Pregnancy and other problems!

[Guest lesley]

Whilst browsing through court martial records the following question occured to me:

Were women who served overseas during WW1 subject to military discipline?and were any women ever subject to court martial?

Discussing this in the chatroom gave rise to another question:

How were problems such as pregnancy in serving females dealt with?

All thoughts gratefully received.

[john w.]

cant speak for WW1 but to expose a family secret I was conceived in Port Said, 1953 my mum and dad werent married, but my mum was discharged when pregnant with me in Dec 1953 QR & AC1 para 652/W28A whatever that means... and if you do know please email me off forum and tell me ...

Thanks

John

[Guest Jeff Floyd]

Until quite recently, pregnancy was cause for automatic discharge for the woman, usually using "for the convenience of the government" or some other euphemism as the reason (i.e., not a punishment discharge). This was done whether or not the woman was married. If she was unmarried and the father was serving, there were rarely any repercussions for him.

[Guest Hussar]

Until quite recently, pregnancy was cause for automatic discharge for the woman,  (BREAK)  This was done whether or not the woman was married.  If she was unmarried and the father was serving, there were rarely any repercussions for him.

Without wishing to start a heated debate, I think it would be fair to point out that this was (or should have been) made clear to them during the recruitment stage and formed part of the 'Contract of Service' that they signed on enlistment. Whereas there was nothing in a man's contract saying he would be discharged if he got a woman pregnant.

[Alan Lines]

Whereas there was nothing in a man's contract saying he would be discharged if he got a woman pregnant.

Quite true Hussar but when I was serving in the 80's if a couple were ever caught in a "compromising" situation it was ALWAYS the man who was punished, posted etc. I wonder if this is still and has always been the case?

[Guest Hussar]

Generally yes, but not always. Both are punished, however, some degree of common sense is now applied and the relative employment is often the deciding factor. i.e the M.V.P is usually the one that stays.

[Sue Light]

There was that odd situation that applied to British Military Hospitals some years ago, where trained nurses were commissioned, but male professionals, i.e. Physiotherapists, Pharmacists, Radiographers etc., at that time, were not - and it was when there were no trained male nurses within the QARANC. Many a QA has found to her horror that any liaison with one of these eminently qualified men [normally Sergeants] always resulted in one of the offenders being posted, and very often both - her to Catterick and him to Hong Kong! Or was it the other way around - memory is failing me!

Sue

[gem22]

In 1970 my wife was discharges from the WRAF because she was pregnant. Her papers made no mention of the fact that she was married and that her husband, the father of the child, was also a serving member of the RAF.

Those were the rules we served under and we were expected to obey. Nowadays things are very different; though not necessarily better.

Garth

[Guest Hussar]

Those were the rules we served under and we were expected to obey. Nowadays things are very different; though not necessarily better.

Garth

Well said!!

[Sue Light]

Those were the rules we served under and we were expected to obey. Nowadays things are very different; though not necessarily better.

So does this mean that you support the view that women should still be required to resign when pregnant - presumably to change the nappies and have the tea on the table?

Regards - Sue

[gem22]

So does this mean that you support the view that women should still be required to resign when pregnant - presumably to change the nappies and have the tea on the table?

Regards - Sue

I didn't say that, I didn't infer that, and I would appreciate it if you didn't try to put words in my mouth.

I am not aware that women are 'required' to resign from the forces if they are pregnant. In fact I know that that is not the case.

Garth

[Tim Birch]

cant speak for WW1 but to expose a family secret I was conceived in Port Said, 1953 my mum and dad werent married, but my mum was discharged when pregnant with me in Dec 1953 QR & AC1 para 652/W28A whatever that means

John

Must be something in the Egyptian water! I was conceived in Cairo in 1943. My parents were married (well just!). Dad was an RAF officer and continued to serve in the Middle East/Sicily for another year. Mum, who had just been commissioned as a WAAF officer and posted to the Middle East following earlier wartime postings in the UK as an OR, was immediately sent home on a troop ship, and discharged. There were no facilities in war time Egypt for families or child care even if my mum had wanted to continue her new career in codes and cyphers. So far as I know the only active service organisation which also recruited married or single mothers was SOE.

Tim

[Sue Light]

Garth

I'm sure we're all well aware that women today are rarely expected to resign from any occupation because of pregnancy. Your statement that women were expected to resign in 1970, combined with the comment that 'nowadays things are very different; though not necessarily better,' appeared to indicate that you perhaps considered the old situation a tad better than the current one. Perhaps I suffered a 'lack of understanding' failure.

Sue