My docs are in to my accountant and I'm waiting for him to do mine.

Due to a 2017 SNAFU, my 2017 tax refund is in the mail. Hoping my 2018 taxes offer a similar refund.  Historically, as a single filer and not a homeowner until recently, I usually owed. Last two years have been nice.

Because we keep thinking liberals will one day open the magic door to understanding how the liberal way is actually better for human flourishing, and in this thread military readiness, than a reasonable conservative approach.

Have you said anything substantive in this thread about military readiness vis-a-vis women serving on ships?

Of course remove all women from the workforce!

And we want dirty air and dirty water too!  I love how libs argue in the ridiculous extremes.   Always tells me they're losing the argument.   We're sexist and racist too,  right?

Why do I waste my time.

You and I aren't having an argument. You're just taking pot-shots without marrying your points with the subject.

You can’t be serious.

I'm completely serious.

In my opinion ya'll are just bitching about a fact of life in a multi-gender force. Folks have sex, women get pregnant. The insinuation seems to be that women shouldn't serve. Or maybe shouldn't serve on ships? Or maybe shouldn't serve in combat roles? Or maybe shouldn't serve in front-line combat roles? Not sure, few of you will actually state, with detail, your vision of women in the military. You're all just picking at the edges - "women are different than men", "progressives just want equality at any cost", "pregnancy on a ship has a taxpayer cost"...

Well, pardon my French, but no shit! Quit beating around the bush and tell us part 2 of your point - you have a complaint, now what do we do about it?

Because if the insinuation is that women shouldn't serve on ships, I'd like to know how you intend to replace the 24+ THOUSAND non-pregnant women serving on ships as we speak (2015 numbers). Or at the very least, the metrics that lead to your belief that women serving on ships is a net negative to the force.

That's what I'm getting at about a meaningful comment. Just stating that something has a cost is not meaningful.

Now come asechrest.  I was kind of tracking with you on this issue until this post.  I think you’re either being naive or haven’t read about the impact of a significant number of women getting pregnant on ships.

It is no small matter when you have to pull a woman off a ship, especially a nuclear vessel that could be at sea for half a year without needing to dock.

A nuclear aircraft carrier is not a college dormitory.  The interaction between the teams and need for esprit de corps is mandatory to maintain a combat footing.  Interpersonal and sexual relationships interfere with that.

Saying “this comes with the territory in a mixed gender force” is an answer given by sociologists, not warriors who’s job it is to win a war, not conduct social experiments.

I used to have a woman work for me who was a Lt. Commander in the Naval Reserves and flew MH-60 Seahawks.  When in active duty she flew these off destroyers in anti-drug ops off South Africa. She was a tough cookie. Her husband was retired Navy. In the reserves they would fly from Jacksonville to Bath, Maine to test weapons systems when they put out a new Destroyer.

While working for me she became pregnant.  The navy let her continue to fly until the earlier of (a) 7 months or (b) when her survival gear no longer fit.

She stopped flying around 5-6 months, but for neither of the reasons above. She stopped because her crew mates were doing HER jobs for her, like climbing on top of the aircraft for preflight inspections. They were being gentlemen and didn’t want her to fall in her pregnant state.  That’s gallant in a peacetime reserve setting, but could disrupt union cohesion when the shit hit the fan in a combat footing, especially on a vessel.

In the interests of being sure we're not talking around each other, let me clarify that I am NOT saying women getting pregnant is not a detriment to the ship. It is, quite literally, classified by the Navy as a temporary medical condition not appropriate to ship life after a certain point. But many men are also shipped to shore for temporary medical conditions.

The question is not whether this is true. It is whether this fact makes allowing women to serve in these roles a net negative to the force.

AOC: "Peoples must ask, like, is s it still ok to have children? Literally?"

The military is extremely good at getting people in line, picking the right roles for them, and washing them out of they're not cut out for the job. I can't think of any reason not to allow the entire pool of eligible people from which they can choose members. Doubly-so in a war-time draft.

That men are better on-average in a warrior role is not the point. The military allows for a range of strengths even within individual roles.

Sandy is a young, hip millennial and very attractive.

Ew.