desertvixen: (SFC)

 They did print my response to Single Female Soldiers Getting Pregnant Destroys Government Property.

 Part of it, anyway.  (I know, I know, they reserve the right to edit, but ... they sort of pulled my letter's teeth.)

 My letter is under the cut, with the parts printed in the Times in bold.

 They cut all the good parts! )
desertvixen: (sexism)
I have read my last letter in the Army Times written by a condescending idiot. I'm firing back this time.

Did you know female soldiers get pregnant out of wedlock so they can get more uniforms and TENNIS SHOES?

I guess I know what I'm writing tonight....

ETA: Here's the letter. The letter is in italics, I'm in plain.
I also changed the icon to reflect the letter.

I find the question regarding the female soldier refusing to deploy because the lack of a family care plan not only discriminating but outright ridiculous. The Army regulation on family care plans is black and white and if the Army even considers any favoritism because the soldier is a female then the whole regulation needs to be rewritten.

In March 2003, my ex-wife left me, leaving me without a family care plan and set to deploy to Iraq. The question to me was "Find your ex, give the kids back and go to war...or get out." There was no question of me being a single father with three children. Why is there consideration for this specialist?

Point 1: This guy was screwed by his command. If he became a single parent, then they should have given him the thirty days to get an FCP together. I don't care how close to the deployment it was - that's the regulation. You know, the black and white one? I have worked with several single father soldiers, so I'm either calling BS on his story or saying this: His command failed him.

Point 2: The specialist HAD an FCP. It failed. The person designated as the long-term provider did a flake on her. Based on what I've read, her command failed her.

Why is the Army allowing female soldiers to remain in the Army by getting pregnant out wedlock?

Because it's not the pre-1970s Army, maybe? My ex's mother was in the Army and was separated when she became pregnant with her first child. We don't do it that way anymore. We don't treat unmarried female soldiers differently than we treat dual-military female soldiers. Why? Well, that would be...discrimination!

We have single female soldiers getting pregnant and I believe because they know they only won't have to deploy, but they get more uniforms. tennis shoes and months of convalescent time.

This is the line that made me lose it. No, they don't pull women out of the recovery room and put them on the plane, but female soldiers who are moms also get deployed. Even single soldier moms. They deployed me.

More uniforms - which previously at least, we had to turn in. (I don't know if we get to keep the maternity ACUs.) Not to mention - NO ONE WANTS THESE UNIFORMS. No one wants to wear a BDU or ACU tent.

And I didn't get my tennis shoes. Who do I file a complaint with? To be fair, I think he means we get to wear tennis shoes, which many of us don't. The tennis shoes are supposed to help with swelling issues. I'll be honest - I had to sit on the floor to lace my boots, but I would have rather done that than worn tennis shoes with my uniform. But that's me.

Months of convalescent leave. I can only assume that he's referring to the APFT exemption, for which we get six months. Otherwise, the Army gives us 6 weeks. People can take more if they have it, and their command approves. As far as the APFT exemption, I'd like to see this guy gain 40 pounds, not run for six months, totally get his abs out of shape, and then have to get back into APFT shape. It's not a damn vacation, I promise you.

Don't get me wrong, to female soldiers who are married and are trying to build a family, God bless and best of luck.

To quote the movie Clue, "Too late." I took you wrong. I'm so glad we have your approval.

But the single females getting pregnant should be separated for destruction of government property, and breach of contract being unable to fulfill their obligation to the Army.

So, what about the cases where a female soldier was impregnated by a male soldier? Does he get charged too? Pregnancy takes two - it's not like we go to the store and pick up a pregnancy. Luckily, the Army disagrees with this person. Also, this comment reeks of "stupid girls should have kept their legs shut". Just what I want to hear out of my fellow NCOs.

I recently reclassed and while in AIT three soldiers got pregnant and laughed stating they won't have to go to war now.

So, let me get this straight. Some women made a flip remark, or maybe a joke, about not deploying. If they weren't joking, they're wrong. Soldier moms go to war too, so the joke will be on them in the end.

As long as the Army condones this, others will have to take up the slack of these so-called soldiers.

It's also another episode of one of my favorites - one woman's screwup is held against the rest of us. It's That Girl! You know her. She's the one who oopsed someone's buddy, or filed a false rape report to get even with a bad date, or got made because a guy held the door. She's the one who causes all the problems for the rest of us. Too bad she's made of straw.

So the question is, what should the Army do now? Stick to the policies and regulations that are in place for every soldier in the Army and make her deploy, or if she is in her first enlistment, give her a general discharge and a handshake and make her take responsibility for her actions.

If she can't get an FCP together, then yes, she should be separated. If she gets it together, then she deploys.

Anything else would be a disgrace.

No, the disgrace would be that these attitudes are still hanging around.

The writer is a SSG at Fort Carson.

So I am going to write the Times, along with this entry.

I'm a single mom, and a senior NCO, and tired of this attitude. I'm NOT a single mom by choice - I'm a single mom because my husband came home from his deployment and decided husband and father were two jobs he couldn't handle. So this guy would probably be "okay" with me. I don't give a damn, and I could care less about his approval.

desertvixen: (schroedingers cat)

 Resa LaRu Kirkland.  I succumbed to the lure of the Google.

 Can't Find A Good Man? Blame Feminism!

This piece predates the one on which [ profile] tepintzin and I discovered Ms. Kirkland - it's written in September 2004.

Does any decent American man want a modern American woman?

Signs are there…no, they don’t, or given our behavior, they shouldn’t. And we only have women to blame. Yeah, I said it—women.

She goes on to refer to feminism as "Pussy Politics", and to feminists themselves as "femmies" or the "Bitch Brigade".  (I'm just trying to figure out what the Bitch Brigade unit patch looks like.)  The point of the article is that she believes women manipulate false rape accusations, and that it is part of the Feminist Agenda to do so.

 Do I believe that there are women who make false allegations of rape?  Yes.  Do I believe that those cases somehow outweigh the problem of how rape victims are often treated?  No.

Then she warns us that we had better watch out : Being a broad, I know their emotional tricks, but unlike chicks, I am a slave to logic and reason; their tears and anger in the face of said logic doesn’t wash with me. Watching their heads explode because they don’t have a valid leg to stand on is my favorite pastime. I am their worst nightmare, and I want their Evil Empire destroyed. In other words: Ms. Steinem, Give Back Our Balls!


You’re going down, femmies, and down hard. I’ll see to that; for the two future men I’m raising. More—MUCH more—to come…

I'm scared.  I'm also kind of confused, because I though this article was going to be about something a little different.  I thought it was going to be more about how we feminists won't be able to get men because we scare them.

She's also written about English-only laws in the US, the fear that Islam will take over the world, women not being in combat (or even in the military), and seems in general to be a less-publicized Ann Coulter.  She doesn't appear to have done much lately, at least not that the Google has turned up.


desertvixen: (schroedingers cat)

 Since I need to get the human-beings-are-depressing-me vibe out of my head (yes, maybe I am too sensitive sometimes), allow me to present some of the WTF-y links that have been collecting in my Bookmarks folder.

 These mock one or more of the following topics: anti-feminist views, anti-choice views, religious right-wing whack jobs, people who think Single Mothers are unmaking existence. 

 1. Contraception harms people, society, and civilization
Brought to you by the good people at, this article features the following gem :
Millions of women feel they are goddesses, they control a man through his contraceptive penis. What a shame. What a low down shame people have gone today. Men submitting to women and thanking them for sex? Give me a break.
Top grade males are always in high demand. Top grade males do not submit to contraceptive slavery. A woman who partners with top grade males want their sperm, they demand it, top material to make their babies with.

 I have no issue with people who don't want to use contraceptives, for whatever their personal reason - but why must people try to use bad pseudo-evo-psych BS to make their "point".  Also, "contraceptive penis"?  Is this some kind of add-on we could buy?

 2. The prologue to #1
 The gist of this one: REAL men don't sleep with "contraceptive women". 

 3. Jack Chick tracts
 I don't really need to say anything else here, do I?  The general message of the tracts is that if you aren't a born-again, evangelical Christian, when you die, you're going to HELL. 

 Catholic?  Going to Hell.  (After you get done worshipping Mary and believing in your false religion) 
 Mormon? Going to Hell. 
 Muslim? Going to Hell.  
 Mason?  Going to Hell. 
 Atheist?  Going to Hell. 
 Pagan?  Going to Hell.

 Unless, of course, after reading one of these, you accept that you must give up your life to Jesus.  All you have to do is believe (and pass these out at Halloween instead of candy).

 Allow me to present one of my favorites, Why is Mary Crying? (Maybe because she's badly drawn and being used to scare people?)

Far too many of the links I have are dead, which should actually NOT be too surprising.

 However, because I promised [ profile] garpu , I present a recap of the experience [ profile] tepintzin and I had with Resa LaRu Kirkland, who calls herself  "America's War Chick", is a military historian, but doesn't believe women should be in the military, unless we're WACs or WAVEs.

 The original article (from September 2006) is here.

 This is the climax of the article:
Society has paid a dear price for women choosing to listen to these wretched individuals. Women are now in a far worse position than they were 100 years ago; back then, they didn't have many other choices than to be a wife and mother. Today, if they want to be a wife and mother, they can't unless they marry a very rich man. Feminism has enslaved us into the "SuperWoman" role-an impossible place to live. But I have a sick feeling that that is exactly their goal. You see, being pro-abortion isn't enough. They want motherhood and wife-dom to be so difficult, so back-breaking, so agonizing in modern living that women will choose not to marry and have children. For those who still don't grasp it, let me say it in plain speech: Feminism is the party of the "anti-child."

"Female Empowerment" was the shameful fantasy. Now for the harsh reality. Sisters, your babies are killing each other. They are having babies at younger ages and in record numbers in a desperate search for that unconditional love they couldn't find in the myriad of minimum wage babysitters and daycares they had growing up. They are turning to gangs and drugs to ease the pain of loneliness and the longing for Mommy-a longing which is innate, necessary, and good-and it is our fault. Our children are suffering; their tender feelings have waxed cold and all signs of humanity are dying off in agonizing death throes, and we women are the cause. Women. The givers of life have turned against their own offspring in a vain quest for self-fulfillment. It is madness.

Translation: You selfish bitches can't even take care of your own children.  It's all your fault for not devoting your entire life to your children, for daring to have a job outside the home (because yes, motherhood is definitely WORK).

Here's what you're gonna do. Women, go home. Get rid of the huge mortgage and move into a trailer. It's not the neighborhood-or village, idiot!-that raises a good child. Have two cars? Get rid of one and deal with the annoyance of having to drive more. It's not the car that makes the family. Fancy clothes and vacations? Trivial and silly... those won't be what your child remembers. Be the one who drops him off and picks him up from school. Those precious moments laughing and talking will always be remembered, I guarantee it. Be in the kitchen, filling a warm home with delicious smells, sounds, and memories, and bring the whole family in to make dinner again, cleaning up together afterwards and bonding over pot roast. It is simple, it is time tested, it is true. The hand that rocks the cradle did-at one time-rule the world. The cradle is silent because the hand is at work and the baby at an institution. Sisters, go home-too much is at stake. Your babies are dying and killing, and the only one who can stop this infanticide is you. The power is-and always has been-yours. Take it back now... it's almost too late.

 Yes, because it's completely impossible to raise children and work.  Not to mention the fact that this article overlooks many women - women who work because they are the sole support of their children (yes, the dreaded Single Mothers who are Unmaking Existence), women who work because their husband's income is not enough to support a family on.  I do believe there are women working who would rather stay home, or who would rather work less hours/more flexible schedule - but for some women, not working is not an option.

 Here's what we had to say in my journal the first time around.  Response to Ms. Kirkland are in the comments.

 When I wrote that response, I was a new mother (the MV was still somewhat of a MicroVixen), home on maternity leave from the Army.  I was a happily married woman, with a husband who respected me and treated me as an equal. 

 I still stand by what I said - Don't force your beliefs down my throat.  I have no problems with women deciding to arrange their life and family so that they can stay home - depending on the number/age/special needs of children, it may be the best choice for that woman and her family.  Maybe it's the man who stays home, because he has a job that allows flexibility, or because she is the "breadwinner".  Maybe she just wants to.  It's not my place to judge anyone for that decision.

 It's not my decision to stay home.  I don't deny there are times when I don't want to go to work, times when I fantasize about just staying home all day, taking care of Adrianna - but then I realize that it would likely drive me crazy.  I like to work.  I like my job.  I like my uniform.  I like having money to do what I want. 

 I just don't buy the whole "working moms/single moms are destroying America" thing. 

 I didn't ask to be a single mother, but that's what I am right now. My former husband, the father of my child, has decided that he no longer loves me, that I'm too pushy, too argumentative, and not for him.  I'm in no hurry to replace him just so my daughter has a father figure. 



On Welfare

Feb. 10th, 2009 02:38 pm
desertvixen: (schroedingers cat)
 So, about Nadya Suleman and the octuplets.  There's been a lot of stories about her, but I'm not here to criticize her decision to have eight children at one go, or her decision to have "a big family" because she was an only kid and always wanted one.  I'm not here to criticize her life choices, although they aren't the ones I would make.

 I am here, though, because her word choices are making me a little irritated.

 Nadya Suleman has said that she's responsible.  That she would not make the decision to take welfare.

 But she takes food stamps and disability payments (for 3 of the six previous kids).

 I have news for her.  Those are welfare.  If you're recieving money from the government to assist you because your income falls below a certain threshhold, you are recieving welfare.  WIC is a welfare program.  Food Stamps are a welfare program.  Disability is a little murkier, but I think it would still qualify as welfare.

 She's not the first person to say this.  One of my coworkers qualified for WIC at one point, but insists that's not welfare.

 I think I understand why people don't want to use the word welfare.  It has an unpleasant stigma, it brings an unpleasant image to your mind. 

 If you need help, though, there is no shame in taking the help that you are qualified for.  As a single mother, when I leave the Army, will I likely qualify for WIC for the next two years?  Probably.  Are people going to look down on me?  Maybe.

 Quit redefining words to make yourself comfortable. 

desertvixen: (schroedingers cat)

I know, it's so hard to pick just one, so I offer several.

The article in full is here:;_ylt=Aj1IO1YDPBeYiuLN8SgxfDlhr7sF
By Ann Coulter Ann Coulter – Thu Jan 15, 3:57 pm ET

The Treason Times' banner series about Iraq and Afghanistan veterans accused of murder began in January last year but was quickly discontinued as readers noticed that the Times doggedly refused to provide any statistics comparing veteran murders with murders in any other group.

In most of the stories I've read about veterans who return from Iraq and kill someone, there's been some focus on the role that being in Iraq might have played.  Deployment brings a lot of stress on people, and can exacerbate problems.  The record on asking for help on mental issues also remains a little sketchy. 

 There are some cases that don't fit this mold, like the Maria Lauterbach murder.  That one, however, has its own issues that need to be addressed.

But as long as the Times has such a burning interest in the root causes of murder, how about considering the one factor more likely to create a murderer than any other? That is the topic we're not allowed to discuss: single motherhood.

As you might imagine, this is the part of the article that started pissing me off. 

As I describe in my new book, "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America," controlling for socioeconomic status, race and place of residence, the strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is that he was raised by a single parent.

As a now single mother, I'd like to say several things.  None of them however, are polite.

By 1996, 70 percent of inmates in state juvenile detention centers serving long-term sentences were raised by single mothers. Seventy percent of teenage births, dropouts, suicides, runaways, juvenile delinquents and child murderers involve children raised by single mothers. Girls raised without fathers are more sexually promiscuous and more likely to end up divorced.

Maybe, in the face of these statistics, we look at the idea of having society HELP single mothers, instead of condemning them, and their children.  Maybe we look at the idea of providing robust after-school programs, so kids and teens have somewhere safe to be after school.  You know, because a lot of their single mothers will be at work.  (If they weren't at work, I'm sure we could cue up the "welfare queen" argument.)  Maybe the single mother is lucky enough to have family that can help her out, maybe not. 

With new children being born, running away, dropping out of high school and committing murder every year, it's not a static problem to analyze. But however the numbers are run, single motherhood is a societal nuclear bomb.

 Never mind my earlier restraint.  Don't lecture women about motherhood, something YOU have not attempted.  Fuck off.

Even in liberals' fevered nightmares, predatory mortgage dealers, oil speculators and Ken Lay could never do as much harm to their fellow human beings as single mothers do to their own children, to say nothing of society at large.

You know it's just on the tip of her tongue to talk about dirty sluts who couldn't keep their legs shut.

 I'm a single mother.  Not by choice.  I'm a single mother because my combat veteran husband (3 times for global war on terror) decided after seven months in Afghanistan that he didn't want to be married anymore.  No counseling, no pleas, no working on it - just a divorce.  Of course, I'm sure Ms. Coulter would pin the blame on me being an uppity feminist bitch.  I'm over here, separated from my toddler for a year, because it's for the best, financially.  I'm lucky that I have this opportunity to get ahead, to have a cushion to make the transition easier.  A lot of women don't have that. 

 Of course, it's always easier to throw a stone than offer some help.



desertvixen: (Default)

October 2017

12345 67


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 22nd, 2017 08:14 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios