testtest

The Why Behind the Woke – Leadership in Today’s Army

Talyn

Talyn

SAINT
Founding Member
The topic of wokeness in the military has become increasingly relevant in recent years. The debate between politicians based on their sundry definitions of the term woke has caused a national divide.

Politicians have taken the term woke and manipulated its definition to promote their political agenda. These political debates have made it vital for the military to maintain political neutrality. Political neutrality promotes troop cohesion while building the public’s confidence in the military (Davidovic, 2021).

This applies to all branches of the US military

havokjournal.com

The Why Behind the Woke – Leadership in Today’s Army • The Havok Journal

by MSG Carson Morris An era of unparalleled access to information and technology has led to a generation that is highly cognizant of political and As leaders progress, they must remain adaptable in their leadership styles to accommodate discussions on political, social, and racial issues that...
havokjournal.com havokjournal.com

1712522377267.png
 
It is a mistake to back away from proven strategies just because someone decides to make it political or religious.

This explanation is good. That said,the value of diversity to any bottom line is settled business practice. The military was about the last to come on board here and they've been doing it for years. Successfully.
 
jumpinjoe said:
You mentioned the word 'proven' last night in an earlier post ... can you provide some of that proof? Not suppositions nor assertions now, but real, hard, proof!
Click to expand...
No he can't. And the fact that the military can't keep people or recruit in adequate numbers is just another example of him taking his far left progressive fantasy land that exists only in his head and pretending it is reality.
 
Hi,

Oh my goodness. That article was so full of buzzwords and vague intersectional happy-speak as to be meaningless except that by being meaningless it actually means something that's not good for our military.

Quoted from the article:
"When leaders create an inclusive environment, they are more likely to have diverse individuals with different perspectives and experiences contributing to the decision-making process (Department of the Army, 2022). An inclusive environment leads to a more thorough examination of different options and potential consequences, resulting in better decisions that consider the needs of all team members (Department of the Army, 2022). Furthermore, inclusive leaders are more likely to identify and address unconscious biases, which can lead to more equitable decision-making (Department of the Army, 2022). As a leader promoting inclusion and diversity includes effectively communicating with all Soldiers within the unit since it is critical when developing mutual trust and building a cohesive team."

What does this look like in real life? Will every command organization represent the demographics of the country? Will every squad or regiment have exactly 12.6% black, 19.1% hispanic/latino, 2.4% multi-racial, 58.9% white, 0.7% Native American, and 6.1% Asian? Will training exercise curriculum be decided by committee? Would a war be run by a "diverse" committee?

The thing about DEI is that it wants to force a quota to the detriment of society. Some people call this "disparate impact".

For example, there is a medical licensing exam called "Step One" given usually during the second year of medical school. It is used by hospitals to determine the best residents to hire. Black students statistically score lower on the curve making it harder for them to land those choice residencies. This is a "disparate impact" on the black medical students. It must be racist. The remedy? Just do away with the score and make it a pass/fail grade. This makes it more difficult for hospitals to choose a high achieving student. Lack of meritocracy in medicine will lead to less innovation and will cost lives.

The same goes for the legal profession. A larger percentage of blacks fail the bar exam on the first try. This is another "disparate impact". It too is racist. What's the remedy? Lower the passing score for the bar exam. The profession is becoming more concerned with proportional representation than turning out good lawyers.

In the airline industry, in order to become more "diverse", it has been lowing safety and training standards. But they can boast more pilots of color, more female pilots, more gay pilots. Some airlines have been losing passengers for fear of lax hiring practices for pilots.

All that to say, none of these external attributes should have anything to do with being picked for a job. You should not be hired because of your color. You should not be hired because of your sex or "gender". You should not be hired because of your religion or politics. You should be hired (or recruited) because you are the best person for the job, suitable for the situation and tasks in every way. Merit based choices are the only fair way, the best way, to choose candidates. If you can't pass the test, don't blame the test. The test taker needs to work harder.

The military needs people who know how, and people to learn how, to blow up stuff and kill enemies. Period. There are no "safe spaces" in a war zone. The captain is not going to take a vote of his troops to decide whether or not they want to march today. You don't want a fighter pilot or a navigator or a tank driver who got that position because they checked a "diversity" box for the unit. You want someone who knows that job inside and out.

Our civilization depends on the best and brightest being allowed to succeed. It would be devastatingly discouraging if they see someone with lesser skills advancing simply because of an external DEI "feature".

And that's my second profound glimpse into the obvious for today. ;)



Thank you for your indulgence,

BassCliff
 
Last edited:
BassCliff said:
Hi,

Oh my goodness. That article was so full of buzzwords and vague intersectional happy-speak as to be meaningless except that by being meaningless it actually means something that's not good for our military.

Quoted from the article:
"When leaders create an inclusive environment, they are more likely to have diverse individuals with different perspectives and experiences contributing to the decision-making process (Department of the Army, 2022). An inclusive environment leads to a more thorough examination of different options and potential consequences, resulting in better decisions that consider the needs of all team members (Department of the Army, 2022). Furthermore, inclusive leaders are more likely to identify and address unconscious biases, which can lead to more equitable decision-making (Department of the Army, 2022). As a leader promoting inclusion and diversity includes effectively communicating with all Soldiers within the unit since it is critical when developing mutual trust and building a cohesive team."

What does this look like in real life? Will every command organization represent the demographics of the country? Will every squad or regiment have exactly 12.6% black, 19.1% hispanic/latino, 2.4% multi-racial, 58.9% white, 0.7% Native American, and 6.1% Asian? Will training exercise curriculum be decided by committee? Would a war be run by a "diverse" committee?

The thing about DEI is that it wants to force a quota to the detriment of society. Some people call this "disparate impact".

For example, there is a medical licensing exam called "Step One" given usually during the second year of medical school. It is used by hospitals to determine the best residents to hire. Black students statistically score lower on the curve making it harder for them to land those choice residencies. This is a "disparate impact" on the black medical students. It must be racist. The remedy? Just do away with the score and make it a pass/fail grade. This makes it more difficult for hospitals to choose a high achieving student. Lack of meritocracy in medicine will lead to less innovation and will cost lives.

The same goes for the legal profession. A larger percentage of blacks fail the bar exam on the first try. This is another "disparate impact". It too is racist. What's the remedy? Lower the passing score for the bar exam. The profession is becoming more concerned with proportional representation than turning out good lawyers.

In the airline industry, in order to become more "diverse", it has been lowing safety and training standards. But they can boast more pilots of color, more female pilots, more gay pilots. Some airlines have been losing passengers for fear of lax hiring practices for pilots.

All that to say, none of these external attributes should have anything to do with being picked for a job. You should not be hired because of your color. You should not be hired because of your sex or "gender". You should not be hired because of your religion or politics. You should be hired (or recruited) because you are the best person for the job, suitable for the situation and tasks in every way. Merit based choices are the only fair way, the best way, to choose candidates. If you can't pass the test, don't blame the test. The test taker needs to work harder.

The military needs people who know how, and people to learn how, to blow up stuff and kill enemies. Period. There are no "safe spaces" in a war zone. The captain is not going to take a vote of his troops to decide whether or not they want to march today. You don't want a fighter pilot or a navigator or a tank driver who got that position because they checked a "diversity" box for the unit. You want someone who knows that job inside and out.

Our civilization depends on the best and brightest being allowed to succeed. It would be devastatingly discouraging if they see someone with lesser skills advancing simply because of an external DEI "feature".

And that's my second profound glimpse into the obvious for today. ;)



Thank you for your indulgence,

BassCliff
Click to expand...
A very wise, and well worded 'profound glimpse' ... for any day! (y)
 
We currently are at the lowest staffing level in the military since 1940 (at a time when our population is 2 1/2 Times what it was then. Today, ALL the services Combined have less troops than the Army did by itself in 1990😳. This does not bode well. If you look at our nations history, the ONLY time we’ve went to war when we were actually “ready” was the first Gulf war. We engaged the 4th largest military in the World and decisively beat them in a matter of days with minimal American casualties. Every other single time in history we were “down” and wound up losing a lot of young men before we got out sh-t together. In Vietman we were “strong” but in a way involving nukes rather than conventional forces (plus the politicians wanted to play general rather than letting the military leaders). And we paid a big price for it. WW2 while the world prepared for war we watched and waited. When it came to us we were not ready-and we paid dearly in blood for that. Every other time was the same, and here we are again. Me. Thinks those folks who need cry rooms ad can’t figure out which restroom to use may not fare well…
 
ECS686 said:
David Victor Hanson touches on the Military at around the 5 min mark in this video

(Mods, I am only sharing it because of the Military reference ao not trying to violate anything. Delete if you need)

Click to expand...
i dis agree with obama starting it all
it really got the behind dour back boost to start during the Clinton era, Bush never shut it down
then barry went full monty

let me explain
clinton decided we had dont ask dont tell, but if you were a fag/queer/**** etc and got caught...you were gone period
then he decided we needed all areas of our armed forces to be inclusive for women into every MOS/job/ rating/command/theater etc
this led to a serious moral drop with MEN in the military...serious amimostiy etc towards women
the NAVY really took it hard and we MEN had to actually fight back to preserve our rights
for enlisted guys to make pay grade E7 you had to have sea duty, (floating on ships during 6 to 8 month deployments), subsurface, surface etc and with those deployments you need to earn certain qualifications that can ONLY BE EARNED at sea, on board a SHIP. for example, Surface warfare qualification , enlisted aviation warfare , etc
a lady rated as a torpedoman, serves on an island and somehow earns the same "AT" sea qualifiactions that an "AT" SEA male torperdo man had to earn to get advanced.

well in 1996 the board that puts all the senior navy enlisted e8 e9s and a few O6s and their needed staff into a big building to decide the fate of all the E6 guys and gals that passed the E7 test to get to the board, that looks at your records, awards, leadership , evaluations, etc

a high percentage of woman in the navy could not get these qualifications as they were not allowed on combatant ships.
but they served in overseas locations that were considered "SCARY"

like bermuda for ladies was considered SEA duty, but for men it was SHORE duty. even though the duty and task were the freaking SAME.
Shore duty is prime time to regroup rebuild etc for up to 3 years in a support command or the like. you go to schools, college, actually see your family etc.

I am being very short and brief.

a document was released prior to the board convening that outlined the mission and gave guidance to how to interpret some jobs and positions so the weight of these is given fair weight in regard to advancement
now in the Navy each NEC/rating , think army MOS system
has a set number of E7s allowed in that rating, as does a set number of E8 and E9, the e8 e9 board meets earlier for promotion and its results play heavily into how many E6s can be advanced to E7

so this pre-amble for this particular year 1996, that would select E7s for Fiscal year 1997 ( when you get paid, you actually get frocked (advanced in rank, but not pay, some people actually get paid in September if they are senior in rate as dirt) in September of 96 for this cycle)

anyway this preamble had a paragraph about how this board had to look hard at the men having the prerequisite certifications, schools, college, support duties not part of your primary rating etc. and the board; like all previous boards could deduct points for not achieving these qualifications....and SHOULD AWARD points for the achievements of these qualifications...... but then the next paragraph stated the opposite for ladies, and the board could not take away points for this group not having the same required prerequisites and special weight SHALL be given to areas they served, and support missions, like stationed at bermuda, sigonella, naples, bahrain etc (these are not weighted the same for men, its actually a career killer)


so when this message hit the streets( navy lingo for message released to all hands via navy message system) it took a few days for it to sink in.
In my command i got with my fellow E6s awaiting the board results, and we freaked out at how they were discounting our hard EARNED work in favor of a woman that served on a freaking island, (paraphrasing). So being the the one that cant keep his mouth shut, i went to the EO representative (eo normally handles race issues and is usually an collateral duty held by a .....WOMAN or a woman that is not white..
well this woman, E8 read the message and went full nuke in favor of my complaint.. i cant put the word she let out here.
but she was over pissed off and felt slighted as she worked her assss off to get where she was in her career. you know, a person that busted her rear and took as tough assignments as allowed, plus in our command she actually went on a few deployments to an island of danger, but it was a good call.

so she went to the command master chief E9, and he came to see me and wanted to know if i was sure i wanted to lodge a complaint to navy personnel command over this obvious double standard that violated naval policies

i stated yes and did the paperwork, i had to meet with the Commanding officer and explain my issue, with the help of the EO officer, the command master chief etc. then all four of us had to go see the admiral and command and explain it all
i was nervous as a cat in a bathtub
so once the admiral understood, he didn't even try to twist it or circle back.. he understood 100%
it went forward to naval pers. command and they had to resend the preamble and send out a new one that was similar to previous years that dictated hard earned qualifications that are career helpers are to be given max points and points shall be removed for those candidates that failed to meet these quals. mind you the quals and certifications are NOT MANDATORY , you can skirt by as a e6 for 20 years, but you will never advance.

the navy wants you doing your JOB, and your bosses JOB and his or her bosses job.. we train our replacements.. well in my area of aviation it was our way of life.
in the naval aviation groups i spent 90% of my time in was LAMPS and we led the navy in promotion rates and it was normal for us to have juniors working in roles normally for senior people, even our junior officers did mid level officers tasking.

funny thing is i got promoted off that board, and made E8 a year early..not sure if my name was ablaze in lights at the board or not. :ROFLMAO:
i also was selected to CWO2, right after i got advanced to E8, but declined the CWO. not that i didn't want to be a CWO, but i had better things in line as an E8. running the schoolhouse in pcola for my rating.

of course the ladies were pissed and the next years they got to be on combatant ships ...the best thing to happen to navy ships when we got ladies on board......was BETTER FOOD, a more clean ship, we didnt show up for chow smelling like a zoo as much.

plus the ladies on some ships made 1ks in fan rooms, doing the old fashioned brothel thing ( look up USS Kennedy and Eisenhower and George Washington)

so Clinton got the ball rolling, bush sat on his rear and barry wanted to promote suck ups that had ZERO clue about the job at hand. Bush also started the old enlisted to officer promotion scheme seaman to admiral and did give some deserving sailors a chance to grow. but most were selected based on skin color and lack of mental acuity or lack of being a mentor for the troops under their command or charge.


then in late 2003, the navy didnt have enough officers coming from enlisted ranks and went full bore and selecting anyone that applied and this led to more dipsticks being punished through promotion so surprise look at senior navy leadership now
OMG
 
Last edited:
i will ad
in the navy the e 7 e8 and e9 levels are based on whats allowed by policy in the regards to numbers of folks in that rating.
in my rating when you compete for E9 it combines 2 other ratings so your chances really get slim

then the early 2000s the navy kept combining ratings /jobs into one down from 3 or 4 similar so those people really get skewered for a few years to advance
 
powerboatr said:
i dis agree with obama starting it all
it really got the behind dour back boost to start during the Clinton era, Bush never shut it down
then barry went full monty

let me explain
clinton decided we had dont ask dont tell, but if you were a fag/queer/**** etc and got caught...you were gone period
then he decided we needed all areas of our armed forces to be inclusive for women into every MOS/job/ rating/command/theater etc
this led to a serious moral drop with MEN in the military...serious amimostiy etc towards women
the NAVY really took it hard and we MEN had to actually fight back to preserve our rights
for enlisted guys to make pay grade E7 you had to have sea duty, (floating on ships during 6 to 8 month deployments), subsurface, surface etc and with those deployments you need to earn certain qualifications that can ONLY BE EARNED at sea, on board a SHIP. for example, Surface warfare qualification , enlisted aviation warfare , etc
a lady rated as a torpedoman, serves on an island and somehow earns the same "AT" sea qualifiactions that an "AT" SEA male torperdo man had to earn to get advanced.

well in 1996 the board that puts all the senior navy enlisted e8 e9s and a few O6s and their needed staff into a big building to decide the fate of all the E6 guys and gals that passed the E7 test to get to the board, that looks at your records, awards, leadership , evaluations, etc

a high percentage of woman in the navy could not get these qualifications as they were not allowed on combatant ships.
but they served in overseas locations that were considered "SCARY"

like bermuda for ladies was considered SEA duty, but for men it was SHORE duty. even though the duty and task were the freaking SAME.
Shore duty is prime time to regroup rebuild etc for up to 3 years in a support command or the like. you go to schools, college, actually see your family etc.

I am being very short and brief.

a document was released prior to the board convening that outlined the mission and gave guidance to how to interpret some jobs and positions so the weight of these is given fair weight in regard to advancement
now in the Navy each NEC/rating , think army MOS system
has a set number of E7s allowed in that rating, as does a set number of E8 and E9, the e8 e9 board meets earlier for promotion and its results play heavily into how many E6s can be advanced to E7

so this pre-amble for this particular year 1996, that would select E7s for Fiscal year 1997 ( when you get paid, you actually get frocked (advanced in rank, but not pay, some people actually get paid in September if they are senior in rate as dirt) in September of 96 for this cycle)

anyway this preamble had a paragraph about how this board had to look hard at the men having the prerequisite certifications, schools, college, support duties not part of your primary rating etc. and the board; like all previous boards could deduct points for not achieving these qualifications....and SHOULD AWARD points for the achievements of these qualifications...... but then the next paragraph stated the opposite for ladies, and the board could not take away points for this group not having the same required prerequisites and special weight SHALL be given to areas they served, and support missions, like stationed at bermuda, sigonella, naples, bahrain etc (these are not weighted the same for men, its actually a career killer)


so when this message hit the streets( navy lingo for message released to all hands via navy message system) it took a few days for it to sink in.
In my command i got with my fellow E6s awaiting the board results, and we freaked out at how they were discounting our hard EARNED work in favor of a woman that served on a freaking island, (paraphrasing). So being the the one that cant keep his mouth shut, i went to the EO representative (eo normally handles race issues and is usually an collateral duty held by a .....WOMAN or a woman that is not white..
well this woman, E8 read the message and went full nuke in favor of my complaint.. i cant put the word she let out here.
but she was over pissed off and felt slighted as she worked her assss off to get where she was in her career. you know, a person that busted her rear and took as tough assignments as allowed, plus in our command she actually went on a few deployments to an island of danger, but it was a good call.

so she went to the command master chief E9, and he came to see me and wanted to know if i was sure i wanted to lodge a complaint to navy personnel command over this obvious double standard that violated naval policies

i stated yes and did the paperwork, i had to meet with the Commanding officer and explain my issue, with the help of the EO officer, the command master chief etc. then all four of us had to go see the admiral and command and explain it all
i was nervous as a cat in a bathtub
so once the admiral understood, he didn't even try to twist it or circle back.. he understood 100%
it went forward to naval pers. command and they had to resend the preamble and send out a new one that was similar to previous years that dictated hard earned qualifications that are career helpers are to be given max points and points shall be removed for those candidates that failed to meet these quals. mind you the quals and certifications are NOT MANDATORY , you can skirt by as a e6 for 20 years, but you will never advance.

the navy wants you doing your JOB, and your bosses JOB and his or her bosses job.. we train our replacements.. well in my area of aviation it was our way of life.
in the naval aviation groups i spent 90% of my time in was LAMPS and we led the navy in promotion rates and it was normal for us to have juniors working in roles normally for senior people, even our junior officers did mid level officers tasking.

funny thing is i got promoted off that board, and made E8 a year early..not sure if my name was ablaze in lights at the board or not. :ROFLMAO:
i also was selected to CWO2, right after i got advanced to E8, but declined the CWO. not that i didn't want to be a CWO, but i had better things in line as an E8. running the schoolhouse in pcola for my rating.

of course the ladies were pissed and the next years they got to be on combatant ships ...the best thing to happen to navy ships when we got ladies on board......was BETTER FOOD, a more clean ship, we didnt show up for chow smelling like a zoo as much.

plus the ladies on some ships made 1ks in fan rooms, doing the old fashioned brothel thing ( look up USS Kennedy and Eisenhower and George Washington)

so Clinton got the ball rolling, bush sat on his rear and barry wanted to promote suck ups that had ZERO clue about the job at hand. Bush also started the old enlisted to officer promotion scheme seaman to admiral and did give some deserving sailors a chance to grow. but most were selected based on skin color and lack of mental acuity or lack of being a mentor for the troops under their command or charge.


then in late 2003, the navy didnt have enough officers coming from enlisted ranks and went full bore and selecting anyone that applied and this led to more dipsticks being punished through promotion so surprise look at senior navy leadership now
OMG
Click to expand...
Obama started it as far as Hanson stated everyone's started identifying as a certain ethnic group as anyone non white vs anyone white

The Military has been screwing over the people that deserve promotions and violating their own rules since there was a regular military. I spent the more 1989’s through 2007 in the USAF and retired from the ANG so what you described military wise is no exception. It all happened all the time. I did nuke security and anytime a female came to flight she barely made it through QC and getting her CDCs die. And she was usually knocked up then they made up a back office job “just til the baby was born” that magically became a permanent job “after the baby was born” so I’ve seen it all to but nobody cares!

I also spent 20 years working for DOJ in an LE agency and again the civilian side was expanded with group inclusion paralleling the Military. The Feds started offering inclusion “ for mothers that nurse and as a supervisor I had to take a compound officer off his post so “mom” could go have a “pump” break and they took their time. It was so BS

So why the don’t ask don’t tell was expanded under Clinton the main everybody gets a trophy except the white guy didn’t start really until Obama stalled under Bush and then
Made a bunch of noise under the Hilary supporters the really exploded under Biden.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top