Female Soldier Refuses Deployment to Care for Baby

[nowhereman 1]

Here's the link:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

Thoughts?

[NickD 202]

Here's the link:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

Thoughts?

When I was in, an easy way for a female to get out of service was to get pregnant, guess all that has changed. Even sending young 18 year girls now to Iraq after six weeks of MP training that can't open a jar of pickles to protect us, know three of them that went. Neighbors 30 year old wife is in Iraq now leaving a seven year old daughter behind. Think it's crazy.

[SMR 368]

Here's the link:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

Thoughts?

Throw her out of the army and make her pay back her pay and training up to this point. I have no problem with a woman who puts her duty as a mother above her duty as a soldier. As a matter of fact, I respect that. But why does she think that she can stay in the army? If she doesn't want to go and fight, she has little business collecting a paycheck. This reminds me of the reservists who are happy to keep collecting the reserve check until there is need and they get called up. Then they think they are being treated unfairly.

Nobody forced her to join the army. Women aren't even subject to the draft. This is typical of modern feminism where women think they can have their cake and eat it, too. If she wants to be a soldier and be equal with the men, then she can't expect special treatment for being a woman. A man would be laughed back into his cell if he refused to deploy because he wanted to be with his kids.

[newlyweds 0]

wow.. that is crazy! but the thing is, i don't think they are really up for special arrangements contrary to what they tell the public

[Jenn! 918]

This is typical of modern feminism where women think they can have their cake and eat it, too. If she wants to be a soldier and be equal with the men, then she can't expect special treatment for being a woman. A man would be laughed back into his cell if he refused to deploy because he wanted to be with his kids.

Modern feminism? Please. There doesn't seem to be a double standard at play here:

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.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

To ask a mother to put her child into foster care to deploy on a long overseas tour of duty just seems wrong. That's all.

[nowhereman 1]

Single parents (male or female) in the Army are required to have a family care plan. The soldier in the story had one, but it didn't work out. I have mixed feelings about the situation. On the one hand it does appear that the soldier is between a rock & a hard place, but on the other hand she has a duty to deploy.

I have deployed twice & every time a deployment comes up the same deadbeats come up with a reason not to deploy & I wish the leadership would process these people out of the Army (and what bothers me is half of these individuals are senior officers or NCOs). I am trying not to assume anything in this situation but given what I've seen I at least wonder if the female soldier is afraid to deploy.

[SMR 368]

This is typical of modern feminism where women think they can have their cake and eat it, too. If she wants to be a soldier and be equal with the men, then she can't expect special treatment for being a woman. A man would be laughed back into his cell if he refused to deploy because he wanted to be with his kids.

Modern feminism? Please. There doesn't seem to be a double standard at play here:

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.

The army spokesman has to be "sensitive" and try to avoid an outrage. But I really don't think we would have a news story like this about a man. The problem with women in the army is that there will always be a double standard. There has to be. Women are different then men. They can't reasonably be held to the same physical standards. They can't be expected to carry as much, walk as fast, or hit as hard. They are more of a capture risk and has been pointed out, most of them can't open their own pickles. Also, women have periods and can become pregnant. Beyond the obvious advantages of a woman in combat during PMS, this doesn't really work well with army life.

Beyond physical, women are emotionally different and fill a different role in society. If for no other reason, this is because women, as is highlighted in this article, have a different role in reproduction.

Moreover, what's the point of having a soldier that can't deploy? Why are we spending federal tax dollars to pay and train a soldier that won't fight because she has other obligations. It's like a firefighter that won't respond to a call or a doctor that's afraid of blood. She's in the wrong line of work.

To ask a mother to put her child into foster care to deploy on a long overseas tour of duty just seems wrong. That's all.

To ask the government to train and pay you for a job that you refuse to do also seems wrong. Why did she put herself in this situation?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

To ask a mother to put her child into foster care to deploy on a long overseas tour of duty just seems wrong. That's all.

To ask the government to train and pay you for a job that you refuse to do also seems wrong. Why did she put herself in this situation?

You know, sometimes life doesn't work out the way you thought it would. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that this woman willfully put herself into the situation she's in at this point. Life happens, you know? What needs to matter now is her child and I think she's making the right decision not to give her infant into foster care but rather take a chance at facing the music in order to care for her child. We should applaud women that take motherhood seriously not condemn them.

[Minya's wife 24]

Single parents (male or female) in the Army are required to have a family care plan. The soldier in the story had one, but it didn't work out. I have mixed feelings about the situation. On the one hand it does appear that the soldier is between a rock & a hard place, but on the other hand she has a duty to deploy.

I have deployed twice & every time a deployment comes up the same deadbeats come up with a reason not to deploy & I wish the leadership would process these people out of the Army (and what bothers me is half of these individuals are senior officers or NCOs). I am trying not to assume anything in this situation but given what I've seen I at least wonder if the female soldier is afraid to deploy.

Of course she is afraid to deploy. She is a single mother afraid of what would happen to her child should she die or be seriously injured while deployed. I understand that single parents have to submit a care plan for their dependents, but why doesn't that care plan get examined for 'validity'? In this case, the soldier submitted that her mother would care for her child....a woman who is already caring for two invalids and runs a day-care. Its too much responsibility for one person. Perhaps if her care plan had been 'refused' when she submitted it, she would have had time to search for an alternative. Putting your child in foster care to deploy is a 'punishment' no soldier serving their country should have to suffer. IMO.

[marinemom546 0]

Here's the link:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

Thoughts?

why did she join the MILITARY? Didn't she think she would be deployed. she needs to go and do her time as the soldier she signed up to be and not be a coward. nobody twisted her arm to join. she didn't have to join the military. What did she think she was going to do be on vacation.

[nowhereman 1]

Single parents (male or female) in the Army are required to have a family care plan. The soldier in the story had one, but it didn't work out. I have mixed feelings about the situation. On the one hand it does appear that the soldier is between a rock & a hard place, but on the other hand she has a duty to deploy.

I have deployed twice & every time a deployment comes up the same deadbeats come up with a reason not to deploy & I wish the leadership would process these people out of the Army (and what bothers me is half of these individuals are senior officers or NCOs). I am trying not to assume anything in this situation but given what I've seen I at least wonder if the female soldier is afraid to deploy.

Of course she is afraid to deploy. She is a single mother afraid of what would happen to her child should she die or be seriously injured while deployed. I understand that single parents have to submit a care plan for their dependents, but why doesn't that care plan get examined for 'validity'? In this case, the soldier submitted that her mother would care for her child....a woman who is already caring for two invalids and runs a day-care. Its too much responsibility for one person. Perhaps if her care plan had been 'refused' when she submitted it, she would have had time to search for an alternative. Putting your child in foster care to deploy is a 'punishment' no soldier serving their country should have to suffer. IMO.

When I said"afraid" I meant that from my experience most of the people looking to avoid a deployment don't have a legit reason (i.e. they create one). On the surface this does not appear to be the case here, so I am trying to not make that assumption. Actually the female soldier in the story appears to be a good candidate for a hardship discharge... like others have said she's in a tough situation that she didn't get into intentionally.

As for not digging a bit deeper concerning her family care plan that's a good point & my educated guess is that her supervisor was just "checking the block".

[LaL 418]

Here's the link:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

Thoughts?

why did she join the MILITARY? Didn't she think she would be deployed. she needs to go and do her time as the soldier she signed up to be and not be a coward. nobody twisted her arm to join. she didn't have to join the military. What did she think she was going to do be on vacation.

coward is a bit of a stretch IMO.

[newlyweds 0]

This is typical of modern feminism where women think they can have their cake and eat it, too. If she wants to be a soldier and be equal with the men, then she can't expect special treatment for being a woman. A man would be laughed back into his cell if he refused to deploy because he wanted to be with his kids.

Modern feminism? Please. There doesn't seem to be a double standard at play here:

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.

The army spokesman has to be "sensitive" and try to avoid an outrage. But I really don't think we would have a news story like this about a man. The problem with women in the army is that there will always be a double standard. There has to be. Women are different then men. They can't reasonably be held to the same physical standards. They can't be expected to carry as much, walk as fast, or hit as hard. They are more of a capture risk and has been pointed out, most of them can't open their own pickles. Also, women have periods and can become pregnant. Beyond the obvious advantages of a woman in combat during PMS, this doesn't really work well with army life.

Beyond physical, women are emotionally different and fill a different role in society. If for no other reason, this is because women, as is highlighted in this article, have a different role in reproduction.

Moreover, what's the point of having a soldier that can't deploy? Why are we spending federal tax dollars to pay and train a soldier that won't fight because she has other obligations. It's like a firefighter that won't respond to a call or a doctor that's afraid of blood. She's in the wrong line of work.

To ask a mother to put her child into foster care to deploy on a long overseas tour of duty just seems wrong. That's all.

To ask the government to train and pay you for a job that you refuse to do also seems wrong. Why did she put herself in this situation?

in my opinion, she signed up for that in hopes of being able to financially care for her child.. you can't blame someone for that, the only thing though is that yes, she did choose the wrong line of work.

but finances wise, she chose a career that would help her become somewhat financially stable, a sure pay check every 2 weeks will never sound bad.. it's a job, it's just that she can't serve a 100% and in the job market, that is unacceptable, to the soft-hearted family focused society, it's a different story. The line has been crossed, and it's sad how it came to be that she has to be imprisoned for it.

[newlyweds 0]

on the other hand, how come they still gave her a go signal for deployment if her care plan stated her mom as the acting caregiver for her child when in fact her mom already had all that in her hands. Both parties are at fault, there should've been more assessment in the availability of her caregiver, and in her part, she should've informed them about it too.

but I think there's really not much we can do with our opinions, this can serve though as a lesson to them and hopefully they do a fair investigation, i mean hey that investigation will still cost the gov't.. everything does lol

and yes, i do think women shouldn't really be deployed because of a lot reasons. It's not because women are weaker, it's just one thing that people must be realistic about. In war, there is no room for special arrangements, or excuses, you cannot tell the enemy, hey can you be more considerate of me because medically I do not have the strength that every man was blessed with no matter all the resistance excercise i get, nor can she tell them to excuse her because she has PMS, or have her period, or have abdominal cramps.. There is a bunch of reasons and we can debate about it all day, but yeah, be realistic about it

Edited November 17, 2009 by newlyweds