US Military Soldiers made to wear "Post Pregnancy Girth Strap on" to help empathize with Fem-Soldier
271 replies, posted
[QUOTE=kenji;34842864]Applying to be a babysitter. :colbert: Checkmate athiests.
On topic however, Seems... unnecessary? Firstly, i know you shouldn't treat women as fragile creatures when they're pregnant, but highly stressful situations (even as training) seems odd, but secondly it still doesn't reflect the mental changes women go through as well.[/QUOTE]
we're talking about fitness instructors.
[quote]This week, 14 noncommissioned officers at Camp Zama took turns wearing the “pregnancy simulators” as they stretched, twisted and exercised during a three-day class that teaches them to serve as fitness instructors for pregnant soldiers and new mothers.[/quote]
[QUOTE=thisispain;34842814]ah okay so the story is that you are a marine and the army sucks or something
so basically you don't really have a solution...
that's nice, please continue to enjoy my tax money.[/QUOTE]
What I'm saying is they're spending money on stupid programs that could be accomplished without using money. My anger stems from the fact that the army can find the money to spend on something like this, while my hard earned benefits are being cut. Coming from the marine corps where we have the smallest budget and are required to cut just as much as the army percentage wise which makes a big impact upon us.
The solution is to come up with a way to do it without spending government money and by treating all personnel as equals. As in they must meet equal standards. That's what the corps does, because we have to we don't have the money or resources to throw around like that. We're also proof that we don't need that stuff because we can accomplish the mission just as well if not better without it.
I thought pregnant women weren't supposed to even be in the military? I would of thought they get sent back home
[QUOTE=Crash15;34843133]I thought pregnant women weren't supposed to even be in the military? I would of thought they get sent back home[/QUOTE]
Nope, they stay active duty and are put on a limited duty status until they give birth. They are then given the option to stay in or get out.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;34843112]What I'm saying is they're spending money on stupid programs that could be accomplished without using money. My anger stems from the fact that the army can find the money to spend on something like this, while my hard earned benefits are being cut. Coming from the marine corps where we have the smallest budget and are required to cut just as much as the army percentage wise which makes a big impact upon us.
The solution is to come up with a way to do it without spending government money and by treating all personnel as equals. As in they must meet equal standards. That's what the corps does, because we have to we don't have the money or resources to throw around like that. We're also proof that we don't need that stuff because we can accomplish the mission just as well if not better without it.[/QUOTE]
They want female soldiers to get back to their jobs, and in order to do that they need exercise after giving birth. In order to do [I]that,[/I] they need instructors who know how to handle pregnant or recently-pregnant women. That's why this program exists, not some kind of scheme to make the marines give up benefits.
[QUOTE=Megafan;34843295]They want female soldiers to get back to their jobs, and in order to do that they need exercise after giving birth. In order to do [I]that,[/I] they need instructors who know how to handle pregnant or recently-pregnant women. That's why this program exists, not some kind of scheme to make the marines give up benefits.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying this whats cause the loss of benefits, I'm saying it's wasteful spending. Wasteful spending in a time where budget cuts are looming overhead for all branches. Wasteful spending that could be put to better use elsewhere. Women have been in the military for quite a long time now, and they've been able to adapt and overcome without this. There are also ways to do this without spending money on expensive additional training and equipment.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;34843325]I'm not saying this whats cause the loss of benefits, I'm saying it's wasteful spending. Wasteful spending in a time where budget cuts are looming overhead for all branches. Wasteful spending that could be put to better use elsewhere. Women have been in the military for quite a long time now, and they've been able to adapt and overcome without this. There are also ways to do this without spending money on expensive additional training and equipment.[/QUOTE]
How exactly have you determined that the program is wasteful? Because it doesn't benefit you directly?
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;34843112]My anger stems from the fact that the army can find the money to spend on something like this, while my hard earned benefits are being cut.[/QUOTE]
don't all military workers earn their benefits? i thought that was the point of joining the military
[QUOTE=Megafan;34843349]How exactly have you determined that the program is wasteful? Because it doesn't benefit you directly?[/QUOTE]
It is proliferating the idea that soldiers should empathize with post pregnancy women instead of holding them to the standard. Where as a male may break his leg and be on limited duty for the duration of the healing period is required to hit the bricks hard to get back in shape on his own, a post pregnancy female is given instructors who are given this supplemental training in order serve them the same purpose as they were doing before without the training.
The fact of the matter is a post pregnancy woman is going to be out of shape, but it is not necessarily to spend money to better tend to their "needs" when they are supposed to be held to the same standard as the rest of the force. When it comes down to their physical ability, the only difference between them and someone who's broken leg healed is that a baby pop'ed out of them.
[editline]23rd February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=thisispain;34843373]don't all military workers earn their benefits? i thought that was the point of joining the military[/QUOTE]
We all get benefits, but some of them are getting cut and some branch specific benefits are disappearing because of the budget cuts. An example is the GI bill; you still get the $80,000 but the housing allowance is limited only to times during school.
This may sound trivial but take someone in my situation. My kidney disease prevents me from doing most manual labor, thus my primary source of income for while Im in school will be my GI bill housing allowance and my disability benefits. When it comes time for Christmas break, my housing allowance disappears for the whole month. That's a whole months worth of rent and food I then have to attempt to pay for with my disability benefits, which are minuscule.
Other examples including retirement, active duty tuition assistance, enlisted housing, tools and equipment, basic amenity's etc.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;34837145]This is what the Army spends their money on? We're having budget cuts and losing amenities and benefits for our troops and this is what they spend their money on? What the fuck.[/QUOTE]
if only we had more money for bombs and unmanned drones!!
[editline]24th February 2012[/editline]
also my first post in this thread was stupid i didn't read
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34843483]if only we had more money for bombs and unmanned drones!![/QUOTE]
If only we had money to replace the 110 year old barracks I live in that's plagued with mold and leaking ceilings as well as the pissed stained bed sheets that we have to reuse.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34843483]if only we had more money for bombs and unmanned drones!!
[editline]24th February 2012[/editline]
also my first post in this thread was stupid i didn't read[/QUOTE]
Or money for benefits and better living quality for soldiers and sailors?
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;34843510]If only we had money to replace the 110 year old barracks I live in that's plagued with mold and leaking ceilings as well as the pissed stained bed sheets that we have to reuse.[/QUOTE]
So you suggest increasing the budget?
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34843597]So you suggest increasing the budget?[/QUOTE]
I suggest better spending of the diminished budget rather than wasteful spending on unnecessary training.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;34843623]I suggest better spending of the diminished budget rather than wasteful spending on unnecessary training.[/QUOTE]
About 90% of the us defence budget is unnecessary and wasteful, I'm sure you can find bigger things lazycough F-22, over this training.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34843678]About 90% of the us defence budget is unnecessary and wasteful, I'm sure you can find bigger things lazycough F-22, over this training.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure I could, but seeing what we marines fair with and then seeing this makes me just as upset.
[QUOTE=EurofanBMW;34839171]Something tells me you wouldn't last too long in the infantry.[/QUOTE]
Something tells me you fit right in.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;34843725]I'm sure I could, but seeing what we marines fair with and then seeing this makes me just as upset.[/QUOTE]
Well, throw a dart at the defence budget, and I'm sure any number of it can equally annoy the person paying for that shit.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;34837475]Female soldiers [i]are[/i] abnormal.[/QUOTE]
I think you're missing the point. They may be abnormal as in they deviate from the norm or usual, in terms of how common they are and the fact that their jobs are restricted based on gender. However, take into account my use of the word 'default': as in, males are seen as the default (and consequently form the ideal of what a [i]right[/i] or [i]correct[/i] soldier should be). Which, IMHO, is wrong. This is only the case due to the social norms of gender, which are constructed.
[QUOTE=EurofanBMW;34839171]Something tells me you wouldn't last too long in the infantry.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Sector 7;34837889]My original point was that the term "fem-soldiers" is hardly offensive, unless you're [i]incredibly[/i] sensitive - in which case, the military sure as hell is not for you.[/QUOTE]
As Megafan said, I don't see how your assertions are remotely relevant. I don't particularly care if you find me to be 'incredibly sensitive'; I notice and comment on the small and subtle ways in which the patriarchy expresses itself, such as the title of this thread, because I find it pertinent (and I'm not the only one). That, to me, is far more important than speculating on how long I might 'last' in the military.
Also, you're both right: I likely wouldn't last in the military very long. Why? Because I wouldn't enjoy being raped, especially frequently and by multiple people. And there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that that's what I, as a young woman, would be subjected to if I enlisted.
when did devotchkade even imply that she was interested in going into the military?
do you think that the people who criticize the military only do so because they're jealous or something?
-snip-
As soon as he said shock balls, it all seemed so worth it.
[QUOTE=devotchkade;34845376]-snip-[/QUOTE] Nothing like creating a problem out of thin air by complaining about the abbreviation "fem." Can we get mad about how the militaries money could be better spent instead of wasting it on fake breasts and expensive jets? Oh I guess I'm a slave to the patriarchy, yall.
edit: Nevermind, I don't see how I saw the original post when it was snipped two hours ago I guess
[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;34845973]Nothing like creating a problem out of thin air by complaining about the abbreviation "fem." Can we get mad about how the militaries money could be better spent instead of wasting it on fake breasts and expensive jets? Oh I guess I'm a slave to the patriarchy, yall.[/quote]
Excuse me?
Hate to break it to you, but this is a forum. It's not like I'm in front of the White House threatening self-immolate until people stop using the word 'fem'. I made an off-hand comment, people got angry, and I replied.
I certainly haven't discussed anything about the military budget or whatnot, but Megafan made a few posts about it that are far more eloquent than anything I could write, so I'll direct you to that. I don't know why you're complaining about me using the word 'patriarchy' when I used it in regards to something completely different (the title, as opposed to the budget).
[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;34845973]edit: Nevermind, I don't see how I saw the original post when it was snipped two hours ago I guess[/QUOTE]
What do you think you're replying to? I snipped the content of the post above yours because it included irrelevant personal information. I see nothing in your post that references what I actually said before I edited, so I don't think you're replying to the post you think you're replying to. Did you by any chance mean [url=http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1165681?p=34845311&viewfull=1#post34845311]this one[/url]?
Go back to posting pictures of your dick in Fast Threads
This stuff isn't a waste of money because it significantly improves health outcomes for post pregnant women getting back to spec
Also Chicken_Chaser, don't think you're at all unique by saying I'm making a problem 'out of thin air'. People have been dismissing the concerns of minority groups for centuries using that argument; it's a bit tired at this point.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;34843410]It is proliferating the idea that soldiers should empathize with post pregnancy women instead of holding them to the standard. Where as a male may break his leg and be on limited duty for the duration of the healing period is required to hit the bricks hard to get back in shape on his own, a post pregnancy female is given instructors who are given this supplemental training in order serve them the same purpose as they were doing before without the training.
The fact of the matter is a post pregnancy woman is going to be out of shape, but it is not necessarily to spend money to better tend to their "needs" when they are supposed to be held to the same standard as the rest of the force. When it comes down to their physical ability, the only difference between them and someone who's broken leg healed is that a baby pop'ed out of them.
[/QUOTE]
Uh, no, being giving birth is not at all like breaking a leg
[editline]24th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;34843725]I'm sure I could, but seeing what we marines fair with and then seeing this makes me just as upset.[/QUOTE]
Go read the article and understand that there aren't too many of them (14 NCOs took turns wearing them, so less than 14), and the decrease in injury rates probably saves the military more in the long term
take aim at the defense vehicle procurement contracts which have mostly emerged unscathed
[QUOTE=Contag;34846076]Uh, no, being giving birth is not at all like breaking a leg[/quote] He was saying marines and sailors who break legs and shit are expected to fit for full duty and ready to kill when they recover. On the other hand with pregnancy women are eased back into duty. He wasn't comparing pregnancy to broken limbs.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;34846220][editline]24th February 2012[/editline]
You should read better next time, he was saying marines and sailors who break legs and shit are expected to be fit for full duty and ready to kill when they recover. On the other hand with pregnancy women are eased back into duty. He wasn't comparing pregnancy to broken limbs.[/QUOTE]
Have you ever broken a limb before? It isn't "break, wait a few days and you're fine".
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34846271]Have you ever broken a limb before? It isn't "break, wait a few days and you're fine".[/quote] being a corpsman I think I know what I'm talking about when I talk about the expectations of gunny and sergeant when it comes to medical. But yes you're right, that is not how limbs heal.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.