Female Warriors

[Rocky Davis]

Female US Army deserter nailed upon re-entry to the US:

 

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/21/14008027-us-soldier-who-refused-to-go-back-to-iraq-arrested-on-return-from-canada?lite&ocid=msnhp

 

The article also mentions "her partner" (no surprise there).

[Exel]

I'd just like to point out that a lot of the reasons given here, and elsewhere, about why women shouldn't be allowed in front-line units are the same given a few decades ago about why blacks shouldn't be allowed in front-line units. Or gays.

 

If the individual is fit to fight, then color, gender or creed shouldn't matter.

[Sardaukar]

I'd just like to point out that a lot of the reasons given here, and elsewhere, about why women shouldn't be allowed in front-line units are the same given a few decades ago about why blacks shouldn't be allowed in front-line units. Or gays.

 

If the individual is fit to fight, then color, gender or creed shouldn't matter.

 

+1

[Rocky Davis]

1. I'd just like to point out that a lot of the reasons given here, and elsewhere, about why women shouldn't be allowed in front-line units are the same given a few decades ago about why blacks shouldn't be allowed in front-line units.

 

2. Or gays.

 

3. If the individual is fit to fight, then color, gender or creed shouldn't matter.

 

1. Decades ago, there was no argument as to whether or not Blacks should be in front line units. However, there was an argument for having all Black units.

 

2. Decades ago, there was no argument as to whether or not homosexuals should be in front line units. That's because they were not allowed to openly serve in the first place.

 

3. If the individual meets the standards (ONE standard for all, not watered down double-standards like there are right now), then I can see you aving a somewhat valid point.

[Sardaukar]

3. If the individual meets the standards (ONE standard for all, not watered down double-standards like there are right now), then I can see you aving a somewhat valid point.

 

THIS is the point. And one Exel was making too.

 

"If the individual is fit to fight, then color, gender or creed shouldn't matter."

Edited September 21, 2012 by Sardaukar

[Exel]

1. I'd just like to point out that a lot of the reasons given here, and elsewhere, about why women shouldn't be allowed in front-line units are the same given a few decades ago about why blacks shouldn't be allowed in front-line units.

 

2. Or gays.

 

3. If the individual is fit to fight, then color, gender or creed shouldn't matter.

 

1. Decades ago, there was no argument as to whether or not Blacks should be in front line units. However, there was an argument for having all Black units.

 

2. Decades ago, there was no argument as to whether or not homosexuals should be in front line units. That's because they were not allowed to openly serve in the first place.

 

Same same. It's all bigotry, just different flavors.

 

 

3. If the individual meets the standards (ONE standard for all, not watered down double-standards like there are right now), then I can see you aving a somewhat valid point.

 

That's all I'm saying.

[Rocky Davis]

Same same. It's all bigotry, just different flavors.

 

Military service is not a right. It is a privilege. Using your argument, the military is also showing bigotry towards people that are too tall, too short, not smart enough, not physically fit, overweight, don't have enough schooling, handicapped in some way (blind, missing limbs), ex-cons etc. (I could go on and on with the list of those that do not qualify to serve).

[Sardaukar]

Stop bickering, you are saying same with different names.

[Exel]

 

Military service is not a right. It is a privilege. Using your argument, the military is also showing bigotry towards people that are too tall, too short, not smart enough, not physically fit, overweight, don't have enough schooling, handicapped in some way (blind, missing limbs), ex-cons etc. (I could go on and on with the list of those that do not qualify to serve).

 

Eh? Each of those are disqualifying factors because of physical or mental requirements of the job.

 

Basing your measurement of physical or mental fitness on gender is like basing your measurement of intelligence on accent.

[BP]

I'd just like to point out that a lot of the reasons given here, and elsewhere, about why women shouldn't be allowed in front-line units are the same given a few decades ago about why blacks shouldn't be allowed in front-line units. Or gays.

 

If the individual is fit to fight, then color, gender or creed shouldn't matter.

 

A deployed unit is now missing a (possibly key) member due to entirely preventable non-combat reasons, a soldier(s) now has to pick up additional duties, under-resourced forward military medicine has now been given an added burden, resources have been tasked with evacuation, a fetus/neborn has been exposed to all sorts of pre- and post-natal nastiness. . . . Grrl power.

[Exel]

I'd just like to point out that a lot of the reasons given here, and elsewhere, about why women shouldn't be allowed in front-line units are the same given a few decades ago about why blacks shouldn't be allowed in front-line units. Or gays.

 

If the individual is fit to fight, then color, gender or creed shouldn't matter.

 

A deployed unit is now missing a (possibly key) member due to entirely preventable non-combat reasons, a soldier(s) now has to pick up additional duties, under-resourced forward military medicine has now been given an added burden, resources have been tasked with evacuation, a fetus/neborn has been exposed to all sorts of pre- and post-natal nastiness. . . . Grrl power.

 

 

That's a matter of discipline. Pregnancy is entirely preventable, just like shooting yourself in the foot is. For some reason pregnancy hasn't been a problem in the Finnish Army, and to my knowledge not in the Norwegian or Swedish forces either. Makes you wonder...

[thekirk]

I'd just like to point out that a lot of the reasons given here, and elsewhere, about why women shouldn't be allowed in front-line units are the same given a few decades ago about why blacks shouldn't be allowed in front-line units. Or gays.

 

If the individual is fit to fight, then color, gender or creed shouldn't matter.

 

A deployed unit is now missing a (possibly key) member due to entirely preventable non-combat reasons, a soldier(s) now has to pick up additional duties, under-resourced forward military medicine has now been given an added burden, resources have been tasked with evacuation, a fetus/neborn has been exposed to all sorts of pre- and post-natal nastiness. . . . Grrl power.

 

 

That's a matter of discipline. Pregnancy is entirely preventable, just like shooting yourself in the foot is. For some reason pregnancy hasn't been a problem in the Finnish Army, and to my knowledge not in the Norwegian or Swedish forces either. Makes you wonder...

 

It's easy when you're a predominantly self-defense force, and not so easy when your entire force is theoretically deployable.

 

People snarking from the sidelines should bear in mind that the unique national conditions that are both cultural and mission-related do not necessarily translate over to other nations whose cultures and missions are quite different--And, as such, perhaps ones observations of such unique national experiences do not apply outside ones narrow personal experience.

[Rocky Davis]

Eh? Each of those are disqualifying factors because of physical or mental requirements of the job.

 

Basing your measurement of physical or mental fitness on gender is like basing your measurement of intelligence on accent.

 

And, the standards for females on various things is intentionally lower - so that the female dropout rate is not so alarming to the public.

 

Soon, Obama will get his way and females will be able to attend Ranger School. Good for them - as long as they keep the current standards (for all - one standard).

 

As I recall, no male soldier has ever altered his deployablilty status by fucking somebody and getting pregnant in order to avoid it, nor has any male soldier ever been sent home before his combat deployment was finished because he got pregnant In-theater.

[Allan W]

Female US Army deserter nailed upon re-entry to the US:

 

http://worldnews.nbc...lite&ocid=msnhp

 

The article also mentions "her partner" (no surprise there).

 

FYI Rocky, her partner is a man named Mario, so "partner" wasn't being used in the manner I think you were ascribing to it...

[DougRichards]

Was the soldier that stocky and the baby that small?

 

 

Maternofetal transmission of military skillsets. In this case, passive transmittance of the use of cover and concealment.

 

That baby needs to be signed up now.

 

She was in artillery? I wonder if this was a breech birth? It is clear that the father was not firing blanks.

 

It was not uncommon a couple of centuries ago for women living on board Royal navy ships (yes...) to become pregnant and not know who the father was, so the birth register referred to the child as, if male, the 'son of a gun'.

[IronsightSniper]

I'm all for ability not sexuality. In fact, I think not permitting women to serve says something about the Government's thoughts on men-that we're disposable while women are not. Would hold up maybe in the 19th century but nowadays if you can get the job done, why not?

[Rocky Davis]

I'm all for ability not sexuality. In fact, I think not permitting women to serve says something about the Government's thoughts on men-that we're disposable while women are not. Would hold up maybe in the 19th century but nowadays if you can get the job done, why not?

 

Then, have the same standards for everybody in any circumstance - not happening soon in any of our lifetimes. History, and current doctrine, makes women have less expections/standards as men doing the exact, same chore/job/test or whatever.

 

I've got no problem with women doing anyting men can do (or things open to men that are not currently open to women) as long as the tested standards for the same chore is he same between the sexes.

 

FYI Rocky, her partner is a man named Mario, so "partner" wasn't being used in the manner I think you were ascribing to it...

 

I don't give a shit. How about that?

Edited September 22, 2012 by Rocky Davis

[Allan W]

 

FYI Rocky, her partner is a man named Mario, so "partner" wasn't being used in the manner I think you were ascribing to it...

 

I don't give a shit. How about that?

 

How about admitting that you jumped to a conclusion without having all of the facts...

 

BTW. I think it was appallling how long it took to deport her, so please don't think I am defending her in any way. She volunteered, so as far as I'm concerned she had no defence.

[Rocky Davis]

How about admitting that you jumped to a conclusion without having all of the facts...

 

BTW. I think it was appallling how long it took to deport her, so please don't think I am defending her in any way. She volunteered, so as far as I'm concerned she had no defence.

 

The word "partner" can mean any number of things these days, depending upon its use. More often than not, it is used to describe one person of a homosexual couple. Since the article I posted did not name the "partner" or give any other information about the "partner," (name or sex or anything) it is only logical to believe the word was used as it is mainly used these days. I don't know where you got your information, but I did not care to go searching for other articles about the matter.

 

But, here is another article - naming only "a partner:"

 

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/canada/120830/kimberly-rivera-first-female-iraq-war-resister-deported

 

The article I posted said she had had two of her four kids since she deserted to Canada. Very likely, these kids are the offspring of her and her "partner." And, obviously, the taxpayers of Canada paid for the medical portion of the cost of the births. She's been a busy girl since she became a guest of your nation, hasn't she? Some soldier, eh? More like a whining whore . . .

 

BTW - these kids born of a US citizen, US Army deserter with a Canadian man as father . . . are they automatically Canadian citizens? If so, you and your comrades will be financially supporting them for many years to come (with mom being in prison and all).

Edited September 22, 2012 by Rocky Davis

[Max H]

I'm all for ability not sexuality. In fact, I think not permitting women to serve says something about the Government's thoughts on men-that we're disposable while women are not. Would hold up maybe in the 19th century but nowadays if you can get the job done, why not?

 

Something like this?

[Exel]

It's easy when you're a predominantly self-defense force, and not so easy when your entire force is theoretically deployable.

 

People snarking from the sidelines should bear in mind that the unique national conditions that are both cultural and mission-related do not necessarily translate over to other nations whose cultures and missions are quite different--And, as such, perhaps ones observations of such unique national experiences do not apply outside ones narrow personal experience.

 

 

For the record I was talking about deployed forces, not national service. Of course we only deploy volunteers who want to go and be in-theater. You don't want to be there? You're out on the first plane - man or woman, doesn't matter. Ensures the people who are in-theater are motivated. So motivated, in fact, that very, very few terminate their service during their deployment even when they are fully able to do so at any moment. Even in situations where no one would have held it against them if they quit - like casualties in their squad, seriously ill family members back home, injuries sustained in combat, etc.

 

I know of more people who were kicked out than who left on their own request, even though requesting to leave mid-deployment isn't even held against you on your record. What this ensures is that women don't have to get pregnant - or men fake injury - to get out. They can simply ask.

 

Funny thing that, motivation. But if you can't manage to motivate your personnel, what you can do is instill military discipline. Getting pregnant is entirely voluntary in this day and age, so you can prescribe harsh penalties for anyone who gets pregnant (or gets someone pregnant) during their tour or just before it. Better yet, you could make it clear that getting pregnant wont get you out of doing your duty. Women don't quit working until rather late in the pregnancy either, so make it clear to them that they will still deploy as planned even if they do get pregnant.

[Rocky Davis]

It's easy when you're a predominantly self-defense force, and not so easy when your entire force is theoretically deployable.

 

People snarking from the sidelines should bear in mind that the unique national conditions that are both cultural and mission-related do not necessarily translate over to other nations whose cultures and missions are quite different--And, as such, perhaps ones observations of such unique national experiences do not apply outside ones narrow personal experience.

 

 

For the record I was talking about deployed forces, not national service. Of course we only deploy volunteers who want to go and be in-theater. You don't want to be there? You're out on the first plane - man or woman, doesn't matter. Ensures the people who are in-theater are motivated. So motivated, in fact, that very, very few terminate their service during their deployment even when they are fully able to do so at any moment. Even in situations where no one would have held it against them if they quit - like casualties in their squad, seriously ill family members back home, injuries sustained in combat, etc.

 

I know of more people who were kicked out than who left on their own request, even though requesting to leave mid-deployment isn't even held against you on your record. What this ensures is that women don't have to get pregnant - or men fake injury - to get out. They can simply ask.

 

Funny thing that, motivation. But if you can't manage to motivate your personnel, what you can do is instill military discipline. Getting pregnant is entirely voluntary in this day and age, so you can prescribe harsh penalties for anyone who gets pregnant (or gets someone pregnant) during their tour or just before it. Better yet, you could make it clear that getting pregnant wont get you out of doing your duty. Women don't quit working until rather late in the pregnancy either, so make it clear to them that they will still deploy as planned even if they do get pregnant.

 

Getting out of a deployment with the US Military is nearly impossible (omitting, of course, the dead, wounded, or incarcerated) and asking for such will only earn you scorn for trying.

 

Regarding women that get pregnant and become non-deployable, or those that are already deployed, but get pregnant in-theater, sue - they can be assigned other jobs, as long as they are qualified to do that other job. But, then, that creates a unit vacancy at a critical time (preparing to deploy or already deployed). And some females have jobs that require heavy lifting or doing things that are not advisable for a pregnant woman to do. No unit should have to do some sort of contorted gymnastics in order to placate a soldier that gets pregnant (voluntary or not) during critical time for the unit. The unit did not do anything wrong, so why should they have to jump out of their collective asses to make the world better for the pregnant soldier? SOMEBODY is going to have to do more to cover for a vacant slot that used to be manned by a now-pregnant soldier. That's not fair to anybody, is it?

Edited September 22, 2012 by Rocky Davis

[Exel]

It's easy when you're a predominantly self-defense force, and not so easy when your entire force is theoretically deployable.

 

People snarking from the sidelines should bear in mind that the unique national conditions that are both cultural and mission-related do not necessarily translate over to other nations whose cultures and missions are quite different--And, as such, perhaps ones observations of such unique national experiences do not apply outside ones narrow personal experience.

 

 

For the record I was talking about deployed forces, not national service. Of course we only deploy volunteers who want to go and be in-theater. You don't want to be there? You're out on the first plane - man or woman, doesn't matter. Ensures the people who are in-theater are motivated. So motivated, in fact, that very, very few terminate their service during their deployment even when they are fully able to do so at any moment. Even in situations where no one would have held it against them if they quit - like casualties in their squad, seriously ill family members back home, injuries sustained in combat, etc.

 

I know of more people who were kicked out than who left on their own request, even though requesting to leave mid-deployment isn't even held against you on your record. What this ensures is that women don't have to get pregnant - or men fake injury - to get out. They can simply ask.

 

Funny thing that, motivation. But if you can't manage to motivate your personnel, what you can do is instill military discipline. Getting pregnant is entirely voluntary in this day and age, so you can prescribe harsh penalties for anyone who gets pregnant (or gets someone pregnant) during their tour or just before it. Better yet, you could make it clear that getting pregnant wont get you out of doing your duty. Women don't quit working until rather late in the pregnancy either, so make it clear to them that they will still deploy as planned even if they do get pregnant.

 

Getting out of a deployment with the US Military is nearly impossible (imitting, of course, the dead, wounded, or incarcerated) and asking for such will only earn you scorn for trying.

 

Regarding women that get pregnant and become non-deployable, or those that are already deployed, but get pregnant in-theater, sue - they can be assigned other jobs, as long as they are qualified to do that other job. But, then, that creates a unit vacancy at a critical time (preparing to deploy or already deployed). And some females have jobs that require heavy lifting or doing things that are not advisable for a pregnant woman to do. No unit should have to do some sort of contorted gymnastics in order to placate a soldier that gets pregnant (voluntary or not) during critical time for the unit. The unit did not do anything wrong, so why should they have to jump out of their collective asses to make the world better for the pregnant soldier? SOMEBODY is going to have to do more to cover for a vacant slot that used to be manned by a now-pregnant soldier. That's not fair to anybody, is it?

 

So don't let them get away with it. Let them take a hit in their salary, demote them, or whatever you need to do. Don't shift them to another job at a critical moment - if a woman gets pregnant knowing she's about to deploy, the risk of miscarriage lies solely with her. Of course at some point she needs to be taken out of service due to the pregnancy, but that should give the host unit weeks or even months to find and train a replacement.

[Allan W]

 

The article I posted said she had had two of her four kids since she deserted to Canada. Very likely, these kids are the offspring of her and her "partner." And, obviously, the taxpayers of Canada paid for the medical portion of the cost of the births. She's been a busy girl since she became a guest of your nation, hasn't she? Some soldier, eh? More like a whining whore . . .

 

BTW - these kids born of a US citizen, US Army deserter with a Canadian man as father . . . are they automatically Canadian citizens? If so, you and your comrades will be financially supporting them for many years to come (with mom being in prison and all).

 

Her husband is an American and as neither she nor her husband were permanent residents or citizens of Canada when the children were born, the kids do not get Canadian citizenship.

[Rocky Davis]

So don't let them get away with it. Let them take a hit in their salary, demote them, or whatever you need to do. Don't shift them to another job at a critical moment - if a woman gets pregnant knowing she's about to deploy, the risk of miscarriage lies solely with her. Of course at some point she needs to be taken out of service due to the pregnancy, but that should give the host unit weeks or even months to find and train a replacement.

 

A demotion or garnishment of wages still does not undo the pregnancy or fill the vacancy.

 

Her husband is an American and as neither she nor her husband were permanent residents or citizens of Canada when the children were born, the kids do not get Canadian citizenship.

 

Where are you getting all of this info? Everywhere I look, it merely says "partner" and nothing else.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Rocky Davis