Friday, March 03, 2017

No... I've never been a huge fan of women in the military. Here's one of the several reasons why:

Every day, we, as taxpayers, are paying for thousands of women who cannot do their jobs because they have become pregnant.

Many of them have chosen to become that way; others become that way through "mistake."  A very few become that way as a product of, sadly, rape.

But they all have two things in common:  they cannot be deployed and if they are deployed, they must be sent out of any combat zone; and their activities while pregnant are severely restricted, otherwise known as a "profile."

Two groups of people suffer as a direct result of this: the military and the taxpayers.

The military suffers because thousands and thousands of women cannot be deployed and most cannot do the jobs they've ben trained to do.

The military suffers because their jobs these women can no longer do MUST be done.  And that means those actually working must also assume the workloads of those who've, for the most part, put themselves in this position.

Men and women who have been deployed have to redeploy more often, unfairly, to do the jobs of those who've chosen to find ways to get out of doing their duty.

This is not a latter-day issue.  This isn't a result of Obama, for example, although God knows his efforts have led to crippling most aspects of the military.

This has been an issue ever since the military made the PC decision to increase reliance on a segment of our population who can become incapable of combat, combat zone or even non-combat strenuous work like they can flip a switch.

Don't want to deploy?  Get pregnant.  Want to get out of a combat zone?  Get pregnant.

Sick of doing hard physical work?

Sick of living in the barracks?

Get pregnant.

In this era of administrative marriages, deals between military members that increase their allowances, get them out of the barracks, give them housing allowances and in most cases, an allowance for meals... sham marriages of all sorts are a typical result of this era where morality is a meaningless construct and a system is in place begging to be abused... so these people proceed to abuse it.

And that leads to the second group that gets screwed:  The taxpayers.

Pregnant women not only get the same pay as non-pregnant women, even though in most instances, they can't come close to the expected levels of performance required to fulfill their duties and obligations... but they will get even more.

We pay for most every aspect of a pregnancy: from the medical care to the parental leave to the increased workloads, to the unfair treatment of those who have to carry the load, to those of us who write the checks to pay for all of this... paying two people to do the same job... paying the costs of this typically voluntarily assumed condition.

And this problem grows with our reliance on women in the military.

Here is the current state of the Navy... but it is roughly the same of all of the services:


EXCLUSIVE: Deployed US Navy Has A Pregnancy Problem, And It’s Getting Worse

A record 16 out of 100 Navy women are reassigned from ships to shore duty due to pregnancy, according to data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group.

That number is up 2 percent from 2015, representing hundreds more who have to cut their deployments short, taxing both their unit’s manpower, military budgets and combat readiness. Further, such increases cast a shadow over the lofty gender integration goals set by former President Barack Obama.

Overall, women unexpectedly leave their stations on Navy ships as much as 50% more frequently to return to land duty, according to documents obtained from the Navy. The statistics were compiled by the Navy Personnel Command at the request of TheDCNF, covering the period from January 2015 to September 2016.

The evacuation of pregnant women is costly for the Navy. Jude Eden, a nationally known author about women in the military who served in 2004 as a Marine deployed to Iraq said a single transfer can cost the Navy up to $30,000 for each woman trained for a specific task, then evacuated from an active duty ship and sent to land. That figure translates into $115 million in expenses for 2016 alone. 

“This is an avoidable cost and expense, leaving a gap for other people to pick up the work slack,” Eden said.

“A pregnancy takes you out of action for about two years. And there’s no replacement,” said Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, a nonpartisan public policy organization. “So everybody else has to work all that harder,” adding that on small ships and on submarines, “you really have a potential crew disaster.”

Navy Lt. Cmdr. Nathan Christensen told TheDCNF the Navy tries to plan for the unplanned.

“Just as we deal with other unplanned manning losses due to injury or other hardships, we work to ensure that pregnant service members are taken care of and that commands are equipped to fulfill their missions when an unexpected loss occurs,” he said.

In January 2015, 3,335 women were pregnant aboard military vessels, representing about 14 percent of the 23,735 women then serving such duty, according to the data.

But by August 2016 that number reached nearly 16 percent, an all-time high. The Navy reported 3,840 of the 24,259 women sailors who were aboard Navy ships were pregnant.

The Obama administration understated the pregnancy problem throughout its eight years and even suppressed some data about the impact of its “gender-neutral” policies on the Navy.

For decades, for instance, the Navy published results from exhaustive surveys of 25,000 men and women in a document called the “Navy Pregnancy and Parenthood Survey.”

The reports once were 75 to 100 pages long and disclosed attitudes among men and women and their behavior.  However, the Obama administration published only brief two to three-page summaries from 2012 onward.

A civilian attached to the Navy Personnel, Research, Studies and Technology group, which researched and published the surveys, told TheDCNF full reports were completed regularly even though it’s detailed findings were not released to the public. The individual requested anonymity.

“The military has been tight lipped over the years about these numbers. They don’t like to publicize them,” Eden told TheDCNF.

The Navy has been dogged for years by lingering claims that some women get pregnant simply to avoid deployment.

“We all know that happens. Women do it to avoid deployment,” Eden told TheDCNF.

“There do seem to be coincidences,” said Donnelly. “There is a lot of anecdotal evidence.”

“This information is considered so sensitive. You just don’t talk about it. And you don’t ask. It’s just something that everybody knows occurs. Don’t ask, don’t tell,” Donnelly said. She served on the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services and on the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces.

The sudden departure of pregnant women aboard military vessels severely hurts military readiness and morale for those left behind and who must pick up the slack. The expecting sailors must be transferred from a ship after the 20th week of pregnancy.

The Navy officially considered pregnancy incompatible with military service and women who became pregnant were automatically discharged, according to The Alliance for National Defense.

However, with the introduction of the all-volunteer military, the Navy provided many lucrative incentives to men and women — including free housing, medical care, recreation and educational opportunities.

But women got additional benefits, including free prenatal care, daycare, counseling, and special education for toddlers and children with disabilities or for other “special needs.”

“Since benefits offered to recruits who are women are so very generous, it almost becomes an incentive,” said Donnelly. “One feminist advocate many years ago referred to the military as a ‘Mecca for single moms.'”

“I think there are so many carrots. The military has become a modern-day jobs program,” Eden said.

Obama during his eight years in office sought to increase dramatically the number of women on ships.

In May 2015, Admiral Michelle Howard announced a quota of 25% women on all ships. “We’re going back and looking at the ships — all of them — and what percentage of women are on the ships. Over time, we’ll modernize them to make sure we get to about 25 percent on each ship,” she said.

Former Navy Secretary Ray Mabus in September 2015 pushed the new policy, stating that the Navy SEALs and all other combat jobs in the Navy should be open to women, with no exemptions as part of the Pentagon’s new “gender-neutral” employment policy.

Eden believes the policy of increasing women on ships results in failure. “It’s bad policy when you think of ships that have to be battle-ready and then have to transfer women off for pregnancy — something that has to do with controlled behavior or voluntary behavior,” she said.

It is unclear how President Donald Trump’s Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis will handle women in the military. He has been a skeptic, but also said during his confirmation hearing he would support a combat role for women.

Follow Richard on Twitter

Read more:

There are actions that can be taken to end... or at least, dramatically reduce the numbers... and costs... and reduction in readiness... women in the military cause.

 The question is this: do we have the will?  In no particular order:

First, we can get rid of women in Combat Arms.  The failed idea they can hack it in the infantry, for example, is idiocy wrapped in PC stupidity.

Second, we can court martial and discharge any woman who becomes pregnant, unless by provable rape, and force them to repay the costs of their training and the costs of replacing them.

Third, we can require the implantation of a Norplant device in every active duty or reserve or National Guard female soldier capable of becoming pregnant.

If for whatever the reason, a woman cannot use Norplant or some other substitute involving implantation, then they would be denied enlistment.

Fourth, we can hold the male service members who started the pregnancy accountable by courts-martial.

As taxpayers, we support a pregnancy float that costs us hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and hundreds of millions of dollars more in lost manpower.

Meanwhile, force readiness suffers for this and a variety of other reasons... but this one is the easiest to solve... by policy.

No comments: