Navy intends to let women serve on subs.........

[brown77]

Originally Posted by brown77

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'!!!

[afchic]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

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]

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]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

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.

[afchic]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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]

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.

[SF-TX]

Originally Posted by craigepo

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...mmad&Itemid=58

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by afchic

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.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by afchic

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/2...ed-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.

[brown77]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

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!

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

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.

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

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

[vsvo]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

...

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, 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

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.

[Pete]

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...l?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/arc...leave_the_war/

And on the similar subject, different view.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-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?

[afchic]

Originally Posted by Razor

Well, life in the silos isn't Mayberry either:

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jul/17/news/mn-57562

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2...ed-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.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Pete

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.

[plato]

Originally Posted by Razor

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.