Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
    
    My immediate reaction to this brand-new social problem would be that 
    the burden of finding a solution should lie more with the parents than
    with the Pentagon or even the Congress.  It just isn't fair to
    guarantee someone a slot in the military with a relatively easy out in
    case of war.
    
    NICK
    

    re .1, I don't think being a parent is an easy out for anything.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    RE:  .2
    
    There is a difference between being a mother and being a parent.  I was
    refering to the former.
    
    NICK
    

    Maybe parenthood should be made grounds for dismissal from
    the services ? Or at least for a transfer to a non-combat
    unit and demotion. (And do we charge a person who becomes a
    parent during wartime with attempting to evade combat duty? 
    "Cowardice in the face of the enemy by way of parenthood" ?)
    
    I have no problem with combat duty being open to anyone who
    a) wants it and b) qualifies for the job. I do think that
    anyone assigned to a combat outfit should understand both
    the risks and commitment. For such a person to become a
    parent speaks of lack of commitment. (Look at it this way,
    would you want to be fighting next to someone who's more
    worried about their kids than their fellow soldiers?)
    Maybe reversible sterilization should be mandatory for _all_
    who volunteer for combat positions. (Heck, the army'd shrink
    to zilch ;-) )
    
    
    

    re .3, no, I'm afraid I don't know what you meant.  What do you think
    the difference is between being a parent and being a mother?  (I'm a
    parent because I have a child.  I'm a mother because I'm female.  But,
    so what?)
    
    Lorna
    

Actually, as I understand it, the proposed bill would make the exemption
voluntary for single parents, and in the case of both parents being sent
to war, one parent would be allowed a voluntary exemption, the choice of
which parent being left up to the military.

In my opinion, this would add a layer of complexity to the military's
planning, and have potentially serious impact on the careers of military
spouses or single parents in the military, since their mobilization 
readiness could be called into question.  I think that to have an effective
military, we need to guard against measures that would reduce the combat
readiness of our troops, especially in times when they are on the brink
of mobilization.

While I feel for the children affected by the military's current policy,
I also feel that it is the correct approach to take in the event of war.  
What I would like to see is a peacetime policy geared towards the welfare
of children: when a soldier's family status changes (i.e. he/she has or
gains custody of a child when s/he had none before, or s/he becomes part
of a dual-soldier spousal unit, or becomes a single parent), I believe that
soldier should be given the option to request a discharge (possibly forfeiting
the last reenlistment bonus).  I would propose that this policy be limited
to peacetime, and be subject to suspension by the president and/or Congress
if war seems imminent.  And, most importantly, I would like to see a greater
reluctance on the part of leaders to enter armed conflicts.

    Sharon

P.S.  Nick, what is the difference between being a mother and a parent,
other than that being female is obligatory for the former?  The current
bill addresses fathers, too -- in fact, the majority of single parents in
the military are men.

    Some women's groups were against this because they felt that women
    would again become second class citizens in the military.
    
    I think we need to protect children from becoming orphans.  And while
    this would provide a logistic nightmare for the military, I think it is
    a worthwhile one.
    
    There is a precedent for this.  If a family lost a son in WWII, the
    surviving son could be reassigned. (In the case where there were only
    two sons.)
    
    Don't we owe our children the same rights that we owe parents?
    
    Just one woman's opinion,
    
    judy

    
    
    RE:  .5
    
    What I meant to imply that if someone joins the military, and at the
    first sign of conflict gets pregnant to avoid service, that person is a
    mother because she's pregnant but is she a parent?  Did she have the
    child to raise a child?
    
    NICK
    

    
    re .8:
    
    Confused here.  Do you think that pregnant women should be made
    to go into combat and other life-threatening situations because
    they signed up/volunteered for the army?
    
    If so, I totally disagree, and it's on strictly moral issues.
    

re .8:

I suspect that if you take a look at the ratios of US casualties (deaths, 
wounded) to number of troops deployed by the US in the gulf war, and take a 
look at the the casualty figures (deaths, complications) for pregnancy,
you would not conclude that getting pregnant solely to avoid service is a 
fully rational option, especially when one considers the long-term implications.

    Sharon

    
    
    RE:   .9
    
    I don't think pregnant women should be in combat for obvious reasons. 
    We were discussing a law that would send a definite message to folks
    who wish to suplement their income and shop at the comissary without
    the threat of combat duty.

    re.8
    
    while statistically possible, I do believe the idea is a tad
    far-fetched
    
    in the scenario you propose, filing for CO status would be a more
    practical option than becoming pregnant.
    
    if pregnant women should avoid changing the cat litter, they certainly
    should be able to avoid combat -- given the relative impact upon the
    unborn of the two activities.
    

    
    My opinion only....
    
    What the heck are we fighting for if not to preserve our country and
    way of life for the future?  ANd who is the future? US? or
    our/your/their children?
    
    Again in my opinion, I feel there is a tremendous gap between the
    rhetoric around the "values we hold dear' and the reality we
    experience.  One of the big ways I see that is in how we talk about how
    valuable our children are, but how little we actually DO! anyone who's
    had the experie of a boos who lves children but hates emoployees
    who have to occasionally take a day off to take care of "kid's thing"
    may be able to relate.
    
    IMO, the question around allobwing ONE parent to VOLUNTARILY decide that
    they may be etter utilized by taking care of their children shouldn't    
    
    even be an issue....it makes sense and is in keping with what I THINK
    are the values of this country.
    re people who suddenly take up parenthood to avoid war... there will
    always be a way for those who wantto avoid their obligations to do so;
    or at least to try to do so... this minoirty shouldn't set precedent
    for the majority.
    
    
    =jamd
    
    PS sorry for the typos. I hae a very unclean line, and haven't figured
    a way around it's uninvited additions

    There are two easy choices:
    
    1. Go back to the old military ruling towards female personnel,
       If a female in the military got pregnant, it was an automatic
       discharge.
    
    2. Single parent or both parents in the military, then one of 
       the parents or the single parent should only be allowed non-
       combat duty.
    
    The welfare of the children should come first.  This country 
    does not need any more "unadoptable" children on the welfare
    system.  
    
    Linda
    Who has seen the foster children's program first hand and it is
    lousy.
    
    

    The military could: 
    
    1) Not allow two military personnel to marry.
    2) Allow two military personnel to marry, but mandate that one chooses
    to move to a non-combatant position.
    
    After all, even at DEC, we can't have a married couple in the same cost
    center!! ;-)
    
    

    Actually, since women aren't officially allowed in combat postions,
    then the second choice in the previous reply is not relevant.
    
    There doesn't seem to be a way to protect the children when the Mom
    isn't officially in combat, but in my eyes is in combat.
    
    judy 

>    After all, even at DEC, we can't have a married couple in the same cost
>    center!! ;-)

    Oh? A couple of years ago (before VMS split from one cost center
    to several) there were seven (count them seven) married couples in
    the VMS cost center.

    re .17,  definately frowned upon in my world!
    

Assignment of Employees Who Are Related

 Policy

 It is the Company's policy that employees who are related will not
 be assigned to the same work group.  The Company's interest is to
 promote an environment in which business decisions are made free
 from the effect of family relationships.  Likewise employees should
 not accept or remain in positions in which a family relationship
 with another employee could impact their ability to make decisions
 in an objective manner.

                                                        Screen  2 of 4
  Practice

 For purposes of this policy, family relations are defined as
 parent, spouse, child, sister, brother, stepparent, stepchild,
 foster parent, guardian, in-law, grandchild or grandparent.
 Specifically, related employees will not be assigned to positions
 such as:

     o  Direct supervision of one another,

     o  Dependent responsibilities, i.e., Purchasing and Accounts
        Payable,

     o  Disbursement of petty cash to one another, or

     o  Access to privileged or confidential information about one
        another.

   It is understood that the examples contained within this policy may
   not precisely cover every situation which arises.  The line manager
   and the Personnel Department are responsible for reviewing all
   applications of this policy on a case by case basis.  Employees who
   feel they may be subject to the provisions of this policy should
   bring it to their manager's attention.  Additional points are
 | covered in Policy 6.06, Conflicts of Interest, and 6.18, Employee
 | Privacy.

    You  will notice that this policy does not prohibit related
    employees from being in the same *cost center*.
    
    Bonnie

    I thought that parents who enter the military have to have a 
    pre-arranged guardian for their children.  I was also under the
    impression that this was a rather formal (documented) arrangement
    and that the consent of the potential guardians had to be noted.
    This would keep the children from becoming orphans if both parents 
    were killed.  This often places the burden upon grandparents, but that
    is a choice made by the parents and the grandparents.
    
    I personally don't think it is a good situation for couples with
    children to both be enlisted.  But those are my priorities, every
    person/couple has to make decisions based on their own priorities.  I
    don't think it is up to congress to set those priorities either. 
    Responsible parents will have arrangements made for the care of their
    children during war-time and any responsible parent
    (military/nonmilitary) will have arrangements made for a guardian if 
    they should both die.
    
    I think the current policy is fine.  I also base this on the fact that
    we have a volunteer military.  I do think that the fact that people
    volunteer makes a difference, it is their choice to join the service
    and there is a risk that the service will be called upon to do what
    they are trained to do.   
      
    Mary