A few days back, Gwen made some reference to a FAQ that
Kage put together on Women in the Military.

Well, it took some digging, but here it is. Happy
to oblige.

I had to go to DejaNews to find it...

It seems that quite a few folks have quoted it in their own
position posts... but here's the cite for all you cite bugs...

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Kage+McClued,+FAQ&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rnum=
8&ic=1&selm=719ksl%24ipn%241%40plug.news.pipex.net

There's ever somuch traffic about this sort of thing out
there... Pity our PC leaders don't read... and heed.

FAQ on Women in the Military

There are a variety of reasons why our current reliance on women
in the military should be reduced... and why they should never be
allowed in combat units. This FAQ will provide a cross section
of the well proven and known reasons as to reduce their numbers
dramatically... if not eliminate them all together.

1. Why should the numbers of women in the military be reduced
or eliminated?

There are a number of reasons to take this action, and as soon
as possible. These include costs, logistics, readiness (both
unit and individual) and capabilities.

2. So... what are the costs issues confronting us?

The costs stem from pregnancy and related expenses. This is
tied into the issue of individual and unit readiness as well.

3. What are the effects of pregnancy on individual and unit
readiness?

The moment a woman is discovered to be pregnant, she is
given a variety of privileges and exempted from most duties.
At a minimum, she is exempted from overseas deployment
to a hazardous duty area and/or shipboard duty. Anyone
discovered to be pregnant is immediately evacuated from
any "hazardous" (i.e. Bosnia) overseas deployment or
shipboard service. One example of the effect of pregnancy
was the removal of the U.S.S. Acacia (AD-42) from the
Southwest Asian Theater of operations due to the 40%
pregnancy rate of the female members of the crew.
Another: in excess of 400 servicemembers have been
evacuated from Bosnia due to pregnancy. Additionally,
any duties involving strenuous physical activities (including
physical training) and many of the other duties part and
parcel of military life (guard duty, field training, etc.) are
eliminated from the pregnant soldier's life.

Unit readiness is effected primarily by the requirement that
other unit members must pick up the slack of the pregnant
servicemember's reduced duty capability; that in the event
of overseas or ship deployment, the unit must deploy either
understrength, or by "kidnapping" another servicemember
to perform the pregnant servicemember's duties.

At any one time, according to the Army Times, 10% of the
female servicemembers are pregnant. Currently, there
are approximately 190,000 females serving in the US
Military. With approximately 10% pregnant, this represents
a pool of 19,000 servicemembers (an amount roughly
equal to a division and one half of soldiers) who are
nondeployable and on restricted duty.

As a result, the taxpayer bears the costs of servicemembers
trained, but voluntarily unable to perform the duties they have
sworn to execute. Even assuming the relatively low average
cost per servicemember of $2000 each (including pay and
allowances) the taxpayer is paying $38,000,000 per month
without even assuming the extra costs for replacements,
training, prenatal and post natal care, housing and ration
allowances that are exclusively the pregnant servicemembers
by virtue of her voluntary condition. This represents a cost of
approximately one-half BILLION dollars per year for this
more or less constant pool of female servicemembers;
unable to fight... unable to do their duty... but getting paid
for it nonetheless.

It is undeniable that, were the women of the military phased
out, this cost would gradually be reduced to nothing. It is
also undeniable that the issue of pregnancy is an unsolved
one; and that it continues to cost the taxpayer millions,
continues to reduce unit capabilities and continues to
reduce the overall effectiveness of the US Military.

4. But don't women have the right to serve?

No. The US Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that
there is no "right" to serve per se'. This has been the
basis for Court decisions since the military began, and
is the reason that those with physical or mental defects,
pregnant females, homosexuals, those too tall, short or
overweight or those not intelligent enough are routinely
denied entrance.

The Court has repeatedly backed the military in both
their issues of qualifications as well as conduct.

5. But what about the concept of equality in the military?

Equality in the military is a pipe dream. There is no
such thing, and there never has been.

Women are neither required nor expected to meet
the requirements of men in areas of physical
capability, although most are fully capable of meeting
the same standards with additional training.

When women were assigned to the USS Eisenhower
as crew, the modifications for the women's quarters
cost the taxpayer an additional $7,000,000 over the
cost of male quarters. To this day, I fail to understand
what the excess costs were for, but they were
nevertheless additional costs borne by you, the
taxpayer.

In 1974, when the post Vietnam military began to expand
its efforts to recruit women into the military, that was
immediately felt in my unit in Aschaffenburg, Germany.
I was assigned to an infantry battalion (1/4 Inf of the 3rd
Brigade, 3rd Infantry Div) that happened to be the brigade
"detail battalion."

The Brigade was notified of an influx of women to be
assigned to the support Kaserne (Graves Barracks). To
get the barracks ready, my company was assigned to
rebuild the fourth floor of one of the "Kaiser Era barracks,"
a job that, were women truly equal, they would have had
no difficulty accomplishing on their own.

6. But what about duty performance?

Exclusive of the fact that you both must get there, and
stay there to perform the duty in question, the duty
performance of women in areas requiring strenuous
physical activities is sadly lacking. Studies have
been done that show reduced capabilities in the
area of damage control on board ship. Some studies
have been done that show women to be less of a
disciplinary problem, while others have been
that suggest issues of discipline are comparable. (One
statistic: in 1995, the Air Force Court-martialed 60 men
and 6 women for adultery and related. That shows at
about the same ratio of women and men serving in the
Air Force) By the end of March next year, I will be
releasing a synapses of all studies done on the subject
by Department of Defense, good or bad.

7. How do YOU know all this?

Exclusive of extensive research on the subject, I have
served in enlisted, noncommissioned and
commissioned officer status. I have served in and led
combat arms units, and I have commanded mixed-gender
units. Experience is a hard teacher, but I have personally
had to deal with each issue raised in this FAQ.

8. How can these issues be addressed and actually
increase the capabilities of the military?

There are a variety of options. In the military, voluntary
assumption of a physical condition that results in your
inability to perform duties has been a court-martial
offense. I, personally, have seen cases of severe
sun-burn (resulting from nonduty-related causes)
result in Article 15's (Nonjudicial punishment) on
the soldiers in question, because they voluntarily
became sunburned and were unable to perform their
duties for a few days afterwards.

Contrast that with pregnancy, which keeps one off
full duty status for as long as a year..

The following steps can be taken to address the issue,
exclusive of phasing women out altogether:

1. Require women that enlist to either be incapable of
bearing children, or have Norplant 5 year birth control
implants. If they are unable to use Norplant, then deny
them enlistment.

2. Require one physical training test for both genders
with the same standards.

3. For soldiers who become pregnant, require them to
repay all costs of their pregnancies.

4. For soldiers who become pregnant, add the same
number of days that they are pregnant, as well as
mandated post partum time off to the end of the enlistment:
A soldier enlisting for 3 years who becomes pregnant to
term would be required to spend 4 years on duty to
make up for the approximately one year of exempt
granted as part of the pregnancy package.

5. Return any woman med-evaced from hazardous/shipboard
duty as soon as the year is up. Pregnancy should never just
be a "ticket out."

6. Reduce their pay by one-half during the exempted duty
time frame.

Equality is not situational. Two privates assigned to the same
unit; doing the same jobs; should have the same likelihood of
availability to perform the job, and the same capability to get
it done. They should be equally "taskable" in areas such as
deployment, guard duty and field duty. Extraneous factors
caused by gender differences should not enter into it. But
they do... and as long as the issue of pregnancy is allowed
to adversely impact the readiness and capabilities of the
Armed Forces of the United States, gender differences
will continue to drive policy, increase disproportionate
money and assets to women and reduce training, logistical
and strategic capability.

Ultimately, the question: "What is the Armed Forces of the
United States in existence for?" must be answered. If the
military is a gigantic social program designed to take
budding welfare-recipients and provide them with total-
immersion job training, then let's say so. Personally, I don't
think that's what we were there for... and what we are here
for now. Yet, devotee's of the "women-in-the-military"
scenario make no effort to address this problem... inferring
that it's just the cost of doing business. Bull.

The issue of women and their related problems in the military
will only grow as time goes on. The military as incubator and
daycare center is not where we need to go, and it is time to
stop going there.

More to come.