desertvixen: (SFC)
[personal profile] desertvixen

 They did print my response to Single Female Soldiers Getting Pregnant Destroys Government Property.

 Part of it, anyway.  (I know, I know, they reserve the right to edit, but ... they sort of pulled my letter's teeth.)

 My letter is under the cut, with the parts printed in the Times in bold.


 

In response to the letter by SSG Lambert (‘Discriminating Against Dads’), I have to say how disappointing it is to see an NCO expressing not only a sexist attitude, but wrong information as well.  Female Soldiers do not get pregnant for “extra uniforms” or “tennis shoes”, and we do not get “months of convalescent leave”.  Female Soldiers get pregnant for the same reason as other women – because they want to have a child, because they have a birth control failure, because they want to. 

As for the “outright ridiculous” claims you make in your letter, perhaps you should check your facts first.  Female Soldiers are issued extra uniforms, but these uniforms are not ours to keep – and they cannot be worn except during pregnancy.  We don’t get issued tennis shoes either, but some women are given a tennis shoe profile to prevent complications from swelling.  The Army does not give female Soldiers “months of convalescent leave” – it is six weeks.  Soldiers may opt to take more leave if approved by their command, but the extra leave is ordinary leave.  Female Soldiers are exempt from the APFT standards for six months after giving birth, but this is to give them time to get back into shape after pregnancy and childbirth.  It is a recovery period, just the same as an injured Soldier would receive.  It is necessary, and I assure you – it is not relaxing.  It is hard work, and it does take time.

The worst part of your letter, however, was the part where you want to discriminate against female Soldiers based on your moral grounds.  The Army does not distinguish between a single female Soldier and a female Soldier who is part of a dual-military marriage – both must receive counseling,  both must have a family care plan, and both must be prepared to deploy.  Your suggestion that single female Soldiers who become pregnant “out of wedlock” should be subject to UCMJ action is discriminatory.  I also wonder whether you would support the same UCMJ action for male Soldiers who impregnate single female Soldiers – after all, it does take two.  Instead, you blame the female Soldier. 

You also mention overhearing female Soldiers say they won’t deploy because they are pregnant.  They will not be deployed while they are pregnant, and for six months afterwards.  This is Army policy.  However, being a mother does not exempt you from deployment.  If these female Soldiers truly believed what they said, the joke will be on them. 

I am a senior NCO and a single mother (through divorce), and I am tired of all female Soldiers having to deal with the negative acts of a few female Soldiers being used against all of us.  “Everyone knows” that one female Soldier who got pregnant to get out of being deployed, but that one Soldier does not represent all of us.  I agree that SPC Hutchinson should either get her family care plan together, or be chaptered from the Army.  I don’t agree that her situation should be used against the rest of us.

Respectfully, SFC Danielle Hart

Fort Huachuca, AZ

DV

 

Date: 2010-01-07 09:45 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cynthia1960.livejournal.com
Grrr, argh, they did pull your teeth, damn it.

Date: 2010-01-08 04:44 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] desert-vixen.livejournal.com

I was a little disappointed myself.

DV

Date: 2010-01-07 09:55 pm (UTC)
ext_88369: (Default)
From: [identity profile] raeyn.livejournal.com

Hooray for getting published, but ack, they really did take out the good bits.

Date: 2010-01-08 04:45 am (UTC)

Date: 2010-01-07 10:28 pm (UTC)
shadowcat: (Default)
From: [personal profile] shadowcat
My goddess! What they did print made it sound like a completely different letter than what you had written. It made it miss the point completely.

Date: 2010-01-08 04:52 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] desert-vixen.livejournal.com

I know. It turned into Pregnancy Facts 101, although they did keep the last line about why female soldiers get pregnant.

Welcome, btw - I friended you back!

DV

Date: 2010-01-07 10:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gi-janearng.livejournal.com
Did you email them and ask why they edited it? I sure would grill them about day and night and I wouldn't be one damn bit surprised if it was a bunch of men that were doing the editing too. :/

Date: 2010-01-08 04:57 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] desert-vixen.livejournal.com

I sent them a polite email this evening expressing my curiosity.

The section has male and female names, and the senior editor is (I would guess from the spelling) female.

I have a suspicion that they didn't want to print something that seems aimed at personally responding to the guy's original letters, but he basically bashed on female soldiers in general, and that was okay.

DV

Date: 2010-01-07 11:33 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] katyblue.livejournal.com
Yeah, they def pulled the meat out of it. I like your argument about the OP's "moral grounds" and the part about not using a couple of sheisty soldiers t represent the entire female Army population at large. I'm freaking sick of it too. I'm not even a mom. However, in my opinion, it is way more acceptable to see single NCOs and officers pregnant than jr enlisted. You may not agree with that, but everytime I see a single jr enlisted soldier pregnant I inwardly cringe at her representation of female army soldiers.

Date: 2010-01-08 05:02 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] desert-vixen.livejournal.com

Thanks!

I worry about the junior enlisted, but it's because they seem to have the most problems and the least effective support systems.

DV

Date: 2010-01-07 11:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] garpu.livejournal.com
Argh. :( It's a good letter, though.

Date: 2010-01-08 05:05 am (UTC)

Date: 2010-01-07 11:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kishiriadgr.livejournal.com
Why'd they remove the last paragraph from the end, I wonder?

Date: 2010-01-08 05:07 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] desert-vixen.livejournal.com

I don't know, unless they thought it was too personal. But the original letter had his whole situation, so that doesn't make sense.

I also didn't like that they ditched this (As for the “outright ridiculous” claims you make in your letter, perhaps you should check your facts first.) because the quote was from his letter.

I emailed but no idea if I'll get an answer.

DV

Date: 2010-01-08 12:17 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] melody1228.livejournal.com
Why did they edit it at all? I could see them being allowed to edit it if it violated OPSEC, but it doesn't. If it was an issue with the number of words, they should have contacted you and asked you to do your own editing and resubmit. That's been the policy at the newpapers I've worked at...

Date: 2010-01-08 05:11 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] desert-vixen.livejournal.com

They do say they reserve the right to edit for space and content. But considering that they ran it under a picture of SPC Hutchinson that was roughly the same size as the letter, I'm doubting it was for space.

I have a suspicion it might have been viewed as a personal attack.

DV

Date: 2010-01-08 02:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tygerr.livejournal.com
That's my guess--either they viewed it a personal attack, or else they were concerned that IdiotBoy (the original letter writer) would do so and they'd wind up with a flamewar. (The latter possibility, in my view, would be cause to edit the NEXT letter in the chain rather than this one, but....)

Still, even stipulating that the above is valid, ISTM that a bit of judicious editing with a rather lighter hand could've taken care of that and still left the meat of your reply intact, rather than the wholesale gutting they did. :-/

Date: 2010-01-08 04:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] desert-vixen.livejournal.com

It's kind of irritating, because this guy got to have his say, and I got reduced to facts about pregnancy. I did make an attempt to keep the letter as neutral as possible, but to me, HIS letter wasn't neutral either.

But yes, a slightly lighter hand on editing (replacing YOUR with THE) could have preserved the actual point of the letter.

DV

Picture Size

Date: 2010-01-08 04:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] desert-vixen.livejournal.com

I can't edit the comment since it's been replied to, but I looked again this morning and the picture is actually bigger than the letter.

DV

Date: 2010-01-08 03:30 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rockahulababy.livejournal.com
That is seriously frustrating. On the one hand, it's nice that they printed your letter, but the completely changed the tone and direction of it by editing most of it out. I get that they sort of have to, but there could have been some way for them to include portions of the last two paragraphs, as well, because there was really good stuff in them. (I particularly like where you ponder what he thinks should happen to male Soldiers who impregnate female Soldiers under the UCMJland he lives in.)

Date: 2010-01-08 05:26 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] desert-vixen.livejournal.com

Thanks for the support.

DV

Date: 2010-01-08 03:53 am (UTC)
ext_76: Picture of Britney Spears in leather pants, on top of a large ball (Default)
From: [identity profile] norabombay.livejournal.com
Argh about the editing, but I'm glad that you wrote them.

Date: 2010-01-08 05:27 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] desert-vixen.livejournal.com

Thanks. It felt good, although I wish they had published more of the letter.

DV

Profile

desertvixen: (Default)
desertvixen

May 2025

S M T W T F S
    123
45678 9 10
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 25th, 2025 01:34 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios
OSZAR »