Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
2/23/2017 5:55:53 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/23/2008 5:21:13 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/23/2008 5:38:47 PM EST by Mxpatriot51]
Reading another thread, and hearing a member of the Air Force state:


In the .mil getting knocked up is the instant gravy train. In my job (aircraft maintenance) as soon as she finds out she's preggo she can no longer do her job due to the chemicals, noise, etc. So she gets a cushy bullshit office job, then for 3 months prior to downloading it's 4 hour shifts and she gets a month off after with no leave charged. Of course she's exempt from PT and testing for the whole pregnancy and 6 months afterward, so if she gets knocked up again right away she can be as fat and out of shape as she likes for her whole enlistment. It's a great system. I've known several worthless welfare bums wearing a uniform and collecting a paycheck despite never doing their actual jobs. One did six years in the .mil without ever touching an airplane, got her BS degree and had four kids. Thanks taxpayers!


Really makes me think that loophole should be closed. Serving your nation is an honorable thing because it is a sacrifice. This raises the question, should their be limitations on female soldiers becoming pregnant while serving? Should they be limited on the number of times they can become pregnant per a set time period?

If you soldiers missing deployments, some of them purposely, by becoming pregnant; what's the point in keeping them around?

If a male soldier were to sustain an injury, off the job, that would prevent him from performing his duties for over a year, what would happen to him? Whatever happens to them should happen to a female
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:22:29 PM EST
Article 15: loss of rank ;)

Make BC MANDITORY!!!
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:22:30 PM EST
This will be good.

Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:24:33 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/23/2008 5:24:57 PM EST by Darkstar117]
Having a wife that is AD Air Force, I would say that there is nothing wrong with the system. There is something wrong with the people that abuse the system though.


Wait, I smell another "I Hate All Women In Uniform" thread...
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:25:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Article 15: loss of rank ;)

Make BC MANDITORY!!!


That's one way. Look at this way:

How is a female who purposely gets pregnant for the sole reason to avoid a deployment any different than a deserter?
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:25:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Article 15: loss of rank ;)

Make BC MANDITORY!!!


That's one way. Look at this way:

How is a female who purposely gets pregnant for the sole reason to avoid a deployment any different than a deserter?
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:25:30 PM EST
Had the same problem when I was in...

Hell, we had a chick mechanic SHOW UP preggers when she checked in.

It happened to 3 chicks in our shop and it made up short handed that deployment.

Its bullshit.
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:26:16 PM EST
have both sexes fixed.
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:26:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By Darkstar117:
Having a wife that is AD Air Force, I would say that there is nothing wrong with the system. There is something wrong with the people that abuse the system though.


Wait, I smell another "I Hate All Women In Uniform" thread...


The question I'm asking is how do we prevent the abuse, and how do we define "abusing the system" versus "building a family".

I fully believe women in the military should be allowed to have kids. It's a question of what we need to do to make sure our female soldiers stay combat ready.
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:26:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mxpatriot51:
How is a female who purposely gets pregnant for the sole reason to avoid a deployment any different than a deserter?


Prove it.
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:27:31 PM EST
If a woman gets pregnant while serving, her child is automatically enlisted into the service! HAH! (sarcasm)
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:28:41 PM EST

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Mxpatriot51:
How is a female who purposely gets pregnant for the sole reason to avoid a deployment any different than a deserter?


Prove it.


That's exactly the problem.

So I guess the question really becomes "Should a policy be put in place that would stop the abuse of the system, but at the same time would hurt the ability of female soldiers to build a family?"

I guess it really boils down to what is more important for the soldier, family or country. I know a lot of soldiers leave the military to start a family, in addition to the military trying to become as family friendly as possible.
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:29:49 PM EST

Originally Posted By Gone_are_the_days:
If a woman gets pregnant while serving, her child is automatically enlisted into the service! HAH! (sarcasm)




Of course that's crazy and unethical, but I think it would create a pretty effective military. The increase in numbers would be astronomical, and the kids would be from military families, so they would (as a whole) be of a better quality for service than average.
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:30:49 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mxpatriot51:

Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Article 15: loss of rank ;)

Make BC MANDITORY!!!


That's one way. Look at this way:

How is a female who purposely gets pregnant for the sole reason to avoid a deployment any different than a deserter?


We had a female who was pregnant on my last deployment who did not want to leave the AOR because of it, and could do her job better than the guys. She was an excellent troop. Most guys who were over there were douches anyway.

If males had the option of getting pregnant, do you think it wouldn't happen than?

BTW, Deserters leave with no intention of returning. Pregnancy is a temperary medical condition. Are you saying a female troop getting pregnant is the same as a deserter?
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:30:51 PM EST
Just have the females line up at formation to take their BC pills. If they STILL get pregnant, give them the Big Chicken Dinner.

Part of being in the military is being able to be counted on.
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:31:09 PM EST
Didn't back in the day if a solider/sailor was on "medical leave" because of VD he had to make up the lost time at the end of his enlistment?

Pregnancy is an STD.
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:31:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Mxpatriot51:
How is a female who purposely gets pregnant for the sole reason to avoid a deployment any different than a deserter?


Prove it.


A barracks whore spreading her legs to half a regiment and getting regular injections from every swinging dick she can get her vagina on until she gets pregnant (usually a few months before deployment) should be a clue.

You can always tell which unit is about 6 months off from deployment when you start seeing a lot of pregnant chicks wearing the same patch.
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:32:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By Darkstar117:
If males had the option of getting pregnant, do you think it wouldn't happen than?



Agreed. The men would do it too, but that doesnt make it any more exceptable.
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:32:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mxpatriot51:

Originally Posted By Gone_are_the_days:
If a woman gets pregnant while serving, her child is automatically enlisted into the service! HAH! (sarcasm)




Of course that's crazy and unethical, but I think it would create a pretty effective military. The increase in numbers would be astronomical, and the kids would be from military families, so they would (as a whole) be of a better quality for service than average.


It has been my experience that being from a military family is not necessarily a good indicator of military worthiness. Also, volunteers > conscripts, every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:32:31 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mxpatriot51:

Originally Posted By Gone_are_the_days:
If a woman gets pregnant while serving, her child is automatically enlisted into the service! HAH! (sarcasm)




Of course that's crazy and unethical, but I think it would create a pretty effective military. The increase in numbers would be astronomical, and the kids would be from military families, so they would (as a whole) be of a better quality for service than average.

a new SPARTA!!!
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:35:19 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/23/2008 5:36:17 PM EST by Gone_are_the_days]

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Also, volunteers > conscripts, every day of the week and twice on Sundays.


Just because someone is drafted doesnt mean he wont serve with honor.
Just because someone volunteers doesnt mean he will serve with honor.
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:35:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By Darkstar117:

Originally Posted By Mxpatriot51:

Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Article 15: loss of rank ;)

Make BC MANDITORY!!!


That's one way. Look at this way:

How is a female who purposely gets pregnant for the sole reason to avoid a deployment any different than a deserter?


We had a female who was pregnant on my last deployment who did not want to leave the AOR because of it, and could do her job better than the guys. She was an excellent troop. Most guys who were over there were douches anyway.

If males had the option of getting pregnant, do you think it wouldn't happen than?

BTW, Deserters leave with no intention of returning. Pregnancy is a temperary medical condition. Are you saying a female troop getting pregnant is the same as a deserter?


On the whole, no.

But when used to get out of a deploment, it's essentially a temporary desertion from one's duty. If both males and females could become pregnant, I'd have the same problem.


Look at it this way: If I was injured such that I was not combat ready or able to perform my duty for over a year, what do you think the Army would do with me? I'd put money on a discharge, why should pregnancy be any different?
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:36:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Mxpatriot51:
How is a female who purposely gets pregnant for the sole reason to avoid a deployment any different than a deserter?


Prove it.


The military shouldn't have to prove shit. She knew deployment was comming. Shes pregnant.

GUILTY!!!

Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:36:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Mxpatriot51:

Originally Posted By Gone_are_the_days:
If a woman gets pregnant while serving, her child is automatically enlisted into the service! HAH! (sarcasm)




Of course that's crazy and unethical, but I think it would create a pretty effective military. The increase in numbers would be astronomical, and the kids would be from military families, so they would (as a whole) be of a better quality for service than average.


It has been my experience that being from a military family is not necessarily a good indicator of military worthiness. Also, volunteers > conscripts, every day of the week and twice on Sundays.


But the question is, if raised from birth to be a soldier, would they really be conscripts?



[I'm not being serious]
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:36:49 PM EST

Originally Posted By Gone_are_the_days:

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Mxpatriot51:

Originally Posted By Gone_are_the_days:
If a woman gets pregnant while serving, her child is automatically enlisted into the service! HAH! (sarcasm)




Of course that's crazy and unethical, but I think it would create a pretty effective military. The increase in numbers would be astronomical, and the kids would be from military families, so they would (as a whole) be of a better quality for service than average.


It has been my experience that being from a military family is not necessarily a good indicator of military worthiness. Also, volunteers > conscripts, every day of the week and twice on Sundays.


Just because someone is drafted doesnt mean he wont serve with honor.
Just because someone volunteers doesnt mean he will serve with honor.


Thats not what I was saying, at all. Nor would I ever say that. Ever.

Mx was speaking in generalities, and so was I.
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:37:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Mxpatriot51:
How is a female who purposely gets pregnant for the sole reason to avoid a deployment any different than a deserter?


Prove it.


The military shouldn't have to prove shit. She knew deployment was comming. Shes pregnant.

GUILTY!!!



Good point.

You allowed yourself to become pregnant, knowing a deployment was approaching, you have neglected your duties.
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:37:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mxpatriot51:

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Mxpatriot51:

Originally Posted By Gone_are_the_days:
If a woman gets pregnant while serving, her child is automatically enlisted into the service! HAH! (sarcasm)




Of course that's crazy and unethical, but I think it would create a pretty effective military. The increase in numbers would be astronomical, and the kids would be from military families, so they would (as a whole) be of a better quality for service than average.


It has been my experience that being from a military family is not necessarily a good indicator of military worthiness. Also, volunteers > conscripts, every day of the week and twice on Sundays.


But the question is, if raised from birth to be a soldier, would they really be conscripts?



[I'm not being serious]


No, they'd be Kurt Russel in an abortion of a movie.
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:38:05 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mxpatriot51:

Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Mxpatriot51:
How is a female who purposely gets pregnant for the sole reason to avoid a deployment any different than a deserter?


Prove it.


The military shouldn't have to prove shit. She knew deployment was comming. Shes pregnant.

GUILTY!!!



Good point.

You allowed yourself to become pregnant, knowing a deployment was approaching, you have neglected your duties.


I believe the burden is still on the gubment even under the UCMJ. Gubment is going to have to prove that she allowed herself to become pregnant. Condoms break.
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:38:56 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/23/2008 5:40:03 PM EST by ADaughen]
Mom was AD AF when she bore me...
Mom was AD AF when she delivered my sister a year later.
Mom was AD AF Reserve when she delivered my second sister five years after me.

She was able to do her job up until a few days before delivering each time and she served honorably for 8 years. How about you tell the nancy who's complaing to STFU and thank God he isn't a woman raising kid(s) while her husband is deployed.

(Dad 8 years AD Army)
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:40:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Mxpatriot51:

Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Mxpatriot51:
How is a female who purposely gets pregnant for the sole reason to avoid a deployment any different than a deserter?


Prove it.


The military shouldn't have to prove shit. She knew deployment was comming. Shes pregnant.

GUILTY!!!



Good point.

You allowed yourself to become pregnant, knowing a deployment was approaching, you have neglected your duties.


I believe the burden is still on the gubment even under the UCMJ. Gubment is going to have to prove that she allowed herself to become pregnant. Condoms break.


What would happen to a soldier injured who was partaking in an extremely dangerous activity/sport, say motocross or ultimate fighting, before a deployment? I would bet reduction of rank/pay would happen at the least.


Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:40:17 PM EST
Anyone that voluntarily joins the military is a obviously a war mongering, bloodthirtsty savage and should be sterilized to prevent reproduction. Same goes for walmart door nazis.
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:40:32 PM EST

Originally Posted By badfish274:

I believe the burden is still on the gubment even under the UCMJ. Gubment is going to have to prove that she allowed herself to become pregnant. Condoms break.


They dont have to have much, but I'm sure they have to provide SOME proof. Thats why I'm advocating MANDITORY Birth Control.
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:41:16 PM EST

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Mxpatriot51:
How is a female who purposely gets pregnant for the sole reason to avoid a deployment any different than a deserter?


Prove it.


Go find yourself a BN with female soldiers. Attend formation and count how many females are wearing sneakers and those hideous maternity ACU's. Wait about a month before deployment and return to same formation. Proofs in the pudding so to speak.
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:41:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By Cypher15:

Originally Posted By Mxpatriot51:

Originally Posted By Gone_are_the_days:
If a woman gets pregnant while serving, her child is automatically enlisted into the service! HAH! (sarcasm)




Of course that's crazy and unethical, but I think it would create a pretty effective military. The increase in numbers would be astronomical, and the kids would be from military families, so they would (as a whole) be of a better quality for service than average.

a new SPARTA!!!


Hey, as long as he's hardcore, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:42:06 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/23/2008 5:43:00 PM EST by Garand_Shooter]
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:42:07 PM EST

Originally Posted By ADaughen:
Mom was AD AF when she bore me...
Mom was AD AF when she delivered my sister a year later.
Mom was AD AF Reserve when she delivered my second sister five years after me.

She was able to do her job up until a few days before delivering each time and she served honorably for 8 years. How about you tell the nancy who's complaing to STFU and thank God he isn't a woman raising kid(s) while her husband is deployed.

(Dad 8 years AD Army)


That's great, but what if the woman is in a war-time Army in a non-desk job?

You can't say that that woman would be able to perform her job. You can't deploy a pregnant woman to a combat zone (think all out war, not peacekeeping/rebuilding Iraq).



Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:43:00 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/23/2008 5:44:52 PM EST by Mxpatriot51]

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
Here is what needs to happen.

As soon as a unit is tagged for deployment, an order goes out. "thou shalt not get pregnant."

If you do, after the order is given and you know your unit is deploying, it is treated the same as missing a movement.

Because that essentialy is what it is.


DING DING DING!
Give this man a cookie.

But that still doesn't cover a unit that will not have advanced warning for a deployment. The enemy has a habit of not giving us a full 9 months early warning before he does something.
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:45:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By FMJshooter:

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Mxpatriot51:
How is a female who purposely gets pregnant for the sole reason to avoid a deployment any different than a deserter?


Prove it.


Go find yourself a BN with female soldiers. Attend formation and count how many females are wearing sneakers and those hideous maternity ACU's. Wait about a month before deployment and return to same formation. Proofs in the pudding so to speak.


Thats why Females will never make it into the Infantry. There may be a few who could hack it, but over all they would prove to be un-dependable.
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:45:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
Here is what needs to happen.

As soon as a unit is tagged for deployment, an order goes out. "thou shalt not get pregnant."

If you do, after the order is given and you know your unit is deploying, it is treated the same as missing a movement.

Because that essentially is what it is.


Instead of a stop loss/stop move we can have a stop loss/stop move/stop fucking without bc order.
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:47:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mxpatriot51:

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
Here is what needs to happen.

As soon as a unit is tagged for deployment, an order goes out. "thou shalt not get pregnant."

If you do, after the order is given and you know your unit is deploying, it is treated the same as missing a movement.

Because that essentialy is what it is.


DING DING DING!
Give this man a cookie.

But that still doesn't cover a unit that will not have advanced warning for a deployment. The enemy has a habit of not giving us a full 9 months early warning before he does something.


So what happens in my situation, where my unit is always deployed (as in Air Expeditionary Wing)? Everyone there is effectivley stuck there (stop lossed) for the forseeable future. Should we just discharge every female in the unit or ever comes to the unit?
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:50:18 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:50:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By Darkstar117:

Originally Posted By Mxpatriot51:

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
Here is what needs to happen.

As soon as a unit is tagged for deployment, an order goes out. "thou shalt not get pregnant."

If you do, after the order is given and you know your unit is deploying, it is treated the same as missing a movement.

Because that essentialy is what it is.


DING DING DING!
Give this man a cookie.

But that still doesn't cover a unit that will not have advanced warning for a deployment. The enemy has a habit of not giving us a full 9 months early warning before he does something.


So what happens in my situation, where my unit is always deployed (as in Air Expeditionary Wing)? Everyone there is effectivley stuck there (stop lossed) for the forseeable future. Should we just discharge every female in the unit or ever comes to the unit?


I'll say it again, MANDITORY BIRTH CONTROL.
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:50:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By Darkstar117:

Originally Posted By Mxpatriot51:

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
Here is what needs to happen.

As soon as a unit is tagged for deployment, an order goes out. "thou shalt not get pregnant."

If you do, after the order is given and you know your unit is deploying, it is treated the same as missing a movement.

Because that essentialy is what it is.


DING DING DING!
Give this man a cookie.

But that still doesn't cover a unit that will not have advanced warning for a deployment. The enemy has a habit of not giving us a full 9 months early warning before he does something.


So what happens in my situation, where my unit is always deployed (as in Air Expeditionary Wing)? Everyone there is effectivley stuck there (stop lossed) for the forseeable future. Should we just discharge every female in the unit or ever comes to the unit?


No, not at all.

She just shouldn't get pregnant. If she's not willing to do that (take the precautions necessary), she shouldn't be in that unit. That's sacrifice and it's the reason serving your country is an honorable thing. If one does get pregnant under rare circumstances (BC failure), then something can be worked out to find her another job to perform in the states.

It's the widespread getting knocked up before deployment that's the problem.
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:50:59 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/23/2008 5:52:23 PM EST by ADaughen]

Originally Posted By Mxpatriot51:

Originally Posted By ADaughen:
snip


That's great, but what if the woman is in a war-time Army in a non-desk job?

You can't say that that woman would be able to perform her job. You can't deploy a pregnant woman to a combat zone (think all out war, not peacekeeping/rebuilding Iraq).





I guess that is the problem with equal opportunity and women in the battlefield. Sucks to be them. Best bet is to issue birth control, prior to deployment...


Mom got lucky, she was in a non-deployable position (code monkey) and dad's job required him to be deployed to countries where bringing familes was not encouraged.
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:51:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Originally Posted By Mxpatriot51:

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
Here is what needs to happen.

As soon as a unit is tagged for deployment, an order goes out. "thou shalt not get pregnant."

If you do, after the order is given and you know your unit is deploying, it is treated the same as missing a movement.

Because that essentialy is what it is.


DING DING DING!
Give this man a cookie.

But that still doesn't cover a unit that will not have advanced warning for a deployment. The enemy has a habit of not giving us a full 9 months early warning before he does something.


But those wouldn't be intentional...thats just pregnancy as a normal course of events.

It is pregnancy AFTER an unit has been alerted for mobilization that is irresponsible, and should be punishable.

As should engaging in any activity that you know has a high likelyhood of causing you to miss the deployment and does. Male or Female. Ride your motorcycle drunk or recklessly and get injured after being alerted? Same punishment.


This seems sensible.
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:53:05 PM EST
Norplant during entrance physical exam.
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:53:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By 22LR:
have both sexes fixed.


You are kidding right?
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:53:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mxpatriot51:
Reading another thread, and hearing a member of the Air Force state:


In the .mil getting knocked up is the instant gravy train. In my job (aircraft maintenance) as soon as she finds out she's preggo she can no longer do her job due to the chemicals, noise, etc. So she gets a cushy bullshit office job, then for 3 months prior to downloading it's 4 hour shifts and she gets a month off after with no leave charged. Of course she's exempt from PT and testing for the whole pregnancy and 6 months afterward, so if she gets knocked up again right away she can be as fat and out of shape as she likes for her whole enlistment. It's a great system. I've known several worthless welfare bums wearing a uniform and collecting a paycheck despite never doing their actual jobs. One did six years in the .mil without ever touching an airplane, got her BS degree and had four kids. Thanks taxpayers!


Really makes me think that loophole should be closed. Serving your nation is an honorable thing because it is a sacrifice. This raises the question, should their be limitations on female soldiers becoming pregnant while serving? Should they be limited on the number of times they can become pregnant per a set time period?

If you soldiers missing deployments, some of them purposely, by becoming pregnant; what's the point in keeping them around?

If a male soldier were to sustain an injury, off the job, that would prevent him from performing his duties for over a year, what would happen to him? Whatever happens to them should happen to a female


Women shouldn't be in the military in the first place. There, problem solved.
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:54:48 PM EST

Originally Posted By ADaughen:

Originally Posted By Mxpatriot51:

Originally Posted By ADaughen:
snip


That's great, but what if the woman is in a war-time Army in a non-desk job?

You can't say that that woman would be able to perform her job. You can't deploy a pregnant woman to a combat zone (think all out war, not peacekeeping/rebuilding Iraq).





I guess that is the problem with equal opportunity and women in the battlefield. Sucks to be them. Best bet is to issue birth control, prior to deployment...


Mom got lucky, she was in a non-deployable position (code monkey) and dad's job required him to be deployed to countries where bringing familes was not encouraged.


Yes, equal opportunity comes with equal responsiblity. Dodging responsiblity is not excusable in the military.
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:56:17 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/23/2008 5:56:38 PM EST
Friend just got out after her 20+ as a Chief. She says the Navy has controlled the problem by strong leadership from the female Chiefs, and a policy that as soon as a pregnant sailor finishes her sixty days post-partum leave, she's shipped out to the Fleet.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top