PDA

View Full Version : Last-minute pregnancies used to avoid Iraq service



ghost 6-3
18-03-2005, 13:08
Amongst other things, it seems women are also using pregnancy to avoid deployment in Iraq (see today's New York Times).

I am very much opposed to all the women's 'military equality' - this is due to the fact that I served in the US Navy on two ships: one combat, and all male, one repair, and mixed. I was very 'pro female service' before I found out what that really entails.

At any rate, I really feel for those who are now going to be deployed to Iraq without specialists who opted for pregnancy over duty.

These women's rights, while actually very good for the women involved, will result in young men's death and injury.

Deployment pregnancies are a case in point.

boscoe
18-03-2005, 13:11
Originally posted by ghost 6-3


These women's rights, while actually very good for the women involved, will result in young men's death and injury.



Now THAT I'd love to see explained!

ghost 6-3
18-03-2005, 13:31
Simple, firstly, there is only so much redundancy you can have on a ship, base, combat unit, etc. If a woman is designated for specialized training (coming from the units budget) to qualify her for specific, and important, jobs, and then becomes pregnant, and unable to fulfill her responsibilities, well, who does?

Do you call a temp service? Ask Manpower for an additional 400 Hz specialist, immediately deployable to Mosul? On a ship, even if you were able to replace a pregnant female with a similarly qualified person before deployment (very unlikely, and unfair to deploy someone for six months on short notice) the person would still need a couple months to familiarize himself with the new vessel.

Pregnancy also plays havoc with leave (especially on smaller vessels: frigates, destroyers). Upon becoming pregnant, all the woman on my tender were assigned either to the library or gym. If you were the only other person similarly qualified, good luck getting any time off. And this does have an effect on readiness.

I've also seen women try, and fail, to complete 15 mile forced marches (full pack, rifle at port arms). Failure rate for women: 100%. Failure rate for men, around 30%. And don't even ask about putting a grenade....

boscoe
18-03-2005, 13:45
OK point takenů

koba65
18-03-2005, 13:54
Originally posted by ghost 6-3
I've also seen women try, and fail, to complete 15 mile forced marches (full pack, rifle at port arms). Failure rate for women: 100%. Failure rate for men, around 30%. And don't even ask about putting a grenade....

That doesn't fit with what I witnessed while in the Army - I've seen men who couldn't do the same thing. Failure rate for women is not 100%. I served with some women who could wipe the floor with the average male.

Sure, there are problems, but let's not forget that there are no women assigned in a COMBAT role. Their military occupational specialties are mainly support. I'm not a big fan of putting women in a combat role, or in areas where combat is conduct, however, let's be honest about their "failures."

Having said that, standards should be the same and not dumbed down - regardless of sex.

Don't forget that most of the women who are "pregnanting" themselves out are also in jobs that require only a few weeks of training to perform.

You could argue the opposite effect is true when speaking about deaths and injuries. Women, it's been argued, assigned to deployed units can cause strife and distraction - resulting in injuries and deaths. If they're not there, no distraction. Is this the fault of women? Not really, just human nature.

plastique
18-03-2005, 13:55
Not to mention how many women came back from the first Iraq preggers...and that girl who is standing trial for the prision scandal...Preggers with the other guy who was just convicted....