• 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

The Mark said:
Obviously the military is not a democracy.

But the people who dictate to it (to some extent) and OK it's budget ARE part of a democratic process.

The Military must cater to them to get funded (to an extent).

So THOSE people are most likely the ones you should be leveling blame at, if you don't like some military policy.
Click to expand...



You damn right they do but that has nothing to do with how the military operates............The Joint Chiefs run the military and answer to the SECDEF who answers to the prez.......The congress provide funding for all branches of gov. but are not in the military chain of command..........
 
rivrrat said:
No amazons. Just a woman in shape. /shrug
Click to expand...

A woman in shape is probably worse of all......I can see someone like Angelina Jolie carrying a 200 lb back pack or a 50 mile hike with that pack on where you run 5 miles and then walk 5 miles alternating...........I beter be some 6 ft 180 lb amazon otherwise no way......

Why the **** am I responding to you............I already said byeeeeeeeeee ....
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
You damn right they do but that has nothing to do with how the military operates............The Joint Chiefs run the military and answer to the SECDEF who answers to the prez.......The congress provide funding for all branches of gov. but are not in the military chain of command..........
Click to expand...
But it DOES have something to do with how the military operates.

Not directly, as in chain of command, but indirectly, as in the relationship my third statement indicates:
The Mark said:
The Military must cater to them to get funded (to an extent).
Click to expand...
I would add that other means to control how the military does things can be used, and have been in the past.

The military leadership must take into account various factors.

Public opinion of the military is one, although perhaps not a great one, and those factors may only be a minor part of the equation.

But to say that NOTHING except the direct chain of command has an effect on military policy is to ignore human nature.
 
Lets get back on the subject of the thread which is women on subs.........thanks
 
Navy Pride said:
A woman in shape is probably worse of all......I can see someone like Angelina Jolie carrying a 200 lb back pack or a 50 mile hike with that pack on where you run 5 miles and then walk 5 miles alternating...........I beter be some 6 ft 180 lb amazon otherwise no way......

Why the **** am I responding to you............I already said byeeeeeeeeee ....
Click to expand...

200 lbs? Is that all?
 
Doesn't everyone on board have specific responsibilities? If a woman is in a slot isn't it safe to assume she has proven to be competent in that job? If she needs to carry heavy weight she can either do the job or not, just like a man, right?

Women are performing all kinds of duties in the military that people thought they couldn't do.
 
Navy Pride said:
Lets get back on the subject of the thread which is women on subs.........thanks
Click to expand...
I say that females should be allowed in all areas of the military, no matter the job.

Except situations where the very fact that they are female might endanger the mission, such as in a less socially advanced culture.

I think all military standards for physical/mental condition should be set on a job/position basis ONLY.

If someone, no matter their gender, can meet those requirements, they should be allowed to enter that job.

Thus, females should be allowed to serve on subs if they meet the requirements.

I'm a little iffy on the "must modify subs for this" bit.

I don't think most of us as a culture have reached the point where we can handle military women and men showering/sleeping/whatever in the same showers and quarters (but not the same bed, obviously) without large public outcry.

I like to think I wouldn't have an issue with it, but truthfully, I do have a slight one.

If only in the respect that I take my privacy seriously...Probably a hold-over from my parent’s religious training as a kid.

That said, I wish it weren’t an issue, as it just means one more wall of separation between females and men in the equality department.

I’m dreaming, I know…
 
The Mark said:
I say that females should be allowed in all areas of the military, no matter the job.

Except situations where the very fact that they are female might endanger the mission, such as in a less socially advanced culture.

I think all military standards for physical/mental condition should be set on a job/position basis ONLY.

If someone, no matter their gender, can meet those requirements, they should be allowed to enter that job.

Thus, females should be allowed to serve on subs if they meet the requirements.

I'm a little iffy on the "must modify subs for this" bit.

I don't think most of us as a culture have reached the point where we can handle military women and men showering/sleeping/whatever in the same showers and quarters (but not the same bed, obviously) without large public outcry.

I like to think I wouldn't have an issue with it, but truthfully, I do have a slight one.

If only in the respect that I take my privacy seriously...Probably a hold-over from my parent’s religious training as a kid.

That said, I wish it weren’t an issue, as it just means one more wall of separation between females and men in the equality department.

I’m dreaming, I know…
Click to expand...

So you say there should be no physical standards right.......OK what if your right and you and a female are in a foxhole and its about to be over run with the enemy......would you rather be with a 200 lb guy who can meet any physical standard or be with a 100 ln female to back you up?
 
ADK_Forever said:
Doesn't everyone on board have specific responsibilities? If a woman is in a slot isn't it safe to assume she has proven to be competent in that job? If she needs to carry heavy weight she can either do the job or not, just like a man, right?

Women are performing all kinds of duties in the military that people thought they couldn't do.
Click to expand...

That said there are different requirements for men and women.......
 
The Mark said:
But it DOES have something to do with how the military operates.

Not directly, as in chain of command, but indirectly, as in the relationship my third statement indicates:
I would add that other means to control how the military does things can be used, and have been in the past.

The military leadership must take into account various factors.

Public opinion of the military is one, although perhaps not a great one, and those factors may only be a minor part of the equation.

But to say that NOTHING except the direct chain of command has an effect on military policy is to ignore human nature.
Click to expand...

Have you served..If you had you would know that the military could not operate without a chain of command.........
 
Navy Pride said:
So you say there should be no physical standards right.......OK what if your right and you and a female are in a foxhole and its about to be over run with the enemy......would you rather be with a 200 lb guy who can meet any physical standard or be with a 100 ln female to back you up?
Click to expand...
Umm...What?

:confused: :confused:

I said, if I recall correctly (and thanks to this excellent forum system, I can):
The Mark said:
I think all military standards for physical/mental condition should be set on a job/position basis ONLY.

If someone, no matter their gender, can meet those requirements, they should be allowed to enter that job.

Thus, females should be allowed to serve on subs if they meet the requirements.
Click to expand...
What in those statements led you to believe that I was advocating NO physical standards.
 
Navy Pride said:
Have you served..If you had you would know that the military could not operate without a chain of command.........
Click to expand...
No I have not...Sometimes I think about doing so, however...

But despite not serving, I am fully aware that the military could not operate as effectively as it does without a chain of command.

Where in my statements did I indicate that I DID think such?
 
iangb said:
You're mixing your arguments, and have been doing so for quite some time.
Click to expand...

No I have not.

iangb said:
The 'whites vs blacks' argument was originally made a point of in order to contradict the claim that 'women working with men would have a bad effect on the men' - because an equal claim was made about black integration and everyone got over it fairly fast. The same, I suspect, will go for repealing DADT. A competent soldier will quickly be recognised as a competent soldier, whether they are black/white, straight/gay, or male/female.
Click to expand...

No it was not. And it was not in any way brought up or mentioned by me.

It was brought up as a comparison to females being segregated right out of certain jobs.

As I pointed out then black men and females in general are not physically or mentally the same. Black men and white men are the same.

So that argument is silly and does not apply.

iangb said:
That 'men are stronger than women' has nothing to do with integration. It's an entirely seperate point - one which is seperately rendered invalid by the fact that, although this is the case, some women would undoubtably be physically fit enough to work competantly on a sub.
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with being able to pass the same requirments as men. You are still missing the point.

Standards will be lowered for women AS THEY ALREADY HAVE BEEN IN EVERY OTHER ASPECT OF CIVILIAN AND MILITARY READINESS to put more females in to the positions. This is not a guess, this is a fact.

iangb said:
Your only remaining argument, from what I can see, is that there is a risk that standards will be lowered in order that more women get accepted. Personally, I think that's unlikely - but there's no way of proving it, either way. You'll just have to wait and see.
Click to expand...

No risk, it has already happend and will continue to happen. I don't have to wait, been there and done that for 12 years. How about you?
 
Navy Pride said:
A woman in shape is probably worse of all......I can see someone like Angelina Jolie carrying a 200 lb back pack or a 50 mile hike with that pack on where you run 5 miles and then walk 5 miles alternating...........I beter be some 6 ft 180 lb amazon otherwise no way......

Why the **** am I responding to you............I already said byeeeeeeeeee ....
Click to expand...

A 200 lb pack? Are you kidding? Maybe for some MOS's, but not all MOS's.
 
The Mark said:
Umm...What?

:confused: :confused:

I said, if I recall correctly (and thanks to this excellent forum system, I can):
What in those statements led you to believe that I was advocating NO physical standards.
Click to expand...

I apologize for confusing you with some other liberal.....You have to understand one thing.........I am fighting the good fight against radical liberalism with about 4 people on 4 different threads at the same time...

again I am sorry but I think by now you know my position on the issue.......
 
Navy Pride said:
I apologize for confusing you with some other liberal.....You have to understand one thing.........I am fighting the good fight against radical liberalism with about 4 people on 4 different threads at the same time...

again I am sorry but I think by now you know my position on the issue.......
Click to expand...
Understandable.

And yes, I think I probably do.

Not that I agree.

But meh.
 
Navy Pride said:
I did not say all Mos......The argument is about letting women be allowed in all Mos...........-
Click to expand...
Don't bother arguing with the Wabbit, he's just likes to argue of silly things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom