Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Nice try Melissa. To me and other NCO's on here. She is a soldier. Glad you like assuming I have two different standards for gender from the get go.

I don't believe you, because if that was the case you'd not have felt hte need to differentiate in the thread title.

...Or that's the original title of the related article.

Again, you're projecting.

Projecting so hard we could point you at a wall and show power points with you.

I agree that this story might not have been reported if it wasnt a female. but here judgment wasnt influenced at all by her gender.

 Jihadin wrote:
Nope. Its the original title.

You made the choice, conscious or subconscious, to include it to the title of this thread when you typed it out.

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm not going go down this road with you MeLissa

What's with the weird capitalized L in the middle of the name?

 Jihadin wrote:
because clearly you already form a opinion on me.

That I point out flaws in the way that you act does not mean I do not respect you for your service to our country-- which I do. I don't have the mentality to join the military, myself-- I feel I'm not brave enough for that. Being a soldier, however, does not place you above reproach.

 Jihadin wrote:
I highly doubt you know what an EOA is.

TLAs* are used outside of the military you know

I know several meanings of EOA even without the help of Google, including one which is used within the military (Equal Opportunity Advisor, a position I had read about during research conducted some years ago). A quick Google search shows about five other "EOA" acronyms within the military, from "Exercise Operating Area" to "Early Operational Assessment". So rather than trying to feel smug and superior like some kind of snob, you're going to need to add context to your acronym.

*Three-letter acronyms, for those who aren't in on the joke.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I agree that this story might not have been reported if it wasnt a female. but here judgment wasnt influenced at all by her gender.

I never stated otherwise, nor did I state that it SHOULD be otherwise.

Melissia wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Nope. Its the original title.

You made the choice, conscious or subconscious, to include it to the title of this thread when you typed it out.

And it was you, Melissia, who inferred gender-bias intent.

Reasons for including gender in the title of this thread that do not involve conscious or unconscious gender bias:
-It was the title of the original article and it is reasonable to use the same title for the thread that the article starts.
-It was the title of the original article and Jihadin is lazy and just copy+paste'd the original title.

Reasons for including gender in the title of this thread that Melissia assumed:
-Zebras! Zebras everywhere!

Why are people still arguing with her about this?

She's got it wrapped up in her head that the US Military teaches it's NCO Corp to be gender biased. So let he keep thinking that. Nothing you say will change it.

In the mean time the rest of us in reality will not have to bang our heads against a brick wall in this discussion.

Alright, everyone, disagreement is not an excuse for rudeness.

It seems to me that everyone involved in this tiff stopped actually listening to one another some time ago. So, I would highly suggest those of you who have been posting often and going back and forth take a nice, long break from the thread and let other people engage in the discussion free of repetitive back and forths.

Whatever your position or interpretation, I expect appropriate respect to be payed to the female gender both in principal and practice. And yes, same goes for male. Part of that is not attributing blanket labels like 'feminist' to someone who rejects it for themselves. If you continue to do that, it crosses the line to rudeness.

Now, take a breather, and let's get back on track.

MT11

I have to admit I wondered why her gender was part of the title as well, but given it was the headline of the original story - mystery solved, I guess!

The article suggests there were other options open to her. If that's the case then it's too bad she didn't explore them instead of deserting.

I reckon that anyone deserting, regardless of gender should be made to serve out the rest of their enlistment, not just some small sentence. If you sign on for 4 years and do 1 before desertion, that should be 3 year sentence etc. Seems fair to me.

 Azza007 wrote:
I reckon that anyone deserting, regardless of gender should be made to serve out the rest of their enlistment, not just some small sentence. If you sign on for 4 years and do 1 before desertion, that should be 3 year sentence etc. Seems fair to me.

Screw that. Why make the tax payer fund their existence AND take up a slot (the US military has man power limits set by congress)? Give them enough of a sentence that they know they done wrong and kick them out with a bad conduct discharge.

I concur with Jake. The military shouldn't have to spend the time and resources for that kind of thing.

Azza007 wrote:I reckon that anyone deserting, regardless of gender should be made to serve out the rest of their enlistment, not just some small sentence. If you sign on for 4 years and do 1 before desertion, that should be 3 year sentence etc. Seems fair to me.

The problem with this idea is that it effectively means there is no penalty for desertion: it's like saying that if you get caught stealing, your punishment is giving the stolen article back.

In order to function as a proper deterrent, the punishment must be severe enough to outweight the calculated likelihood of getting away with the crime.

One of the things that occurred to me when I read this was the 'female' bit, it's kind of like putting 'black soldier quits' in a way, like it somehow makes a difference. Soldiers are soldiers so really it should just be 'Army soldier pleads guilty to desertion to avoid second tour in Iraq.' Why go out of the way to include the identity of an individual when the point of the article is supposed to be profession related? i.e. the issue of desertion.

My personal standpoint on deserters depends on whether they were drafted or not, if they were forced then I can be pretty sympathetic being that they are running from something they never agreed to and forced to fight a war that has nothing to do with their own lives. In a lot of cases it's comparable to the plight of a runaway slave, conscription really is in a lot of cases a form of slavery in my opinion. < The only way that could ever be justified is in the interest of defence, if lets say their home country was being invaded (it'd be in their interest then.)

If someone willingly signs up though, then they consent to the service of something higher than themselves and they know the risks, joining the military should never be anything that should be done hastily or light-heartedly, you have to be 100% committed given the amount of time and money that gets put into building you up into a soldier. It's sad that this person had family issues, but she made a serious oath and there are consequences to breaking a serious oath.

just my own thoughts...

 Ardaric_Vaanes wrote:
One of the things that occurred to me when I read this was the 'female' bit, it's kind of like putting 'black soldier quits' in a way, like it somehow makes a difference. Soldiers are soldiers so really it should just be 'Army soldier pleads guilty to desertion to avoid second tour in Iraq.' Why go out of the way to include the identity of an individual when the point of the article is supposed to be profession related? i.e. the issue of desertion.

You folks with this type of opinion read WAY too much into it. The add the 'female' into the article for a few reasons:

1. Females though they make up about 50% of the population make up about 13% of the Army and therefore are rarer.
2. As a mother and a female deserter she is MUCH more interesting as a human interest news story than the single 22 year old guy. Frankly a male doing this generally does not make the news. Add in the attempt at political asylum in Canada coupled with the denial and deportation and THIS particular case is interesting as a news story. A couple males got some coverage for pulling the asylum crap a few years ago too. That is a big deal.

The point of this article was NOT a Soldier Deserted. It was a Female Mother Deserted and Sought Asylum and was Deported. THAT is what made the whole thing news worthy. Soldiers desert all the time and rarely make more than the local news if that. THIS case was VERY different from the norm BECAUSE of who this trooper was. You don't have to like that or think it is right (I sure do not) but frankly it is silly to deny it.

Generally deserters just kind of go away. Honestly, they are not even searched for (neither the military nor the Feds have the resources to care about them unless they also committed some other crime along with the desertion). They usually turn themselves in at some point or when they do get 'caught' it is getting caught for something else and when their name is run by civilian cops it pops up as 'deserter' and they are turned over to the military who then either discharges them or prosecutes then discharges based on the circumstances.

Stories about females being wounded grab a lot more TV time and column length in print/digital media for similar reasons. It is rarer and it kind of shoves the 'Our Daughters and Mothers are FIGHTIN'!! ' into peoples faces. That causes more sensationalism than when it happens to the male counterpart. Example: Folks are a LOT more likely to know who Jessica Lynch and Shoshana Johnson are than the names of the male soldiers captured along with them. Johnson was a black single mother, the first black female US Soldier ever captured . That is deemed news worthy. She still gets coverage sometimes though you will have trouble finding a single story where one of her male counterparts is the focus. (article form 2010: http://www.today.com/id/35196926/ns/today-today_news/t/first-black-female-pow-sets-record-straight/ )

If it was up to me (and I suspect several other vets/troopers on this forum) the articles would just say US Soldier and skip race and sex completely. Unfortunately, the media likes it when they can elicit emotion and specifying 'female' helps them do so, race does that at times too. With all my heart I wish that was not the case, but it is.

 CptJake wrote:
The point of this article was NOT a Soldier Deserted. It was a Female Mother Deserted and Sought Asylum and was Deported.

When you agree with what I say, why are you acting like you disagree with what I say?

 Melissia wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The point of this article was NOT a Soldier Deserted. It was a Female Mother Deserted and Sought Asylum and was Deported.

When you agree with what I say, why are you acting like you disagree with what I say?

I think you are confusing me with someone else. I sure don't remember replying to a single one of your posts in this thread nor arguing with you in it. I am also pretty sure if you read my posts in this thread my thoughts have been pretty consistent.

 Melissia wrote:
When you agree with what I say, why are you acting like you disagree with what I say?

Melissia wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The point of this article was NOT a Soldier Deserted. It was a Female Mother Deserted and Sought Asylum and was Deported.

When you agree with what I say, why are you acting like you disagree with what I say?

You may be thinking of me; and I disagreed with your implication that we should sympathize with the deserter on the grounds that she is a woman and you think we would have sympathized more had the deserter been a man.

Well, Canada doesn't need other countries deserters. That's the only good I see in this story.

Shadowbrand wrote:Well, Canada doesn't need other countries deserters. That's the only good I see in this story.

Had the soldier been drafted, I'd have welcomed her. But that's not the case, so... no.

Oh, no. I read the story before I spoke up.


*Returns to milling about the elections*


Actually. Wouldn't women not be drafted but every 18+ Male that was combat worthy? I'm only going by information i've heard said by American friends.

 Shadowbrand wrote:
Oh, no. I read the story before I spoke up.


*Returns to milling about the elections*


Actually. Wouldn't women not be drafted but every 18+ Male that was combat worthy? I'm only going by information i've heard said by American friends.

Yeah, but there is a viewpoint that if women are given the same combat roles as men they should also have to sign up for the Selective Service.

As the law stands, women can't be drafted.

 CptJake wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The point of this article was NOT a Soldier Deserted. It was a Female Mother Deserted and Sought Asylum and was Deported.

When you agree with what I say, why are you acting like you disagree with what I say?

I think you are confusing me with someone else.

Ah, sorry Jake. I'm just so used to disagreeing with you that I have no clue how to react whenever that's not the case


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, but there is a viewpoint that if women are given the same combat roles as men they should also have to sign up for the Selective Service.

I share that viewpoint. With equal rights comes equal responsibility.

We can't just lazily demand rights and then not accept the responsibilities that come with it. It's also why I encourage my friends to vote as well, even the ones I disagree with. Women worked hard to earn that right. It seems wrong not to practice it, even when elections seem hopelessly pointless.

I believe that women having to register for the draft is somewhere in congress, I for one welcome the change.

I still dont get why, They will never instate the draft. In this world of personal liberties, it would be a major gakstorm.

And if women are added to the draft, they'll be even LESS likely to do so.

Win-win, in my opinion.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I still dont get why, They will never instate the draft. In this world of personal liberties, it would be a major gakstorm.

Its not adding a draft, its simply adding women to the Selective Service. Which is the database for a draft if one was needed.

Currently every able bodied male, both citizens and non-citizen immigrants, between the age of 18 and 30 is required to register with the Selective Service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
And if women are added to the draft, they'll be even LESS likely to do so.

Win-win, in my opinion.

Women being part of a draft doesn't make it less likely IMO. Only less likely that any one particular person would get selected in the event of a draft as you are effectively doubling the participants.

If a full scale war breaks out where a draft is needed there won't be hesitation.

hotsauceman1 wrote:I still dont get why, They will never instate the draft. In this world of personal liberties, it would be a major gakstorm.

Because when it comes to issues of historic gender inequality, appearance actually counts in moot issues.

I dunno GT. Our military is built upon volunteers right now. It'd take some preparation to change it to conscription again.

Although I assume that someone in the military has a plan for that somewhere.

Of course it does. The draft is the equivalent of a fire alarm. You probably won't need it, but you still have it and know how to use it when the gak hits the high speed impeller.