The Reality That Awaits Women in Combat

Women are just as self concerned are as men. If some of our men could have become pregnant to avoid deployment, the would have done it. I had to put one of our female E5s in a holding cell over night to catch her attention that she would do it the right way or she would separated from her family for a considerable time.

I agree that we have situations that will need to be worked through until we get it right.

Oh, believe me, I knew guys that I don't doubt for a second would have exploited pregnancy to escape deployment. The biological reality remains that women can and men cannot.

Overall I think it is one of the more fascinating developments in our ever evolving nation to come along, and I will certainly be following it.

This is NOT an attempt to disparage anyone here. However, this is an excellent point that you made.

How many women, say, in the Navy for example, are suddenly "pregnant" when it is time for sea duty? I don't know the answer to this. How many female soldiers or marines do the same? Again, I have no idea, but I'm relatively certain that it happens. To what extent, I couldn't tell you.

The interesting point to ponder, however, is this: If a female can avoid deployment to a combat theater when pregnant, then shouldn't the husband (a soldier) of a female who has orders for deployment be able to claim his need to stay home and support his pregnant Wife?

Obviously it sounds shady, but I live by the idea of "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander". This is that "slippery slope" that we enter into when we dramatically change what has been the "norm" for hundreds of years.....

I don't know the extent of the factor either. It's interesting to note that some Internet research turns up little, and most of it seems to lean that it is a small factor, while my experience was just the opposite. So, was my command exceptional in that regard, I do not know. I do know that I was shocked at the spike, and remember corpsmen down in Medical commenting about the pre-deployment spike being typical. I don't doubt some of that was the typical male resentment talking, but still.

I mention it as a concern to look at, for whatever it is worth. If pre-deployment pregnancy spikes were significant, then it would affect operations, and it is something that cannot be ignored for the sake of making a social change happen. Other prior service members have voiced either similar concerns or something different. All I can do is take my fellow veterans' word for it on their experiences. I was not in combat, and the closest I came to a firefight was standing by on watch with my weapon pointed at a target awaiting the order to fire that didn't come. So if those that have been in combat relate a different experience, I can't very well support or deny their claims.
 
Oh, believe me, I knew guys that I don't doubt for a second would have exploited pregnancy to escape deployment. The biological reality remains that women can and men cannot.

Overall I think it is one of the more fascinating developments in our ever evolving nation to come along, and I will certainly be following it.

This is NOT an attempt to disparage anyone here. However, this is an excellent point that you made.

How many women, say, in the Navy for example, are suddenly "pregnant" when it is time for sea duty? I don't know the answer to this. How many female soldiers or marines do the same? Again, I have no idea, but I'm relatively certain that it happens. To what extent, I couldn't tell you.

The interesting point to ponder, however, is this: If a female can avoid deployment to a combat theater when pregnant, then shouldn't the husband (a soldier) of a female who has orders for deployment be able to claim his need to stay home and support his pregnant Wife?

Obviously it sounds shady, but I live by the idea of "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander". This is that "slippery slope" that we enter into when we dramatically change what has been the "norm" for hundreds of years.....

I don't know the extent of the factor either. It's interesting to note that some Internet research turns up little, and most of it seems to lean that it is a small factor, while my experience was just the opposite. So, was my command exceptional in that regard, I do not know. I do know that I was shocked at the spike, and remember corpsmen down in Medical commenting about the pre-deployment spike being typical. I don't doubt some of that was the typical male resentment talking, but still.

I mention it as a concern to look at, for whatever it is worth. If pre-deployment pregnancy spikes were significant, then it would affect operations, and it is something that cannot be ignored for the sake of making a social change happen. Other prior service members have voiced either similar concerns or something different. All I can do is take my fellow veterans' word for it on their experiences. I was not in combat, and the closest I came to a firefight was standing by on watch with my weapon pointed at a target awaiting the order to fire that didn't come. So if those that have been in combat relate a different experience, I can't very well support or deny their claims.

Than you. As I said in opening, contrary to the left, my post was more of a "shoulder-shrugging thought" and not an indictment. I have noticed that on this particular forum, questions are met with rancor, rather than thoughtfulness and I appreciate you response.

My Cousin is a Master Chief on a missile cruiser and, in talking, we have discussed the pre-deployment pregnancy "spike" that routinely occurs prior to deployment. According to him, the Navy doesn't like it but there is little they can do about it. I mean, seriously, what's the option? Ordering females to forego sex 4- 5 months before deployment!?! Obviously, that ain't happening!

So, the logical flow of this would be to assume that in some cases, the same would happen with pre-deployment female Infantry, Armor and Artillery members.

Here, at least in my opinion, is the bottom line. Until 1973, the military met its readiness goal by a draft. Young men were required to serve their country for two years. Most went willingly and had no problems. A lot of those kids went on to careers in the military. Then, during Viet Nam, it was decided that "some" young men were more valuable than others and deferments were issued for the little fellas who hid away in college. That, and an unpopular war, coupled with the steady decline in social morays spelled the end of the draft and we went to an "all volunteer" force.

Unfortunately, without "volunteers" you don't have an "all volunteer" military and as a result (to make a long, complicated story short) the military began accepting more women and finally illegal aliens, into their ranks to compensate for the increasing number of men who, quite frankly, wanted nothing to do with the military. Now, we have come to a point where we are putting our women in harms way on a routine basis and offering "citizenship" to any alien who will fight for the US. Our "men" are staying home and raising families while their women go to war and now, will be eligible to get closer to the "action".

Brother, if this ain't "Alice in Wonderland" then you tell me what is......
 
Randall Flagg continues to deflect from the fact that women do, have, and will continue to serve in combat. The law catches up to reality. RF's reality was a long, long time ago.
 
Randall Flagg continues to deflect from the fact that women do, have, and will continue to serve in combat. The law catches up to reality. RF's reality was a long, long time ago.

I've found it's useless to have a debate on this subject when someone starts off their post with "Back when I served" and its the '70's or before.

Very similar to the whole DADT debate, honestly.
 
Randall Flagg continues to deflect from the fact that women do, have, and will continue to serve in combat. The law catches up to reality. RF's reality was a long, long time ago.

I've found it's useless to have a debate on this subject when someone starts off their post with "Back when I served" and its the '70's or before.

Very similar to the whole DADT debate, honestly.


Yeah, you and that Starkey fellow are right. I'm just an old man who should just shut up and die. It'll happen. I'll be dead and gone and moronic fools like you two will still be telling everyone how "great" you are. losers.
 
Randall Flagg continues to deflect from the fact that women do, have, and will continue to serve in combat. The law catches up to reality. RF's reality was a long, long time ago.

I've found it's useless to have a debate on this subject when someone starts off their post with "Back when I served" and its the '70's or before.

Very similar to the whole DADT debate, honestly.


Yeah, you and that Starkey fellow are right. I'm just an old man who should just shut up and die. It'll happen. I'll be dead and gone and moronic fools like you two will still be telling everyone how "great" you are. losers.

When all else fails, play the victim card.

Poor, poor me. Waaaaaay.

Get over yourself.
 
Randall Flagg, you served, thank you for that. I served. Our day is over. Women are going to serve in combat arms if they qualify. Let it go.

And don't ever play the victim here again; veterans should never do that.
 
Randall Flagg, you served, thank you for that. I served. Our day is over. Women are going to serve in combat arms if they qualify. Let it go.

And don't ever play the victim here again; veterans should never do that.

Look here, General. I've seen your type all my life. You thank a vet for his service then shove a knife in his back when it serves your purpose. I neither desire your "thanks" nor accept it.


I don't give a hoot in hell if women serve in combat. YOU use them for political purposes and cast them aside. You are as transparent as Saran Wrap.

OUR day is over? You never had a "day" You fool no one you REMF.
 
Randall Flagg, the decorated careerist, plays the victim because he can't stand be told, "That's enough, troop, you are wrong."
 
Randall Flagg, you served, thank you for that. I served. Our day is over. Women are going to serve in combat arms if they qualify. Let it go.

And don't ever play the victim here again; veterans should never do that.

Look here, General. I've seen your type all my life. You thank a vet for his service then shove a knife in his back when it serves your purpose. I neither desire your "thanks" nor accept it.


I don't give a hoot in hell if women serve in combat. YOU use them for political purposes and cast them aside. You are as transparent as Saran Wrap.

OUR day is over? You never had a "day" You fool no one you REMF.

When the victim card doesn't work, lash out like a petulant child with ad hominems.

Very honorable that.
 
Randall Flagg is probably a 15-year old holed up in the basement bunker. :lol:

Of all the veterans on the Board, maybe two others over the years has acted as immaturely and shamefully as he has here.
 

Forum List

Back
Top