What are your thoughts on the military selecting women over men for jobs based solely on the desire to appear more diversified?

2016-09-28T18:59:24-04:00

Believe it or not, it's not as easy to get into the military as it was years ago. Perfectly eligible candidates are being turned away because of the military's "need" for more female numbers. Within the military, the "need" to increase these numbers in certain jobs has lead to favoring an applicant based on their gender. Is this right? Does it fall in line with Equal Opportunity? What's your take?

Response by PFC Ronald Maddox made Sep 28 at 2016 7:06 PM

2016-09-28T19:06:34-04:00

People do not understand that Equality cannot be legislated. Regardless of the intention of "Non-Discrimination" acts they inerently are Discriminating against someone. I firmly believe that the Most qualified for the job should get the job. Man or woman any race or creed shouldn't matter after all this is the 21st century time to move forward right?

Response by SN Greg Wright made Sep 28 at 2016 7:07 PM

2016-09-28T19:07:54-04:00

50/50 is never going to happen. There aren't going to be enough females physically qualified to reach a 1:1 ratio in all the physical rates/MOS' that there would need to be. Sorry folks, but no amount of political correctness, or belief in rainbows and unicorns, is going to make this statement untrue. This isn't mysoginy, it's science. (Before you all pile on me, of course there are plenty of females physically qualified for...well, nearly everything. My statement goes SOLELY towards the 1:1 ratio).

Response by SSG Jacey R. made Sep 28 at 2016 7:09 PM

2016-09-28T19:09:34-04:00

I think whoever is most qualified, the whole thing with we need so many males or females; or we need black or white or whatever it is; needs to be done away with and whoever is qualified and able for the job should have it. If someone wants the job and not able to do the work or is not qualified then work harder to get there. Someone should not be overlooked based on gender, race, religion or any other factors.

Response by MSgt John McGowan made Sep 28 at 2016 7:10 PM

2016-09-28T19:10:39-04:00

PO2 I don't think it right to pick leaders that way. First you going to have pissed off personnel and people that will not respect someone picked that way. You crush the feeling of the man not picked and take a chance on ruining his career. Just to be PC and have the numbers line up as the Army wants. Does TIG, service time or any of this count any more. Or they picking lower ranked women to make numbers right? I have worked with women that the tears started and things changed, not my way to do things.

Response by 1SG Patrick Burke made Sep 28 at 2016 7:43 PM

2016-09-28T19:43:33-04:00

We are at a point in time when nothing in this society is free from social engineering. The pursuit for the most qualified or best candidate for something is clouded based on an irrelevant characteristic, such as race, ethnicity, or sex. When you are in a terminal situation, do you hope for the best cardiac surgeon, the best female cardiac surgeon, or the best minority cardiac surgeon? My guess would be the best cardiac surgeon because the other qualifiers are irrelevant. The same test can be applied to any facet of life. If a corporation wants to hire candidates or enlist civilians upon completion of x, y, and z and the outcome is predominantly comprised of a certain race, sex, or ethnicity, then changing x, y, or z does an injustice to those that met the requirements.

Response by LTC David Brown made Sep 28 at 2016 7:53 PM

2016-09-28T19:53:35-04:00

I though we didn't need quotas . Women are equal to men, hear them roar.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 28 at 2016 7:54 PM

2016-09-28T19:54:06-04:00

Should the military be more diversified, probably. Is this the right way to get there, probably not. In the end you will still be discriminating someone, whether it be males, females, minority's or caucasians. How about we just use the most qualified, physically fit person available for the enlistment, job, MOS or AFSC. Pretty simple really!

Response by SPC Margaret Higgins made Sep 28 at 2016 8:14 PM

2016-09-28T20:14:20-04:00

Even back when I served, during the Cold War, I had to be "good enough"-mentally, morally and-I am pretty sure physically-to reenlist in my MOS (O3C-Special Services) as a Sports Director (Recreation Manager).
I believe, that whether it be a man or a woman: that qualified human beings should be allowed to enlist in the Armed Forces....and be able to serve therein. @PO2
-Best, Margaret C Higgins, US Army (Ret)

Response by Sgt Cameron Michael made Sep 28 at 2016 8:18 PM

2016-09-28T20:18:55-04:00

The military is no place for social experiment

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Sep 28 at 2016 8:49 PM

2016-09-28T20:49:08-04:00

The military does not "need" more women. It might want them to meet some EEOC goal or some other nonsense but that is about it. The military needs people that can do the job and can do it very well and are likely to complete training and serve their full enlistment etc.

Response by PO2 Samantha Day made Sep 28 at 2016 8:54 PM

2016-09-28T20:54:36-04:00

I believe it is part and parcel of the political correctness that is destroying our country and our great military. I do not believe that there is a place for "Equal Opportunity" in the military, specifically when it comes to men and women. I am all for women having more options in the military but I do not believe that women are physically suited to every job available, we are not physically equal to men. A job should be assigned based on the applicants/candidates qualifications and capabilities, not their gender.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 28 at 2016 8:54 PM

2016-09-28T20:54:34-04:00

Can you cite a source for this?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 28 at 2016 8:54 PM

2016-09-28T20:54:53-04:00

Simply put it is a civil rights violation. The constitution protects us all equally. None are less or more equal.

The only election - advantage criteria which doesn't appear to violate constitutional law seems to be low income. The poor have no privilege.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Sep 28 at 2016 9:05 PM

2016-09-28T21:05:49-04:00

I was part of the first military-service-academy class that included women cadets ENS Private RallyPoint Member. Between 1975 and 1980 [USMAPS and USMA] I was part of a significant experiment with an amazing amount of attention from Congress through the military to ensure the plan was executed well. "The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry."
Political correctness is pervasive in the higher echelons of power in this nation.
In my West Point class the overall attrition was just over 31% the attrition among the women was over 50%. It takes more than good intentions to make a well-designed plan succeed.
Luring women into military positions that are traditionally male should not be leapt into. Certainly there are exceptional women who can function as Infantry enlisted or junior officers.
The hard part is that some people think you can take a women NCO qualified in one series of military MOs and put her through training and insert her as a squad leader or platoon sergeant with minimal experience. That is a very bad idea.

Response by Capt Michael Greene made Sep 28 at 2016 9:58 PM

2016-09-28T21:58:09-04:00

" the "need" to increase these numbers in certain jobs has lead to favoring an applicant based on their gender."
Not familiar with this. Is it truly happening? Source?

Response by SSG Mark Franzen made Sep 28 at 2016 10:10 PM

2016-09-28T22:10:30-04:00

I think that is just wrong everyone should be treat equally.

Response by SSG Carlos Madden made Sep 28 at 2016 11:33 PM

2016-09-28T23:33:43-04:00

Is this based on a cited source or personal observation?

Response by MSgt James "Buck" Buchanan made Sep 29 at 2016 1:10 AM

2016-09-29T01:10:06-04:00

Until the rampant political correctness is brought into check, those who are in the position to make position selections and influence promotions will do anything to protect their own career and get, to a certain degree, falsely promoted themselves.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Sep 29 at 2016 5:34 AM

2016-09-29T05:34:00-04:00

Depends on what MOS they are trying to fill, let the ladies try their best, and than decide what is best suited .

Response by SGM Patrick Kirby made Sep 29 at 2016 7:48 AM

2016-09-29T07:48:47-04:00

The issue in my view is not turning male applicants away rather maintaining standards: standards should not be compromised because of gender.

Response by Barry Davidson made Sep 29 at 2016 8:01 AM

2016-09-29T08:01:34-04:00

This is something I tackled years ago when I was still in management. You all have less ability to drag your feet, but what I used to do is throw away all the EOE and quota memos I got from higher. Like clockwork memos would be sent out which basically said, "We need to look good nationally, so you need to hire X-percentage of women, X-percentage of minorities, and other like crap. I had very few criteria when I interviewed and hired an applicant.

1. Can you actually do the work?
2. Will you show up to work?
3. Will you actually work once you show up?
4. Can you get along with the rest of the team? (Not as important as the other three depending on the job needing to be done.)

(Someone might ask where customers came in there. Well, take care of your employees, and they'll take care of customers.)

You all should hear my wife going off on modern feminism. Being a smart husband (Marriage AIT taught me so much years ago), I just shut up and listen. I wish I could get it all across without being accused of being a misogynists. Much of it boils down to, "Men and women are different, both physically and mentally."

I wish you all had the same options I had. Sure, I'd get nasty-grams from corporate from time to time, but that's a whole other kettle of fish from an Article 15 or worse for not following orders. Excuse me, I should have said ruining your career for not following "the spirit" of your orders even though the letter makes no mention of it.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 29 at 2016 9:22 AM

2016-09-29T09:22:22-04:00

My uncle told a story he swore was true. A government inspector inspected a company and told the owner he had to have 11 blacks in order to meet the quota. Not 11 more just 11. The owner told his subordinated to have 15 people report to the office. The 15 were all black. The owner told them that 4 had to be let go because the government said he needed 11.

The inspector was yelling NO No. The owner rather politely asked him to leave. After the inspector left the owner told his employees to get back to work.

Government bureaucracy at its finest.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 29 at 2016 9:50 AM

2016-09-29T09:50:44-04:00

As I have said on many other posts like this one.....I don't care what color you are, I don't care if you stand or squat to pee, I don't even care your sexual orientation.......if you qualify and you carry your weight, you're good to go in my book. This grand social experiment they call social "justice" of needing more of a certain gender or race....this to me is legal discrimination. Get rid of it.

Response by Col Rebecca Lorraine made Sep 29 at 2016 10:43 AM

2016-09-29T10:43:46-04:00

After excluding so many for so long based on gender, there does need to be a course correction. The same old way of doing business and presuming men are "more qualified" is wrong. 18% of the military is women, yet that doesn't reflect the u.s. Population. This isn't turning away a more qualified applicant. If it's tied it should go to the woman. This is based on the years of denial for an equal opportunity. That isn't a bad word. Diversity, equal opportunity should be the norm and we shouldn't have to think in those terms except we have excluded groups based on their gender, race, and sexual preferences.

Response by MSgt Michael Smith made Sep 29 at 2016 11:06 AM

2016-09-29T11:06:39-04:00

I'd be interested to know your source for this information.

Response by Sgt Teri Kemp made Sep 29 at 2016 11:15 AM

2016-09-29T11:15:06-04:00

I think it's a horrible way to go. If the person, regardless of gender, is qualified to do the job and can do the job then great. Don't lower standards or change the job to fit the person. That isn't how the military should work in MHO. It could get people killed in a battle situation or even in a regular day if they can't do the job.

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made Sep 29 at 2016 11:26 AM

2016-09-29T11:26:18-04:00

It's not right and it's ridiculous to attempt. We need to focus on able bodies, not female bodies. Just because military service is not more appealing to women, does not mean we should be turning away interested male candidates while we wait for a female to be interested in it.

Equal opportunity does not mean everything is 50/50. Equal opportunity does not mean equal results. Equal opportunity simply means that both are eligible for service if both choose to walk that path.

Response by SPC Makissa Lewis made Sep 29 at 2016 1:31 PM

2016-09-29T13:31:08-04:00

Why is it a problem when the opposite was true for so many years?

Response by SFC George Smith made Sep 29 at 2016 6:09 PM

2016-09-29T18:09:27-04:00

OH Hell Not again... I watched the is Mess before... The last Time it was Based On Race... Not The Ability to do the Job... and the actual Qualifications ... looks Like the quota system is still in Play...

Response by Sgt Wayne Wood made Sep 30 at 2016 2:27 PM

2016-09-30T14:27:15-04:00

it happens, deal with it. these things tend to sort themselves out. women are quite capable of rising to a level of incompetence, just like men.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 1 at 2016 7:53 AM

2016-10-01T07:53:40-04:00

Quotas are a fact of recruiting, I was not aware of the need for female recruits turning away other qualified recruits. I am skeptical that the infantry ever really turns anyone away. It's a machine that needs to be fed.