Female Soldier Refuses Deployment to Care for Baby

[LaL 418]

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..

you are contradicting yourself here. you say it's just one component, yet rattle off a bunch of so called physical limitations.

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

defer her deployment for several months - and relieve her commander for idiotic decisions.

[SMR 368]

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.

I definitely agree she made the right choice but only after making a series of wrong choices that put her in a situation where even the right choice had serious consequences. Per my original post, she should be thrown out of the army. I understand that things don't always work out the way you want them to but when you make commitments and then make choices that put you in a situation that make those commitments mutually exclusive, it's your fault.

Maybe she didn't plan to be in this situation, but that's a lack of planning and seeing how her choices would add up. She joined the army, had sex, had a child, kept the child, and submitted a dependent care plan that she, better than anyone else, should have known was a bad plan. Why should the army be required to accept or refuse a plan? She should be required to submit a plan that would work.

People don't wake up in the army with a child and no plan to deal with the intersection of the two. I don't know how she got there, but I'm pretty sure she made some dumb choices on the way.

[caybee 21]

They are more of a capture risk and has been pointed out, most of them can't open their own pickles.

I open the pickles in my family.

[newlyweds 0]

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..

you are contradicting yourself here. you say it's just one component, yet rattle off a bunch of so called physical limitations.

well obviously I just think it's discriminatory for us women to be called weaker, yes, there are just physical limitations but not weaker.. and that's the opinion i am entitled to

They are more of a capture risk and has been pointed out, most of them can't open their own pickles.

I open the pickles in my family.

lol

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

defer her deployment for several months - and relieve her commander for idiotic decisions.

That's why I like you, Chuck. You're a good man with common sense.

[NickD 203]

Certainly some hard line views on this subject, but on the other hand, women fraught for the ERA and now have the right to give their life for their country, or have it taken away. What complicates matters, is that we are not fighting a conventional war, but more of an idea, and in particular a religion that extends far beyond the borders of Afghanistan and Iraq. And we are paying those that are for us and killing those that our against us even making more enemies in the process.

And what is in hell is congress doing about this? Not a damn thing, leaving this critical decision to one guy, and this one guy is just as incompetent as the guy before him that started all this mess.

Granted, I have a very negative view on this subject as got stuck in a undeclared war that as far as I am concerned only made government contractors rich. Those two girls I know of were classmates of my daughter, were promised $25,000 for college and some weekend duty in the NG and from poor families that couldn't afford college. Step daughter wanted to join, talked her out of it, sure enough, her two classmates were shipped to Iraq with the absolute minimum training, about eleven weeks of it. That in itself is a crime and lies from our government. We have these Harvard idiots running this country that really don't know hardship or their a$$ from a hole in the ground.

But today we have the ERA so no discrimination against sex, guess I am old fashion in this respect where men protect their women. But what disturbs me most is that we have leadership that does not know what in the hell they are doing, no defined goals. The third girl I know is a relative, had special skills the service is looking for, an a high aptitude, she was pulled out of that school, send to Texas for a seven week MP training course, and shipped to Iraq. We have a very desperate government. Going to Harvard with a rich daddy was means for our present leadership to avoid VN, that is criminal in my opinion. Harvard teaches nothing but BS that Americans are too stupid to distinguish.

[SMR 368]

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..

you are contradicting yourself here. you say it's just one component, yet rattle off a bunch of so called physical limitations.

He didn't contradict himself. He stated that weakness wasn't the only reason. He listed other physical reasons that don't necessarily fall under the general tent of weakness, especially if by weakness he meant the narrow definition of smaller muscles. PMS isn't physical weakness even in a broad sense.

At the most, he didn't elaborate on other, non-physical reasons that women shouldn't be deployed. That isn't a contradiction, just a lack of elaboration.

[LaL 418]

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..

you are contradicting yourself here. you say it's just one component, yet rattle off a bunch of so called physical limitations.

He didn't contradict himself. He stated that weakness wasn't the only reason. He listed other physical reasons that don't necessarily fall under the general tent of weakness, especially if by weakness he meant the narrow definition of smaller muscles. PMS isn't physical weakness even in a broad sense.

At the most, he didn't elaborate on other, non-physical reasons that women shouldn't be deployed. That isn't a contradiction, just a lack of elaboration.

sure, ok

[nane1104 146]

I feel for her as a mother but I don't get why she just didn't show up to her departure, knowing what kind of trouble she would get into.

She had a careplan for her son in place, it just didn't work out when her mom became overwhelmed.

Sounds a little crazy to me because they should have known that caring for the 10 months old baby would be to much for the grandma.

There are many single parents in the armed forces who have to figure out what to with their kids during deployments.

Army and AF are getting better at helping these parents out as far as maybe delaying deployments until a caregiver is found, so I don't understand why she didn't sit down with her mom and really talk about the situation and when they figured out it would be to much and there was no other familymember there to help out, inform her commander immediately.

I don't think she should be discharged but she is probably going to lose some rank and some pay for not showing up.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

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.

Why can't the military make concessions for mothers with infant children, to keep them stateside so they can be with their child? It's neither practical nor reasonable to deploy them under such circumstances.

[nowhereman 1]

defer her deployment for several months - and relieve her commander for idiotic decisions.

I agree the commander (probably the Company Commander or Battalion Commander) threw gas on the fire by having her arrested. If I was the commander I would have done two things: consult a JAG & get the commander's intent from higher.

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

defer her deployment for several months - and relieve her commander for idiotic decisions.

That's why I like you, Chuck. You're a good man with common sense.

this situation isn't unusual. it happens from time to time. having an idiotic commander makes matters worse every time though. probably the only reason anyone would follow that alleged "leader" would be out of sheer fascination and interest in what he/she might screw up next.

Edited November 17, 2009 by charles!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

defer her deployment for several months - and relieve her commander for idiotic decisions.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Per my original post, she should be thrown out of the army. I understand that things don't always work out the way you want them to but when you make commitments and then make choices that put you in a situation that make those commitments mutually exclusive, it's your fault.

Per the AP article, the Army would appear to disagree with you:

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."