Women issues

[Hozer]

I don't buy the shore gig as the time to have kids either. It's too competitive now. If you're a female and have kids, you're done.

You've got so many more wickets to go through before you can deploy, approved family care plan, spouse co-lo and timing issues.

Oh, and the NAVADMIN that says pregnancy cannot be used adversely against an individual? Yeah, right. The detailer and placement officer are all about timing and gates. You're late? These days, you can forget it.

 

[Flash]

I don't buy the shore gig as the time to have kids either. It's too competitive now. If you're a female and have kids, you're done.

You've got so many more wickets to go through before you can deploy, approved family care plan, spouse co-lo and timing issues.

Oh, and the NAVADMIN that says pregnancy cannot be used adversely against an individual? Yeah, right. The detailer and placement officer are all about timing and gates. You're late? These days, you can forget it.

I disagree with on two counts. First, the pendulum is swinging one way right now in the Navy, but it doesn't mean it will alway sswing in that direction. In my short time in the Navy I have seen it swing one whole cylce, from having too many people to having way too few and then back again. Once the current round of 'rightsizing' draws down and the airlines get more and more desperate as the bab boomers retire from the cockpits the Navy might find itself desperate to keep aviators like it was in the late 90's and pre-9/11.

As for the second one about having kids as a female and yor career is done? That might be the case but never underestimate the determination of some people suceed, or the Navy's desire to go to extra lengths to ensure that mothers making a career as an officer have every opportunity to do so.

 

[Brett327]

I disagree with on two counts. First, the pendulum is swinging one way right now in the Navy, but it doesn't mean it will alway sswing in that direction. In my short time in the Navy I have seen it swing one whole cylce, from having too many people to having way too few and then back again. Once the current round of 'rightsizing' draws down and the airlines get more and more desperate as the bab boomers retire from the cockpits the Navy might find itself desperate to keep aviators like it was in the late 90's and pre-9/11.

As for the second one about having kids as a female and yor career is done? That might be the case but never underestimate the determination of some people suceed, or the Navy's desire to go to extra lengths to ensure that mothers making a career as an officer have every opportunity to do so.

It would be interesting to see what percentage of female COs have kids and at what point in their careers they had them. For the record, I think you should have to sign a Pg 13 that says that if you get pregnant while in a deployable status (or initial accession training), you'll be subject to some kind of disciplinary action or involuntary separation. If you're going to insist on cranking out carbon copies of yourself, do it on shore duty. If you're not responsible enough to control your own reproductive system, then you have no business being a war-fighter.

Brett

 

[Hozer]

I disagree with on two counts. First, the pendulum is swinging one way right now in the Navy, but it doesn't mean it will alway sswing in that direction. In my short time in the Navy I have seen it swing one whole cylce...

Fair enough. In my twenty years, it's become only more difficult to stay competitive. Tough billets, overseas, perhaps terminating a shore tour early to jump on a tough job to break out, war college, IA's, jpme...these are becoming the norm. I doubt the pendulum you speak of is going "the other way".
I'm sure you are senior enough to be working on manning documents that have been going around the fleet lately. We're headed for a RIF. The previous T-notch may have increased promotion rates mildly but it stayed within the established +/- parameters because the lineal pool was adjusted.

For the record, I think you should have to sign a Pg 13 that says that if you get pregnant while in a deployable status (or initial accession training), you'll be subject to some kind of disciplinary action or involuntary separation.

Detailers practically invoke that language when counseling an individual when the topic of pregnancy comes up. I'm just one guy, but I've seen it first hand.

It would be interesting to see what percentage of female COs have kids

You'll never see that stat because it's miniscule and renders the NAVADMIN impotent (no pun).

That might be the case but never underestimate the determination of some people suceed,

BuPers is very determined too. I've seen the most driven female pilot (EP, IP, MC, etc) ostracized and ultimately driven out after having 2 kids at the end of her dis-a sea tour, and her husband was an flag aide for a CSG CO (2-star frocked). No help. She was too late for her DH tour gate, behind her year group and now considered a non-player. This all occurred after being s-hot through two tours and going to the boat.
Obviously, one example is just that. I've seen much more. I stick to my admittedly harsh generalization until Brett finds those stats to prove otherwise.

 

[Brett327]

I stick to my admittedly harsh generalization until Brett finds those stats to prove otherwise.

We're on the same side here, hot rod.

Brett

 

[Cate]

I had to jump into this, just for a second, because I could hear Brett thinking at me really loudly.

I actually think that other than intellect and intellectual capacity, men and women are NOT equal. Our bodies are different and the way we handle ourselves due to hormones is different as well. I am a woman and will never be a man nor do I want to pretend to be a man while doing a so called man's job. I actually think that unless it involves me having to physically compete against a man, I can do anything a guy can as well.

Let's not conflate "different" with "unequal." Women are different from men, dogs are different from cats, men are different from other men - having differences does not make one inherently unequal. I'm pretty sure that's what you meant anyway, but I wanted to make that clarification, because words have meaning and these particular words have particularly loaded meaning.

My fiancee is quite aware of the possible job duties as well as my mother and his mother. I'm just lucky to have great people to back me up whenever necessary. The whole parenting thing and neglecting one or the other can go for anyone in the military including non-aviators and both sexes. A man can't dedicate all of his time to one and not the other so I think the dilemma is the same for both sexes don't you think? So shouldn't the "having your cake and eating it too" apply to everyone? If this is the case should all parents be kicked out since they will most likely be neglecting their job?

As a civilian (and why the hell am I getting into this? Because it's my way), I can't speak to women being mothers and aviators at the same time, but I know that plenty of men and women successfully manage simultaneous parenthood and military service. That's raising kids. Raising kids just means having a husband who's open to a nontraditional division of labor where he's doing the bear's load of the childcare. You're talking about making kids, which is an entirely different animal. Making kids involves nine months of hard labor followed by several months of intensive maintenance and permanent changes to your body, and that may or may not be conducive to your chosen career.

If what you want is to be a Naval aviator and a parent, it appears that plenty of people here and elsewhere are, with effort, having that cake and eating it. If what you want is to be a Naval aviator and have a baby, you may end up having to choose one or the other. Fair? Life isn't. Working on that, though.

 

[scoober78]

Let's not conflate "different" with "unequal." Women are different from men, dogs are different from cats, men are different from other men - having differences does not make one inherently unequal. I'm pretty sure that's what you meant anyway, but I wanted to make that clarification, because words have meaning and these particular words have particularly loaded meaning.

First, that is precisely what unequal means....From Webster..."Not the same in any measurable respect"

Let's not twist word definitions because of what we want them to mean. Being different, in fact, does make you unequal.

That said, I see your point. The answer comes from valuing the things that make women different from men equally...not trying to minimize those differences by word play.

 

[Cate]

First, that is precisely what unequal means....From Webster..."Not the same in any measurable respect"

Let's not twist word definitions because of what we want them to mean. Being different, in fact, does make you unequal.

That said, I see your point. The answer comes from valuing the things that make women different from men equally...not trying to minimize those differences by word play.

Also from Webster:

1 a: not of the same measurement, quantity, or number as another b: not like or not the same as another in degree, worth, or status
2: not uniform : variable, uneven
3 a: badly balanced or matched <an unequal contest> b: contracted between unequals <unequal marriages> carchaic : not equable
4 archaic : not equitable : unjust
5: inadequate, insufficient <unequal to the task>

If you think that men and women aren't the same in any measurable respect, I've got some biology, psychology, anatomy, sociology, and anthropology books to pile on you. If you think that men and women are inherently not like or not the same as another in degree, worth, or status, I've got some big, heavy rocks with lots of pointy bits to pile on you.

Like I said, words have meaning and these particular words have particularly loaded meaning.

 

[scoober78]

If you think that men and women aren't the same in any measurable respect, I've got some biology, psychology, anatomy, sociology, and anthropology books to pile on you. If you think that men and women are inherently not like or not the same as another in degree, worth, or status, I've got some big, heavy rocks with lots of pointy bits to pile on you.

I think in this case any is being used like this... Not the same in "even one" measurable respect....

as opposed to "Not the same in "all" respects.

 

[phrogpilot73]

b: not like or not the same as another in degree, worth, or status

Like I said, words have meaning and these particular words have particularly loaded meaning.

And words have multiple meanings. Nice how you default to the loaded meaning of the word.

Dissecting defintion 1b, you can argue that men and women are not equal in the degree of physiology (women can have babies, men can't) or physical performance (the average women is not as strong as the average man). So therefore, women and men are not the same as one another in multiple degrees. Hence, men and women aren't equal. They are different as well. But they can work equal jobs, have equal rights, are entitled to equal pay, etc...

 

[Fred]

It would be interesting to see what percentage of female COs have kids and at what point in their careers they had them.
Brett

The first and thus far only female Hornet CO is Sara Joyner. I think her and her husband Bud, have two kids now, I know she had one while on her shore tour between Dept Head and XO/CO. Her husband is, or was as of last year, also active duty. She is definitely the exception to the rule. The biological clock and in turn motherhood is the reason the Navy, now matter how hard it tires, will never be able to retain females at the numbers desired.

 

[Cate]

And words have multiple meanings. Nice how you default to the loaded meaning of the word.

Dissecting defintion 1b, you can argue that men and women are not equal in the degree of physiology (women can have babies, men can't) or physical performance (the average women is not as strong as the average man). So therefore, women and men are not the same as one another in multiple degrees. Hence, men and women aren't equal. They are different as well. But they can work equal jobs, have equal rights, are entitled to equal pay, etc...

I didn't default to any meaning. I provided all five of them, and for all five, women don't qualify as unequal to men any more than one man qualifies as unequal to another. Yes, women can have babies and men can't have babies; some men can father babies, and other men can't father babies. Yes, the average woman isn't as strong as the average man; some men are stronger than other men. Hell, some women can't have babies, and some women are stronger than some men; if we're talking purely statistical averages, we all have fewer than two legs, making us all unfit for military service.

If we're going to say that the differences between men and women are enough to make them unequal, then, in good faith, we have to also argue that the differences between one man and another make them unequal, a statement that Thomas Jefferson would disagree with most strenuously (were he not, y'know, dead).

(NB: While it might seem like a picky, pissy, piddly little minor distinction, it's also an important one, as, rhetorically, "different" is generally used to describe variations in substance while "unequal" is generally used to describe variations in value. And that has been, historically, enough to deprive women of the right to vote, the right to work, equitable pay for the same job, legal protection against certain crimes, etc. See also: the civil rights movement.)

Let's see, April, plus six months... Yes, it is time for our Semiannual He-Man Woman Haters/Ball-Busting Man-Hating Feminists Debate and Barbecue Cook-Off, isn't it.

 

[phrogpilot73]

I didn't default to any meaning. I provided all five of them, and for all five, women don't qualify as unequal to men any more than one man qualifies as unequal to another. Yes, women can have babies and men can't have babies; some men can father babies, and other men can't father babies. Yes, the average woman isn't as strong as the average man; some men are stronger than other men. Hell, some women can't have babies, and some women are stronger than some men; if we're talking purely statistical averages, we all have fewer than two legs, making us all unfit for military service.

If we're going to say that the differences between men and women are enough to make them unequal, then, in good faith, we have to also argue that the differences between one man and another make them unequal, a statement that Thomas Jefferson would disagree with most strenuously (were he not, y'know, dead).

Let's see, April, plus six months... Yes, it is time for our Semiannual He-Man Woman Haters/Ball-Busting Man-Hating Feminists Debate and Barbecue Cook-Off, isn't it.

Very salient argument, however I'm still going to disagree with your argument that men and women are different, but not unequal. And no, I'm not a woman hater - after all my wife is the primary bread winner...

Because words have multiple meanings, we are all free to select the appropriate meaning given the context. Based on the context of men and women not being equal with regards to competitiveness in military career while giving birth to babies/starting a family:

b: not like or not the same as another in degree, worth, or status

This is the appropriate definition to choose, based on context. So, based on context men and women aren't equal. AND unequal = different. They are interchangeable in this context.

Thomas Jefferson's statement that all men are created equal, taken in context applies to the following definition:

4 archaic : not equitable : unjust

So what you did was select the metric that best suited your argument, rather than compare similar metrics. Similar to comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Cate]

Because words have multiple meanings, we are all free to select the appropriate meaning given the context. Based on the context of men and women not being equal with regards to competitiveness in military career while giving birth to babies/starting a family...

Is not an issue of definition, but of context. You could say that a pregnant woman's likelihood of succeeding at an aviation career is unequal to that of a man's, and you'd be absolutely correct, but that's not the same thing as saying that the woman is unequal to the man. You're saying that their chances are unequal. And their chances are unequal because of circumstance (i.e. pregnancy, the nature of the aviation pipeline, etc.), not because of their physiological sex indicators.

And I know you're not a woman-hater, Guy On The Private Spouses Corner. That was a little joke about the fact that somehow, we manage to get into a debate about gender equality and women in the military every six months. It's almost scary how regularly the issue comes up.

 

[Rugger]

anecdotally...

There is a female PXO for the Hawkeye community... no kids (yet ), married to another aviator.

There was at least one East Coast HC female skipper with kids (had them prior to command) married to another officer (also on the command track in another community), and at least one without kids or a spouse during her command tour.

There was an HT skipper who had kids both prior to and during her command tour. Don't know what her spousal unit does.

I think USNA Commandant (E6a type)is married, but not sure about her kid-let status.

There are also a handful of 04 and O5 chick aviator types running around in various stages of couple-dom and parenthood, some will stay in, and some won't. I know there are not as many Marine female aviators, and I don't think any have screened for command (yet). There was a MALS CO who is female and married to another Marine.

So, it looks like it runs the gamut, but all these women are the exception rather than the rule. I know more way more than 6 women aviators who got out to do something else so they could have kids and be a mom. At least one hornet pilot is a mom and still flies in the reserves. Not sure exactly when the kid-making occurred for any of these moms, but I'll wager it was at least AFTER their first sea tours.

BTW, the biological clock is the reason any profession which requires a lot of time, dedication, etc (the military, medicine, law, research, rodeo clown, etc) will not retain women at the numbers desired. We (regardless of sex) all have different priorities and make choices (and sacrifices) accordingly.

Cheers -
Rugger (unfortunately not a rodeo clown...)