I am so depressed to learn of this today, ( 28 Sept., '09).
Call me a prude, a sexist-homophobe, a misogynist, a CHRISTIAN !!!! , even.
I do not care any more. This is so sad, that a handful of "Progressive" leaders (?) decide that human nature , and centuries of Christian Culture must be thrown out the window, to make the new commander-in-chief happy, and force men to bed with woman on our U.S. Navy Submarines. (C.f., read one of the latest topics on the NavyCafe web site .... !!! I.e., pregnant sailorettes.)
How terribly sad. I am going to find and empty closet, and my pistol, and say a prayer for my son and his shipmates .......
How stupid, if not so Tragic.
I am calling my congressman and senators tomorrow on my way to work.
"Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad."
Thank you all for your service to our country.
You need to be a member of Navy Dads to add comments!
that is EXACTLY my point...it is simply an attitude thing...no more....no less.
Randy Weston said:
Admin,
I am not against females on the boats. I have worked with some very good women and I am talking in skills such as diesel mechanics and firefighters. Hell, I married one of them. I do know that our political machine will make this transition happen. So, we need to prepare. I just want them fully informed of what the life is like. The life is very different from the surface fleet. Not so much in the physical confines of the ships, but in the mental attitudes of the crew.
Yes, I have a son in the Navy, but I also have a daughter that has been thinking of going in. I would not hesitate a nano second to give her my approval should she want to go subs. Because, I know she has the mental aptitude sufficient to survive and excel on the boats. This is my biggest point and it applies not only to females, but to males as well. I would say all this to any young man that inquired.
For me it is not a male/female thing as it is a mental attitude thing for anybody.
NavyDads Admin said:
It's interesting John that many of the objections to women on subs have come from fathers with sons in the Navy, while those of us that have daughters serving don't seem to have as big an issue with the idea. Perhaps all those years of teaching our girls that they could do and accomplish anything they set their minds to is one of the differences. It continues to be an interesting discussion. I'm amazed that this is so controversial in the US while other countries don’t' seem to have an issue with it---- JohnM said:
So..... With all this rubbing going on in cramped quarters (rubbing that a female would react to as being of a sexual nature), what does this tell us about the all volunteer, all male crew? Hmmm....
Sorry, but if you're going to play that card be prepared for the consequences.
I am not against females on the boats. I have worked with some very good women and I am talking in skills such as diesel mechanics and firefighters. Hell, I married one of them. I do know that our political machine will make this transition happen. So, we need to prepare. I just want them fully informed of what the life is like. The life is very different from the surface fleet. Not so much in the physical confines of the ships, but in the mental attitudes of the crew.
Yes, I have a son in the Navy, but I also have a daughter that has been thinking of going in. I would not hesitate a nano second to give her my approval should she want to go subs. Because, I know she has the mental aptitude sufficient to survive and excel on the boats. This is my biggest point and it applies not only to females, but to males as well. I would say all this to any young man that inquired.
For me it is not a male/female thing as it is a mental attitude thing for anybody.
NavyDads Admin said:
It's interesting John that many of the objections to women on subs have come from fathers with sons in the Navy, while those of us that have daughters serving don't seem to have as big an issue with the idea. Perhaps all those years of teaching our girls that they could do and accomplish anything they set their minds to is one of the differences. It continues to be an interesting discussion. I'm amazed that this is so controversial in the US while other countries don’t' seem to have an issue with it---- JohnM said:
So..... With all this rubbing going on in cramped quarters (rubbing that a female would react to as being of a sexual nature), what does this tell us about the all volunteer, all male crew? Hmmm....
Sorry, but if you're going to play that card be prepared for the consequences.
It's interesting John that many of the objections to women on subs have come from fathers with sons in the Navy, while those of us that have daughters serving don't seem to have as big an issue with the idea. Perhaps all those years of teaching our girls that they could do and accomplish anything they set their minds to is one of the differences. It continues to be an interesting discussion. I'm amazed that this is so controversial in the US while other countries don’t' seem to have an issue with it----
JohnM said:
So..... With all this rubbing going on in cramped quarters (rubbing that a female would react to as being of a sexual nature), what does this tell us about the all volunteer, all male crew? Hmmm....
Sorry, but if you're going to play that card be prepared for the consequences.
I am afraid Admin is correct. It is going to happen regardless of what we may think. I do believe that the initial screening requirements should be very tough. Only those women that can handle extreme diversity and personal criticism should be allowed. One thing I have not seen or heard yet is initially when a sailor first reports to a submarine they are a non-qual. Which means they are air breathing, space filling, sanitary filling, oxygen using, carbon dioxide producing, chow eating waste of a uniform, lower than whale caca, non-qual puke. lol. Although I never condoned this type of talk (haha), it is the way of life on the boats. Submariners treasure hard work and extensive knowledge. They do not tolerate slackers. If there are sailors of this type on a boat, they do not last very long. In order to survive on the boats you need to be willing to work until you pass out, devote your whole being to the boat, be loyal to your shipmates and the command and at the same time be able to bitch about them as well. You better have thick skin as you will be ridiculed and harassed until you qualify. You can't take it personally when you wake up and find you have been literally taped into your bunk with duct tape. While underway, you need to be able to adapt to an 18 hour day. And sometimes a 12 hour day, 6 hours on, 6 hours off for 63 days straight. While inport, you are standing port and starboard duty sections. Working 24 hours during your duty day and 12 more hours into the next day, 12 hours sleep and start over again.
Admin, you asked what the difference was. This is it. I have done both and what I have just described is life on a sub. A skimmer (surface ship), has regular working hours and nothing near the traditions of bubbleheads. I was trying to be PC, but the bubblehead finally came out.
There is a very good blog that has been mentioned here before regarding submarines that is run by a retired submarine officer, "The Stupid Shall be Punished".
NavyDads Admin said:
it's gonna happen whether you are in favor or not...might as well get used to it because that is the politcal reality
Leonard said:
NavyDads Admin said:
I'm waiting....patiently...for SOMEONE to please tell me how a sub is different from a surface warship? The dimensions of a sub are not that much different from a destroyer so please tell me what makes the environment so different that we can trust the sailors that serve on surface ships and we cannot trust those that serve on subs?
Have you ever been on a sub? If not, you cannot picture the cramped quarters, narrow passageways, and small confined spaces where crewmembers literally rub against each other while going about their daily tasks. At the very least, many a good sailors career will be ended by accusations of sexual harrassment. At the very best, our country will spend untold millions trying to refit our submarine fleet......for what? So that a few women can boast they served on a sub.
I'm not against women serving anywhere. But, at some point we need to weigh the benefits against the gains. Our country will gain nothing in military preparedness. We sill spend a huge amount of money. Many, many of our sailors who have volunteered to serve our country in one of the hardest and most pressure packed environments in the world will suffer undue pressure that could be avoided. Many careers will be ended because of sexual harrassment claims, both true and untrue. Marriges could be threatened. All for what? Do the benefits out weigh the advantages? I can't see how.
This is being pushed by politicians and a political agenda. Hardly a just cause.
Of course, you are correct. It is going to happen. Just like so many other "progressive" ideas have happened in this country. As to the idea of "might as well get used to it?" Well, here's a few other PROGRESSIVE ideas that I will NEVER get used to:
1. Ban private ownership of fire arms.
2. Allow eminent domain for economic development.
3. Protect the environment by banning any form of energy production; nuclear, coal, oil, etc.
4. Ban any mention of God in any government venue.
I could go on, but I don't want this to be a politcal discussion. I was only trying to point out that the prescence of females on submarines is politcally driven, and is being pushed through without any consideration being given to a cost vs. benefit analysis.
NavyDads Admin said:
it's gonna happen whether you are in favor or not...might as well get used to it because that is the politcal reality
Leonard said:
NavyDads Admin said:
I'm waiting....patiently...for SOMEONE to please tell me how a sub is different from a surface warship? The dimensions of a sub are not that much different from a destroyer so please tell me what makes the environment so different that we can trust the sailors that serve on surface ships and we cannot trust those that serve on subs?
Have you ever been on a sub? If not, you cannot picture the cramped quarters, narrow passageways, and small confined spaces where crewmembers literally rub against each other while going about their daily tasks. At the very least, many a good sailors career will be ended by accusations of sexual harrassment. At the very best, our country will spend untold millions trying to refit our submarine fleet......for what? So that a few women can boast they served on a sub.
I'm not against women serving anywhere. But, at some point we need to weigh the benefits against the gains. Our country will gain nothing in military preparedness. We sill spend a huge amount of money. Many, many of our sailors who have volunteered to serve our country in one of the hardest and most pressure packed environments in the world will suffer undue pressure that could be avoided. Many careers will be ended because of sexual harrassment claims, both true and untrue. Marriges could be threatened. All for what? Do the benefits out weigh the advantages? I can't see how.
This is being pushed by politicians and a political agenda. Hardly a just cause.
it's gonna happen whether you are in favor or not...might as well get used to it because that is the politcal reality
Leonard said:
NavyDads Admin said:
I'm waiting....patiently...for SOMEONE to please tell me how a sub is different from a surface warship? The dimensions of a sub are not that much different from a destroyer so please tell me what makes the environment so different that we can trust the sailors that serve on surface ships and we cannot trust those that serve on subs?
Have you ever been on a sub? If not, you cannot picture the cramped quarters, narrow passageways, and small confined spaces where crewmembers literally rub against each other while going about their daily tasks. At the very least, many a good sailors career will be ended by accusations of sexual harrassment. At the very best, our country will spend untold millions trying to refit our submarine fleet......for what? So that a few women can boast they served on a sub.
I'm not against women serving anywhere. But, at some point we need to weigh the benefits against the gains. Our country will gain nothing in military preparedness. We sill spend a huge amount of money. Many, many of our sailors who have volunteered to serve our country in one of the hardest and most pressure packed environments in the world will suffer undue pressure that could be avoided. Many careers will be ended because of sexual harrassment claims, both true and untrue. Marriges could be threatened. All for what? Do the benefits out weigh the advantages? I can't see how.
This is being pushed by politicians and a political agenda. Hardly a just cause.
I'm waiting....patiently...for SOMEONE to please tell me how a sub is different from a surface warship? The dimensions of a sub are not that much different from a destroyer so please tell me what makes the environment so different that we can trust the sailors that serve on surface ships and we cannot trust those that serve on subs?
Have you ever been on a sub? If not, you cannot picture the cramped quarters, narrow passageways, and small confined spaces where crewmembers literally rub against each other while going about their daily tasks. At the very least, many a good sailors career will be ended by accusations of sexual harrassment. At the very best, our country will spend untold millions trying to refit our submarine fleet......for what? So that a few women can boast they served on a sub.
I'm not against women serving anywhere. But, at some point we need to weigh the benefits against the gains. Our country will gain nothing in military preparedness. We sill spend a huge amount of money. Many, many of our sailors who have volunteered to serve our country in one of the hardest and most pressure packed environments in the world will suffer undue pressure that could be avoided. Many careers will be ended because of sexual harrassment claims, both true and untrue. Marriges could be threatened. All for what? Do the benefits out weigh the advantages? I can't see how.
This is being pushed by politicians and a political agenda. Hardly a just cause.
As a former submariner myself, USS Dallas; '85-'88 HM3(SS), I also think it highly unfeasable for woman on Subs. The tight confines and true lack of privacy would preclude effective maning of woman to boats. The article published on Military.com said that they intend to start with woman Officers, I doubt the men will have probalems taking the orders but there will be some envy by the enlisted of the Male officers. Also mentioned in the article was the facilities would be refit to a Unisex affair meaning both sexs will be in the area at the same time. Doesn't that pose a moral or at least morale isse ? I'm hardly a prude on such matters, I am a former (?) squid after all, lol, but wives and husbands left at home might be seriously nervous as well, regardless of quality of the marriages in question. many have heard or senn of the "Boomer widows" when a boat or even surface vessels leave port, but taking them with can hardly make the loved ones full secure.
By no means do I intend to take away from any of the women serving in ANY of the services. I met my ex-wife in the Navy, she did her job well right up to the day she got out to have our son and has been a great mother even if we did not do well together. Additionally, MANY of the women I met, Officers and Enlisted have gone on to great careers.
Simply, I think it will be a logistical nightmare to refit the boats to accomedate women.
We shall see.
Fair winds and following seas to all.
Good discussion. I have been torn as to whether or not to join in. I think for many jobs on a sub women should be able to perform very well. I was thinking the situtation is a bit more extreme than being part of a tank crew. The US currently does not allow females to be part of tank crews. However, Norway does. It appears that is quite successful.
Good discussion. I have been torn as to whether or not to join in. I think for many jobs on a sub women should be able to perform very well. I was thinking the situtation is a bit more extreme than being part of a tank crew. The US currently does not allow females to be part of tank crews. However, Norway does. It appears that is quite successful.
Replies
Randy Weston said:
I am not against females on the boats. I have worked with some very good women and I am talking in skills such as diesel mechanics and firefighters. Hell, I married one of them. I do know that our political machine will make this transition happen. So, we need to prepare. I just want them fully informed of what the life is like. The life is very different from the surface fleet. Not so much in the physical confines of the ships, but in the mental attitudes of the crew.
Yes, I have a son in the Navy, but I also have a daughter that has been thinking of going in. I would not hesitate a nano second to give her my approval should she want to go subs. Because, I know she has the mental aptitude sufficient to survive and excel on the boats. This is my biggest point and it applies not only to females, but to males as well. I would say all this to any young man that inquired.
For me it is not a male/female thing as it is a mental attitude thing for anybody.
NavyDads Admin said:
JohnM said:
Admin, you asked what the difference was. This is it. I have done both and what I have just described is life on a sub. A skimmer (surface ship), has regular working hours and nothing near the traditions of bubbleheads. I was trying to be PC, but the bubblehead finally came out.
There is a very good blog that has been mentioned here before regarding submarines that is run by a retired submarine officer, "The Stupid Shall be Punished".
NavyDads Admin said:
1. Ban private ownership of fire arms.
2. Allow eminent domain for economic development.
3. Protect the environment by banning any form of energy production; nuclear, coal, oil, etc.
4. Ban any mention of God in any government venue.
I could go on, but I don't want this to be a politcal discussion. I was only trying to point out that the prescence of females on submarines is politcally driven, and is being pushed through without any consideration being given to a cost vs. benefit analysis.
NavyDads Admin said:
Leonard said:
Have you ever been on a sub? If not, you cannot picture the cramped quarters, narrow passageways, and small confined spaces where crewmembers literally rub against each other while going about their daily tasks. At the very least, many a good sailors career will be ended by accusations of sexual harrassment. At the very best, our country will spend untold millions trying to refit our submarine fleet......for what? So that a few women can boast they served on a sub.
I'm not against women serving anywhere. But, at some point we need to weigh the benefits against the gains. Our country will gain nothing in military preparedness. We sill spend a huge amount of money. Many, many of our sailors who have volunteered to serve our country in one of the hardest and most pressure packed environments in the world will suffer undue pressure that could be avoided. Many careers will be ended because of sexual harrassment claims, both true and untrue. Marriges could be threatened. All for what? Do the benefits out weigh the advantages? I can't see how.
This is being pushed by politicians and a political agenda. Hardly a just cause.
As a former submariner myself, USS Dallas; '85-'88 HM3(SS), I also think it highly unfeasable for woman on Subs. The tight confines and true lack of privacy would preclude effective maning of woman to boats. The article published on Military.com said that they intend to start with woman Officers, I doubt the men will have probalems taking the orders but there will be some envy by the enlisted of the Male officers. Also mentioned in the article was the facilities would be refit to a Unisex affair meaning both sexs will be in the area at the same time. Doesn't that pose a moral or at least morale isse ? I'm hardly a prude on such matters, I am a former (?) squid after all, lol, but wives and husbands left at home might be seriously nervous as well, regardless of quality of the marriages in question. many have heard or senn of the "Boomer widows" when a boat or even surface vessels leave port, but taking them with can hardly make the loved ones full secure.
By no means do I intend to take away from any of the women serving in ANY of the services. I met my ex-wife in the Navy, she did her job well right up to the day she got out to have our son and has been a great mother even if we did not do well together. Additionally, MANY of the women I met, Officers and Enlisted have gone on to great careers.
Simply, I think it will be a logistical nightmare to refit the boats to accomedate women.
We shall see.
Fair winds and following seas to all.
Dana Thomas
Proud Father & Vet.
Tony said:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2334696/posts
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next