Could/Should the Army require a female to have an embedded Contraceptive, such as a Norplant, to serve in traditional male MOSs? Edited

SSG Timothy McCoy — Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:08:16 -0500

SMA Daly has addressed the Non-deployable, and with the females being augmented to SF ODA as their role direct them, and the many, many discussions about women in other international armies, (ie Israel Defense Forces, Belize Defense Forces) being in a Direct Actions units, "would this dog Hunt"? Would this help with hygiene?

EDITED for clarification,

This might be better to be filed under " just because I can, doesn't mean I should", post this question. This was posted after a conversation with my wife about her experience in the Army while in a "field" environment.

I was only thinking of a strictly Tactical frame of mind.

I have served in Co-ed units ie. Air Defense. The Hygiene question seemed to always be an issue for the other female team members. During PCIs and layouts prior to going on Field Training Exercises, I was the hard NCO that required as per the packing, to have them take their choice of "Fem Hygiene Produces". Invariably women in other sections and Platoons would forget and come a running to us to get help from "my Girls".

As for women bashing in the Military, I DIDN'T then and CAN Not and WILL Not stand for that kind of crap in my presents, even today while as a Vet. I have always enjoy the Female Perspective on any issue that could be discussed calmly. Case in point, I had a Asst Team Leader, she thought so far out of the box she wasn't in the warehouse as the rest of us. I raised quit a large glass of Scotch when I hear that the SF teams and MP patrols were taking women with them. As I understand it, things got better down range as the Iraqi and Afghan women would talk to the US Female Solders before speaking to the males.

We are fighting DASH, and not each other, (less the inter- service rivalry). The one thing that DASH is fearing the most having their lives taken by a Jewish Female, as they won't get to the Jihadi Paradise. So I am all in favor of having females in combat line units, to give them an psychological combat edge, as long as the standards won't be lowered.

So I apologize for pushing any Hot Button issues that I may have, I wasn't attempting to start a RP Storm.

Tim
TSgt Hunter Logan, Maj Kim Patterson, SSG Selwyn Bodley, @SSG Don Maggart, COL Mike Walton

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Nov 26 at 2015 3:27 PM

MSgt Curtis Ellis — Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:27:52 -0500

No. Without going into the medical, ethical and everything else that would be wrong with this, the bottom line is, either you trust your soldiers, male or female, to have your back and make the right decisions, or you don't.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 26 at 2015 3:45 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:45:25 -0500

I don't think we should make any decisions for them. I honestly don't want to make any decisions until we have women in the field who the Army can get feedback from as to what problems they are facing and how we can fix them. To make preemptive decisions before then would be uninformed and to be honest a little paternalistic.

Response by 1SG Jacob Baty made Nov 26 at 2015 4:24 PM

1SG Jacob Baty — Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:24:16 -0500

They aren't dogs. The women being placed in those positions are quite capable of managing their own bodies.

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Nov 26 at 2015 5:35 PM

Capt Mark Strobl — Thu, 26 Nov 2015 17:35:28 -0500

Mandated contraception?! WTH, over. I'd support this if all the men were required to get a vasectomy. That way, it'd all be "equal." Or, how 'bout we teach our service members to behave professionally --to include keeping their ****s in their pants?

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 26 at 2015 7:52 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Nov 2015 19:52:33 -0500

Absolutely not. Women and men serve together now side by side And we don't require it. The nasty is gonna happen, without a doubt, it's gonna be issue over and over... Just like it currently is.
Firstly birth control. Implants, pills, IUD, depo... whatever other magic methods are out there.. Vary in tolerability from female to female. Usually women trying differant ones to find out what works best with them. That's the beautiful thing about modern medicine and America. Freedom of choice. They also have the choice to not use any type of contraceptive for whatever reason they hold personally.

This makes about as much sense as having all the males wear condoms as part of the uniform.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 26 at 2015 10:10 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:10:34 -0500

"Would it help with hygiene?" Are you asking if stopping a woman from having her period would help with hygiene? If this is the question, I think it's dependent on the individual, the same as hygiene with men.
Require - no
Offer as an option - yes

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Nov 26 at 2015 10:16 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:16:40 -0500

No, If they cannot be trusted in the jobs, don't put them there in the first place.

Response by Maj Kim Patterson made Nov 27 at 2015 3:32 AM

Maj Kim Patterson — Fri, 27 Nov 2015 03:32:36 -0500

Absolutely not. This is akin to saying that castrating all men would help the sexual harassment situation. Or, we could place Norplant in both male and female troops. That would make it equivalent, wouldn't it? My down vote is because of the insulting nature of this question.

When I became pregnant with my first child, the policy was for women to leave the service. There were no maternity uniforms. The women that wore the first ones that were my friends are now wearing two or more stars. Mothers are deploying everywhere and doing a phenomenal job. As are fathers.

Hygiene? Really?

Response by Sgt Spencer Sikder made Nov 27 at 2015 9:00 AM

Sgt Spencer Sikder — Fri, 27 Nov 2015 09:00:48 -0500

NO! WTH???

Response by SGT David T. made Nov 27 at 2015 9:29 AM

SGT David T. — Fri, 27 Nov 2015 09:29:21 -0500

I am firmly opposed to any action that takes away the rights of the individual based on gender. This would be similar to forcing male Soldiers to get vasectomies to be in coed units. This idea is wrong morally and legally.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Nov 27 at 2015 11:53 AM

LTC Jason Mackay — Fri, 27 Nov 2015 11:53:27 -0500

No. Aside from other moral and ethical reasons : I look at our non-availables each month, in a support unit that is 40 percent female, and pregnancy is Among the lowest categories. We are even low by comparison in the Division. It is lower than most other causes. 3A and 3B medicals are the highest. It would solve a non-problem. OBTW, all your multiple choice votes assume replies agree with implanting contraception.

There are all kinds of reproductively irresponsible people out there, civilian and military. Male and female. I highly doubt that women volunteering for combat arms will leverage pregnancy at any higher rates than other career fields to shirk deployment. The soldiers that do this now also are the ones who self select for a chapter 6. These do not happen in droves. In a little under 22 years, 5 of those in command, I have seen probably less than 50. If it were an epidemic, the services would stop separating service members for lesser causes such as RCP, weight control and PT failures to offset losses.

Response by SGM Robin Johnson made Nov 27 at 2015 12:26 PM

SGM Robin Johnson — Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:26:15 -0500

Qu'est-ce que f*????? And from someone whose most oft used 'curse' word is 'rat-butts'... You really piqued my ire with this one.
First, the rates of pregnancy just aren't as high as you seem to think, to warrant such a draconian measure. Everyone has their stories about the women who got pregnant to avoid deployment or the many women who had to be sent home from deployment because of pregnancy. But when you actually look at the data you know that either many of these are apocryphal stories like all the 2LTs shoved out of barracks in wall lockers in the post-Vietnam era, or they are all talking about the same small group of women. Because the percentages are very small. We might as well talk about the men who shoot themselves to avoid deployment, or who become nondeployable because they are caught juicing and are caught up in the surrounding medical and legal trouble around illegal use of steroids.
Second, Soldiers become deployable for all KINDS of medical reasons. Why target this one? Should we make Soldiers give up basketball when they go into the infantry? Because basketball injuries make a lot more Soldiers temporarily nondeployable than do pregnancies. And before you talk about the benefits of basketball, don't make me go there about the benefits of the sex that leads to pregnancy, or the health benefits of pregnancy itself to females.
Third, females aren't getting pregnant by themselves while deployed. While the female Soldier may be the one showing the obvious symptoms, TWO Soldiers created the nondeployable situation, TWO Soldiers had the opportunity to stop it (and the male Soldier more easily, in most cases), and yet ONE Soldier bears the stigma, the career consequences, and often the life-long responsibility for the result of their actions. So stop blaming the entire pregnancy on the female.
Last, we don't make ANY Soldier 'prove' they won't become nondeployable in order to get into an MOS. There is no such guarantee. The real issue, in my opinion, is that people are looking for a justification for their desire to keep women out of traditionally male jobs. As a woman who was in one of the first MOS-producing classes integrating an MOS that was opened to women back in the 80s, and who was for a LONG time the only or one of two females (other than in office jobs) in my unit, I know what that is like. I can tell you that in reality, when you can do the job it becomes a non-issue, other than for the men who are threatened when you outperform them. To the men who are so threatened, I would say: suck it up, Buttercup, women are going to do the job, and SOME will do it better than SOME men. They will get over it and in twenty years this discussion will be cited as an example of what idiocy people went through over their insecurity when women 'invaded' the combat arms.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Nov 27 at 2015 12:38 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:38:37 -0500

Should be available to all that want it. Just as the variety of sterilization/BC methods available to males. Bad idea for a bunch of reasons.

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Nov 27 at 2015 1:03 PM

CMSgt James Nolan — Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:03:32 -0500

There needs to be a 5th check box called "Ridiculous".

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 27 at 2015 1:05 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:05:58 -0500

No. No. And No. Unplanned pregnancy is the least of the problems that a unit is going to have integrating female troops. I'm not a fan of integrated combat arms, but if it's going to be done, the biggest issue is going to be making troops SOLDIERS, not "female soldier" or "male soldier." This would do nothing to remedy the situation.

Response by MSgt Michelle Mondia made Nov 27 at 2015 1:59 PM

MSgt Michelle Mondia — Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:59:58 -0500

Because of the potential for sexual promiscuity and risk of pregnancies? Or for the benefit of the cessation of menstral periods? The third world tries to control these things through genital mutilation. Why are men always trying to control woman gynecological activities? For what other reason would this be discussed?