Should Women Serve On Navy Subs?

[Ave Maria Totus Tuus]

[quote name='notardillacid' date='13 October 2009 - 01:26 AM' timestamp='1255415212' post='1984468']
Ugh
[/quote]

Hahaha...I had say it to to see if anyone would catch it!

[Ave Maria Totus Tuus]

[quote name='Maximilianus' date='13 October 2009 - 01:52 AM' timestamp='1255416731' post='1984475']
Outstanding.

I stand by my post for reasons you yourself posted

I look at it from a unit leader's perspective. It will be much more efficient and expedient for me to command a group when I don't have to deal with those extra interpersonal issue.

This doesn't mean that I think the Navy should immediatley remove all female personnel from all vessels(warships or other) and relegate them to support roles or to all female ships. I don't think it's some kind of travesty, I just think it's not an ideal situation.


Justin86 used to be our resident Anchor Clanker. It was made evident in a thread dedicated to his absence he was sent on "vacation", I guess this makes you our new Anchor Clanker.

[/quote]

Anchor Clanker, I like it.

I definitely agree with making a unit as efficient as possible, of course. A cohesive unit is an effective unit. As a leader serving in the military (which is virtually a vow of obedience, mind you--great proving grounds for the priesthood and religious life, btw) I understand and accept the fact that I don't make the doctrine. It's just like the fact that I don't have the luxury of choosing which sailors come to my ship, which ones end up in my division; I deal with what I have. I've got some winners and some losers, some hard workers and some who are lazy; the traits go on. But as a leader, I am charged with the task of making it work.

With this issue, it's going to happen one way or the other. And like I said before, if subs are integrated, as are all types of aircraft and warships, the task of promoting cohesiveness lies in the hands of the Chiefs and Officers to step up and BE leaders. Make it work. Lead from the front, set the example, and take advantage of all the qualities which are brought to the table, the unique qualities that men and women posses independently and alike, which can offer a lot to today's military.


Ave Maris Stella!

[Maximilianus]

[quote name='Ave Maria Totus Tuus' date='13 October 2009 - 09:06 PM' timestamp='1255482386' post='1984870']
Anchor Clanker, I like it.

I definitely agree with making a unit as efficient as possible, of course. A cohesive unit is an effective unit. As a leader serving in the military (which is virtually a vow of obedience, mind you--great proving grounds for the priesthood and religious life, btw) I understand and accept the fact that I don't make the doctrine. It's just like the fact that I don't have the luxury of choosing which sailors come to my ship, which ones end up in my division; I deal with what I have. I've got some winners and some losers, some hard workers and some who are lazy; the traits go on. But as a leader, I am charged with the task of making it work.

With this issue, it's going to happen one way or the other. And like I said before, if subs are integrated, as are all types of aircraft and warships, the task of promoting cohesiveness lies in the hands of the Chiefs and Officers to step up and BE leaders. Make it work. Lead from the front, set the example, and take advantage of all the qualities which are brought to the table, the unique qualities that men and women posses independently and alike, which can offer a lot to today's military.


Ave Maris Stella!
[/quote]

Well, it sounds like your ship is in good hands.

"O Trinity of love and power!
Our brethren shield in danger's hour;
From rock and tempest, fire and foe,
Protect them wheresoe'er they go;
Thus evermore shall rise to Thee
Glad hymns of praise from land and sea"

Semper Fi!
Dominus tecum.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='StColette' date='08 October 2009 - 05:21 PM' timestamp='1255036908' post='1981198']
This comment right here makes me want to ignore anything else this person had to say. So it's only the women who are "slutty" not the men? Sorry but it takes two to have sex! Maybe we should teach men to keep their pants zipped up! Sorry but that comment just ticked me off.

And about the 36 pregnancies, if she read the article that she quoted she would have read that 14 of those women had become pregnant prior to being placed on the ship!
[/quote]

Oh, but didn't you know? Women are s[b][/b]luts. Men are studs.

It's just the way it's always been.

Edited October 14, 2009 by mommas_boy

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='08 October 2009 - 06:23 PM' timestamp='1255040616' post='1981249']
you're posts are class imo.

I don't agree with mixing men and women on a sub but if they had an all womans sub... Assuming one accepts the appropriateness of women in the military and/or in combat I don't see a problem. Apart from women being bad drivers and excessively emotional (kidding).
[/quote]

Except we have people who would then point to Brown v. Board and claim something like, "But separate is inherently unequal."

[JimR-OCDS]

Ironically, before I read the article about women serving on submarines in my local paper this morning, there was an article about a
woman state trooper, suing over sexual harassment.

Women serving in the military hasn't worked as well as people like to believe.

I spoke with a guy who served in Iraq at the rank of Major.

He said, he had to write up one tent of females, who were running a prostitution ring.

Other female soldiers were reporting for sick call due to exhaustion, and a far higher rate than males.

Sexual harassment complaints were constant, whenever a female wanted to get out of a unit where the duty
wasn't so good.

This left holes in duty assignments, requiring their fellow soldiers to do double duty. Moral was bad.

A submarine has a small living space, where the isles-ways are very narrow, and sleeping quarters are tight.

You can only imagine the amount of sexual harassment complaints that we'll see, once women and men serve together
on subs.

BTW, one of the ships during the 1st Gulf War, was called the "Love Boat," there was so much hanky panky going on.

Jim

[Didacus]

Yes, but only is she's a hockey-mom.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='14 October 2009 - 09:38 AM' timestamp='1255531116' post='1985103']
Ironically, before I read the article about women serving on submarines in my local paper this morning, there was an article about a
woman state trooper, suing over sexual harassment.

Women serving in the military hasn't worked as well as people like to believe.

I spoke with a guy who served in Iraq at the rank of Major.

He said, he had to write up one tent of females, who were running a prostitution ring.

Other female soldiers were reporting for sick call due to exhaustion, and a far higher rate than males.

Sexual harassment complaints were constant, whenever a female wanted to get out of a unit where the duty
wasn't so good.

This left holes in duty assignments, requiring their fellow soldiers to do double duty. Moral was bad.

A submarine has a small living space, where the isles-ways are very narrow, and sleeping quarters are tight.

You can only imagine the amount of sexual harassment complaints that we'll see, once women and men serve together
on subs.

BTW, one of the ships during the 1st Gulf War, was called the "Love Boat," there was so much hanky panky going on.

Jim
[/quote]
That's very interesting. When I was active with the Florida Navy Moms, one of the moms whose daughter was in Italy if I remember correctly, got out of her duty assignment by claiming harassment. I took everything that I was told at the time at face value. She got re-assigned to the base of her choice that just happened to be where her boyfriend was stationed. I've met a lot of abuse survivors in my life, and she didn't fit the profile. At the time, I thought she was in a denial phase, or was just toughing it out. It never occurred to me that she might have claimed the whole thing to get a posting she wanted. The officer she accused was cashiered.