| Warthog Territory Forums http://warthogterritory.net/forum/ |
|
| What about the men who cant get nocked up and go h http://warthogterritory.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2789 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | mattlott [ 17 Mar 2003, 11:11 ] |
| Post subject: | |
As I read through this article some sections hit home. Especially with the other thread on sexual harrassment and rape at the airforce academy. Which is appalling, but we really need to look at this social experiment. Please note the dates the aircraft carrier left in July and women are still leaving pregnant? Some body is having sex aboard ship. The link to the full article is http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... ge=printer <b>Fraternization is prohibited aboard the ship. Nonetheless, since the carrier left its home port of Everett, Wash., in July, as many as 20 female sailors have been taken off the ship because of pregnancy, said Cmdr. Gerry Goyins, the ship's senior medical officer. Goyins said there was a cluster of pregnancies early in the deployment but the pace slowed after senior female enlisted crew members warned young female sailors that getting pregnant is "not what sailors do." He said that the Lincoln's pregnancy rate was considered low for an aircraft carrier and that some ships report a dozen each month. The Navy requires pregnant sailors and aviators to be removed from any ship that is more than three hours from obstetrical care, Goyins said. The women are not discharged but are assigned shore duty.</b> <b>They say they are less concerned about discrimination and harassment than about whether they can balance military careers with domestic life. Generally, the Navy requires seamen and aviators to alternate shore duty with sea duty. A woman who wants to have a baby must schedule it during shore leave but knows that after as little as three years, she will have to leave her child to go to sea. Motherhood would force her to walk away from the military, Stilling said. In her three years of marriage, she and her husband have lived apart for 23 months. "I can't imagine subjecting a child to that kind of separation," she said. "This is a great experience, at least until you're 30."</b> |
|
| Author: | Hogdawg [ 17 Mar 2003, 19:54 ] |
| Post subject: | |
In my opinion this is wrong. A woman who gets pregnant aboard a Naval vessel should be discharged from the military. It allows women a way to get out of deployment without consequences. |
|
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 17 Mar 2003, 21:04 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have strong opinions on the subjext, and some are pretty contradictory. However i feel a need to lay off this one, at least here. Feel free to discuss this at length, but keep it civil please. "We shall leave no man behind" |
|
| Author: | fenderstrat72 [ 17 Mar 2003, 21:51 ] |
| Post subject: | |
What? Snipe you pulling back from a sure fire scrap? LOL, I wouldn't touch this either. Never know what might set someone off on a verbal "Killing Spree". Fender Don't tell me what you think, what does the T.O. say. |
|
| Author: | poke [ 18 Mar 2003, 08:21 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Do they at least have some kind of really shitty assignment waiting for them when they get back? Are they punished for breaking the no-frat rule? Please tell me these floozies aren't just doing this and getting away with it! They make the rest of us look bad. "See that green switch? Flip it down." |
|
| Author: | mattlott [ 18 Mar 2003, 09:46 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Poke if you were there commander, how would you handle this. Can they be charged with something. Rather than making this a slap on the wrist. |
|
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 18 Mar 2003, 12:07 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Poke it is my understanding that these female sailors suffer little to no repercussions whatsoever. "We shall leave no man behind" |
|
| Author: | poke [ 18 Mar 2003, 15:47 ] |
| Post subject: | |
What would I do? Well, that's an especially tough question since I don't have the details of each case, nor am I particularly familiar with the workings of the Navy. But, from what I read here, I would establish a standard punishment for on-board pregnancies. Something like an Article 15. If fraternization, and by this term I'm assuming they mean any sexual relationships and not just officer/enlisted standard type fraternization, if it's against the regulations then there must be a set punishment for breaking the rules. This would include the father of the child, since although he won't be removed from duty it takes two to Tango. I would also make sure I worked with the senior women on board before we even left port to set the standard and impress upon the younger women of the crew that this behavior will not be taken lightly. And then I'd make sure I took advantage of every realistic oportunity to give my troops shore leave, and I'd be as leniant as I could be regarding porn. This last part of course would be unofficial, as the press would have a field day with a commander "encouraging her troops to look at porn." That's the best I can give you based on what I know. What are you guys' thoughts on this? I see this as a way of practicing for when I might be in the position to make these decisions. If you were one of my troops, how would you react to this policy? "See that green switch? Flip it down." |
|
| Author: | poke [ 18 Mar 2003, 15:55 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Oh, and as for the split families issues? Well, life sucks, huh? You can't have a career in ANYTHING <i>and</i> be a stay at home parent. If you really want both, go reserve. Or, be in the military until you're ready to have a family and then get out. Either way, it's really not a problem the miltary could or should fix. "See that green switch? Flip it down." |
|
| Author: | mattlott [ 18 Mar 2003, 16:38 ] |
| Post subject: | |
careful poke this is family board <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_blush.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_evil.gif border=0 align=middle>. we are american males infer from there, but I think you could assume we would volunteer for your command. |
|
| Author: | mattlott [ 18 Mar 2003, 18:04 ] |
| Post subject: | |
hey poke you forgot to allow for the occational immaculate conception lol. |
|
| Author: | fenderstrat72 [ 18 Mar 2003, 18:51 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Poke I know you are just getting started but let me say this, a SJA is not going to support a blanket punishment for like offenses. It is unfair and unethical. I have seen this for myself as an alternate First Shirt. I was required to attend legal briefings. During one such briefing the ADC accused the SJA of having a set policy recommending Article 15 for a DUI. The SJA about lost his cool and told us what I am telling you. I also worked for an "Article 15" happy Commander. Even he did not have a set punishment for particular offenses. You must weigh out all the mitigating factors, ask the SJA for his or her recommendations, consult the AFI’s and then decide. When you are dealing with peoples lives and their careers the water gets murky. Things out here are never black and white. Fender Don't tell me what you think, what does the T.O. say. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|