Author Topic: Not deploying service couples together  (Read 9723 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NinerSix

    is getting the itch to deploy.

  • Has been
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 316,391
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,054
  • Retired!
Not deploying service couples together
« on: October 22, 2010, 01:24:35 »
The decision was made that the wife and I could not go together for TF1-11. So she is going and I am not. Somewhat of a bummer, but life goes on.

I am rather curious, how many (married?) service couples have deployed together? How many from the same unit?
The process is not the mission.

Offline Retired FDO

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 11,865
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 554
  • Swallowing the anchor after 32 years.
Re: Not deploying service couples together
« Reply #1 on: October 22, 2010, 02:46:31 »
My wife and I were to be deployed at the same time. We were in the same MOG but different ships. She got to go and I had to stay back to watch the kids. She got the better deal!!
A Veteran-whether active duty, retired or Reserve- is someone who at one point in their life, wrote a blank cheque made payable to "The Country of Canada" for an amount of "up to and including my life"   Author Unknown

Attitude is the difference between an ordeal and an adventure

Offline ModlrMike

    : Riding time again... woohooo!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 214,149
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,788
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
Re: Not deploying service couples together
« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2010, 07:26:36 »
I can't answer the specific question you asked, but I can give you some insight into how the decision might have been arrived at. On my last two tours, I had two married couples working for me. For one couple, one member stayed home as the parent. The other couple deployed together, but to separate locations. The deployed couple had only infrequent contact while in theatre due to their physical separation.
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (H.L. Mencken 1919)
Zero tolerance is the politics of the lazy. All it requires is that you do nothing and ban everything.

Offline TimBit

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 16,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 405
Re: Not deploying service couples together
« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2010, 09:11:59 »
rant on:

And that is why, although there is much hype about the service couple in the CF nowadays, it is NOT a functional model for a military. I say, that the cornerstone of our military remains logically the one-serving-member-per-family-couple.

It's all fine and dandy to deploy in rotation in today's small, expeditionary mission, but in a larger more "conventional" war like those of yester years, either married couples with children would face the risk of being sent off to war and having their children orphaned, or they would not be deployed simultaneously which completely thwarts the purpose of being in the military in the first place. Would canadian population really stand for children being orphaned when both parents die in an operation? Me thinks not.

So it bothers me slightly when service couples get such great conditions and benefits while traditional one-serving-member families haven't got much anything new, really...

/rant off.

Now that I'm off ranting mode... I haven't really got anything to say...

Offline ajp

  • AJP
  • Member
  • ****
  • 5,875
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 167
Re: Not deploying service couples together
« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2010, 09:34:19 »
When I was on tour there was a Svc Couple that had overlapping tours.  One going in a few months before the other came out.  The kicker was that her son was inbound as well.  If I recall, she saw each of them for a visit just prior to her returning home.

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 540,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,946
  • Your example, not your opinion, can cause change
Re: Not deploying service couples together
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2010, 09:35:32 »
So it bothers me slightly when service couples get such great conditions and benefits while traditional one-serving-member families haven't got much anything new, really...
How long has that "tradition" been dead? Traditionally, men could abuse women (google the belief behind the "rule of thumb"...or within a military context, "Tailhook").
 
So what are you proposing -- a celibacy bonus for the unmarried? A change to the NDA making it a chargable offense to marry someone other than a WalMart cashier? Maybe another DEU badge for those whose spouse isn't military?

You're going to love the 21st century....when you get here. Women can work outside the home, choosing any career field -- even the military; hell, they can even vote now!

From personal experience: another reality is the commonality of divorce. When we both deployed to Afg together (she went to Kabul; I went south), the daughter from her training marriage stayed with her ex- .  Service couples are here to stay; deal with it.


Quote
Now that I'm off ranting mode... I haven't really got anything to say...
Seen.
There’s nothing more maddening than debating someone who doesn’t know history, doesn’t read books, and frames their myopia as virtue. The level of unapologetic conjecture I’ve encountered lately isn’t just frustrating, it’s retrogressive, unprecedented, and absolutely terrifying.
~Chris Evans

Offline TimBit

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 16,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 405
Re: Not deploying service couples together
« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2010, 13:32:20 »
How long has that "tradition" been dead? Traditionally, men could abuse women (google the belief behind the "rule of thumb"...or within a military context, "Tailhook").
 
So what are you proposing -- a celibacy bonus for the unmarried? A change to the NDA making it a chargable offense to marry someone other than a WalMart cashier? Maybe another DEU badge for those whose spouse isn't military?

You're going to love the 21st century....when you get here. Women can work outside the home, choosing any career field -- even the military; hell, they can even vote now!

From personal experience: another reality is the commonality of divorce. When we both deployed to Afg together (she went to Kabul; I went south), the daughter from her training marriage stayed with her ex- .  Service couples are here to stay; deal with it.

Seen.

I knew someone would clip me on the "traditional" bit... wrong word, I admit. Especially considering enlisted members couldn<t even marry...what was it, only 60 years ago, I think?

For the record, and I don't know where you got the whole "anti-woman-in-the-workplace" thing from, I very much support free women thank you! Duh! They can and should get any job they want, yes, including military, anytime, anywhere, anyhow. For the record as well, my wife is a university graduate who works as a teacher, so obviously I am not going for the Walmart thing here...?!? What I am saying however, is that there are many attemps to support service couples nowadays, through joint postings and so on. Service couples are always assured of retaining two salaries when getting posted, it is their right after all. I find however that in case of total war, if that ever happens again (crystal ball, anyone?), service couples with children suddenly won't work so well. As well, I find that non-service couples are still facing the same hurdles associated with postings and so on and that I am not sure that an equivalent number of support measures exist for those than there are accomodations for service couples.

Is my stance clearer?

Oh, and I am very much in the 21st century thank you. From my day 1 in the CF there was about 1/3 of my platoon who were girls and that is fine with me.

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 540,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,946
  • Your example, not your opinion, can cause change
Re: Not deploying service couples together
« Reply #7 on: October 22, 2010, 14:02:51 »
Is my stance clearer?
Your point was clear from your initial post.

You feel hard done by, and it's somehow the military's fault, that you chose to marry a non-service member. You selectively ignore service-couple hardships, like both being equally subject to absences due to deployments, courses, TD. The benefits that apply in both groups, such as the financial assistance available through Imposed Restriction postings for example, apparently don't count.

And you choose to buttress your argument by saying that World War III would be...... awkward -- inconvenient even.



In sum, as you've already stated, ranting.

There’s nothing more maddening than debating someone who doesn’t know history, doesn’t read books, and frames their myopia as virtue. The level of unapologetic conjecture I’ve encountered lately isn’t just frustrating, it’s retrogressive, unprecedented, and absolutely terrifying.
~Chris Evans

Offline TimBit

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 16,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 405
Re: Not deploying service couples together
« Reply #8 on: October 22, 2010, 14:08:04 »
Yes, I was ranting! Which is why I put that "mode" on. :)

It is not the military's faut. I am responsible for my choices. Please don't put words into my mouth, I am not a 5-years old. Personnally, I am happy that my kids won't have to go their grandparents for 9 months because for that ONE time, we did get deployed at the same time. So no, it's not all bad...

Now, that being said, I am not or was not so much trying to buttress my argument as to raise a question by itself when I suggested that service couples would be awkward in a "total war". Wouldn't they be?


Offline tree hugger

  • Hug a Betula allegeniensis.
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,025
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 451
Re: Not deploying service couples together
« Reply #9 on: October 22, 2010, 15:00:11 »
So, if Mrs. Timbit decided that the military thing would be a good gig, would you

a) stay in and welcome the addition a Mrs Timbit into the CF
b) get out and let her have her turn, or
c) "forbid it".

Fortunately, I've met Mrs. Timbit and I don't think she has any immediate plans of joining the CF.   ;)

CF members will continue to reflect the general population in the sense of meeting, falling in love and marrying people in their workplace.  If, heaven forbid, the CF no longer allows service couples, there will be more people living common-law and not claiming it or service couple babies growing up without the benefit of 2 parents posted at the same base... neither which would benefit the members involved.

Always behave like a duck.   Remain cool and unruffled on the surface but paddle like the dickens underneath.

Offline TimBit

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 16,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 405
Re: Not deploying service couples together
« Reply #10 on: October 22, 2010, 15:06:02 »
You are oh-so right, tree hugger  :P She's not interested  ;D

But of course she could do what she wants! Her life is 99.9% her own (hey, we ARE married... which means 50% of mine is mine). As I said though, if 18 months later Lenin was to rise from his mausoleum (you never know) and untold hords to pour through Fulda Gap, I would look at my children and go : oopsie.

I am not saying in any way that it should be forbidden. Simply hoping that non-service couples, who constitute the overwhelming majority still, are not forgotten.

Online Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 172,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,876
Re: Not deploying service couples together
« Reply #11 on: October 22, 2010, 16:00:27 »
I knew someone would clip me on the "traditional" bit... wrong word, I admit. Especially considering enlisted members couldn<t even marry...what was it, only 60 years ago, I think?

Whether it's a "rant" or a "buttress" to your argument, most of your proposition (or the basis of your "question") appears to be based on items similar to the above highlighted, fallacies, hearsay and poor conclusions.

While individuals attempting to join the permanent establishments of the "Canadian Forces" (the legal term used to generically describe the RCN, RCAF and the Canadian Army together) were expected to be unmarried at time of enrolment (whether they were officers or other ranks) there was no restriction (other than obtaining CO's permission) on an individual marrying.  The prohibition against married men joining was also waived during times of national emergency or when attesting for overseas service such as (60 years ago) those who enrolled for Korea.

Even obtaining the CO's permission to marry was based primarily on the authorization for additional allowances or availability of married quarters and had little to do with attempting to keep soldiers focused solely on soldiering.  While it predates your "60 years" by a decade or so the following extract from "The Manual of Military Law" (a British Army publication but reprinted for use by the Canadian Army in 1941) discusses the subject:

Quote
Chapter XII

RELATIONS OF OFFICERS AND SOLDIERS TO CIVIL LIFE

3.  In the case of civil rights, duties and liabilities, there is a difference between the position of a soldier and that of an ordinary citizen.  The former cannot whilst in the service change his domicile, or acquire by residence a status of irremovability from, or settlement in, some parish other than his own.  Again, he cannot be punished for deserting or neglecting to maintain his wife and family, or leaving them chargeable to any area or place.  Although his legal liability to maintain them and any ******* children remains, it cannot be enforced against his person, pay, or equipment, but provision has been made for deducting limited sums his pay for the maintenance of such dependants.  A soldier can without any official approval contract a legal and valid marriage; but claims to "marriage allowance" or "married quarters" are governed by regulations.

By the 1970s all such requirements for "CO's permission" had been removed, save for those posted overseas contemplating marriage to a foreign national.  That was still in effect into the 1990s.  And such restrictions on married persons enrolling were not solely limited to the Forces; the RCMP had a similar regulation as well as other uniformed organizations, such as (up to the early 1970s) the Newfoundland Constabulary (they weren't yet "Royal" back then) and the St. John's Fire Department and likely many other municipal police and fire services.


edit - original mention of "overseas" was made due to (from personal experience) this being more common when greater numbers were stationed in Europe
« Last Edit: October 23, 2010, 02:57:45 by Blackadder1916 »
Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 496,165
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,161
    • The job.
Re: Not deploying service couples together
« Reply #12 on: October 22, 2010, 17:46:50 »
And such restrictions on married persons enrolling were not solely limited to the Forces; the RCMP had a similar regulation as well as other uniformed organizations, such as (up to the early 1970s) the Newfoundland Constabulary (they weren't yet "Royal" back then) and the St. John's Fire Department and likely many other municipal police and fire services.

I don't recall them hiring anyone much over the age of 25 back then ( the early 1970's ). They would enroll you right after Grade 12 graduation ( even then, you had to have Grade 12 ) and send you to the academy, so most of us were still a few years away from getting married.
I know they warned us in advance that due to the nature of the job, there could be an impact on both your personal and family life.

RCMP:
Age:
"Prior to the early 1980s, the RCMP was aiming to recruit new members aged from 19 to about 25. The practice was relatively customary of those days, and also grounded on three precise beliefs from the RCMP. First, policing could not be the second career of an individual. Second, young men were more moldable than older individuals to the police subculture. Third, criminal activity was linked to adulthood. By hiring young adults, the RCMP secured more chances that those individuals would have a crime free background."

Marital status:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCMP_recruiting#Marital_status



« Last Edit: October 22, 2010, 18:44:19 by mariomike »

Offline TimBit

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 16,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 405
Re: Not deploying service couples together
« Reply #13 on: October 23, 2010, 07:38:02 »
Whether it's a "rant" or a "buttress" to your argument, most of your proposition (or the basis of your "question") appears to be based on items similar to the above highlighted, fallacies, hearsay and poor conclusions.

Hmm well then please point out other "fallacies", I'm curious.

Offline PMedMoe

    is retired and loving it!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 254,195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,360
Re: Not deploying service couples together
« Reply #14 on: October 23, 2010, 12:29:25 »
I am a service member.  So is my spouse.  I have one child, who is 19, so I wouldn't consider her "orphaned" if I were to be killed.  She lives with her Dad, anyway.  He is a civilian but has been to Afghanistan more than I have.

My spouse and I both deployed on the same tour.  We were from different units.
"A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving".
~ Lao Tzu~