Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

(CNN) -- To hear Spc. Alexis Hutchinson tell it, the Army forced her to make an agonizing choice between serving her country and taking care of her son.

The Army, however, takes issue with the soldier's story and Hutchinson could now be facing serious charges for desertion.

When her unit deployed to Afghanistan earlier in November, Hutchinson was missing from the plane. Her lawyer said she refused to go because there was no one to take care of her 10-month-old son, Kamani, and she feared he would be placed in foster care.

The Army said the young mother had plenty of time to sort out family issues and has been confined to her post at Fort Stewart, Georgia, while an investigation unfolds.

Before shipping overseas, every soldier must sign military Form D-A 53-05, which states that failure to maintain a family care plan could result in disciplinary action.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/11/18/ge ... index.html

She knew the rules. After the 1991 debacle (in which over 50% of called up reservists couldn't mobilize for one reason or another), they have been made CRYSTAL clear.

AZGrizFan wrote:She knew the rules. After the 1991 debacle (in which over 50% of called up reservists couldn't mobilize for one reason or another), they have been made CRYSTAL clear.

Yep...no sympathy whatsoever....women need to choose prior to being in the service whether they want to be a soldier/sailor or a mother....

I agree. However, if she was stop-lossed I might think differently.

I'm living that situation almost first-hand fellas. My wife's sister was stop-lossed after 10 years of active duty service and 2 years of Guard duty which was supposed to end in May (3 months before her son's 1st birthday). She was deployed in July on her 2nd tour to Iraq and her husband (a 2-tour Iraq vet himself) has been watching the baby by himself.

She understood the risk of deployment during her contractual time period and planned accordingly. Stop-lossing a young mother is a whole different story. Luckily her husband is a responsible man, but it could have been a very bad situation.

danefan wrote:I agree. However, if she was stop-lossed I might think differently.

I'm living that situation almost first-hand fellas. My wife's sister was stop-lossed after 10 years of active duty service and 2 years of Guard duty which was supposed to end in May (3 months before her son's 1st birthday). She was deployed in July on her 2nd tour to Iraq and her husband (a 2-tour Iraq vet himself) has been watching the baby by himself.

She understood the risk of deployment during her contractual time period and planned accordingly. Stop-lossing a young mother is a whole different story. Luckily her husband is a responsible man, but it could have been a very bad situation.

it is no different than stop lossing a young father and that happens frequently as well.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

danefan wrote:I agree. However, if she was stop-lossed I might think differently.

I'm living that situation almost first-hand fellas. My wife's sister was stop-lossed after 10 years of active duty service and 2 years of Guard duty which was supposed to end in May (3 months before her son's 1st birthday). She was deployed in July on her 2nd tour to Iraq and her husband (a 2-tour Iraq vet himself) has been watching the baby by himself.

She understood the risk of deployment during her contractual time period and planned accordingly. Stop-lossing a young mother is a whole different story. Luckily her husband is a responsible man, but it could have been a very bad situation.

it is no different than stop lossing a young father and that happens frequently as well.

Well, unless the father is a single father, then I think it is different. The mother-child relationship is physiological at the early stages as well as emotional. The relationship with a father is more emotional.

Maybe I'm just sexist and think that a mother is more important to a very young child than a father?

Regardless though, stop lossing anyone is ridiculous.

danefan wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: it is no different than stop lossing a young father and that happens frequently as well.

Well, unless the father is a single father, then I think it is different. The mother-child relationship is physiological at the early stages as well as emotional. The relationship with a father is more emotional.

Maybe I'm just sexist and think that a mother is more important to a very young child than a father?

Regardless though, stop lossing anyone is ridiculous.

I agree with the stop lossing. It may sound sexist but you think like I do on that front. The thing is that everybody wants all these equalities and fight against exactly those kinds of statements to get the right to do these things. When the opportunity is given and the scenario arises then they fall back on those exact arguments that were made for them not being there in those capacities so I have no more sympathy for them than I do anyone else. I try to look at everyone in this job by the same measure and I think they and we should do them the courtesy of treating them all as equals.

This is the problem with gashes in the military.

danefan wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: it is no different than stop lossing a young father and that happens frequently as well.

Well, unless the father is a single father, then I think it is different. The mother-child relationship is physiological at the early stages as well as emotional. The relationship with a father is more emotional.

Maybe I'm just sexist and think that a mother is more important to a very young child than a father?

Regardless though, stop lossing anyone is ridiculous.

Actually more and more studies are starting to show the extreme importance of a father in a childs life, especially early on. There has been a long history of people thinking that only the mothers are vital for the growth and development of a child, but that has been proven wrong on every level. Fathers are just as important to the child early in life as the mother is.

Tough titty. Military service has a down side.

houndawg wrote:Tough titty. Military service has a down side.

But according to D all we ever did was sit around and peel potatoes for $100/hr....

houndawg wrote:Tough titty. Military service has a down side.

Well if this mother gets deployed, it will be "no titty" for her son.

AZGrizFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:Tough titty. Military service has a down side.

But according to D all we ever did was sit around and peel potatoes for $100/hr....

The only time I was ever in danger was at Ft. Polk in '76 when I happened to be walking past the post theater at the exact moment a double-feature of "Mandingo" and "Shaft" was letting out.

AZGrizFan wrote:This is the problem with gashes in the military.

I've been saying it for years!

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

danefan wrote:
Well, unless the father is a single father, then I think it is different. The mother-child relationship is physiological at the early stages as well as emotional. The relationship with a father is more emotional.

Maybe I'm just sexist and think that a mother is more important to a very young child than a father?

Regardless though, stop lossing anyone is ridiculous.

I agree with the stop lossing. It may sound sexist but you think like I do on that front. The thing is that everybody wants all these equalities and fight against exactly those kinds of statements to get the right to do these things. When the opportunity is given and the scenario arises then they fall back on those exact arguments that were made for them not being there in those capacities so I have no more sympathy for them than I do anyone else. I try to look at everyone in this job by the same measure and I think they and we should do them the courtesy of treating them all as equals.

Bingo!....it can't be equality if one parent gets more consideration than another.....but I'd be willing to let it slide if women would just admit that we aren't equal....it's apples to oranges...the power of the pvssy...

Appaholic wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: I agree with the stop lossing. It may sound sexist but you think like I do on that front. The thing is that everybody wants all these equalities and fight against exactly those kinds of statements to get the right to do these things. When the opportunity is given and the scenario arises then they fall back on those exact arguments that were made for them not being there in those capacities so I have no more sympathy for them than I do anyone else. I try to look at everyone in this job by the same measure and I think they and we should do them the courtesy of treating them all as equals.

Bingo!....it can't be equality if one parent gets more consideration than another.....but I'd be willing to let it slide if women would just admit that we aren't equal....it's apples to oranges...the power of the pvssy...

True sir, and I stopped where I did instead of going into the differences aspect because you know me...I can get real detailed which sometimes comes off as a little long winded.

I doubt very seriously that a SPC has been stop-lossed. Especially a female SPC.

Appaholic wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:She knew the rules. After the 1991 debacle (in which over 50% of called up reservists couldn't mobilize for one reason or another), they have been made CRYSTAL clear.

Yep...no sympathy whatsoever....women need to choose prior to being in the service whether they want to be a soldier/sailor or a mother....

You take that one step too far, App. Nobody in the military asks ANYONE to make THAT choice. Oh, there was controversy about fifteen years ago when the Commandant of the Marine Corps tried to bar the accession of married recruits. But one doesn't know where life will lead them when they join. Remember, most people who join are fresh out of high school. If you expect them to make a decision like that at 18, you're living in a fantasy world. The idea isn't to postpone a family, it's to protect the family when it arrives. Had this chick been married or near family that cared, this wouldn't be an issue. Her unit could have foreseen this and placed her on the rear party or even processed her for an admin discharge. Yes, she screwed up. But so did her unit.

Incidentally, this isn't just a girl thing. This deployment plan is required of single fathers and dual service couples.

SuperHornet wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
Yep...no sympathy whatsoever....women need to choose prior to being in the service whether they want to be a soldier/sailor or a mother....

You take that one step too far, App. Nobody in the military asks ANYONE to make THAT choice. Oh, there was controversy about fifteen years ago when the Commandant of the Marine Corps tried to bar the accession of married recruits. But one doesn't know where life will lead them when they join. Remember, most people who join are fresh out of high school. If you expect them to make a decision like that at 18, you're living in a fantasy world. The idea isn't to postpone a family, it's to protect the family when it arrives. Had this chick been married or near family that cared, this wouldn't be an issue. Her unit could have foreseen this and placed her on the rear party or even processed her for an admin discharge. Yes, she screwed up. But so did her unit.

Incidentally, this isn't just a girl thing. This deployment plan is required of single fathers and dual service couples.

We'll agree to disagree....I see the choice of motherhood as no different than any other lifestyle choice a prospective soldier gives up upon voluntarily entering the military. What's the current minimum enlistment? 4 years? 6 years? If the avg recruit is 18 fresh out of HS, then the Army is asking the female recruits to not start a family for the 4-6 years of their enlistment. That means they will be 22-24 yrs of age. That's not an unrealistic expectation. I know that's extreme, but so is a soldier's life & what this society asks he or she to give of themselves during their enlistment. Fire away!

AZGrizFan wrote:This is the problem with gashes in the military.

Classy!

Appaholic wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:
You take that one step too far, App. Nobody in the military asks ANYONE to make THAT choice. Oh, there was controversy about fifteen years ago when the Commandant of the Marine Corps tried to bar the accession of married recruits. But one doesn't know where life will lead them when they join. Remember, most people who join are fresh out of high school. If you expect them to make a decision like that at 18, you're living in a fantasy world. The idea isn't to postpone a family, it's to protect the family when it arrives. Had this chick been married or near family that cared, this wouldn't be an issue. Her unit could have foreseen this and placed her on the rear party or even processed her for an admin discharge. Yes, she screwed up. But so did her unit.

Incidentally, this isn't just a girl thing. This deployment plan is required of single fathers and dual service couples.

We'll agree to disagree....I see the choice of motherhood as no different than any other lifestyle choice a prospective soldier gives up upon voluntarily entering the military. What's the current minimum enlistment? 4 years? 6 years? If the avg recruit is 18 fresh out of HS, then the Army is asking the female recruits to not start a family for the 4-6 years of their enlistment. That means they will be 22-24 yrs of age. That's not an unrealistic expectation. I know that's extreme, but so is a soldier's life & what this society asks he or she to give of themselves during their enlistment. Fire away!

If that's the case, App, then how do you explain the many thousands of service families throughout our military? One screwup between an individual Soldier and her unit doesn't negate the successes. That old saying that if the military wanted one to have a family it would have issued one is disgusting in the extreme.

BTW, you seem to be limiting your argument to the lower enlisted ranks. Are you going to also say that Petty Officers/NCOs, Chief Petty Officers/Staff NCOs, Warrant Officers, and commissioned Officers have no business starting families, either? If so, you're so out of touch with the modern military, you shouldn't even be commentating on it. I spent 17 years working with chaplains, so I've seen all of this from the inside. I knew many families, both in marriages and as single parents. Many of these were among the most stable relationships I've ever seen.

BTW, the Army out of all the services does provide for 2-year enlistments.

SuperHornet wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
We'll agree to disagree....I see the choice of motherhood as no different than any other lifestyle choice a prospective soldier gives up upon voluntarily entering the military. What's the current minimum enlistment? 4 years? 6 years? If the avg recruit is 18 fresh out of HS, then the Army is asking the female recruits to not start a family for the 4-6 years of their enlistment. That means they will be 22-24 yrs of age. That's not an unrealistic expectation. I know that's extreme, but so is a soldier's life & what this society asks he or she to give of themselves during their enlistment. Fire away!

If that's the case, App, then how do you explain the many thousands of service families throughout our military? One screwup between an individual Soldier and her unit doesn't negate the successes. That old saying that if the military wanted one to have a family it would have issued one is disgusting in the extreme.

BTW, you seem to be limiting your argument to the lower enlisted ranks. Are you going to also say that Petty Officers/NCOs, Chief Petty Officers/Staff NCOs, Warrant Officers, and commissioned Officers have no business starting families, either? If so, you're so out of touch with the modern military, you shouldn't even be commentating on it. I spent 17 years working with chaplains, so I've seen all of this from the inside. I knew many families, both in marriages and as single parents. Many of these were among the most stable relationships I've ever seen.

BTW, the Army out of all the services does provide for 2-year enlistments.

You mean two years active, plus reserve?

SuperHornet wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
We'll agree to disagree....I see the choice of motherhood as no different than any other lifestyle choice a prospective soldier gives up upon voluntarily entering the military. What's the current minimum enlistment? 4 years? 6 years? If the avg recruit is 18 fresh out of HS, then the Army is asking the female recruits to not start a family for the 4-6 years of their enlistment. That means they will be 22-24 yrs of age. That's not an unrealistic expectation. I know that's extreme, but so is a soldier's life & what this society asks he or she to give of themselves during their enlistment. Fire away!

If that's the case, App, then how do you explain the many thousands of service families throughout our military? One screwup between an individual Soldier and her unit doesn't negate the successes. That old saying that if the military wanted one to have a family it would have issued one is disgusting in the extreme.

BTW, you seem to be limiting your argument to the lower enlisted ranks. Are you going to also say that Petty Officers/NCOs, Chief Petty Officers/Staff NCOs, Warrant Officers, and commissioned Officers have no business starting families, either? If so, you're so out of touch with the modern military, you shouldn't even be commentating on it. I spent 17 years working with chaplains, so I've seen all of this from the inside. I knew many families, both in marriages and as single parents. Many of these were among the most stable relationships I've ever seen.

BTW, the Army out of all the services does provide for 2-year enlistments.

My response wasn't an attempt to explain the many thousands of sevice families throughout our military. If that was my intent, I would have merely countered your argument with the high divorce rate women in the military suffer - Army women divorced at a rate of 8.5 percent compared to 2.9 percent for men. Female Marines divorced at a rate of 9.2 percent, compared to 3.3 percent of the married men - according to the Defense Dept in 2008.

http://www.ptsdsupport.net/Divorce_rate ... rines.html

And I did not differentiate between noncom nor officer, you made an assumption. I realize my argument is not politically correct. We all strive for "equality", yet our courts fail to recognize that a father is just as vital of a parent as a mother with regard to custody. And until that is resolved, then women pursuing an active duty career should either put motherhood off or marry a man who doesn't serve actively in the military with a chance for deployment for the sake of the child. And single women who become pregnant while active duty should be discharged....

Just don't let women in and we don't have these issues. Jeez.

houndawg wrote:You mean two years active, plus reserve?

I believe so.