• 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

This subject came up before at the submarine base here at Bangor and the wives of the guys on the subs wanted no part of it.....When it comes to controversial issues the Navy is very sensitive to the feelings of the families of the men who are serving............I believe this will become a major obstacle to women serving on submarines.......

No offense, but I have worked in extremely close quarters with male cops on the force with me. The wives don't have a say. And neither do the husbands.

They aren't the ones hired to do the job.
 
The Army is not the Marines. My statement stands.

You do not "forget" how to shoot a rifle. And yes, they are similar because everyone is in the end infantry. From the lowest ranked "clerk" to the highest ranking general.

You can stand by it all you like, it does not make it correct.

I don't know if you served or not, it certainly does not seem like it.
 
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."

And a combat infantry person would kick your ass if you called a file clerk combat infantry.
 
And a combat infantry person would kick your ass if you called a file clerk combat infantry.

Did I call anyone combat infantry? I said infantry. Everyone takes basic Infantry training, period.

God people are dense sometimes.
 
Did I call anyone combat infantry? I said infantry. Everyone takes basic Infantry training, period.

God people are dense sometimes.

Yes, and that basic training is the equivalent of giving 2 months training to a person in med school and calling them a doctor.

You know damn well they are not the infantry that people think of when you mention the name. Even in the Army, you don't call a file clerk infantry.
 
Yes, and that basic training is the equivalent of giving 2 months training to a person in med school and calling them a doctor.

No it's not. If this were the case the Marines would be wrong.

You would be a combat medic though. Your comparison is ridicules.

You know damn well they are not the infantry that people think of when you mention the name. Even in the Army, you don't call a file clerk infantry.

I don't care what people think? I know what I am talking about. In the end everyone IS infantry. They tell you this in basic for goodness sake. :roll:
 
Last edited:
I don't care what people think? I know what I am talking about. In the end everyone IS infantry. They tell you this in basic for goodness sake. :roll:

If I were you, I wouldn't take me or anyone else in my career group for a foxhole buddy. What we learned in basic was a distant memory ;)
 
If I were you, I wouldn't take me or anyone else in my career group for a foxhole buddy. What we learned in basic was a distant memory ;)

Then I feel sorry for you if you ended up in the ****. I would be alive and you would be dead.
 
Females cannot do the same physical job as men in most cases. Military life aggravates this difference. Actual ground combat aggravates it to the breaking point.

For the 1000th time. No one has talked about reducing the standards for women. If they can't hack. They can't hack it, that is fine. You keep saying that 99% of women couldn't do what men do. That's fine; leave those 99% of women out. Let the other 1% who want to and can do it in. If no women are capable, fine, no women are capable. That doesn't mean that those who can and want to do it should be left out.
 
For the 1000th time. No one has talked about reducing the standards for women. If they can't hack. They can't hack it, that is fine. You keep saying that 99% of women couldn't do what men do. That's fine; leave those 99% of women out. Let the other 1% who want to and can do it in. If no women are capable, fine, no women are capable. That doesn't mean that those who can and want to do it should be left out.

You need to read the rest of my posts.

Realistically as I have said over and over, it will not be done.

Post #314 would also be helpful.
 
Last edited:
A couple of basic points...

1-Every branch of the service experiences readiness problems when women are in deployable positions. Witness the number of women that end up pregnant prior to or during rotations and deployments and have to be replaced. And anyone that thinks this DOESNT happen has NO IDEA what they are talking about. And no...it doesnt talk MASS pregnancy rates...it only talks a few to screw up a deployment chalk.

2-Want to watch something sad...watch female soldiers during live fire exercises trying to carry their wounded battle buddy to safety. Very little more pathetic than watching somene plop down on the ground and sob because they cant do it. 1 soldier down eliminates two. Very pathetic.

3-that is NOT to say that women CANT do the job. What I guess it says is that there should be one standard across the board for fitness and deployment expectations. Make no mistakes...Ive seen many female soldiers that can hack...but far more that cannot and those people have NO business being in combat and deployable situations.

4-Even the Air Force qualifies their airmen with M-16s prior to deployment. And yes...so Army 'fileclerks' are qualified before they deploy...including the Airborne Fileclerks that are combat trained prior to going into Afghanistan, Iraq, and anywhere else. Most fileclerks also are used for demolition of seized weapons, weapons maintenance, etc.
 
For the 1000th time. No one has talked about reducing the standards for women. If they can't hack. They can't hack it, that is fine. You keep saying that 99% of women couldn't do what men do. That's fine; leave those 99% of women out. Let the other 1% who want to and can do it in. If no women are capable, fine, no women are capable. That doesn't mean that those who can and want to do it should be left out.

Ummm...women already have reduced fitness standards in the military. But I agree with you...there SHOULD be one standard.
 
Really??? I thought unqualified people got qualified people killed ;)

I assume thats why you got out...know your limitations...serve...get benefits...bail.

In your 7 years...did you ever deploy? Because unless you are in a unit unlike any I have ever seen I cant imagine you not being fully trained and qualified before deployment. Weren you title 10? Guard? reserve?
 
But I agree with you...there SHOULD be one standard.

That's what many of us have been saying all along.

But even that won't appease those who want females out. There's no satisfying them.
 
That's a direct response to your statement.

It is trolling. You are taking us way of topic for no good reason.

If you where unqualified, then that is on you. Every man I knew was ready to go and kept up with the training.

So this is about females on subs or in combat etc. Not your service or mine.
 
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.

Still doesn't make any sense.

This isn't about lowering the standards. Removing an arbitrary chromosomal qualification doesn't lower the standards. Right now, all women are excluded from front-line and submarine service for one reason: they have no Y chromosome.

That has caused equal rights groups to protest this arbitrary disqualification. This political pressure you speak of already exists.

Removing the Y chromosome qualification does nothing to lower the standards for performance, because there is no military situation in which a Y chromosome is required to perform the task.

Removing this particular requirement, which is arbitrary, removes the "it's an arbitrary standard" argument from the protesters that currently exist.

So the only difference between the status quo and the proposed change is that the arbitrary Y qualification is removed.

There is no reason to lower the other standards in order to achieve equal rights because any person, regardless of their chromosomal structure, who meets the standards, will be accepted into the role.

Thus, equal rights are achieved.

If the protests continue after equal rights have been established, they are not seeking equal rights, but a lowering of non-arbitrary standards.

Being equal in rights does not mean being equal in ability.

The way to offset the political pressure is to remove the unequal rights, and allow unequal ability to be the discriminator.

Will there be discrimination? Of course. The whole point of having standards is to discriminate.

Will these standards be based on gender? No, they will be based solely on ability.

The reason your argument makes no sense is because it calls for discrimination based on something other than ability. It presumes that the peg is always square based on arbitrary, non-ability related measures.

That's exactly the reason why the feared protesters have a legitimate case. In essence, you empower their cause by continuing to use arbitrary non-merit based disqualifications.

That's why they are not only present, but they are actually justified in their cause.

The standard you are supporting is a lack of equal rights, and as such, it means that they are correct to oppose your views.

If no women can achieve the standards, it won't be because they don't have the right to achieve them. In this scenario, it means that the protesters may be present, but they are unjustified in their cause.

It seems that if your biggest fear is protesters, the best way to counteract them logically speaking is to remove the justification for their argument. In this case, it means removing the Y chromosome requirement.
 
That's what many of us have been saying all along.

But even that won't appease those who want females out. There's no satisfying them.

Dammit get it right! We don't want females out. We realize the PC crowed in this country will not let the standards be equalized because of attrition. So far it has never happened, ever. The standards have been relentlessly dropped in the civilian world as well.

Stop ignoring the reality and get your head out of your ass and listen to what we are saying.
 
I assume thats why you got out...know your limitations...serve...get benefits...bail.

In your 7 years...did you ever deploy? Because unless you are in a unit unlike any I have ever seen I cant imagine you not being fully trained and qualified before deployment. Weren you title 10? Guard? reserve?

It's not why I got out.

I never went to war. Vietnam was just ending and they were no longer sending troops there.

Never heard of title 10. I was active duty Army.
 
Back
Top Bottom