Does a "Gender-Neutral" military bother you?

2016-01-14T14:49:31-05:00

As a member of the so-called "New" Navy, this question has been asked and talked about around my command for the last few months. I'd like to hear some different perspectives about it

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2016 2:51 PM

2016-01-14T14:51:42-05:00

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Jan 14 at 2016 2:55 PM

2016-01-14T14:55:04-05:00

Nope. My hope is that the military will become just a little less obsessed with aesthetics and more concerned with results..

Response by SA Harold Hansmann made Jan 14 at 2016 2:56 PM

2016-01-14T14:56:23-05:00

I have never seen it any different with the women in the Navy. Except work week in bootcamp.
If she can train like a man she should be able to fight like a man. Period, end of story, nuff said, ect…

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Jan 14 at 2016 3:06 PM

2016-01-14T15:06:27-05:00

No, for me it's the reverse. A gender oriented military bothers me. Standards should be more important than gender. Why should gender be taken into consideration for job performance?

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Jan 14 at 2016 3:14 PM

2016-01-14T15:14:03-05:00

'Bother me?' I am blessed to have retired before the insanity was to deeply in bedded.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2016 3:14 PM

2016-01-14T15:14:14-05:00

PO3-There's a huge difference between a military where we look at individual merit, independent of gender, and one where we cease to acknowledge it. Yes, I would be bothered by a military, a place of work, home of worship, or nation where we had become so deluded as to denounce the very things that make us human.

Response by MAJ Glenn Bergeron made Jan 14 at 2016 3:17 PM

2016-01-14T15:17:16-05:00

Doesn't bother me, but I believe we will never have a truly gender neutral military.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2016 3:18 PM

2016-01-14T15:18:13-05:00

I believe this:

Both sexes are different. There is no getting around it. Can't be done without hormone therapy for both sexes. That being said, regardless of the job, if either sex can meet the standard then fine, cool, grab a weapon and move out. If neither sex can meet the standard, sorry, but grab your gear and hit the door. I believe in letting people try. I believe in letting people have the opportunity to try. But saying they HAVE to be included just pisses people off and will (for a time) create hostilities.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2016 3:22 PM

2016-01-14T15:22:58-05:00

Personally i don't mind the thought of a gender neutrality. My only hope is that the standards for both sides are equal. I don't care if you're a man or woman, gay or straight, purple or green, as long as you can do the job you've been given without any special circumstances or favors.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jan 14 at 2016 3:28 PM

2016-01-14T15:28:07-05:00

I would be more interested in gender appropriate.

Response by CWO2 Eric Peterson made Jan 14 at 2016 3:52 PM

2016-01-14T15:52:46-05:00

It's a mistake to place emphasis on anything that makes us different be it gender, religion, ethnic background, sexual preference, etc. It's also a mistake to make a really big freaking deal about creating neutrality to eliminate any hint of those differences. Let's face it people, we all know we are different and in my +20 years of active service, we learned to work with those differences and got the job done. That is what it should be all about, accomplishing the mission. All this emphasis on social equality takes time and resources away from what should be our primary function: combat readiness. Given the choice between going to the range for small arms practice and qualifications versus sitting through another human relations mando-training function, I know for a fact 99.9% of Sailors would opt for shooting at the range.

Response by CPO David Sharp made Jan 14 at 2016 4:28 PM

2016-01-14T16:28:20-05:00

How much more "Gender-Neutral" can "I am an American Sailor...." get before it is a deviation from the oath we took?

Response by Cpl Gerard Babin made Jan 14 at 2016 4:32 PM

2016-01-14T16:32:49-05:00

Boys, If there were men to fill the boots these ladies are askin to fill there would be no discussion goin on. Yes there will be weak ones who fail - send them home. But there will be those few that can and will tow the line to prove they can hack it. Rather than walk around like a bunch of apes with your gun in hand; step up and train the ones that prove themselves no different than than the green kids you've been getting. One GOd, One Country, One corps - One set of rules when the shooting starts all you boots male or female will piss or shit yourself. Life happens change happens male it work don't pity them train them or send them home when they fail. Combat has no Gender - Now we can finally be one Corps.

Response by Cpl Rc Layne made Jan 14 at 2016 4:49 PM

2016-01-14T16:49:30-05:00

I am seriously going to be bothered by the loss of lives, both male and female, that is going to occur because of this decision. It is a prime example of those who have never served, or served in only a basic billet, playing with something that they don't understand, and don't care to understand. I sincerely believe that the Secretaries of the various services should be picked from the best of the retired generals and admirals available. But I was only a lowly enlisted Marine, what do I know?

Response by MAJ Bill Darling made Jan 14 at 2016 5:11 PM

2016-01-14T17:11:38-05:00

Mostly how the way neutral is misused. In the Army, general officers have used to mean, when referencing physical fitness, as "same event, different standard". Not very neutral and certainly not much different that what came before it.

Response by MSgt Tim Craig made Jan 14 at 2016 5:27 PM

2016-01-14T17:27:03-05:00

What it isn't already :)

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Jan 14 at 2016 6:12 PM

2016-01-14T18:12:38-05:00

The military was never meant to be a Social Experiment.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jan 14 at 2016 6:47 PM

2016-01-14T18:47:10-05:00

So does this whole gender neutral thing mean that men and women are going to wear the same dress uniforms and covers? I would like to see a female Sailor in Cracker Jacks and Dixie Cup!

Response by MSgt John Taylor made Jan 14 at 2016 9:32 PM

2016-01-14T21:32:08-05:00

The logical side of me says "no," at the end of the day it's just words that have to be changed. But, as always, it's the idiots that come up with this "stuff" that bother me. It's almost as if this is the solution to equality within the ranks.

Response by Cpl David Smith made Jan 14 at 2016 10:13 PM

2016-01-14T22:13:49-05:00

Before you know you're going to have a guy say he needs the standards for a girl because he believes he was really "supposed" to be a girl.

Response by Cpl David Smith made Jan 14 at 2016 10:23 PM

2016-01-14T22:23:18-05:00

Yes I do and for an unlimited amount of reasons. It's all about being politically correct now. It's fine, I was proud to be an American when I thought that it meant God-fearing, having guts, and living by principles, and so much more. Now I'm beginning to be embarrassed to be associated with this weak-minded, politically correct, God-hating, people. God bless the USA? HE has!! Look around! How about "God forgive America" (before we taste His wrath on Her).

Response by GySgt Joe Strong made Jan 14 at 2016 11:23 PM

2016-01-14T23:23:51-05:00

Here's the thing.
If you can join a group and be accepted by the group for what you bring to the group, I fail to see the problem.
Now, implicit and unsaid is that depending on what group you are joining the baseline of acceptable output, mentally &/or physically may rise far above a service set minimum. When those informal baselines fall due to integration - that's when we have harmed our Services. Unfortunately those baselines are hard to build, once degraded, it'll be even harder to re-raise them.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Jan 15 at 2016 11:15 AM

2016-01-15T11:15:32-05:00

IF it were truly gender neutral, it would be fine. That would mean, however, identical STANDARDS for all. That includes physical fitness testing. Equal opportunity MUST include equal responsibility...

Response by PO3 Frank Opalecky made Jan 15 at 2016 4:43 PM

2016-01-15T16:43:46-05:00

In for a penny in for a pound. Gender neutral should be mandatory. ALL recruits get their heads shaved, No combat restrictions, NO high heals or skirts for uniforms, unisex berthing areas and heads, men with pregnant wives should be able to skip deployments.

Response by LCDR Halinganji Kanani made Jan 15 at 2016 8:07 PM

2016-01-15T20:07:49-05:00

My first piece of advice is don't grow too attached to the so-called "New Navy." Over my 15 years of service, I saw about 15 "New" Navies. Every time we had our yearly sexual harassment training, the program had a new name, and people were pissing and moaning about the new "kinder gentler" Navy. Every time we had equal opportunity training, every time they re-branded the alcohol de-glamorization campaign, it was "Waa waa waa, kinder gentler Navy!"
Well, I can assure you we still managed to blow shit up, so don't worry about it.
So, now they're opening up a few more billets to women and people are freaking out like it's some unprecedented sign of certain doom. But don't forget, every community in the Navy that is open to women today, used to be male only, and before they accepted women, they could all tell you exactly why it was impossible. I urge you to look into how that turned out. If you don't feel like digging through historical archives, just ask the nearest submarine officer.

Response by PO2 Peter Wells made Jan 15 at 2016 11:56 PM

2016-01-15T23:56:23-05:00

I have no problem with an Integrated Navy...

But this shit about changing Rates/Job Titles to Gender Neutral Ones sits Raw on me. "Seaperson"

Glad I got out Before everyone started Wearing their Chief's Uniform Top.

Response by SFC Alfonso Moore made Jan 17 at 2016 1:57 AM

2016-01-17T01:57:05-05:00

no it's a good thing.

Response by CPO Robin Beres made Jan 17 at 2016 10:35 AM

2016-01-17T10:35:48-05:00

In my post-Navy life, I write an opinion column for a The Richmond Times-Dispatch. Here are my thoughts:
NAVY DROWNS IN A PC TIDE
Posted: Saturday, January 16, 2016 10:30 pm
Robin Beres
Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus (SECNAV) is on a mission to create a unisex Navy and Marine Corps. It seems anything that highlights the differences between men and women must be eradicated, ignored or covered up.
In what is likely his last year running the world’s greatest Navy and Marine Corps, SECNAV is going full speed ahead on his plans to create total gender neutrality — common sense, costs and morale be darned.
Last week Mabus sent a memo to the chief of naval operations, Adm. John Richardson, directing the Navy’s top admiral to review all of the Navy’s job titles that have the word “man” in them.
Mabus wrote: “Lastly, as we achieve full integration of (women into) the force ... this is an opportunity to update the position titles and descriptions themselves to demonstrate through this language that women are included in these positions. Ensure they are gender-integrated as well, removing ‘man’ from their titles, and provide a report to me as is practicable and no later than April 1, 2016.” A similar order was sent to the commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Robert B. Neller.
Let it be noted, however, that almost all of the Navy’s ratings (jobs) that include “man” in their titles have been open to women for decades. And many of these titles date from the earliest days of the Navy. They are steeped in historical lore.
***
The first mention of the clerical rating of yeoman goes back to 1798. The term hospital corpsman dates to 1898. New-to-the-Navy sailors who have not yet qualified for a rating are referred to as seamen, firemen and airmen. And the term “seamen” has been around as long as mankind has been sailing the seas. Young officers in training have been called midshipmen by navies since the Napoleonic era.
This latest brainchild of SECNAV has exasperated active-duty members and veterans of both the Navy and the Marines.
Visit the comments on any news article about the issue. Almost to a man — and a woman! — sailors and Marines are unanimous in their disdain for this move. As a female who served for nearly 23 years, I can assure SECNAV that most females are darn proud of their job titles. There is a definite sense of pride and esprit de corps that comes from earning a time-honored and traditional title.
***
In 2009, President Obama appointed Mabus as the 75th secretary of the Navy. During that time, SECNAV’s job description has not changed.
According to the Navy.mil website, the responsibilities for the position are relatively straightforward: “SECNAV is responsible for, and has the authority under Title 10 of the United States Code, to conduct all the affairs of the Department of the Navy, including: recruiting, organizing, supplying, equipping, training, mobilizing, and demobilizing. The Secretary also oversees the construction, outfitting, and repair of naval ships, equipment and facilities. SECNAV is responsible for the formulation and implementation of policies and programs that are consistent with the national security policies and objectives established by the President and the Secretary of Defense.”
Nowhere in there is any mention of social engineering or gender-neutralization. But that hasn’t stopped this guy from pushing his political-correctness agenda.
During his tenure, he has pressed for gender-neutral uniforms for men and women. Unfortunately, his idea of gender-neutrality means putting women in slightly altered men’s uniforms. SECNAV insists that unisex uniforms are a priority so female sailors will no longer be segregated because they wear different clothes. Apparently, it hasn’t dawned on him that most servicewomen would much rather wear a professional-looking and comfortable uniform that has been properly tailored to fit the female body.
Mabus has also been in a big hurry to integrate females in all military units. He created a public spat last September when he stated during a press interview that he saw no reason to grant the Marine Corps an exception for including women in its ground combat units. (The statement raised eyebrows given the fact that the Marines hadn’t yet requested an exception.)
When the Marines did release the results of a months-long, multi-million-dollar experiment with mixed-gender units, the test showed that the mixed units performed most critical battlefield tests worse than all the all-male units.
Rather than take those results under consideration, Mabus told NPR that the Marines who commissioned the study had set it up for failure. He implied that the women assigned to perform in the trials were unqualified and among the physically weakest of Marine females.
Marine Sgt. Danielle Beck, a participant in the study, told The Washington Post that SECNAV “completely rolled the Marine Corps, and the entire staff that was involved in putting this in place, under the bus. ... Everyone that was involved did the job and completed the mission to the best of their abilities.”
***
Why does Mabus feel it’s so important to spend precious dollars on new uniforms and to order ridiculous and expensive reviews of historical job titles — not to mention the cost of updating manuals, directives and instructions?
It is no secret that the Navy is dealing with a dangerously small budget. In recent days, The Wall Street Journal has run columns from former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman and Seth Cropsey, director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for American Seapower, warning that the Navy doesn’t have enough ships to do its job. Deployments that are far too long, along with shortages of missiles, spare parts and regular maintenance, are draining the Navy’s power and fighting ability.
In his six-plus years in office, Mabus hasn’t earned much devotion from his troops. Many resent the former Democratic governor of Mississippi’s heavy-handed social engineering plans and the seemingly deaf ear he has turned toward the sailors and Marines who serve under him.
That’s too bad, because if he did listen to them, Mabus would know that today’s female sailors are just like their male contemporaries. They simply want to do their part in keeping freedom strong and sea lanes open in an increasingly dangerous world. Secretary Mabus should follow their lead.
[login to see]
[login to see]
Twitter: @RobinBeres

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Jan 17 at 2016 10:41 AM

2016-01-17T10:41:17-05:00

This requirement is just a twist of the knife for good measure by the social and cultural ideologues who have imposed their views and philosophies on their employees - the unfortunate service man and woman. Just one more step in the imposition of an experimental change on people who have no say in the matter by the current group of liberal ins. Such manipulation would be pretty impossible in the private sector.

Response by LCpl Cody Collins made Jan 17 at 2016 1:45 PM

2016-01-17T13:45:23-05:00

Yea it bothers me a lot. If an individual is already confused as to what sex they are ( Male / Female ) . They are not ready to serve in the military, Unit cohesion is an utmost priority, and it is not the place for anyone to decide this week or the next if they are male or female. And I don't care to shit, shower or shave with a woman who thinks they are a man or vis verse. I'm sure if the enemy ever captures one of these confused types, they will remind you in a minute , what sex you are.

Response by SFC Pete Kain made Jan 17 at 2016 2:29 PM

2016-01-17T14:29:21-05:00

With the R.O.E's that get put in place....The Military has already been neutered. SMH

Response by MCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2016 6:51 PM

2016-01-17T18:51:01-05:00

This kind of makes me giggle - especially coming from a guy of color. It wasn't that long ago when the "old timers" (and members of the "new" Navy) were asking, "Does an integrated military bother you?" I've done lots of research on the integration of gays and getting rid of DA/DT - and the congressional testimony reads exactly the same in the past few years as it did in 1946/47 when Blacks were going to be integrated into the mainstream - just replace "gay" with "colored" and "homo" with "Negro" and the exact same speeches were made.

And now we are integrating women.

Once you get around thinking of "us" and "them" you'll find there are actually very few differences. Are there going to be shit-birds? Oh, HELLS yes - just like with ANY group. Just work around those fools and you'll find the gems.

Response by SPC Stacey Lowell made Jan 18 at 2016 4:19 PM

2016-01-18T16:19:44-05:00

I guess I am old school. The only females we had back in the time I w serving ewre support people driving deuce and a halfs and what not around the post and in support of Operation Just Cause in '89-'90. I cannot believe how much the service as a whole has changed. Back in the 80s if Top or the CO thought you were different in anyway they'd put you out on an honorable and tell ya to go elsewhere. I am definitely old now.....I knew lots of folks who beat a different tune on the drum so to speak. I wonder if any of the guys I served with retired after 20 or 30 years?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2016 5:34 PM

2016-01-18T17:34:39-05:00

It's been so focused on making people's feelings not hurt that we are losing focus on the things we really do need to focus on. Case in point. Death by power point. Spending so much time with stuff that literally no one pays attention to or will ever remember instead of actually training our people. Especially in reserve and guard units. Entire drills are full of BS classes that mean nothing leaving real job training and practice to maybe once or twice a year. The newer guys get to AT with a mission they haven't the slightest idea on how to accomplish.

Response by 1SG Jack Crutcher made Jan 18 at 2016 5:43 PM

2016-01-18T17:43:03-05:00

I retired from the army as an infantryman 20 years ago. I know that things has changed since then so I have no dog in that fight. I do feel that the decision should be based off the soldiers serving in combat arms since that is the field that it will have the impact on. I do think that it can be a problem for certain MOS's . As of right now I haven't seen combat arms being overran by females. However, I am curious about the outcome.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2016 5:44 PM

2016-01-18T17:44:07-05:00

It bothers me. I came in a year before all the nonsense started. I was out of boot camp before the politics with the 4th Battalion commander got busted. She wanted to prove that makes wouldn't respect us as marines if we didn't pull our own weight. I find it funny that she was busted for that when they wanna turn around and do gender neutral boot camp and such. As a female Marine, I didn't ask for equality. Especially not combat designations. Good for those who want it but I certainly don't.

Response by SSgt Dan Montague made Jan 18 at 2016 6:35 PM

2016-01-18T18:35:41-05:00

The people that are making these decisions clearly do not have an understanding of how the military works. We are NOT an equal opportunity employer. If you can't cut it, you cant do it. Standards should not be altered in anyway up or down just to make an MOS available to anyone. When I was humping 100 lb arty rounds from gun to gun I blasted a Marine because he couldn't carry them because they were too heavy. He should have never been arty. So no we are suppose to give them a hardy pat on the back and say "at least you tried"?

Response by PO3 David Fries made Jan 18 at 2016 6:57 PM

2016-01-18T18:57:36-05:00

Boot camp was being integrated while I was going through. We shared barracks in Corps School ( though they were on separate floors). I don't see the issue.

Response by 1SG Jack Crutcher made Jan 18 at 2016 8:03 PM

2016-01-18T20:03:32-05:00

In combat arms units you can call your battle buddy the b---- word and get away with it, when your new battle buddy is female will the consequences be the same? I think the word is degrading but I was also combat arms. Just asking. I think I see problems waiting to happen especially when the automatic weapon carrier that's been trained on that weapon finds out she's pregnant 3 weeks before deployment.

Response by PO2 Jack Mitchell made Jan 19 at 2016 6:37 PM

2016-01-19T18:37:50-05:00

I have always said to my troops I could care less what your sex is as long as you can pull someone out of a fire fight in full gear and still do your J.O.B I have no prob if not get out of my Navy! It was my opinion then and it still rings true now!

Response by SGT Andrew Goetsch made Jan 21 at 2016 1:36 PM

2016-01-21T13:36:12-05:00

If I have a problem with females, it's my problem, not theirs. And it's up to me to fix it. My job isn't to get my panties being twisted by the scary women working with me.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 22 at 2016 12:06 AM

2016-01-22T00:06:57-05:00

I generally have many more important things to care about than sailors' genders. As long as going gender neutral isn't going to impact my ability to do my job and meet requirements of the mission, I can't begin to care.

Response by SSgt Anya Arisohn made Jan 22 at 2016 12:25 AM

2016-01-22T00:25:03-05:00

Yep! Gender isn't neutral, nor is it fluid. That's called delusional.

Response by Cpl Tracey Chapman made Jan 22 at 2016 5:12 AM

2016-01-22T05:12:18-05:00

I feel it should be gender bias .a soldier is a soldier man or woman doesn't matter. Women can achieve and preform just as much as a male sometimes better. Equality is essential in today's military.

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Jan 22 at 2016 8:29 AM

2016-01-22T08:29:26-05:00

Yes it does because the neither the military nor gender itself is neutral. The average American woman is 5'4" and the ideal weight for a woman of that height is between 119-123lbs. That's not enough to bear a 40-50lb rucksack for any amount of time/distance let alone deadlift a fallen male comrade that's 200lbs. Long story short, women should NOT be in combat roles nor should they be deployed to combat areas regardless of position. Unfortunately, we've reached a point in this nation where preserving PC bullshit trumps the lives that will be lost because of stupidity like this.

Response by SrA Jonathan Carbonaro made Jan 22 at 2016 8:53 AM

2016-01-22T08:53:07-05:00

I think they have taken it to far with the political correctness. What you're all sea-people now instead of seaman? It just sounds lame. If the military truely wanted to Gender neutral, they wouldn't mess with the names of jobs or ranks; as it is meaningless and just makes jobs sound weird or more PC.
If they wanted it to be equal, Females would be forced to register for the draft, and their would be one standard when it comes to PT.

Response by LtCol Robert Quinter made Jan 25 at 2016 11:30 AM

2016-01-25T11:30:30-05:00

Gender neutrality in the military is like so many idealistic goals, easy to legislate or dictate, but virtually impossible to attain without modifying standards. The SecNav's edicts assume: all DOD members will overcome cultural training that differentiates individuals based upon gender. Our Navy and Marine Corps are capable of war success despite the University of Pittsburg study that defined the decrease in combat effectiveness.
Eventually the standards will change when the number of women attaining their goals does not meet the expectations of those who are mandating the changes. Dig out the history of McNamara's experiment in mandating the enlistment of those who could not meet military intellectual standards.
It all boils down to success in combat, all the rest is political window dressing.

Response by PO2 Joe Kunsch made Jan 28 at 2016 1:33 PM

2016-01-28T13:33:36-05:00

I firmly believe in equality and equal rights, but not in gender-neutral in the military. Joe Rogan has a podcast that focused on preferred gender-neutral pronouns. It is ridiculous. Glad I'm out of that Navy. Good luck shipmates!

Response by PO2 True Spence made Feb 1 at 2016 1:36 PM

2016-02-01T13:36:00-05:00

I think it's pretty silly myself. Men and women are different (thank God) and we should be honest enough to accept and cherish those differences. The jobs women can do, they should be allowed to do, providing they meet precisely the same criteria as the men. The military is not, or should not be, an area where we engage in social experimentation.

Response by Maj John Bell made Feb 29 at 2016 8:48 AM

2016-02-29T08:48:35-05:00

When it comes to the mission, I just want to accomplish it, and preserve as much of the force as possible. I don't care who helps. The health, welfare, and morale issues are murkier. They don't bother me. It is just new ground, and I just don't know how to be fair. I want to be fair.
There was a sense of community in the old squad bays. Can men and women be housed together in those conditions? Can straights and gays be housed together in those conditions? In a combat theater is it best to accommodate uniqueness or to maintain unit integrity. If I expect one set of accommodations in theater, shouldn't we practice them in peacetime garrison. Better to resolve those non-mission issues when not under fire. Put together all the permutations you want on any issue where gender is germane. At some point, I worry that all the money being spent on accommodating everyone's diversity means less money to train everyone to survive on the battlefield. I'm retired, so better leaders than I will have to wrestle with those issues. I believe that eventually across all ranks a reasonably equitable solution will be reached.

Response by MSG Ronnie Snider made Apr 12 at 2016 9:29 AM

2016-04-12T09:29:54-04:00

stupid is, is stupid does.

Response by CWO4 Michael Gammage made Apr 12 at 2016 11:49 AM

2016-04-12T11:49:13-04:00

Yes, a "gender-neutral" navy bothers me very much. What are we going to do, call a Yeoman a "yo-person" or a personnelman an enlisted records clerk? Leave it ALONE!!! Tradition is a very important part of the Navy I joined. What do we call a Boatswain MATE? We have made enough allowances for Women in the Navy. If they don't like the uniform or the job title they can always look to the other services.

Response by Cpl Gerard Babin made Apr 14 at 2016 1:43 PM

2016-04-14T13:43:25-04:00

If ya cant hack it then pack it.
If they got it then use it!
Male or female doesnt matter.
I know men (Officers and enlisted) who cower at the sight of blood "no stones Jones"and women who will stand their ground no matter the odds.
In the Corps; ist easy we are all referred to as Marines - many in the ranks forget that the title is earned not given away...Never has been so start acting like men and let them make the effort before you start slaughtering reputations...

Response by MSG Don Burt made May 1 at 2016 12:07 PM

2016-05-01T12:07:22-04:00

You damn right it does....! It really does Pi#$ me off that these “Ultra- uber : (to an extreme or excessive degree) Liberal, PC, Intolerant Pukes led by the same type from the White House and
its surrounding Czarists that are force feeding us with this crap!

I’m a moralist, i.e., one who tries to lead a moral life and is answerable to God Almighty when the final countdown comes and to my family and my own personal belief as an Ultra-uber
Conservative Catholic Christian.

I’m embarrassed and ashamed that this wonderful country has sunken into the depths of Depravity, Socialism and Free stuff for all at the expense of the real taxpayers and Capitalistic
Entrepreneurial resources that have, up until this point in time, made America Great.

There’s an old saying: “What goes around, comes around” !!!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 25 at 2016 12:39 PM

2016-05-25T12:39:31-04:00

I'm looking forward to the "Starship Trooper" era where everyone showers together......

Response by 1stSgt Al Herter made May 27 at 2016 9:22 PM

2016-05-27T21:22:38-04:00

Yes indeed!

Response by A1C Michael David Severson made Jun 25 at 2016 12:19 AM

2016-06-25T00:19:34-04:00

I am going to take a different vector on this topic... If anyone is still Active duty, and has some pull at their Command level, Pentagon, JCS, etc., This is what really NEEDS to be said:

At what time in modern military history, has gender neutrality TRULY mattered when it comes to Mission effectiveness, unit cohesion, leadership and discipline in the ranks, or esprit de corps?

This politically-correct nonsense is tinkering with the very heart and soul of the Armed Forces. The last time I swore my oath to "support and DEFEND the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC," I drew a line in the sand.

With graying hair and some wisdom learned in my advancing years, I realize that asymmetric warfare comes in subtle nuances, cyber assaults, etc.

These subtle and not-so subtle skirmishes that seek to unravel the fabric of our nation's warriors through dissension, factionalizing, marginalizing, polarizing, adverse rationalizing and the narcissistic attitude behind all this nonsense is just as treacherous in my book, as the Tokyo Rose broadcasts of Japanese propaganda were aimed at undermining/subverting the morale of our troops in WWII.

Psyops is nothing new, but it is most insidious when it is a tactic applied within the ranks or from above them. As a Oath-keeping veteran, my responsibilities did not cease when my enlistment ended. I am responsible for what I know, and to do something about it!

When I enlisted 37.7 years ago, neither the JCS, NCA nor the Secretary of the Air Air Force came to my barracks to ask me how they should run MY Air Force. Why? Because it is ***NOT*** "MY Air Force!" I became part of a Mission-oriented TEAM in which my part was intended to seamlessly connect and integrate into the tapestry of that team.

One of the 3 pillars of the US Air Force is: "Service before self." That deals a death-blow to this narcissistic, self-importance-at-the-expense-of-all-else-because-I'm-entitled rationale. Whatever and whoever is behind propagating all of this nonsense is an ideological enemy of our military institutions.

Of course, to counter such a threat, we must take scaled and appropriate measures to stop this insidious attack against the very fabric of our Armed Forces' ability to stand united. Our voice, a pen or a keyboard can be sufficient enough to accomplish victory in such a battle.

So, from the least of the enlisted ranks, to the highest ranking officers, I am sounding a call to stand up and call this nonsense into account, and to neutralize this threat into non-existence. The core of our calling is to be uncompromisingly focused where we all started: With the Oath and our Constitution. This is where the buck stops for us as well.

You are free to re-post, share, and publicize what I have said on one condition: WHEN, not IF these protagonists come to attack me, I expect you who are also Oath-keepers to stand with me to watch/keep my back.

The subtlety of this matter may seem innocuous for now and even humorous, but given time, you will see the truth of their intentions. Let's be a proactive deterrent of this issue NOW, rather than find ourselves on the defensive down the road. The current battle for gender-neutral bathrooms should be enough of a forewarning!

Let's rumble and roll!

MD "Doc" Severson :-)

Response by CPO Robin Beres made Jun 30 at 2016 12:50 PM

2016-06-30T12:50:57-04:00

It doesn't bother me -- what bothers me is the hypocrisy of this "gender-neutral" military. If it truly were gender-neutral, women and men would have the same grooming standards from lipstick to fingernail polish to hair length.

Response by 1stSgt Al Herter made Jul 7 at 2016 2:41 PM

2016-07-07T14:41:24-04:00

No, what bothers me is, that appears to be the only thing the military and DOD can focus on. There are real issues to be addressed. Manning, weapons systems, multiple deployments, to name a few.

Response by SSG Wally Lawver made Nov 14 at 2016 12:14 PM

2016-11-14T12:14:41-05:00

yes

Response by SFC George Smith made Nov 14 at 2016 7:51 PM

2016-11-14T19:51:49-05:00

ITs a Shame on one wants to learn Lessons From Israel...

Response by SGT Peter Wilks made Dec 12 at 2021 10:25 AM

2021-12-12T10:25:48-05:00

So long as the troops are physically fit and able to accomplish their assigned mission, who cares!!!
Gender neutral, gender specific. I really do not care.

Response by 1SG John Millan made Feb 24 at 2024 12:24 AM

2024-02-24T00:24:54-05:00

It's more non-warrior madness, designed to kill us all