The site may not be an official one, but I can't argue with any of the point's it's making. Another example of inverted sexisum? Positive discrimination? Would she have been awarded medals for at best doing nothing and at worst messing up if she was a man? (Being american, the answer to that one is probably yes!)
Publicity and the need to cover up a complete ba11s up at work here I think, but it does mean that the people who do deserve an award for bravery get an award that has been diluted and devalued.
That post states that more than half of the women soldiers deployed to Iraq are now pregnant!!!
Why would the spams want to recruit more women then?!
A total burden, financially and physically.
How does this compare with our female soldiers pregnancy
rates I wonder?
Would there be a motive for getting pregnant..like getting out of the forces quicker and easier?
The poor cow is being used. Shes a victim in all this and doesn't deserve the stick she is getting. Its the bastards who have thrown her into public life with no thought for her mental, physical or spiritual health I feel angry with.
I think you'll find the post states that "thousands of female soldiers couldn't deploy with their units to Iraq because of pregnancy, no sitters for single moms' multiple kids and other problems". Although there will no doubt that some women may have got pregnant whilest on Ops, putting the number at 'hunderds' let alone 'thousands' is a bit far of the mark, and isn't even really the issue here
Don't know when you last had a walk around a Garrison town BB........but you'll find that there's loads of pregnant soldiers in the Brit Army.
Fully appreciate that they deserve equity with females on the outside as far as 'conditions' go, but when they are off on maternity grant, it doesn't half punch a whole in the available manpower (sorry, person power ), not only for deployments, but for all round work in general.
The sad thing about being a bloke or a lass who has no kids and isn't pregnant in todays Army, is that you are left to cover not only your own work, but theirs as well. Now, any women out there can disagree if they like, but all that does is show their ignorance/blatant defiance to what is actually happening. I say 'women', only because it is from that quarter that the usual arguments come. I haven't included in that number, the women who aren't/haven't serving/served, who will no doubt want to get 'wimminz issues' involved. If you're not in the Mob or haven't been......mind your own business. I wouldn't tell you how to sweep up in Tesco's, so don't tell me what I should have to put up with.
I'm not against soldiers wanting to start a family and who also wish to stay in the Service, but, why should a bloke or a lass, have to get deployed in lieu of a 'single mum', just because they just happen to be single or married (and therefore have someone to look after the kid(s)).
Now this may come as a surprise to some of you and I appreciate that some of you will indeed be shocked....... but I frankly don't give a f*ck who disagrees with me on this comment. I've heard all the 'she's as good as any bloke at her job' bollox, usually from irritating little tw*ts who don't have the problem in their units Not only are pregnant soldiers a burden on their units, but the single mums risk their own health and that of their kid's, through unprotected sex. AIDS hasn't gone away you know.
When you look around at them (the single mums), they are the immature element, who would no doubt get themselves impregnated as early as they could, in any walk of life. They also tend to be the element who are work shy and expect the Army to revolve around them.
I thought it was wrong to discharge pregnant soldiers when that was on the go, but by christ have we went to the opposite extreme and all in the name of political correctness. And we are suffering from it, despite what the brass may say.
The sole purpose of an Army is to fight. We seem to have forgotten that over the past 10 years.
Good luck to all those male and female soldiers out there who work hard and have to carry these people. You'll do half of their work, but don't expect to receive half of their pay.
I don't know if this will surprise anyone or not, but I agree with the gist of what Ma says. I've never been comfortable with women serving who have children. I don't have as much of a problem with single dads (now, you can imagine what painful spasms that brings to my feminist heart) because there are so few of them, because their children tend not to be very young and because that position was usually forced on them by outside circumstances.......and, I admit it, I have a maybe irrational and very deep admiration for men who take on that role (they always seem to be good at it).
I have, of course, a number of friends who have/are serving with children, but I'm still not comfortable with the concept. When I was in (when you 'had to leave' if you fell pregnant) it did actually state that you could stay in if you could prove that the child would be looked after full time, even if you deployed. So, in fact, women didn't 'have to leave' or have to have abortions at all..............but they had to prove that they could still be deployed at a moment's notice for any length of time.
IMHO, this basic principle should still be the case - if, as a parent, you are not able to leave your children behind when you deploy (for practical or for emotional reasons) then you should either not have them, or you should be downgraded so you would never be deployed at all (with all the consequences that has for your promotion prospects) - or you should leave.
Despite all my extreme views of women in combat and my natural urge to go out there and slaughter the enemy................I KNEW that the moment I had children I would leave the Army, because I simply couldn't bear to leave my children. One extreme to the other I know, but hey! can't help it.
I can recommend a good website for you all, www.angryharry.com, this is a mens activism website, also, anti-injustice, anti-feminism and all things that appear to be wrong with this wonderful world of ours.
Well, since we've gravitated in this direction, here's my take.
In the US Navy, if a woman assigned to a ship finds herself to be pregnant, she's transfered off. The guideline is that she needs to be within a reasonable distance (4 hours away by available method) of a medical facility in case of complications. When that happens, it creates a hole in manning that can't be readily filled.
So, in my opinion, if a woman wants to get pregnant, she should request permission from her chain of command. A time period is granted for her to get pregnant in which has an expiration date. Women on ship should not be granted permission unless they're already scheduled for rotation within, say, three months. Any woman who does get pregnant without sanction should be brought up before courts matial.
I mean, isn't the mission of paramount importance?