Professional Soldiers ® - View Single Post - Navy intends to let women serve on subs.........

**Pete** · 02-26-2010, 12:25

Lets take a trip in the way back machine - all the way back to 1991 and the Love Boat.

"36 Women Pregnant Aboard a Navy Ship That Served in Gulf"

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/30/us...l?pagewanted=1

"......More than half became pregnant after the ship was under way, but a Navy spokesman, Lieut. Comdr. Jeff Smallwood, said there were no indications of improper fraternization between men and women on the ship......"

The problem I have with the issue is that women can use a pregnacy as a tool of assignment. Don't like the long assignment in the war zone? Get prego and go home.

36? 36? The female portion of the crew was 360. That's 10% that turned up prego and had to be sent home.

And what about this war? Well, it appears the leadership does not want to know.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...leave_the_war/

And on the similar subject, different view.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-8125r/?page=2

".......Mrs. Donnelly has written to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warning that the military is becoming a haven for single moms. She said fiscal 2002 statistics show that the Navy reassigned to shore duty 2,159 pregnant women, or 12.3 percent of 17,543 enlisted women on ships.

"Overly generous incentives for single parents and large families attract even more unstable, low-income families that depend on the [Defense Department's] extensive social welfare system," Mrs. Donnelly wrote. "Some feminists have described the military, approvingly, as a 'Mecca' for single moms." .........."

Funny how a Military can be sooooo interested in which MREs the troops like the best but are not interested on pregnacy rates and how it impacts deployments and recalls.

Sounds PC to me. And is PC the way a military should be run?

02-26-2010, 12:25	#72
Pete Quiet Professional Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Fayetteville Posts: 13,080	The Love Boat Lets take a trip in the way back machine - all the way back to 1991 and the Love Boat. "36 Women Pregnant Aboard a Navy Ship That Served in Gulf" http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/30/us...l?pagewanted=1 "......More than half became pregnant after the ship was under way, but a Navy spokesman, Lieut. Comdr. Jeff Smallwood, said there were no indications of improper fraternization between men and women on the ship......" The problem I have with the issue is that women can use a pregnacy as a tool of assignment. Don't like the long assignment in the war zone? Get prego and go home. 36? 36? The female portion of the crew was 360. That's 10% that turned up prego and had to be sent home. And what about this war? Well, it appears the leadership does not want to know. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...leave_the_war/ And on the similar subject, different view. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-8125r/?page=2 ".......Mrs. Donnelly has written to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warning that the military is becoming a haven for single moms. She said fiscal 2002 statistics show that the Navy reassigned to shore duty 2,159 pregnant women, or 12.3 percent of 17,543 enlisted women on ships. "Overly generous incentives for single parents and large families attract even more unstable, low-income families that depend on the [Defense Department's] extensive social welfare system," Mrs. Donnelly wrote. "Some feminists have described the military, approvingly, as a 'Mecca' for single moms." .........." Funny how a Military can be sooooo interested in which MREs the troops like the best but are not interested on pregnacy rates and how it impacts deployments and recalls. Sounds PC to me. And is PC the way a military should be run?
Pete is offline