I feel like I need to clarify. Women are still barred from "combat" MOS's (military occupational specialty, aka your job) such as infantry, armor, and artillery.
What has been changed is that women can now be assigned to combat units at the battalion level (previosly, it was only at the brigade/regimental level). An infantry battalion has ~1,000 people in it. Less than half are actual Infantrymen. The rest are support/logistics/maintenance etc. Women can now be assigned into the later half. This does include things like admin clerk, intel analyst, communications, logistics etc etc.
Speaking as a former intel analyst in an infantry battalion, they will see combat if deployed.
I thought that this recent announcement was opening even more positions?
Each branch of the military will have to come up with an implementation plan in the next several months, the official said. If a branch of the military decides that a specific job should not be opened to a woman, representatives of that branch will have to ask the defense secretary for an exception.
Sounds like they have to open it unless they get an exception?
That is a very poorly written article. I really wish more news outlets would keep a veteran on staff on something to keep down errors when reporting on military news.
The policy change is that woman can now serve in "combat units." Which means they can be assigned down to the battalion level.
That's not what I'm getting from the Army Times article:
Military services may seek special exceptions to the new policy if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.
The official said the services will develop plans for allowing women to seek the combat positions. Some jobs may open as soon as this year. Assessments for others, such as special operations forces, including Navy SEALs and the Army’s Delta Force, may take longer.
Each service will be charged with developing policies to integrate women into every military job. For instance, the defense official said, it’s likely the Army will establish a set of physical requirements for infantry soldiers. The candidate, man or woman, will have to lift a certain amount of weight in order to qualify. The standards will be gender neutral.
The official said the military chiefs must report back to Panetta with their initial implementation plans by May 15.
That makes it sound like the new default is that women qualify for every MOS in every unit, and the services must now draft exceptions to that rule. Which, at least in the case of the Army, I expect them to. But it'll be interesting to see just what those exceptions wind up being.
For my part I see this as a simple, common sense, pragmatic move. Terms like "front line combat" are anachronisms now. This isn't WW1 anymore, we don't have a neat line of trenches with us on one side and the Taliban on the other with a nice safe zone 10 miles behind the line. If you're out there whether you're a cook or a rifleman, you can be attacked any time and all military personnel should be ready and trained for that, anything less is negligence by the military.
In the UK army we've had women going out on patrols for years, patrols in helmland are as "front line" as it gets anywhere in the world today. I just don't buy the physical argument since there is no minimum requirement for strength for the men. I could have joined the army when I was 18, back then I weighed about 140 pounds.
But it'll be interesting to see just what those exceptions wind up being.
I'm not especially optimistic but I know we have women deploy with SEALs a lot as support and they're a pretty small community. So hopefully if the experiences were good and it has an strong influence.
This whole thing about lowering standards or what if women can't haul the same load is all a bunch of bullshit. There are guys in these units who can't do it either, but we still send them into combat, keep them in and promote them. Guys who are overweight, can't meet PT standards, etc., so to bar women because of some belief that what if they can't do something? Bullshit.
Don't care if your male, female, gay, bi, lesbian, trans, brown, black, yellow, white, purple, green, blue, red. You want to serve and can meet a standard? Welcome to the military. Oh you want to do infantry? You go to this school, best of luck.
I think my favorite thing from this is that the branches are finding ways to make a single, gender-neutral, standard. THANK GOD. Now I can stop listening to men bitch about how women have it so easy because their standards are so much lower.
Space: We do let people in with asthma, depending on how bad it is and when their last attack was. Hell, I've had a Sgt., who just had back surgery, had his x-rays to show his dislocated discs, and they still sent him overseas with us to combat. A heavy flow? The military does provide things for that you know (either in a PX, medics, hospitals, etc..). Same thing about the availability of condoms in a combat zone. Every single one I've been to, their medical area had a huge supply of condoms to just give away, because you may ban it and discourage it, but people are still going to fuck one another.
XBL\PSN\Steam\Origin: Evigilant
+11
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I think my comment is getting blown way out of proportion, as I was only thinking of women for whom getting their period is pretty debilitating (at least without medication like the pill). My sister used to basically be on bed rest a few days a month because it was so bad, then she went on the pill and it was fine, but the military obviously cannot mandate the birth control pill. This just seems like something they ought to ask people about. That is all I meant.
On sex, shouldn't we be prohibiting people from having sex at all? I'd think you wouldn't want those kinds of bonds developing between people. Is it true that they court martial married people who cheat? If so, I think that is awesome.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Did your sister try to join the military in an infantry position?
And I'm pretty sure sex is already prohibited in combat zones.
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Did your sister try to join the military in an infantry position?
And I'm pretty sure sex is already prohibited in combat zones.
No, but that does not mean people who are similiarly situated would not.
I'm not saying that this new development is a problem because of sex (or any other reason). I just think that, regardless of gender or orientation, people should not be having sex with each other in the military.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Did your sister try to join the military in an infantry position?
And I'm pretty sure sex is already prohibited in combat zones.
No, but that does not mean people who are similiarly situated would not.
I'm not saying that this new development is a problem because of sex (or any other reason). I just think that, regardless of gender or orientation, people should not be having sex with each other in the military.
So your first argument is based on a hypothetical with no evidentiary basis and your second argument is "I know we already prohibit sex in the military but we should prohibit sex in the military".
Sex is already prohibited in CZ's and the only time they allow male and females to be in the same room beyond X hour is if they are a married couple; but sex is still prohibited. People know it's against the reg's but it's still going to happen regardless what you do, not because "boys will be boys" or whatever; it's because people will always disobey the rules in order to get their freak on. Colonels, Majors, Captains, Lieutenants, Sergeant Majors, First Sergeants, Sergeants, lower enlisted, it just does not matter. They will all still want and will fuck one another.
And this isn't exclusive to only male and female combined units. An all male or all female unit will still have sex: either with one another or with units passing through.
Pregnancy isn't the biggest concern: the transmission of STD's are. I had an entire Company get locked down because 4 people caught STD's before we even crossed the Kuwait border, it had been 3 days. 3 DAYS!!!
The military doesn't necessarily do much to stop it, but it will punish the crap out of you for breaking the reg. Women who get pregnant are not getting a free ride out of combat: they're going to be severely punished and in some cases it's for dereliction of duty. The males will be punished for breaking regs and getting the woman pregnant. Leadership will get a talking to and maybe, if it's such a prevalent thing amongst their unit, punished as well.
Evigilant on
XBL\PSN\Steam\Origin: Evigilant
+2
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Did your sister try to join the military in an infantry position?
And I'm pretty sure sex is already prohibited in combat zones.
No, but that does not mean people who are similiarly situated would not.
I'm not saying that this new development is a problem because of sex (or any other reason). I just think that, regardless of gender or orientation, people should not be having sex with each other in the military.
Your original comment was basically a concern about something that isn't a real problem. That's why people are jumping on you.
Did your sister try to join the military in an infantry position?
And I'm pretty sure sex is already prohibited in combat zones.
No, but that does not mean people who are similiarly situated would not.
I'm not saying that this new development is a problem because of sex (or any other reason). I just think that, regardless of gender or orientation, people should not be having sex with each other in the military.
If their period is debilitating then they aren't making it through boot camp much less infantry school or special forces.
I think the arguments about heavy flow / PMS are ridiculous. If a particular woman has chronic issues that are that bad and debilitating, they aren't going to make it through ten weeks of basic training and then their advanced training, and are going to wash out long before they ever get to the battlefield. If the issues crop up later, it shouldn't be treated any different than any other medical issue.
Pregnancy? It happens already. Women are already in these places and getting pregnant, and it's being dealt with. I think pregnancy should result in harsher punishments, including mandatory discipline for the father...but there aren't any new arguments about the combat roles that wouldn't be just as applicable to the roles women are serving in already today. So, unless that argument is to take women out of roles that are already status quo, it's a pretty meaningless argument.
I do think physical standards need to be revised / reviewed, because I know plenty of servicemen who are in horrible shape. There should be a single standard, but one that actually represents the needs of that specialty. A lot of the current standards are skewed heavily to the inherent advantages of men (raw upper body strength) even when those advantages aren't necessarily that closely related to the role at hand. Nobody ever seems to discuss the advantages that women have - higher muscular endurance, better night vision and hearing, etc when they talk about revising standards.
I just don't see any arguments about keeping women out of combat roles that isn't basically saying they need to be taken out of the roles they are already serving in today. There are plenty of women who don't belong in combat, but there are plenty of men who don't belong in combat either. The women who do meet the requirements (realistic requirements - not requirements specifically tailored to put women at a disadvantage) should be given every opportunity that men are.
+5
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I think the arguments about heavy flow / PMS are ridiculous. If a particular woman has chronic issues that are that bad and debilitating, they aren't going to make it through ten weeks of basic training and then their advanced training, and are going to wash out long before they ever get to the battlefield. If the issues crop up later, it shouldn't be treated any different than any other medical issue.
Pregnancy? It happens already. Women are already in these places and getting pregnant, and it's being dealt with. I think pregnancy should result in harsher punishments, including mandatory discipline for the father...but there aren't any new arguments about the combat roles that wouldn't be just as applicable to the roles women are serving in already today. So, unless that argument is to take women out of roles that are already status quo, it's a pretty meaningless argument.
I do think physical standards need to be revised / reviewed, because I know plenty of servicemen who are in horrible shape. There should be a single standard, but one that actually represents the needs of that specialty. A lot of the current standards are skewed heavily to the inherent advantages of men (raw upper body strength) even when those advantages aren't necessarily that closely related to the role at hand. Nobody ever seems to discuss the advantages that women have - higher muscular endurance, better night vision and hearing, etc when they talk about revising standards.
I just don't see any arguments about keeping women out of combat roles that isn't basically saying they need to be taken out of the roles they are already serving in today. There are plenty of women who don't belong in combat, but there are plenty of men who don't belong in combat either. The women who do meet the requirements (realistic requirements - not requirements specifically tailored to put women at a disadvantage) should be given every opportunity that men are.
I am not saying they should not be in combat roles (see my first post in this thread). I just think that, like other conditions we ask people about, we ought to ask about this, but it sounds like the process already has this covered, so we're probably already good.
Physical standards should make sense, and then everyone should have to meet them. That may mean revising them downward for everyone, but we should not have two sets of standards.
So why doesn't the military require implant (I think that's the right word) birth control for active duty women?
If you take out the sexphobic stuff it's basically just like a vaccination. We don't want you to get pregnant/malaria so you have to take this medicine, if you don't want to or it is against your religion you can't be in combat.
Edit for clarity: implant (was the right word) birth control is a little stick that is inserted under the skin that delivers measured doses of birth control for three years and is really effective, mostly because you don't have remember anything.
rockrnger on
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
So why doesn't the military require implant (I think that's the right word) birth control for active duty women?
If you take out the sexphobic stuff it's basically just like a vaccination. We don't want you to get pregnant/malaria so you have to take this medicine, if you don't want to or it is against your religion you can't be in combat.
It's a slightly more highly invasive procedure than "just... a vaccination".
Why don't they just shove clamps up male soldiers' peeholes and cut off the vas deferens?
So why doesn't the military require implant (I think that's the right word) birth control for active duty women?
If you take out the sexphobic stuff it's basically just like a vaccination. We don't want you to get pregnant/malaria so you have to take this medicine, if you don't want to or it is against your religion you can't be in combat.
It's a slightly more highly invasive procedure than "just... a vaccination".
Why don't they just shove clamps up male soldiers' peeholes and cut off the vas deferens?
while I wouldn't mandate anything, IUDs and vasectomies should be totally free to service men and women
So why doesn't the military require implant (I think that's the right word) birth control for active duty women?
If you take out the sexphobic stuff it's basically just like a vaccination. We don't want you to get pregnant/malaria so you have to take this medicine, if you don't want to or it is against your religion you can't be in combat.
It's a slightly more highly invasive procedure than "just... a vaccination".
Why don't they just shove clamps up male soldiers' peeholes and cut off the vas deferens?
At the same time, the military already has pretty wide latitude over your medical treatment. This would hardly be unprecedented.
yeah the marines forced my friend to get an optional surgery on his leg because of the potential risk of problems he had from some condition
so it's not like it would be loony toons, it's just I think it should be optional (with the understanding that getting pregnant carries huge fucking penalties)
override367 on
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
So why doesn't the military require implant (I think that's the right word) birth control for active duty women?
If you take out the sexphobic stuff it's basically just like a vaccination. We don't want you to get pregnant/malaria so you have to take this medicine, if you don't want to or it is against your religion you can't be in combat.
It's a slightly more highly invasive procedure than "just... a vaccination".
Why don't they just shove clamps up male soldiers' peeholes and cut off the vas deferens?
while I wouldn't mandate anything, IUDs and vasectomies should be totally free to service men and women
or any citizen for that matter
I'm fine with them being free and available.
I'm not fine with, "Oh, why don't women just get this totally simple procedure because it's no big deal I said with my penis."
So why doesn't the military require implant (I think that's the right word) birth control for active duty women?
If you take out the sexphobic stuff it's basically just like a vaccination. We don't want you to get pregnant/malaria so you have to take this medicine, if you don't want to or it is against your religion you can't be in combat.
It's a slightly more highly invasive procedure than "just... a vaccination".
Why don't they just shove clamps up male soldiers' peeholes and cut off the vas deferens?
I think he means the hormonal implant that goes in your arm, not sterilization. Insertion isn't much worse than a shot. Removal is a little more involved, but not by much. Certainly less invasive than a vasectomy.
Of course, being on hormones can bring its own set of health issues, but still. There are hormonal and non-hormonal IUDs, too, and they are not much more invasive than a Pap smear.
BC doesn't work the same for everyone. I wouldn't want just one type mandated.
This, and I think it's not the military's role to tell you when you can or cannot have children. Make it an option certainly, but also have plenty of BC, condoms, and other pills available while heavily stressing that while in a combat zone, a new pregnancy carries stiff penalties.
So why doesn't the military require implant (I think that's the right word) birth control for active duty women?
If you take out the sexphobic stuff it's basically just like a vaccination. We don't want you to get pregnant/malaria so you have to take this medicine, if you don't want to or it is against your religion you can't be in combat.
The various birth control options each have their own range of risks, side effects and even benefits, and it really is more something doctor should work out with their patient than something that should be imposed by the military command. Often women have to go through a few different options before they find something that works for them. It's medicine, it only effects one gender, no one solution works well and there is the sexual/religious aspects, together... it's just not a great thing for the government to force on people.
I think it is preferable to allow women to make these decisions themselves, and then to hold them responsible(in part) for the repercussions of their choices(removal of automatic honorable discharge getting pregnant might be a start).
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
+2
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
So why doesn't the military require implant (I think that's the right word) birth control for active duty women?
If you take out the sexphobic stuff it's basically just like a vaccination. We don't want you to get pregnant/malaria so you have to take this medicine, if you don't want to or it is against your religion you can't be in combat.
It's a slightly more highly invasive procedure than "just... a vaccination".
Why don't they just shove clamps up male soldiers' peeholes and cut off the vas deferens?
I think he means the hormonal implant that goes in your arm, not sterilization. Insertion isn't much worse than a shot. Removal is a little more involved, but not by much. Certainly less invasive than a vasectomy.
Of course, being on hormones can bring its own set of health issues, but still. There are hormonal and non-hormonal IUDs, too, and they are not much more invasive than a Pap smear.
Why is it incumbent upon the women to take these measures?
So why doesn't the military require implant (I think that's the right word) birth control for active duty women?
If you take out the sexphobic stuff it's basically just like a vaccination. We don't want you to get pregnant/malaria so you have to take this medicine, if you don't want to or it is against your religion you can't be in combat.
It's a slightly more highly invasive procedure than "just... a vaccination".
Why don't they just shove clamps up male soldiers' peeholes and cut off the vas deferens?
I think he means the hormonal implant that goes in your arm, not sterilization. Insertion isn't much worse than a shot. Removal is a little more involved, but not by much. Certainly less invasive than a vasectomy.
Of course, being on hormones can bring its own set of health issues, but still. There are hormonal and non-hormonal IUDs, too, and they are not much more invasive than a Pap smear.
Dude, no. Iud insertion can cause some bad cramping and pain. Its not the same as someone poking your cervix real quick.
Eh, if we are going to mandate women use birth control, why not just go whole hog and require that soldiers be chemically castrated during their terms of service.
Now we don't need to worry about any soldiers suffering the impact to morale that comes from children - pregnancy, missing them, abusing them, etc. No more worries about sexual assaults on fellow soldiers or civilians. Less issues with bonding, jealousy, etc. Better at following orders, less infighting.
So why doesn't the military require implant (I think that's the right word) birth control for active duty women?
If you take out the sexphobic stuff it's basically just like a vaccination. We don't want you to get pregnant/malaria so you have to take this medicine, if you don't want to or it is against your religion you can't be in combat.
It's a slightly more highly invasive procedure than "just... a vaccination".
Why don't they just shove clamps up male soldiers' peeholes and cut off the vas deferens?
I think he means the hormonal implant that goes in your arm, not sterilization. Insertion isn't much worse than a shot. Removal is a little more involved, but not by much. Certainly less invasive than a vasectomy.
Of course, being on hormones can bring its own set of health issues, but still. There are hormonal and non-hormonal IUDs, too, and they are not much more invasive than a Pap smear.
Why is it incumbent upon the women to take these measures?
Why are women the only ones that have to wear tampons and bras? Why do men have to wear cups? Because there are physical difference between different people. It's nothing bad.
It isnt woman part that is the problem. Post menaposal, infertile or transgender women would, of course, be exempt. If people had a bad reaction it would be handled just like if someone had a bad reaction to any other medical proceder. You either deal with it or try a different procedure or it gets waved.
The whole point is that pregnancy is just like any other medical condition that effects your ability in combat and should be treated as such.
rockrnger on
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
So why doesn't the military require implant (I think that's the right word) birth control for active duty women?
If you take out the sexphobic stuff it's basically just like a vaccination. We don't want you to get pregnant/malaria so you have to take this medicine, if you don't want to or it is against your religion you can't be in combat.
It's a slightly more highly invasive procedure than "just... a vaccination".
Why don't they just shove clamps up male soldiers' peeholes and cut off the vas deferens?
I think he means the hormonal implant that goes in your arm, not sterilization. Insertion isn't much worse than a shot. Removal is a little more involved, but not by much. Certainly less invasive than a vasectomy.
Of course, being on hormones can bring its own set of health issues, but still. There are hormonal and non-hormonal IUDs, too, and they are not much more invasive than a Pap smear.
Why is it incumbent upon the women to take these measures?
Why are women the only ones that have to wear tampons and bras? Why do men have to wear cups? Because there are physical difference between different people. It's nothing bad.
It isnt woman part that is the problem. Post menaposal, infertile or transgender women would, of course, be exempt. If people had a bad reaction it would be handled just like if someone had a bad reaction to any other medical proceder. You either deal with it or try a different procedure or it gets waved.
The whole point is that pregnancy is just like any other medical condition that effects your ability in combat and should be treated as such.
Oh, I forgot only women are involved in becoming pregnant.
So why doesn't the military require implant (I think that's the right word) birth control for active duty women?
If you take out the sexphobic stuff it's basically just like a vaccination. We don't want you to get pregnant/malaria so you have to take this medicine, if you don't want to or it is against your religion you can't be in combat.
The various birth control options each have their own range of risks, side effects and even benefits, and it really is more something doctor should work out with their patient than something that should be imposed by the military command. Often women have to go through a few different options before they find something that works for them. It's medicine, it only effects one gender, no one solution works well and there is the sexual/religious aspects, together... it's just not a great thing for the government to force on people.
I think it is preferable to allow women to make these decisions themselves, and then to hold them responsible(in part) for the repercussions of their choices(removal of automatic honorable discharge getting pregnant might be a start).
I was wrong, BTW. Apparently the drop to IRR for pregnancy isn't quite automatic. Policy has shifted a little bit, it's a request that still goes through command...but it seems like it's nearly always granted.
Also, the "military command" includes doctors. There's really no reason a female soldier can't be forced to undergo the recommended treatment of a military physician, or face administrative penalties. We do this for other treatments. It's part of being in the military...you lose a lot of control that civilians take for granted. Believe me, I've dealt with the military "forcing" treatments on me before, with door number two being administrative penalties (which can include an other-than-honorable discharge after a long and painful process).
Of course, I don't see any reason to force a treatment that has side effects onto a soldier that claims they are not, and will not be, sexually active. That seems silly.
But then you have to be willing to throw the fucking book at them if they come up pregnant during a deployment or pre-deployment stabilization period.
The pregnancy thing seems pretty simple. Bad conduct discharge for anyone who, by calendar measurements, gets pregnant during a period when they are not permitted to (generally CZ assignments, or whatever else stretches into an enlistment contract). Then do mandated paternity testing on the unit and a bad conduct discharge for the father too. Zero tolerance policy to make it clear that discipline is important as we transition into this new policy.
So why doesn't the military require implant (I think that's the right word) birth control for active duty women?
If you take out the sexphobic stuff it's basically just like a vaccination. We don't want you to get pregnant/malaria so you have to take this medicine, if you don't want to or it is against your religion you can't be in combat.
It's a slightly more highly invasive procedure than "just... a vaccination".
Why don't they just shove clamps up male soldiers' peeholes and cut off the vas deferens?
I think he means the hormonal implant that goes in your arm, not sterilization. Insertion isn't much worse than a shot. Removal is a little more involved, but not by much. Certainly less invasive than a vasectomy.
Of course, being on hormones can bring its own set of health issues, but still. There are hormonal and non-hormonal IUDs, too, and they are not much more invasive than a Pap smear.
Why is it incumbent upon the women to take these measures?
Why are women the only ones that have to wear tampons and bras? Why do men have to wear cups? Because there are physical difference between different people. It's nothing bad.
It isnt woman part that is the problem. Post menaposal, infertile or transgender women would, of course, be exempt. If people had a bad reaction it would be handled just like if someone had a bad reaction to any other medical proceder. You either deal with it or try a different procedure or it gets waved.
The whole point is that pregnancy is just like any other medical condition that effects your ability in combat and should be treated as such.
One could easily extend the analogy that, if pregnancy is considered disruptive to the unit that there should be impetus on the, uh, transmission vectors of pregnancy to practice, uh, sterile technique
The pregnancy thing seems pretty simple. Dishonorable discharge for anyone who, by calendar measurements, gets pregnant during a period when they are not permitted to (generally CZ assignments, or whatever else stretches into an enlistment contract). Then do mandated paternity testing on the unit and a dishonorable discharge for the father too. Zero tolerance policy to make it clear that discipline is important as we transition into this new policy.
What if they were using birth control and it fails?
The pregnancy thing seems pretty simple. Dishonorable discharge for anyone who, by calendar measurements, gets pregnant during a period when they are not permitted to (generally CZ assignments, or whatever else stretches into an enlistment contract). Then do mandated paternity testing on the unit and a dishonorable discharge for the father too. Zero tolerance policy to make it clear that discipline is important as we transition into this new policy.
What if they were using birth control and it fails?
Should've taken permanent steps or abstained for the duration of time during which you weren't allowed to get pregnant.
The pregnancy thing seems pretty simple. Dishonorable discharge for anyone who, by calendar measurements, gets pregnant during a period when they are not permitted to (generally CZ assignments, or whatever else stretches into an enlistment contract). Then do mandated paternity testing on the unit and a dishonorable discharge for the father too. Zero tolerance policy to make it clear that discipline is important as we transition into this new policy.
What if they were using birth control and it fails?
Eh, if we are going to mandate women use birth control, why not just go whole hog and require that soldiers be chemically castrated during their terms of service.
On a serious note, pregnancy of a significant other does not render a male soldier nondeployable. In fact, it's specifically listed as something that does not justify a hardship discharge. So to the military, there's a big difference there. It's about the empty billet.
Now we don't need to worry about any soldiers suffering the impact to morale that comes from children - pregnancy, missing them, abusing them, etc. No more worries about sexual assaults on fellow soldiers or civilians. Less issues with bonding, jealousy, etc. Better at following orders, less infighting.
That not where we are going?
No.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
What if the woman was raped?
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Long term exposure to low levels of estrogen can increase the risk of breast, uterine and ovarian cancer, so that's a pretty big deal, especially for women who are predisposed to any of those cancers due to family medical history. I think that mandatory birth control is a terrible idea. Just require all soldiers to swear to be celibate while in a combat zone, and dishonorably discharge both parties when you find out they broke that oath (either through pregnancy or other discovery). We entrust these people with deadly weapons to protect are nation. Surely they should be adult enough to be able to not have sex with each other for a while. . .
Oh, I forgot only women are involved in becoming pregnant.
You realize that women can be impregnated by semen that does not come from inside of a uniform, right?
It's entirely possible that a woman could become pregnant from a local, or a civilian contractor, or while stateside on leave, or in any number of ways from somebody not even under the military's jurisdiction.
The "good order and discipline" issue surrounding the sex, and the empty billet resulting from the pregnancy, are two separate issues.
As for the fact that any mandated medical treatment would only seem to apply to one gender in this case...sorry, that's just part of having lady bits. Oh fucking well. Feminism is awesome, but at the end of the day men and women actually are physically different, and sometimes that necessarily leads to disparate policies.
Posts
That's not what I'm getting from the Army Times article:
That makes it sound like the new default is that women qualify for every MOS in every unit, and the services must now draft exceptions to that rule. Which, at least in the case of the Army, I expect them to. But it'll be interesting to see just what those exceptions wind up being.
In the UK army we've had women going out on patrols for years, patrols in helmland are as "front line" as it gets anywhere in the world today. I just don't buy the physical argument since there is no minimum requirement for strength for the men. I could have joined the army when I was 18, back then I weighed about 140 pounds.
I'm not especially optimistic but I know we have women deploy with SEALs a lot as support and they're a pretty small community. So hopefully if the experiences were good and it has an strong influence.
Don't care if your male, female, gay, bi, lesbian, trans, brown, black, yellow, white, purple, green, blue, red. You want to serve and can meet a standard? Welcome to the military. Oh you want to do infantry? You go to this school, best of luck.
I think my favorite thing from this is that the branches are finding ways to make a single, gender-neutral, standard. THANK GOD. Now I can stop listening to men bitch about how women have it so easy because their standards are so much lower.
Space: We do let people in with asthma, depending on how bad it is and when their last attack was. Hell, I've had a Sgt., who just had back surgery, had his x-rays to show his dislocated discs, and they still sent him overseas with us to combat. A heavy flow? The military does provide things for that you know (either in a PX, medics, hospitals, etc..). Same thing about the availability of condoms in a combat zone. Every single one I've been to, their medical area had a huge supply of condoms to just give away, because you may ban it and discourage it, but people are still going to fuck one another.
On sex, shouldn't we be prohibiting people from having sex at all? I'd think you wouldn't want those kinds of bonds developing between people. Is it true that they court martial married people who cheat? If so, I think that is awesome.
And I'm pretty sure sex is already prohibited in combat zones.
No, but that does not mean people who are similiarly situated would not.
I'm not saying that this new development is a problem because of sex (or any other reason). I just think that, regardless of gender or orientation, people should not be having sex with each other in the military.
So your first argument is based on a hypothetical with no evidentiary basis and your second argument is "I know we already prohibit sex in the military but we should prohibit sex in the military".
K.
And this isn't exclusive to only male and female combined units. An all male or all female unit will still have sex: either with one another or with units passing through.
Pregnancy isn't the biggest concern: the transmission of STD's are. I had an entire Company get locked down because 4 people caught STD's before we even crossed the Kuwait border, it had been 3 days. 3 DAYS!!!
The military doesn't necessarily do much to stop it, but it will punish the crap out of you for breaking the reg. Women who get pregnant are not getting a free ride out of combat: they're going to be severely punished and in some cases it's for dereliction of duty. The males will be punished for breaking regs and getting the woman pregnant. Leadership will get a talking to and maybe, if it's such a prevalent thing amongst their unit, punished as well.
As if that would do anything to stop people from having sex with one another.
Not exactly my point there.
Your original comment was basically a concern about something that isn't a real problem. That's why people are jumping on you.
This is an incredibly myopic concern.
Pregnancy? It happens already. Women are already in these places and getting pregnant, and it's being dealt with. I think pregnancy should result in harsher punishments, including mandatory discipline for the father...but there aren't any new arguments about the combat roles that wouldn't be just as applicable to the roles women are serving in already today. So, unless that argument is to take women out of roles that are already status quo, it's a pretty meaningless argument.
I do think physical standards need to be revised / reviewed, because I know plenty of servicemen who are in horrible shape. There should be a single standard, but one that actually represents the needs of that specialty. A lot of the current standards are skewed heavily to the inherent advantages of men (raw upper body strength) even when those advantages aren't necessarily that closely related to the role at hand. Nobody ever seems to discuss the advantages that women have - higher muscular endurance, better night vision and hearing, etc when they talk about revising standards.
I just don't see any arguments about keeping women out of combat roles that isn't basically saying they need to be taken out of the roles they are already serving in today. There are plenty of women who don't belong in combat, but there are plenty of men who don't belong in combat either. The women who do meet the requirements (realistic requirements - not requirements specifically tailored to put women at a disadvantage) should be given every opportunity that men are.
I am not saying they should not be in combat roles (see my first post in this thread). I just think that, like other conditions we ask people about, we ought to ask about this, but it sounds like the process already has this covered, so we're probably already good.
Physical standards should make sense, and then everyone should have to meet them. That may mean revising them downward for everyone, but we should not have two sets of standards.
If you take out the sexphobic stuff it's basically just like a vaccination. We don't want you to get pregnant/malaria so you have to take this medicine, if you don't want to or it is against your religion you can't be in combat.
Edit for clarity: implant (was the right word) birth control is a little stick that is inserted under the skin that delivers measured doses of birth control for three years and is really effective, mostly because you don't have remember anything.
It's a slightly more highly invasive procedure than "just... a vaccination".
Why don't they just shove clamps up male soldiers' peeholes and cut off the vas deferens?
while I wouldn't mandate anything, IUDs and vasectomies should be totally free to service men and women
or any citizen for that matter
At the same time, the military already has pretty wide latitude over your medical treatment. This would hardly be unprecedented.
so it's not like it would be loony toons, it's just I think it should be optional (with the understanding that getting pregnant carries huge fucking penalties)
I'm fine with them being free and available.
I'm not fine with, "Oh, why don't women just get this totally simple procedure because it's no big deal I said with my penis."
I think he means the hormonal implant that goes in your arm, not sterilization. Insertion isn't much worse than a shot. Removal is a little more involved, but not by much. Certainly less invasive than a vasectomy.
Of course, being on hormones can bring its own set of health issues, but still. There are hormonal and non-hormonal IUDs, too, and they are not much more invasive than a Pap smear.
Edit: And there's this on the horizon too.
The various birth control options each have their own range of risks, side effects and even benefits, and it really is more something doctor should work out with their patient than something that should be imposed by the military command. Often women have to go through a few different options before they find something that works for them. It's medicine, it only effects one gender, no one solution works well and there is the sexual/religious aspects, together... it's just not a great thing for the government to force on people.
I think it is preferable to allow women to make these decisions themselves, and then to hold them responsible(in part) for the repercussions of their choices(removal of automatic honorable discharge getting pregnant might be a start).
Why is it incumbent upon the women to take these measures?
Dude, no. Iud insertion can cause some bad cramping and pain. Its not the same as someone poking your cervix real quick.
Now we don't need to worry about any soldiers suffering the impact to morale that comes from children - pregnancy, missing them, abusing them, etc. No more worries about sexual assaults on fellow soldiers or civilians. Less issues with bonding, jealousy, etc. Better at following orders, less infighting.
That not where we are going?
It isnt woman part that is the problem. Post menaposal, infertile or transgender women would, of course, be exempt. If people had a bad reaction it would be handled just like if someone had a bad reaction to any other medical proceder. You either deal with it or try a different procedure or it gets waved.
The whole point is that pregnancy is just like any other medical condition that effects your ability in combat and should be treated as such.
Oh, I forgot only women are involved in becoming pregnant.
I was wrong, BTW. Apparently the drop to IRR for pregnancy isn't quite automatic. Policy has shifted a little bit, it's a request that still goes through command...but it seems like it's nearly always granted.
Also, the "military command" includes doctors. There's really no reason a female soldier can't be forced to undergo the recommended treatment of a military physician, or face administrative penalties. We do this for other treatments. It's part of being in the military...you lose a lot of control that civilians take for granted. Believe me, I've dealt with the military "forcing" treatments on me before, with door number two being administrative penalties (which can include an other-than-honorable discharge after a long and painful process).
Of course, I don't see any reason to force a treatment that has side effects onto a soldier that claims they are not, and will not be, sexually active. That seems silly.
But then you have to be willing to throw the fucking book at them if they come up pregnant during a deployment or pre-deployment stabilization period.
Edited to Bad conduct discharge because derp.
One could easily extend the analogy that, if pregnancy is considered disruptive to the unit that there should be impetus on the, uh, transmission vectors of pregnancy to practice, uh, sterile technique
What if they were using birth control and it fails?
Should've taken permanent steps or abstained for the duration of time during which you weren't allowed to get pregnant.
Honorable discharge?
I don't know how the military works
On a serious note, pregnancy of a significant other does not render a male soldier nondeployable. In fact, it's specifically listed as something that does not justify a hardship discharge. So to the military, there's a big difference there. It's about the empty billet.
No.
You realize that women can be impregnated by semen that does not come from inside of a uniform, right?
It's entirely possible that a woman could become pregnant from a local, or a civilian contractor, or while stateside on leave, or in any number of ways from somebody not even under the military's jurisdiction.
The "good order and discipline" issue surrounding the sex, and the empty billet resulting from the pregnancy, are two separate issues.
As for the fact that any mandated medical treatment would only seem to apply to one gender in this case...sorry, that's just part of having lady bits. Oh fucking well. Feminism is awesome, but at the end of the day men and women actually are physically different, and sometimes that necessarily leads to disparate policies.