I'm inclined to agree that it isn't necessarily fair to the women who don't become pregnant or to the men, or to the units who lose needed manpower when a woman is rotated (or TAD) to pregnancy duty. But what is the solution?
My wife is active duty Navy and is currently on sea duty assigned to a ship (I'm a former sailor and current Reservist in a billet unlikely to ever be mobilized). We're a married couple, financially we are doing pretty well, and we would like to have children. Should we wait just because she's in the military? How is that fair? Men in the military don't have to wait to start a family.
I'm not trying to disagree with you or start anything, but I would really like to hear some opinions about this, and as a (former) military chick I'm sure you have more insight than most.
Weapons are to be used against the enemy, not a preganancy detector.
Been there, done that. I felt more like I was "raking it in big-time," not just "doing pretty well." But that's subjective.
and we would like to have children. Should we wait just because she's in the military?
YES!
How is that fair?
She volunteered and she is being paid. If she can't do her job, she should get out. If she plans on not being able to do her job when the hard part rolls around, she should get out NOW.
Men in the military don't have to wait to start a family
My wife got out while pregnant with our first-born (her first enlistment was up.) I have been fortunate enough to be there for the birth of all of my kids, but there were no guarantees. Number 6 (six) (yes, that's right, s-i-x) is due in Dec - I'd say it's slightly better than 50-50 that I'll be home for this one. Again, there are no guarantees. And that is the key difference - men with pregnant wives can deploy. Pregnant women can't.
Should we wait just because she's in the military? How is that fair?
Fair? I signed an enlistment contract (1865) and several reenlistment contracts (1967, 1973, 1979, 1985). I don’t recall ever reading a “fairness” clause. Have things changed that much?
I hate to say this, but I disagree with women in the military in the first place.
It's not that they can't do the same job as men. They can in most cases. Some would argue that they can't be effective operators: SEAL's, Delta Force, Rangers. I disagree to an large extent. They are waaay better spies than men are, and always have been.
They have two things working against them:
1. Ovaries
2. A socket where there should be a plug.
19 of 25 women initially assigned to our Icebreaker were medi-evac'd off the ship for being pregnant. No replacements.
Women aren't men. The military working environment demands that people work in extremely stressful conditions to start - and then there is the possibility of battle. There are periods of massive boredom broken up by abject panic and terror.
The presence of women isn't fair to families back at home. Single mothers with kids have to go it essentially alone until Dad gets back, and on top of that she has to worry about whether Dad may be screwing around with GI Jane.
I go on business trips for three days, and my three hammer my wife by the time I'm back. They are a handful, and then you have to do it alone for a full year? Plus hoochies in the field? All this in the name of being fair.
I think fair would be all female commands. All female ships, units, wings, etc. It's the only fair way to do it for everyone involved - families at home, Captains of ships who have to face the reality of losing 2/3 of their female crew while deployed (and maybe not getting replacements), and even the careers of female aviators, ship drivers, and field operators who now get to distinguish themselves without the jibe that the ladies had to be carried on to victory by the guys in the unit.
Back to reality:
You've heard the old saw that if Uncle Sam meant for you to have a wife, he would have put one in your seabag. The military, especially today, is brutal on families, and always has been. You say that men get to have their families - do they? To make Admiral you have to choose between being there to raise your kids, or leaving that to Mommy. It's always been this way.
One of my good friends made the astronaut program. She graduated top of our Academy class. She's now raising her two baby girls, and daddy is working for USPHS as a doctor. He was in Afghanistan last year training OB/GYN's over there over Christmas. She's at home for the next couple of years and out of the military. He's at the end of his commitment, and will be going into private practice.
My two cents.
She was a shoe-in for Admiral, and selected for Astronaut training, and now she's out - and very happy about it under the circumstances (I've seen her kids).
I hate to say this, but I disagree with women in the military in the first place.
It's not that they can't do the same job as men. They can in most cases. Some would argue that they can't be effective operators: SEAL's, Delta Force, Rangers. I disagree to an large extent. They are waaay better spies than men are, and always have been.
They have two things working against them:
1. Ovaries
2. A socket where there should be a plug.
19 of 25 women initially assigned to our Icebreaker were medi-evac'd off the ship for being pregnant. No replacements.
Women aren't men. The military working environment demands that people work in extremely stressful conditions to start - and then there is the possibility of battle. There are periods of massive boredom broken up by abject panic and terror.
The presence of women isn't fair to families back at home. Single mothers with kids have to go it essentially alone until Dad gets back, and on top of that she has to worry about whether Dad may be screwing around with GI Jane.
I go on business trips for three days, and my three hammer my wife by the time I'm back. They are a handful, and then you have to do it alone for a full year? Plus hoochies in the field? All this in the name of being fair.
I think fair would be all female commands. All female ships, units, wings, etc. It's the only fair way to do it for everyone involved - families at home, Captains of ships who have to face the reality of losing 2/3 of their female crew while deployed (and maybe not getting replacements), and even the careers of female aviators, ship drivers, and field operators who now get to distinguish themselves without the jibe that the ladies had to be carried on to victory by the guys in the unit.
Back to reality:
You've heard the old saw that if Uncle Sam meant for you to have a wife, he would have put one in your seabag. The military, especially today, is brutal on families, and always has been. You say that men get to have their families - do they? To make Admiral you have to choose between being there to raise your kids, or leaving that to Mommy. It's always been this way.
One of my good friends made the astronaut program. She graduated top of our Academy class. She's now raising her two baby girls, and daddy is working for USPHS as a doctor. He was in Afghanistan last year training OB/GYN's over there over Christmas. She's at home for the next couple of years and out of the military. He's at the end of his commitment, and will be going into private practice.
My two cents.
She was a shoe-in for Admiral, and selected for Astronaut training, and now she's out - and very happy about it under the circumstances (I've seen her kids).
On the other hand, if your wife got pregnant while on a cruise she'd be in deep doo doo. The reason for that is because every soldier, sailor, airman, or marine pulled from a unit costs the unit in terms of combat power and cohesiveness. You don't do that to a unit that's deploying to combat for something that is preventable.