This weekend, all I seem to be thinking about is sex. It's enough to make the children blush.
In my online travels, I ran across this blog post (with the same subject line) concerning the use by the Army of empathy bellies for soldiers learning how to run PT for pregnant soldiers and soldiers who are new mothers. The writer is truly gobsmacked.
I left a reply, but don't see it. Either it is being held for moderation or the blog ate it. I don't like to waste thinking or typing, so here is my reply:
From the blog: I know this sounds harsh, but if a woman is pregnant, why wouldn't they be honorably discharged, given some form of severance and sent on their way, or given the ability to transfer to a non combat role, but only if there are spots open for them.
She wouldn't be discharged because it's against the law to fire women for pregnancy, which is a temporary condition despite its long-term effect. Mothers aren't the only ones to experience this effect (parenthood) as many fathers stay with their children until the kids grow up.
Aside from that, DoD made the decision to allow pregnant women and mothers to remain on active duty when the draft ended in the 1970s and the Army shifted to all volunteers.
- The Women's Army Corps, 1945 - 1978, p. 264: "A week later, however, Secretary Froehlke, faced with reports projecting that the elimination of the draft would leave the Army unable to maintain a minimum of thirteen active duty divisions after FY 1974, called upon the Army staff for a plan that would achieve the speediest and largest supportable increase in the WAC."
- The U.S. Army's Transition to the All-Volunteer Force, 1968-1974, p. 192: "[LTC Jack] Butler believed that an expansion of the WAC in order to substitute enlisted women for men required no justification; the need was self-evident."
As for the empathy bellies, it is a cost-effective measure to have instructors understand the limits of what a troop with a physical condition can tolerate. These women have received expensive training and may be very good at their jobs. To flush them from the system for pregnancy is a waste of your tax dollars and would leave their co-workers playing catch-up. For the women to be injured from unsuitable physical training and possibly be medically discharged would result in a similar financial loss for the Army. For a woman to be injured and lose a baby would be a tragedy.
The argument for women in the military not to bear children until they complete whatever term it is that they intend to complete is also a form of discrimination given that older mothers tend to have more complications with pregnancy. Enlisting at 20, waiting twenty years to retire, and then start a family has a woman waiting until 40 to become pregnant. Also, no one asks men to refrain from becoming fathers because they are in the military. The services do not discharge single fathers although they, like single mothers, must have a plan for care of the child/ren in case of an emergency. In fact, it would seem that the military encourages parenthood/family life by providing family quarters and dependent travel, among other family support mechanisms.
To correct a misperception at the blog, no woman, with or without a 1-year old, would be sent "into combat," much less any pregnant woman. During pregnancy a woman who is a soldier would have what is called a "profile" limiting the kind of work she can do, just as any soldier who is unable to complete his or her duties because of a temporary condition. Yes, women have been killed in combat situations but only because the battlefield can be anywhere. These women were not "in combat" although combat came to them.
Recent Comments