• Josh Taylor

    I’m glad in this time of sequestration we have the funds to make special body armor for women & have the extra room on ships for their latrines & berths while we try & figure out where we’ll find the space for the cooling units for our new radar, lasers,& railguns. All the while accomadating longer pregnancy leaves & extra day care centers & gyms for them to get their bodies back in shape & the extra man power to do their jobs while they recuperate & the extra fuel to fly them off ship for pregnancy & to deliever the make up, hair coloring, maxis, & tampons to PX all over the world because diversity is valuable only SecNav Mabus has difficulty explaining what those benefits would be but as u can c from my post they r many.

  • RamboMoose

    I’m very much for having — and keeping — more women in our Navy and Marine Corps. But, we advocates need to be careful to not shoot ourselves (and each other) in the foot with excessively generous, counter-productive family-oriented policies. Lengthening of maternity leave from 6 to 12 weeks, as proposed by the Secretary of the Navy, seemingly has not been fully scrutinized under “The Law of Unintended (bad) Consequences.” We can’t say on the one hand, “Women can serve as well as men — perhaps better in some ways — and they should be given the same opportunities to do so,” then endorse the expansion of gender-specific personnel policies (in this instance, a 100% increase in a targeted benefit) that demonstrate, fuel, and support the opposing argument. Of course, extended maternity leave is a very appealing institutional “hug” that requires no additional funding in the budget — mothers in the military on maternity leave get paid whether they are serving on duty or nurturing their newborn(s) at home. However, when it all gets said and done, when any sailor or Marine who is a valued member of a unit is away from performing their primary duty, the only ones who really must “fund” and provide for their absence (through longer hours, working harder, more frequent deployments, increased stress at work and at home) are the remaining sailors and Marines with whom the policy’s intended beneficiary most closely serves. Taking-up the slack for someone for 6-weeks or 12-weeks for ANY reason (and likely on numerous occasions) is not a short duration obligation or brief inconvenience. If required often enough, whether for one or for several teammates, it could very well be what makes those who are expected to “suck it up” elect to “opt out” and NOT re-enlist/extend their commissioned service. Though conceived from good intentions, this policy, if implemented, will most certainly have a real and adverse impact over time upon a unit’s cohesion, combat readiness and mission accomplishment. Those factors must take priority — for the “greater good” of the Navy, the Marine Corps and the Nation.