US General in Iraq defends court martial for pregnant soldiers

[katmai]

I assume the 3rd person Martinus mentioned is me, though I'm glad that none of the people who threw out guesses picked me.

Fuck!

How could i forget Timmay

[Berkut]

The "third person" is whoever happened to annoy him lately. It's not like he could actually ignore anyone if he tried - after all, they might say something about gay people, and he would miss it! Or something not about gay people, but which could end up being about gay people anyway.

Marty's "ignore" list is even less credible than dgullers was...

[Pat]

Are you suggesting we could also eliminate homosexuality through education? Perhaps then Neil might be merciful.

While I do not have a personal interest in the subject, I am quite open to the possibility that homosexuality has a lot to do with cultural and environmental factors (which is not to say it is self-chosen).

One could imagine, for example, too many men in a tribe and not enough women. Instead of the tribe being ripped apart by violent conflict over women, some men take the roles of women, thus 1) bowing out of the competition 2) performing the role of women which is in short demand, along with the tasks associated with that role. For the individual, this has the advantage of not being killed in violent competition over women and from an evolutionary perspective he will be helping the survival of his genes as he will be contributing to the cohesion and strength of the tribe, i.e. his family and extended family, which, if torn apart by internal conflict, could easily be driven off its land/killed/enslaved by a stronger tribe. Presumably this would work at a sub-conscious level and be triggered by group dynamics and workings of the cultural super-ego beyond the  understanding of individuals (I'm not talking about our modern nation-wide cultural super-egos but the ones arising individually, and quite literally organically, as soon as people are grouped together).

It is interesting to note that a significant amount of tribal cultures practice ritualized homosexuality, i.e. homosexuality incorporated into the cultures and traditions as shaped by generations of experience, and presumably filling certain functions. 22%, if I recall correctly, of melanesian tribes practice ritualized homosexuality. There is correlation between ritualized homosexuality and low-productivity habitats, which indicates homosexuality can also have a role of counteracting over-population (*).

Essentially, my hypothesis is that homosexuality is genetic and innate in all men, but it is only triggered in specific circumstances. One would expect a priest living in celebacy being denied women having this mechanism triggered. One would also expect it to trigger in all-male or male-dominant environments (such as adolescent boys in a boarding school).

Maybe I'm wrong, but at least it's interesting to speculate about.




(*)

(This is tangential, but what I mean is that the sexual drive is not directed towards women, which would produce babies, but elsewhere: an example of this being taken to an extreme would be the Etoro tribe; reducing fertility might at a glance seem counter-intuitive from an evolutionary perspective but if you take the Malthusian dynamics into consideration it makes sense and one finds many examples of cultures counteracting overpopulation in various ways; other examples of measures to counter-act overpopulation is the practice of penile subinsicion found among various primitive peoples all over the world, which allows sperm to escape from the base of the penis outside of the vagina, and the practice among polynesians to ritually suicide-journey into the ocean, which occasionally led them to new lands, which is how they came to populate some quite remote islands in the Pacific and, presumably, even Madagascar across the Indian ocean.)

[Eddie Teach]

I assume the 3rd person Martinus mentioned is me, though I'm glad that none of the people who threw out guesses picked me.

[grumbler]

The "third person" is whoever happened to annoy him lately. It's not like he could actually ignore anyone if he tried - after all, they might say something about gay people, and he would miss it! Or something not about gay people, but which could end up being about gay people anyway.

Marty's "ignore" list is even less credible than dgullers was...

But it is also largely identical.

That is two exclusive clubs I am proud to be part of.

[KRonn]

This policy seems fine. The military has its discipline standards. Getting pregnant takes a soldier out of duty, perhaps doing needed jobs in a dangerous zone, creating a shortage for the job. Males and females are punishable; it's not something against women at all.  This makes sense, though not politically correct sense, so some groups are of course "outraged".

[Grey Fox]

Why do you ignore Tim, Marti?

Grumbler & Berkut, sure why not but Tim?

Might as well ignore Valmy while you are at it.

[Ed Anger]

A punch to the stomach ends the issue.

[DGuller]

This policy seems fine. The military has its discipline standards. Getting pregnant takes a soldier out of duty, perhaps doing needed jobs in a dangerous zone, creating a shortage for the job. Males and females are punishable; it's not something against women at all.  This makes sense, though not politically correct sense, so some groups are of course "outraged".

On the other hand, it's easier to figure out who the mother is than who the father is.

[grumbler]

Might as well ignore Valmy while you are at it.

When the issue is Israel, this is outstanding advice! 

[Valmy]

Might as well ignore Valmy while you are at it.

When the issue is Israel, this is outstanding advice! 

Some people cannot handle the truth

[Razgovory]

He did mention that I don't bring anything valuable to the table once but I didn't think that was particularly noteworthy.

[dps]

This policy seems fine. The military has its discipline standards. Getting pregnant takes a soldier out of duty, perhaps doing needed jobs in a dangerous zone, creating a shortage for the job. Males and females are punishable; it's not something against women at all.  This makes sense, though not politically correct sense, so some groups are of course "outraged".

First off if it's army policy to send pregnant soldiers home (as stated in the OP), does this general have the authority to change that on his own?  I'm not an expert on military law, but isn't what is and isn't a court-martial offense a matter of written law, not just something that individual commanders decide on?

Also, how does it apply to both male and female soldiers?  Does that mean that if a male soldier is home on leave and gets his civilian wife pregnant, he can be court-martialed?  If so, the why?  It doesn't diminish readiness.

[The Brain]

This policy seems fine. The military has its discipline standards. Getting pregnant takes a soldier out of duty, perhaps doing needed jobs in a dangerous zone, creating a shortage for the job. Males and females are punishable; it's not something against women at all.  This makes sense, though not politically correct sense, so some groups are of course "outraged".

First off if it's army policy to send pregnant soldiers home (as stated in the OP), does this general have the authority to change that on his own?  I'm not an expert on military law, but isn't what is and isn't a court-martial offense a matter of written law, not just something that individual commanders decide on?

Why wouldn't they be sent home just because they get court-martialed?

[KRonn]

This policy seems fine. The military has its discipline standards. Getting pregnant takes a soldier out of duty, perhaps doing needed jobs in a dangerous zone, creating a shortage for the job. Males and females are punishable; it's not something against women at all.  This makes sense, though not politically correct sense, so some groups are of course "outraged".

First off if it's army policy to send pregnant soldiers home (as stated in the OP), does this general have the authority to change that on his own?  I'm not an expert on military law, but isn't what is and isn't a court-martial offense a matter of written law, not just something that individual commanders decide on?

Also, how does it apply to both male and female soldiers?  Does that mean that if a male soldier is home on leave and gets his civilian wife pregnant, he can be court-martialed?  If so, the why?  It doesn't diminish readiness.

The General is talking about male or female soldiers who get pregnant, or impregnate another soldier, while on duty in an Iraq zone. That takes the female out of action, and both are subject to some disciplinary action. Causes a loss of at least one soldier, but both played so both can be held liable. But it's not heavy discipline from what I see. That's the way I read it, and it seems reasonable.