Navy Preps Subs for First Female Officers

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by Osmium Steele

Women make great pilots in the fly-by-wire era, even combat pilots, though I'm not sure the U.S. has had a female pilot enter a dogfight as yet. This doesn't preclude motherhood. The two are not neccesarily mutually exclusive.

And being a woman does not = being a mother; you can't equate the two. Not every woman chooses to have children. Not every woman *can* have children, for that matter.

Of course the fact that "fatherhood" is also a job (and one would assume a very important one) never seems to lead to the assumption that men are unfit for certain professions simply because there is a possibility that they may one day be fathers.

[Stealhead]

Does not the Swedish Navy already have female crew members on their subs? Also I am not sure that Platapus has the correct date I knew an E-9 female EOD in the USAF and she had been in the USAF(and in EOD) since 1975 all though the dates that women where allowed to perform certain jobs might vary by branch.I just recall this E-9 because she was the second female ever to become EOD in the USAF the other completed the course a few weeks before she did.

I think ability depends more on the person than the sex honestly.I have no doubt that there are women that can perform the work even that elite forces do.

[Osmium Steele]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

Of course the fact that "fatherhood" is also a job (and one would assume a very important one) never seems to lead to the assumption that men are unfit for certain professions simply because there is a possibility that they may one day be fathers.

QFT!

[MaddogK]

Wonder how many maxi pads will be required for a 90 day deployment and how they will be disposed of given the environmentalists. Can you imagine their cycle in synch, if the entire crew were women?

OB/GYN onboard ? Not likely.

Extra onboard water processing capability for bathing ? We all know how women need to remain cleaner than guys.

I don't believe the women will be afforded extra priveliges, but I DO think the guys will be surrendering some of theirs. The guys also will see the ladies praised for doing the same jobs the guys did, without praise.

This is a bad idea but I really do wish the ladies the best of luck.

Tankers will be the next target for the feminists, mark my words.

[Osmium Steele]

I tried to ignore the ignorance and misogyny, I really did.

Originally Posted by MaddogK

Wonder how many maxi pads will be required for a 90 day deployment and how they will be disposed of given the environmentalists.

TDU

Can you imagine their cycle in synch, if the entire crew were women?

That's right. Set up the straw men, and knock 'em down.

OB/GYN onboard ? Not likely.

Nor a urologist.

We all know how women need to remain cleaner than guys.

We do? We ALL do?

I don't believe the women will be afforded extra priveliges, but I DO think the guys will be surrendering some of theirs. The guys also will see the ladies praised for doing the same jobs the guys did, without praise.

What privileges exactly? And hell, I saw other guys get praised for doing jobs I did without praise. Nothing new there. Just another straw man.

I suppose the world is a changing place, but women in combat or war does not sound like a good idea to me, sorry.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

I don't have anything against having women in military as long as in particular career path fitness requirements are same for everyone. Its not fair if others have to do more work because one is physically unable to do his/her share of it.

[MaddogK]

Originally Posted by Osmium Steele

I tried to ignore the ignorance and misogyny, I really did.

Spoken like a true civilian.

As most of my comments were 'cut and paste' from a military sites 'sub forces' forum that I've been posting on for years I can tell you the majority of sailors who will be effected do NOT welcome this change, as well many studies show this isn't the best idea, but everyone knows it will happen and will try to make it work. As for me, I'm retired and can state my opinion without fear of retribution from the military, and It's my opinion that the Sub forces will suffer in this attempt to appease a few women whose feelings got hurt because they weren't allowed to join a 'special' club. I'll leave you with this post from a sub crewman whose opinion is common with his cohorts, and reflects my feelings as well.

I served on a ssn from 69 to 71. The mission is tough enough trying to qualify, get squared away in your division, and figure what the hell is going on. Anyone who has made patrols understands
what is expected of you and the enviroment you must live in, and work in. There is already enough
stress and tension on board. Things can get a little testy on long patrols.
It's not like you can go to the fantail to blow off some steam and get away from things for awhile. Most people are clueless about what being confined is all about.
Even today I believe there are enviroments in the military where having men and women serve in
in such a confined atmosphere is not a good fit at all. This is bad juju.
If they want women on the boats it needs to be an all female crew.
I don't care about being politicaly correct. What I care about is these guys going out on patrol and coming home safe with the least amount of problems.
Don't get me wrong the women in the military do an outstanding job, but this throwing common sense out the window, just to make a point

...And another:

When it was initially proposed to place women on submarines too, the Department of the Navy commissioned a lengthy and comprehensive study from outside of the Navy that commenced in February 1995 and concluded that due to the inherent nature of undersea warfare and the increased demands placed on submariners, women would be a detriment to the natural cohesiveness and combat effectiveness of all male submarine crews which are on a higher state of operational readiness and fighting trim than surface warriors on surface ships, again due to the nature of undersea warfare. Also, the old lie that submarines are the safest place to be and surface ships are targets is just that, an old lie.

In a war with a technologically advanced maritime enemy, the U.S., even in victory, will likely suffer extraordinary casualties among surface vessels and submarines alike. Even when I served aboard submarines in the Cold War, we correctly believed we would suffer a 50% loss of submarines at the outbreak of a maritime war. Certainly ASW capabilities have improved even more so since my time in submarines.

In answer to your question, what is the difference in women serving on surface ships and women serving aboard submarines? The difference is that women will not fit into the fighting cohesiveness of the submarine crew due to the challenging nature of submarines and undersea warfare which greatly exceeds those of surface ships. The similarities are that the fighting effectiveness of submarines will suffer even more than the fighting effectiveness of surface ships. The irony is that victory over a technologically advanced enemy will depend on submarines as the determining factor with all other forms of naval warfare as contributing factors. In other words, submarines are our ace in the hole and they should not be part of any experiment in social engineering when previous studies presented a model destined to fail, or at the very least, a model that showed serious compromise of the existing level of combat effectiveness of submarines and their crews.

[Osmium Steele]

Originally Posted by MaddogK

Spoken like a true civilian.

Failed out of the gate...

Cdr. Michael Feeley pinned dolphins to my chest aboard the USS Phoenix in 1988.

And I'm not surprised you quoted a fossil from the vietnam era nor that the most recent study you could quote to support your argument was from 16 years ago.

Similarly reputable studies, in decades passed, "demonstrated" that blacks could not integrate into combat military units. Readiness and cohesion would suffer.

Ditto Philipinos.

Ditto women on surface ships, combat support units, etc.

Same tired arguments, same pack of bias filled lies.

All , given time and opportunity, demonstrably false.

[Lord Justice]

Originally Posted by MaddogK

As for me, I'm retired and can state my opinion without fear of retribution from the military,

Indeed you may, you are old school, however, one does not escape the naval board of Justice in this quarter.

[nikimcbee]

Good time to be an HR lawyer.

[Lord Justice]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

Good time to be an HR lawyer.

There is always time to conform to the dictates of reason and justice.

[MaddogK]

Originally Posted by Osmium Steele

And I'm not surprised you quoted a fossil from the vietnam era nor that the most recent study you could quote to support your argument was from 16 years ago.

Similarly reputable studies, in decades passed, "demonstrated" that blacks could not integrate into combat military units. Readiness and cohesion would suffer.

Nope, quoted the first study I found today, while looking for different study that helped form my view, and as history is littered with more recent 'reputable studies' that discredit older 'reputable studies', I'll enjoy reading the future 'reputable studies' that discredit the current 'reputable studies', hopefully before irreparable damage has been done.

[Anthony W.]

Allow me to say this...

As sexist as it may sound, I would be in favor of an all male military.

[CaptainMattJ.]

if woman want to throw themsleves into a suffocating, long metal tube filled with nuclear warheads, powerful torpedoes, and live there for months on end, usually without seeing sunlight for weeks, and surround themselves with a bunch of young male sailors who, in the same predicament, are very desperate, then who are we to stop them?

either they just want to prove themselves, which is highly unnecessary, or they are crazy enough to want to do it. if the latter is true, then hell, they have enough balls to qualify as a man anyway.