how has Title IX had a negative impact on the military?
338406
"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal assistance."  \n  - Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to the Civil Rights Act of 1964\n\nSo it has not had a negative impact on the military.
852114
One does not enroll in the Army.  You enlist and commit your life to the public good.  It doesn't matter who you have sex with as long as you comply with the UCMJ and behavior policies (ie Don't Ask, Don't Tell).  You break the rules, you pay the consequences.
408582
I do not think there was a release of a drug that caused servicemen to "snap" when they came home.  What happened is that they were not prepared to be re-introduced to civilian life so quickly. The military job is to take an ordinary man and to transform him into an extension of the service to do what the military needs to be done. The service men do not have the same amount of training to de-military them. They need more counseling and support groups to readjust.
1064217
In the short term, it caused a number of political shifts. One of these was the adoption of the 19th Amendment, which granted universal sufferage. (Women proved themselves to be capable of conducting domestic affairs and thus were rewarded with voting rights.) It also pushed the U.S. into the world scene as a power to be reckoned with, not as much as President Wilson would have prefered, but there was a more favourable attitude towards global issues. In the long term, it put the U.S. on the path to becoming a superpower as it had the ability to conduct military action without the concern of being invaded itself.
1137883
Oddly, the Federal government has anti-discrimination policies in place for civil service employees but not for military.  Very odd!
597758
I have worked for the air force for 16 years.  I have seen Female officers and enlisted.  I don't think you have anything to worry about and it can be a great career or experience.
559815
No! A lot of soldiers use that excuse. A lot of them can have sex downrange, too. Not often, but often enough. That, and we get breaks every six months.
128897
Try going to the website below. They have very helpful information regarding all aspects of the United States military.
672769
The role or lack of role of the lesbian in women's sports and the male homosexual in dancing has been a debatable issue for quite some time.  At one time it was practical considered a 'sure thing' that any male dancer or any female involved in professional sports was 'q u e e r,' and in those less enlightened times, subject and worthy of scorn.  Since Title IX passed in 1972 and vastly impacted women's sports and other college scholarships and equitable distribution of activities funds in high school in particular are now legislated, the number of women active in athletics has multiplied nine or tenfold.  Worrying about 'homosexuality' of female athletes is far less a consideration than it once was as sports for girls is no longer thought of as 'manly' and unfeminine and unworthy of a real lady's time.  Now the only consideration is how many small minds still worry about such things.
55592
Honestly, you are right.  The number of concessions and exceptions the military has had (and continues to have ) tomake just so females can serve is counterproductive and detrimental to the mission.  I am all for equal rights, but if you can not do the job, you should go elsewhere- the standards should not be lowered just so you make it.  The fact that female Marines I was in Iraq with (numbering 5) has an entire 30 man tent for themselves because they needed sperate billiting shows the preposterous nature of the system.  I have never met a female Marine (who are the toughest the US has got) who could perform physically as well or as long as a male Marine, or maybe more importantly, had the emotional or phychological strength to handle sometimes normal occurances.  Everyone in knows this and simply ignores or covers up for the discrepancies.  I applaud the females for their willingness to serve, but they do not and (except in rare cases) cannot equal a male in the same postion.\nGay men are a little different, though- the only problems I see logistically would be the same as females- seperate billiting and head faculities (baths/showers for you non DevilDOGs or squids) would be required, but they still could be expected to perform at the same levels physically as the other males.\n\noh, and sorry for the Jedi remarks- just kidding!`\n\nKsuccubis-  Being an able mechanic or a driver is not at all equal to the ability to endure physical and mental pain for weeks or months on end and still be counted on to complete the mission.  And PFT scores are essentially worthless in judging strength between individuals-  your ability to do pull-ups or sit -ups (your weight being the resistance) can not be measured to my ability using my weight.  and running is a great measure of endurance and cardiovascular strength, but the ability to do so with ruck and flak and kevlar under combat conditions is something all together different.  I am in no way trying to demean you or your service to the country, but emotional responses and personal investment are not the issues- combat effectiveness is.  I promise you no Male Marine could get away with the things the females do all the time- they use the full arsenal fo womanly guile to get out of the heavy lifting, barracks duty, deployments, etc- from PMS, to emotional issues, to sexual suggestiveness, with all the tears,pouting, preening, huffing and puffing that goes along with it.  It silly, wasteful and countertproductive, and has no place in the military as it should be.
134042
Having been stationed in North carolina during the decade of the fifties, I sadly recall the WHITE ONLY drinking fountains and the WHITE ONLY bathrooms.  When on a military base, non of that existed, but once you walked out of those gates, it was a whole different and bigoted world.  The uniform meant nothing to the bigoted south.  A black soldier in uniform was still black.  An Asian or dark skinned hispanic were left alone, for the most part, and if they were challenged, they merely explained their heritage and were left alone.  However, if they were Hispanic with african features, in the eyes of the bigots, they were still negroes and subject to the same discrimination as the blacks. \nI recall an incident when I boarded a bus, while in uniform, the bus driver upon taking my fare said to me:" you can tell that black women that you want her seat, she has no business sitting there, anyway."  I said:" why would I do that, she has as much right to that seat as I do, and besides, where I come from we usually offer our seat to elderly people.  How can you do that to people, I don't understand the prejudice of the southern people."  He responded by saying:"Son, it isn't prejudice down here, it's preference."  Does this explain anything?
783123
If I were a girl, it wouldn't have happened! \nHonestly, I doubt the validity of your question. It all depends from instituion to institution. There are colleges of all kinds. And they have the liberty to implement such rules and regulations. One reason might be that girls' colleges are not much active in student politics ...and hence they don't dominate in such trivial internal issues.
107558
That statement is not completely true. Women do participate in combat in this age. The threat is a 360 degree threat, there are no longer front lines. Women have been in numerous fire-fights, and have been attacked in convoys\n\nWomen are not allowed to be stationed in combat units Battalion and lower. That means infantry, tankers, field artillery, and combat engineers. People have various arguements for this, such as women be physically weaker, having a menstrual cycle, wanting to prevent rape if captured, and a distraction to the males in the unit.\n \nWho know if it will ever happen, but if it does I can tell you from experience it would completely change our military, and I'm not sure if it will be for better or worse.
296925
Some girls are SLUG's-- Selectively Lesbian Until Graduation. That way, they don't have to have a relationship that they know could get them pregnant and they can give up easy after graduating. \n\nAlso, if anybody bothers them they can scream discrimination and threaten a lawsuit. There are some very high power legal organizations out there that will rush to crush anybody that someone who claims to be gay says has offended them. There's a lot of political power in it. It's a 'good thing' to be gay in America these days. They get all kinds of preferential treatment, especially on college campuses.\n\nNow that people know they can use 'reverse discrimination', to get whatever they want, they are grabbing for it. Not because they really feel that way, but for the power.
1046585
People need to understand that human rights and military law and discipline are not compatible.\n\nThey also need to understand that the military is an all volunteer organization.  No one was forced to join the military.  Upon joining the military, the individual takes and oath, and at that time gives up a number of the basic rights that are available to a regular citizen.  This is not being evil, but it is something that is necessary for the military to operate efficiently.\n\nHaving said that, I think that the policy is stupid.  It came out of the fear of AIDS during the 1980s.  It also was created and made law by a Democrat President (Bill Clinton) and a Democrat Congress (most people choose to not remember that).  I think homosexuals have as much right to serve as anyone else, and should be bound by the same rules as anyone else (ie, do not rape the object of your affection).  As long as what you are doing does not hinder the Mission (which is the priority, not some social experiment), do whatever you want.\n\nHowever, it is up to you people to get your congressmen and president to change this rule.  The military cannot.  Seems kind of ironic that the military takes all of the heat for a law they didn't want, didn't create, and can't change, but are expected to enforce.
495175
You can thank the intergration of females into army ranks for the reduction of readiness amongst recruits.\nHave you noticed, the Marine Corps refused to allow women to tarnish its training regimen.  Women in the Corps, are trained seperately, and that's the way it will stay.  So Pelosi, Boxer, and Clinton can whine all they want, this one they will not change.
798117
they pay all 4 years of college if you sign up for montgomery GI bill. that costs 100.00 per month from your base pay for a year. it is voluntary. do it. its a good investment. they do not shave the women's heads. women can keep their hair as long as they want as long as its pulled up so that it doesnt hang below the uniform collar. \na tip: before you ship out, go get your hair cut kinda short but not dyke short. youll need all the time you can get to get dressed in the morning. the female TIs are meaner than the men.\n\nbetter than the navy: you dont go to sea. ships quarters are cramped.\nnot as good as the navy: USAF is cutting people like a track coach at a school full of fat kids.