• 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

Then the standards should reflect the ACTUAL DEMANDS of the job. I'm not suggesting that they should be lowered. I'm suggesting that they should be evaluated for relevance.

Sometimes, an agency will have a broad standard required of all employees that, when evaluated, isn't realistic. Perhaps it's too low, perhaps it's too high. I have ZERO PROBLEMS with men and women using the same standards, based upon the job.

Ahh OK, I should have known.
 
I figured as much, and please dont take any of that as disrespect. We need EVERYONE to do their job...including the protocal officer that couldnt spell Army if you spot him or her the A and the Y.

The only point is that things ARE a little different today. Our 'clerk' jumped out of the planes with us. Carried a full field pack. etc.

Even us lowly behind the lines guys :mrgreen:

From my experience, I'd be leery of trusting my life to my counterparts in the field. Those guys were scary and pretty inept.
 
It means they should be an accurate reflection of the demands of the job. For instance, it was mentioned that on a sub, some equipment weighs 150 pounds, and a woman couldn't move that by herself.

Tell me...how many men move a 150 pound pump, BY THEMSELVES? If they do, that's stupid, they are risking back injury for no good reason.
I think the number was an example.
 
How would you feel about "and if a woman chooses to go into a frontline position she must mandatorily be on Norplant?"

I hope no one gets the idea that Im against women in the military...furthest thing from it...Even with the complications of the "Queen of the Desert" syndrome which EVERY FOL faces, they still pretty much do their job.

Fine by me. If she gets pregnant through her actions she should be court-martialed per current regulations.
 
Even us lowly behind the lines guys :mrgreen:

From my experience, I'd be leery of trusting my life to my counterparts in the field. Those guys were scary and pretty inept.

That is the difference between a "draft" army and an all volunteer force. Don't get me wrong, we still had our share of idiots in my time as well. As I am certain they still do.
 
She sued the Fire Dept and won. Hence the whole issue with why females should not be in combat. Invariably someone will win and get the standards reduced.

The standards are tough to deal with the stresses of combat. As the testimony I posted from West Point says, realistically it will lead to reduced standards for females and eventually men as happened at West Point.

Thank God only people 80 pounds and under need rescuing...
 
That is the difference between a "draft" army and an all volunteer force. Don't get me wrong, we still had our share of idiots in my time as well. As I am certain they still do.

Very few of us were drafted. The draft ended while I was still in basic and I only knew of one guy who was drafted. I met him at my first assignment.
 
Even us lowly behind the lines guys :mrgreen:

From my experience, I'd be leery of trusting my life to my counterparts in the field. Those guys were scary and pretty inept.

Again...NOT the same military. World has changed. Military has changed. Even the jobs of those behind the scenes guys...
 
Again...NOT the same military. World has changed. Military has changed. Even the jobs of those behind the scenes guys...

I should hope so. The Army I knew in the 70's was quite pathetic.
 

Ive actually heard soldiers (men and women) saying "Its not fair!" when told they had to carry the heaviest men in the squad out of a live fire zone...when...come on...lets face facts...in a real world downrange situation you dont get to pick and choose missions, who is hurt, who you are going to help, etc...and in a real world deploymen...you dont know nothing about 'fair'.
 
I should hope so. The Army I knew in the 70's was quite pathetic.

That was a heck of a drawdown...from a LONG period of very ugly combat. Viet Nam was no doubt the WORST managed war the US has ever been involved in.
 
I should hope so. The Army I knew in the 70's was quite pathetic.

Well...for the record...pathetic as it was (kidding) thanks for your service. You guys had to bridge the gap from the Vietnam era to the Gulf War era.
 
It means they should be an accurate reflection of the demands of the job. For instance, it was mentioned that on a sub, some equipment weighs 150 pounds, and a woman couldn't move that by herself.

Tell me...how many men move a 150 pound pump, BY THEMSELVES? If they do, that's stupid, they are risking back injury for no good reason.

Moving 150 pounds around as a man is simply not very hard. I would venture to guess that nearly all men in the military would be able to do that over at least short distances.
 
That was a heck of a drawdown...from a LONG period of very ugly combat. Viet Nam was no doubt the WORST managed war the US has ever been involved in.

And the transition to an all volunteer Army was quite bumpy. Lots of guys should never have served. Lucky for me, I didn't have to work with them. But when I came into contact with them, all I could do was shake my head and wonder how the hell they ever got in.
 
Moving 150 pounds around as a man is simply not very hard. I would venture to guess that nearly all men in the military would be able to do that over at least short distances.

And all the women who passed that test would also be able to do the same.

One job, one standard.
 
The military only has itself to blame for that.

No it does not. It has our government and people to blame. Those who wanted the requirements adjusted down for females. The military is nothing more than a reflection of our society and political body's wishes, period.

It never fails. Libertarians and the unrealistic wants. No wonder the party is seen as a joke.
 
Last edited:
And all the women who passed that test would also be able to do the same.

One job, one standard.

Just because something might *feel right* does not mean it is practical. While it may *feel right* to have one job, one standard in terms of gender on submarines, outside factors dictate that it would be neither practical nor appropriate. The distractions involved in bringing women on board serve no purpose unless the general consensus is that bringing women on board will make the Navy stronger.

That's the primary issue, as far as I'm concerned. These people are serving in the defense of our country. This isn't about whether or not women are as smart or capable as men - this is not corporate America.

So until someone provides proof that bringing women on board a sub will make the sub more effective in its job, I say that the costs of the change are not worth it for what appears to be a "let's play nice and fair" move.

Simply put, what are the benefits to bringing women on board? And no, "it's the right thing to do" won't cut it.
 
Simply put, what are the benefits to bringing women on board? And no, "it's the right thing to do" won't cut it.

The same benefits as integrating blacks into the navy.
 
The same benefits as integrating blacks into the navy.

Here we go again. Blacks have been in the navy since the civil war. Blacks are also men.

Apples and oranges.

Your quote is not an argument.
 
Last edited:
The jobs you mention would not require much equalization in the way of standards. We are talking about creating combat category jobs where the standards for men and women would be identical, and where women could VOLUNTARILY apply for the job.

Keeping women out of combat arms units isn't all about their ability to do the same job as men.

IMO, at least, co-ed combat arms units would cause way more problems than just a chick that can't tote an M-240 machine gun on a 20 mile march, or hump a 60 pound ruck.
 
Back
Top Bottom