Sageman's Blog

Thanks Sage..how are you? hope all is well. This topic is of a big interest, as all my years of marriage I JUST KNEW SOMETHING WAS NOT right with my husband. Though I begged many doctors to examine him, my complaints fell into def ears..and now 40 YEARS LATER..HE IS NOW DIAGNOSED WITH PTS AND SO MUCH MORE. Not fair NOT FAIR AT ALL...his so far gone it is hard to say if any full recovery will come. Frankly, I now need to learn to deal with this and educate myself and the children so that we can try at the very least to help him. It is very very difficult. I was told that the government or THE VA..is now giving restitutions and doing extensive evaluations. Again, I highly recommend the VA hospital by Baldwin Park the have a "benefit" office and that MAN IN THERE IS AWSOME.......I pray that if you are suffering or any and all families DON'T GIVE UP AND FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS..

I do not care if anyone is held responsible.
The US government must now focus on correcting the abuse.
When doctors recommend treatment or medical discharge, the US Army, then, must take responsibility for the health and welfare of the men and women.
Parents are outraged when a soldier commits suicide because the army neglected their responsibility to the men even when medical professionals have reported that the soldier was having serious emotional problems.
"Service to the Country" is an honorable objective, but when someone can not handle what is required of them, then another avenue of service and treatement should be opened.
In any other private business, the victims would be allowed to bring a pricey law suit.
The Armed Forces should just take responsibility for the soldiers now.
Discharged soldiers with problems should be allowed to get help through military hospitals.
If they are declared incapacitated in any way, then the government must allow fair compensation.

paragraph 2, line 3 should read "discharged for misconduct" not "disorder Conduct."

The military be fair? What world do you come from?
Just kidding.
For the government or military to admit to their mistakes would make them look human and they dont want to do that. It would mean they are equal to everyone else and in their small minds they want us to look up to them.

Cont. I remember a ship in the early 90s that had a crew of 40% female, and when it deployed, the Navy wanted to take all the women off the ship before sending it into the Gulf! Take 40% of the crew.. then send the ship into a combat zone, and expect the remaining 60% to do ALL the work and fight! And THEY ALL GET THE SAME PAY!!!

I am all for ANYONE wanting to serve! If you can fight and shoot, then come on lets go! But lets pick our military for their ability, NOT their gender or race!! Equal OPPORTUNITY NOT EQUAL POSITIONS!

I served with women onboard a Destroyer Tender, Submarine Tender, Spruance class Destroyer, and an Aegis Cruizer. The remaining half of my career with Naval Special Warfare community, they didn't deploy or operate. Special Forces have been just driven into the ground as they are the ONLY part of any branch that train as warriors and to actually fight, rather than the "kinder/gentler" forces...

LOL! God in heaven will never let the planets aline in such a fashion to even allow for a kind boatsinmate!! There is no use for one!

The actual backbone of any naval organization!

Sageman says -" but the rest is misogynistic BS. "

Hockeypucks. I was a bon'n mate. Not wanting an affirmative action OS (ordinary seaman) OR officer on my fo'c'sle as a line handler wasn't misogynistic, it was a capability and safety issue. You and the liberal types don't want to hear it, but there is a LOT of resentment about equal pay for equal WORK. Many(no, not all) of the AA sailors I have seen play the gender game well.

By the way, there's a huge difference between paintball and the real world.

..and what's all the rambling about a 4 year degree for officers? It's pretty much always been a requirement (except for mustangs)- gender has nothing to with it.

Cont. I had a Greek Navy Capt. on a Cruizer once that picked up a fire hose, and could physically do ANYTHING he demanded of his crew to do! His own words.." I KNOW I can pull you out of a burning space and fight on!" ANYONE here that can't do the same.. get off my ship!

I too have seen women that carried their weight plus some, and yes they should have the opportunity to serve. But to FORCE feed a theory for mere appearances sucks!
We used to say.. "Well at least we will all die equal.."

Thank GOD! we have the new SECDEF taking to the Pentagon! He sheared off the top of the Airforce, and sent the message just 2 weeks ago, that the days of careerism are OVER! No more Bronze Stars for flying a desk!

First off I am an avid hiker and I learned to hike from an ex ranger who took me neck deep through swamps to camp over night with what I was able to carry in. I've hiked (for fun) from the Pacific North West to South America with a 75lb pack, through area's that most people would have crapped their pants in. I also have worked on a boat in the Pacific North West with swells that would make most puke to look at, let alone sail through (trying to earn money with a friend for a documentary we wanted to make.)

I know that women are at a disadvantage and probably not as qualified as men in certain positions. At the same point, some jobs they are able to do and and given flack for because a lot of the sexism is misogynistic in nature. Most would rather not admit it but the macho nature of the military doesn't want to admit that a women could do certain jobs.

I'm not saying that being a bos'n mate isn't a tough job, it is and probably most women wouldn't be able to do it, but at the same time there are jobs open on our ships that women are more than capable of doing. Should they be given preferential treatment? It's hard to say and it depends on the situation.

What I'm saying is that all people should be given a chance and the old boy club where women and minorities were delegated to enlisted ranks or limited MOS' is a part of the past for a reason. If we need to make it mandatory that a percentage of those who were historically discriminated against are insured a chance at a certain MOS or rank, then so be it. Should those that are unable to perform the duties of their