Air force under fire over 'no babies' rule

[Lusankya]

I ran into the following article while procrastinating this evening:

Air force under fire over 'no babies' rule


THE Indian Air Force has drawn flak from women activists after it suggested it might allow female pilots to fly fighter jets but only if they promised not to have babies.

The air force, which in 1994 allowed women to fly transport planes and helicopters, argued pregnancy could cause millions of dollars worth of lost training.

Women's forums attacked air force deputy chief P K Barbora who made the suggestion at a news conference yesterday.

"India is a democratic country and such regressive comments are only a reflection of the patriarchical mindset of the decision makers," said Anju Dubey of Delhi-based Centre for Social Research forum.

"Today, we are talking about equal opportunities as guaranteed by our constitution ... this is unconstitutional," she said.

The Indian air force in 2005 court-martialled a pilot for indiscipline after she accused her superiors of sexually harassing her. The year before three female rookie fliers were fired when they levelled similar charges.

Campaign group Apne Aap Women Worldwide questioned Mr Barbora's conditions and warned the controversy could snowball.

"It is a very adverse stand and will not go down well with women groups because we do not think childbirth has anything to do with investments in women's training," activist Anjali Pathak said.

"This is discriminatory because who is the state to decide our choice on childbirth?" she added.

Mr Barbora said the airforce spent 116 million rupees ($2.47 million) to train each of its fighter pilots, which could go to waste if a women flier decided to have babies.

"Anyone can fly a fighter but the issue is that after spending so much, then not being able to utilise women operationally would not be a prudent thing," he said.

"If we do take them as fighter pilots, there could be pre-conditions," he said.

"We request you to be happy, be married, and let us hope that you don't have offspring," Mr Barbora said, an apparent message to pilots hoping to fly combat planes.

India's first woman president Pratibha Patil will fly in a supersonic Sukhoi-30 fighter jet next week.

What does the board feel about India's decision - let women fly, as long as they promise not to get pregnant? Now, on the one hand, it certainly seems unfair - after all, make fighter pilots are allowed to have children - but on the other hand, I can also see where the Air Force is coming from - I would certainly feel annoyed if I spend millions of dollars training someone for a specialised role that was important for national security, and then they went off and made a decision that would stop them from fulfilling any of their duties.

I feel that the issue does highlight one of the major issues with gender equality though: all other things being equal, an employer is always taking a greater risk when hiring a young, childless woman than when hiring a young, childless man. Sure, in plenty of countries, the father can elect to stay home and raise the children, but the physical aspects of the pregnancy will always be the woman's to bear, and this will invariably impact on her work in some way.

So the question is, are such restrictions on childbirth by potential employers ethical? Would your opinion on the ethics of such restrictions change if the country was:
a) still a strongly patriarchal country like India
b) a country where women's child-bearing were already regulated so that a period as a fighter pilot would not hamper a woman's ability to have the maximum number of children she could, should she so desire (like China)
c) a country which in other areas ranked quite highly on issues involving gender equality?

[Sarevok]

Well it sucks but ultimately the militarys job is to protect democracy. They dont have to practice it themselves. They can not wage wars effectively if they intentionally reduce the number of fighter pilots they have available an any given time.

[Starglider]

Isn't this a problem for any volunteer force where personnel can resign their commissions? Men may decide to leave as well for any number of reasons. I would impose a stiff financial penalty if the person does not serve a n year term after starting training; it wouldn't be practical to recover the full cost of course, but enough to strongly discourage people from wasting taxpayer money like that.

[Lusankya]

Well, let's assume, for the sake of this argument that women are significantly more likely to resign their commission early, and that this is in large part due to childbirth. I seem to recall seeing studies showing that such a phoenomonen might be the case, but I'm a bit busy to find them just at the moment.

[Mr Bean]

Well, let's assume, for the sake of this argument that women are significantly more likely to resign their commission early, and that this is in large part due to childbirth. I seem to recall seeing studies showing that such a phoenomonen might be the case, but I'm a bit busy to find them just at the moment.

It's serious enough our military(US military) is paranoid about it. And we've had a person or two during my time in the military who everyone believes had gotten herself pregnant to avoid a deployment.

It's not just pilots, it's all members of the military because it's simply something men can't do. Oops I got pregnant since they can't force you to abort is a get out of dangerous or unpleasant duty the instant a medical doctor verifies it.

[Simon_Jester]

I think that if you're going to have a draconian policy against female fighter pilots getting pregnant, you should have a comparable policy about male pilots having children. If you're not willing to enforce the latter, you shouldn't be willing to enforce the former.

In a really well developed system, you'd have a whole infrastructure in place to minimize the amount of time the pregnant pilot was away from her duties, to the point where it would be permissible if not encouraged, because it wouldn't disrupt the workings of the military too badly. Having a pilot out of commission for six to nine months is bad, but not necessarily crippling, I'd think.

[Sarevok]

I think that if you're going to have a draconian policy against female fighter pilots getting pregnant, you should have a comparable policy about male pilots having children. If you're not willing to enforce the latter, you shouldn't be willing to enforce the former.

Why ? Female pilots getting pregnant is a serious loss of an expensive asset. Male pilots are not when they have kids.

[Stuart]

I think that if you're going to have a draconian policy against female fighter pilots getting pregnant, you should have a comparable policy about male pilots having children. If you're not willing to enforce the latter, you shouldn't be willing to enforce the former.

Sorry, that doesn't hold up. A fighter pilot can pull up to 9 G in ACM and the effect of that on a foetus will be catastrophic. Lord knows what the effect of having to bang out would be - that can break the back on a healthy male. Once beyond the first trimester, virtually every physical characteristic of a pregnancy militates against flying a fighter. Lumbering around hauling trash perhaps, but a flyinga fighter is just not on. From second trimester onwards a pregannt woman probably won't fit in the cockpit of a fighter (those things are cramped and awkwardly shaped). On thr other hand, a man whose wife is 9 months pregnant has no discernable physical handicaps. Trying to equalize treatment of male and female in this case is just an attempt to assert an equivalence that does not exist.

In a really well developed system, you'd have a whole infrastructure in place to minimize the amount of time the pregnant pilot was away from her duties, to the point where it would be permissible if not encouraged, because it wouldn't disrupt the workings of the military too badly. Having a pilot out of commission for six to nine months is bad, but not necessarily crippling, I'd think.

You think wrong. Sorry. A woman will be out of the cockpit from the moment her pregnancy is disclosed to around three to six months afterwards. That's a year to 15 months. Average "life" of a fighter pilot is five years to ten years. So, 10 - 20 percent of the commission has been written off. That's not acceptable and there is no way around it. To make matters worse, fighter pilot skills deteriorate sharply with time so the actual time penalty is ever greater. The US can afford such things because its a rich country and fights rich people's wars. India is not; its armed forces are underfunded and short of personnel. That's why they have initiated this program. They literally cannot afford to train a fighter pilot then have her getting pregnant.

[Simon_Jester]

I had a post written up when I saw Stuart's reply. I will have to think about my position at some length in light of that reply. I do not have time to do so this instant, but I will get back to you guys on it.

He does, I definitely admit off the top of my head, have a point.

[Coyote]

On the other hand, in professional, volunteer forces, it could be seen as a breach of contract. If you enlist to perform a certain job, a job that the military will pay you to learn and then apply for X-number of years, then by getting pregnant you invalidate yourself from that job, then it is time taken away from the promise you agreed to when you signed the paperwork.

Sure, for the duration of the pregnancy, you can shift a female service member to light duty and have her doing office stuff right up to the day she goes into labor, but that's not the reason you hired this woman-- she was hired (enlisted) and trained to fly high-performance jets, not be a million-dollar paper-pusher. You could recruit a high-school graduate as a private to do that, after all.

I'd assume that enlisting to be a fighter pilot entails certain responsibilities on the part of the service member. Joining to be a pilot then doing something (willfully or accidentally) that disqualifies you from that shows irresponsibility, to say the least.

If I were in charge of the military, I'd say that for as long as a female pilot is out of her job for pregnancy, she owes that time back. So another 10 months (or whatever) gets tacked on to the end of her enlistment, and she'd be expected to spend those ten months doing what she was hired to do: be a pilot. If she gets knocked up again, well, the clock resets again, and it could take her 20 years to finish what would have been a 6-year enlistment had she thought to use those little pills...

[Mr Bean]

I think that if you're going to have a draconian policy against female fighter pilots getting pregnant, you should have a comparable policy about male pilots having children. If you're not willing to enforce the latter, you shouldn't be willing to enforce the former.

Why ? Female pilots getting pregnant is a serious loss of an expensive asset. Male pilots are not when they have kids.

Exactly this issue is not kids. The issue is a pregnant woman. A male pilot can father 3 children in a single night and still be good to fly the next day. (True story, fun family story, no I won't tell it here)

A woman however once she's Pregnant, she's stays Pregnant for nine months. To steal an idea from David Weber the sensible thing to do would be that women go on implant based birth control the instant they hit the service and stay on it unless they ask permission from their commanding officer. Which would be granted by default but it would be looked at.

[Stuart]

If I were in charge of the military, I'd say that for as long as a female pilot is out of her job for pregnancy, she owes that time back. So another 10 months (or whatever) gets tacked on to the end of her enlistment, and she'd be expected to spend those ten months doing what she was hired to do: be a pilot. If she gets knocked up again, well, the clock resets again, and it could take her 20 years to finish what would have been a 6-year enlistment had she thought to use those little pills...

The problem there is that the biological clock runs faster against fighter pilots than it does against women. There's a reason why fighter pilots are young; with some very notable (but rare) exceptions, a fighter pilot is over the hill and running down fast by 30 - 35. So, extending onwards isn't really an option although it would at least get some value out of clawing back the skipped years. To be honest, I think the Indian Air Force here deserves a lot of credit for tackling this issue head-on rather than trying to dance around it.

[Vehrec]

I feel that it is worth noting that pregnancy is the only thing that the women are required to abstain from in this. Starting a family via nontraditional means such as surrogate mothers remains on the table. Medical technology has advanced enough that such a distinction should be made, IMO. And if the next few decades should produce artificial methods for gestation, the pregnancy ban would become even less limiting to women seeking to advance their career and family goals.

[jcow79]

Are there similar restrictions on other causes that could render someone incapable of their duties? For instance, pilots under obligation to NOT get injured in an unreasonable manner? For example, if a pilot participates in any form of extreme sports with high risk of injury are they held equally accountable if they are injured and cannot meet their obligation?

I don’t see why pregnancy should be singled out as long as other behaviors are also explicitly forbidden that pose a reasonable obstacle to a pilot fulfilling their obligation. If a pilot injury leads to the same disciplinary action that a pregnancy would also lead to, then it shouldn't matter that only women can become pregnant. Only a man can have his testicle exploded in a horrible accident, should we treat this as “protected” as well or any other gender specific injury?

[Coyote]

Well, getting a DUI earns some potentially serious consequences for anyone, male or female, in the military. I also heard talk that a severe sunburn was grounds for an Article-15 at the unit level but I've never heard of it actually being done.

If you purposefully do something to render yourself "misison-incapable" then, yes, you face potential action. It's no different from someone shooting himself in the foot to avoid combat.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I think the policy is perfectly sensible. I see nothing contrary to feminist principles in the request, because it's based on practicality and involves the choice of volunteers. I've before said that mandatory IUD implants for female military personnel is a perfectly reasonable policy, so that obviously covers banning pregnancies and I think it's also perfectly appropriate here. I'd written such policies into the military regulations of pretty much all of my fictional nations, and assumed as a matter of course that in a reasonable world where treatment of women was both fair and realistic, rather than unfair and absurdist (such as in our own), such regulations would exist.

[Coyote]

I think the policy is perfectly sensible. I see nothing contrary to feminist principles in the request, because it's based on practicality and involves the choice of volunteers. I've before said that mandatory IUD implants for female military personnel is a perfectly reasonable policy, so that obviously covers banning pregnancies and I think it's also perfectly appropriate here. I'd written such policies into the military regulations of pretty much all of my fictional nations, and assumed as a matter of course that in a reasonable world where treatment of women was both fair and realistic, rather than unfair and absurdist (such as in our own), such regulations would exist.

Here's what I wonder, though-- would such a thing be universally applicable? I mean, I can see mandatory birth control for female pilots and other high-cost skills, but what about some random female grunt private who enlisted for a term of more than 6 years, or went full career-military with a 20-year hitch? Having someone like that go shuffle papers for a year isn't as much of a strain on the system, and it just may not be cost-effective to provide birth control for every female in non-specialty fields.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I think the policy is perfectly sensible. I see nothing contrary to feminist principles in the request, because it's based on practicality and involves the choice of volunteers. I've before said that mandatory IUD implants for female military personnel is a perfectly reasonable policy, so that obviously covers banning pregnancies and I think it's also perfectly appropriate here. I'd written such policies into the military regulations of pretty much all of my fictional nations, and assumed as a matter of course that in a reasonable world where treatment of women was both fair and realistic, rather than unfair and absurdist (such as in our own), such regulations would exist.

Here's what I wonder, though-- would such a thing be universally applicable? I mean, I can see mandatory birth control for female pilots and other high-cost skills, but what about some random female grunt private who enlisted for a term of more than 6 years, or went full career-military with a 20-year hitch? Having someone like that go shuffle papers for a year isn't as much of a strain on the system, and it just may not be cost-effective to provide birth control for every female in non-specialty fields.

It depends. The US is making each soldier more and more important and investing more and more in their training, so "grunt" positions are increasingly still quite expensive to keep filled.

[Broomstick]

I think that if you're going to have a draconian policy against female fighter pilots getting pregnant, you should have a comparable policy about male pilots having children. If you're not willing to enforce the latter, you shouldn't be willing to enforce the former.

Sorry, that doesn't hold up. A fighter pilot can pull up to 9 G in ACM and the effect of that on a foetus will be catastrophic.

Cite, please - being suspended in fluid the fetus should actually be more protected than the hypothetical pregnant pilot. With a much shorter distance between brain and heart the fetus should also be less likely to suffer an interruption in blood supply to the brain, i.e. "black out".

Lord knows what the effect of having to bang out would be - that can break the back on a healthy male.

Again, I would expect the fetus to fare better than the mother, and the fetus is quite well protected by the amniotic fluid and mother's body. There is a case of pregnant skydiver (she did not know she was pregnant at the time - it was subsequently discovered at the hospital) who had a double parachute failure, literally slammed face first into a paved parking lot, broke nearly every bone in her body... and her baby was fine and delivered healthy at full term. Granted, anecdote is not data but it an example where the mother suffered tremendous trauma and the baby was uninjured.

Once beyond the first trimester, virtually every physical characteristic of a pregnancy militates against flying a fighter. Lumbering around hauling trash perhaps, but a flyinga fighter is just not on. From second trimester onwards a pregannt woman probably won't fit in the cockpit of a fighter (those things are cramped and awkwardly shaped). On the other hand, a man whose wife is 9 months pregnant has no discernable physical handicaps. Trying to equalize treatment of male and female in this case is just an attempt to assert an equivalence that does not exist.

THIS is the crux of the issue.

Even civilian cockpits, which are more generous in space than military, do not allow sufficient space for a pregnant belly. The woman's increasing girth interferes with the controls. There is also the requirement of sitting in one spot for prolonged periods of time, which, combined with the increased risk of DVT any pregnancy brings, increases the chances of complications. Pregnant women are nauseated more often than non-pregnant people, which is incompatible with military flight duties. The are more prone to blood pressure problems, pregnancy imposes strains on the cardiovascular system just as flight does and the double-whammy isn't particuarly healthy.

I'm sorry, but this really is a case of biological differences. I say that as a woman and a pilot. Fighter pilots don't fly as fighter pilots for decades - as pointed out, by 30 most are done with that part of their careers. If a woman wants the job she really does need to postpone childbirth until afterwards. Granted, children between 30 and 40 isn't ideal, but with modern medicine the risks are still pretty low, particularly in the early 30's.

[Simon_Jester]

Still not ready to make a full statement of what I think about the issue now that I've thought about the issue harder.

One thing I will say is that my first post was ill-considered, and that I'm going to end up making much less ambitious statements (and disagreeing with the Indian Air Force much less) when I actually manage to express the ideas now rattling around my head in final form.

[Stuart]

Cite, please - being suspended in fluid the fetus should actually be more protected than the hypothetical pregnant pilot. With a much shorter distance between brain and heart the fetus should also be less likely to suffer an interruption in blood supply to the brain, i.e. "black out".

Chick Fighter Pilot's Association aka CFPA. They had a help page for other women pilots and the danger of high-G maneuvers was stressed. I suspect there's a lot more here than just the two issues you mention. By the way, there's little doubt that women do make extremely good fighter pilots, they tend to be in the top percentiles when reaction times and situational awareness are concerned. The problem isn't women sitting in an F-16 but the probability of the kind of repeated, long-duration stress and systemic disturbance inherent in flying a fighter under ACM conditions will have on both mother and child. I know pregnant women do fly transports (I've been on a C-17 where the co-pilot was obviously in the early stages of pregnancy - arguably at least she shouldn't have been there - but that's a very different situation.

Again, I would expect the fetus to fare better than the mother, and the fetus is quite well protected by the amniotic fluid and mother's body. There is a case of pregnant skydiver (she did not know she was pregnant at the time - it was subsequently discovered at the hospital) who had a double parachute failure, literally slammed face first into a paved parking lot, broke nearly every bone in her body... and her baby was fine and delivered healthy at full term. Granted, anecdote is not data but it an example where the mother suffered tremendous trauma and the baby was uninjured.

On the other hand it's well-known for women to miscarry when subjected to relatively minor injury. Remember we are talking +9G to -9G with major circulatory disturbance and that phenomenom being maintained for a substantial period of time. The 9G we're talking about by the way is set by what a young, well-trained adult in good health can endure without dying (either from G-LOC or various other sundry effects).

Even civilian cockpits, which are more generous in space than military, do not allow sufficient space for a pregnant belly. The woman's increasing girth interferes with the controls. There is also the requirement of sitting in one spot for prolonged periods of time, which, combined with the increased risk of DVT any pregnancy brings, increases the chances of complications. Pregnant women are nauseated more often than non-pregnant people, which is incompatible with military flight duties. The are more prone to blood pressure problems, pregnancy imposes strains on the cardiovascular system just as flight does and the double-whammy isn't particuarly healthy.

Exactly, also fighter pilots wear G-suits that apply severe constriction to the lower limbs and abdomen. I know you're a pilot but I would guess that the aircraft you fly aren't rated to much more than 3G. High-G maneuvers at 9G+ are a very different thing - especially when they are routine rather than exception to the norm. After all, pulling very high G is what fighters do; if they don't, they cease to be fighters and become abstract sculptures on the ground.

Fighter pilots don't fly as fighter pilots for decades - as pointed out, by 30 most are done with that part of their careers. If a woman wants the job she really does need to postpone childbirth until afterwards. Granted, children between 30 and 40 isn't ideal, but with modern medicine the risks are still pretty low, particularly in the early 30's.

That's precisely what the Indian Air Force is saying. I rest my case.

[Broomstick]

Cite, please - being suspended in fluid the fetus should actually be more protected than the hypothetical pregnant pilot. With a much shorter distance between brain and heart the fetus should also be less likely to suffer an interruption in blood supply to the brain, i.e. "black out".

Chick Fighter Pilot's Association aka CFPA. They had a help page for other women pilots and the danger of high-G maneuvers was stressed. I suspect there's a lot more here than just the two issues you mention.

I still strongly suspect that the danger is more to the mother than the child, but I also strongly suspect there hasn't been much study of pregnant high-g pilots, either. There just aren't that many, to begin with.

Pregnancy imposes enormous strains on a woman's cardiovascular system even under normal conditions.

I know pregnant women do fly transports (I've been on a C-17 where the co-pilot was obviously in the early stages of pregnancy - arguably at least she shouldn't have been there - but that's a very different situation.

Yes, it is. Last I heard the consensus was that for transport pilots as long as the mother was showing no signs of complications she could basically keep flying as long as her tummy wasn't interfering with the controls. Under normal flight conditions women 6 and 7 months pregnant can still safely be at the controls. Much past that, increasing discomfort, size, and possibility of early than expected delivery starts to argue for maternity leave

On the other hand it's well-known for women to miscarry when subjected to relatively minor injury.

Or for no damn reason at all. Miscarriage is a risk in any pregnancy. It's a complex and not well understood phenomena.

Exactly, also fighter pilots wear G-suits that apply severe constriction to the lower limbs and abdomen. I know you're a pilot but I would guess that the aircraft you fly aren't rated to much more than 3G.

Actually, about 1/3 of them have been rated to 6g's. Personally, I'm not very fond of pulling more than 1.5 g's, and 3 is starting to comfortable bordering on mildly painful. Then again, I don't wear a g-suit. You can definitely feel the strain on your entire body.

[Simon_Jester]

Thing is, Stuart is right about g-suits: they work by grabbing your legs and gut and squeezing, with sufficient force to squeeze the excess blood out of those parts of your body and up towards your brain. Probably not recommended for pregnant women, at least not after the fetus* stops being an embryo and starts being a fetus.

*I can't think of a generic term that encompasses zygote, embryo, and fetus. There ought to be one, but I'm not sure there is.

[Shroom Man 777]

Also, aren't pregnant women cautioned from being airplane passengers because of sky-radiation?

And even if a fetus can withstand high Gs, won't the constant movement make the fetus turn around in the tummy? If a pregnant pilot pulls a high-mach maneuver to avoid an incoming SAM or to outflank a Soviet MiG, she might end up with her baby in an inappropriate position (i.e. not in cephalic/head first presentation, but in breech/foot first position or something else) and might end up needing a caesarean section. Or her placenta might pop off! PLACENTA PERVIA!

Hell, miscarriage is already a big enough risk for any woman - fighterjockey or not - and even if the fetus is invincible and can't crash and burn (GOOSE!), unless the Maverick Mommy is as hard core, pregnant pilots are still a no-no for fighter planes.

(EDIT: Imagine a pregnant pilot having morning sickness and puking in her mask! EEEEW!)

Fuck, imagine having to bail out while pregnant! The canopy blows out, the ejection seat sends the pilot soaring into the air, and as the parachute pops, the baby ends up splurting out of the woman's vagina.

Also, pregnant people can't play beach volleyball.

[Broomstick]

Also, aren't pregnant women cautioned from being airplane passengers because of sky-radiation?

Not that I've ever heard of. Yes, women are exposed to slightly more radiation while in flight as opposed to ground level, but by that reasoning we shouldn't permit pregnant women to live in in Denver, Colorado or most of Tibet.

Some airlines prefer that women late in pregnancy don't fly, but that's because delivering a child at 30,000 feet will block the aisle and annoy other passengers. One of my sisters flew frequently on business throughout her pregnancy, into her eighth month.

And even if a fetus can withstand high Gs, won't the constant movement make the fetus turn around in the tummy?

They do that anyway.

If a pregnant pilot pulls a high-mach maneuver to avoid an incoming SAM or to outflank a Soviet MiG, she might end up with her baby in an inappropriate position (i.e. not in cephalic/head first presentation, but in breech/foot first position or something else) and might end up needing a caesarean section.

Babies don't reach the final, head-down position until shortly before delivery anyhow. Before that, especially early in their pregnancy, they can be positioned any which way.

Or her placenta might pop off! PLACENTA PERVIA!