Women issues

[phrogpilot73]

Is not an issue of definition, but of context. You could say that a pregnant woman's likelihood of succeeding at an aviation career is unequal to that of a man's, and you'd be absolutely correct, but that's not the same thing as saying that the woman is unequal to the man. You're saying that their chances are unequal. And their chances are unequal because of circumstance (i.e. pregnancy, the nature of the aviation pipeline, etc.), not because of their physiological sex indicators.

I agree, however the argument can still be made that they are unequal based purely on the physiology. You are arguing that we should never say that men and women are unequal, based on the dreaded 4th definition above. Equal rights, equal pay, etc... all falls under that definition. However, my argument is that using the 1b defintion you can argue that they are indeed unequal, because of the use of the word "or" in the definition.

not like or not the same as another in degree, worth, or status

So are women the same as men in degree? No (on multiple levels). Worth? Yes. Status? Yes. So, because they used the term "or", than only condition has to be true in order for the whole statement to be true. So, I would argue that given the context of the argument, men and women are unequal. Pregnancy (given the debate on going) is not a circumstance, it is a choice. Pregnancy impacts a woman more than a man, because of their physiological differences. Pregnancy removes a woman from her current career path for 9+ months. Men can not decide to get pregnant, therefore they will not be removed from their career path for 9+ months. The circumstance is that the aviation career path is very competitive, and is only getting more so. The physiological differences, combined with the choice of pregnancy means that men and women aren't equal in this context.

And I know you're not a woman-hater, Guy On The Private Spouses Corner. That was a little joke about the fact that somehow, we manage to get into a debate about gender equality and women in the military every six months. It's almost scary how regularly the issue comes up.

True, although I think it's more often than six months...

 

[phrogpilot73]

BTW, the biological clock is the reason women in any profession which requires a lot of time, dedication, etc (the military, medicine, law, research, rodeo clown, etc) will not retain women at the numbers desired. We (regardless of sex) all have different priorities and make choices (and sacrifices) accordingly.

I agree wholeheartedly. Sometimes, and not just in this profession - the time you must dedicate to the profession to be successful and the time you must dedicate to your family are not compatible, and that's when the tough choices have to be made.

 

[Cate]

Pregnancy is a circumstance. It's a (largely) avoidable circumstance, and it's usually a choice, but it's still a circumstance. And the fact that women are capable of becoming pregnant isn't enough to declare them "unequal." But that hasn't kept people from using it as such for hundreds of years (and is the most common, and most bogus, excuse for the gender wage gap). To penalize a woman, career-wise, for allowing her pregnancy to interfere with her job and the jobs of others is perfectly understandable. To penalize all women -- declare them "unequal" -- because of their potential to get pregnant is like declaring a man unequal because of his potential to get prostate cancer.

You say that men and women are fundamentally different in "degree." I'm interested in how you define "degree," because Merriam-Webster is using it in the context of status and value. Again, I'm agreeing with you that men and women are different. And I appreciate that you feel that those differences aren't enough to merit unequal treatment in terms of employment, protection under the law, etc. I just don't see -- and have yet to be convinced -- that those differences in substance are enough to constitute inequality in value.

 

[hscs]

This really isn't an issue confined to just the military -- it is a situation that comes with many management type jobs or executive type jobs. If you are a lawyer, for example, you are going to work long hours, and if you take time out to have a family and don't come back to work right away, you will be off track to make partner. Wow, sounds like, if you take time off from your job to have a kid, your timing for DH (and therefore, shot at command) is screwed up.

 

[phrogpilot73]

To penalize a woman, career-wise, for allowing her pregnancy to interfere with her job and the jobs of others is perfectly understandable.

That's what I'm arguing. That a woman who chooses to become pregnant, knowing that there is a very real potential it will impact her career (because it will interfer with her job, and the jobs of others), should be prepared to deal with the consequences. Not that she should be "penalized" but that she, by choice, may be making herself less competitive in her chosen career path.

To penalize all women -- declare them "unequal" -- because of their potential to get pregnant is like declaring a man unequal because of his potential to get prostate cancer.

A bit of a stretch based on what I said. You continually interchange the definition that unequal = unjust, whereas I'm arguing unequal = different. Truth be told, there are multiple definitions. Men and women are different, therefore in some circumstances, men and women are not equal. Take into account that I'm an engineer - so I tend to work in absolutes. Most men are not equal either. It's a fact of life. Unless we were all carbon copies of the same exect person...

You say that men and women are fundamentally different in "degree." I'm interested in how you define "degree," because Merriam-Webster is using it in the context of status and value. Again, I'm agreeing with you that men and women are different. And I appreciate that you feel that those differences aren't enough to merit unequal treatment in terms of employment, protection under the law, etc. I just don't see -- and have yet to be convinced -- that those differences in substance are enough to constitute inequality in value.

Again, there are numerous definitions of degree. According to OED degree: the relative intensity, extent, measure, or amount of a quality, attribute, or action. So, let's just use measure and attribute. Women have more estrogen than men. Men have more testosterone than women. So, women have a higher degree of estrogen then men, and men have a higher degree of testosterone than women. Now, put that back into the original definition of unequal. Men and women aren't equal, or they'd have the same level of testosterone and estrogen. Remember the use of the word "or", only one condition must be true for the entire statement to be true.

OED also describes equal: Possessing a like degree of a (specified or implied) quality or attribute; on the same level in rank, dignity, power, ability, achievement, or excellence; having the same rights or privileges. Again, multiple definitions... So while they should have the same rights or privelges, they may or may not have the same ability.

 

[Cate]

That's what I'm arguing. That a woman who chooses to become pregnant, knowing that there is a very real potential it will impact her career (because it will interfer with her job, and the jobs of others), should be prepared to deal with the consequences. Not that she should be "penalized" but that she, by choice, may be making herself less competitive in her chosen career path.

Agreed.

A bit of a stretch based on what I said. You continually interchange the definition that unequal = unjust, whereas I'm arguing unequal = different. Truth be told, there are multiple definitions. Men and women are different, therefore in some circumstances, men and women are not equal. Take into account that I'm an engineer - so I tend to work in absolutes. Most men are not equal either. It's a fact of life. Unless we were all carbon copies of the same exect person...

I'm not arguing that unequal = unjust (although I think that unequal treatment can, in many cases, be unjust). I'm arguing that different in nature isn't different in value.

Different aspects of men and women are unequal. Average height? Unequal. The average American man is 5'9", the average American woman is 5'4", and 5'9" > 5'4". Let's say that (and I pull these numbers out of thin air) the average woman can bench 150 pounds and the average man can bench 250. 150 < 250.

Let's say that a woman is 5'3", 115 pounds, and fairly muscular. Let's say that a guy is 5'11", 190 pounds, and fairly muscular. Which one is more likely to be able to pull a trapped child out of a narrow well? The woman's ability to do so will be greater than the man's, so woman's ability > man's ability.

But can we say that the woman > man? She is more capable for that one task, but if her task were dragging a grown man from a burning building, I'd definitely say that the man's ability > the woman's. In certain aspects, for certain tasks, in certain respects, men =/= women. But to say that, as a blanket statement, men < women or men > women simply because they're different implies an ability to quantify Category Man and Category Woman to an absolute degree and declare that absolute =/=.

 

[insanebikerboy]

It appears as if Cate and Phrog may be agreeing and disagreeing at the same time. In the context of my daily life, men = women because some Joe and some Jane are equally able to fly a helicopter, it doesn't make a hill of beans difference between what sex. Same for a ground job such as ops, admin, or whatever.

However, physically, emotionally, etc, etc, average man =/= average woman, and never will be.

I think that line gets blurred too often, when comparing the work potential of an individual versus physical limitations, especially when the question of making babies comes up. And interestingly, the "physical limitation" of a woman having a baby then becomes an issue affecting work potential. In that case, never equal.

The results of those differences are ultimately what play an effect on an individual's career.

 

[raptor10]

Can't we all just agree that women are separate but equal? I mean, it's worked before right

 

[smittyrunr]

That's what I'm arguing. That a woman who chooses to become pregnant, knowing that there is a very real potential it will impact her career (because it will interfer with her job, and the jobs of others), should be prepared to deal with the consequences. Not that she should be "penalized" but that she, by choice, may be making herself less competitive in her chosen career path.

Exactly, I hope that this information is out there and available to women before they make the decision to commit to the military/military aviation. I don't think it is.

Forgot to add: The USNA Commandant has 2, I think, kids. Her husband is a former VP CO.

 

[MasterBates]

While there are "career consequences" for women in the military that CHOOSE to have children while on active duty, why would it need to be advertised any more than "if you are a lawyer, and have kids only 3-4 years out of school, you might not make partner"

Does EVERYTHING need to be spelled out in a sanitized government warning??

WARNING: Having Children while on Sea Duty will make your squadron mates hate you, pick up the slack for you, and your front office will not look kindly upon this at FITREP time. The same will happen on any non-slacker shore duty, with similar consequences. Your inability to control your reproductive organs does not constitute a situation for which you should be rewarded for others having to do your job for you.

There is your warning.

And as to these women who have a career and kids, and throw the kids in daycare from 6 months old, is that fair to the kids? I don't think so.

 

[smittyrunr]

Does EVERYTHING need to be spelled out in a sanitized government warning??

WARNING: Having Children while on Sea Duty will make your squadron mates hate you, pick up the slack for you, and your front office will not look kindly upon this at FITREP time. The same will happen on any non-slacker shore duty, with similar consequences. Your inability to control your reproductive organs does not constitute a situation for which you should be rewarded for others having to do your job for you.

I love it, now I don't have to put up with whining and complaining. No, the world would be better with fewer warnings, not more. There's no way someone outside of a squadron could realize the full effect of these CHOICES unless they are spelled out. And if you don't know/or CHOOSE to ignore the consequences, too bad.

 

[robav8r]

I'm sitting here waiting for a submarine to surface so I can firm up an ASW event for tomorrow - soooooooooooo, I have some time to chime in.

In many respects, women wanting to & having kids is really a diversity issue (yes, I said "Diversity"). Like it or not, we're going to have to learn to adapt, improvise and overcome (like Clint E. would say) when it comes to accomodating and integrating personnel into our armed forces.

Pat Buchanan has written a couple of interesting books on this subject ("Death of the West", "State of Emergency") to name two, which highlight in great detail the fact that our countries ethnicity, cultural and religious fabric is changing rapidly. That's not a huge surprise but gives us some of the reasons Big Navy is embracing "Diversity" in order to keep our manning levels at sufficient levels.

I've said it before and will probably be the subject of continued debate, but we didn't just wake up one day and "decide" to treat women more equitably in terms of combat roles and billets - we needed their numbers plain & simple. If the Navy doesn't go after the "Diversity" in our countries populace, then we won't be able to recruit the numbers of folks we really need.

Pregnancy is the same thing - sort of. We need the "numbers" we get with women accessions but we don't seem to know how to integrate their careers with having kids. It's kind of like the whole IA thing. It's here to stay and we see the whole Navy trying to figure out how to make career timing and milestones mesh with IA's. At some point we're going to need to do the same thing with women (and their desire to have kids) cause we need them.

. . . . . . . thoughts ???

 

[A4sForever]

..... If the Navy doesn't go after the "Diversity" in our countries populace, then we won't be able to recruit the numbers of folks we really need. . . . . . . thoughts ???

OR .... we could just go back to the draft and cut the crap @ an "all volunteer" force -- which was a non-starter from the get-go when we kept trying to police the world and get involved in every nook and cranny conflict that popped up around the world.

Don't talk to me about "quality over quantity" ... 'cause very soon we're going to have neither; we'll just have a broken military. Somehow those lousy ol' draftee forces did just fine in the past, politics aside. Why, they actually won a couple of wars ....

 

[robav8r]

OR .... we could just go back to the draft and cut the crap @ an "all volunteer" force -- which was a non-starter from the get-go when we kept trying to police the world and get involved in every nook and cranny conflict that popped up around the world.

Don't talk to me about "quality over quantity" ... 'cause very soon we're going to have neither; we'll just have a broken military. Somehow those lousy ol' draftee forces did just fine in the past, politics aside. Why, they actually won a couple of wars ....

. . . . . we're "going" to have ??? I think we have already arrived.

 

[cyristvirus]

We just got a girl back in our squadron that had her baby. Shes just about worthless since she was gone for such a long time. I get to take the time out of my work day to train her all over again from the start. I love this job!