Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

a simple question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • a simple question

    ok so we know that

    pregnancy rates go up right before troops get deployed

    that the government OWNS the soldiers who enlist (random injections,salt peter in the food ect, insert random violation of basic human rights here)

    theres and injection type birth control (lasting months)that would work for female soldiers

    why do you think they havent gone this route?


    "the less women show up for the war to die the better"?

    is it misandry??
    The only thing that resembles "The Patriarchy" these days is Feminism itself.

  • #2
    RE: a simple question

    But wouldn't drugging them with something like that take away their "choice"? That's a good point though, unfortunately one I don't know anything about haha! Do female soldiers have to take the pill or something to keep them from falling pregnant while on active duty? Sending soldiers back from the front due to pregnancy wouldn't be very good for the war effort I wouldn't think? Nor would it be fair to male soldiers who remain cause they can't fall pregnant...

    Then again, do women actually serve in direct combat roles? Or is that only in the movies where I will find female SAS squad leaders?

    Comment


    • #3
      RE: a simple question

      Not misandry I would say. It's not about hate.

      There's a saying I like " Don't assume malicious intent when incompetence will do." Maybe no one has thought of it.

      Failing that any attempt to drug, interfere with or treat female soldiers as less than human will cause a stink and outcry. The same is not true of male soldiers.

      A final possibility I can think of is the chivalric factor.
      Winter is coming.

      Comment


      • #4
        RE: a simple question

        Originally posted by Rog
        ok so we know that

        pregnancy rates go up right before troops get deployed

        that the government OWNS the soldiers who enlist (random injections,salt peter in the food ect, insert random violation of basic human rights here)

        theres and injection type birth control (lasting months)that would work for female soldiers

        why do you think they havent gone this route?


        "the less women show up for the war to die the better"?

        is it misandry??
        Because they don't have to - yet. Basically there are probably other mechanism in place in order to ensure that there are enough people in the military at any given time. In short, they only have to wait for the next economic crisis and the "value" (dehumanizing I know) of foot soldiers becomes less and less over time anyway; i.e. the need and incentive for wasting soldiers becomes smaller.

        Comment


        • #5
          RE: a simple question

          Originally posted by Rog
          ok so we know that

          pregnancy rates go up right before troops get deployed

          that the government OWNS the soldiers who enlist (random injections,salt peter in the food ect, insert random violation of basic human rights here)

          theres and injection type birth control (lasting months)that would work for female soldiers

          why do you think they havent gone this route?


          "the less women show up for the war to die the better"?

          is it misandry??
          It's probably due to a lack of need. Women make up less than 20% of the armed forces and less than 20% of new recruits. Furthermore, they aren't even allowed in the combat positions which have the highest casualty rates, resulting in women accounting for only 2.5% of deaths in Operation Iraqi Freedom and 1.6% of deaths in Operation Enduring Freedom. (Based on statistics gathered in 2010) The military has no dire need to replace or retain women service members, and as such, it's likely that no one has thought to use mandatory birth control to guarantee that pregnancy won't be a problem.
          Your Dawn listens, my Lord! Let all the Aurbis know itself to be Free! Mehrunes is come! There is no dominion save free will!

          Comment


          • #6
            RE: a simple question

            Originally posted by Melchiah
            Originally posted by Rog
            ok so we know that

            pregnancy rates go up right before troops get deployed

            that the government OWNS the soldiers who enlist (random injections,salt peter in the food ect, insert random violation of basic human rights here)

            theres and injection type birth control (lasting months)that would work for female soldiers

            why do you think they havent gone this route?


            "the less women show up for the war to die the better"?

            is it misandry??
            It's probably due to a lack of need. Women make up less than 20% of the armed forces and less than 20% of new recruits. Furthermore, they aren't even allowed in the combat positions which have the highest casualty rates, resulting in women accounting for only 2.5% of deaths in Operation Iraqi Freedom and 1.6% of deaths in Operation Enduring Freedom. (Based on statistics gathered in 2010) The military has no dire need to replace or retain women service members, and as such, it's likely that no one has thought to use mandatory birth control to guarantee that pregnancy won't be a problem.
            doesnt the military strive to be at full capacity at all times? ready for anything? isnt that why they stay in shape and do drills ect even in times of peace? doesnt the chance of pregnancy hinder this? (is it just me?)
            The only thing that resembles "The Patriarchy" these days is Feminism itself.

            Comment


            • #7
              RE: a simple question

              Originally posted by Rog
              Originally posted by Melchiah
              Originally posted by Rog
              ok so we know that

              pregnancy rates go up right before troops get deployed

              that the government OWNS the soldiers who enlist (random injections,salt peter in the food ect, insert random violation of basic human rights here)

              theres and injection type birth control (lasting months)that would work for female soldiers

              why do you think they havent gone this route?


              "the less women show up for the war to die the better"?

              is it misandry??
              It's probably due to a lack of need. Women make up less than 20% of the armed forces and less than 20% of new recruits. Furthermore, they aren't even allowed in the combat positions which have the highest casualty rates, resulting in women accounting for only 2.5% of deaths in Operation Iraqi Freedom and 1.6% of deaths in Operation Enduring Freedom. (Based on statistics gathered in 2010) The military has no dire need to replace or retain women service members, and as such, it's likely that no one has thought to use mandatory birth control to guarantee that pregnancy won't be a problem.
              doesnt the military strive to be at full capacity at all times? ready for anything? isnt that why they stay in shape and do drills ect even in times of peace? doesnt the chance of pregnancy hinder this? (is it just me?)
              Depends on what the woman is doing. Some officer at CENTCOM doing SIGINT work or a pentagon staffer managing the servers is not going to be hindered much by pregnancy. My mother (who was a US Army Captain at the time) was not hindered very much in her duties while pregnant with me, for example, and she returned to work four weeks after my birth. (My Father was a stay at home dad at the time, as he had already left the service) Where Pregnancy could really present a problem is in a combat zone, such as Afghanistan, but women do not occupy the most dangerous combat positions. They do things like flying unarmed choppers, driving fuel trucks, working as part of a Medevac crew, and doing work at military bases. This means that Women service members are far less likely to die. As such, the military is far less likely to lose a female service member's productivity. THe risk of losing a soldier due to pregnancy is more in line with the risk of losing a male soldier's productivity due to a non-lethal, non-debilitating accident. They might have to be taken out of Afghanistan for a while, but you can call them back in later, and you can put 'em to work in Korea, Europe, or the US in the mean time. As such, the military doesn't have the need to regulate fertility in a desperate attempt to avoid losing any service members due to pregnancy. That might change if women are allowed into all combat positions and the Pentagon starts giving women rifles and putting them on the front lines (As the former definitely does not guarantee the latter), but for the time being, the military can easily afford the temporary loss of individual service women due to pregnancy.
              Your Dawn listens, my Lord! Let all the Aurbis know itself to be Free! Mehrunes is come! There is no dominion save free will!

              Comment


              • #8
                RE: a simple question

                Originally posted by Melchiah
                Originally posted by Rog
                Originally posted by Melchiah
                Originally posted by Rog
                ok so we know that

                pregnancy rates go up right before troops get deployed

                that the government OWNS the soldiers who enlist (random injections,salt peter in the food ect, insert random violation of basic human rights here)

                theres and injection type birth control (lasting months)that would work for female soldiers

                why do you think they havent gone this route?


                "the less women show up for the war to die the better"?

                is it misandry??
                It's probably due to a lack of need. Women make up less than 20% of the armed forces and less than 20% of new recruits. Furthermore, they aren't even allowed in the combat positions which have the highest casualty rates, resulting in women accounting for only 2.5% of deaths in Operation Iraqi Freedom and 1.6% of deaths in Operation Enduring Freedom. (Based on statistics gathered in 2010) The military has no dire need to replace or retain women service members, and as such, it's likely that no one has thought to use mandatory birth control to guarantee that pregnancy won't be a problem.
                doesnt the military strive to be at full capacity at all times? ready for anything? isnt that why they stay in shape and do drills ect even in times of peace? doesnt the chance of pregnancy hinder this? (is it just me?)
                Depends on what the woman is doing. Some officer at CENTCOM doing SIGINT work or a pentagon staffer managing the servers is not going to be hindered much by pregnancy. My mother (who was a US Army Captain at the time) was not hindered very much in her duties while pregnant with me, for example, and she returned to work four weeks after my birth. (My Father was a stay at home dad at the time, as he had already left the service) Where Pregnancy could really present a problem is in a combat zone, such as Afghanistan, but women do not occupy the most dangerous combat positions. They do things like flying unarmed choppers, driving fuel trucks, working as part of a Medevac crew, and doing work at military bases. This means that Women service members are far less likely to die. As such, the military is far less likely to lose a female service member's productivity. THe risk of losing a soldier due to pregnancy is more in line with the risk of losing a male soldier's productivity due to a non-lethal, non-debilitating accident. They might have to be taken out of Afghanistan for a while, but you can call them back in later, and you can put 'em to work in Korea, Europe, or the US in the mean time. As such, the military doesn't have the need to regulate fertility in a desperate attempt to avoid losing any service members due to pregnancy. That might change if women are allowed into all combat positions and the Pentagon starts giving women rifles and putting them on the front lines (As the former definitely does not guarantee the latter), but for the time being, the military can easily afford the temporary loss of individual service women due to pregnancy.
                if the case is that it doesnt affect women why do pregnancy rates go up before deployment and why does it excuse women from being deployed in the first place?
                The only thing that resembles "The Patriarchy" these days is Feminism itself.

                Comment


                • #9
                  RE: a simple question

                  Originally posted by Rog
                  if the case is that it doesnt affect women why do pregnancy rates go up before deployment and why does it excuse women from being deployed in the first place?
                  Rates go up before a deployment because some women don't want to go and will do whatever it takes to avoid it. I'm sure some of that is simply the "oh god I'll be gone for 6 months WE MUST FUCK NON STOP" as well. It's not that pregnancy doesn't affect women, it's that the jobs that most women do aren't severely hampered by them being pregnant.

                  It excuses women from deployment because they're no longer combat ready. As debatable as that is in the first place, a pregnant woman is incapable of performing during a deployment without placing undue stress on the fetus, probably causing a miscarriage. The military does not wish to deal with that can of worms and has chosen to simply prevent it from ever happening.

                  Why don't they mandate birth control? PR nightmare. Just not worth the hassle to keep troops that are likely to be subpar in theater.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    RE: a simple question

                    This always got me. Whenever the deployment cycle came up, more than a few women on those orders would start looking to get pregnant to get off those orders. If memory serves, pregnancy was the number one reason for medical evacuation in the first Gulf War, at taxpayer expense and at delay of some other men getting evacuated out of theater. I don't have the data for the current war.

                    Then, I also saw the big P-pass for disciplinary actions when it was found out the parties were pregnant. I recall one getting out of marijuana possession charges for being preggers, that got others at the time 24 months confinement (prison.)

                    There was one general that a few years ago wanted to punish women getting pregnant on deployment and the man that she screwed. There was such a media stink he had to back down. Personally, I would like to see a Depo-Provera shot to every woman on rotation to deploy as part of the order. Thought process is you as a military member you are state property, and it would want to protect its investment in training. If there was a male pill, it could easily be part of their deployment package. and knowing what I know now, I would gladly take just to protect my butt. A sperm count can easily be done with equipment that is at a field hospital level.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      RE: a simple question

                      Originally posted by Usagi Yojimbo
                      This always got me. Whenever the deployment cycle came up, more than a few women on those orders would start looking to get pregnant to get off those orders. If memory serves, pregnancy was the number one reason for medical evacuation in the first Gulf War, at taxpayer expense and at delay of some other men getting evacuated out of theater. I don't have the data for the current war.

                      Then, I also saw the big P-pass for disciplinary actions when it was found out the parties were pregnant. I recall one getting out of marijuana possession charges for being preggers, that got others at the time 24 months confinement (prison.)

                      There was one general that a few years ago wanted to punish women getting pregnant on deployment and the man that she screwed. There was such a media stink he had to back down. Personally, I would like to see a Depo-Provera shot to every woman on rotation to deploy as part of the order. Thought process is you as a military member you are state property, and it would want to protect its investment in training. If there was a male pill, it could easily be part of their deployment package. and knowing what I know now, I would gladly take just to protect my butt. A sperm count can easily be done with equipment that is at a field hospital level.
                      this is what i was talking about the people in the military are "owned" by the military and have numerous shots/vaccinations ect they cannot question while they are in the military so why shouldnt this apply?
                      The only thing that resembles "The Patriarchy" these days is Feminism itself.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        RE: a simple question

                        Lots of random thoughts.

                        I've heard and seen the arguments that women deliberately get pregnant to get out of overseas deployments. I am sure it does happen. For me that stinks and is cheating and avoiding responsibility.

                        But I'm also aware that pregnancy rates go up amongst wives of male soldiers immediately before deployment. It's also well known that during war and higher risks men and women are both more likely to break the rules and live for the moment. I think there is a natural human drive to procreate when the risk of death or loss is around you. I don't know if evidence supports that.

                        What I am suggesting above is that it is dangerous to assume deliberate intent to avoid deployment in every instance.

                        Put men and women in an isolated place with nothing to do except feel lonely and homesick and you're bound to get fraternization. Fraternization or failure to use birth control may be a misdemenour/offence or breach of contract but you still have to expect and deal with the consequences. That's a disciplinary matter and not a policy matter. By that I mean you don't normally make a decision on the right policy to adopt on the basis of how you will deal with someone who breaches the policy.

                        None of this answers Rog's original question about enforcing birth control which is intriguing.

                        There is a very big ethical question about an employer (including military) forcing any employee to adopt birth control. The same goes doubly for governments setting requirements for their citizens.

                        If a Government is going to do it - do they do it equally to both male and female soldiers? Would it be fair to only force contraception on women soldiers.

                        The feminist line is of course that women have a right to choose to become pregnant and that society/father then owes the women whatever she needs to support the birth and child, including fully paid and credited exemption from work/service. Essentially that argument is "free choice" of the individual, but in the military you very deliberately sign away your right to free choice.

                        If you have a gender equality principle it must follow that a male soldier has the same rights, and if you have a female free choice policy a male soldier has the same rights. Equality surely dictates that male soldiers should be exempt from overseas service if their spouse is pregnant or they have a new born child.

                        From the perspective of running an army that's a nightmare because it undermines the need for the military to be able to have unquestioning obedience and surety of supply of labour. It's easy to see why no government would ever adopt such a policy of equality and fathers rights.

                        Which raises the fundamental biological inequality that women get pregnant and men don't. Pragmatically do we just accept that as a reality and give women the option; and accept that it is an unequal world? If you follow that line then you presumably acknowledge that while male soldiers lose out on family time and family opportunity, female soldiers lose out on seniority and experience.

                        Except that they don't because equality law in most places effectively recognizes pregnancy and maternity leave as legitimate work experience. Side bar question is maternity leave fair or equal?

                        The alternative of requiring birth control involves a government overriding a fundamental human right - the right to procreate. This is very scary and has huge social implications. Think China. It's unlikely men or women would sign up or serve if they knew they would lose their rights to parenthood, and soldiers would certainly retire young in order to have kids leaving an army with a real recruiting problem.

                        So I'm not answering any questions here - just mulling it over in my head.

                        Does anyone know how other professions deal with this. What happens for instance if an actress gets pregnant and can't work, or a nuclear power plant worker?

                        Respect :R
                        Winter is coming.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          RE: a simple question

                          Originally posted by 42hamneggs
                          Does anyone know how other professions deal with this. What happens for instance if an actress gets pregnant and can't work, or a nuclear power plant worker?
                          I know that with TV it's common to simply write in a pregnancy arc of some sort. The various StarGate shows were guilty of this.

                          It's kind of funny. Here the writers are going out of their way to accommodate actresses, and then feminists will criticize them for "fetishizing pregnancy."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            RE: a simple question

                            Originally posted by 42hamneggs
                            Lots of random thoughts.

                            I've heard and seen the arguments that women deliberately get pregnant to get out of overseas deployments. I am sure it does happen. For me that stinks and is cheating and avoiding responsibility.

                            But I'm also aware that pregnancy rates go up amongst wives of male soldiers immediately before deployment. It's also well known that during war and higher risks men and women are both more likely to break the rules and live for the moment. I think there is a natural human drive to procreate when the risk of death or loss is around you. I don't know if evidence supports that.

                            What I am suggesting above is that it is dangerous to assume deliberate intent to avoid deployment in every instance.

                            Put men and women in an isolated place with nothing to do except feel lonely and homesick and you're bound to get fraternization. Fraternization or failure to use birth control may be a misdemenour/offence or breach of contract but you still have to expect and deal with the consequences. That's a disciplinary matter and not a policy matter. By that I mean you don't normally make a decision on the right policy to adopt on the basis of how you will deal with someone who breaches the policy.

                            None of this answers Rog's original question about enforcing birth control which is intriguing.

                            There is a very big ethical question about an employer (including military) forcing any employee to adopt birth control. The same goes doubly for governments setting requirements for their citizens.

                            If a Government is going to do it - do they do it equally to both male and female soldiers? Would it be fair to only force contraception on women soldiers.

                            The feminist line is of course that women have a right to choose to become pregnant and that society/father then owes the women whatever she needs to support the birth and child, including fully paid and credited exemption from work/service. Essentially that argument is "free choice" of the individual, but in the military you very deliberately sign away your right to free choice.

                            If you have a gender equality principle it must follow that a male soldier has the same rights, and if you have a female free choice policy a male soldier has the same rights. Equality surely dictates that male soldiers should be exempt from overseas service if their spouse is pregnant or they have a new born child.

                            From the perspective of running an army that's a nightmare because it undermines the need for the military to be able to have unquestioning obedience and surety of supply of labour. It's easy to see why no government would ever adopt such a policy of equality and fathers rights.

                            Which raises the fundamental biological inequality that women get pregnant and men don't. Pragmatically do we just accept that as a reality and give women the option; and accept that it is an unequal world? If you follow that line then you presumably acknowledge that while male soldiers lose out on family time and family opportunity, female soldiers lose out on seniority and experience.

                            Except that they don't because equality law in most places effectively recognizes pregnancy and maternity leave as legitimate work experience. Side bar question is maternity leave fair or equal?

                            The alternative of requiring birth control involves a government overriding a fundamental human right - the right to procreate. This is very scary and has huge social implications. Think China. It's unlikely men or women would sign up or serve if they knew they would lose their rights to parenthood, and soldiers would certainly retire young in order to have kids leaving an army with a real recruiting problem.

                            So I'm not answering any questions here - just mulling it over in my head.

                            Does anyone know how other professions deal with this. What happens for instance if an actress gets pregnant and can't work, or a nuclear power plant worker?

                            Respect :R
                            i dont think its an unfair expectation of women to expect to have to hold off on kids while they serve(dont men have to hold off on being at home parenting while they are deployed?) and should only be exempt from birth control "if" they are still serving near the end of their viability to have children otherwise as you pointed out they very much do sign their rights away to be in the military and it wastes valuable training $ if women get pregnant before or while deployed. besides i dont see it anywhere in the charter of rights that every woman gets to have children in her lifetime and i wish people would stop acting like it was...(easy for any woman to do yes, but a right? no i dont think so with the population the way it is..)
                            The only thing that resembles "The Patriarchy" these days is Feminism itself.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              RE: a simple question

                              Originally posted by mauvebutterfly
                              Originally posted by 42hamneggs
                              Does anyone know how other professions deal with this. What happens for instance if an actress gets pregnant and can't work, or a nuclear power plant worker?
                              I know that with TV it's common to simply write in a pregnancy arc of some sort. The various StarGate shows were guilty of this.

                              It's kind of funny. Here the writers are going out of their way to accommodate actresses, and then feminists will criticize them for "fetishizing pregnancy."
                              Ha ha. Yes I saw the Anita Sarkesian/Feminist frequency show. That woman has a talent for developing and applying double standards second to none. It was very funny to see the response that showed her up.
                              [hr]
                              [/quote]
                              i dont think its an unfair expectation of women to expect to have to hold off on kids while they serve(dont men have to hold off on being at home parenting while they are deployed?) and should only be exempt from birth control "if" they are still serving near the end of their viability to have children otherwise as you pointed out they very much do sign their rights away to be in the military and it wastes valuable training $ if women get pregnant before or while deployed. besides i dont see it anywhere in the charter of rights that every woman gets to have children in her lifetime and i wish people would stop acting like it was...(easy for any woman to do yes, but a right? no i dont think so with the population the way it is..)
                              [/quote]

                              Procreation rights are probably very debatable. I personally think the right to have children is a pretty fundamental human right. Its something we're normally born with the capability to do, 99% of humans expect to be able to do, is broadly accepted including in most religions and most people would resent outside interference stopping them.

                              However I'll hasten to add the right to procreate doesn't mean the right to IVF treatments, health care, sperm from dead husbands, maternity leave, subsidized child care or the rest of the stuff. Those are privileges society chooses and is able to provide.

                              I also think having the right also implies having the responsibility to use it properly (not overpopulate the planet)

                              Given my personal opinion above I would expect any enlistment contract to explicitly say that was a right I had to give up on entering the military. The consequences of that decision would then be mine to bear.

                              Playing devils advocate not being allowed to have a home family life is very different to not being allowed to have children, particularly if you have a biological clock ticking or may be about to die in combat.
                              Winter is coming.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X