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

[Clux4]

As usual, you succeed in missing the finer points ... you're not a woman, are you ??? The all-female ship was offered somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but still ... it WOULD prove/disprove the underlying hypothesis, yea-as ???

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.

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 ... ???

 

[A4sForever]

.... It is on par with many of your other responses on controversial issues. For starters, the Piracy incident, Guantanamo detainee trial ....

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 ...

 

[Clux4]

Here's my take: If men and women working together having relations is a "problem," then you need to re-think the entire situation.

No private organization that I've worked for prior to the Navy has viewed this as a "problem." The fact that the Navy does is the "problem," and the only way to rectify it for good is to separate men and women entirely. And if it sexual relations really is a problem for fighting units re: morale, effectiveness, discipline, etc. (I'm not qualified to say so either way), then the only realistic solution that will work will be to keep them separate.

Because ending the career of two shit-hot PO2 due to having a relationship with someone he/she spends most of his/her time with is not a "solution."

But what do I know, I just need to finish this cup o' kool-aid.

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.

 

[CalamityJean]

How could I 'hate' women and yet be married to this USA-mermaid ???

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?

 

[A4sForever]

... 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.

 

[raptor10]

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.

 

[Cleonard19]

It's not about warfighting being a 'legal exercise' or not (which is surely ain't), it's the fact that we, even though we are soldiers/sailors/Marines and are responsible for bringing the righteous hand of God down on our enemies, remain employees of the federal government, and the military as a whole is still an arm of the government, and is therefore bound to follow the laws set before us, just the same as everyone else.

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.

 

[BOMBSonHAWKEYES]

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.

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.

 

[desertoasis]

Bullshit. We choose to ignore civilian laws all the time.

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.

With the exception of my boot camp barracks, I haven't been in a Navy owned structure that adheres to the ADA requirements.

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.

We throw around the requirement to follow civilian laws when they make a political point. Just as we ignore them when its convenient.

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.

 

[A4sForever]

....Can you tell me ANY civilian law that the military as a whole willfully ignores?...

Exodus Chapter 20, KJV:

"Thou shall not kill ..."

 

[MrSaturn]

We aren't fucking animals.

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

Because ending the career of two shit-hot PO2 due to having a relationship with someone he/she spends most of his/her time with is not a "solution."

Agreed

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

 

[East]

How do our NATO allies handle these issues. Can anyone with first hand exchange experience shed some light. From the little we can gather from the poster that was on the vessel, they seem to have accomplished their mission.
It seems as if this is a self imposed high moral culture that we(US military) have held ourselves to; one in which we cannot always maintain and preserve. The problem ain't the women, and the leadership cannot be held solely for individual short-comings.


A4's
Relegating women to just one ship does not solve the problem. Are we also going to keep women to just one FOB when have to deploy to forward bases.

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.

 

[kito]

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.

 

[Hozer]

women are actually allowed in all branches of the armed forces here in Germany

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

 

[PR1 H]

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