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

[Clux4]

I would assume that is a CO followed all the rules, training, SOP, whatever, then those folks who are fucking around should be held accountable. That's the point really, folks are going to mess around no matter what.

That right there is the problem of the American military. We have not distinguished moral failure and operational failures. Why should the CO be the fall man for grown men and women who has made the decision to disobey an order. Do we fire the CO and his senior enlisted adviser because people are taking illicit drugs? So why do we do it when it comes to sexual relationships.

We have this notion that everyone should be of high moral fiber when it is not possible. We are a reflection of our society in some sense and the society is sexually active more than ever before. Also, people are spending the equivalent of years away from their spouses or significant other which is definitely not healthy for the relationships. Even the so called leadership is not immune to this. So whose fault is it?

 

[CalamityJean]

"sperm in gullet" does not usually cause pregnancy.

I guess they don't teach sex ed in OH-IO. :icon_tong

Touche'....in my redneck town, we commonly use 'gullet' to refer to the insides of a person. Either way, it doesn't get there by itself.

 

[Floppy_D]

I'd bet money that some O's knew what was going on or had heard rumors, scuttlebutt, mutterings or jokes. Which leads to the question of when do you ignore rumors, etc and when do you start digging a little deeper?

We played a game on my last DDG, that was very similar to the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon. The object was to try to connect two people on the ship, through who they screwed around with. It was a huge joke, and plenty of senior leadership was in on the game. It's one of those "it's never an issue until it's an issue." One couple gets outed, and then starts the "but those two and those two did it, and they didn't get in trouble." So not only did people know, it was a running joke.

It's going to happen regardless of who the CO is, and what Navy policy is, and what the ship's policy is, and it's not going to stop. This is one of the side effects of deploying men and women together, plain and simple.

 

[Mos]

That right there is the problem of the American military. We have not distinguished moral failure and operational failures. Why should the CO be the fall man for grown men and women who has made the decision to disobey an order. Do we fire the CO and his senior enlisted adviser because people are taking illicit drugs? So why do we do it when it comes to sexual relationships.

We have this notion that everyone should be of high moral fiber when it is not possible. We are a reflection of our society in some sense and the society is sexually active more than ever before. Also, people are spending the equivalent of years away from their spouses or significant other which is definitely not healthy for the relationships. Even the so called leadership is not immune to this. So whose fault is it?

I think you raise an excellent point. I can't really speak about these incidents from experience here, but it often puzzles me that our country collectively laments over so many social problems whilst continuing to perpetuate them with such a morally loose outlook. For example, abstinence approach to avoiding unplanned pregnancy and STD is largely laughed at as being repressive. Well, no shit. Maybe we should "repress" ourselves once in a while to avoid doing something stupid, no? Moral incidents will continue to plague us until we as a people decided to become more disciplined in all aspects of our lives.

 

[exhelodrvr]

That right there is the problem of the American military. We have not distinguished moral failure and operational failures. Why should the CO be the fall man for grown men and women who has made the decision to disobey an order.

Because ultimately, moral failure, whether it is a lack of honesty or integrity, or not following fraternization regulations, leads to operational failures.

 

[xj220]

That right there is the problem of the American military. We have not distinguished moral failure and operational failures. Why should the CO be the fall man for grown men and women who has made the decision to disobey an order. Do we fire the CO and his senior enlisted adviser because people are taking illicit drugs? So why do we do it when it comes to sexual relationships.

We have this notion that everyone should be of high moral fiber when it is not possible. We are a reflection of our society in some sense and the society is sexually active more than ever before. Also, people are spending the equivalent of years away from their spouses or significant other which is definitely not healthy for the relationships. Even the so called leadership is not immune to this. So whose fault is it?

I think the reason they were relieved was that the frat was so prevalent and with senior members of the ship. Had it been a smaller case, especially with junior enlisted, it wouldn't have made the news. But with a big incident like this, there's more at play than just a one time thing. There's always aspect of their being more information than we're being told when it comes to situations like these though. Either way, "heavy is the head that wears the crown..."

 

[eddie]

I think you raise an excellent point. I can't really speak about these incidents from experience here, but it often puzzles me that our country collectively laments over so many social problems whilst continuing to perpetuate them with such a morally loose outlook. For example, abstinence approach to avoiding unplanned pregnancy and STD is largely laughed at as being repressive. Well, no shit. Maybe we should "repress" ourselves once in a while to avoid doing something stupid, no? Moral incidents will continue to plague us until we as a people decided to become more disciplined in all aspects of our lives.

Abstience campaigns are for kids, not adults (17-excepting, you have to be an adult to be in the military last I checked). Never in my life heard anyone argue against it because it's repressive; just that it doesn't work. We aren't full citizens until we are 18 because it is expected that we will make bad choices.

Is it morally reprehensible to want to bone lots of different people? The issue is whether it gets in the way of the job, not the fucking itself. Apples and oranges.

 

[SWO Bubba]

I’ve got first-hand experience in a situation worse than the JAMES E WILLIAMS. I definitely feel for the former CO because he’s going to ask himself for the rest of his life, “What could I have done differently.” From my view, the CO was not fired for all the superficial reasons suggested – it wasn’t simply because of the frat or the number of mast cases. And saying women shouldn’t be aboard ships is ridiculous – they are of tremendous value, they are here and it is entirely a leadership issue in dealing with frat and dating. In the news release, Admiral Harvey clearly articulated the accountability inherent in having Command.

Like a Class A mishap, there was an error chain. Upon reconstruction there were undoubtedly multiple warning signs and signals that were missed. Where there is smoke, there is fire.

First and foremost in the error chain, the Chief’s Mess failed. The CO is ultimately responsible, but every member of the JAMES E. WILLIAMS Chief’s Mess should be absolutely ashamed they failed the CO and they should be embarrassed to wear their anchors. They are a disgrace to all Chiefs who have served and all who are currently wearing anchors. A strong Goat Locker would have stomped out the frat issues.

Beyond the Goat Locker, I think the CO must do two things:

1) Accept dating and educate the crew on frat policy. Per Navy policy, a CO cannot forbid crewmember from dating. The CO can, however, require “couples” to sign page 13s stating they understand the Navy’s fraternization policy as well as the COs rules of shipboard conduct. The CO can absolutely say no monkey business aboard ship. Off-ship is a different story. The Navy’s frat policy is very clear about what constitutes frat and that’s were educating the crew is critical. So, the ship needs to accept things like co-ed, overnight liberty buddies as well as couples. At the same time, members of the Chiefs Mess and the Wardroom need to act on the little voices in their heads that tell them something doesn’t seem right.

2) Aggressively reconcile rumor from fact. Even if something comes up as rumor, the CMC and LCPOs can have a sit-down with those concerned and tackle the rumor to figure it out. Beyond rumor, and using a navigation metaphor, if there are two or more independent lines of position, then the CO has a running fix and needs to launch an investigation.

I suspect the investigation showed the former CO and CMC of JAMES E. WILLIAMS did a poor job in the two points above and had multiple lines-of-position they neglected to act upon. The bad running fix they derived from those LOPs, coupled with FUBARed Chief’s Mess, put them hard aground.

 

[Spekkio]

For those saying that fraternization is a failure of leadership:

There are those in this thread that say there's nothing wrong with the policy or its implementation, and all that's needed is "better leadership" or "more good order and discipline." These phrases are vague; I'm honestly curious for your take regarding what a leader is supposed to do to prevent men and women who are together in close proximity isolated from the rest of the world for months at a time from having romantic relationships? Isn't that like trying to break through a brick wall by beating it with a soft object?

I'll be honest... "failure of leadership" sounds like a company line, and I haven't drank that much kool-aid yet.

From everything I'm reading and hearing on the subject, it sounds like we lose more servicemembers from stictly enforcing a fraternization policy in an integrated military than from most other sources (I'd love to see the numbers, since I know that motorcycle accidents = #1).

 

[A4sForever]

.... saying women shouldn’t be aboard ships is ridiculous – they are of tremendous value, they are here and it is entirely a leadership issue in dealing with frat and dating...

Complete bullshit. I also have 'first hand' experience w/ the subject when it 'became a subject' in the NAVY and the individual failings and weaknesses that led to fraternization/inappropriate sexual relations had NOTHING TO DO WITH 'LEADERSHIP'. If something is 'wrong' (women in men's combat/deployable units), then it's just wrong ... no matter whether or not it's 'here'...

Why not give women their OWN fucking ship?? Top to bottom, manned (now what WOULD you call it, anyway, were it 'manned' w/ women .... ???) only w/ women. From the CO to the lowest bilge rat -- you know, all women -- ESPECIALLY if they want to compete on an 'equal' footing ... ???

So ... just for you ... I'll say it AGAIN: KEEP THE F'IN WOMEN OUT OF THE F'IN MENS' COMBAT/DEPLOYABLE UNITS !!!

Frat problem over, for all intents & purposes. What they do on their 'own' time, on the beach, is another matter and another subject, of course.

Game, set, match.

 

[SkywardET]

Is it the women on board that cause the problem or some failures of leadership that cause the problem?

Just reverse engineer from two scenarios:
1) No women -> no frat cases (of this nature).
2) Perfect leadership -> ???

Now some bits on the plausibility of those potential "fixes":
1) Lack of women exists on many ships already.
2) Perfect leadership is undefined and essentially impossible to reproduce in the quantity needed. Is "good" leadership an effective substitute?


I think it comes down to the laws of nature. That seems pretty obvious.

 

[phrogpilot73]

Game, set, match.

Well, since women are still serving in combat and deployable units - then clearly it's 40-Love in their favor. No matter how much you type in bold...

 

[desertoasis]

Well, since women are still serving in combat and deployable units - then clearly it's 40-Love in their favor. No matter how much you type in bold...

Pretty sure love's not the problem here...

Why not give women their OWN fucking ship??

Because some lawyer will invariably (and almost certainly successfully) equate it to 'separate but equal', which was ruled unconstitutional in 1954 (Bolling v. Sharpe, though that case dealt with race in schools, the issue remains empirically the same) and will also make sure it's painted as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

 

[brownshoe]

Threadjack!

In my day the “Wave Cage” was an area where men were not only 'not allowed' but mostly 'not wanted' if you get my drift. Times have obviously changed!

The PC Navy must really suck on many levels, and not just with this gender crap. I'm damned glad I didn't have the experience. I'm all for “equal opportunity” but only if someone is qualifed for the job. I don't want to see anyone get preference over another who's more qualified, just because of gender or race.

Now for fun: http://www.oralhistoryproject.com/OperationPetticoat.html Fun read! Not to mention, a good movie! At least read down to the part about the Army nurses.

Steve

 

[A4sForever]

Is it the women on board that cause the problem or some failures of leadership that cause the problem?

There's ALWAYS been 'failures of leadership' in the NAVY, ARMY, MARINES, and AIR FORCE ... and even in the COAST GUARD and the SALVATION ARMY ... failures of leadership: it's in the human gene ...

'Women on board', however, is a relatively recent phenomenon ... and the downside of that 'coupling' is also in the human gene ...