Navy moves to allow women on submarines

[ScottM]

I found an interesting article on this topic today:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35824

I guess if this article was being written in 1948 the author might have asked the question if there was a shortage of white soldiers?

The military has been a place were social engineering has happened for decades. It is a place where rich and poor have been brought together in an equal fashion, it is a place where races have been brought together, different religions, colors, sexes, sexual orientations and never has the results been anything other than improvement.

No one is advocating a lowering of standards, all that is being advocated is that no one not be allowed to try and meet standards based on their external genitalia. This is a plan to let anyone be free to try. Isn't that what America is supposed to be about?

 

[gprellwitz]

I guess if this article was being written in 1948 the author might have asked the question if there was a shortage of white soldiers?

The military has been a place were social engineering has happened for decades. It is a place where rich and poor have been brought together in an equal fashion, it is a place where races have been brought together, different religions, colors, sexes, sexual orientations and never has the results been anything other than improvement.

No one is advocating a lowering of standards, all that is being advocated is that no one not be allowed to try and meet standards based on their external genitalia. This is a plan to let anyone be free to try. Isn't that what America is supposed to be about?

Wow, that's what I was thinking, albeit stated much more eloquently. Thanks, Scott!

 

[Witmo]

You should tell all that to the Israelis. Apparently they've been doing it wrong all these years.

Interestingly, Israeli women are not eligible to serve on Israeli submarines-great example. In 1948 Israeli women fought courageously alongside the men in front line combat. They had to because it was winner take all and they were fighting for their very existence. After the war for many years, women were banned from frontline combat positions. It has only around the same time as here in the US that women in Israel have been integrated back into light combat units. Unlike here, women are conscripted in Israel to serve. Only women who volunteer for combat assignments are considered for them. Men on the other hand don't have that choice. I've talked with Israeli officers and none that I have spoken to have said they feel their unit is enhanced by having women soldiers assigned. Looks like PC is not unique to the US.

 

[steingar]

Interestingly, Israeli women are not eligible to serve on Israeli submarines-great example. In 1948 Israeli women fought courageously alongside the men in front line combat. They had to because it was winner take all and they were fighting for their very existence. After the war for many years, women were banned from frontline combat positions. It has only around the same time as here in the US that women in Israel have been integrated back into light combat units. Unlike here, women are conscripted in Israel to serve. Only women who volunteer for combat assignments are considered for them. Men on the other hand don't have that choice. I've talked with Israeli officers and none that I have spoken to have said they feel their unit is enhanced by having women soldiers assigned. Looks like PC is not unique to the US.

The commanders don't like it is your quantitative data as to why women shouldn't be in the military. This is what gets me about the lack of critical thinking in America. The commanders don't like it. The Israeli army has been in more fights than just about any other army on Earth. If there was some quantitative detriment to women in the armed forces, that's where you'd find it. The commanders don't like it just doesn't cut it. We can show a quantitative change in combat readiness does. The Army screamed bloody murder about racial integration, and lots of commanders complained about it for years afterwards, but it sounds like the experiment worked out OK.

 

[Witmo]

I
No one is advocating a lowering of standards, all that is being advocated is that no one not be allowed to try and meet standards based on their external genitalia. This is a plan to let anyone be free to try. Isn't that what America is supposed to be about?

Standards are being lowered. Combat effectiveness is degraded. When politicians lift the gender ban on a combat position, they expect women to fill those open positions. Explaining that none or very few are capable of meeting the existing standard isn't acceptable so the military is forced to change (ie. lower) the standard.

If a man is assigned to a combat unit and that unit is to go into combat, that man cannot change his mind and say no thanks--I've decided to opt out of that commitment I made. If he tries, chances are he's going to spend some time at Fort Leavenworth and not at the Army Staff College part of the installation. Women have opted out by becoming pregnant, their ultimate trump card. I've not heard of any getting anything other than a downgraded discharge for playing that card, if even that.

There are a few women who can meet every standard and perform in every way as good or better than the average male soldier. What I'm saying is that combat is not about individuals, it's about a unit able to function as a cohesive entity in the most stressful and strenuous of circumstances. Every soldier has to trust his fellow soldier with his life. The presence of women as currently implemented in the DoD, doesn't enhance combat unit cohesiveness.

 

[flyersfan31]

If the standards are not changed, I don't see it as a big deal. Now, if you have separate fitness requirements for men and women, that is silly. But if a woman can meet the standards that men must meet, then how can you argue that she can't carry the load?

 

[Witmo]

The commanders don't like it is your quantitative data as to why women shouldn't be in the military. This is what gets me about the lack of critical thinking in America. The commanders don't like it. The Israeli army has been in more fights than just about any other army on Earth. If there was some quantitative detriment to women in the armed forces, that's where you'd find it. The commanders don't like it just doesn't cut it. We can show a quantitative change in combat readiness does. The Army screamed bloody murder about racial integration, and lots of commanders complained about it for years afterwards, but it sounds like the experiment worked out OK.

Which only proves that same gender, racially integrated combat units can be as combat effective as single race same gender units. To imply this example applies similarly to mixed gender combat units is fallacious.

 

[Everskyward]

What I'm saying is that combat is not about individuals, it's about a unit able to function as a cohesive entity in the most stressful and strenuous of circumstances. Every soldier has to trust his fellow soldier with his life. The presence of women as currently implemented in the DoD, doesn't enhance combat unit cohesiveness.

This is the same bogus reason people gave for advocating segregation in the armed forces back in the 1940s.

 

[Witmo]

If the standards are not changed, I don't see it as a big deal. Now, if you have separate fitness requirements for men and women, that is silly. But if a woman can meet the standards that men must meet, then how can you argue that she can't carry the load?

What part of different standards for men and women don't you understand?

 

[nddons]

This was the same argument used by men when I got into law enforcement to try to keep us out. I passed the exact same entry tests the guys did. The only difference in requirements were height and weight minimums which were adjusted for the different sexes, but the body pulls, runs, push ups (standard push ups too, no "female" style allowed), sit ups etc were all the same. The only test I had problems with was the 6ft wall . That was because I had a guy trying to tell me how to get over the thing using nothing but upper body strength. When I figured out to ignore the man and use my head and figure it out myself, I did just fine getting over it. Not that it ever came in handy. In all my years on-duty I never had to jump a 6ft wall (and never saw any guys try to do it either). I never had an incident that any lack of brute upper body strength prevented me from getting the job done.

Point is, guys like to use "brute strength" as an argument to keep women out of combat positions. But I think women in law enforcement have shown for many years that using your brain and figuring out your way around a problem is just as valuable, if not more so, than bullying your way through using all muscle. Would I like to have as much upper body strength as guys do? Sure, but adrenaline is an amazing thing, and women have moved people and things with it during high stress situations where men would not have thought they could. The argument is way past old. It's about time the military is doing away with artificial barriers.

And before someone points out that some hand-to-hand type combat positions are much more physically demanding on a regular basis that law enforcement, I don't dispute that may be true, but come on... on a submarine? Good grief.

My physical fitness test for an Iowa county volunteer Sheriff deputy is below. Thank God I was 40; I don't think I would have made the 1.5 mile run in the 30-39 age category (defensive linemen have never been known as "runners"). I do find it interesting that the women's 1.5 mile run time for the 20-29 age bracket is the same as the men's 50-59 age bracket.

Not saying it's right or wrong, just demonstrating that some of the LEO testing differences are substantial.

 

[steingar]

Which only proves that same gender, racially integrated combat units can be as combat effective as single race same gender units. To imply this example applies similarly to mixed gender combat units is fallacious.

When the races got integrated, the commanders didn't like it. If you're going to tell me women reduce combat effectiveness you'd better have something to back yourself up with. Like I said, should be plenty of data from multiple militaries. The only data you seem to be able to cite is "the commanders don't like it". Intellectual lightweight argument at its finest.

 

[Everskyward]

Women have opted out by becoming pregnant, their ultimate trump card.

Heck men (or women) could decide to enter into an openly gay relationship and, the way it is now, they would be on their way out too. That sounds like less trouble than getting pregnant and having to raise a child to adulthood.

 

[Witmo]

When the races got integrated, the commanders didn't like it. If you're going to tell me women reduce combat effectiveness you'd better have something to back yourself up with. Like I said, should be plenty of data from multiple militaries. The only data you seem to be able to cite is "the commanders don't like it". Intellectual lightweight argument at its finest.

I don't have any qualitative studies backing up what I'm saying. Do you have any qualitative studies saying combat effectiveness is equal or better than before gender integration? I thought not. I do have my own experience in the military to back up my view point. What do you have to back up yours? I doubt the DoD or Congress will commission any studies on the subject because the results would most probably go contrary to PC. Don't ask the question if you won't like the answer is alive and well in government service. The unfortunate aspect of the "can do" attitude of military command is that commanders will do whatever it takes to make their unit combat ready even if it means more soldiers, sailors, marines and airman become casualties in combat. I'm hoping someone in power has the guts not to pay that price in the blood of our military.

 

[Witmo]

Heck men (or women) could decide to enter into an openly gay relationship and, the way it is now, they would be on their way out too. That sounds like less trouble than getting pregnant and having to raise a child to adulthood.

You're right but gays coming out to avoid combat is more likely to be prosecuted and end up with some jail time. Sending a pregnant sailor to jail is bad press and usually the services just prefer to let the woman go quietly.

 

[Everskyward]

You're right but gays coming out to avoid combat is more likely to be prosecuted and end up with some jail time. Sending a pregnant sailor to jail is bad press and usually the services just prefer to let the woman go quietly.

But how are you going to be able to prove motive? Also, ousting a gay soldier is likely to get some bad press these days too. Even the Air Force Times seems sympathetic to this guy.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/05/airforce_fehrenbach_052009w/

 

[ScottM]

Standards are being lowered. Combat effectiveness is degraded.

Really?? And you can actually post some proof of that?

Another argument against women in combat is that they simply do not have the physical strength and endurance needed. Without a doubt, being in the military is a physically demanding job that not everyone is fit to handle. Despite this, all experts agree that there are some women, although perhaps small in number, who have the physical strength and endurance to be soldiers (Army Times, July 29, 1996). Concerning combat aviation some question whether women can handle the gravitational forces of an aircraft, but there is absolutely no evidence that says they cannot. It is interesting to note that everyone, including women, believe the physical standards for military occupational specialties (MOS) should be identical for both men and women.



Currently, all members of the armed services must pass fitness tests, which are scaled according to age and gender. There are no current tests that specifically measure the physical skills required for each military occupational specialty (MOS) -- the only way to test this is have the soldiers simply go out and perform their task. The goal is to create these gender-blind specific tests that more accurately predict a soldier's success in combat.

http://www.cdi.org/issues/women/combat.html


This states pretty clearly that even the military has no way to measure how physical standards map to the ability of doing the job. So I'll ask you to produce some proof of your statement because it sure appears that if a person is doing the job they are capable of it. If there are women failing in combat would not there be a higher percentage of women causalities? I have not seen that in any measurement

When politicians lift the gender ban on a combat position, they expect women to fill those open positions. Explaining that none or very few are capable of meeting the existing standard isn't acceptable so the military is forced to change (ie. lower) the standard.

The standard are also lowered for age. Should we not be booting old guys of 35 out of the military in favor of younger people including women?

If a man is assigned to a combat unit and that unit is to go into combat, that man cannot change his mind and say no thanks--I've decided to opt out of that commitment I made. If he tries, chances are he's going to spend some time at Fort Leavenworth and not at the Army Staff College part of the installation. Women have opted out by becoming pregnant, their ultimate trump card. I've not heard of any getting anything other than a downgraded discharge for playing that card, if even that.

Men has 'opted' out by shooting themselves in the feet. I am sure in Ceaser's time they stabbed their legs too. I don't understand your point. Are you saying that women will get knocked up to avoid combat but a man would never do anything to betray the trust and not follow the commitment they made? You know, like no way would a fighter pilot stop showing up when his unit may deploy to say, run a political campaign or something?

There are a few women who can meet every standard and perform in every way as good or better than the average male soldier.So an exceptional female is an average male. Really? huh. Is there some study that bares this out?

What I'm saying is that combat is not about individuals, it's about a unit able to function as a cohesive entity in the most stressful and strenuous of circumstances. Every soldier has to trust his fellow soldier with his life. The presence of women as currently implemented in the DoD, doesn't enhance combat unit cohesiveness.

Women have been doing every single job a man can do. Some do it better then some men and some don't but why exclude just based on sex? Why not give them a chance what are you afraid of?

We just got done with the Olympics and there are men's and women's divisions in many sports. We can see at the top of the performance chart that the best of the women are not quite the same as the best of the men. But one thing for sure. The worst of the women in an Olympic event is still better than 99% of the men in the population as a whole when it comes to that sport. By excluding women from a combat role you may be excluding a more qualified female for a lessor male.

Lets be real honest here. Women have been in combat roles for a while now. The USAF opened up fighters to them in 1993 and the earth did not explode. They are doing great. Being on a submarine is no great physical feat. The hardest part is the sheer boredom of being underwater for 6 months with the same people. It is not like a submariner is a Navy Seal.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I don't have any qualitative studies backing up what I'm saying. Do you have any qualitative studies saying combat effectiveness is equal or better than before gender integration? I thought not. I do have my own experience in the military to back up my view point. What do you have to back up yours? I doubt the DoD or Congress will commission any studies on the subject because the results would most probably go contrary to PC. Don't ask the question if you won't like the answer is alive and well in government service. The unfortunate aspect of the "can do" attitude of military command is that commanders will do whatever it takes to make their unit combat ready even if it means more soldiers, sailors, marines and airman become casualties in combat. I'm hoping someone in power has the guts not to pay that price in the blood of our military.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Russian_and_Soviet_military#World_War_II

You can question the source, as it's an online encyclopedia, but it's accurate.

Russian women served with exceptional distinction during WWII. The Russians, beyond any doubt, had the absolute worst of it during WWII; without Russia, the Allies wouldn't have won during WWII. Women seemed to do best as snipers; but they served in most roles pretty well.

That should adequately answer your questions, while also refuting your concerns.

 

[SCCutler]

We just got done with the Olympics and there are men's and women's divisions in many sports. We can see at the top of the performance chart that the best of the women are not quite the same as the best of the men. But one thing for sure. The worst of the women in an Olympic event is still better than 99% of the men in the population as a whole when it comes to that sport. By excluding women from a combat role you may be excluding a more qualified female for a lessor male.

Now see, that is an exceptional way to bring a real sense of perspective to the discussion. Good food for thought.

Lets be real honest here. Women have been in combat roles for a while now. The USAF opened up fighters to them in 1993 and the earth did not explode. They are doing great. Being on a submarine is no great physical feat. The hardest part is the sheer boredom of being underwater for 6 months with the same people. It is not like a submariner is a Navy Seal.

I think the principle issue is the incredibly confined space occupied for an extended period of time; makes me wonder (without knowing): has the Navy done any meaningful study on point?

 

[alaskaflyer]

My WAG is that any study would show that as a study group women perform better in a submarine-type of environment than men

 

[Ghery]

how many posters have ever been on a modern sub such as a boomer or patrol subs?


and to place you minds at rest there are NO private places on a sub, you are in some ones view at all times.

Have you ever been on a submarine--I have. Every inch of space is crammed with equipment or stores. There are not even enough bunks for the number of sailors so hot racking is common (same bunk used by multiple people on different watches.)

First job out of college was at Mare Island Naval Shipyard overhauling and refueling nuclear submarines. There's no room or privacy on one of those things. None. And the bunks are so close together I know I would not have made it. The one thing that causes me to suffer claustophobia is to be unable to raise my arms when lying down, and you can't do that in a boat. My sailboat's aft bunk, either, for that matter.

 

[flyersfan31]

What part of different standards for men and women don't you understand?

None whatsoever. What is the point you are trying to make with your question in what seems to be a rather aggressive fashion?

 

[Missa]

What part of different standards for men and women don't you understand?

Funny that when NASA made standards for Astronauts and ran group of women along with the Men. The Women did better then the Men. But how many of the better qualified female mercury astronauts made it???

So why not just use people where they are best suited?

Back to the orignal topic. Subs are cramped places to live and the biggest physical requirment is that you can FIT in the sub. Let see who is better suited to be a submarinar BIG men or smaller women? If you are going to restrict the service to one gender, How about use a little logic. Subs should be ALL female as they fit the requirments better. Plus women are more sneaky then men, aren't subs suppose to be sneaky.

 

[Geico266]

Subs should be ALL female as they fit the requirments better. Plus women are more sneaky then men, aren't subs suppose to be sneaky.

I think this is what scares the hell out of the Admirals.


Seriously, all women crews are the way to go. Subs have 2 crews per sub. When one crew is at sea, one crew is resting and training.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Subs should be ALL female as they fit the requirments better. Plus women are more sneaky then men, aren't subs suppose to be sneaky.

I like how you think.

 

[Ted]

Let see who is better suited to be a submarinar BIG men or smaller women?

Let's send you and Chuck down on a sub and we'll see who fits better.

 

[EdFred]

Women have small brains. With a brain one third the size of us. It's science.

 

[Missa]

Let's send you and Chuck down on a sub and we'll see who fits better.

I didn't say ME... I'm tall by Female standards and on the upper end of average hight by male standards. Trust me finding a guy taller then I am has been a challenge.

Better Idea, send Chuck, Tristan and/or Mari down on a sub and see who fits better.

 

[steingar]

I don't have any qualitative studies backing up what I'm saying. Do you have any qualitative studies saying combat effectiveness is equal or better than before gender integration? I thought not.

I have really good data. Since gender integration the US military has kicked booty in three different wars and emerged as the dominant fighting force on planet Earth. I therefore declare that gender integration has worked spectacularly. Up to you to prove me wrong. And it will take more than the bitter musings of some bigoted chauvinists to do it.

I do have my own experience in the military to back up my view point. What do you have to back up yours? I doubt the DoD or Congress will commission any studies on the subject because the results would most probably go contrary to PC. Don't ask the question if you won't like the answer is alive and well in government service. The unfortunate aspect of the "can do" attitude of military command is that commanders will do whatever it takes to make their unit combat ready even if it means more soldiers, sailors, marines and airman become casualties in combat. I'm hoping someone in power has the guts not to pay that price in the blood of our military.

The military lives and breathes metrics, and you know it as well as I do. There were guys with tons of experience who said racial integration wouldn't and didn't work. Guess they were wrong. Being in uniform does make you more experienced than I (and I do thank you for your service). It doesn't necessarily make you right.

 

[Witmo]

Most of the men and women who volunteer to serve in the armed forces are not Olympic athletes. Take the average man and the average woman who does volunteer, train them, and put them in a front line combat unit. Who would you rather have as a battle buddy? Why? Those of you who argue that there are some women who can run a mile in 10 minutes and bench press their weight plus 50 are not looking at the reality as to who is volunteering for service. The reality is average women are volunteering for service and the average woman is less capable than the average man in frontline combat service. I just wish that those strident proponents of women's rights would have the opportunity to go into battle alongside that 110 pound teenager they so eagerly want to defend their country with.

Gender normalizing physical fitness requirements is a fancy way of saying lowering standards so that women can pass a test.

I agree that some combat positions are and should be open to qualified women because the societal, moral, ethical, mental, and physical demands on those positions do not place the genders in extremely close physical contact under extreme stress with no opportunity for any sort of privacy. UAV operators, some pilots, missile crews, etc are only some examples of suitably gender friendly combat jobs. Submarine crewmember is not.

Every sailor is a fireman and should meet the same physical requirements for fire fighting and damage control. Dragging equipment and wounded sailors through cramped passageways and up/down steep ladders don't recognize gender normalizing test results.

Age normalizing (decreasing the physical requirements for people as they age) is acceptable because the older one gets, the more senior in rank one becomes so the duty shifts from more the physical to more the supervisory in nature.

 

[ScottM]

I just wish that those strident proponents of women's rights would have the opportunity to go into battle alongside that 110 pound teenager they so eagerly want to defend their country with.

12 years of serive and two tours into hostile areas. I think I am qualified to comment. I have never seen any reason to not give women a shot at a job. I figure they can bleed like the rest of us and if they want to put it on the line then they should be allowed to. Women are doing well in many physical areas that were the pervue of men. Look at fire departments, lots of women doing the job.

There are men who cannot do the job, why should they be allowed to try but women cannot?

Submarine crewmember is not.

Why? What is the physical demand on being in a tube for 6 months that you think women cannot tolerate?

Every sailor is a fireman and should meet the same physical requirements for fire fighting and damage control. Dragging equipment and wounded sailors through cramped passageways and up/down steep ladders don't recognize gender normalizing test results.

Where is there any discussion that women will not have to meet these requirements? BTW women are already having to do this on surface ships so this is not anything new.

 

[Witmo]

Funny that when NASA made standards for Astronauts and ran group of women along with the Men. The Women did better then the Men. But how many of the better qualified female mercury astronauts made it???

So why not just use people where they are best suited?

Back to the orignal topic. Subs are cramped places to live and the biggest physical requirment is that you can FIT in the sub. Let see who is better suited to be a submarinar BIG men or smaller women? If you are going to restrict the service to one gender, How about use a little logic. Subs should be ALL female as they fit the requirments better. Plus women are more sneaky then men, aren't subs suppose to be sneaky.

What does being an Astronaut have to do with women serving in combat? I don't doubt women on average are great at a multitude of things. So are men. They are not equal (and I don't mean men are better than women or women are better than men). They are different.

Being small is not a driving requirement for submarine service. An almost total lack of privacy makes mixed gender crewing a bad idea. An earlier post linked an article citing the cost to modify existing ballistic missile subs to accommodate women--read it. Modifying attack subs to accommodate women was listed as perhaps undoable without a significant decrease in operational capability and an astronomical cost. For what? I'd rather that money be spent on making our military more capable than more PC.

 

[Everskyward]

Better Idea, send Chuck, Tristan and/or Mari down on a sub and see who fits better.

Haha, I spent a number of years listening to guys complain about the size of the front of the LR-35. "My legs hurt, my back hurts, my neck hurts, etc." Didn't bother me at all. It was also easier for me to pack the bags in the back since I could get inside the baggage area.

As far as mixed gender crews go, when I was flying they were always mixed since there were no other female Lear pilots. We didn't seem to have a trust problem.

 

[Missa]

What does being an Astronaut have to do with women serving in combat?

What does operating a sub have to do with women serving in combat?

How many times in the last 50 years has a sub been boarded and hand to hand combat broke out?

Operating a space vehicle is a lot more simalar to operating a sub then "Combat" is to operating a sub.

If you don't think we should have mixed gender sub crews... fire all the less capable males and make all submariniers more capable females.

 

[ScottM]

What does operating a sub have to do with women serving in combat?

How many times in the last 50 years has a sub been boarded and hand to hand combat broke out?

Operating a space vehicle is a lot more simalar to operating a sub then "Combat" is to operating a sub.

If you don't think we should have mixed gender sub crews... fire all the less capable males and make all submariniers more capable females.

not too mention that things are lot more cramped on a space vehicle than a nuclear sub and mixed crews have done just fine. I guess we should never let facts interfere with a good ole rant against equality.

 

[Witmo]

12 years of serive and two tours into hostile areas. I think I am qualified to comment. I have never seen any reason to not give women a shot at a job. I figure they can bleed like the rest of us and if they want to put it on the line then they should be allowed to.

There are men who cannot do the job, why should they be allowed to try but women cannot?

If a man can't do the job he should get booted out. "Tours into hostile areas" and frontline combat duty are two different kettles of fish.

So is age normalization. Why are you not advocating to kick old men out of combat billets?

If they can't do their job they should be. Jobs differ according to rank.

Why? What is the physical demand on being in a tube for 6 months that you think women cannot tolerate?

Ask a submariner about the lack of privacy, the lack of space, and the isolation. There's a huge difference between living on an aircraft carrier and living on a submarine surrounded by men.

Where is there any discussion that women will not have to meet these requirements? BTW women are already having to do this on surface ships so this is not anything new.

Look at the gender normalizing physical requirement for sailors. Talk to senior Navy commanders about the pregnancy rate of female sailors at sea and the cost to replace them mid-cruise.

So a Sr. noncom in a SEAL unit is doing less physical work? Wanna bet? Physical tests have been shown to NOT predict the ability of one to do the job as the jobs vary too much. I would very much like to see you actually support your ideas with some study, fact, anything besides your obvious hate of women in the military.

Every Sr. Noncom in SPECOPs I ever met could meet just about every physical requirement ever written. If he couldn't, he wasn't in SPECOPs.

 

[ScottM]

Talk to senior Navy commanders about the pregnancy rate of female sailors at sea and the cost to replace them mid-cruise.

I mentioned this conversation to a friend of mine who is a retired Navy Captain who commanded a ship for their last assignment. She did not think it was a problem having women on board a ship. We have heard your opinions on this loud and clear. So far they seem to only be your opinions. Perhaps you can explain why the Navy is not thinking the same way as you?

Also you seem to know something about "the pregnancy rate of female sailors at sea and the cost to replace them mid-cruise", care to share that information? I have to ask because telling me I have to look it up sounds like there is really nothing there that you have and that you raise the is issue as a question in order to make people think there is something of a concern.

Here is a little fact for your consideration:

Lt. Stephanie Miller , chief of women’s policy for the chief of personnel, acknowledges “there probably are women who do do it intentionally.”
When she hears “rumors and speculation” to that effect, Miller said, she informs sailors that far more men don’t deploy – or get sent home midway through a cruise – because of sports injuries, discipline issues or testing positive for drugs.
“Generally when I show the data, they’re like, 'Oh, wow, I didn’t really know that,’” Miller said. She also pointed out that women who become pregnant while on sea duty don’t get a permanent reprieve: They are sent back to a ship when their “post partum operational deferment” ends.

http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/navy-gives-new-urgency-retaining-t45575.html

The prickly reality of facts are that men are more likely to not be able to complete a cruise. Shazam!

 

[EdFred]

More men on deployment would equal more men being sent home. What's the rate instead of the gross number?

 

[steingar]

An older soldier or sailor in a supervisory position might still have to haul someone's six out of the fire if the excrement hits the air conditioning, so another argument falls flat. This stuff about being crammed up with women is so much idiotic baloney. How many of us grew up in small houses with sisters and brothers mixed? Heck, even I grew up with a pretty steady steam of pretty cousins staying with the family. How many people do we know where people with kids from other marriages wound up together with unrelated girls and boys living in close quarters? Oh my, they could never do it on a submarine!

 

[AuntPeggy]

I mentioned this conversation to a friend of mine who is a retired Navy Captain who commanded a ship for their last assignment. She did not think it was a problem having women on board a ship.

In addition, the first women put into submarines are most likely to be seasoned officers: Judge Judy types who won't find the humor in many of the arguments against women.

The military has learned how to go about integration.

 

[EdFred]

Just put really really ugly women on the subs. Then there's less worry of certain things.