THE EFFECT OF PREGNANCY ON THE MILITARY READINESS OF THE U.S. NAVY

I am finally writing to follow up on the issue of whether the  pregnancy of women soldiers will weaken a mixed-gender fighting force.  When I first started writing about the issue of women in combat, I identified the pregnancy issue as one potentially valid argument for precluding women from combat.  I then noted that people often merely assume that women are less likely to deploy than men or are more likely to be sent home.  The data I was able to find on the internet, which is admittedly limited,  indicated that male soldiers are sent home or unable to deploy more frequently than women.  Although only women face the issue of pregnancy, male soldiers have higher rates of substance abuse and disciplinary problems and thus men as a class are actually less reliable than women in terms of their combat readiness.  Again, I admit that my data is limited but I think it is useful to recognize that we can't just leap to the conclusion that combat readiness is more of a problem for women than for men. 

Although my post addressed military readiness as a whole, the Phantom challenged me with an article (dated 2001) indicating that "according to Navy Personnel Command statistics, 9.6 percent of women stationed aboard ships are lost each year due to pregnancy." As I pointed out in my response to him, the article fails to compare losses of female personnel to losses of male personnel.  The Phantom's comment inspired me to shell out $20 to the Pentagon for a 1996 report by the U.S. Navy Personnel Research and Development Center regarding "Unplanned Losses from Deploying Ships" (the most recent available report I could find).  The purpose of the study was "to investigate the number of pregnancy losses that are incurred by ships in the 6-month period prior to deployment" based on data from all gender integrated surface ships in the Atlantic and Pacific fleets for the preceding two years.  I would like to share the key points of that study with you now. 

-- Women have been assigned to non-combatant ships since 1978.  The loss of pregnant women has not been a major problem because these ships have large crews.  The study was necessary, however, to figure out the potential effect of pregnancy on combatant ships.  Combatant ships are in a different position because they "have a more critical mission and higher operational tempo . . .[and] unplanned personnel losses cannot rapidly be replaced."

-- The study's authors noted that "very little objective information exists regarding the impact of pregnancy on deploying ships . . . [and that] because gender is not indicated in these reports, unplanned losses of men and women from deploying ships could not be compared." 

-- Medical problems and administrative separations were the most frequent reasons for unplanned losses (40% and 22% respectively). Pregnancy accounted for 20 percent of unplanned losses. 

-- Viewed another way, approximately 2% of the women in these ships became unplanned losses due to pregnancy. 

-- Half of all unplanned losses for whatever reason occur in the one to two months before deployment.  (I am not aware of any evidence that women are more likely than men to try to find a way out of having to deploy. While many view pregnancy as a way out for reluctant soldiers, I am willing to bet that reluctant male soldiers have ways to manipulate the system too.)

-- There is also data regarding the rate of all losses, whether planned or unplanned. Displinary problems accounted for 43% of Nacy personnel who did not deploy, and medical problems accounted for 33%.  Pregnancy accounted for only 8% of reasons why personnel did not deploy. 

-- The impact of pregnancy losses on the personnel readiness of ships was less severe than losses for other reasons because "85% of the pregnant women were very junior and thus, not highly trained personnel that would be difficult to replace or do without." Obviously, however, if greater gender equity is achieved in the military, the impact of pregnancy losses will be greater.

CONCLUSION

This data is obviously old, dating from 1996.  It is also somewhat limited, as the study's authors observe.  While it is clear that pregnancy accounts for a significant percentage of disruptive, unplanned losses from Naval ships, it is not at all the only circumstance which causes sudden unavailability in Naval perssonel.  Furthermore, pregnancy only accounts for 8% of all losses, planned or unplanned, and we still don't know whether women are more likely to account for unplanned losses than men or whether women are more likely to account for all losses than men.  I am not here to set military policy or conduct a scholarly study on military readiness.  My main point is that we can't just blithely assume-- as so many people do -- that women are more likely than men to be undeployable merely because women face the issue of pregnancy.  I am not aware of any information that supports that sweeping assumption. 

Comments

[Richard Ames]

"... according to Navy Personnel Command statistics, 9.6 percent of women stationed aboard ships are lost each year due to pregnancy."

I had NO IDEA pregnancy maded women lose their sense of direction. I hope they were eventually found.

[nik]

I've found your articles on this very interesting. You're right that we shouldn't assume combat readiness is more of a problem for women than for men - and it's a shame that there isn't any good data on it.

There's also the broader issue of women soldiers being able to get pregnant in order to avoid combat. I'm sure this is an issue that has to be dealt with somehow. Personel who don't deploy because of disciplinary problems are presumably in a lot of trouble.

Enlisted soldiers should be expected to not do things which render them unready for combat, but I'm not sure how pregnancy is or should be dealt with. On the one hand you could not take action and just remove pregnant soldiers from combatant positions - which seems unjust. On the other hand you could treat it as a disciplinary offence, like a self-inflicted wound, but that also seems unjust.

[VancouverCalling]

Interesting article. I would be interested in seeing the stats broken down on all the other reasons they lose people and what those "offences" are. I'm thinking the issue with addictions is probably pretty high.

THF - Great post. I am putting something together, which I will definitely link to this. I'm just waiting for some information directly from the horse's mouth, so to speak. The career management office for women in ships is getting the latest stats for me. Unfortunately, I keep hitting up the Senior Chief for details just when a holiday season hits.

Nik - Pregnancy is not really self-inflicted... and I would hesitate to call it a wound. I see your point, but the truth is, if a man doesn't want to go to sea or into a field position, he has several ways to pull it off. Getting pregnant as a deliberate attempt to avoid duty is actually very rare, but it extreme enough to give a leader other reasons not to have her there anyway.

[The Galloping Beaver]

The above is mine, by the way. Is Typepad all screwed up again?

[nik]

Anon - I agree that getting pregnant is not totally comparable to shooting yourself in the foot, or going AWOL, or committing a military crime, but I hope everyone can see what I'm trying to get at.

I'm not sure it matters that getting pregnant as a deliberate attempt to avoid duty is rare. Other ways of avoiding duty are also rare, but are still taken very seriously. Stopping soldiers from getting out of combat is important for the military. There's a difference between breaking your leg accidently and becoming unfit for duty and breaking it on purpose.

I'm not sure how pregnancy fits it to all of this. It renders you unfit for duty and can both accidently and deliberately, but it's also not a misfortune which people will want to avoid - like a broken leg.

[The Happy Feminist]

Regardless of whether women actually get pregnant on purpose to avoid unpleasant military duties, the PERCEPTION that women have an easy out is likely to pose a morale problem.

Looking forward to whatever info. you can get, Galloping Beaver!

[http://www.cafepress.com/sunflowerqueen]

BUY APPAREL TO PROMOTE FEMINISM AND FEMALES IN THE MILTARY!

http://www.cafepress.com/sunflowerqueen

[Jolly the Fleet Sailor]

Unplanned loses are a major issue of the Navy, always have been since you operate from homeport, and crew rotation and recruiting a planned years in advance for manning the ships, normal sea duty assignment 3-5 years, which means there is overlap between enlistments. Many of the older ships, such as the Perry class Frigates had never been designed for both sexes. That had been a major issue in years past, just simple logistics and basic warship design of the post WWII era, this left the limited crew berthing assignments to larger repair ship class vessels open to women. Its been a back and forth issue for decades. Another side effect during this period of the 70's and 80's women taking positions in job paths which they had been unable to go to sea thus shore assignments not available for men with over FIVE years at sea to rotate to a shore assignment. Not fair for anyone, Sec. Webb order all women to convert to non seagoing jobs, since this crisis had lead to fleet sailors leaving the service in mass, and family breakups. Whats so painful about the Navy was again the Ships designed from earlier years, these things are designed to run for 20-40 years, and it takes time to replace ships. With the Reagan buildup, and post cold war cuts in both Bush (1) and Clinton administrations you are seeing the newest ships retained and more of a balanced of sexes within the crew, and much better living conditions. But the bottom line whatever the Navy board comes up with for the future decades, the first duty of the Navy is sail in harms way and to FIGHT! These are not cruise ships. Now whats killing the Navy is the high prices for shipyard construction.

[Jolly the fleet sailor]

Remember also you civilian types when you enlist your government property. Get a sun burn, a tattoo is infected, etc.... THAT IS CALLED Destruction of government property, you are charged accordingly. Bet you folks hadn't a clue on that one. Pregnancy isn't so much an issue as long as there are replacements available well in advance. Normally you desire such loses months before the Battle Group deploys in order for training and combat readiness exercises. I had seen unplanned loses run vacant as long as three years. Lets a senior petty officer of Chief is removed because of a pregnancy, then you just lost the supervisor, leadership, and knowledge expert for about 50 - 150 sailors. This is a military structure