Submarine investigation under way after female officers filmed
 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/04/politi...html?hpt=us_c2


What happened to shipmates looking out for each other?


Why aren't the CPOs onboard getting to the bottom of this "their" way?


I thought that submarine crews were different.



I hope they do a full investigation and get to the bottom of this. This unacceptable at any level.

In before "it was only good old fashioned fun" or "if they can't take this kind of pranking they shouldn't have joined" or "just goes to show how women on a submarine is a bad idea" or whatever misogynistic excuse is thought up by the usual crowd.

Boys and girls locked in one room.

Great idea. :shifty:

Ideology does not change nature. While polite behaviour is not genetically determined, hormones and there effects are. And not always the first can keep the latter in check.

Its like putting a naked female onto a busy crossroad and then complaining that cars drive slow and drivers get distracted.

Females in the military, okay, I'm all for it. Let them shoot in tanks, let them become snipers and combat troops if they pass the physical tests (by male standards!), let them fly fighter jets and drop bombs, I'm all for it. But certain things I am simply against. Mixed crews on small boats is one such thing. Infantry qualifications running double standards in the sports tests is another.

At least they got not physically raped, which would be difficult to cover on a boat, I assume. But I read some weeks ago that the case numbers of sexual attacks against women in the US military are much higher than gets known to the public - and are rising.

Genderism, political correctness. For reason's sake - to hell with that.

Oberon: read my sig.

Must be my reasonophobia again. :03: :roll::roll::roll:

Damn it! Ya don't film the Officers! Just the enlisted Females!
I'm sure that's covered in the secret manual!
:stare:

We still do. This was one individual.

Because they know better. This is far to big of an issue to be handled by the Goat Locker and if they tried to keep it low key it would be their ass. COs and COBs have lost their commands by doing it "their" way.


We are, but like everything everywhere you will have a few bad apples.

A lot of us were waiting for the first incident to happen because we knew there would be one. Thankfully it wasn't a sexual assault.

Navy can't blame this one on the gay guy in the number two turret, that's for certain. :D

Not just the US Navy but the RN and heaven only knows how many others as well.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...aptain-4022836

I have to agree, you're gonna have this when you mix men and women, no amount of rules trump Mother Nature. I was knew a girl that was a police officer that went to a national police convention in another state at a beach. She partied and drank like most did, but terribly drunk, ended up sleeping with a higher up same dept. She was told to remember "what happens at Myrtle Beach stays at Myrtle Beach." Seems it happened a lot with numerous others, finally came out and made the papers when one complained....

Perhaps rather than limit what women can and can't do because men can't keep it in their pants, perhaps we should encourage men to actually gain some self-control.

I know, I know, my reasonophobia again. :dead:

So... is this video online somewhere? :hmmm:

Try the X Cricetus cricetus site, they do normally have those kind of entertainment. So I heard/read it...:oops::hmm2:

Lol.

:har::up: Down Periscope.

Indeed, reasonophobia. Because you simply ignore some simple facts from reality in order to insist on an ideal for principle reasons.

Consider this: the rule in Islam that women should cover all up, originally came from Muhammad's anger about women relieving themselves shamelessly even under the eyes of foreign men being nearby, watching them. He ruled they should do it behind a cover, or with a blanket put about themselves, to block male vision. Later, this was perverted into the demand that women should not show any hair or uncovered skin, since a single square-inch of uncovered skin already would provoke males and would serve as an incentive for males to lose their mind and jump onto these provoking females. Conclusion in Islamic logic: an uncovered women is a naked women and thus almost asks for getting raped.

Of course, that later development is sexist nonsense. Not to mention the male bigotry.

But by refusing that enslaving dress code of burkhas and veils and the like, can one conclude that women should feel encouraged to walk in public as lightly dressed as they would be if working in a pool-dance bar? Hardly.

Where your reasonophobia sets in is when you simply ignore that mutual attraction between both sexes, and the role that sights, physical arbitrary contacts, smells, pheromones and hormones play, are a part of human reality that nobody can avoid. You cannot make these factors non-existing. It just does not work that way.

That still does not make most civilised men charging into anythign female that has not climbed on the tree when counting one-two-three. But it happens - occassionaloly. And the more situations you create and the longer or more intense or extreme said situations become, the more such exceptions from the rule that civilised standards keep biological drives in check, you provoke. Life aboard a submarine I would consider to be a situation being anything but "ordinary". The tight physical boundaries of the environment are fact. The isolation is more or less total, and lasts for weeks, sometimes months. Privacy is almost non-existent.

Not to mention the all-male culture that the war machine always has been.

If you want females on u-boats, then have all-female crews. I'm fine with that, if the qualification of the crew is the same like for a male crew. Whether that calculates well for the ministry, in money and personell needed (you need replacements for every single post, and a sufficient stream of future female cadets) is something different, and due to the personell "logistics" would almost mean to maintain not one but two submarine navies in your military. Unreasonable, since from a military standpoint it doe snot matter to have an all-female crewed submarine. What counts is to have that submarine. So why paying twice if you can have the same boat much cheaper?

To make it all a bit more pointy and to add to the contrast, so that what I mean maybe becomes clearer, imagine a bus that is crowded, and most passengers being men (this is from social-psychological examination done already in the early 80s, btw). Imagine a few young women squeezed into the standing crowd. It cannot be avoided that bodies touch bodies, shoulders, hips, stomachs, backs. Smells of hair and skin, perfume, pheromones fill the air. The chemistry does its intended natural magic. Now tell the men they should behave (that is what you demand, and want to leave it to).

Still you will see that the number of cases about sexual harassment or attempts to sexually approach the women, does not stay the same (compared to the social environment outside the bus), but rises. And you will see that the number of such incidents somewhat correlates with the social culture you look at. You will have such incidents more often in Latin-American societies, India, and Japan, for example. Less often in let's say Scandinavian countries. You can tell the men as long as you want, Oberon, to stay calm and act polite and with self-restraint: the more often you allow women getting into this situation, the more incidents you will get as a turnout. But you accept that, for the sake of just demanding the ideal principally commanding what reality should turn into. But it won't.

And that is where your reasonophobia sets in once again indeed. Reality does not obey ideology or ideal. In the end, humans are animals like any other, with a thin layer of civilization-paint on their skin. We call that cosmetics. But our actions and thoughts are much more hidden from our "free will", are more driven by genetics, traditions (often basing on said biological realities), hormones, than we are usually ready to admit. It hurts our ego to admit that we are not to that degree masters of our "free will" and "free mind" as we usually dream to be.

In some situations, this concept of total equality just does not work well, because we are not all equal, but different - OBVIOUSLY. And this difference sometimes, in some contexts and under some circumstances, is better served when accepting it instead of denying it. As I said, I have no problem with female infantry, fighter and bomber pilots, generals. But I have a problem with double standards for the physical fitness training. Women as combat divers (physically weaker than males of same training standard, and much more prone to exhaustion from low temperatures). Women not serving in huge naval environments like carriers or cruisers, but in small encapsuled entities like submarines.

And i would go even further today. I say new modern ultra-feminism with quota demands and genderistic rejection of any sexual differences, is not about "equality" (which only means anything reasonable and meaningful when meaning equality before the law) nothing else but brutal female egoism WITH A STRONG EGOISM-LOBBY.

Equality before the law - yes, I'm all for it. And that is the only conception of "equality between men and women" that makes sense to me.