Thursday, June 10, 2010

Diversity Thursday

Everyone here knows I am a supporter of women serving where they can meet objective criteria for the job at hand - always have.

The one weakness in the Navy though has been the fact that few will openly discuss the real problems that this poses for leadership, medical, and family services.

Women, thank goodness, are not men. I don't know about you - but I wish this Page 13 was used in the commands I was in.

Big Navy has forced this CO to do this. I watched over my entire career Sailors with critical NECC have to stop working when they got pregnant - and no replacements sent unless a sister Command could help. The other sailors holding that NECC had to work even harder. Not fair to the Command or the Sailors. No action taken because the topic was toxic.

May this CO get all the top-cover he needs ... and no - I will not divulge the CO or Command, for obvious reasons.

a. Interpersonal relationships of a sexual nature between members of this command create conditions which run counter to good order and discipline. This does not promote teamwork.
b. These kinds of relationships, and relationships outside of this command, when resulting in the pregnancy and transfer of an Active Duty member of this command, adversely impact the mission effectiveness of this command through, at a minimum, increased workload to those members remaining in the command.
c. Pregnancy remains a medical condition, and will be treated as such by this command. However, with rare exception, pregnancy is also a direct result of actions among personnel which fall under those members’ direct control. Actions taken by members of this command which reduce our mission effectiveness are choices which can reflect poor judgment and/or a lack of self-control, and always reflect the subjugation of the needs of the team to the selfish desires of the individual.
d. Active Duty personnel whose actions reduce our mission effectiveness will be, at a minimum, counseled on the adverse impacts of their actions on this team. This counseling will not be gender-specific, but will include all involved parties as available.

a. The Navy Equal Opportunity (EO) Policy, as defined in OPNAVINST 5354.1F, paragraph (4a), states that, “Sailors and civilians who model Navy Core Values do not engage in negative behaviors nor condone these actions in others. Additionally, these practices adversely affect good order and discipline, unit cohesion, mission readiness, and prevent our Navy from attaining the highest level of operational readiness.”
b. Obligations of command leadership, as defined in OPNAVINST 5354.1F, paragraph (4b), require commands to “… create, shape and maintain a positive EO environment through policy, communication, training, education, enforcement and assessment.”
c. OPNAVINST 5354.1F, paragraph (6a) and (6b), states that “Servicemembers shall be evaluated only on individual merit, fitness and capability,” and that “the focus [of EO] is on the detriment to good order and discipline, unit cohesion and military readiness that results when our Navy’s Core Values are not adhered to…”
d. The transfer of pregnant personnel from sea duty, in order to ensure their safety from hazardous materials and conditions and guarantee their access to adequate medical care, requires gender discrimination and recognizes a degradation in that servicemember’s fitness and capability to perform required duties. This discrimination, while lawful, runs contrary to Navy EO Policy in that it adversely affects good order and discipline, degrades unit cohesion, and detracts from mission readiness.
e. As Commanding Officer, I am charged ensuring a positive EO environment. The transfer of pregnant personnel from this command degrades that environment and increases perceptions of special treatment based upon gender. Personnel responsible for degrading our mission effectiveness or our positive EO environment in this way will be held accountable for their actions, as determined on a case-by-case basis.

By my signature below, I acknowledge receipt of this policy and further understand that any violation of this policy may result in disciplinary/administrative action.

Update: Here you go folks. From a mid-grade female officer known to your host and of the best pedigree. Ahem.
First off, as a woman and as a sailor I can tell you I have 100% no issue with a policy like theory. The CO is absolutely right. Pregnancy does have an undeniable impact on mission readines. Women need to accept responsibility that, like it or not, fair or not, we are the ones stuck carrying the baby. And we need to own some responsibility for that.
I myself am facing this dillema as I most certainly do want children in the near future, but I have also taken a pretty high speed billet and know that pregnancy at this time in my career is just not practical, and so I am looking at follow on tours at a shore command or PG school options. (I am not considering the career intermission because I object to it on principle...I've also looked into the option of retrofitting the daddy-to-be with a sea horse incubation pouch, but modern science has failed me...YET AGAIN).
I agree with the CO 100% in theory that an operational community should be able to, in the interests of good order and dicipline, deal with things that are adverse. Alcoholism is a disease, but we can adsep people for alcohol treatment failure. Personality disorders are medical conditions, but we can adsep for that. Hell we can (and actually must) adsep for insulin cpontrolled diabetes.

So why are we so afraid of pregnancy, an albeit temporary medical condition?

A couple of reasons. Fisrt, the Supreme Court in all its wisdom has declared that procreation is a fundamental right. So if you begin adsepping people over a "fundamental right" you are going to run into problems with people who will perceive it as a attempt to slice away at Roe v. Wade. And we all know how well that goes over.

Second this WILL lead to false rape allegations, especially with the loose statutory wording of Article 120. Mark my words, this policy will up the number of sexual assault sitreps in the vicinity of 2-3 months after intercourse. A smart male sailor under this policy would get a written consent waiver any time he sleeps with another sailor...but then, he's also now documented his own potential orders violation. Conundrum.

It's a challenging situation. Again, I completely agree with the CO in principle, but the execution without running afoul of Equal Protection will be a bitch, even with the most well intentioned CO.

Frankly, I've been arguing for mandatory birth control for all forward deployed/sea duty sailors as a condition of acceptance of orders, but I KNOW that ain't gonna happen.


Captain - Special Duty Cryptology said...

This CO, when discovered, will be forced to modify his policy. 

LT B said...

Huzzah!!  I like this.  I bet he JAGed it out too.  It is worth a shot.

MR T's Haircut said...

Oh no he Dinnit...!

MR T's Haircut said...

I think he is getting ahead of the whining and CMEO complaints.. I love the selfish comment.  Nice touch!

AW1 Tim said...

 Indeed, I bet he spent quite a biy of consultation time with the JAG(s) before this ever saw the light of day.

  I'm glad to see it, however.

Navy Suppo said...

There is no doubt that this policy will be forcibly changed, unfortunately...

Anonymous said...

BZ to the CO

MarkT said...

If only my spine was injected upon selection of flag officers, then we'd have had this in the Navy's core values years ago.  This CO has a pair, and I'd sail into harms way with him (or her) any day.

DeltaBravo said...

Is this a first?

DeltaBravo said...

And I love how he used the EO policy to state that this preferential treatment discriminates against others.  Nice touch.

Grotopotamus said...

Intriguing point... wonder how different the reception would be were the CO a "she" (love how all of you >assuming here< guys are assuming "he"). And yes, "she" would obviously have some ovaries to put this out there. Hoping our intrepid host will follow up on this one...

SJBill said...

With DDG manning levels being forced from 350 down to 220, and with IAs consuming up to ten billets for a year at a time, the Skipper needs all the help he can get from his crew.
The focus is on helping the family at home, not creating one while underway.

I'd gladly sail with this CO.

Byron said...

When, not if, this CO is called out on the CO's intent letter, I sincerely hope he/she makes a public fight of it.

John said...

BZ, Skipper!

I just hope that top cover is indeed provided when the inevitable whining slackers object.

LT B said...

I truly hope it is a female CO.  She will have a far more latitude to tell the FOGOs to leave her alone.  Especially if she treats her crew well and equally throughout.  If a screaming, abusing CO, then there will be problems.

YNSN said...

I can't look directly at this, it is just too awesome.

I wish I were the YN that got to type that up... I wish I were the YN that would get to have a CO like that.

LT B said...

Maybe not.  This was carefully couched in the language of EO and avoidance of double standards.  I just sat through my 6 hour EO course and I was ASSURED that you ALWAYS hire the best and most qualified candidate regardless of race, color, creed, sex, etc.  So since the Navy has put that out there, then force Big Navy to back that crap up.  Next, conspiratorially share this amongst the other COs in the region, then the Fleet and make it policy.  It is not mutiny to follow the rules.  This CO has put out what their intents and objectives are and now it is out there.  If overturned then we may see some kabuki to explain it.  If the Navy is smart they will let it ride and see if they can absorb it and make it their own.  It may actually clean up some of their mess. 

virgil xenophon said...

Lt B is all over it. Use their own words and regs against them. British labor unions used to work this to perfection. Rather than strike, they would simply bring all activity to a halt/slow crawl by the practice of "work-to-rule." That is by following to the exact letter each and every regulation/SOP. As most such things on the books in almost EVERY bureaucratic organization are usually obsolete/irrelevant and honored largely in the breach in order to get anything meaningful accomplished within a meaningful time-frame, "working to rule" is an el neato way to demonstrate the inherent absurdities of an organization's policies and practices without laying oneself open to charges of insubordination.

Salty Gator said...

I also like the new Mr. T Icon, by the way

Grumpy Old Ham said...

...and has his/her retirement papers in order -- ref the post earlier this week about good officers declining command due to lack of senior-level support.

I suspect this CO will not be called out on this policy document per se, but rather on "<span><span>Personnel responsible for degrading our mission effectiveness or our positive EO environment in this way will be held accountable for their actions, as determined on a case-by-case basis."</span></span> (emphasis mine)

Anonymous said...

"Tell me sgain Sailor, how you have no clue as to how you became pregnant?"

I can see some folks working pretty hard not to be hoisted on their own petard as they try to argue this is a discriminatory Page 13 Acknowledgement.

UltimaRatioRegis said...


You beat me to it.  You are precise, however.  This CO, once legs are cut out from under him/her, isn't doing much influencing. 

Others will watch this damned good CO (judging from the eminently fair and readiness-focused policy) go down in flames for doing what is right.  To say to those watching that they are "bellyaching" or not focused on taking care of their juniors for declining to be a party to or subject of such a fiasco is horsesh*t.  Plain and simple. 

The scorn needs to be properly placed on the ass-protecting and career-oriented weasel who cuts the legs.

Anon said...

We have proven we are not ready for this.  When you pull back the EO, command climate, and mission readiness issues what you really have is the pregnancy question - can we tell someone when they can and cannot get pregnant?  America is not ready for that discussion, and the Army general in Iraq recently proved that.

Now, just to stir things a little - does everyone assume a women who gets pregnant while on sea duty did it on purpose?  Do you not think that they have pride in their work and being part of the team?

How about sex ed and contraception?  When is the last time training was provided for males and females?  And before you say an 18 year should know, think about what's (not) being taught in schools.

DM05 said...

BZ Skipper as well. Prego's is wonderful, 'cept when you're literally screwing (i.e. increasing workload) your Shipmates. All those security badge/front desk/LIMDU folks with pregnancy uniforms...leaves ya wonderin and it ain't pretty. This is a good start.

Skippy-san said...

It is a nice statement-it is also the seeds of one hell of a Congressional coming his way.

The letter has an implied threat-whether he meant to or not, of lower an eval (counseling translates that way to the uniformed). That is why the chain of command will not support him. Furthermore-it ignores the real fact that most pregancies are not single Sailors trying to get out of cruise-they are married couples trying to work the system to their advantage. ( especially when it is a dual service couple-another trend the Navy does not enough to discourage).

The Navy should not be putting CO's in this postion-its overall policy should be to take away the incentives to marry other Sailors and for getting pregnant. Problem is-once they started down the dual gender, family friendly, path-that became impossible.

This was what neadrathals like me warned about in 1993-1994. Now its coming true in spades. All I have is the satisfaction of saying, " I told you so.".

Curtis said...

Wrote a nice long post on why this idiot is doomed since he is an idiot.  It got lost over the boundary.  There is so obviously a way to make it around the divide between life and life.  PERS and navy refused to accept it.  I served on a MIDEASTFOR flagship at 45% manning for a long time and NRF ships at 45% manning because that was the way things were done.  Losing a person or two because they all of a sudden decided to do the biologic thing......come on.  When the official policy of PERS and all the admirals is FU to the don't have any credit.

Served with the distaff on staff and in mobile units but never at sea.  OTOH, I served with the uniques a lot.  The one I treasure was a woman who was SJA to two group staffs and who arranged to have a reservist mobilized under OIF orders to fill her place when she decided to give birth to her third.  Had the most amazing time as acting C-dore at the time.

ActusRhesus said...

exactly why should the navy be discouraging dual military marriage?  I don't see a lot of men willing to do the military spouse thing, so for most of us, it's dual military or spinster.  I'd like you to ellaborate on why exactly dual military marriage (barring frat issues) is a problem.

cdrsalamander said...

For a female AD officer who wanted a career, I know two dual couples that got it right.  In both cases, when they were both LCDR and decided that they were running out of time to have any family whatsoever - they literally looked at each other's FITREPS and career paths.  The wife's was better, she stayed in active duty, he went USNR and was a professional Dad.  Still exceptionally difficult for the women - but they were driven.

The other couples I know who didn't get divorced and/or had a trairwreck of a career either had no children.

Grandpa Bluewater said...


Perhaps the idiot decided to go with "in matters of principle, be deaf to expediency". Some folks get drunk wit power that way when they figure they are only going to get command of one ship in  one career.  You know, the old "do the right thing, it will gratify a few and astound the rest"?

For the historians, the issue was raised and buried with the first ship to get a mixed gender crew  and a deployment, in the eighties.  Persistent little zombie, no matter how many times it gets buried, it digs back out.

A woman get pregnant as a detailing self initiative? I am shocked....shocked....Why thank you NC1, for the reenlistment stats. Enjoy your new duty station in Pensacola. It is a boy or girl?

LT B said...

Did she get pregnant on purpose?  It doesn't matter.  She got pregnant more often than not due to a lack of responsibile fornication.  Remember, he's talking about getting pregnant on sea duty.  The married women that do the job/family thing often plan around billets and job responsibilities to get pregnant.  The responsibile parents are not the real issue.  He is hitting the ones that get knocked up via their shipmate or random dude on shore while in a deploying status.  It IS an issue and he is TRYING to address it w/ the tools available. 

LT B said...

Did she get pregnant on purpose?  It doesn't matter.  She got pregnant more often than not due to a lack of responsibile fornication.  Remember, he's talking about getting pregnant on sea duty.  The married women that do the job/family thing often plan around billets and job responsibilities to get pregnant.  The responsibile parents are not the real issue.  He is hitting the ones that get knocked up via their shipmate or random dude on shore while in a deploying status.  It IS an issue and he is TRYING to address it w/ the tools available. 

UltimaRatioRegis said...

"<span>lack of responsibile fornication"</span>

I worked my whole life to have that in Section C of my fitrep.  Where did I go wrong?

Haner said...


<span>I joined the Navy at 25 years of age, and had yet to have children. I was assigned sea-duty for the next 5 years. Never did anyone mention that by joining the Navy I would be waving my right to have a family on the time line of my choice. Not only is it more difficult to have children at 30 but with it comes more risk to the mother and the child. How much should I be sacrificing for the Navy? My health? Future children’s health? If this is the way the Navy is going then it should be up front when you come in the door. “Some people” may use pregnancy to get out of sea-duty, “some people” may be grossly irresponsible, but when did we start limiting basic rights as a human being based on “some people”?</span>

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Perhaps you should have considered what joining the Navy would mean for personal sacrifice.  You wanted kids yet joint a military service built around frequent worldwide deployments? 

How much should your shipmates have to sacrifice for your "basic human rights"? 

How much should you be sacrificing for the Navy?  Your life, if it comes to it.  And on board a ship, like in a ground combat unit, if you don't think the actions of "some people" can put mission success and lives at risk, you haven't been paying attention.

Anon said...

Responsible fornication? And what is that?  The ONLY proven 100% form of birth control is abstinence, and with the recent increase in teen pregnancies you can see the results of the past 8 years of "abstitence only" sex ed.  Or should I just say Bristol Palin?

Or should I say repsonsible fornication means it's okay for only men to have sex?

Or how about this - why are you placing this ONLY on the woman?  Are you saying birth control is her responsibility, not the sexual partner's?

Anon said...

Ultima - your Marine heritage and closed male mind are serving you well.

Haner - great post.

UltimaRatioRegis said...


Yep.  I cling stubbornly to the concept that our military exists to fight and win our nation's wars.  And that in those wars, people get killed.  And lots more get killed if the unit is not trained or espirit is low.  So if someone doesn't want to make the sacrifices necessary, perhaps they need to do something else.

I know that is SO pre-Obama. 

Oh, and your comment below "only men to have sex"?  What are you complaining about?  You want DADT repealed.

LT B said...

We have a troll!  Responsibile fornication.  Kristen do not read the following:

By that I meant fu##ing w/o a condom you douche nozzle.  I was TRYING to be polite.  If you are dense enough to think that the pregnancies onboard the ships are NOT from irresponsible or even illegal (UCMJ violation) fu##ing then you are clearly too wrapped up in gender politics to see what happens at sea.  In fact, I'm guessing you have never had to serve at sea and deal w/ this $h!t. 

Once again, both sides are at fault, I've gone after both of my people when they broke the rules, had a kid out of wedlock and hosed up the deployment schedule while also being guilty of fraternization.  And here is where I get very un-PC.  If the woman can be in charge of her body for an abortion, then why is it so darned hard for her to be responsibile for her birth control.  If you are telling me condoms were breaking every time we had a pregnancy at sea or deployment then I'll laugh at you and tell you to shut your puss dripping pie hole. 

I think we will see more calls of SH and SA down the road.  Once again, to avoid the punishment and responsibility of the decisions made.  Look at the Naval Academy. 

PAIN! (ref MTH)

USMC Steve said...

Well, there is also swallowing...

Anonymous said...

More difficult at 30? Sacrificing your health (at 30)? Really? I understand that people can encounter problems getting pregnant at any age, but "more difficult at 30" and "more risk to the mother and child" sounds a little melodramtic."Advanced Maternal Age", the charming medical term that docs use for "higher risk pregnancies" as a result of the mother's age, doesn't even start until 35. (I was AMA with dependent #3.)

The policy doesn't require you to waive your right to a family - do it on a shore tour. I'm just a spouse/dependent but I count as my friends multiple women who've managed to do this. In most cases, their husbands are the professional parent, their pregnancies were planned during shore tours and siblings were pretty close in age. Oh and for the record, they were all over 30 and complication free.

GBS said...


Having kids at age 30 is more difficult and carries more risk?  Marginally for some...but for most, none.  40 is the risk tipping point for most.  I can personally attest that a few more years brings MUCH better financial security and a better perspective on parenting.

While in the military, whether male or female, if your FIRST priority is to have / raise kids, then don't be surprised if your career suffers.  Procreation may be a "right", but a long and successful career isn't.  Decisions have to be made in life, and there are benefits and consequences.  Regardless of what you've heard or read, you CANNOT have it all.

Haner said...

<span>If being punished and possibly separated for having a family was a part of the bargain, then you can be assured it would have been considered. However, that was not the case.</span>
<span> </span>
<span>How much should my shipmates have to sacrifice for my basic human rights? That's laughable. </span>
<span> </span>
<span>And on board a ship - if you're saying Sailors shouldn't get pregnant while they're underway and deployed then I completely agree with you. Your ship is on a mission and has objectives; this is an entirely inappropriate to get pregnant. THAT I agree with. However, if you're in port or in the yards, it is up to a Sailors digression to start a family or not. It's certainly more ideal to have children on shore duty, but not everyone can wait. Which is my point. If starting a family is banned while on sea-duty (not just a deployed status), that should be something the Sailor should expect from the get go, not placed on them after they get to a command and can no longer consider if this is the right choice for them. We all join for different reasons, for some people it's SO they can have a family. </span>
<span> </span>
<span>And since the tables can’t really be turned as you can never bear children or understand what it’s like to have a ticking clock inside of you, lets reach out for a second. What if the military told you you couldn’t have sex. This is a stretch, I know, but to me motherhood is not only important ideologically, but it’s also a biological drive too. That’s why we can compare the two. If you had to sign a page 13 saying you would be celibate for the next 5 years, or face penalty, think about what your gut reaction would be. Again, I know it’s a stretch, but I doubt you’d be singing the same tune you are now.</span>

Haner said...

Part II

<span> </span>
<span> </span>
<span>I’m looking forward to seeing what pro-lifers make out of this once news gets out (and it will, as my friend will be writing the press release on this as soon as its determine which ship it is). Look at it from their point of view: a Sailor will have to choose between the life of her child and her career. Contraceptives don’t always work. It will all but force career minded women to have an abortion if they do not want to face the consequences and ruin their opportunities in the future. We’ll make this a good go-Joe-Navy story, but as soon as this hits the press, I doubt they’ll be any way of containing it. <span> </span></span>
<p><span><span><span> </span><span> </span></span></span>
</p><p><span>And think too of Catholics too, who aren’t supposed to use contraceptives at all. Where does this place them? <span> </span></span><span></span></p>

sobersubmrnr said...

The ones that place their career first will go get abortions anyway, no matter the policy. The ones that aren't won't. Getting an abortion means going right back to sea. Meanwhile, we still have frat and shagging in the gear lockers. Make those points to the right people in the pro-life camp and it won't be much of an issue.

Haner said...

<span> </span>
<span>I'm amazed you can speak for all career minded women. Where do you get your information from exactly? Seeing how you're already a submariner, I'm assuming you yourself are not a woman? </span>
<span> </span>
<span>And also, "frat and shagging in the gear lockers" --wow. It's really base and nasty you think that’s how sea-duty Sailors get pregnant. I assure you I am not of that quality nor the women I know. How you could make such a generalization of women in the Navy seems to speak of how you YOURSELF feel about this situation on a personal, not professional, basis. </span>
<span> </span>
<span>It’s funny, I JUST wrote a story about how the Navy has lead the way for equality for women in the work place, but this debacle is starting to make me rethink things. </span>

Haner said...

<span>That was fortunate for them. My mother was 32 when my sister was born with mosaic trisomy 22. I had a consultation with a geneticist a little less than a month ago and was told that seeing how I already have a special sister, my chances of having children with chromosomal abnormality jumps 10 fold as I reach and pass 30.  Just because your friends may not have encountered a certain issue does not mean that for others they do not exist. </span>

DeltaBravo said...

Haner, as a female, Catholic and pro-life, I suggest those arguments don't really belong in this thread.  Women have been sold a lot of garbage that they can have it all.  Well, they can, just not at the same time.  It isn't just the life of her child a sailor should be thinking of, but its lifetime after birth.  Pregnancy is a temporary condition.  Like a broken leg.  What does she do with the baby AFTER it's born and it's time to deploy.  If someone's career is so valuable to her or her baby so invaluable that it's even a choice... well, there's not much I can say about that.  I know the really devout Catholics are fully aware that there are birth spacing options that don't involve violating Church teaching.  And those who would fornicate or commit adultery while underway probably dont' care about Catholic teaching on BC anyway.  Or it's not at the top of their priority list.  That issue is a non-starter.  And it really only applies to the women who are in billets that get them deployed underway.

This isn't just about pregnancy... it's about responsible behavior and decisions from a segment of society, our young women, who have forgotten what our mothers knew:  That when women behave, men are forced to behave also.  And the woman always sets the tone.  She can say no.  And mean it.  Anything beyond that is rape.  Real rape.    And it's a crime.
A ship underway or a liberty port with a stranger or a shipmate is not the time and place any responsible person starts her family.

All other things taken into account, a warship underway is NOT a woman's environment in most cases.  (Think so?  Then carry your unconscious shipmate up the ladder and out of the fire zone).  Only the most blind refuse to see that.  I don't know where you, Haner, think all these lovely rose petal conceptions take place at sea... but I'm betting it's not the Captain's stateroom.  Sobersubmrnr is probably closer to the truth than you want to admit.  There is nothing beautiful or romantic about it, although that might ruin the fantasy for some lovelorn little girls at sea.  In fact, the CO's edict may keep some from preying on the girl he's near when he can't be near the girl he loves.  

DeltaBravo said...

As for women and their biological clocks... well, they do need to be told going in that they have a decision to make.  How important is that career ladder?  They will have to make a serious trade-off.  I've known women who have... who waited to marry or who delayed getting pregnant until their commitment was almost over.  And they didn't re-up.  Because the FULL-TIME responsibility of another human being was now the career that most needed her attention.

As for assuming men make no such sacrifices, I say hogwash!  I know men who never found the right girl because their careers and being bachelors pulling weekend and holiday duty on ships being SLEPped in NotSoNiceCity and time underway prevented them from the time and ability to court a nice woman and marry her.  By the time they're out of the Navy, all the ones their age are taken and it's not as easy to find a wife.  Not being willing to father children out of wedlock, those men pay a steep price for service to their country.

It's not just a woman thing. 

Joining the Navy is about fighting wars and keeping the sea lanes open... not career advancement and free medical care.   The wives and fiancees back on shore don't need to worry that the women on the ship are making a play for their men.   This captain seems to understand that pregnancy isn't the only threat to good order and discipline that will affect his crew.  Men going through messy divorces get distracted and it affects their work.  And it brings high school drama into a place that doesn't need one ounce more drama than it already has, being a life-and-death environment in and of itself.   

People know how to prevent pregnancy.  Many birth control methods fail. I've held many babies as their mommies tell me what method failed them and gave them a bundle of joy.  Sneer at abstinence all you want, but it is reliable.  And people are capable of behaving less like animals in heat and more like human beings if they WANT to.  They just have to be willing.  I suspect the first order effect of this CO's mandate is to rid his ship of those who really weren't serious about being in the Navy after all.  It's not a jobs program for bored little girls trolling for a man.  It's not a career ladder for the kind of woman who really wants to do the mommy thing.  Only the rarest woman can do that and she will need a husband as totally committed to her and the child as possible, willing to make his own set of employment sacrifices. 

So your argument is mixing apples and oranges and ignoring the Navy's real mission, which is not an EO adventure.  It's to go into harm's way and make things go boom.

Anonymous said...

Post 30 difficulty is a fact, not hyperbole.  Biological fact.  Post 35 is even more of a challenge.  We do not  talk about such facts because they are difficult.  Ignoring facts is immature.  Displaying intellectual cowardice, and immaturity is no way for a professional to act - but we see it every day from Admiral "TFLW" Roughead on down.

DeltaBravo said...

And I will say the USN has a wonderful civlian personnel command for those who don't want to go to sea but want a career that will enable them to have a family.  There are many opportunities for bright motivated women to have wonderful careers serving their country and the Navy in that capacity.  And it doesn't require leaving their unit short-handed so they can have a baby.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

DB, that is the most eloquent and common-sense summation of the issue I have ever heard.  I thank you for putting it here.

Haner said...

DeltaBravo, you may be correct in saying my posts do not belong in this thread. I may have misunderstood the original post. Was I mistaken in my thoughts that the page 13 applied in a non-deployed status as well? Because as I said in another comment, I couldn't agree more that getting pregnant while out at sea is inappropriate.

DeltaBravo said...

I wouldn't say your post doesn't belong in this thread.  I would say arguments that it's a pro-life or Catholic issue don't belong in this particular argument.  (Birth control issues aside, I'm sure all the other religions also teach that fornication and adultery are not in keeping with true human dignity and put people into undesirable situations.)  The right to procreate is one the government cannot take away, and should not.  But those old enough to create new life should also recognize the awesome responsibility that goes with it.  And I sense from your posts that you are like so many of us women who have a deep longing for motherhood.  I think the issue is that on a practical level it is fundamentally incompatible to fulfill that while being a sailor subject to deployments, or many other military specialties, to be honest.   I can't answer your question about page 13.   I can just say the diversity people aren't doing women a favor by dangling the possibility of a full-time Naval career to women who often inevitably have to choose one path or the other.   And the time to make an informed choice is before she lifts her hand and takes the oath.  Is it fair to spend all the time and finite resources training someone who will be in and get out in 5 years with a baby or spend it on someone who will put in 20?  Is there a better way for the Navy to handle the many thousands of talented and intelligent women who want to serve their country respecting their biological imperatives as well?  Probably.   The current numbers-only power-point driven, diversity mentoring brigade doesn't seem to have found an intelligent balance.  Please don't go away.   More female perspective makes for a better conversation.  

Grumpy Old Ham said...

I know I can always count on a Marine to come up with an "outside the box" solution... 

UltimaRatioRegis said...

If by "punished" you mean stepping up and doing your job like everyone else, then it is indeed part of the bargain. 

Basic human rights?  Is that like health care being a basic human right?  One you get to have that others pay for?

"...among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Not happy that the Navy takes you away from your family?   Get out at the end of your enlistment/obligated service.  Because the Navy takes everyone away from their families.  And it isn't fair that some father has to pump twice so you can have a baby. 

No, my biological clock isn't ticking.   Yours apparently is.  Why should that make a difference to how you should be treated with respect to your fellow sailors?

LT B said...

Did he say it tongue in cheek?  ;)

sobersubmrnr said...

Cut the crap, Haner. Go blow your PC smoke up someone else's butt. I've seen the screwing around that goes on in the surface navy, which is why I am so vehemently opposed to women on submarines, at sea and in combat units in general. The line of women outside medical wanting pregnancy tests just before deployment, the ones that get pregnant on deployment, the pregnant women all through the shore commands, the screwing around that occurs on board ship...don't tell me that doesn't happen a lot, I've broken up some of it....and in the barracks ashore. Nice try.

sobersubmrnr said...

Bravo Zulu, Delta Bravo. You made a lot of good points.

sobersubmrnr said...

Anon, do you have any logic based arguments to make? Sniping from the sidelines is for those who can't form a logical argument.

Skippy-san said...

I'm not saying eliminate dual service couples-I'm saying stop treating them with preference. Do away with quaranteed co-location detailing, for example. Each Sailor goes where the needs of the service require. If they can live together great-but stop screwing over people who marry outside the Navy to accomdate the dual service couple.

Plus-co-location and other regulations feed on the pregancy monster-because the rules tend to be at cross purposes. Had a female AZ who got pregnant just as her husband was due to roll to shore duty. Don't tell me there are no folks gaming the system.

And finally-as Phib pointed out, for a dual service marriage to work, the couple has to decided to make one person's career take a back seat. If both try to be sucessful Naval Officers they will be lonely and or childless.

I'd also point out that a high percentage of these marriages involve fraternization-but the basis for fraternization goes away once they get married. (E.G. a Master Chief Petty Officer married to a YN3-true story).

There are plenty of men who try the mil-spouse thing. In my experience it generally does not work out well. There is an order to the universe after all. >:o

Combat NFO said...

There's really no excuse for getting pregnant whilst on sea duty.  The pregnant women should be transferred out of the sea going command, and given adverse FITREP/EVAL as their behaviors place their personal interests above the mission.  

There shouldn't be a man and woman having sex in the same unit, if there are.... one needs transferred out.  In a previous command where dating/sex was an issue, we held the senior one responsible for the poor judgement, and transferred the one that was more easily replaceable / had less impact on readiness out of the command.  Actions have consequences, man, woman, gay, straight, black, white.  If the consequences are known up front it's much easier to enforce them.  EO doesn't mean people's inadequate or substandard performance should be in any way ignored.

The CO did a nice job.