Quote:
Originally Posted by abc_123
Nope. You are missing the point.
Reading between many of the lines of this article as written tells me that retention rates for women in child bearing years are really the concern.
See:
Women who reach 10 years of service — what Mr. Carter called “their peak years for starting a family” — have a retention rate that is 30 percent lower than their male counterparts.
“Particularly for women who are midgrade officers and enlisted personnel, this benefit will demonstrate that we understand the demands upon them and want to help them balance commitments to force and commitments to family,” Mr. Carter said. “We want to retain them in our military.”
If it were purely about aggregate numbers... a cash bonus would take care of that. But IMO, this is an attempt to target women and avoid the obvious backlash that would ensue if they said "$10K bonus to women only"
YMMV.
|
I fully agree that this targets women - who have a limited window for safe reproduction while men can reproduce without increased risk indefinitely.
If that's the case this is a failed strategy IMHO. The biologic clock ticks hard in the late 20's-early 30's and many of these women want to have children then, not the opportunity to have kids later.
If they offered 1 year of leave on full pay with each pregnancy they are likely to find more success, at the expense of having a large proportion of the female military personnel on perpetual paid leave for starting families.
It's a no-win situation if you ask me.
__________________
"The dignity of man is not shattered in a single blow, but slowly softened, bent, and eventually neutered. Men are seldom forced to act, but are constantly restrained from acting. Such power does not destroy outright, but prevents genuine existence. It does not tyrannize immediately, but it dampens, weakens, and ultimately suffocates, until the entire population is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid, uninspired animals, of which the government is shepherd." - Alexis de Tocqueville
|