Women on subs now in effect as of 1 May 10

Discussion in 'Academy/Military News' started by Maximus, May 2, 2010.

  1. Maximus

    Maximus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    1,484
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. Maximus

    Maximus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    1,484
    Likes Received:
    0
    I found this post on another "Military type" forum and though this Officer had another perspective on this issue, other than as he says "Just deal with it":



    Quote by anonymous:

    "As for females, yes we deal. And I am going to be 100% polictially incorrect, but you know what? Having females in a unit is a HUGE pain in the as*. Human nature makes it so- you have young men and young women who have hormones running, and when you whisk them away for a year and put them in close quarters- people are going to be attracted to others, and it will influence actions. Even if they don't have sex the sexual dynamic still changes things.People are going to pair up and have sex, no matter how strict the rules are, and the unit leadership ends up devoted time to fixing the mess. That is time that should be devoted to accomplishing the mission.

    I was in when Combat Engineer units were 100% male. Then Clinton issued the order that the headquarters and support companies be integrated. When we went to Afghanistan, it was plain to see how much of a distraction having females in the HHC caused the leadership, and how much time they wasted dealing with them. Realtionships, jealousies, pregnancies, etc. Deployment magnifies it 1000% compared to a garrison or training enviornment because you are all together, 24/7 for a year.

    All things we didn't have to worry about as an all male line company. Now, aside from the pregnancy, the door is open to all that for combat arms units.

    The old "well good leaders will fix it" line is bullsh**- it shouldn't be put there for them to have to worry about fixing unless it adds a positive. At least females doubled the recruiting pool, but some days when I watched a platoon sergeant deal with two Joes who got in a fight because both were "in love" with Sally and she was screwing both I sure wondered if it was worth it.

    It is just a simple fact that hormones, love, lust and human nature are what they are, gay or straight. You can't turn them off, and they cause people to do stupid things. Trying to regulate and control it is a never ending battle that distracts from the real mission. The only truely effective method is in fact segregating people so people who would be attracted to each other are not in the same units. That is not fair, it is not politicially correct, and it is not policy- but it damm sure is reality.

    The "oh you can deal with" it line always comes from folks who will never have to, who have no clue what it will take, and who don't grasp what the real cost of such distractions being placed upon the leadersip are. The Army is so sexual harrasment scared now that even if a junior female Soldier is the right one to choose to work on a mission with a senoir leader if that leader is male they won't choose them for the job because being alone with a junior female soldier can kill a career just on rumor, and some units and bases overseas require females to be out in pairs 24/7. That kind of sh** alone affects unit effectiveness."
     
  3. Mongo

    Mongo Banned

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    Messages:
    1,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maximus, when you encounter uninformed people such as this in the future, you need to ask them the following:

    Since there are not enough males available to fill all the necessary billets without the addition of women, the military has several choices:

    1. Resume the draft. Since most jobs are technical, at least to some degree, and require extensive training, a four-five year commitment would probably be necessary. Also, we also remember that retention of draftees is an issue so reenlistment bonus costs would soar.

    2. Increase salaries across the board the 20%-25% necessary to attract males to fill these jobs. And have him explain how he would sell this increased budget to Congress.

    3. Lower standards and enlist those who are either less educated, have less technical skills, or have had run-ins with the law. Have him explain how he envisions an increase of each categories will effect the overall missions of the military.

    4. Since many of these individuals also bemoan diversity, ask him how he will treat our leaders in two or three generations when the overall demographics of our country has changed to such an extent that there are not sufficient white males to run the country and they have done nothing about it.
     
  4. usna1985

    usna1985 USNA Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,498
    Likes Received:
    447
    People said the same stuff 35 yrs ago when they were looking to introduce women into the SAs. And 15 yrs ago when they were looking to put women into combat. Today, women make up roughly 22% of the SAs and about 15% of the military. The world hasn't come to an end. It won't with this either. 25 yrs from now, people will be wondering what all the hoo-hah was about.

     
  5. Maximus

    Maximus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    1,484
    Likes Received:
    0

    I'm sorry, did I say I agreed with all this Officer said?
     
  6. Maximus

    Maximus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    1,484
    Likes Received:
    0
    Captain, as I said to '69, I don't agree with everything this Army Commander said but, I do live in the real world and this is an untenable situation, you know that as well as I do. It's wasting valuable time trying to make everyone happy and be PC. The Military has never been, and can not be, PC; it defends Democracy, it doesn't abide by it. There is no luxury to experiment with society forcing the military for political expediency, especially in war time.

    That said, do I think women should not be allowed in the Academies? No, I'd never say that, I'd say there are certain situations that might not work, just like the quoted post above. If you want to close your eyes to biology, and human nature, fine, but don't just say "They will just have to figure it out"
     
  7. vampsoul

    vampsoul Candidate

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    1
    There is a fine line, though. If a nation abandons what it stands for in order to preserve what it stands for, by the time the battle is won those values may very likely have vanished.
     
  8. Maximus

    Maximus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    1,484
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's if the battle can even be won with all the internal strife going on.

    It's always those that have either never been in the trenches, or at a level where it's an academic discussion, that want to force their "new" found politically correct viewpoint to help their career, or push a political agenda. And if people really want both issues to follow the standards of America, let the Military rank and file decide these issues, and not have some two term radical politician force an agenda on a tried and true, centuries old organization that relies on absolute order to exist and excel.
    As I've stated in a few other threads, this is only the precursor to the DADT fight coming, and that should be the deathblow in my opinion. Both [the DADT and women in combat] is an easy debate, all one has to do is label the person taking the traditional, conservative view, some type of phobe/ism/ist and game over, win by default.
     
  9. Pima

    Pima Parent

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    12,795
    Likes Received:
    930
    I do agree that DADT and women in combat theoretically is an easy debate, the difficulty will come in implementing the changes.

    I honestly have no issue with either of these situations being implemented, my only issue is that they do it properly. The last thing the military needs is a repeat of the upheaval they went through with DADT while we are fighting 2 battle fronts. Take the time, do it correct, and it will be no issue, Rahm it through and there will be other problems created.
     
  10. Just_A_Mom

    Just_A_Mom Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    2
    Fact is - USNA1985 is correct, this exact argument has been tried and used before. Nothing like history repeating itself. Those fears proved to be unfounded. Nothing in the "comment" you posted is new or relevant.
     
  11. usna1985

    usna1985 USNA Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,498
    Likes Received:
    447

    First, I appreciate the respect, but I'm not a Captain. I spent 8 yrs on active duty and am now merely a civilian.

    I am, however, a female and was the only female officer in my squadron of 65+ officers for two years. When we deployed for 6 months, I was the only female officer in the entire BOQ. So I do have experience with this sort of thing. I had no problems whatsoever because I comported myself in a manner that didn't even present the appearance of impropriety.

    No, I wasn't on a sub but the biology remains the same. I have always said that, if you're the type to cheat on your spouse, you don't need to be on a ship or sub to do it. And, just b/c you're away from home with members of the opposite sex doesn't mean you have to act inappropriately.

    I know it goes on . . . I'm not naive. However, I don't see why women on subs is any different that women on ships or women in squadrons or women at the SAs.

    And, trust me, the arguments you're making were exactly those made in the mid- and late-1970s re women at th SAs. As recently as the early 1980s (now) Senator James Webb called Bancroft Hall "a horny woman's dream."

    So, been there, done that, heard it all before. There will be some issues the first few years that will grab the headlines. And then, normalcy will set in, this too shall pass and, trust me, 10 years from now, people will be scratching their heads that there was any fuss.
     
  12. BeatNavy

    BeatNavy USMA Cadet

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    0
    :smile:
     
  13. Pima

    Pima Parent

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    12,795
    Likes Received:
    930
    I agree with you. Just like 30+ yrs later nobody is up in arms about women at the SA's.

    That being said, I think it does need to be done in a slow and methodical process. I really fear that it will not be done in this manner and I feel that it may cause more upheaval than needs to be. They can do it tomorrow and tell the AD members to suck it up, which will cause 10 yrs of issues, or they can take 2 yrs and reduce the upheaval. Let's be honest DADT, has been in effect for 15+ yrs and it is still an issue. This problem occurred because the administration at the time and the military were being politically correct. They created a quasi-directive that caused many more issues than it solved. Now because of it we are back at rectifying the flaw in their original decision.
     
  14. Zaphod

    Zaphod Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    4
    <Shrug>

    Women on subs doesn't bother me in the slightest so long as professionalism is maintained.

    Now, if they turn USS FILLINTHEBLANKFISH into the Love Boat, a la USS YELLOWSTONE back in my day, then yeah, it's going to be a HUGE problem.
     
  15. Maximus

    Maximus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    1,484
    Likes Received:
    0
    As I said, we expect you to use this argument JAM. Try posting something other then condescending disparagements :thumb:
     
  16. Maximus

    Maximus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    1,484
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting commentary from a female officers perspective, you received complete respect. My point has always been the enlisted ranks, we'll see how normal sets in when the subs and full combat branches fill up with women. You can choose to look at this problem just like the original poster said it would be, "The old "well good leaders will fix it" line is bullsh**- it shouldn't be put there for them to have to worry about fixing unless it adds a positive."

    BTW, when will Selective Service start making females register for the draft and threaten them with all the laws that go with that?
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2010
  17. aglages

    aglages Parent

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,680
    Likes Received:
    4
    First the vote and now THIS. When will it ever end? :wink:
     
  18. Maximus

    Maximus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    1,484
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry but it has nothing to do with women's rights, it has to do with reality. All this policy(s) will do is add inefficiency, cost and lower the physical strength of combat units. I have no problem with women at the SA's or as officers.
     
  19. usna1985

    usna1985 USNA Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,498
    Likes Received:
    447
    First, I would have no problem with females being required to register.

    Second, since draft registration was enacted, 0 males have been drafted and I would be surprised if any males have been prosecuted for failing to register.
     
  20. Just_A_Mom

    Just_A_Mom Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    2
    So, it's the enlisted female sailors who can't be trusted? :confused:

    Selective Service - personally I don't have a problem with females registering.
    However, the purpose of registering is to provide the country with combat soldiers who are needed quickly in a state of emergency. Since female are disallowed from combat, it is pointless to have them register.

    USNA1985 - I doubt none have been proscecuted but some have lost out on Federal jobs because of a failure to register. Males who fail to register by the age of 26 are forever denied the ability to hold a federal job & federal financial aid for school - loans and grants.
     

Share This Page