The US Navy has faced a problem with female servicemen, leaving combat duty due to their pregnancy.
Photo: Flickr / US Embassy Pakistan
According to information, obtained by the Daily News Caller Foundation (DCNF) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 16 of every 100 servicemen of the US Navy were decommissioned from ships to shore due to pregnancy, the Stream information website reported.
This figure grew by 2 percent, compared to 2015, which amounts to hundreds of women, who had to interrupt their combat duty, placing additional burdens on their military units, the military budget and combat readiness. In addition, as the website noted, “such increases cast a shadow over the lofty gender integration goals set by former President Barack Obama.”
According to documents received from the US Navy, women unexpectedly leave their posts on ships of the US Navy to return to shore service 50 percent more often than men. The statistics, which covers the period from January 2015 to September 2016, were collected by the US Navy Personnel Command at a request of the DCNF.
Evacuation of pregnant women is costly for the US Navy. According to Jude Eden, who served in marines, deployed in Iraq in 2004, one such transfer can cost up to $30,000 for each woman, trained in a specific profession and then evacuated from a ship and decommissioned to shore during combat service. As the website noted, “that figure translates into $115 million in expenses for 2016 alone.”
“This is an avoidable cost and expense, leaving a gap for other people to pick up the work slack,” Eden said.
In January 2015, 3,335 pregnant women were aboard warships, representing about 14 percent of the 23,735 women in their crews. In August 2016, this figure reached almost 16 percent, a record high level. The US Navy reported that 3,840 of 24,259 female mariners, who were on board of vessels of the US Navy, were pregnant.
As the website noted, the Obama’s administration “understated the pregnancy problem throughout its eight years and even suppressed some data about the impact of its “gender-neutral” policies on the Navy,” publishing only a brief extract of two or three pages from 100-page report, entitled ‘Navy Pregnancy and Parenthood Survey’.
In addition, there are statements that some women become pregnant only to avoid dispatching to combat duty. According to the website, after the introduction of fully contracted recruitment for the military, the US Navy was forced to introduce many beneficial incentives for men and women, including free housing, medical care, recreation and educational opportunities. Women also got some additional benefits, such as free antenatal care, kindergartens, psychological counseling, special education for young children, kids with disabilities and other ‘special needs’.
“Since benefits offered to recruits who are women are so very generous, it almost becomes an incentive,” said Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, a nonpartisan public policy organization. “One feminist advocate many years ago referred to the military as a ‘Mecca for single moms’.”
During eight years of his presidency, Barack Obama had been trying to significantly increase the number of women on warships. In May 2015, Admiral Michelle Howard announced a quota of 25 percent for women in the crews of all warships. In September 2015, former Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said that the Navy SEALs and all other military specialties in the fleet should be open to women.
Eden believes that the policy of increasing the number of women on warships has ended in failure: “It’s bad policy when you think of ships that have to be battle-ready and then have to transfer women off for pregnancy — something that has to do with controlled behavior or voluntary behavior.”
The attitude of Jim Mattis, the new US Defense Minister, appointed by US President Donald Trump, toward women in the country’s armed forces is still unclear. He was skeptical of them, but during hearings in the US Congress on his approval to the post, Mattis said he is going to support an access to military specialties for women.
God didn’t create woman to go out and fight wars, but to stay home and rise children and take care of the household. When people try to change nature and biology, it usually ends in a disaster.
You sexist moron! :)
while i agree that women cannot physically compete with men and have absolutely no place on the battlefield, women can most assuredly fight in other ways. and what about the unfortunate women who cannot have children? should they just collect cats or something?
If they can’t have children that’s sad, there are men as well that can’t have children. You shouldn’t take my words literally I expressed my self in that way to provoke an reaction, which I obviously succeeded in doing. Woman don’t need to collect cats as you say,if they can’t have children they are many categories that woman are exceptionally good and talented in such as fine arts, academia, music, ballet, poetry etc. The battlefield is not an place for a woman, it’s not even a place for men, but if it is needed to go out to war then men are the ones that are naturally the gender that should deal with this matter, not woman.
Even if men and women were equal in both physical abilities and thinking, even then the fact that women can and will get pregnant will still radically cause an imbalance between them. The socalled wage gap is most easily and plausibly (Occam’s Razor) explained by this. Women taking time off from their careers to have children and even radically changing priorities after that. There is no evil patriarchy holding women down, well, at least not in Western countries. If there was, then nobody told me the secret sign that would give me access to the secret meetings.
Everybody should feel free to pursue any career they chose, as long as they keep in mind realistic constraints that comes with that career choice. But this whole feminist driven agenda of equality against all costs is forcing both sexes to go against their own natures. And as a result makes nobody happy either.
dey just want sum deeek
I think during the Iraq war lots of females suddenly got pregnant in order to skip combat duty.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jun/15/20040615-115647-8125r/
Women in the military is a typical cultural marxist degenerate trope.Women belong into the kitchen and take care of their children.
I believe the YPJ and the Israeli Defense Force would disagree with you there. The issue is pregnancy is controllable. Why isn’t it being done?
Actually the IDF agrees and the YPJ simply uses Women because they have the same marxist background.Women perform always worse than men.
“…Women perform always worse than men…”
ISIS headchoppers would beg to differ on YPJ snipers – many have missed out on their promised virgins because a YPJ markswoman drop them at a kilometer with an old KSVK.
I have mixed feelings about women in combat roles, but the Rojava Kurds with the separate all-woman YPJ is turning out remarkably well. There are clearly roles – like YPJ sniper/countersniper teams – that they are easily as good at if no better than the YPG men. This is from US SF that have had to train them, not an armchair ‘analysis’ by some CNN talking head.
The YPJ probably fall short when compared to the need – at times – for a geared-up, roided-out door kickers, but that’s not the kind of war the Kurds are fighting in northern Syria. It’s stand-off urban warfare. Something that demands far more emphasis on sniper and counter-sniper teams.
There are lots of studies about this issue and they all confirm that women perform worse than men in the military. And there are many, many problems with them. As far as i know the vast majority of the best snipers, with the most confirmed kills, are men. A female sniper will be more likely to leave the army (due to pregnancy and other issues), several times more likely to be injured, more likely to seek medical assistance, to get PTSD, etc. The female soldiers are more likely to stay on disability and then have the state pay for them during their whole life. They are very, very expensive. Mixed units are slower and have lower deployability. By the way not all kurds use women, for example the Peshmerga largely do not use women for combat. I think that they have 500 women for non-combat duties. As far as the syrian kurds are concerned, it appears (from video reports), that there are far less YPJ than YPG. I think they have 1 woman for every 5 men, which isn’t that great.
You can check some of the studies, they are quite interesting:
1 percent of all women meet the physical requirements for male army soldiers.
https://books.google.bg/books?id=0If5TjIuPR0C&pg=PA372&lpg=PA372&dq=Men+more+easily+participate+in+coalitions+organized+to+mete+out+violence&source=bl&ots=1MZ0DDXcya&sig=XxQa0T6RfybMP6lwgle0YbQq1w4&hl=bg&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiA2f73mfTRAhUE0RQKHV4hDp4Q6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=Men%20more%20easily%20participate%20in%20coalitions%20organized%20to%20mete%20out%20violence&f=false
This is an article about the famous Israeli female soldiers from an Israeli war correspondent.
They actually make up less than 3% of combat soldiers and serve largely symbolic purposes.
http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/not-hot/
women no longer participate in front-line IDF combat units, female role exagerated
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/25/womens-combat-roles-in-israel-defense-forces-exagg/
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420826/women-in-combat-military-effectiveness-deadly-pentagon
other stuff – the Marines found that mixed gender teams performed worse in almost all areas.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/military/2015/09/10/mixed-gender-teams-come-up-short-marines-infantry-experiment/71979146/
on the “purest” spatial measures, such as rotating an imaginary object or shooting at a moving rather than a stationary target, the sex difference is large and approaches 1 SD
http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/essayrev/sexdiff.html
Issues with spatial and mental rotation abilities also lead to a very small number of women capable of becoming pilots, so only 5 percent of civilian and 2 percent of combat pilots are women.
A recent study, for instance, by Britain’s Tri-Service Review found
that mixed-gender combat units have “lower survivability,” a “reduced
lethality rate” and reduced deployability.
Mixed-gender units will be both slower in getting to the fight and
slower when beating a tactical retreat. They are more likely to be
crippled by physical injuries or PTSD.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420826/women-in-combat-military-effectiveness-deadly-pentagon
Katie Petronio, has come out in opposition to women in combat roles, citing extreme health hazards including infertility, which she now
suffers due to the dangerous physical damage incurred during training.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjwtdhpcUzw
A female marine thinks that women do not belong in the infantry
https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/2014/09/why-women-do-not-belong-us-infantry
Lower standarts for women in the military
At the time of enlistment, a seventeen-year-old female is expected to do thirteen push-ups, compared to thirty-five for males, while for forty-one-year-olds, the numbers are six and twenty-four, respectively. A seventeen year-old girl is expected to run two miles in nineteen minutes, forty-two seconds or less, which is twelve seconds more than a forty-one year old man gets. Aforty-one-year-old woman has to “run” two miles in twenty-four minutes and six seconds, almost five minutes more than a man receives.
https://books.google.bg/books?id=BfODTo1debUC&pg=PP33&lpg=PP33&dq=At+the+time+of+enlistment,+a+seventeen-year-old+female+is+expected+to+do+thirteen+push-ups&source=bl&ots=Tg212gdaSN&sig=3Wtgfe_JMqk-XxyZMvL1csDSFm0&hl=bg&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiUyqm9r8fSAhWoIpoKHYp6BGYQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=At%20the%20time%20of%20enlistment%2C%20a%20seventeen-year-old%20female%20is%20expected%20to%20do%20thirteen%20push-ups&f=false
More than 50% of female trainees in the marines are unable to do even three pull-ups
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/9/editorial-the-making-of-a-marine/
So the vast majority of data show that females perform far, far worse than men in the military. And there are many issues with them. Even if a female sniper is as good as a male one, they will be more likely to quit due to pregnancy and more likely to be injured, which means large additional medical costs. I do not see ISIS as some great adversary – basically the whole world is against them, with the exception of several muslim countries. They are just a ragtag band of low IQ islamists. Thet do not have air power and are constantly bombed to the stone age by the rest of the world. So YPG/YPJ performance against ISIS is not something that i could consider seriously. They get all kinds of training, supplies and massive air support by various powers against a bunch of islamists without air power who are basically attempting to fight the whole world and are getting bombed to the stone age.
From what i see neither Israel, nor the Peshmerga use women in combat. The only ones that use them are the syrian kurds and the PKK in Turkey for partisan operations, not sure about the FARK. But how effective they really are, its hard to say. As you mentioned, they should be more effective in defensive operations, where lots of movement in not required. But i also see lots of dead kuridish female soldiers in various reports, so there is the possibility that they die easily and in great numbers, like flies, which is not good.
Females are used mostly when there is lack of manpower. This is the case in Syria – kurds are a minority, surrounded by hostiles, so they need everyone who can use a rifle. In the beginning, they were using teens too. But the fact that they used women and teens does not mean that those groups are very good at combat, and is more a sign of manpower issues. The Russians used women is some cases when things got bad – in WW2, when they were about to be overrun. Hitler used teens too, when he had not many soldiers left. While Russia/USSR used some women as snipers, the best russian snipers, with most confirmed kills, were men. On the other hand, russians in present days do not use women in combat roles. I think that they (the russians) are the best at ground combat, so since they do not use women right now, there should be a good reason against it.
In ending, the available information shows that women perform worse than men in the military and there are many problems associated with them. Right now the Peshmerga and Israel are in good position, so they do not use female soldiers in combat. The syrian kurds are in tougher position and there are less of them, they do not have large numbers, so they attempt to use women in order to fix their man power issues. It appears that women are used mostly when there are man power issues, and not enough male soldiers. When you are surrounded by many enemies, it makes sense to use women, because you need everyone. But when you have plenty of male soldiers, then using women in combat does not make sense, as men perform better on average and are far cheaper than women soldiers.
I find it hard to believe IDF believes women belong in kitchen and I’ve never implied women can carry the heavy loads, handle the heaviest equipment, have the greatest endurance. I don’t support women being in places where a man is going to have to help at some point do part or all of her work. Some women can do better than some men. That’s just Bell curves overlapping folks. As for IDF, I believe they have posted women’s teams even on infiltration routes to stop Hamas fighters. Women would also be better at searching women in suspected houses. Use them to respect a country’s culture and for their dignity/privacy.
Maybe taking the pill?
Its all about the JIZZ
The US military has over the last several decades, become a huge social experiment and government jobs program. I saw these signs back in the 1980s as an Army officer and it is just frustrating and downright pathetic. No wonder today there is war without end – Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and airstrikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Pakistan. As Trump said during the presidential election campaign, the US doesn’t win anymore. Without doubt, the US has the most powerful military force on earth but lacks the national resolve and common sense, tough leadership to either win these wars or get the hell out of them. It’s as if the US is the owner of a $300,000 sports car but doesn’t know how to safely drive it.