|
|
|
|
|
| Women on Submarines
Posted: 10/17/2009 5:42:20 AM | Outsideofthemiddle...
One failed so godamn horridly that she got one of my guys shot because she wasn’t covering her sector; she cowered like a dog under the hummer in a fight.
See... THAT information makes all the difference - I agree that you were right in having her sent back to her old unit.
Nevertheless... that does not mean that *all* women are the same. Have you not also had guys that behave that way when the shooting starts? It's not a male/female thing... just a human one.
I'd be interesting in seeing that study you're looking for... as well as getting a bit of background on who performed it. | |
|
| Women on Submarines
Posted: 10/17/2009 7:31:38 AM | Well, It's a grand notion perhaps.
But just doing the "job" has never been good enough and greatly under estimated the complexity of this topic of " Young men & women" serving shoulder to shoulder in small confines over long periods of time. For you are attempting to ignore human nature in a setting where human nature becomes a huge issue.
Maybe some of you haven't been exposed or have considered all the implication.
Moral is a huge , "HUGE" issue aboard ship. Sometimes it's the difference between success and failure or living or dieing. To run a "tight ship" requires focus, discipline, skill and commitment. It requires this in good times and bad, good chow or bad chow, sleep or no sleep.
Until they figure out a way to turn "OFF" horny and jealousy ~ it's a bad idea and will only breed contempt.
As much as I love the "woman form" and all it entails, I'd not wish to be subjected to such an environment while engaged in business that required my full attention and effected the rest of the crew.
Sex is not a spectator sport! ~ You can't ignore the fact that someones getting some and your not. And if you are getting a little tail and your buddies are not ~~ you are no longer a part of the crew.
And there is never fair advantage offered everyone aboard. ~ There is never enough women to go around ~ The very nature of this setup stinks.
The women seem to always make their selves available to the Officers on the QT and from there the rumors and resentment spreads.
The women don't have to be pretty or bright or capable ~ things like this don't matter after a few months , they need only to be soft women and few in numbers.
This might be seen as a good thing for women but it places an unnecessary load on command.
I too ~ would favor a gay man over women as a crew buddy. I like women too much and see them as adding to the hardship of business at hand.
The Sea is no play to toy ~ she can take you down in 3 minutes time or less. You are own your own out there, any help is always late in coming. It's serious business. There comes times when each man must pull not only his weight but this buddies are well. One man down is one man short!
And "no" I wouldn't wish to sail on a banana boat, they sink like all boats can.
Dance | |
|
| Women on Submarines
Posted: 10/17/2009 8:53:21 AM | I think it's funny how so many people are saying men can't control them selves because women are on board. I recall stories of guys in the all-male Navy getting and giving blowjobs aboard ships--all "straight" guys, too. I don't believe horniness goes away just because women are NOT present? And why are you punishing the women (keeping them from duties they may love) because MEN are the problem? THAT is what irks ME. You're punishing the wrong people!
The all-female crew is an intrguing idea, too. I'd like to see that. No planes came crashing down when they got all-female flight crews, despite what some men think about women in military. | |
|
| Women on Submarines
Posted: 10/17/2009 9:15:57 AM | ^ yo, what? I did 2 6-month deployments and nobody ever gave me a BJ and I certainly didn't give one. There were stories of 2 or 3 guys onboard getting/giving but I didn't believe it.
Some women are butch as hell and can do jobs better than men. I don't see enough of those in the military. Mostly fragile delicate flowery-type of women. And I'm not even being sexist. Can these girls lift 50+ lbs? Not for very long. | |
|
| Women on Submarines
Posted: 10/17/2009 9:34:04 AM | There is the danger this could ruin the macho image of the Navy. . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InBXu-iY7cw | |
|
| Women on Submarines
Posted: 10/17/2009 11:56:18 AM | Well if you wish to associate and compare air force duty with navy duty more power to you sister.
The problems I brought forward are not just military ~ but exist anywhere you find such conditions.
I've heard some grissly stories from the "Love Boat" or small isolated encampment.
But don't take my word for it ~ go live it ~ and come back a tell us about it.
Out of 25 people ~ there always 3 or 4 that can't control themselves and sometimes more.
It's just human nature are work. ~ If you wish to ignore this , it's entirely up to you.
I just think it's a bad idea and unnecessary. ~ An all women crew? ~ that be a interesting thing to see. ~ It's take some very special ladies to pull it off ~ hand picked, but It is possible.
But again, to what end would it server? To prove it can be done ? ~ continually ? without being hand picked or offered pandering to? The US armed forces is not much for pandering to Units but expect 150% ~ 100% of the time.
Now will they change that to accomidate a project? ~ sure! for a while ~ like a ball club , they use what talent the have on the roster and see what's possible. ~but you don't place receiver in a defensive line, you rarely ask a right guard to go long. You don't ask a starter quarterback to kick.
I'm all for GI Jane ~ women needs the opportunity ~ but lets not threaten anyone safety unnecessarly .
dance | |
|
| Women on Submarines
Posted: 10/17/2009 12:36:13 PM | | in canada the navy is co ed, there are no problem, having seved on a sub, i can say there is no privasy at all, no room for sexual encounters | |
|
| Women on Submarines
Posted: 10/17/2009 2:00:41 PM | Dancecard...
Out of 25 people ~ there always 3 or 4 that can't control themselves and sometimes more.
So, in other words, you would rather pander to the 3 or 4 who can't control themselves, than to isolate those few and let capable people do the job...?
Because that's what you're basically saying - "Oh, those guys will get horny and have affairs with female personnel... so we'll have to keep the females out, no matter how well-qualified they are." | |
|
| Women on Submarines
Posted: 10/17/2009 3:01:17 PM | Rocket man:
After re-reading my original post I realized it was a little mispoken, basically I left it short. I have no issues with women in the military, nor do I have an issue with them doing the jobs they can't/don't do now. My issue is with them surving with males. It is unfair to put that bullshit on our young mens shoulders. I am not opposed to all female infantry units, or all female ship/sub crews.
Those surveys show the stress and bullshit that the large majority of women in the armed forces cause for males. I still have not found that other one, but it was done by the Navy I believe (or the Air Force). Basically a bunch of female higher ups were all about "saving the women" from the males. Come to find out the results were not what they wanted or expected. It is essentially the same as what I posted with the exeption that it was conducted by the military and the numbers of false allegations were considerblely higher than these. Think about it, well over 50% of females lie about this shit and for those of you who served in the military, well you know what that means for males. It is simple; they get no say, their career is done based on words alone...I've seen it. | |
|
| Women on Submarines
Posted: 10/17/2009 3:29:08 PM | Outside...
I have no issues with women in the military, nor do I have an issue with them doing the jobs they can't/don't do now. My issue is with them surving with males.
Now, in the above sentence, replace the word 'women' with 'blacks' and 'males' with 'whites'... and see just how poorly thought-out it actually is. | |
|
| Women on Submarines
Posted: 10/17/2009 3:41:30 PM | ~ You need to get fair and unfair out of the thought process ~ this is not the kind of thoughts that the military excel with or is noted for. It's what works and works consistently well their over riding concern. ~ If one is interested in "fairness" it would be wise to stay a civilian.
And it take two people for an affair to occur ~ otherwise it's referred to as an assault. So it's not "just" horny men that's 100% the problem, and in truth often it is an assault, a women finding herself between a rock and a hard place ( no pun intended). Collusion and coercion are hard things to prove. This creates a thick atmosphere and is very distraction for everyone.
I'm just giving you the "realities" of it ~ cold hard reality. Passion kills ! Passion is not logical. In such circumstances ~ give me logic and put a hold on the passion.
If you think fairness is that important perhaps enough pressure can be brought to bear that the military might get in touch with it's "touchy , feelly side.
Maybe some day, girls might be boy scouts if enough people think it's a fair notion?
I oppose should consideration in understand a Soldier true primary goal is to return home with all the pieces you left the house with.
There are many forms and types of military service, find one that fits you and excel.
But it's not a picnic and hazards are many, often times from your fellow soldiers.
I've seen men come incountry and know in 3 days they wasn't going to go home. Some people never get the program, but want to make their own. Civilians in uniforms looking for an easier, fairer, better way of doing things.
It would be great if people could put a lid on it and they do try with various degrees of success. But the lid gets blow off in 60 days, sometimes less.
I say , be fore warned and know what you are getting into, your are compromising efficiency for fairness.
I question if such fairness is affordable.
Dance | |
|
| Women on Submarines
Posted: 10/17/2009 11:35:52 PM |
Now, in the above sentence, replace the word 'women' with 'blacks' and 'males' with 'whites'... and see just how poorly thought-out it actually is.
No it is different, read the surveys and studies I did post. You guys who are aurguing on the side of women with men don't seem to care for males at all. Do you think it is just that a guys career gets ruined because some little princess is in a bad mood. I once saw a Staff Sergent get charged for sexual harasment. You know what he did, he saw a marine walk by with hair that was longer than regulation, he proceeded to inform this marine that the hair was too long. See, the problem was she was a female and he was a male. Unless you get rid of all this bullshit special treatment for women it is not fair, nor right to force males to serve with them.
Nice try with the racial thing, but I ain't biting, nor am I altering my stance. Here, I'll swing one by you: by your reasoning it is racist and, or sexist to segagrate male and female restrooms. Just picture "black" where female is and "white" where male is. | |
|
| Women on Submarines
Posted: 10/18/2009 1:05:47 AM | | Since I don't accept a Federal Government or their enforcers, they can fill the submarines with chimps wearing dresses for all I care. | |
|
| Women on Submarines
Posted: 10/18/2009 5:59:58 AM | Outside...
Here, I'll swing one by you: by your reasoning it is racist and, or sexist to segagrate male and female restrooms. Just picture "black" where female is and "white" where male is.
Sure it is. I have no problem with unisex restrooms. 
Do you think it is just that a guys career gets ruined because some little princess is in a bad mood.
No, I do NOT think it's just... and that's a side-point. Within every system exist those who will abuse it to their advantage. You are letting the abusers colour your attitude towards the entire group, and that is not just either. | |
|
| Women on Submarines
Posted: 10/18/2009 8:44:43 AM |
Do you think it is just that a guys career gets ruined because some little princess is in a bad mood.
This is the a real concern ~ one of the least of them however.
I know three women personally that are drawing as much monthly benefits as a retired 20 years staff Sergeant yet they failed to serve their enlistment time, outed early on medical discharges, serving only 6 to 15 months of duty. ~ Working the VA system, playing the system like a drum, whining and moaning with injuries that can't be seen or proven.
You going to have that with anyone and any system but I think it strange I know so many.
I'm not suggesting women are not up to the job ~ I say only that most aren't and a few being the exception.
Any woman that can stand on the edge of a rocking deck that can throw and hit a cleat with a water soaked 2" nylon line on the third try 50% of the time is a worthy candidate for the navy and we'd look for some improvement in the future.
You slip your footing and go into the drink ~ it's very possible to be sucked into the wheel and turned into chum in a matter of seconds. ~ "Every sailor" must know how to tie off and manage lines. It's 101, basics ~ I just don't see many women doing that for it always kicked my ass big time.
And this is just for openers ~ there are many mean and nasty "everyday task" that mariners must address everyday. Even the cook is required to throw a rope so how are women to "fit" into such a setting without some kind of pandering taking place ?
Then again, I've seen some very capable women "boat handlers".
Dance | |
|
| Women on Submarines
Posted: 10/18/2009 11:47:59 AM |
I know three women personally that are drawing as much monthly benefits as a retired 20 years staff Sergeant yet they failed to serve their enlistment time, outed early on medical discharges, serving only 6 to 15 months of duty. ~ Working the VA system, playing the system like a drum, whining and moaning with injuries that can't be seen or proven. This is something only female military people do? Men in the military never do this? | |
|
| Women on Submarines
Posted: 10/18/2009 12:15:40 PM | The same misogyny seen here and in the military is alive and well in the VA system as well.
http://tinyurl.com/ylfhlpk
Nearly 8 percent of the veteran population is female. But the Department of Veterans Affairs' health system was designed for a male military, and it shows. A Government Accountability Office report released this month found that two of 19 facilities audited did not offer even basic gender-specific services like cervical cancer screenings, and none fully complied with the VA's policy on privacy for female veterans. Overall, "none of the facilities had fully implemented VA policies pertaining to women veterans' healthcare," the report said. Critics say those shortfalls have deterred women from using the system. And statistics bear that out. While 22 percent of male veterans use VA healthcare, 15 percent of women do.
Because of the military's changing demographics, the VA expects the number of female veterans enrolled in the system to double within four years. Advocates argue that improvements are needed—and fast. The House unanimously passed a bill in June to address some of the inadequacies by, for example, requiring that the VA produce a report on the problems women face in the veterans' health system and creating a child care pilot program for women receiving VA healthcare. Companion legislation in the Senate is on the floor now, where Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Daniel Akaka of Hawaii is working to build consensus for passage. But some lawmakers worry that a bill alone isn't enough. "It is more complex than just legislation," says Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, one of the Senate bill's main sponsors. "It's cultural."
One particular problem is that in order to keep them out of combat, women in the military are barred from serving on the front lines. But that policy is meaningless in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, where there are no front lines and attacks can happen virtually anywhere. "One of my closest friends was told by a VA doctor that she could not possibly have [post-traumatic stress disorder] for just this reason: He did not believe that she as a woman could have been in combat," Kayla Williams, a former Army sergeant who came under fire multiple times while serving alongside men on patrols in Iraq, told the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee at a recent hearing.
Some injuries are even harder to prove as service-connected. One of the thorniest is mental trauma caused by sexual assault while in the military, since the assault itself can be nearly impossible to prove. "I am always hearing from women who have experienced rapes and sexual trauma, and they're not getting the treatment that they need," says Wanda Story, national commander of the United Female Veterans of America. They're being denied treatment and benefits, she says, because "they can't prove it." And the treatment itself is sometimes inadequate, with no guarantee, for example, that mental health professionals have been trained for such trauma.
end snip..
The annecdotal implication that women are somehow more easily disabled in the service does not play out in the actual numbers.
http://tinyurl.com/yl7skqh | |
|
| Women on Submarines
Posted: 10/18/2009 12:19:06 PM |
No, I do NOT think it's just... and that's a side-point. Within every system exist those who will abuse it to their advantage. You are letting the abusers colour your attitude towards the entire group, and that is not just either.
No. They are not coloring my image of the whole group, just the majority. Look at the surveys I posted, the majority of females who claim this stuff happened to them are lying. It would be a side point if the numbers were not so big, but it is a major issue in the military.
Now if they were to tweek (fix) the system by eradicating the special privliges given to females then I would have to change my stance, but as the system stands now and with this "little princess" mentality that a lot (not all) of females have I cannot see that it is ok to force males into that kind of abuse.
I also think that they need to raise the acceptance standards for females to the same as males. Basically, they have to actually be able to past the same physical standards as males, which I am sure there are plenty out there that could. Not evry guy passes these test, instead of lowering the bar down to his level, he is told to raise his abilities. The same should be done with females, stop lowering the bar and start telling them to raise their abilities.
There is also the issue of females who get themselves pregnant, so that they can get out of their contract. Nowhere does there exist a way for a male to get out of his contract free as a bird.
Basically, if women were treated the same as males and held to the same standards, then I would have no issue with them serving with males. | |
|
| Women on Submarines
Posted: 10/18/2009 1:12:58 PM |
Look at the surveys I posted
I did. I also noted the source, and the political agenda behind the "surveys".
I also think that they need to raise the acceptance standards for females to the same as males.
I find the physical standards to be somewhat strange, frankly, for today's computer-based military. I have female friends in the military--not ONE is a princess, BTW--and they have to march and run in step with the guys. For tall women, not a big deal, but when the woman is only 5'2", she's taking giant steps the entire 10-mile run. SHE hangs, so I don't think the standards are that far off.
But I agree, there should just be "a" standard. However, it needs to be gender neutral. I dare say I could invent a physical standard that very few men could pass--women's bodies ARE different, so we can PHYSICALLY do things that many men cannot do. For just one example, if we made flexibility the TOP requirement, very few men would be in the top 10%. As it stands, the "standards" are set so that the STRONGEST pass that standard. Not necessarily the fittest. And in today's military--all branches--there is room for and need for people who are mentally tough, make sound judgements, and are intelligent. Their physical strength means absolutely nothing in 90% of the contexts. ANYONE can push a button, right? So, maybe the answer is to have certain physical standards for general admission, then separate standards for elite ground units and stuff. Which is, basically, what they have now, right?
There is also the issue of females who get themselves pregnant
I'm pretty sure there are men involved in this endeavor. Again--keep YOURS in your pants if you don't want the consequences.
In general, I think you are overblowing the incidence of women abusing the system, and totally overlooking that plenty of men do similar things (abuse the system to get out, get what they want, etc). I bet the INCIDENCE of men abusing the sytem--just by their sheer numbers--is MUCH higher. YOU only notice the women because you are biased against them. When a woman does something you don't like, you say, "Ach, see, women are like that." When a man does it, you say, "That wimp" but don't paint ALL men with that brush. | |
|
| |
| Women on Submarines
Posted: 10/18/2009 2:01:31 PM | "How is that done? Women getting themselves pregnant?"
On ships, apparently it's by osmosis from being surrounded by Seamen.
On the subject of all those raped women being liars...It might be said that all rapists lie as well. At least women have some recourse in the military, small as it might be. If they served in the mercenary forces like Blackwater, Republicans deem that they signed off on the right to be raped.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/10/16/notes101609.DTL&nl=fix
"The most repellant part is the 30 U.S. senators -- Republicans each and every one -- who just stepped forth to vote against the Franken amendment, essentially saying no, women should have no right to sue if they are sexually abused or gang raped, Halliburton and its ilk must be protected at all costs, and by the way we hereby welcome Satan into our rancid souls forevermore. God bless America.
Let us repeat, for clarity. Franken's amendment passed with a vote of 68-30. Meaning 30 U.S. senators voted against the elimination of the rape/sue clause. Meghan McCain, call your dad. He's one of them."
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/10/16/notes101609.DTL&nl=fix#ixzz0UK7LlUKp | |
|
| Women on Submarines
Posted: 10/18/2009 2:29:57 PM | Nice to see that Liberals are consistent in their misrepresentations....at least you are a little closer to the truth......
"Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention."
Because many haven't commented on the vote it is difficult to ascertain the reasoning behind their votes, your opinion as to why they did is simply that, Your Opinion.....
It may be that the Senators felt the Government overreached in several ways, such as being involved in employee contracts of none government entities, or it could be because the amendment covers all of the issues in title VII of the the Civil rights act of 1964....this would effectively end the use of arbitration in many Company related issues...allegations of violations would lead to civil and criminal litigation every time an allegation was made instead of using arbitration,if they were contracted by the Government...which would be very costly, the companies would be constantly having to defend themselves against these allegations, this is one reason arbitration was created in the first place...
No standards should have to be lowered to allow for those who wouldn't have qualified otherwise to be accepted...If a woman can do everything that a man can do she should be allowed to have whatever job in the armed forces that she would like...they should not be discouraged based on the potential actions of others.. | |
|
| Women on Submarines
Posted: 10/18/2009 4:12:23 PM | It's fine and good for civilians to look at this issue at a great distance in the comforts of their homes and look from equity and fairness in some " virtual reality" of the "military experience"
That many are refusing to except or understand the practical application of these ideas is nothing new. ~ This kind of thinking has created " Don't ask and don't tell" ~ as we refuse to address the realities of humankind, just one more bump in the road to distract and pander to a "few" and their feeling.
I think there is places that men should never go, equally so, there is places women should never be asked to go. ~ If it's purely a matter of breaking gender barriers you seek ~ go somewhere else and play. Some Branches of The War Department is not to be trifled with.
I don't think many of you appreciate the delicate nature of what you discuss or the overriding implications. Much like EarthPuppy offered , We are having to fight for VA funding as it stands, ~ and women health issues and concerns are being poorly address as is.
Our nations leadership tends to forget about us when we are done. ~ My hearing is shot and there is times I feel like every bone in my body belongs to someone else from jumping out of aircraft in full field gear and ammo ( ammo is very heavy) before they have come to rest ~ Yet I get "no" VA consideration, but only referred to the county hospital. I refuse to bitch, whine and cry ~ to get the attention that I was promised, still too much of a soldier to fuss. But I deserve to be listen to and I well always speak out on such matters.
Do you girls really want some of this? Or you you think that somehow women combatant might be immune to such rigorous activities? That it's a "push button" situation , a push a button world? ~ maybe in sub's there is a lot of button pushing ~ but what happen when they fail to work?
I say , not for my daughter ~ not until every momma's boy , every 24 year old boy still living with mom has served his obligation.
to back up >>"This is something only female military people do? Men in the military never do this?"<<< I think post addressed this situation and these no need to be redundant.
Dance | |
|
| Women on Submarines
Posted: 10/18/2009 4:13:34 PM | | Yet, when the much maligned ACORN tries to "take down the Naiton" there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Mercenaries as speshsal. They represent Merican values. Fvck the whores who try to take our male jobs, they are all liars, tempting us poor victims on our ships, and taking down democracy as we know it by demanding equal right. To allow our mercenary forces to live in the standards of the 1600's it to acknowledge that women are scum, as per the repeated postings blaming the victims, vs. the perpetrators. You guys are sickos. | |
|
| Women on Submarines
Posted: 10/18/2009 5:06:46 PM | I'm pretty sure there are men involved in this endeavor. Again--keep YOURS in your pants if you don't want the consequences.
In general, I think you are overblowing the incidence of women abusing the system, and totally overlooking that plenty of men do similar things (abuse the system to get out, get what they want, etc). I bet the INCIDENCE of men abusing the sytem--just by their sheer numbers--is MUCH higher. YOU only notice the women because you are biased against them. When a woman does something you don't like, you say, "Ach, see, women are like that." When a man does it, you say, "That wimp" but don't paint ALL men with that brush.
How ironic that you argue that women are the same as men, yet it is the males fault for her getting herself pregnent. WE our not talking about consenquences darlin, I am talking about females going and getting themselves pregnant to avoid getting deployed overseas, or to get out of the contract because they decided the military life just ain't for them. The military can't kick them out for getting pregnent, they get out because they want to. They get out on honorable terms. Here I'll give you what options males have:
AWOL=jail time if caught and dishonrable dishcharge.
Drugs= Brig time, depending on unit and scenareo, dishonrable discharge, or loss 6 months pay and reduction in rank...still in service.
Assualt=Brig time and same punishments above
Women have all these options too, but they also get the "get out of jail free card" with getting themselves pregnent and then requesting to be let go. Men...well you see...we either do our time, or well do it another way. | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 6
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Home
login 
