|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Losing personal freedoms is part and parcel of the military life, including some Constitutional rights. Losing your so-called "right" to abortion is no big deal.
Maybe these women need to be a little more responsible, err nevermind...I forgot that only men are supposed to be responsible for their actions...silly me...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We all agreed on the other thread that women who purposefully spawn just to get out of the service are pieces of shit. OTOH, these women *are* trying to do the responsible thing and have abortions, so that they do not have to shirk their duties.
The military could put an end to all of this and just require birth control for all female soldiers. They could also offer surgical sterilization as an alternative. Sometimes bc fails, but it does not happen very often. If bc were required abortions would almost never be needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've already responded to the author of this article.
A woman who becomes pregnant while on combat duty abroad should be court martialed and dismissed from the service.
It is amazing that feminists can excuse such outrageously irresponsible, infantile behavior.
To repeat, the military should prosecute women who become pregnant while on combat duty.
Stephen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What if the pregnancy was truly an accident, and the woman seeking the abortion is looking to correct her mistake? It sounds like you want to punish her for doing the RIGHT thing and getting an abortion so that she DOESN'T have to be excused from duty.
Beyond true accidents, I wasn't excusing it. If you've read my other posts, I actually think that all females should be surgically sterilized upon entrance into the military. This prevents pregnancy 100% of the time, not just 99% like other birth control methods.
Unfortunately, our breeder-centric society claims that these women are "too young" to have tubal ligations, even if they *want* them. Ask any young, childless woman what it's like trying to find a doctor willing to sterilize you, even in the civilian world. Doctors discriminate against the childfree all the time. They tell us we're stupid, naive, don't know what we want, haven't met the right guy, and all other kinds of insulting things.
Maybe you just want to tell female military personnel never to have sex? That doesn't sound reasonable or workable. Sterilization is reasonable and workable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't care whether a woman on combat duty becomes pregnant intentionally or unintentionally. She is abandoning her post, and she should be dealt with summarily.
My father, who was a 2nd lieutenant in WWII related to me a little known piece of information: One of his obligations as an officer was to summarily execute (on the spot) any man who attempted to flee from a combat position.
Women do not have the right to use accidental or intentional pregnancy to avoid combat duty. If they've signed up for the duty, they should be held to the same standard as men.
I don't care whether this view is practical or not. Women need to stop acting like infants. Holding them to the same standards of accountability as men is the way to do that.
Stephen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>My father, who was a 2nd lieutenant in WWII related to me a little known piece of
>information: One of his obligations as an officer was to summarily execute (on the spot)
>any man who attempted to flee from a combat position.
Did he shoot men who were injured in combat, or who developed the flu and attempted to "flee" to get treated?
>Women do not have the right to use accidental or intentional pregnancy to avoid combat duty.
> If they've signed up for the duty, they should be held to the same standard as men.
These women are not trying to use it as an excuse to avoid combat duty. THEY WANT TO GET ABORTIONS SO THAT THEY WILL NOT HAVE TO BE SENT HOME.
Maybe we should also court-martial the guy who impregnated the woman in the first place. She probably banged someone in her unit. Isn't that collusion, him aiding and abetting her? It's the same as if he tried to sneak her out under cover of night.
Maybe we should also court-martial (or shoot) men who develop the flu. Who cares if it was an accident?
>I don't care whether this view is practical or not.
You may not care, but the military does, and they are the ones who will have to enact such an unworkable plan.
>Women need to stop acting like infants.
Maybe our breeder-centric society should stop telling women to squirt out fleshloaves. What exactly do you have against surgical sterilization, anyway? The fact that it prevents unwanted bastards from being sprouted in the first place?
>Holding them to the same standards of accountability as men is the way to do that.
Under your plan, they're not. Men who develop STD's and require treatment are not court-martialed. Men who develop the flu are not court-martialed, despite the fact that they must "abandon their post" to get treatment. Why don't we just criminalize sickness within the military?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't care whether a woman on combat duty becomes pregnant intentionally or unintentionally. She is abandoning her post, and she
should be dealt with summarily. ...I don't care whether this view is practical or not.
WADR Stephen, your post is crazy. Accidents happen: people get sick, trucks run over their feet, objects drop on heads, etc.
Deliberate "accidents" in combat situations have always been court-martial offences; real accidents not.
Whether troops of either sex should be copulating while on active duty is another question. I think not.
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First off let me say all this emphasis on women purposefully conceiving to get out of service IMO is unwarranted. There is little way to prove this, just as it would be difficult to prove a soldier didn't accidently shoot himself in the foot while handling his weapon. It all involves a great deal of speculation.
I for one and not willing to conceed that a significant number of women would do this. Those who claim differently, I contend, have a probelem with women in general, and women in the military in particular. (Women in particular if you claim women as sub group of humans are more untrustworthy than males). If so, state your bias up front. Don't hide behind this pregnancy ruse. Unless you are willing to claim that all accidents in the military (on and off duty) are a result of persons' willfully trying to get out of a commitment they made at signing up, your bias against females is showing.
Secondly, if there are any sanctions for conceiving they should be evenly applied to both parties involved if both are in the military. It takes two to tango and two to prevent conception. Anything less is applying censure for simply having the possibility of becoming pregnant.
The real question becomes, do we value the contributions of women in the military or not? Are the pros in an acceptable range in ratio to the cons?
The military has to deal with many potential problems, many of them revolving around the lack of experience and lapses in judgement of the very young in its ranks. It must also deal with accidental occurances that are factored into the equations of reality. We know for example that a certain number of soldiers will die or be harmed in peacetime from mistakes and accidents. This is factored in and mitigated as best as we can with training, education, discipline etc. We can ask, and demand the ideal in terms of performance of duty... but we cannot expect young women soldiers to meet a standard of 100% infallibility if we do not expect the same of males.
You cannot use the potential of pregnancy as a reason for not including women in the military (which I think is the real agenda of those who harp on pregnancy endlessly) if you do not apply the same standard to men. For example, a certain percentage of the men become a discipline problem, or make personal judgements which do not mesh with military life, such as drug use or even criminal activities off duty, or rape of locals which embarass our government. Do we then contend that men should not be in the military because we know up-front that some problems will occur statistically?
We know also up-front that a certain percentage of women in the military will concieve. This is a problem to be mitigated, but not used as a pre-emptive indictment against women in the military, anymore than we would pre-emptively decide men in the military will potentially present thorny problems.
We weigh the pros and cons and we determine that even though a certain percentage of men in the military will become a problem, or compromise the military in some way, or become derilict in their duty, or simply make ill-formed judgements ... it is still worth it based on numbers, to have men in the military. The pros outweigh both the actual and the potential cons.
We should not ask women to meet a higher standard of not only zero problems, but an ironclad garantee of zero *possibility* of problems. We do not expect such an ironclad garantee of men in the military. Obviously zero problems is the ideal, I'm not argueing that it shouldn't be. But in terms of planning and strategy, we must recongnize the ideal will never be meet 100% for either males or females.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I for one and not willing to conceed that a significant number of women would do this. Those who claim differently, I contend, have a probelem with women in general, and women in the military in particular.
There have been a variety of polls conducted and articles written about women, the draft, and the military since 9/11. The consensus among female teens in those polls, when asked what they would do if they were drafted, was "get pregnant to get out of it."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist___ How does this relate to the current voluteer military?
Just trying not to mix up apples and oranges again :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist___ How does this relate to the current voluteer military?
I'm simply offering you proof that you should reconsider not conceding that a great number of young women might get pregnant in order to avoid being drafted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist___
We weren't discussing the draft. We were discussing women in the volunteer military.
Also, I don't accept a poll of unknown origin of "teenagers" as "proof" of anything per se. I'd be open to looking at the poll itself, though.
Do you believe that females are more untrustworthy, devious, cheating-minded, obligation shirking than males?
Re: polls. Polls are tricky. They can be devised to get a certain answer or paint a group in a particularly bad light. Or they could be enlightening. Trouble is its often hard to distinquish. For example there was a poll asking college men if would they rape someone if they were assured they would not be punished for it. The poll supposedly uncovered that something like 35% of the respondents said "yes". So does this "prove" that 33% of men would rape if they could? It could be true, I'll grant that. Anything is possilbe. But I don't choose to believe that it is. I have more faith in humans than that, and less faith in how such polls are conducted... if you see what I mean.
Likewise, it could be true that women are less trustworthy than men. But how do you go about proving that objectively? By polls? But pure speculation as we have in these threads?
To me, the only way to substantiate such claims is to draft women and men and measure the results. Until then I don't choose to paint women in the worst light possible on speculation alone. Innocent until proven guilty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Likewise, it could be true that women are less trustworthy than men. But how do you go about proving that objectively? By polls? But pure speculation as we have in these threads?
If the poll is conducted scientifically, one must rely on it to some degree. Why? Because it is impractical and impossible to ask every single woman in America "would you get pregnant to avoid the draft/combat/whatever?"
Ass that he was, President Clinton relied on polls consistently, and was successfully elected to office twice.
Am I saying they are all accurate? Nope. However, they could be. What's riskier, implementing the program and finding out for real when war breaks out, or relying on the pollsters to do their jobs properly?
I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here because I'm all for getting rid of the draft in the first place, and, if not, then forcing women to register as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's be realistic. For most of the people on the battlefield, war is hell. If you give men or women a relatively easy way out, many of them will take it. Getting pregnant, being sent safely home and hailed as a great heroine, then getting an abortion more or less at one's leisure is far less traumatic than war, no matter what some women may claim to the contrary. I know a number of women who've had abortions, and they all got over it very quickly indeed.
Women are given this option. Men are given no such option. When faced with the hell of war, many women will avail themselves of the opportunity to escape, just as many men would if they had the chance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By the way, I wrote that for readers other than Lorianne. Trying to convince a gender feminist is pretty much a waste of time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doubting Thomas,
I know you relish the label game, but it really does nothing to further the debate and discussion. It is the equivalent of schoolyard taunts and name calling. IMO that it is a waste of time (not to mention bandwidth) when we could be furthering the dialog.
In any case, I won't be sucked into the stereotyping, generalizing, pure hypothetical speculation and painting 1/2 the people on the planet in the worst possible light. I'll leave that for the gender masculinists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I already admitted polls can be used responsiblty and can shed some light. But haven't you ever wondered why are they asking such an assinine hyptothetical question in the first place? And haven't you ever wanted to be right there when they ask it, to hear how the question was really framed, the demeanor of the questioner, the lead up to the questioning, and to see that the respondents were really a representative cross sampling of humanity? I do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And haven't you ever wanted to be right there when they ask it, to hear how the question was really framed, the demeanor of the questioner, the lead up to the questioning, and to see that the respondents were really a representative cross sampling of humanity? I do.
Yep, but that doesn't mean you can automatically dismiss just any poll that comes your way, nor is it reasonable to try your draft/combat theory prior to finding out what we *think* women will do in those situations. Too risky if we're at war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Claire4Liberty:
Thought about your post last night and I wanted to offer a few more comments about your search for help with your boyfriend's problems.
The hysterical atmosphere surrounding sexual and physical abuse has become as much, if not more, of a problem that the abuse itself. That's what my wife and I discovered.
My wife suffered both physical and sexual abuse that stagger the mind. When we first met 10 years ago, she too felt that she was permanently damaged and that there was no hope for healing. We discovered that this is nonsense. Humans are infinitely stronger and capable of healing and growth than the sob sisters want us to believe. The physcial and sexual abuse industries have a vested interest in emphasizing the weakness of people. Don't buy into it.
My wife discovered through five years of therapy that there really wasn't much wrong with her, and she has since resumed her relationship with her father and is sympathetic to him. She understands that he suffered egregiously in his life, just like she did.
The hysteria surrounding abuse has been very damaging. My wife found that this hysteria was more damaging than the abuse itself. The communities in which we live had concluded that people who suffer abuse were permanently damaged, as if by some terrible evil that could never be eradicated. Our communities also wanted my wife to continue forever to be a victim, because victims further the political cause of ostracisizing and condemning people like my wife's father.
Don't buy into the notion that you and your boyfriend are damaged goods, incapable of being good parents. My wife felt that way, also. She was determined not to pass the abuse onto another generation. My wife has been a great step-mom.
People are very strong and very capable of overcoming almost anything. Don't buy into the sob sister's politically motivated notion that abused people are forever damaged and condemned to live out the karma of abuse forever.
Stephen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the advantages of having a gender feminist on this board is that we quickly get to see the type of distortions and smokescreens that they spew out when we state facts or present logical arguments. It's also good to see how they respond when it's pointed out that they are gender feminists. Lorianne keeps us up to date on genfem tactics.
I know you relish the label game I love the hypocrisy here. (I'll explain a little later.)
It's good to see that gender feminists don't like the label that they've earned. Here's just one example of how they earn it...
When it was pointed out in another thread on this board, that women greatly outnumber men in the student bodies of the nation's colleges and universities, Claire4Liberty commented in part that this is because men are taking jobs in the computer industry. Lorianne immediately agreed and stated, We need to trust people do act in their own best interest. (This business of men taking jobs in high-tech rather than going to college is a standard genfem line, BTW, spewed out despite the fact that the group least likely to go to college is also least likely to get a good, high-tech job -- black men.) A number of men related their horror stories of hateful anti-male discrimination in school, reported the fact that there are far more scholarships for women than men (many people don't go to school because they can't afford it). In addition, the high-tech explosion started around 1995, we've had two severe economic downturns with high unemployment since 1979 but the last year that men and women attended college and university in roughly equal number was 1979. Lorrianne simply ignored these facts and declared, I really don't buy the excuse of colleges being hostile to males... Males as a group have never just decided to suceed. All the evidence pointed out by the men was blithely ignored. And Males as a group have never just decided to suceed?! Not a declaration about a group of males based on a social philosophy, for example. Males as a group... Ya gotta love it.
If it constantly spews out the smokescreens and distortions of gender feminism, then it is a gender feminist.
But here comes the wonderful, gender feminist hypocrisy. Our resident genfem just stated in this thread, I won't be sucked into the stereotyping, generalizing, pure hypothetical speculation... Note, however, that in another thread I stated that I had met three women the previous night in two separate situations and they had said that they were not feminists. Based solely on their statement that they weren't feminists, Lorianne declared, These people are mere stylists, fashionistas, political play actors. Not into stereotyping, generalizing, pure hypothetical speculation? I've gotta get back to work soon, but this genfem stuff is great!
Also, note the standard genfem tactic of identifying feminists with women -- painting 1/2 the people on the planet in the worst possible light. Why do gender feminists imagine that half the people in the world (females) are (gender) feminists?
This stuff is priceless. No wonder feminism is collapsing.
I love it. Please keep the distortions and hypocrisy coming. It keeps us abreast of gender feminist tactics and sickology :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neither one of us feels that we are damaged goods incapable of being parents. We are fully capable of being good parents, if we chose to do so. We have chosen not to do so. We do not wish to make all the sacrifices, financial and otherwise, required to be parents.
He would rather pursue a career in music. I would rather pursue a science career. Neither one of those lends to involved parenthood, especially since at this point we are flat broke, living off my salary because he, due to the economic downturn since 9/11, is unemployed. Even when both of us are employed, neither one of us has the financial wherewithal to support a family, and I do not wish to leave my partner for another man who I don't have anything in common with and who I'm not attracted to, but who is a "good provider." Because I don't want kids, I did not have to take my partner's earning capacity into consideration when considering him as a mate. I was able to look at him as a mate for me, not a meal ticket for future children. That is one of the benefits to being childfree.
Too many people have kids when they should not. Too many people end up resentful towards those kids because all they can think of are all the things they had to give up for the sake of those kids. This is something that Warren Farrell has written about extensively and, IMO, dead-on accurately. The last thing we need to do as a society is to tell those people there's something wrong with them, and that they must have children even if they'd rather take a different path.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I really don't buy the excuse of colleges being hostile to males... Males as a group have never just decided [NOT]to suceed. " Lorianne
This was a typo which I corrected in a subsequent post. I left out the word "not". You can re-read the post and see that the sentence does not agree with the context of the rest of the post in which I was saying that men do not just give up when faced with obstacles. In the post I was being complimentary to men, not derogatory.
In addition, I made it a point to correct the word ommission.
Thomas, I do not want to get into a word war with you. One thing I have noticed since coming to Men's Activism is that many of you are making the same kind of tactical errors faux pas that are attibuted to the more strident feminists; namely, giving yourselves victimhood status, stereotyping, and painting the entire opposite sex with a broad brush. I don't think it serves your intersts and goals on the one hand and has the added drawback of making you look hypocritical.
For example, what is the substantive difference to saying "all men are potential rapists" and "women will get pregnant to get out of a (hypothetical) draft". Both are painting the sex in question in the worst possible light (roughly half the people on the planet are male, half female). In addition both are hypothetical and speculative beyond measure. There is no way to "prove" such speculatative claims. The only point in this type of rhetoric is to escalate a gender war. There is no other agenda IMO.
Why play by the rules you openly state you despise?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne: I didn't see your correction of that statement. I'll truly take your word about it. As for the rest...
painting the entire opposite sex with a broad brush This is entirely in your imagination, as I will point out, though I don't expect the message to get through.
what is the substantive difference to saying "all men are potential rapists" and "women will get pregnant to get out of a (hypothetical) draft". I invite the readers to note the blatant distortion. What I wrote was When faced with the hell of war, many women will avail themselves of the opportunity to escape, just as many men would if they had the chance. Note my many women and my statement that, given such an opportunity, many men would do the same. Lorianne, you know very well that you wrote all men... and then switched to women NOT all women This is a standard genfem switch tactic used to distort the facts. There is all the difference in the world between, on the one hand, all men will... and, on the other hand, many women would and so would many men...
Again, note the feminist thought and argument process. This is important to see. I stated women have an opportunity to escape the hell of the battlefield. Just as men would, if they had the chance, many women will avail themselves of the opportunity. (Whether or not you agree with what I wrote, I'm referring to the distortion of my statement. BTW most people who have had to face the draft in time of war, obviously this doesn't include Lorianne, will know how true this is. I almost chose five years of prison.) The feminist trick is to distort this to make it look as though I was saying that "women," rather than "many women," would do this while not pointing out the clear equivalency that I made to men. This method of taking what we say, distorting it into something very different and then attributing the distortion to us is standard procedure for feminists. We have to get used to recognizing and dealing with such tactics. That's why I think it's a good thing to have a gender feminist on this board.
Finally, we men need to realize that, when we are victimized, we have the right and need to point it out. We'll just have to work around the feminist declarations that we are giving (ourselves) victimhood status.
Well, enough fun and games for now. Back to work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas__ I wasn't referring to your exact statement about what women would likely do under the draft. If I had I would have quoted it exactly (and I would have qouted exactly whichever person made the rape statment) I did niether since I didn't have time to look up exact quotes. I paraphrased both over-generalizations to make a point that they are similar. You cannot make a comparison between unquoted paraphrased statments and a particular word in a particular quoted statement.
I was referring to the cummulative notion presented here by several posters that women would "likely" do this or that under the draft. My point was that this is pure speculation, not fact. And it is no different than pre-judging what all men would potentially do if given the chance, based on the actions of a few.
In other words, because some women conceived while in the volunteer military (and it is not proven that they did so intentionally) ..... we cannot then extrapolate that lots of women would intentionally conceive under a (proposed) female draft. This is speculation on top of speculation on top of speculation.
I don't think you'd like men to be pre-judged in such a speculative manner. In fact many of the news article posted here at Men's Activism under the heading of "male bashing" are essentially the same thing, speculation about what all men are like (usually negative) based on skimpy or stereotypical "evidence".
Why counter male-bashing with female-bashing is all I'm saying. I'm questioning that tactic.
As far as the "victimhood" thing. I agree with you that it needs to be pointed out. No argument there, sometimes people ARE being victimized or they perceive that they are. They should be able to point it out. Unfortunately the word "victim" itself has been used as a weapon against women's advocates. I point out to men who decry women using "victomhood" status to make a point when they do the exact same thing.
Apart from the specifics of victimization, "victomhood" is a perfectly valid and good strategy for making your case, and I don't care if any "group" uses it. I just point out that it is not only women who do. It's not only a gender thing. We see the same "victim" hypocrisy in race debates. Whites decrying blacks portraying themselves as "victims" of descrimination and then turning around and doing the same thing in portraying whites as "victims" of reverse discrimination. Regardless of the finer points of who actually is a victim and who is not, the are both utilizing the EXACT SAME STRATEGY. This is fine, but the hypocrisy of decrying a tactic while using it is noteworthy, at least in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was referring to the cummulative notion presented here by several posters that women would "likely" do this or that under the draft. My point was that this is pure speculation, not fact. And it is no different than pre-judging what all men would potentially do if given the chance, based on the actions of a few.
The point, though, Lorianne, is that you're pointing out phantom fallacies. No one here in my view has said "all women will do this" or "all women will do that." Some have said that many or some women would use their biological natures to get out of combat, just as men might seek other alternatives.
I'm not attacking you here, but I would like to point out that you are often too quick to judgment regarding what people post and what you think they actually mean. As I mentioned to you the first time you ever posted here under your current name, this is a men's issues site, but that does not make it automatically anti-woman. I think you too often look for anti-woman sentiment in statements which, quite frankly, are perfectly innocent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was referring to the cummulative notion presented here by several posters that women would "likely" do this or that under the draft. My point was that this is pure speculation, not fact. And it is no different than pre-judging what all men would potentially do... Maybe I missed it. You make a comparison of what some men have written here about women to prejudging all men. Who here wrote of *all women* doing or potentially doing something? Not "some women" or "many women." "All women." Remember, you make the comparison to pre-judging "all men." I don't think so many man are making the sweeping generalizations about all women that you think they are.
Getting back to the point of women getting pregnant to get out of the draft. Many men, who have faced the draft in time of war or even been to war know that many men would go, and many have gone, to great lengths to get out of the hell of war. To say that many women would do the same is, therefore, not pure speculation. It's based on the experiences and actions of many men. In addition, Nightmist pointed out a poll in which many women said that they would get pregnant to get out of the draft... Aside from whether or not those polls were taken scientifically enough for their statistics to roughly reflect the nation as a whole, do you think that *all* of those women were lying? I believe that many of them spoke the truth. If they did, then they *would* get pregnant to get out of the draft. They said so themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No one here in my view has said "all women will do this" or "all women will do that."
This is the main point that I have been trying so hard to get through.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist___ I'll take your and Thomas' criticism sof my posts to heart and try to be more clear. But I must say that I DO perceive many of the comments here to be anti-woman in an attempt to counter anti-male bias. In addition, many of the male-bashing criticisms here in media could be equally as innocent (individally) but are perceived as damaging to the image of men. So it is a matter of perception.
I percieve many comments to be sort of a backlash overgeneralizations of women in response to the overgeneralizations of men. This is not to say some of the points don't have some merit. I tried to point this out in my longer post stating that within a given population of the military, a certain percentage of persons will present problems. I included women in that.
I'll try to clarify that in the future when I "percieve" that there is a backlash sentiment being portrayed and give the direct comments which leave me with that perception. In some cases, as with one poster, it is the overall "tone" of her posts which seem objectionable and parsing individual comments appears fruitless. So I just skip over it. However, the "tone" of such posts, to me, seem to whip of a frenzy of anti-woman comments in other posters. Again, this is my "perception". Take it or leave it.
For what it is worth, I do enjoy debating many of these issues with people who have actually given it some thought. I will try to facilitate a peaceful organized discussion within my own limits of being able to stay on topic and be cogent. I'm aware of shortfalls in my communication and comprehension ability. (But I don't feel I'm alone in this).
Off topic: To be honest, its very hard to stay on point here, with statements flying all around and all over the map with regard to the topic. I think a lot of the misunderstanding and cross posting is a result of the format, where the comments are not arrayed under the post they are responding to. In addition, it's difficult to go back and see the natural progression of a conversation with one poster.
In addition the many posters who post as "anonymous" make it confusing to follow and respond to their points and distinguish the progression of points being made from one "anonymous" poster to the next. For this reason I try (but dont' always succeed) in not replying to anonymous posts, thought such posters often make compelling points that I'd like to discuss. This may be why it seems I "pick on" you and Thomas, it's not personal, but just that I can identify you both from the crowd of anonymous posters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
--- The real question becomes, do we value the contributions of women in the military or not? Are the pros in an acceptable range in ratio to the cons? ---
As much as I do value their contributions (there are some really outstanding female military members out there), I don't think the value of their contributions outweigh the problems that feminists and the like are causing the military. If I had to choose between no women serving anywhere or no more feminist social engineering I'd have to pick the latter. Hate to say that...
--- We should not ask women to meet a higher standard of not only zero problems, but an ironclad garantee of zero *possibility* of problems. We do not expect such an ironclad garantee of men in the military ---
On the other hand, there very much is a "zero defect" mentality in the military today...for men anyways. One very small mistake can end someone's career faster than you'd believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although chemical/hormonal birth control is 99% effective, it still fails 1% of the time. So even if the military were to require chemical/hormonal birth control, a few female soldiers would still become impregnated. If we court-martial all pregnant soldiers, even if they faithfully took their birth control and can prove it, that's got to be violating some sort of military law. Not to mention that this would be totally unworkable.
The military *could* forbid female soldiers from sexual activity, even jail them if they engage in sex, but how workable would that really be? What if the female soldier is married to a male soldier? Should we also forbid the male soldier from having sex with his own wife, and tell him he has to commit adultery if he wants sex? What if he doesn't want to cheat on his wife? How workable is that?
That brings us back to abortion. If military hospitals were to provide abortions, that would mean the taxpayers were paying for it, even taxpayers who are staunchly pro-life. I think abortion should remain legal, and I feel for these pregnant soldiers abroad, but I am against pro-life taxpayers being forced to subsidize a procedure they feel is tantamount to murder.
Ironically, I guarantee that these very same pro-lifers are going to scream bloody murder if we start court-martialing pregnant soldiers. Many of these people don't even believe in *birth control.* Does anyone really think they're going to put a stamp of approval on a sweeping criminalization of pregnancy within the military?
The only halfway workable solution I can see is this. Upon entrance into the military, all female personnel are offered a choice between surgical sterilization or hormonal/chemical birth control. They must choose one or the other. Those who choose hormonal/chemical birth control are monitored by medical staff to ensure they are taking their meds. If a recruit cannot take hormonal/chemical birth control, and some women can't, she must opt for sterilization, no exceptions.
If a female soldier becomes pregnant even though she is sterilized OR has solid proof she's been taking her meds, it's dealt with the same way as if a man had accidentally injured himself, or if he'd contracted the flu. After all, the pregnancy was obviously a complete accident, not a purposeful act of negligence or insubordination. Remember that with bc and sterilization, these situations will be very rare. More male soldiers will contract the flu each year than female soldiers will become pregnant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I totally agree with Claire4Liberty. If you as a woamn should be faced with these terms when you enter the military you would be responsible for yous own actions as well as not being helped by the military for being a woman!
Great stuff, now we should try to implement it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. It's not perfect, but I think it's the closest we can get to a workable, cost-effective policy that doesn't give women a plethora of options men don't have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Claire4Liberty:
The rhetoric you use is that of a gasbag ideologue. What in the world are you doing at this site?
I'd suggest that you get an education, and I don't just mean in politics. Obviously, you've read nothing of the classical literature and you are completely uneducated and ignorant.
The hateful ideological terms by which you refer to the process of procreation makes it clear that your personal life is an absolute disaster. We know that for certain. Nobody is asking you to have children. Clearly, you don't have the maturity or sanity for that.
I've encountered literally hundreds of gasbags like you in my travels through San Francisco and New York City. You are mistaking the pitiful failure of your own personal life for a societal problem. In other words, you are a failure in romantic relationships and you know that you are unfit to bear children, so you've externalized those problems as generalized societal problems. The problem is you, and the the solution is to get an education, get therapy if you can find it, and learn to be a decent person.
Stop blaming you personal failings on some fantasized failings of the society at large. You are the one who is failing.
Stephen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The only reason you don't have kids is because no man wants them with you!" Gee, I've never heard THAT ONE before.
"Not wanting kidz means you HATE MEN!" Gee, I've never heard THAT ONE before either, though it's always confused me. There are many men who also don't want kids. Do they hate women? There are women who lie about birth control and oops those men into involuntary parenthood. Do those women love men? If a man tells his wife he does not want children, and she abides by his wishes, does she hate men? Is oopsing a guy some great declaration of love?
>The hateful ideological terms by which you refer to the process of procreation
The exact same process you want to criminalize within the military, even if the woman involved faithfully took her pills/shots like clockwork, and even if she wants an abortion so that she can immediately return to duty. You even insinuated that such women should be immediately shot as traitors who are attempting to "flee" duty.
And I'M the one who's hateful?
Your "certain" statements about my personal life are so far off-base it is laughable.
You asked what am I doing at this site? That's valid, so I'll answer it. I got here when I did a Net search on abused men. I wanted some information on how I could help my partner, who is a DV survivor. This was one of the very few sites where I was not ridiculed and told I was the enemy even though all I wanted was to help the man I loved. I even had a guy on one board tell me the best thing I could do for my partner would be to commit suicide, because as a woman I was automatically guilty of domestic violence perpetrated by my "sisters." Nice, eh?
There are very few resources for abused men. There are even fewer for partners of abused men. We are left floating in an abyss, trying to figure out how to help our boyfriends and husbands largely on our own, because few people are willing to give us any advice (at least without insisting that we also sign on to their agendas regarding the draft, abortion or whatever). Everyone just wants to demonize us and treat us as though WE were the ones who perpetrated the abuse. Maybe boyfriends and husbands of abused women experience the same thing. I would not be surprised.
I've thought about starting my own group for partners of survivors, but frankly I don't want to deal with the nastiness I know would permeate it. I tried to moderate an animal welfare board once, and the flame wars there got so hateful they threatened to spill over into the real lives of a couple of posters. One of the regs from there is still trying to chase some of his "enemies" around the Net, though thankfully that nut lost interest in me awhile ago.
I bailed and swore to never moderate another controversial board again. And believe me, "Partners of Survivors" would be controversial. It would make the other board look like a kindergarten class. If someone else wants to do it, good luck and I hope you have skin of steel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You asked what am I doing at this site? That's valid, so I'll answer it. I got here when I did a Net search on abused men. I wanted some information on how I could help my partner, who is a DV survivor.
Have you been in touch with Trudy Schuett? I don't know if she could help you find what you're seeking, but she is well-versed in the issues surrounding male domestic violence survivors. She produces the DesertLight Journal. Click on the link to that in the relevant post here and you should find her e-mail address somewhere in there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You asked what am I doing at this site? That's valid, so I'll answer it. I got here when I did a Net search on abused men. I wanted some information on how I could help my partner, who is a DV survivor.
p.s. You should also check out sites like www.safe4all.org. That site has a "Where can I find help?" section available online.
And you are quite right that resources for male survivors (and their partners) is very, very scarce.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I usually browse through the DLJ and I love Safe4All.
My partner and I are coping very well at this point. He is now a couple of years removed from his abuse experience. Worse off at this point is our friend, David, who is less than a year removed from his. I spoke of him in the chat room. He is the one whose daughter killed herself. I am happy (I guess) to report that David has joined a grief counseling group and attends every week. He is also getting re-involved in a non-destructive hobby, music. They are small steps, but a few months ago all this guy did was lock himself in the house and drink whenever he wasn't working. He also spent time with us during the holidays and helped us move. I think he is beginning to see that a life free of abuse is possible. My partner, I think, is becoming his example of surviving and thriving.
The next step is to get David to hook up a telephone at his place so that he can take advantage of some online resources. I'm trying to lure him by pointing out all the MP3 and karaoke sites he can also visit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Claire4Liberty:
Well, now I understand, and I was really right on the mark. Don't get angry now.
My wife was also a very severely abused woman. She also thought that that abuse made her unfit to have children and be a mother. Now, I understand those awful statements about procreation and childbearing. You see, I was quite right. You are generalizing a personal problem into a societal problem.
I am an opponent of abortion, period. It is murder. The very people who made such a stink about the right of women to refuse to be the chattel of men have given themselves the right to treat the foetus and their children as chattel.
Women should not be in combat positions. That's the real solution. I would suggest that you read David Horowitz's many contributions to this subject. The military has an obligation to protect and defend. Experimenting with social reformation in the military is an absurd idea.
Women are using pregnancy as a way to escape their military obligations.
My advice stands. Get an education. Get some therapy. (There are a lot of quacks out there. Be careful to find a responsible, traditional therapist or you'll suffer additional trauma.)
If summary execution is the punishment for abandoning one's post in a combat situation, that punishment should be the same for men and women. Women are clearly using the military for economic and social advantage, then refusing the unhappy and dangerous duties.
Stephen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No Stephen, it goes deeper than that. Some people just plain don't want to have children, period. There is nothing unnatural about it. We are a natural check and balance against overpopulation.
I am getting an education, something that if I had kids I would not be able to do. I am a science major who intends to either attend vet school or get a master's. Childrearing and advanced education do not mix. When I am in school, I barely have time to take care of my pets. The last thing I need is a kid, especially since I've been far more drawn to animals than people my entire life. I also plan to use my education once I get out, not work for three years and then quit so I can take care of a kid.
My admittedly not-so-nice verbiage surrounding the subject come from the exact same place as some of the not-so-nice verbiage regarding women's role in society on this site, from a place of justified anger towards a society that is telling us that because we question the status quo, there's something wrong with us. I don't HATE parents. I DO hate people who have kids they don't want, can't afford to provide for, etc. I DO bristle when society heaps praise upon these irresponsible people and demonizes those of us who did not have children we did not want or could not pay for.
Someday, if my partner and I have oodles of money and flexibility, we would consider adoption. There are literally millions of children whose parents cannot/do not want to care for them. A kid doesn't have to be from our DNA to be ours.
Although most online CF boards are predominantly female, there are many, many men who do not want children. Not because of the fear of divorce, but because they simply have never felt the urge to be fathers. Nor do they wish to make the sacrifices necessary to be a parent. Warren Farrell talks extensively about how men who have children must give up their dreams, hopes and aspirations and live their lives for their children instead of doing what THEY want. Some people don't mind giving up everything to have a kid. Some people do, and those people should not be made to feel that if they do not reproduce, there is something horribly wrong with them.
There is one huge gap in the men's movement, and that is the lack of a segment that serves childfree by choice men. C4M overlaps in some areas, and addresses an oft-discussed issue within the childfree community, but that's really more for guys who've been OOPSED. Not all those guys never want kids; they just don't want responsibility for the ones they were oopsed into being "fathers" to.
If the men's movement is about men making their own choices, the choice to not have children at all should be included. Childfree men shouldn't be told that they and their partners need therapy to fix their unnatural inclinations. Perhaps C4M could expand its mission to better serve these men, but that's up to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the men's movement is about men making their own choices, the choice to not have children at all should be included. Childfree men shouldn't be told that they and their partners need therapy to fix their unnatural inclinations. Perhaps C4M could expand its mission to better serve these men, but that's up to them.
I'd like to be a father someday, but not right now. So I'm child-free by choice for the moment, even though, yes, I consistently get the question: "When are you going to get married and have young-uns?"
As for the men's movement and CF, I'm not so sure it's a gaping hole as much as it is that men simply aren't as pressured about it as women are.
Honestly, when someone asks me that question, I usually shrug it off, and I don't feel pressured by it. Women, on the other hand, have long been expected to *dream* of the day they become mothers, so I can understand why you would be more frustrated by it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you're right. Men do not feel as pressured to have kids as women do. Though there are a lot of men who have kids not because they want them, but because they feel they have to agree to it in order to land a wife. It's my opinion that this is the case in many situations where a child's father is very distant to them, even if the child's parents stay married forever. This creates a sad situation for the kid, who wonders why their father is so distant, for the mother, who wonders why her husband can't bond with the kid(s), and for the father, who has nothing but regrets over all the hopes and dreams he had to give up in order to raise a family. Men like that should feel that they have more options from the beginning, before they decide to do something that will make them and everyone around them miserable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only halfway workable solution I can see is this. Upon entrance into the military, all female personnel are offered a choice between surgical sterilization or hormonal/chemical birth control. They must choose one or the other. Those who choose hormonal/chemical birth control are monitored by medical staff to ensure they are taking their meds. If a recruit cannot take hormonal/chemical birth control, and some women can't, she must opt for sterilization, no exceptions.
Offhand, I'd say that's a proposal that makes a fair amount of sense. We are, after all, talking about being in the military, not playing June Cleaver in "Leave it to Beaver."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Precisely. I know the genfems will argue that males are not required to practice birth control. True, but males are also not physically incapacitated if they impregnate someone. Everything cannot be totally equal. Requiring birth control for female soldiers is no different than requiring everyone to get the anthrax vaccine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joan Ryan has been termed "rabidly pro-abortion" in one article I've come across, so her stance on the issue is predictable. (As a matter of fact, at the SF Gate site where the column is posted, you can access an archive of her columns dating all the way back to 1995 - many of which are feminist-oriented in the vein of Ellen Goodman, if you're interested).
I think it's important to point out that we shouldn't project Ryan's sentiments onto the women soldiers she claims to speak for. She has a problem with the women being less pampered - but that doesn't mean that all, most or even some women in the military do. Her concern for them may or may not be something they particularly appreciate (and, frankly, I would think that any self-respecting female soldier would be embarrassed to have people read Ryan's column and believe that women soldiers would expect such an easy ride).
Generally, I agree with Claire's idea that women soldiers be required to either adhere to a strict birth control regimen, or be sterilized. I would think they'd take no issue with doing so, since it goes without saying that pregnancy would interfere with their capacity to do the job.
I also don't believe that the pregnancy itself (or the act which caused it) should be penalized - if only because there may not be any sure way to prove who the father is (he may refuse to step forward, and the military may or may not take the woman's word), thus women would face an unfairly greater risk of being penalized for making whoopee (when in fact it was undeniably a transgression on the part of both parties).
The penalty, if any, should be for failing to adhere to the birth control (if that was the reason) - not for having sex. And I realize that I'm being a devil's advocate in saying that, because I don't think that soldiers should be having sex. But again, it's about fairness - and since it would be harder to prove male involvement, it would be easier for men to elude penalization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>The penalty, if any, should be for failing to adhere to the birth control (if that was the
>reason) - not for having sex.
I agree. Even if you get a flu shot, you can still develop flu. There is a small chance you might be exposed to a strain the shot did not protect against. Likewise there is a small chance you can get pregnant while on birth control. A woman who faithfully and like clockwork takes her meds/gets her shots should not be treated the same way as some idiot who purposefully got knocked up just so she could shirk her duties.
>I realize that I'm being a devil's advocate in saying that, because I don't think
>that soldiers should be having sex.
Neither do I. I also don't understand it. If I had gunfire roaring over my head, the last thing going through my mind would be "I really want to have some sex." Impending death isn't one of my turn-ons.
I don't think the military wants soldiers having sex either, but I think they also realize forbidding sexual activity would be fruitless and unworkable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
--- And I realize that I'm being a devil's advocate in saying that, because I don't think that soldiers should be having sex ---
So as an alternative to military members having sex you support what as an option? A 100% conscript army of castrata and women in chastity belts?
I give up alot to protect this country...but asking me not to have sex with my wife is asking just a little too much. (Of course, sex in an actual warzone is different...I can't think of anything that kills my sex drive faster than being shot at).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>I can't think of anything that kills my sex drive faster than being shot at
Oh good, then I'm not the only one who feels that way. lol
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
