American Renaissance
Previous Story       Next Story       View Comments       Send This Page       Date Archives       Category Archives

More Moms-to-Be: Fleetwide Survey, Other Data Show Pregnancy Spike

More news stories on Liberal Myths

Marie D. Faram, Navy Times, August 31, 2009

Pregnancy in the Navy is on the rise—but exactly how much isn’t exactly clear. That’s because the Navy says it doesn’t have the means to track exact pregnancy statistics servicewide. Instead, the service relies on surveys to assemble pregnancy statistics. The most recent data, collected in 2008, show that 19 percent of enlisted women said they were pregnant over the last year. That number was 10 percent among female officers.

Both of those are increases over the 2006 numbers, which had the enlisted pregnancy rate at 12 percent and officers at 8 percent.

{snip}

But in the meantime, other statistics also indicate that pregnancy in the ranks is rising—especially among those in deploying units. That’s because the service does track—as a group—female sailors who have been sent to shore duty after their 20th week of pregnancy or those on an “operational deferment”—the guaranteed time the Navy gives women while they recover from childbirth.

These women are put on shore duty during their 12 months of deferment, then return to sea duty.

The Navy increased this deferment time in June 2007 from four to 12 months. As a result, the number of women leaving deploying units to have children has increased steadily from 1,770 in June 2006 to 3,125 as of Aug. 1. Junior enlisted women make up the bulk of those redirected to shore duty. Sailors in grades E-3 through E-5 account for 2,852 of the 3,125.

Overall, Miller [Stephanie Miller, head of women’s policy for Chief of Naval Personnel Vice Adm.] said, even with the rise in enlisted pregnancies, the Navy-wide annual average, which includes officer and enlisted, came in at 14.5 percent. That’s just below the “nation-al birth rate” of 15 percent, which the Navy says is a comparable metric.

Miller says the rise in pregnancies is a good sign for the Navy, indicating that more women feel comfortable that having children can be compatible with Navy service.

‘The Navy strongly believes that having children and a career in the Navy don’t have to be at odds,” she said.

Progress, but some problems

It’s been a long road from the early days of women in the Navy when pregnancy meant an automatic discharge, she said. Through the years, that policy has changed gradually. As it evolved, she said, women were offered the chance to stay in or get out after learning they were pregnant.

“Now, discharge is the exception rather than the rule,” Miller said. That’s because the Navy has learned if they want to retain good female officers and sailors, they also have to provide opportunities for having a family.

{snip}

A senior enlisted woman from the destroyer Ross said her ship was having an epidemic of pregnancies in the crew, with 15 women becoming pregnant in the past year among a female population that averaged 36 over the same period of time.

Another said that she’s seen too many women elect to get pregnant to avoid making deployments of six months or longer—swapping that for an 18- to 21-year commitment to raise a child. Another said she still sees too many young male sailors eyeing newly reporting female sailors as targets of opportunity more than shipmates. More counseling in responsible behavior, she said, was needed immediately after these young sailors get to their command.

Miller said she couldn’t comment specifically on the Ross or what led to that command’s increase in pregnancies, but she said the dynamic is shifting as more senior women take on roles at sea.

“We see a decline in pregnancy rates on ships where there is a strong presence of females in leadership roles at the command,” she said. “It’s only been 15 years or so since the combat exclusion was lifted, and it’s taken time to grow these women.”

(Posted on August 25, 2009)

     Previous story       Next Story       Post a Comment     Send This Page      Search

Comments

1 — Mr Pibb wrote at 6:22 PM on August 25:

“That’s because the Navy has learned if they want to retain good female officers and sailors, they also have to provide opportunities for having a family.”

Accuracy on AmRen re-write: “That’s because the Navy has learned if they want to retain good female officers and sailors, they also have to provide more affirmative action”.


“We see a decline in pregnancy rates on ships where there is a strong presence of females in leadership roles at the command,”

That’s the important statistic, I’m sure! (sarcasm off).

2 — Istvan wrote at 6:33 PM on August 25:

We live in a demented society. Mothers should not be in harms way. An important reason for having the military mostly male is because women produce the next generation and have the primary responcibility for raising those children. Fair or unfair that is the way it is. Now, should woman be excluded from military service? No, but there should be seperate branches for female servicewoman. Like the WACS and WAVES. Everyone talks about how having openly gay servicemen would cause disruptive sexual tension, and I agree. But considering that the overwhelming majority of new military recruits are young and HETEROSEXUAL putting men and women together in close quarters is insane.

3 — generalquagmyer wrote at 7:52 PM on August 25:

“Miller says the rise in pregnancies is a good sign for the Navy, indicating that more women feel comfortable that having children can be compatible with Navy service.”


Reality check here: Having children IS NOT compatible with a potentially lethal job that requires one to deploy to the other side of the world on short notice for months at a time.

It never has been, and it never will be… Unless the primary purpose of the armed forces now is no longer national defense but employment for large numbers of otherwise unemployable minorities and particularly ignorant white people.

4 — Anonymous wrote at 8:13 PM on August 25:

I am a female who served in the AF for 7 years. It never failed that pregnancies would spike when it was our turn to deploy. Our careerfield, Services, had a disproportionately high number of females. We paid the price. The same males would have to deploy again and again. Our statistics always looked awful when it came to deployable members.

5 — Whiteplight wrote at 8:44 PM on August 25:

This is a perfect illustration of why I have long been saying that the military is really a social welfare program, therefore a communist institution with only a few differences from Soviet Communism. One difference is that religion is accepted and Christianity is particularly almost forced on personnel. The second is the military hierarchy that rather asserts a loose sort of class structure on its members. And this isn’t new; I grew up in an Air Force town and I was always amazed at all the benefits military families got like cheaper goods at the post stores that were off limits to civilian workers at the same bases, etc. On the subject of medicare care however, the military seems to have traditionally provided worse care than the Soviet Union or Cuba ever did to their lowliest members. But that has changed recently, too. Feminism had a big part in bringing this about.

My nephew was in the Navy in the early 1990s. He said that most of the women on ship at sea of seaman class were prostituting. Many male sailors were constantly broke and the women had all the money. He was a firefighter in the Navy. They had one female member, she ended up doing all the paper work while the men did all the hump work.

The military has been made into an expensive joke in combining the once seperate sex services. And this is not to mentions (although I am doing it now) the rapes and planned pregancies as an exit from foreign service or stressful duties like Iraq. All this mess because a few lesbians wanted to be officers and order men around.

Its not just in the military either. In the Forestry Service, particularly the firefighting section, young women were recruited into fire line postions on engines by the late 1970s. Where young men found it difficult to break into it because of the buddy system, the idea of having a bunch of young women around found male firefighters supporting the equality of women - in this case. The Forestry camps and the remote Fire Stations became sex camps. I met one honest woman career firefighter in California in the 1990s. She talked about how awful the system was as it prevented men from supporting their families, but gave young women the jobs instead. Typically, a new female recruit would serve a year or two and then get pregnant and drop out. The father continued fire-fighting and they milked the system for support when their growing families needed it. And they feel righteous about it because they fight fires. Taxpayer supported nonsense. The expense of the training and the loss of experienced fire fighters has been just part of the cost to taxpayers for this particular improvement in equal opportunties.

6 — jeff wrote at 8:50 PM on August 25:

its good to know our shores are defended by a navy full of irresponsible, affirmative action beneficiaries. sleep tight kids!

7 — TechnoDan wrote at 9:35 PM on August 25:

“Reality check here: Having children IS NOT compatible with a potentially lethal job that requires one to deploy to the other side of the world on short notice for months at a time.

It never has been, and it never will be… Unless the primary purpose of the armed forces now is no longer national defense but employment for large numbers of otherwise unemployable minorities and particularly ignorant white people.”

Pretty much that is what it is. I saw a report several years ago how female military (whatever branch) recruits didn’t even have to keep their hair short! What a bunch of wimps. Physical strength and endurance standards have been lowered to accomodate female “soldiers” (sound familiar?) Many females go in the military just to find a job with free childcare.

Having children and then abandoning them to relatives and/or a (God forbid) “day-care” center, while you work or go off on a tour of duty isn’t the way children are supposed to be raised! I thank God my parents didn’t do that to me. (I know, I know, sometimes there is no alternative to the above, but it is done in both the military and civilian world far more than necessary, and children pay the price.)

8 — WR the elder wrote at 12:07 AM on August 26:

Anonymous at 8:13 PM tells a truth the feminists do not want you to know. When it comes to the test, women don’t want to fight. Young men do. Recruiters can talk all they like about education and career opportunities, but in the final analysis your job in the armed forces is to kill other people when some knucklehead in Washington, D.C. tells you to. If people were told this in no uncertain terms before they signed up fewer men but far fewer women would join the armed forces in the first place.

Recommended reading: The Kinder, Gentler Military, by Stephanie Gutmann

9 — Anonymous wrote at 2:09 AM on August 26:

The Royal Navy is into diversity hiring.

Most recently, a black woman from Angola, who had only lived in Britain three years and could barely speak English, was admitted into the uniformed services and deployed on a Royal Navy ship. The enterprising immigrant tried to smuggle cocaine from Columbia on the return voyage in her sailor’s kit.

Pregnancy rates and ethnic hiring would be a good ratio for comparison.

10 — Whitey Ford wrote at 9:06 AM on August 26:

I’ve been in the military 7 years, and I can tell you from experience that when deployments come around, so do pregnancies. Just as commenter #4 above stated, males get deployed over and over, women get pregnant to avoid it. I know of one black female staff sergeant that made no secret of getting pregnant to avoid deployment.

As far as strong female leadership in the military, thats something I have yet to see. Maybe some will disagree, but as far as I’m concerned, women have no place in the military, except doing paperwork or medical duties.

11 — Anonymous wrote at 9:54 PM on August 26:

Women do not belong in the military, or most of the work force for that matter.

This idea of promoting “diversity diversity diversity” at the cost of everything else is utter insanity at best.

12 — SKIP wrote at 10:27 AM on August 27:

Personally, I thingthe increased pregnancy rate is among blacks because it is so with the Army, Marines and AF. The blacks carry on here at military camps just as if they were in the ghetto.


Home      Top      Previous story       Next Story      Send This Page      Search