ROK Drop

Avatar of GI KoreaBy on November 18th, 2009 at 5:30 pm

Is Soldier Mom Right For Refusing Deployment?

» by in: US Military

I am willing to bet there is more to this story then what the media is putting out:

An Army cook and single mom may face criminal charges after she skipped her deployment flight to Afghanistan because, she said, no one was available to care for her infant son while she was overseas.

Spc. Alexis Hutchinson, 21, claims she had no choice but to refuse deployment orders because the only family she had to care for her 10-month-old son — her mother — was overwhelmed by the task, already caring for three other relatives with health problems.

Her civilian attorney, Rai Sue Sussman, said Monday that one of Hutchinson‘s superiors told her she would have to deploy anyway and place the child in foster care.

“For her it was like, ‘I couldn’t abandon my child,’” Sussman said. “She was really afraid of what would happen, that if she showed up they would send her to Afghanistan anyway and put her son with child protective services.”  [Associated Press]

I find that very hard to believe that her command made such a threat because they have no authority to put a child into protective services. According to the Army Times the military is now launching an investigation into her actions because as I mentioned at the top of this post, there is probably more to this story.

Single parent soldiers are required to have family care plans in place in order to prove to their command that someone will care for their kids if they deploy.  If you have never seen one before you can view one here.

These care plans are very extensive and are reviewed during command inspections usually about every 6 months.  Before the inspections and whenever someone would turn in a family care plan I would call the specified guardian in order to verify that the plan was valid.  This is standard procedure to verify family care plans.

According to the article SPC Hutchison’s mom gave back the child after two weeks because she was to overwhelmed to care for the boy.  Obviously SPC Hutchinson did not do a very good job of ensuring her family care plan would be adequate in case of deployment.  From what I am reading this is SPC Hutchison’s fault and not the Army’s.

Tags:
- 1,631 views
68
  • Retired GI
    1:19 pm on November 18th, 2009 1

    As you said, a family care plan is mandatory for those with dependents.

    I wonder if the issue will turn out to be something to do with a "boyfriend", or simply a fear of deployment. No matter. There is much more to this story.

    No person in charge would say what her lawyer has claimed was said. That would NOT happen. Family care is too high on the list of priorities in the military, as any military person knows. But for some reason, not her?

    Really want to hear the rest of this story.

  • gerry
    2:01 pm on November 18th, 2009 2

    Yes, I agree with RETIRED GI, its important to hear the rest of the story. All things being equal I feel for the mother.

    Yet family care plans for military with dependents has been in effect for a long time and its purpose well understood.

  • a98cer
    2:25 pm on November 18th, 2009 3

    Sorry, but I don't feel sorry for her one bit. She, along with lots of other single parents (and just to get the argument going, I don't recall ever seeing any males raising this issue)in the military, want the benefit of a job, without following through with the responsibility that goes along with it. I just saw this on MSNBC and they showed the kid being taken care of by this "soldier's" mother. She should be given two options – given a general discharge, and try to get a job on the outside and taking care of the kid, or suck it up and leave the kid with her mother and catch the next plane to Afghanistan and do what she raised her hand to do.

  • Leon LaPorte
    3:12 pm on November 18th, 2009 4

    Two words: tough titty. :evil:

  • theotherguy
    3:25 pm on November 18th, 2009 5

    I understand soldiers are expected to deploy, but she wasn't trying to "get out" of a deployment. She just asked for more time to find someone to care for her child. She DID enact her family care plan, but her mother returned the child days before deployment. That is not enough time to find someone to take care of a kid for an entire year. This isn't a "hey watch my baby while I'm gone for two weeks" kind of commitment, your asking someone else to watch your kid for an extended time. Not to mention she can't ask one someone from her unit because their deploying with her.

    I don't know about you guys but I've actually seen something identical to this before (last minute cancellation of a family care plan prior to deployment). The unit just had the guy (it was a single dad, so yes it does happen with guys) stay back in rear D for a few months while he found a suitor (ended up being someone else in rear D accepting to care for the toddler). He then caught the next flight out to "catch up" with his unit. I have NO idea why her unit didn't do the same thing.

    The article makes it ~sound~ (possibly on purpose) like her 1SG / CDR just said "ohh well sucks to be you now get on that airplane". They may or may not of happened, but she was arrested for missing deployment (and then released), that wouldn't of happened unless someone somewhere was being a hard a$$. And from what I've seen of the US Army these past four years, I could totally believe some pissed of 1SG doing that. Of course if that is the case, someone ain't gonna be in charge of that unit much longer.

  • Unsatisfied LG DACOM
    5:14 pm on November 18th, 2009 6

    They should send her to jail and then put the kid up for adoption so that someone capable can be his parent.

  • Teadrinker
    5:37 pm on November 18th, 2009 7

    You can't honestly blame her for having made the mistake of thinking that her own mother could care for her child.

  • Teadrinker
    5:37 pm on November 18th, 2009 8

    I sure hope you don't breed.

  • Cloying_odor
    6:11 pm on November 18th, 2009 9

    I imagine she won't be re-enlisting.

  • Lemmy
    7:06 pm on November 18th, 2009 10

    I have no pity for this woman nor any other woman in the service. They simply do not produce more than they take.

    Hey command- are you incompetent in your job? I know of several privates who can do a better job than what you have done here.

    This is just another example of the armed forces acting as the greatest social welfare system the USA has.

  • Lemmy
    7:12 pm on November 18th, 2009 11

    I would bet she does re-enlist (if she is not chaptered out). What does she have to return to? Some inner city slum where she collects a welfare check and stands in the cheese and peanut-butter line on Thursdays? She is an irresponsible single mother who can't afford to take care of her child. She is irresponsible because she is dirt poor and has a child she can't take care of.

    What contributions to the service do women actually provide?

  • Lemmy
    7:22 pm on November 18th, 2009 12

    ULGDVNLVbLGDOAaKTC –

    Sometimes the cold, hard facts of life are just too much for others. But, why not put them in jail together, she's sure to find a baby-sitter there as a lot of the women in prison don't have a lot of dates.

  • Teadrinker
    8:20 pm on November 18th, 2009 13

    You're not funny.

  • The Duke of YongJuGo
    2:16 am on November 19th, 2009 14

    Let's not paint all women in the service with such a broad brush. One of my female soldiers had an abortion about a week before we deployed to Iraq.

    That was pretty hardcore in my opinion.

  • Lemmy
    6:35 am on November 19th, 2009 15

    Who's trying to be funny?

  • Dennis C
    8:05 am on November 19th, 2009 16

    Being a service member with a familly of my own this story did touch a nerve for me — I agree with a lot of people here – even those with the attitude of people like her using the military as nothing but a better alternative to welfare. I saw enough of of them when I was in. They barely did thier jobs, always off to some "appointment" for thier kid rather than working with the rest of the unit. And I'm not singling out women – I felt then, and still believe now, that single parents (male or female)should get chaptered out if they fail to keep up with thier familly care situation. My wife had to handle everything on her own – even our youngest being born while I was deployed. She handled all of the kids appointments on her own while I did my job.

    However, knowing the way thing really are, I think she was just stupid — if she had any smarts, she would have sought help through ACS – I'd bet they could have stopped her deployement until her familly care situation could be resolved……And why does she have a civilian attorney?? Can't JAG helper her out, or is she that far AWOL that they won't talk to her???

  • junior
    8:33 am on November 19th, 2009 17

    ACU Welfare.

    It's like the damn Jerry Springer show every day….

  • a listener
    8:36 am on November 19th, 2009 18

    Nice to see that Lemmy just had to loook at her to assume she was from an inner city version of a trailer park.

  • junior
    8:47 am on November 19th, 2009 19

    "Barely" did their jobs? Most don't do anything but show up- and on their own schedule at that.

    When we have guys volunteering for multiple combat tours after LOSING LIMBS, to hell with losers like this one…

  • junior
    8:49 am on November 19th, 2009 20

    I'm sure the kid understood! (Fluushhhh!)

  • Lemmy
    9:16 am on November 19th, 2009 21

    My point exactly

  • Lemmy
    9:23 am on November 19th, 2009 22

    Actually I read several stories about this. But, I guess you don't care. You just want to "WOOK AT DA PIKSHURS"

    Are you listening now?

  • Retired GI
    9:29 am on November 19th, 2009 23

    I thought about my 20 years in an Aviation Support Unit.

    I thought about my 09 years in an Aviation Support Unit in Korea at Camp Humphreys.

    My time in Bosnia. My time in Iraq. My time in Honduras.

    What contributions indeed. They get pregnant. They assist in causing divorce.

    They make excuses for not being able to got to the field, NTC, Deployments.

    They slow down PT runs because they are generally the slowest and therefore the "pacesetter". They lie about rape charges. They are not held to the same standard as males but get the same pay. Senior Enlisted give them a pass at promotion boards because they have to have a female. Females generally "get over" BIG TIME.

    Unless you have a squared away Company Commander, who is female and KNOWS what they do and is unafraid to let them know that she will not stand for it.

    I had a CO like that at Camp Humphreys in 1996-97. My dike friend told me about the meeting she had with the females in the company. That female CO actually got EO COMPLANTS!!!! From Females!!!

    I love that CO. No body else could or would do it. If all, or even 50% of the females in the army were that way, I wouldn't be writing this.

    Sadly, I see things in the army with females have not changed much.

  • theotherguy
    1:08 pm on November 19th, 2009 24

    I believe her unit was going to BBQ her and the higher command may or may not of known about it and looked away (not enough info available). A civilian attorney is guaranteed to give any senior commander pause because of the implications if the info gets to the press (like it just did).

    And if any commander said anything that resembled the following

    "Her civilian attorney, Rai Sue Sussman, said Monday that one of Hutchinson’s superiors told her she would have to deploy anyway and place the child in foster care."

    Then they were very wrong and will most likely take a career dive. This is because of the Army's policy to not deploy single parents who don't have the children cared for. But if a commander attempted to "do it anyway because soldiers are dieing" well then this situation happens.

    "Kevin Larson, a spokesman for Hunter Army Airfield, said he didn't know what Hutchinson was told by her commanders, but he said the Army would not deploy a single parent who had nobody to care for his or her child."

    "I don't know what transpired and the investigation will get to the bottom of it," Larson said. "If she would have come to the deployment terminal with her child, there's no question she would not have been deployed."

    And as I've already mentioned, she wasn't trying to avoid deployment, merely asking for more time (and probably got told no by her CDR / 1SG). She was asking for more time because after successfully implementing her plan (give to mom), her mother gave the kid back at last minute notice. This was not a failure on the soldiers part but the failure of the mother (a civilian) to follow her part.

    "Hutchinson had such a plan — her mother, Angelique Hughes, had agreed to care for the boy. Hughes said Monday she kept the boy for about two weeks in October before deciding she couldn't keep him for a full year."

    The soldier told her command about this… obviously they said they didn't care (or we wouldn't be in this situation).

    "She said they told her daughter's commanders they needed more time to find another family member or close friend to help Hughes care for the boy, but Hutchinson was ordered to deploy on schedule."

    Again the soldier wasn't trying to get out of a deployment (as so many of you jumped to the conclusion), but instead trying to get time to complete a new FCP. If the command would of done what they were supposed to then she would of just caught a later flight to meet up with the unit. This would of been four to eight weeks later most likely. But instead the unit was most likely a hard case and now we have a public embarrassment to the US Army and her command.

    Not because of something she did, but because of something her command did (or rather failed to do). I've seen enough a$$ hold 1SG's, CDR's and CSM's that really only care about themselves and their own careers to have no doubt how this probably went down. And for those of you who thing its her fault for having the kid, well the Army supports family's, even single parents. This is policy as determined by people much higher then you arm chair generals. If you feel you want to change it, then send letters to your senators or run for president / become a general yourself.

    Or hell give your real life name / information so we can link you to the discriminatory / derogatory words you've written. If your willing to stand by your words that is (or are you a bunch of internet want-to-be arm chair generals)?

  • gerry
    1:26 pm on November 19th, 2009 25

    Not because of something she did, but because of something her command did (or rather failed to do). I’ve seen enough a$$ hold 1SG’s, CDR’s and CSM’s that really only care about themselves and their own careers to have no doubt how this probably went down. And for those of you who thing its her fault for having the kid, well the Army supports family’s, even single parents. This is policy as determined by people much higher then you arm chair generals. If you feel you want to change it, then send letters to your senators or run for president / become a general yourself.

    Or hell give your real life name / information so we can link you to the discriminatory / derogatory words you’ve written. If your willing to stand by your words that is (or are you a bunch of internet want-to-be arm chair generals)?

    Whoa, I'm on your side. I hope what you say isn't the case. But up until this point, not having any further information, everything you say is pure speculation on your part.

    Absolutly no need to whip yourself into a fury and accuse others of discriminatory/ derogatory words, when you are doing the same.

    Lets wait for further information and see whats going on.

  • Retired GI
    5:11 pm on November 19th, 2009 26

    "I've seen enough a$$ hold 1SG's, CDR's and CSM's that really only care about themselves and their own careers"

    EXACTLY by point!!

    I've seen the same and I KNOW that none of those individuals would risk their careers by saying anything to put them in danger. She isn't worth putting their careers in danger, and you can bet each one of them knew it.

    So someone is lying and I'll bet it's her.

    She made this problem. She brought it on herself. If she truely only needed more time for a replacement—it would have been given. So something else is going on here.

    I deployed to Iraq. Some did have things that needed to be worked out and they were given the time and came later.

    We even had this one female that would just lose her mind when the mortors started. They sent her home and later she got her ribbions. Good for her.

    AT LEAST SHE SHOWED UP!

    Had a female E7 who went home because her son was accused of murder back at base.

    So what was this female's major malfuntion?

    You trying to intimidate? I was in charge of the Force Protection at camp taji and I had plenty of crybabies in uniform to deal with. The cooks were the worst of the lot sent for base guard.

    This is army wide. It happens every where. Seen it too damn many times.

    Hell, I had a female miss the last truck to the field in 2ID once. She didn't think I'd send a truck back for just one soldier. There were three groups. THREE!!! She couldn't make any and she was an NCO! And OH, by the way they tried the "discrimination" angle. "But Top, it was your orders, not mine. You said everyone, not me."

    The policy is just fine. The soldier didn't follow it.

    But YOU want to call discrimination?

    She can not funtion and you call it discrimination to point it out? :???:

    Well why don't we just sit her on the porch and pay her to sit there.

    That is what she seems to want.

    Would that be "fair enough" for you?

    The Army is EASY! "Right place, Right time, right uniform". And keep your NCO informed.

    For some reason, she could not do that.

    And YOUR attitude makes me believe even more strongly, that she is a problem troop. The words you use here, she likely used there. So thanks for takin away my last doubts about her. :lol:

  • AmericaninSeoul
    5:47 pm on November 19th, 2009 27

    Wow, the sweeping generalizations that are being made about females. If the situation involved a male would there be as much male bashing? Seriously, I know just as many males that are guilty of the same thing that females are being accused of here, but because there are fewer females I guess it sticks out in your mind. Or it could be that you are a straight up misogynist who spouts his hatred on a blog.

    In reference to the story I would agree with the other less-hate-filled posters saying that there is more to this story. I can't believe the command made such demands, but then again it has been shown here that *some* men in the military are complete asses (and hate women). Perhaps if the command were composed of leaders like Retired GI maybe it did happen, but it still seems unlikely.

    Ultimately I think the media latched onto this story to demonize the military. Look what the big bad Army is doing to this poor like Soldier. As we know they pick and choose what stories to report and what is interesting about reporting on the Soldiers that have Family Care Plans that work. Boring.

  • ChickenHead
    7:00 pm on November 19th, 2009 28

    As usual, everyone has missed the real story.

    Where exactly is her baby's daddy in all this?

    The media has intentionally avoided this topic… meaning that the answer to this question likely will shade the situation in such a way that sympathies for Ms. Hutchinson will be somewhat less.

    There is not yet enough information to form a real opinion on the situation… but recognizing the usual patterns of media manipulation, one could guess the real story is somewhat less than the Big Bad Army trying to take away Momma's Baby.

    Cynical theories could range from not knowing who Daddy is… to being worried about custody/child support issues if Daddy gets the baby while she is gone.

  • Teadrinker
    7:19 pm on November 19th, 2009 29

    All right, let me be the first one to come and say it…She's cute.

  • LORDOFU2
    7:20 pm on November 19th, 2009 30

    Give her a less then honorable discharge and be done with it. Send the welfare queen back to the hood.

  • LORDOFU2
    7:22 pm on November 19th, 2009 31

    [DELETED BY ADMIN]

  • LORDOFU2
    7:24 pm on November 19th, 2009 32

    Whoooo nelly… speaking of generalizations, you are generalizing the comment section here.

  • Teadrinker
    8:27 pm on November 19th, 2009 33

    You're not as funny as you think.

  • Teadrinker
    8:29 pm on November 19th, 2009 34

    Welfare queen? I think you've missed an important detail: this is about her job.

  • 88mm
    10:21 pm on November 19th, 2009 35

    Lets be honest, she must have known how here mother was already right? That and I bet it was just a scam. "Gee mom I don't want to deploy." "Hey I know just refuse to care for your grandchild, the Army has to let me out of it right?!"

  • 88mm
    10:27 pm on November 19th, 2009 36

    Not to be barbaric but I just read in Armt times how a female specialist killed by the jihadi bitc* was pregnant and had come home from deployment because she got pregnant during the deployment. It makes me wonder if she had followed the rules on the no sex policy if she would still be alive. It also makes me wonder if she got pregnant for the purpose to return from deployment. Of course I don't think she deserved what happened to her, but the rules are there for a reason and there are consequences for trying to "scam" the system. Just thought I'd put that out there. (I know it's not directly related to this topic.)

  • junior
    10:27 pm on November 19th, 2009 37

    I knew guys in the Army who were single parents who used to be in the Marines- the Jar Heads won't let people stay in if they are single parents. Out ya go… Those guys seem to have enough problems finding people who can read and write to do admin like FCPs, but they seem to have no problem going places and killing bad guys in droves. You'd almost think that THAT was what a military service does, but without child care… hmm….

  • 88mm
    10:29 pm on November 19th, 2009 38

    By the way I am sure her mother would take the kid if she had to. If not shes a pretty sh**y grandparent.

  • junior
    10:30 pm on November 19th, 2009 39

    Yeah- you are SO RIGHT. NONE of us have EVER seen this story over, and over, and over, and over, and over…

    Usually with the usual suspects/same cast of characters from the same demographics.

    You love these turds so much- then YOU jump on in and take care of them and their messes, boet!

  • 88mm
    10:30 pm on November 19th, 2009 40

    Shes cute? Man up and get on the bros before ho's team!

  • 88mm
    10:32 pm on November 19th, 2009 41

    Birth control can not be over emphasized due to the nature of military obligation i.e. deployment and lots of em………

  • junior
    10:33 pm on November 19th, 2009 42

    What job? Showing up late, being on profile, leaving early, and doing so little that she could be replaced with either a vacant unit slot or a cardboard cut out?

    Puh-leazze.

    That said, I bet her NCO support channel is full of dead weight too… Not like we ain't seen THAT over, and over, and over…

    … and ossifers who accept such duds as "the standard".

  • 88mm
    10:34 pm on November 19th, 2009 43

    Shes in the Army Chickenhead! It's probably a whole Brigade Combat Team of candidates.

  • 88mm
    10:36 pm on November 19th, 2009 44

    Yeah, because women fu*k up the op tempo more than males do. The reason you hear about females more is because it's almost always a female. If there were a mojority of females then the majority would suprise, still be females!

  • Retired GI
    2:23 am on November 20th, 2009 45

    Dude, In my 20 years, I gave females more chances than I EVER gave males.

    Do you know why? Because they NEEDED more chances than males.

    When males F'ed up they didn't get a gentle talk from me, they got written up.

    Females got a pep talk first from me. WHY? Because of the attitude that people like YOU display. Females in the military know there are people like you and use that and YOU to get over. :smile: But you don't know that do you.

    Your damn right it is unlikely. No female is worth losing your stripes.

    If she can't execute, let the Platoon Leader know. He will let the Commander know. No commander is going to risk his rank over a female that can not do the simplest of things.

    That is why she is lying. If she needed time, she would have gotten it. But do you see that? Nope. Your too busy lookin for a sexest to understand a post. Oh, the females know there are people like you and they use you. :smile: Your too blind to see it.

    But if you want to throw some mud my way, then go ahead. I say it like it is.

    If you don't like the truth, that is just too bad. :roll:

    No one held her back. She caused this. She had the opportunity and she messed it up.

    I know many females that were able to do what she couldn't. She wants to blame the army and disparage her Commanders. I have no love for Officers but they would not do what she says. Even Officers are more intelligent than that.

    It would not be in THEIR best interest. :lol:

  • Retired GI
    2:33 am on November 20th, 2009 46

    So what?

    Rule one: Never mess with a woman in uniform if her rank is less than yours.

    Rule two: Works in the same company regardless of rank.

    She's cute? Dude, your part of the problem.

  • junior
    2:34 am on November 20th, 2009 47

    Why, of COURSE! I would inflict my irresponsibility on my entire unit! It's all about ME!

    What would you do?

  • Retired GI
    2:50 am on November 20th, 2009 48

    :razz: You have never been in a support unit :razz:

    Obviously she can not do her job. Deployment IS the job. A little thing called "war". You got to show up to do the job. She wasn't drafted you know. She asked for the job, she was given the job, and now she has a kid for an excuse not to do the job.

    Again, if she needed some extra time, she would have gotten it.

    The army is very good at Family Care. I KNOW this!

    She doesn't want to "soldier up".

    Give her a general discharge and move on.

  • akorozco
    9:27 am on November 20th, 2009 49

    She’s looked through all the options… What would you do? http://www.newsy.com/videos/child_vs_country_what_would_you_choose

  • gerry
    11:47 am on November 20th, 2009 50

    LOL, bet the female who 'would lose her mind' when the mortors started, is now collecting 100% disability due to PTSD. Lyndie England gets hers.

  • gerry
    12:03 pm on November 20th, 2009 51

    Good question, I hope it comes out. One way or the other.

  • junior
    12:46 pm on November 20th, 2009 52

    Barracks which resemble gov't projects -complete with the same atmosphere- and a command with uninvolved command, staff, and small unit leadership is an important part of our Army heritage.

    What would a 4 day weekend be without absentee leaders and guys lined up outside the door of some female troopie who is executing her reproductive rights?

    BOOTAY CALL!!!

  • junior
    12:48 pm on November 20th, 2009 53

    ROUNDS COMPLETE — TARGET DESTROYED

    Spot. On.

    Wished I had met more guys like you to work for when I was still young- and had hope and ideals!

  • Retired GI
    3:14 pm on November 20th, 2009 54

    Gerry, I would not be surprized one bit.

  • Retired GI
    3:24 pm on November 20th, 2009 55

    I understand junior. Wish I could a been there for ya, when we both were young-and had hope and dreams! ;-)

    Carry on brother :cool:

  • Retired GI
    3:59 pm on November 20th, 2009 56

    Fort Hood, Fort Campbell. What did DOD expect when they billeted single 20 somethings in the the same Barracks?

    When I was in Bosnia they were catching these humpers in the fringing muddy stinking bunkers doing it.

    Iraq, one of my fellow NCOs missed his chance to be an acting Platoon Sergeant, because he had been caught with an E4—from HIS squad! DS.

    Korea, ANY female is queen for a year. Same in Iraq by the way.

    At Hood a female ASKED me who I was involved with. Her reason was because she knew who was doing who, except for me, and wanted to know.

    I asked her if she knew I had spent seven years (at that time) in Korea. She said she had heard that. I told her I didn't mess with american women. She asked why. I told her after that long in Korea, american women just didn't smell right. :grin:

    She was fisning. Wanted to have something on the Sarge.

    I love the smell of Garlic in the morning. Smells like ——-

  • Retired GI
    6:05 am on November 21st, 2009 57

    ChickenHead,

    You know where the "babydaddy" is. He is in that group of young males that had the easist access to her.

    Why is he not spoken of? Can you say "liberal media". They hate the military and will paint whatever picture they want. In this case the picture is (look what the big bad military is doing to our young lady).

    She was not drafted. She REQUESTED to be in the Army.

    Why not? Free food. Free room. But the room is small. But if you have a dependent or get married or both, you get MORE money and can move off post! Then you can also get out of work more often.

    If there is another organization that will PAY YOU MORE to do the same job if you have a kid or "dependent" than a SINGLE person doing the same job—-I don't know what it is.

    From a business standpoint, that makes no sence.

    But the military does it. By doing so, the military encourages pregnancy. It encourages unwed motherhood. It encourages marrages of convenience (to get out of those small rooms) which ultimately end in divorce. Thereby causing the military to have a very high divorce rate. These days we blame the war, which of course does play a part. But look back to non-war years. Still high!

    I blame Political Correctness, of course. If a "Leader" can not say what needs to be said, for fear of offending someone, usually not of the same sex or race, he (or she) has been handicapped.

    No wonder Military Leaders have given up trying.

  • gerry
    10:54 am on November 21st, 2009 58

    "no sex policy" never heard of such a thing. The military tries very hard to stress personal responsibility as its policy. If for some reason it fails, the offer of several alternative routes for the individual (especially pregnant women) are offered and include discharge from the service. No disgrace.

    The problem arises from some who take no personal responsibility for their actions and try to remain in service as 'going home' is not an attractive option. They use the system to gain a better life yet continue to avoid personal responsibility.

    Time and promotion along with increased responsibility that require military education often help some of these people achieve a better life. As long as they can 'hack' it. If they can't and can't get a promotion because they can't advance, they are discharged and no longer allowed to serve. (as they should be). Same for males.

    The problem female soldiers are usually first termers (enlistment).

    I have no doubt if males became pregnant the military would be in crisis.

  • gerry
    11:04 am on November 21st, 2009 59

    The military does not get into the "birth control issue" only personal responsibility to insure your children are taken care of in the event of deployment. Pregenant females are given options.

  • gerry
    11:13 am on November 21st, 2009 60

    Well her child spent two weeks with the " person listed to take care of the child' (the mothers, mother). And she sent the child back. I don't know the circumstances of her 'mother' and her ability to care for the child, the report dosn't say.

    The report is lacking in many facts needed to determine if the mother is at fault or the Army. I strongly suspect the mother is at fault (again personal responsibility, and that the military usually bends over backwards in cases like this) rather than a mean SOB of a commander, or 1st Sgt.

  • Retired GI
    12:10 pm on November 21st, 2009 61

    Actually, the "order" of no sex was put out in both Bosnia and Iraq.

    It was verbal, but it existed. Not that it mattered much.

    After a few months, they had meeting to decided if those who were married and in country, could shair living quarters. I believe they decided they could.

    Have a nice 1st CAV day! :razz:

  • Retired GI
    12:21 pm on November 21st, 2009 62

    I don't know if they still do, but the TMC in Korea used to have condoms on request. STDs effect mission capability. As does pregnancy.

    Somebody didn't care.

  • Avatar of GI KoreaGI Korea
    2:51 am on November 22nd, 2009 63

    Everyone stay tuned because tomorrow morning I'll have an updated posting completed on this story that should answer a lot of questions of what is going on.

  • theotherguy
    1:13 pm on November 23rd, 2009 64

    Not targeting you Gerry, but all the a$$ wipes that keep blaming her and painting all "females" in that way. Really thinking some of these guys have never been in the military (past basic) or retired 15 years ago.

    Really to categorize an entire half the human species in such broad terms, then in turn use that as justification to demonize them. Might as well make statements that they should "stay in the kitchen where they belong" and other such non-sense.

    Well in my time in the military I did see a number of females "getting over" but only because the males let them. You give any human, female or male, an "easy out" and they'll take it, few if any questions asked. I didn't do that sh!t, none of my soldiers (male or female) got treated any different then the rest.

    And I'm willing to bet the guys making the anti-female statements were in the combat or combat support MOS's, if they even served. With such a high male to female ratio no wonder the males were treating the females like princess's and letting them get over on all sorts of sh!t.

  • theotherguy
    1:42 pm on November 23rd, 2009 65

    Contraception is a hot political issue, its the military's policy to not get involved in political issues when possible. But yes TMC's do have condoms available upon request. At Walker their out on the counter.

  • gerry
    2:48 pm on November 23rd, 2009 66

    I don't think all the #@&#&'s are painting all females in that way. Even those who retired 15 years ago. They are talking about a specific group of females who are a percentage in the military. They are real, the issue is real, and they exist. Its not about half the human race.

    I find most of the comments valid. It is more about honestly venting what so often cannot be said in a PC military enviroment.

    No one said they should "stay in the kitchen where they belong". You are the one demonizing the people who comment by issuing such statements. The same with categorizing those as being in "combat units". You're being unfair to many who have very decent, stable lives, yet see inequalities in the system.

    Its not necessarily the "males fault" because the females used their relationship with males to gain special privilidges. It can be a two way street with the males feeling used by the female gender whereas to do otherwise would constitute sexist behavior on the males part.

    Females are not above deceit, dishonesty, lieing, or using whatever advantage they may percieve to gain special treatment. Just as any person, when they do so, it is noticed.

    Now, having said all that, I have worked with many very intelligent hard working females, who excell at thier jobs. They are (in my experience) more the norm. And by the way, most of my friends felt the same and this was back in the 1980s.

  • theotherguy
    4:36 pm on November 23rd, 2009 67

    "I have no pity for this woman nor any other woman in the service. They simply do not produce more than they take."

    "What contributions indeed. They get pregnant. They assist in causing divorce.

    They make excuses for not being able to got to the field, NTC, Deployments.

    They slow down PT runs because they are generally the slowest and therefore the “pacesetter”. They lie about rape charges. They are not held to the same standard as males but get the same pay. Senior Enlisted give them a pass at promotion boards because they have to have a female. Females generally “get over” BIG TIME.

    Unless you have a squared away Company Commander, who is female and KNOWS what they do and is unafraid to let them know that she will not stand for it."

    "“Barely” did their jobs? Most don’t do anything but show up- and on their own schedule at that.

    When we have guys volunteering for multiple combat tours after LOSING LIMBS, to hell with losers like this one…"

    "Yeah, because women fu*k up the op tempo more than males do. The reason you hear about females more is because it’s almost always a female. If there were a mojority of females then the majority would suprise, still be females!"

    "What job? Showing up late, being on profile, leaving early, and doing so little that she could be replaced with either a vacant unit slot or a cardboard cut out?

    Puh-leazze.

    That said, I bet her NCO support channel is full of dead weight too… Not like we ain’t seen THAT over, and over, and over…

    … and ossifers who accept such duds as “the standard”."

    "Give her a less then honorable discharge and be done with it. Send the welfare queen back to the hood."

    There explain away that. Most of those statements are directed at ALL females in the service, some are directed at MOST females in the server, and a select few are directed at THIS female in the service. Despite knowing nearly nothing in detail about this situation, other then she asked her command to for more, was denied, and choose to stay with her kid (and hire a civilian lawyer to protect her a$$) everyone is ready to paint her as some ghetto girl trying to get a free meal ticket out of the Army. They projected their resentment of females in the service along with their general dislike for the slackers (who happen to be of a female gender) onto this lady without knowing anything about her. Next some sock puppet will come onto the board and pretend their some person in her unit and will attempt to justify the previous statements.

    If any of the people who made the above statements are or ever were in the service they are a disgrace. Equality, objectivity, reason, logic all were thrown out the window at the first opportunity. All to crucify someone who they don't even know, about a situation they know nothing of. At least some people had the decency to say they will wait for further details before barbecuing her. Not like we believe in innocent until proven guilty, fair trial, or any other core value of justice.

  • holly
    4:49 am on May 21st, 2010 68

    hi, i just read this story and the comments. im a soldier in the army,u guys would be amaze how many family member dnt want to help soldier or want so much money from them. alot of" female" soldier have to get out of the army once they have a child( if they dnt have a support system) so i believe this soldier. i think it sad that we as ppl judge and tear each other down. the army need to find a way soldier spouse "who are left back can adopted the child for a year" this would help single soldier and that family who might need more income their household.

 

RSS feed for comments on this post | TrackBack URI

By submitting a comment here you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution.

Bad Behavior has blocked 48260 access attempts in the last 7 days.