View Full Version : Navy intends to let women serve on subs.........
greenberetTFS
02-24-2010, 18:02
USA Today in the Washington section, has an article on Defense Secretary Robert Gates notifying Congress in a letter signed Friday that the Navy intends to repeal the ban on female sailors on subs..........:eek: In a related issue,the Army chief of staff,Gen. George Casey,told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that "it's time" to reconsider women's combat roles in units which they were previously baned....:rolleyes: I wonder if this may effect SF?....... :confused:
Big Teddy :munchin
Sorry. This is my personal opinion and if I piss someone off then that's regrettable.
Big Teddy's right in suggesting that if this is approved for submarines then what about SF applications. It's the old goose/gander argument that PC advocates apply out of pure laziness.
IMO, the conditions for existence (not the "living conditions") in submarines, and I'd bet in any QP team (SF, SEAL, Recon, etc) is such that effectiveness will be reduced with women as team members. If the DoD wants to get all warm and fuzzy with PC perspectives then fine, let them field an all female crew for a suibmarine, let them compose a QP team purely with female members, and then measure overall effectiveness to achieve a mission over a period of time. If the effectiveness is acceptable then staff them that way. Otherwise, the PC boys and girls need to go back an take another hit from their bong.
Rant over.
The Reaper
02-24-2010, 21:26
I predict allegations of sexual harassment, rape, discrimination, inability to perform the duties of the rating, and lots of pregnancies.:rolleyes:
TR
Scimitar
02-24-2010, 22:50
"Commander, we see in your report that for the last three months of the 6 month deployment you where permenantly down one crew member...care to explain"
"Ah yes Sir, that would be morning sickness Sir...She was tough though..we felt we couldn't divert to any friendly port to off-load her so she hung in there...and...um...so did Dad"
:munchin
Dozer523
02-24-2010, 22:57
I predict allegations of sexual harassment, rape, discrimination, inability to do the duties of the rating, and lots of pregnancies.:rolleyes:
TR It's called "Hot Bunking".:D
Utah Bob
02-25-2010, 08:22
I could make a joke about Seamen.
But I won't.
Would it be legal for the Navy to require the woman to be on Birth control while at sea?
I know my response is going to piss off some of you because it isn't PC. IMHO the sub issue is completely irrelevant to the QP issue. The sub issue is one of living conditions, not job related so to speak. I don't think anyone with a brain will say that because women serve on subs, therefore they should be allowed to be a QP/SEAL/PJ.
We have all discussed this before, women are made differently, and 99% of women are not going to be able to cut it doing what you all do. Somehow I don't think that applies to subs, in many cases.
With that point aside. Women do not get pregnant on their own. If you all have a problem living with women in an environment, such as a submarine, keep your pecker in your pants, and then you don't have to worry about it.:p Last time I checked I woman can not physically impregnate herself. Is it going to happen, of course it probably will, but to lay the blame soley at the feet of women is just dumb. You all have as much to do with it as we do. If neither sex can act in a professional manner, than both sexes should be drawn and quartered. You act professionally, then there shouldn't be a problem.
I have lived with men in very close quarters. We all acted in a professional manner. Did I shower with them, of course not, but none of the guys on my team had a problem with me having the very limited shower facilities for a few minutes every day. Can't imagine that some kind of "out of the box" thinking will be used to integrate women onto subs.
In terms of sexual harrassment etc, this will be no different than any other unit. There will be cases of substantiated harrassment, and some of unsubstantiated cases. It will be dealt with like every other unit deals with it.
Going to bring a whole new meaning to Goat Locker
greenberetTFS
02-25-2010, 09:25
Would it be legal for the Navy to require the woman to be on Birth control while at sea?
S,
Not a bad idea...... :D That would work,only problem is would they take them?..... ;) I think they would not consider doing it unless it was given as a direct order and I don't think you can give one like that.........:confused:
Big Teddy :munchin
S,
Not a bad idea...... :D That would work,only problem is would they take them?..... ;) I think they would not consider doing it unless it was given as a direct order and I don't think you can give one like that.........:confused:
Big Teddy :munchin
Can't see why not. They give us orders all the time to take medications/shots/ etc... I don't see why this would be any different.
Why not make a 100% female sub crew? This would be a career making slot and would also be a good platform to demonstrate the killer instincts of the female of the species.
Why not make a 100% female sub crew? This would be a career making slot and would also be a good platform to demonstrate the killer instincts of the female of the species.
An idea ahead of its time?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053143/
Why not make a 100% female sub crew? This would be a career making slot and would also be a good platform to demonstrate the killer instincts of the female of the species.
The Navy considered that but figured there would be too many people yelling "slow down; turn port; why don't you stop to ask for directions?":D
v/r
phil
Utah Bob
02-25-2010, 13:08
I'm just sayin...
ZonieDiver
02-25-2010, 13:15
Maybe this movie was waaaay ahead of its time:
Why not make a 100% female sub crew? This would be a career making slot and would also be a good platform to demonstrate the killer instincts of the female of the species.
If there's any truth to the theory behind Menstrual Synchrony (http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2002/10/10-08-02tdc/10-08-02dscihealth-03.asp) (also known as "The Dormitory Effect") better make sure that isn't a nuclear sub. Time of the month could get pretty tense down there, taking "killer instincts" to a whole new level :eek: :eek:
Maybe it's a recruiting ploy??? ;)
Here's a suggestion for the new dolphins for qualified submariners. :p
USS W.J. CLINTON, SSBN 68 ('Wolf' Class), to be the first co-ed submarine? :rolleyes:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
We only aim at people who say idiotic things. Duck.
We do indeed ;)
Utah Bob
02-25-2010, 15:04
One thing I have always been curious about is, if we ever did have a war where you had all-female crews, would they do things like this?
For example, crews are famous for painting aircraft with ferocious animals and other artwork on them in the U.S. military, with female crews, would we see an inverse of this, say ultra-cutesy-looking stuff, but the more cutesy, the more ferocious the pilot/crew?
For example, bomber planes with cupcakes painted on the side?
Probably not. I think you'll find that women in combat historically have been pretty tough. I doubt there were any cutesy looking stuff on the Russian girls' planes.
Soviet Women Pilots (http://mysite.pratt.edu/~rsilva/sovwomen.htm)
Afchic, we have a difference of opinion. That's fine because it's just the way God made Americans. It's my own belief that opinions are based upon a person's life experience and convictions are based on the conclusions one makes from those experiences. That having been said, what follows is my opinion:
The sub issue is one of living conditions, not job related so to speak.
The issue to be addressed is not just "living conditions". It is a matter of existing within a parameter of combat arms. The worn out argument that women can't fight as good as men is (IMO) bogus. I have worked with women, served along side women in the military, and have worked for military women up through the grade of Captain (0-6). Some I have found to be professional in every sense with courage, good leadership skills, and a clear vision of the mission/task at hand. Some have proven to be absorbed with themselves and their own sexuality, and not worth the powder it would take to blow them up. I consider those two extremes to be not unlike male leaders appointed to similar positions.
As far as living conditions in submarines are concerned, please indulge me with this story about submarine life: The day JFK was assassinated the submarine I was embarked in as a TM3 (E-4) was forced to get underway (emergency sortie) from Yokosuka, Japan. We were ordered to proceed to an area in the Northern Pacific and conduct "independent operations", snooping around basically. Our deployment was to last 45 days. Because food stores were not going to be readily available, we stuffed every imaginable cranny on that boat with cases of canned goods. Now, in diesel submarines the first priority for water consumption was for the batteries, second priority was for drinking, and the third was for bathing. For 45 days the only men, of the 85 men assigned in that boat, who had the luxury of a shower were the cooks (2) and the Messcooks (2). The showers they took were "Navy Showers", whereby one would quickly get wet, secure the water, soap up, turn on the water to rinse, then get out. Showering daily was not an option, however. Variations or delays were not tolerated. The rest of us enjoyed sponge baths when we could, but certainly not daily. There were no laundry facilities in the boat. The injection temperature (the temperature of the sea water outside) was barely enough to keep it a liquid. Inside the boat it was colder than all get out. We wore most of the clothes we had most of the time. This was our life for those 45 days. As sometimes happens (but thankfully not often) our relief slicked a main bearing enroute to relieve us, and as a result we were obliged to turn around and spend another 45 days on station. Oh, we managed to rendevous with a tin can (once) for some additional chow, but they had no mail on board for us, no one left the boat, and we didn't get any clean clothes.
I have lived with men in very close quarters. We all acted in a professional manner. Did I shower with them, of course not, but none of the guys on my team had a problem with me having the very limited shower facilities for a few minutes every day. Can't imagine that some kind of "out of the box" thinking will be used to integrate women onto subs.
I very respectfully suggest that you have no idea what it's like to live with 85 men the majority of whom have only had a sponge bath in the last 90-days. Yes, that was a diesel submarine, and today's boats are Cadillacs in comparison. But, todays submarines still have the required and trained for ability to remain at sea for periods extending well past the 90 days of a current deterrent patrol.
If neither sex can act in a professional manner, than both sexes should be drawn and quartered. You act professionally, then there shouldn't be a problem.
We are in violent agreement.
I don't think anyone with a brain will say that because women serve on subs, therefore they should be allowed to be a QP/SEAL/PJ….Somehow I don't think that applies to subs, in many cases.
The "goose/gander" argument is not one joined by those "with a brain". It is a purely PC convention the lazy bastards who make policy use to justify what they hope will gain them a favorable impression from the MSM. That having been said, if women are allowed in submarines then you can bet someday we will see "G.I. Janes" in a team of Quiet Professionals.
Finally, the nuclear deterrent triad was comprised of missiles in silos, bombs dropped from long range aircraft, and by nuclear submarines deployed at sea. Women served in the first two with pride and accomplishment. Unlike the submarine element, those in silos and aboard long range bombers were not confined for 90+ days at a time. It is my opinion that the current training and readiness posture of the submarine element of that triad should not be subjected to risk just to satisfy the PC attitudes of people who sit on cows but imagine they are bull riders.
I appreciate and greatly respect your opinion. We just have had different life experiences that have brought us to differing conclusions.
v/r,
Buffalobob
02-25-2010, 16:09
In my graduating class of SFOC there was probably less than 10% of the officers that I would have trusted to hold my back. Of the NCO's I knew at 10th Gp I would have trusted about 80+% to walk slack for me.
She can walk slack for me any day of the week if she is willing.
I weighted all of 172# in RVN. Upper body strength doesn't count for as much as a calmness under fire and a nice touch on the trigger.
In the picture, of the two of them, who would you rather take one single cold bore shot at you at 1000 - 1500 yards? Take your pick, its your life. I trained them both. :D
One thing I have always been curious about is, if we ever did have a war where you had all-female crews, would they do things like this?
For example, crews are famous for painting aircraft with ferocious animals and other artwork on them in the U.S. military, with female crews, would we see an inverse of this, say ultra-cutesy-looking stuff, but the more cutesy, the more ferocious the pilot/crew?
For example, bomber planes with cupcakes painted on the side?
Yeah, because all women are cutsey!!
Afchic, we have a difference of opinion. That's fine because it's just the way God made Americans. It's my own belief that opinions are based upon a person's life experience and convictions are based on the conclusions one makes from those experiences. That having been said, what follows is my opinion:
The issue to be addressed is not just "living conditions". It is a matter of existing within a parameter of combat arms. The worn out argument that women can't fight as good as men is (IMO) bogus. I have worked with women, served along side women in the military, and have worked for military women up through the grade of Captain (0-6). Some I have found to be professional in every sense with courage, good leadership skills, and a clear vision of the mission/task at hand. Some have proven to be absorbed with themselves and their own sexuality, and not worth the powder it would take to blow them up. I consider those two extremes to be not unlike male leaders appointed to similar positions.
As far as living conditions in submarines are concerned, please indulge me with this story about submarine life: The day JFK was assassinated the submarine I was embarked in as a TM3 (E-4) was forced to get underway (emergency sortie) from Yokosuka, Japan. We were ordered to proceed to an area in the Northern Pacific and conduct "independent operations", snooping around basically. Our deployment was to last 45 days. Because food stores were not going to be readily available, we stuffed every imaginable cranny on that boat with cases of canned goods. Now, in diesel submarines the first priority for water consumption was for the batteries, second priority was for drinking, and the third was for bathing. For 45 days the only men, of the 85 men assigned in that boat, who had the luxury of a shower were the cooks (2) and the Messcooks (2). The showers they took were "Navy Showers", whereby one would quickly get wet, secure the water, soap up, turn on the water to rinse, then get out. Showering daily was not an option, however. Variations or delays were not tolerated. The rest of us enjoyed sponge baths when we could, but certainly not daily. There were no laundry facilities in the boat. The injection temperature (the temperature of the sea water outside) was barely enough to keep it a liquid. Inside the boat it was colder than all get out. We wore most of the clothes we had most of the time. This was our life for those 45 days. As sometimes happens (but thankfully not often) our relief slicked a main bearing enroute to relieve us, and as a result we were obliged to turn around and spend another 45 days on station. Oh, we managed to rendevous with a tin can (once) for some additional chow, but they had no mail on board for us, no one left the boat, and we didn't get any clean clothes.
I very respectfully suggest that you have no idea what it's like to live with 85 men the majority of whom have only had a sponge bath in the last 90-days. Yes, that was a diesel submarine, and today's boats are Cadillacs in comparison. But, todays submarines still have the required and trained for ability to remain at sea for periods extending well past the 90 days of a current deterrent patrol.
We are in violent agreement.
The "goose/gander" argument is not one joined by those "with a brain". It is a purely PC convention the lazy bastards who make policy use to justify what they hope will gain them a favorable impression from the MSM. That having been said, if women are allowed in submarines then you can bet someday we will see "G.I. Janes" in a team of Quiet Professionals.
Finally, the nuclear deterrent triad was comprised of missiles in silos, bombs dropped from long range aircraft, and by nuclear submarines deployed at sea. Women served in the first two with pride and accomplishment. Unlike the submarine element, those in silos and aboard long range bombers were not confined for 90+ days at a time. It is my opinion that the current training and readiness posture of the submarine element of that triad should not be subjected to risk just to satisfy the PC attitudes of people who sit on cows but imagine they are bull riders.
I appreciate and greatly respect your opinion. We just have had different life experiences that have brought us to differing conclusions.
v/r,
Thanks for providing me your thoughts. And you are right, we have different opinions and I respect yours as well.
As far as leadership is concerned, leadership is leadership. Either you are a good leader or you are not, and I believe it has absolutly nothing to do with your gender. I have met a hell of alot more men in leadership positions that are concerned about aspects of their gender than women. On that we agree.
As far as the living conditions are concerned, I respectfully disagree. Do you honestly think there is any difference between the two sexes in the example you gave? If the women are professional, and understand what the mission is, I doubt you are going to have very many that complain about not getting anything other than a GI shower. I have gone 45 days without anything more than babywipes. I stunk just as bad as the men I was with, and they were the ones complaining about not having a shower, not the women. Now granted we were on a flightline, so the stentch only really got to you in the tents, but none the less, if things such as showering is the only beef, then I think women will learn to deal with it, just as men did. It is a learning process.
Once again, is the concern the ability to perform your duty, or is it living conditions? Are there jobs on a sub that a women physically can't perform? If she can't perform at the standard set, then she shouldn't hold that AFSC (or whatever it is called in the Navy). If she can perform to the standard set, she will get used to being at sea, just as men have, and will perform professionally.
Plutarch
02-25-2010, 17:02
Great, continue to use the military as a social experiment. I suppose blue nose day will now become as lame as wog day has. Sad.
Great, continue to use the military as a social experiment. I suppose blue nose day will now become as lame as wog day has. Sad.
How is it sad to allow women to do a job they are trained to do, as long as they can meet the standards?
When I was a cadet in ROTC I was at a function in which the CSAF stated women had no place in the cockpit of a fighter. Low and behold the regulation changed, and women are now flying in combat, and doing so honorably. Good thing we decided to do a social experiment.
The Reaper
02-25-2010, 18:35
With that point aside. Women do not get pregnant on their own. If you all have a problem living with women in an environment, such as a submarine, keep your pecker in your pants, and then you don't have to worry about it.:p Last time I checked I woman can not physically impregnate herself. Is it going to happen, of course it probably will, but to lay the blame soley at the feet of women is just dumb. You all have as much to do with it as we do. If neither sex can act in a professional manner, than both sexes should be drawn and quartered. You act professionally, then there shouldn't be a problem.
I have a lot of respect for you afchic, but I must disagree with you on this one.
I do not know if you have been in an attack boat, but there is not a lot of space for anything, to include privacy. It struck me as not much larger than a couple of C17 fuselages end to end. Sailors are hot racking and sleeping in the open on torpedo tube racks. There are only a couple of showers. IIRC, there are two small washers, and two dryers. Petty officers are stacked very closely, storing almost everything thay own in the 6-8" of space under their mattress, and the only single room on the boat is the skipper's quarters. The other officers are stacked four or five to a single room, with the top of the bottom bunk being even with the floor. There is no doctor, only a limited duty corpsman.
Men get women pregnant. True. But all male crews do not get pregnant. Ever. Now, when the first one gets pregnant, we can divert from the mission to the nearest port, and UCMJ her and the male(s) she identifies as the possible father(s), kicking them all off the boat. Great, now I am down TWO or more crew members, and there are not a lot of extra people on a sub. The Navy already has a problem with female sailors who get pregnant to avoid sea duty. This doubles the duty some men must pull, breeds resentment in the force, and will not help.
You put 120 male sailors on a boat for six months with females, I guarantee they are going to have sex, somewhere, somehow. Guaranteed. It is what people their ages do, with a lot less guilt and stigma than we had growing up. Some will probably get pregnant. Others will cause fights and resentment between crew members. Drama. Probably a double standard for physical requirements as well.
The real question I have is, is the Navy so short of sub crew members that they have to find females to help them out, or is this just a continuation of a social experiment?
TR
If there's any truth to the theory behind Menstrual Synchrony (http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2002/10/10-08-02tdc/10-08-02dscihealth-03.asp) (also known as "The Dormitory Effect") better make sure that isn't a nuclear sub. Time of the month could get pretty tense down there, taking "killer instincts" to a whole new level :eek: :eek:
OH, it's true. Can you even begin to imagine? No offense to all the women here, seeing as I am one myself, but my God it would be PMS on steriods times a gazillion. :munchin
I've written a few bubble heads in the past, this would not be a good idea IMO.
Kyobanim
02-25-2010, 19:01
I don't have a dog in this fight but I do have a question to pose to all.
If not now, then when? And why not now?
GratefulCitizen
02-25-2010, 19:07
Question from a non-military person regarding "leadership":
Isn't a big part of "leadership" ability reflected in the willingness of others to follow?
It would seem that leadership could be undermined purely by the ingrained attitudes of subordinates, however wrong those attitudes may be.
Here in the civilian world, a man's height has an unreasonable/unfair effect on his ability to "lead".
Life's not fair.
Attitudes can be changed, but is it worth the necessary dedication of time and resources to affect that change?
Is this consistent with the mission of the military?
This is not meant to be disrespectful.
Just curious how significant these "unfair" factors are in the military.
greenberetTFS
02-25-2010, 19:35
I remember a true story I read regarding the Israeli Army during a tense battle in the 1967 war where the Egyptians or the Syrians had just forth a battle and had lost to the Israeli troops...... When they found out it was a unit that consisted of female soldiers,many "committed suicide" because of the shame they felt by losing to the women.........If I'm not mistaken it's one of the books I sent out to one of the guys last year,I believe it's titled "Tip of the Spear",but not certain..... Anyway, it's an interesting thought......... I don't believe a women would be able to cut it on an a ODA team,even if she would have somehow passed SFQC....... Just my opinion,an old fart that served "before women" were in the 82nd,11th or 101st Airborne....... Direct question to our super ladies out there is simply this,do you believe women should be able to serve on a SF ODA team..... :):cool:;)
Big Teddy :munchin
armymom1228
02-25-2010, 20:15
II don't believe a women would be able to cut it on an a ODA team,even if she would have somehow passed SFQC....... Just my opinion,an old fart that served "before women" were in the 82nd or 11th Airborne....... Direct question to our super ladies out there is simply this,do you believe women should be able to serve on a SF ODA team..... :))
Direct anwser...an all woman ODA...yep.
With this caveat. There are standards and rules already in place. To 'dumb' them down for a woman would be a disservice to both genders. If they want in, then they play by the big boy rules, or don't play period. NO whining, bitching or expecting quarter. Any woman going for selection should expect to be assessed just like thier male counterparts and held to the same standard. However, with the current male bias in place. Even if they really did qualify, they would not be selected.
Mixed ODA's...no, but an all woman might be doable, emphasis on might.
Teddy darlin' I believe we have had this conversation already in another thread. You really want to stir the pot doncha?:munchin
AM
Groovy, man. :rolleyes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI5WsZ1HwS4
And so it goes...
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
mark46th
02-25-2010, 20:30
Maybe equality will kick in and instead of the women on subs taking birth control, the guys will have have vasectomies...
SSBN 68 Do you have in mind a joke that ends "...and I'll owe you one"?:D
If there is a W.J. Clinton class of boats, there will be ample opportunities for new tactics including:
the 'pretend you don't know me',
the 'we can be together',
the 'hide under the desk',
the 'blue dress',
the 'trip to the dry cleaners', and
the 'it depends on what it is'.
Do you have in mind a joke that ends "...and I'll owe you one"?
You caught me! :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nx2-FrVHhW4
Now what could go wrong with such a plan? :rolleyes:
Richard
LongWire
02-25-2010, 21:06
Direct question to our super ladies out there is simply this,do you believe women should be able to serve on a SF ODA team.....
I think when people talk about ODA's they tend to miss the difference when comparing to a lot of Combat MOS's. The point being that we end up dealing with other peoples of differing social/religious practices, and in many cases have to maintain rapport and lead these people.
Personally I can't see it, and professionally I can't fathom seeing a Female ODA Commander break bread with the tribal council let alone talk them through strenuous negotiations. Some might buy off, but not all. Forget about having the Taliban at the table. Let's not even start the talk of all female ODA. I think it's hard enough keeping all the right numbers of guys/Mos's on for every thing that comes down the pipe let alone having it be the female medic that I can't take with because she is female or worse.
Just my 2 cents but submitted for your consideration. Hate to say it but, its a man's world, even if it isn't in the US.
I remember a true story I read regarding the Israeli Army during a tense battle in the 1967 war where the Egyptians or the Syrians had just forth a battle and had lost to the Israeli troops...... When they found out it was a unit that consisted of female soldiers,many "committed suicide" because of the shame they felt by losing to the women.........If I'm not mistaken it's one of the books I sent out to one of the guys last year,I believe it's titled "Tip of the Spear",but not certain..... Anyway, it's an interesting thought......... I don't believe a women would be able to cut it on an a ODA team,even if she would have somehow passed SFQC....... Just my opinion,an old fart that served "before women" were in the 82nd,11th or 101st Airborne....... Direct question to our super ladies out there is simply this,do you believe women should be able to serve on a SF ODA team.....
Thanks for your question Big Teddy... You sound like a true Gent, we like that ;)
I am probably a little biased seeing as in my next life I've put in a request to return as a devastatingly handsome guy, with aspirations of being an SF Soldier, or Commander of a Navy ship (submarines aren't my thing). Sticking with the current existence though, we really are wired differently, physically and emotionally! Your average woman probably could not withstand the rigors and training of SF, but I am thinking it could be a good idea to put together some kind of Special Unit - Israeli style - comprised of female soldiers who could be deployed to collaborate with SF on missions requiring their unique talents. Women have SO much to contribute to society... that includes the military. I am a huge advocate of equal rights. However, I wholly acknowledge and embrace our differences.
OH, it's true. Can you even begin to imagine? No offense to all the women here, seeing as I am one myself, but my God it would be PMS on steriods times a gazillion. :munchin
I stand by this theory! 100% female (wo)manned sub is a bad idea! Muscle mass, testosterone and cold hard logic would probably come in handy when you're submerged for six months straight. Still giving thought to the notion of a mixed sub...
I've written a few bubble heads in the past, this would not be a good idea IMO.
UGH! Tell me about it! PMS is a b***h! Saying that, it has been known to work to my advantage at the office. There's no messing with me when I'm in that kinda mood... it's all YESSSS MA'AM! :D
BTW did you know that 'bubblehead (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bubble%20Head)' is also a slang term for submariner?! Funny that! :p
charlietwo
02-25-2010, 21:25
As a recruiter, the question of females in combat MOS' is often brought up... typically from a scornful look from a potential female (sometimes male) applicant. The simple way I explain it is this --
You know how a group of type A males acts when they're together and around each other at all times? Have you have seen what happens when a girl or two walks into the room for just a few moments (they don't even have to be remotely attractive, just feminine-looking)? The guys start beating their chests and acting like goofballs to do whatever it takes to get the girls attention. Now-- Introduce live rounds flying past your head during this. Sexual tension leads to DISTRACTIONS which is the key word. When lives are on the line and people are trying to kill you, distractions can and will get people killed.
After saying this I can literally watch the light-bulb turn on above the persons head -- they understand because they have seen it.
afchic- Does this make it the guys fault? Absolutely. Just like with Adam and Eve... Eve tempted Adam and Adam was not strong enough to rebuke Eve for her mistake, as a result, everyone lost. Males typically fail with women because they are not strong enough to withstand the inevitable temptations that accompany women (sex, fighting, etc). Call it sexist if you will, but I welcome a challenge to this opinion.
:munchin
Does this make it the guys fault? Absolutely. Just like with Adam and Eve... Eve tempted Adam and Adam was not strong enough to rebuke Eve for her mistake, as a result, everyone lost. Males typically fail with women because they are not strong enough to withstand the inevitable temptations that accompany women (sex, fighting, etc). Call it sexist if you will, but I welcome a challenge to this opinion.
Gawd...not another one of those Davy Crockett tales. :rolleyes:
And so it goes...;)
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
Dozer523
02-25-2010, 23:45
afchic- Does this make it the guys fault? Absolutely. Just like with Adam and Eve... Eve tempted Adam and Adam was not strong enough to rebuke Eve for her mistake, as a result, everyone lost. Males typically fail with women because they are not strong enough to withstand the inevitable temptations that accompany women (sex, fighting, etc). Call it sexist if you will, but I welcome a challenge to this opinion.
Oh BULLSH!T. That's why there's fishin'
Are there any cultures where an all-female ODA might be more successful winning over members compared to males ?
armymom1228
02-26-2010, 00:12
One question, but is there also a hygiene issue with regards to women in combat MOS's...? Like a man can go weeks without showering in the field, but with women, if they don't keep their private area clean, bad things start to happen...?
Baby Wipes:lifter.
One question, but is there also a hygiene issue with regards to women in combat MOS's...? Like a man can go weeks without showering in the field, but with women, if they don't keep their private area clean, bad things start to happen...?
Just speculating, I am thinking the Amazon tribe, but they are gone now.
You need to date a returned Peace Corps girl.
I certainly have known my share of men who were crazy Aholes 365 days a year.
Yah, but that's a different kind of crazy :D
True, women's menstrual experiences and symptoms do vary. However, having grown up in a house full of women (me being one of them), and having spent three years working on a floor full of women (me being one of them), I have found that there is a very different energy and dynamic that generates from females when they are grouped together for lengthy periods (pardon the pun) of time. It does get crazy at times.
Indeed, you could say the same about large 'packs' or groups of men. If you want to look at this scientifically and in seriousness, there is definitely a lot more going on beneath the surface when it comes to group gender dynamics.
However, having grown up in a house full of women (me being one of them), and having spent three years working on a floor full of women (me being one of them)
... forgot to mention 'all girls' school'!!! :eek:
Question from a non-military person regarding "leadership":
Isn't a big part of "leadership" ability reflected in the willingness of others to follow?
It would seem that leadership could be undermined purely by the ingrained attitudes of subordinates, however wrong those attitudes may be.
Here in the civilian world, a man's height has an unreasonable/unfair effect on his ability to "lead".
Life's not fair.
Attitudes can be changed, but is it worth the necessary dedication of time and resources to affect that change?
Is this consistent with the mission of the military?
This is not meant to be disrespectful.
Just curious how significant these "unfair" factors are in the military.
You pose some great questions. And I understand that life isn't fair. But if your going in argument is that someone can't lead because their subordinates won't respect them, then we women in the military would not have progressed past we were, in say WWII.
When I was in aircraft maintenance as a Lt, our squadron commander was a female Lt Col. She was one of the first women to work in that particular AFSC as a woman. She told me stories of when she was a Lt, the SNCOs in her squadron would spit on her boots, because they didn't respect her. Well, after time they learned to respect her because she proved to be a very competent Mx Officer.
Should she have never been given the chance to be a commander of a Maintenance Squadron? Which by the way, she was selected to be the AGS/CC of the Largest AGS in the Air Force, when we moved out of Ops. You don't get to that place because of your gender, and someone was being PC. YOu get to that place because she was a damn fine officer, and lead the best AGS in the AF in the 3 years she was its commander, until she retired due to health issues.
Had the AF decided she couldn't lead because her male counterparts/subordinates didn't want a woman on the flight line, the AF would have denied itself one of its great leaders.
Danimal18C
02-26-2010, 09:06
I wanna say something. I'm gonna put it out there; if you like it, you can take it, if you don't, send it right back...
As far as the tactical, technical and professionalism of female soldiers, every single soldier must be evaluated case by case. You can't generalize the "Typical" female soldier, just as you can't generalize the "Typical" male soldiers. Each have strengths, each have weaknesses, and are specific to the individual, not the gender. With that said... Female soldiers in Special Forces will never work properly due to two issues that exist and will never vanish...
1. SEXUALITY. The main reason I feel women do not serve in Combat specific roles is due to Sexuality. It doesn't belong on the battlefied. All you team-guys who have been down range, all know how the presence of female soldiers make even the steeliest eyed door-kickers turn into a bunch of frat boys. There is a certain social dynamic between men and women that exists due to sexuality... and there is nothing wrong with that, but it is a social dynamic that will never change, and certainly serves as a distraction in units focused on combat operations. Pregnancy is a component of sexuality that does affect the decision to have women in combat roles. If a Postal section of 6 soldiers, has one soldier go home due to a deployment related pregnancy... I'm sure the 5 other clerks can still sort the mail. On an SFODA, where you have each specialty field occupied by 2 and often one soldier, a team can't afford to lose a solder because of pregnancy. We had one of our Deltas go home on a red cross emergency while we were in Iraq, and that certainly affected our capabilities in conducting operations.
No one can say that this won't be a distraction, because when an SF soldier graduates the Q course, he gets exponentially better looking... so you know any women in SF would be absolutely gorgeous! j/k
2. PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS: This is subject that is always brought up. Men are built differently than women. I know there are women out there that are stronger than me, but I bet I can out-run them... there are women out there that can out-run me, but I bet I am stronger, this isn't a competition of the sexes... it's a biological fact. The male body is better built for the role of combat... and even fewer male bodies are built for SF. Our Physical requirements go well beyond passing the Army PT test, or looking good in Ranger-panties... The SF job is a physical one. I am not saying there are no women that have the physical strength and endurance to hang on an ODA (its a big world), but I've never met one. Strength and Endurance is not 49 pushups on a PT test, 59 situps or running a sub 15:12 two mile... Strength and Endurance is going 48 hours without sleep, moving on foot long distances and compound to compound, wearing 60lbs of kit, carrying a 25lb machinegun, and if necessary, carrying your 220lb SF buddy (who'd be 280lbs with his kit on) out of harms way if something bad happens. Our advisory and diplomatic roles in SF are definitely important... and I have no doubt that there are women out there that could do an awesome job advising or being diplomatic which is why a lot of Gung-ho women join Civil Affairs or Psych-ops.. but SF soldiers are combatants... we fight... and at the end of the day, nobody is gonna carry your ruck... and EVERYONE's ruck is the same weight.
Just my point of view...
I heard Hollywood is coming out with a new movie about a mutiny on an all female submarine, when they all PMS at the same time... I think it's called "Crimson Tide II"
craigepo
02-26-2010, 09:14
And I have been in front of older male judges that decide a case based on their own emotions, gender-bias, and old-fashioned values, rather than the facts and the law --while the female judges I have practiced in front of have for the most part been cool and reasoned in their decisions.
A little Sotomayor with your coffee this morning?
LJ19
"Are there any cultures where an all-female ODA might be more successful winning over members compared to males?"
Italy, or Las Vegas. If we ever attack either locale, rest assured that an all-female ODA would be much more effective at winning over hearts and minds.
I have a lot of respect for you afchic, but I must disagree with you on this one.
I do not know if you have been in an attack boat, but there is not a lot of space for anything, to include privacy. It struck me as not much larger than a couple of C17 fuselages end to end. Sailors are hot racking and sleeping in the open on torpedo tube racks. There are only a couple of showers. IIRC, there are two small washers, and two dryers. Petty officers are stacked very closely, storing almost everything thay own in the 6-8" of space under their mattress, and the only single room on the boat is the skipper's quarters. The other officers are stacked four or five to a single room, with the top of the bottom bunk being even with the floor. There is no doctor, only a limited duty corpsman.
Men get women pregnant. True. But all male crews do not get pregnant. Ever. Now, when the first one gets pregnant, we can divert from the mission to the nearest port, and UCMJ her and the male(s) she identifies as the possible father(s), kicking them all off the boat. Great, now I am down TWO or more crew members, and there are not a lot of extra people on a sub. The Navy already has a problem with female sailors who get pregnant to avoid sea duty. This doubles the duty some men must pull, breeds resentment in the force, and will not help.
You put 120 male sailors on a boat for six months with females, I guarantee they are going to have sex, somewhere, somehow. Guaranteed. It is what people their ages do, with a lot less guilt and stigma than we had growing up. Some will probably get pregnant. Others will cause fights and resentment between crew members. Drama. Probably a double standard for physical requirements as well.
The real question I have is, is the Navy so short of sub crew members that they have to find females to help them out, or is this just a continuation of a social experiment?
TR
TR, with all due respect, if men could figure out how to live in those conditions, why wouldn't women be able to do the same? Why not selectively choose women that WANT to do this type of job? There is no need to force anyone into it to fill a quota. I am sure there are very few women that would want to do this, but the ones that do may be an asset instead of a hindrance.
Yes kids are going to have sex, understand. I fully acknowledge that if a woman is willing to do this type of duty then she should be put on birth control, no if, and, or buts about it. If neither sex can hold out on having sex for 90 days, then in my opinion they don't have the professionalism to be doing that job in the first place, regardless of sex. I "honeymooned" with my husband in a war zone. We lived in tents right next to each other for 2 months. We did not have sex during that time, because as professionals we both knew it was against the rules at the time.
I have friends that are female missileers. There never used to be any because of many of the same issues that have been addressed in this thread. But at some point the AF decided to give it a go. Women live in the same room with their "partner" during their time on crew. A missile silo is not a large place. You work in one half of the room, and sleep in the other. We have somehow managed to not screw up the nuclear mission due to gender/sexual issues (other ways yes, but not this). Granted your time on crew is not the same length as a sub mission, but I am sure over time, this will be much ado about nothing, just as every other AFSC/MOS etc.... that used to be a no go for women, but now have them.
Will there be some growing pains, of course. But if we continue to paint ourselves into a box of why something can't be done, instead of finding ways that it can be, we are all piss poor leaders in my opinion. We as a military have not become the strongest in the world because of saying "we can't", instead we find new and inventive ways to say "we can".
craigepo
02-26-2010, 10:32
In my observations, I note that a human male, under the age of 25, is the most hormonally-driven, destructive force on the face of the planet. They are very good at destruction and breeding. Given the opportunity, they will attempt to mate with any female available. If you don't believe this, come sit through one of my criminal dockets.
My friends and I have bird dogs, and we hunt together often. Some have male dogs, some female. The dogs we hunt with, both male and female, are good hunting dogs, or we wouldn't own them.
There are differences between the male and female dogs. The females are often easier to train, and have a more gentle disposition. The females are often good to hunt for one day; however, on our long 3-4 day trips, the females often lack the endurance and willpower to continue hunting on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th days. The females are oftentimes more timid, are more likely to be gun-shy, and are less likely to jump into a patch of briars in search of game. Female pointing dogs seem less likely to flush game prematurely.
The male dogs are often more hard-headed. They are more likely to crash through briar patches after game. Their endurance and strength is greater than that of females, and the longer the hunting trip, the more glowing this difference becomes. Males are much less timid, and are easier to break to the gun. They are more likely to fight other dogs than females.
Some of the best braces(pairs) of bird dogs I have ever hunted with is a male and a female.
The problem that arises is when the female comes into heat. The female seems not to notice. However, every male dog is instantly aware that the female is in season. If the female is in heat, the hunt is over before it begins. All of the male dogs do nothing but follow her, hoping that she will allow him to show his affections. Commonly, there is a huge fight between the males.
Stated differently, the one in-heat female instantly decreases the hunting force down to zero(0) dogs.
Please forgive the attempt at allegory. However, I do believe that, if understood, it is extremely relevant to the present discussion. Post-adolescent males and females are in fact mammals, and often behave in much the same manner. To ignore commonly-known human tendancies, at the risk of combat efficiency, in order to advance politically-expedient ideology, could prove to be perilous.
In my observations, I note that a human male, under the age of 25, is the most hormonally-driven, destructive force on the face of the planet. They are very good at destruction...
...Please forgive the attempt at allegory. However, I do believe that, if understood, it is extremely relevant to the present discussion. Post-adolescent males and females are in fact mammals, and often behave in much the same manner. To ignore commonly-known human tendancies, at the risk of combat efficiency, in order to advance politically-expedient ideology, could prove to be perilous.
Or advantageous, depending on your perspective.
Muhammad’s Evil Tactics of ‘Virgins in Paradise’ for Decieving Youths
How Muhammad devised the diabolical idea of Virgins in Paradise to decieve the rash and daring youths, full of emotions, romanticism and craze for opposite sex, for achieving his ends at the risk of their lives....
Muhammad’s evil mission started in 610 CE, when he was approximately 40. He propagated his new version of religion in Mecca for about 12 years before migrating to Medina (Hijra) in 622 CE. It is a well-known fact that before the Hijra, Muhammad was not able to convert many; he had 100-150 converts by then.
After migration to Medina, the situation suddenly changed in his propagation of Islam. In about 7 or 8 years after the Hijra, his mission of converting infidels turned hugely successful. The number of converts were so high that, as history tells us, some 10,000 to 12,000 Muslim fighters joined him, when he went to capture Mecca in 630 CE.
This is a big riddle for many historians as to why the same prophet couldn’t convert the pagans to his religion with the same pace as he was able to do so after emigration to Medina. But soon, we will learn how Muhammad became successful by diabolical tactics.
Psychology of youths
The psychology of human nature tells us that the element of enthusiasm and fervent in youths is very high especially in teenage days. In early teen years, a youth is very emotionally, but lacks wit and maturity. They gamely go through a danger-situation that a person of 25 or above will think twice before going through. Male teenagers are emotionally very romantic for opposite sex. Hence, many teenagers dream of romanticism and are willing to do any heroic action to impress their opposite number. As a result, some of them lose their lives; some get seriously injured. This psychology is not new to us; everyone goes through these experiences, and that is why a youth is usually easier to manipulate than a mature and older person.
72 virgins in heavens
Muhammad knew who can be the easy victims of his snare. With this mentality, he focused on teenagers to enlarge his aggressive force against everything that he feared to come in his way. The concept of 72 or more virgins in Paradise was his major tool to gain his valid and invalid ends. This concept was specially created for the young and teenage males, so that they could fight more gallantly in battles. The bounds on humanity were lifted up; no one had to be blamed to kill anyone, who goes against their master Muhammad. They were allowed to rob the traders and caravans in the name of Allah.
As teenagers are emotionally very romantic, they believed in any story that related to opposite sex. The repetition of the verses of Virgins in Paradise in the Quran made them believe in another ever lasting world with many heavenly Virgins and luxuries. The poor young victims of Muhammad, without probing the veracity of Muhammad’s claim of Virgins in Paradise, embraced death just for the greed of boundless sexual orgies with many Virgins and other luxuries in heaven.
The point to be noted here: During early years in Medina, Muhammad had no well-organized army, but a small band of plunderers and depredators, comprised mostly of youngsters. The story of Islam, no doubt, has been twisted down to us over a long period of time. The cowards have been made heroes, while the names of real heroes have been vanished or discredited. This is the main reason, none of Muhammad’s companions, who later became caliphs, fell into his dangerous trap; that is, they did not take on Muhammad’s most dangerous missions to risk their life, as they were mature.
Usama bin Harith and Muhammad’s last expedition
We can assume now, how Muhammad put his belief in youths and trusted them, because they were rash, adventurous and not selfish for any means. At the same time, those youngsters were dreaming for the Virgins in heaven. Their romantic craze for gaining access into Paradise to be in the company of those Virgins could be raised higher and higher quite easily. And Muhammad was spot on in devising his tactic: Die quickly on the trail of Jihad for Allah, and without delay, get your hand on your lot of Virgins.
Usama bin Harith is an example; Muhammad made him the general of his army for the last mission he was planning. He was only 17. Earlier to mission to Palestinian border territory had failed. And youthful Osama, undoubtedly pumped up by his desire for the Virgins, fought valiantly, and won the battle.
Conclusion
Today, I was reading a Pakistani news-story about a 14 or 15 year-old boy, who blew himself up as he entered a hotel.
I know such news is nothing new; but as I went through it, I started to understand Muhammad’s psychology and his evil tactics of prying on emotions of innocent youths. Modern-day Jihadi masterminds continue the tactic (a sunnah): Like Muhammad, they never put themselves in harm’s way, but send in young boys instead.
I wonder how many more innocent youths will be the victim of satanic-minded Muhammad.
http://www.islam-watch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=352:muhammad-evil-tactics-of-virgins-in-paradise-decieving-youths&catid=112:mohammad&Itemid=58
GratefulCitizen
02-26-2010, 11:00
You pose some great questions. And I understand that life isn't fair. But if your going in argument is that someone can't lead because their subordinates won't respect them, then we women in the military would not have progressed past we were, in say WWII.
This is an either/or fallacy.
The question isn't an absolute.
The question is: to what degree and under what circumstances will this serve the mission?
When I was in aircraft maintenance as a Lt, our squadron commander was a female Lt Col. She was one of the first women to work in that particular AFSC as a woman. She told me stories of when she was a Lt, the SNCOs in her squadron would spit on her boots, because they didn't respect her. Well, after time they learned to respect her because she proved to be a very competent Mx Officer.
Should she have never been given the chance to be a commander of a Maintenance Squadron? Which by the way, she was selected to be the AGS/CC of the Largest AGS in the Air Force, when we moved out of Ops. You don't get to that place because of your gender, and someone was being PC. YOu get to that place because she was a damn fine officer, and lead the best AGS in the AF in the 3 years she was its commander, until she retired due to health issues.
Had the AF decided she couldn't lead because her male counterparts/subordinates didn't want a woman on the flight line, the AF would have denied itself one of its great leaders.
Perhaps this is a case where it was appropriate.
The question remains: to what degree and under what circumstances will it serve the mission?
Not saying that I have the answer.
The question still matters.
I have friends that are female missileers. There never used to be any because of many of the same issues that have been addressed in this thread. But at some point the AF decided to give it a go. Women live in the same room with their "partner" during their time on crew. A missile silo is not a large place. You work in one half of the room, and sleep in the other. We have somehow managed to not screw up the nuclear mission due to gender/sexual issues (other ways yes, but not this). Granted your time on crew is not the same length as a sub mission, but I am sure over time, this will be much ado about nothing, just as every other AFSC/MOS etc.... that used to be a no go for women, but now have them.
Well, life in the silos isn't Mayberry either:
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jul/17/news/mn-57562
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/sex-and-the-married-missileer-7
Interesting that in an organization that allows modified grooming and uniform standards based on religious preference, and provides special duty accomodations for the same, LT Ryan's religious preferences came second to "perceived" preferential treatment. I'm curious to see if this was the only "problem" encountered after integrating silo crews, or if its the only one made public.
I also have a hard time equating 24 - 96 hours of missile silo duty pulled by older, more mature service members to 180 days of sub duty performed by 18 - 21 year old sailors. Different environments, different population, very different duty demands and duration.
I stick to my previous stance that I'll more seriously consider full gender integration in the DOD after they do the same in the Olympics and professional sports teams (to include the locker rooms and living accomodations). I'm not holding my breath.
And I have been in front of older male judges that decide a case based on their own emotions, gender-bias, and old-fashioned values, rather than the facts and the law --while the female judges I have practiced in front of have for the most part been cool and reasoned in their decisions.
I do not recall saying anywhere that women are incapable of making rational and professional decisions during their monthlies. I was simply saying that for a large amount of women, PMS is a reality, affecting mood and emotions. There's a difference between being overly sensitive and moody and making poor decisions that could be of detriment to others. Stupid people come in every gender, shape and form!
To me it's just as unreasonable to say "all" or "none" when talking about women, as it is to use those terms when speaking of men. Some men I have dated have been more concerned with their hair then I am. Some women wouldn't wear a dress if you paid them.
True, there are effeminate men who wouldn't even make it through the recruiting office door... Still doesn't change the fact that guys and girls are different.
Reasonable minds can disagree, however, so I respect your point.
Ditto! I respect your point too and it nice to have another female here among all the lovely lads :)
...
The real question I have is, is the Navy so short of sub crew members that they have to find females to help them out, or is this just a continuation of a social experiment?
TR
Sir, your question reminded me of an article I read. The article is dated, the sample size in the analysis is small and only covers future officers (however, according to Fox (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/23/pentagon-allow-women-serve-aboard-navy-submarines/), the initial phase would involve female officers), and it may not be the root cause driving the decision, but I thought it was interesting.
Article Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/20/us/20eye.html)
The New York Times
June 20, 2006
Perfect Vision Is Helping and Hurting Navy
By DAVID S. CLOUD
BETHESDA, Md., June 17 — Almost every Thursday during the academic year, a bus carrying a dozen or so Naval Academy midshipmen leaves Annapolis for the 45-minute drive to Bethesda, where Navy doctors perform laser eye surgery on them, one after another, with assembly-line efficiency.
Nearly a third of every 1,000-member Naval Academy class now undergoes the procedure, part of a booming trend among military personnel with poor vision. Unlike in the civilian world, where eye surgery is still largely done for convenience or vanity, the procedure's popularity in the armed forces is transforming career choices and daily life in subtle but far-reaching ways.
Aging fighter pilots can now remain in the cockpit longer, reducing annual recruiting needs. And recruits whose bad vision once would have disqualified them from the special forces are now eligible, making the competition for these coveted slots even tougher.
But the surgery is also causing the military some unexpected difficulties. By shrinking the pool of people who used to be routinely available for jobs that do not require perfect eyesight, it has made it harder to fill some of those assignments with top-notch personnel, officers say.
When Ensign Michael Shaughnessy had the surgery in his junior year at the Naval Academy, his new 20-20 vision qualified him for flight school. And that is where he decided to go after graduating last month ranked in the top 10 percent of his class, rather than pursuing a career as a submarine officer.
"The cramped environment in submarines is something that turned me off," Ensign Shaughnessy, 22, said.
For generations, Academy graduates with high grades and bad eyes were funneled into the submarine service. But in the five years since the Naval Academy began offering free eye surgery to all midshipmen, it has missed its annual quota for supplying the Navy with submarine officers every year.
Officers involved say the failure to meet the quota is due to many factors, including the perception that submarines no longer play as vital a national security role as they once did. But the availability of eye surgery to any midshipman who wants it is also routinely cited.
"Some of the guys with glasses who would have gone to submarines or become navigators are getting the chance to do something they'd rather do, and the communities that are losing the people are not as happy about it as the aviation community, which is gaining better candidates," said Cmdr. Joseph Pasternak, the ophthalmologist who oversees the program at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda.
In the Naval Academy's class of 2006, 349 of the 993 midshipmen had the surgery, up from 50 five years ago, according to Naval Academy records. Fewer than 30 percent of the academy students whose eyes qualify for the surgery choose not to get it, and the number of holdouts is dropping every year, Commander Pasternak said.
Last week, a little after 10:40 a.m., Colin Carroll, a 21-year-old midshipman from Olney, Md., put anesthetic drops in his eyes and lay down under the laser as Capt. Kerry Hunt, a Navy doctor, and two assistants prepared to begin. "We're locking the laser on now," Captain Hunt told him.
Midshipman Carroll had originally hoped to enter flight school but discovered not only that his eyes were not good enough, but also that he was prone to kidney stones, ruling him out of aviation entirely. He said he was "resigned" to entering the Marine Corps or becoming an officer on a surface ship, neither an assignment requiring perfect vision.
But he decided to get the surgery anyway.
By 10:49, both eyes were done, though extremely bloodshot, and Mr. Carroll walked out wearing sunglasses, declaring he could already see better.
The procedure used by the Navy, photorefractive keratectomy, or PRK, is different from the one used on most civilians. That approach, known as laser-in situ keratomileusis, or Lasik, requires cutting a flap in the surface of the cornea and then using a laser to reshape the cornea. But military doctors worry that the flap could come loose during combat, especially in a supersonic fighter.
So rather than slicing into the cornea covering, Navy doctors grind it away. The approach requires a longer recovery as the covering re-forms but leaves the eye more stable.
The Air Force also limits its pilots to PRK, but nonpilots can get either procedure; because most students admitted to the academy aspire to fly, and have already met strict vision standards, relatively few cadets have the surgery, compared with the number at the Naval Academy. Army personnel, including helicopter pilots and other aviators, are allowed to get either procedure.
One in every 200 midshipmen who has the surgery suffers initial complications, which can usually be corrected, Commander Pasternak said. A study by the Navy soon after the program began concluded that pilot trainees who had the surgery graduated from flight school at higher rates than other pilots, he added.
Now that most midshipmen meet the vision requirements, getting into pilot training is harder than ever, depending almost entirely on academic class rank, military performance while at the academy and other physical criteria.
Last year, 310 midshipmen competed for 272 flight training slots. Of those, 104 had undergone laser eye surgery.
"If we didn't have PRK, where would those 104 midshipmen have gone?" said Capt. Michael Jacobsen, of the Naval Academy's office of professional development. "Tough to say, but we know they wouldn't have gone into flight training."
Expanding the pool of potential pilots and members in the Navy Seals was the original goal of making the surgery available, Commander Pasternak said, but it has become increasingly popular with marines, who say it eliminates concerns that their glasses will be damaged or clouded in dust storms during combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"We get at least five times as many requests every year as we can keep up with," said Commander Pasternak, a 1984 Naval Academy graduate who said he nearly left the academy after learning his eyes were not good enough to allow him into flight training.
The growing number of aspiring pilots has also made it harder to find candidates to become "back-seaters," officers who serve as navigators and weapons officers on planes, Navy officials say.
The failure to produce enough submarine officers, though, is the source of greatest worry to academy officials and the Navy as a whole. This year the academy's quota was 120, but only 88 midshipmen chose to go into submarines, according to academy records.
Acknowledging the decline, Capt. John R. Daugherty, the chief of staff in the Commander Naval Submarine Forces, said in a statement, "There are many potential contributing factors."
The shortfall in the submarine quota is made up from officers joining the Navy who do not attend the academy.
While there are no plans to restrict the availability of the surgery, some Navy officials concede that the procedure contributes to the submarine service losing midshipmen at the top of their class, like Ensign Shaughnessy, a native of Rochester, Minn., who formerly could not have gone to flight school.
Going into submarines "requires a lot more school, and after the academy a lot of people aren't looking to go to a high-paced environment for a long period," Ensign Shaughnessy said. "And some people also might see submarines as a less glamorous service assignment."
In recent years, many of the midshipmen to choose submarines have come from lower in the class rankings than they did a decade ago, said a senior Navy official who declined to release specific data and who was granted anonymity so he would discuss internal Navy personnel matters.
And academy graduates have been washing out of nuclear power school, which they must complete before being commissioned as a submarine officer, at an increasing rate over the last five years, according to the Navy official and an outside expert who has studied the issue.
In response, the Navy has begun offering $15,000 bonuses and other incentives to get midshipmen with better grades to join the submarine program.
Lets take a trip in the way back machine - all the way back to 1991 and the Love Boat.
"36 Women Pregnant Aboard a Navy Ship That Served in Gulf"
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/30/us/36-women-pregnant-aboard-a-navy-ship-that-served-in-gulf.html?pagewanted=1
"......More than half became pregnant after the ship was under way, but a Navy spokesman, Lieut. Comdr. Jeff Smallwood, said there were no indications of improper fraternization between men and women on the ship......"
The problem I have with the issue is that women can use a pregnacy as a tool of assignment. Don't like the long assignment in the war zone? Get prego and go home.
36? 36? The female portion of the crew was 360. That's 10% that turned up prego and had to be sent home.
And what about this war? Well, it appears the leadership does not want to know.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/pregnant_troops_leave_the_war/
And on the similar subject, different view.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jun/15/20040615-115647-8125r/?page=2
".......Mrs. Donnelly has written to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warning that the military is becoming a haven for single moms. She said fiscal 2002 statistics show that the Navy reassigned to shore duty 2,159 pregnant women, or 12.3 percent of 17,543 enlisted women on ships.
"Overly generous incentives for single parents and large families attract even more unstable, low-income families that depend on the [Defense Department's] extensive social welfare system," Mrs. Donnelly wrote. "Some feminists have described the military, approvingly, as a 'Mecca' for single moms." .........."
Funny how a Military can be sooooo interested in which MREs the troops like the best but are not interested on pregnacy rates and how it impacts deployments and recalls.
Sounds PC to me. And is PC the way a military should be run?
Well, life in the silos isn't Mayberry either:
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jul/17/news/mn-57562
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/sex-and-the-married-missileer-7
Interesting that in an organization that allows modified grooming and uniform standards based on religious preference, and provides special duty accomodations for the same, LT Ryan's religious preferences came second to "perceived" preferential treatment. I'm curious to see if this was the only "problem" encountered after integrating silo crews, or if its the only one made public.
I also have a hard time equating 24 - 96 hours of missile silo duty pulled by older, more mature service members to 180 days of sub duty performed by 18 - 21 year old sailors. Different environments, different population, very different duty demands and duration.
I stick to my previous stance that I'll more seriously consider full gender integration in the DOD after they do the same in the Olympics and professional sports teams (to include the locker rooms and living accomodations). I'm not holding my breath.
Fortunately, those of us in the AF at the time who either knew this individual or knew those who served with him realized this was his means of getting out of the career field, and had absolutly nothing to do with his religious preferences.
He knew BEFORE he signed up to be in this career field that he would be crewed with women more than likely. Should have thought about the "sinning" aspect prior to agreeing to join this career field so that he could get his free master's degree.
Additionally, his inability to control his sexual responses is not his female crew members problem, it is his. I have read in this thread many times that a woman causes men to have sexual thoughts. How about the men take responsiblity for their own actions and keep their libidos under control. Since women are such temptesses, lets cover them all up so that men are not forced to take responsibility for their thoughts or actions. Seems to me that there is a group of people in this world that already do that, and none of us here are too fond of them.
Funny how a Military can be sooooo interested in which MREs the troops like the best but are not interested on pregnacy rates and how it impacts deployments and recalls.
As the S-1 of a deployed battalion, I recall having to keep and report daily stats on # of personnel in country(divided by gender, race, MOS, etc.), # personnel entering and leaving the country and why (NCOES, PCS, mid-tour leave, etc.), and the medical status of anyone ill or injured. I guess they don't do that anymore, huh?
Fortunately, those of us in the AF at the time who either knew this individual or knew those who served with him realized this was his means of getting out of the career field, and had absolutly nothing to do with his religious preferences.
He knew BEFORE he signed up to be in this career field that he would be crewed with women more than likely. Should have thought about the "sinning" aspect prior to agreeing to join this career field so that he could get his free master's degree.
Isn't this much like a Quaker conscientious objector that volunteers for the military knowing ahead of time that the military is, at its base, about killing people and breaking things, but is still afforded a non-combat MOS to accomodate his/her beliefs? How about a Sikh soldier that knows being in the military means he will have to wear a standard uniform that doesn't include a turban, and that he won't be allowed to grow a beard? Does the DOD stick to its standards, or modify them to placate a minority of its population? For whatever ulterior motives, it sounds like LT Ryan was able to effectively tie his request to not serve alone with a woman in a silo to his "beliefs", and things worked well enough while his CoC accomodated this request. As I said before, I'm curious to see the stats on NJP and UCMJ rates (not to mention divorce rates) associated with mixed-gender, 2-person silo crews. Heck, I'd like to see the sames rates, along with non-deployable and redeployed for pregnancy percentages for our on-going conflicts. Unfortunately, there is a large number of folks in the military that aren't as professional and mature as they should be, and it has a real effect.
I stick to my previous stance that I'll more seriously consider full gender integration in the DOD after they do the same in the Olympics and professional sports teams (to include the locker rooms and living accomodations). I'm not holding my breath.
Of course. The primary focus of those teams is on winning. None of them is interested in offering my son (with MS), or my 4'11" granddaughter "a place to be".
In war, unlike other endeavors, there is no prize for second place. (Somebody else said that.)
While our military leaders focus on winning, they are impeded by our politicians, who continue to react to a nation of youngsters ( and some others) waiting for others to build them the future they desire.
I agree with Mr. Miyagi,
WACs on, WACS off. :)
greenberetTFS
02-26-2010, 13:36
Having never served on an ODA team(A Team only) I think it wouldn't work because as mention on this thread several times, the people we work with wouldn't accept/respect a female trainer/soldier............. It's simply a matter of fact,their cultures don't believe in equality...........So,once again where could they serve?
Big Teddy :munchin
Razor stated - As the S-1 of a deployed battalion, I recall having to keep and report daily stats on # of personnel in country(divided by gender, race, MOS, etc.), # personnel entering and leaving the country and why (NCOES, PCS, mid-tour leave, etc.), and the medical status of anyone ill or injured. I guess they don't do that anymore, huh?
Razor, this is the best I could find on a study - very dated from 1999.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/acsc/99-016.pdf
Since this war has been going on a number of years a person would think more numbers would have been collected and studies done.
Danimal18C
02-26-2010, 14:00
afchic, I agree with you that the sexual conduct of an individual rests completely on the individual. I think in today's professional military, people would see the importance of remaining.... um... professional. Unfortunately the situation is what it is.. Hey, if I were in a predominantly female unit, surrounded by girls that were in great shape, and were constantly giving me attention, could see the difficulty of "behaving myself."
Lithium and water are great materials. They do their prespective jobs great, but when you mix water and litium powder together, you get flame and sometimes you can have an explosion. So you just don't mix them....
The Reaper
02-26-2010, 14:14
I think that is the relevant point.
Given that the troops/sailors are going to do what they are going to do, is it wise to add a few female submariners to the force, at the loss of crew morale, pregnant females, impregnating males, and illegal fornicators that are going to be UCMJed as a result? Does the reward for this experiment outweigh the risk?
14% of Navy females are single mothers. Females becoming pregnant are released to shore assignments at the 20 week mark, and get a year of shore duty following delivery. A large number of these never go to sea again during their remaining Naval service. Is this fair to their shipmates?
What happens when females fail to meet the standards, but are selected anyway, for PC reasons? Katie Wilder, anyone? Kara Hultgreen? Kelly Flinn?
Is it worth the cost?
TR
Joe_Snuffy
02-26-2010, 14:28
Razor stated - As the S-1 of a deployed battalion, I recall having to keep and report daily stats on # of personnel in country(divided by gender, race, MOS, etc.), # personnel entering and leaving the country and why (NCOES, PCS, mid-tour leave, etc.), and the medical status of anyone ill or injured. I guess they don't do that anymore, huh?
Oh we still do that, actually they specifically ask for the number of females in the TF based on location. They have whole spreadsheets and systems just to make it easier[?] to track people, so you would think such data would be easy to collect, but it's been my experience that it gets sent up to Big Army and filed away in some secret goverment warehouse which promptly burns down when it gets too full.
And for the record, having a fire results in a lot of clean-up work. A couple years ago my shop burned down and even to this day after recovering some of the documents, and having people give us replacements and we STILL come up missing things from time to time.
Lets take a trip in the way back machine - all the way back to 1991 and the Love Boat.
"36 Women Pregnant Aboard a Navy Ship That Served in Gulf"
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/30/us/36-women-pregnant-aboard-a-navy-ship-that-served-in-gulf.html?pagewanted=1
"......More than half became pregnant after the ship was under way, but a Navy spokesman, Lieut. Comdr. Jeff Smallwood, said there were no indications of improper fraternization between men and women on the ship......"
The problem I have with the issue is that women can use a pregnacy as a tool of assignment. Don't like the long assignment in the war zone? Get prego and go home.
36? 36? The female portion of the crew was 360. That's 10% that turned up prego and had to be sent home.
And what about this war? Well, it appears the leadership does not want to know.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/pregnant_troops_leave_the_war/
And on the similar subject, different view.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jun/15/20040615-115647-8125r/?page=2
".......Mrs. Donnelly has written to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warning that the military is becoming a haven for single moms. She said fiscal 2002 statistics show that the Navy reassigned to shore duty 2,159 pregnant women, or 12.3 percent of 17,543 enlisted women on ships.
"Overly generous incentives for single parents and large families attract even more unstable, low-income families that depend on the [Defense Department's] extensive social welfare system," Mrs. Donnelly wrote. "Some feminists have described the military, approvingly, as a 'Mecca' for single moms." .........."
Funny how a Military can be sooooo interested in which MREs the troops like the best but are not interested on pregnacy rates and how it impacts deployments and recalls.
Sounds PC to me. And is PC the way a military should be run?
For every single PARENT that abuses the system, I bet I could show you 2-3 that don't, yet it is the ones that abuse the system that get the notoriery, instead of the professional ones that don't.
I wonder why there are so many single mom's out there?
The fact that it’s the anti-military left that has been pushing these changes tells me all that I need to know. (I realize that some of the recent converts don’t fit that description, but are, perhaps, just accepting what they see as inevitable.)
If there was a draft now, like during Viet Nam, they would be advising men to claim that they are gay to avoid conscription and screaming that it’s outrages to even think of drafting women into military service.
This is an attack on the social infrastructure of the country. It used to be: “We don’t need a piece of paper to show that we love each other.” Now it’s: “Same sex lovers should be allowed to get married just like opposite sex lovers.”
Pat
Studies? Where are they?
Other than people "talking" where are the official studies to prove one way or the other the impact pregnacy has on unit readiness?
I would think by now there would be a number of studies on regular unit pregnacy rates, rates after notification for deployment and the number who got pregnant during the deployment.
Other than the info I noted in the Love Boat post - only one study in 2008 that had a small sub section about pregnacy and a couple of individual unit reports mention the issue in passing.
Once again I find it odd that the military has not taken a strong look at this (PC anyone) and womens rights organizations have not done it to wave their flag on the issue.
I would say the lack of data says more about the issue than any of us could.
Countries that allow females on submarines
Norway (1995)
Australia (1998)
Canada (2000)
Spain
It might be worthwhile to take a look at the experiences these navies have had with this issue.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Countries that allow females on submarines
Norway (1995)
Australia (1998)
Canada (2000)
Spain
It might be worthwhile to take a look at the experiences these navies have had with this issue.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Now we're getting to the nitty gritty :cool:
Whilst searching info on the above, I found an interesting Nato study on the subject - "Experiences with Mixed Gender Submarine Crews" [LCdr Debbie Pestell, MD, Canadian Forces Health Services], which I've attached. It is quite long so I didn't paste it here. Hope that was the right thing to do. Anyway, it addresses many of the points raised in this thread. It also gives a mention to NASA's space missions which include mixed crews in confined spaces for lengthy periods of time, and successfully so.
This article is also worth a look-in:
http://www.4militarywomen.org/Submarines.htm
:munchin
Brown77,
From reading the linked article it sounds like another cheerleader opinion piece not a NATO study.
And the two major concerns in the "study" wer beds and crappers? OK.
I notice at the end it is mention that there are 4 female's qualified - Hey, that works out to 2 for 2 boats and none on the other two.
So if one gets prego all the remaining three have to be assigned to the same boat. What about their ratings?
The Reaper
02-27-2010, 09:01
Countries that allow females on submarines
Norway (1995)
Australia (1998)
Canada (2000)
Spain
It might be worthwhile to take a look at the experiences these navies have had with this issue.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Indeed.
My sources indicate that the Norwegian Navy no longer has any operational subs, the Australians have six, the Spanish Navy has four vintage boats, and the Canadians have four formerly British boats which are probably best undiscussed and are rarely at sea (the Victoria has a total of 155 days at sea in the past nine years). Most of these subs are used for short duration coastal defense when they are operational.
None of these vessels spend the time at sea or go on the long patrols that the roughly 70 US fleet submarines do.
The information might be interesting, but may or may not correlate well to what we would experience with our submariners.
TR
Brown77,
From reading the linked article it sounds like another cheerleader opinion piece not a NATO study.
And the two major concerns in the "study" wer beds and crappers? OK.
I notice at the end it is mention that there are 4 female's qualified - Hey, that works out to 2 for 2 boats and none on the other two.
So if one gets prego all the remaining three have to be assigned to the same boat. What about their ratings?
Pete, are you referring to the link or the attached PDF? I think the PDF goes into a little more detail than that, but I will be happy to give it a re-read as soon as I can. That said, you make it sound like it's all fun and fraternity games... I would imagine (and hope) that the individuals who make it on board such missions are HIGHLY skilled and trained professionals. Perhaps they deserve a little more credit. Besides, from what I can tell, there isn't much room and privacy on board a sub for all this rumpy pumpy... Fun as it sounds, is it even a practical consideration??
None of these vessels spend the time at sea or go on the long patrols that the roughly 70 US fleet submarines do.
The information might be interesting, but may or may not correlate well to what we would experience with our submariners.
TR - good point. I noticed that too. Swedish and Norwegian vessels are not at sea for such lengthy periods of time as those of the US Navy. Worth considering!
All of you read the "study" and see the "touchy feely" parts.
The boat crews will be cleaner with females around? WTF, I know my experience on US Nuke Boats is very, very limited but they were just about the cleanest things and crews I've ever seen outside some palace guard for some tinpot dictator.
Man, there was a real sense of "this is our home and we keep it clean" and the "I try not to offend my neighbor" attitude from the crews. We all noticed the big, big, big difference between the subs and the suface Navy.
And we all noticed the looks we got when we trashed the insides of their boats. They didn't say anything and cleaned up after us - but that didn't stop them from giving us the "Mom look" when you track mud over the kitchen floor after she just mopped it.
Pete, are you referring to the link or the attached PDF? I think the PDF goes into a little more detail than that, but I will be happy to give it a re-read as soon as I can. That said, you make it sound like it's all fun and fraternity games... ....
I am talking about the article not the subject we are talking about. The article is written as a "No Problem" piece.
The link? To 4militarywomen? Nice site, well done, but would you consider it an unbiased site for information?
My sources indicate that the Norwegian Navy no longer has any operational subs...
Defence: New submarines next?
Norway Post, 27 Feb 2010
The six submarines in service today are 20 years old, and may be serviceable for another 10 years.
http://www.norwaypost.no/content/view/22948/44/
There are currently 6 RNN subs home-ported at Haakonsvern (Bergen) - all built and delivered 1989-1992:
S300 Ula
S301 Utsira
S302 Utstein
S303 Utvaer
S304 Uthaug
S305 Uredd
The subs have been undergoing a number of up-grades over the past several years but remain operational.
I agree that our use and needs may differ, but I would think the experiences of other nation's use of women in subs would remain helpful for those making the decisions as to whether or not our Navy should follow suit.
Richard
All of you read the "study" and see the "touchy feely" parts.
The boat crews will be cleaner with females around? WTF, I know my experience on US Nuke Boats is very, very limited but they were just about the cleanest things and crews I've ever seen outside some palace guard for some tinpot dictator.
Man, there was a real sense of "this is our home and we keep it clean" and the "I try not to offend my neighbor" attitude from the crews. We all noticed the big, big, big difference between the subs and the suface Navy.
And we all noticed the looks we got when we trashed the insides of their boats. They didn't say anything and cleaned up after us - but that didn't stop them from giving us the "Mom look" when you track mud over the kitchen floor after she just mopped it.
OK, you got a point there. I know several chaps who could put the ladies to shame in the cleanliness department. Not especially relevant to the study, though there are still some good points therein... But when you're right you're right :)
How about the recruiting angle? The following snippet was taken from the link (http://www.4militarywomen.org/Submarines.htm):
"The submarine environment is based on leading edge nuclear technology. American women have already mastered nuclear technology in the surface environment and this provides a pool of women to jump-start the transition to the submarine force.
It is unnecessarily expensive to continue to pay large recruitment and retention bonuses to maintain an all-male submarine force. There have been times in the past when the Navy Recruiting Command has struggled to make its goal of nuclear trainable sailors. Currently, the Navy has a large pool of individuals waiting to enter the service but this has been shown to be cyclical. In just a short period of time, it could be a struggle to ensure there are enough submarine sailors. It is not acceptable to have part of our nuclear deterrent force be under-crewed."
When the lads were out fighting during WWII, women filled their boots on the home front by pulling up their sleeves and getting down n grimey by working in factories, building aircraft and weapons to support the war effort. Maybe the current decision has been made based on a similar practical premise. WDYT?
I am talking about the article not the subject we are talking about. The article is written as a "No Problem" piece.
Thanks for the clarification.
...4militarywomen? Nice site, well done, but would you consider it an unbiased site for information?
Uh, are you suggesting that women are incapable of being objective? ;)
It also gives a mention to NASA's space missions which include mixed crews in confined spaces for lengthy periods of time, and successfully so.
Again, like the missile silo crews and other "success" stories mentioned in this thread, the demographic is completely different. Ask yourself the following: What rank and age are US astronauts? Through what selection process do they pass, and what role does maturity and professionalism play in that process (diaper-wearing whack-jobs aside)? How "under the microscope" are astronauts when they're on a mission? Now, compare the answers to those questions with similar questions about the 18-25 year olds that would comprise the majority of a sub crew and their mission requirements and environment. Apples and oranges, IMO.
KNM Utvær served in Active Endeavor for four months in 2003, based in turkey and spent 80% of its time at sea.
Don't know how comparable it is to what American crews endure but i guess its something.
As to if women served i honestly cant say for sure but here is a crew pic:
http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00014/utver_14567a.jpg
I think the short black haired person on the right end is probably a female (Embarrassing sentence, i know...)
Also on the discussion of females in the SF, in Norway i don't think there is an official rule banning females. I read in a recruitment thread from MJK (navy SF) saying that as of 2007 there were no serving operatives but any female applying would have to meet the same demands as a male applicant.
Ps; Thanks Richard, defending the honor of the Norwegian military, i like it!
Wars Force US Military To Review Ban On Women In Combat
WASHINGTON (AFP) -- US commanders are taking a second look at policies that bar women from ground combat, as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have thrust female soldiers into the thick of the fight.
The Army chief of staff, General George Casey, told lawmakers last week that it was time to review the rules in light of how women have served in the two wars.
His comments came as the military unveiled plans to lift the ban on women serving in submarines, an all-male bastion that navy officers once insisted could never change.
Despite a policy designed to keep women away from units engaged in ground combat, the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have placed women in battle with insurgents who do not operate along defined front lines.
As a result, women have earned medals for valor and praise for their mettle.
"My best combat interrogator was a woman soldier, my best tank mechanic was a woman soldier," John Nagl, a retired lieutenant colonel who served in Iraq, told AFP.
Getting the two women in the unit required "a little paperwork sleight of hand," as the rules formally barred them from that role, said Nagl, president of the Center for New American Security, a think tank.
Nagl and others say the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been a watershed for women in the US military, and that policies written in the 1990s will have to be rewritten to catch up with the realities on the ground.
"I believe it's time we take a look at what women are actually doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and to look at our policy," General Casey told senators.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has yet to weigh changing the policy but his press secretary, Geoff Morrell, acknowledged that despite the rules, "effectively many women in uniform are in combat missions every day, be they helicopter pilots, be they medics, be they logistical support personnel..."
Even as the military signaled a willingness to break with tradition when it comes to women's roles, Casey and other top commanders have voiced apprehension and even outright opposition to allowing gays to serve openly.
At a senate hearing, Casey questioned if now was the right time to be repealing the ban on gays when the armed forces were under strain of two wars.
And the head of the Marine Corps, General James Conway, openly broke with President Barack Obama over the issue, saying changing the current law on gays in the military could jeopardize "military readiness."
But advocates of lifting the ban on gays point to women's experience in the military to bolster their arguments.
They say similar objections were raised in the past about women serving alongside men, but that the military's order and discipline did not break down and that women's contributions only strengthened the force.
The performance of female soldiers in the 1990-91 Gulf war helped prompt an earlier wave of reform, opening the way for women to serve in combat aircraft and naval warships.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are likely to have the same effect, said Nancy Duff Campbell, co-president of the National Women's Law Center.
Commanders want the most talented people for their units, "and they're asking why do we have these old rules," she said.
Future policies should set "gender-neutral standards," focusing on the skills or physical strength required for a military job instead of assuming no woman could meet the criteria, she said.
Sending women to battle remains a sensitive issue, however, and some lawmakers have tried unsuccessfully in recent years to reassert limits.
Right-leaning commentators question whether mothers in uniform, particularly single parents, should be sent in harm's way and separated from their children, even if they volunteered to serve.
"What is watching Mommy go off to war doing to some of those children?" author Mary Eberstadt wrote in Friday's Washington Post.
Army Specialist Alexis Hutchinson, a single mother, attracted headlines when she refused to obey orders to deploy to Afghanistan, because she said she had no one to take care of her baby boy.
She faced criminal charges initially but was eventually discharged.
Advocates of women in combat say such cases are rare, and that the military requires all parents to have firm plans in place for their children before they deploy -- or else leave the force.
More than 220,000 women have fought in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and more than 120 of them have been killed in the conflicts, according to the Pentagon.
Ending the ban on ground combat will come sooner or later, Nagl said, as it is "simply recognizing a truth that's already been written in blood and sweat on the battlefield."
I wouldn't want to go 10 rounds again with my wife - she's got a mean right cross and never forgets or forgives a slight towards the family. ;)
Richard
I wouldn't want to go 10 rounds again with my wife - she's got a mean right cross and never forgets or forgives a slight towards the family. ;)
Richard
And if you do and the cops show up you'll be the one going to jail.
Funny how women what things Even Steven - just not everywhere.
Again, where is the outrage that men race a 50km nordic event, while the women only ski 30km? How about the distance discrepancies in other nordic events, or in biathalon? I missed the protests at the women's ice hockey venues decrying the "no body checking" rule in place for women, despite the fact they wear the same protective gear that men wear. Why does women's lacrosse have nearly completely different rules and standards than men's lacrosse? These are only a few examples of different rules based on gender for 'separte but equal' sports; it doesn't even begin to highlight the question that if women are able to perform to the same standard as men in direct combat units, why don't they integrate men's and women's sports, especially at the professional and olympic levels where the athletes are arguably the best in the world in their respective disciplines? If we can agree that combat units require a higher degree of sustained physical capability than most support roles, how does the ongoing, deliberate gender separation in sports not serve as a long-standing source of solid data for analysis to support or refute the concept of integrating combat units in the US military?
greenberetTFS
03-01-2010, 10:48
Again, where is the outrage that men race a 50km nordic event, while the women only ski 30km? How about the distance discrepancies in other nordic events, or in biathalon? I missed the protests at the women's ice hockey venues decrying the "no body checking" rule in place for women, despite the fact they wear the same protective gear that men wear. Why does women's lacrosse have nearly completely different rules and standards than men's lacrosse? These are only a few examples of different rules based on gender for 'separte but equal' sports; it doesn't even begin to highlight the question that if women are able to perform to the same standard as men in direct combat units, why don't they integrate men's and women's sports, especially at the professional and olympic levels where the athletes are arguably the best in the world in their respective disciplines? If we can agree that combat units require a higher degree of sustained physical capability than most support roles, how does the ongoing, deliberate gender separation in sports not serve as a long-standing source of solid data for analysis to support or refute the concept of integrating combat units in the US military?
Excellent points made...............;)
Big Teddy :munchin
Direct question to our super ladies out there is simply this,do you believe women should be able to serve on a SF ODA team.....Big Teddy :munchin
Big Teddy,
No, IMVH(civilian)O. My reason for this opinion is based on the years of reading and research here at PS.com, on this very subject, and the information provided by ya'll QP's.
What happens when females fail to meet the standards, but are selected anyway, for PC reasons? Katie Wilder, anyone? Is it worth the cost?TR
TR Sir,
Exactly!!!
Holly:munchin
Please excuse me for being out of line, but after reading this whole thread, it seems more and more lately that an undercurrent of sloppiness has arisen in the address of QP's,
by those new to this site.
Am just a simple guest here, but wanted to let my fellow guests in on the fact that there was a time here that those with QP under their name were addressed as Sir by us guests, as a sign of respect. (Unless afforded the option not to by said QP.) It is not sexist, rascist, biased, just plain old fashioned respect for their title.
My appologies for the rant. It is over. Will duck for incomming...
Holly
What are standards? Are they something that must be met?
What if we were to make things equal - "These are the standards. Anyone meeting them would be allowed in." Sounds good right?
So lets imagine there is a PT Standard for Infantry. The standard is the same for males and females.
So a woman works hard and is allowed in. Good so far?
But a number of guys don't want to be Infantry so as they take the Infantry PT test they only do well enought to qualify for CSS jobs - lower PT standards.
Will the Army then assign men who "don't meet the standards" to Infantry positions?
As a side note - In StarShip Trooper all the pilots were females, and bald.
Again, where is the outrage that men race a 50km nordic event, while the women only ski 30km? How about the distance discrepancies in other nordic events, or in biathalon? I missed the protests at the women's ice hockey venues decrying the "no body checking" rule in place for women, despite the fact they wear the same protective gear that men wear. Why does women's lacrosse have nearly completely different rules and standards than men's lacrosse? These are only a few examples of different rules based on gender for 'separte but equal' sports; it doesn't even begin to highlight the question that if women are able to perform to the same standard as men in direct combat units, why don't they integrate men's and women's sports, especially at the professional and olympic levels where the athletes are arguably the best in the world in their respective disciplines? If we can agree that combat units require a higher degree of sustained physical capability than most support roles, how does the ongoing, deliberate gender separation in sports not serve as a long-standing source of solid data for analysis to support or refute the concept of integrating combat units in the US military?
My bet is that if you asked the women competing in these sports, they would say that they should be playing by the same set of standards, because the PC police don't want to rock the boat they don't. Not sure if you all saw it, but in many of the Alpine/luge events, the men and women all had the same starting positions, due to safely concerns. Maybe next winter olympics they will endorse the same thing, only this time women starting at the men's starting position, rather than the other way around.
An interesting aside: My little girl (7th grade) came home really really pissed off from school the other day. It seems they are learning how to play field hockey in gym class, but the girls aren't allowed to play with the boys. She stated her argument to the gym teacher that she didn't think that was fair. She is just as tough, if not tougher than many of the boys in her class, and many of the sports in our Jr. High are integrated boys/girls, so how come she couldn't play with the boys in field hockey if she could with soccer, track, etc etc
The gym teacher's answer was the school didn't want to take responsibility for the girls playing by the boys rules, and she would just have to get over it. Hence why she came home spitting mad. She now wants to start playing field hockey and lacrosse with the select teams with the boys not the girls. We'll see how that goes when she shows up at try outs this spring.
Not sure if you all saw it, but in many of the Alpine/luge events, the men and women all had the same starting positions, due to safely concerns.
For luge, the men's start point was moved to the women's start point, and the women started at the junior start point: http://www.kgw.com/sports/Mens-luge-start-moved-to-womens--which-is-moved-to-juniors-84305827.html
For those sports where the course was the same for both genders (e.g., alpine, nordic, snowboard, skicross, etc.), you'll probably also note a significant difference in run times, jump height and other performance measures, almost always in the favor of men. Given this, I again ask how anyone can say there isn't a substantial difference in physical performance between genders?
I have no doubt that many women resent being treated differently in sports. My question, then, is why not "fight the power" if equality is truly so important? Yes, the boat might get rocked, but I seem to recall from my history lessons that women's suffrage wasn't easily earned, nor were many of the efforts in promoting and attaining gender equality in many aspects of life. Where are the demands that standards be made equal in sports? Where are the protests, withdrawls from competitions to make a statement, grass roots "equality" leagues comprised of women and girls that refuse to be marginalized by misogynistic conceptions of women's ability? Why is it too hard or too dangerous to rock the boat in sporting competitions, where second place doesn't equate to a flag-draped coffin, but openly and vocally demanding changes in the military for equal "career opportunities" is not only acceptable but enthusiastically encouraged by women's equality groups?
For luge, the men's start point was moved to the women's start point, and the women started at the junior start point: http://www.kgw.com/sports/Mens-luge-start-moved-to-womens--which-is-moved-to-juniors-84305827.html
For those sports where the course was the same for both genders (e.g., alpine, nordic, snowboard, skicross, etc.), you'll probably also note a significant difference in run times, jump height and other performance measures, almost always in the favor of men. Given this, I again ask how anyone can say there isn't a substantial difference in physical performance between genders?
I have no doubt that many women resent being treated differently in sports. My question, then, is why not "fight the power" if equality is truly so important? Yes, the boat might get rocked, but I seem to recall from my history lessons that women's suffrage wasn't easily earned, nor were many of the efforts in promoting and attaining gender equality in many aspects of life. Where are the demands that standards be made equal in sports? Where are the protests, withdrawls from competitions to make a statement, grass roots "equality" leagues comprised of women and girls that refuse to be marginalized by misogynistic conceptions of women's ability? Why is it too hard or too dangerous to rock the boat in sporting competitions, where second place doesn't equate to a flag-draped coffin, but openly and vocally demanding changes in the military for equal "career opportunities" is not only acceptable but enthusiastically encouraged by women's equality groups?
All good questions. In my expereince instead of withdrawing in protest, we did what we could within the networks we had. If you pull out in protest every tournament etc that comes up, are your really gaining anything? Or is it better to work quietly within the system, and take the little "wins" as they come, and continue to work towards more equality?
When I was was playing rugby, there wasn't enough indoor fields at school for all the teams that needed them to train. So the women's team trained with the men's team about 50% of the time. Did we get our butts kicked alot of the time? Yes. Did I walk away from practice feeling like I got hit by a mac truck, you bet because the guys didn't hold back just because we were female.
In the end, even though we didn't play with the guys team in games, because no one else within the federation was doing what we were doing, we were phenomenally better than any other female team out there. We were quicker, we were meaner, and we were stronger for having practiced with the guys.
There are enough of us that have said "enough" throughout the years that things are moving. Maybe at a snails pace, but I can tell you women's athletics have moved forward since I graduated. It may take another 20-30 years, but eventually you are going to have women on men's professional teams. Throwing our hands up, stomping our feet, dropping out of games/tournaments and crying that it isn't fair to whoever will listen isn't going to change things. Working from the inside out, will, eventually be the difference.
When little girls such as mine, start playing on the boys teams at such a young age, and come up with them into HS and College level athletics, that is when the change will be acknowledged. If the choice is playing with the girls, or not playing at all, you can bet she will be playing.
......... It may take another 20-30 years, but eventually you are going to have women on men's professional teams. Throwing our hands up, stomping our feet, dropping out of games/......
So you're OK with opening up women's sports to men? As long as the men can beat out the women they can play on the womens teams and in the women's sports? Tennis? Golf?
Will there then have to be a quota for a women's team to be called a women's team? Got to have at least one?
The Reaper
03-01-2010, 13:07
There are enough of us that have said "enough" throughout the years that things are moving. Maybe at a snails pace, but I can tell you women's athletics have moved forward since I graduated. It may take another 20-30 years, but eventually you are going to have women on men's professional teams. Throwing our hands up, stomping our feet, dropping out of games/tournaments and crying that it isn't fair to whoever will listen isn't going to change things. Working from the inside out, will, eventually be the difference.
Respectfully, I do not see this happening in any sport where endurance or physical strength are primary attributes, unless every team is required to take a certain number of otherwise unqualified women as PC demands.
Nature makes us what we are, and like it or not, testosterone is a powerful drug. Stronger bones, bigger muscles, and better oxygenation rule, most sports are built around those characteristics. Women break down under physical activity more easily than men. Wanting people to be on a level playing field will not make it so. Women have been participating in the same track and field events as man for decades, how many of them currently hold world records over male counterparts?
Title IX can require that women's sports be resourced the same as men's. You cannot mandate that the participants are equal in skills. A good high school men's basketball team can, and has embarrassed women's college teams.
Women will never play in the NBA, NFL, NHL, or MLB without some sort of gender norming, publicity stunt, or as a token at a position where strength, endurance and speed are not factors.
NASCAR, shooting sports, bowling, etc., maybe.
If you require non-gender segregated teams, and want wins, you are going to see the end of women in the sports.
I love women, but accept reality. I will never birth a baby, and the best woman (even if it is my daughter) will never be able to hit harder, run faster, throw farther, jump higher, or lift more than the best man. Nor will the averages. To suggest otherwise flies in the face of all evidence.
TR
FWIW/FYI, several years ago, PBS aired a multi part documentary called Carrier, that centered around the Nimitz (CVN-68) and its crew. IMO, episode three, "Super Secrets," available here (http://www.pbs.org/weta/carrier/full_episodes.htm), uses the experiences of the crew to illustrate the issues of military effectiveness, professionalism, sexuality, gender, gender identity, youth, race, social practices, and cultural beliefs that have been touched upon in this thread.
For those in favor of expanded combat roles for women in the armed services, this episode may provide food for thought. YMMV.
If not now, then when? And why not now?MOO, these two questions are of critical importance. Telling a cohort of Americans "not now" when they ask about participating in an activity that they see as vital to their sense of self-efficacy can have historically significant consequences.
The reasons for opposing expanded roles for women in the armed services center around concerns for military effectiveness. But what happens if those concerns are addressed by technology, by improvements to the art and science of war, by shifting political sensibilities, by changing cultural views, or by contingency? Sounds PC to me. And is PC the way a military should be run?QP Pete, with respect, when in American military/naval/aerospace history have matters of policy not been determined by the politically correct sensibilities of the day? :confused:
Women will never play in the NBA, NFL, NHL, or MLB without some sort of gender norming, publicity stunt, or as a token at a position where strength, endurance and speed are not factors.
NASCAR, shooting sports, bowling, etc., maybe.
If you require non-gender segregated teams, and want wins, you are going to see the end of women in the sports.
I love women, but accept reality. I will never birth a baby, and the best woman (even if it is my daughter) will never be able to hit harder, run faster, throw farther, jump higher, or lift more than the best man. Nor will the averages. To suggest otherwise flies in the face of all evidence.
TR
Agree Sir.
And agree as a woman who accepts responsibility for her own situation, finances, occupation, housing, and carrer...as it is no one else's but my own!
Ladies, Fact is fact, and in this case, the male presenter of the above facts can back it up!
Holly:munchin
So you're OK with opening up women's sports to men? As long as the men can beat out the women they can play on the womens teams and in the women's sports? Tennis? Golf?
Will there then have to be a quota for a women's team to be called a women's team? Got to have at least one?
Of course I am ok with opening up women's teams to men. Somehow I think that too many men will not even attempt it because it would be an afront to their machisimo.
I don't agree with quotas for anything. Either you meet the standards or you don't. Doesn't matter your gender/race/religion/sexuality etc....
My daughter didn't make the Jr. High soccer team or volleyball team this year because she got beat out by some boys that were better than her. I told her we will hit the field/court so that next year she will be better prepared to kick the boys butts. From what I can tell, the girls that didn't make the team took it in stride and are doing what they can to be better prepared next year.
The boys that got beat out by girls didn't have quite the same sportsman like take on the turn of events.
Respectfully, I do not see this happening in any sport where endurance or physical strength are primary attributes, unless every team is required to take a certain number of otherwise unqualified women as PC demands.
Nature makes us what we are, and like it or not, testosterone is a powerful drug. Stronger bones, bigger muscles, and better oxygenation rule, most sports are built around those characteristics. Women break down under physical activity more easily than men. Wanting people to be on a level playing field will not make it so. Women have been participating in the same track and field events as man for decades, how many of them currently hold world records over male counterparts?
Title IX can require that women's sports be resourced the same as men's. You cannot mandate that the participants are equal in skills. A good high school men's basketball team can, and has embarrassed women's college teams.
Women will never play in the NBA, NFL, NHL, or MLB without some sort of gender norming, publicity stunt, or as a token at a position where strength, endurance and speed are not factors.
NASCAR, shooting sports, bowling, etc., maybe.
If you require non-gender segregated teams, and want wins, you are going to see the end of women in the sports.
I love women, but accept reality. I will never birth a baby, and the best woman (even if it is my daughter) will never be able to hit harder, run faster, throw farther, jump higher, or lift more than the best man. Nor will the averages. To suggest otherwise flies in the face of all evidence.
TR
You are right, you may never see a defensive guard on an NFL team, but I bet you may find a kicker/punter. I have seen some pretty nasty female hockey players in my time.
No standards should not be relaxed to make a quota, either you can meet the standards or you can't. The fact that you are XX or XY should not factor into it.
I doubt you are going to have very many men go out for the women's teams because of the stigma that will be attached to it.
You are right, you may never see a defensive guard on an NFL team, but I bet you may find a kicker/punter. I have seen some pretty nasty female hockey players in my time.
No standards should not be relaxed to make a quota, either you can meet the standards or you can't. The fact that you are XX or XY should not factor into it.
I doubt you are going to have very many men go out for the women's teams because of the stigma that will be attached to it.
Very well articulated, afchic!:cool:
Holly
Sacamuelas
03-01-2010, 14:28
You are right, you may never see a defensive guard on an NFL team, but I bet you may find a kicker/punter. I have seen some pretty nasty female hockey players in my time.
No standards should not be relaxed to make a quota, either you can meet the standards or you can't. The fact that you are XX or XY should not factor into it.
I doubt you are going to have very many men go out for the women's teams because of the stigma that will be attached to it.
Actually, I imagine you won't see a female kicker/punter on an NFL team. UNLESS it is a publicity stunt. WHY? The NFL takes the best. An ELITE male kicker/punter will be Bigger/stronger/faster/quicker than an ELITE female. The NFL doesn't take average or above average.
Since NDD isn't on here as much, I'll take a shot at his trademark sarcasm.
What the hell is a "defensive guard" in football??? :rolleyes: haha
FWIW, The only two positions I want a girl to play on my football team is as Center with a TightEnd. :p LOL
.........I doubt you are going to have very many men go out for the women's teams because of the stigma that will be attached to it.
What's stigma when you can make a living doing what you love or are good at?
Do pro women's sports allow men now? I'd say no.
Do pro men's teams allow women now? I'd say yes.
IIRC there was a female kicker that played a season or two, may have just been college. But if a female showed up at tryouts and beat out all the men she would be hired.
Didn't some high speed female golfer want to play with the men? Chin? But the arguement of using the female vs male Tee kinda' struck a sour note.
The Reaper
03-01-2010, 14:48
IIRC there was a female kicker that played a season or two, may have just been college. But if a female showed up at tryouts and beat out all the men she would be hired.
Duke had a female tryout for spring practice.
She was later cut before the season started, and admitted that she wasn't the strongest, or most accurate of the five kickers who tried out, but she sued for being cut anyway, and won $2,000,000 in the legal lottery. I guess she figured that every team dresses several extra placekickers.:rolleyes:
I am sure that made other football coaches want to give women a shot at playing.
I do not see them as placekickers on a competitive team, as noted, there are better male kickers out there. Maybe a small college team might take the risk. I do not see it happening in the pros.
TR
armymom1228
03-01-2010, 15:00
Duke had a female tryout for spring practice.
She was later cut before the season started, and admitted that she wasn't the strongest, or most accurate of the five kickers who tried out, but she sued for being cut anyway, and won $2,000,000 in the legal lottery. I guess she figured that every team dresses several extra placekickers.:rolleyes:
TR
It is BS like that, that make it hard for girls who play the game by the rules and understand that they might get cut, just like a guy gets cut... I blame it more on the lawyers.. If Duke were to not be so concerned about PC and just fight the suit then a few lawyers might think twice.. how stupid...
It's the Kate Wilders of this world that just piss me off no effing end.
AM
What's stigma when you can make a living doing what you love or are good at?
Do pro women's sports allow men now? I'd say no.
Do pro men's teams allow women now? I'd say yes.
IIRC there was a female kicker that played a season or two, may have just been college. But if a female showed up at tryouts and beat out all the men she would be hired.
Didn't some high speed female golfer want to play with the men? Chin? But the arguement of using the female vs male Tee kinda' struck a sour note.
If a man tried out for a womans' sport and didn't make it, when he was the best, I would support him being on the team, the same as I would support the other side. Like I said, I doubt you are going to have many males willing to put themselves on display to try out for the "girls" team because of the stigma associated with it. The guys on the "guys" team would ride them so hard they would never show up for practice Think about it. What would one of you all do if son came up to you and said, dad I don't want to play on the guys team, I want to play with the girls, either because I am not good enough to play with the other guys, or because I just prefer being with the girls instead.
With all this talk of gender issues, I wonder what you all think about women being at the service academies.
Actually, I imagine you won't see a female kicker/punter on an NFL team. UNLESS it is a publicity stunt. WHY? The NFL takes the best. An ELITE male kicker/punter will be Bigger/stronger/faster/quicker than an ELITE female. The NFL doesn't take average or above average.
Since NDD isn't on here as much, I'll take a shot at his trademark sarcasm.
What the hell is a "defensive guard" in football??? :rolleyes: haha
FWIW, The only two positions I want a girl to play on my football team is as Center with a TightEnd. :p LOL
YOu got me, I should have said tackle.
..... What would one of you all do if son came up to you and said, dad I don't want to play on the guys team, I want to play with the girls, ........
I don't know, I live in a house full of females. I got a male dog and sometimes we go out in the back yard just to get away from it all. Do guy stuff like throw the ball, run around and............
ZonieDiver
03-01-2010, 15:13
I don't know, I live in a house full of females. I got a male dog and sometimes we go out in the back yard just to get away from it all. Do guy stuff like throw the ball, run around and............
I lived that way for years, Pete. Hell, even the two cats and one dog were female! (I'm not sure about the fish... how could you tell.) I frequently took a low profile on all this male-female stuff. That said, my younger daughter was one of two girls who competed on a Khoury League baseball team in Littleton, CO back around '92.
They were the only two girls in the entire league, and their team WON the championship. (However, that had less to do with having two girls on the team and more to do with having an 11 year old (whose birth certificate was the subject of more controversy than BHO's) who could throw an 85 mph fastball. :D
With all this talk of gender issues, I wonder what you all think about women being at the service academies.
Women at VMI? Whats next? Men at the Citadel.
Spoken as someone who knows young lads at both schools.
That issue is settled but as long as afchic brought it up.
Don't have the link but there appears there seems to be a problem at the Naval school. The Navy is fixing the young cadet's eyes with surgery to give them all 20/20. In the past those with less vision volunteered for Sub duty. Now with 20/20 everyone appears to be going for pilot duty and volunteers for sub duty are dropping off.
Could sub duty become an assignment and not a "volunteer" duty? Could the dropoff in male volunteers be filled with female volunteers? Why go "assignment" when you have volunteers?
Will this become the path?
I don't know, I live in a house full of females. I got a male dog and sometimes we go out in the back yard just to get away from it all. Do guy stuff like throw the ball, run around and............
Pete Sir...
Sorry for off the topic, but that visual is just, well, cute!;) I know, I know, SF Men are not "cute," but that takes the cake, IMVHO!!!:D
Okay, back to the topic...
Holly
I had a female pitcher on my otherwise male baseball team a few years back. Jess was a twin and her brother was her catcher. She was fiercely competetive and the team had no problems accepting her as a player.
The other teams chuckled when the season started - until she started pitching - she had a consistently accurate 87 mph fast ball and was a strong batter. She was a two-time all-conference player and female Athlete of the Year her senior year.
After graduation, she was recruited by Texas A&M where she threw the javelin in NCAA DIV1 track and field, and was a 3xAll-American for sports as well as an academic All-American for her grades.
She's now in medical school and wants to focus on sports medicine.
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I don't know, I live in a house full of females. I got a male dog and sometimes we go out in the back yard just to get away from it all. Do guy stuff like throw the ball, run around and............
okay, say one of your daughters comes up to you and says "dad, i want to try out for such and such boys team." You know she has the skill to do so, she may just be one of the special ones that can actually compete with the boys. What do you tell her?
You have a daughter who is in the Navy, who has done her time in the nuke field on a ship and is one of the very best at what she does, as shown by her performance evaluations, and she comes to you for advice about wanting to get on a sub. What do you tell her?
The Reaper
03-01-2010, 15:37
okay, say one of your daughters comes up to you and says "dad, i want to try out for such and such boys team." You know she has the skill to do so, she may just be one of the special ones that can actually compete with the boys. What do you tell her?
You have a daughter who is in the Navy, who has done her time in the nuke field on a ship and is one of the very best at what she does, as shown by her performance evaluations, and she comes to you for advice about wanting to get on a sub. What do you tell her?
Not trying to answer for Pete, but here is my .02.
Two different scenarios.
In the first, find out why she isn't trying out or playing for the girls' team. Virtually all sports have teams for each gender, at least at the Div I level. Why force the boys and their coach have to make accomodations and hard decisions? I also not not want to see her get hurt. Once boys hit puberty and catch up, she is going to get pounded. Up till then, say age 13 or so, she could probably compete.
In the second, I would ask her why she wants to be on a sub. If she has been successful as a surface sailor up to this point, why change? It isn't like the job is any more rewarding in a sub. Be the best she can as a surface nuke sailor. Why get locked up with 127 men for months at the time? Why would we ask 127 males to make accomodations for one female?
My children both realize that everyone is different (especially boys and girls), people have to live with rules, and life isn't fair.
As far as your earlier question about service academies, I have no issue with it at the public service schools, as long as they do not distract. If you can have private women's school, then I do not see an issue with a private men's service school.
Back to the OT, I do not think that the few females who are qualified and able to serve aboard subs are worth the turmoil, drama, and morale issues of putting them aboard submarines. Too much to lose, little to gain.
YMMV.
TR
....... What do you tell her?
I'd tell them what I tell them now. "If you want it go for it, you don't get anything by sitting on your ass."
They learned well by the second grade about the "Terrific Kid" program. They started declining the "award" each year to let kids who "needed" it more to get it a second time. Something only has worth if you earn it.
Not trying to answer for Pete, but here is my .02.
Two different scenarios.
In the first, find out why she isn't trying out or playing for the girls' team. Virtually all sports have teams for each gender, at least at the Div I level. Why force the boys and their coach have to make accomodations and hard decisions? I also not not want to see her get hurt. Once boys hit puberty and catch up, she is going to get pounded. Up till then, say age 13 or so, she could probably compete.
In the second, I would ask her why she wants to be on a sub. If she has been successful as a surface sailor up to this point, why change? It isn't like the job is any more rewarding in a sub. Be the best she can as a surface nuke sailor. Why get locked up with 127 men for months at the time? Why would we ask 127 males to make accomodations for one female?
My children both realize that everyone is different (especially boys and girls), people have to live with rules, and life isn't fair.
As far as your earlier question about service academies, I have no issue with it at the public service schools, as long as they do not distract. If you can have private women's school, then I do not see an issue with a private men's service school.
Back to the OT, I do not think that the few females who are qualified and able to serve aboard subs are worth the turmoil, drama, and morale issues of putting them aboard submarines. Too much to lose, little to gain.
YMMV.
TR
Are there any female only service academies? Not being sarcastic, just wondering. As for places like VMI etc.. I concede the point. As a private school they can do what they want. But for West Point, USAFA, Annapolis, that take Federal Money, that is another story all together.
FWIW I never agreed with the VMI decison. That poor girl got taken by the PC left and she got hung out to dry for it. Why put yourself in that position if you know you can't pass the standards? The fact that she had to sue to get in, then couldn't pass muster sent us back ages as far as I am concerned.
What the hell is a "defensive guard" in football??? :rolleyes: haha
Not to nitpick, but depending on the type of defense, a nose tackle is often called a nose guard
With all this talk of gender issues, I wonder what you all think about women being at the service academies.
Ooh-ooh, pick me, pick me! ;) Glad you brought up the point. I absolutely believe that women deserve to be at the federal service academies, as those schools provide as much as 25% of the officers in a year group that fill vacancies across all billets. Thus, if you want to sustain the officer corps in, using Army examples, the Transportation Corps, Corps of Engineers, Aviation, Ordnance or Quartermaster Corps, then you need to produce able young officers to take those positions.
However, speaking from (dated) experience, fraternization issues were rampant at USMA. There's a reason that members of the opposite sex aren't allowed to be in the same room with the door closed. Not that that stopped enterprising young cadets with creativity and will, as evidenced by the 2 females from my class that left for a year due to pregnancy, and one that joined my class in our senior year after a year's 'leave' for the same reason. Fortunately, most 'couples' were smarter or more careful, and used protection to avoid that hiccup. Then there's my classmate that had an affair with an LTC instructor, who left his wife and family for her after she graduated. There were other male instructor/female student affairs as well, but most were kept very quiet. Sadly, there were a number of sexual assault charges filed each year; some resulted in the male being disciplined, others in the female being countercharged and disciplined for filing false charges. All this is to say that there was plenty of gender-based problems to go around at USMA back then, and that was over a decade after the first class including women graduated. None of this should be used to say women don't belong at the academies, but to use the schools as an example of how gender doesn't play an influential role in such an enviroment isn't accurate.
Anecdotally, I can reply to the question about men playing on women's sports team and vice-versa. When I was in high school, one sport option for women in the fall was field hockey. My junior year, we had a male Spanish exchange student. Apparently, field hockey is a popular men's sport in Europe (go figure). So, being very talented in a sport he played for years growing up, the student convinced another US male from my class to go out for the team with him. There were no rules against it, so both were accepted onto the team. Our team dominated other all-girl teams that season, and won the state title. Soon after, amid a great deal of controversy, the state high school sports governing body proscribed boys from playing on girls sports teams. My sophmore year, a girl decided to play tackle football for another team in our league. She had to stop playing halfway through the season after taking some punishing hits in the first few games that caused some painful (but fortunately not serious or long-term) injuries. Seems guys on opposing teams had no issues with treating her like any other male player.
As for women playing on men's teams at the collegiate level, this example certainly doesn't stand as the only example of what will happen, but it obviously is a possibility that can adversely affect the effectiveness of the entire team, and even the entire program:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=1737416
With all this talk of gender issues, I wonder what you all think about women being at the service academies.
I know what I think, and what I'm "supposed" to think, and I hope I have a reasonable estimate of the distance between the two. :D
I struggled to pass the final PT test, which seemed to last forever, and was a great test of endurance as well as strength, when the Academy was all male.
Speaking to someone from a class that graduated a few years later, I learned that the length of the ordeal was shortened so that more females could pass.
One of the hardest events of the test was picking up a person of your approximate weight from the ground, getting that person over your shoulder, and carrying that "wounded soldier" to safety. It was one of the last events, when you were near exhaustion, and was a test of the whole body.
The elimination of that particular event speaks to me.
With all this talk of gender issues....I would point out that the issue just isn't about gender, it is also about gender identity.
The former is about differences between the sexes. The latter is about how those differences shape individuals' views of themselves as well as their interpersonal relationships, and how those views shape cultural views, social structures, and political practices.
IMHO, the discussion of women in combat should focus on both issues.
Just my $0.02.
GratefulCitizen
03-01-2010, 22:48
Concerning the whole physical comparison:
http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifting/BenchStandards.html
Compare the "novice" columns.
It's not just about possibilities.
Economics and timelines have to be considered.
18-25 year-old males can be conditioned rapidly.
Older men can get in pretty good shape, too...but it takes FOREVER.
Experienced/uninjured male athletes in their early 30s are generally more capable than their younger counterparts.
(However, it took a big time investment to get there, and a stack of chronic injuries are usually in tow.)
Given sufficient time, some women can achieve performance comparable to men.
The training time required to get a female on par with their male counterparts would be hard to justify under economic/timeline constraints.
Damn Wayback machine. I always return with less head hair and more nose hair!
Anyway, my visit to my high school years confirmed that we guys back then chased the cheerleaders WAAAAY more than the female discus throwers.
Then again, I do migrate down to the beach every women’s beach volleyball season. ;) That must mean something. :confused:
Pat
armymom1228
03-01-2010, 23:50
Then again, I do migrate down to the beach every women’s beach volleyball season. ;) That must mean something.
Pat
YEAH, your brains are below your belt, and you have a dirty mind... :D:p
AM:munchin
The Reaper
03-02-2010, 06:40
Given sufficient time, some women can achieve performance comparable to men.
The training time required to get a female on par with their male counterparts would be hard to justify under economic/timeline constraints.
The Army experimented with this, and found that to be the case until you provide the men with additional PT as well, then the numbers skew again even more for the men's performance.
And they discovered that you will injure a lot of the women getting to that point, even if you train and condition them properly.
TR
YEAH, your brains are below your belt, and you have a dirty mind... :D:p
AM:munchin
Gee, that's not fair, AM. I’m just trying to be a female athletic supporter. ;)
Pat
I know what I think, and what I'm "supposed" to think, and I hope I have a reasonable estimate of the distance between the two. :D
I struggled to pass the final PT test, which seemed to last forever, and was a great test of endurance as well as strength, when the Academy was all male.
Speaking to someone from a class that graduated a few years later, I learned that the length of the ordeal was shortened so that more females could pass.
One of the hardest events of the test was picking up a person of your approximate weight from the ground, getting that person over your shoulder, and carrying that "wounded soldier" to safety. It was one of the last events, when you were near exhaustion, and was a test of the whole body.
The elimination of that particular event speaks to me.
Maybe it was because of the girlie boys that couldn't pass the test either that it was eliminated. I don't know about you, but until about 1 year go when my bad back finally caught up with me, I could pass that certain qualification when many men that I work with couldn't I don't know if it has something to do with the fact that I have worked on a flight line my entire career, which involved a lot of heavy lifting, and most of the men I work with now spent their time in a cockpit. The fact that I have lifted weights most of my life and so have pretty good muscle strength (for a girl) may have attributed to that.
Do you think it is fair to put me in the same category (I am 6'2 approx 185 lbs) with a little thing that is 5'2 and weighs 100 pounds? Yes there is a difference between men and women. But I bet that with my body type, I would have a better chance of passing said test than say a 5'5 guy who weighed 130 pounds.
The Reaper
03-02-2010, 12:56
[COLOR="Pink"]Do you think it is fair to put me in the same category (I am 6'2 approx 185 lbs) with a little thing that is 5'2 and weighs 100 pounds? Yes there is a difference between men and women. But I bet that with my body type, I would have a better chance of passing said test than say a 5'5 guy who weighed 130 pounds.
I believe that you might be able to do that, for a short while.
Unfortunately, I think that the smaller male would, given the same fitness training as you, be able to equal your efforts and do so with less risk of injuries.
TR
I believe that you might be able to do that, for a short while.
Unfortunately, I think that the smaller male would, given the same fitness training as you, be able to equal your efforts and do so with less risk of injuries.
TR
The fact that I have undergone an MEB would support your thoughts. But then again I am 37 years old, played intercollegiate rugby for 3 years, and have been pushing pallets for almost 12!! Getting old sucks
[QUOTE=afchic;318269......... But I bet that with my body type, I would have a better chance of passing said test than say a 5'5 guy who weighed 130 pounds.[/QUOTE]
Careful with the size thingy. Some of the ruckenest fools I've ever seen were little short guys approaching their body weight with their rucks. Little legs zippin' back and forth were a blurrrrr of motion. Long striders were huffin' and puffin' to keep up.
Way back when my wife tried out for airport security in Fayetteville. One of the final tests was to move a sand man over to a 4 foot wall and get him over - anyway you could. The reason as explained to the folks was you were expected to be able to move a person from an area of danger. My wife could get him over to the wall but not over. Oh, well, somebody else got the job.
I do remember a few cases where there were similar strength standards, trash collection and fire fighters come to mind. I think the trash job was less strength than technique and the female applicant practiced and blew away the competition - then they wanted to change it - not fair.
The problem with "standards" is they are not set. Not getting enough? Lower the standards.
Had a student want to argue the 12 road march standards with me one time - carping about the measured distance. I told him all the companies start here and all the companies finish there. The route is called the 12 road march route. Everybody walks the same course, sandy all the way, up hill and down. And my watch is the official time ---- "GO" tick, tick, tick.
GratefulCitizen
03-02-2010, 14:34
Do you think it is fair to put me in the same category (I am 6'2 approx 185 lbs) with a little thing that is 5'2 and weighs 100 pounds? Yes there is a difference between men and women. But I bet that with my body type, I would have a better chance of passing said test than say a 5'5 guy who weighed 130 pounds
Given time and training, the 5'5/130 lb guy doesn't stay that way.
I was quite the ectomorph well into my late teens.
Given time and training, I was easily benching well over 300lbs.
Have an old friend who is similar size to you.
She was an all-state BKB player, top division 1 player, and could've played pro had she not gone into coaching.
She was well-conditioned, trained, and was a gifted natural athlete.
(At age 16-17, she was my lifting partner and was stronger than I was...)
Had male teammates during the same period who were much smaller than she and had unremarkable levels of natural athletic ability.
They all spent similar time on the court and in the weight room.
It wasn't even close.
The males were much stronger, faster, and had better endurance.
The gaps grew even more into their 20s, despite the fact that she was doing athletic training year-round and the males were just working for a living.
The fact that I have undergone an MEB would support your thoughts. But then again I am 37 years old, played intercollegiate rugby for 3 years, and have been pushing pallets for almost 12!! Getting old sucks.
We had two women who were career drivers in our UPS center.
Both of them were top producers when working the heavy routes in Phoenix.
One has retired, the other is nearing retirement.
They both accumulated plenty of injuries over the years, similar to male counterparts who had similar work histories.
The men spend much less time out (if any) when injured, and get back to 100% much more quickly upon return.
ZonieDiver
03-02-2010, 14:38
Getting old sucks
If nothing else, on THAT you and I can agree! :D
Slantwire
03-02-2010, 14:48
AFChic, ma'am, I'll start by saying I completely respect you and your opinions. I simply disagree in this conversation.
To my mind, this thread has coalesced into two separate issues: physical abilities (Army restrictions on combat arms such as infantry), and living conditions (Navy submarines / AF missileers).
I'm going to say something about living conditions first. As you've pointed out, professionalism and leadership are not gender-specific. But not everyone meets the high standards necessary to avoid complications. (If they did, we would have no sailors drunk on shore leave, no need to screen for STDs, and no pregnancies canceling deployments.) Ground truth is that mixed genders in close proximity for extended periods DOES cause additional complications. A service has to set up its systems to deal with the "least common denominator" of professionalism.
Will the Navy miss out on some potentially superb female submariners by their policy? Probably. Heck, they probably already have. Would the gain of those personnel outweigh the loss of dealing with the complications? The long-standing consensus has been "No." I don't see anything to change that answer.
(Mixed genders, close proximity, and extended times all separately create distractions to different degrees. The distractions become more severe as the factors combine. Close quarters in a silo for a day or two, is significantly different than an underwater phone booth for months on end. The Air Force has obviously decided that its gain in the silos DOES outweigh the problems, and in my opinion it's probably right. With such a short cloister time, the downside is less severe than what the Navy has to contemplate. It's reasonable to expect the "least common denominator" of professionalism to handle distractions for a couple days in the silo. Same for support roles in garrison. But that's not true in all situations.)
Needs of the service are more important than any desire to be "fair" or "equal," however noble those ideals are.
As for physical abilities, biology doesn't care about human notions of equality. Katie Hnida, Anika Sorenstam and Michelle Wie have already been mentioned or referenced in this thread. I'll toss in another few names.
There was a great deal of outcry over South African sprinter Caster Semenya's apparent masculinity when she won gold in the 800m at the 2009 World Championships in Athletics. In seeming refutation of your assertion that "women wouldn't mind," many of the athletes she beat said that she should not have been competing in the women's event - and she's never been proven to be anything but female. (Incidentally, she had the fastest official women's time of 2009, yet was fully 10 seconds slower than the male winner at those same Championships.)
Golfer Mianne Bagger had a sex change before competing on the women's circuit, and there were complaints that her "genetically male" knees would handle more torque than her "genetically female" competitors, allowing her a more powerful swing.
Your own experiences with rugby, and your opinion that women and men should be allowed to compete in the same leagues, surprise me when taken together. Would you and your teammates have been satisfied in a league where you came away from every game feeling like you'd "been hit by a Mack truck," and gotten your "butts kicked?"
If we can agree that there ARE fundamental physical differences, enforced by biology, then any accommodations for the differences feed back into the gain-vs-cost question. Not an issue when pushing buttons, but definitely an issue when carrying an infantryman. Again, needs of the service rule.
[QUOTE=afchic;
Do you think it is fair to put me in the same category (I am 6'2 approx 185 lbs) with a little thing that is 5'2 and weighs 100 pounds? Yes there is a difference between men and women. But I bet that with my body type, I would have a better chance of passing said test than say a 5'5 guy who weighed 130 pounds.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't put you into a category.
The categories are,
1. Can be built into someone who can perform all functions, and
2. Cannot be built into someone who can perform all functions.
Had the washout rate for females been 85%, and for males, been 50%, someone would have declared that "unfair". I would not.
However, politics would have prevailed and heads would have rolled.
Letting "gender identity" be for a moment, I reassert:
The army is either someplace for people to be ( my son with MS, my very small granddaughter), or it is a very important team that must focus on winning.
When we use the word "disabled", we are really talking "less able". Few would agree with putting physically disabled soldiers into an airborne infantry squad. When we get to applying abilities to gender, we duck, dodge, and dance an *declare* that we are all equal.
That, of course, means that I can whip Michael Jordan's butt about 50% of the time on the hardwood court. Yeah, right:rolleyes:
If we are supposed to have a "representative percentage" of "can't find his ass with both hands", and "hasn't been sober in 20 years", in order to be fair to whatever groups, in whatever way we divide our society, I'm against that too.
greenberetTFS
03-02-2010, 18:20
If nothing else, on THAT you and I can agree! :D
Agree totally.....................;)
Big Teddy :munchin
armymom1228
03-05-2010, 11:24
I got this from a retired Naval Officer via Email this morning. Decided to add this to this thread. For no particular reason than it is a worthy read, and a bit humorous in places.
Once Upon a Time
by Bob 'Dex' Armstrong
One of the benefits of growing old is the gift of time ... time to look back and revisit your collective 'Life Experiences',
For old smokeboat sailors, that means time to shuffle through memories of pissing against the wind in faded soft dungarees, frayed raghats and zinc chromate-spattered broghans. You can close your eyes and be transported back to a time when men wore acid-eaten uniforms, breathed air worse than the primate house at a poorly managed zoo, whittled mold and rot off food of advanced age being reclaimed by the gods of purification, and surgically carving off the stuff and eating it. You survived and built up an immunity that could handle leprosy, lockjaw and cobra bites. We survived. Submarine duty was rough.
Many of us 'hotsacked'. For those of you who missed that life experience, hotsacking was sharing sleeping arrangements (to put it in easily understood terms). A system that required lads at the entry level of the undersea service profession, to crawl onto a sweat-soaked flashpad just vacated by another bottom-feeding shipmate. Lads of today's modern technically advanced undersea service would find it damn near impossible to imagine a day when lads who hadn't showered in weeks, climbed a tier of racks sharing sock aroma on par with three-day old roadkill, with his bunkmates... A time when raghats communally shared blankets that looked like hobo camp hand-me-downs.
It was a time when the common denominator of the naval supply system was the cockroach, with the longevity of Jack LaLanne. Cockroaches that could deflect claw-hammered blows and could reach rodeo entry size.
In the late 50's, the submarines built in the twilight years of World War II were rapidly approaching an advanced age comatose state. The navy quit making many of the replacement parts for these seagoing antiques, so we cannibalized the boats in line heading to the scrap yard. It was like harvesting organs from a dead Rockette to keep the chorus line going. After decommissioning, the old boats would have electricians and machinists crawling all over them with shopping lists and wrenches.
Memory is a wonderful God-given gift. There were sunrises and sunsets, rolling seas, visits to exotic places, and ladies with loose panty elastic and no AIDS. There were consumable combustibles on par with the liquids that propel hardware to outer space.
It was a time when the world's population loved the American submariner. Boatsailors in port meant good times, hell-raising and calling in the night shift at the local brewery. It was a time when the United States Navy had no recruitment problems, paid no incentive money and had to kiss no butts to entice grown men into accepting their manly obligation to their nation. Men signed up for undersea service, motivated by patriotic obligation, a sense of history and adventure, and to follow the gallant submariners who rode the boats against the Japanese empire. We wanted to wear the distinctive insignia universally recognized as the symbol of the most successful and demanding submarine service on earth.
We were proud. We had a right to be. We were accepted as the downline fraternity brothers of the courageous men who put Hirohito's monkey band all over the floor of the Pacific. We rode their boats, ate at their mess tables, slept in their bunks and plugged the ever-increasing leaks in the hulls they left us. We patted the same barmaid butts they had patted when they were far younger and half as wide. We carved our boats names and hull numbers on gin mill tables in places that would give Methodist ministers cardiac arrest.
We danced with the devil's mistress and all her naughty daughters. We were young, testosterone-driven American bluejackets and let's face it... Every girl in every port establishment around the globe both recognized and appreciated the meaning of a pair of Dolphins over a jumper pocket. Many of these ladies were willing to share smiles and body warmth with the members of America 's undersea service.
It was a time when the snapping of American colors in the ports of the world stood for liberation from tyranny and the American sailor in his distinctive uniform and happy-go-lucky manner, stood for John Wayne principles and a universally recognized sense of decency, high ideals and uncompromised values.
It was in every sense of the term, 'A great time to be an American sailor'. There were few prohibitions. They were looked upon as simply unnecessary. It was a time when 'family values' were taught at family dinner tables, at schools, the nation's playing fields, scout troops, Sunday school or other institutions of worship. We were a good people and we knew it. We plowed the world's oceans guarding her sea lanes and making her secure for the traffic of international commerce. But at eighteen, let's face it... We never thought much about the noble aspect of what we were doing. Crews looked forward to the next liberty port, the next run, home port visits, what the boat was having for evening chow, the evening movie after chow, or which barmaids were working at Bell's that evening. We were young, invincible and had our whole lives ahead of us. Without being aware of it, we were learning leadership, acceptance of responsibility and teamwork in the finest classroom in the world... A United States submarine.
It was a simpler time. Lack of complexity left us with clear-cut objectives and the 'bad guys' were clearly defined. We knew who they were, where they were and that we had the means, will and ability to send them all off to hell in a fiery package deal. We were the 'good guys' and literally wore 'white hats'. What we lacked in crew comfort, technological advancements and publicity, we made up for in continuity, stability and love of our boats and squadrons. We were a band of brothers and have remained so for over half a century. Since we were not riding what the present day submariner would call 'true submersibles', we got sunrises and sunsets at sea... The sting of wind-blown saltwater on our faces... The roll and pitch of heavy weather swells and the screech of seabirds. I can't imagine sea duty devoid of contact with these wonders. To me, they are a very real part of being a true mariner.
I'm glad I served in an era of signal lights... Flag messaging... Navigation calculation... Marines manning the gates... Locker clubs... Working girls... Hitchhiking in uniform... Quartermasters, torpedo men and gunner's mates... Sea store smokes... Hotsacking... Hydraulic oil-laced coffee... Lousy mid rats... Jackassing fish from the skids to the tubes... One and two way trash dumping... Plywood dog shacks... Messy piers... A time when the Chief of the Boat could turn up at morning quarters wearing a Mexican sombrero and Jeezus sandals... When every E-3 in the sub force knew what paint scrapers, chipping hammers and wire brushes were for... When JGs with a pencil were the most dangerous things in the navy... When the navy mobile canteen truck was called the 'roach coach' and sold geedunk and pogey bait... When the breakfast of champions was a pitcher of Blue Ribbon, four Slim Jims, a pack of Beer Nuts, a hard-boiled egg, and a game of Eight Ball.
It was a time when, if you saw a boatsailor with more than four ship's patches on his foul weather jacket, he was at least fifty years old and a lifer. A time when skippers wore hydraulic oil-stained steaming hats and carried a wad of binocular wipes in their shirt pockets. In those days, old barnicle-encrusted chiefs had more body fat than a Hell's Angel, smoked big, fat, lousy smelling cigars or 'chawed plug', and came with a sewer digger's vocabulary. It was a time where heterosexuals got married to members of the opposite sex or patronized 'working girls', and non-heterosexuals went Air Force ... or Peace Corps.
It was a good time... For some of us, the best time we would ever have. There was a certain satisfaction to be found in serving one's country without the nation you so dearly loved having to promise you enlistment bonuses, big whopping education benefits, feather bed shore duty, or an 'A' school with a sauna and color TV. It was a time when if you told a cook you didn't eat Spam or creamed chipped beef, everybody laughed and you went away hungry... And if you cussed a messcook, you could find toenail clippings in your salad.
Our generation visited cemeteries where legends of World War II undersea service were issued their grass blankets, after receiving their pine peacoats and orders to some old hull number moored at the big silver pier in the sky. We were family... Our common heritage made us brothers.
There came a point where we drew a line through our names on the Watch, Quarter and Station Bill, told our shipmates we would see them in hell, shook hands with the COB, paid back the slush fund, told the skipper 'goodbye', and picked up a disbursing chit and your DD-214. We went up on Hampton Boulevard, bought a couple of rounds at Bells, kissed the barmaids, gave Thelma a hug, then went out to spend the rest of our lives wishing we could hear, "Single up all lines ..." just one more time.
Thank the guy, AM. Thanks for posting.
incarcerated
04-29-2010, 11:11
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8652180.stm
US navy lifts ban on women submariners
Thursday, 29 April 2010 16:04 UK
Women can now serve on US submarines, after a ban was lifted.
The US defence department had announced the move in February and the deadline for any objection from Congress passed at midnight on Wednesday....
Utah Bob
05-07-2010, 06:31
USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/video/index.htm#/News/First+women+chosen+for+sub+duty+excited/42804638001/40264770001/83473605001)