Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Exactly as Capt Jake said. I was counting the two months of maternity leave after the fact. But she isn't going to be much use the month or two leading up to birth either as body armor probably doesn't fit and she wont be training in the field. Meaning you have an empty spot which is filled by a name. Like I said even worse for the tankers, they have no spare people sitting around to fill the spot where every spot HAS to be filled in order to use the tank. Like I said, efficiency goes down as lack of training, manpower, or both is degraded.

And yes pregnancy in the military is fairly common. I used to see it all the time since its paid for by the military. In the past, and I don't know if it has changed, but women who popped out a kid had the option of staying in or getting out. Those that get out are further wasting not only money, but massive amounts of hours of training time and time spent building unit cohesion.

As for the San bernadino thing, it was another reference to where the SJB agenda has taken human life, just like this one will cause life to be lost. A neighbor noted suspicious activity from the killers, but it had been so drilled into his head by the SJB scum that he was just being racist, he never reported it. This military SJB agenda will also take US soldier's lives, make no doubt about it.

Col. Dash wrote:
As for the San bernadino thing, it was another reference to where the SJB agenda has taken human life, just like this one will cause life to be lost. A neighbor noted suspicious activity from the killers, but it had been so drilled into his head by the SJB scum that he was just being racist, he never reported it. This military SJB agenda...

I gotta be honest, at this point I'm not sure if you're serious or trolling but either way I'm kind of laughing my ass off.

 CptJake wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

I am going to assume that in your pregnancy argument, you are saying that she will be out 2 months for popping a kid, 1 month before and 1 month after? Can you name one doctor in the world that would let a pregnant woman run military drills/be active duty in a combat zone? That is ridiculous man. Come on, think for a second. She would be replaced as soon as the pregnancy test came back.

Actually, no, she would not be replaced in most cases. She would be pulled from the position (and if deployed, evaced back to the states), but the unit would just end up being short handed until she could return to duty. You lose her effectively for about a year. She could work in other positions in the unit (orderly room clerk) in garrison, but not deployed. There is not pool of replacements like we had in WW2. And as long as the position is 'filled', even with a person who cannot perform the duties, you can't get another body in. You are only authorized a certain number of folks (and those are by MOS and grade). Unless you actually drop her from the unit manning document and reassign her somewhere else, she still fills a slot on your roster.

She is having a child, she is likely not to return to active combat duty unless she has a significant other in a position to take care of the child and since his argument is that she gets pregnant while deployed, I am going to assume that the person she is having the child with is also currently deployed.

The odds of her coming back are slim to none. So I mean, her position would not be 'filled' as she would be out for the better part of a year and after that, she would have a dependent with no way of caring for it while deployed. She is gone man. She is gone.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

So, then, pregnancy has already been a thing in the military? Shock, and are you sure the military hasnt fallen apart like other posters said it would?

No one has said it would fall apart.....


What DOES happen though, is that quite often time, because of the nature of cut-backs and structuring, a unit is designed with little to no reduncancies. As in, if there's a job whose sole purpose from 9-1700 is to shred paper, there will only be one person doing it. Even in a larger office, say, the Personnel Office (the infamous S-1), the office itself will have 4-6 people who are all of the same MOS, but each has a different job. If one becomes pregnant, in that setting not much changes, it's an office. At least until the birth and 6 weeks of maternity leave. But during that six weeks, one or more people have to increase their work load to cover that one person's job.


Now, if we change that office setting to say, Iraq or Afghanistan, that woman who becomes pregnant must be sent home on pretty much the first flight outta dodge. If we go with the higher op-tempo time period, units deploy for a year, 12 months. If the unit deploys in January, and a woman becomes pregnant in February, that means that those in her office/workspace must increase their workload for 10+ months. If we change this office setting to an infantry squad where there's 8-10 people in the squad, suddenly having 7-9 people makes a huge difference on patrols and in a fire fight. If she is a tanker, an Abrams tank runs with 4 people... a Pregnant woman makes 3 people and a combat ineffective vehicle.

All of that affects unit readiness and ability to fight. As was evidenced by my second deployment, most units have "barely" enough people to cover their deployment from the get-go, so to lose anyone is actually kind of a big deal as human resources must be diverted and rerouted.

Haha that's soo funny It's like all my bingo numbers at once!

 Dreadwinter wrote:

She is having a child, she is likely not to return to active combat duty unless she has a significant other in a position to take care of the child and since his argument is that she gets pregnant while deployed, I am going to assume that the person she is having the child with is also currently deployed.

The odds of her coming back are slim to none. So I mean, her position would not be 'filled' as she would be out for the better part of a year and after that, she would have a dependent with no way of caring for it while deployed. She is gone man. She is gone.

To be fair, that is not 100% accurate. Any single parent (male or female) or dual military families must have a 'family care plan' which is a pretty extensive set of documents from POAs to proof of direct deposits and so on to prove the troop(s) can be deployed because they have a plan for the kid to be taken care. Failure to have an executable family care plan is grounds for being chaptered. Plenty of dual military families have deployed as have single parents. I know a young lady who deployed about 4 months after giving birth, her mom was the mainstay of her family care plan.

There are SOME troops who use the 'I can't come up with a family care plan' as an excuse to get put off active duty, and others who at the LAST damned minute before deployment figure out their plan is not actually executable and become non-deployable (and generally chaptered out). And there are plenty of good troopers who deploy while someone else cares for their kids...

 Smacks wrote:

Haha that's soo funny It's like all my bingo numbers at once!

Laughing myself to tears, hahahahha.

These arguments sound suspiciously like ones against my wife in her work.
She took about 3 months off and I took the parental leave.
Shocked the hell out of the guys who thought they were free and clear to jockey for her position.
There is a fairly short recovery time physically for birth other than the topic of breast feeding which I dearly do not want to get embroiled in.
For at least the "planned" form of pregnancy it is doable and does require some degree of stepping up for the other parent.

Now for in-the-field pregnancies, it requires the discipline of adults to prevent this new (at least for the military) form of "infection".
Use your gosh-darn preventatives! STD's have always been a concern this is just one more good reason.
I now really want to look up some numbers of STD diagnosis rates of military personnel.
It would be a good measure of sexual activity and the degree of care given of infection prevention.

Call me simple, but I am not seeing anything new here other than the life and death seriousness of this occupation that also requires on occasion long periods in the field without logistics support.

Why do I feel like there should be a new squad formations with pairing of male/females as partners within them.
Even before my wife and I became a couple, we got the business done whatever it was.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

Haha that's soo funny It's like all my bingo numbers at once!

Laughing myself to tears, hahahahha.

SJB? o.O

Social Justice Basher?

Anyhoo... :slow clapping: Ouze...

 Talizvar wrote:
These arguments sound suspiciously like ones against my wife in her work.
She took about 3 months off and I took the parental leave.

Could your wife do her job while pregnant?

In the Army, if you are pregnant you are non-deployable. That significantly extends the period the trooper's 'job' isn't being done by that trooper. Would your wife's boss accepted losing her for a year and holding her job for her, slot unfilled?


There MAY just be a tiny bit of difference you are glossing over....

 Talizvar wrote:

Use your gosh-darn preventatives! STD's have always been a concern this is just one more good reason.

My wife and I were deployed together (for a good while we were dual-military)... birth control doesn't work 100% as evidenced by my oldest child. (long story short, she was conceived in Iraq, and the medics were fething morons.... or the medics were playing morons to prevent shenanigans with flights home)

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Oh another thing, in ancient scandinavia, Alot of the viking warriors where.....women.

Source on that?
I know that the women were trained to fight to protect their households, when the men were away on raids, and I know that they would accompany the men on an exploration or a colonization voyage, but this the first I've heard of them being actual warriors. Especially a lot of them.

Some of you are still missing one important factor, efficiency. I believe a woman could be trained up to fight as good as a man with a rifle. But that is not all that is involved. Further, there is massive amounts of training she will miss if she gets pregnant. She is still taking up that slot. Every day she isn't in armor in the field practicing with the rest of the squad is lost efficiency with the squad. A good squad works well because they have trained with each other constantly for many many days evolving to the point of being a well oiled machine. And then she has an oops. Now the team is missing a member for who knows how long with no hope of a replacement as long as she still holds the slot.

I was mech so we didn't have women but I remember something, are pregnant women even allowed to be around JP8 fuel? If that's the case would that mean they couldn't be around a tank or Bradley the entire time they are pregnant? How does that work in the non-combat fields that have heavy vehicles?

Col. Dash wrote:
Some of you are still missing one important factor, efficiency. I believe a woman could be trained up to fight as good as a man with a rifle. But that is not all that is involved. Further, there is massive amounts of training she will miss if she gets pregnant. She is still taking up that slot. Every day she isn't in armor in the field practicing with the rest of the squad is lost efficiency with the squad. A good squad works well because they have trained with each other constantly for many many days evolving to the point of being a well oiled machine. And then she has an oops. Now the team is missing a member for who knows how long with no hope of a replacement as long as she still holds the slot.

I was mech so we didn't have women but I remember something, are pregnant women even allowed to be around JP8 fuel? If that's the case would that mean they couldn't be around a tank or Bradley the entire time they are pregnant? How does that work in the non-combat fields that have heavy vehicles?

Well, women are not obligated to get pregnant. Y'know, birth control is a thing.

Agreed but it happens quite a bit in the military. And in field conditions despite bans, ooops happen even more often.

 whembly wrote:

SJB? o.O

Social Justice Basher?

Anyhoo... :slow clapping: Ouze...

I was trying to figure out the B myself. Initially I assumed it was BS. Now I assume it is "blogger". Is it Basher?

Maybe Social Justice Bard?

Bully. They do not deserve the honor of being called warrior.

Honor to be called a warrior?
That is the stupiedest gak I have ever heard, what is so special about the term "Warrior"

Absolutely nothing. ISIS are warriors, as are US army personal, UK army, ect. It's not a term filled with reverence.

Col. Dash wrote:
Bully. They do not deserve the honor of being called warrior.

I think warrior is generally meant to be dripping with sarcasm, given that it is generally regarded as a pejorative. That being said, "bully" would generally be appropriate as well.

I kind of feel the same way about that as I do abortion, gun control, or anything else: Believe whatever the hell you want to. Believe your god wants you to do whatever feels good. Be as crazy, religious or otherwise, as you feel like. The moment you extend that philosophy to other people though is the moment you become a fascist.

Col. Dash wrote:
Agreed but it happens quite a bit in the military. And in field conditions despite bans, ooops happen even more often.

I feel like the pregnancy angle is a non-starter. Men can also have an oops and catch VD. They're way more likely to visit places like brothels, which can also result in some down time, depending on the severity of the condition. Men are also more vulnerable to being kicked in the balls, more likely to become involved in altercations, have a weaker immune system, tend to drive more recklessly, and are less likely to visit the doctor etc... Which are all things that might compromise their health. They also might just need to take time off to look after their children.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Honor to be called a warrior?
That is the stupiedest gak I have ever heard, what is so special about the term "Warrior"

It denotes a soldier with great skill and courage, who is dedicated to combat.
Its a cultural thing. Several ancient cultures held warriors in high esteem, and such a reverence survived.
Japan is one such example, with the bushido thing. The Greeks are another.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

Col. Dash wrote:
Bully. They do not deserve the honor of being called warrior.

I think warrior is generally meant to be dripping with sarcasm, given that it is generally regarded as a pejorative. That being said, "bully" would generally be appropriate as well.

I kind of feel the same way about that as I do abortion, gun control, or anything else: Believe whatever the hell you want to. Believe your god wants you to do whatever feels good. Be as crazy, religious or otherwise, as you feel like. The moment you extend that philosophy to other people though is the moment you become a fascist.

Its derived from Keyboard Warrior.
Which is indeed a sarcastic term.

Col. Dash wrote:
Agreed but it happens quite a bit in the military. And in field conditions despite bans, ooops happen even more often.

I posted a link above where one BCT had several evaced due to pregnancy, and another study with more info showing female soldiers were evaced for non-combat injuries (including pregnancy) at a much higher rate than male soldiers.

But the prevailing opinion seems to 'SO!'.

Not a big deal. There clearly are differences and as a nation we clearly have decided those differences do not merit exclusion from combat arms (infantry, armor, and SF) positions.

At this point I'm annoyed at folks who can't won't admit there are real differences. Admitting there are and deciding they are not significant enough to keep the policy from changing is one thing. To say there are no differences seems to indicate decisions/opinions based on ignorance.

I do feel the wrong decision has been made, but do trust our troops to implement the new policy. In another thread on this I did post links to several studies explaining why I held my opinion. My opinion was based for the most part on very real differences in anatomy which result in higher injury rates and more severe injuries, and the fact that we are not currently having any problems filling combat arms slots so there was no need for a wider pool of applicants. Again, clearly those differences are not enough to way SECDEF.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Absolutely nothing. ISIS are warriors, as are US army personal, UK army, ect. It's not a term filled with reverence.

Only if you don't read both definitions.

1.
a person engaged or experienced in warfare; soldier.

2.
a person who shows or has shown great vigor, courage, or aggressiveness, as in politics or athletics.

The latter is something to be revered, no?
Though what that person is showing vigor towards should still be taken into consideration.
Is there such thing as a Warhammer Warrior ?

 Smacks wrote:

Col. Dash wrote:
Agreed but it happens quite a bit in the military. And in field conditions despite bans, ooops happen even more often.

I feel like the pregnancy angle is a non-starter. Men can also have an oops and catch VD. They're way more likely to visit places like brothels, which can also result in some down time, depending on the severity of the condition. Men are also more vulnerable to being kicked in the balls, more likely to become involved in altercations, have a weaker immune system, tend to drive more recklessly, and are less likely to visit the doctor etc... Which are all things that might compromise their health. They also might just need to take time off to look after their children.

STDS don't make you non-deployable for a year, nor in most cases will they get you evaced from theater. But yeah, they are the same.

What if they menstruate during a battle? It could attract bears.

Bear Cavalry confirmed as US secret weapon.
Had to get it before Putin does.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Bear Cavalry confirmed as US secret weapon.
Had to get it before Putin does.

Here they come...

 Ouze wrote:
What if they menstruate during a battle? It could attract bears.

Dogs react to that too. Would wolves? What's the range of detection on that?

I'm not making a point, but I'm morbidly fascinated now.