Here's the rub: the women didn't know they were pregnant when the ship left homeport. So either we have four women that need a remedial class on health education or they really did know they were with child but decided to use it as a get-off-of-the-deployment card.
Here are a couple of question to cut to the heart of the matter:
- Does the Navy prohibit any sailor from having children while in the force? No.
- When these women signed their contracts, were they pregnant? No.
- If the Navy doesn't allow pregnant women to be assigned to a sea billet, then why the hell are surprised when they get knocked up.
- Who replaces these women on the ship and who loses a shore billet because of it?
I didn't make women different from men, the Good Lord did and he did so for a reason. Its time the Navy and the rest of the service figured it out too. I'm just glad we don't have these problems in the Sub Force.
6 comments:
You make excellent points.
Bravo and well written.
Men take paternity leave just like women take maternity leave, and everyone suffers when you lose a sailor. But while women may get pregnant men scam out of deployment all the time and women are still obligated to military service after their pregnancy, and many go back to ships and continue to serve.
While men may take paternity leave, I don't think they get out of a deployment because the wife is pregnant. If men do "scam" out of a deployment by means "other than pregnacy", then don't women also use these other means?
The sudden loss of a worker in a divsion does cause a problem for the ship, especially while on deployment. Both men and women need to take some responsibility for this.
So much for that 'not a problem in the sub force'. Starting in 2012 women officers will be serving on subs. there goes the neighborhood...lol
What's next? Lemme guess...an all-women team of crack navy commandos...Charlie's Blue Angels maybe? LMAO!
Post a Comment