THIS WAS PREDICTED AND ENTIRELY PREDICABLE

Do you care about our military? Do you care about our nation’s ability to defend itself? Then read this.

A record 16 out of 100 Navy women are reassigned from ships to shore duty due to pregnancy, according to data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group.

That number is up 2 percent from 2015, representing hundreds more who have to cut their deployments short, taxing both their unit’s manpower, military budgets and combat readiness. Further, such increases cast a shadow over the lofty gender integration goals set by former President Barack Obama.

Overall, women unexpectedly leave their stations on Navy ships as much as 50% more frequently to return to land duty, according to documents obtained from the Navy. The statistics were compiled by the Navy Personnel Command at the request of TheDCNF, covering the period from January 2015 to September 2016. (continued here)

Men and women are different. Each sex is equal before the law, and the Bible says God loves both men and women. Nevertheless, men and women have different roles. Men do some things better than women, and women do some things better than men.  A man cannot get pregnant. A woman has no business trying to be a soldier. Can women perform the functions of a soldier? In theory? Yes. In practice? No. Pregnant soldiers don’t make good soldiers.

Think about this little doozy of a navy regulation: 6701 – Maternity Uniforms. It includes this guidance.

6701.  GENERAL (MATERNITY UNIFORMS)

1.  WEAR.  Certified maternity uniforms are mandatory for all pregnant women in the Navy when a uniform is prescribed, and regular uniforms no longer fit.  Personnel are expected to wear regular uniforms upon return from convalescent leave, however, commanding officers may approve the wear of maternity uniforms up to six months from the date of delivery based on medical officer diagnosis/recommendation.

Are we going to send pregnant women into combat? Of course not! Then what is the point of pretending it makes any sense to put women in combat units?

Think I am biased? Fine. Check out what some women think of the idea of women in the military. Click on the following:

Advertisements

17 thoughts on “THIS WAS PREDICTED AND ENTIRELY PREDICABLE

  1. Tom as a woman, I have never thought combat duty for women was a bright idea…and as a woman who can speak to the negative or even the positive of such an issue without being branded sexists–that is until those like Katy Perry who rile against this college educated female for being some sort of an oddity or traitor… but I digress….
    Women and men are indeed wired differently—I think anyone trying to argue that notion would be hard pressed to say otherwise—as there is proof in that pudding of DNA–physical, psychological, biolgical , physiological..you name it….different.

    However for the past 40 years or dare I say more, we have seen a full court press to squash that very notion of different wiring as the battle for equality has ramped up to a raging maelstrom.
    We have allowed the Frankenstein of all things gender equal to grow so out of control that the practicalities and realities have gotten lost in the screaming, chanting, voting, vetoing, Supreme Court deciding melee that is what this has all become.

    No woman should not serve in combat duty.
    Bad idea.
    We have become our own undoing Tom….and this is just one more example.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. I take issue with that writing style compliment Tom as my little thoughts simply flow much faster than my typing—hence my title, Queen of the Typos, double words and misspellings—as in a grammarian’s worst nightmare 🙂
        probably a liberal’s nightmare as well 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

  2. What would happen if you jammed hundreds of horny young men and women into a huge, nuclear powered tin can sent it out into the middle of the ocean for months at a time?

    I wonder if anyone who manages these things ever asked that question.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @silenceofmind

      What worries me is that I think we have been electing people who know exactly what would happen, and they connived to set up exactly that situation.

      Can you think of anything Obama did that was for the good of the country?

      Like

  3. The solution is simple in my opinion.

    Any woman enlisting should sign an agreement that if she becomes pregnant while in service, she will be discharged from service without compensation or benefits.

    As for the man who causes a pregnancy to a military personnel, deduct child support deductions will be taken automatically from his military pay.

    If rape is involved, that is criminal and subject to military penalties.

    Regards and goodwill blogging.

    Like

  4. Pingback: The Weekly Headlines – My Daily Musing

  5. Stephen

    First, if serving aboard a ship is combat duty now, then I saw we give everyone blue infantry cords for being near some action.

    Second, the FIOA’d info says nothing about readiness impact or combat effectiveness.

    Third, the Navy only uses Courier New as their font when it is informal correspondence, which the response to a FIOA request is certainly not. I call shenanigans. In fact, SECNAV Manual 5216.5, para 12-3, sub para 2 states, for correspondence with individuals outside the U.S. Government, to: “Prepare all correspondence using 13 point, Times New Roman Font.” Furthermore, Originator Codes are left off correspondence with people outside the government.

    Like

    1. @Stephen

      My mother’s first husband died when the ship he was on was sunk by a sub. His ship was part of a convoy sailing to Europe. Does it make any difference what kind of ship he was on? He was wearing the uniform, and he was under orders to sail into harm’s way.

      Even in peace time serving on a navy vessel is hard duty. Sailors spend months at a time far from family and friends. Mixing young men and women under such circumstances and not expecting trouble is just dumb. When a war starts, it just gets worse.

      Like

      1. Stephen

        Really don’t see how that addresses my point i.e. that the alleged and highly suspect documents don’t show that these occurrences impact readiness in a meaningful way. PCSing less than 25% of your total force is not only a simple logistical problem, you are kinda doing it anyway.

        In any event, these documents are, I believe, forgeries. They don’t conform to the Navy’s rules on correspondence and don’t look like anything the Navy uses to track these things. I should know; I’ve actually seen them.

        Finally, I noticed that you immediately assumed that the women became pregnant because of tomfoolery. Nothing in the documents suggests that and that is a gross assumption on your part. You have just accused people without evidence of something that actually is punishable under the UCMJ.

        Like

        1. @Stephen

          Most of what you had to say really was not worth taking seriously. I addressed only the part that was.

          When 16 out of every 100 women assigned to a war ship are getting pregnant and reassigned to shore duty because of pregnancy — during PEACETIME — that is a problem. It strongly indicates they do not belong there, that the idea is not practical.

          Are you dealing with that problem? No. You are just throwing up flack, flack I see no reason to discuss, but that is typical of Democrat Liberals.

          Like

        2. Stephen

          “Most of what you had to say really was not worth taking seriously.” Just so long as we have you on record taking blind faith in a seemingly forged document.

          Is it problem? Should they get abortions instead? Also, you are assuming that they got pregnant while on the ship; nothing from the alleged FIOA documents suggests that it is due to sex being had on board, which is against military law BTW. These women would not just be put on shore leave; they would be judicially punished.

          You are denying facts to reach a narrative, much like the liberals you accuse me of being. You dismiss out of hand that the alleged FIOA documents don’t conform to Navy regulations governing personnel rosters or correspondence AND you ignore the fact that having sex on a ship at sea is against military law. If the math adds up that you are pregnant and had the conceiving sex on board, you get more than shore duty. You get punished and it typically isn’t a slap on the wrist. We are talking about docks in pay, loss of rank, and separations.

          But addressing either of these facts undermines the narrative too much. You NEED to assume that women getting pregnant in the Navy are because they are having illegal, unprotected sex on ships underway. It is the only possible argument you can give for why women shouldn’t be on ships without giving away that you just don’t want women in the military based on sentimentality. So you need to buy into false narratives. Yes, it is a false narrative. You have, right here, chosen to ignore demonstrable facts in order to believe outright lies. In one post you have prove yourself to be no better than the liberals you decry.

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s