<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 ]