
Anyway, within a month or so I found myself back in HR - this time along with my friends as well!
She'd filed another complaint - this time that whenever she came near us in the lunch room we'd immediately end our conversation, or change it to pure business.
It seemed that "this made her uncomfortable" and thus again constituted "a hostile work-environment"...
So - for those keeping score...
Say something she doesn't like - even if it's true - and you're guilty of "creating a hostile work environment."
Be scared of losing your job over something so insane and thus too paranoid to continue and... your just as guilty of the same offense!
Don't even get me started on the whole "harassment" bit - personally I just will not work in any situation where I may be forced to be alone ANYWHERE, with ANY female!!
You're to be commended for having the intelligence to spot the obvious land-mine, and for avoiding it.
Should she actually ASK for help, I'd gladly help her subject to the condition that any interactions happen in an open, public area such as a cafeteria, and that they be attended by at least one other person I know I can trust!
This is simply PRUDENCE! - not cowardice!!!
The described behavior is why I refuse to apply the appellation of woman to what are in fact nothing more than girls. A woman can behave girlishly & a girl can also act womanly, but the defining difference between the 2 is that the woman's behavior is temporary. It's kinda like the difference between the country/pioneer female & their city counterpart. One is well aware of the harsh realities of life, learns to deal w/ them &, if she's smart & lucky, grows into womanhood w/ an understanding of life's unpredictability & tenuousness which shows her what's really important in life & gives her an appreciation for her male opposite.
The city female, however, being largely protected from the realities of life, can indulge her girlishness w/ few serious physical/psychological consequences. 'Fashion' & similar fleeting things are her main concerns, 'feelings' drive (& frequently consume) her, she believes that passion & love are interchangeable terms & that appearence is a good indicator of character, & her insulation from the nastiness of existence compounds this worldview.
In short, some girls become women, others just become old girls, & the same goes for the guys.
Cassandra (of Troy)
AM/et al.,
RE: Your country vs your family
Your family can be replaced, when you lose your country, you've pretty much lost it all. The experiences of the Jews, the gypsies, the southern Sudanese, our former slaves, & our Aboriginal population vividly make the point that if you're property, you really don't own nuthin'.
Cassandra (of Troy)
Cassandra,
People cannot be replaced. My duty to my family is what is keeping me in the .mil, it is my chosen profession and I think I'm not half bad at it. But serving now is not something I recommend to young people.
Bottom line, the battle for freedom is not being fought by the .mil.
I have to admit I am at a loss trying to understand "Your family can be replaced". So, if your child dies, it is no big deal, he/she can be replaced? Your loving husband, best friend, and helpmate who would die for you if necessary - as my wife would for me - can be replaced?
I understand the importance of country, Cassandra - I served too, many years ago - but saying your family can be replaced is beyond cold. It is inhuman.
It is a sad commentary on the state of things today, but where I used to be warm, open and friendly with children, I no longer allow myself that freedom. Too easy to be accused of being another Sandusky (and no, I have never showered with a child of either sex). So I simply avoid any interaction.
Additionally, my wife's daughter-in-law is such a spiteful witch that she has turned our grandchildren away from my wife and I, so I am beyond "careful" with them, the few times we get to visit.
And they _can't_ be replaced, which breaks my wife's heart.
<---high-fives Cassandra
I wish your post could be read by everyone in Australia- after a non-sequitur impropriety by a pair of ADFA (West Point equivalent) cadets, the Australian military is about to be turned into a "female-friendly" and "gender-neutral" force, with combat roles being opened to females. Yet every Infantryman (for a pertinent example) could point out the dangers. But the Chief of defence has stated that they will comply with all ministerial requirements, no questions asked. I guess its OK to have female Infantry, after all it's not like they are held to a lesser standard, or that the standard is lowered so they can achieve it.
Sigh...
Post a Comment