Women on submarines as soon as next week...sorry not a fan - Page 4

Women on submarines as soon as next week...sorry not a fan

This is a discussion on Women on submarines as soon as next week...sorry not a fan within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; On the other hand... It wouldn't have any of the disadvantages of combined crews. It could even serve as a recruiting incentive....

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 140
Like Tree131Likes

Thread: Women on submarines as soon as next week...sorry not a fan

  1. #46
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,122
    On the other hand...

    It wouldn't have any of the disadvantages of combined crews.

    It could even serve as a recruiting incentive.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/


  2. #47
    VIP Member Array 10thmtn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    6,353
    I appreciate the desire of some women to serve their country.

    That said, the military does discriminate - and for good reasons. Too old? Too young? Too fat? Too immature? Too stupid? Too out of shape? Have physical limitations? Sorry - don't want you. Just because you "want" to serve, does not mean it is in everyone's best interests for you to be allowed to.

    The bottom line is that LIVES are on the line. I've been in both all-male combat units, and in mixed-gender combat support units. I can tell you that the physical fitness of the MEN suffers in units that have women in them, because the women simply cannot keep up (in general) and that brings the fitness of the whole unit down. Ladies, please do not argue this point. I've been there, done that, and seen it with my own eyes. Women do NOT have to meet the same physical fitness standards as the men do - if they did, there would be precious few women in any branch of the military.

    I've not been on subs, but I'm willing to bet that there is some really heavy equipment on board that, in the event of damage from accidents or enemy action, would require some serious physical strength to move. Heck, try to close a hatch with water pushing in on it.

    Point is that physical strength matters in combat. Always has, and always will. It also matters in law enforcement, fire fighting, and etc. Political correctness literally can cause loss of life in this case. The standards either exist for a reason - or they don't.

    Oh, and I'm not 55+ either.
    The more good folks carry guns, the fewer shots the crazies can get off.
    www.armedcitizensnetwork.org - member
    Glock 30, 19, 26; Ruger SP101, LCR, Mini 14; Marlin 336 .30-30; Mossberg 500
    CT Lasers

  3. #48
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,122
    10thmnt..,

    that Sir...was an excellent post.
    atctimmy likes this.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  4. #49
    Member Array gunsnroses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    America
    Posts
    422
    Allot of interesting views above. However, as a individual (and a woman), I will strive to become what I want to be, and I will work hard to achieve whatever I want to do. There is no man that will tell me otherwise or prevent me from achieving what I set out to do!!!

    Period!

    There are a few posts that I take serious issue with.

  5. #50
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Gastonville
    Posts
    6,742
    FIRST ISSUE: Logistics

    I was in the surface Navy when women were integrated onto combat ships. My first deployment we had no women on board and we had a urinal right on the flight deck welded to the back of the island. It was obviously very convenient for use when we were busy moving airplanes around (something we did for 16 to 20 hours a day when at sea).

    My second deployment had "women" on board. Actually we had one woman, that's right just one. She was an officer and, honestly, I hardly ever saw her unless she was looking through the glass cockpit at me (I was a yellow shirt/flight deck director/wave my arms and the planes move kind of guy). The problem was that a week before she got to the ship a guy with a welding torch came up and cut our urinal off of the island and it was gone.

    Now instead of just running over a few yards to do what you HAD to do we now had to go down three flights of stairs to take a leak. Those who were inclined to be slackers now had a perfect excuse to sneak away from work and disappear for 10,20 or even 30 minutes. Then I had to send workers to look for missing workers. It really was a big hassle and cut our efficiency.

    A second problem was that there were close to 4000 men on my ship and not enough facilities on hand. I lived in a room that was about 1100 square feet with 163 other dudes. And for all 164 of us we had 4 toilets and 4 showers. I remember waiting in line for over 90 minutes just to get a shower after a long, hot 16 hours day on the flight deck.

    Once a female was added in it got even worse. The one female on our ship got her own bathroom near her own berthing and she also got one of the two bathrooms the pilots used near the flight deck. Now there were about 200 pilots on the ship and they now had their facilities cut in half because of one person. So next thing you know we had pilots who wanted a shower or to use the can spilling over into other areas of the ship because they didn't have enough of their own facilities. Again it caused a greater strain on the ships crew and cut efficiency. How does waiting in line for a shower cut efficiency you ask? It cuts into your sleep. We worked on average about 16 to 20 hours a day and every chance you had to sleep you took it. We averaged a 5am to midnight workday (at sea) and waiting in line for an extra 45 minutes made a big difference when your tank was already near empty.

    Now with all of that said, my surface ship was like a palace compared to the facilities available on a submarine. Adding a couple of women to the mix WILL cause problems that many folks can't even comprehend. Submarines don't even have enough beds for everyone to sleep in so people share bunks (not at the same time). When many submariners are going off duty they wake up the guy who is coming on duty. That guy rolls out of the shared bed and goes to work. The off duty guy flops in to get some sleep. They call it "hot bunking" because the bed never gets cold. Now think about where the women will sleep. There will be a whole section of bunks being taken up by one or two women and a whole slew of guys will be stuck hot bunking.

    From what I have heard the Navy is building newer surface ships with more facilities to accommodate women. This will help with some of the problems I've mentioned on surface ships but the Navy isn't building any more LA class boats or Ohio class boats. The "women" problems will haunt the sub force for another 20 years.

    ETA: Also there is no such thing as a free lunch. If you add more space for women's facilities you lose space that belonged to other things. Less fuel space, less food space or less office space. In short, even when things get better for crew services you lose someplace else.

    NEXT ISSUE: Conduct

    Its a problem, its always been a problem and its always going to be a problem and anyone that thinks that young kids full of hormones stacked together for long periods of time isn't a recipe for hard times is only kidding themselves.
    ^^^^ This IS a real problem. Sex, assault, rape, jealousy, on duty lovers quarrels, prostitution, STDs, pregnancies, special treatment and plain old awkwardness are all problems on Navy ships now that women have arrived in force. Anyone who thinks that a bunch of 18 to 22 year old men and women cramped together at sea for six months isn't a powder keg is just fooling themselves. The Navy has THOUSANDS of sexual misconduct problems every year on surface ships. It gets hushed up and swept under the rug to keep it out of the headlines. That doesn't mean that it isn't a real problem, it just means that you aren't seeing it on CNN.
    bmcgilvray, Bark'n and msgt/ret like this.
    I havenít heard any of the journalists who volunteered to be waterboarded asking to have their fingernails wrenched out with pliers, or electrodes attached to their genitals.

  6. #51
    Ex Member Array Doodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tomball TX
    Posts
    948
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Thats not a bad idea. That would make more sense.
    Won't work...qualification process is passed down knowledge. Every good submariner is a good submariner because of the awesome submariner he learned from.
    goldshellback likes this.

  7. #52
    Senior Moderator
    Array limatunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    4,246
    Quote Originally Posted by 10thmtn View Post
    I appreciate the desire of some women to serve their country.

    That said, the military does discriminate - and for good reasons. Too old? Too young? Too fat? Too immature? Too stupid? Too out of shape? Have physical limitations? Sorry - don't want you. Just because you "want" to serve, does not mean it is in everyone's best interests for you to be allowed to.

    The bottom line is that LIVES are on the line. I've been in both all-male combat units, and in mixed-gender combat support units. I can tell you that the physical fitness of the MEN suffers in units that have women in them, because the women simply cannot keep up (in general) and that brings the fitness of the whole unit down. Ladies, please do not argue this point. I've been there, done that, and seen it with my own eyes. Women do NOT have to meet the same physical fitness standards as the men do - if they did, there would be precious few women in any branch of the military.

    I've not been on subs, but I'm willing to bet that there is some really heavy equipment on board that, in the event of damage from accidents or enemy action, would require some serious physical strength to move. Heck, try to close a hatch with water pushing in on it.

    Point is that physical strength matters in combat. Always has, and always will. It also matters in law enforcement, fire fighting, and etc. Political correctness literally can cause loss of life in this case. The standards either exist for a reason - or they don't.

    Oh, and I'm not 55+ either.
    I will certainly NOT argue with you on the physical restrictions. I agree. There is a physical requirement and there should be! I, myself, was discharged from the Marine Corps DEP because of my knees. It was very depressing for me not to be able to fulfill that dream/goal but I understand that they couldn't take me just because I wanted to serve. There are physical demands that need to be met.

    Let's not forget that one of the reasons the military opened up for females was to allow them to do the kinds of jobs that men were being "wasted" on... administration, organizing, supply, etc.



    As the military HAS become more technical and less physically demanding it has blurred the lines of what men and women can and cannot do.

    They were actually talking about this on the news the other day and it was in regards to jobs in general, not just the military. As technology keeps advancing the line between men and women and labor intensive work is so broad it's hard to even define it. Jobs that used to be considered "man's work" are now equally as doable for women and it's starting to conflict with what people think about as "man's" vs "women's" work. And people are starting to question whether or not we should even try to put certain jobs into sexual categories anymore.

    You talk about hatches with water pushing on them. According to the Navy there hasn't been a submariner lost at sea in over 30 years due to new safety systems on subs. Does this include hydraulics, etc, to better assist in closing off compromised sections? I have no idea. Last time I was on a sub was a tour of an ancient one that was dry-docked and probably not at all what we have in our oceans today.

    I've taken a tour of a couple of the Naval ships my brother has been assigned to over the years and I am always impressed by how non-manual they are. Sure, there is a lot of manual stuff still but a lot of it has gone the way of the dodo and been replaced with a button or other system.

    FAR gone are the days of a bunch of sailors hoisting the anchor by the sweat of their brow and the strength of their backs.

    If you asked me I would say that that physical fitness and endurance would matter MUCH more in an infantry setting than in a submarine. Women having to haul heavy packs for mile after mile, hoist up and hump out fallen comrades, hold a fighting position for hours, etc, would seem much more relevant to saving/losing lives because of fitness vs whether or not she could close a hatch as the former is FAR more likely to be required than the later and there is no mechanical equivalent to a man on the ground vs closing a door.

    And even in infantry-style combat we are seeing gender lines blurred. Women have been finding themselves in combat on a far more regular basis and doing a pretty fair job of it.

    And I hate to open this can'o'worm but how is a woman in a sub any more of a distraction than a gay man in that same sub? These days an openly gay sailor (or two or three or four) can serve on a sub together. I fail to see how this would be any better or worse than men and women serving together. At least for the sake of some propriety the Navy is trying to make some provisions for discretion for men and women.. you don't get that for men serving with gay men.

  8. #53
    Ex Member Array Doodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tomball TX
    Posts
    948
    Quote Originally Posted by goldshellback View Post
    OK, I gonna sound-off on this. Like doodle, this IS my area of expertiece......although I'm a 'coner' and not one of them Rickover Univerisity larvi.......HAhahaha. (HAD to go there)

    I'm a submariner. I've done 19 years and 10 months within the submarine community. I retire in January. I've been on the Fast-Attacks in the Pacific.......done a LOT of 'stuff'....... ya know, that Tom Clancy kinda stuff ya can't 'talk' about. I've been serving in the SSBN 'boomer' fleet for the last ten years under the Atlantic. Like doodle (and his avatar) I earned my dolphins. Dunno what that means?......then use your google-fu and look it up.

    I'm retiring off my final command, the USS Wyoming (SSBN 742) (Blue). This boat (both crews) will be checking onboard, in January, her first TWO women. It's expected to be the first sub to get underway with women onboard, although that may change...... underway schedules change with the wind....but the women are coming and their here to stay. Argee or disagree, it matters not. We, as submariners, AND as humans, resist change. This is good, change I mean. It will be EXTREEMLY diffrent, and difficult, to assimalate this change, but it will be done.

    Now, as for myself and my own opinion, I'm skeptical but accepting of this change. Women can, and will, do the job. There are people, male AND/OR female, who will wash-out, can't hack it. Good ridence. I have NO room for you onboard my boat. I trust you with the boat while I, and others, have been relieved of the watch. While I have the watch, trust in me to 'take care of business', keeping my AOR on watch ready to fight, to keep the safety ot the ship, the mission on course, and water outta the 'people-tank'. If I cannot trust in you, male or female, to do the same, goodbye. Women WILL do this.... they'll 'make the cut' AND be washed out, just like MANY male submariners before them. THAT tradition WILL remaine a constant. No, I won't be able, or allowed, to go to the showers wearing nothing but a grin and a towel over my sholder anymore......OK, I can become even more of a professional in that respect, my brothers (and sisters to come) will do the same. If they can't, goodbye. If the close quarters and sexual tension become too much, male OR female, and 'relations' happen..... goodbye. You EARN the trust of your shipmates, regardless of gender. You lose that , then goodbye and good ridence.

    Now, my reservations with women intergrating in my community are this....... Will we, as submariners, be forced to abandon those triditions that are the cornerstones of our fighting force, OR will the women be allowed to become a part of our triditions? The latter is what has to happen. Regardless, we ARE the dominate force of the seas, professionals (and even a little unprofessional at times too) who take care of business. Women will become a part of this. My shipmates have accepted this and we're anticipating our new NUB females arrival. Most of us submariners are ready for the change, wether it's liked or not.

    Way back when, one of the reasons I volunteered for the silent service was becauce it WAS one of the last, great 'mens-clubs', a small, quiet community of sea-going butt-kickers. I have matured some since then, grown-up a little, but my soul is still intact. After 20 years, I don't care about male or female crap, drama, whinning, any of it. You'll do the job, complete the mission, or you'll be removed........ goodbye.

    Also, I've read every post thus far. The berateing of women, be it combat or otherwise, has no place. Women, for the most part have EARNED their place. Those for or aginst women in my sub service (yes, I said 'my' service...... I take and accept part-ownership of 'my' community.......they are MY Shipmates) will be pushed aside while my Shipmates (male AND female alike) continue on takeing care of business.

    Here's one, small aspect of our lives to ponder; http://www.goatlocker.org/boats/integrity.htmIntegrity: The Heart of Navy Core Values for the Submariner By "A Submariner"

    The following essay was written by a young enlisted submariner as a disciplinary assignment after a Captain's Mast for taking a shortcut in a maintenance procedure. Both the author and his Commanding Officer agreed to its publication in Undersea Warfare magazine Volume 3, No.1.

    Integrity is the heart and the very essence of each Navy Core Value, but more importantly, it is the foundation on which every aspect of submarine operations is built. Integrity must be the standard instilled within the innermost heart of every man who takes a submarine to the uttermost depths of the sea.

    It is integrity that bonds the crew of a submarine so tightly together that when faced with any circumstance, each individual can trust his shipmate to meet the needs of the moment. Integrity comes from within each man's heart and is revealed through his respect for the standards of conduct. As a submariner, it is my duty and responsibility to maintain the highest degree of integrity while serving my country with honor, courage, and commitment in the United States Navy.

    When I think of the word "integrity" as a submariner, I think naturally of the phrase watertight integrity. When we shut the hatches, we value the assurance that no water is going to enter into the people tank, because those hatches have been inspected, both during PMS, and just before shutting them. As a member of the Auxiliary Division, I have been taught the importance of taking care of our hatches and ensuring the quality of their condition whenever we inspect and conduct maintenance on them. Every one of my shipmates' lives depends on my personal integrity in ensuring that our hatches are squared away. And even when they are rigged for dive, they are second-checked to guarantee their watertightness. I say all of this to illustrate the importance of integrity on a submarine. Every submariner is entrusted with the responsibility to operate this vessel of war according to the procedures established for each ship's system. This ensures the safety of our operation and our ability to complete each mission successfully. No matter how big or small the task I am entrusted with, one mistake could threaten the lives of every one of my shipmates.

    The procedures that we use today have been written through trial and error in the blood of submariners who have served before me. Following these procedures is not just a recommendation; it is our duty to use them. There is not always someone looking look over my shoulder to make sure that I use required procedures to operate a system or conduct maintenance, nor should there need to be. It is only my personal integrity that guarantees I will accomplish an assigned task properly. There is no room for compromise in the integrity of our word and deed. We are faced with important decisions every day of our lives. It is vital that we evaluate every detail of every situation before we make a decision. I have learned that rushing myself in that process usually results in poor judgment. When I rush to accomplish a job, I lose sight of both what is important and the possible consequences of my actions. The focus becomes only getting the job done by any means possible. Looking back at the mistake I made in attempting to accomplish PMS without a procedure, I see that the time I saved was not worth the compromise of my integrity. Trying to rush my work actually cost my shipmates and I more time and effort than if I had done it properly the first time, not to mention the consequences of my actions if something had gone wrong.
    As a submarine sailor I must adhere to the Core Values of the Navy to maintain the military standards of responsibility, order, and discipline. I must have the Honor to deal rightly with all that is entrusted to me - to be loyal, obedient, and respectful to all those appointed over me and to accept my duty of service. I need to have the Courage to stand up for what is right, even when faced with adversity. Courage accompanied with honesty will guide me to the right decisions. I need to be committed to my responsibility and duties as I obey the orders given to me. Commitment requires self-discipline and a devotion to maintain the highest standards of integrity in my profession. An outstanding submarine crew is one that operates consciously as a team to protect the freedom of their country, while observing Core Values within their hearts. In closing, I would like to say that writing this essay has given me the opportunity to meditate on what it means to be a submariner. Integrity is the key essential of the submarine service. I believe we must focus on being consistent in word and deed to maintain our integrity with responsibility, order, and discipline. I have worked hard to build a reputation for being a trustworthy auxiliaryman, but it only takes one mistake to destroy the respect for my integrity that I worked so hard to gain. It is my duty to set the standard for integrity as a member of the Auxiliary Division, and as a submariner on board my ship. I do realize that I am not perfect and will make mistakes, but it is from those mistakes and the mistakes of others that we can learn and grow in our experiences throughout life. I thank God, the author of integrity, for the wisdom to discern its value and for showing the need to apply it to every area of my life.


    Male or female, the Integrity of Shipmates will remain.

    Now, off topic...... I'm about to be out of a job. Who's hiring?
    Friggin coners...tit for tat...ha!

  9. #54
    Ex Member Array Doodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tomball TX
    Posts
    948
    Quote Originally Posted by limatunes View Post
    I will certainly NOT argue with you on the physical restrictions. I agree. There is a physical requirement and there should be! I, myself, was discharged from the Marine Corps DEP because of my knees. It was very depressing for me not to be able to fulfill that dream/goal but I understand that they couldn't take me just because I wanted to serve. There are physical demands that need to be met.

    Let's not forget that one of the reasons the military opened up for females was to allow them to do the kinds of jobs that men were being "wasted" on... administration, organizing, supply, etc.



    As the military HAS become more technical and less physically demanding it has blurred the lines of what men and women can and cannot do.

    They were actually talking about this on the news the other day and it was in regards to jobs in general, not just the military. As technology keeps advancing the line between men and women and labor intensive work is so broad it's hard to even define it. Jobs that used to be considered "man's work" are now equally as doable for women and it's starting to conflict with what people think about as "man's" vs "women's" work. And people are starting to question whether or not we should even try to put certain jobs into sexual categories anymore.

    You talk about hatches with water pushing on them. According to the Navy there hasn't been a submariner lost at sea in over 30 years due to new safety systems on subs. Does this include hydraulics, etc, to better assist in closing off compromised sections? I have no idea. Last time I was on a sub was a tour of an ancient one that was dry-docked and probably not at all what we have in our oceans today.

    I've taken a tour of a couple of the Naval ships my brother has been assigned to over the years and I am always impressed by how non-manual they are. Sure, there is a lot of manual stuff still but a lot of it has gone the way of the dodo and been replaced with a button or other system.

    FAR gone are the days of a bunch of sailors hoisting the anchor by the sweat of their brow and the strength of their backs.

    If you asked me I would say that that physical fitness and endurance would matter MUCH more in an infantry setting than in a submarine. Women having to haul heavy packs for mile after mile, hoist up and hump out fallen comrades, hold a fighting position for hours, etc, would seem much more relevant to saving/losing lives because of fitness vs whether or not she could close a hatch as the former is FAR more likely to be required than the later and there is no mechanical equivalent to a man on the ground vs closing a door.

    And even in infantry-style combat we are seeing gender lines blurred. Women have been finding themselves in combat on a far more regular basis and doing a pretty fair job of it.

    And I hate to open this can'o'worm but how is a woman in a sub any more of a distraction than a gay man in that same sub? These days an openly gay sailor (or two or three or four) can serve on a sub together. I fail to see how this would be any better or worse than men and women serving together. At least for the sake of some propriety the Navy is trying to make some provisions for discretion for men and women.. you don't get that for men serving with gay men.
    I think Machinist Mate 2nd Class Joseph Allen Ashley might disagree if he where still with us.
    USS San Francisco Runs Aground

  10. #55
    Senior Moderator
    Array limatunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    4,246
    Quote Originally Posted by Doodle View Post
    I think Machinist Mate 2nd Class Joseph Allen Ashley might disagree if he where still with us.
    USS San Francisco Runs Aground
    Well, I just read this from the link I provided...

    However since the losses occurred, the Navy has implemented many changes to submarine safety systems, improved training of its sailors, and created many "redundant" submarine systems to provide primary and backup safety measures. The primary change has been the introduction of the SUBSAFE system. SUBSAFE requires using certified materials, trained personnel and inspectors to conduct work on key submarine systems (e.g., hatches and seawater piping). No other U.S. submarines have been lost at sea in over thirty years following these extensive improvements.
    I guess they got it wrong or I missed something.

    Not trying to get into tit-for-tat fights here... my point was only that loss of life on submarines seems to be much less likely than loss of life on the ground in an infantry setting. Granted there are far MORE infantry than there are submariners and if physical fitness/ability were to be the mitigating factor in any fighting force it would be infantry roles vs submarines.

  11. #56
    Member Array torgo1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    420
    I for one am horrified by bathroom inconvenience, so much so that I think we should keep half the population from serving their country in the way they and the military best see fit. [/sarcasm]

    And again, it saddens and angers me to see how poorly people regard our military. They've weathered every single change that doomsayers claimed would ruin things, morale, readiness, unit cohesion, and on and on, we've heard them a million times. And at no point have we slipped from having the best fighting force on the planet.
    limatunes likes this.

  12. #57
    Ex Member Array Doodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tomball TX
    Posts
    948
    Quote Originally Posted by limatunes View Post
    Well, I just read this from the link I provided...



    I guess they got it wrong or I missed something.

    Not trying to get into tit-for-tat fights here... my point was only that loss of life on submarines seems to be much less likely than loss of life on the ground in an infantry setting. Granted there are far MORE infantry than there are submariners and if physical fitness/ability were to be the mitigating factor in any fighting force it would be infantry roles vs submarines.
    Sorry if my reply was a little snippy, i hope you know I have plenty of respect for you lima as your posts have been consistantly intelligent...I feel strongly about this issue because it falls so close to my former life in the navy. A crews ability to fight a casualty such as the frisco incedent is directly proportional to the comroderie (sp -1) of the crew...I think that is a bad idea to mess with.

  13. #58
    Ex Member Array Doodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tomball TX
    Posts
    948
    I love a good intelligent debate. Reminds me of conversations in manuevering while standing Reactor Operator with my Engineering Officer of the Watch, Electrical Operator and Throttleman.

  14. #59
    Ex Member Array Doodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tomball TX
    Posts
    948
    One other thing...did you guys know that after the NASA Challenger incident, NASA modeled their QA program after the SUBSAFE program?

  15. #60
    Senior Moderator
    Array limatunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    4,246
    Quote Originally Posted by Doodle View Post
    Sorry if my reply was a little snippy, i hope you know I have plenty of respect for you lima as your posts have been consistantly intelligent...I feel strongly about this issue because it falls so close to my former life in the navy. A crews ability to fight a casualty such as the frisco incedent is directly proportional to the comroderie (sp -1) of the crew...I think that is a bad idea to mess with.
    I understand your thoughts though I think they may be a bit short sighted.

    Like the previous poster said, our military keeps adapting and despite all of the nay-saying we still have the greatest fighting force in the world.

    While I was joining the Marine Corps in 2009 I found it very interesting to note that ALL of the young men joining with me were IMPRESSED by us gals joining with them. I was expecting to see some "You gals won't be able to hack it" attitudes but I didn't see that once. They equally mocked anyone (male or female) who wasn't cutting it or complaining and often times they would hold up a girl as an example of determination vs one of the guys. If a guy complained they jumped on him as harshly as they did any gal. There was definitely an air of equality between all of us poolees (male or female). Not to mention that they were happy to include us in some of the PT activities because of our uniqueness... "she's the lightest, we can hoist her more easily here.." "she's can fit in that tunnel and give us a better advantage here..." etc.

    There doesn't seem to be the male vs female stigma in the upcoming generations as there has been in the past and I think the submariners of the future will look at their female counterparts as fellow submarines instead of "us" vs "them." Many of them won't even understand a time when women weren't allowed to serve on subs with them. It will be all they know.

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

be a marine free a marine to fight
,

free a marine to fight

,
powered by mybb american core values
,
powered by mybb class of 1967
,
powered by mybb deed restrict open space
,
powered by mybb importance of personal fitness
,

powered by mybb physical activity

,

powered by mybb physical fitness

,
powered by mybb pregnancy week by week
,
powered by mybb the definition of physical fitness
,
powered by mybb why is personal fitness important
,
powered by mybb why is physical fitness important
,
powered by mybb wyoming state fair
,
women in combat let
,

women+combat -wombat

Click on a term to search for related topics.