<font color=skyblue>In my Spanish 315 class, we have to write some argumentive papers. The professor was asking each student what she/he will be writing on. One girl said that she would be writing on the equality of women to men in the US would make them subject to being drafted in the same manner as a man. She also wanted to investigate what would deem a woman unavailable for combat, such as the obvious(??) one of pregnancy...and would elaborate on the idea that if men skipped the draft back in the day by fleeing to Canada...would women skip the draft this time if called on by getting pregnant? And would mothers be taken from their families as easily as a father would be?

I thought it was a wonderful topic of discussion.</font>

hmm, Pregnancy is only a temporary reprieve I fear, when I was in Kuwait there were two ways for female soldiers to avoid the duty station, Declination Statement (doesn't necessarily mean you WON'T get sent there, but kills any future you may have with the military, and eliminates many of your benefits when you get out), and pregnancy, the second isn't foolproof either. A mechanic (single mother) I met there had just gotten off of maternity leave when her orders came in, she had to give her infant to her parents for a year while she served in Kuwait. If the issue of draft or not comes to pregnancy, I can forsee the same treatment being used.

<font color=skyblue>Did they at least give her the required six weeks of recovery time-off?</font>

Touchy subject this.

indeed they did, but once it was over (end of maternity leave) she got shipped.

It was a fairly frequent occurance for female soldiers to get pregnant to avoid the duty station.

I've said this before as well. Equality means equality. You want all the benefits available in society, you can accept all the responsibilities.

This is something I'm deeply opposed to myself. In the UK, women were always employed equally in the Armed Forces, but never allowed to serve on the front line. Since the cursed European Human Rights Act, women are now allowed to do so (as well as things like the inclusion of homosexuals in the army, but that's another discussion ;) )

There was this 'champion' woman who made the front pages of the tabloids by being young, pretty and the first woman to fly front line fighter jets. What happened to her? Within 1 1/2 years of this, she became pregnant and was no longer allowed to fly jet aircraft (for medical reasons - after a pregnancy, changes in physiology mean its unsafe to do so). Result - a cool $1m (possibly larger, I forget) of taxpayers money wasted on her training.

Women are different from men, I think its silly to deny this, and the insistence of equality in everything is unrealistic.

Yes, but a woman who was not pregnant and never intended to be could be a fine aircraft pilot. Women and men are physically different. But, then again, there are 180lb muscled women and 120 lb. weakling men. So, rather than make distinctions based on gender, why don't we just set physical standards for those jobs that require a certain physical makeup and skillset requirements for those jobs that require certain skills. Works in every other industry.

You've been watching GI Jane again, haven't you Timber ?

Like i said, touchy issue this. I agree with MagiK though. :D

Because life isn't as simple as that? This particular woman wouldn't have decided to become a fighter pilot had she known she was going to have a baby in two years time.

It's very easy to say that they 'never intend to' but of course preferences change as circumstances change.

Plus other industries don't spend such large amounts on training as the armed forces, and usually women can return to their jobs after pregnancy with no problems. This is a special case.

[ 03-24-2005, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

This could easily be avoided though

Uncle Sam: so you want to be a fighterpilot
F18Betty: Yessir
Uncle Sam: Any chance you'll be pregnant in the coming years ?
F18Betty: errrr..
Uncle Sam: Next !

<font color=skyblue>But from a business viewpoint, TL can confirm that questions like that are illegal to ask a potential employee.

</font>

We're talking about national interrests here, how could that be illegal ? I'm not asking for a lecture in legal law here, but i really think the question i posted in jest isn't that silly to begin with. Wouldn't it be weird if the USAF can't deploy a certain squadron because it's pilots are in labor ?

Did I tell you it's good to have you back... [img]smile.gif[/img]

You got paid to say that right ? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

We're talking about national interrests here, how could that be illegal ? I'm not asking for a lecture in legal law here, but i really think the question i posted in jest isn't that silly to begin with. Wouldn't it be weird if the USAF can't deploy a certain squadron because it's pilots are in labor ? </font>[/QUOTE]Personally, I quite agree with you. Seeing as we're all men discussing women in the third person, are there any women on IW who would care to disagree/offer their opinions?

Your homage and kind words are duly noted and appreciated.
(and the check is in the mail)

[ 03-24-2005, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Pffft...lawyers...

Sorry to drag this back up, but I was looking at the fitness requirements for Royal Air Force training and it says you have to be able to run 1 1/2 miles in these times before you can apply to join:

http://www.colin.ihindmarch.com/fitness.jpg

I just don't get how they can do this. Both from a logical point of view (is this a minimum requirement or not??) and from a discrimination point of view (it's illegal to discriminate according to gender in the UK).

Furthermore, it doesn't really do much for the emancipation of women either since every man there is going to see that she has to do less and will therefore suspect she isn't 'pulling her weight'.

[ 04-21-2005, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

It is a good question, and the US military has similar rules, the Army uses a 2-mile standar, the Air Force uses 1 1/2 miles, and I don't know about the navy and marines. The standards are different simply because physiologically women are different, they build muscle in different places, have different centers of gravity, etc and providing one set standard while ideally more useful doesn't reflect the same level of fitness between the genders (or among differing age groups). The standards aren't so much for making sure that you can cover a certain amount of area in a certain amount of time, but rather to make sure that people maintain a uniform level of fitness. {/end fitness spiel}

{edit} it hasn't been my experience that women are looked down for being able to do less, or having less required of them rather, at least from my experience in the Signal corps. (Which may not be totally representative of everyone's experiences with women in the military)

[ 04-21-2005, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

Yeah but not all equality is equality. Take a poll tax. Everyone's equal by paying the same dollar amount of tax, but then not everyone is equally sacrificing.

I believe equal opportunity is what women were after. Equal choices and options in life, not equal treatment and expectation.

Equal choices and options, but not equal treatment and expectations ? That's not really fair towards their male counterparts now is it ?

It means people should be expected to lift half their weight - an equal and relative sacrifice - rather than the exact same weight . Same exertion, rather than same outcome.

But everyone should have the opportunity to lift a weight if they want to.

I think you're missing the point somewhat Timber - its not so much about equality but about liberation. If you lived in a society where there were arbitrary distinctions between people but even those at the top of the pile were being pretty poorly done by then you wouldn't simply want an equal share in their misery. You'd want liberation from that particular system of doing things. Most feminist stuff I've read comes from this direction - women don't want to just share in the crap men have to go through. They want political liberation, which means a person shouldn't be punished for wanting to have kids, and shouldn't be forced to work all the hours of the day to make a mark in their chosen career.

Those are problems that face both men and women to a degree, and most feminists note this and argue as such. But of course these problems affect women much more than men at the moment, hence why a distinct struggle for women's liberation is required. You attack a straw man if you think all anyone is after is complete equality.

Thanks for your insight Morgeraut. Still, if you're running from an ambush then it's all about absolute fitness - the women who are only able to run a distance in a longer time might get killed. It may not be fair (in that she might have to actually be fitter than the men to do an equivalent time) but its better than being dead...

[ 04-26-2005, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

no less fair than someone that is 40+ having an extra 3:33 to run the same distance as an 18y/o to keep up would require a greater level of fitness on the part of the older soldiers

(using the chart you provided for reference)

At first glance yes, but a 40 year-old veteran contributes enough in terms of experience to make up for it. An 18-year old woman does not.

But yes, I fully admit the limitations, I guess its never going to be practical insisting all can perform equally well.

Long story Barry but the term Straw man is banned due to abuse on this forum [img]tongue.gif[/img]


Damn this is a good debate topic Larry. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

How frequent? more so than is typical for females in that age group? is there hard evidence that pregnancy was used only as a tool for avoiding duty or just opinions?

How frequent? more so than is typical for females in that age group? is there hard evidence that pregnancy was used only as a tool for avoiding duty or just opinions? </font>[/QUOTE]It was common knowledge that pregnancy was an "out" from duty in Kuwait (and other harship tours), and receiving female soldiers was frequently scheduled to maintain personnel levels and male/female racial quota's. Females actually went there infrequently enough for a 1 year tour (rather than a 3-6 month deployment) to make it something of an oddity. Having seen the numbers of females who were deferred because of pregnancy my conjecture is that pregnancy was used as a way to avoid getting sent to the desert.

Fair enough Morgeraut, thanks for not taking the questions as being aggressive as well, I was just after info [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

not a problem, I don't know everything, and if no one ever calls BS on me... well I might start to think I DO know everything [img]tongue.gif[/img]

<font color=skyblue>
Thanks, Wellard!, but as I mentioned in my first post, the idea is not my own. I just made this thread to help my friend in class with some opinions references.

</font>

Felix's post here is quite interesting - apparently older soldiers have to actually do more than fresh-faced recruits.