| | What if..........Page 4 of 4 (1, 2, 3, 4) | According to the "Rand Research Brief" study..you are wrong.
According to this study, women were "blocked" from numerous positions
and titles (I stated this earlier) and this changed during the years of 1993 and 1997.
According to this study conducted by "The National Defense Research
Institute"influences on unit readiness, cohesion and morale was not
effected by women in these units. They do state however that leadership
qualities of the leaders within these units were far more influential
as compared to specific genders, which is what I stated earlier and "The National
Defense Research Institute" agrees with me.
Gender was reported as "secondary" with gender integration as having a
"small" effect on readiness of any unit which integrated females soldiers
with male soldiers. Pregnancy was found to be an affecting quality
of units however, this was only found to be true when that particular
unit was understaffed with female soldiers. This is not the fault of female soldiers, this is and was an overall problem with staffing with the US military.
This study also found that where female soldiers were integrated into
particular units that the presence of female soldiers was found to cite
the raising of professional standards.
So you are the expert? No, you obviously are not. I find that the "National
Defense Institute" who conducted this study with the analization of
14 military units are the experts.
Thank you very much and it's obvious who's head this information is flying above.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB7515/index1.html
Women get pregnant because nature has deemed such things. Get over it.
Women are the only oppressed group in our society that lives in intimate association with their opressors. ~Evelyn Cunningham | |
|
| What if..........
Posted: 3/11/2010 7:28:11 AM | But according to the US Army I am right!
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/acsc/99-016.pdf
Every thing I posted was a fact! Some one that worked at a lower enlisted level like yourself just would not have been in the loop.
It is a fact women effect readiness. Why they have caps put on how many can be put in each unit. Get over it lol.
A study conducted at Madigan Army Medical Center, Fort Lewis, Washington revealed that 55
percent of Soldiers presenting for prenatal care reported their pregnancies were unintended at the
time of conception. Only 39 percent of the junior enlisted had intended to become pregnant,
compared to the majority of officers (60%) and non-commissioned officers (65%) reporting
planned pregnancies.
http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/documents/TG/TECHGUID/TG281January2007-1.pdf
read the facts this web link has lots of other issues and problems.
In some units, as many as 18 to 20 percent of females could not go due to disqualifying physical profiles.57 Pregnancy was the major contributor to the disparity
(much higher in other units that had been looked at also)
http://www.history.army.mil/books/www/www9.htt
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/acsc/99-016.pdf
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6295
http://www.cmrlink.org/international.asp?docID=113
http://www.army.mil/USAPA/epubs/pdf/r600_13.pdf
Is the Army Policy for the Assignment of Female Soldiers
It has the coding used to limit females but, not the studies or reasons why, but some of them (reasons) are in the other two links also provided. Having had more then one command (one was a logistical command) I can tell you first hand more then 30% women troops is not wanted or good in any unit. Again this is a level you never worked at so you might not get it. I did I saw the study data, done by the army and it showed to many women lowered readiness.
Posted by you:"Yes...we can have babies. Get over it. Can a man have a baby? No!"
We do not get or have the pregnancies (i like that), but we can and do have babies. In fact we can be responsible for multiple pregnancies at the same time. Not a thing to get over. You just need to live with these facts men can have babies we just do not have to push them out lol. | |
|
| What if..........
Posted: 3/11/2010 8:11:14 AM |
(Nina37) You stopped telling women what to do? Actually the law made men stop telling us what to do.
Absolutely right. And, who passed those laws initially, before women were involved in the political system?
You're welcome.
Tozaar, the politically-active man...  | |
|
| What if..........
Posted: 3/11/2010 8:16:30 AM |
(Nina37 A "Turd" conforms to the "hole" which it is coming out of. A baby's head does not! 
Not all turds are created equal. A turd that is the result of a custard diet will be rather more malleable than, say, a pine-cone turd...
Tozaar...
(how did we end up talking about poo?) | |
|
| What if..........
Posted: 3/11/2010 8:39:57 AM | It was in regards to a babies cranium passing through a small opening and whether or not a man could relate to the pain threshold. This could have been a fairly lighthearted thread with many comic possibilities then nina and freetime showed and got all militant.
I don't think we would get all strung out about fashion during a pregnancy either considering most guys are usually proud of their beer bellies and their t-shirts would still be worn long after the birth.
If we could give birth that would mean some extra parts down there.
I'm not really sure I would want to be a transvestite, something not quite right about that. | |
|
| What if..........
Posted: 3/11/2010 9:23:30 AM |
This could have been a fairly lighthearted thread with many comic possibilities then nina and freetime showed and got all militant.
Yeah... Take it outside, folks.
If we could give birth that would mean some extra parts down there.
And a woman might think twice before telling you to "Go fvck yourself!" since you might become pregnant
 | |
|
| What if..........
Posted: 3/11/2010 9:45:17 AM | referencing this particular link.
http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/documents/TG/TECHGUID/TG281January2007-1.pdf
This link provides a readiness guide for female soldiers while dwelling
on suggestions for female soldiers and the leaders of these female soldiers
to consider and follow.
It shows that 60 - 65% of female soldiers intented to get pregnant?
So what? This statistic does not provide the statistics of how many
of these female soldiers are married and wanting families or vice-versa
of the single female soldiers. I do not believe that someone wanting
to be a mother affects unit readiness and this percentage only proves that
these particular percentages wanted to become mothers. They do not
state why.
Now..on with the other bogus links you are trying to pull off as
proving your sexist facts......
This link
http://www.history.army.mil/books/www/www9.htt
Says not found. Go figure.
This Link
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/acsc/99-016.pdf
This link specifically states that the opinions in the research paper (yes,
it's a research paper) are of the author's alone and not the Department
of Defense. (There goes your theory that it's the US Army's opinion)
This report also states that in order to measure readiness, tactical
and operational readiness the data must be combined with other data. Due
to the complications of such a test of such things, the impact of
pregnancy on unit readiness can more times to none lead to
incorrect conclusions. (So...this is the Army speaking?)
In your defense.....according to this research paper....the non-deployability
rate for women was four times greater than that of men during the Gulf
War era....
However..what you fail to point out to everyone is that even in this
research paper,,they support the study conducted by the National Defense
Institute as reported by the Rand Brief Report that women and pregnancy
became a HUGE problem in affecting unit readiness when the female soldiers
were understaffed. (by the way,,this can be found on page 11 for the
record).
It is also stated on page 12 that of this "research paper" that the US Army
has no official position on the issue but that an Army readiness officer
stated that pregnancy and female soldiers does not impact readiness.
What the Army acknowledges about pregnancy and being a soldier is that
first off, the pregnancy is a female issue. What does this mean?
This means that a female soldier has to prioritize her unborn child
over her military service. It is only common sense that a female soldier
go on profiles, this is called "taking care of her unborn child".
This is a problem why?
The fact here is that there are serious issues which need to be
dealt with in conjunction with female soldiers and pregnancy however,
a female soldier cannot be discriminated against simply because she wants
to become a mother.
It's people such as yourself that automatically assume someone is quote
"riding" the system on the sole grounds that they are pregnant. This
within itself is sexist, narrow-minded and out-right ignorant.
I did not bother looking at the rest of your links which you tried to
flood me with because after realizing that two out of the first three links actually
supported what I stated in the first place, why bother looking at the rest
of them. And oh yeah,,,the second one doesn't work...for the record.
Now...I will take it outside
P.S
I'm not militant. Just offended at sexist pig comments. | |
|
| What if..........
Posted: 3/11/2010 12:15:12 PM | The links clearly provided the data that women are not as deployable as there male counter parts and this is a fact. This effects readiness. But more then that even the ones that do deploy often times can not do the work required the same as their male counter parts. I started as an enlisted medic and I remember taking the expert field medic test with over 500 other soldiers. About 100 of us pasted the test, but not one of the people that pasted the test was a female and there were over 100 of them taking the test. You see even with the lower physical requirements they had on the PT test they still had to complete the obstacle coarse, one being a litter obstacle coarse were you had to carry a simulated wounded troop on a litter and one were you had to do the fireman's carry. Not one of the females had the upper body or endurance required to complete these basic task that every medic should be able to do. A while back a different poster posted on a similar test in the Navy that required ship drills were they had to move simulated wounded sailors to different decks (I hope he will re-post those numbers here). I don't remember the exact number, but over 90% of the males pasted and over 90% of the females failed. Clear readiness implications, because if really needed not being able to move a wounded comrade, means they get locked in a compartment that may flood. I call that a readiness issue.
I sat for years in units doing assignments and I never had a commander say "I am getting to many male soldiers" but I had many say "your killing me with all these females". I heard this often from female commanders too. Your inability to except these facts makes you the sexist one. Why I never date women that have done military service, they are all so bitter about not being able to compete at the same level as the men. They do not except the facts and they wrongly accuse the men that point out the facts as being unfair or sexist. I don't even have to hit some of the other reasons, but lets just say most are unfit in other areas as well. | |
|
| What if..........
Posted: 3/11/2010 12:20:27 PM | I'm not going to bother reading and responding to your reply because we are derailing the topic and it needs to stop here. :)
You and I can take this debate elsewhere.
Referencing military women and you dating........I do not think you can be that picky. But that's just my opinion. | |
|
| What if..........
Posted: 3/11/2010 1:50:19 PM | (erasersedge) It was in regards to a babies cranium passing through a small opening and whether or not a man could relate to the pain threshold.
Mine was a rhetorical question; I wasn't really looking for an answer...
I don't think we would get all strung out about fashion during a pregnancy either considering most guys are usually proud of their beer bellies and their t-shirts would still be worn long after the birth.
For the longest time, I've wanted to get my grubby paws on a T-shirt with "BABY UNDER CONSTRUCTION!!!", with an arrow pointing down to my gut. Preferably one with glittery lettering. And, pink. It's gotta be pink.
Tozaar...
(although I could be talked into wearing lavender...)
(I'm not a "girly man" -- I'm just secure in my masculinity...) | |
|
| |
| What if..........
Posted: 3/11/2010 3:06:32 PM | For those women who believe that carrying a baby for 9 months makes you closer to the child ........... maybe ......... BUT it doesn't make the child closer to YOU!!
First of all let's assume you took care of your self and the baby during the pregnancy. Thank you for that!
Now with that out of the way ........... those 9 months are of very little if any importance in the child's long life! I have teenage children and for those that may not be aware of it -- Raising the child starts at birth and that is where it makes no difference who carried or gave birth. Ask any child who is adopted.
Parenting is the real skill and we are all equal - women do not have any special talents in that department!
So to answer your question - Men would be just the same as women - some good some not so good.
John | |
|
| What if..........
Posted: 3/12/2010 3:55:43 AM | Justplainjohn
"For those women who believe that carrying a baby for 9 months makes you closer to the child ........... maybe ......... BUT it doesn't make the child closer to YOU!!"
I felt bonded with my unborn daughter when I was going through the pregnancy but the other two? Nope!
You are right, parenting is a TRUE skill especially in finding the right style to fit your child because let's face it, it's not universal.
I find in my opinion only that women tend to be more gentle and nurturing when raising children (majority not all) where men are more straightforward and realistic. Neither of these being bad traits.
I will say in defense of men with raising sons. No matter how good of a parent a mother is, she cannot teach boys to be a men. This is where I find that both men and women need to work closely together in raising their children, no matter if they are together or not because both have attributes which are needed by the child. | |
|
| |
| |
| What if..........
Posted: 7/17/2012 9:10:28 AM | What if it was men that carried the children to term and gave birth?
What would be different?
They might not want to have sex ever again after giving birth.
or
They might just drink a few beers and forget the whole experience like they forget everything else.
They could play with boobies anytime they want.
The maternity leaves would probably be double.
They probably still would not understand what women go through.
Maybe they would really think about where they put it. | |
|
| What if..........
Posted: 7/17/2012 10:28:44 AM | | The human race would have become extinct long ago. | |
|
| What if..........
Posted: 7/17/2012 6:10:10 PM | My 1- Too funny :D
btw-Love your profile photo :) | |
|
| What if..........
Posted: 7/17/2012 7:38:48 PM | | LMAO Men couldn't handle the pain! But I bet if it was reversed, men would have more estrogen then they do now and would stick around more.. I'd tend to think that more women would stick around then the men that do now. But we won't know will we? | |
|
| What if..........
Posted: 7/19/2012 2:16:46 PM | guess i'm the odd one out, i think if men were to have babies they would cope as well as women do as like women currently are, their bodies/hormones/emotional systems would be designed to do so.
Mind you i still don't see why there's such a big issue about men having their children, they are just as capable as loving, nurturing and raising their offspring. In fact out of most of the people i think should never have children 90% of them are women, i know one particular step mother who is so not cut out to be a mother, she's selfish, she would rather see her step children go without life's basic necessities, than her go without her beauty appointments and designer clothes, she will ensure she has a meal before she makes sure there's enough for her step children. Any woman cut out to be a mother wouldn't want to see ANY child go without, her own or others. same goes for fathers. | |
|
Home
login 
