Also, anyone who has taken a good series of stats classes ansd a
research methodologies class would still be *very* skeptical of this type of
advocacy briefing.

I fail to see why this data is so "skewed" in your view. Divorce rates among
missile crews was X before gender integration and X after, seems clear cut to
me that gender integration did not effect divorce rates among married
missileers.

That's why I find it necessary to continue to ask for these "facts," and am
not satisfied with your "impressions" of the "briefing."

No impression was required, it was statistical data.

The claim that people under these circumstances would not fall prey to
well-documented human nature is a rather big claim, and needs at least some
proof.

OK, I'll be your proof. Over 150 alerts over a three year period, at least a
dozen with a woman who was not my wife and I kept my hands (and other
appendages) to myself for the entire 24-hour period. I was good friends with at
least a dozen other married guys, none of who even hinted they had comitted
adultery with a female missileer.

Campbell and Stanley
(as well as others) give a good description fo historical confounds in time
series data. Life in the hole in 1985 was somewhat different from life in
the hole in 1995.

Really? How so? I'm willing to bet life in the hole was identical from 1962 to
the present day. It was(and still is) a very scripted and monotonous 24-hour
period and with a few minor exceptions unchanged over time or by the actions of
other nations.

Also, your definition of "fully gender integrated" is somewhat misleading.
If you look at the percentage of crew population that were serving in
mixed-gender crews from 1985-1995 ytou do not find a magic point in time
where the ration poofed from "None" to "Full" overnight.

Only because your definition of gender integration is an equal population of
female crewmembers. Using this definition, we are not now, nor will the missile
community ever be, gender integrated.

Something tells me the "facts" shown by the 0-6s during the "training
briefings" were not that sophisticated. It's pretty easy to demonstrate
falshoods using inappropriate analysis.

Inappropriate analysis? Its simple analysis. Divorce rates before and after
gender integration and UCMJ prosecution rates for adultery before and after
integration. How can that data be misleading?

Claiming that
percentage of crewmembers serving in mixed gender crews went from 0 to 50%
"overnight" is an absolute howler.

Who in God's name said that? You're the one using that criteria as the basis
for gender integration, not me. My definition of gender integration was the
lifting of the restriction prohibiting woman from serving on Minuteman crews.
If you use 50% as the magic number, like I said above, we'll never have a
gender integrated missile career. By my best guess, based on the makeup of the
91st Missile Wing circa 1993, approximately 8-10% of the crewmembers were
female.


or are we choosing to define "full gender integration" at some other, much
lower, level?

There can be no "level" associated with it. If you use some random level, I can
argue the USAF as a whole is not gender integrated, but if you look around you
won't see any WASPs.

Or are you just selectively misrepresenting what you choose to define as
"full gender integration (letting one woman on one crew)?

You're the one trying to somehow associate a percentage with full gender
integration (and a ridiculous level I might add, 50% are you serious?), I'm not
misrepresenting anything, I'm just supplying you with facts about a life I
lived, everyday, for 3+ years. You seem to be someone who can't handle facts
counter your personal beliefs.

YGBSM! Read what you wrote- do you honestly believe that what the Air Force
has done is "study" in any objective sense of the word of this issue?!

Yes.

How long have you been in the war?

You can't be that naive. No way.

You're a "black helicopter" guy aren't you?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"