The downside of women serving alongside men in fighting ships, subs, squadrons, etc.

This does not appear to be tongue-in-cheek. It is on par with many of your other responses on controversial issues. For starters, the Piracy incident, Guantanamo detainee trial and list goes on.

You are right --- I have standards. I don't give a fuck if others do or not.

I see many issues as right or wrong, up or down, black or white ... as a matter of practice, I don't do shades of gray. Experience has taught me that ...

When one is moving @ 500 KIAS or trying to get to the bottom of a time-sensitive problem that might cost me my life ... I find it easier to apply proven standards, let the fog clear, clearly understand situations and options, and move toward a satisfactory resolution ... all in less time than it took you to read it.

It's worked for me for many, many years ...

For starters, there is a difference between your civilian job and the military. Let us not take that fact for granted.
Secondly, we cannot reverse the role of women in our society or the military, so trying to do anything other than the status quo is not really a viable option.
It is a DOD culture and not just the Navy. Some services also have different take on this.The question we should ask ourselves is how we got this far. The public and society that cried and lamented over the integration of women did not force the military to adopt stiff policies. The military got itself there and the military will need to get itself out.

I wasn't serious about you hating woman. I know your "kind" and see eye to eye more than you think. I just don't want to agree myself out of a job. Btw, your wife is hot. Is she blind?

:icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol:

Blind ??? I don't think so ... but she IS blond & Norwegian ... and just to be on the safe side, I WILL NOT buy her contacts or glasses ... 'cept for cocktail glasses.

Actually, if we want to have integration of women into our military and want to adequately address the problem of fraternization - segregation of units is the only way, until the formula for saltpeter is perfected (argaiv anyone?).

This really isn't that radical of an idea; from the Lionesses, to Indonesian SF units, to the PJAK, all female units have proven that "the female of the species is more deadly than the male" and that it's possible to eat our cake and have it too when it comes to women making contributions in service without the readiness issues that are all too real and significant.

Bullshit. We choose to ignore civilian laws all the time. With the exception of my boot camp barracks, I haven't been in a Navy owned structure that adheres to the ADA requirements. We throw around the requirement to follow civilian laws when they make a political point. Just as we ignore them when its convenient.

Yeah, great example of a frontline force there. I would hardly call female cagefighters a stong military force.

Yaks and llamas are more elite in the militaries of some of the countries you just listed.

You make it sound like it's a good thing. Willful ignorance of the law (even civilian ones) is...well, illegal. I don't think you should be so enthused by that.

Ever occur to you that pretty much everyone in the military has to comply to certain physical standards, that pretty much negates the need for ADA-compliant facilities? Last I checked, there aren't a lot of blind, deaf, or disabled people in this particular line of work.

No. We throw around the requirement to follow civilian laws because we are supposed to follow the law, it has nothing to do with whether or not they are civilian or military. Being in the military does not exempt you from the law, it gives you a different set of laws to follow in some cases, but laws to be followed nonetheless. It's why the military legal system, in regards to cases where there may be civilian action being taken as well, waits for that action to be resolved before continuing...we are liable under two sets of rules, no matter how you want to parse it or try to spin it. I'm accountable to the UCMJ, but I'm also accountable to Federal Law and the laws (currently) of the State of Florida.

Can you tell me ANY civilian law that the military as a whole willfully ignores? I'd be willing to bet if you can find such a law, it's addressed in the UCMJ.

Exodus Chapter 20, KJV:

"Thou shall not kill ..."

Obviously we are. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this "frat problem".

Agreed

The current draconian measures to prevent it and dissuade it often seem to be like cutting off a hand to save a nail.

Here on this side of the pond women are allowed an almost every military unit exept the usual three:
-Royal Netherlands Marine Corps
-Royal Nertherlands Army Commando units
-Royal Netherlands Submarine Force

Women have intergated ia all services, however the Air Force and Military Police outranks every other service by far.

Well if we're talking about how things are done over here, it's my understanding that women are actually allowed in all branches of the armed forces here in Germany (since 2001). But they haven't dropped their standards, so there are units where women are allowed, but haven't actually made it.

I've read that the kampfschwimmern (SEAL-types) have been trying to attract more women into the pipeline (trying to broaden their applicant pool), although they've yet to find a single one who actually managed to get their trident (or german equivalent).

My point being, as many here know, that there is a difference between allowing women in the forces and dropping standards just to get them in.

They also have some great female riot police here in Berlin. They make you want to start a riot just to see them deploy. Don't let looks deceive you though, they will hammer you over the head pretty good when push comes to shove.

sorry...what?...german?...what's this thread about?

Thanks Hozer... now I've got drool all over my keyboard.

1. No, we do not fight for the "Righteous Hand of God". We are an option our Government has when peaceful Diplomacy will not work. We go and kick the shit out of our enemies, but not for any God. IF you really believe we fight for God, well, that scares me.

2. Like it or not the military has ALWAYS been an avenue of social change. Look at the Buffalo Soldiers, The Tuskegee Airmen etc.. Hell women have been in combat for as long as men have. The Greeks had Athena (Romans had Minerva) the goddess of war and military strategy. Hera had Zeus under her thumb. How much does that tell us about their society and the interaction between men and women.

The question is not whether women are capable of putting a size 6 up the ass of our enemies. The question really is: How do we as a nation and a military that does not and will not tolerate sexual fraternization have both men and women serve together in deployed units? There are more men that women so if you want to keep them separated you take the bigger group...

Fraulein, Fraulein, walk down by the river...each night when the moon starts to shine...etc. etc.............................:icon_smil
BzB

I thought I had successfully tuned my 'subtle sarcasm' meter...guess not. That second sentence there is precisely what I actually believe. My sincere apologies for scaring a Marine.

The military has been ON the path of social change, but never on the vanguard of it, nor should we ever be. The military's function is not to be a vessel for the nation's social progress, our function is to defend everyone's right TO that progress. That said, we should be (carefully) following the lead of the nation, but not setting the social agenda for everyone else to follow. That's an important distinction to make. Its like judicial activism, sure it probably gets things done that should be done, but it's not the right way to do it. The 'right' way, at least as far as the government process is concerned, is to follow the proper channels of the legislative system, methodically and with all factors considered, then executing the orders from the top of the COC...not swaying to the public mania over whatever social issue is burning Wolf Blitzer's ears this week. So you are correct, but not in the way you probably intended. I think we're trying to say the same thing, but in different ways.

Well, the name changed to a subject I know nothing about, but with your indulgence would like to further my comments re good order and discipline.

My Navy, a Female aboard ship; bad luck, very bad luck. Superstition goes way back, s'why the ship is call a "she". Female WAVES, s'what they were called back then, did not serve aboard ships, were not stationed west of Hawaii (same some O types) in fact females could not even travel on military Space A flights out of area. Admiral Zumwalt changed all that, Z-gram 116 if memory serves announced the change, I left the Navy six months later. But did we have problems with sex in the Navy? Yes sireee, we did. Dependents. The XO of San Miguel PI was relieved (Mid 60s) a "sex ring" involving dependents. I personally made a trip with Admiral Gravely to Fort Allen, Puerto Rico (Ponce) in the early 70's to "investigate" a "sex ring" involving dependents, operating out of the O and CPO clubs. Did I ever get and earful. So while I have no direct knowledge of female sailors, sex has been with us and a problem for a long time. Some say that it all started with that guy Adam with Eve. Having said that; some say Adam was even made out of a bone. Well, sorry for the pun.

Back to fraternization, which of course covers more than sex. I remember a crash, on the O-boat, I believe traced to hydralics and "O" ring servicing. While I was not involved we did discuss in the CPO mess at length. The problem was that some O rings that needed to be serviced at XX hours, but servicing took about 4 hours. The mechs hated it, they found none that were ever bad, but yet they were directed to service them on schedule. Anytime they could get away without servicing the rings they would, a constant battle of wills. Getting those airmen to do what you want them to do, even though they may not want to do it, is leadership. They are paid minimum wages, work 18 hour days and have so many distractions, keeping them focued is a 24/7 job. Now anyone that does not see the link between this and fraternization needs to get another job.

Just my .02C

The human gene was mentioned earlier. Look at the debate this way for a minute.

6 men is a Division have a new semi-cute female sailor report aboard. The female is the same rate and paygrade as the 6 men. Evaluate the following 2 questions:

A. How many of the men will look her up and down and think: Damn, I wonder if her knowledge base and work ethic is superior to mine?

B. How many of these guys will wonder what she looks like in the shower?

I submit- the men who's first though was "B" were probably a majority even though most would certainly deny ever thinking it, let alone speaking it.

Most men are simply just that, "men" and I don't think it's realistic to expect men to change the hard wiring in their brains to accomodate the Navy's desires to satisfy the politicians desires.

Thus a different perspective to view "Women on Ships". In this case it's not too late to correct the course and speed of our Navy's direction on this subject. Or leaders need to take a stand on this subject- but will they?

By all means, lets follow the example of our more progressive brethren. The Germans couldn't take down a high level Taliban commander in Afghanistan because they weren't fired on first (lovely ROE), the Brits don't have enough helicopters or kit, the Canadians have to contract out their helos, ect. Clearly, they operate under a set of priorities that would be kind of awesome to emulate, if you're not concerned about that whole fighting and winning thing (btw, this is solely a knock on the lack of our coalitions governments to provide for their own, not the men and women from the above countries who are actually down-range). Or we could take a look at the Israeli's example, which has gone completely the other direction. Oh, and whoever was talking about how much deadlier the female of the species is? Yeah, if I'm afraid of someone calling me fat behind my back, I'll concur with that assessment, however, looking back through the annals of history to every single significant military victory that has ever happened, I'll give the edge to the men.

But by all means, we need to focus on what's important and make sure that everyone gets some playing time. Apparently the whole "there is no substitute for victory" has been replaced with "there is no substitute for participation and trying your best".

Not that this matters, or that the female aircrew I've worked with largely agree with the above. We'll all salute and execute the approved policy; that's our job. But don't try to lie about the issue, or try to claim its about leadership only, and not the natural effect of having young aggressive people in living and working in close proximity to eachother, or that pregnancy has no impact on a units ability to fight.

Nice spin. You conveniently ignore the fact that the issue is not "men and women working together having relations", the problem is men and women working together having relations AT WORK, and men and women working together having relations when it affects discipline (i.e. potential for sexual harassment and/or favoritism.)

And unless the only places you've worked at prior to the Navy were whorehouses, I guarantee you that everyone of of your "private organizations" viewed those as significant problems.

A4s,
I think that "tongue-in-cheek" thing is part of the problem.

I think you misunderstood me, the lionesses are a grunt term for the Marine Corps Female Engagement Teams, who have been patrolling and interacting with a section of the population that has been offlimits to ISAF forces and most importantly to the taliban. After the last 8 years of exploiting our lack of cultural knowledge of the pashtun we are finally responding kind.

And to whomever said that no tactical operational or strategic success could be attributed to women, I'd suggest that they read the story of deborah and jael, Judges 4 and 5, or pick up a book on any of the 90 freakin insurgencies of the last 65 years, and tell me that If I see a burqa clad women approaching my checkpoint I can just wave her on through, no threat there...

We can have an effective fighting force with women in it. We just have to be realistic about the interactions between the sexes.

This is not one of those "that's what SHE said" jokes, is it ... ???