• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Navy will soon let women serve on subs

rivrrat said:
Yes, it's the military's fault. They made the idiotic two different sets of qualifications. If women are weaker in the military, it is the military's fault for giving them lesser qualifications. Whose fault could it possibly be but the ones who made the lax and unfair qualifications?

They make two sets of qualifications that allow weaker women into the military and then bitch about weaker women in the military? ROFL
Click to expand...

Totally agree.
 
rivrrat said:
Yes, it's the military's fault. They made the idiotic two different sets of qualifications. If women are weaker in the military, it is the military's fault for giving them lesser qualifications. Whose fault could it possibly be but the ones who made the lax and unfair qualifications?

They make two sets of qualifications that allow weaker women into the military and then bitch about weaker women in the military? ROFL
Click to expand...
And if they held women to the same standard and two women made it, what would you say then. Wonderful, all is fair? And not just you, what would women say in general?
 
American said:
Yeah, in fantasyland.
Click to expand...

It's the military's fault for having multiple standards. Why don't they get their act together and eliminate this nonsense?

One standard is equitable and doesn't unfairly discriminate.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
It's the military's fault for having multiple standards. Why don't they get their act together and eliminate this nonsense?

One standard is equitable and doesn't unfairly discriminate.
Click to expand...
I guess they don't want NOW and other feminazi groups protesting outside the Pentagon.
 
American said:
And if they held women to the same standard and two women made it, what would you say then. Wonderful, all is fair? And not just you, what would women say in general?
Click to expand...

Why would you give a **** what "women in general" would say?
And why the **** would I care if only 2 women made it? What does the number of successful women have to do with *anything*?

But, there would be a ****load more than that. I know what the men's qualifications were in ROTC, and there was no reason most athletic women couldn't meet those requirements. I did, easily.
 
American said:
I guess they don't want NOW and other feminazi groups protesting outside the Pentagon.
Click to expand...

So, they're going to weaken the military because of some ****ing protesters? Seriously?

That's sad.
 
rivrrat said:
Why would you give a **** what "women in general" would say?
And why the **** would I care if only 2 women made it? What does the number of successful women have to do with *anything*?

But, there would be a ****load more than that. I know what the men's qualifications were in ROTC, and there was no reason most athletic women couldn't meet those requirements. I did, easily.
Click to expand...
You go girl!
 
I stumbled on this thread 31 pages late (I'm filling out my tardy slip now).

The problem is: I didn't know that women weren't already serving on nuclear submarines. I thought that when they were allowed to serve on Navy ships, that meant ALL Navy ships.

I guess you could say that I don't have a problem with women serving on subs. Real ***** is better than sea *****.
 
Can you guys imagine a submarine staffed with ONLY women?

ARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!!! :rofl

A sad truth is anytime you throw both male AND female in the mix, there is always going to be a measurable degree of drama that would make an already difficult job even harder. I would put that mostly on the shoulder of the male, however. It shouldn't be that way. But it is what it is.

Myself, I don't see the major obstacle being whether or not a woman can lift an oxygen tank or not. It's all the male/female drama that nature seems to have hardwired into our being.

As I said earlier in the thread. I have witnessed, with my own eyes, up close and personal, the drama of co-ed, (if you will,) living arrangements on a land base. That's chaotic enough. When I imagine that similar scenerio in a closed, self-contained, vessel I just see red flags.

But, on the other hand, I do love women. If I was about to submerge for three months, I can also see the advantage of having them around. :pimpdaddy:
 
There seems to be a repeated argument in this thread that doesn't make any sense to me.

On one hand, you have those arguing that women being allowed into certain aspects of the military will lead ot reduced standards. The response from the other side is that there shouldn't be reduced standards, and that the women should have to meet the same standards minus the current gender qualification.

The rebuttal to this is that NOW and other groups would protest that.

This makes no sense, because the proposed alternative by those who are fearful of this feminazi protest believe the best solution is to ban women from these aspects of the military... which will, of course, lead to NOW and Feminazi protests.

How in the world does that make sense to anyone?

It's possibly the silliest argument I've ever heard.

It essentially boils down to: "We don't want protests about unfairness for women, so we should be as unfair to women as possible."

The simplest solution is to remove the gender qualification only. Keep all of the other standards equal and as they currently are.

You'll have protests either way, but the protests in this scenario will have less impact as there are no disqualifications based on an arbitrary measure.
 
rivrrat said:
Yes, it's the military's fault. They made the idiotic two different sets of qualifications. If women are weaker in the military, it is the military's fault for giving them lesser qualifications. Whose fault could it possibly be but the ones who made the lax and unfair qualifications?

They make two sets of qualifications that allow weaker women into the military and then bitch about weaker women in the military? ROFL
Click to expand...

The service was ordered to inact gender norming, by Congress. Wanna blame someone? Blame the congress critters.
 
Tucker Case said:
There seems to be a repeated argument in this thread that doesn't make any sense to me.

On one hand, you have those arguing that women being allowed into certain aspects of the military will lead ot reduced standards. The response from the other side is that there shouldn't be reduced standards, and that the women should have to meet the same standards minus the current gender qualification.

The rebuttal to this is that NOW and other groups would protest that.

This makes no sense, because the proposed alternative by those who are fearful of this feminazi protest believe the best solution is to ban women from these aspects of the military... which will, of course, lead to NOW and Feminazi protests.

How in the world does that make sense to anyone?

It's possibly the silliest argument I've ever heard.

It essentially boils down to: "We don't want protests about unfairness for women, so we should be as unfair to women as possible."

The simplest solution is to remove the gender qualification only. Keep all of the other standards equal and as they currently are.

You'll have protests either way, but the protests in this scenario will have less impact as there are no disqualifications based on an arbitrary measure.
Click to expand...
It makes perfect sense because that's the idiotic do-loop that is caused by trying to force a square peg in a round hole. In many case they can't meet the freaking standard, but the leaders turn back and say make it work because they don't want to deal with the politics. Consequently standards are lowered until the protesting ceases. The men will always get the higher standard to meet than the women, which most men don't mind until the paycheck comes in and the women get the same. That doesn't mean that women don't have areas in which they are superior, but we're talking about the military, we're talking about combat, being testosterone aggressive. Hold women to the exact same standards and assure me you'll find enough women to include that will satsify the equal rights groups that you are fair and have a high enough quota to make them happy. Lowering the standards so more women can get in is more or less a "Yes Dear" move by the military. I'm assuming we're speaking about those positions where there is any question of equal ability, not the supply clerk with the clipboard or high skilled desk jobs.
 
American said:
It makes perfect sense because that's the idiotic do-loop that is caused by trying to force a square peg in a round hole. In many case they can't meet the freaking standard, but the leaders turn back and say make it work because they don't want to deal with the politics. Consequently standards are lowered until the protesting ceases. The men will always get the higher standard to meet than the women, which most men don't mind until the paycheck comes in and the women get the same. That doesn't mean that women don't have areas in which they are superior, but we're talking about the military, we're talking about combat, being testosterone aggressive. Hold women to the exact same standards and assure me you'll find enough women to include that will satsify the equal rights groups that you are fair and have a high enough quota to make them happy. Lowering the standards so more women can get in is more or less a "Yes Dear" move by the military. I'm assuming we're speaking about those positions where there is any question of equal ability, not the supply clerk with the clipboard or high skilled desk jobs.
Click to expand...

One more factor is being left out to consider. Females make up 11% of the military of the US. Many of these women are in mission critical jobs. If the standards were made the same across the board (in the end everyone is infantry) the majority of the females could not pass. More than 10% according to other studies would wash out. This would hurt rather than help our fighting forces. Or fighting forces would forever be less than 1% female. This takes men off the front lines to man positions a female can handle just fine.

This is the reality of the situation. No amount of wishful thinking no matter how well intended or in this case correct, will change this.

You can call it sexist if you want, but reality says no.
 
Blackdog said:
One more factor is being left out to consider. Females make up 11% of the military of the US. Many of these women are in mission critical jobs. If the standards were made the same across the board (in the end everyone is infantry) the majority of the females could not pass. More than 10% according to other studies would wash out. This would hurt rather than help our fighting forces. Or fighting forces would forever be less than 1% female. This takes men off the front lines to man positions a female can handle just fine.

This is the reality of the situation. No amount of wishful thinking no matter how well intended or in this case correct, will change this.

You can call it sexist if you want, but reality says no.
Click to expand...

Look on the bright side, rape and sexual harassment within the ranks would nearly disappear.
 
Blackdog said:
One more factor is being left out to consider. Females make up 11% of the military of the US. Many of these women are in mission critical jobs. If the standards were made the same across the board (in the end everyone is infantry) the majority of the females could not pass. More than 10% according to other studies would wash out. This would hurt rather than help our fighting forces. Or fighting forces would forever be less than 1% female. This takes men off the front lines to man positions a female can handle just fine.

This is the reality of the situation. No amount of wishful thinking no matter how well intended or in this case correct, will change this.

You can call it sexist if you want, but reality says no.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I'm going to do:

what a sexist comment.
 
Blackdog said:
One more factor is being left out to consider. Females make up 11% of the military of the US. Many of these women are in mission critical jobs. If the standards were made the same across the board (in the end everyone is infantry) the majority of the females could not pass. More than 10% according to other studies would wash out. This would hurt rather than help our fighting forces. Or fighting forces would forever be less than 1% female. This takes men off the front lines to man positions a female can handle just fine.

This is the reality of the situation. No amount of wishful thinking no matter how well intended or in this case correct, will change this.

You can call it sexist if you want, but reality says no.
Click to expand...

Everyone is not infantry, so the military would have to do massive amounts of retraining in order to get file clerks, cooks, medics, and mechanics up to speed with a rifle.

As to your wash out percentage, are you saying the military would only replace from within the ranks and not hire new personnel?
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Everyone is not infantry, so the military would have to do massive amounts of retraining in order to get file clerks, cooks, medics, and mechanics up to speed with a rifle.

As to your wash out percentage, are you saying the military would only replace from within the ranks and not hire new personnel?
Click to expand...
You want to apply that statement to the Marines?
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Everyone is not infantry, so the military would have to do massive amounts of retraining in order to get file clerks, cooks, medics, and mechanics up to speed with a rifle.
Click to expand...

Not really, since everyone has to go through weapons training the Basic Combat Training and annually after that. So, ultimately, everyone in the Marine Corps and Army are already infantry.

As to your wash out percentage, are you saying the military would only replace from within the ranks and not hire new personnel?
Click to expand...

They would hire new help, but only 1% of the new hires would be females.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Everyone is not infantry, so the military would have to do massive amounts of retraining in order to get file clerks, cooks, medics, and mechanics up to speed with a rifle.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? What the hell do you think basic training is for? Basic infantry training. In the end everyone is infantry. If you can't shoot well enough you are discharged. What does this tell you?

You really need to learn about the military.

CrusaderRabbit08 said:
As to your wash out percentage, are you saying the military would only replace from within the ranks and not hire new personnel?
Click to expand...

The military does not "hire" anyone. We have an all volunteer military. If people don't join up, they get no one.

Man, please learn a little about the military before making such obviously uninformed comments.
 
Blackdog said:
Are you kidding? What the hell do you think basic training is for? Basic infantry training. In the end everyone is infantry. If you can't shoot well enough you are discharged. What does this tell you?

You really need to learn about the military.



The military does not "hire" anyone. We have an all volunteer military. If people don't join up, they get no one.

Man, please learn a little about the military before making such obviously uninformed comments.
Click to expand...

You've actually been in the service, so you don't know anything about it...:rofl
 
American said:
You want to apply that statement to the Marines?
Click to expand...

They would kick his ass for a statement like that.

It would be funny to watch him get a beat down from a Marine "file clerk."
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Not really, since everyone has to go through weapons training the Basic Combat Training and annually after that. So, ultimately, everyone in the Marine Corps and Army are already infantry.

They would hire new help, but only 1% of the new hires would be females.
Click to expand...

I spent 7 years in the Army. I qualified with an M16 during basic training. About 2 years later, we were taken out to a range for less than a half hour. An instructor went over the basics of the M16 and then we were each given a 20-round magazine and told to fire until it was empty. The only stipulation was that we don't shoot the wooden frames that held the targets. The funny thing is, there were no targets. After that, I never fired an M16 ever again. So much for annual qualification.

How would you like me for a foxhole buddy? "hey dude, which end do I point at the bad guys?" :mrgreen:
 
Blackdog said:
They would kick his ass for a statement like that.

It would be funny to watch him get a beat down from a Marine "file clerk."
Click to expand...

The Army is not the Marines. My statement stands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom