My Letter in the Army Times
Jan. 7th, 2010 02:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
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
no subject
Date: 2010-01-07 09:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-08 04:44 am (UTC)I was a little disappointed myself.
DV
no subject
Date: 2010-01-07 09:55 pm (UTC)Hooray for getting published, but ack, they really did take out the good bits.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-08 04:45 am (UTC)I know.
DV
no subject
Date: 2010-01-07 10:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-08 04:52 am (UTC)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
no subject
Date: 2010-01-07 10:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-08 04:57 am (UTC)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
no subject
Date: 2010-01-07 11:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-08 05:02 am (UTC)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
no subject
Date: 2010-01-07 11:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-08 05:05 am (UTC)Thanks.
DV
no subject
Date: 2010-01-07 11:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-08 05:07 am (UTC)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
no subject
Date: 2010-01-08 12:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-08 05:11 am (UTC)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
no subject
Date: 2010-01-08 02:03 pm (UTC)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. :-/
no subject
Date: 2010-01-08 04:18 pm (UTC)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)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
no subject
Date: 2010-01-08 03:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-08 05:26 am (UTC)Thanks for the support.
DV
no subject
Date: 2010-01-08 03:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-08 05:27 am (UTC)Thanks. It felt good, although I wish they had published more of the letter.
DV